HAS Noah's Ark Been Found? Dr. Norman Geisler Believed So!

[Philip]

Dr. Norman Geisler believed that there is tremendous evidences to beliving Noah's Ark has been found.

As I was thinking about theologian Norman Geisler's recent passing, I was also thinking about his claim of a few years ago, that he believed Noah's Ark had been found and he linked from his website to evidence that the Ark of Noah has been found, along with sufficient documentation and evidence to support it. At the time, I was really shocked, because I well knew Geisler to be the most careful and logical person I have ever read as to how committed he was to handling and evaluating truth claims of ANYTHING! I also realized that he would never have put forth this evidence without having thoroughly have consulted with archaeological and other experts qualified to evaluate the evidences. And Geisler's great caution also was very careful as he knew that his worldwide credibility as a reknowned theologian, apologist, and his ministry, school, and legacy could potentially and needlessly be tainted if the claims about the ark's discovery turned out to be just a bunch of baloney.

So, below are the links to the impressive evidences and some video of the site. The evidence is incredible in multiple ways - a massive ship-like structure with huge beams of wood, multi-roomed / chambered, dating correctly to the time of Noah, sitting far about the treeline in ice, rocks and snow, sitting precisely where the Bible says it landed. There would be now way to transport wood of such size to a place that is difficult and dangerous even for individual climbers. There is no place or season in which such a thing could be constructed up there. The locals have a long oral tradition that the ark is there and that is has been visited by many over the centuries. It is in Muslim Turkey and the exact location is not widely known - it's very difficult to get to. And access is severely restricted by the Turks.

The evidence links:

This first page links from Geisler's website (https://normangeisler.com/category/arch ... chaeology/) - it begins with two pages of a bullet point summation of the evidences. There are also photos and video of the site and interior. And there is also a response to a critique of the claims: http://arkapology.com/

Note, that there were competing teams to find the ark. And one of the most vocal critics is a prominent young earther, Dr. Randall Price - and his objections are addressed. Realize that young earth scientists don't agree with dates commonly suggested for the time of Noah - hence a good bit of Price's objection.

Anyway, hope you guys enjoy reading through this.

[DBowling]

Let me start by saying that I was sad to hear of Geisler's passing.
He was one of my favorite current theologians.
Geisler had a profound impact on my understanding of Scripture, and he was a great servant of Jesus.

Regarding Noah's Ark.
I remember sharing my thoughts on this topic a few years ago.
Instead of rehashing comments I have made previously, I will provide a link to the thread from 2015...
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... deef6a814e

In Christ

[Philip]

LOL, DB - I had forgotten about that discussion. But none of that explains how a massive, multi-roomed wooden structure, with a bow, of the right age just happens to sit within the narrow geographic area the Bible states. It would be impossible to build something like that, or for ancients to have drug such massive timbers up there. Yes, the Deem article would seem to poke a big leak in the boat, so to speak. All I know is, Geisler had access to the very same info and speculation, and he did not frivolously believe this - he undoubtedly consulted with many qualified people. So, very interesting that he believed it to be fact.

[Philip]

No one can speculate upon what a huge, boat-shaped object, with massive timbers dating to the time of Noah, encrusted in ice and rocks, far above the treeline, withing the area the Bible says the Ark came to rest - well, what could it be? It would be impossible to build something of that size, or to get the huge timbers up there.

So, I'm wondering, based upon Rich Deem's article, what might credibly reconcile the Biblical texts, with this object? Is there perhaps an explanation that doesn't rule out it is the ark? I can guarantee you that Geisler well knows those texts about where the ark came to rest, the mountaintops, etc. And yet he still somehow reconciled it. But he apparently didn't talk a lot about or debate it. Thoughts?

[DBowling]

No one can speculate upon what a huge, boat-shaped object, with massive timbers dating to the time of Noah, encrusted in ice and rocks, far above the treeline, withing the area the Bible says the Ark came to rest - well, what could it be? It would be impossible to build something of that size, or to get the huge timbers up there.

So, I'm wondering, based upon Rich Deem's article, what might credibly reconcile the Biblical texts, with this object? Is there perhaps an explanation that doesn't rule out it is the ark? I can guarantee you that Geisler well knows those texts about where the ark came to rest, the mountaintops, etc. And yet he still somehow reconciled it. But he apparently didn't talk a lot about or debate it. Thoughts?

I don't think it is possible to reconcile Geisler's position with Deem's position for the simple reason that Geisler believed in a Global Flood while Deem believes that Scripture teaches that Noah's Flood was a Local Flood.

The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

I do not usually quote AIG in my posts, but I think it is significant that an organization that supports the Young Earth/Global Flood tradition has the following to say regarding the NAMI discovery
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... een-found/

Although we would be delighted if the Ark had actually been found, this “discovery” is likely a hoax. This is not to accuse NAMI of perpetrating the hoax, but there is a real possibility that they were victims of a fraud enacted by a Kurdish man called Paraşut.
Dr. Randall Price and Dr. Don Patton were the experts invited to be part of the expedition, but they were never permitted to see the site and were soon dropped from the team. They have documented many of the inconsistencies between what was reported and what they found in their research. For example, pictures of an alleged room in the Ark provided by Paraşut show straw, cobwebs, and a feed bowl, each in very good condition. The problem with these images is that Paraşut has claimed that the site is frequently flooded, which was his reason for not taking the expedition there in the summer months. Would a site that endured regular flooding remain in good shape for millennia?
They also interviewed a Kurdish worker who claimed to have been one of several people hired by Paraşut to construct “movie sets” on the mountain.

[Philip]

DB: I do not usually quote AIG in my posts, but I think it is significant that an organization that supports the Young Earth/Global Flood tradition has the following to say regarding the NAMI discovery
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... een-found/

Although we would be delighted if the Ark had actually been found, this “discovery” is likely a hoax. This is not to accuse NAMI of perpetrating the hoax, but there is a real possibility that they were victims of a fraud enacted by a Kurdish man called Paraşut.
Dr. Randall Price and Dr. Don Patton were the experts invited to be part of the expedition, but they were never permitted to see the site and were soon dropped from the team. They have documented many of the inconsistencies between what was reported and what they found in their research. For example, pictures of an alleged room in the Ark provided by Paraşut show straw, cobwebs, and a feed bowl, each in very good condition. The problem with these images is that Paraşut has claimed that the site is frequently flooded, which was his reason for not taking the expedition there in the summer months. Would a site that endured regular flooding remain in good shape for millennia?
They also interviewed a Kurdish worker who claimed to have been one of several people hired by Paraşut to construct “movie sets” on the mountain.

DB, did you read the linked response to AIG / Price's assertions?

[DBowling]

DB: I do not usually quote AIG in my posts, but I think it is significant that an organization that supports the Young Earth/Global Flood tradition has the following to say regarding the NAMI discovery
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... een-found/

Although we would be delighted if the Ark had actually been found, this “discovery” is likely a hoax. This is not to accuse NAMI of perpetrating the hoax, but there is a real possibility that they were victims of a fraud enacted by a Kurdish man called Paraşut.
Dr. Randall Price and Dr. Don Patton were the experts invited to be part of the expedition, but they were never permitted to see the site and were soon dropped from the team. They have documented many of the inconsistencies between what was reported and what they found in their research. For example, pictures of an alleged room in the Ark provided by Paraşut show straw, cobwebs, and a feed bowl, each in very good condition. The problem with these images is that Paraşut has claimed that the site is frequently flooded, which was his reason for not taking the expedition there in the summer months. Would a site that endured regular flooding remain in good shape for millennia?
They also interviewed a Kurdish worker who claimed to have been one of several people hired by Paraşut to construct “movie sets” on the mountain.

DB, did you read the linked response to AIG / Price's assertions?

Yes I did, and I also checked out some of Price's interviews and other links too.

Based on what I've seen so far, I agree with AIG (did I just type those words!) that NAMI and Geisler were most likely taken in by a hoax perpetuated by Parasut.

However, as I mentioned 5 years ago, the real showstopper for me is the altitude of Parasut's discovery. As Deem points out, the altitude of the NAMI discovery is inconsistent the altitude indicated by both the Scriptural narrative and a Local Flood which would place the probable landing point of Noah's Ark near the base of one of the mountains of Arrarat.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
As Deem points out, the altitude of the NAMI discovery is inconsistent the altitude indicated by both the Scriptural narrative and a Local Flood which would place the probable landing point of Noah's Ark near the base of one of the mountains of Arrarat.

But the altitude of the NAMI discovery is CONSISTENT with the global flood narrative, which would've covered the highest mountains.

Maybe Ken Ham has been correct all along, and we're all just a bunch of old-earth compromisers.

[DBowling]

DBowling wrote:
As Deem points out, the altitude of the NAMI discovery is inconsistent the altitude indicated by both the Scriptural narrative and a Local Flood which would place the probable landing point of Noah's Ark near the base of one of the mountains of Arrarat.

But the altitude of the NAMI discovery is CONSISTENT with the global flood narrative, which would've covered the highest mountains.

Maybe Ken Ham has been correct all along, and we're all just a bunch of old-earth compromisers.

Two teensy weensy problems with that particular train of thought...
1. Norman Geisler (who thought this was a genuine find) was an 'old-earth compromiser'.
2. Ken Ham and the young-earth faithful at AIG are convinced this alleged find is a hoax.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
As Deem points out, the altitude of the NAMI discovery is inconsistent the altitude indicated by both the Scriptural narrative and a Local Flood which would place the probable landing point of Noah's Ark near the base of one of the mountains of Arrarat.

But the altitude of the NAMI discovery is CONSISTENT with the global flood narrative, which would've covered the highest mountains.

Maybe Ken Ham has been correct all along, and we're all just a bunch of old-earth compromisers.

Two teensy weensy problems with that particular train of thought...
1. Norman Geisler (who thought this was a genuine find) was an 'old-earth compromiser'.
2. Ken Ham and the young-earth faithful at AIG are convinced this alleged find is a hoax.

1. I wonder why Geisler believes that the ark ran aground so high up.
2. Finding the real ark, would put Ham's fake ark exhibit out of business.

[Philip]

Just to emphasize, Geisler believed in an old earth / universe and thought the Scriptural support for a young earth to be very poor. And yet he believed in a global flood. And I can guarantee you he intensely and comprehensively sifted all of the variables and available data. And he clearly heard all of the criticisms. I think he left the evidence up on his ministry page to facilitate discussion about the evidences.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Ok, so the first question we should ask is "How old is the ark?" "When was it built?"
Most would say the setting in the Noahic stories around the world, in particular that of the Middle and Near East, would require those two questions to be answered as thus: Neolithic/Chalcolithic era, circa 10,000 BC.

Now some, more of the literalist sort, claim it was circa 2500 BC due to geneologies, which would place it right when Egypt, China, Sumeria, Barrow cultures/Otzi the Ice man, where in full swing. Yet, Egypt/Mizraim is mentioned as a descendant of Noah...

Then there are those who take the exact opposite end and think the Ark/Noah was hundreds of thousands of years ago, and are relics of a "civilization X" that is lost due to the sands of time. Noah would be "Y Adam" and Adam, Cain, Seth and the like would represent Homo erectus, Neanderthalers, or Archaic sapiens/neanderthaler. I remember a thread on here months ago that implied this was the case due to some study regarding DNA and how most DNA lineages trace back about 200,000 years, give or take a couple hundred thousand.

So what's the deal?

[RickD]

Just to emphasize, Geisler believed in an old earth / universe and thought the Scriptural support for a young earth to be very poor. And yet he believed in a global flood. And I can guarantee you he intensely and comprehensively sifted all of the variables and available data. And he clearly heard all of the criticisms. I think he left the evidence up on his ministry page to facilitate discussion about the evidences.

I find it difficult to believe that someone can believe in an old earth, AND a global flood.

You say he has the data on his webpage, that lead to that belief?

[DBowling]

Ok, so the first question we should ask is "How old is the ark?" "When was it built?"

Mesopotamian history, archaeology, and the Scriptural timeline (using Septuagint numbers) all point to a great Mesopotamian flood taking place around 3000 BC.

[Philip]

Rick: I find it difficult to believe that someone can believe in an old earth, AND a global flood.

You say he has the data on his webpage, that lead to that belief?

No, the evidences he links all concern the find on Ararat. I do not know why he accepts both - I'll have to research it. But knowing Geisler, he had what he would consider logical and factual reasons for believing as he did.