You are hereBeyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Genesis Debate – Part 11

Beyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Genesis Debate – Part 11

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By MiddleKnowledge - Posted on 17 May 2006

by Timothy P. Martin
The Flood and the Tower of Babel

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar instead of mortar. Then they said, “Come let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. Genesis 11:1-9 (NIV)The Flood and the Tower of Babel

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar instead of mortar. Then they said, “Come let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. Genesis 11:1-9 (NIV)The universal language in the account of Babel is similar to both the language of the flood account as well as the universal language in the New Testament used to describe the Great Tribulation and Parousia of Christ. It should come as no surprise that Christians dedicated to both a global flood and a global fulfillment of New Testament prophecy in our future also see the events of Babel in universal terms involving a huge civilization. It is consistent to read both the flood and Babel as colossal events in physical scope, given the plain-literal hermeneutic to which futurists are committed. John Whitcomb, Jr. writes:

God’s judgment of the Tower of Babel was one of the greatest catastrophes in the history of the world. In one moment, a massive, highly complex building project, involving the entire human race, came to an end. Thousands of workers suddenly found themselves incapable of communicating with anyone outside their extended family group. Overwhelmed by fear and frustration, each family group moved away from the others. Mankind has never recovered.[1]

This is the standard Creation Science view of Babel. Not only is Babel viewed as a universal judgment, it is the harbinger of a global system to come in the last days. Henry Morris connects his understanding of Babel to dispensational futurist concepts of global events in the “last days.” He writes:

Just as pantheistic evolution served as the world's religion in the early days, so it will do again in the last days. The New Age is really nothing but a revival in modern garb of the Old Age—that is, the first age after the Flood, when King Nimrod led the world in a united rebellion against the Creator. And just as all the groups in the wide spectrum of New Age beliefs are founded upon a base of pantheistic evolutionism, so all have as their ultimate goal, just as Nimrod did, the development of a global system of government, culture, finance, and religion. The United Nations Organization is currently the focus of these plans, but it will eventually "evolve" into a much stronger international government in which all "the kings of the earth (will) set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against His [Christ], saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us" (Psalm 2:2,3)...

[T]he most effective thing the remnant of believers in God and His Word can do to offset this is to believe and teach a soundly Biblical and scientific creationism. This must include the great truth that the Creator has now also become the Lamb of God, our sin-forgiving Savior, and soon will return as eternal King. In that day, "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings" (Revelation 17:14).[2]

As we’ve already pointed out in part 10, advocates of Creation Science believe very strongly in evolution from the contents of Noah’s ark to all the biological life we witness today. The Creation Science explanation is impossible apart from radical evolution in the post-flood world. On the other hand, Morris’ concern for the secular humanist ideas behind the United Nations is not totally unfounded. Nor do we take issue with the truth that the Christian gospel offers solutions to international conflicts and relationships.

The problem with Morris’ approach is that he has promoted dispensational premillenial theology that is inherently false in its expectation of the Second Coming of Christ in our near future. The same plain-literal hermeneutic which leads Morris to premillenial eschatology also leads him to a global flood in Genesis. That plain-literalism has a ripple effect on how advocates of Creation Science understand the Tower of Babel as well.

Given the logical connection between the Creation Science view of Babel and dispensational futurism, a question arises for those who see the problem of building our understanding of biblical judgments simplistically from a plain-literal reading of the biblical text. If the Bible routinely uses global language, as it reads in our modern English, to describe non-global historical events such as the flood, Great Tribulation and Parousia of Christ, should we not read the account of Babel in a similar manner? The Hebrew text consistently uses “erets” (“ge” in the Septuagint) for what is usually translated as “whole world,” “earth,” and “face of the earth” in modern English. Why would preterists support the Creation Science understanding of the Tower of Babel?

Advocates for Creation Science generally overlook serious problems the account of Babel raises for the Creation Science system on their own assumptions. The biblical account of flood and Babel, taken together, vindicate a preterist hermeneutic applied to Genesis. The relationship between the flood and Babel provides internal evidence that neither judgment involved universal events.

The details in the account of Babel are sparse. One detail which the writer thought was significant has been completely ignored in Creation Science literature. Notice the builders used fired (baked) bricks instead of stone and tar instead of mortar (Genesis 11:3). Why would the biblical account stress these details? Why would the builders choose these difficult and expensive options? After all, Mesopotamia did not have an abundance of trees to fuel brick kilns.

These details in the account indicate the builders of Babel tried to waterproof their structure. In Hebrew the “tar” in the Babel account is the same as what was used to waterproof the ark.[3] Fired bricks are waterproof and would maintain their integrity when wet, unlike normal mud brick.

The city and tower of Babel were constructed for the practical purpose of creating immunity from God’s judgment in case God sent another flood. They wanted protection from any future flood as they settled in the plain of Shinar.

Today, few think of Babel as a defiant response to the flood. Yet this understanding was common a hundred years ago. One old American history book for children explains it this way:

Somewhere in Babylonia the people built a great tower called the Tower of Babel, which you have probably heard about. It was more like a mountain than a tower... Some say the Tower of Babel and others like it were built so that the people might have a high place to which they could climb in case of another flood.[4]

This understanding of the account of Babel is corroborated by Josephus who writes:

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God... He said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! And that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers! Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower... It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water.[5] (emphasis ours)

Josephus’ account gives slightly different details than Genesis, but it is perfectly compatible with the biblical account. Both Scripture and Josephus specify that the tower was built of burnt brick instead of stone; tar instead of common mortar.

Josephus includes another relevant detail that further explains his understanding of the Babel event. Notice that Nimrod’s intent was to avenge himself on God’s destruction of their forefathers. But according to the Creation Science model, Noah is Nimrod’s forefather! How can Nimrod, or anyone else alive at the time, avenge themselves on God for the destruction of their forefathers if no one lived on planet earth after the flood beside Noah’s family? Given Josephus’ account, it appears the rebellion at Babel was fueled, at least in part, by the children of those destroyed in the flood. If true, that means the flood was a local event.

The logical relationship between the flood and Babel suggest the two events happened close together in biblical history. The textual evidence in Genesis agrees. The flood and Babel represent contiguous accounts in Genesis. The flood is recorded in Genesis 6-9. Genesis 10 is filled with genealogical information. Genesis 11 carries on with the account of Babel. The Creation Science reading of the Genesis account generally assumes the flood and Babel were separated by a vast time period. Yet there is no gap of this magnitude in Genesis between the flood and Babel.

How much time lapsed between the flood and Babel? If we take the genealogical text of Genesis 11 literally, as Creation Scientists uniformly demand elsewhere in Genesis, the time between the flood and the birth of Abraham amount to just under 300 years.

This is the account of Shem. Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. … When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. … When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. … When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. ... When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. ... When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. ... When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. ... After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. Genesis 11:10-26 (NIV)

Babel occurs somewhere in this period of time. Most Creation Scientists suggest the events of Babel occurred around the birth of Peleg because of the division spoken of in Genesis 10:25.[6]

Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan. Genesis 10:25.

The chronology appears to be straightforward if we grant a plain-literal reading of the text. By adding the years, Peleg was born about 101 years after the flood and Abram (Abraham) was born about 292 years after the flood. The genealogy is shown in the figure below.

One leading Creation Scientist, Ken Ham, defends a flood relatively close to the days of Abraham. He senses the logical implications of wandering from a plain-literal reading of the post-flood genealogies. When dealing with the suggestion of gaps in the genealogies of both Genesis 5 and 11 he claims:

This is not so. The language is clear that they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father at the birth of the next name in line. So the earth is only about 6000 years old.[7]

Ham does not seem to realize what this means for the chronology of the flood and Babel. Ham’s approach creates an unsolvable problem: time. If the flood destroyed absolutely all human life on planet earth except the 8 people of Noah’s family, then how can there possibly be another huge civilization in existence within three generations of the flood? The common perception of Babel as a great civilization or the repopulation of planet earth to pre-flood levels is mathematically impossible within that period of time (roughly 100 years if Babel occurred at the birth of Peleg).

The Creation Science explanation of these events has a related problem of inadequate population in light of the biblical account of Nimrod, the one who instigated the building of Babel. Notice what Nimrod was able to accomplish right after the flood.

This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. … The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteca. … Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. … The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar. From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. Genesis 10:1-11 (NIV)

A plain and direct reading of the genealogical tables declares Nimrod the son of Cush who is the son of Ham, one of the three sons of Noah. Nimrod was involved in the construction of Babel. Yet after God thwarted that plan, he built eight more cities, creating an empire set against God. The account also mentions that Nimrod was a “mighty warrior” which means he had to have killed some of Noah’s progeny in battle! This further reduces the meager post-flood population. In light of all these biblical details, how is it physically possible for a grandson of Noah to build nine cities if the flood left only eight people on planet earth?

Advocates of Creation Science imply people grew numerous virtually instantaneously after the flood. When we look carefully at the details in Genesis should it not surprise us that by about 367 years after the flood (when Abraham left Haran), there were numerous peoples with numerous national identities, some of whom had sold thousands of their own countrymen to Terah and Abram?[8] Some of these servants in Abraham’s household were brought from as far as 1000 miles away. Hagar came from Egypt (Gen. 16:1). Eliezer came from Damascus (Gen. 15:2).

Creation Science advocates have yet to put together a story that includes all these details in conformity with the natural flow of the Genesis story. They tend take each piece of information in Genesis (i.e. the flood, Babel and story of Abraham) as if it has no bearing or relationship to the rest of the story. When the biblical information about the post-flood world is considered fully, a universal flood makes nonsense of the post-flood story according to the hermeneutic assumptions of Creation Science advocates.

One way to alleviate this problem of time and population between the flood and Babel is to rely on the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text which underlies most English Bibles. The Septuagint provides an extra 500 or so years between Noah and Peleg.[9] This would help solve the problem of time needed between the flood and Babel in order for an advanced civilization to develop. What makes this option unworkable for the Creation Science view is that the Septuagint places the flood years before Methuselah dies – a fatal problem for a global flood view. This point alone causes most Creation Scientists to essentially demonize the genealogical accounting in the Septuagint. Answers in Genesis warns their followers against the Septuagint. Their website explains their problem with making use of the Septuagint:

‘The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.’ This is not so. The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood.[10]

Very few stop to consider that the Septuagint may actually strengthen the case for a regional flood. Could it be that the Septuagint translators accepted a limited flood that did not affect Methuselah? Creation Scientists automatically assume the Septuagint should be dismissed rather than their global flood doctrine. In other words, Creation Scientists have assumed their position without question, even if it means rejecting a venerable ancient translation of the Old Testament. Their standard for judging biblical texts is a worldwide flood interpretation!

The bottom line is the Masoretic text creates a thorny difficulty of time between the flood and Babel. The Septuagint alleviates this problem slightly, but creates an altogether different problem with the chronology of the flood and Methuselah. Neither text indicates a universal flood when we consider the wider story of the flood and Babel.

The difficulties for the Creation Science paradigm do not end there. Creation Science advocates must logically affirm a strange belief about Noah and Abraham if they stick to their plain-literal approach. Genesis 9 ends with the statement, “Noah lived 350 years after the flood.” If the genealogies in Genesis 11:10-26 (Masoretic text) are meant to be understood literally, adding the years from the flood to the birth of Abraham we would arrive at the conclusion that Noah and Abraham were, at the end of Noah’s life, contemporaries.[11] Noah lived longer after the flood than the entire gap between the flood and birth of Abraham!

Other Creation Science leaders acknowledge this curious conclusion. Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, Jr. explain:

If the strict-chronological interpretation of Genesis 11 is correct, all the postdiluvian patriarchs, including Noah, would still have been living when Abraham was fifty years old...[12]

Morris and Whitcomb probably gave more thought to the issue of time in the chronology of the flood and Babel than Ken Ham. They sense the problem of having a huge civilization at Babel within about a hundred years after a universal flood as well as the oddity of Noah and Abraham living simultaneously. They struggled with the issue of chronology in a long appendix to The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. What is their solution to the problem of the short time between the flood and Babel? They simply abandon a plain-literal approach to the genealogical material in Genesis. They write:

The strict-chronology interpretation of Genesis 11 has been shown to be unnecessary for various reasons. Thus, it seems Biblically possible, or even probable, that the flood occurred several millenia before Abraham.[13]

The Flood may have occurred as much as three to five thousand years before Abraham.[14]

This is a double-standard hermeneutic. What do Creation Scientists say about all those who find a strict-chronology interpretation unnecessary in other portions of early Genesis? If a strict-chronology interpretation is unnecessary in Genesis 11, might a strict-chronology interpretation also be unnecessary for Genesis 1? Like dispensational-futurist eschatology, Whitcomb and Morris’ plain-literal hermeneutic only applies when convenient. If plain-literalism makes nonsense out of their system, they quickly abandon it.[15]

What’s more, Creation Science advocates throw blistering criticism at those who support the Gap Theory in Genesis 1. Yet those who follow Morris and Whitcomb must manufacture gaps of undetermined length in the genealogical records to create more time between the flood and Babel. Creation Scientists are forced to invent a huge time gap between the flood and Babel because of their pre-commitment to a global flood. This is another example of gap theology (much like the supposed gap in Daniel’s 70 weeks) forced on the biblical text by dispensational methodology in order to defend global preconceptions.

It is interesting to note precisely why Morris and Whitcomb rejected a plain literal chronology of Genesis 11. They sense the problem referenced above in regard to the details recorded in the account of Abraham. They reason like this:

If we accept 2167 B.C. as the year of Abram’s birth, the Flood must have occurred in the year 2459 B.C. and the judgment of the Tower of Babel between 2358 and 2119 B.C. (the lifetime of Peleg) according to a strict-chronology interpretation.

When we turn to the Genesis account of Abram’s journeys, however, we discover the international scene to have been quite different from that suggested by the above-mentioned dates for the Flood and judgment of Babel. Abram is certainly not depicted as one of the early pioneers from the land of Shinar who migrated to western territories that were only beginning to be settled 200 years after the judgment of Babel. Quite to the contrary, the Bible implies that the world of Abram’s day, with its civilizations and cities, was ancient already…[16]

That is a powerful admission by the fathers of the Creation Science movement. The more obvious explanation is simply that the flood did not wipe out every human civilization on planet earth. That would explain why the civilizations and cities referenced in the biblical account of Abraham appeared ancient by the time of Abraham. They were!

The account of Babel either disproves a worldwide flood which must have taken place little more than a 100 years before Babel, or the account of Babel reveals the inconsistency of the plain-literal hermeneutic at the heart of the Creation Science system. The Septuagint, if trustworthy, disproves a worldwide flood outright. Any way you slice the textual evidence, the account of Babel creates tremendous problems for the Creation Science view of Noah’s flood.

All these problems evaporate once we understand that the flood was not universal in an absolute, global sense. If the flood is recorded in phenomenal language, extending out past the vision of Noah in all directions, it would not intend to convey the idea that the flood destroyed all human beings on planet earth or all civilizations. The flood account referenced the complete destruction within Noah’s covenant context with the line of Seth.[17] This contextual understanding of the flood is corroborated by Josephus, who begins his account of the flood by saying:

Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in the process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers, and did neither pay those honours to God which were appointed to them, nor had they any concern to do justice toward men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shewn for virtue, they now shewed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy.[18] (emphasis ours)

The account of Babel involves people who lived outside of the immediate region where the flood took place, yet who hardened themselves against God’s righteous judgment at the instigation of Nimrod. Some of Noah’s progeny may also have been involved in the construction of Babel, but just as the flood took place within a covenant context, the account of Babel speaks of similar regional events in biblical Mesopotamia that do not apply to the entire globe or other continents.[19] People who lived in other parts of planet earth are simply beyond the purview of the biblical account much the preterist view of the limited context of the Great Tribulation.

We have more good evidence for this non-universal approach when we examine the theological parallelism between the account of Babel and the events of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. God cursed Babel and confused the languages of the people scattering them over the “face of the whole earth.” At Pentecost the curse is reversed as God’s Spirit is poured out in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy about the last days.

The same universal language is used in Acts 2 which says Jews were in Jerusalem “from every nation under heaven.” This refers to the known world, not universally to every group of people on every continent of the globe at the time. In contrast to Babel where one language was confused, at Pentecost the confusion of many languages is ended in Christ by the outpouring of the Spirit. God’s grace at Pentecost triumphs over God’s curse at Babel. Once we understand that parallel in covenant history we should logically see both accounts in their proper context. It is inconsistent to demand the language of Babel demands universal events, when it is clear the same type of universal language in Acts 2 speaks of events limited to the Roman Empire.

The biblical relationship between the flood, Babel, and Abraham forces an impossible dilemma on Creation Science ideology. If they maintain their plain-literalism consistently, they must explain how a huge civilization could appear on earth a little more than a hundred years later. On the other hand, if they abandon a literal reading of the Genesis genealogical texts in order to have more time between the flood, Babel, and Abraham, they abandon the plain-literal method on which all their theories are built. None of these problems apply to a regional flood view, no matter how the genealogical material in Genesis is read.[20]

All forms of plain-literal futurism confound the biblical record from Genesis through Revelation. A preterist hermeneutic applied to Genesis brings consistency to biblical accounts by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Preterism revolutionizes the Genesis debate.

To be continued…

Copyright 2005 by Timothy P. Martin. All rights reserved. Reprinted by Permission

[Beyond Creation Science (2nd Edition) will be available at the Planetpreterist bookstore]

[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/babel.asp.

[2] http://icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=363

[3] Compare Genesis 6:14 with 11:3.

[4] V.M. Hillyer, revised by Edward G. Huey, A Child’s History of the World (Baltimore: Calvert School, [1897] 1997) p. 49.

[5]Antiquities: Book 1, Chapter 4, Section 2-3.

[6] http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/babel.asp and http://icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=1122.

[7] www.answersingenesis.org/ Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp (2005).

[8] Genesis 14:14 states that Abram had 318 fighting men born in his household. This implies at least 3000 people in Abram’s household (see Gen. 14:14).

[9] See the chart at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/chronology.asp#f18 for a table of comparisons between the Masoretic and Septuagint.

[10] http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp.

[11] Some variance between Old Testament manuscripts and ambiguity in the Hebrew makes a precise calculation problematic.

[12] John C. Whitcomb, Jr. & Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. 477.

[13] Ibid., p. 483.

[14] Ibid., p. 489.

[15] This curious, though necessary conclusion pits some Creation Science leaders against each other in their view of the chronology of the Tower of Babel and Abraham. Apparently some Creation Scientists handle Genesis more literally than others!

[16] Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. 478.

[17] Genesis 5:6ff sets the context of the flood account in relation to the line of Seth.

[18] Antiquities: Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 1.

[19] Though the precise dates are hard to pin down, it is interesting to note that sometime before 2000 B.C. Akkadian, the parent language to Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and several other languages, divided into separate recognizable languages. Perhaps Babel relates to this linguistic split? Sumerian, the other dominant language of Mesopotamia, died out shortly after this split.

[20] For an intriguing alternative explanation of the meaning of the long life spans in Genesis see Duane L. Christensen, The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood, Ronald F. Youngblood, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990) p. 166-183. Christensen shows patterns in the life spans in Genesis that implies the record is intended as symbolical numerology rather than an arithmetic record. There may be a connection in the Genesis genealogies to the same type of numerology in Revelation, most notably the 144,000 of Revelation 7. The genealogical material in Genesis may also be communicating by prophetic symbolism in the same manner long life spans in Isaiah 65:20 symbolize redeemed life in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Editor’s Note: this article was produced by Timothy P. Martin and Jeffrey L. Vaughn

paul's picture

I plan to re-read this a number of times. It is fascinating to me, and somewhat above my paygrade,as far as my presently accumulated knowledge, but extremely valuable! Thanks.

Paul Richard Strange, Sr.
dadprs@hotmail.com

paul's picture

I plan to re-read this a number of times. It is fascinating to me, and somewhat above my paygrade,as far as my presently accumulated knowledge, but extremely valuable! Thanks.

Paul Richard Strange, Sr.
dadprs@hotmail.com

leo724's picture

Tim,

While I appreciate your presentation, I would like to know how you deal with the discrepancy between the reason found in your article for building the tower and the reason found in the Genesis account. You show that it was built to protect against another flood while Genesis says that it was to prevent the people from being scattered. To me these reasons are mutually exclusive unless this scattering is through an unmentioned flood. Do you think that this is a problem for your view and if so how would you deal with it?

Genesis 11:1-4

1Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.

2It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.

3They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly." And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar.

4They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

Thanks,

Bill

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Bill,

Here is how I explained it above:

"Josephus’ account gives slightly different details than Genesis, but it is perfectly compatible with the biblical account."

Let me ask you about the main point of the article. How do you get a huge civilization in 100+ years after a universal flood? I really wonder how this can be resolved. Very few even mention the issue in young-earth creation material.

Thanks,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

leo724's picture

Tim,

Could you please outline your case for this "huge civilization"? This article is so sprawling that it's hard me to understand everything. At this point I don't see the necessity for a huge civilization at the time of Babel.

Thanks,

Bill

JL's picture

Bill,

Nimrod was a mighty warrior.

Nimrod ruled 8 cities. Was Babel the beginning of his empire or the end?

If Nimrod built them before a global flood, there aren't more than about 100 adult men to do the building. (Look at the first figure above and extrapolate reasonably.)

If he built one city before the flood, there's still only about 100 men. After those men were divided into 16 uncooperative "nations," there were even fewer men availble to build each city (100/16 < 100/8). Further reducing things, it looks like these cities were built by the men of only two of these 16 nations. Plus Nimrod had to go kill even more men to subjugate them.

And if God's purpose at Babel was to scatter the people, Nimrod then sure did a good job of thwarting it with his empire building.

Now back to the first point. Saul killed his thousands and David his ten thousands. If YECism is true and the Massoretic text is accurate: Big whoop, Nimrod killed his deuces. Lamech did that.

The case for a huge civilization is simple. Civilization is built on the economic "surplus" of a people. People building walls and towers are not tending their crops or herds. Nimrod had to tax the farmers and herders to feed the builders. Eight cities with walls and towers require hundreds or more likely thousands of men each to do the building. They require thousands or more likely tens of thousands of men to feed those people.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

leo724's picture

JL,

First let's look at the text. This is all the information I could find regarding Nimrod. If there's more please let me know.

8 Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD."
10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
11 From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah,
12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

Here's what I see.

Nimrod is a hunter, not a warrior.

I'm not sure why you ask, but I would say that Babel was the start of his kingdom.

All of the cities were built after the flood.

Nimrod didn't kill anyone.

There is no mention of walls, towers, or taxes.

There is no mention of any kind of huge civilization.

What am I missing?

Bill

JL's picture

Bill,

You are missing a lot of details.

Try the NIV. It says mighty warrior.

How do you subjugate a people and create an empire without killing people?

How do you build a city without a lot of people?

How do you pay those people or feed those slaves who are building things?

If you don't have a plausible explanation for all these things, your big picture understanding doesn't hold.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

leo724's picture

JL,

I appreciate your sticking with me on this.

Instead of relying on the NIV I'd rather we look at the Hebrew. The word means to hunt game. It is used that way in every instance in Genesis. Look at the Hebrew and see if I am correct.

Next, your big picture contains a lot of pieces that aren't in the text. There is nothing about subjugating a people. There is no empire created. There is no mention of killing people.

I agree that it take a lot of people to build a city, but that number depends on what sort of city one is building. The city of Jamestown, Virginia was built with 108 people in a very short time.

You don't necessarily have to pay people or feed slaves. They will build the city in exchange for living there.

I hope you take these points as they are intended. I am trying to show you where I think your case is weak so that you can strengthen it.

Bill

Kyle Peterson's picture

I hope you don't mind me interjecting here.

In verse 8 of Genesis 10 - Nimrod is desicribed as a mighty man translated from the Hebrew word Gibbowr.

If you look up other instances of the word in the Old Testment it always refers to men who were militarily apt - generals, or champions.

1Ch 12:8 - And from the Gadites there came over to David in the stronghold in the wilderness, mighty men (Gibbowr) of valor, men trained for war, who could handle shield and spear,

1Ch 12:21 - And they helped David against the band of raiders, for they were all mighty men (Gibbowr)of valor, and were captains in the army.

2 Sam 10:7 - When David heard of it, he sent Joab and all the army, the mighty men (Gibbowr).

Jos 6:2 - And the Lord said to Joshua, "See, I have given Jericho into your hand, with its king and the valiant warriors (Gibbowr).

Honestly a valiant warrior and a hunter/provider aren't at odds with eachother at all. In ancient times the same individual was often good at both. Esau was described a skillful hunter and went on to become chieftain/founder of the edomites.

leo724's picture

Kyle,

Thanks for jumping in. I agree with what you have said with two exceptions.

First, don't you think that the fact that gibbowr is modifying tsayid in verse 9 specifies it's meaning in verse 8?

And, second, don't you think that there is a significant difference between killing and subjugating people as JL has asserted Nimrod did, and hunting game?

Bill

Kyle Peterson's picture

Hi Bill,

In verse 9 I do see gibbowr (mighty) modifying the word tsayid (hunter). In that Nimrod wasn't just a tsayid (hunter) but rather a gibbowr tsayid (mighty man hunter/provider).

Since it appears that gibbowr can be used as an adjective in that manner but also as a noun on its own I believe verse 8 has no other choice but to be interepreted as warrior.

Again, I believe most warriors were hunters and vice versa. The following verse even demonstrates that hunters were considered militaristic in nature.

Ge 25:27 - When the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter a man of the field, but Jacob was a peaceful man, living in tents.

In my honest opinion I just don't see a simple big game hunter becoming a ruler of several cities. It makes more sense that Nimrod had control of some sort of military in order to establish a kingdom. Other ancient stories/histories of the same time period speak a Nimrod-like character as well - the parallels shouldn't go unnoticed. They speak of this man as a tyrant that defied God - a mighty warrior and vile ruler.

leo724's picture

Kyle,

Thanks for wrestling with the text with me. Your view is certainly one of the possibilities.

My point in all of this is to show that those who are advocating a local flood are reading a lot into the text. The word warrior is not there. It may very well be implied, but it is not explicit.

This is not an exact science and we shouldn't be acting like it is. I think that the more we see our interpretation as obvious the more we have disdain for other views and shut down discussion.

I am still trying to understand the Nimrod and Babel passages from a local flood perspective. So far I still feel comfortable with that perspective. I see problems with both points of view and I hope to continue to examine them both.

It's the same way with Preterism. I am aware of the many problems with Preterism but as of now I am most comfortable with it. I hope that I never get to the point where I stop examining my beliefs. Even Paul, toward the end of his life, said that he hadn't attained a complete understanding of the resurrection.

At least according to my understanding of this passage. :)

Philippians 3:8-12

More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

Bill

Kyle Peterson's picture

I think you have a great attitude Bill! Much like Terry Hall's recent article demonstrates.

Really, the only reason I wanted to sound out about the topic is because I spent about two years self-study of ancient history & culture.

Several old cultures do record a flood and a Nimrod-like character, but the accounts make it sound like the flood wasn't the global catasrophe we've been told it was.

leo724's picture

Kyle,

I really appreciate all that you've said on this. My own extra-biblical knowledge of the history and culture of this time leads me toward the local flood view also.

My point is that the text itself doesn't rule out a world-wide flood. At least, I don't see that yet. Maybe it does. :)

I am personally wary of interpretations that are driven by our current understanding of science or cultural history and not primarily by the text itself. So that's why I'm so persistent in looking closely at the text.

Thanks for bearing with me!

Bill

Kyle Peterson's picture

I'm with you. I agree the text leaves openings for a global flood - as a matter of fact it still is difficult to wrestle with 2 Peter 2:5.

I have a feeling that is why Tim and JL have been sharing the literary interpretive angle they've written about.

I ask myself the question. When God inspired the words of the bible was it to give us an accurate view of world history - or was it to give us insight into His redemptive plan?

leo724's picture

Yep, that's an important question. I tend to think both views are correct. After all, He certainly used real history in His revelation. It's not like He left us with a bunch of bare propositions. The whole story of redemption is acted out in what is presented as real history.

JL's picture

Bill,

You claimed Nimrod didn't have an empire. Are you now conceding that he did?

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

leo724's picture

JL,

I don't remember claiming that Nimrod didn't have an empire. I did say that the text doesn't mention an empire. Also I'm not sure why you would think I am now conceding that he did. If you would you give me a definition of empire as in the case of Nimrod I will be glad to let you know what I think.

Bill

JL's picture

Bill,

I already asked. You didn't answer. You want to take issue with every detail, yet you haven't offered an alternative.

One more time: "The first centers of his kingdom were ...." What does this mean to you?

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

leo724's picture

JL,

I'm not sure what it means to me. I think that the issue, though, is how can it be reconciled with a local flood view.

To say that it means that Nimrod's rule started in areas in Sumeria seems to me to fit with either view.

Bill

Kyle Peterson's picture

Well it does mention kingdom - in that he founded and ruled over eight great cities spanning from Sumeria to Assyria. Which seems to fit the Webster's definition of empire.

leo724's picture

Kyle,

How do we know how great these cities were during Nimrod's time?

Bill

Kyle Peterson's picture

I think Genesis 11 gives us an insight into how big Babel was. The book of Jubilees said they had been working on the tower of Babel for 43 years before it was "abandoned. It seemed large enough to concern God.

I think we have to remember that people back then lived to be 200-300 years old. So your questions about how big Nimrod's cities were are somewhat subjective.

Although not inspired, external sources of history have a lot of insight regarding this kingdom. Some ancient texts compare Nimrod with Gilgamesh, or with Sargon I (2400BC). They go on to say that these cities were pretty well founded, and pretty large.

psychohmike's picture

Hey Bill,

I think the point that JL is trying to make is that back then, killing was the way of subjugating a nation. Look at the entire book of Joshua.

:) Mike

JL's picture

Bill,

Please compare Gen. 10:8 with Gen. 6:4, Josh. 1:14, 6:2, 8:3, 10:2, 10:7, Judges 5:13, 5:23, 6:12, 11:1, 1 Sam. 2:4, and about 100 more similar verses. From what I see, "mighty" all by itself (as in Gen. 10:8) or "mighty" with "valour" always means a warrior. Very rarely, "mighty" is paired with something else and means something different.

"The first centers of his kingdom were ...." What does this men to you? To me it means Nimrod ruled the first kingdom mentioned in Scripture, the first empire.

The city of Jamestown was built by thousands of people over several years. The initial stockade was built by that small number, but it wasn't stone and it wasn't a city.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Ransom's picture

What JL is saying he'd be hard-pressed to do with the men that would have been around before Babel (build eight cities), you are implying he could have done afterwards, after the scattering of the limited people who couldn't speak one another's language.

leo724's picture

Ransom,

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Is there something wrong with this?

Bill

Kyle Peterson's picture

As we've seen with Katrina recently - floods do scatter people.

I don't see the Josephus passage and the Genesis account as conflicting. Here is a group of people, bitter about the flood - who believe they can outsmart God by uniting and fortifying against future disaster (a flood).

God simply chuckles and pulls a different stunt.

leo724's picture

Kyle,

I agree! If we add "by another local flood" the passage does fit. I guess I didn't see that because I still look at the passage from the universal flood viewpoint.

Thanks,

Bill

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Kyle,

You've walked right into the real intent of the story of Babel. No matter how wicked man gets, God's plan always wins out. This should make us optimistic for our future because of this recurring message in Scripture (and as preterists we have every reason to be optimistic).

Notice how Creation Science advocates stress their futurist bias when discussing the story? Their thoughts predictably turn to the UN. gain, their plain-literal futurism leads them away from the main thrust of the Bible.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

psychohmike's picture

Hi Bill,

Maybe I'm missing something.
Genesis says that it(The Tower) was to prevent the people from being scattered.
How does that follow. The text reads, "Let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad..."

I could be wrong but it seems to me that it was the making of a name for themselves and not a tower that would keep them from being scattered. We need to be careful not to be too dogmatic with the use of connective words in our english translations that aren't in the Hebrew. Our english translations add alot of words for the benefit of continuity that just aren't there in the Hebrew.

:) Mike

leo724's picture

Hi Mike,

You're right. Hebrew is trickier to translate than Greek. It is much less precise, but I think that this passage is pretty clear. Let's leave the Hebrew for now and just look at the English construction. (I'll be glad to go into the Hebrew if anyone wants)

Genesis 11:4 says,

They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city , and a tower whose top into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

The way I read this sentence is that we have three verbs that all refer to the same event followed by a purpose clause.

Come (for the purpose of building)

let us build (a tower)

let us make a name for ourselves (by building the tower)

so that we won't be scattered.

The purpose or result clause refers back to all three verbs which are all referring to the same event. That event is their coming together to build a tower which would make a name for themselves. The purpose of this coming together was so that they wouldn't be scattered.

What do you think of this?

Bill

psychohmike's picture

Hey Bill,
let us make a name for ourselves (by building the tower)

I think this is a wrong conclusion. I think the emphasis should be on the two specific things in the narrative that aren't necessary for your conclusion. But the fact of the matter is that they are there. Fired brick and bitumen. They are there for a reason and I think Tim brings up a very good point.

And, by your logic the building of the city should be just as relevant as the tower. By the English construct one should not be emphasized over the other.

Anyhow...I've been awake all night and I'm not thinking straight.

:) Mike

Kyle Peterson's picture

This was probably my favorite excerpt yet. Having read an advance manuscript of your book I'm hoping there will be more room for Babel (not BABBLE!).

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

Pretty smart stuff.

But, it's my understanding that there exists a bed of silt about 15 feet thick around much of the globe, which fits a scenario for more than a localized flood.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

JL's picture

Chris,

Where did you dig up that piece of info?

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

chrisliv's picture

Well,

I don't remember where I got that, but it was from a time in the 1980's that I first heard it or saw an Evangelical-style overview of it. It's possible that it may have been derived from some Institute for Creation Research that was so pervasive around me in those days.

Peace,
C. Livingstone

JL's picture

If you've got a copy of Halley's Bible Hanbook (also pervasive back then) around, go look at what it says about the Flood. He identifies a layer like you mention, but this layer only covers the lower half of modern Iraq.

I've not heard of such a layer existing anywhere else. But I've heard people from ICR make the most outrageous claims. Many of them are on Answers in Genesis' "Do Not Use" list.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

To me, the evidence seems strong for a more global flood. I mean, fossils of marine life forms are found at every level of of the higest peaks, even the Himalayas up to 20,000 feet. Of course, they didn't crawl up there to die.

There is a well-known strata of instantaneous death and massive burial of dinosaurs and other life that is all over North America. It even demonstrates that Wooly Mammoths died while still standing. And, of course, North America was not terribly local.

But, I wonder if the ante-Deluvian globe was actually smaller than it is today, since it seems that the continental shelfs on both sides of every ocean were fit togather, i.e., the globe and the oceans must have been smaller.

And, if there were water that covered even the 20,000 foot peaks of the Himalayas, where did it all recede to? Did it go back to the water/ice canopy that the ante-deluvian world knew (since it never rained previously)? No, it didn't, because there is no canopy today and rain is normal now. Or, did the water just evaporate or go into caverns? Obviously not.

So, it seems to me from how continents once fit more closely togather on both sides of of a spherical globe, and how the Bible reports a cataclysmic flood for most all life forms, and how marine fossils are found at the highest peaks, that the Flood was universal, but the earth was probably smaller at that time and that the globe probably was enlarged to give a place for the water to recede to.

But, I'm open to new information from various sources.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

JL's picture

Whoa Dude,

Outrageous stuff.

"There is a well-known strata ..." Sorry, I've never heard of it. Can you give me some info?

Growing globes? Not heard that before. So where did all the extra rock come from?

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

spiderich's picture

Concerning growing planets (and moons!), well- known comic book artist, Neal Adams, is quite the advocate of this concept. He believes in a growing earth, as opposed to an expanding one, as some others believe. He also believes in an old earth. Check out

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

He welcomes any critiques of these ideas.

Richard G.

chrisliv's picture

Sure,

It's not so outrageous.

There's tons of well-known strata that most any Biblical student should have heard. I post a quick clip below.

As for the expanding globe, it makes sense to me from the continental shelfs and the fit of the land masses. But, where the extra rock came from is as good of a question as asking where did all of the extra water from the atmospheric canopy go. I think we can agree that the amount of moisture around the earth is static, i.e., it doesn't evaporate and travel into outer space. So, where the extra rock came from was likely the same place where it came from "in the beginning" when the earth was formed: volcanic lava under the seas.

That's my guess.

Of course, you might ask how it was that the lava spontaneously began to generate after the Flood; and it was likely from the same source as it was "in the beginning."

I mean, Why aren't all planets the exact same size? Or, Who says they must stay their same size after their initial forming? Maybe some celestial bodies are still expanding, and are not forever frozen in their size.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone
----------------------------------------------------

Relationship With Jesus
The Key To Effective Ministry

Section 10, Chapter 5

World Wide Evidence
Of The Genesis Flood

Continued on Page 2

Did the Genesis Flood really occur and did the Ark of Noah really rest on Mt Ararat? Dr. Melville B. Grosvenor, late editor of National Geographic magazine, stated that, "If the Ark of Noah is ever discovered, it would be the greatest archaeological find in human history, the greatest event since the resurrection of Christ and it would alter all the currents of scientific thought."177

There was a time in the recent past when a global flood was recognized as being a reality in geological circles. Benjamin Sillman, head of geology of Yale in the 1800's, wrote,

"Respecting the Deluge there can be but one opinion: geology fully confirms the scriptural history of the event. Whales, sharks, crocodiles, amphibians, mammoths, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, hyenas, tigers, deer, horses, bullpine families are found buried together in deluvian at a greater or lesser depth and in most instances, under circumstances indicating that they were buried by the same catastrophe which destroyed them, namely a sudden and violent deluge."178, 179

Evolutionist Richard Carrington, in The Story of Our Earth, a secular publication, admitted,

"Of the many kinds of animals inhabiting the earth at the time vast numbers were swept completely away. Not only individuals, but whole races were destroyed. Extermination overtook the animals of the land, sea and air with equal indifference. When the holocaust was over the whole aspect of life on earth had changed."180/155

leading scholars such as Dr. James Trofle of George Mason University have admitted that the dinosaurs were struck by catastrophe. He wrote,

"That they present this kind of pattern: suddenly their fossils disappear from the rocks. And when I say ‘suddenly’ I mean a time that could be as long as 100,000 years or as short as a weekend—we can’t tell the difference. At the same time the dinosaurs disappeared, all the other species we talked about, from ocean plankton to some flowering plants, disappeared as well. Paleontologists term this sort of event in which many species disappear at the same time as ‘mass extinction.’"

There have been mass extinctions both in the flood (2252 B.C.) and in the time of Peleg (2151 B.C.).181 This is recognized by leading scholars to one degree or another even though the time frame and the terminology will very.

Dr. John R. Hornet in Digging for Dinosaurs stated,

"Judging from the concentration of bones in various pits, there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs. There was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. . . That’s our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment."182/131

Other than the Biblical Record, are there other reportings of the world wide flood? Yes! Dr. Johannes Tiem stated that,

"Among all traditions there is none so general so wide spread on earth of the fact that the deluge is granted because of the basis of all myths in particular in nature myths having a real basis in fact."183

Listed by Dr. Richard Blick an abbreviation of the areas where flood legends have occurred: Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, and the Pacific; the Armenians, the Syrians, the Babylonians, the Chaldians, the Hebrews, the Indo Arianes, the Japanese, the Kernels, the Mongols, the Persians, the Phoenicians, the Pythicans, the Tartans, and others who have this basic concept in their literature, there history and their legends.184/103 In Africa the Pergama, Carthagians, Egyptians, Hotontots, Subenys. In Europe the Druids, the Germans, the Greeks, the Gypsies, the Icelanders, the Lapplanders, the Lithuanians, the Nors, the Romans, the Slavs, the Bolgols, and the Welch all talk about a global flood. In North America the Algonquins, the Arapahos, the Aztecs, the Cherokees, the Crees, the Eskimos, the Galacous, the Kaulos, the Miens, the Mohicans, the Papagos, the Piwas, the Saggualives, the Texri, the Tlingits, the Toltecs. In South America the Curas, the Incas, the Miurs, the Tomas. In the Pacific the Batiks, the Fabians, the Hawaiians, the Melanesians, the Macanisians, the Moranisians, the New Hebrides and the South Polynesians Islands all refer to a global flood. The following are tangible, measurable, observable confirmations of a world wide flood:

The Existence of Extremely
Large Numbers of Fossils

Fossilization requires rapid burial. Yet such burial is exceedingly rare today, and fossilization is almost non-existent in modern times. The existence of massive numbers of fossils worldwide is clear evidence of quick, deep, mass burial. A global flood catastrophe would offer conditions most ideal to the location of great numbers of fossils. The fossils give evidence that the animals were killed suddenly.

Hugh Miller wrote decades ago that the entire British Isles are underlaid by billions of fish fossils, not laid down by normal sedimentary deposits, but many of these have arched backs distended gills, open mouths as if trying to get oxygen but caught with silt in their gills instead and destroyed by the billions by a cataclysmic sedimentary context.185/221 This would take a world wide flood.

In an excavation done by Dr. Carl Baugh and associates,63 they came across for the first time in cretaceous layering a Lepidodendron. This is a plant today that grows sixteen to eighteen inches tall, but in the fossil record it grew to up to 120 feet tall. The Lepidodendron Dr. Baugh excavated was 48 inches at the base, compressed and still had the pods unique to that kind of fonda, and a root extension all in the same compressed sedimentary deposit. Eight inches of the lateral root that had been washed in along with the rest of the plant by fluid hydrology extended into the rock layer below. The rest of the plant compressed extended up through the marrow into the next rock layer above. This is called a Polystrate fossil. This is a tender plant extending between two layers of rock. According to evolutionary geology there are 2 million years between these two rock layers, but the visible tangible facts indicate clearly that there where only a few hours between these two rock layers.

How extensive was the flood that washed this plant between these two rock layers? These rocks extent from central Texas near Austin to 1,600 miles all the way to the eastern sea board of the United States.186/1-14 They pick up again at the White Cliffs of Dover. They pick up again in Northern Ethiopia. We are talking about three separate continents involved in the sedimentary deposits that contain that polystrate fossil. There is only one plausible explanation: There was a world wide flood.

Rapid Fossilization as Evidenced by
Preservation of Delicate Parts

Thousands and millions of fish fossils which retain all the body parts indicating very rapid burial. Under normal conditions, fish do not fossilize. Dead fish are torn apart by scavengers and disintegrated by bacteria. There are the existence of fossils with soft tissue like jellyfish and sponges. There are the preservation of animal tracts, fish odors, amino acids, proteins, epidermal bark in plants, cell details, chlorophyll, etc.

Whale Fossils

There are huge ancient whale fossils that can be found completely and quickly buried in sediment.185 Near Lompoc, CA there was found in diatomaceous earth an 80 foot Valine Whale upright on its tale. In order to sweep a creature like that up on its tail, in order to sedimentarally incase it would require global catastrophic proportions...

JL's picture

Chris,

Please go read the "Do not use list" from AiG. From the article you've quoted, please remove all the stuff that AiG used to preach but now admits is hogwash.

Will anything significant be left? I don't think so. Everything in your source has been throughly discredited.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

chrisliv's picture

Well,

The fossil record is what it is, even if you don't like it.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

JL's picture

Chris,

The fossil record is what it is. It is not what you think it is.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Chris,

What Jeff is saying is that the same organizations you learned much from in the1980's now have articles trying to get their followers not to use many of those arguments. Why do they do that? Because whenever anyone uses these discredited arguments (and the Creation Science people agree they've been discredited) they embarrass those who are informed.

Take your mention of woolly mammoths being snap frozen. Answers in Genesis admits this is simply not the case. You can read about that and many other arguments they say to not use here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp.

Another one is the global water vapor canopy. Did you know Answers in Genesis tells their followers not to use that argument any more? Want to know why? Read the article. It's their own stuff.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

chrisliv's picture

Well,

The water/ice canopy has been articulated well before AIG became a corporation. Even the Bible implies as much, since it called the ante-deluvian Sun and Moon, not the Sun and Moon, but rather Genesis refers to them as the "greater Light" and the "lessor Light", implying that the light of each was likely difused through some sort of water/ice vapor. The Bible further records that there was never any direct rain in the ante-deluvian world, and that there was afterwards, which we know. And, we know that the aging process in the ante-deluvian world was probably slower since the Earth had a verified higher content of oxygen, which a canopy would have enabled.

So, regardless of what AIG is promoting, this kind of evidence and Biblical implication is still worth taking seriously.

And, regardless of what AIG is now promoting, the mass extermination of plant and animal species, and the cataclysmic deposits and strata that are found as far away as the Plains of North America are consistent with a global flood remain to be valid pieces of evidence of a global flood.

So, if, someday the remains of Noah's Arc are found around Mt. Ararat somewhere, will you then say that a tectonic plate put it there?

Water seeks its own level.

You can't have a local, 40-day flood on the Plains.

You must flood the whole planet to have a local flood for 40 days.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Kyle Peterson's picture

I mean, fossils of marine life forms are found at every level of of the higest peaks, even the Himalayas up to 20,000 feet. Of course, they didn't crawl up there to die.

Enter plate tectonics.
If one does entertain the idea of an old earth it is quite plausable that the rock which makes up several of the highest peaks was once underneath the ocean.

Islamaphobe's picture

Count me as a believer in plate tectonics and the old Earth.

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43