Professional, peer-reviewed papers about Noah’s ark from the perspective of a recent creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
The Ark Landing, The Migration, and the Early Settling of Noah’s Sons. Part 1: The Beginning and the Sons of Shem—Reply
A. John M. Osgood • June 19, 2024
Osgood responds to Habermehl’s objection of his concept and rejection of some archaeological findings.
The Ark Landing, The Migration, and the Early Settling of Noah’s Sons. Part 1: The Beginning and the Sons of Shem—Comments
Anne Habermehl • June 19, 2024
Anne Habermehl argues that archaeology is not the only discipline that needs to be applied in determining much that happened in history. A. John M. Osgood responds in a second article.
Decoding a World Navel “Visual Language” Through Ideational Cognitive Archaeology: A Further Reply
James Powell • May 22, 2024
At this point, I would like to stress to my colleague that my ARJ paper was about deciphering the primarily pictographic code concerning a navel in ancient thought.
Decoding a World Navel “Visual Language” Through Ideational Cognitive Archaeology: Further Comments
Anne Habermehl • May 22, 2024
This is the first of two papers published today on the ARJ site in a previous series discussing methodology for locating the landing of Noah’s Ark.
The Ark Landing, the Migration, and the Early Settling of Noah’s Sons. Part 1: The Beginning and the Sons of Shem
A. John M. Osgood • Oct. 4, 2023
As a result of archaeological research, the landing of the sons of Noah and their early movements are able to be followed. It will be argued that biblical history makes sense of the findings.
Decoding a World Navel “Visual Language” Through Ideational Cognitive Archaeology: Comments
Anne Habermehl • Sept. 13, 2023
This is a critique of the application of ideational cognitive archaeology to determining the location of Noah’s Ark.
Decoding a World Navel “Visual Language” Through Ideational Cognitive Archaeology: Reply
James Powell • Sept. 13, 2023
The author responds by providing background context and motivations for the original paper. His assumptions are revisited with further corroboration.
The Mesopotamian Deluge Accounts: Neither History Nor Revelation
Jason W. Landless • Sept. 30, 2020
The deluge poems of Mesopotamia are soaked in a moral and theological framework that is not just different from Genesis but utterly hostile to it.
Inerrancy and Biblical Authority: How and Why Old-Earth Inerrantists Are Unintentionally Undermining Inerrancy
Dr. Terry Mortenson • Sept. 16, 2020
The old-earth signers of the CSBInerrancy unintentionally violated their own principles of interpretation and unintentionally undermined the inerrancy and the authority of Scripture.
It’s for the Birds: Avian Fine-Tuning of Flood Chronology
Dr. Steven W. Boyd • Aug. 26, 2020
Genesis 8:5–13 reveals the character of Noah and delimits the time of the water’s becoming powerful to between 16 and 23 days after the Flood began.
To the Ark, and Back Again? Using the Marsupial Fossil Record to Investigate the Post-Flood Boundary
Chad Arment • April 8, 2020
There is no debate as contentious as the post-Flood boundary issue within creation science.
Living Evidence of a Global Catastrophe: How Microbial Biogeography Supports Noah’s Flood
Dr. Andrew Fabich • Oct. 17, 2018
The biblical account of Noah’s Flood provides an update to modern microbial biogeography and modern creation apologetics.
The Last Week before the Flood
Dr. Steven W. Boyd • Aug. 17, 2016
While attempting to elucidate the general chronological profile of the events of the first week, we hope to answer two specific significant questions.
How Long Did the Flood Last?
Dr. Danny R. Faulkner • May 13, 2015
Belief that the Flood lasted 371 days is common among recent creationists, but there are other possibilities.
Physical Difficulties with Hugh Ross’ Local Flood Model
Dr. Danny R. Faulkner • April 15, 2015
There are at least three problems with Hugh Ross’ local flood model which render it physically impossible. This is in addition to numerous biblical issues.
An Initial Estimation of the Numbers and Identification of Extant Non-Snake/Non-Amphisbaenian Lizard Kinds: Order Squamata
Tom Hennigan • April 8, 2015
This paper is meant to lay creation groundwork for lizard systematics with the goal of estimating the number of baramins brought on the Ark.
Fossil Baramins on Noah’s Ark: The “Amphibians”
Dr. Marcus Ross • Sept. 17, 2014
When added to previously determined kinds of extant anurans, caudates, and gymnophionans, a total of 248 amphibian kinds may have been brought on board the Ark.
An Initial Estimate toward Identifying and Numbering Extant Tuatara, Amphisbaena, and Snake Kinds
Tom Hennigan • Feb. 19, 2014
The purpose of this paper is to use all available information in order to make an initial estimate of the identification and numbers of extant Lepidosaur kinds, except for the “lizards.”
An Initial Estimate toward Identifying and Numbering the Ark Turtle and Crocodile Kinds
Tom Hennigan • Jan. 8, 2014
Biosystematics is in great flux today because of the plethora of genetic research continually shedding light on organism relationships.
An Initial Estimate of Avian Ark Kinds
Dr. Jean Lightner • Nov. 27, 2013
This paper will focus on identifying extant bird kinds.
An Initial Estimate Toward Identifying and Numbering Amphibian Kinds within the Orders Caudata and Gymnophiona
Tom Hennigan • Jan. 23, 2013
An initial attempt to count and identify biblical kinds in amphibian orders Caudata and Gymnophiona were estimated using current information and several key assumptions and guidelines.
Mammalian Ark Kinds
Dr. Jean Lightner • Oct. 31, 2012
Information on the class Mammalia was evaluated in an attempt to get a realistic estimate of what mammalian kinds would have been represented on the Ark.
Determining the Ark Kinds
Dr. Jean Lightner , et. al. • Aug. 1, 2014
This research effort provides information necessary for the best possible reconstruction of the animal kinds preserved on the Ark for the Ark Encounter.
Adam, Free Choice, and the Cause of Sin: A Creationist Response to a Christian Evolutionist
Callie Joubert • Oct. 26, 2011
This paper will show that Christian professor Daniel Brannan’s arguments are based on faulty premises regarding Adam’s constitutional nature, the nature of Adam’s perfection and Adam’s free choice.
Noah’s Ark on Answers Research Journal
Many critical scholars have challenged the existence of Noah’s ark. Opponents to the historicity of the ark as described in the book of Genesis often object because of their evolutionary presuppositions as well as basic misconceptions about the biblical kind (as opposed to modern-day species). Some biblical scholars claim that Noah’s ark was either myth, allegorical moral tale, or historical but much smaller in scale because it was based on a local Mesopotamian or Black Sea flood.
The aim of these research papers in Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is to consider Noah’s ark from the perspective of a recent creation and subsequent global deluge within a biblical framework. These professional, peer-reviewed papers address issues related to Noah’s ark and highlight how they relate to pre-flood and post-flood biblical history as well as other disciplines, like zoology, physics, structural engineering, etc. Our journal considers Noah’s ark in light of the global Flood, biblical scholarship, baraminology, genetics, the inerrancy of the Bible, other flood legends, and more.
The primary account of Noah’s ark and the worldwide Flood is found in the Bible in Genesis 6–9. In that passage, we learn that Noah was to build an ark to save his family and representatives of every air-breathing, terrestrial-based animal from the coming flood, which God was going to send because of man’s great wickedness (Genesis 6:12–22). God gave Noah instructions on how to build the ark, including its size and layout, how to provision it, and how he would bring the animals to Noah.
The existence of Noah and the ark he built is verified throughout the Old and New Testaments. The original Hebrew and Greek biblical texts assume the reality of Noah by incorporating him (and his family) into the authors’ historical narratives and theological arguments. ARJ authors also consider non-biblical considerations (e.g., engineering studies on the ark’s seaworthiness, animal and cargo space requirements, etc.) that argue for the plausibility of Noah’s ark.