The alleged discovery of Noah’s Ark in Iran has been discussed on this blog before (“Christians Doubt Cornuke Has Found Noah’s Ark” and “We Sell Hope“), and we wanted to alert our readers to a new critique of Robert Cornuke’s theory by Gordon Franz. The author’s conclusion is appropriate and fair:
With so many theories claiming to discover biblical truth, the evangelical Christian community must be very discerning and follow the model of the Bereans who, after hearing the Apostle Paul himself, “searched the Scriptures to see whether these things are true.” Before swallowing the next claim, our community must do our homework on the history, archaeology, geology and geography of the landing place of Noah’s Ark using primary sources and hard data. If we cannot, then hold off judgment (pro or con) until others are given the opportunity to do so.
At this point the claims made by BASE Institute do not seem to have any merit. For the sake of the truth, however, I encourage the BASE Institute investigators to offer scholars, independent of the BASE Institute, full access to all the data. Let their best evidence come under the tests of scholarly scrutiny. When all the test results are in, the investigation and its claims will either be vindicated or proven false. The church, the witness to an unbelieving world, and truth itself deserve no less.
2 thoughts on “Is This Noah’s Ark?: A New Critique by Gordon Franz”
For the sake of the debate, lets say that they found a REALLY, REALLY big boat. It is imbossible to take all species two by two. Lets look at some numbers of KNOWN species.
287,655 plants
1.5 million fungi
10,000 lichens
1,190,200 invertebrates
58,808 vertebrates
5-10 million bacteria
1.5 million
Grand total = 8,046,663 (low estimate)
Two by two = 16,093,326
Must have been a really huge boat equipped with a modern lab to house the bacteria and fungi….
Genesis never says that Noah took plants, bacteria, and insects onto the boat. Those types of species could survive a flood (plus fish and other sea creatures, which you are including in your broad numbers). Additionally, 2 of each subspecies would not be necessary, as all of the variants today have developed over time through adaptation into subspecies of a common ancestor (different types of dogs for example). Finally, if one looks at the dimensions of the boat/ark and makes calculations, it is apparent that it would be able to hold over 50,000 sheep sized animals, while still providing ample living space. It was a really huge boat, but the laboratory was unnecessary.