FAQs

Primary areas people have searched for the remains
of Noah’s Ark in the “mountains of Urartu/Ararat“: Mt. Ararat| Mt. Cudi | Durupinar | Iran

While there have been some minor changes to the ice cap of Mt. Ararat since the first Archaeological Research Foundation (ARF) expeditions in 1960 and 1962, there have not been any detailed studies documenting the ice fields on a yearly or decade-by-decade basis or noticeable changes to the size, length, or depth of the glaciers. Also, even if one assumes that there is a temporary Mount Ararat warming and possible reduction in snowfall over a number of years, it may take a long time to melt the 17 square miles of ice that is up to 300 feet deep in certain locations. Rather than waiting for the ice cap to melt completely, a more proactive plan would be to utilize Ground Penetrating RADAR (GPR) or RADAR Satellite data to see what, if anything, has survived the ice’s pressure underneath the ice fields.

  

Nothing in the research since the 1940’s or the explorers’ hundred expeditions has proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Noah’s Ark or it’s remains have been discovered or that it has survived since the biblical flood of Noah. NoahsArkSearch.com attempts to look at the legitimate claims and present them on this website but there is no proof, photo, or science to support the ark’s survival thus far, other than the eyewitness testimony.

 

It is implied that prior to the flood, God made His decision to destroy sinful mankind. At that time, Noah was asked to build the Ark. At around 500 years old Noah became the father of “Shem, Ham and Japeth” (Gen 5:32) and at 600 years of age finally entered the Ark (Gen 7:6). Therefore, taking the difference in Noah’s age from the “commission” to the flood was potentially up to one hundred years to build the Ark since we don’t know exactly when Noah began building it.

 

Genesis 6:15 “And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it.” [KJV]

Most bibles assume an 18 inch cubit (although a 21 inch cubit was the royal cubit length of Egypt), therefore, the Ark would approximately have a length of 450 feet, width of 75 feet and height of 45 feet. The Volume of Noah’s Ark would have been 1,396,000 cubic feet. The Gross Tonnage of Noah’s Ark would have been 13,960 tons. The Capacity of Noah’s Ark would have been 522 railroad stock cars which could hold 125,280 sheep-sized animals.

 

1) Noah could have taken youthful or smaller animals.

2) Noah did not need to take fish or other aquatic animals/creatures on the Ark.

3) Consider naming all the large land-dwelling animals that you can think of by yourself. The reality is that there are not that many large animals currently on earth.

4) The Bible does not say that Noah took every land-dwelling “species” that scientists have documented as such in the 21st century. First of all, the biblical “kinds” of animals do not equate the 21st century’s scientists’ “species.” Also, because of post-flood micro-evolution or different breeds (ex. two dogs could have created all the different dogs today), only about 16,000 individual animals would be necessary on Noah’s Ark.

An excellent resource written by John Woodmorappe is Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study.As you can see, objectively rethinking the situation reduces the count considerably. The dimensions of the ark would comfortably allow support of all animals.

For more details on this issue, please consider:

How Did Noah Fit All the “Species” on the Ark?

How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?

Could Noah’s Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? 

 

There are a lot of people convinced that Noah’s Ark either landed on present day Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey or Mount Cudi in Southeastern Turkey. The Durupinar site popularized by Ron Wyatt has been eliminated as a candidate as shown by Turkish Geologist Murat Avci’s The Formation and Mechanics of the great Telceker Earth Flow. Likewise,Iranian sites are not viable as this Review & Critique of Bob Cornuke’s Search for Noah’s Ark Video shows in Adobe Acrobat PDF Formaty – or  HTML Web Format by Gordon Franz, Bill Crouse, Rex GeisslerMount Ararat and Mount Cudi are within the ancient boundaries of “Urartu” or “mountains of Ararat” as mentioned in the Bible. Along with the small bits of wood that have been found under the summit of Mount Cudi, only on Mount Ararat is there the possibility that any substantial remains of the ark could still exist and are hidden by ice rather than being buried in soils or sediments or destroyed/buried by lava. Ararat is a large and inhospitable mountain that borders Armenia and Iran, and has a permanent ice cap as well as glaciers. A concern is that there are no proven marine fossils on Ararat as there are in the surrounding hills and that the vertical and volcanic nature of Ararat may make most of its heights a young mountain. This may indicates that Ararat is possibly a Flood or post-Flood volcanic mountain. Along with the lava flows with sharp and difficult terrain, this would not make post-volcanic Ararat a good landing site for the animal cargo to land and descend the mountain. Another major concern is that the moving portions of the ice cap (17 square miles in size and up to 300 feet deep) create unimaginable forces that could easily pulverize a wooden and even petrified boat or barge. Ground Penetrating RADAR and the next generation of Satellite RADAR has the technology to answer these questions to look underneath the ice cap as well as to study the archaeological sites. ArcImaging was the first organization to receive Turkish Federal Permission since 1990. This is a long way of saying that we believe that Noah’s Ark landed within the “mountains of Ararat” region. If the ark did not land on the upper reaches of Ararat, but on some other smaller mountain, it would seem likely that the ark was probably used for shelter and fuel and did not survive the millenia since Noah’s Flood. See the answer by clicking on this webpage. 

The Durupinar or canoe-shaped/boat-shaped mound site (popularized by Ron Wyatt) is named after Turkish Captain llhan Durupinar who identified the formation in a Turkish Air Force aerial photo while on a NATO mapping mission in 1959. There is an old settlement near the site named Nasar. The Durupinar site is located about 2 miles north of the Iranian border, 10 miles southeast of Dogubayazit, and 18 miles south of the Greater Mount Ararat summit. When Rex Geissler studied all over and around the formation in 2000 and 2001, the GPS coordinates for the lowest spot on the formation were 39 degrees 26.470 minutes North latitude and 44 degrees 14.110 minutes East longitude and 1,874 meters altitude with the top of the formation at 39 degrees 26.391 minutes North latitude and 44 degrees 14.049 minutes East longitude and 1,911 meters altitude.Both geologist Clifford L. Burdick and archaeologist William H. Shea wrote articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly about this site in September, 1976. However, many people identify the site with the deceased Ron Wyatt. Ron Wyatt had no formal training in archaeology or in geology, which is a shame since Turkish geologists now believe that the Durupinar site is nothing but a geologic formation. Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) Ron Wyatt was a nurse anesthetist (a CRNA) from Madison, Tennesse, and “Indiana Jones”-type adventurer who was extremely charismatic but who also had a wild side. For example, Wyatt stuffed illegal rock samples from the Durupinar site in other researchers’ luggage like Elfred Lee’s as they were approaching Turkish airport search/metal detectors. After 27 years of Durupinar obscurity, Ron Wyatt and the late David Fasold popularized the site in the late 1980’s and early 1990s. Ron Wyatt also claimed that the biblical Mt. Sinai was in Saudi Arabia at Jebel al-Lawz.In 1948, an AP article reported that a man named Reshit found Noah’s Ark, the end of which was as big as a house, sticking out of the ice, high on Mount Ararat. Reshit is a common name in the region. Dr. A.J. Smith and a contingent from the United States and Turkey went to the Ararat area just one year later in 1949 and did not find this person within a “100-mile search area” although they did not conduct a detailed search. In 1967, SDA Television Evangelist and Archaeological Research Foundation (ARF) pioneer George Vandeman said he met with the Reshit that the 1949 AP story was based upon on the northeast side of the mountain near Ahora Village but that Reshit was now too old to lead them to the location. Almost forty years later in 1986, David Fasold claimed that he found a Reshit with the complete name Ali Oglu Reshit Sarihan who lived in Uzengili just above the Durupinar site. Fasold claimed that this “Uzengili Reshit” was the one which the 1948 AP article was based upon. He also alleged that this Uzengili Reshit really meant Durupinar (which gets snow but not ice) rather than the ice cap of Mount Ararat (17 square miles of ice cap up to 300 feet deep) which is 18 miles across the valley to the north. Uzengili Reshit said that the formation began with three earthquakes occurring close together in 1948 and that the formation became more distinctive with each earthquake. The 8mm videotape of Fasold with the Uzengili Reshit has apparently been lost when David Fasold died. However, David Fasold did publish an interview by a Thomas Anderson of California with the Uzengili Reshit in his Ark-Update newsletter five years after the fact in 1991. Although it does indicate that this Reshit was a longterm resident of Uzengili (born 1926 in Dogubayazit) and was familiar with the Durupinar formation and how it was geologically formed by several earthquakes (before May 1948 he claimed that the formation was a wheat field), it is still debatable that this Uzengili Reshit is the one that the 1948 article was based upon. Uzengili Reshit initially thought that the formation was a treasure and that he might find some old treasure in the cracks of it. There are several problems with the interview. First, the interviewer Anderson had to place complete trust in the translator since he did not speak Turkish or Kurdish. Second, beginning with the first question, the interviewer immediately assumes that the Durupinar geologic formation “is” Noah’s Ark, thereby showing his obvious bias which makes one question the entire interview by tainting the witness by his own assumptions. Third, there was much confusion about when and how extensive were the earthquakes in the region as Uzengili Reshit said it was 1978, the interviewer Anderson stated 1968, and the translator said 1958, which forced the interview to be halted after only a few questions. Fourth, in comparison to the 1948 AP article, no mention is made about any earthquakes or to a wheat field being destroyed. Fifth, also unlike the 1948 AP article, Uzengili Reshit mentions nothing about a boat sticking out of the ice high on Mount Ararat. Objective researchers can discover further contradictions by simply reading the original 1948 AP Article at this link. So either the AP article was nothing like Uzengili Reshit’s story or Fasold found the wrong Reshit. Another reason why people like Durupinar is that there are alleged name-places around the area which point to a bibilical-type flood and survival of eight people through a boat. The problem again with this line of reasoning is that other Urartian sites have similar name-places, let alone all around Persia and the Near East. Both the Mount Ararat area and Mount Cudi area have similar name-places, so how does one decide which is the correct site? In fact, after Durupinar was dubbed “Noah’s Ark,” they started thinking that Mount Cudi must be nearby so low and behold, around 1995, the mountain above Durupinar was renamed “Mount Cudi,” which makes it at least the fifth “Mount Cudi” in the Near East . “Revisionist History” like this example is typical when people stretch the truth to make their point. Unfortunately, many naive Seventh Day Adventists seem to have gotten tangled up in promoting this location. Fortunately, scientifically trained Seventh Day Adventists such as the Archaeological Research Foundation’s (ARF) Clifford Burdick, Dr. David Merling of Andrews University, and Allen Roy help prevent the naive view from going too far.The Learning Channel broadcast a film July 31, 1995, about the work of Wyatt, Fasold, and John Baumgardner Ph.D. However, as evidence against Durupinar has mounted and initially interested people like Arthur Brandenberger Ph.D. of Ohio State University (1959-1960) and Dr. John Baumgardner of Los Alamos National Laboratories (1980s-1990s) pulled back their support of the formation, the Durupinar supporters seem to have evolved their views. As the current view goes, Durupinar is no longer the actual remains of Noah’s Ark where Ron Wyatt stated it contained trainloads of wood inside of the formation, but rather Durupinar is an imprint at the location where Noah’s Ark stopped after the 500 foot long boat slid down the hill several thousand feet via a geologic flow which amazingly, did not turn the boat over or destroy its shape whatsoever. Advocates state the support that the Turkish Government gave the site during the 1980s. However, at the 2005 Mt. Ararat and Noah’s Ark Symposium hosted by Istanbul University Prof. Octay Belli and the Governor of Agri, Gerrit Aalten stated that Turkish Geologist Murat Avci (whose Resume/CV is provided here to show his credibility) gave a very nice presentation on the subject of Durupinar. Through a PowerPoint presentation and the following paper, Murat Avci made it scientifically clear that the Durupinar site is just a freak of nature and nothing special or manmade. The title of the presentation was “Geomorphological Surface Shape that looks like a Ship Form in Agri” or “The Formation and Mechanics of the great Telceker Earth Flow.” Ironically, Murat Avci’s primary point about the site is that the formation was a portion of the original cliff that slid down the earth flow and stopped at the current location, ironically a similar concept as the new view of the Durupinar believers, except that the earth flow was geological rather than a man-made structure or imprint. Beside this presentation and the associated geologic paper made available at the 2005 Mt. Ararat and Noah’s Ark Symposium, there was almost no mention of Durupinar during the entire five-day conference, except in a summary of touristic sites in the province of Agri, which says a lot about how the Turkish Government and the scientific authorities in Turkey view the Durupinar site today… According to the Ron Wyatt view, the ark later deteriorated or was scavenged and destroyed. The alleged “anchor” stones fifteen miles away at Kazan are extremely controversial and have better explanations detailed in the following:

Hole Stones of Arzap by Gerrit Aalten

Mount Ararat Archaeological Survey discussing the Hole Stones 

Durupinar followers tend to refer to researchers interested in the ice of Greater Mount Ararat which is 11,000 feet higher than Durupinar as “Mountain Men.” Notably, many Durupinar followers are unaware that Urartu formed such an extensive geographic region which included tens of thousands of square miles including thousands of mountains with other possible ark landing locations. Just a few are listed here: Sabalan (16,800 feet), Sahand, Alborz, and Cudi Dagi, as well as Ararat. To include heights at 5,000 feet or higher in the biblical “mountains of Urartu” would be too numerous to count. Durupinar supporters also tend to not be seriously open to alternative views as seen by their links from their websites which normally include only pro-Durupinar sites and do not even include this website even though many alternative views are discussed in this account. As the 21st century opens, people who seem to revere Ron Wyatt (especially naive Seventh Day Adventists located in Tennessee, California, Australia, and northern Europe) continue with a high interest in further research of the geologic formation and close vicinity but this may slow down as they consider the actual evidence and responsible Turks pull back support from this site.

The 2nd Edition was available from 1998 to 2010 in a printed version and the 3rd Edition is being published online and most of it is already available for you to enjoy. 

Yes, the videos of David Balsiger (The Quest for Noah’s Ark and Ancient Mysteries), Rev. Ken Long on TBN, and Carl Baugh on Kenneth Copeland have been studied but there is no conclusive evidence for Noah’s Ark. B.J. Corbin went to Ararat with Carl Baugh in 1990 and has spoken with Ken Long on the phone as well as has seen the photos of his area of interest. There is nothing that is convincing from either.

 

No, it is not known as the surface of the world probably changed radically during the worldwide flood, especially if there previously was a single Pangaea-type continent. The Tigris River is mentioned flowing out of Eden but the river’s course would be different than the post-flood rivers, although the survivors renamed at least two of the rivers, Euphrates and Tigris. If the rivers did not change course or were at near the pre-diluvian rivers, then the possible location of the Garden may have been South Central Turkey. However, remember that Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden which was guarded so Noah undoubtedly did not live there. Please consider the following links:

Eden #1

Eden #2

It depends on your frame of reference in regard to dating mechanisms.If you believe evolutionary dating mechanisms (old earth of 5 billion years old), which makes many unstated assumptions as fact both before and after the flood, then you would state that the flood was probably 20,000 to 50,000 years ago. This is why old earther’s scoff at the search for the ark, as it is extremely unlikely any of the boat would have survived for tens of millennia. However, if the ark is actually scientifically documented to have survived, this would present a dilemma for old earther’s, who typically rely on many generations being left out of the biblical genealogies.If you question evolutionary dating mechanisms (young earth of 6,000-10,000 years old), then you would consider that the flood was probably between about 5000 BC to 2350 BC, depending on if any generations were not included in the biblical genealogies. See the Links webpage for more information.

What we know or can say is already on the News Page and the ArcImaging Website.

The explanation that I’ve found intellectually satisfying is included in detail in the ArcImaging presentation. To summarize, at the time of the Flood, there was a single, geologically undisturbed landmass, which is popularly called Pangaea, the existence of which is supported by (amongst other reasons) the finding of matching rock layers on the east cost of South America and the west coast of Africa. This is in agreement with Genesis 1:9, where it says that God “gathered into one place” the waters; the corollary is that the land was also in one place.) This single continent had rather low mountains, if any. The geological turmoil that began with the breakup of the “fountains of the deep” at the start of the Flood resulted in fractures in the earth’s crust which allowed upwelling magma to begin pushing up Ararat and other volcanic mountains (which were also higher due to sediments the Flood deposited on the original bedrock.) Pillow lava noticed on Greater Ararat by geologists indicates that there was magma outflow under water or ice or snow, possibly during the Flood period. By the time the Flood receded, the process of mountain-building was well underway, but still relatively young, and Ararat and similar volcanic peaks continued to rise from underground pressures over the centuries, raising the peak ever higher and the Ark along with it. The presence of small “parasite” cones on the slopes of Mount Ararat, together with the still-present smell of sulfur, indicates the reality of volcanic methods of building the height of the mountain after Noah and the animals had already left the ark as there are at least 3 different time periods of lava flows around Ararat. Incidentally, the many small “parasite” cones on the slopes helps explain why the Ark may not have been destroyed over time by volcanic activity: the pressure was vented from those “parasite” cones, such that there was no single main cone from which magma would spew out and bury everything from the top down. Perhaps hydrocarbon-containing fumes thus vented may have had a preservative effect on the Ark as well, like creosote that is used at the base of electric poles to keep them from rotting. In short, there is evidence that Mount Ararat may not have been a real high mountain at the time the Flood ended, so the depth of water needed to cover may have been far less than is now the case. It grew to its present height in the centuries after the Ark might have already nestled in a somewhat sheltered spot high up near the top.

According to the Book of Jubilees, “And in the twenty-fifth [1205 A.M.] jubilee Noah took to himself a wife, and her name was Emzara, the daughter of Rake’el, the daughter of his father’s brother, in the first year in the fifth week [1207 A.M.]: and in the third year thereof she bare him Shem, in the fifth year thereof [1209 A.M.] she bare him Ham, and in the first year in the sixth week [1212 A.M.] she bare him Japheth.” According to a children’s book written by an ordained Jewish rabbi – Noah’s wife’s name was Naamah. The book’s title is “A Prayer for the Earth: The Story of Naamah, Noah’s Wife”. The author is Sandy Eisenberg Sasso who is well-known.