Sunday, August 21, 2016


Courtesy of Answers in Genesis


Good day mates! 

And how did you all fare this week? We had lots of pouring monsoon rains. So good to have after the drought here in the mountains. My kids and grandkids are all doing well and two of my daughters are pregnant with babies due three months apart. And my oldest son has just purchased his first house. I guess I’m getting old! Ha ha!

Speaking of mountains and old, does anyone know where Noah’s Ark really landed? Is there evidence of the remains of the Ark? Let’s find out…

Basically there are five most popular and most potential sites. Four of the locations are on or very near Mount Ararat; The Durupinar Site, The Ahora Gorge, The Ararat Anomaly, and the Ararat—NAMI Expedition. The fifth site is on Mount Suleiman.

The Durupinar Site became popular in the 1980’s when Ron Wyatt and others claimed to have found Noah’s Ark and
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis

Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
The Ahora Gorge site was first discovered by George Hagopian and his uncle. George claimed that in 1905 or ’08 when he was eight or ten years old his uncle brought him to the Ahora Gorge area of Mount Ararat. He claimed they found a large ship partially buried under the snow and ice. Hagopian said his uncle hoisted him up so he could walk on the roof! “At least a dozen expeditions have explored the Ahora Gorge since Hagopian reportedly walked on the Ark’s roof. However to date, none of these adventurers has been able to find the remains of
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
Noah’s Ark at the Ahora Gorge, even though they have used satellite imagery, and explorers have searched the gorge when the glacier in it has melted back. It is very tempting to dismiss Hagopian’s incredible claims as the imaginations of a young child. Consider the following complications with his story. Hagopian offered conflicting reports of his adventure. Was he eight years old or ten years old at the time? Was it in 1905 or 1908? Also, it is hard to imagine a youngster making this very difficult and dangerous journey without proper training.”

Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
The Ararat Anomaly is just that— an anomaly. “In 1949, photographs of the northwest side of Mount Ararat were taken by a United States intelligence agency. A large structure can be seen jutting out of the ice and snow near the middle of the photograph above. This object has captured the imagination of Ark hunters because it resembles a portion of a large ship. Of course, this ‘anomaly’ may simply be a rock outcropping with just the right amount of ice and snow melted away to give the illusion of a boat-shaped object.”3 A 2003 satellite image, presumed to be taken at the same spot, shows an overhead shot depicting a long, boat-like structure. The object roughly has the dimensions of Noah’s ark. But it also closely resembles a natural rock formation. That
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
certainly could not be called proof. This is the only proposed Ark location in which, as far as I know, no expedition has been explored on site, thus the anomaly. 

The Ararat—NAMI Expedition was made up of a team of evangelical Christian explorers from a Hong Kong-based Media for evangelism. They claim to use the media to promote the message of Jesus Christ. NAMI (Noah’s Ark Ministries International) went on an expedition to an area high up a prominent canyon on the south face of Mount Ararat. This group claimed to have found or were told about seven wooden compartments buried on Mount Ararat, which they believe were part of Noah’s Ark. They even produced a video showing team members presumably inside one of these wooden structures. Although we would be delighted if the Ark had actually been found, this
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
‘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.”4 
Little Ararat on the left; Mount Ararat on the Right. Courtesy of Answers in Genesis

There is one other significant problem. “Despite so many supposed sightings and evidences from Mount Ararat, it seems unlikely that Noah’s Ark has been found in recent times. And even though we would be ecstatic if the Ark were discovered, we have reason to doubt that it will be found in the future. Nor would it convince the skeptics who would simply claim it is a replica monument to a mythical boat. Certainly, it is hard to imagine a large wooden structure surviving the elements for more than 4000 years. Also, if Mount Ararat truly were the landing place, how could the Ark have survived this volcano’s numerous eruptions, which continued until 1840?”5

The last site we will discuss has been claimed by military veteran Ed Davis. During WWII while he was stationed in Iran he believes he found large petrified planks of wood on Mount Suleiman (also called the Throne of Solomon). Though the Bible states the Ark landed on the Ararat Mount Range, this is far beyond that. However, in 2005/06 Bob Cornuke of BASE Institute led expeditions up this mountain to explore an alternative site for the landing of the Ark.
Courtesy of Answers in Genesis
“Cornuke provided several details about the site that he believes is a candidate for the remains of Noah’s Ark. His team found rocks that were “uncannily beam like in appearance” over 13,000 feet up the mountain, ‘a worship shrine,’ and fossilized clams in abundance on the top of an adjoining peak. Cornuke also points to the wide variety of ecosystems in the region and the 1965 rediscovery of the Caspian horse, believed by some to be the most ancient variety of domestic horse.
Despite these assertions, there are multiple problems with the notion that the Ark came to rest on Mount Suleiman. For example, the beam-like rocks are likely a geologic formation, the eroded edge of upended, finely bedded rock layers, according to geologists who have only been able to examine pictures. Also, it is improbable that Ed Davis’s reported sighting took place on Mount Suleiman. But the biggest problem is that Mount Suleiman lies 250 miles east of the farthest-known reaches of the ancient Urartu region. As such, this mountain doesn’t match the biblical description that the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4).”6 

In conclusion, it is highly doubtful that the Ark will ever be found almost entirely due to environmental conditions and time. But even if the Ark were found, those who don’t want to believe that the Creator, Jesus is real, and that our history is recorded without change in the Bible, won’t believe. 

Until next time, God bless, take care and lots of prayers to the lost.
Willow Dressel


1 comment:

  1. When reading the Bible it became clear to me that Noah's ark is in The Himalayas and the Fallen angels ark is in Turkey. I'm very very curious and suspicious that this is not obvious to others...