EXCERPT The lack of success in finding Noah’s Ark on Turkey’s Mt. Ararat has prompted various researchers to search for the Ark elsewhere. Since the biblical “mountains of Ararat” cannot be exegetically equated with the single mountain known today as Mt. Ararat (Agri Dagh, “the painful mountain,” in Turkish), we cannot use Scripture to prove Mt. Ararat was where the Ark landed, nor even that it was even in existence as the Flood waters were abating. This ambiguity has opened the door for suggestions that other peaks could have been the site of the Ark’s landing-place.

For example, Robert Cornuke has looked at several different locations, most recently at Takht-e Suleiman (see Cornuke’s website and my response, Noah’s Ark in Iran?). Other sites mentioned as possibilities at various times, by different researchers, include Mt. Cudi in southeastern Turkey, Mt. Damavand and Mt. Sabalon in Iran, and the mudflow at Durupinar near Mt. Ararat.

 

Given that there exists a known body of testimony alleging that Noah’s Ark has been seen on Mt. Ararat, to seriously consider any non-Ararat locations as the landing-place of Noah’s Ark requires one to either disregard or argue around those testimonies. Ararat skeptics justify doing exactly that by making several major claims:

 

· Allowing the use of testimonial data has no place in what should be a strictly “scientific” endeavor.

 

· Seemingly conflicting details found in the testimonies means they cannot be trusted.

 

· Many years of searching, both on the ground and by air or satellite, have not found definitive evidence of the Ark on Mt. Ararat, so it is probably not there and the “eyewitnesses” were all either mistaken or telling a fiction to gain notoriety.

 

· Even if the Ark was once on Ararat, by now it would have been destroyed by volcanic action, or pulverized by the grinding action of glaciers, or scavenged for its timbers, so that for one reason or another it no longer exists there, and the testimonies cannot possibly be right.

 

· Geology supposedly proves Mt. Ararat is a young volcanic peak that did not exist at the time of the Flood, again invalidating all testimonies that the Ark was ever on Mt. Ararat.

 

· A clear historical trail exists in the Western tradition, going back as early as the writings of Berossus in the third century BC, indicating the Ark was believed to be on Mt. Cudi; conversely, there was no such tradition for Mt. Ararat until much later, after the tenth century AD, meaning it was invented by the Armenians and never factual….

Continue Reading on www.biblearchaeology.org