Ronald E. Wyatt, a Biblical archaeologist, first discovered Noah's Ark in 1977. After numerous trips to Turkey to collect overwhelming amounts of evidence, Ron presented his findings to the world. Today, the Ark of Noah has been declared a national monument by the government of Turkey.

But while the Turkish government may be convinced, there is still some controversy about the Ark. Ron frequently encounters the same questions about it. For this reason we have included his answers to the most common questions Ron recieves about the Noah's Ark discovery.

Questions I am most frequently asked about Noah's Ark

by Ronald E. Wyatt

QUESTION 1)

The "object" you claim is the remains of Noah's Ark is about 515 feet long and 138 feet wide. The Bible says the Ark was 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide. That calculates to 450 feet long by 75 feet wide. How do you explain this discrepancy?

RON'S ANSWER)

The Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 edition) states: "...the Egyptian cubit is generally recognized as having been the most ubiquitous standard of linear measurement in the very ancient world."

The royal Egyptian cubit was 20.62 inches. Acts 7:22 says that Moses was "learned in all the wisdom of Egypt". As Moses was the author of Genesis, he would have been using the Egyptian cubit which he was trained with. 300 cubits = 515.5 feet. 50 cubits=85.9 feet.

Therefore, while the length seems right, the width (138 feet) appears to be off at first glance. The boat is splayed. The height given in the Bible is 30 cubits (51.55 feet). The width is 50 cubits (85.916 feet). The total of both sides plus the width is 189.016 feet - far too wide. But if the hull of the ship was exactly half the entire height of the boat, and the hull splayed outward, the width would be 137.466 feet! Our metal detection results have confirmed these figures as well as the sub-surface radar scans.

QUESTION 2)

I understand that other creation scientists have stated that what you claim to be petrified wood extending from the formation cannot possibly be wood. Isn't it a simple matter to prove something is petrified wood?

RON'S ANSWER)

Normally, yes. However, part of the identification of a petrified object is visual. If it looks like a shell, chances are its a shell. But there is a visual problem with identifying this as wood. There are no growth rings. This visual anomaly is explained by the Biblical statement that dew watered the earth prior to the flood. If there had never been rain, there could not be growth rings in pre-flood wood. The very fact that the petrified wood has no growth rings is one of most compelling reasons to believe its authenticity.

QUESTION 3)

Explain the metal detection tests and how it could prove any internal structure. Couldn't it just be trace metal in the soil?

RON'S ANSWER)

No. On the Ark, the metal detecting equipment gave positive readings on its calibrated dial and by sound at numerous points all over the boat. We were able to determine that there were significant amounts of metal present and that it appeared to be in a specific pattern. The testing of the surrounding area was completely negative. When we mapped out the metal detection readings with plastic tape, it revealed a distinct, man-made, linear subsurface pattern.

On the outer wall of the boat, striations appear which are keenly visible along the east side of the upper portion and the west side of the lower portion. On the striations, the metal readings were positive while the spaces between were totally negative (without metal).