I am willing to say however, ‘not impossible’
“Not impossible” in that there might have been a large flood in the Middle East, that someone built a large boat to survive it, and that somehow said boat came to be 11,000 ft up Mt. Ararat? Or “not imposible” in that the Genesis account might be literally true (i.e. the entire world to the tops of the highest mountains was covered with water, all animal species were preserved in one ship, etc.)?
As a Christian who does not feel the need to take all aspects of the Bible literally, I could just barely accept the first (though explaining how the boat got that high would be a doozy), but the second would violate a lot of known physics, geology, meterology, etc. in extreme ways. My personal view is that the only non-negotiable Scriptural miracle is the Resurrection, without which indeed Christianity would be pointless. Everything else, though, needs to be honestly looked at in light of what we know about nature, the universe, science, and so on.

Sorry for the back-to-back posts, but just in the interest of equal time, I’m cross-posting this MSNBC article to the various blogs here where this “finding” has been reported. It’s frustrating that as yet there’s not been more counterpoint on this, and I want to point out that lots of Christians (and not just super-liberal, fuzzy-headed ones, either) don’t take the Noah story as literal history. I’d point out that C. S. Lewis, in Miracles, endorsed the idea that most of the Old Testament miracles and quasi-miraculous events (such as a Deluge that would have covered the entire world to a depth of over five miles, despite the lack of enough water on Earth to do so) were metaphors pointing forward to the New Testament in which the only miracle truly essential for Christian faith, the Resurrection, occurred.

Its kind of interesting that if this is the Ark that if would be found now. The earth is warming up, supposed climate change… but if you do some research around the time this wood from supposed Ark has been found it has been carbon dated to about 4800 years ago. Around this same time the earth went from a warm climate to a cooler climate, this is not bunk do a little searching on what scientists in climatology have found. They call it the Atlantic Period. Looking at the Mayan Calendar a 5200 year or around there cycle calendar is about to come full circle. If this is the Ark and all this climate research has been done before this finding, perhaps we are coming out of a colder climate and re-entering a warmer climate before this flood took place?

Writing on the wall that says “Japeth was here” makes me think this is accurate.

I will surely believe this, after all in school I am taught we evolved by using fossils as evidence. This right here is backed by historical evidence as well as carbon dating. I never witnessed either, but why shouldn’t i believe it when the proof is in front of me. I like how the article mentions it is a “crock” that this stuff pops every every couple of years….yea before you say that back up why its a crock. Prove that what they found is in fact something other and disprove the carbon dating age as well then we will have an open minded discussion. Don’t just post this is a crock as a news article. MSN is not a BLOG .

So if people were building ark-replicas on this specific mountain, and the Hebrew instead refers to the “Ararat range of mountains”, then I take it the builders knowledge of Hebrew was no better than, say, mine?

Those people need to learn about Noah’s Snowball — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcFNRBg8mUw

Hi David:
You are forgetting these are oral cultures with a literacy rate of maybe 10% at best. The builders of ark shrine may have known no Hebrew whatsoever, they had simply heard the stories about Noah. In Jesus’ day even many Greco-Roman persons knew some version of the Noah story, and they couldn’t read Hebrew at all.
BW3

Ben,
I am solidly disappointed in your post here. You evidence both an ignorance of the biblical account of the flood, as well as a significant presuppositional bias against against the accuracy of the Old Testament. I too am waiting for further studies of this find, but I am doing so for quite different reasons than yours.
2800 B.C. Too Recent?
Your first comment regarding this find is that the current carbon dating of 2800 B.C. appears “far too recent,” and that this is due to the fact that we do not have “exact chronological markers” in the Old Testament (I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are speaking primarily of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11). To the contrary, the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are very explicit in their time and sequence, each of them proceeding as follows…
“When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh. Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.
“When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan. Enosh lived after he fathered Kenan 815 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died” (Genesis 5:6-11)
And so on, ad nauseum! The first numbers provide the generational gap for each generation, the second detail how long each patriarch lived after fathering their sons, and the last confirms the the previous two by adding them together for the total number of years lived.
I would suggest that these are very “exact chronological markers.” See Travis R. Freeman, “Do the Genesis 5 and II Genealogies Contain Gaps?” in Coming to Grips with Genesis for further details.
Thus, given the chronological markers in Genesis 5 and 11, we should expect a date of about 2400 B.C. for the Flood.
11,000 Feet Too High?
Your second comment regarding this find is that the elevation, 11,000 feet, is too high. For this, you comment that “the evidence suggests a flood of the then known world, not a world wide flood…” To the contrary, the Biblical account is very explicit in its description of the worldwide extent of the Flood.
The Depth:
15 cubits above all of the mountains (Gen 7:20). Normally, the mountains (and even hills) are a place of safety during floods. Not this one, though.
The Duration:
1 year and 10 days (Gen 7:11, 8:13). Even the largest of our modern day local floods only last a matter of weeks before the water dissipates across a greater land surface.
The Effect:
“And all flesh died that moved on the earth… Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground…They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left.” (Gen 7:21-23) The Bible is very clear that the intent and effect of this flood was to wipe out all life on the Earth. Only a global flood could have accomplished a destruction of this magnitude.
The need for an ark:
This is the last, and perhaps the most common sense evidence for the extent of the Flood. If the flood were merely a local flood, Noah and his family could easily have fled, or even moved to another location since they had about 120 years prior notice (Gen 6:3). The fact that they had to build an ark for their preservation attests to suggestion that this was a flood that could not be so easily avoided.
The need to preserve the animals:
The fact that they had to take animals on the ark for their preservation provides further confirmation, as well. If the flood was limited in extent to the ANE, the animals could have repopulated the area from the surrounding region.
Evidence for the Flood Limited to the ANE?
Lastly, I am surprised that you limit the geological evidence for the flood to the Ancient Near East, and would love to know what evidence you are referring to. Recent studies on the Grand Canyon under Dr. Steve Austin, for example, have suggested catastrophic origins for it and most of the North American geological record, as well. I can’t say much more right now, but I will say be on the lookout for further studies on this in the near future.

Ben,
Forgive me if I sound harsh. I greatly respect your scholarship, and especially appreciate your commentary series on the sociological backgrounds of the New Testament. Furthermore, I agree that we should wait until further evidence to draw conclusions on this recent find. I am just concerned for unbelievers who may find your post and use it to rule out this evidence a priori, as well as any credibility for the Bible altogether.
Thanks,
Thomas

I like that replica, although it looks like it’s composed of aluminum (which is kind of cool). But is it able to float? Is it mounted on a barge, or inside a protective cassion.
As to the “real Arc”, there are a lot of problems. Did it harbor animals that we only find in Australia? If so, how did they get there after the flood? Did kangaroos swim across the oceans? Etc.

Quiddity said: As to the “real Arc”, there are a lot of problems. Did it harbor animals that we only find in Australia? If so, how did they get there after the flood? Did kangaroos swim across the oceans? Etc.
Quiddity, one potential answer to your question is catastrophic plate techtonics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
I would encourage you to keep investigating the evidence, and not rule out Noah’s Flood too quickly.

Hoax – http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/2010/04/inside-noahs-ark-hoax.html

Thomas Stroup,
I am concerned for unbelievers who may find YOUR post and use it to rule out any credibility for the Bible.
Young Earthers and so-called flood geologists have done more to discredit the Bible in the eyes of unbelievers than all the evolutionists ever did. Please reconsider your public proclamation of pseudo- science which is completely at odds with the truth and the intent of the authors of scripture.

i think ”believers” as they would want to be called loose the light when they start looking for real history in genesis and most of the old testament cos these things are mysteries, parables, veiled teachings for example has MR THOMAS STROUP ever thought if noah and his family were picking ants and insects, spiders, catching butterflies, trapping birds, going to americas and africa to catch animals native to these place, i think, you’ sir, just need to pick up an encyclopedia of animals, insects, flys and look at the vast numbers and then look at the alleged size of the ark and you will know this is not history but allegories which equals spiritual truth and not naration of human history. (sometimes i think some people wished the bible said noah was given supernatural power to call the animals from every corner of the earth.

I think *DUCK* that my points *DODGE* still stand:-)

Hi
Thomas, no offense taken. Several points. Firstly you are mistaken about the genealogies. These are segmented and partial genealogies as were most such ancient genealogies. Consider for example the genealogy of Jesus in Mt. 1 which leaves whole generations out even though it says ‘begat…begat…begat…’ That might better be translated and then, and then…. Royal genealogies were especially prone to leaving the skeletons in the closet and whole generations out of account. If you don’t know how ancient genealogies work, it is easy to be confused by simply reading Genesis in the English. No problem. Secondly, I happen to believe in the historicity of the Noah story. What I do not believe is that the Bible is a pre-historic scientific textbook. I think it says nothing at all to us about how old the earth is, nothing about how long it took to make it either. The day age theory just doesn’t work, not least because our sun was not created on the first so called ‘day’ and the seventh day in which God rested is still going! In other words, the real problem comes when conservatives and Evangelicals sometimes become anachronistic and read back into the Bible their modern scientific concerns. This is a big mistake and it discredits the efforts to show that the OT has historical substance.
Blessings,
Ben W.

Hmmm, 2800 BCE, what was written about this during the second Egyptian Dynasty? This was the period of time that Gilgamesh was on the thrown, and there is a story of a flood pertaining to him, but there is good archeological evidence that civilization in this period was not wiped out and re-started. I think that this alone makes me think they have found nothing more than a wooden structure for which they cherry picked a date from a range of a poorly executed assay. However, based on this evidence, they are 99.9% certain that this random wooden structure is the Ark built by an individual named Noah 4800+ years ago. This speaks to how sloppy their thinking is and how suspect we should be of ANYTHING they have to say on ANY topic.

Wow – gotta be the truth if the story comes from FOX News!
In all seriousness, though (and arguments about biblical interpretation aside) until there’s a proper archaeological study done, it’s all speculation and media hype, not good science. And given the extreme location, I’m not holding out hope for a proper dig to be completed any time soon.
And besides – we continue to have predictions on a regular basis that the rapture is just around the corner (the latest I’ve seen being at fivedoves.com, where May 1 is the designated day) – but even though the Bible-based calculations are always incorrect, they persist. When we people finally come to their senses?

Hi Ben,
Thank you for the response! It is a privilege to interact with you.
First, what I was pointing out with the genealogies is that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are the type that are valuable to chronology since they include reference dates for each generation, as opposed to Matthew 1 or Luke 3. Some people call these “closed” versus “open” geneaologies (I am sure you know that, but I post it for the sake of discussion). I might point out that they overlap nicely, too, with the genealogy in Genesis 5 breaking off at Noah, and the genealogy in Genesis 11 picking up with his son Shem in the exact pattern demonstrated above.
Second, I am aware that certain ANE genealogies appear to skip individuals at times, “skeletons” as you call them. I would also point out that ANE histories also distort the records of their military defeats in like manner. Thus, we should expect inaccuracies in their genealogies. In contrast, all archaeological evidence to date points to the historicity of the Bible. Thus, there is no reason to subject the biblical genealogies to the same suspicion as the ANE genealogies.
Third, I am reading the Hebrew; is there something I missed?
Fourth, I think you have to admit that there is some degree of scientific description in the OT. For example, “15 cubits above all of the mountains” may not have been written as a metric volume measurement for the water, but I think it does intend to convey the geographical extent of the flood.
And last, I realize your concern for reading modern presuppositions into the Biblical text. I share the same concern. Here is what I see:
-We know this can’t be Noah’s Ark, because Noah’s flood couldn’t have happened this way.
-We know Noah’s Flood couldn’t have happened this way because supernatural events like that just don’t take place.
-We know supernatural events like that don’t take place because we don’t see evidence for them today.
That sounds a little circular to me.
This could very well be a hoax! I readily admit that. But whatever it turns out to be, I think we need to take the Bible seriously.
Thanks!
Thomas

How can you find something that was never lost because it never existed. Noah’s ark is a myth, not history.

Ben,
Thank you for responding to my post! It is privilege to interact with you.
First, what I was trying to point out regarding the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 is that these are the kind that are valuable to chronology because of their closed structure and date references, as opposed to the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 that are simply a list of names and “begat’s.” Some people call these “closed” versus “open genealogies” (I am sure you know that, but I post it for the sake of discussion).
Second, I am aware that ANE genealogies often skipped generations, “skeletons” as you call them. I would point out, though, that this is not a tactic that is peculiar to their genealogies; they are highly revisionistic in their histories as well, exaggerating their accomplishments, and conveniently omitting their military defeats. This tactic is not at all apparent in the Biblical history, though. To the contrary, all archaeological evidence to date points to the historicity of the Biblical text! Thus, I do not see any need to subject the Biblical genealogies to the same suspicion that is necessary for the ANE genealogies.
Third, I am reading the Hebrew; did I miss something?
Fourth, I think you have to admit that there is some level of scientific description in the Biblical text. For example, “15 cubits above the mountains” may not have been intended as a metric volume measurement, but I think it was intended as a description of the geographical extent of the Flood.
And last, I understand your concern for reading modern scientific presuppositions into the Biblical text. I share the same concern. Here is the reasoning that concerns me more though:
-We know this cannot be evidence for Noah’s Flood because Noah’s Flood didn’t happen this way.
-We know Noah’s Flood didn’t happen this way because supernatural events like this just don’t take place.
-We know supernatural events like this don’t take place because we don’t have any scientific evidence for them.
That sounds like circular reasoning to me.
I would love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks!
Thomas

There is absolutely nothing miraculous about the flood or the ark, what so ever. The flood is just as much a part of the God of nature as he is the God of nurture. And from this very real event we get both nature and nurture. They are simply a part in the very lengthy God directed, God story of the unveiling of his plan of salvation for all men. The ark is as literal as the earth’s existence. Sure, its disposition is of interest to all men who are inquisitive about it but truth has to be the basis of calculation regarding its present day existence. Its topographical location is absolutely of no interest to me what so ever. What is of immense interest to me, however, is the creator God, the sustaining God, the loving God, the wrathful God, the salvation God who brought all this to be for MY welfare.

Saw this today, figured I’d pass it along … disappointing if true!
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-update

Oh, by the way. Can anyone offer commentary on dating anything associated with the Ark in light of Genesis 4:22? I’ve long wondered about this verse, especially occurring so early in Genesis though that isn’t necessarily a give away or a lead.

Jesus said in the last days it will be as in the days of Noah and Lot, when the bad guys were taken away and the good guys left.

Rick C,
Could it be that the Jews (or God’s chosen people) gave birth to the bronze and iron age?

For a number of reasons I don’t think the Hebrews gave birth to either technology. I think that this passage is singularly pointing out a man that was gifted and was able to intelligently perfom metallurgical work. How he came to that knowledge I’m not certain but at this point in the story there is not a Hebrew federation acting as a waypoint for him to do his work. There is, though, a possibility of our Genesis 4:22 man wondering and wandering as a blacksmith, perhaps picking up his skills somewhere in present day Turkey or even somewhere in the Mesopotamian region or being in touch with a group or two from either of those regions that might have migrated to where he was. One thing that would ring strong I think is that technology draws people together especially if the technology can advance one’s own position militarily, politically, financially and even religiously or for whatever other gain can be had. Definitely though, by the time of the Mosaic temple metallurgy was definitely in the hands of the Hebrews. That fact is well documented.
I’m not expert in this by any means but it is of great fun and interest to study.

One story I saw described the presence of iron. This is enough to discredit the story. 2800 BCE was a stone age culture, was it not? Iron rivets to construct the ark ark? Not only iron, but sophisticated iron technology.
My own view is that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are primarily mythological. Real history begins with Abraham.

I have doubts about your history of boat making the use of iron in boat making.
And secondly, the Hebrews/Jews were the Documentary Channel of their generation and region. They documented huge amounts of information regarding their existence and a good lot of it in much detail and to our good benefit much of it is still extant. And one fact documented throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament is Noah and his Ark. If there is one fact that that IS true from the Old Testament it IS the Ark and The Flood.

blog.beliefnet.com is great! Same day payday loans are the best option if you are in dire need of instant money before you receive your net paycheck This loan offers you a completely hassle free solution for your emergency financial crisis especially when you do not want

Do you have any more info on this? lfcjnbglgisycatsxauseuqxnywubrdxucp
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

Hello,
I was just pondering the story of Noah. Doesn’t it make since if someone down the street from your home started building a really big boat who was saying a bunch of water was comming and we had best get preparred, a few idiots would believe him and build an ark of their own?
I’ll bet there is a possiblity of an entire fleet of arks?
Come on folks get real.

This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is pretty nice one and gives in-depth information. Thanks for this nice article.

This website is the ideal website. favzczbs

This website is the incredibly best blog site. wbgfbqvv

This website is the top web site. udkhtttr

I am looking for thursday night football online 2010. How can I find it?

Very very nice post about Noah’s Ark Found—–Again???
- Ben Witherington on the Bible and Culture!

I like your bloge very much. Great job author of blog.beliefnet.com

Hi, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, wonderful blog!