Genesis 7:6-20 - Where was the ark? (Conclusion) - Lake Van looks good
Well, if you stuck with this latest series, “Where was the ark?”, then you might have been expecting me to come up with a smoking a gun, and say precisely where the ark lay. I am sorry, but I cannot do that. However, I will close out this series with a summary of what I believe are reasonable requirements for the location of the ark, and then provide what is in my mind a likely possibility.
I have already laid out the Biblical evidence that I have for Noah’s ark being built somewhere in the mountains of Ararat. But where? Here are the features I would look for if I were Noah, wanting to a build an ark.
Away from the people
As we saw in Genesis 7:6-17 - Where was the ark? (Part 3) - Only Noah’s Family Knew, Noah chose a place where nobody would realize he had built an ark.In the Mountains of Ararat
After all, the ark survived the flood without being washed away from there. With no natural mechanism for washing to there, it stands to reason that it was built there.Within view of a spring, possibly higher than it, but not within its path
This suggests it could be near the source of the Tigris or Euphrates river.Surrounded by mountains
There needed to be ring of mountains around him that would hold in the water, enough to hide the main hollows within the mountains to a depth of 20 feet.
Now, the first two requirements are easy to meet, if you meet the second two. But, where within the Mountains of Ararat could Noah have built an ark surrounding by mountains that would hold water, and allow him to see the springs burst forth?
Here is a link to one theory that passes all these requirements: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/09/re-why-creation-2.html. The theory is that the flood is was at Lake Van. It’s at the blog of Stephen Jones, whose debates with Glenn Morton I have often mentioned in my posts. As I’ve said before, it is their theories that I have found the most useful in my own studies.
It was very interesting just following the scriptural bread-crumbs, and finding them converge on a fellow Christian’s theory. Using some arguments that Jones himself used, and other that did not is what makes his theory particularly appealing. I suggest you read his theory in more detail at the link above. As you read it, keep in mind that I do not believe the flood was limited to Lake Van, but encompassed the entirety of the mountains of Ararat (or Urartu), as well as the plains south of it, which is where I believe Adam’s descendants were living at this point. Jones’ post implies to me that he limits the flood to Lake Van; perhaps he doesn’t, I am not sure. However, I will clarify that he doesn’t appear to be staking his life on that location, but is just trying to offer up a scientifically and biblically logical location. I believe he has done just that, even if I cannot find anyone else who has adopted it. That’s okay. No flood theory I have found seems to catch on with anybody but the one who suggests it… my own included! Just seems to be how it goes. Human stubborness at work! I guess the question is, whose stubbornness? Don’t answer that.
Now here around Lake Van might the ark have been built? View this map here: http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/50/5950-004-F6CE1260.gif. At 43 degrees longitude is a small river feeding into the Tigris. You can see it beginning just north of Lake Van as a grey line, and joining up with the red Tigris. That location would seem to meet all of my requirements above. Another possibility might be above the words “Armenian Highland, just above where the Tigris runs through it. That isn’t exactly at Lake Van, but it, too would meet my requirements.
Both locations meet my locations, but both also suffer from one problem: they aren’t completely closed off. God would need to close off any outlets from the mountains surrounding the ark. Lake Van has more mountain outlets to block, but within the Armenian Highlands, the one outlet we see is rather large. However, the Tigris runs through it, and however it burst forth could have created a blockage. Jones argues similarly, that God would have needed a blockage around Lake Van that would have kept the water in, then later unblocked to let the water out. Personally, I find Lake Van more appealing, because it’s by a spring, but away from the major river. Also, the lake was lower then than it is now, as Jones writes. So, there was actually more room to build than there would be now.
So, there you have it! A plausible theory of where Noah built the ark, and how it fits with scripture and science. As continue through the Flood narrative in Scripture, I will assume the flood to be around Lake Van, for simplicity of reference.