1 - This is an Old Discovery
Even so, it's been reported as something new every few years as long as I can remember. One news source takes this even further:
Noah’s ark remains was found first by a young kid from Turkey named Kalim in February 15, 1857. A few years later, a group of American Explorers lead by Ryan Jarkinson found the remains of the ark in 1905. The ark was also claimed to be found by John Warwick Montgomery, the “Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Christian Thought”. John even wrote a book about it in the 70s. And now, it was found again by a group of Turkish and Chinese explorers, according to Fox.
The news may have been having a slow day, but I'm always glad to see people's interest in this project rekindled.
2 - We Don't Really Know Anything, Yet.
This is where things get weird. After all this time, someone should have been able to dig this thing up, whatever it is, and figure out what it is, right? For some reason, this hasn't happened. Supposedly, this is because it's hard to get there and because Turkey is not too friendly to archeologists; I don't know if that's true, but progress has been ridiculously slow. And I don't know why researchers aren't clamoring for the chance to look at this site, because it's been known for long enough. Some have suspected the researchers of fraud, but nothing has been proven.As such, we don't know what they found up there in the mountains of Turkey. Pictures from the site appear to show an old wooden room. This could be an old cabin, or it could be the remains of an old boat that landed there. The bottom line is, we are still figuring this out. It would be absolutely wonderful to finally get some answers to this archeological mystery, and I hope that the newly found interest in it will, at last, lead us to some answers.
12 comments:
This really is the Ark. In a related story, they found the bones of Jesus near Golgotha.
So let me ask you this: as a science-minded individual, do you believe that the flood story is based on the regional deluges of the day, or do you believe in a literal world-engulfing flood that covered the entire earth in water?
I have no problem with the idea of a world-wide flood. Some may say it's impossible, but I don't see why it has to be. I suppose that any problems that story creates with science will work themselves out in the end. It's also possible that the flood wasn't worldwide, but I don't find it anymore believable. A local deluge picking up a large boat is pretty impressive. So is a unique condition that caused a worldwide flood.
Bear in mind, I believe that God created the universe, made the sun stand still, and did a lot of impossible things. The idea of a big flood is not hard to believe.
Fair enough. I was merely curious as to your take on the matter.
Yeah, it's a good question.
You have "no problem with the idea of a world wide flood?"
Genesis 7:4 says that God told Moses that he will send rain and "blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made."
Then again in verse 10 it says, "..the water of the flood came upon the earth."
verse 18, "The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth.."
verse 19, "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that ALL THE HIGH MOUNTAINS EVERYWHERE UNDER THE HEAVENS were covered."
If the Word says that the earth was flooded, why do you entertain the idea that the Bible is inaccurate, incomplete, or unclear?
(I understand that this probably implies a harsh tone, but dont let that be the case.)
I have no idea how exactly the flood happened. The book of Genesis tells us about a flood that covers the Earth, and I have no interest in watering down the Scriptures.
The old testament is not big on little details, so I don't like to presume too much. Often times, the language in Genesis leaves room for many interpretations. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but if there's some possibility in the text that it was a localized flood then that doesn't bother me. However, I see no reason to assume that it was localized or to look for evidence of such.
@Adam - One of the issues I have with this discovery is the conclusions Christians (and others) keep making about it, conclusions like: If this is the ark, then it proves the Bible.
Problem #1: There's no way to prove that this is "the" ark. The best that could be proved would be that it is "an" ark that resembles what we know about the Noah-flood story.
Problem #2 - No discovery of anything "proves" the Bible. It can prove the accuracy of the Biblical text, but nothing proves the Bible. Only faith.
@anonymous - I'm a biblical literalist as well, and I honestly don't see anything in any of the verses you've mentioned that rules out the possibility that it was a localized (albeit HUGE) flood. Phrases like "covering the earth" or "all the high mountains everywhere" do not necessarily imply a worldwide flood. They only necessarily imply a flood in every place that was known to the author at the time. In that author's case (Moses?), he would be right to say "the whole earth," even if it didn't happen in North America, because he had no idea that North America existed. And, this wouldn't create any problems with inerrancy or infallibility of the text. Nor would it diminish God's sovereignty, because ANY flood caused supernaturally is supernatural, regardless of how large it was.
I am sorry, but that just cannot be true. The Word tells us that "All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark."
If it was only that part of the world, why was Noah commanded to take the animals onto the ark? God could have easily taken the ark to another area where the animals still were, or brought the animals in the other parts of the world to Noah's area. The Word tells us that Noah and the animals on the ark were all that was left, and that "all that was on the dry land" died.
Surely you arent implying that this is unclear.
Got this email from Randall Price (passed along to me by Kerby Anderson) at work today:
Dear Friends,
Many of you have seen the preliminary news announcement of an alleged discovery of Noah's Ark by a Chinese expedition team and asked me for clarification. I knew this was coming and have been praying about how to respond.
I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).
[...]
To my knowledge, the Chinese took no professional archaeologist or geologist who could verify or document the wood or the structure in situ (in its place of discovery). They were duped in 2006-2007 by Parasut when they were shown a similar cave with something they thought was wood. I met the Chinese when I went with a team of geologists to examine the "wood" in Dogubabyazit and to report that it was volcanic rock (called "tuff") and not wood. Thereafter, since the Chinese were apparently able to get permits to climb in previously off-limit sites, I and two other professionals joined with the Chinese (bringing our own independent satellite data) and went with them to Mt. Ararat in 2008. During that expedition, the guide Parasut who claimed to have found the Ark, was constantly drunk and after one month sitting in a hotel waiting, the expedition never happened. It was at this time that I made contact with Dr. Richard Bright who has climbed Mt. Ararat 33 times in sea! rch of the Ark and with several others climbed the western side of Mt. Ararat with a shepherd (who had recently been discovered by Dr. Bright's Kurdish partner) who knew the location of a piece of the Ark. Last year we had a good expedition to a higher site (the satellite site) and this summer we will excavate the shepherd's site and have every reason to expect success.
I am sorry to have to report that this is apparently a fake (and I am sure that the Chinese do not know this, but they do not respond to my e-mails), however, we do hope soon to have the real thing.
I encourage your prayers for me and others who will have to explain this "discovery" to many others - because negative reports are never well received and motives are questioned, especially when those doing so are part of a competitive expedition. But we do not want people to reject the truth of the Bible because another Noah's Ark report turns out to be false. We prefer to be as clear upfront in our reporting as possible so Christians (and others) can make up their own minds.
I hope that this will be helpful to you at this time,
Randall Price
Archaeologist
Ark Search LLC Expedition
World of the Bible Ministries
Subquestion for you Adam: as a creationist, do you believe in the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old (making the discovery of the ark plausible at some point), or do you believe it's billions of years old, thus making the discovery of an ark highly improbable?
I have no idea how old the Earth is.
Post a Comment