What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ark of Noah
Examines the story of Noah's ark, argues that the remains of the ark have been discovered in Turkey, and discusses the evidence for this claim
331 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 1989
4 people are currently reading
46 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 25, 2025
IS ‘THE SEARCH FOR THE ARK OVER?’ A CONTROVERSIAL PERSPECTIVE
Author David Fasold wrote in the Preface to this 1988 book, “In the attempt to retrace our ancestors’ footsteps to the door of the Ark itself… I have failed to interest the academic community at large in participating. Understandably, such a proposal raises serious doubt. But when an invitation is extended to view the tangible remains of the antediluvian vessel high upon the mountains of Uratu, the response of science should be investigation pure and simple, not ridicule and scorn. Perhaps reluctance on their part is the only safe ground, for should this prove to be the most controversial artifact ever recorded, the legend is exonerated and the biblical Flood is true. Even their high towers of ‘qualifications’ will not save them from the deluge of error.
“Does the theory that man has come from the lowest depths of humanity to his present elevated position have validity? Is it time for the history of man to be rewritten, this time with more foundation and truth? Or is it time to return to the original accounts, and read them with the seriousness they deserve? For those who have always believed, I claim no discovery and my story is of little classical value or scholarly merit. But it is my hope that it will be greeted as representing the first confrontation with a startling new body of evidence and a sense of what the discovery has meant to those explorers who experienced it.”
He states in the first chapter, “Those who have claimed to see it are many and varied… Some who have hoped to vindicate these legends are sincere and dedicated people, scholars of science, historians, and even an astronaut who has walked on the moon. They are men of great integrity with religious destiny that cannot be denied… Regardless of their differences, the explorers held some things in common: a malady of addiction to the story of the Flood as an actual historical event of cataclysmic proportions, and the hope that the remains of the escape vessel could be found. This was called ‘Ark Fever,’ and it was shared by us all.” (Pg 2)
He continues, “Of course, it is recognized that this hope was something that was not shared by others and quite outside the order of acceptance among higher critics. Actually, I rather enjoyed the violent reactions [that] could be goaded from almost any professional anthropologist … I was always a bit mystified that professionals so unanimous in their rejection of sinking continents could agree on a former land bridge from Siberia to Alaska.” (Pg. 2-3)
He acknowledges that veteran Ark researchers from, say, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) question the site that Fasold champions: “My news was met with skepticism from my Christian brethren. I soon learned that it was acceptable to be searching for the Ark and other biblical truths, but ... to say you had actually found them required a lot of faith on their part. There were few among them ready to listen for long.” (Pg. 25)
He continues, “Although many claim to know enough about the site to discredit it, even claiming to have investigated it themselves, no one seems to be able to give its correct location even today, some twenty-five years after if was first visited by [Rene] Noorbergen. Even geologist John Morris, son of Henry Morris and now vice-president of ICR, follows suit with the same false location given by others in his reports, claiming he visited the site himself, and it is nothing more than a clay upwelling in a lava flow.” (Pg. 33)
He turns to the Bible, and explains, “I am of the opinion that the Book of Genesis had several authors and their works were compiled by Moses, after which there were revisions. The Bible never claims that Moses was the author or writer of Genesis… It should not be considered unreasonable… that the original story of creation and the first nine hundred years of history was recorded by Adam himself. Duplication in the Flood narrative needn’t be scribal additions if one considers that Noah as well as his sons may have written their own versions of the Flood account, all of which were in the hands of Moses at the time he compiled the account.” (Pg. 42)
He argues, “the greatest inconsistency in the text is this: ‘[Noah] sent forth a dove… But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot… for the waters were on the face of the whole earth.’ (Gen 8:8-9) To any serious researcher of Noah’s Ark, red flags should be going up right now! How could the dove find no rest for the sole of her foot and the waters be on the face of the whole earth? This contradiction was caused by early revisionists who meddled with the text. The clue to the change is the flag word recorded in Moses’ original account that was not removed. The flag word is ‘whole.’… I propose that the bird sequence has been moved into a later portion of the narrative in an attempt to build an acceptable 360-day year out of the 300-day solar year of the original record.” (Pg. 49)
Discussing the location of the Ark, he states, “To the Christian fundamentalist… there is only one site of the Ark, and that is the great Mount Ararat itself. I settled this question long ago, but I must relate to the reader a classic piece of bungling by Ark hunters before me. It is told here not to belittle the efforts of others in seeking the Ark but to serve as an example of the logic employed by the experts in evaluating the facts that have kept them from finding the Ark!” (Pg. 93)
Later, he asserts, “Before the reader misunderstands my feelings about these people, let me explain that they have caused me great consternation and heartache in their rejection, but the problem is theirs, not mine. I love these people, I just dislike what they are saying! Even a dear friend such as Colonel James Irwin, though stating he was intrigued with my research, unjustifiably commented that even if I could prove it was a man-made object or boat, he would not be convinced it was Noah’s Ark.. he would joke that perhaps if I found Noah’s logbook he might be swayed… Irwin falls into the same trap as others by stating: ‘I think if the remains of the Ark are found high on Mt. Ararat, it will be additional verification of the truth of God’s Word.’ … What is everyone really trying to verify---their own questionable research and these spurious eyewitness accounts, or the truth of God’s Word?” (Pg. 160-161)
He recounts, “When I heard that a well-known nationwide Christian network had plans to televise another group’s SEARCH for the Ark, I called to see if they would be interested in having the exclusive … when we proved that we were ON the Ark. Naturally, I was met with skepticism. I offered to show some evidence I hoped would support our claim… The staff rep did… spend a few hours with me while I attempted to lay out the evidence to establish our site as the Ark… I could see it was no use. In his eyes we were obviously way out in left field… I said, ‘It meets the requirements of Noah’s Ark too perfectly to be anything else.’ ‘It’s not rectangular,’ he said dryly. I tried an hour more but he was never convinced enough for me to even mention our financial plight. I had foolishly presumed that Christian television could help support us in giving the evolutionists the biggest stumbling block they had ever come up against.” (Pg. 212-213)
Later, he contends, “I believe the problem still exists in our minds to try and make the Ark’s construction fit our preconceived ideas, fostered by our traditional impressions of what the Ark SHOULD look like.” (Pg. 248)
He recalls, “Soon after my return home from Turkey, I could not restrain myself from calling Eryl Cummings to tell him the good news about locating Reshit [a Kurdish farmer who claimed to have seen the Ark]. Violet [Eryl’s wife] answered the phone. After listening to my story… ‘Wrong Reshit,’ she replied and would hear no more of it. I had mistakenly hoped she would delight in the mystery being solved. I cannot share in her optimism that in the same year on two different mountains in sight of each other, two farmers named Reshit found the Ark in different locations and reported it, yet had never met.” (Pg. 325)
He concludes, “The search for the Ark is over… Soon, when the Turks are ready, it will be made public to the world on their time and terms, which is perhaps as it should be.” (Pg. 330-331)
Fasold seemingly spends as much time arguing against other Ark searchers, as arguing FOR his own position. This will probably diminish interest in this book by Christians.
Author David Fasold wrote in the Preface to this 1988 book, “In the attempt to retrace our ancestors’ footsteps to the door of the Ark itself… I have failed to interest the academic community at large in participating. Understandably, such a proposal raises serious doubt. But when an invitation is extended to view the tangible remains of the antediluvian vessel high upon the mountains of Uratu, the response of science should be investigation pure and simple, not ridicule and scorn. Perhaps reluctance on their part is the only safe ground, for should this prove to be the most controversial artifact ever recorded, the legend is exonerated and the biblical Flood is true. Even their high towers of ‘qualifications’ will not save them from the deluge of error.
“Does the theory that man has come from the lowest depths of humanity to his present elevated position have validity? Is it time for the history of man to be rewritten, this time with more foundation and truth? Or is it time to return to the original accounts, and read them with the seriousness they deserve? For those who have always believed, I claim no discovery and my story is of little classical value or scholarly merit. But it is my hope that it will be greeted as representing the first confrontation with a startling new body of evidence and a sense of what the discovery has meant to those explorers who experienced it.”
He states in the first chapter, “Those who have claimed to see it are many and varied… Some who have hoped to vindicate these legends are sincere and dedicated people, scholars of science, historians, and even an astronaut who has walked on the moon. They are men of great integrity with religious destiny that cannot be denied… Regardless of their differences, the explorers held some things in common: a malady of addiction to the story of the Flood as an actual historical event of cataclysmic proportions, and the hope that the remains of the escape vessel could be found. This was called ‘Ark Fever,’ and it was shared by us all.” (Pg 2)
He continues, “Of course, it is recognized that this hope was something that was not shared by others and quite outside the order of acceptance among higher critics. Actually, I rather enjoyed the violent reactions [that] could be goaded from almost any professional anthropologist … I was always a bit mystified that professionals so unanimous in their rejection of sinking continents could agree on a former land bridge from Siberia to Alaska.” (Pg. 2-3)
He acknowledges that veteran Ark researchers from, say, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) question the site that Fasold champions: “My news was met with skepticism from my Christian brethren. I soon learned that it was acceptable to be searching for the Ark and other biblical truths, but ... to say you had actually found them required a lot of faith on their part. There were few among them ready to listen for long.” (Pg. 25)
He continues, “Although many claim to know enough about the site to discredit it, even claiming to have investigated it themselves, no one seems to be able to give its correct location even today, some twenty-five years after if was first visited by [Rene] Noorbergen. Even geologist John Morris, son of Henry Morris and now vice-president of ICR, follows suit with the same false location given by others in his reports, claiming he visited the site himself, and it is nothing more than a clay upwelling in a lava flow.” (Pg. 33)
He turns to the Bible, and explains, “I am of the opinion that the Book of Genesis had several authors and their works were compiled by Moses, after which there were revisions. The Bible never claims that Moses was the author or writer of Genesis… It should not be considered unreasonable… that the original story of creation and the first nine hundred years of history was recorded by Adam himself. Duplication in the Flood narrative needn’t be scribal additions if one considers that Noah as well as his sons may have written their own versions of the Flood account, all of which were in the hands of Moses at the time he compiled the account.” (Pg. 42)
He argues, “the greatest inconsistency in the text is this: ‘[Noah] sent forth a dove… But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot… for the waters were on the face of the whole earth.’ (Gen 8:8-9) To any serious researcher of Noah’s Ark, red flags should be going up right now! How could the dove find no rest for the sole of her foot and the waters be on the face of the whole earth? This contradiction was caused by early revisionists who meddled with the text. The clue to the change is the flag word recorded in Moses’ original account that was not removed. The flag word is ‘whole.’… I propose that the bird sequence has been moved into a later portion of the narrative in an attempt to build an acceptable 360-day year out of the 300-day solar year of the original record.” (Pg. 49)
Discussing the location of the Ark, he states, “To the Christian fundamentalist… there is only one site of the Ark, and that is the great Mount Ararat itself. I settled this question long ago, but I must relate to the reader a classic piece of bungling by Ark hunters before me. It is told here not to belittle the efforts of others in seeking the Ark but to serve as an example of the logic employed by the experts in evaluating the facts that have kept them from finding the Ark!” (Pg. 93)
Later, he asserts, “Before the reader misunderstands my feelings about these people, let me explain that they have caused me great consternation and heartache in their rejection, but the problem is theirs, not mine. I love these people, I just dislike what they are saying! Even a dear friend such as Colonel James Irwin, though stating he was intrigued with my research, unjustifiably commented that even if I could prove it was a man-made object or boat, he would not be convinced it was Noah’s Ark.. he would joke that perhaps if I found Noah’s logbook he might be swayed… Irwin falls into the same trap as others by stating: ‘I think if the remains of the Ark are found high on Mt. Ararat, it will be additional verification of the truth of God’s Word.’ … What is everyone really trying to verify---their own questionable research and these spurious eyewitness accounts, or the truth of God’s Word?” (Pg. 160-161)
He recounts, “When I heard that a well-known nationwide Christian network had plans to televise another group’s SEARCH for the Ark, I called to see if they would be interested in having the exclusive … when we proved that we were ON the Ark. Naturally, I was met with skepticism. I offered to show some evidence I hoped would support our claim… The staff rep did… spend a few hours with me while I attempted to lay out the evidence to establish our site as the Ark… I could see it was no use. In his eyes we were obviously way out in left field… I said, ‘It meets the requirements of Noah’s Ark too perfectly to be anything else.’ ‘It’s not rectangular,’ he said dryly. I tried an hour more but he was never convinced enough for me to even mention our financial plight. I had foolishly presumed that Christian television could help support us in giving the evolutionists the biggest stumbling block they had ever come up against.” (Pg. 212-213)
Later, he contends, “I believe the problem still exists in our minds to try and make the Ark’s construction fit our preconceived ideas, fostered by our traditional impressions of what the Ark SHOULD look like.” (Pg. 248)
He recalls, “Soon after my return home from Turkey, I could not restrain myself from calling Eryl Cummings to tell him the good news about locating Reshit [a Kurdish farmer who claimed to have seen the Ark]. Violet [Eryl’s wife] answered the phone. After listening to my story… ‘Wrong Reshit,’ she replied and would hear no more of it. I had mistakenly hoped she would delight in the mystery being solved. I cannot share in her optimism that in the same year on two different mountains in sight of each other, two farmers named Reshit found the Ark in different locations and reported it, yet had never met.” (Pg. 325)
He concludes, “The search for the Ark is over… Soon, when the Turks are ready, it will be made public to the world on their time and terms, which is perhaps as it should be.” (Pg. 330-331)
Fasold seemingly spends as much time arguing against other Ark searchers, as arguing FOR his own position. This will probably diminish interest in this book by Christians.
April 12, 2016
The reading was interesting, but I found his analysis a bit lacking - that is, his determination to fit the first part of Genesis in with his own conclusions, and moving the wording of the Bible around to fit his theories. Even though I truly think that it's really the remains of Noah's Ark, I found the book by Ron Wyatt much more enlightening - especially since Ron Wyatt identified the spot of the Ark first, and kept his conclusions in fitting with the Biblical account.
August 15, 2013
I read this years ago when it first came out. Thought I'd give it another read since I'm kind of on an educational kick. Aside from the bits about Giants in the land I love Mr. Fasold's theories and find them extremely plausible.
October 25, 2009
This book is total nonsense. Its full of pro bible crazy science without any basis in real science.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews