Has Noah’s Ark Been Found?
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc. PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries April
27, 2025
Introduction
As with many questions, there are always debates, and the
questions surrounding the search for Noah’s ark are no different. However, one debate
most people are probably somewhat familiar
with, or have at the very least considered, is “Has Noah’s Ark been found?” There
is actually much more to this than meets the eye.
Entire volumes could be written on this subject of the Ark,
and some have been written already. However, the aim here is to provide some
concise answers to the best of our ability to the many questions about the Ark in
an overview format.
Early model of the Ark showing scale with the Box-Shaped Ark (~2006); Image from Presentation Library
Biblical Data
The Bible gives some information about the Ark:
·
Its overall dimensions were 300 by 50 by 30
cubits (Genesis 6:15). Using the short or common cubit (~18 inches), it would
have been about 450 feet long; or using a longer royal cubit (~20.4 inches), it
would have been around 510 feet long
·
It was made of wood (gopher) —
Genesis 6:14
·
It was covered with pitch inside and out —
Genesis 6:14
·
The Ark had rooms — Genesis 6:14
·
It had three decks — Genesis 6:16
·
The Ark had a covering — Genesis 8:13
·
It had a window (Hebrew: tsohar, which means “noon”), which was finished to a cubit from
above (think of something like a “ridge vent” on houses today for ventilation
and lighting) and could be opened and shut (though Noah did not open it until 40
days after they landed on the mountains of Ararat — Genesis 6:16, 8:6
·
The Ark was made/fabricated, and done so with godly
fear — Genesis 6:14–15, 6:22; Hebrews 11:7
·
One of its purposes was to house land-dwelling,
air-breathing animals during the Flood with a male-female pair from each of the
representative kinds of
the unclean animals and seven individuals (or pairs — the meaning is debated)
of the clean animals (likely three breeding pairs of these clean animals, as
well as sacrificial individuals for after the Flood) — Genesis 6:20, 7:2–3, 21–23,
8:20
·
Eight people survived on the Ark: Noah, Shem,
Ham, Japheth, and their respective wives — Genesis 7:7, 13; 2 Peter 2:5; 1
Peter 3:20
·
It had a door which was likely in the center
deck as implied by the wording “lower, second, and third decks”; that is, one
deck was lower than the door — Genesis 6:16
·
The Lord shut the door to the Ark from the
outside (and it is probable that it too was sealed with pitch like the rest of
the Ark; otherwise, the rest of the pitch was pointless with these untreated
seals) — Genesis 7:14, 16
·
The unrighteous sinners who did not go on the Ark
did not realize their doom, even up to the day that Noah boarded the Ark —
Matthew 24:38; Luke 17:27
·
The Ark was lifted off the ground by or on the
fortieth day of the Flood and then floated high above land surface on the
waters — Genesis 7:17
·
It landed in the mountains of Ararat on the 150th
day of the Flood (confirmed by calculating from Genesis 7:11 with a 360-day
year) Genesis 8:3–4
·
The Ark survived the Flood and Noah’s family and
the animals came out of the Ark — Genesis 8:18–19
·
They had remained on the Ark for 370 days (or
371, depending on whether half days are rounded as full days or not) — Genesis
7:11, 8:14–16
·
Noah’s family left the Ark and settled where
there was fertile soil for Noah, who became a farmer — Genesis 8:19, 9:1, 20. This
first settlement would have been in an east/west direction from Babel, the
later place of rebellion — Genesis 11:2
Notice that very little information is given about the Ark’s
resting place (simply “mountains of Ararat”).However,
there are some deductions and inferences that can be made from the Scriptures,
which leads to the debate over the Ark’s landing site.
Ark researcher Tim Lovett's possible floating ship-like design, based on ancient ship features and models dealing with wind and wave forces; Image credit: Tim Lovett
Where Are the Mountains of Ararat?
If someone had asked me years ago which mountain Noah’s ark
landed on, my response would have been a naïve, “Mt. Ararat, of course, because
that is what the Bible says.” However, a reading of Genesis 8:4 reveals no such
thing. Instead, the text says the “mountains of Ararat,” which refers to a range
of mountains, not a specific mountain.
And this raises an important point. Christians always need to
check information with the Scriptures. Let God be the authority, rather than
man, on any subject. Believers know Noah’s Ark existed, and they can be certain
of that because of God’s Word, regardless of whether or not any remains of the Ark
are found. The all-knowing God says in His Word that the ark existed. There is
no greater authority on this subject to whom one can appeal.
So where are the mountains of Ararat? The mountains of
Ararat form a mountain range named after the Urartu people who settled in that
region after the dispersion event at the Tower of Babel. In Hebrew, Ararat and
Urartu are even spelled the same way. Hebrew does not have written vowels, so
both are essentially spelled rrt.
Josephus, a Jewish historian living about 2,000 years ago,
said that Armenia was made up the descendants of Hul through Aram and Shem.
Armenia is the later name of the
region of Urartu/Ararat, which is a specific part of the Armenian highlands. So
it is understandable why Josephus used the later name, whereas Moses used the
earlier name.
When Moses wrote Genesis around 1491–1451 bc, he
had been educated in Egypt as royalty (and he had been inspired by the Holy
Spirit), so it is to be expected that he understood the geography of the peoples
in the Middle East. In fact, other Bible writers like Isaiah and Jeremiah, who lived
well after Moses but well before Josephus, were also familiar with the Ararat
land and people:
Now it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the
house of Nisroch his god, that his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him
down with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. Then Esarhaddon
his son reigned in his place (Isaiah 37:38).
Set up a banner in the land, blow the trumpet among
the nations! Prepare the nations against her, call the kingdoms together
against her: Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz. Appoint a general against her; cause
the horses to come up like the bristling locusts (Jeremiah 51:27).
This ancient region is basically in the eastern part of modern-day
Turkey, Armenia, and western Iran.
The Debate Over Which Mountain
One of the most heated debates on this subject, though, is over
which specific mountain the Ark
landed on within the mountain range. Of course, the Bible does not say the Ark
landed on a specific mountain, but this is inferred. It is possible it landed
in a lower area within the mountains of Ararat. However, the two most popular
sites are:
Mt. Ararat (Agri Dagh)
Mt. Cudi (or Cudi Dagh; Cudi sounds
like “Judi”)
Many ark landing sites have been proposed over the years. One
that has been rejected as a geological formation by most scholars in recent
years is the Durupinar or Akyayla site in Turkey, near the Iran and Turkey
border. That site consists of something akin to a boat-shaped feature that is
readily recognizable (think of a football field-sized “footprint” in the shape
of a boat). The
area contains several of these geological features and that is really all that
it is.
Durupinar site matches many other geological features in the local vicinity and many creation researchers critique this site and point out this is just geological feature...not a remnant of the Ark.*
Other sites that have attained some popularity but have been
largely rejected by archaeologists, geologists, and researchers are Mt.
Salvalon and Mt. Suleiman in Iran. It is unreasonable for these mountains to be
included in the region of Ararat. There are other problems associated with them
too.
Ararat
The discussion following will focus on the debate over these
two primary alleged resting places, Cudi and Ararat. Key verses in the
Scriptures need to be consulted before proceeding:
Then the Ark rested in the seventh month, the
seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters
decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first
day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen (Genesis 8:4–5).
The tops of the surrounding mountains were seen 74 days
after the Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat. This gives the impression that
the mountain the Ark landed on was much higher than the others. So the obvious
choice is Mt. Ararat, which today towers excessively over all the other
mountains in the region.
Mt. Ararat is large volcano that extends to a height of 16,854
feet! This is higher than any mountain in the 48 contiguous United States
(Alaska does have a few mountains that are taller). Lesser Ararat (also known
as Little Ararat) is another volcano that stands adjacent to Mt. Ararat and is
12,782 feet high, which is similar in height to a number of impressive peaks in
the Rocky Mountains in the United States.
Many say that if the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat, then it would
have taken another two and one-half months for the water to reveal other surrounding
mountain peaks. This seems logical. In fact, this is one reason some scholars argue
that Mt. Ararat is the resting place for the Ark.
Nevertheless, this is not the main reason why the search for
the Ark has focused on Ararat. The primary reason is because of the eyewitness
accounts of ark sightings in recent times. B.J. Corbin wrote a book on the
search for Noah’s Ark, which is helpful to anyone wanting to find out the
details of various expeditions on Ararat. The book also discusses Mt. Cudi, the
other proposed site. In the preface of the second edition, Corbin states:
The only major reason to consider Mount Ararat is
because of the few documented eyewitnesses. . . . There is a number
of intriguing statements from individuals who indicate that there may be a
barge-like or boat-like structure high on modern day Mount Ararat. These
statements are really the primary basis for the search on Mount Ararat.
Corbin, who has also been involved in the Ark search on
Ararat, confirms that the primary reason to for the search on Ararat is because
of the eyewitness accounts. There have been quite a few accounts including many
reputable people in the 20th century, and Corbin in the preface to his book
documents these as well. Furthermore, Ararat is covered with ice and glaciers
all year, so this is an ideal hiding place (i.e., more difficult to locate) for
an Ark.
Even in some older literature, such as in the writings of Byzantine
historian Philostorgius in the fifth century, Ararat was suggested as the Ark’s
landing site. After the 13th century ad,
more sources affirm this mountain as the landing site.
Considering the scriptural basis of the highest mountain, the
eyewitness accounts, and the historical sources, why would anyone look
elsewhere for the landing site?
The Debate Gets Heated
On the other side of the debate, there are some objections
to consider. First, even with all the eyewitness accounts of purportedly seeing
something like the Ark on Ararat, there has never been anything of substance
ever found or documented to prove the Ark landed on Ararat.
Also, the Bible does not explicitly say that it was only due to the water’s recession (which
all sides agree is indeed a factor) as to why mountaintops were seen. The text
says “the tops of the mountains were seen” (Genesis 8:5). This involves two
things: water level (1) and
visibility (2).
This second factor that is often overlooked is the
conditions that may affect visibility. The warmer ocean water (which is
expected from the Flood with continental shifting, rising basalts from the
mantle, and possibly some nuclear decay would surely generate heat and
volcanism) gives off vapors and mists that form low-lying fog and clouds.
Hence, visibility would likely be rather low. Genesis 8:5 may well be
discussing the state of visibility and atmospheric condition regarding clouds
and fog from the heated ocean just as much at it discusses water level.
One way or another, this passage (Genesis 8:5) cannot
be so easily used to affirm a landing spot on the highest peak. It may still be the highest peak, but one
cannot be dogmatic. Another factor needs to be considered here too — if it were
the highest peak, what was the highest peak at
this time?
One common objection is that if the Ark landed at such a
high altitude, how did the animals get off the Ark and make their way down from
this deadly mountain? And how did man and the animals at that high altitude survive
all that time without sufficient oxygen after striking ground (day 150) until
being called off the Ark (day 370)? Oxygen tanks would not be necessary when
floating on the surface of the water, because oxygen percentages are based on
sea level (about 21 percent at sea level). If the Ark were at 16,000 feet above
sea level, then when the water receded, oxygen would be a requirement because serious
problems can occur due to lack of oxygen at altitudes over 12,000 feet.
Another oft-used argument is that pillow lavas should be
found on Mt. Ararat if it formed underwater. For those unfamiliar with pillow
lavas, they are formed when a volcanic eruption occurs underwater. The lavas
that come in contact with water cause it to harden quickly in masses that look
“like a pillow.”
Some believe there may possibly be some pillow lavas on
Ararat, as reported by Corbin and
through observation attributed specifically to Clifford Burdick. However, if
this volcano was formed in the Flood before day 150 when the Ark ran aground,
then such pillow lavas should have extensively covered it. But this is not the case.
Rather, there is a severe lack of evidence that this mountain was ever covered
by water. There are some pillow lavas on Ararat at very high altitudes (e.g., 14,000
feet),
but the same characteristic features of pillow lavas also form when lavas meet
ice and snow, which may be a better explanation of these specific pillow lavas
at high altitudes on Ararat where it is capped in snow and ice.
Another argument must also be considered: Mt. Ararat and
Lesser Ararat are volcanoes. They have been identified as having been formed
after the Flood because they sit on top of fossil-bearing sediment from the
Flood. Classed
as Pleistocene rock, Ararat is regarded by most creation researchers as
post-Flood continuous with the Ice Age that followed the Flood.
Satellite image of Mt. Ararat and Lesser Ararat peaks showing their recent volcanic debris flow (denoted by arrows) that sits aloft on the surrounding mountains of Ararat.
By this argument, these volcanoes did not exist at the time the Ark landed. When viewing these
volcanoes from above, one can readily see the lava and volcanic flow from the
volcanoes overlaying the foothills
and plains that make up part of the region of the mountains of Ararat. From the
account of Scripture, the mountains of Ararat were made by day 150 of the Flood
(Genesis 8:4) and the Ark landed on day 150 of the Flood (Genesis 8:4), so
these volcanoes had to come after both
the mountain formation and Ark landing to have their volcanic flows sitting
aloft on the foothills of the mountains of Ararat today.
Furthermore, fossils are readily found within the mountains
of Ararat, but they are rare or absent entirely on Mt. Ararat. Some claim to
have found some, but there is no documentation for in situ (in their original place) fossils on Ararat. The layers on
Ararat are volcanic, not sedimentary.
Habermehl has reviewed the search for Noah’s ark.
Though I do not agree with all of Habermehl’s assertions,
she does provide a thorough review of evidences and arguments regarding Ararat
and Cudi.
Cudi
The other potential mountain that has long been proposed is
Mt. Cudi. Crouse and Franz point out that this mountain has gone by various
names such as Judi, Cardu, Quardu, Kardu, Ararat, Nipur, Gardyene, and others.
Cudi, being in the mountains of the Ararat region, also sits in a “specified”
range of mountains known as the Gordian, Kurdish, Gordyene, and others.
This is important to know, as many ancient sources say the Ark
landed on this specific portion of the mountains. Both Ararat and Cudi are in
the basic region of where the Urartu lived, but whereas Ararat is referred to
in some early literature (5th century at the earliest) as the Ark’s landing
site, Mt. Cudi is referred to as the landing site in many more and far earlier
sources.
In Bible and Spade,
there were cases presented for Ararat
(Lanser) and for Cudi (Crouse and
Franz), along with other pertinent articles on the subject.
Crouse and Franz did an extensive historical review referring to numerous
ancient and modern sources that point to Cudi. These include direct and
indirect allusions to Cudi in sources from:
·
Jewish (e.g., Josephus, Targums, Book of
Jubilees, and Benjamin of Tudela)
·
Christian (e.g., Theophilus of Antioch of Syria,
Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and several others), pagan (e.g., Berossus and The
Epic of Gilgamesh)
·
Muslim (e.g., Koran [Qur’an], Al-Mas’udi,
Zakariya ibn Muhammad al Qazvini)
Cudi is much lower in elevation, being about 6,800 feet high,
so it would not have been so difficult to herd animals down the mountain. There
would have been no problems with low oxygen levels, and this mountain is not a
volcano that is resting upon the top of the mountains of Ararat (like volcanic
Ararat is). But it was easily in a place where pieces could be looted or taken
as relics. According to Crouse and Franz, the Muslims claimed to have taken the
last of the major beams for use in a mosque.
The legends and lore associated with this mountain still
persist in the area as well. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others still came
together for a yearly celebration in honor of the sacrifices made by Noah after
the Flood as recorded by a historian nearly 100 years ago (W.A. Wigram). There
is even a place on Cudi that is the traditional landing spot of the ark on a
particular ridge. So is this the absolute landing site? We simply do not know.
Conclusion
Other sites are often brought up without much traction. So, has Noah’s Ark been found? The obvious answer is that people
would not be asking this question if Noah’s Ark really had been found! It would
likely be the find of a lifetime. But a wooden structure isn't expected to be found after all this time if exposed to the elements.
Both Ararat and Cudi have had their share of popularity over
the years. And both have strong supporters on their side. When viewing the
evidence through the lenses of Scripture, the more logical choice is that of
Cudi, not modern-day, volcanic Mt. Ararat that sits on top of fossil-bearing
sediment from the Flood.
But would we be dogmatic that Cudi was the landing spot? Not
at all. The Bible simply does not say, and though many ancient sources point to
Cudi, these sources are not absolute, while Scripture is. The fact is that
there has been no indisputable evidence of Noah’s Ark having been found
anywhere (outside of Scripture, which itself is sufficient proof that the Ark
existed, as there is no greater authority on any subject than God). But is such
external evidence needed? Not at all.
To summarize, there was so much more that could have been
discussed, but with such limitations, a brief overview of the debate is the
best that can be hoped for in this short article. My hope is that this
brief introduction will encourage you to learn more about the subject, and that
you will give glory to God when doing so. Much more research on the topic of
the ark’s landing site needs to be done, be it on Ararat, Cudi, or other
places.
Would undisputed evidence of the Ark be of value?
Absolutely. But is it necessary for one’s faith? Not in the least. So do not
forget this point: the Bible is true, and Christ is who He says He is,
regardless of whether anyone finds the remains of the Ark or not.
Further Reading:
1.
Bible and Spade Debate: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/publications/bas19_4.pdf.
2.
The
Explorers of Ararat, B.J. Corbin (Long Beach, CA: Great Commission
Illustrated Books, 1999).
3.
Noah’s Ark Search website: http://www.noahsarksearch.com/.
4.
Rick Lanser of the Associate for Biblical Research has published a four-part series on
the group’s website entitled “The
Landing-Place of Noah's Ark: Testimonial, Geological and Historical
Considerations,” parts 1–4, available at http://www.biblearchaeology.org/category/flood.aspx.
I would like to extend a special
thanks to Dr. Andrew Snelling for his guidance on this chapter/article.
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth
month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the
mountains were seen.
