The Ark—Is it possible?

In 1974, “Life Digest” reported that a Russian aviator named Vladimir Roskovitsky claimed to have discovered Noah’s Ark. He had been stationed in a temporary military outpost in southern Russia just across the border from Turkey near Mount Ararat. He had been testing one of the Russian air force planes and in the course of the tests, he and his copilot flew over Ararat and discovered on the edge of a retreating glacier what he later described as a boat comparable in size to many modern battleships.

Roskovitsky reported his discovery to his commanding officer, and an expedition was dispatched to Ararat to find the ark. According to the story, they found the ark and photographed it. It was a massive structure and remarkably well preserved. Accounts were forwarded to the Czar, but unfortunately, a short time after receiving the photographs, the government of the Czar was overthrown and the photographs and reports of it perished.

Fact or legend? I don’t know. There are literally dozens of other reports over the years that have claimed to have seen Noah’s Ark.

Berosus, the historian of Babylon, Nicolas of Damascus, and John Chrysostom all write about sightings of Noah’s Ark. Josephus the Jewish Historian claimed that he had been shown relics of Noah’s Ark taken from Mt. Ararat by Armenians. Monks from the monastery of St. Jacob claim they have relics from the ark. British author Viscount James Bryce climbed Ararat and reported that he found four-foot long pieces of hand-tooled lumber at a height of over 13,000 feet. A British archaeologist Hardwicke Knight reported a similar account nearly twenty years later. During WWII, American aviators often flew over Ararat and two pilots saw and photographed what they thought was Noah’s Ark. One expedition brought back the equivalent of a home video, showing what they said was the ark protruding out of the ice. And there are numerous other claims—some more recently.

Are these sightings of Noah’s Ark true? It’s hard to say. I am certainly intrigued, but to this point I can’t say that I have seen enough evidence to substantiate these claims beyond a reasonable doubt. I remain pessimistic that we will ever find an ark on Ararat—but I don’t rule it out totally. One thing is clear and certain in my mind. The Bible portrays Noah’s Ark as a factual account and there is ample evidence in its favor, whether or not we ever find an ark on Ararat.

In our sermon series on Genesis, we looked at the prospects of a world-wide flood, and came to the conclusion (at least I did) that based on the Biblical account, sociology, and the earth around us, that the world-wide flood was a reality.

But many are still skeptical of Noah’s “Ark.” A world-wide flood is one thing, but to believe in a floating zoo is quite another. Many dismiss Noah’s Ark as a myth because they are convinced that the account itself is an impossibility. They say things like:


There are various objections presented by those who would reject the Biblical account. I have heard the objections, and my bet is, that you’ve heard them too. Maybe you have even voiced some of them, or at least, upon first hearing, you may even tend to agree with these responses.

But is Noah’s Ark an impossibility? Not at all. I would also stipulate that for Christians, the truthfulness of this story is not an option. Too much is at stake to relinquish this account to legend or mythology. Those who believe in the Bible are committed to the truthfulness of this account for many reasons. But, if you will examine the facts closely, I believe that you will find that the narrative is entirely plausible.

As we venture through the account, we will discover that the ark was not only a possibility, but the details of the story clearly testify to the reliability of the Bible and to the awesomeness of God.

Let’s examine Noah’s Ark, its size, its design, and its capacity.

The size of the ark is recorded for us in Genesis 6:15. Most of the versions of the Bible (like the ESV), accurately translate it like this: “300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits.” The NIV actually renders this as “450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.” While translating it into feet makes it more understandable for us, this is actually a conservative estimate about the size of the ark and there is much discussion about the exact value of a cubit. Here’s why:

Measurements in ancient times were based on the size of parts of the human body. A “span” was the distance between the tip of the thumb and the tip of the little finger with the fingers spread apart. This was generally about 9 inches. A handbreadth was the distance across the knuckles, or typically about 4 inches. A yard was the distance from the nose to the tip of the fingers when the arm was extended out to the side. A cubit was the distance from the elbow to the tip of the longest finger.

The problem with each of these measurements should be quite obvious—not everyone’s arm-length, hand-width, or knuckle width are the same. What is amazing, when it comes specifically to the cubit, most men’s arms, regardless of their physical height, are remarkably similar between the elbow and the fingertips—usually about 18 inches. But of course, there can be (and were) exceptions. But while there was some discrepancy in measuring by these standards, there was also a very practical solution for the various inconsistencies. The variance was corrected by a formalized measuring stick (much like a yard stick). You could simply measure your knuckles or your arm by the standardized stick and then adjust your measurements accordingly. If you had a large arm, you simply noted where the stick ended on your fingers, or for those with short arms, added a couple of finger lengths to measure appropriately. Seems fair enough. The system actually worked very well. In fact, I’m sure we’ve all measured things this way before—pacing off steps, or measuring items in terms of “arms” lengths.
 
But a problem did arise. Not all countries agreed upon the length of their measurements. At least there was an argument between Israel (Palestine) and Egypt. Egypt boastfully argued that their Pharaoh’s hand was larger (and of course stronger) than leaders of other countries, and wanted this to be the standard for measurement. Most other countries used a more “standardized” or typical measurement. Whether Pharaoh’s arms were actually longer or not, might be debated, but the fact remained, there were similar, but different lengths ascribed to the cubit.

Many people conclude that the proper measurement should be that of the Jewish cubit. The Jewish cubit, for much of biblical history, was 18 inches long—which happens to be the length of my arm (and most men’s arms) from elbow to fingertip. But Egypt put the length of their cubit at approximately 20.6 inches long. Most Bible scholars often settle on the shorter length of 18 inches, both because it is the modern Jewish definition of the length, and because, it is the most conservative length when figuring out the dimensions of the ark. This is how the NIV arrived at the length of the ark as being 450 feel long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. They calculated a cubit using the Jewish cubit of 18 inches.

As a point of interest, I need to point out that at the Rameses II exhibit in Egypt, they have displayed the official Egyptian cubit stick which dates to the time of Moses. The official Egyptian stick (called a Royal Cubit) measures 20.6 inches long. This was the official length for a cubit in Egypt. This is interesting because Moses, who wrote Genesis (and the account of Noah), lived his first 40 years in Egypt. Acts 7:22 tells us that, “Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians.” This Egyptian length was, without a doubt, the cubit that Moses and the Israelites used for hundreds of years while they lived in Egypt. And as Moses records the story of the flood for the Israelites in the Book of Genesis, the “cubit” they were familiar with was most likely this 20.6 inch Egyptian cubit. I think it is more probable that the ark, instead of being 450 feet long, was actually, 515 feet long, almost 86 feet wide, and 51.5 feet high.

For the sake of argument, and to remain consistent with how many have viewed this measurement, I will use the smaller cubit of 18 inches for our discussion. In fact, in every area that I am about to discuss, I will try use the most conservative estimates to show the accuracy of the Bible.

Several things can be said about these measurements. First, even with an 18 inch cubit, the ark is of great proportions. It is greater than the size of any ancient sailing vessel. In fact, it was not until 1858 that a vessel of greater length was constructed. It was called “the Great Eastern” and it was nearly 600 feet long. When we talk about the ark, we are talking about a huge ship that is 3.5 times the length of the “playing field” (not including the end zones) in football. The ark would have been taller than the average 4-storied building.

The ark that Noah built had three floors in it with a minimum capacity of a million and a half cubic feet. That is a capacity equivalent to 569 double-decked railroad stock cars with an area of 2,910 feet each. The ark was a huge boat with great proportions.

The Second observation we should make about the ark is this—it can be shown through simulated tests in water that a boxlike structure of the ark’s dimensions is exceedingly stable. In fact, it is almost impossible to capsize, even in simulations that depict real-word catastrophes. In other words, the ark was tremendously sea worthy. Dr Henry Morris, in his studies, concluded that the ark would have needed to be turned completely vertical before it could be tipped over. It essentially could not be capsized.  Modern ship-builders have pointed out that the ark was exactly six times longer than it was wide—the ratio they have discovered to be the most stable of all ship design ratios in water.

As we look at the mere size of the ark, as we look at its dimensions, its ratios, and its stability—whatever our judgment about how many animals the ark could actually carry—we must ask the question, “How could anyone in the days of Noah have known how to construct such a large seaworthy craft, unparalleled in design, even in our own day and age?”

There is an obvious presumption in favor of the design of the ark, having come from God. How else can you explain this great design except by revelation?

The size and design of the ark is impressive.

Acknowledging the great size of the ark, many skeptics still question, “But what about the “millions and millions” of species that would be required on the ark? First, we need to determine what is meant by the Biblical word “kind.” Genesis 6:20 tells us, “Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.”

Some suggest that the word “kind” (Heb: min) corresponds to our modern classification of “family” A “family” is a very general classification and it is a fairly easy chore to get a representative of each “family” of animal on the ark. The number of “family” classifications today is only about 700. These would include classifications such as: Felidae (house cats, lions, tigers); Canidae (dogs, wolves, foxes); Ursidae (bears, grizzlies, pandas); Procyonidae (raccoons, coatis); Mustelidae (weasels, badgers, otters), etc.

But I don’t think “family” is what is meant by the word “kind.” Living organisms are generally organized into eight increasingly specific categories: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. I actually think the word “kind” refers to the most specific of these classifications. There are far greater number of “species”—which complicates things a bit. Again, I don’t want to take the easy way out when explaining the Bible. Let’s suppose that every species was present on the ark, not simply every family group.

Ernst Mayr, one of America’s leading taxonomists provides the following chart of species. Notice the categories of species:

This is an extremely large number. But not all of these species had to be on the ark. Obviously, the fish did not need a spot on the ark. Nor did the tunicates, or echinoderms, or mollusks, or coelenterates, or sponges, or protozoans. These are all species that would survive the flood. We can also eliminate from our list, most arthropods, and a good number of worms.

Simple subtraction from this list, and multiplying our new number by two, corresponding with the fact that we have one male and one female of each, brings this number well below 50,000.

Still a large number, especially when most of us, when we picture Noah’s Ark, think about animals like elephants, giraffes, and the hippopotamus. But let me give you another fact. Most land animals are quite small. The average full grown male land animal ranges in size between the size of a large house-cat and a small lamb. Using the larger of the animals (a small lamb), you can comfortably fit 240 full grown sheep into an average sized two-deck rail-car. Calculate these numbers and you will see that you have filled less than half of the ark’s carrying capacity. Again, using the smallest numbers for the capacity of the ark (18 inch cubit), and the largest “average size” of a full grown male for the animals—there is more than enough room left for people, food, water, and whatever other provisions may have been necessary.

And that is using the average size of a full grown animal. If I were selecting the animals to go on the ark, I wouldn’t take full-grown animals. I would want the young, weaned, smaller sized animals. Animals that were independent from the parents, but were not as large, and which we could expect would live longer. This alone would greatly reduce the space required.  It can be easily demonstrated that the ark was large enough to handle all species of animals.

The ark was designed in such a way as to handle the flood, the eight people, the animals, the provisions necessary, as well as designed to handle the fiercest of storms. Even by today’s standards, there is little we can do to design a more efficient ark. These factors, bring me to the conclusion that this is a historical event orchestrated by God himself.
Dr John D. Morris (and others), after examining the evidence, say in effect, “simple calculations are easily done and are not at all beyond the abilities of even the most basic scoffers. Only when you first blind your eyes to the possibility of biblical truth, can you claim that the biblical story is not feasible.”

With the capacity of the ark clearly demonstrated, scoffers usually change their question. “How could Noah, go and collect two of every species of animal on earth?” The answer to that question is easy. He couldn’t and he didn’t.

Genesis 6:20 tells us, “Two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.” The same God who created the animals, the same God who placed migration patterns in the geese, the same God who taught a salmon to swim upstream, brought the animals to Noah to place in the ark. Gathering the animals was not Noah’s responsibility, nor was it a problem for God.

After observing closely the Biblical account, (and there is much more we could look at), the arguments against Noah’s Ark lose their validity. The universal flood of Noah’s day and the preservation of life in a huge ark are historical events recorded in the most reliable history book—the Bible. We must never try to distort, manipulate, or mold the Word of God to fit into some evolutionary theories of pseudo-science. What God’s Word tells us is true.

Again, we can demonstrate that the biblical record can be verified and has never been proven wrong in those areas that can be tested. Those who mock the Bible have not done their homework.

But some ask, “What difference does it make?” The basic issue is the validity of the Bible. Every New Testament writer refers to some passage in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Jesus himself refers to each of the first seven chapters of Genesis. He specifically mentions creation, the flood, and the ark. He compares his second coming with the destruction of the world, basing its reality on the historicity of Noah. It’s vitally important that we believe it.

A careful look at Genesis reveals that it is indeed history—not fable or myth. It’s not to be relinquished to the category of legend, it is to be held up as the absolute word of God.
The story account of what happened is very brief in the Bible, not every detail is known, but it is complete enough to answer every reasonable question in our minds about who God is, and what it is that we are supposed to do.

As I have pointed out before in previous sermons and lessons, the New Testament writers, and Jesus himself, compare the destruction of the world by the flood, to the second coming of Christ. The New Testament warns that we are either ready or not ready. We are either on board the gospel “ship” or not. Noah’s Ark is symbolic of all of those who are in Jesus Christ. They will be saved from destruction.

I don’t know whether they will ever find Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat or not. To me it is really immaterial. I personally hope they do find it. I would like to see pictures. It would be a marvelous link between man and the Bible. But the record in Genesis is still true whether or not the vessel is ever discovered, because God inspired his word to be written.
The best that can be said about finding the ark is that the ark may be on Ararat and that its discovery would undoubtedly delight many Christians and puzzle the world.

The evidence of the actual ark may or may not have been preserved, but the Word of God tells us the story. This makes our faith essentially the same as Noah’s. Noah did not have any physical evidence for the coming of the flood when he began to build the ark. In fact, so far as the flood was concerned, he had precisely the opposite. Up to this point in history it had never rained, but rather Genesis 2:6 tells us that “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Under such circumstances, what would have been more ridiculous from a human point of view than for Noah to have begun to build a gigantic ocean liner—on dry ground. Yet God told Noah to do it, and Noah based his faith not on what his reason or the taunts of his acquaintances may have told him, but on his knowledge of God. And Noah obeyed God.

The Book of Hebrews tells is in 11:7. “By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear, built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”

We should follow his example. We have not been told to build an ark—we have something else to build—but we have been instructed to place our faith in Christ who died for us. It is so, that we, like Noah, might be saved from the things to come.

You and I are here today because Noah obeyed God in building the ark so that mankind could be spared on this earth. The important thing now is whether you and I are ready for the next great judgment that is coming on this earth. We don’t have to worry about being destroyed in a flood again. But there is a day coming when this earth will be destroyed by fire. Only those who have been obedient to the Lord and have given him control of their lives will be spared from that destruction. Are you ready for that day to come?

[I would highly recommend that you visit “The Ark Encounter” in Williamstown, Kentucky, or at least visit their website at arkencounter.com].