• Cracked Pot Archaeology, Paul's Shipwreck on Malta Comments Off on CORNUKE’S FAULTY COMPUTER MODEL OF PAUL’S SHIPWRECK ON MALTA: An Exercise in Digital Guesswork
    CORNUKE’S FAULTY COMPUTER MODEL
    OF PAUL’S SHIPWRECK ON MALTA: An Exercise in Digital Guesswork
    Gordon Franz
    This article is dedicated to my Maltese and American
    friends searching for the Apostle Paul’s shipwreck on Malta.
    St. Paul’s Day – February 10, 2013
    Introduction
    Have you ever watched a news broadcast where the meteorologist says that the next day there would be clear blue skies and it would be sunny all day? The presenter shows the radar screen, the forecast, and boasts how accurate their equipment is, so you plan a picnic at your favorite park for that day. Halfway through the picnic, however, the weather turns nasty with thunder and lightning and a torrential downpour! Forecasting weather is very unpredictable, more an art than science, even with sophisticated equipment.
    Robert Cornuke presents a weather-related computer model of Paul’s shipwreck on Malta in his book, The Lost Shipwreck of Paul (2003: 184-193). I offer this objective critique of this model because of the serious nature of the issues involved.
    During a Parliamentary debate on Malta in 2005, the Honorable Gavin Gulia asked the Prime Minister of Malta a Public Question (PQ 14720) about an affidavit that was sent to the United States Federal District Court in the state of Colorado for a trial between the former US Ambassador to Malta, Kathryn Proffitt, and Robert Cornuke. The reply to the Public Question states that:
    “[The] Honourable Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said that he is informed that the affidavit was sent to safe-guard the reputation of the Armed Forces of Malta and of its officers because these had been misquoted in Bob Cornuke’s publication.“ (emphasis and highlight mine).
    Since the issue has required the involvement of the government of Malta, let me add some additional analysis to the discussion that I hope will be helpful to interested parties.
    The Computer Model on Malta
    On Robert Cornuke’s third trip to Malta he gained access to “a very expensive and sophisticated computer program” at the Rescue Coordination Center of the Armed Forces of Malta on May 29, 2002. It was his hope that the data from this specialized computer model would “objectively speak to us across the millennia and trace the, until now, uncertain path of the biblical event of Paul’s journey from Crete to Malta” (2003: 184, plates 14-15; cf. Acts 27:8-28:1).
    After the computer model was run on the hypothetical Alexandrian grain ship that carried the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke, the course was shown approaching Malta more from the southeast, rather than directly from the east, the normal approach from Crete. The ship’s path line on the computer screen then intersected the East side of Malta, supposedly at the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas’ Bay preferred by Cornuke, not the traditional site for Paul’s shipwreck on the North side of the main Malta island, in the St. Paul’s Bay area. The model, it seemed, had overthrown tradition.
    But Cornuke claimed the computer supported the Bible because Major Manuel Mallia, the Maltese officer in charge of the model, had agreed “that only St. Thomas Bay possessed all the physical, nautical, and geographical conditions that aligned perfectly with the Bible’s description [of Paul’s shipwreck]” (Cornuke 2003: 192-193; bracketed material and emphasis mine). Was this one of the misquotations by Cornuke in his book that required the involvement of the Maltese government? If this computer model is correct, however, it would help confirm Cornuke’s idea that the traditional location of Paul’s shipwreck was wrong.
    Biblical Conflict with Cornuke’s Ideas
    But there is a problem and it is a bigger one than tradition, it is a Biblical conflict: The East side of Malta, with the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas’ Bay, was familiar to Alexandrian ship captains as the side of the island they always saw on approach to Malta coming from the east. If sea captains could not make it back to Rome before the sea-lanes closed for the winter, the Alexandrian grain ships would dock in the Marsa Port on Malta (within the Grand Harbor of Valletta), off-load the grain and store it in granaries for the winter (Gambin 2005: 122-132; cf. Acts 28:11).
    In Paul’s case they shipwrecked on a part of the island the crew did “not recognize” in fact so unfamiliar they did not even know they were on Malta until a native told them so (Acts 27:39; 28:1-2a, NKJV, emphasis added). So they had to have landed on some other part of Malta, not the familiar and recognizable East side. The traditional location on the unfamiliar North side of Malta makes sense in light of the puzzlement of the sailors on Paul’s wrecked ship. Computer or not, shipwrecking on the familiar East side makes no sense. This has always been a fundamental Biblical and logical stumbling block for Cornuke’s theory of Paul’s shipwreck because the seamen would have recognized the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas Bay, contrary to the Biblical text which states they did not recognize the island (Acts 27:39)! A computer model cannot overcome this fatal defect without simply throwing the whole Biblical account overboard in the process.
    Two Principles of Computer Modeling
    Even if we set aside the contradiction to the Biblical account for the moment, there are still major problems with the computer model and Cornuke’s use of it.
    Two principles are important here:
    1. The computer model’s output will only be as good as the data inputted. There is a widely known axiom in the computer world, “Garbage In = Garbage Out,” which simply means that the computer results that come out are only as good as the data put in. If bad or mistaken data are put in, then the results will be bad or mistaken.
    2. Using a computer model beyond its design limitations and for purposes not intended will not produce trustworthy results. This could result in totally spurious results or results that can be easily manipulated to say almost anything, even unintentionally.
    A computer model designed to assist search and rescue missions in the recent past hours or days of a modern-day storm causing a ship to go astray in AD 2002 (the year the model was run for Cornuke) obviously is not designed to reconstruct historical events from some 2,000 years ago – when there were no meteorological data from satellites and scientific instruments to plot shifting winds and currents. Even the ocean bottom can, and has, changed in two thousand years due to earthquakes and deposited silt.
    The first step in understanding the design limitations of a computer model is to find out what model it is and what instructions it has for inputting data. Even better would be to have the developers’ design statement. Unfortunately, Cornuke did not even identify what computer model was used by the United States Coast Guard and the Maltese military!
    Was the program purposely designed to recreate an actual past historical event and if so, what weather data were used for input? Cornuke does not provide the specific weather data inputs nor does he inform us where the input data came from. It would be impossible to know, for example, exactly what time the ship left Fair Haven on Crete, or precisely when and where the ship got caught in the Euroclydon (Northeaster storm) on its way to Phoenix on Crete (Acts 27:14) because the Bible does not state this information. Did the storm strike as soon as they left Fair Haven, or several hours later, right before they were to dock at Phoenix? Or, was it somewhere in between the two places? Each of these unknown variables would affect the geographic location of where the ship ended up in the output of the computer model.
    Data Input for the Computer Model
    According to Cornuke, the modelers used five types of input data for the model (Cornuke 2003: 187-188). These included:
    (1) The “general parameters of a grain freighter”
    One nautical archaeologist has pointed out, however, that “the precise appearance of great grain ships like those mentioned in the Book of Acts and the writings of Lucian” are unknown (Fitzgerald 1990: 31) because nautical archaeologists have never recovered an actual first century AD Alexandrian grain ship in an underwater archaeological excavation. Was the grain ship a two-mast or a three-mast ship? What was its draft? How much did it actually weigh? Cornuke said they put in “the approximate size of the ship” (2003: 187, emphasis mine), yet a variation in size and weight would affect the outcome of the calculations for the computer model.
    (2) Wooden hull was a factor entered into the software
    But was only wood exposed on the hull of Paul’s ship or was there lead sheathing on the hull? Ancient lead sheathing has been found on the seabed of Malta. If there was lead sheathing on the grain ship that would affect the outcome of the calculations.
    Also, the ship was undergirded, probably with heavy rope or cable (Hirschfeld 1990: 26-27), to secure it during the storm (Acts 27:17). What affect would the rope or cable have on the drag of the ship and thus on the computer calculations?
    (3) The “veering characteristics of a northeaster”
    Cornuke suggested the drag of the windsock affected the speed and direction of the ship (Cornuke 2003: 190). What ancient sources describe – or archaeological remains show – that a windsock sail was part of a rigging for an Alexandrian grain ship and used as a sea anchor in an emergency? I am not aware of any. Perhaps Cornuke can enlighten us with this information.
    (4) The “leeway of time”
    What margin of error or maximum variation (leeway) in the “time” is meant – and is it maximum variation in the time of day or the time of year? It is unclear. How was the possible variation of time factored in? Did they run the computer with every possible choice of time? What were the results?
    Cornuke had the rescue software run on May 29, 2002. The question is then: Did they run the software model with the current date of May 29, or did they think to change the date to the Fall season? (Shipwreck occurred at least 14 days after Yom Kippur and before winter, thus most probably October-November: cp. Acts 27:9, 27, 33; 28:11.) In fact, does the computer model even differentiate a year as well as the day of the year, and if so, was the year AD 2002 run or a year around ca. AD 60 when Paul’s ship wrecked?
    The ocean currents in the Fall were programmed into the computer model (see item 5 below) but it is unclear whether a Fall date was also entered for wind speeds and directions. If they did change the computer model date to the Fall, what date in the Fall did they choose? There is no explanation given to clarify any of this.
    (5) The currents during the Fall season for that part of the Mediterranean Sea
    Although Cornuke listed five types of data inputted into the computer model including ocean currents, he strangely failed to list winds even though powerful storm winds are far more important than ocean currents. Wind directions and speeds are the critical factors in a storm of this apparent magnitude. The exact wind speeds and directions are unknown and any increase or decrease in speed, or change of wind direction, from hour to hour and day to day, would affect the outcome of the computer model over the 14 days the grain ship was adrift.
    Unfortunately, the specific information that was put into the computer was not given in the book, perhaps because it is a popular-level book. But the specific input data were not provided on Cornuke’s websites or in any peer-reviewed scholarly article either (none have been published). Researchers who would like to follow up or try to duplicate this computer exercise would need the specific information inputted into the computer software, such as the wind speeds and directions and ocean currents hour by hour, what alternative dates, times, winds and currents were used and with what results, etc.
    The Computer Model’s “Line of Drift”
    Plates 14 and 15 of The Lost Shipwreck of Paul display photographs of the computer experiment at the Rescue Coordination Center of the Armed Forces of Malta. On the bottom of Plate 14, the line of drift for Paul’s Alexandrian grain ship is drawn. I enlarged the photograph on a photocopy machine to 200% and examined the “line of drift.” It appears to be drawn by human hand with a felt tip pen or magic marker, not by computer. The thickness of the line seems to vary slightly and at one point the line seems to be redrawn over a short segment where it is a bit thicker. At another point the line does not have an even, smooth flow to it. This seems to suggest that the line is hand-drawn and not computer generated.
    I also observed that the line of drift was not drawn through the last datum point but rather above it. Why was this? This last datum point also seems to fall far short of reaching the Malta area so it would be interesting to know, if the computer had generated one more datum point, just where that last point would have been located. When I redrew the line (see chart below) through the last datum point that is shown, and not above it as represented in the book, the line of drift misses Malta entirely, by about 5 miles to the south of the island! Thus it does not hit the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas’ Bay as Cornuke claims.
    [Insert map]
    Technical, Peer-Reviewed Article is Needed
    For Cornuke’s research to be evaluated by scholars, it must be published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, perhaps a meteorological journal, identifying the software program that was used and the specific input information used to simulate the storm. An explanation is also in order as to why the “line of drift” did not go through the last datum point and if there was one more computer-generated datum point.
    If independent researchers could replicate his research using the same or similar software then Cornuke’s research would have added credibility and congratulations would be in order. Or, perhaps with slight variations in the different variables, the computer model might have the grain ship run aground in the traditional St. Paul’s Bay area or completely miss the island, as presently appears to be the case!
    It would also be helpful if Cornuke could have Major (now Colonel) Manuel Mallia of the Rescue Coordination Center, who ran the model for Cornuke, provide a letter indicating the model’s appropriateness for the task, some of the key data input, and stating whether he agreed or disagreed with the conclusions Cornuke drew from the output.
    The Conclusion of the Matter
    A word of caution is in order. Computer models are great tools for predicting the outcome of various data sets entered into the model. But while they are excellent modeling tools, they are simply that – tools to generate possible outcomes. They are seldom the final word on what will certainly happen in the future, and for sure, not the final word on what did happen in the unknown past.
    The weather prediction by the meteorologist is based on a large volume of recently obtained weather data from instruments put into a computer model. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the procedure on its official website:
    The [computer weather-prediction] models, using many millions of numbers that represent weather [observation] parameters such as temperature, pressure, wind, etc., attempt to represent current weather conditions and then make a prediction of the future state of the atmosphere….
    Data Assimilation is the process whereby weather observations are incorporated into a computer model that predicts the weather. After billions of calculations, the supercomputers that are now used to run weather models, project how the current weather conditions are expected to change.
    http://www.research.noaa.gov/weather/t_modeling.html
    But for Paul’s shipwreck, we have zero weather instrument data, there were no weather instruments in that era and only fragmentary records of human events and occasional weather events such as major once-a-century type storms.  Any “data” is invented by extrapolating current conditions and data back in time 2,000 years and assuming that past weather was exactly the same as today.  Needless to say this is highly speculative at best and non-verifiable.
    Consider how many computer weather models have predicted hurricanes that never materialized or missed significant weather events that actually took place. How often have you noticed that your local weather forecast has been right?! (Or wrong, and it ruined your picnic!). Today’s weather forecasts attempt to project a few hours or days into the future. In this scenario, a meteorologist’s forecast has everything in its favor, yet sometimes it is still incorrect. By contrast, a computer model of the possible location of Paul’s shipwreck attempts to project conditions back nearly 2,000 years into the past. It is far from definitive given so many unknown variables and factors. Thus, we should not put too much stock in such fantastic extrapolations!
    Also, depending on the input, the same model could have easily produced a completely different location for the shipwreck, including even the traditional location of the St. Paul’s Bay area. Perhaps the most difficult data to input for this, or any model, is the sovereign Hand of God controlling the speed and direction of the wind and thus, the precise, final destination of the Alexandrian grain ship!
    For links to other critiques of Cornuke’s ideas, see:
    https://www.lifeandland.org/2012/06/how-accurate-are-bob-cornuke%e2%80%99s-claims-2/
    Bibliography
    Cornuke, Robert
    2003 The Lost Shipwreck of Paul.  Bend, OR: Global Publishing Services.
    Fitzgerald, Michael
    1990 The Ship of Saint Paul.  Comparative Archaeology.  Biblical Archaeologist 53/1: 31-39.
    Gambin, Timothy
    2005 The Maritime Landscapes of Malta from the Roman Period to the Middle Ages. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation University of Bristol [England].
    Hirschfeld, Nicolle
    1990 The Ship of Saint Paul. Historical Background. Biblical Archaeologist 53/1: 25-30.
    About the author
    Gordon Franz is a Bible teacher who holds an MA in Biblical Studies from Columbia Biblical Seminary, SC. Since 1978, he has engaged in extensive research in Biblical geography and archaeology and has participated in a number of excavations in and around Jerusalem, including Ketef Hinnom and Ramat Rachel as well as the excavations at Lachish, Jezreel, Hazor, and Tel Zayit. He has taught the geography of the Bible and led field trips in Israel for the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies, the Institute of Holy Land Studies, and the IBEX program of The Master’s College. He also co-teaches the Talbot School of Theology’s Bible Lands Program. He has also visited Malta on a number of occasions since January 1997 doing research on the history, geography, and archaeology of the island, as well as the location of Paul’s shipwreck. Gordon is on the staff of the Associates for Biblical Research.

    by Gordon Franz

    This article is dedicated to my Maltese and American friends searching for the Apostle Paul’s shipwreck on Malta.

    St. Paul’s Day – February 10, 2013

    Introduction
    Have you ever watched a news broadcast where the meteorologist says that the next day there would be clear blue skies and it would be sunny all day? The presenter shows the radar screen, the forecast, and boasts how accurate their equipment is, so you plan a picnic at your favorite park for that day. Halfway through the picnic, however, the weather turns nasty with thunder and lightning and a torrential downpour! Forecasting weather is very unpredictable, more an art than science, even with sophisticated equipment.

    Robert Cornuke presents a weather-related computer model of Paul’s shipwreck on Malta in his book, The Lost Shipwreck of Paul (2003: 184-193). I offer this objective critique of this model because of the serious nature of the issues involved.

    During a Parliamentary debate on Malta in 2005, the Honorable Gavin Gulia asked the Prime Minister of Malta a Public Question (PQ 14720) about an affidavit that was sent to the United States Federal District Court in the state of Colorado for a trial between the former US Ambassador to Malta, Kathryn Proffitt, and Robert Cornuke. The reply to the Public Question states that:

    “[The] Honourable Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said that he is informed that the affidavit was sent to safe-guard the reputation of the Armed Forces of Malta and of its officers because these had been misquoted in Bob Cornuke’s publication.“ (emphasis and highlight mine).

    Since the issue has required the involvement of the government of Malta, let me add some additional analysis to the discussion that I hope will be helpful to interested parties.

    The Computer Model on Malta
    On Robert Cornuke’s third trip to Malta he gained access to “a very expensive and sophisticated computer program” at the Rescue Coordination Center of the Armed Forces of Malta on May 29, 2002. It was his hope that the data from this specialized computer model would “objectively speak to us across the millennia and trace the, until now, uncertain path of the biblical event of Paul’s journey from Crete to Malta” (2003: 184, plates 14-15; cf. Acts 27:8-28:1).

    After the computer model was run on the hypothetical Alexandrian grain ship that carried the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke, the course was shown approaching Malta more from the southeast, rather than directly from the east, the normal approach from Crete. The ship’s path line on the computer screen then intersected the East side of Malta, supposedly at the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas’ Bay preferred by Cornuke, not the traditional site for Paul’s shipwreck on the North side of the main Malta island, in the St. Paul’s Bay area. The model, it seemed, had overthrown tradition.

    But Cornuke claimed the computer supported the Bible because Major Manuel Mallia, the Maltese officer in charge of the model, had agreed “that only St. Thomas Bay possessed all the physical, nautical, and geographical conditions that aligned perfectly with the Bible’s description [of Paul’s shipwreck]” (Cornuke 2003: 192-193; bracketed material and emphasis mine). Was this one of the misquotations by Cornuke in his book that required the involvement of the Maltese government? If this computer model is correct, however, it would help confirm Cornuke’s idea that the traditional location of Paul’s shipwreck was wrong.

    Biblical Conflict with Cornuke’s Ideas
    But there is a problem and it is a bigger one than tradition, it is a Biblical conflict: The East side of Malta, with the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas’ Bay, was familiar to Alexandrian ship captains as the side of the island they always saw on approach to Malta coming from the east. If sea captains could not make it back to Rome before the sea-lanes closed for the winter, the Alexandrian grain ships would dock in the Marsa Port on Malta (within the Grand Harbor of Valletta), off-load the grain and store it in granaries for the winter (Gambin 2005: 122-132; cf. Acts 28:11).

    In Paul’s case they shipwrecked on a part of the island the crew did “not recognize” in fact so unfamiliar they did not even know they were on Malta until a native told them so (Acts 27:39; 28:1-2a, NKJV, emphasis added). So they had to have landed on some other part of Malta, not the familiar and recognizable East side. The traditional location on the unfamiliar North side of Malta makes sense in light of the puzzlement of the sailors on Paul’s wrecked ship. Computer or not, shipwrecking on the familiar East side makes no sense. This has always been a fundamental Biblical and logical stumbling block for Cornuke’s theory of Paul’s shipwreck because the seamen would have recognized the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas Bay, contrary to the Biblical text which states they did not recognize the island (Acts 27:39)! A computer model cannot overcome this fatal defect without simply throwing the whole Biblical account overboard in the process.

    Two Principles of Computer Modeling
    Even if we set aside the contradiction to the Biblical account for the moment, there are still major problems with the computer model and Cornuke’s use of it.

    Two principles are important here:

    1. The computer model’s output will only be as good as the data inputted. There is a widely known axiom in the computer world, “Garbage In = Garbage Out,” which simply means that the computer results that come out are only as good as the data put in. If bad or mistaken data are put in, then the results will be bad or mistaken.
    2. Using a computer model beyond its design limitations and for purposes not intended will not produce trustworthy results. This could result in totally spurious results or results that can be easily manipulated to say almost anything, even unintentionally.

    A computer model designed to assist search and rescue missions in the recent past hours or days of a modern-day storm causing a ship to go astray in AD 2002 (the year the model was run for Cornuke) obviously is not designed to reconstruct historical events from some 2,000 years ago – when there were no meteorological data from satellites and scientific instruments to plot shifting winds and currents. Even the ocean bottom can, and has, changed in two thousand years due to earthquakes and deposited silt.

    The first step in understanding the design limitations of a computer model is to find out what model it is and what instructions it has for inputting data. Even better would be to have the developers’ design statement. Unfortunately, Cornuke did not even identify what computer model was used by the United States Coast Guard and the Maltese military!

    Was the program purposely designed to recreate an actual past historical event and if so, what weather data were used for input? Cornuke does not provide the specific weather data inputs nor does he inform us where the input data came from. It would be impossible to know, for example, exactly what time the ship left Fair Haven on Crete, or precisely when and where the ship got caught in the Euroclydon (Northeaster storm) on its way to Phoenix on Crete (Acts 27:14) because the Bible does not state this information. Did the storm strike as soon as they left Fair Haven, or several hours later, right before they were to dock at Phoenix? Or, was it somewhere in between the two places? Each of these unknown variables would affect the geographic location of where the ship ended up in the output of the computer model.


    Data Input for the Computer Model
    According to Cornuke, the modelers used five types of input data for the model (Cornuke 2003: 187-188). These included:

    1. The “general parameters of a grain freighter”

    One nautical archaeologist has pointed out, however, that “the precise appearance of great grain ships like those mentioned in the Book of Acts and the writings of Lucian” are unknown (Fitzgerald 1990: 31) because nautical archaeologists have never recovered an actual first century AD Alexandrian grain ship in an underwater archaeological excavation. Was the grain ship a two-mast or a three-mast ship? What was its draft? How much did it actually weigh? Cornuke said they put in “the approximate size of the ship” (2003: 187, emphasis mine), yet a variation in size and weight would affect the outcome of the calculations for the computer model.

    2.  Wooden hull was a factor entered into the software

    But was only wood exposed on the hull of Paul’s ship or was there lead sheathing on the hull? Ancient lead sheathing has been found on the seabed of Malta. If there was lead sheathing on the grain ship that would affect the outcome of the calculations.

    Also, the ship was undergirded, probably with heavy rope or cable (Hirschfeld 1990: 26-27), to secure it during the storm (Acts 27:17). What effect would the rope or cable have on the drag of the ship and thus on the computer calculations?

    3.   The “veering characteristics of a northeaster”

    Cornuke suggested the drag of the windsock affected the speed and direction of the ship (Cornuke 2003: 190). What ancient sources describe – or archaeological remains show – that a windsock sail was part of a rigging for an Alexandrian grain ship and used as a sea anchor in an emergency? I am not aware of any. Perhaps Cornuke can enlighten us with this information.

    4.  The “leeway of time”

    What margin of error or maximum variation (leeway) in the “time” is meant – and is it maximum variation in the time of day or the time of year? It is unclear. How was the possible variation of time factored in? Did they run the computer with every possible choice of time? What were the results?

    Cornuke had the rescue software run on May 29, 2002. The question is then: Did they run the software model with the current date of May 29, or did they think to change the date to the Fall season? (Shipwreck occurred at least 14 days after Yom Kippur and before winter, thus most probably October-November: cp. Acts 27:9, 27, 33; 28:11.) In fact, does the computer model even differentiate a year as well as the day of the year, and if so, was the year AD 2002 run or a year around ca. AD 60 when Paul’s ship wrecked?

    The ocean currents in the Fall were programmed into the computer model (see item 5 below) but it is unclear whether a Fall date was also entered for wind speeds and directions. If they did change the computer model date to the Fall, what date in the Fall did they choose? There is no explanation given to clarify any of this.

    5.  The currents during the Fall season for that part of the Mediterranean Sea

    Although Cornuke listed five types of data inputted into the computer model including ocean currents, he strangely failed to list winds even though powerful storm winds are far more important than ocean currents. Wind directions and speeds are the critical factors in a storm of this apparent magnitude. The exact wind speeds and directions are unknown and any increase or decrease in speed, or change of wind direction, from hour to hour and day to day, would affect the outcome of the computer model over the 14 days the grain ship was adrift.

    Unfortunately, the specific information that was put into the computer was not given in the book, perhaps because it is a popular-level book. But the specific input data were not provided on Cornuke’s websites or in any peer-reviewed scholarly article either (none have been published). Researchers who would like to follow up or try to duplicate this computer exercise would need the specific information inputted into the computer software, such as the wind speeds and directions and ocean currents hour by hour, what alternative dates, times, winds and currents were used and with what results, etc.

    The Computer Model’s “Line of Drift”
    Plates 14 and 15 of The Lost Shipwreck of Paul display photographs of the computer experiment at the Rescue Coordination Center of the Armed Forces of Malta. On the bottom of Plate 14, the line of drift for Paul’s Alexandrian grain ship is drawn. I enlarged the photograph on a photocopy machine to 200% and examined the “line of drift.” It appears to be drawn by human hand with a felt tip pen or magic marker, not by computer. The thickness of the line seems to vary slightly and at one point the line seems to be redrawn over a short segment where it is a bit thicker. At another point the line does not have an even, smooth flow to it. This seems to suggest that the line is hand-drawn and not computer generated.

    I also observed that the line of drift was not drawn through the last datum point but rather above it. Why was this? This last datum point also seems to fall far short of reaching the Malta area so it would be interesting to know, if the computer had generated one more datum point, just where that last point would have been located. When I redrew the line (see chart below) through the last datum point that is shown, and not above it as represented in the book, the line of drift misses Malta entirely, by about 5 miles to the south of the island! Thus it does not hit the Munxar Reef and St. Thomas’ Bay as Cornuke claims.

    CORNUKE 2003 Paul's Shipwreck-Computer Maps COMPARED-2

    Technical, Peer-Reviewed Article is Needed
    For Cornuke’s research to be evaluated by scholars, it must be published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, perhaps a meteorological journal, identifying the software program that was used and the specific input information used to simulate the storm. An explanation is also in order as to why the “line of drift” did not go through the last datum point and if there was one more computer-generated datum point. If there was another datum point, where was it?

    If independent researchers could replicate his research using the same or similar software then Cornuke’s research would have added credibility and congratulations would be in order. Or, perhaps with slight variations in the different variables, the computer model might have the grain ship run aground in the traditional St. Paul’s Bay area or completely miss the island, as presently appears to be the case!

    It would also be helpful if Cornuke could have Major (now Colonel) Manuel Mallia of the Rescue Coordination Center, who ran the model for Cornuke, provide a letter indicating the model’s appropriateness for the task, some of the key data input, and stating whether he agreed or disagreed with the conclusions Cornuke drew from the output.

    The Conclusion of the Matter
    A word of caution is in order. Computer models are great tools for predicting the outcome of various data sets entered into the model. But while they are excellent modeling tools, they are simply that – tools to generate possible outcomes. They are seldom the final word on what will certainly happen in the future, and for sure, not the final word on what did happen in the unknown past.

    The weather prediction by the meteorologist is based on a large volume of recently obtained weather data from instruments put into a computer model. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the procedure on its official website:

    The [computer weather-prediction] models, using many millions of numbers that represent weather [observation] parameters such as temperature, pressure, wind, etc., attempt to represent current weather conditions and then make a prediction of the future state of the atmosphere….

    Data Assimilation is the process whereby weather observations are incorporated into a computer model that predicts the weather. After billions of calculations, the supercomputers that are now used to run weather models, project how the current weather conditions are expected to change.

    http://www.research.noaa.gov/weather/t_modeling.html

    But for Paul’s shipwreck, we have zero weather instrument data, there were no weather instruments in that era and only fragmentary records of human events and occasional weather events such as major once-a-century type storms.  Any “data” is invented by extrapolating current conditions and data back in time 2,000 years and assuming that past weather was exactly the same as today.  Needless to say this is highly speculative at best and non-verifiable.

    Consider how many computer weather models have predicted hurricanes that never materialized or missed significant weather events that actually took place. How often have you noticed that your local weather forecast has been right?! (Or wrong, and it ruined your picnic!). Today’s weather forecasts attempt to project a few hours or days into the future. In this scenario, a meteorologist’s forecast has everything in its favor, yet sometimes it is still incorrect. By contrast, a computer model of the possible location of Paul’s shipwreck attempts to project conditions back nearly 2,000 years into the past. It is far from definitive given so many unknown variables and factors. Thus, we should not put too much stock in such fantastic extrapolations!

    Also, depending on the input, the same model could have easily produced a completely different location for the shipwreck, including even the traditional location of the St. Paul’s Bay area. Perhaps the most difficult data to input for this, or any model, is the sovereign Hand of God controlling the speed and direction of the wind and thus, the precise, final destination of the Alexandrian grain ship!

    For links to other critiques of Cornuke’s ideas, see:

    How Accurate Are Bob Cornuke’s Claims?

    Bibliography

    Cornuke, Robert

    2003 The Lost Shipwreck of Paul.  Bend, OR: Global Publishing Services.

    Fitzgerald, Michael

    1990 The Ship of Saint Paul.  Comparative Archaeology.  Biblical Archaeologist 53/1: 31-39.

    Gambin, Timothy

    2005 The Maritime Landscapes of Malta from the Roman Period to the Middle Ages. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation University of Bristol [England].

    Hirschfeld, Nicolle

    1990 The Ship of Saint Paul. Historical Background. Biblical Archaeologist 53/1: 25-30.

    About the author

    Gordon Franz is a Bible teacher who holds an MA in Biblical Studies from Columbia Biblical Seminary, SC. Since 1978, he has engaged in extensive research in Biblical geography and archaeology and has participated in a number of excavations in and around Jerusalem, including Ketef Hinnom and Ramat Rachel as well as the excavations at Lachish, Jezreel, Hazor, and Tel Zayit. He has taught the geography of the Bible and led field trips in Israel for the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies, the Institute of Holy Land Studies, and the IBEX program of The Master’s College. He also co-teaches the Talbot School of Theology’s Bible Lands Program. He has also visited Malta on a number of occasions since January 1997 doing research on the history, geography, and archaeology of the island, as well as the location of Paul’s shipwreck. Gordon is on the staff of the Associates for Biblical Research.

    Tags: , , , , ,

  • Cracked Pot Archaeology, Noah’s Ark Comments Off on Book Review: The Unsolved Mystery of Noah’s Ark
    The Unsolved Mystery of Noah’s Ark. By Mary Irwin.  Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 2012, xv+117pp., $11.95 paper.
    Reviewed by Gordon Franz and Bill Crouse
    Mary Irwin, the wife of the late moon-walking astronaut, Jim Irwin, has written a book about their adventures on Mount Ararat and the search for Noah’s Ark. This book was prompted by a deceptive National Geographic special on Noah’s Ark in May 2009.
    In the Foreward, Bob Cornuke, another Ark hunter, laments that he has been searching for Noah’s Ark for 25 years and has never seen the old boat, and then asks: but has anyone ever seen the remains of Noah’s Ark? (page xi). We are pleased to report that over the millennia, literally thousands, upon thousands of people, including an Assyrian king, have made pilgrimages to Noah’s Ark and seen it, brought back wood from it as souvenirs or as objects of worship. We were surprised that Mary Irwin did not cite our definitive and compelling article on the true location for the landing of Noah’s Ark on Cudi Dagh in southeastern Turkey. It was published in Bible and Spade (Fall 2006; Vol. 10, no. 4, pages 99-113) and is available here.
    Early in the book Irwin writes about her first trip to the famed mountain, known by the Turks as Agri Dagh, with her husband in the early 80’s, an account that will bring back many memories to the various teams of climbers that had high hopes of finding Noah’s Ark. She then begins what is the best part of the book where she debunks several of the more notorious claims about the whereabouts of the Ark. Here she demonstrates evidence of pretty good detective work as far as she goes. Those making the remarkable claims which she exposes  are: Ferdinand Navarra, George Green, George Hagopian, and Ron Wyatt. We commend her for her efforts to set the record straight.
    In the Part two, she sets about to examine the off-probed story of the late Ed Davis from Albuquerque, NM. This is the story of a WWII soldier stationed in Hamadan, Iran, who claimed he had a close encounter, both with Noah’s Ark and the Garden of Eden. We wish that she had applied her skill evidenced earlier in the book to this sensational claim.  
    We agree with Mary Irwin’s assessment in the first half of the book (pages 1-49) that there are no credible sightings of Noah’s Ark on Agri Dagh, the traditional Mount Ararat. However, her case in the second half of the book for Mount Suleiman, northwest of Tehran, based on the Ed Davis testimony strains credulity. This idea was first espoused by Robert Cornuke, and is weak and unconvincing. First of all, the biblically designated mountains of Ararat do not extend anywhere near this mountain in Eastern Iran. It has no tradition whatsoever, and one must have quite the imagination to even consider that the claimed rock formation was once the mighty ship of Noah (here are the co-ordinates: 36 degrees, 24’14.18N; 50 degrees, 58’27.43E). Thorough refutations of Bob Cornuke’s ideas and articles are up on these sites here and here. Mr. Cornuke has never responded to these articles and Mary Irwin apparently did not interact with the material in our critiques, so repeated the errors pointed out in the articles.
    In the book, Irwin contends that Ed Davis passed several lie detector tests (page 53) and one was “grueling” (page 54). The facts are not exactly as stated. Ed Davis, in one lie detector test of which we are aware, done on May 1,1988 for Bob Cornuke and High Flight Foundation (Jim Irwin’s organization), by P. G. P. Polygraph,  was asked six softball questions, and on the final question was answered by Davis in the negative, but showed stress on the polygraph test. Apparently, he had talked with others, or read books, about the ark. The author should have been aware of the results of this polygraph test because her husband was still in charge of the High Flight Foundation and the letter should have been in her “Ararat” file. If other tests were administered, it sure would strengthen her case if these results would have been documented in the book.
    Two old maps are presented in the book in an attempt to bolster the case for the landing site of the ark in Iran (pages 95 and 99). However, neither map supports the case for Mount Suleiman being the landing site of the ark.
    The first map is found on page 95. It is labeled Ancient Map of the Middle East, by Jewish Historian Petras Plantius. This map is primitive, and in some cases highly inaccurate. A careful examination of the map will show that the mountains labeled Ararat mons are the Gordyan Mountains in southeastern Turkey and not Iran. Just below the Ararat mons are the cities of Nineve, Mosul, and Arbela, all cities in northern Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), and not Iran. The range of mountains to the right of Ararat mons, running in a north-south direction, is the Zagros Mountains, even though they are mislabeled Caspy (?) montes (Caspian Mountains). One can tell they are the Zagros Mountains by the location of Elam and Susa at the southern end of the mountain range. These locations are to the southeast of the Zagros Mountains. On this map, the Ararat Mons is in Turkey, not Iran. This map would be better used for the case of Cudi Dagh, as the true landing site of Noah’s Ark!
    The second map is found on page 99. It is identified in the book as a Terrestrial Paradise, circa 1722 showing Noah’s Ark below the Caspian Sea on the Summit of Mont Ararat. This map is Pierre Daniel Huet’s conception from Calmet’s Dictionnaire historique de la Bible (1722). With this map she is trying to demonstrate that the landing site for Noah’s Ark is below (or near) the Caspian Sea, just as Mount Suleiman, near Tehran, is near the Caspian Sea. This is very misleading. The map is not to scale and is an idealized map. Fortunately, one can locate where this mountain is by a careful examination of the map. Just below the mountain is a city named Ecbatana. The ancient city of Ecbatana is buried underneath the modern Iranian city of Hamadan.
    Ecbatana is mentioned once in the Bible in Ezra 6:2 (see the margin of any good study Bible) as the capital of the province of Media. It is also possible that it was one of the “cities of the Medes to which Israelite captives were exiled to by the Assyrians after the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6). Interestingly, the mapmaker places Mount Ararat in the Land of Media and not in Armenia. This should have raised red flags because this is contrary to our Biblical compass. The ancient Biblical and historical sources clearly show that Mt. Suleiman, north of Tehran, was deep inside the land of Media and far outside the land of Ararat / Urartu where the Ark landed.
    The mapmaker was trying to convey that the Ark landed on a mountain near Ecbatana, but not, on Mount Suleiman some 250 km to the northeast of Hamadan. There are Luristan traditions that Noah’s Ark landed in the area of Hamadan. Major Rawlinson, a British Army officer, visited the area in 1836 and mentions the tradition of the landing on a very lofty range, (co-ordinates: 34 degrees, 02’02.39N; 47 degrees, 37’01.85E)  called Sar Kasti on page 100 in his article in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 9 (1839) 26-116. It was to this mountain that Cornuke made his first solo trip and the first of three claims that the Ark came to rest inside Iran. See: Cornuke and Halbrook, The Lost Mountains of Noah: The Discovery of the Real Mtns of Ararat, (2001) pages 88-95.
    We were both a little amused that she advocated the Karola Kautz’s theory that the Mount of Salvation (Mount Nisir) was the landing place of the Babylonian ark! Kautz is advocating the Babylonian account of Mount Nisir which is what Irwin was upset about when she watched the National Geographic program on Noah’s Ark (pages 1 and 2)!!!!!
    In Chapter Ten Irwin borrows another argument from Cornuke she believes indicates that the ark landed in Eastern Iran. Genesis 11:1-2 says: And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there (KJV). The argument goes like this: If you translate the Hebrew miqqedem mdqm as: from the east, as the KJV does, it would clearly seem to indicate that the Ark must have landed somewhere to the east of historic Shinar (Mesopotamia), in modern-day Iran since it is that country that is directly east of Shinar. However, if you translate the miqqedem as eastward, as the NIV does, then you have the migration coming from the west toward Shinar. Elsewhere the miqqedem is translated in the east (NEB), that is: men moved in the east, then, the directional point is much more indefinite.
    Given that this migration occurred several hundred years after the disembarking from the Ark from the previous context of chapter 10, it seems best not to push this passage too much. If you believe the Ark landed in northern Iran, or northeast Turkey, it would have certainly been more accurate for the writer to say they migrated from the north. Neither the Elburz Mountains, nor Mount Ararat is directly east of Shinar. The Biblical mountains of Ararat (Urartu) are directly north of the plain of Shinar.
    The apparent conflict between Genesis 8:4 and 11:2 is more easily resolved with a more indefinite interpretation in our opinion. It should also be pointed out that that there is least a 100-300 year period between the landing of the Ark after the Flood (Gen. 8), and the Tower of Babel event (Gen. 11). The peoples could have easily moved from where the Ark landed to other locations east or west of Shinar [Babylonia] before the Tower of Babel story took place.
    Finally we would caution the author about advocating the Mount Sulieman discovery based on unpublished reports of petrified wood with marine fossils; etc (pages 105-109). Your line: Until someone comes home from an expedition, with authentic photographs or a large chunk of the ark’s remains verified by authentic scientists who have looked at the samples through an electron microscope and have carbon dated the piece, I shall continue to be suspect of anymore ‘eye-witness’ accounts …  Cornuke’s team, who originally made these claims in 2006 has never produced any of the above for peer review. It’s been more than six years! If the answer is negative, that should be published also, so people do not go around writing books and giving lectures that they found Noah’s Ark on Mount Suleiman, northwest of Tehran!
    Errata:
    Page 43. 1st line. Wyatt was not a psychiatric nurse, but rather a nurse anesthetist.
    Page 43. 2nd to the last line. The tunnel was in the Garden Tomb area, not the Garden of Gethsemane
    Page 69. 3rd line. Josephus is the 2nd half of the 1st century AD, not the beginning of the 4th century AD.
    Page 74. The quote attributed to Ashur-nasipal was not made by him and not cited as a quote by Olmstead.
    Page 78. The Harmonics footnote does not appear in the bibliography.
    Page 113. The date for the Olmstead article is 1918, not 1998. The information cited is on page 231.

    The Unsolved Mystery of Noah’s Ark. By Mary Irwin.  Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 2012, xv+117pp., $11.95 paper.

    Reviewed by Gordon Franz and Bill Crouse

    Mary Irwin, the wife of the late moon-walking astronaut, Jim Irwin, has written a book about their adventures on Mount Ararat and the search for Noah’s Ark. This book was prompted by a deceptive National Geographic special on Noah’s Ark in May 2009.

    In the Foreward, Bob Cornuke, another Ark hunter, laments that he has been searching for Noah’s Ark for 25 years and has never seen the old boat, and then asks: but has anyone ever seen the remains of Noah’s Ark? (page xi). We are pleased to report that over the millennia, literally thousands, upon thousands of people, including an Assyrian king, have made pilgrimages to Noah’s Ark and seen it, brought back wood from it as souvenirs or as objects of worship. We were surprised that Mary Irwin did not cite our definitive and compelling article on the true location for the landing of Noah’s Ark on Cudi Dagh in southeastern Turkey. It was published in Bible and Spade (Fall 2006; Vol. 10, no. 4, pages 99-113) and is available here.

    Early in the book Irwin writes about her first trip to the famed mountain, known by the Turks as Agri Dagh, with her husband in the early 80’s, an account that will bring back many memories to the various teams of climbers that had high hopes of finding Noah’s Ark. She then begins what is the best part of the book where she debunks several of the more notorious claims about the whereabouts of the Ark. Here she demonstrates evidence of pretty good detective work as far as she goes. Those making the remarkable claims which she exposes  are: Ferdinand Navarra, George Green, George Hagopian, and Ron Wyatt. We commend her for her efforts to set the record straight.

    In the Part two, she sets about to examine the off-probed story of the late Ed Davis from Albuquerque, NM. This is the story of a WWII soldier stationed in Hamadan, Iran, who claimed he had a close encounter, both with Noah’s Ark and the Garden of Eden. We wish that she had applied her skill evidenced earlier in the book to this sensational claim.  

    We agree with Mary Irwin’s assessment in the first half of the book (pages 1-49) that there are no credible sightings of Noah’s Ark on Agri Dagh, the traditional Mount Ararat. However, her case in the second half of the book for Mount Suleiman, northwest of Tehran, based on the Ed Davis testimony strains credulity. This idea was first espoused by Robert Cornuke, and is weak and unconvincing. First of all, the biblically designated mountains of Ararat do not extend anywhere near this mountain in Eastern Iran. It has no tradition whatsoever, and one must have quite the imagination to even consider that the claimed rock formation was once the mighty ship of Noah (here are the co-ordinates: 36 degrees, 24’14.18N; 50 degrees, 58’27.43E). Thorough refutations of Bob Cornuke’s ideas and articles are up on these sites here and here. Mr. Cornuke has never responded to these articles and Mary Irwin apparently did not interact with the material in our critiques, so repeated the errors pointed out in the articles.

    In the book, Irwin contends that Ed Davis passed several lie detector tests (page 53) and one was “grueling” (page 54). The facts are not exactly as stated. Ed Davis, in one lie detector test of which we are aware, done on May 1,1988 for Bob Cornuke and High Flight Foundation (Jim Irwin’s organization), by P. G. P. Polygraph,  was asked six softball questions, and on the final question was answered by Davis in the negative, but showed stress on the polygraph test. Apparently, he had talked with others, or read books, about the ark. The author should have been aware of the results of this polygraph test because her husband was still in charge of the High Flight Foundation and the letter should have been in her “Ararat” file. If other tests were administered, it sure would strengthen her case if these results would have been documented in the book.

    Two old maps are presented in the book in an attempt to bolster the case for the landing site of the ark in Iran (pages 95 and 99). However, neither map supports the case for Mount Suleiman being the landing site of the ark.

    The first map is found on page 95. It is labeled Ancient Map of the Middle East, by Jewish Historian Petras Plantius. This map is primitive, and in some cases highly inaccurate. A careful examination of the map will show that the mountains labeled Ararat mons are the Gordyan Mountains in southeastern Turkey and not Iran. Just below the Ararat mons are the cities of Nineve, Mosul, and Arbela, all cities in northern Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), and not Iran. The range of mountains to the right of Ararat mons, running in a north-south direction, is the Zagros Mountains, even though they are mislabeled Caspy (?) montes (Caspian Mountains). One can tell they are the Zagros Mountains by the location of Elam and Susa at the southern end of the mountain range. These locations are to the southeast of the Zagros Mountains. On this map, the Ararat Mons is in Turkey, not Iran. This map would be better used for the case of Cudi Dagh, as the true landing site of Noah’s Ark!

    The second map is found on page 99. It is identified in the book as a Terrestrial Paradise, circa 1722 showing Noah’s Ark below the Caspian Sea on the Summit of Mont Ararat. This map is Pierre Daniel Huet’s conception from Calmet’s Dictionnaire historique de la Bible (1722). With this map she is trying to demonstrate that the landing site for Noah’s Ark is below (or near) the Caspian Sea, just as Mount Suleiman, near Tehran, is near the Caspian Sea. This is very misleading. The map is not to scale and is an idealized map. Fortunately, one can locate where this mountain is by a careful examination of the map. Just below the mountain is a city named Ecbatana. The ancient city of Ecbatana is buried underneath the modern Iranian city of Hamadan.

    Ecbatana is mentioned once in the Bible in Ezra 6:2 (see the margin of any good study Bible) as the capital of the province of Media. It is also possible that it was one of the “cities of the Medes to which Israelite captives were exiled to by the Assyrians after the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6). Interestingly, the mapmaker places Mount Ararat in the Land of Media and not in Armenia. This should have raised red flags because this is contrary to our Biblical compass. The ancient Biblical and historical sources clearly show that Mt. Suleiman, north of Tehran, was deep inside the land of Media and far outside the land of Ararat / Urartu where the Ark landed.

    The mapmaker was trying to convey that the Ark landed on a mountain near Ecbatana, but not, on Mount Suleiman some 250 km to the northeast of Hamadan. There are Luristan traditions that Noah’s Ark landed in the area of Hamadan. Major Rawlinson, a British Army officer, visited the area in 1836 and mentions the tradition of the landing on a very lofty range, (co-ordinates: 34 degrees, 02’02.39N; 47 degrees, 37’01.85E)  called Sar Kasti on page 100 in his article in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 9 (1839) 26-116. It was to this mountain that Cornuke made his first solo trip and the first of three claims that the Ark came to rest inside Iran. See: Cornuke and Halbrook, The Lost Mountains of Noah: The Discovery of the Real Mtns of Ararat, (2001) pages 88-95.

    We were both a little amused that she advocated the Karola Kautz’s theory that the Mount of Salvation (Mount Nisir) was the landing place of the Babylonian ark! Kautz is advocating the Babylonian account of Mount Nisir which is what Irwin was upset about when she watched the National Geographic program on Noah’s Ark (pages 1 and 2)!!!!!

    In Chapter Ten Irwin borrows another argument from Cornuke she believes indicates that the ark landed in Eastern Iran. Genesis 11:1-2 says: And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there (KJV). The argument goes like this: If you translate the Hebrew miqqedem mdqm as: from the east, as the KJV does, it would clearly seem to indicate that the Ark must have landed somewhere to the east of historic Shinar (Mesopotamia), in modern-day Iran since it is that country that is directly east of Shinar. However, if you translate the miqqedem as eastward, as the NIV does, then you have the migration coming from the west toward Shinar. Elsewhere the miqqedem is translated in the east (NEB), that is: men moved in the east, then, the directional point is much more indefinite.

    Given that this migration occurred several hundred years after the disembarking from the Ark from the previous context of chapter 10, it seems best not to push this passage too much. If you believe the Ark landed in northern Iran, or northeast Turkey, it would have certainly been more accurate for the writer to say they migrated from the north. Neither the Elburz Mountains, nor Mount Ararat is directly east of Shinar. The Biblical mountains of Ararat (Urartu) are directly north of the plain of Shinar.

    The apparent conflict between Genesis 8:4 and 11:2 is more easily resolved with a more indefinite interpretation in our opinion. It should also be pointed out that that there is least a 100-300 year period between the landing of the Ark after the Flood (Gen. 8), and the Tower of Babel event (Gen. 11). The peoples could have easily moved from where the Ark landed to other locations east or west of Shinar [Babylonia] before the Tower of Babel story took place.

    Finally we would caution the author about advocating the Mount Sulieman discovery based on unpublished reports of petrified wood with marine fossils; etc (pages 105-109). Mary Irwin stated: Until someone comes home from an expedition, with authentic photographs or a large chunk of the ark’s remains verified by authentic scientists who have looked at the samples through an electron microscope and have carbon dated the piece, I shall continue to be suspect of anymore ‘eye-witness’ accounts …  Cornuke’s team, who originally made these claims in 2006 has never produced any of the above for peer review. It’s been more than six years! If the answer is negative, that should be published also, so people do not go around writing books and giving lectures that they found Noah’s Ark on Mount Suleiman, northwest of Tehran!

    Errata:

    Page 43. 1st line. Wyatt was not a psychiatric nurse, but rather a nurse anesthetist.

    Page 43. 2nd to the last line. The tunnel was in the Garden Tomb area, not the Garden of Gethsemane

    Page 69. 3rd line. Josephus is the 2nd half of the 1st century AD, not the beginning of the 4th century AD.

    Page 74. The quote attributed to Ashur-nasipal was not made by him and not cited as a quote by Olmstead.

    Page 78. The Harmonics footnote does not appear in the bibliography.

    Page 113. The date for the Olmstead article is 1918, not 1998. The information cited is on page 231.

   

Recent Comments

  • Nicely done Gordon! At last, a place to send people who are...
  • It's incredible how Mr Cornuke keeps finding things in the w...
  • Obviously Mr.Cornuke hasn't studied Torah or the Bible very ...
  • Thanks for this cogent and concise summary, Gordon. The body...
  • Gordon, You did an excellent work to support the traditiona...