Kingdomovehearts

Acts 27 says Paul dropped four anchors when trying to escape he dropped 4 anchors, these have been found in Malta....

Read this Archeologist Report:

"What we found was a classic first-century Roman anchor, as used on Alexandrian ships sailing on official Roman business in Paul's day. Then, with detailed photographs and videotapes in hand, we consulted a scholar from the local university, who confirmed what we already knew. The evidence we had personally discovered fit every detail of Luke's description of the anchors Paul's ship left in the sea."


Is this evidence of Paul's adventures? If Paul existed, why not Jesus?

Amaleq13

No, it is evidence, if legitimate*, that anchors apparently similar to the one's described in Acts did, in fact, exist at the time of the story.

That is significantly underwhelming.


*cite your source, por favor

Kingdomovehearts

Okay. http://www.parsagard.com/shipwreck.htm

Kosh

Looks like it comes from BASE.

The next Ron Wyatt?

Toto

We had a long thread on this a while back if only the search engine were working. . . .

Anyhow, Paul's journey may well have come from an accurate description of such a journey - taken by someone else.

But there are no poisonous snakes on Malta.

And there is this astute comment on the Paasgard site from Ken Olson on Crosstalk (responding to Nomad's reference to that site): here :

So all in all, key parts of this tale of adventure on the high seas do not check out.

Layman

Where does Acts say that Malta was its intended destination? I got the impression that it was not and that the sailors had lost control of the ship. What is not checking out here? How have you determined that it would not take 14 days for a storm to blow Paul's ship eventually to Malta?

Toto

It's Ken Olson's calculation. He does not say that the intended destination was Malta. Presumably a storm and shipwreck would interfere with one's travel plans - I don't know how it would be calculated.

Layman

If you do not understand it why are you so sure he makes any valid point here.

Perhaps it is unclear, but by saying "the ship Paul is sailing onstill makes it to what was presumably its intended destination in about the usual time it would take to get there" he seems to be saying that Malta is the presumed intended destination? It's the only place that Luke says it took 14 days to get to.

And since in one instance we have ships travelling purposefully with light winds and in Acts we have a ship travelling in very strong winds, but fighting those winds, I fail to see any miraculous congruence suggesting invention. Olson appears to be grasping here. I went back and checked his original post and there was not anything more offered.

Vorkosigan

[quote]Where does Acts say that Malta was its intended destination? I got the impression that it was not and that the sailors had lost control of the ship. What is not checking out here? How have you determined that it would not take 14 days for a storm to blow Paul's ship eventually to Malta?[/list]
The point has force whether Paul intended to go to Malta or not. It seems unlkely that a storm would blow him there at more or less the rate a ship would travel to the island.

Layman

It was not the same rate, it appears to be close to the rates of two reconstructed voyages vaguely alluded to. In any event, as I explained already, the two comparisons were travelling purposefully with light winds. Paul's ship was travelling in heavy winds but was fighting them. It's not that surprising that they covered similar ground, averaging less than two miles per day line of sight.

Unless you can prove that it's implausible that Paul's ship would have taken 14 days to get to Malta fighting against a storm, you've got nothing.