Is Noah's ark in Turkey?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It'll be interesting to see what comes of this. Smaller studies have been done, but this is the first major investigation of what this thing is.

Don't expect the secular news media to report when they do find the wreckage of Noah's Ark as they don't want to participate in showing God's Word to be true.

In fact they'll probably lie and say there was nothing there
 
Like...Antarctica? Where in your opinion, which is so humble? IDK

I thought it was a one-time thing meant to keep Noah and the animals alive for 40 days and 40 nights and after that, it wasn't needed anymore, but I suppose some animals might have stayed behind and lived in the ark for a while after the flood waters receded.
You serious? They flood lasted over a year.
 
You serious? They flood lasted over a year.
Oh I was just thinking of the rain part. You right it was 150 days after it stopped raining, and then 3 months after that.

It was in the year 601. According to Genesis 8:13

I'm not used to counting backwards from AD to BC. That timeline is also a bit off for when Jesus was actually born. Wish I knew exactly what year that was according to Hebrew calendar.
 
Very nice overview of the last 60+ years studying this.


The Noah's Ark Situation is Getting Wild​

 
No, it was disassembled and repurposed ~5,000 years ago.
What they couldn't salvage they used for firewood.
The Ark could have been repurposed at some point or not. I honestly have no clue. I just know Noah and his family did not do it according to the bibles narration. First we have to identify where the Ark may have landed.

Scripture says thus Gen 8:4 And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Ararat was a country also known as Urartu. The country did not exist when Moses wrote Genesis. Scholars find that name came later in the 6th or 5th century BC. So basically Moses would have written the name of that geographical area in his time in Hebrew. Later on when scribes were editing the writings of Genesis they would have not changed anything as the geographical area would be the same. However, since that country or confederation of countries no longer existed they would write the modern country at that time or edit the geographical name to be current.

What that then does is at that time Ararat was composed of several mountain ranges that would fit into the geography of the mountains of Ararat. Those ranges today are what we would identify as the Lesser Caucasus, Eastern Pontus, Armenian Highlands, Taurus Mountains, and Zagros Mountains.

We also know that when they came off the Ark that they were living in tents. Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

My thesis would be they came off the Ark on one of the mountains in the country of Ararat, which several mountain ranges comprise the country of Ararat. They were nomadic living in tents and were southward bound. They are going to have a great vantage being in the mountains and coming down the ranges to view all the land to the west of them. At some point down in the southern Zagros Mountains they viewed a fertile plain and came down and made that home.

Gen 11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

They did not have any wood with them or use wood as Gen 11:3 says. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

So I don't find Noah or his family used any wood from the Ark for habitations. As scripture just paints a different picture. Did someone later I have no clue. So could it have been, there is a possibility at a later date. It just wasn't upon the exit and the first habitation they built upon leaving the Ark.
​
 
The Ark could have been repurposed at some point or not. I honestly have no clue. I just know Noah and his family did not do it according to the bibles narration. First we have to identify where the Ark may have landed.

Scripture says thus Gen 8:4 And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Ararat was a country also known as Urartu. The country did not exist when Moses wrote Genesis. Scholars find that name came later in the 6th or 5th century BC. So basically Moses would have written the name of that geographical area in his time in Hebrew. Later on when scribes were editing the writings of Genesis they would have not changed anything as the geographical area would be the same. However, since that country or confederation of countries no longer existed they would write the modern country at that time or edit the geographical name to be current.

What that then does is at that time Ararat was composed of several mountain ranges that would fit into the geography of the mountains of Ararat. Those ranges today are what we would identify as the Lesser Caucasus, Eastern Pontus, Armenian Highlands, Taurus Mountains, and Zagros Mountains.

We also know that when they came off the Ark that they were living in tents. Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

My thesis would be they came off the Ark on one of the mountains in the country of Ararat, which several mountain ranges comprise the country of Ararat. They were nomadic living in tents and were southward bound. They are going to have a great vantage being in the mountains and coming down the ranges to view all the land to the west of them. At some point down in the southern Zagros Mountains they viewed a fertile plain and came down and made that home.

Gen 11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

They did not have any wood with them or use wood as Gen 11:3 says. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

So I don't find Noah or his family used any wood from the Ark for habitations. As scripture just paints a different picture. Did someone later I have no clue. So could it have been, there is a possibility at a later date. It just wasn't upon the exit and the first habitation they built upon leaving the Ark.
​
We have already discussed this. Yes, if the Ark had come to rest near their camp it would have been repurposed. But it came to rest on the mountains that are around 16,000 feet high and the valley at the base of the mountains is 3,000 feet high. The valley would have been ideal location for the animals and the farm. There are forests at that elevation. They would have had plenty of wood and no doubt they could have had the same tools they had when they built the ark. What is easier, to cut down a tree a hundred feet from where your campsite is or to go up 10-13,000 feet to the ark, strip it, and then haul that down a mountain? So I don't think Noah and his family stripped the ark. So by the time you would have had anyone interested in doing that at least 30 years had passed. Meanwhile it seems the ark had been covered in snow at the top of this mountain and essentially buried.

Some may argue that the trees would have been uprooted in the flood. Even if that is the case they wouldn't have rotted in such a short time, so being surrounded by uprooted trees would have meant wood at 3,000 feet was much easier to gather than climbing the mountain to strip the ark.
 
The Ark could have been repurposed at some point or not. I honestly have no clue. I just know Noah and his family did not do it according to the bibles narration. First we have to identify where the Ark may have landed.

Scripture says thus Gen 8:4 And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Ararat was a country also known as Urartu. The country did not exist when Moses wrote Genesis. Scholars find that name came later in the 6th or 5th century BC. So basically Moses would have written the name of that geographical area in his time in Hebrew. Later on when scribes were editing the writings of Genesis they would have not changed anything as the geographical area would be the same. However, since that country or confederation of countries no longer existed they would write the modern country at that time or edit the geographical name to be current.

What that then does is at that time Ararat was composed of several mountain ranges that would fit into the geography of the mountains of Ararat. Those ranges today are what we would identify as the Lesser Caucasus, Eastern Pontus, Armenian Highlands, Taurus Mountains, and Zagros Mountains.

We also know that when they came off the Ark that they were living in tents. Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

My thesis would be they came off the Ark on one of the mountains in the country of Ararat, which several mountain ranges comprise the country of Ararat. They were nomadic living in tents and were southward bound. They are going to have a great vantage being in the mountains and coming down the ranges to view all the land to the west of them. At some point down in the southern Zagros Mountains they viewed a fertile plain and came down and made that home.

Gen 11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

They did not have any wood with them or use wood as Gen 11:3 says. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

So I don't find Noah or his family used any wood from the Ark for habitations. As scripture just paints a different picture. Did someone later I have no clue. So could it have been, there is a possibility at a later date. It just wasn't upon the exit and the first habitation they built upon leaving the Ark.
​
Also to note @Lanolin. I recall some years back in the singles section you had asked a question and I intended to answer but time did not allow, so figured I would do so at a later time. Well anyway today upon writing the mountain ranges I recalled your question.

You had once asked why do they call white people Caucasian. The German anatomist Blumenbach in the late 1790's was studying the features of a Georgian woman's skull. The country of Georgia sits on the slopes of the Caucus mountains so he named the white races Caucasian after the mountain range.
 
We have already discussed this. Yes, if the Ark had come to rest near their camp it would have been repurposed. But it came to rest on the mountains that are around 16,000 feet high and the valley at the base of the mountains is 3,000 feet high. The valley would have been ideal location for the animals and the farm. There are forests at that elevation. They would have had plenty of wood and no doubt they could have had the same tools they had when they built the ark. What is easier, to cut down a tree a hundred feet from where your campsite is or to go up 10-13,000 feet to the ark, strip it, and then haul that down a mountain? So I don't think Noah and his family stripped the ark. So by the time you would have had anyone interested in doing that at least 30 years had passed. Meanwhile it seems the ark had been covered in snow at the top of this mountain and essentially buried.

Some may argue that the trees would have been uprooted in the flood. Even if that is the case they wouldn't have rotted in such a short time, so being surrounded by uprooted trees would have meant wood at 3,000 feet was much easier to gather than climbing the mountain to strip the ark.
I have read that since and I just quoted exactly how the bible laid it out minus the add lib. The valley was a plain. So the difference is enclosure as one is open and the other enclosed by higher elevations. So one has differing elevations and one a constant elevation.
So they are not the same and when giving a thesis that is about scripture but not included in scripture. As a rule we should stick with what the naration says and formulate from what it says.
 
I have read that since and I just quoted exactly how the bible laid it out minus the add lib. The valley was a plain. So the difference is enclosure as one is open and the other enclosed by higher elevations. So one has differing elevations and one a constant elevation.
So they are not the same and when giving a thesis that is about scripture but not included in scripture. As a rule we should stick with what the naration says and formulate from what it says.
The point is that although in almost all cases of shipwreck the boat would be "repurposed" that is not the case with the Ark.

1. Climbing 10,000 feet to get some boards when trees are a hundred feet away makes little sense.

2. All the people were wiped out, so if Noah and his sons didn't repurpose the ark it would have been up there for at least 30+ years before anyone else would come looking and by then it could have been buried in snow and ice.
 
Also to note @Lanolin. I recall some years back in the singles section you had asked a question and I intended to answer but time did not allow, so figured I would do so at a later time. Well anyway today upon writing the mountain ranges I recalled your question.

You had once asked why do they call white people Caucasian. The German anatomist Blumenbach in the late 1790's was studying the features of a Georgian woman's skull. The country of Georgia sits on the slopes of the Caucus mountains so he named the white races Caucasian after the mountain range.
That doesn't really explain how races correspond to anatomy. Are skull structures different for each race? Aren't they varied regardless of skin tone? Did he also study other countries population features as comparison, and name other races?
 
I come from a country where one of our compatriots scaled Mt Everest (along with his sherpa guide) It would have been interesting if we could ask him his view on the Deluge after being on top of the Himalayas. Apparently, marine fossils have been found up there.

AFAIK, Sir Edmund Hillary was not a Christian, but he might have been familiar with the Bible and Genesis story. But he's gone now. Now adventruous people climb mountains for fun and pay for the privelige. But its become a dump site for mountaineers waste.

I totally understand why govts won't let climbers desecrate mountains.
 
The Ark could have been repurposed at some point or not. I honestly have no clue. I just know Noah and his family did not do it according to the bibles narration. First we have to identify where the Ark may have landed.

Scripture says thus Gen 8:4 And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Ararat was a country also known as Urartu. The country did not exist when Moses wrote Genesis. Scholars find that name came later in the 6th or 5th century BC. So basically Moses would have written the name of that geographical area in his time in Hebrew. Later on when scribes were editing the writings of Genesis they would have not changed anything as the geographical area would be the same. However, since that country or confederation of countries no longer existed they would write the modern country at that time or edit the geographical name to be current.

What that then does is at that time Ararat was composed of several mountain ranges that would fit into the geography of the mountains of Ararat. Those ranges today are what we would identify as the Lesser Caucasus, Eastern Pontus, Armenian Highlands, Taurus Mountains, and Zagros Mountains.

We also know that when they came off the Ark that they were living in tents. Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

My thesis would be they came off the Ark on one of the mountains in the country of Ararat, which several mountain ranges comprise the country of Ararat. They were nomadic living in tents and were southward bound. They are going to have a great vantage being in the mountains and coming down the ranges to view all the land to the west of them. At some point down in the southern Zagros Mountains they viewed a fertile plain and came down and made that home.

Gen 11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

They did not have any wood with them or use wood as Gen 11:3 says. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

So I don't find Noah or his family used any wood from the Ark for habitations. As scripture just paints a different picture. Did someone later I have no clue. So could it have been, there is a possibility at a later date. It just wasn't upon the exit and the first habitation they built upon leaving the Ark.
​
Tldr
 
It's not that long @ZuluKono

Was just thinking on the race question the other names were Mongoloid, Negroid and I can't remember if there are any others. I don't know if this German anatomist went looking for skulls of random women in Mongolia or Nigeria.

Also, what is this whole 'Aryan' race thing.

Were the Caucasoid mountains where Ararat was? If Noah and his sons were the progenitors of the rest of the earths population, they would have been prototype DNA of all the different races we have today, before they spread out across the land.
 
it would have been repurposed.

Not if the Lord wanted it to be found in modern times as a sign to unbelievers that God's Word is true.

In His mercy He does stuff like this to give the heathen every opportunity to have reason to believe.

It's hard for the Lord to use Christians as proof the Word of God is true in the end times since so many of them don't accept the whole counsel of God and walk in false doctrine as a result.
 
Not if the Lord wanted it to be found in modern times as a sign to unbelievers that God's Word is true.

In His mercy He does stuff like this to give the heathen every opportunity to have reason to believe.

It's hard for the Lord to use Christians as proof the Word of God is true in the end times since so many of them don't accept the whole counsel of God and walk in false doctrine as a result.
This is what I actually said:

"Yes, if the Ark had come to rest near their camp it would have been repurposed. But it came to rest on the mountains that are around 16,000 feet high and the valley at the base of the mountains is 3,000 feet high. The valley would have been ideal location for the animals and the farm. There are forests at that elevation. They would have had plenty of wood and no doubt they could have had the same tools they had when they built the ark. What is easier, to cut down a tree a hundred feet from where your campsite is or to go up 10-13,000 feet to the ark, strip it, and then haul that down a mountain? So I don't think Noah and his family stripped the ark. "

You removed everything in purple and presented what is in red as my "quote". That is deceitful. You made it appear that I had said the exact opposite of what I did say.

Genuine believers "have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
 
You removed everything in purple and presented what is in red as my "quote". That is deceitful. You made it appear that I had said the exact opposite of what I did say.

My point is the ark was not repurposed so I was actually agreeing what what you said.
 
My point is the ark was not repurposed so I was actually agreeing what what you said.
My point is that when you quote someone you must do it in a way that is accurate. You could have done what I did, quote the whole paragraph and highlight that little portion you were responding to. That would have made your point without distorting the meaning of my post.
 
I'm thinking that poster has some problems adjusting to this forum. Or maybe dyslexia. Most people don't skip around when they are reading, or if skimming, are able to grasp the gist of a post.

Soundbites quotes do not work.

Anyway, I think anyone climbing a mountain might agree its hard slog getting up there and depending on the gradient, hard to come down. Not sure when the wheel got invented, but in the olden days people were using oxen as beasts of burden.

That is also where the phrase 'unequally yoked' comes from. Nowadays we used trucks on land but we still use containers ships to transport goods.

Have you ever been to a containership port? It's a wonder to see them come in and offload the containers with the big cranes. Have you seen how elephants and giraffes get transported? If you were Noah, you would have been like the animal whisperer and could easily guide the animals on the ark just by talking to them. This was pre-flood when God's creatures were not afraid of us humans.