First sighting of Noah’s Ark in 2013? @aig

The archaeologist comments: “As most secular scholars believe the Torah was written between the twelfth and fifth centuries B.C. and the Quran during the seventh century, historians from these periods cannot be maligned for believing the monumental wood structure on Mount Ararat was a maritime construction. Having been inside the edifice, it is understandable that past visitors believed this site to be an ancient barge. Mortise-and-tenon features, cypress wood, angled walls, cross beams at different elevations, and coats of pitch or bitumen are familiar traits in early maritime constructions.”

Archaeologist Responds: Do Prehistoric Sites on Mount Ararat Represent Noah’s Ark? | Jan 18, 2013.

Not quite, it seems. This is an interesting take, although not likely to be convincing to YEC’ers or scholars. Nevertheless, it is an delightful way to start the New Year

You Might Also Like

5 Replies to “First sighting of Noah’s Ark in 2013? @aig”

  1. I was really excited about this, but on looking into it, it appears to be a hoax.

    At first, I thought he was a Harvard University Archaeologist, but upon reading the article again, I find he is a “Harvard University educated archaeologist,” which is different.

    Indeed, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) both do not see any merit (and many causes for concern) in the find.

    AIG:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/mt-ararat-wood

    CMI:
    http://creation.com/hong-kong-ark-fiasco

      1. Joel,

        Granted that AIG and CMI may not be fully reputable sources, do you have reason to trust http://www.sbwire.com or Dr. Joel Klenck?

        I looked for other corroboration of Dr. Klenck’s claims and was not able to find any. I didn’t even see any mention of it on his personal site’s home page:
        http://www.paleorc.com/PaleontologicalResearchCorporation-bio-joelklenck.asp

        Just for clarity, could you say whether you are Joel Watts or Joel Klenck in your reply?

        Thanks,
        Josiah

        1. I have no issue to follow “Hardvard-educated” Klenck. His claims are interesting, but there are a few more issues at stake at the moment about the rise on “Noah’s ark” stuff.

          I don’t trust AIG/CMI because of their “Young Earth” Stance. So, to suggest they are reputable in any way still ranks them, for the time being, with even harvard educated archaeologists.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.