For years we have heard reports of the discovery of Noah’s Ark. Some of the reports appear to be more credible than others, while some have been outright preposterous. One thing is for sure, it is impossible for all of the reported findings to be true, for if they were there would be well over a dozen different Arks lying out in different locations.
However the underlying question that begs discussion is whether or not Noah’s Ark still exits today? I have raised this question for a few years now and have had several members of the creationist community admit that some of my reasons for asking this question merit serious consideration. Therefore, I would like to lay them out before all of you for your consideration. Please allow me to add this disclaimer that I am not emphatically stating this theory to be factual, but it is worth serious discussion.
1. Knowing how man is so tempted to worship objects and raise them up as idols, would God have allowed the Ark to survive? Consider the golden calf in Exodus 32; Ashtoreth in 1 Kings 11; Baal in 1 Kings 16; works of their own hands in Jeremiah 1; queen of heaven in Jeremiah 44; Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image in Daniel 3; and the list goes on and on. Consider how many people today still worship objects and creatures, including ‘Mother Earth’, instead of the Creator.
The same question can be asked about the Ark of the Covenant or the cup that Christ drank from. Why is it that most of the important relics described in Scripture still remain missing?
2. In Genesis 8, we are told that the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat not on Mount Ararat. Depending on the source, the Region of Ararat (estimated in the shaded area) is a large region that contains several mountainous areas today and does not necessarily refer to a specific mountain. Most likely there was still a significant amount of geologic upheaval and settling occurring after the Flood. Some mountains would have been rising at a greater rate than they still are today. The appearance of the earth to Noah would likely be much different than the same areas appear to us today.
The identity of the mountains of Ararat is still a subject of debate, but a number of creationists are convinced that the reference is not to modern Mt. Ararat, which has largely been built by post-Flood volcanic activity. This is why all the supposed sightings of the Ark high on Mt. Ararat do not make sense, because the Ark can’t be between and among basalt layers that flowed out from eruptions since the Flood, or even late in the Flood. The temperatures of the lavas would have burnt all the wood anyway!
3. Again in Genesis 8, we are told that the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, not at the top of the mountains, and then the waters continued to abate.
Usually, anything floating on subsiding water will continue to float until it catches on something or the water becomes too low at that location to float the object. Wouldn’t it have made sense that the Ark would have done the same, and not landed near the top of the mountains, but lower down in a valley or plain in the mountains? If the Ark had caught higher up, it most likely would have been tilted on the slopes, which could have been very problematic for Noah and his family and the animals. Since God watched over Noah and the Ark to protect it during the Flood, wouldn’t he have continued to do so as the Flood subsided?
The problem is that the text of Scripture seems to imply that the Ark came to rest on the mountains before there were major peaks seen surrounding it, implying that perhaps continued tectonic movements raised the surrounding mountains so that the Ark, which initially landed on the highest spot, then ended up being in a less precarious situation, such as the lower slopes or a valley. This may be reflected in the later comment in the narrative about the tops of the mountains being subsequently seen.
If the Ark had landed near the top of the mountains and then waters continued to recede, it would have made it very difficult for many of the animals to disembark from the Ark as many of them are not mountain worthy creatures. Had the Ark landed in a valley or on a plain, it would have made it much easier for the animals to disembark and disperse. It would have also have provided a suitable place for Noah and his sons’ families to settle.
4. Upon disembarking from the Ark, Noah would have surely realized that he needed to build homes or shelters for him and for his three sons and their families. There would not have been any standing forests immediately after the Flood. It may have been possible for some driftwood to be lying around, but was there enough to provide for their needs? Besides, any driftwood would have required all new carpentry which would have taken time. The Ark would have provided a ready source of already cut and worked lumber. Why wouldn’t they have started to cannibalize the Ark and the supplies it contained to build their homes in the land that God had placed them in?
Based upon the reasons listed above, I personally believe the chances that Noah’s Ark still exists are highly doubtful and as such will most likely never be found. Could I be wrong? Absolutely! Could I be right? Absolutely! After reading this, where do you stand on the existence of Noah’s Ark?
This entry was posted in Archaeology, Geology, History, Theology and tagged Ark of the Covenant, Ashteroth, Baal, Bible, biblical geolgoy, Genesis, Genesis Flood, golden calf, idol worship, Mother Earth, mountains of Ararat, Mt. Ararat, Nebuchadnezzar, Noah's Ark, Noah's Flood, queen of heaven, R.L. David Jolly, region of Ararat. Bookmark the permalink.