Dr. Norman Geisler: Noah's Ark Found???

[Philip]

IF true, incredibly cool! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A7aXIL1M_KU

[Philip]

I posted the above mostly because of the stature of Dr. Norman Geisler, one of the world's most important and respected evangelical theologians. Norm is renowned for his methodical sifting of evidences and various assertions. He undoubtedly believes there is something to the possibility that the Ark has been found, and would NEVER risk being associated with silly pseudo evidences or someone simply trying to sell a book. One thing is certain, IF a massive, human-built wooden structure exists, dating to the correct time (4,700 years or so), in close proximity to the area the Bible says it came to rest, that is 12,000 feet up, well above any treeline, what other possible explanation could account for it?

[Silvertusk]

Aliens.

[Philip]

Silver: Aliens.

Well, you know, other than THAT.

Yep, they must have thought: "Well, even though we have the technology to travel to far away star systems, let's go old school in human history and build a massive boat on top of this mountain."

Seriously, however, I was thinking, let's say the Ark indeed is up there and even the animal holding and cage areas were revealed - you know that it would nonetheless be explained away by unbelievers - yes, by aliens and whatever other nonsense. And the chattering masses would STILL refuse to connect it to Jesus and Christianity. I see that with The Shroud - say you could authenticate (to the satisfaction of most doubters) that it is NOT a faked artifact and the image was miraculously produced - people would still deny it to have a connection to Christ. (Luke 16:31)

[bippy123]

Wow, I'm chomping at the bits to go through this link Philip , been busy with my new job as an uber driver, little slow today, but wouldn't it be great if This is really the ark.

[DBowling]

I would also be extremely excited if Noah's Ark were to be found, however here is a word of caution from the Associates for Biblical Research web site.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... px#Article

I'll be very interested to see where this goes.

In Christ

[Philip]

DBowling, there are problems with the linked site and the researcher/writer's assertions:

1) He's all hung up on NAMI and it's lack of endorsement of the supposed Ark finding Geisler refers to. OK, so it doesn't correspond to the historic site reports - what if such reports weren't true or were mistaken, as to the precise site?

Stated in the link: "I'm also concerned that Dr. Geisler, a premier apologist but not truly knowledgeable about the ongoing search for Noah's Ark, has become another person taken in by the fraud, and due to his academic stature will draw others into its web as well."

No, Norm is not an archaeologist. But he's also no fool! He well knows the stakes for ending up looking like a fool, the resulting damage to his ministry, his school, would be incalculable. So, I don't think it's like someone brought him an old piece of wood and said, "Hey, Norm, this is an actual piece of THE Cross." Norm: "Golly, let's call the major networks, get some closeup shots of it with our school logo in the background." Yeah, right!

More: "When you have film and photos (unverified as to the actual context) it is difficult to judge what you are actually seeing. They also have assembled a support team with Williams and unidentified others who will seem to confirm the discovery as Noah's Ark. Of course, they will say it might not be the Ark, but they will also say what else could it be, leaving the audience to draw the only conclusion the film. photos, and collective testimony permits."

This is speculation and predetermining, without having personally sifted the presented evidences, that this is only a fraud.

More: "This is largely a lay audience, untrained in discerning such things, and because it is sponsored by the seminary and a prelude to the apologetics conference, they will already be influenced to believe it (why would SES allow a group to bring false data?)."

Again, the researcher who wrote this does NOT know whether or not the data is false - as how COULD he? He's speculating.

More: "Independent confirmation must be made, and since this still has not been done, although five whole years have passed since NAMI first popularized the site, the jury is still out."

I agree.

More: "In the final analysis, the biggest problem of all is this: the American Ark research team received reports which indicated that local eyewitnesses observed Parasut building a staged Ark site, using timbers scavenged from an ancient shipwreck. The Kurdish workers at the site were told they were building a set for a movie about the Ark, but Parasut instead presented it to NAMI as the genuine article."

Hate to tell this guy, but his mind is already made up and now he's cherrypicking info to discredit what he hasn't personally examined. Alluding to "received reports" is no better than an attempt to use hearsay about something unverifiable (the supposed reports) to buttress your assertions. And so, he repeats secondhand, unverified reports and then uses them as evidences that a fraud has been committed. That, my friends, is not the way facts are acquired and then disseminated. And this fellow is worried that Norm and co. have been taken in by false reports? Reports unverified to actually be false?

More: "Those making these reports are the true eyewitnesses whose stories need to be carefully checked out, but they have hesitated coming forth because of intimidation by those with a lot to lose if the fraud becomes widely known."

Again, unsubstantiated allegations reported as supposed fact. And he's making this accusation based upon what he calls "true eyewitnesses," but yet while also acknowledging that these reports come problem people "whose stories need to be carefully checked out." You see the problem?

A few impressions of the researcher's linked comments: 1) YES, extreme caution SHOULD be taken with this supposed evidence. 2) By all means, qualified individuals should be involved - making sure that NO one on such a team is there with an agenda, whether to prove OR disprove that this is indeed the Ark. 3) It MIGHT be that this researcher has been following this story so long, personally delving into "all things Ark," for so long, that he can't accept that the evidences might be authentic. 4) The researcher puts FAR too much stock in "reports" that he cannot authenticate - and yet he uses them to attack the credibility of others that he wants to have careful scrutiny - seems he should follow his own advice on that. 5) The researcher must think Norman Geisler is an idiot who just fell off of the turnip truck. Norm certainly is extremely sensitive to the pitfalls of associating his name with this discovery. He also knows how it could greatly harm both his and other Christians' witness. I can guarantee you that Norman Geisler is not naive and also that A) he is NOT using this for influence, gain of his school, publicity, etc. B) I'm pretty sure that Norm has many qualified Christian academics advising him on this evidence. He's well aware of the risks of drawing attention to this, and I can guarantee you that he is not taking ONLY the words of the supposed discoverers of whatever is up there.

I really don't know what might be up there. But IF there is a massive, boat-like object at 12,000 feet, with timber proven to date out to the correct time period, that is where the Bible says it would be - well, what other thing COULD it be? If it floats, walks like a duck, etc. It's not just enough to say it's not the Ark - it must be explained away and proven to not be. I had long thought that any timber would have, long ago, rotted. However, wood petrifies, constant cold and ice would preserve it. Ship fragments in WATER, from 2,000 years ago, have been found. So ...

[DBowling]

DBowling, there are problems with the linked site and the researcher/writer's assertions:

Philip, I don't necessarily agree with everything at the linked site. I have tremendous respect for Dr. Geisler. However, I do agree with the premise that we must proceed with caution until we know all the facts. I've been down this road before. Excitement that Noah's Ark had been found, and then the cold splash of reality when I discovered that everything wasn't what it appeared to be at first.

The piece of data that concerns me most is the location of the find, 12,000 feet up Mt Ararat. Scripture nowhere claims that the ark landed near the summit or even on Mount Ararat. Rather Scripture claims that the ark landed somewhere in the mountains of Ararat which is a large geographical area. It wasn't until the 13th century, 4200 years after the flood, that "Mount Ararat" stories involving Noah's Ark began to appear.

Like I said earlier, I'm very interested to see where this goes, but I am a bit skeptical of an archaeological find that lines up more closely with 13th century legend than with the location that Scripture actually gives.

I pretty much agree with what Rich Deem says in this article at our home site.
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/n ... found.html

In Christ

[Philip]

DB, thanks for sharing. I don't have a dog in this "fight" over the truth of the matter. But I was trying to hold the linked researcher to his own standards. And, as Rich pondered, do locals who want to be hired in ongoing Ark expeditions want a "found" ark or one that will require ongoing expedition money flowing there? The hearsay amongst the locals can cut two ways. And was the "finder" of the site not wanting complete control over it - perhaps why he's been highly selective over this?

As for Geisler, surely he is VERY well informed about these issues and has looked into it very carefully - or has people he trust who have advised him. This is a very cautious and astute man. He well knows the possibilities and stakes - both good and bad. I find it incredibly hard to believe he has allowed some conman faker to have sucked him into his orbit. Obviously, IF the data merits further analysis, visits to the site, more testing, other experts, then he better have something to show for it. If the site and coordinates are now unmistakably known, IF further access is available, I would expect to see that being planned.

NOW the heat has to be on to substantiate what has been asserted. One huge problem is likely that, due to the cost of mounting an additional expedition to Turkey, and due to the fact that the scientific community largely sees this as some religious "snipe hunt," all these make getting to the bottom of this a challenge. Also, clearly, from a Scriptural standpoint, Geisler sees no problem with the site location - even if it's not the traditional one(s). I think Rich's speculation that the ark landed at a much lower elevation and was cut up - well, is just that.

Interestingly, the Quran holds that the Ark landed on a different (?) mountain than where the Bible says:

Allah said in Quran11:44" And it was said, "O earth, swallow your water, and O sky, withhold [your rain]." And the water subsided, and the matter was accomplished, and the ship came to rest on the [mountain of] Judiyy. And it was said, "Away with the wrongdoing people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Judi

Mt. Judi looks to be approximately 200 miles from Mt. Ararat. So, is this one reason why Turkey has been very sensitive about those looking for the Ark? While the country's Muslim leaders may THINK that the Quran location is the correct one, they probably are at least a bit nervous that it might be found where the Bible says it is, instead. Of course, every expedition there probably has brought a lot of badly needed local money.

[Kurieuo]

I'd love for it to be true, but this place has been known about about quite a number of years.
And now, it's only being given some recognition and tested..? Something seems amiss there.
Too much secrecy and the like it feels.

Although that Geisler is involved raises my eyebrows too.

I guess, right now, it's a matter of wait and see.

[Philip]

Yes, Kurieuo, I think that's exactly where we are. Unfortunately, related to this mystery, it seems ark news is excruciatingly slow to develop.

Another thought is, how would a supposed faker have the ability to produce a piece of wood at JUST the right age? What, did he secretly keep submitting various pieces to some lab until he knew he had one the correct age? Did he just get LUCKY? Truthfully, that he could find ANY piece of wood that is 4,800 years old, from ANYWHERE, would be most remarkable. And what lab would keep such past tests (as a piece of wood with just the right age was searched for) a secret? That someone has been able to produce just one piece of wood so old is incredible. I find getting that lucky is equally unbelievable!

[DBowling]

I really don't know what might be up there. But IF there is a massive, boat-like object at 12,000 feet, with timber proven to date out to the correct time period, that is where the Bible says it would be - well, what other thing COULD it be? If it floats, walks like a duck, etc. It's not just enough to say it's not the Ark - it must be explained away and proven to not be. I had long thought that any timber would have, long ago, rotted. However, wood petrifies, constant cold and ice would preserve it. Ship fragments in WATER, from 2,000 years ago, have been found. So ...

As I mentioned above, this discovery is not where the Bible says it would be. The Bible does not place the ark on Mount Ararat. The Bible places the ark in the mountains of Ararat. Now yes, Mount Ararat is part of the mountain range of Ararat, but to say that the Bible places the ark on Mount Ararat is not an accurate statement.

The showstopper for me is the 12,000 foot elevation. This is simply a non-credible elevation for the final resting point for the ark.

So the evidence is about 50/50 for me.
1. The positives are the age of the wood and the support of Dr. Geisler.
2. The negatives for me are the location of the find. The Bible does not specify Mount Ararat as the resting place of the ark, and there is no supporting evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that a 12,000 foot elevation is even a possible altitude for the ark.

So using your duck analogy. It may walk like a duck (the age of the wood), but it barks like a dog (altitude of 12,000 feet), so I need more information before I can draw any conclusions about this discovery with confidence.

In Christ

[Philip]

DBowling: As I mentioned above, this discovery is not where the Bible says it would be. The Bible does not place the ark on Mount Ararat. The Bible places the ark in the mountains of Ararat. Now yes, Mount Ararat is part of the mountain range of Ararat, but to say that the Bible places the ark on Mount Ararat is not an accurate statement.

If I told you that, "I had some gold and I hid it within the borders of a certain city block," but then you later found it in the attic of a certain house, or you found it buried in the backyard, does this mean my state is incorrect? Absolutely NOT! As Mt. Ararat most certainly is in "the mountains of Ararat," means finding it on Mt. Ararat would make such a discover entirely within the bounds of proving the Scripture true. So, this shouldn't be an objection.

DBowling: The showstopper for me is the 12,000 foot elevation. This is simply a non-credible elevation for the final resting point for the ark.

WHY???!!! A mountain is not like a perfectly conical water-dispenser paper cup, as if the ark would lower to the base as the water receded. No, any bowl-like depressions or indentions that the ark came to rest against would trap it. Also, would not peaks and high places be where the water first receded to reveal - and not only reveal, but become a physical impasse that might trap the ark? As BEFORE the water receded, the ark would have likely floated above and beyond all obstacles. This is an obvious possibility. I don't see the objection as credible, OTHER THAN, people don't like the indicated site - due to supposed historical accounts or whatever else (which I do see might give pause but not rule out).

While I don't know what to think about the supposed site or asserted find (jury's out - stay tuned). I definitely don't think the above mentioned things discount the POSSIBILITY of the supposed find. Which leads me to the most interesting aspect of this issue. If - IF God has preserved and protected the Ark, undoubtedly it would be as an incredibly powerful witness to the truth of Scripture, and that He has miraculously preserved it as a testament to the present generation - one well on it's way to the very same depths of evil as the one in Noah's day. And IF the Ark still exists and has been preserved, wasn't cut up for firewood in Noah's day, then up high, remote, inaccessible, preserved from organisms, in ice and cold - that is EXACTLY where I WOULD think it would be. So, it's all very fascinating, that the world's media are still reporting on the reports first made under Mose's byline, thousands of years ago. When I think of the incredible things of God, well, I expect to be amazed with anything He touches. And so, I wonder.

[DBowling]

DBowling: As I mentioned above, this discovery is not where the Bible says it would be. The Bible does not place the ark on Mount Ararat. The Bible places the ark in the mountains of Ararat. Now yes, Mount Ararat is part of the mountain range of Ararat, but to say that the Bible places the ark on Mount Ararat is not an accurate statement.

If I told you that, "I had some gold and I hid it within the borders of a certain city block," but then you later found it in the attic of a certain house, or you found it buried in the backyard, does this mean my state is incorrect? Absolutely NOT! As Mt. Ararat most certainly is in "the mountains of Ararat," means finding it on Mt. Ararat would make such a discover entirely within the bounds of proving the Scripture true. So, this shouldn't be an objection.

Ok... I guess I'm good for a little more back and forth on this

Simple question...
Do you believe this is an accurate statement?
"The Bible says that Noah's Ark landed on Mount Ararat"

The answer is no... the Bible does not say that.
It is 13th century legend that places Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat.

Maybe the 13th century legend is true. Maybe it's not. I can't claim to know for sure.
But as we evaluate the evidence surrounding this find, it is important to distinguish between what authoritative Scripture asserts and what man made legend and tradition claim.

BTW... Finding the ark on Mount Ararat is not a show stopper for me because as we both acknowledge, Mount Ararat does lie within the broad perimeter of the Biblical claim that the ark came to rest somewhere in the mountains of Ararat. However, the late date for the association of the Ark with the specific location of Mount Ararat does make it improbable from my perspective.

DBowling: The showstopper for me is the 12,000 foot elevation. This is simply a non-credible elevation for the final resting point for the ark.

WHY???!!!

It's simple... How does an ark which floats on water reach an altitude of over 2 miles above the ground?

In his site, Rich Deem has done an excellent job of presenting the Biblical data to show that the scope of the Biblical Flood comes nowhere close to providing enough water for the ark to reach an altitude of 12,000 feet.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Add to that the total lack of any archaeological or geological evidence that the water level in Turkey and Mesopotamia came anywhere close to 12,000 feet during the time of Noah's Flood (around 3000 BC).

According to the Biblical, historical, and scientific data we have available to us today, the water level during Noah's Flood never rose high enough for the the ark to reach an altitude of 12,000 feet.

So if Noah's Ark could never have reached an altitude of 12,000 feet. Then any discovery at 12,000 feet is not consistent with a potential landing site for Noah's ark.

So in a nutshell
1. Mount Ararat - Possible but improbable IMHO given the 13th century date for the association of Noah's Ark with Mount Ararat.
2. 12,000 feet - A showstopper. The water level in Turkey and Mesopotamia during Noah's Flood never came anywhere close to an altitude of 12,000 feet.

In Christ

[Philip]

OK, HOW high the water might have come is speculation.

But one thing is wrong with your figures. It's not mere height above sea level we're talking about, but the differential between the Alluvial Plain (1,000 meters/3280 feet) and the site location (about 12,000 feet). This means that the site is not over two miles high, but rather approximately 8,720 feet, or 1.65 miles over the PLAIN.