Noah's Ark in Iran?

Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) ^ | July 19, 2006 | Rick Lanser, M.Div.

[Sopater]

This article was first published in the July 2006 ABR Electronic Newsletter.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. – Genesis 11:1–2 (KJV)

The Media Blitz

Since mid-June, 2006 there has been a flurry of reports in the media and on the Internet about the possible discovery of Noah's Ark on a mountain in northern Iran. Robert ("Bob") Cornuke, who has previously claimed to have found such notable things as the true Mount Sinai, the place of Paul's shipwreck off the coast of Malta, and the location of the Ark of the Covenant, has now focused on what is perhaps the biggest target of all, both literally and figuratively – Noah's Ark.

In brief, on a mountain known locally as Takht-e Suleiman in the Elborz range of northern Iran, Cornuke and his team found an "unusual object" at the 13,120-foot elevation which is currently (7/16/06) described on his website (http://www.baseinstitute.org/noah.html) as "dark rock with an uncanny beam-like appearance in several places," having a texture and color unique to the area, and of the approximate dimensions of Noah's Ark. Cornuke adds that some samples were tested by an independent lab and "showed signs of petrified wood," though what those signs were has not yet been announced, and these signs evidently did not apply to the entire object. There was additionally a second finding of wood near the summit that may be from a shrine, reportedly dated to 500 years old.

[snip] - cut to chase...

Conclusions

For the above and other reasons which space does not allow me to deal with, it appears that Bob Cornuke's "filters" have prevented him from dealing fairly with much information which does not fit into his "Ark in Iran" hypothesis. When such data is considered, it raises great doubt that he has found anything related to Noah's Ark on Takht-e Suleiman. I would love to see his find hold up to close scrutiny so it can be used as a witness to the world of the trustworthiness of the Bible, but if I – who, as a brother in Christ, am "on his team" – can come up with this many problems in identifying the find on Mount Suleiman with the Ark, we can be sure that an unfriendly, secular world full of dyed-in-the-wool skeptics will find many more reasons to reject it. The best I think he can hope for is that many will want to hear his story as an adventure tale – but that may be enough for him, an expected benefit of the aggressive promotion of the site at the beginning. I just hope that in view of the many problems that have come to light, he presents his audiences with the FULL story, warts and all.

[Sopater]

Now, that would be impressive.

Agreed.

[blowfish]

Thanks for pointing out my lack of understanding of what "credible science" is.

You're welcome. The discussion of the 'hypersonic jets of water' and the complete avoidance of the lack of geologic evidence for a recent inundation of the world were the real tipoffs.

As for examples of good discussions of radioactive decay, look on the net.

[Dog Gone]

Defending Genesis as literal truth is a pretty hard challenge for any Christian. I no longer do it.

I can no longer even argue that the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt. There's not a shred of credible evidence to support it, and the Egyptians documented everything. And the timing is all wrong. Their Golden Age occurred during the time when they were reported to be brought to their knees by Moses and the ten plagues. It just never happened.

Once I realized that, it shook my faith. I mean, if that's not true, what else is not true?

But the bottom line is that Christianity is not based, nor either passes or fails, on the prehistoric accounts in the books contained in the bible. What does it matter whether there was a Noah's Flood or not? It doesn't.

There was no Noah's Ark. Not in the sense that it's being sought by the ark hunters. The story may have its origins in some local event, but the account was never recorded in the book of Genesis until a thousand years later. It's like King Arthur or Robin Hood. The account was not recorded until the story got retold enough times to get really good.

That's my opinion, and everyone else's mileage may vary.

[Dog Gone]

That's my best guess for the source of the Gilgamesh and Noah epics. An early civilization faced a catastrophic flood. And there definitely was a catastrophic flood involving the Black Sea.

The story got more dramatic with each succeeding generation.

[11B40]

Check out Wyatt Archeology. It would seem the ark is in Turkey. Pretty convincing findings. I believe it is the real deal.

[RJS1950]

Yeah, you've got a point. ;)

[Sopater]

Defending Genesis as literal truth is a pretty hard challenge for any Christian. I no longer do it.

Absolutely. However, its not because the evidence doesn't support it, its because those who wish for it not to be true have a very loud and forceful voice. They attempt to tear down our beliefs while they prop up their own. The evidence that is presented doesn't support beliefs unless you first assume that the bible is not true. It actaully takes just as much faith (if not more) to blelieve the stories that are put forth by those that wish to destroy the truth of Genesis.

I can no longer even argue that the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt. There's not a shred of credible evidence to support it, and the Egyptians documented everything.

Contraire: Wikipedia "Exodus Decoded" and Archaeology uncovers the history of the land of Rameses

Once I realized that, it shook my faith. I mean, if that's not true, what else is not true?

You didn't realize this, you were convinced of this. Lack of evidence never proves anything. I'm sorry that you were so easily convinced that your faith was without basis, but it's simply not true. However, if we require proof in order to believe, then its not really faith. I don't say this as an excuse to not look for answers or truth, only to point out that in the absence of evidence, faith must fill the void. There is no evidence that proves many of things that scientists try to put forth as an alternative explaination for things, so it too is based on faith.

But the bottom line is that Christianity is not based, nor either passes or fails, on the prehistoric accounts in the books contained in the bible. What does it matter whether there was a Noah's Flood or not? It doesn't.

Jesus quoted from the OT extensively, including Genesis. The danger that I see in believing this statement is, how do you know where to stop? How do you know what is true and what is a lie in the bible? You reduce the Christian faith to nothing more than any other faith on the planet. For Christianity to have any real meaning, we must put our faith in the revealed truth that God has given us through His word.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

-2 Timothy 3:16-17

I pray that you reconsider your position on these issues. Don't put your faith in the fallible wisdom of men. Apologetics can be a dangerous game for Christians. It forces us to try and take the illogical and miraculous aspects of a God who operates outside of our physical and spectural limitations and then somehow logically defend our faith in His existance. The beauty of it all is that it is just as impossible to ligically defend the belief that He does not exist. Thankfully, we have His inspired word, and all of the evidence that does exist, supports His word, regardless of what others tell you.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

-Romans 1:20

God bless you, Dog Gone.

[Dog Gone]

Well, all I can tell you is that I'm still wrestling with it. I have trouble believing God would ask us to disregard physical evidence and believe an alternative explanation. I think it should all make sense, and where faith is required to accept a truth, so be it.

I do think Santorini was the pillar of fire by night and pillar of cloud by day. That makes perfect sense, except that it doesn't from an Egyptian point of reference. They would have followed that directly into the sea.

It does make sense if they were actually in Iraq or Saudi Arabia. That direction would lead them toward Canaan.

But, in order to believe that, one has to believe that not every word in the Bible is historically accurate. And that's kinda where I'm at. It's a slippery slope, I know, when one doesn't believe that Noah's Flood was a global event, or that the Hebrews didn't do their exodus from Egypt.

Yet, I think I can believe that the themes and message of the Bible is valid, even if some of the accounts aren't accurate. Nobody argues, for example, that the book of Job really describes real-time events. He probably existed, and he probably went through some tough times, but his story was made into a parable.

Anyway, thanks for the links which I read. My mind is not settled on this issue, but it might not ever be.

[G Larry]

The next Ark in Iran will require more heat shielding.

[beepbeepitsme]

"The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine?" Judith Hayes