Noah’s Ark is a Myth (again)

From someone who should know…

I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.

via PaleoBabble » Noah’s Ark PaleoBabble Update.

See here and here for the discoveries. And here for the best blog post yet on this ‘news.’

Post By Joel Watts (10,071 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

33 thoughts on Noah’s Ark is a Myth (again)

    • That’s one way to look at it. Another way, is that it would be silly for to have to ‘prove’ the bible. Of course, I reckon you would need proof – if you were a biblical literalist….

  1. Joel, I acknowledge my biblical literalism. Or rather, I acknowledge the biblical literalism of those whose pronouncements of faith most directly infringe on my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The faith of most people is none of my concern; when faith becomes a weapon against me, then I take issue. People literally believe there was a ship of gopher wood on which one alcoholic incestuous non-zoologist Noah loaded animal Adams & Eves for every extant species while the precious love of Jeezis murdered every living thing on his “good” creation. There are enough holes in the story to literally sink an ark-sized ship, but people still believe in the literal iteration of a tale more fantastic than Adventure Comics #1.

    • Um, Robert, Lot was incestous, not Noah. Further, he didn’t load Adam and Eve up into the Ark.

  2. @Polycarp

    I was making an oblique reference to the Curse of Canaan.

    Also, I was using “Adam & Eve” metaphorically to describe the male & female animals of each species brought on the ark to perpetuate the species.

    • Faith doesn’t need historical proof, does it? I mean, does that historical proof rely upon your interpretation of the bible? Do you need a literal interpretation for the bible, and thus your faith, to be real and valid?

  3. I don’t need faith to believe that Superman is real, and that he was sent by his father as a baby to earth to eventually sacrifice himself so that the world might live. All I need to do is read the sacred scriptures of Siegel & Shuster, et al and, if I’m lucky, visit the holy sites in Metropolis, Ill. Also, I can meet with other adherents to the faith each and every Wednesday when new words describing the compassion and selflessness of my Super Savior are made available in community-based establishments throughout the world. Faith is belief without proof, and anyone who doesn’t believe in Superman will spend a hellish eternity in the Phantom Zone.

    • I’ve been to Metropolis, Illinois. It ain’t much.

      Faith is not believe without proof whatsoever.

  4. @Polycarp

    Sure it is. Faith is belief without proof + whatever self-delusions are necessary to sustain said faith. It’s a vicious cycle of believing things that make no sense, have no real-world corroboration, and defy the expectation of reason that believers apply to every other aspect of their lives.

    • Robert, Can you support your understanding of faith verse how faith was defined in the ancient world? Further, what evidences do you need and who do you think those are the standard evidences for others?

  5. Polycarp :
    Robert, Can you support your understanding of faith verse how faith was defined in the ancient world? Further, what evidences do you need and who do you think those are the standard evidences for others?

    I’m less concerned with how faith was defined in the ancient world and more concerned with how it’s defined today by people who viciously use their religion as a bludgeon and hide behind their faith like cowards. To be clear, I’m not at all saying that you do this; you know the usual suspects that have borne out the above description…

    It’s reasonable to say that the standard of evidence is greater than modern Christianity can bear. Faith fails to accurately describe the absence of basic logic inherent in belief in a loosely-connected self-contradictory assortment of stories based primarily in oral histories and originally written largely in a dead language and then subjected to numerous controversial revisions, redactions and translations and THEN sifted through capricious mutually-exclusive doctrinal idiosyncrasies of hundreds of disparate sects, all of which claim their respective version is the one true path to heaven.

    Like I’ve said before, Christians will base their eternities on a book with shady provenance but then turn around and require you to show two forms of ID before accepting a check at the Christian book store. That dichotomy is both striking and hilarious.

    • Yeah, but it does make it that much more interesting.

      I am concerning with how faith is used now versus how was lived then, Robert, and I believe that that has lead to a major disconnect in the avenues which we take in expressing our faith. If we can move past the fact that faith is a mere intellectual assent to how it was lived way back yonder, I think that you might see a different Christianity emerge.

  6. Polycarp :
    I fear that you may be correct, Robert.

    Just get this tattooed on your forearm now so you can reference it whenever we have a discussion. :D LOL!! But yeah, I’m pretty much right all the time. :D LOL!

Leave a Reply, Please!