"I don't know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn't find it," said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State.
"It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a filmmaker accompanying the explorers, told The Daily Mail.
Raw Video: Purported Site of Noah's Ark in Turkey (Courtesy Noah's Ark Ministries International)
Noah's Ark Location in Turkey a Secret
The team claims to have found in 2007 and 2008 seven large wooden compartments buried at 13,000 feet (4,000 meters) above sea level, near the peak of Mount Ararat. They returned to the site with a film crew in October 2009.
Many Christians believe the mountain in Turkey is the final resting place of Noah's ark, which the Bible says protected Noah, his family, and pairs of every animal species on Earth during a divine deluge that wiped out most of humanity.
"The structure is partitioned into different spaces," said Noah's Ark Ministries International team member Man-fai Yuen in a statement. "We believe that the wooden structure we entered is the same structure recorded in historical accounts. ... "
The team says radiocarbon-dated wood taken from the discovery site—whose location they're keeping secret for now—shows the purported ark is about 4,800 years old, which coincides roughly with the time of Noah's flood implied by the Bible.
Skepticism of the new Noah's ark claim extends to at least one scholar who interprets the Bible literally.
Biologist Todd Wood is director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Tennessee, which pursues biology in a creationist framework.
As a creationist, Wood believes God created Earth and its various life-forms out of nothing roughly 6,000 years ago.
"If you accept a young chronology for the Earth ... then radiocarbon dating has to be reinterpreted," because the method often yields dates much older than 6,000 years, Wood said.
Radiocarbon dating estimates the ages of organic objects by measuring the radioisotope carbon 14, which is known to decay at a set rate over time. The method is generally thought to reach its limit with objects about 60,000 years old. Earth is generally thought to be about four and a half billion years old.
Across the board, radiocarbon dates need to be recalibrated, Wood believes, to reflect shorter time frames.
Given this perceived overestimation in radiocarbon dating, the wood the Noah's Ark Ministries International team found should have a "traditional" radiocarbon date of several tens of thousands of years if the wood is truly 4,800 years old, Wood said.
"I'm really, really skeptical that this could possibly be Noah's Ark," he added. The wood date is "way, way, way too young."
Wood thinks Noah's ark will never be found, because "it would have been prime timber after the flood," he said.
"If you just got off the ark, and there's no trees, what are you going to build your house out of? You've got a huge boat made of wood, so let's use that," he said. "So I think it got torn apart and scavenged for building material basically."
"Noah's Ark" Found in Right Country, on Wrong Mountain?
Another reason scholars are skeptical of the latest Noah's ark discovery claim is that Genesis—the first book of the Bible—never specifies which peak the vessel supposedly landed on in Turkey.
"The whole notion is odd, because the Bible tells you the ark landed somewhere in Urartu,"—an ancient kingdom in eastern Turkey—"but it's only later that people identified Mount Ararat with Urartu," said Jack Sasson, a professor of Jewish and biblical studies at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee.
Stony Brook's Zimansky agreed. "Nobody associated that mountain with the ark" until the tenth century B.C., he said, adding that there's no geologic evidence for a mass flood in Turkey around 4,000 years ago. (See "'Noah's Flood' Not Rooted in Reality, After All?")
The Noah's Ark Ministries International explorers are "playing in a very different ballpark than the rest of us," Zimansky said. "They're playing without any concern for" the archaeological, historical, and geological records.
Better Explanations for "Noah's Ark" Structure?
Even if the Noah's Ark Ministries International team did find a wooden structure or even a boat on Mount Ararat, there are other explanations for what the structure might be.
For example, it could be a shrine constructed by early Christians to commemorate the site where they believed Noah's Ark should be, Zimansky said.
Even in that speculative case, it wouldn't be 4,000 years old. "The Bible hadn't even been written yet," he said.
Bible scholar Sasson said he thinks biblical writers intended the story of Noah's ark to be allegorical, not a true recounting of historical events. By presenting a scenario in which humanity is punished for its wickedness, "they were trying to draw us to the notion of a God who asks us to be acceptable," Sasson said.
On its Web site, Noah's Ark Ministries International says the Turkish government plans to apply to the United Nations to put the Noah's ark discovery site on the UNESCO World Heritage list, a designation given to places of special cultural or physical significance.
But the agency hasn't received any official requests from Turkey for "the inscription of 'Noah's ark'" into the list, UNESCO spokesperson Roni Amelan said in an email.
Such a move would take time, Amelan added. "This cannot be done overnight."
First I believe every word of the bible is true, and the problem with those not believing is that they don't understand that they cannot believe something that they don't believe. How can you accept something if you from the onset do not believe it? this makes your statement about the bible ineffective. I don't accept evolution because there is no evidence showing such changes in human life, but if the Bible tells me that God created the universe I believe it because it describe it perfectly well, for with my eyes I so see the sky, and experience day and night just as the bible has reported. Noah's was found it is real just as it was fro Israel returning home just as the bible say they would in our modern time. [Balfour agreement]
Ezekiel 36:24 (KJV) For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
COULD IT BE THAT GOD WANTS THIS TO REMAIN UNKNOWN? WHY WORRY ABOUT THIS? THE IMPORTANCE NOW IS THE SALVATION OF OUR SOULS, WHETHER THERE EVER WAS AN ABRAHAM, NOAH( ark) MOSES, DAVID, ETC.. JESUS ALREADY WAS BEFORE THEM!! DO NOT LET YOUR HEART BE TROUBLED
BELIEVE IN GOD! STOP ARGUING WE ARE NOT CAPABLE TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING LET ALONE DISCUSS AND ARGUE AMONG EACH OTHER WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG. GOD WANTS JUST FOR US TO BELIEVE IN HIM AND LOVE EACH OTHER.
In Ezek 47:6 Son of man have you seen this? 4 rivers, all measured the same and on the fourth meaure, he is set safely on the bank of the river. In Genesis the bible talks of 4 riveheads going out of Eden. Two circle some land, islands. What makes you think the other two woudn't be measured the same as well, circular, surrounding two more islands. The "man" would have been set safely on the bank of the Euphrates in this verse, but not the Euphrates as we know it today.
Being '99.9% sure' is pretty certain! However, it would be interesting to hear how this team of evangelists and Noah's Ark advocates can explain the global fossil and DNA/genetic records of the many life forms we share the planet with.
The man who perpetuated the hoax built noahs house on the other side of the mountain. When people travelled back a year later the site of "the ark" had disintntergrated in melt water. The wooden planks were proved to be of modern origin ie the planks had been through a process of being baked. Anciets did not treat wood this way. Only in the 20th century do we do this to strengthen but also kill insects and grubs. It was also found that Noah could not have used a graphite pencil again a modern implement.
The other problem is the glacier on ararat is not that old.
They also found modern ice picks and metal nails. Again something that did not exist unless noah had access to B&Q.
The final nail in the ark that sank it was one of the fraudsters showed the international community where they built the so called ark.
It amuses me that once a matter has its roots in the Biblical, the skepticism is overcooked.
No section of the report presented the side of those who claimed to have discovered the ark to any detail or coherence including checking out their claims against what the Bible recorded about the ark.
However, the report was very forthcoming on the views of the skeptics; especially, the ones who happen to be Bible scholars.
With due respect, their views are flimsy.
One, a "creationist" (in archeology, creationists are viewed as fringe "working to the answer" scholars), says the dating doesn't conform with the creationist theory. From the point of view of "mainstream" archeology, this is flimsy and this point of view would not have been countenanced if the archaeological find didn't have Biblical roots.
The other, a non-archaeologist but a "Bible scholar" dismissed the claim because the survivors would have found it necessary to use the ark as firewood! I mean, this can, at best be termed as a personal opinion. In which case, why is there no balancing opinion from other "Bible scholars" who may hold a different opinion.
It's always amused me that the authors of these articles always note that the only expeditions that "find" the ark are religious backed. Well of course. The scientific community knows it's all a bunch of hooey. An allegory. Nothing more.
Even in that speculative case, it wouldn't be 4,000 years old. "The Bible hadn't even been written yet," he said. everything in the bible is before it was written the whole book is in passed tense so there go that idiots comment I wonder if this is the intelligence's of all these specialists
They found a text in Iraq that predates the bibles story by some couple thousand years. I don't believe a lot of Christians will quite accept it due to the possible lack of support to be accepted by the Catholic church. If you believe that the bible was designed and put together by your imaginary friend your wrong. Its a document of historical fiction and inst very consistent within its own texts.
National Geographic has never been and will never be honest about *anything at all* that is directly related to the truth of Scripture. This organization has always hated and denied God and lied about the truth of HIs Word every way they can.
Try to prove me wrong.
Now, don't show yourself to be an imbecile and pretend ad hominem fallacies are legitmate substitutes for hard, scientific evidence, confirmed by the scientific method even though you fools routinely use "scientific method" very selectively against your opponents when it's true effectiveness is against the charade that you clowns stand for.
Wow. People actually believe this. Amazing. Anyone who accepts the literal meaning of the bible is nuts. These books have been roughly translated and altered for thousands of years and people are going to debate as if it is factual.
Noah's ark? You have got to be kidding me! National Geographic, you have just lost all credibility and certainly my respect. A global flood never happened. Noah's ark never happened. Thinking that anyone should treat this ancient, man made fable as having actually taken place is laughable and an insult to the intelligence of serious, critically thinking people. Your magazine is now a joke just like the made up, so-called holy book that spawned this nonsense in first place.
"Many Christians believe the mountain in Turkey is the final resting place of Noah's ark, which the Bible says protected Noah, his family, and pairs of every animal species on Earth during a divine deluge that wiped out most of humanity."
Just to clarify, the word "species" is not written in the Bible.
The actual word used in the Bible is "KIND"
There is a difference in meaning between the words "SPECIES" and "KIND".
If the Bible would use the word "species" that would mean that the Ark contained two tigers, two lions, two cheetas, two panthers, two pumas, etc, etc, etc...
But the Bible does NOT say the word "species" (acounting for all types of felines), rather it uses the word "KIND", (accounting for only two felines, one male, and one female... Period!
Some people may use the word "species" and the word "kind" interchangeably out of etymological ignorance... But some may be well aware of the difference, and continue to use the word speciesth the intention to deceive... But don't be fooled, the two words don't mean the same thing.
Doesn't it make sense that God took only the basic Kinds ot animals in the Ark?
And, would it really be posible to fit ALL SPECIES of animals that exist on planet earth in the Ark? Not within the specified measures.
But if we would group all the basic KINDS (NOT SPECIES) of animals in the world, we could easily pick a blue one and a pink one of each, and fit them perfectly within a smaller space than the Ark given the dimensions specified in the Bible.
This comment is meant for educational purposes only. I will not participate in any debate because the truth to this topic can be widely found.
Whoever is sincere about knowing the truth can validate what I shared in this message.
I believe in the word of God. But, It does make sense that Noah's family used the boat for scrape and shelter after the flood. The other boats found may have been someone else trying to ride the storm(flood) and ran into a mountain.
@Tee Pierce Many scientist are turning into religion now days, if some of them decide to look for proof of religion with since whom its to blame them. If this is true,then its not a bunch of hooey and has to be some reality to it, how can an Ark end on a mountain so far away from the ocean. Being arrogant and blind wont bring any proof or conclusion.
@Brandon Killman Either you're lying or the report is bogus. The Scriptures began being written by Moses approximately 1000 years after the flood. There is NO (read my lips) legitimate evidence that can be proved or validated that is 2000 years older than the Scriptures.
I'll repeat myself so there will be no misunderstanding and you will appreciate THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO SHOW THE PROOF because I'm telling you unequivocally that nothing 2000 years older than the Bible exists, period, at all, anywhere in the world, that can be shown to be evidence of a creation of man unless it's way down below sedimentary layers deposited by the flood. In other words, to be 2000 years older than the Bible, it must be something that would be impervious to the deterioration of 4400 + years of being buried deeply in the ground.
But, Boy! HOW I would love for something like that to be found! Wow.
@Gary Sellars Stop asking to be proved wrong because the burden of proof lies on your religious texts, we are simply here to "listen" or "read" your godly claims, and if you have no extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims, the default view is only to dismiss you as nothing except delusional
@Gary Sellars First off, I would not start and end a sentence by throwing out derogatory names when you state the ad hominem fallacy is not a legitimate means of proving your point in the same sentence. Also, I found this... (http://creation.mobi/hong-kong-ark-fiasco) Which is one of many links on the internet proving this find is a hoax. I assume Nat Geo speculated that this was the case before posting this story, which would explain the cautious title they assigned to it.
As for your first claim, I've personally never seen an article on here that has been hateful or denied god in any way. I've only seen articles that try to take an impartial view on the natural world as we observe it. If you have links to these articles, I would love to see them.
@Matthew Townsend The Bible is very unique in that it was created by many different authors over a few thousands years. No other book can match that claim. And the Dead Sea Scrolls text is almost verbatim for the Old Testament of the Bible we have today. The Bible mentioned places people didn't even know existed until the archeology proved it correct. It actually has held up well compared to other ancient classics. I suggest you read, Surprised by Faith, by Dr. Don Bierle, a skeptic and scientist who set out to prove the Bible wrong, only to discover it was right.
@Matthew Townsend actually the Bible is quite often used as a historical reference point in time because of it's accuracy. Also if you know any history of the Jews you know that there were no alternations as it was sacred to them essentially. Also there are many accurate translations from many many scholars. Please do a little research before making a comment.
@Paul Roth Im sorry Roth but how certain are you. You are being incredibly ignorant and have lost all my respect. Im not really religious but i keep an open mind about everything, something that u seem to be have problems with.
@Paul Roth Actually as an anthropologist, a global flood is recorded in numerous societies from Mesoamerica, Asia, Middle East, etc. Civilizations thousands of miles apart at roughly the same time. No one knows why.
Wow. Really? Because you say so, huh? When people need answers, don't use the Internet, just come to know-it-all, Paul Roth, right? Knowledge rests with you; no need to for an honest search of the Internet, right?
That must be your disposition because you didn't use the Internet before you made that completely ignorant remark. How do I know that? Because, unlike you, I do use the Internet to do HONEST searches.
An honest search of the Internet would have shown you to be a lying fool. "Lying" because your claim is patently and provably FALSE but you're too unscrupulous and dishonest to SPEND THE SECONDS it takes just to do a search that would lead you to the facts to examine before opening your mouth and declaring lies as facts; "fool" because anyone who makes ignorant claims in front of others when a ten second search would give evidence to the contrary is definitely a fool who doesn't have enough self-respect to care that he makes a fool of himself in front of the whole world. Why bother to honestly search the Internet when all knowledge rests with Paul Roth?
Here's the other reason I know you're a fool. Such stupidity as I've just exposed would never happen to a man who is not a fool. Reasonable people "cover their bases."
Yet, you stupidly mouth the words of idiot atheists because you don't have enough self-respect to care whether you put your foot in your mouth and shame yourself. That's pretty pathetic.
Another lying clown too lazy to do his due diligence.
Right now, I can point you to five video documentaries that expose you as a lying fool who did, in fact put his foot in his mouth. What's really terrific is that you can access those documentaries in seconds without my help.
Yet, you haven't. Why? Because you're an ignorant fool who wants to believe lies, and not being content there, you lie to others.
But God is using you to show that His Word is true as I will reveal below.
I didn't stutter; did you notice that? Show me what a fool you are and answer me before you do any responsible research on the Internet. LOL
"He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him."
That is Proverbs 18:13, which you obviously don't care was written by the man historically known as the wisest man who ever lived. He surely pegged you, though fools commonly don't have enough sense to know when their own words have put them to shame.
You could really use a year or two in the Book of Proverbs. Just substitute the time you now give listening to lying idiot atheists spew fabricated lies about their religion.
Oh. Since you are wont to "answer a matter before you hear it," I should tell you whereof I got that perspective on 'atheism as a religion'. It came directly from atheists! Here's their definition, which you can copy and paste and search for yourself: "Religion is belief without evidence." That's how I know atheism is a religion; the atheists told me! What's funny is that they're too stupid to recognize their self-condemnation!
Which is doubly funny when one considers that it's impossible to have evidence for what doesn't exist!
I'm now wondering how many years will atheists stupidly keep parroting this self-indicting "definition" before they wake up and realize that they are advertising that not only are they fools (the fool has said in his heart, "there is no god" Ps14:1) but they're announcing to the entire world that they're religious fools *while* they mock religion!
@Suren Petrosyan What exactly are you trying to make clear? I don't understand. Both links that you provided make it clear that both "Urartu" and "Turkey" are generally different names for the same region. Are you trying to make it clear that the The Republic of Turkey only got it's name due to the Armenian Genocide? Even so, if that is the case, well to be totally plain, what does any of that have to do with a boat landing in that region or not?
Many trees in the world were hit by strong waves, and got rooted out and floated until the waters receded. Other trees were buried under large masses of mud. The ones that were left floating were spread by the waves all over the earth and were readily available to use as wood...
Even if that weren't so, Noa's family would have left the Ark as it was to live in it because it already had enough strength and served as shelter. (The Ark had a roof, obviously to keep the falling rain out). After the rain stopped, the animals didn't need to stay in the Ark, rather they were probably put in barns that were probably built from the excessive wood left from the massive flood. By the way, just one tree they could have found would have been enough to construct many things... Remember that a lot of ancient trees from the time of the creation were VERY VERY large, and VERY wide in diameter, and that would have made them naturally stronger to withstand the flood as well as thicker to liver longer days after being rooted out...
So it makes more sense to think that they used other trees for timber, and not the Ark itself.
If you believe in the Bible, you will notice that the measurements described in it match the measurements of the found Ark. And also remember that the measurement used was Egyptian cubits.
but this reply is intended for provoking thought in an already Bible believer, and NOT intended for debate.
If anyone would like to debate about anything pertaining to this theme, please send me a personal message, and we can discuss matters at a personal level, otherwise I will not entertain the lust for words.
What I just wrote can be researched freely, and is widely available online.
@Contanya Perry-wade Sure, if God existed and this is a true story, they probably did use the ark for wood. Especially since every other tree in the world is now dead, but why is a dead tree not useful for wood anymore? so they might have used the ark, but they did not have to. The big issue here is those dead trees, plants bushes etc wont be providing foliage for animals to eat, (or us) so what did they do? What did carnivores do for food? Eat one or both of the ONLY surviving animal of a species? Gee how many animals got wiped out anyway even after surviving the flood? Also, why is there no physical proof of any flood around the world? None. This is a story of homicidal genocide and subsequent incest to repopulate the world and Christians worship it? And it is not even their story, a version of it exist in another religion 100's of years before.
@Gary Bradger Not me. I tend to think they built homes out of rock/stone. Remember that Noah was 600 years old when he came off the ark. He had lived around people who aged to over 900 years. I think they built their homes out of more substantial material that would last. Lumber doesn't hold up as well as stone.
@Gary Bradger What has not been taken into account by those who believe that the timber of the ark was cannibalised by Noah and his family is the weather. Prior to the flood the water canopy would have made the climate temperate but after the flood the temperature would have dropped considerably and as the water receded the temperature would have kept dropping (3 degrees F for each drop of 1,000 feet). The ark would have been very quickly snowed in. Also don't forget humans and land animals need water to live, so animals and humans would have quickly followed the receding water. IMO the ark was not cannibalised, it was abandoned very quickly. Paul Scutts.
I have just posted an answer about a similar doubt @Contanya Perry-wade had. Don't be discouraged. The same person who found the Ark of Noah, has also discovered other important Archaeological artifacts and places matching the Bible's account. In recent days he discovered the Ark of the Covenant (The most valuable item ever to be found in the world)!!!!!! Along with the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ (Which was found ALIVE still in it), and there is an appointed time in which these things will be revealed to all humankind to bare witness of the Gospel of salvation. Please see the YouTube video called:
Any other questions from you, or anyone else are welcome,
but this reply is intended for provoking thought in an already Bible believer, and NOT intended for debate.
If anyone would like to debate about anything pertaining to this theme, please send me a personal message, and we can discuss matters at a personal level, otherwise I will not entertain the lust for words.
What I just wrote can be researched freely, and widely available online.
@Gary Sellars@Brandon Killman"Because I'm telling you unequivocally that nothing 2000 years older than the Bible exists, period, at all, anywhere in the world, that can be shown to be evidence of a creation of man unless it's way down below sedimentary layers deposited by the flood."
@Griffin Ashley I've read National Geographic for over 50 years and you will not find one article where National Geographic, as an organization, gives *any* credence at all to God or the Bible. Virtually everything they produce, routinely, if not continually, contradicts Scripture. They've always done this.
"I would not start and end a sentence by throwing out derogatory names." Then don't. Do whatever you want; that's your privilege.
@Remington Rogers@Matthew Townsend The bible is accurate when it comes to wars, leaders and etc like Remington said but it has been altered and edited. Many of the stories that remain in the bible were hand chosen by the crusaders while dozens of stories and books were burned and made illegal by the king. That is but a single event that altered Christianity. There are a handful of sub religions under Christianity (Presbyterian, Catholic, First Baptist, etc). Prior to the crusaders killing all other sub religions other then those endorsed by the king, there used to be dozens. It had undergone dozens of alternations because for over 2,000 years there was not one collection of stories like there is now. All of the stories were scattered and they were not uniform. Anthropologically you can find multiple versions of each story. The Catholic Church around the 13th century created a board where they went through stories and chose which ones to include. Stories are somewhat factual but not literal. They are meant for inspiration, to teach morals and values.
@Antoinette Reyes@Paul Roth lol You got one point half right. Lots of people know why. Because there was a world wide flood and as people moved around the world they told history stories. The flood of Noah is the MOST KNOWN STORY in the entire world. You can google that if someone shows you how to use a search engine.
I have to assume you don't know how to use a search engine because of all the lies you told that could have been avoided with a ten second search followed by are quick overview of headlines.
@Gary Sellars For being so religious you tend to reek of blasphemy, intolerance and rage. All things that God looks down upon. In the time of Jesus, hospitality was a prized social value which people like you lack. Maybe you need to read the Bible a few more times so you learn how to behave. You can lead someone to the river but you can not make them drink. What you do instead is scare people away from your beliefs because of your craziness. None of these comments are personal attacksw and even if they were the bible says to turn the other cheek. Yet you do the opposite and throw biased, ill-informed low blows with poor language. All you accomplish that way is displaying the insecurity and lack of confidence in your character as a terrible person who enjoys looking for fights in the most cowardly way.
@Ken Mejias Your ignorance of the Bible is showing. Noah didn't disembark from the ark until the last bird he sent out did not return. This was after the previous one returned with a leaf in its beak. So, upon disembarking, foliage had already started growing.
@Ken Mejias There's ample evidence of a flood all over the world. Instead of looking for it, you just chose to parrot lying atheists. I'll mention just two of the many evidences. Fossil graveyards, which collected by virtue of the flood waters are one and upright petrified trees through many sedimentary layers all over the world. These trees could not have "just happened," nor could they have been buried by men, nor could sedimentary layers build around them. Every scenario is ludicrous except the flood.
Now, for the many other evidences, like I said, quit parroting liars and do some honest research yourself.
@Ken Mejias FYI, according to the bible, the meat eaters only started eating meat after they came out of the ark. only then did they have the fear of man instilled in them. It helps to read the bible for those who think its fables; u will be amazed... wat u got to lose???? even beta, wat u scared of??? finding the truth????
@Gary Sellars People during that time counted years by the seasons. Little interesting fact: Noah 150 when came off the ark and anyone said to be 900 was 225. If you look at homes and buildings from that time period I agree that stone buildings from that time stand today.
@Paul Scutts@Gary Bradger I think you're forgetting the many lakes that would have been formed and I think there is a rather good argument that the water was potable. I don't think Noah had any problem at all finding water. I think the Lord provided everything he needed, but I do agree with you that those coming off the ark did not cannibalize it, though considering its size, they could have used some of the wood if they had a use for it. The amount would not have been a large percentage. But I think they built their homes out of rock or stone.
@Jesse N. I don't think the Ark of the Covenant story is reliable for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is no evidence for it. Another reason is the long known story that because of Solomon's apostasy, a copy was made and the real was smuggled out and taken to Ethiopia, where they claimed that it has been watched and protected by consecrated and committed men ever since. I find that story to be much more plausible than Ron Wyatt's story. Another issue is Ron's implausible account of the blood of the Lord dripping down and falling on the ark. This is absurd because the Scriptures clearly say that Jesus presented His blood in the true sanctuary in Heaven, not under the cross.
@Gary Sellars I think there is a reason they don't give *any* credence to the bible and that is because virtually everything science has produced contradicts Scripture.
You also seem to miss the point of me saying:
"I would not start and end a sentence by throwing out derogatory names when you state the ad hominem fallacy is not a legitimate means of proving your point in the same sentence."
You seem to think I said that only because I have some personal opinion against "derogatory names". I do, but what you left out of your response was an answer as to why you committed a fallacy while attempting to discourage others from committing the same fallacy.
You also seem to ignore everything you can't seem to provide a source for, even after you talk about an abundance of instances. You wouldn't lie about that would you?
One last thing, you seem to be a little overly... enthusiastic... to say the least. Nobody is going to take you seriously when your rambling about everybody who expresses their own opinion as an "imbecile" or "idiot" or in any way belittle others for attempting to argue their point.
@Gary Sellars You do not have to publish something in favor to express a belief in something. Just because they have not written anything that gives "credence" to Christianity, that does not necessarily mean they are against nor does it mean that they have any bias to state otherwise. PS they have had a few documentaries in favor of some bibliological stories.
@Antoinette Reyes@Remington Rogers@Matthew Townsend Huh? What King are you referring to? The Catholic Church, referred
to in most history text as "The Church" through their priests (monks)
translated and wrote the text down that became the bible. These monks
at the time were the only ones who could read and write. Everyone else
was illiterate, it being the Early Middle Ages also known as the Dark
Ages after the fall of Rome. The crusaders were sent to the Holy Land
by the Pope, who ordered Kings and countrymen to free Christians from
persecution by the Muslims/Jews. It was a lie used to gain control and
power over European countries and their armies by the Church. Muslims,
Christians and Jews lived side by side in the Holy Land before the
crusaders arrived without incident. The Church commissioned that the
bible be written including the Jewish Torah (Old Testament) and various
other texts that were chosen by the Church to form the New Testament.
Many texts / stories were discarded / destroyed for varied reasons - ie:
didnt follow the theology that the Church wanted expressed, the text
gave a woman an authoritative position, the text contradicted another
story already chosen to be included in the bible, etc.
the Catholic Church is not a sub-religion to Christianity.... the
Church was the first Christian religion organized by Jesus' disciple,