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