Women of the Bible: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah

Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah, the daughters of Zelophehad (and of Mrs. Zelophehad.)

Numbers 27:1 Then the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph came near. These are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 2 They stood before Moses, before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, at the door of the Tent of Meeting, saying, 3“Our father died in the wilderness. He was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against Yahweh in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sin. He had no sons. 4 Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family, because he had no son? Give to us a possession among the brothers of our father.”

5 Moses brought their cause before Yahweh. 6 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 7 “The daughters of Zelophehad  speak right. You shall surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brothers. You shall cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. 8 You shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers.

The request was granted by God. The five daughters did get an inheritance in their own names. But the elders of the tribe of Manasseh were concerned. What if Mahlah, or one of her sisters, married someone from another tribe? God’s judgment is found in Numbers 36:10 The daughters of Zelophehad did as Yahweh commanded Moses: 11 for Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to their father’s brothers’ sons. 12 They were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph. Their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.

It sounds as if Mahlah, Tirza, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah picked out their husbands. Amazing! That was progress in the status of women. Note, however, that their mother is not named in the entire story. Just their father.

Damage to pre-Flood structures?

Graphic from Wikimedia Commons

One way of evaluating the claims of Answers in Genesis (AiG) that there was a world-wide Flood in Noah's time, is to look for flood damage to ancient structures.

Going to the AiG web page, and entering “when did the Flood take place?” the answer given is approximately 2348 B. C. 

The Great Pyramid of Giza was built about 2560 BC, and the great Sphinx about 2500 BC, according to this web page: https://www.worldhistory.org/timeline/Egyptian_Architecture/, both before the Flood. See also the Wikipedia page on the Great Pyramid, and the one on the Sphinx. I have found no evidence of flood damage to either of these structures, and if there was any, AiG would have emphasized it. So there was not a world-wide flood, or the supposed dates of their construction are incorrect. AiG disputes the timeline used above: (https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/were-the-pyramids-built-before-the-flood/) and claims that the dates for the Egyptian structures would have been after the Flood. I’m not an expert on Egyptian ancient history, and can’t evaluate AiG’s claims on this point. However, if AiG is correct, a post-flood civilization, capable of amazing feats of planning and building, would have had to arise in Egypt quickly, presumably from a small subset of Noah's descendants.

The Megalithic Temples of Malta were built from about 3600 to 2500 BC. (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Megalithic_Temples_of_Malta) There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of flood damage or deposition. 

Here's a post that considers a number of questions related to the Flood.

Thanks for reading!

The Art of Divine Contentment: An Exposition of Philippians 4:11 by Thomas Watson. Excerpt 33

Watson continues discussing reasons to be contented, or "contentation," as he puts it.

1st. excellency. A contented Christian carries heaven about him: for, what is heaven, but that sweet repose and full contentment that the soul shall have in God? In contentment there are the first fruits of heaven. There are two things in a contented spirit, which make it like heaven.
(1.) God is there; something of God is to be seen in that heart. A discontented Christian is like a rough tempestuous sea; when the water is rough you can see nothing there; but when it is smooth and serene, then you may behold your face in the water. (Pr. 27. 19) When the heart rageth through discontent, it is like a rough sea, you can see nothing there, unless passion and murmuring; there is nothing of God, nothing of heaven in that heart: but by virtue of contentment, it is like the sea when it is smooth and calm, there is a face shining there; you may see something of Christ in that heart, a representation of all the graces.
(2.) Rest is there. O what a Sabbath is kept in a contented heart! What an heaven! A contented Christian like Noah in the ark; though the ark were tossed with waves, Noah could sit and sing in the ark. The soul that is gotten into the ark of contentment, sits quiet, and sails above all the waves of trouble; he can sing in this spiritual ark; the wheels of the chariot move, but the axle-tree stirs not; the circumference of the heavens is carried about the earth, but the earth moves not out of its centre. When we meet with motion and change in the creatures round about us, a contented spirit is not stirred nor moved out of its centre. The sails of a mill move with the wind, but the mill itself stands still, an emblem of contentment; when our outward estate moves with the wind of providence, yet the heart is settled through holy contentment; and when others are like quicksilver, shaking and trembling through disquiet, the contented spirit can say, as David, “O God my heart is fixed:” (Ps. 57.7) what is this but a piece of heaven?

Thomas Watson lived from 1620-1686, in England. He wrote several books which survive. This blog, God willing, will post excerpts from his The Art of Divine Contentment: An Exposition of Philippians 4:11, over a number of weeks, on Sundays.

My source for the text is here, and I thank the Christian Classics Ethereal Library for making this text (and many others) available. The previous excerpt is here.
  
Philippians 4:11 Not that I speak because of lack, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content in it. (World English Bible, public domain.)  

Has Noah's Ark been found? part 2

Yesterday, I posted about a recent claim that Noah's Ark has been found, and, based on the evaluation of this claim by scientists from Answers in Genesis, a strongly Young-Earth Creationist organization, indicated that that claim is false.

Answers in Genesis is an organization that is fully convinced that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that there was a world-wide flood, and that God did, indeed, cause a large variety of creatures to escape this flood on the ark that was built by Noah and his family. The organization would be very pleased if Noah's ark were to be found. However, they are also opposed to dubious claims of the discovery of the ark, as they put Christianity in a bad light. AiG says that since the Bible says there was an ark, that's all the reason needed to believe it. AiG also says (correctly) that the Bible does not indicate the exact mountain where the ark came to rest, but gives a region for that event -- see my previous post for more information. They also suppose that it is likely that Noah's family would have used the wood from the ark for construction, tools, and fuel, so that most or all of it would have long since disappeared.

An older claim, beginning with a photograph taken from the air in 1960, and pursued during the 1990's, has been made by an organization named Ark Discovery, International. This organization is led by Ron Wyatt, and claims to have artifactual evidence of the Red Sea Crossing, made by Moses and the Israelites, in Exodus, and to have located Mt. Sinai, and to have made discoveries of geological evidence of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Some or all of these claims have been disputed, but I won't discuss those areas.

One claim of ADI is that they have found "anchor stones" in Turkey, and that these stones were attached to the ark to stabilize it. (A better term is drogue stones.) That is possible, I suppose, although the Bible does not mention such objects as part of the structure of the ark, nor does it mention the large wooden keelsons to which they were supposedly attached. 

According to the Wikipedia, Wyatt's claim of having found drogue stones that were once attached to the ark is dubious, at best. A former co-worker of Wyatt's came to believe that they were local in origin, based on his geological findings. (Although he may have changed his mind again on that, shortly before he died.) The co-worker, at first, argued that the stones found a few miles from the supposed site of the ark were drogue stones, because they are mentioned in the epic of Gilgamesh, which contains another flood story from ancient times.

According to the Wikipedia, and also indicated by ADI's own web site, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, both prominent Young-Earth Creationist organizations, have dismissed the claims of ADI. (ADI has responded -- see the first link in this paragraph.) I do not consider myself qualified to referee such claims and counter-claims, but believe that the Bible does not need such claims to defend it. I take it that the claims of ADI are most likely false, although perhaps they were made made with the best of motives.

Thanks for reading.

Has Noah's Ark been found?

The Bible tells us about Noah's Ark, a giant structure which, according to the Biblical narrative, carried a few of each of many kinds of animals, while the earth was flooded. Every few years, there are claims that the remains of the ark have been located. I have heard such stories for at least a few decades.

Answers in Genesis is an organization that is fully convinced that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that there was a world-wide flood, and that God did, indeed, cause a large variety of creatures to escape this flood on the ark that was built by Noah and his family. The organization would be very pleased if Noah's ark were to be found. Members of that organization have examined a recent claim that the ark has been found, and are not convinced of the validity of such claims.

Here is a technical article published by Answers in Genesis, in November, 2011. The article, by Andrew Snelling, who seems to have considerable expertise in radioactive dating (I have no such expertise). He concludes that wood samples taken, supposedly, from a structure found in Turkey by a team from Hong Kong are not ancient, but modern. The wood tested was living during the 20th century, according to Snelling. Snelling was, he says, given access to the actual wood testing data, and he presents it in the article. I don't claim to understand the technical details in Snelling's discussion, but the conclusion he reaches is plain: "Given the present C-14 evidence, despite the tantalizing wooden remains the Chinese-Turkish team claims to have discovered on Mt. Ararat, such artifacts CANNOT have come from the Ark. So whatever they have found, they are NOT the remains of the Ark." (Emphasis in original.)

Here is a less technical news article, published by Answers in Genesis in May, 2010, about the same supposed discovery, which indicates that the organization doubts the claim, and questions whether the Ark would be expected to ever be found. The reasons given for such doubts include volcanic activity in the region where the ark is believed to have landed, and the likelihood that Noah and his family would have used the wood from the ark for other purposes.

Answers in Genesis takes the position that what the Bible says about the flood, and the ark, is sufficient. If the ark were to actually be discovered, that would be great, but we don't need such a discovery to believe in the Bible. As far as I can determine, the organization hasn't evaluated any claims of finding the ark since the claim made by the group from Hong Kong in 2010, discussed in this post. I am sure that if any important claims of finding the ark had been made since that time, they would have discussed them in short order.

The organization also points out that the Bible is vague about the location where the ark came to rest, saying, in Genesis 8:4, "the mountains of Ararat," rather than on a specific mountain. See here for that verse, in several versions of the Bible, which are unanimous on that point. The Wikipedia article on those mountains says: "The 'Mountains of Ararat' in Genesis clearly refer to a general region, not a specific mountain . . ."

Tomorrow, I expect, God willing, to post about another alleged finding of Noah's Ark.

In a previous post, I have set forth a number of questions about the story of the flood, which I can't answer satisfactorily. 

In the next post, I consider an older claim that the ark has been found.

Thanks for reading.

Did it rain before the Flood?

These passages are the first mention of rain in the Bible:
Genesis 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (All Bible quotation from the ESV, unless otherwise noted. ESV copyright and usage information, see here.)

Genesis 7:4 For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Is, then, Genesis 7:12 the first rainfall in the history of the earth? The passage doesn't say that. However, it may imply that. And, of course, Genesis 2:5 says that it hadn't rained yet, at the time Genesis 2 is describing. But I don't think that the rain that fell in Noah's time was the first rain ever, and, as you'll see if you read on, I'm in good company.

First, a little bit on the words used. The word for rain, in Hebrew, in Genesis 2:5 (see here) is a verb. It is used at least as often when God sends something besides water from the sky, as it is for what we commonly think of as rain. The same word is used in Genesis 7:4. Genesis 7:12 uses a different word, a noun. (See here.)

Now, to public domain commentaries, written by renowned Bible scholars. John Calvin does not consider the question of whether the rain that fell in Genesis 7 was the first rain that ever fell. Neither does John Wesley, not Matthew Henry, nor the commentary of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown.

Matthew Henry does not consider the question of whether there had been a rainbow before the flood. (Genesis 9) Wesley believes that there had been: "The rainbow, 'tis likely was seen in the clouds before, but was never a seal of the covenant 'till now." The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary seems to agree with Wesley: "This common and familiar phenomenon being made the pledge of peace, its appearance when showers began to fall would be welcomed with the liveliest feelings of joy." Calvin not only agrees, but ridicules those who have claimed that there were no rainbows before the Flood: "From these words certain eminent theologians have been induced to deny, that there was any rainbow before the deluge: which is frivolous. For the words of Moses do not signify, that a bow was then formed which did not previously exist; but that a mark was engraven upon it, which should give a sign of the divine favor towards men."

Thus, even though these four commentaries are silent on the direct question of whether the rain that came in the time of Noah was the first rain, three of them answer it indirectly -- the rainbow mentioned as the pledge of God's promise not to destroy the earth by a flood was not the first rainbow, in their opinion. And, since a rainbow requires rain, a belief that it had rained before the time of Noah is at least respectable.

See here for a previous post on the title question, dealing with different evidence from the Bible, which also suggests that it rained before the Flood. See here for consideration of other questions related to the flood.

Thanks for reading!

How many people perished in Noah's flood?

In the first place, it was God's flood, not Noah's.

I was studying for my Sunday School lesson, some time ago, and was amazed to read that some people think that there may have been as many as 3,000,000,000 people on earth at the time of the Flood, who were, presumably, drowned. Where did this figure come from, I wondered? What is the evidence for it?

Well, of course, there isn't any evidence for it, but, with the right assumptions, human population growth would have accomplished this.

This figure may have come from a book by Henry Morris, which is excerpted here. If so, that's interesting, because that isn't what Morris actually wrote, according to the excerpt. What he was actually writing about was the human population after the flood, which, he said, could have expanded to billions from the time of the flood to the time he wrote.

This web page simply asserts that the population at the time of Noah "probably numbered at least several billion persons!" So does this one. Neither gives reasons, or documentation, for the assertion.

This page says that there were enough generations (up to 15) from Adam to Noah, which would have been enough time to produce up to a billion people.

All of these are speculation. We just don't know how many people perished in the Flood.

See here for more questions about Noah's flood.

Thanks for reading.

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, by David Snoke, part 10

I have published a series of posts on David Snoke's A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Books, 2006). The latest post is here.

In his eighth chapter, Snoke considers the Flood.

He begins by discussing miracles. Real miracles, he says, leave traces (sometimes large traces) in the real world. For example, A blind man healed by Jesus could really see, after the miracle. This relates to the Flood, in that, if there was a world-wide deluge, there should be world-wide traces. He is not convinced that such evidence is present, in spite of the work of so-called flood geologists. (Snoke is not alone. Many other Bible-believing Christian scientists don't find such evidence, either.)

Snoke has a great sentence:
The entire program of flood geology is to argue that science as we know it supports their interpretation of the Bible, not to propose unknown laws of physics that no one could guess at unless they were needed to cover up inconvenient facts. (160)

Snoke supposes that there was a flood that covered the entire earth, including the tallest mountains. He then says that, for the results to be consistent with the biblical story of Noah, and with the scientific evidence, there must have been a lot of miracles, involving the migration of the animals; keeping all the needed animals and their food on an ark of limited space; feeding carnivorous animals on the ark; caring for all those animals by just eight people; heat disposal -- the number of animals in that space must have generated lots of heat, enough to kill some of them, and Noah and his family; survival of animals from extreme climates, or unique habitats, such as tide pools, on the ark; the appearance and disappearance of enough water to cover the earth that much; that the earth's crust did not sink under that much water; that plants and trees survived flooding for that length of time; survival of freshwater fish in salt water (or the reverse); survival of small invertebrates under the water (or caring for anthills, worms, nematodes, etc., on the ark); fossil sorting after the flood; and trees remaining upright during the flood. An amazing list. Snoke concludes that it just didn't happen that way, not because God couldn't have done it, but because the Bible doesn't indicate that any of these things happened.

Says Snoke:
Just as young-earth advocates read in an entire re-creation of the world in the curse of Genesis 3, flood geology reads in another entire re-creation, not mentioned in Scripture, after the flood. Flood geology has God creating the world not once, but three times, without any direct Scriptural evidence, and in contradiction to the statement in Genesis 2:1 that the entire creation was completed by the seventh day. (165)

Snoke, who takes the Bible very seriously, presents evidence, which I'll leave to the reader of his book -- you need to read this for yourself -- that the Bible is consistent with the flood being local, not world-wide. He also thinks that there is no scientific evidence for a world-wide flood.

Thanks for reading. Read Snoke.

Noah's flood? Was there rain before it?

I have recently been pointed to a fairly old article on the Canopy Theory, entitled "Does the Canopy Theory Hold Water?" from Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, December, 1985. The purpose of the article is to examine the theory that most, or all, of the water that appeared at the time of Noah's Flood was because of a canopy of water vapor that was over the earth before the flood. The author, Thomas Key, argues pretty convincingly that this could not have worked.

I was struck by this statement in his article:

What about the assertion that there was no rain or snow prior to the Flood, and that the only way that plants were watered was by mist (Gen. 2:6) and rivers (Gen. 2: 10)? The references in Genesis do not limit the watering of plants only to a single mist or even to a series of mists and by a river or rivers. Genesis 2:10-14 describes four large rivers in existence before the numerous and complex events of the Sixth Day. These huge rivers obviously could not have come from a mere mist that occurred once or even many times. Rivers come from rains and melted snows. They also come from underground streams. However, underground streams also come from rains and melted snows. The four large rivers in Eden, which went over "The whole land of Ethiopa" [sic] (Gen. 2:13) to Assyria (Gen, 2:14) and included the Euphrates (Gen. 2:14) would have required rains, rains, and more rains over an extended period of time. No mere mist will ever do as an adequate explanation for these vast rivers, and certainly not a mere mist that occurred only a few hours or literal days before.

In other words, it must have rained before the flood. I checked, and found no statement in the early part of Genesis that says that Noah and his contemporaries had never experienced rain, although I have heard people say that they didn't.

Thanks for reading.

Some Questions about Noah's flood

The great flood in the time of Noah was God's flood, not Noah's, but it has often been given Noah's name.

I am well aware that there are debates about the authenticity of the story of Noah, which is told in Genesis 6-10. There are also Bible scholars that believe that Noah was a historical figure, but who doubt that the flood was truly world-wide. (Humans might have been located in a relatively small area at the time of Noah.) I do not have resolutions for such debates. I pose them, and some other questions, below. I'm not sure that any view of Noah and the flood is without serious weaknesses.

1) Why is the story of Noah in the Bible?
Only God can answer that question, of course, but the story emphasizes God's hatred of evil, His love for the righteous, and His concern for not just humans, but for all of his creation.

2) Did Noah really exist?
New Testament passages, as well as the Old Testament, seem to indicate pretty clearly that the answer is "yes". They include at least these: 1 Chronicles 1:4, where Noah and his sons are included in the genealogies of the ancestors of the Hebrews (Noah is also listed in the genealogy in Luke 3); Isaiah 54:9, where God, through Isaiah, promises comfort to the Israelites, as He made a promise to Noah; Ezekiel 14, where the prophet lists Noah as an example of righteousness, along with Job and Daniel; Matthew 27, where Jesus compares the surprise that will attend His return with surprise at the destruction in the time of Noah (this is repeated in Luke 17); Hebrews 11, where Noah is listed as one of the heroes of faith; 1 Peter 3, where Peter speaks of Noah (I'm not clear on the meaning of that passage); and 2 Peter 2, where Peter uses the story of Noah as a warning to the wicked, and a comfort to the righteous.

3) Was the flood world-wide?
Maybe. Maybe not. The description says that it covered the whole earth, but 1 Kings 10:24 says that the whole earth came to hear the wisdom of Solomon. Surely not inhabitants of the New World? Australia? Daniel 8:5 says that, in a vision, Daniel saw a goat coming across the whole earth. Perhaps, in both these cases, especially the first, the whole known earth is meant. Perhaps not. Perhaps that is what is meant in the case of Noah's flood. I don't know. There are Bible scholars who believe it was world-wide, and those who don't.

Added May 19, 2020:
A Christian geologist, who believes that there really was a Flood in Noah's time, gives reasons why he is not convinced that that flood was really world-wide. He also does not believe that it was responsible for the many geological phenomena that some Young-Earth Creationists claim that it was.

4) Where did all the water come from? Where did it go after the flood?
Especially if the flood was world-wide, there is no good natural answer to that question. There doesn't seem to be enough water to cover the mountains all over the earth. God could, of course, have specially created the necessary water, and removed it after the flood. If the flood was local, the amount of water required would have been much less, depending on where humans were living at the time. Some have suggested that they were living in a large valley, which, after the flood, became the Mediterranean, or the Caspian, Sea.

5) Where is the geological evidence for the flood?
Although some claim that there is geological evidence for a world-wide flood, few, if any, academically trained geologists believe this. One practicing geologist, trained by young-earth creationist geologists, came to doubt that the geological evidence was there, and asked some other geologists, also trained by persons who believed in the influence of the flood, how what they had learned about the flood from this training was useful in searching for petroleum. None of them could give a positive response.

6) If the flood wasn't world-wide, why didn't God just tell Noah to go somewhere else?
I don't know. He was a witness of God's righteousness while he and his sons were building the ark, and perhaps God's mercy wanted his work, and his righteousness, to bring about repentance in his neighbors.

7) Were there any dinosaurs on the ark?
See previous post.

8) What happened to all the plants that were exposed to water for a long period of time?
This page attempts to answer that. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

Added July 10, 2020: Here's an article on the distribution of plants and the flood. For example, there are no cacti in the Old World, which is hard to explain, if there was a world-wide flood which could have distributed seeds around the world.

9) What happened to the salt-water fish during a world-wide flood?
This page answers that, or tries to. Maybe that answer is correct, maybe not.

10) How did slow-moving animals, like sloths, and some turtles, get to the ark, and how did they get back after the flood, if it was world-wide?
God may have started them earlier than, say, zebras, I suppose.

11) How about amphibians (frogs, salamanders, and the like), which would have been expected to dry out if they had to travel long distances over land?

12) Presumably the ark was built in the Middle East, or in East Asia. How did animals from North and South America, and Australia, get to the ark, and how did they get back after the flood, if it was world-wide?
It is possible that there were land bridges between all the continents, that aren't there now, but this flies in the face of the geologic evidence, and scientific evidence is part of God's revelation to us (Psalm 19, Romans 1:20).
It is possible that God directed their footsteps (or flight), and transported them to the vicinity of the ark, and back. Note that, especially in Australia (and other smaller isolated land masses) there are animals that don't live anywhere else. Did they leave the ark and go straight home, without leaving any offspring behind?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions for sure. Some people claim to. Perhaps they are right.

See my previous post on the question of whether or not dinosaurs are still alive.

Thanks for reading.

This post was slightly edited on December 27, 2016 and January 19, 2017.

See also these questions, raised by a different blogger.

Added on August 3, 2017: For further material on the flood (not by me) see this post, which is part of a series of five. You can easily access the rest of the series from it.

December 13, 2017: I quote from an article by Caspar Hesp:
In a YEC global flood scenario, it is problematic to explain how all marsupial descendants and fossils could have been constrained to the Americas and Australia, before and after dispersion from the Ark of Noah. Post-Flood hyperspeciation after a single migration cannot be invoked because the variety among marsupials is too extreme to be categorized as a single “kind” or “baramin”.

For an in-depth, and very critical, analysis of YEC's view of the Flood, see this article.

elbogz on the capacity of Noah's ark

Elbogz, one of my most faithful commenters, mistakenly left a long comment on this post, when he meant to leave it on this one. His comment was related to the question of whether dinosaurs are still alive or not. I have decided to copy his comment, without change (except to add asterisks) as a post, using a different color to indicate quotation:

The young earth creationist arguments are as useful to the church as the argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I disagree with your statement Just because young-earth creationists claim something is true doesn't make it false.”

I’ve yet to read anything from a young earth creationist that is even remotely true*; and that to me, that is the true sin. When have to lie about the world in order to believe in God, then what?

The kids in the church now sing, “Behemoth” was a dinosaur and realize one day these children will read a real science book are realize the church lied to them, and walk away. Look at the recent statistics published that show a mass exodus of children from the church when they reach college.

Noah’s ark is always the biggest lie of all. Let’s assume for the sake of my rant here, that what the young earth creationist say is true. The ark contained 15,500 “kinds” of animals**, (including dinosaurs) and the average size was that of a sheep. The ark contained one window, and 8 people. Each person would have to feed 1938 animals a day. They were tough biblical people that worked 16 hours a day. They would have to feed 121 animals an hour or about one animal every 30 seconds. Sheep eat about 25 pounds of hay a day so each person would have to lift and move 1.5 tons of hay per hour.

Oh, wait, there is the poop. Now most of us don’t have a couple of sheep to observe, but lets take 2 large dogs. Now if we scoop up the poop of those two large dogs, and then throw it off the ark, and assume a sheep poops about 5 pounds a day, then each person has to shovel about 9690 pounds of poop a day, carry it up to the one window and throw it out.

Perhaps they left the poop on the Ark. Here is my scientific experiment on the poop problem. Take 2 large dogs. Scoop the poop of those 2 dogs for one year. Take the poop inside your home and live with it. You are allowed to open one window.

Now that said and done, why, oh why do we do this dance? It all leads to confusion and leads us away from God.

*It is clear, from this and other comments he (?) has made, that elbogz had a crisis of faith, and that young-earth creationism was part of this. I suppose that what he meant to say here is that all the claims of young-earth creationism are false. I hope he would agree that, if, for example, a young-earth creationist said that Jupiter was the largest planet, or that Jesus is God, these wouldn't be false.

**In a subsequent comment, elbogz says that he found this number in a book by Henry Morris. I believe he found the suggestion of a sheep as equivalent to the average size in Morris, also.

I post this, not because I would have said it, but in fairness to elbogz, and also because I do plan to produce a post myself on questions about Noah's flood. I have a number of them, which, in my opinion, point out weaknesses in all the Biblical interpretations of this event. Perhaps next time. The comment quoted above qualifies as a question, too.

Thanks, elbogz! Thank you for reading.

Are dinosaurs still alive?

In his book, The Trouble with Physics, Lee Smolin tells how he met some "members of a Bible college" in an airport, and they told him that they had been to Africa, in part to find evidence that dinosaurs still exist. Smolin asked why they were so hard to find, if they exist, especially since they are large, and some of them seem to have lived in herds. The response was that they hide in caves for most of the day, and are supposed to sort of pull dirt across the entrance from the inside to prevent discovery. (New York: Houghton, pp. 25-26) Smolin was illustrating a similar phenomenon in physics, that is, some claims for a particular theory "are just rationalizations." Smolin had a hard time believing this whole idea, especially the idea about the dinosaurs hiding themselves by pulling dirt across cave entrances. Smolin is a physicist, not a geologist, biologist, or paleontologist. According to him, the Bible college persons brought up the subject that led the conversation to dinosaurs.

What about dinosaurs?

I did a Google search for the words, dinosaurs, caves, Africa, and found, sure enough, several web pages that claim that dinosaurs exist there now. Most or all of these pages are by young-earth creationists, who are either attempting to discredit mainstream science by showing that dinosaurs, which supposedly became extinct more than 60 million years ago, are not extinct at all, arguing that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs on it, or both.

Just because young-earth creationists claim something is true doesn't make it false. Are those who make such claims on to something? My response is that I doubt it, but I'm not absolutely sure.

This page has a section on "dinosaurs in the Bible," which refers to Job 40:15-19, which uses the word "behemoth," in some versions. (See here for the King James translation of this passage. The New King James also uses this word, but there's a note, saying that we don't know what animal is meant.) I have done some serious study on the matter of plants in the Bible, and, for most of the names used, we don't seem to really know what plant was meant. I suspect that the same is true for "behemoth."

I was a little surprised that the page didn't refer to "leviathan," apparently another large animal, which is mentioned in four passages in the King James Bible, namely Job 41, Psalm 74:14, Psalm 104:26, and Isaiah 27:1. Leviathan is/was apparently an ocean creature of some kind.

This page cites three articles, from mainstream science journals, indicating that dinosaur soft tissue has been discovered. If so, that is remarkable, if dinosaurs have been extinct for so long. I haven't seen these articles, nor checked to see if they have been supported or discredited by further work.

OK, let's get logical, and examine various possibilities.

Dinosaurs never existed at all.
This is difficult to believe, because of the fossil evidence.

or Dinosaurs existed.

In which case, they became extinct at some time in the past . . .

If that's true, why? There are three possibilities.

1) The earth is very old, and mainstream science, which claims that dinosaurs became extinct a long time ago, is correct.
2) Dinosaurs (and presumably many other forms of prehistoric life) were destroyed before the creation events described in the six days of Genesis 1. This would be consistent with gap theory. It is probably consistent with mainstream science, also.
3) Dinosaurs were rescued from Noah's flood, but have become extinct since, probably because conditions on earth changed*.

or they didn't.

The evidence cited on the web pages proclaiming that they still live is correct, and some dinosaurs still exist. Perhaps the Loch Ness monster exists, and is one.

*Dinosaurs would have taken up a lot of room on the ark, if there were very many species of them, plus the room needed for their food. Genesis 6 says that Noah was to take a male and a female of each animal, and doesn't mention anything about eggs being brought aboard. If somehow the dinosaurs were represented by eggs, rather than young dinosaurs, where did the eggs come from? As the KJV puts it (Genesis 6:20) the animals were to "come unto thee." (to Noah) (I cleaned up some grammar in this paragraph on August 23, 2007. I also mistakenly re-published this as a draft, not a post, after that.)

Thanks for reading.

Genesis 4-6: What we DO know

There's a lot we don't know about what Genesis says. Apparently God didn't think we need to know some things. After we discussed it, my wife wanted me to post about something that we do know from this passage.

Here's a link to Genesis 4 through 6 in the English Standard Version (ESV).

Where did Cain and Seth get their wives? The Bible doesn't say. Probably from their sisters, but who knows for sure? Genesis 4:17 says that Cain founded a city, named after his son, Enoch. What sort of city? How large? Was this in a cave, in homes made from brick or mud huts, or wood, or tents? We don't know. Genesis 4:20 says that Jabal, apparently Cain's great-grandson was the "father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock." Does that mean that no one else had used tents before him? It doesn't seem possible that it means that no one had livestock before Jabal, because Abel brought a sacrifice from his flocks. (4:4 says "firstborn of his flock.") Abel was apparently killed many years before Jabal came along. What does this mean? How to explain this apparent inconsistency? I don't know.

Many more questions could be raised. But one thing stands out. Genesis 6 says that Noah stood out. In 6:8, the Bible says that he "found favor in the eyes of the Lord." In 6:9, he is described as "a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God." The same chapter makes clear that the rest of mankind around Noah was quite different -- evil, godless, sinful. So, one thing that Genesis 4-6 does say is that it is possible to live for God, even though surrounded by evil people. I'm not in such circumstances, but I hope I live for God. I hope you do, too.

Thanks for reading. Happy birthday to my wife.