Has Noah’s Ark Been Found?

 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[1]:

·        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[2]

·        It was made of wood (gopher)[3] — 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[4] 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[5] 

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.[6] 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,[7] 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).[8] 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.[9]

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.[10]

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.[11]

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.[12]

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[13]) 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.[14]

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.”[15]

Some believe there may possibly be some pillow lavas on Ararat, as reported by Corbin[16] 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)[17], 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.[18]

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.[19] Classed as Pleistocene rock, Ararat is regarded by most creation researchers as post-Flood continuous with the Ice Age that followed the Flood.[20]

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.[21]

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.[22] Though I do not agree with all of Habermehl’s assertions,[23] 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.[24] 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.[25] 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.[26]

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).[27] 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.

---

[1] Footnotes of the passages in the bulleted tabulation will not be given — most can be looked up easily in chapter 2.

[2] Bodie Hodge, “How Long Was the Original Cubit?” Answers magazine, April–June 2007, p. 82, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/original-cubit; now here: https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2025/04/how-long-was-original-cubit.html. 

[3] Scholars have debated whether this was a particular type of wood or a means of processing wood (similar to the process of making plywood or pressed wood). Many ancient ships of antiquity had intricate wood that had been processed to make it stronger and more durable. Was that technology passed down through Noah and his sons? It is possible.

[4] It is important to note that a kind is not necessarily what we know today as a “species.” For more information, see Georgia Purdom and Bodie Hodge, “What are ‘Kinds’ in Genesis?” in The New Answers Book 3, Ken Ham, ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2010), p. 39–48.

[5] There could be more information from the biblical text, but this should be a sufficient to give us the relevant highlights of ark information from the Bible.

[6] Bodie Hodge, “Josephus and Genesis Chapter Ten,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/josephus-and-genesis-chapter-ten#fnList_1_1.

[7] James Ussher, The Annals of the World, Larry and Marion Pierce, eds. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003), p.39–47.

[8] Dr. Andrew Snelling, “Special Report: Amazing ‘Ark’ Expose,” Creation ex nihilo, Sept. 1, 1992, p. 26–38, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/special-report-amazing-ark-expose.

[9] Gordon Franz, “Did the BASE Institute Discover Noah’s Ark in Iran?”Associates For Biblical Research, February 16, 2007, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/02/Did-the-BASE-Institute-Discover-Noahs-Ark-in-Iran.aspx#Article.

[10] This does not take into account the fact that some mountains of the region may have been raising and lowering during this transitional period of the Flood (Psalms 104:8–9).

[11] B.J. Corbin, The Explorers of Ararat (Long Beach, CA: Great Commission Illustrated Books, 1999), p. 8.

[12] Richard Lanser, “The Case for Ararat,” Bible and Spade, Fall 2006, p. 114–118.

[13] 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.

[14] It is possible that this volcano was much smaller originally and later post-Flood eruptions are what caused it to become so large and so high. But if this were the case, eruptions should have burned the wooden vessel to oblivion, so no remains of the ark should ever be found on Ararat. It is possible that petrification of the wood could take place at such temperatures; however, being coated in pitch, which is typically rather flammable, and being made of seasoned dry wood, it makes more sense that the ark would be burned in the presence of volcanic heat, not petrified.

[15] There are also other underwater geological evidences that should be present such as interbedded water-deposited volcaniclastics and pyroclastics, but these do not cover the mountain either.

[16] Corbin, The Explorers of Ararat, p. 326.

[17] Ibid., p. 326.

[18] “Ararat,” NoahsArkSearch.Com, http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ararat.htm.

[19] Y. Yilmaz, Y. Güner, and F. Şaroğlu, “Geology of the Quaternary Volcanic Centres of the East Anatolia,” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 85 (1998): 173–210.

[20] For more on the post-Flood Ice Age see Michael Oard, “Where Does the Ice Age Fit?” in The New Answers Book 1, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006).

[21] It is possible these volcanos were smaller at the time of the Flood and further eruptions have covered or destroyed any remains of the ark at the previous height of the mountains, but if this were the case, the ark did not come to rest on Ararat as we know it, nor would we know if it were taller than any other mountain in the range at that time.

[22] Anne Habermehl, “A Review of the Search for Noah’s Ark,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Andrew A. Snelling (Pittsburg, PA: Creation Science Fellowship; Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2008), p. 485–502.

[23] As one example, she holds the position that Noah and his family settled rather close to the ark and hence uses Genesis 11:2 as a basis to relocate Babel to an east-west direction of the ark landing site. Many scholars have pointed out the fallacy in this east-west direction, as this is in reference to Noah’s first settlement after the Flood (see footnote 7 or Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Genesis 11:2, http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/clarke/gen011.htm). Noah’s initial settlement is unknown, but it was a place that was fertile enough to farm. Noah and his family were also able to live in tents. One cannot assume this was essentially still at the ark landing site, as Noah and his immediate family were told to come off the ark (Genesis 8:16) and fill the earth (Genesis 9:1.) It was not until Noah had (in some cases) great, great, great, great grandsons that the rebellion occurred at Babel. Also, why live in tents when there is a huge wooden mansion to live in (i.e., the ark) or, at the very least, wood enough to build a proper shelter? Furthermore, Noah had his pick of the new world, so why remain at or near the rough mountainous area of the ark landing site and not find a place to start a new beginning, especially somewhere suitable for farming?

[24] Bill Crouse and Gordon Franz, “Mount Cudi — True Mountain of Noah’s Ark,” Bible and Spade, Fall 2006, p. 99–111, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/publications/bas19_4.pdf.

[25] Ibid.

[26] One also has to consider the amount of deterioration the wooden vessel underwent over 4,350 years. If kept frozen or in a dry, arid climate, a wooden ark could last quite a long time. However, in mid-temperate areas with alternating wet-dry conditions, it should not last long at all (think of a barn in the Midwest; one must work hard to keep such a thing for even 200 years). Being coated with pitch helps, but even that is not a perfect preservative. A perfectly engineered ark would have the pitch’s usefulness end at the end of the Flood (~370 days).

[27] Habermehl, “A Review of the Search for Noah’s Ark.”

*Source for this image was undetermined. It has been used extensively through out the web. I was unable to find the original source to cite but it is being critiqued and discussed for educational purposes so it falls under fair-use.