Bill Crouse and Gordon
Franz
The discovery of NoahÕs Ark was announced last
Sunday (4/24/10) by a Chinese organization from Hong Kong (NoahÕs Ark
Ministries, International). The
problem with this is that it seems like the ÒdiscoveryÓ of NoahÕs Ark is
getting to be almost an annual event.
What in the world is going on?
We think itÕs a question that is easy to analyze. Genesis 1-11 is the most attacked
portion of Scripture for its historicity.
Finding an antediluvian artifact like NoahÕs Ark could be the greatest
archaeological discovery ever. It
evokes many wannabe Indiana Joneses to search for NoahÕs Ark. We see no problem with this quest, and
would welcome such a discovery. The problem is not in the finding of the Ark;
but in its substantiation.
Amateur archaeologists can and do find things that turn out to be
fantastic discoveries. Witness the
treasure hunter, Terry Herbert, in Staffordshire, England who recently found a
huge cache of Saxon gold artifacts that was reported in National Geographic.
However, to properly document a discovery, the proper scientific
protocol must be followed.
Scientists are trained to gather and analyze evidence. They then publish their research so
that other scientists can test their results. These ÒIndiana JonesesÓ
invariably do not do this. They
put the cart before the horse by announcing the discovery first and declare
exactly what it is in a spectacular news conference rather than publishing
their results in a scientific journal.
The news media, on the other hand, is all too willing to do what gets
good ratings, and at the same time it usually puts evangelical Christians in a
bad light.
This Hong Kong group claims they are 99.9 % sure
that the wood they found belongs to the Ark of Noah. Initially, as writers and researchers who have spent a few
thousand hours researching this subject as well, we have the following
questions:
1. It is claimed that this discovery was
found in an ice and rock cave on Agri Dagh, also known as Mt. Ararat. It is a known fact among geologists that nearly all of the
icecap on this mountain consists of moving ice, that is, glacier. A glacier is a river of ice which flows
down the mountain. Any wooden
structure inside this ice would be ground to bits from the glacial action. In their news releases they have
reported this site to be at 13,000 feet and in another report at around
14,000. With these altitudes it
would have to be on the ice cap or at the very edge.
2.
Most geologists believe
this mountain was formed in relatively recent times, i.e., after the Flood. It is a complex volcano with no clearly
discernible layers of sedimentation that would have been laid down by flood
waters. There is, however, abundant
historical evidence that the Ark landed on another mountain 200 miles south of
Mt. Ararat called Cudi Dagh. For this evidence see our report: www.rapidresponsereport.com
3. The group claims they have had the wood
carbon dated by a lab in Iran with the results being almost 5000 years old
(with the Flood occurring about 3000 B.C.). Why did they have the wood tested in Iran, we ask? Will other scientists have access
to the lab results? Are there any
good labs in Iran that can do this kind of testing? Or, was the wood tested in Iran because the lab results
might be harder to trace by other scientists? Why wasnÕt a lab in the United States or the United Kingdom
used? Just asking!
4. Is this wood coated with pitch
(bitumen)? The Bible says God
instructed Noah to treat the wood with pitch, either asphalt or pine pitch
(Gen. 6:14). At least some of this
wood should test positive for this coating. Also, has a botanist examined the wood to determine what
kind of wood it is?
5. When archaeologists make a discovery
they must be able to prove exactly where they took their specimen out of the
ground. How do we know this video
showing the rooms was filmed where they said it was?
6. What about motives? Only God knows their true motives, but
it sure makes one nervous when these groups looking for the Ark are planning a
documentary video. One of the
members of this Chinese group is a filmmaker. About once a year a new docudrama about NoahÕs Ark appears
on one of the cable channels. They
would not keep doing this if they didnÕt make money.
7. What are the plans
to publish this material in scientific peer-reviewed archaeological and
geological publication? This
should be done before the popular book and video are released.
In addition to the above
questions, we have reason to question the integrity of this discovery for the
following reasons:
1. This group had a local guide who is a known for his deceit and fraud. It
is this guide who initially informed the Chinese group that he knew the
location of the Ark in 2008.
However, since then he has led them to more than one location. The first location was a cave at a low
altitude, a small cave with a tree growing in front! Apparently the current cave is at the 13,000 or 14,000 foot
level on the icecap.
2. The specimens taken from this first
cave (at the lower altitude) were claimed to be petrified wood from the Ark. In
actuality, they were nothing but volcanic tuffa.
3.
In one of the photos of the rooms straw is seen on the floor and even a
spider web in one of the corners.
Really! Do spiders live at
13,000 or 14,000 feet? Can they
survive the freezing temperatures?
4.
There is a real problem with evangelists (which is what they claim to
be) who use this kind of discovery to prove the Bible, and hence convince
non-believers of its authority, when in fact the truthfulness of the discovery
has never been established. I
[Bill Crouse] know firsthand of one ÒIndiana JonesÓ who spoke eloquently and
emotionally about his adventures, and when he gave an invitation at the end of
his presentation, many in the audience stood up to commit their lives to
Christ. When the speaker was
confronted about the truthfulness of some of the stories he told that night, he
replied: ÒBut look how many stood
up to receive Christ.Ó This
becomes very problematic when at some point the convert learns the real
truth. They often become very
embittered about all things Christian, and understandably so.
5. There seems to be more than the usual
gullibility here in that the Hong Kong group was warned about this local
Kurdish guide who has led others astray.
We say usual gullibility, because it seems to be a characteristic of
other ark-hunters as well, in that they tend to believe all the local
lore. While many ark-hunters mean
well, it seems that they want to believe every report seemingly at all costs;
putting everything through a rational grid often is avoided as being too
skeptical.
At this point we are
skeptical of the claims but would rejoice in the end if they proved to be
true. If this someday is the case
we will be the first to apologize for our doubts. We would strongly urge the
Hong Kong group to follow proper scholarly procedures and publish this material
in scientific, peer-reviewed archaeological and geological publications so that
the scholarly community can examine the material first hand and critique it in
order to offer helpful, and constructive, criticism. For the person in the pew, we caution you to not get too
excited about something that is at best, unsubstantiated; and at worst, a fraud
perpetrated by the Kurdish guide!
(The authors are both
members of the Near East Archaeological Society and the Evangelical Theological
Society.)
4/29/10