Have We Found Noah's Ark? As Heard on Live Free with Josh Howerton

Dr. JJJ's Archaeological Scorecard · As heard on Live Free with Josh Howerton

Have we found Noah's Ark? 0/10 −1

Reviewed and in collaboration with Dr. Scott Stripling & Wes Huff

The verdict: sensational claims, not science. Pseudo-archaeology until proven otherwise.

Thanks for listening to Live Free with Josh Howerton. Here are my talking points from our conversation. Tap any test to see the evidence. Each one ends with the bottom line and its sources.

Claimed, tested, collapsed.ClaimTest result

1959Spotted in an aerial photo.

1960Durupınar’s own team: “a freak of nature.”

1987Fenner can’t reproduce the 1986 radar.

1988Cores hit basalt and folded rock. Baumgardner changes his mind.

1992Morris: “not Noah’s Ark.” Snelling’s exposé.

1996Collins and Fasold’s peer-reviewed lab work: natural geology.

2023Dated, but “not possible to say that the ship is here.”

2025Atabey’s paper: a landslide.

2026“100% confirmed.” No wood.

Two claims. Seven tests between them. See the full pattern, with sources.

i Why is it called Durupinar?It's named for the man who spotted it. His own team found "only soil and rocks." History

The site is named for Turkish Army Captain İlhan Durupınar. In 1959, on a NATO mapping mission, he spotted the boat-like shape in a Turkish Air Force aerial photo and reported it to the Turkish government.
The photo traveled. It was printed in Australia's Pix magazine in 1960, and the "ark in the photo" story was born.
In September 1960, the Archeological Research Foundation sent a team to look. Captain Durupınar himself was on it, along with Arthur Brandenberger, a professor of photogrammetry, the science of measuring from aerial photos.
They dug and used dynamite for two days. They found "only soil and rocks." Their own news release said there were "no visible archaeological remains" and the formation "was a freak of nature and not man-made."
The ark claims came back decades later, when Ron Wyatt and David Fasold promoted the site in the 1980s. Every "discovery" since, including 2026, is a revival of the same claim.

The bottom line

The site carries the name of the man who found it. In 1960 he went and dug there himself. His own team called it "a freak of nature and not man-made." The question was answered 66 years ago.

Sources

Wikipedia, "Durupınar site" (citing Fasold, The Ark of Noah, 1988; Noorbergen, The Ark File, 2004)
Andrew A. Snelling, "Special Report: Amazing 'Ark' Exposé," Creation 14:4 (Sept 1992)
Dr. Mark Hitchcock, “Has Noah’s Ark Been Found? Dr. Hitchcock Examines the Evidence” (video, Oct 2026), on the 1959 discovery

↺ The pattern: claimed, tested, collapsedThis site has been "found" before. Every time, the claim fell apart under testing. History

1959–60. Claim: an aerial photo shows a ship. Test: a 1960 expedition dug and dynamited the site. Collapse: "only soil and rocks," "a freak of nature and not man-made."
1985–87. Claim: radar shows walls and iron fittings in a pattern. Test: radar specialist Tom Fenner returned with proper equipment in 1987. Collapse: "we were unable to duplicate their radar records in any way." A magnetometer survey found no buried metal and no "iron lines."
1988. Claim: a petrified ship lies inside. Test: Bayraktutan and Baumgardner drilled cores. Collapse: four cored holes hit basalt at 6 to 7 meters in the northern part and strongly folded rock in the southern part (Snelling 1992). Morris reported that Baumgardner, once open to the idea, "now contends he has disproved the hypothesis."
1992–96. Claim: the site is still the ark. Test: John Morris, Andrew Snelling, and finally lab work under the microscope. Collapse: Morris called it "not Noah's Ark." Even David Fasold, the site's great champion, co-wrote the 1996 paper exposing it as natural geology.
2008. A review at the International Conference on Creationism, edited by Snelling and co-published by ICR, concludes Durupinar "has now been debunked as the site of the Ark quite thoroughly by geologists."
2023. Claim: samples date to Noah's era. Test: the university behind the dates spoke up. Collapse: "With the dating, it is not possible to say that the ship is here."
2025. Turkey's own mineral research agency geologist, Eşref Atabey, published a paper explaining the formation as a landslide.
2026. Claim: "100 percent confirmed." Test: lab results due this winter, report aimed for spring 2027. So far: no wood identified.

The bottom line

Every cycle follows the same script. A headline. A test. A collapse. Then, years later, the same claim comes back with new equipment. 2026 is at the headline stage. The test is coming.

Sources

01 Wood at depth, in contextThe one test that would change everything. Nothing has passed it. Not met

This is the test that matters. Not soil. Not radar. Wood, deep in the formation, in context, verified by an independent lab.
In one hole, the drill bit broke on a hard layer about 4 to 5 meters down. The team's own leader, Andrew Jones, says they don't yet know what it is. It could be mineralized wood. It could be a hard rock block in the debris. Collins and Snelling both documented volcanic boulders all through this formation.
They report about three times more organic matter inside the outline. Jones himself cautions: "Organic matter also accumulates naturally in soils and slope deposits." Differences in soil, moisture, and plant cover inside the outline can do the same thing.
Initial lab results are expected this winter. A detailed report is aimed for spring 2027. Until then, nothing has been identified as wood.

The bottom line

Show me wood cell structure under a microscope from an independent lab. Then we'll talk.

Sources

02 Cores that contradict the geologyThey claim no bedrock. They haven't shown their logs. Disputed

This is their best new point, and I'll grant it's a real question. Jones says they core drilled at over 12 locations and "did not find bedrock at all."
But in 1988, Bayraktutan and Baumgardner cored four holes to 10 meters in the same formation. They hit basalt at 6 to 7 meters in the northern part of the boat shape and strongly folded rock in the southern part (Snelling 1992). Somebody's data is wrong.
No core logs have been released. Drilling has reached about 18 to 20 meters in places.
Even if there's no bedrock under the hill, that doesn't make it a ship. Turkey's own mineral research agency geologist, Eşref Atabey, explains the formation as a landslide. A landslide doesn't need bedrock underneath.

The bottom line

Release the core logs, hole by hole, and put them next to the 1988 logs.

Sources

03 Blind interpretation of the radarProprietary radar, no raw data, read by their own contractor. Failed so far

Radar measures contrasts in the ground. It cannot tell you what a material is. It can't tell wood from wet clay.
The radar survey was run by the project's own contractor, Dr. Khosrow Bakhtar. No raw data has been released for outside review.
Even Bakhtar is careful: "What that original object was, a ship or a spacecraft or what, I do not know." He was being honest about what radar can and can't tell you.
This isn't the team's first scan. In 2020, Collins reviewed Noah's Ark Scans' earlier side-sonar images. The "rooms" were natural differences in rock density and water content. The "gunnel" was a basalt dike. His verdict: "The rooms are purely fictitious imaginations."

The bottom line

Hand the raw data to three independent geophysicists without telling them where it came from. If they all draw a ship, I'm listening.

Sources

04 An answer to Collins (1996)The peer-reviewed lab work is still unanswered. Not met

In 1996 geologist Lorence Collins published the lab work in the Journal of Geoscience Education. His co-author was David Fasold, the man who had championed this site.
Under the microscope, the "iron bracket" came from weathered volcanic minerals. The "walls" were natural bands of iron minerals. The "anchor stones" were local andesite. The "gopherwood bark" was metamorphosed peridotite.
Collins has since refined how it formed. He no longer calls it folded layers. He now explains it as landslide debris flowing around a hard basalt mass. His verdict hasn't changed: natural rock.
The 2026 publicity argues against "bedrock." It never touches those thin sections.

The bottom line

Which of Collins's thin sections is wrong, and what's your lab result?

Sources

05 Peer reviewPress releases and TV interviews only. Not met

Every result so far has come through press releases and television interviews.
Peer review is where a claim goes to be tested by people who don't need it to be true. This one hasn't gone there yet. Even sympathetic coverage notes the findings haven't been independently verified or peer-reviewed.

The bottom line

Publish it in a journal where reviewers don't know the authors. Collins did. Snelling did.

Sources

06 Dates that agreeNothing new from 2026. The 2023 dates don't help them. Pending

No new radiocarbon dates have come out of the 2026 cores.
In 2023, a team from Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University and Istanbul Technical University dated samples to 3,500 to 5,000 years old.
Their own vice rector, Prof. Faruk Kaya, said: "With the dating, it is not possible to say that the ship is here." The range reflected human activity in the region, not a vessel.

The bottom line

The scientists who ran those dates said they don't show a ship. I'll take them at their word.

Sources

Arkeolojik Haber, Mount Ararat committee report and Prof. Faruk Kaya statement (Oct 31, 2023)

07 Matches the biblical arkGenesis describes a chest. This is a pointed hull. Not met

Genesis 6:15 gives 300 by 50 by 30 cubits. The length only fits if you use the long Egyptian royal cubit, about 52 cm. With the common cubit, about 45 cm, 300 cubits is about 137 meters, well short of the formation's roughly 164. The width doesn't fit either. Proponents have to say the sides splayed out in the mud.
The Hebrew word is tēbâ, a chest or coffer, likely borrowed from Egyptian. The only other place it appears is Moses' basket in Exodus 2. The Greek Old Testament translates it kibōtos, a chest.
Noah's ark was built to float, not to sail. It may have had some sloped edges to keep it from foundering. But it was enclosed, topped, and shaped like a chest. Not a pointed hull.
That design works. In 1994, nine naval engineers at the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering tested the Genesis proportions against 12 other barge shapes. The ark had "a superior level of safety in high winds and waves" and could have handled waves over 30 meters.

The bottom line

Genesis describes a floating chest, not a pointed hull. The text and the hill don't match.

Sources

Genesis 8:4; Genesis 6:14–16; Exodus 2:3, 5 (ESV)
S.W. Hong et al., "Safety Investigation of Noah's Ark in a Seaway," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–36 (1994), Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering

08 One of a kindBoat shapes repeat in the same mudflows. Not met

Their first argument is the shape. It looks like a boat.
But the Turkish Air Force released a photo showing three similar boat shapes in mudflow on the lower slopes of nearby Lesser Mount Ararat, as Snelling reported in 1992.
If the shape proves it's the ark, Noah had a fleet. Genesis gives him one ark.
The "anchor stones" Fasold said hung from the ark aren't unique either. Collins and Fasold's own lab work found they were local andesite, not stone from Mesopotamia. Creationist researcher Anne Habermehl identifies them as ancient standing stones, used for sighting the sky, a type found across eastern Turkey.
Archaeologist Dr. Randall Price adds two more problems. The holes show no wear marks from ropes. And the stones could not support their own weight if used as anchors. The fullest study of these holed stones, by P.M. Herouni at Carahunge in Armenia (1994 to 1997), concluded the holes were for sighting the sky.

The bottom line

They'll say the others lack the same internal features. Fine. Then the shape proves nothing, and the internal features are their weakest evidence.

Sources

Andrew A. Snelling, "Special Report: Amazing 'Ark' Exposé," Creation 14:4 (Sept 1992)
Lorence G. Collins & David F. Fasold, "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure," Journal of Geoscience Education 44 (1996)
Anne Habermehl, "A Review of the Search for Noah's Ark," Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Andrew A. Snelling (Creation Science Fellowship & Institute for Creation Research, 2008), pp. 485–502
Dr. Randall Price, note to Dr. Scott Stripling (Oct 14, 2026), citing P.M. Herouni’s four expeditions (1994–1997) at Carahunge, near Sisian, Armenia

09 Results others can reproduceThe original radar couldn't be repeated. The new data is withheld. Not met

In 1987 radar specialist Tom Fenner tried to reproduce the 1986 Wyatt and Fasold scans with proper equipment. His words: "we were unable to duplicate their radar records in any way." He found a flat reflector, likely bedrock.
Fasold also used a "molecular frequency generator." Snelling reported that the scientists he consulted were unanimous: "there are no scientific principles employed."
The 2026 raw data hasn't been released, so nobody can try to reproduce it.

The bottom line

Science that can't be repeated isn't evidence yet. It's a claim.

Sources

Andrew A. Snelling, "Special Report: Amazing 'Ark' Exposé," Creation 14:4 (Sept 1992)

10 Survives the experts who checkedBelievers tested it and walked away. Not met

This was never secular science against the Bible. The sharpest critics were believers.
John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research made thirteen trips to Ararat and called it "not Noah's Ark." Andrew Snelling took the claims apart in 1992. John Baumgardner drilled it. David Fasold co-wrote the paper debunking his own site.
In 2008, a review in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, edited by Snelling and co-published by ICR, concluded that Durupinar "has now been debunked as the site of the Ark quite thoroughly by geologists."
In June 2025, Eşref Atabey, a geologist with Turkey's General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA), published a paper explaining the formation as a landslide.

The bottom line

Young-earth creationists who want the ark to be real looked at this and said no. That should tell you something.

Sources

13 John Morris: 13 trips to Ararat, still "not Noah's Ark"The man who wanted the ark most looked hardest, and said no. Expert verdict

Dr. John D. Morris was a geological engineer and later president of the Institute for Creation Research. He first went to eastern Turkey in 1971. He went back twelve more times, the last in 1989.
He paid a price. On one trip he was struck by lightning and paralyzed for hours. His teams were shot at, robbed, and attacked by wolfhounds. He told the story in Adventure on Ararat (1973).
He studied the boat-shaped formation himself. His verdict in 1992: "an unusual geologic phenomenon, but not Noah's Ark."
His reasons: it "was formed as soil and mud slid downhill around a stable area." Microscopic analysis of the rocks backed that up. And there was "absolutely no indication that it is of archaeological significance."
He added that John Baumgardner, once open to the idea, "now contends he has disproved the hypothesis." Baumgardner's core drilling "revealed only the sorts of rock on the nearby hillsides."

The bottom line

No one wanted to find the ark more than John Morris. He went thirteen times and nearly died doing it. He still called this hill what it is.

Sources

−1 Penalty: the diggers sell the tours$1,100 to $3,600 a person, while the dig is underway. Conflict

Noah's Ark Scans sells 3-, 5-, and 12-day tours to the site. $1,100, $1,800, and $3,600 per adult. Trips in July, August, and October 2026, while the excavation is still running.
The project was also raising $600,000 to fund the dig.
I'm not saying money makes it false. I'm saying the people interpreting the evidence profit if the answer is "Ark." That's exactly why you need independent eyes.

The bottom line

I'm not questioning anyone's sincerity. I'm asking for independent verification. That's the standard I hold myself to.

Sources

! Watch the wording: human activityThe team is looking for something far smaller than an ark. Heads-up

The team says its samples are meant "to look for possible signs of human activity or decayed wood."
People have lived in eastern Turkey for thousands of years. Pottery from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age has already turned up nearby. Even the coverage admits it "only indicates human activity in the area."
A shepherd's fire, a burial, a later shrine would all count. So when the headline says "human activity found," hear it for what it is. Human activity is not a hull.

The bottom line

Humans being there and a vessel being buried there are two different claims.

Sources

◊ The pottery: "From Noah's time"?Undated fragments near a hill don't make the hill a ship. Heads-up

Pottery found near the formation earlier ranges from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age. That spans thousands of years.
In 2026 the team announced new fragments, and some reports floated "pre-flood" pottery. As of mid-October, those fragments had not been scientifically dated.
Even dated pottery needs context. Where exactly was it found? In what layer? Was the ground undisturbed? And what ties it to this formation being a ship?
Ancient pottery nearby shows people lived in the area. The 2023 dating team already said so: human activity here goes back to the Chalcolithic. As Answers in Genesis put it, an old Coke bottle beside your house doesn't make your house a Coca-Cola factory.

The bottom line

Date it. Show the layer. Connect it to a hull. Until then, pottery tells us people were there. We already knew that.

Sources

ProPakistani, "Researchers claim Prophet Nuh's Ark location 100% confirmed" (Sept 27, 2026)
Arkeolojik Haber, Mount Ararat committee report and Prof. Faruk Kaya statement (Oct 31, 2023)
Answers in Genesis video, “‘100% Confirmed’: Did They Actually Just Find Noah’s Ark?” (Oct 2026), on the undated 2026 pottery fragments

↻ Their latest claim: "It faces the wrong way"The boat points uphill, so it can't be a mudflow? Their own graphic disagrees. Answered

Noah's Ark Scans now argues the formation points the wrong way to be mud flowing around a rock, and that no bedrock has been found.
Their own graphic answers that. It says: "Orientation alone cannot establish whether the formation is natural or man-made."
Their target is real: in 1992 John Morris described soil and mud sliding downhill around a stable area. But Morris rested his verdict on the rocks under the microscope and on Baumgardner's cores, not on which way the tip points. Geologist Lorence Collins, who co-wrote the 1996 paper with Fasold, now explains it as landslide debris flowing around a hard mass of volcanic basalt, which carved the boat shape. Turkey's own government geologist, Eşref Atabey, calls it a landslide.
"No bedrock"? In 1988, Bayraktutan and creationist geophysicist John Baumgardner drilled it. They hit basalt at 6 to 7 meters in the northern part and strongly folded rock in the southern part (Snelling 1992). Fenner's 1987 radar found a flat reflector, likely bedrock. The 2026 scans are proprietary, with no raw data released.

The bottom line

"Not natural" doesn't spell "ship." Rule out every natural cause and you still need wood. Show me wood.

Sources

§ Their best case, and what it leaves outThe longest written case for Durupinar never mentions the paper that debunked it. Answered

In 2022, AJ Koehler posted an 87-page paper arguing that Durupinar is Noah's Ark. It gathers nearly every argument the 2026 team now makes: metal-detector lines, radar, "petrified wood," anchor stones, and the claim that the formation faces the wrong way.
It never mentions Collins and Fasold (1996). That is the only peer-reviewed study of the site, and the site's own champion co-wrote it.
Tom Fenner shows up only as the man who supplied the radar. His 1987 attempt to repeat the scans, which failed "in any way," is left out. The paper calls the earlier radar confirmed.
John Baumgardner is cited for a watershed map and a lab test. The 1988 cores that hit basalt are left out. John Morris is cited only for how many animals fit on the ark. Snelling's 1992 exposé isn't cited at all.
The 1960 expedition, with Captain Durupınar himself on the team, gets four words: "Hardly worth mentioning."
The "wrong way" argument starts here. It rests on the claim that a natural mound's round end always points into the flow, shown "in a backyard sandbox with a hose." On the other side sit microscope slides of the actual rock.

The bottom line

A case that skips the strongest evidence against it isn't a critical review. It's a brief for the defense. Answer Collins, Fenner, and the 1988 cores. Then we can talk.

Sources

† The biblical problem: Genesis gives no address"The mountains of Ararat" is a region, not a peak. Biblical

Genesis 8:4 says the ark rested "on the mountains of Ararat." Mountains. Plural. It never says Mount Ararat.
Ararat is the Hebrew name for Urartu, an ancient kingdom that covered much of eastern Turkey and Armenia. The name wasn't pinned to one peak until about the 11th century AD.
So no hill can claim a biblical address. Not Mount Ararat. Not Durupinar, which sits about 18 miles south of the summit.
Scripture also never says the ark survived. Noah's family stepped into a ruined world. They needed shelter and fuel. They may well have taken the ark apart and used the timber. The Bible doesn't say, so we shouldn't either.

The bottom line

Genesis gives us a region, not a GPS pin. Anyone who claims an exact spot is adding to the text.

Sources

Genesis 8:4; Genesis 6:14–16; Exodus 2:3, 5 (ESV)
NomadicNiko, "Noah's Ark: Durupinar" (on Urartu and the naming of Mount Ararat)
Wikipedia, "Durupınar site" (location: 29 km / 18 mi south of the Greater Ararat summit)

▲ The geological problem: the volcano came laterThe ark can't land on a mountain that isn't there yet. Geological

Mount Ararat is a stratovolcano. It was built up layer by layer through lava flows and eruptions.
Anne Habermehl's 2008 review for the International Conference on Creationism makes the same point. Ararat is a typical stratovolcano that formed on land, not under water. And it cuts through sedimentary rock, so it is younger than that rock.
Creationist geologist Andrew Snelling, PhD, has studied this region in detail. In his model, the modern volcano formed after the floodwaters had already retreated.
If that's right, the ark couldn't have landed on today's Mount Ararat. The peak wasn't there yet.
And Durupinar isn't on the mountain at all. It sits below it, in ground Turkey's own geologists explain as a landslide.

The bottom line

The mountain came after the flood, and this site isn't on the mountain anyway. Both problems point the same direction.

Sources

Answers in Genesis video, “‘100% Confirmed’: Did They Actually Just Find Noah’s Ark?” (Oct 2026), summarizing Andrew Snelling’s geology of the Ararat region
Anne Habermehl, "A Review of the Search for Noah's Ark," Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Andrew A. Snelling (Creation Science Fellowship & Institute for Creation Research, 2008), pp. 485–502
Andrew A. Snelling, "Special Report: Amazing 'Ark' Exposé," Creation 14:4 (Sept 1992)
Wikipedia, "Durupınar site" (summarizes Atabey 2025, Morris, Fasold)

✝ What the Bible says about Noah's Ark, and why it mattersReal places. Real people. Real events. And a rescue that points to Jesus. Scripture

Grace comes first. In Genesis 6, wickedness fills the earth. Then this: "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD" (Genesis 6:8, ESV). Before the first drop of rain, God had already moved toward one man.
God drew the plans. Noah followed them. A tēbâ, a chest, 300 by 50 by 30 cubits, with a roof, a door, and three decks (Genesis 6:14–16). "He did all that God commanded him" (Genesis 6:22, ESV). The design was God's. The obedience was Noah's.
The only other place the Bible uses tēbâ is Exodus 2:3, 5. It is the basket that carried baby Moses on the Nile, "daubed with bitumen and pitch" (Exodus 2:3, ESV). Two arks. Both sealed against the water. Both carried someone God chose to rescue, and through whom He would save many.
God finished the rescue. "The LORD shut him in" (Genesis 7:16). "God remembered Noah" (Genesis 8:1). Then He made a covenant and set His bow in the clouds (Genesis 9:8–17). The Hebrew word for the flood, mabbûl, appears only once outside Genesis: "The LORD sits enthroned over the flood" (Psalm 29:10, ESV). Even the flood had a throne above it.
The rest of the Bible treats Noah as history. He stands in the genealogies (1 Chronicles 1:4; Luke 3:36). Ezekiel names him beside Daniel and Job (Ezekiel 14:14). Isaiah anchors God's promise to "the waters of Noah" (Isaiah 54:9, ESV).
Jesus and the apostles build on it. Jesus: "As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:37, ESV). Hebrews: Noah built the ark by faith (Hebrews 11:7). Peter: eight people were "brought safely through water," a picture of the baptism that "now saves you… through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:20–21, ESV). Peter also calls Noah "a herald of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5) and points to the flood as a warning of judgment to come (2 Peter 3:5–7).
Why it matters. This is not a children's story about cute animals. It is about judgment and mercy. Ancient Babylon remembered a flood too. You can see it on Tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh in the British Museum. The parallels are striking. The differences are decisive. There, the gods act from hunger and fear. In Genesis, God acts in justice and covenant mercy.

The bottom line

The Bible never asks us to find the ark. It asks us to get in. The ark was God's provision in the judgment then. Jesus is God's provision now.

Sources

Genesis 5:28–11:10; Exodus 2:3, 5; 1 Chronicles 1:4; Psalm 29:10; Isaiah 54:9; Ezekiel 14:14, 20; Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 3:36; 17:26–27; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20–21; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:5–7 (ESV)
British Museum, "The Flood Tablet," Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI, K.3375 (Nineveh, 7th century BC)

? What would change my mindFour things. Any lab, any team, any time. The standard

Wood, deep in the formation, confirmed by an independent lab. Cell structure under a microscope. Not soil. Not radar.
Raw radar data, read blind. Hand it to three outside geophysicists who don't know where it came from. If they all draw a ship, I'm listening.
Core logs, hole by hole. Release them and put them next to the 1988 logs.
A peer-reviewed answer to Collins (1996). Show which of his thin sections is wrong, and publish your lab result.

The bottom line

Do that and we'll publish a new score. Gladly. I want this to be the Ark as much as anyone. But wanting isn't evidence.

Sources

The takeaway

We don't need a boat-shaped hill to trust Genesis. Jesus treated Noah as history: "For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:37, ESV). My confidence in the flood rests on Him, not on a mudflow in eastern Turkey. Real places. Real people. Real events. And real evidence, tested honestly.

The point

One ark. One door.

Here's what matters more than any drill core. God told Noah, "Set the door of the ark in its side" (Genesis 6:16, ESV). One ark. One door. Everyone who went through that door was saved. Then "the LORD shut him in" (Genesis 7:16, ESV).

Judgment came because of human wickedness. But God provided a way of rescue before the first drop of rain fell.

Jesus took that same picture and applied it to Himself: "I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved" (John 10:9, ESV). There was one way into the ark of safety. There is one way into salvation. His name is Jesus.

So the most important question isn't "Have we found Noah's Ark?" It's this: Have you walked through the door?

You don't need to find the ark to be saved. You need Jesus. And He isn't buried in a hillside. He's alive, and the door is open today.

Jeremiah J. Johnston, PhDPresident, Christian Thinkers SocietyReviewed and in collaboration with Dr. Scott Stripling & Wes Huff

FAQs

Add optional text content above the accordion

Heading

Use this text to share information about your brand with your customers. Describe a product, share announcements, or welcome customers to your store.

Heading

Use this text to share information about your brand with your customers. Describe a product, share announcements, or welcome customers to your store.

Heading

Use this text to share information about your brand with your customers. Describe a product, share announcements, or welcome customers to your store.

Have We Found Noah's Ark? As Heard on Live Free with Josh Howerton

Have we found Noah's Ark? 0/10 −1

One ark. One door.

FAQs

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay informed with Christian Thinkers Society