People in the area of the Balkans settled in the area of the kingdom of
Urartu and that was the birth of the Armenian nation. The term Armenia
appeared first in Greek maps around 600 B.C. The Ark landed on Mount Ararat
(Masis in Armenian), which is part of historic Armenia but is,
unfortunately, in Turkish occupied territory. Mount Ararat is very visible
from Yerevan, the capital of the Republic of Armenia, which came into
existence in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union after centuries
of subjugation. Moorad
>From: IN%"mortongr@flash.net" "glenn morton" 12-JUN-2000 06:56:38.54
>To: IN%"PHSEELY@aol.com"
>CC: IN%"asa@calvin.edu"
>Subj: RE: Where was the ark
>Hi Paul,
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <PHSEELY@aol.com>
>To: <mortongr@flash.net>
>Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Julius Africanus as well as the other sources cited by Young are all very
>> late Christian and Islamic traditions. They are, accordingly, virtually
>> irrelevant. It is the mention of Urartu in the ancient Assyrian texts
and
>> the archaeology of Urartu which tell us where that country was in the
mind
>of
>> the writer of Gen 8:4. This still does not tell us which mountain in
>Urartu
>> the ark landed on; but, the location is somewhere in the country of
>Urartu.
>>
>> At one point the kingdom of Urartu expanded and may have come reasonably
>> close to Adana, though never really reaching to it.
>
>Who says it had to actually reach Adana in order for the mountains that
>begin there and travel across SE Turkey to be named 'the mountains of
>Ararat'? A look at any reasonably good topo map shows that the mountains
>rise from the sea at Adana and that it is one continuous mountainous region
>from there to the Caspian Sea. And indeed one can follow rugged topography
>across the southern shore of Turkey on into Phrygia. While my preferred
>landing site is near Adana, there is no reason why it should be so limited.
>And by the admission above, that Uruartu came close to the region I prefer,
>you actually make my case for me. Thanks.
>
>
> But, the Babylonian
>> kingdom also expanded to take in Israel-Judah in 586 BC; but, that does
>not
>> mean that a phrase like "the mountains of Babylonia" could then refer to
>> Jerusalem.
>
>Depends upon how long they were occupied and exactly when the phrase
>'mountains of Ararat' was coined. One further point. Strong's defines
>"Ararat" as either "Ararat" or "Armenia". Armenia is a much broader term
and
>has referred to all of eastern Turkey, including the Adana region at
various
>times. See Encyclopedia Britannica 1982 vol18, p. 1042.
>
>>
>> The "mountains of Ararat (Urartu)" refers to mountains within the
>boundaries
>> of the country of Urartu; and that country centers around Lake Van.
(Maps
>3,
>> 4, 146 of The Macmillan Bible Atlas). I doubt you can find any ancient
>Near
>> Eastern scholar who would say the phrase encompasses Adana.
>
>Geologically, there is no way to separate the mountains that run through
>lake Van area from those that run through Adana.
>
>
>The above post has shown me why I won't be doing much on line from
Scotland.
>I won't have my books as a resource and I needed them here.
>
>> I have to go now. A friend is taking me to hear Don Chittick explain
"The
>> Dinosaur Mystery." I bet you wish you could get in on this. :-)
>
>I hope you enjoyed it. I wish I could ask him a few questions.
>
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
>Lots of information on creation/evolution
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 11:06:33 EDT