ARK UNCOVERED?

from JoeUser Forums
I'm kind of surprised the writers here at JU haven't mentioned what's going on in Iran with the finding of the Ark. It's all over the "Other" blog sites almost an hourly account from what I saw. One account read "Texas Finds the Ark." Good Morning America had a piece on this yesterday and they seemed very excited about this news.

I'm not surprised and always felt that they would find this ark eventually. I always put the finding of it with "last days" timing because it's just like God to give yet another chance for belief in Him. So none can say....."I didn't know." He's long suffering and does not want any to perish and is always lovingly waiting for those who don't believe in Him to come. Of course I know that even if they found this Ark many will be so busy with their lives they will hardly notice.

June 29, 2006 — A team of Texas archaeologists believe they may have located the remains of Noah's Ark in Iran's Elburz mountain range.

"I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said Arch Bonnema of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (B.A.S.E) Institute, a Christian archeology organization dedicated to looking for biblical artifacts.

Bonnema and the other B.A.S.E. Institute members hiked for seven hours in the mountains northwest of Tehran, climbing 13,000 feet before making the apparent discovery.

"We got up to this object, nestled in the side of a hill," said Robert Cornuke, a member of the B.A.S.E. Institute. "We found something that has my heart skipping a beat."

At first, they didn't dare to hope it was the biblical boat.

"It wasn't impressive at first," Cornuke said. "Certainly didn't think it to be Noah's Ark. But when we got close, we were amazed. It looked similar to wood."

In addition, some B.A.SE. members say, their discovery didn't look very distinctive.

"It looked like the deck of any boat today," Bonnema said.


Long Search for the Ark

The Bible places the Ark in the mountains of Ararat, a mountain range theologians believe spans hundreds of miles, which the team says is consistent with their find in Iran.

The Bible also describes the Ark's dimensions as being 300 cubits by 50 cubits — about the size of a small aircraft carrier. The B.A.S.E. Institute's discovery is similar in size and scale.

"It is provocative to think that this could be the lost ark of Noah," Cornuke said

Throughout history, people have been searching for the Ark to help prove God's existence.

"There's this idea, if we can prove that the ark existed then we can prove that the story existed, and more importantly, we can prove that God existed," said Bruce Feiler, author of "Where God Was Born."

There's more on this... Link
5,378 views 43 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
""There's this idea, if we can prove that the ark existed then we can prove that the story existed, and more importantly, we can prove that God existed," said Bruce Feiler, author of "Where God Was Born."


Proving that this is the ark is more than just proving it is a boat, wouldn't you say? Surely they won't fall back on the much-reviled carbon dating that creationists claim is too flawed to trust. How exactly could they prove this is THE ark?

Scientists are disqualified from even the most logical assumptions by creationists, but when creationists find something made of wood on top of a mountain... BAM! they've found Noah's Ark...
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Proving that this is the ark is more than just proving it is a boat, wouldn't you say? Surely they won't fall back on the much-reviled carbon dating that creationists claim is too flawed to trust. How exactly could they prove this is THE ark?


Easy. Cecille B. DeMille movies are very reliable, so if it looks like something out of his movie, it must be the ark. It's what we know as the Da Vinci Code phenomena, the belief that representations centuries (or in this case, millenia) after the fact, MUST be reliable.

On a more serious note, you're right. They can't prove conclusively it is the ark, but there do seem to be rather limited sources of tales about boats in the mountaintops, so I'd say the probability would be reasonably high. It's interesting fodder for discussion, really. but that's about where it ends, in my opinion.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean even the 'boat on a mountain' is an assumption. Right now they are just saying it is 'similar to wood'. First you'd have to prove that it is wood, then you'd have to prove it is a boat, and then you'd have to date it to that era, and then you'd have to prove it was that particular boat.

Anyway, listen to what the guy says:

""There's this idea, if we can prove that the ark existed then we can prove that the story existed, and more importantly, we can prove that God existed," said Bruce Feiler, author of "Where God Was Born."


I mean, even if we prove this was Noah's Ark, and that Noah existed, does that prove God exists? Like I said elsewhere, they proved Troy exists from the Iliad, but it didn't prove the divinity of Athena.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean even the 'boat on a mountain' is an assumption. Right now they are just saying it is 'similar to wood'. First you'd have to prove that it is wood, then you'd have to prove it is a boat, and then you'd have to date it to that era, and then you'd have to prove it was that particular boat.


Oh, I agree, baker. Frankly, it would take a lot to convince me. Not just proof it was a boat, but animal DNA from animals that couldn't have possibly been found in that region, before I would begin to believe it's the ark. I have several thoughts on the issue, but it's KFC's thread, so we'll leve them as they are for now. I might hit on the subject later on, though.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said Arch Bonnema of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (B.A.S.E) Institute, a Christian archeology organization dedicated to looking for biblical artifacts.


Sounds like these folks need to make up their mind.
If they want to be archaeologists doing rigorous scientific field work...

...or if they want to be theologians so doubtful of their own faith that they must presume conclusions without evidence.

They employ bastardizations of rational thought (If we find a boat on a mountaintop, then obviously God exists!) and the scientific method (how about instead of imagining what it is, you actually take a look at it and find out), and sometimes patent pure patent absurdity.

The biggest hurdle in identifying Noah's Ark comes down to "gopher wood." The Bible says the Ark was made of gopher wood but no one knows what it is.


What gets me is the fence sitters, though. "Well, we don't know if ,this is THE Ark..." Trying to prove scientifically that over two thousand years ago a man was able to build a boat and put two (or more) of every species on the face (and elsewhere) of the earth in order to survive a 40 day flood that covered the globe, ending only when God allows the rain to stop, the waters to ebb and the boat to alight on the highest peak in the world (although these "archaeologists" weren't in the Himalayas, were they?) and every animal, and presumably human is a descendant of these flood survivors...well.

Do I really have to tell you that never happened? That you will never, ever find proof, because it didn't happen, and if it were to have happened it would involve so many contradictions (miracles) with the way science believes the universe works that science couldn't even be used to explore it?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Easy. Cecille B. DeMille movies are very reliable, so if it looks like something out of his movie, it must be the ark. It's what we know as the Da Vinci Code phenomena, the belief that representations centuries (or in this case, millenia) after the fact, MUST be reliable.

I was thinking more of Irwin Allen - as it would represent the Flood after all.

But seriously, this is the first I have read of this.  Guess I have been sheltered today.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
"...and if it were to have happened it would involve so many contradictions (miracles) with the way science believes the universe works that science couldn't even be used to explore it?"


That's they key to this, creationism, biblical inerrancy, and many other religious beliefs. Sure, it could have happened because God made it happen, but miracles and science should have nothing to do with one another. That's why this stuff doesn't belong in science class, because it defies science.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
"It's all over the "Other" blog sites almost an hourly account from what I saw. One account read "Texas Finds the Ark." Good Morning America had a piece on this yesterday and they seemed very excited about this news."

I don't go on any other blog sites and don't watch morning shows so I hadn't heard any of this. Sounds awfully familiar though. They have "exciting discoveries" like this before.

Like others have said very aptly, even if it is proven that an ark existed, it doesn't prove anything about God. At most it could prove that the biblical story was based on something in reality. Most stories are though.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
On a more serious note, you're right. They can't prove conclusively it is the ark, but there do seem to be rather limited sources of tales about boats in the mountaintops, so I'd say the probability would be reasonably high. It's interesting fodder for discussion


exactly. How about we give them a chance without jumping to conclusions? I personally have always believed this ark would be found. But I'm not so sure it would still be wood at this point. I was thinking maybe by now it would be a great big giant fossil and be made up more of stone than wood after all this time.

And I agree that even if it's the Ark beyond a shadow of a doubt, it still would't prove God. But I do think many would come to a belief in Him as a result.

have several thoughts on the issue, but it's KFC's thread, so we'll leve them as they are for now. I might hit on the subject later on, though.


Awwwwwh Gid, are you wussing out on me? I don't mind. I'm a big girl. Speak your mind.



Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
To transfer the discussion from the other thread.

The proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible is not proof of its divinity or innerrancy. But it is further proof that the stories are not myths, but more closely resemble Homer's narratives (the facts, not the subjective).

Did God cause a flood in Asia Minor? Did he cause 7 plagues in Egypt? Did he part the Reed (not red) sea? That will never and can never be proven.

But the historical facts of the bible can. And for those that dismiss it as a fairy tale, they do have to eat crow. They do not have to accept God, Jesus, or the 7 dwarves (sorry - got carried away there). But then it does call into question their jihad on all things religious. And in that we can sit back and watch them squirm.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
But the historical facts of the bible can. And for those that dismiss it as a fairy tale, they do have to eat crow.


If they prove that it is the ark and that it housed two of every animal, then I might agree with you. Until then, it isn't historical fact, it is a bunch of stories that may have been based on fact (i.e. Someone named Noah having built a boat). Finding "the ark" doesn't make the bible fact. That is what faith needs to fill in for.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reports of the ARK to qoute the words of Mark Twain in another context are "greatly exaggerated". There is no reason to take the Old Testament in a literal manner. Afterall it contains oral traditions and myths that came to be written down probably in the turn of the 2 millenium BC. So stop being Indianna Jones.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The 'true cross' has been found as well, and slivers of it are cherished as relics throughout the world.


I've never heard this.

Lots of people still don't believe Jesus was the son of God.


That's true, or that Jesus is God...for that matter.

The reports of the ARK to qoute the words of Mark Twain in another context are "greatly exaggerated".


how do you know? Are you hoping so? Like I said, we should not jump to conclusions. I've heard that the leader of this expedition is secular, not religious.

Did God cause a flood in Asia Minor? Did he cause 7 plagues in Egypt? Did he part the Reed (not red) sea? That will never and can never be proven.


Yes, we can find out these things did in fact happen. We've got much evidence to show that the things in the scriptures are true. But can we prove they are from God? No. I wouldn't say never be proven tho. Because I believe someday we can know......maybe not on this side of heaven unless he comes back soon but we will know.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Because I believe someday we can know......maybe not on this side of heaven unless he comes back soon but we will know.

I should have qualified it as this side of heaven.  Yes, upon death, we will know.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Awwwwwh Gid, are you wussing out on me? I don't mind. I'm a big girl. Speak your mind.


I never wuss out, KFC. I am more than capable of holding my own in a debate on biblical topics; my Bible College profs made sure of that. But as I grow older (and hopefully wiser), I am beginning to question the wisdom of such endeavours; in reaching lost souls for Christ, does it help or harm our witness to engage too heavily in old earth vs. young earth debates, or in the existence of Noah's Ark? More importantly, does my faith, and further, my salvation hinge on those things?

You have your ministry as a Christian, KFC, and I have mine. I know very well in whom I place my trust, and I endeavour to follow Him with the utmost confidence. But I don't feel that a lot of these exercises are very helpful in reaching lost souls for Christ.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
More importantly, does my faith, and further, my salvation hinge on those things?


of course not.

I was just interested in your comment.....kinda felt like you left us hanging, that's all.

I know very well in whom I place my trust


me too.

But I don't feel that a lot of these exercises are very helpful in reaching lost souls for Christ


It depends on what you mean by "exercises." . Reasoning together is good. A good debate is good. It stretches people and makes them think. That's a good thing. As long as it's done in a respectful manner. People are genuinely interested in such things.

As far as Noah's Ark, I'm not debating so much here as given out the Current Event concerning it. I thought that was a good thing....and again, it makes people think. What if it's true?

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

What if it's true?

See that is where I have to say "Machts nichts".  Why?  I do believe it is true (that Noah had an ark and saved a bunch of animals).  I do not beleive it covered the world, and I do not beleive it was every species (just the common ones in his area).  And the flood happened.  But it was local, but as in those days local was the world, that was how it was written.

Did God cause the flood?  That we will not know in this life.  But it really does not matter.  For belief is not based upon a flood or a fish.  But on faith.  God may be the deciding factor, and for many He is.  But for me, it is the lessons of the Bible. Not the historical accuracy.  So true or allegorical, it will not affect my faith.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do believe it is true (that Noah had an ark and saved a bunch of animals).


me too, but hey don't forget the 8 people doc.

I do not beleive it covered the world,


do you know that every civilization has a flood story in their beginning history?

I do not beleive it was every species (just the common ones in his area).


why not? The ark was big enough to hold them and the food needed for a year.

Not the historical accuracy.


well, this helps.....
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
"do you know that every civilization has a flood story in their beginning history? "


Did you know that every civilization with a flood story has some sort of flood? Just because all major civilizations undergo some kind of flooding doesn't mean they are all experiencing the same flood.

"why not? The ark was big enough to hold them and the food needed for a year. "


But did it have the ability to house creatures of many different climates, or freshwater fish that would have died from 40 days in salt water, or saltwater fish that would have died after 40 days in fresh water? Of course you can say that God made it work, but then, with that you can't ever lose an argument, can you? To oppose you is to question the power of God.

What should be considered is the fact that we would call a human that would destroy whole civilizations outright, men, women, children and barnyard animals, based upon their overall goodness, a monster. Yet somehow we can't expect that kind of decency from God.

I find it odd that if a father killed his child for the exact motives the Bible credits God with, we'd call him the worst of murderers. Yet, we don't expect God to function at even the flawed level of human kindness or mercy. I credit God with being BETTER than us, not worse.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
According to what I've read,

http://www.arkfever.com/ (there are also pictures)

they have done some analysis, and the pieces of black (Noah is noted, in the bible, as having sealed the ark with pitch, which is black) stone (in sharp contrast to the surrounding stone, which is various shades of brown) has, in fact, been found to be petrified wood.
Also, it contains fossilized remains of sea creatures. One large piece which is observable, has been "cut" at a definite 90-degree angle.

Is it Noah's Ark? Who knows. It's nice to think about; it would make a lot of people think, that's for sure.

To Bahu, just for kicks:

Indiana Jones searched for the Ark of the Covenant, and that's a whole 'nother matter altogether.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Looking at those pictures pretty much finishes the idea that it could be the ark to me. The wood for Noah's ark would be 5 thousand years old or so according to the young-earth creationist timeline. I defy them to prove that that it is that young, even if part of it is petrified wood.

Even if they prove it is wood, and that wood could be fossilized like that in a few thousand years, wood isn't proof of a boat. The fact that they are finding all those marine fossils makes no sense, either if the water was only up for a couple of months. I don't see "hundreds" of "hand-hewn" timbers; I see rock deposits that look like they might, possibly, be fossilized wood. You can get that here in America.

If you believe that the earth is only 6000 years old or so, you might believe this goelogical deposit was once a boat, but then you'd probably believe anything.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Looking at those pictures pretty much finishes the idea that it could be the ark to me.


hahaaha why am I not surprised?

If you believe that the earth is only 6000 years old or so, you might believe this goelogical deposit was once a boat, but then you'd probably believe anything.


then I'm in the line being duped Baker.....and I'm behind alot of men who are much smarter than I.

I find it odd that if a father killed his child for the exact motives the Bible credits God with, we'd call him the worst of murderers. Yet, we don't expect God to function at even the flawed level of human kindness or mercy. I credit God with being BETTER than us, not worse.


First off it was God who gives life and it's only God who is to take it if he so chooses. What amazes me is the wrath of God is always mentioned but the goodness of God is ignored. He is a great loving God but that gets overlooked. I think I know why.

The OT seems harsh to us in light of today's standards. We live in an age where serious sin is not taken seriously. We live in an age were the holiness of God and the sanctity of life have been sadly eclipsed. If we compare the law of the OT with our law of today we would not see the cruelty of God but the mercy of God. We all sin against God and it is regarded s a capital offense in the slightest acts of rebellion we commit treason against Him. Any sin against a perfectly holy and righteous God deserves death. I do not see a bloodthirsty vengeance of an angry God but the long suffering mercy of a holy and loving God. He has been very patient with us.

If we are offended by the scriptures maybe the fault is not in God but in our own corrupt nd distorted sense of values? Maybe it's because we think we are gods?

I wonder what would happen if we called a moratorium on our criticism of the Bible and allowed the Bible to criticize us?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If we are offended by the scriptures maybe the fault is not in God but in our own corrupt nd distorted sense of values? Maybe it's because we think we are gods? "


Or maybe the God of the Old Testament was portrayed by those authors as reflecting their bronze-age values, while later on the authors of the New Testament portrayed Him with their values, and on and on and on. You don't find it odd that God always seems to be portrayed as what we think he should be to best suit us?

As for a moratorium on biblical scrutiny, I think you guys have enjoyed that for a few hundred years, and the Catholic church enjoyed it for a thousand before you. It hasn't been too productive with all the burning people at the stake and such. Now, you just throw yourselves in front of the bus of science.

It's funny that you'd have that perspective considering that your own religion didn't spring up until people STARTED looking critically at the standard interpretation of the Bible. Now, after your interpretation has been untouchable for a few hundred years, we start looking again.

No surprise that the current establishment doesn't welcome it any more than the Catholic establishment then.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's funny that you'd have that perspective considering that your own religion didn't spring up until people STARTED looking critically at the standard interpretation of the Bible


and I'm very grateful for thos people who went before me. I've read of Hus, Zwingli, Luther, and others. I especially think Luther was a very brave soul to do what he did. It was awesome that he came from within wasn't it? He couldn't have done that in his own power. He was definitely a man empowered by the HS to do what he did. He was literally shaking in his boots during the diet of Worms. I think he's a hero and I'm not even Lutheran. I don't think he was perfect by any stretch but he was a man born for such a time as this. To go against a powerful ,oppressive institution back then is mind boggling.

Now, after your interpretation has been untouchable for a few hundred years, we start looking again.


what does this mean? I have the same interpretation as the early church fathers starting with the Apostles. The bible is clear that we are to interpret for ourselves, not let man do it for us even tho they want and relish the opportunity to do so. We will be held accountable for what we did with what God gave us.

The bible has been the most loved and maligned book of all times and will still be around long after you and I are dead and buried. Hmmmm kind of sounds like scripture written 3,000 yrs ago doesn't it? "The grass withers and the flowers fade but the word of the Lord will endure forever? " Even ine dark ages, the gospel was a spreading fire that burst out in the open in 1517. There were secret societies all over. Luther just made it legal and respectable doing what he did.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've read of Hus, Zwingli, Luther, and others. I especially think Luther was a very brave soul to do what he did.
I think he's a hero and I'm not even Lutheran.


Wow, so does that mean you think of Hitler as a hero too?