Recently, Mark and I watched a 1993 documentary of what was believed to be Noah's Ark found in modern-day Turkey. It was narrated and written by G. Edward Griffin with the discovery and promotion of the site credited mainly to two men: Ron Wyatt and David Fasold.
Watched without biased or further research, the film was incredibly convincing. It explained how the site met all the 'requirements' to be the Ark of Genesis. It also showed how the mountain (near the famed Ararat) had been considered the landing place of Noah's structure by ancient residents. The researchers also brought in instruments to test for metal samples in the soil. All in all, it was an interesting film and gave a good argument for the Durupinar Site. (This website outlines much of what the film presented.)
However, afterward I was curious as to why this had not gotten further publicity and researched the finding further. Of course, I was surprised to see it almost immediately challenged and discredited. This essay outlines the faulty and doubtful arguments and explains how David Fasold actually denied his initial claims to this site as the actual ark of Noah. Fasold found Wyatt even to be outlandish, and the essay documents what other Christian discoveries Ron Wyatt claimed to make (including a DNA sample of Jesus).
There are a few things I took away from this experience. First, I'm amazed at how zealous some are to prove the Bible--to the point of fabricating the discovery of Noah's Ark. Granted, most of the false findings were probably motivated by greed and a lust for fame. Still, many Christians get excited--for the wrong reasons--whenever another claim of the ark arises in the media. It's as if our faith is suddenly justified. But who wants that kind of faith? Isn't faith, by definition, "the conviction of things not seen"? Shouldn't we trust the Bible's accuracy regardless of whether or not archeology proves all its written history?
