To: Raoul Newton May2694 14:59:00 Subject: The Ark of Noah Well, I managed to find a copy

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Simon Ewins To: Raoul Newton May-26-94 14:59:00 Subject: The Ark of Noah Well, I managed to find a copy of David Fasold's book and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I have read it. First off I must say that it is hard to find. There is only one copy in the entire Toronto Public Library system and there are no copies at any of the University, College or Private libraries in Toronto that I could find. The copy that I read was last checked out over 18 months ago. The introduction is written, with much admiration, by Charles Berlitz, who wrote "The Bermuda Triangle" and other nonsense. This put me off a bit but in an effort to remain as openminded as possible I read on. The 'photographs of the Ark' are ludicrous. There is a very vague boat-like shape to an unusual rock formation but one really needs to be willing to see it to the exclusion of all else before it becomes apparent. Rather like seeing faces in clouds. While Fasold occasionally quotes a respected scientist he does so by quoting that which really has no bearing on whatever point he is trying to make. He quotes Velikovsky (in "Worlds in Collision"), a number of Turkish farmers, Thor Hyerdahl, the NIV, Berlitz (in "Doomsday 1999"), The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Berlitz (in "Atlantis, the Eighth Continent"), Reader's Digest, M. R. DeHaan (a rabid fundamentalist), Tim F. LaHaye & John Morris (equally rabid fundamentalists) as well as others who's scientific or even literary credibility is doubtful. Before I gave up counting I came across seven occurrences of phrases such as "In Genesis it says [...] but I believe [...]" or "In Genesis it says [...] but that is based upon a misunderstanding..." or "In Genesis it says [...] but what was meant was [...]". The Bible obviously does not support what he had found so he changed it or reinterpreted it until it did fit with what he had found. Using his methods I could quote Genesis a lot and make it appear that the Ark is actually on a mountain top in Colorado. His reinterpretations of Genesis are highly eisegetic and very often completely baseless. Given your proclaimed stance on the OT scriptures I am amazed that you have any respect for either Fasold's writing or his conclusions. At one point he actually goes to great lengths to redefine the cubit so that it will fit with his "discoveries". (If I were to eisegete Genesis the way that Fasold does you would jump all over me, yet you admire his work when he does so. Why is that?) Fasold does not claim that the remains of the Ark are fossilized, as you stated, but rather that they are petrified. However, he offers no support for the rock formation actually being petrified wood beyond his own opinion. The rocks that he calls 'anchors' look more like monuments or grave-stones. The holes in the rocks (suppositional in some examples, based merely on there being a roundish chip missing) would fit nicely with the holes that were cut into monuments to allow wooden poles to be inserted as an aid to the transport or other manipulation of such monuments, stele or gravestones. I am afraid that, after reading the fool thing, I can see no reason to attribute any more credibility to "The Ark of Noah" than I do to such books as "Worlds in Collision", "Atlantis, the Eighth Continent", "Doomsday 1999", "The Bermuda Triangle" or even "Chariots of the Gods" (which Fasold mercifully did _not_ quote). In short it is an imaginative and fanciful piece of work that has minimal entertainment value but is little more than a farce if taken to be a factual or scientific investigation into the actual existence of a boat on a mountain in Turkey. Sorry, but it just don't cut it. I am also sorry that I wasted three days of my life reading the fool thing.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank