It is only natural for explorers and speculators to single out the highest peak in the region. However, the Scriptures do not specify that God arranged for the ark to come to rest on the very top of Mount Ararat, which is today a frigid and lofty mountain peak nearly three miles above sea level. Remember, Noah and his family lived aboard the ark for several months after it landed. (Genesis 8:4, 5) It also seems unlikely that after disembarking, they and the many animals aboard had to climb down from a towering summit like mountaineers. Perhaps, then, the terrain where the ark landed was more accessible than some modern-day explorers imagine, yet still high enough to fit the description at Genesis 8:4, 5. And regardless of where the ark landed in the Ararat region, might it not have vanished centuries ago because of decay and scavenging?
Furthermore, there is something questionable in the claims that publicists sometimes make about the religious importance of their explorations. The organizer of one expedition claimed that finding the ark “will confirm the faith of millions . . . and many will be brought to faith.” At a news conference in 2004, he said that finding the ark would be “the greatest event since the resurrection of Christ.” His exploration was later canceled.
Would finding Noah’s ark really confirm and even create faith? The Bible shows that genuine faith does not depend on objects we can see and touch. (2 Corinthians 5:7) Some people are so skeptical that they insist that only physical evidence would enable them to put faith in certain Bible accounts. The truth is, though, that for such individuals no amount of evidence would produce faith. Jesus himself said that some people simply cannot be convinced of spiritual truths—even if they should see someone rise from the dead!—Luke 16:31
On the other hand, genuine faith is not credulity; it is based on solid evidence. (Hebrews 11:1) Is there solid evidence that can help reasonable people today to put faith in the Bible account about the Flood? Indeed, there is. Jesus Christ plainly stated: “Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived.” (Luke 17:26, 27) This is the best evidence possible. Why?
Jesus was in heaven before he came to the earth. (John 8:58) He watched the building of the ark; he saw the Flood. Now, which evidence seems more convincing to you? The real eyewitness testimony of One who proved perfectly reliable and who gave proof of being the Son of God? Or the dim possibility of explorers finding some ancient pieces of wood on a frozen mountaintop? When considered from that standpoint, the evidence that Noah’s ark existed is already overwhelming.
Claims that remains of the ark have been found are as yet unconfirmed.
However evidence proves that there truly was a global deluge?
Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously. Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood. Others, however, favor explanations for the death of these animals that do not involve an earth-wide catastrophe. Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains.
No, none at all. Noah's flood could not have happened as described in Genesis and anyone who tells you it did is lying to you and knows nothing about science or engineering.
A timber structure the size mentioned in the bible would be an engineering imposibility..it could not support its own weight let alone the weight of its zoological cargo..
No real evidence. A Noah's Ark believer would say 'Look at all the animals in the world! How do you think they were saved in the flood?' Or point to the Grand Canyon and say it was caused by the waters draining away. But those are specious arguments. There's no REAL evidence.
There is a theory that the story of the flood in Genesis is copied from a similar flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a much older writing from Sumer (Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq). First of all, the stories ARE suspiciously similar. But beside that, the only river in the area of Israel is the Jordan, which is just a trickle, really, and doesn't flood. In Sumer they have the Tigress and Euphrates, might rivers that DO cause serious floods from time to time. The idea being that anyone in modern-day Israel (the Holy Land, the Levant) never saw a flood! Sumeranians would have seen seriously bad ones every so many years.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
No. Not to mention it would be impossible to fit 2 of every single animal on a boat that size (of any size really).
It is only natural for explorers and speculators to single out the highest peak in the region. However, the Scriptures do not specify that God arranged for the ark to come to rest on the very top of Mount Ararat, which is today a frigid and lofty mountain peak nearly three miles above sea level. Remember, Noah and his family lived aboard the ark for several months after it landed. (Genesis 8:4, 5) It also seems unlikely that after disembarking, they and the many animals aboard had to climb down from a towering summit like mountaineers. Perhaps, then, the terrain where the ark landed was more accessible than some modern-day explorers imagine, yet still high enough to fit the description at Genesis 8:4, 5. And regardless of where the ark landed in the Ararat region, might it not have vanished centuries ago because of decay and scavenging?
Furthermore, there is something questionable in the claims that publicists sometimes make about the religious importance of their explorations. The organizer of one expedition claimed that finding the ark “will confirm the faith of millions . . . and many will be brought to faith.” At a news conference in 2004, he said that finding the ark would be “the greatest event since the resurrection of Christ.” His exploration was later canceled.
Would finding Noah’s ark really confirm and even create faith? The Bible shows that genuine faith does not depend on objects we can see and touch. (2 Corinthians 5:7) Some people are so skeptical that they insist that only physical evidence would enable them to put faith in certain Bible accounts. The truth is, though, that for such individuals no amount of evidence would produce faith. Jesus himself said that some people simply cannot be convinced of spiritual truths—even if they should see someone rise from the dead!—Luke 16:31
On the other hand, genuine faith is not credulity; it is based on solid evidence. (Hebrews 11:1) Is there solid evidence that can help reasonable people today to put faith in the Bible account about the Flood? Indeed, there is. Jesus Christ plainly stated: “Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived.” (Luke 17:26, 27) This is the best evidence possible. Why?
Jesus was in heaven before he came to the earth. (John 8:58) He watched the building of the ark; he saw the Flood. Now, which evidence seems more convincing to you? The real eyewitness testimony of One who proved perfectly reliable and who gave proof of being the Son of God? Or the dim possibility of explorers finding some ancient pieces of wood on a frozen mountaintop? When considered from that standpoint, the evidence that Noah’s ark existed is already overwhelming.
Claims that remains of the ark have been found are as yet unconfirmed.
However evidence proves that there truly was a global deluge?
Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously. Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood. Others, however, favor explanations for the death of these animals that do not involve an earth-wide catastrophe. Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains.
No. The hard of thinking point to a rock formation in Turkey but they are talking rubbish. It is volcanic not man-made.
No, none at all. Noah's flood could not have happened as described in Genesis and anyone who tells you it did is lying to you and knows nothing about science or engineering.
If you think to call God a liar then no amount of evidence will persuade you to the truth.
The Virgin Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. It is good to honor her daily by carefully reciting her angelic psalter.
A timber structure the size mentioned in the bible would be an engineering imposibility..it could not support its own weight let alone the weight of its zoological cargo..
Is it possible to have been built? Yes. Does the story ultimately make sense? No.
No real evidence. A Noah's Ark believer would say 'Look at all the animals in the world! How do you think they were saved in the flood?' Or point to the Grand Canyon and say it was caused by the waters draining away. But those are specious arguments. There's no REAL evidence.
There is a theory that the story of the flood in Genesis is copied from a similar flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a much older writing from Sumer (Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq). First of all, the stories ARE suspiciously similar. But beside that, the only river in the area of Israel is the Jordan, which is just a trickle, really, and doesn't flood. In Sumer they have the Tigress and Euphrates, might rivers that DO cause serious floods from time to time. The idea being that anyone in modern-day Israel (the Holy Land, the Levant) never saw a flood! Sumeranians would have seen seriously bad ones every so many years.