Has Noah's Ark really been discovered?

[CaptainMercy]

I was wondering if anyone could point to a site that shows conclusive proof of Noah's ark being located?

 

[DailyBlessings]

The most popular claim is that of one Ron Wyatt:

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm

However, while many creationist groups are credulous where Wyatt's claims are concerned (he also claimed to have found the Ark of the covenant, Sodom and Gomorrah, and a number of other places) it should be remarked that the page I linked you to is commercial, and that almost all of the claims made on it have been disproven when examined by actual archaeologists. The wood is local and not unusual, the rivet is of a modern method of manufacture, etc.

There has been no evidence thus far that have been sufficient to convince any qualified archaeologists now in the field of the ark's evidence, not even those who are Christian. This doesn't mean that there never will be any, but it means that you should be wary of anyone who claims that they know it for truth.

 

[ez3729]

httnoahs ark article
the preceding article has some history about sitings of the ark dating back to the 1st century i think. It also mentions the story of the turkish businessman
George Hergobian who claimed to have boarded the ark when he was eight years old on a hike on mt ararat with his uncle in 1902.
this article came from a site about legends so be a little careful.

 

[daveleau]

Turkey won't let anyone on top of Mt Ararat right now. There's a great documentary on this on the History Channel. They claim that the reason is that the Ark is being used by less-than-desirable people as a base of sorts. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, seeing how high up it is, but... *shrugs*

Hopefully, expeditions can be sent soon to see if it is up there.

 

[ez3729]

http://www.arkonararat.com/ark sightings

the preceding website has a lil more info on ark sightings. Just enter site and click ark sightings. You can also click the names of the people who claim to have seen the ark and read their story. By the way i mispelled Hergobian. its Hagopian.

 

[CaptainMercy]

Thanks guys for all the help! It was very insightful. I would appreciate any one reading this to sign my guest book! Thanks to all! May God bless you all!

 

[beehoney]

The most popular claim is that of one Ron Wyatt:

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm

However, while many creationist groups are credulous where Wyatt's claims are concerned (he also claimed to have found the Ark of the covenant, Sodom and Gomorrah, and a number of other places) it should be remarked that the page I linked you to is commercial, and that almost all of the claims made on it have been disproven when examined by actual archaeologists. The wood is local and not unusual, the rivet is of a modern method of manufacture, etc.

There has been no evidence thus far that have been sufficient to convince any qualified archaeologists now in the field of the ark's evidence, not even those who are Christian. This doesn't mean that there never will be any, but it means that you should be wary of anyone who claims that they know it for truth.

I appreciate this.

 

[JohnStevenson]

No, the ark has NOT been discovered. The various reports of "ark sightings" are about as reliable as various sorts of UFO sightings -- they are contradictory and for them all to be correct there would have had to be half a dozen arks.

What happened to the ark? Two thoughts come to mind.

1. Noah had at least two termites aboard.

2. If you came out of an ark after a global (or even local) devestation of a flood and were looking for a place to live, where would you look for your building materials?

 

[CaptainMercy]

No, the ark has NOT been discovered. The various reports of "ark sightings" are about as reliable as various sorts of UFO sightings -- they are contradictory and for them all to be correct there would have had to be half a dozen arks.

What happened to the ark? Two thoughts come to mind.

1. Noah had at least two termites aboard.

2. If you came out of an ark after a global (or even local) devestation of a flood and were looking for a place to live, where would you look for your building materials?

Is this suppose to be a joke or are you serious? For one thing I am not sure of the termite bit. Termites may be a last days pest as describe in scripture! On the other hand if they were present. who is to say that they stayed there at the site of the ark. What if God looked down through the portals of time and knew many would doubt the history of the flood so He chose to preserve the Ark for such a discovery? Does that not mean that He is capable of doing so?

As far as building material, man has used earth as a building material for thousands of years so who is to say that Noah built a lumbered has to start with? it is not recorded in scripture one way or the other so your claims of the Ark being his bulding material is unfounded!! But I give you this, that you are entitle to your belief as I am mine. So be it! God bless!

 

[DailyBlessings]

What if God looked down through the portals of time and knew many would doubt the history of the flood so He chose to preserve the Ark for such a discovery? Does that not mean that He is capable of doing so?

If God desired to prove His existence unequivocally He would do so. And not through questionable claims of amateur archaeologists who are ready to accept anything if it validates their position.

However, belief is through faith, not proof. Nor is coming to belief through a "proof" the same thing as faith.

 

[CaptainMercy]

If God desired to prove His existence unequivocally He would do so. And not through questionable claims of amateur archaeologists who are ready to accept anything if it validates their position.

However, belief is through faith, not proof. Nor is coming to belief through a "proof" the same thing as faith.

Point well taken there! I agree that we should always walk by faith and not by sight! The reason I posted this thread was my curiousity was piqued by a book I read recently. Grant it the book was fiction and therefore was not required to be factual in all its ideas, but none the less I became curious and was hopin to gain a little light on the subject. I appreciate your comments and commend you on your advice!

 

[DailyBlessings]

Point well taken there! I agree that we should always walk by faith and not by sight! The reason I posted this thread was my curiousity was piqued by a book I read recently. Grant it the book was fiction and therefore was not required to be factual in all its ideas, but none the less I became curious and was hopin to gain a little light on the subject. I appreciate your comments and commend you on your advice!

Any time- Happy Birthday!

 

[CovenantRay]

If God desired to prove His existence unequivocally He would do so. And not through questionable claims of amateur archaeologists who are ready to accept anything if it validates their position.

However, belief is through faith, not proof. Nor is coming to belief through a "proof" the same thing as faith.

Hello:

I am in full agreement with your first 2 sentences. You should be cautious with your third sentence, however, as much of the agnostic (ignorant), and athiestic population will latch on to that and deny your testimony/witness as only blind faith. I don't wish to turn this into a theological debate, just to caution you.

CovenantRay

 

[justified]

Unfortunately there is no evidence that an ark has been found. There are some scanty surveys done in the mountains of ancient Armenia, but that's about it. No one is actually sure where the Biblical mount Ararat is, or anything of that sort. There are curious difficulties understand repopulation while examaning the geological/climate record of the time. Unfortunately in that area of prehistory there's so much we don't know. That's why it's called prehistory.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Unfortunately there is no evidence that an ark has been found. There are some scanty surveys done in the mountains of ancient Armenia, but that's about it. No one is actually sure where the Biblical mount Ararat is, or anything of that sort. There are curious difficulties understand repopulation while examaning the geological/climate record of the time. Unfortunately in that area of prehistory there's so much we don't know. That's why it's called prehistory.

Actually, quite a lot is known about Middle Eastern prehistory- it just doesn't support the notion of recent global repopulation in any way.

 

[justified]

Actually, quite a lot is known about Middle Eastern prehistory- it just doesn't support the notion of recent global repopulation in any way.

If by that you mean, we know that certain areas were populated and others were not, that there were a few geological events and that settlement patterns changed -- then sure. But finding a stone phallus here and a hunting trail in Sinai simply doesn't add up to a lot of knowledge. It's inference and it's dangerous.

 

[DailyBlessings]

If by that you mean, we know that certain areas were populated and others were not, that there were a few geological events and that settlement patterns changed -- then sure. But finding a stone phallus here and a hunting trail in Sinai simply doesn't add up to a lot of knowledge. It's inference and it's dangerous.

Inference is dangerous? Inference is the basis for archaeology.

And while a single stone artifact doesn't mean much, thousands of them do mean something. So buried cities. And entire unique civilizations. Where did you get the idea that we don't know much about the middle East? It's a wonderful preservation environment and the archaeological record is very extensive. Not to mention the written record for the region, which goes back 5,000 years at the least. According to most young earth creationists, that would pretty much contain the entire history of the world, wouldn't it?

 

[ez3729]

daniel p. mcgivern
hello. the preceding link is an article about a recent attempt by a honolulu businessman daniel p mcgivern to search for the ark. in april 2004 mcgivern announced that he was going to send a team of scientist to mt ararat and also presented photos taken in 1949 by sattelite that might prove it was there. In September 2004, the turkish government turned down the expedition due to security reasons.

 

[justified]

It's a wonderful preservation environment and the archaeological record is very extensive. Not to mention the written record for the region, which goes back 5,000 years at the least.

This was my point, which you forgot after the intervening post. I'm talking about prehistory. Prehistory means history before a written record existed. Writing began lightly in Mesopotamia circa 3400 BC; in Egypt 3200-3000 B.C. Before these points, our knowledge is extraordinarily limited and as archaeologists we have to be careful how much we read into things. I mentioned the Sinai (used loosely) hunting trail; it was decided that it was used to run animals along and corner them for hunting in one of the lithic ages. Genius: but is it provable?

 

[Sweetspirit]

I am more amazed at people who say the Ark "couldn't possibly exist."