July 27, 2016
The UNESCO designation of the marshlands of Iraq is a more Biblically profound act than building a replica ark in northern Kentucky.
Why not both? Why must it be one or the other? What's wrong with building a replica of the historical Noah's Ark. I'm sure you know the Bible isn't the only account of the Flood. Peace always, Meterman
Well, let's see. Ken Hamm had an agenda. Dr. Rolf Bouma. Has an agenda. Ken Hamm is presenting a Biblical World view that lines up with the Scriptures. Dr. Rolf Bouma is presenting an ideal that will not be fulfilled until Jesus returns again. Nature, nor humanity will be fully restored, and the Kingdom set up in its perfection until the restoration of all things at the return of Christ. I would much rather see a Biblical truth exhibited which draws men to a bigger concept than self and the world, as in the Ark Encounter, than be moved toward environmental extremism that disguises itself as a Biblical mandate, looking for another Eden, without total and complete regeneration, only available at the Second Coming of Christ.
The replica ark, in one sense, is nothing to belittle. It is built from modern materials and attached to a smaller building.
The contents are somewhat less than biblical though. The two baby T-rex are somewhat confounding. Yet, I suppose that it is an attempt to fit even the T-Rex into God's plan.
Even as I try to understand, I would love to hear where this understanding came into being.
Because the replica of Noah's Ark has great potential to turn people back to belief in Hod and the Bible, instead of evolutionary fables, I give as much or maybe more support to that endeavour compared to Iraqi marshes.
If it is your passion to restore the site of the Garden of Eden, then do so. However, don't belittle the ark project in the process.
Thought provoking comment about the "marshlands" narrative. When it comes to the marshlands and the ark, what about the birds? Did they remember to include birds in the ark in KY? Just curious.
Take with you "seven pairs" of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and "one pair" of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also "seven pairs" of every kind of "bird" male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. (Gen. 7:2-3).
Thanks for this Dr. Bouma. You're right, I heard about the ark, but not about Eden. I haven't been to Williamstown, nor to Iraq. I've heard that a trip to the Holy Land can really enrich one's reading of the Bible. I imagine a trip to either of these destinations might do the same.
Except for one MAJOR fault in your logic, Dr. Bouma, this is a pretty good article. The part in the Bible where Eden was sealed seems to have missed your attention.
And apparently you do not hold the Biblical account of the ark to be entirely factual; which may explain, at least in part, why you find the marshlands project more appealing. May I suggest a visit to the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter and a more thorough reading of Scripture?
You could not be more wrong. Having just returned from the Ark experience I can say that it is supporting a biblical truth that is rarely supported. The scorn that is directed at the Ark is unbelievable.
A truly understand told story is the plight of Christians in Iraq.
Maybe your article is better spent talking about homeless Christians than homeless waterfowl
The battle between God and Satan is a battle for allegiance. Allegiance happens in our minds. Any endeavour which helps people choose God is a worthy endeavour. The ark encounter is one such endeavour. Do not belittle its significance.
Thank you for this article, Dr. Bouma.
In Reply to Ed Rogosky (comment #28713)
As I understand from being at the ark and the creation museum, Ken Hamm believe modern day reptiles are the remains of dinosaurs. He also believes that all life / kinds, that were not in the ark died. I also have surmised that he is not of the opinion that dinosaurs were specifically excluded from the ark. So as a result he has dinosaurs in every corner of the creation museum and ark. (more than I think are necessary)
I was drawn to this site after reading it's wonderful article "Seeing God in Science". It sites the state of the church when approaching intricate matters. Based upon reading this blog, I recommend you read that article. The reality of the flood is now scientifically evident and can be viewed in the new film "Fingerprints of the Flood" on Christiancinema.com. We can give God glory that HE inevitably reveals and provides for all we need to grow in trust and love with HIM.
Enjoyed the article. However I have one question. After the world wide flood of Noah's time, should we not consider that the garden of Eden was destroyed in this deluge? It stands to reason that this area in Iraq could have been changed after the flood as was all the landscape of the earth. Just a thought to provoke conversation.
I am more than certain that area changed during and after the world wide flood, but that doesn't mean all traces of "the Garden" was destroyed. I believe if everyone considered it destroyed and therefore "not confirmable", it would relegate its existence to only belief and that would be detrimental to future generations.
Some have calculated that the value of Solomon's temple is today's currency amounted to about $217 billion. Yet God blessed it with His glorious presence. Even the Lord Jesus did not protest the anointing nard offered for His pending entombment though He well knew His Father would not allow His holy one to see decay. Perhaps this often tendered cavil against those hundreds willing to support the Ark Encounter is merely to mask too little a regard for the creation account as a pure and simple presentation of history. But perhaps "wisdom" is known by its children ... and its friends.
hmmm...I am certain the "often tendered cavil" is the reaping of what has been sown. Also, wisdom always elaborates the pure and polishes the pearl so its beauty is maintained for those that seek out such. As far as the creation account as a "simple" "presentation of history", scripture says it best...but wisdom does not oversimplify as that can give a distorted impression, a misrepresentation, not include all the facts and cause misunderstanding. I think that is what the writer of this post was trying to steer focus toward...to have us consider the priority of our efforts.
Add your comment to join the discussion!