Did The Judge Of All The Earth Always Do What Was Right?

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1998 January /February :

by Farrell Till 

Elsewhere in this issue (pp. 4-5), Roger Hutchinson continues his losing battle to prove that when Yahweh killed David's son, there was no violation of the biblical principle that children should not bear the iniquity of their fathers. This principle was stated in Deuteronomy 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." It was repeated in Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul that sins, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." My position has been that the killing of David's son for his parents' act of adultery was a clear violation of this principle, but Hutchinson has resorted to all sorts of verbal maneuvers to deny this conclusion.

I have decided that the best way to bury this issue is to let my rebuttal of Hutchinson's latest effort (pp. 5-7) and its predecessor articles speak for themselves as I take readers through the Bible to show other examples of where Yahweh violated his own moral code and held the innocent accountable for the "sins" of others. I hope that Hutchinson will go along on the trip and see for himself that he is trying to ride a dead horse.

"Explaining" Problems In Holy Books

Questions all Christian apologists need to answer:

Maybe you can explain to us something we have repeatedly asked Bible believers but never get an answer to. Your argument above is simply, "God did it," and so that is enough to explain any problems that can be found in the flood story. What we want to know is whether you are willing to grant to Muslims, Mormons, Zoroastrians, etc., the same right to "explain" problems in their holy books? If not, why not?

In answering this question, would you please try to refrain from special pleading and question begging?

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.

Art That Survived Noah's Flood

More evidence that Noah's flood didn't happen:

By Farrell Till 

Young-earth creationists, who claim that the earth is only about 10,000 years old, have to reject a huge body of geological and paleontological evidence that says otherwise, but there is also nonscientific evidence that the earth is much older than just 10,000 years. One of these is the paleolithic art that has been discovered in several caves in Southwestern Europe. Some of these paintings have been dated as far back as 20,000 years before the 10,000 that many YECs (Young Earth Creationists) say is the maximum age of the earth. Although there is nothing scientifically unusual about these paintings, their existence is scientific evidence that Noah's flood did not happen in the manner described in the Bible, because it would have been scientifically impossible for these paintings to have survived a universal flood that covered the highest mountains on earth to a depth of 22 to 25 feet (Gen. 7:19-20).

If biblical chronology is trustworthy--and biblical inerrantists must say that it is--then Noah's flood happened 8,430 years ago. This can be determined by just analyzing the chronology that the Bible gave for events and births. The Bible claims that Adam was 130 when he begot his son Seth (Gen. 5:3), who was 105 when he begot Enosh (v:6), who was 90 when he begot Kenan (v:9), who was 70 when he begot Mehalalel (v:12), who was 65 when he begot Jared (v:15), who was 162 when he begot Enoch (v:18), who was 65 when he begot Methuselah (v:21), who was 187 when he begot Lamech (v:25), who was 182 when he begot Noah (v:28). Hence, the Bible claims that1056 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Noah (130 + 105 + 90 + 70 + 65 + 162 + 65 + 187 + 182 = 1056).

Noah was 600 years old--a good round number--when the flood came upon the earth (Gen. 7:6), and it lasted a year and 10 days (Gen. 7:11; 8:13-14), so for convenience, I will round it off to one year. Hence, the flood ended and Noah left the ark about 1657years after the creation of Adam (1056 + 600 + 1 = 1657).

Noah's son Shem begot Arphaxad two years after the flood (Gen. 11:10). Arphaxad was 35 when he begot Shelah (v:12), who was 30 when he begot Eber (v:14), who was 34 when he begot Peleg (v:16), who was 30 when he begot Reu (v:18), who was32 when he begot Serug (v:20), who was 30 when he begot Nahor v:22), who was 29when he begot Terah, the father of Abraham (v:24-26). Hence, 1879 years passed from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham's father Terah (1657 + 2 + 35 + 30 + 34 + 30 + 32 + 30 + 29 = 1879).

Common Sense And Noah's Flood

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1993 March-April:

By Farrell Till

"The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore (Creation/Evolution, Winter 1983) is the most thorough exposure of absurdities in the universal-flood myth that I have ever read. Anyone who can read it and still believe that such a flood actually happened is surely beyond the reach of common sense.

In "Noah's Ark: Fact or Fable," Chris McGowan said, "I find it... hard to believe that I should be sitting at my desk in 1982 documenting the reasons why the flood could not have happened according to Genesis" (In the Beginning, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 54). I feel much the same way, but because so many sincere people have been duped by fundamentalist preachers into believing that everything written in the Bible has to be true, it is still necessary at times to review the absurdities in the flood story.

One of these absurdities concerns the amount of water that would have been required to produce a flood like the one described in Genesis. The Bible claims that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered" (Gen. 7:19 ). The language is explicit enough to discount the theory that the flood was localized, because a limited flood could not have covered ALL the high mountains under the WHOLE heaven. After the waters had receded, the ark came to rest on "the mountains of Ararat" (8:4 ). Since water seeks its own level, it wouldn't have been possible for a localized mound of water to rise to that height without dropping to a uniform level.

The Impossible Voyage Of Noah's Ark

Farrell Till presents some interesting information concerning Noah's ark and the Genesis flood---from creationists. From the Errancy Discussion List, 1-5-97:

One of the best works I have read on Noah's ark is Robert Moore's 

"The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark," which was published in the

Winter 1983 edition of *Creation/Evolution.* I highly recommend 

it. So far, we have discussed only the 300-foot limit in our 

exchanges, but Moore discusses at length many problems that 

the ark would have encountered. While you are trying to find 

reputable naval architects who will confirm that the 300-foot 

limit would not have been a barrier to building a seaworthy 

barge 450 feet long, I want to present some of the other 

problems to you. You have insisted that the ark floated "gently" 

on the water, whereas the science of meteorology would require 

a scenario that would make hurricanes seem like mere soft 

breezes.

In "Impossible Voyage..." Moore presented the scenarios that even
creationists themselves have stated as the type of forces that the 
ark would have had to endure. In *The Creation Explantion,* 
Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves said this about the flood: 
"The Flood was accompanied by violent movements of the earth's 
crust and by volcanic activity of momentous proportions. 
Tremendous tidal waves and rushing currents scoured and deeply 
eroded the continental surface. Entire forests were ripped up and 
transported large distances to be dumped where the currents 
slowed" (p. 226).
  
John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris certainly need no 
introduction to creationists. In "The Genesis Flood,* they 
presented the following scenario: "Even after the forty days, 
when the greatest of the rains and upheavals diminished, 
the Scriptures say that the waters 'prevailed' upon the earth 
for one hundred and ten days longer. This statement... would 
certainly imply that extensive hydraulic and sedimentary 
activity continued for a long time, with many earlier flood 
deposits perhaps re-eroded and reworked.... The only way in 
which land could now appear again would be for a tremendous 
orogeny to take place. Mountains must arise and new basins 
must form to receive the breat overburden of water imposed 
upon the earth" (pp. 266-267).
  
Would such forces at work on the earth's crust have caused 
turbulance? Whitcomb and Morris certainly thought so: "Yielding 
of the crust at even one point, with resultant escape of magmas 
and water or steam, would then lead to earth movements causing 
further fractures until, as the Scriptures portray so graphically, 
'the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up' 
(Genesis 7:11). Truly this was a gigantic catastrophe, beside 
which the explosion of the largest hydrogen bomb, or of hundreds 
of such bombs, becomes insignificant" (pp. 242-243).
  
The creationist J. E. Schmich presented this scenario: "The 
worldwide ocean of the Genesis flood was swept by wind storms 
that would make modern tornadoes seem lik a zephyr" ("The 
Flood and the Ark," *Creation Research Society Quarterly,* 
11:2, pp. 120-122).
  
These are not the claims of despicable atheists. These are 
statements that have been published by men who are recognized 
as the foremost spokesmen for the scientific accuracy of the 
Genesis flood record. Some of us on the errancy list tried to get 
you to investigate the meteorological implications of a flood like 
the one described in Genesis, but you ignored our statements. 
Now I have presented to you statements from leading creationists, 
who agree with our claim that meteorological conditions in Noah's 
flood would have subjected the ark to unimaginable forces and
stresses. If anything, their scenarios are far more extreme than 
anything skeptics have proposed, because, of course, they are 
trying to present scenarios that would have the flood as an 
explanation for the geological record. If you want the discussion 
to continue, I am going to insist that you address this issue and 
present evidence that the leading arkeologists are wrong in the 
scenarios they presented and that the ark merely floated
"gently" on the water.

Farrell Till

Ark Technology

Noah allegedly had the technology to build a seaworthy 450 ft. long wooden ship that could carry massive cargo for a year. How did this technology disappear after the flood? Since the flood, builders of wooden ships have failed to go past the 300 ft. long limit for such a vessel as the Ark. From the Errancy discussion list, January 1997:

MATTHEW
Indeed, the flood itself argues that technology levels would have been lowered following the flood.

TILL
To the contrary, Noah lived for 350 years after the flood (Gen. 9:28), and Shem lived for 500 years after the flood (Gen. 11:11). These two had developed a shipbuilding technology that surpassed anything that the world has ever seen, because they were able to make an all-wooden ship that was 150 feet longer than the barrier that would later baffle modern shipbuilders. Yet that remarkable technology disappeared from the face of the earth, even though Noah and Shem had centuries to teach it to others before they died. The fact that no remarkable ships like the ark were made after the flood is enough to convince reasonable people that the ark was just a legend.

MATTHEW 
Mr. Till, no technology lost following the flood? It seems incredible that Noah's family alone contained all the technology of the world. Furthermore, no additional arks were needed after the flood. God did not ask for another.

TILL
Now that's a strange comment for a biblical inerrantist to make. According to the Genesis story of the flood "all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, and EVERY MAN, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, of all that was on the dry land died" (Gen. 7:21).

Now if this is a true statement, the only humans who survived this disaster were Noah and his wife and their three sons and their wives, eight people altogether. So why does it seem incredible to you that "Noah's family alone contained all the technology of the world"? Who else would there have been? So if Noah was so advanced in the ability to smelt and forge iron, as you seem to believe that Aubrey has brilliantly proven, how do you explain that this technology disappeared after the flood? Surely, Noah and his family would have recognized the value that iron had in construction work and would have used it extensively. So why don't archaeologists find sites dating back to Noah's time that contain numerous iron objects? Furthermore, since Noah lived after the flood for 350 years and Shem lived for 500, why didn't their knowledge of iron forging and shipbuilding spread with the growth of their descendants?