Noah's Ark in Turkey?

[Cute Peonies]

I found this video yesterday, it's about Noah's Ark national park in Turkey. Not sure if the elements discussed in the video are 100% true, anything can be sugarcoated nowadays. Some "proofs" like the pillar of prayer and Noah's wife tomb & remains sound too good to be true. The rest looks plausible.

What's your thoughts?

 

[Halbhh]

I found this video yesterday, it's about Noah's Ark national park in Turkey. Not sure if the elements discussed in the video are 100% true, anything can be sugarcoated nowadays. Some "proofs" like the pillar of prayer and Noah's wife tomb & remains sound too good to be true. The rest looks plausible.

What's your thoughts?

Well, any decisive and clear evidence of God's miraculous works (like the Flood for example) would harm God's own stated will for the lost that may turn to Christ, to be saved:

That they believe without seeing proofs/evidence first.

As Christ said to Thomas: John 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

So, with trust in God, I think He will continue to allow the lost to turn to Christ with 'faith' -- belief without seeing proof.

 

[Halbhh]

I found this video yesterday, it's about Noah's Ark national park in Turkey. Not sure if the elements discussed in the video are 100% true, anything can be sugarcoated nowadays. Some "proofs" like the pillar of prayer and Noah's wife tomb & remains sound too good to be true. The rest looks plausible.

What's your thoughts?

Wonderfully, the real basis of faith is never physical proofs out there in the world, but the Word of Christ:

Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Just as Christ Himself said to us:
Mark 4 NIV
(full chapter)

And for a believer, the way to strengthen their faith is to read Christ's words, and then begin to do as He said to us we must do: Matthew 7:24-27

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I found this video yesterday, it's about Noah's Ark national park in Turkey. Not sure if the elements discussed in the video are 100% true, anything can be sugarcoated nowadays. Some "proofs" like the pillar of prayer and Noah's wife tomb & remains sound too good to be true. The rest looks plausible.

What's your thoughts?

As a kid, I recall watching a documentary movie back in 1976 or so that was recommended by my church at the time on this, linked below.

In the last three years however, I have heard a lot of bad things about the major Christian researcher that was behind this stuff. It' was something to the affect of him doing good work initially as far as Biblical archelogy, but there was lots of circumstantial evidence suggesting faking his work, filing fraudulent claims etc.

 

[Halbhh]

As a kid, I recall watching a documentary movie back in 1976 or so that was recommended by my church at the time on this.

Recently however, I have heard a lot of bad things about the major Christian researcher that was behind this stuff. It' was something to the affect of him doing good work initially as far as Biblical archelogy, but there was lots of circumstantial evidence suggesting faking his work, filing false claims later on.

We could even expect God to actively intervene to remove any decisive or convincing evidence. After all, any clear evidence that would convince most atheists in an outright way would go against God's stated will in scripture it seems.

See post #2 for why.

 

[Sheila Davis]

I found this video yesterday, it's about Noah's Ark national park in Turkey. Not sure if the elements discussed in the video are 100% true, anything can be sugarcoated nowadays. Some "proofs" like the pillar of prayer and Noah's wife tomb & remains sound too good to be true. The rest looks plausible.

What's your thoughts?

I've been hearing reports such as this for years at least 20.
In 1959 discovered a boat shaped footprint on the top of a mountain in Turkey.

For years they wouldn't allow anyone in.

It's hard for me to believe if there were remains of the ark that the country would not announce it. That they would want the whole world to know The Ark has been discovered and to receive that status.

And it would have to be underground, wood as it said is capable of surviving thousands of years underground - better than above ground without regular maintenance.

But Noah's wife grave and pillars of prayer first I've heard of those.

When I first heard the report I hoped it was true but it has never proven as such.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

We could even expect God to actively intervene to remove any decisive or convincing evidence. After all, any clear evidence that would convince most atheists in an outright way would go against God's stated will in scripture it seems.

See post #2 for why.

I don't believe that is the case. I don't believe He actively removes it. I believe He allows the passage of time and natural processes to obscure it, but those things can be found if you really look for them. Biblical archelogy is the best example, lots of places in the Bible were considered pure myth or fiction by academics only to be found later. I'm talking about places like Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah etc.

 

[Halbhh]

I've been hearing reports such as this for years at least 20.
In 1959 discovered a boat shaped footprint on the top of a mountain in Turkey.

For years they wouldn't allow anyone in.

It's hard for me to believe if there were remains of the ark that the country would not announce it. That they would want the whole world to know The Ark has been discovered and to receive that status.

And it would have to be underground, wood as it said is capable of surviving thousands of years underground - better than above ground without regular maintenance.

But Noah's wife grave and pillars of prayer first I've heard of those.

When I first heard the report I hoped it was true but it has never proven as such.

Well, since I want all the words in the New Testament to be true, I hope no such report like a clear proof of Noah's Ark or any other miraculous event is ever proven correct until Christ returns.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't believe that is the case. I don't believe He actively removes it. I believe He allows the passage of time and natural processes to obscure it, but those things can be found if you really look for them. Biblical archelogy is the best example, lots of places in the Bible were considered pure myth or fiction by academics only to be found later. I'm talking about places like Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah etc.

Right -- archeological remains of a city, including those, would not be an outright proof of God's miracles, because city ruins are commonplace, and don't prove anything miraculous.... Then there are the in-between reports, where it is not quite a proof of a miraculous event, but sorta halfway unusual....

Here's a good example:
An Ancient Middle Eastern City Destroyed by a Meteor May Have Inspired the Bible's Tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, a New Study Says

Where it isn't an outright proof of God that would convince most any skeptic God exists. But...still interesting.

But these things aren't always very definite either:
Sodom Destroyed by Meteor, Scientists Say. Biblical Archaeologists Not Convinced.

 

[miamited]

Hi @Cute Peonies

Certainly an interesting video. It has long been known that the biblical events of the flood, i.e. God's calling Noah to build the ark and the actual building of it, was surely in the area of Turkey. The beginning of mankind was surely in the area that bounds the eastern Mediterranean and Black Seas. Genesis mentions the rivers of the Tigris, Euphrates, Gihon and Pishon. We know that the Tigris and Euprates still run today and their headwaters are in the mountainous region of what is today eastern Turkey. Genesis 2:10 tells us that Eden was in the area of the four headwaters of the rivers:

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.

All of the rivers are described as running through the area of the middle east.

So, we know that the life and growing civilization of mankind upon the earth, began in the area that we today know as the middle east. Therefore, it is very likely that Noah lived in that area. That it was also in that area where he built the ark. Now, how far did the ark travel in its floating for several months on the floodwaters? That we don't know, but the account does tell us that it eventually came to rest in the area of Mount Ararat, as the video claims.

However, as far as offering actual and rock solid proof, the video doesn't make that claim. It is merely stated, at least twice, that the commentator believes it to be the 'best candidate' of places in that area where the ark may have come to rest. Certainly with all of the evidence that is claimed to be at the site, it probably is the 'best candidate' that we have found, where the ark came to rest. But is it really the place? We will never know with any absolute certainty. Thankfully, just as this commentator uses it, such archeological excavations make a wonderful conversation in which the believer can segue into an opportunity to tell the gospel.

That there is some archeological evidence that the accounts of the Scriptures are true. If that is the case, then the proclamation of the gospel, which is ultimately what the Scriptures come to, is also a truth. Personally, I prefer to use prophecy as the best proof of the truth of the Scriptures. But digging into all of the archeological proofs is also an interesting study.

The commentator mentions Ron Wyatt and I believe that this is who @Pavel Mosko is referencing in his post as someone who did have some issues with his archeological work. I agree that there were some questions regarding his work, but he spent his life's work doing biblical archeology. He also claimed to have found evidence of chariot wheels laying at the bottom of the Red Sea on a raised crossing that lays beneath the surface of the sea. The assumption being that it was this raised surface, that while still fairly deep under the surface, would have made a plausible place for the Israelites to have walked from one shoreline to another without having to clear the sea at some of its deeper parts. Of course, as with pretty much all biblical archeology, there are detractors.

God bless,
Ted

 

[The Liturgist]

We can’t really know for sure if the Ark is there until Turkey returns Mount Ararat to the Christians of Armenia, who the Turks tried to exterminate along with the Aramaic speaking Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian Christians and the Pontic Greeks in 1915.

 

[Cute Peonies]

In the last three years however, I have heard a lot of bad things about the major Christian researcher that was behind this stuff. It' was something to the affect of him doing good work initially as far as Biblical archelogy, but there was lots of circumstantial evidence suggesting faking his work, filing fraudulent claims etc.

The commentator mentions Ron Wyatt and I believe that this is who @Pavel Mosko is referencing in his post as someone who did have some issues with his archeological work. I agree that there were some questions regarding his work, but he spent his life's work doing biblical archeology. He also claimed to have found evidence of chariot wheels laying at the bottom of the Red Sea on a raised crossing that lays beneath the surface of the sea. The assumption being that it was this raised surface, that while still fairly deep under the surface, would have made a plausible place for the Israelites to have walked from one shoreline to another without having to clear the sea at some of its deeper parts. Of course, as with pretty much all biblical archeology, there are detractors.

That's sad, it gives Christianity a bad reputation. Imagine an unsaved person watching this kind of videos or reading a book only to find out that it was all fake.

Well, since I want all the words in the New Testament to be true, I hope no such report like a clear proof of Noah's Ark or any other miraculous event is ever proven correct until Christ returns.

I somehow agree with you. Too much evidence wouldn't require faith.

 

[miamited]

Hi @Cute Peonies

That's sad, it gives Christianity a bad reputation. Imagine an unsaved person watching this kind of videos or reading a book only to find out that it was all fake.

Well, it's not that it's all fake. He just had some personal issues in his life that he didn't handle very well, as I recall. You can research his work, just Google Ron Wyatt. He wasn't trained or educated in archeology and so, as is the case with many christians who get involved in research of the Scriptures, he was generally pooh-poohed as being anyone of 'intellect' in the field. That, in and of itself, does not make any of his findings wrong, but certainly suspect to those who are trained and studied in the field.

Just as when you talk about Ken Ham and his research in creation science, Ken Ham is not university trained or studied in the field and so when he proposes young earth theories, the first complaint is that he's not so trained and therefore, his work is not taken seriously. But Mr. Ham and Mr. Wyatt were men who believed that the word of God is without error and set about to offer explanations of various events that the natural science of man says are impossible. I happen to be one of those men myself.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Halbhh]

men who believed that the word of God is without error and set about to offer explanations of various events that the natural science of man says are impossible

This sentence seems to me to contradict itself in a certain way. Of course we agree as believers that God can and does do the impossible. Right?

And that -- that something is impossible naturally -- would mean it cannot be naturally explained. Right? Make sense? If we can merely explain it, then it's not seeming miracle.

Also, if you will, please see post #2 for why we cannot prove miracles to non believers.

 

[miamited]

Hi @Halbhh

This sentence seems to contradict itself. Of course God can and does do the impossible. And that -- that something isn't what people think is naturally possible -- is exactly why it cannot be explained. Right? Make sense? If we can merely explain it, then it's not seeming a miracle.

Also, if you will, please see post #2.

Oh, I agree completely that we can't 'explain' the physical workings of a miracle. However, I don't believe that means that we can't look at evidence of the effects of a miracle. No, I have no idea nor any possible explanation for 'how' God called all of the waters, whether in, on, or over the earth to produce a flood so catastrophic that it flooded the entire globe as the Scriptures tell us that it did. But, I don't think that means that I then can't find evidence of where a huge ship may have landed when the waters receded.

I can't give you any possible explanation for how Mary wound up with child. But I can look at the life and the results left behind of that child's life and know that he is the one that God sent to us.

So, doing the impossible in this case, was to flood the earth. Having the ark come to rest somewhere on the earth after the waters receded wasn't any part of that 'impossible' work of God.

God bless,
Ted

 

[HARK!]

As a kid, I recall watching a documentary movie back in 1976 or so that was recommended by my church at the time on this, linked below.

In the last three years however, I have heard a lot of bad things about the major Christian researcher that was behind this stuff. It' was something to the affect of him doing good work initially as far as Biblical archelogy, but there was lots of circumstantial evidence suggesting faking his work, filing fraudulent claims etc.

My Parents took me to see that one. I was pretty excited about it at the time.

These guys debunk that narrative with scripture, and facts:

I don't agree with everything that they say; but they certainly make a diligent effort to do their homework.

 

[miamited]

Hi @HARK!

These guys debunk that narrative with scripture, and facts:

For the record, the Scriptures do not say that the ark came to rest on the day that the waters were at their peak.

The first explanation of 'time' that the waters were on the face of the earth is at the point of 150 days. It is merely claimed that the waters flooded the earth for 150 days. Nothing about at the end of this 150 days the waters reached their peak depth. So, that's the first and likely greatest error in your teaching link. There is no Scriptural evidence that the day the ark came to rest, that it was on the same day that the waters reached their peak flood stage.

In fact, in chapter 8 where we are told about the ark coming to rest, the Scriptures immediately preceding that part of the account say, "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,...". Then it goes on to record that the ark then came to rest. So, it's actually quite obvious that the ark didn't come to rest when the waters were at their peak. "...and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. So, the Scriptures actually tell us that the ark came to rest after the waters had receded somewhat and that it came to rest 'on the mountains of Ararat. So, the Scriptures infer that it is using the name Ararat as a geographical area and not just a singular mountain peak. There is, of course, a Mount Ararat and it was likely named that way because it was in an area known as Ararat. Just as Mount Sinai is likely named such because it is in the area of the Sinai.

Your teachers express that they have no denominational attachments and so it is my guess that these are men, without the wisdom that comes from God, trying to offer an explanation that just doesn't really fit the Scriptural proofs given in the account. As I say, they proved that they didn't really know what they were talking about in their opening explanation that the ark is supposedly claimed in the Scriptures to have come to rest on the day that the flood waters were at their peak. There is no way that claim can be held true, based on the evidence of the Scriptures.

Of course, one is free to choose who they will follow in teaching them the truth of God. So, I'd just caution you using such a silly statement regarding this teaching that you're listening to as, 'debunk that narrative with scripture, and facts'. No, they absolutely do not!

God bless,
Ted

 

[HARK!]

Of course, one is free to choose who they will follow in teaching them the truth of God. So, I'd just caution you using such a silly statement regarding this teaching that you're listening to as, 'debunk that narrative with scripture, and facts'. No, they absolutely do not!

Did you watch the whole video? They made multiple arguments, from multiple angles.

 

[HARK!]

The first explanation of 'time' that the waters were on the face of the earth is at the point of 150 days. It is merely claimed that the waters flooded the earth for 150 days.

They said it. You heard it; and they gave it to you in writing:

(CLV) Gn 7:24
The waters had the mastery over the earth for a hundred fifty days.

 

[HARK!]