Welcome aboard the SS Noah
Questions? Please email me at:
Imagine the excitement onboard Noah’s ark when that awesome vessel grounded itself after being afloat for so long. Yet, despite the assured jubilation of the crew, we’re told that seventy-four days passed from the time the ark came to rest until Noah saw the tops of mountains. Scripture is clear and very detailed in the account of the great deluge. In fact, the details are what seem odd. Why are they included? What purpose would they serve but to assist in locating it? This is where my search for the legendary vessel of antiquity begins – in the detailed pages of Genesis.
"Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 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 8:1-5]
Several things ought to catch one’s attention in the above scripture passages. Besides the more obvious mileposts of the passage of time, we’re told the manner in which the flood decreased – "continually until the tenth month". We’re also given the information that more than one mountain was seen on the first day of the tenth month. "On the mountains of Ararat" narrows the search to the ancient Urartu mountain range, in eastern Turkey, but not necessarily to the single mountain bearing the name "Mt. Ararat". From the information in this portion of scripture alone, I believe the search for the notorious wooden vessel can be narrowed down considerably from the numerous mountains in that region.
Using topographical maps of the area, elevation data was gathered and placed into a table. Beginning with the highest peak and following the decreasing water level, each subsequently smaller mountain (or "target site") over 10,000 feet was systematically evaluated as a potential landing place of the ark. For each possible target mountain, the next two smaller mountains (deemed "remote mountains" – "R1", "R2") were determined as well as their respective distances from the target site. Provided that the elevations of the mountains have remained somewhat constant from the aftermath of the flood, this collective data gives us a snapshot of what Noah may have seen as the floodwaters decreased. This prerequisite condition becomes the first criterion for considering a mountain of the identified region as a target site.
- A target site must be within the "mountains of Ararat" region and have a minimum of two other mountains within view that have not changed significantly in elevation since the landing of the ark.
Since I am not a geologist and have no intentions of travelling to every mountain of the region in consideration, I chose not to eliminate any target sites based on this criterion. This by no means diminishes the validity of the criterion, but for completeness it has been included. The second criterion is also based on the above passage of scripture.
- A target site must be of sufficient height to accommodate a given constant water receding rate, whereby 74 days after the ark came to rest at least two other mountains of lower elevation would have been seen.
The fact that so many days passed between the time the ark rested and when mountaintops were seen necessitates that the ship must have landed on one of the taller mountains in "the mountains of Ararat". The alternative is that a dense fog might have covered the earth until it was lifted on the seventy-fourth day, but scripture doesn’t mention anything along these lines. The systematic approach of considering each peak in the area, from the tallest to the lower ones, allows us to determine whether 74 days would be sufficient to spot two remote mountains from each target site. Remembering that Noah saw at least two mountains on that day, we can utilize the following equation to determine if each target site passes or fails.
if R2 elevation + (est. receding rate * 74) £ target elevation => "Pass"
"Failing" simply means that the lower of these two remote mountains ("R2") would not have been seen on the seventy-fourth day (or that the ark would still be afloat if working in a reverse order). This requires one important bit of information that scripture does not provide, but one that can be estimated – the rate of receding water. For my calculations, I began with the estimate of 15 feet/day as put forth in J. Whitcomb/H. Morris’ The Genesis Flood and included estimates both greater than and less than this estimate. As seen in the Table 1 below, this turns out to be a fairly accurate median rate when considering the ten highest peaks in the region. At the rate of 21 feet/day, none of the target sites pass, while at 9 feet/day seven of the target sites pass. Of the one hundred mountains with an elevation over 10,000 feet, only these seven mountains passed one or more of the seven water receding rates (9’ – 21’/day). "T1" is located at "M4" in the Map Data Table, which falls outside of the region believed to be "the mountains of Ararat" and therefore is not a possible landing site. Likewise, "T5", "T6", "T7", "T9" and "T10" are dismissed as possible landing sites since they lie outside of this region. Of these ten highest mountains, Mt. Ararat "T4" is the only mountain that clearly falls within the designated region (location = "Q11") and passes the water receding calculation. Although Mt. Ararat failed at the receding rate of Morris’ 15’/day, it passed at a close rate of 13’/day. At the rate of 13’/day, the approximate landing elevation of the ark on Mt. Ararat would be 15,919 + (13’/day * 74) = 16,881’. At the receding rates of 9’ and 11’/day, the resting elevation of the ark figures out to be 16,585’ and 16,733’ respectively.
Table 1 - Target Table
Click table to enlarge
The "Loc" columns of the Target Table cross-reference the columns and rows on the Map Data Table below. "R1", "R2" and "R3" represent the three remote mountains of progressively lesser elevation than the Target Mountain and their respective distances from the Target Mountain are also listed. The column "³R2" provides a sum of mountain peaks greater than or equal to the R2 elevation and less than the target elevation.
For each target site, there exists the possibility that one or more of the next lowest mountains (R1 or R2) are obstructed from view (the ark may not have landed on the summit, so the summit itself may obstruct the view in a particular direction). To factor this in, additional tables ("substitution tables") were created for each target site, showing the recalculations with different remote mountain combinations. The information in these additional tables is too exhaustive to publish on this web site - please email me if you are interested in obtaining them. In his expedition tips, B.J. Corbin states that there are only 4 likely areas remaining to be searched on Mt. Ararat (map photo):
- the eastern summit plateau area 16,800'
- the saddle between the two summit peaks 16,800'
- the western plateau 15,000'
- the northwest ice cap 14,000'
In light of my receding water tables, the first two seem highly probable, but the last two are not entirely out of the question. As mentioned above Table 1, the estimated landing elevation falls in the range 16,585 - 16,881'. These estimates are based strictly on topographical data and eye-witness information regarding views from various points on Mt. Ararat. Depending on what remote mountains are used (R1 & R2), this estimated elevation could accomodate the Western Plateau or the Northwest Ice Cap as well. The possibility that the ark is resting at a lower elevation than where it originally came to rest is certainly not an impossibility. Glaciers and/or earthquakes may have shifted the vessel to lower elevations through the years, depending on the location of its' landing. Personally, I believe the data supports a landing on Mt. Ararat. Whether or not God chooses to disclose its' location at some point remains to be seen. Such a discovery would certainly cause a stir in this age of biblical skepticism. Some people, undoubtedly, would remain staunch critics. I believe others, like Thomas, would receive that extra bit of proof that the Word of God is true and would become believers as a result. The time seems ripe for such a discovery.
Table 2 - Map Data Table
Click table to enlarge
Note: Each cell of the Map Data Table represents 997.5 square miles, the vertical side being 35 miles and the horizontal side equaling 28.5 miles. The values contained in the Map Data Table represent the highest elevation in the regional section bounded by the latitude and longitude coordinates listed alongside the table. The inset map in the bottom-right corner corresponds roughly to the shaded area of the Map Data Table, which is the region believed to be "the mountains of Ararat".
