Lady Explains Truth of Noah’s Flood

After months, even years of dangerous and terrifying web surfing, and suffering the slings and arrows of bad websites and false information, I came across one site that has the best explanation for Noah’s flood I’ve ever heard. 🙂

The logic and clearness of the explanation are exceptional for a writer that is obviously Christian and evangelical. If you are a religious fundamentalist, or evangelical, or Young Earth Creationist, or even Old Earth Creationist, I urge you to read the linked pdf file (Here) with as open a mind as you can muster, because this may just be the right story. (Caution-the pdf file is 14 pages long-you might want to have broadband for this)

All my adult life I have not believed in the Noachian Flood, because the evidence was never there, or what ever theories were being pushed sounded so unbelievable that I could not wrap my brain around it.

Now don’t misunderstand me…all I’m saying here is that if the Old Testament is a compilation of Hebrew folk tales…this is how the story should be interpreted. It doesn’t require the logic and mind-bending gyrations and back-flips that every other religious explanation seems to necessitate.

“The Noachian Flood has been one of the sharpest centers of controversy in the long history of warfare between biblical theology and science. It also has been one of the main stumbling blocks to faith, especially for scientists. Was this a universal flood responsible for all fossils and sedimentary rock on the face of the Earth, as some biblical literalists maintain, or was it a local flood confined to the limits of Mesopotamia?”

It starts by placing Noah and the Flood in about 2900 BCE (Jemdet Nasr Period in the area), which just happens to be when there is real archaeological evidence for a Large flood in the Mesopotamian area. At later dates (2200-2700 BC) there is no physical evidence of a large horizon-to-horizon flood event.

The writer continues by saying that you need to take the Bible text at ‘face value’, and not read into it words that are not there. We’re talking the original text here, not one of the many modern interpretations. She states that the real scientific disciplines of geology, geography, archaeology, biology, and physics can be accurately applied to these events of ancient times.

“The Bible can be taken at face value; that is, the biblical writer was accurately recording historical events of ancient times, viewed within the culture of those times. By taking the Bible at face value, nothing is to be read into the Bible that is not explicitly stated in its original (autograph) text.”

Another thing one has to appreciate is the language of the times and the different descriptive terms used. I am not an ancient language expert, but the explanations given seem very logical, and most importantly, they make the story…make sense…in light of modern knowledge, and don’t require a fantastical jump in logic.

The part where she takes on the Flood Geologists makes me smile. It shows up the wrong-headedness that some religious people put into trying to explain the unexplainable.

“Flood Geology. In addition to a lack of any real geological evidence for flood geology, there are also no biblical verses that support this hypothesis. The whole construct of flood geology is based on the original assumption (which is wrong) that the Noachian Flood was universal and covered the whole Earth. Since the Flood was supposedly worldwide, then there must be evidence in the geologic record left by it. Parenthesis comment added.”

The Flood Geologist has to bend and distort logic and resort to lies of omission to try to make the story come out the way they want, instead you just read the story the right way, and voilá, the science and logic lines up.

I have just skimmed the surface here. The author goes into Geological, archaeological, linguistic, historical, and geographic evidence and ties every thing together better than anyone I have-ever-read. Although she uses some religious sources, she also has a long list of secular scientific sources. Her name is Carol Hill, she is a geologist, and her analysis of this matter needs to be taken into serious consideration.

But, thats just my opinion. What’s yours?

For latest post go: Here

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday Sermon for Evolutionists

In May of 2007 the Gallup poll ask Americans this question: “Do you, personally, believe in evolution or not.” This was probably not the correct way to word this question, since there are actually two different beliefs in evolution. There is Theistic Evolution, where believers think that Evolution was started by God and then left alone. Then there is Natural Evolution, where Evolution was purely natural without outside forces (God) aiding the process.
Now this had the actual effect of combining non-believers and partial-believers together. The way the question was asked did not separate the Theists from the non-Theists, and the basic outcome was a statistical dead heat.

  • 49% believe in “Evolution.”
    48% do not believe in “Evolution.”
    2% had no opinion
    I don’t know what happened to the other 1%

    Level of education had an effect on what beliefs were; to no ones surprise.

    74% of people with masters or higher degrees believe in Evolution
    48% of people with college degrees believe in Evolution
    50% of adults with some college believe in Evolution
    41% of adults with High School or less believe in Evolution

To kind of bring this together, one can go back to November of 1997, for another poll conducted by Gallup where it was found (thru using better questions) that those believers in Evolution could be broken down thusly:

  • 40% believe a God Started Evolution
    9% believe in a purely natural evolution

I haven’t seen any more recent surveys, using good questions, but past data suggests that the numbers don’t significantly change from year to year.

So, in the USA at least, the non-believers are a “Big Minority” 🙂 We people that call ourselves non-believers, atheists, agnostics, or whatever, are a really small group-in the USA. But, it is nice to know that whether one is right or wrong in this matter is not decided by polling the public. We come from the place of believing in the logic and proofs of science. We look at physical proofs that can be empirically tested, not mythical tales that involve magic.

We can look at evidence from dozens and dozens of sciences that are unanimously saying that most of what religion teaches and believes is not true. Even the “soft sciences” such as world history, biblical scholarship and linguistics, are disputing biblical tales that have been believed for nearly two thousand years. I mean, do you seriously think that the humans that were spread over almost every continent on earth 12,000 years ago were speaking the same language?

We have a growing tide of knowledge coming our way…every day. I don’t think many Christians yet realize how far gone their “truths” are. Some of the things now known are able to debunk religion by proving parts of the Bible wrong. If one, or two, or three parts are wrong…how about others?

Sidebar: Newsweek magazine in 1987 (yea…I know) said; “By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science…” That means that less than one half of one percent of scientists support the biblical creation of earth and man.

For latest post go: Here

Add to Technorati Favorites