Noah's ark expedition...

[refugepsa91]

*sigh*

It's a waste of money and a waste of time to look for Noah's ark. After the world wide flood, Noah and his family would have needed shelter, yet trees that could be used would have been few. Thus, seeing as how the Ark was made entirely of wood, most of it probablly would have been used.

It'd be cool if they found the Ark and proved me wrong. Yet, I'd be very, very suprised.

Why not just live in it the way it sat after the waters receeded?

God Bless,

Dave

That's actually a really good point. One that I honestly don't have a satisfying answer to at this time. I will have to ponder some more

Super Jew has no answer....you gots to think about it...will wonders ever cease? :il: I'm just kidden...It most definately is a very good point...the ark could have been home/barn/storehouse all in one....can you imagine the square footage Noah's wife had to deal with :oww:

Love and Blessings,

Angel

[apothanein kerdos]

*sigh*

It's a waste of money and a waste of time to look for Noah's ark. After the world wide flood, Noah and his family would have needed shelter, yet trees that could be used would have been few. Thus, seeing as how the Ark was made entirely of wood, most of it probablly would have been used.

It'd be cool if they found the Ark and proved me wrong. Yet, I'd be very, very suprised.

Why not just live in it the way it sat after the waters receeded?

God Bless,

Dave

That's actually a really good point. One that I honestly don't have a satisfying answer to at this time. I will have to ponder some more

Super Jew has no answer....you gots to think about it...will wonders ever cease? :il: I'm just kidden...It most definately is a very good point...the ark could have been home/barn/storehouse all in one....can you imagine the square footage Noah's wife had to deal with :oww:

Love and Blessings,

Angel

lol

Well, the problems I encountered in this was I thought about animal migration. Animals migrated, thus, the humans would have to migrate for food. The only problem with this theory, is that for animals to migrate, there would have to be vegetation. For there to be vegetation, there would have to be trees. If there were trees, there would be no use in using the ark...

So, I'm at a bump

[refugepsa91]

Well as wet as it was I'm sure greenage grew really fast....and Noahs family....a couple of chickens and a couple of goats/or cows would have sustained them...and didn't they plant fruit trees on the ark? Those would have been planted too...now I guess the question would be...what were the conditions/weather like living that high up if that is in actuality the place the ark landed...could humans survive the conditions?

Hmmmmmmmm....another bump :il:

Love and Blessings,

Angel

[dwinkjr]

*sigh*

It's a waste of money and a waste of time to look for Noah's ark. After the world wide flood, Noah and his family would have needed shelter, yet trees that could be used would have been few. Thus, seeing as how the Ark was made entirely of wood, most of it probablly would have been used.

It'd be cool if they found the Ark and proved me wrong. Yet, I'd be very, very suprised.

Why not just live in it the way it sat after the waters receeded?

God Bless,

Dave

That's actually a really good point. One that I honestly don't have a satisfying answer to at this time. I will have to ponder some more

Super Jew has no answer....you gots to think about it...will wonders ever cease? :il: I'm just kidden...It most definately is a very good point...the ark could have been home/barn/storehouse all in one....can you imagine the square footage Noah's wife had to deal with :oww:

Love and Blessings,

Angel

lol

Well, the problems I encountered in this was I thought about animal migration. Animals migrated, thus, the humans would have to migrate for food. The only problem with this theory, is that for animals to migrate, there would have to be vegetation. For there to be vegetation, there would have to be trees. If there were trees, there would be no use in using the ark...

So, I'm at a bump

Understandably So, But we know the Lord God Provided for Noah and all the passangers of the Ark, So I would think all the food they needed during the regrowth would actually be in the Ark itself.

God Bless,

Dave

[apothanein kerdos]

*sigh*

It's a waste of money and a waste of time to look for Noah's ark. After the world wide flood, Noah and his family would have needed shelter, yet trees that could be used would have been few. Thus, seeing as how the Ark was made entirely of wood, most of it probablly would have been used.

It'd be cool if they found the Ark and proved me wrong. Yet, I'd be very, very suprised.

Why not just live in it the way it sat after the waters receeded?

God Bless,

Dave

That's actually a really good point. One that I honestly don't have a satisfying answer to at this time. I will have to ponder some more

Super Jew has no answer....you gots to think about it...will wonders ever cease? :il: I'm just kidden...It most definately is a very good point...the ark could have been home/barn/storehouse all in one....can you imagine the square footage Noah's wife had to deal with :oww:

Love and Blessings,

Angel

lol

Well, the problems I encountered in this was I thought about animal migration. Animals migrated, thus, the humans would have to migrate for food. The only problem with this theory, is that for animals to migrate, there would have to be vegetation. For there to be vegetation, there would have to be trees. If there were trees, there would be no use in using the ark...

So, I'm at a bump

Understandably So, But we know the Lord God Provided for Noah and all the passangers of the Ark, So I would think all the food they needed during the regrowth would actually be in the Ark itself.

God Bless,

Dave

And then you hit the problem presented of living in high altitute. If the Ark was so high, they would have had to leave, and thus take as much of the Ark as possible for wood to build with.

Interesting theories

[dwinkjr]

And then you hit the problem presented of living in high altitute. If the Ark was so high, they would have had to leave, and thus take as much of the Ark as possible for wood to build with.

Interesting theories

Hmm.. Not sure if the actual elevation there is an issue, the visitors tent does not seem to have mandatory oxygen masks :x: But without knowing the exact elevation in which they claim the ark is located I could nto say for sure.

Oooh lots and Lots of interesting stuff to ponder with this... :t:

God Bless,

Dave

[refugepsa91]

ok...the altitude....if they were surrounded with water then they would have no choice but to say until the waters receeded...and even if they took wood from the ark down the mountain...it wouldn't be all of it....enough to build a home and shelter for livestock...the rest would have remained. So maybe there is something to find?

Love and Blessings,

Angel

[apothanein kerdos]

And then you hit the problem presented of living in high altitute. If the Ark was so high, they would have had to leave, and thus take as much of the Ark as possible for wood to build with.

Interesting theories

Hmm.. Not sure if the actual elevation there is an issue, the visitors tent does not seem to have mandatory oxygen masks :x: But without knowing the exact elevation in which they claim the ark is located I could nto say for sure.

Oooh lots and Lots of interesting stuff to ponder with this... :t:

God Bless,

Dave

Oh I know. It's a fun topic to think about. Thankfully we haven't run into any extremist who believe it is absolutely "this way".....

Also, elevation might not be a factor, but the cold is. The thing is, for the ark to still be preserved, it would have to be engulfed in ice. Likewise, the suspected areas for the ark are all in ice. Thus it should have been too cold to be livable.

[refugepsa91]

And then you hit the problem presented of living in high altitute. If the Ark was so high, they would have had to leave, and thus take as much of the Ark as possible for wood to build with.

Interesting theories

Hmm.. Not sure if the actual elevation there is an issue, the visitors tent does not seem to have mandatory oxygen masks :x: But without knowing the exact elevation in which they claim the ark is located I could nto say for sure.

Oooh lots and Lots of interesting stuff to ponder with this... :t:

God Bless,

Dave

Oh I know. It's a fun topic to think about. Thankfully we haven't run into any extremist who believe it is absolutely "this way".....

Also, elevation might not be a factor, but the cold is. The thing is, for the ark to still be preserved, it would have to be engulfed in ice. Likewise, the suspected areas for the ark are all in ice. Thus it should have been too cold to be livable.

but, but they were closer to the sun

:oww:

Love and Blessings,

Angel

[dwinkjr]

And then you hit the problem presented of living in high altitute. If the Ark was so high, they would have had to leave, and thus take as much of the Ark as possible for wood to build with.

Interesting theories

Hmm.. Not sure if the actual elevation there is an issue, the visitors tent does not seem to have mandatory oxygen masks :x: But without knowing the exact elevation in which they claim the ark is located I could nto say for sure.

Oooh lots and Lots of interesting stuff to ponder with this... :t:

God Bless,

Dave

Oh I know. It's a fun topic to think about. Thankfully we haven't run into any extremist who believe it is absolutely "this way".....

Also, elevation might not be a factor, but the cold is. The thing is, for the ark to still be preserved, it would have to be engulfed in ice. Likewise, the suspected areas for the ark are all in ice. Thus it should have been too cold to be livable.

OK now you got me stumped

time for me to do some pondering

God Bless,

Dave