By Daniel Nardini
And it has come to pass that some archaeologists in Israel (I will not mention their names as their theories on Noah’s Ark are too embarrassing to even talk about) have announced that they have found a rock formation that looks like the fabled Noah’s Ark that had landed on Mount Ararat in today’s eastern Turkey. These archaeologists used seismic machinery in the belief that there is something below the boat-shaped rock formation. As far as geologists are concerned, this rock formation is exactly that; a rock formation. This rock formation was formed millions of years ago, and there is nothing else to it. Of course, no one has ever excavated the area, and no evidence has ever been produced to show that this was where Noah’s Ark landed, or that the Ark even existed.
Before I get any further, I am not trying to disparage the Bible or the beliefs of Jews or Christians. I am not trying to say that the Bible is false or is a book of nothing but fairy tales. What I am saying is that in a world where material evidence is the basis for history and science as well as archaeology, so far no evidence has been produced within the last 50 years that Noah’s Ark exists on Mount Ararat. Before archaeologists make any wacky announcements about having found something, they should first have some material evidence that it is possible something does exist. These archaeologists have clearly not done this. Maybe there is something in the area that looks like the Ark might be something. Or, it is simply a natural rock formation. They have produced no material evidence which could corroborate their claims, or at the very least might make their case for Noah’s Ark to be a distinct possibility.
There is another problem that an associate raised many years ago which might be a possibility, although his view is as much speculation as anyone saying that the rock formation is Noah’s Ark. Sometime back, some amateur archaeologists said that they “discovered” actual boat-like structures in the mountains of eastern Turkey. These amateurs hypothesized that they had “found” Noah’s Ark. There were two problems; first there were more than one boat-like structures in the mountains. How many Noah’s Arks were there? Second, another explanation for these was that these boat-like structures may have been tombs for dead rulers or important individuals thousands of years ago. This is not too different from when the Vikings put their dead chieftains in boats and floated them away at sea or buried them.
One of the big problems one must understand about archaeology is that it is not so black and white as one might assume. Finding something does not necessarily mean that it is the object believed to be. If a gigantic wooden-like ship is found on Mount Ararat, is it really Noah’s Ark? How can it be identified as Noah’s Ark? If there was no real recorded history of when this Ark actually existed, then how do we know it is the Ark and not something else? But these archaeologists have not even gotten that far. We have no physical evidence of anything; just mere speculation. This does not go very far in a material world which is how we build our understanding of what history was. Archaeology is simply our attempt to find history by other means than recorded documentation. Hopefully these archaeologists will find something before they make anymore announcements.
Wacky Archaeologists and Noah’s Ark
By Daniel Nardini
Before I get any further, I am not trying to disparage the Bible or the beliefs of Jews or Christians. I am not trying to say that the Bible is false or is a book of nothing but fairy tales. What I am saying is that in a world where material evidence is the basis for history and science as well as archaeology, so far no evidence has been produced within the last 50 years that Noah’s Ark exists on Mount Ararat. Before archaeologists make any wacky announcements about having found something, they should first have some material evidence that it is possible something does exist. These archaeologists have clearly not done this. Maybe there is something in the area that looks like the Ark might be something. Or, it is simply a natural rock formation. They have produced no material evidence which could corroborate their claims, or at the very least might make their case for Noah’s Ark to be a distinct possibility.
There is another problem that an associate raised many years ago which might be a possibility, although his view is as much speculation as anyone saying that the rock formation is Noah’s Ark. Sometime back, some amateur archaeologists said that they “discovered” actual boat-like structures in the mountains of eastern Turkey. These amateurs hypothesized that they had “found” Noah’s Ark. There were two problems; first there were more than one boat-like structures in the mountains. How many Noah’s Arks were there? Second, another explanation for these was that these boat-like structures may have been tombs for dead rulers or important individuals thousands of years ago. This is not too different from when the Vikings put their dead chieftains in boats and floated them away at sea or buried them.
One of the big problems one must understand about archaeology is that it is not so black and white as one might assume. Finding something does not necessarily mean that it is the object believed to be. If a gigantic wooden-like ship is found on Mount Ararat, is it really Noah’s Ark? How can it be identified as Noah’s Ark? If there was no real recorded history of when this Ark actually existed, then how do we know it is the Ark and not something else? But these archaeologists have not even gotten that far. We have no physical evidence of anything; just mere speculation. This does not go very far in a material world which is how we build our understanding of what history was. Archaeology is simply our attempt to find history by other means than recorded documentation. Hopefully these archaeologists will find something before they make anymore announcements.