Re: New "Noah's ark" photos

It;s also pretty clear in at least one of the images that it is just
another ridge, paralleling several others in the same formation. JimA

gordon brown wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 pcjones5@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>Another link with more textual content:
>>http://www.livescience.com/history/060309_the_ark.html
>>
>>-Phil
>>
>>
>>
>
>Stories like this have popped up every once in a while for many years. A
>careful study of the Genesis account should not lead anyone to look for
>the ark on Mt. Ararat. Ararat was the name of a kingdom (Jeremiah 51:27)
>or a land (II Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37:38). The mountains (or hills) of
>Ararat is not a precise description of a location. At a time when a bird
>couldn't find any land above water in the vicinity of the ark, tops of
>mountains were visible even though Mt. Ararat is the highest mountain in
>the region. Olive trees existed at the altitude of the ark. It took
>several months for the water to recede far enough for Noah to evacuate the
>ark. How much longer would it have taken to totally expose a 17,000 foot
>mountain?
>
>Gordon Brown
>Department of Mathematics
>University of Colorado
>Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Mar 12 23:07:24 2006