Bournagain

There has been another claim to have found Noah’s ark.  You are probably not aware, as to date it has been difficult to find coverage of this event in mainstream newspapers.  I am not well-placed to attest to the authenticity of this find as I am not an archaeologist, nor have I been to Turkey.  If you are interested in this subject you can examine the claims for yourself in this report issued by the organisation behind the search, and this video footage purportedly filmed inside the ancient wooden structure discovered at an altitude of over 4,000 metres up Mount Ararat.

I admit to being fascinated by the possibility that the remains of the Ark could still be buried somewhere in eastern Turkey.  I would not consider, however, that I have any vested interest in the finding of the said artefact because of my faith.  The Christian faith is not based on whether or not the Ark can be found, but rather whether or not a certain first century Jew died and rose again three days later as he claimed he would.  For me the historical evidence for this second fact is quite sufficient to give me confidence to follow the way of Jesus.

However, quite apart from the question of whether or not this latest finding is authentic, we are again witnessing the news media behaving in a very peculiar way, as it does every time some archaeological discovery is made that sheds light upon an event that is recorded in the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures.

Have you ever noticed that for an archeological find that is corroborated by the Scriptures to be accepted as authentic, an impossibly exacting standard of proof is required?  The set of criteria for evaluating biblical archaeology is quite different to those used in any other field of archaeology, or indeed historical science in general.

A collection of statements from media reports concerning the latest Noah’s Ark find illustrates this:

The evangelical group says it found wood structures on Ararat, and carbon dating placed it at 4,800 years old. But even this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s Noah’s Ark – or that the “structure” they found is that old.
New York Daily News 20/04/10.

Carbon14-dating is generally presented by the popular media as being infallible, even if it yields an age of over 60,000 years, which is widely understood to be the maximum extent of the method’s reliability.  If we read in the news that a fossil or an artifact has been dated to x number of years, we accept that report as being reliable.  If, however, it concerns a biblical artifact, carbon-dating doesn’t prove anything.

It could be ancient, it could be medieval, it could even have been constructed last week,” he said. “Even carbon-14 dating will only tell us how old the wood is; it will not tell us when the structure was constructed.

A quote by Professor Eric Cline of George Washington University, from the same article.

All historical evidence needs to be evaluated and interpreted, as there are no eye-witnesses available to confirm whether or not a find is authentic.  We see both plausible and implausible interpretations put forward, and in most cases, when an expert rejects an implausible interpretation, this rejection is confirmed and accepted.  When it comes to biblical archeology, however, experts get away with publishing the most absurdly implausible interpretations, and are taken seriously.  The above is a prime example – Mr Cline would have us believe that it is possible that somebody found a store of 4,800 year old timber that he carted 4,000 metres up a mountain and built a wooden structure, embedded it in the ice, and managed this feat in a week.

Noah’s Ark Hoax Claim Doesn’t Deter Believers, trumpets Fox News, followed by a stereotypical medieval engraving of the Ark (supposedly highlighting the unsophistication of our credulous forbears who actually believed the biblical account).  Further down in the article we read:

Maybe the find on Mount Ararat in Turkey really is Noah’s Ark. More likely, it isn’t. But if it isn’t, that won’t stop Ark enthusiasts from believing it is out there somewhere.

The headline tells us it’s a hoax.  The article specifies that the authenticity of the find has not yet been determined.  This article does not tell us anything useful regarding the identification of the artifact, other than portraying the author of the article, Lauren Green, as someone who considers herself qualified to brush off of the find with a summary “more likely it isn’t [the ark]“, which begs the question, “what would she know?”  Can a journalist who entitles her article with such a blatantly contradictory headline really be trusted?

Difficult to find serious journalism on the subject, although the Christian Science Monitor seems to do a better job than most.  It has published in-depth articles about the expedition and its findings, and brings up a number of factors that need to be seriously examined before the find could be considered conclusive.

Nevertheless we also see in these articles exacting standards that would not necessarily be required of less controversial discoveries:

While news of the find is making headlines around the world, there’s one part of the story that Yeung is conspicuously silent about: He is only the latest in a long line of people who claim to have found Noah’s Ark. In fact, there have been at least half a dozen others.  Christian Science Monitor, 28/04/10

Would it be generally expected of someone going public with an archeological find to give an account of the work of their predecessors?  Is there really anything so “conspicuous” about this silence?

There are several reasons why the new claims should be treated with skepticism. For example, Yeung refuses to disclose the location of the find and is instead keeping it a secret. This of course is inherently unscientific.  From the same article.

If the discoverer is convinced of the authenticity of the find,  is it so surprising that he would not want the exact location published?  Later in the article the research team is criticised for not making their find available for independent testing, but for this to occur, surely the site would need to be protected from pillagers and the alterior motives of any number of adventurers that could cause serious damage.  It’s early days – let us first wait and see if peer review is undertaken.  It could be a very lengthy procedure.

Much more could be said, by people eminently more qualified.  I suspect a lot more work needs to be done before the value of this find on Mt. Ararat can be finally determined.  In the meantime, we will no doubt be treated to more examples of double-standards in the news media when it comes to archeological finds as they relate to the Bible.  There is a world of difference between healthy skepticism and cynicism.

Update: For a comparison of the media treatment of biblical archaeological finds  and “missing link” discoveries supporting Darwinism, OneNewsNow has an interesting article.

Photograph courtesy of sacredsites.com.

Have you ever noticed that the first utterances of God to man that are recorded in the book of Genesis are questions? We can suppose that God who knows all things was not unaware of the transaction that had taken place between Adam, Eve and the serpent, and yet instead of berating them for their foolishness, he begins with a question: Where are you? In the very first scene revealing God’s relationship with man, we see God searching for his children who, out of fear and pride, have hidden from him. God has continued to seek man throughout his history.

When he finds them, he persists in his questioning: Who told you that you are naked? As if to say, “I made you that way! You have no reason to be ashamed”. Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? Why would God ask what he already knows, if not to allow man the opportunity to confess. Before speaking judgement, he allows man to take full responsibility for his actions, thereby affirming his humanness. He allows room for reflection, confession and repentance, so that man might be restored. Yet rather than recognise his own fault, Adam blames God, and then his wife, for his own folly. What is this you have done? A fourth question, which Eve in turn answers in blaming the serpent. Neither acknowledges wrongdoing. What would have happened had they confessed? Was it the eating of the fruit or the failure to ask for forgiveness that saw them ultimately excluded from the garden, and thus human life the way God intended it.

God continues his search, probing into the heart of man, drawing him out. To Cain he asks Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? Is this not the concern of a loving Father? Yet rather than receive that love, Cain allows his anger to give birth to murder. There again, God stays his judgement, preferring to allow the possibility of a contrite heart. Although Abel’s blood was screaming Cain’s guilt, God asks: Where is your brother? Cain adds falsehood to his crimes. And still God questions: What have you done?

This same God questions us today, not imposing his truth, nor bringing judgement before its time. He allows us to draw our own conclusions, willing us to choose rightly, longing for our restoration, yet permitting us to reject him if we so choose. If we reject him, our refusal will not go unjudged indefinitely. Today is amnesty day – our opportunity to confess our faults, to overcome our pride, and to agree with God’s appraisal. Who knows but that it might be our last.

One of the blogs I like reading is that of Floyd & Sally McLung in South Africa.

There are some interesting reflections there on John 15 and living a fruitful life, which I find very applicable to us at the moment.

I just approved a comment on some thoughts I posted a while ago under the heading Reinterpreting Traditions. It’s an article by our friend Cor the artist touching on the story of the Samaritan woman, and I thought it was too useful to hide away in the comments section of an old post. Hope you get as much out of it as I did…

Like many of you, I’ve heard and read it countless times! I know this story already for more than fifty years! Then one day as by a divine touch, the real meaning of this rich deep story hit home, at least it shook up my life.

This divine touch can leave you potentially confused, excited, reassured or, as in my case, with a glorious revelation experience! I am talking about the story of the Samaritan woman at the well in the Gospel of John 4.

By many preachers, she has always been painted as the lady with a questionable past, who went through five husbands, and the one she was living with was not her husband either, according to a very reliable source: Jesus! Surprisingly, Jesus does not turn away from her in horror and disgust, but He choses to do the opposite…to teach her! She becomes one of the first human beings to be taught the miracle and principle of the Kingdom. Read the rest of this entry »

Have you ever noticed that there are occasions in the Bible where people act in a certain way and God commends it, and yet the same act at a different time by different people is an act of sinful disobedience? A good example can be found in comparing the census of Israel that Moses undertook in Numbers 26 with the census of David in II Samuel 24. When Moses finished the census in obedience to God’s command, God gave to the nation an inheritance of land which he has never revoked. In this way he blessed Moses’ obedience.

Several generations later we see King David undertaking exactly the same project which God had blessed in Moses’ day when he sent his commanders throughout the land to count the fighting men of Israel and Judah. The text does not elaborate on David’s motives for doing this, but we see Joab, his trusted advisor, warning him not to do it. David stubbornly continues with his project, and finishes with a stricken conscience, repenting before God for this foolish sin which resulted in a severe outpouring of God’s judgement in the land.

Is God capricious? Does he have double standards? Does he have favourites? Read the rest of this entry »