>>"Contrary to the opinion of many, present-day Mt. Ararat in northeastern
Turkey is not mentioned in the Biblical account of the flood. As far as I
can tell the tradition that the ark landed on this mountain arose about the
12th Century A.D.
There is strong tradition for the southern location from about the Fourth
Century B.C. to about 1000 A.D.
Josephus mentions this location on three different occasions. I believe the
Lutheran scholar, John Warwick Montgomery has misinterpeted these passages.
It should also be noted that Mt. Ararat is a volcano of relatively recent
origin. There is no evidence that I am aware that it was ever under water.
Why Glenn would put the landing place of the Ark in Egypt is an enigma when
the Bible is pretty specific. He will have to speak for himself.<<
O.K., I will speak. Consider the Mediterranean being filled with water from
the Atlantic (which occurred 5.5 million years ago, regardless of whether
Noah rode the waves or not). Anything floating on the water will be pushed
back to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. That is the physics of the
situation.
This leaves open the possibility that IF the ark was there, it could land
anywhere from Southern Turkey to the NE coast of Africa. If you feel more
comfortable placing the site in southern Turkey, then be my guest. I could
not dispute you with any evidence.
I placed the ark's landing where I did for two reasons: 1. Due to the coming
collapse of whatever technology Noah possessed, the survivors would need to
be in fairly warm climates with lots of easily accessible fruits and
vegetables to eat. Frankly, if Noah did know how to weave cloth, I would bet
that within a generation, everyone would be as naked as jay birds (or wearing
animal skins or grass skirts) because, weaving technology requires
agriculture and lots of time to make the thread and weave the cloth. Like
iron making, a weaver is a parasite who can only exist if there are others
who will provide his food for him. Grass skirts and the like are not really
warm against the cold of Turkey in the winter. Thus, for survival sake, I
considered that as a possible location.
2. The anthropological evidence clearly shows that man came out of Africa.
If he is going to come from there, you gotta get him there first. So, Egypt
and parts south place the survivors much closer to the place we see them exit
many years later.
As to the scripture saying the mountains of Ararat and indicating that these
are in Turkey, I would propose that there may have been a misunderstanding on
the part of the descendants as to where those mountains were. The location
they believed it to be may not have been the correct place. Duplicate names
occur often in history.
But, if someone were to tell me that absolutely positively there is no way
that the landing site could be in Africa, I would and could easily switch to
the southern shore of Turkey and fit that criteria. But I would then be
faced with the problem of somehow getting the descendants into Africa.
glenn