WAS NOAH AND THE FLOOD FACT OR FICTION?

 

WAS NOAH AND THE FLOOD FACT OR FICTION?

 

 

The Associated Press reported that a team of explorers uncovered what appears to be concrete evidence that human beings once inhabited an area that is now covered with water, “The Black Sea”.  They found well preserved “artifacts; carved wooden beams, wooden branches and stone tools”, lead researcher Robert Ballard said.  The team’s chief archeologist, Fredrik Hiebert, said the discovery “represents the first real evidence for occupation of the Black Sea coast prior to it’s flooding”.

The “Flood” that killed all human and animal life, except Noah and his family, and the animals on the Ark, has been hotly disputed by theologians and scientists alike.  But the strange thing is that up until 200 years ago the Flood account, in the Bible and the Tanakh (Jewish Bible), was universally accepted as being totally accurate.  What happened?  I’ll tell you what happened; two things:

1.     The publication of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”, and

2.     “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex”.

 

These two theoretical books were introduced into our schools as fact, when they were little more than theories.

Because Charles Darwin’s theories appealed to the natural mind of man, everyone was subjected to it in our learning institutions.

For centuries the critics and skeptics of the Bible and the Torah (Tanakh) had been looking for something to hang their hats on in their arguments against the “Flood” account.  Charles Darwin gave them more than they could ever dream.  He gave them the means to gather all the unbelievers and skeptics under one huge umbrella, our learning institutions.  Charles Darwin’s theories are taught in the schools where virtually all of our citizens are exposed to it.  Even though the bible is still the number one (1) selling book in the world, it is not welcome in our public institutions of learning.

What’s even stranger is that most of us haven’t even read these two books by Charles Darwin.  But, for the first time, the public was given a scientific reason to doubt.

In 1999 Robert Ballard found indications of ancient coastline miles from the current Black Sea coast.  This discovery provides evidence that people once lived in that, now flooded, region.

Ballard, a National Geographic Society explorer in residence, said he studied shells found along the ancient coastline and found two types.  One group is an extinct type of freshwater shell, while the second is from saltwater shellfish.  We all know freshwater and saltwater don’t mix, but somehow these two, very different bodies of water traded places.  How did that happen?

The team of explorers found that “the saltwater shells date from the present back 6,500 years, while the freshwater shells all date to 7,000 years ago and older”.  “So we know that there was a sudden and dramatic change from a freshwater lake to a saltwater sea 7,000 years ago”, Ballard said.

What do you think?

 

 

Additional Reference Source:

·        http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news165.htm

·        http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngnews/blacksea.html

 

 

More by this Author

  • BLOOD DON'T MAKE FAMILY
    5

        “Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:35 CSB Of all the institutions in the earth, ‘Family’ is among the most misunderstood....


Comments 31 comments

James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 7 years ago from Chicago

Darwin was possessed by a high-ranking demon. Of course Noah existed. And of course there was the flood. The flood story is actually recounted in much of the world's mythology. Great Hub. Keep them coming.


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you James, I appreciate your candor and support. I am deeply committed to being a defender of scripture as the Lord has allowed me to understand it.

God Bless


einron profile image

einron 7 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, CANADA

Thanks for the info. Being a Christian I have no doubt that the flood was a fact and not fiction. God bless.


Patty Inglish, MS profile image

Patty Inglish, MS 7 years ago from North America

Thanks for the Hub! The salt- vs freshwater shells is compelling, isn't it?


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 7 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

I agree that a village and signs of life were found under the Black Sea but that does not make it relate to Noah or the flood.  These events could have and probalby did take place, but the stories of Noah actually come from farther away in modern day Iraq.  There are stories of this event in very ancient clay tablets from ancient civilizations there along the Tigrus River, where such floods were also known to have occurred.

Also, I know Robert Ballard and I doubt he'd agree with the idea that the remains of a village found under the Black Sea would correspond to the flood story of the Bible.  But, a most interesting hub.  Thanks for writing it!

Also, James, Charles Darwin was considered a very good Christian in his time. I doubt he was possessed by any demons. Nor was he the only person to have come to the same conclusions based upon the evidence he discovered.

Cheers!  Chef Jeff


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thanks einron for your encouraging comment. You too, Patty, and yes the freshwater/saltwater is compelling.

God Bless


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thanks Chef Jeff for taking the time to read and comment on this hub. It is true that the account of a catastrophic flood is recorded in the archives of a number of other countries, but that only lends itself to the high probably that such an event took place.

I'm not too sure that Charles Darwin could be considered a Christian, let alone a good one. As a young man he was a 'believer in Christianity', though it is believed that he simply yielded to the influences of his home. Between October 1836 and January 1839, in his own words he said this: "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress". That doesn't sound like someone who was committed to the Christian faith.

Thank you again,

God Bless


joecseko profile image

joecseko 7 years ago from New York, USA, Earth

Sorryy, but NUMEROUS geologists, not the "scientists" that you quote have clearly shown the path of The Ark is nothing but whimsical fancy.

Please, don't post this, nor any of the factual evidnce that doesn't fit your silly beliefs!


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hello joecseko,

It's good to know you are a man of deep conviction. I respect that very much, and I dare not challenge your beliefs, even though I don't know what they are. I can only say it is not my intention to convince you, or anyone, for that matter. I can only say what I believe, and defend it with all my might. I would hope that you can respect that, as I respect your right to believe as you wish.

Thank you again for your comment.


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 7 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Yet at the end of his Origin of the Species he does say that in the end it is God that makes it all happen, so I believe the quote may have been a truthful expression of the doubt many believers go through.  I met a man once who was a committed Communist most of his life but later gave his life to Jesus and became a deeply spirit filled man at the end of his life.  I do believe that what I've read of Darwin, that was also the case with him. (Not the Communist part!)

And as I said, there were many others who proposed such scientific theories before and after Darwin.  Nice hub, thanks!


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you Chef Jeff, I appreciate your candor and honesty. I must admit I am not well versed on all of Darwin's writings so I cannot, in all honesty, speak to the outcome of his beliefs. I do welcome all debate that has the capacity to help me grow and understand better. Thank You.

God Bless


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 7 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

So, one more question, would you be against the idea of God having brought about evolution? That was the conclusion of Darwin.


Amanda Severn profile image

Amanda Severn 7 years ago from UK

Drowned villages are known of off the coast of Britain, and no doubt elsewhere in the world, so the Black Sea discovery alone, neither proves, nor disproves the existence of Noah. James mentioned that the flood story forms part of the mythology of many cultures, and because of this, I do believe that it occurred. The ark story may also be partially true, although I suspect that the detail has been expanded in the manner of Chinese Whispers over the milennia!


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Very good question Chef Jeff. No, I would not be against the idea of God having brought about evolution. Holding to evolution is not against God. What I do take issue with is that evolution is the driving force behind human existence apart from God.

Hi Amanda Severn, you are right, the Black Sea discovery neither proves nor disproves the Flood account; and whether the Ark actually existed, in relation to Noah, will no doubt be debated for years to come. Nevertheless, it should not be a subject used to beat each other over the head. If we are seekers of truth, as we propose, then we should allow the path to truth to be free of unreasonable biases and prejudices. We should give ourselves permission to be right or wrong and feel free of any guilt that may linger as a result.

Thank you for these thought provoking comments.

God Bless


no body profile image

no body 7 years ago from Rochester, New York

They have found marine fossils on the top of mountains as well. The Bible does say that the flood covered the tops of all the mountains. When the water canopy fell and the underground waters were broken up land shifted. And areas that were one temperature became another. Mastodons were found with vegetation in their mouths flash frozen in the ice. Their meat would still be edible it was reported. Facinating hub. I have always been interested in the climate and typographical changes that happened in the great flood. Good job brother.


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you no body, I appreciate your insightful comments

God Bless


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 7 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Wehzo wrote: "These two theoretical books were introduced into our schools as fact, when they were little more than theories."  Well, to those who confuse a theory in everyday life with a scientifically proven Theory, it might seem that Darwin just guessed, and therefore his writing has nothing behind it but his guess.  However, that would be very wrong.

A scientific theory has to have lots and lots of proof behind it before it is accepted.  Darwin's ideas were not immediately accepted by the scientific community of his day.  However, as more and more scientists discovered evidence to prove his theory, and fewer and fewer were able to credibly refute it, it became accepted as fact.

It was not used in public schools for many years, mostly because of religious refutiation of the Theory of Evolution, mostly again the argments were falsely claiming it was, after all, only a theory.  But for anyone who cares to look into what it takes for an idea or claim to become a scientific theory, just look up the subject on the Internet and you'll find that there is a HUGE difference between an every day theory (such as I think my dog ate my homework) and a scientific theory, which requires more proof than there is to prove that the Bible has any credence at all.

Indeed, there is more factual proof of Darwin's Theory of the Evolution of the Species than there is backing up the validity of the Bible, so I would be very careful to knock Darwin and then claim that the Bible is factual.

As for Noah's Ark, I still have to wonder how Noah and his family could to so much work in a boat that must have been the size of Rhode Island to carry all the millions of land animal species that were alive when he was said to have built this boat.  Also, was Noah more wealthy than any of the kings of his day, because to build such a boat would require thousands of workers and huge outlays of cash for materials, workers and feeding the animals once they were on the boat.  Also, if he had to make room for millions of animals, how much room did he need for their food?  Or was it a miracle that they suddenly didn't have to eat for the year or so it took for the flood waters to recede?

Next, how did 8 or so people in Noah's family manage to muck out this boat, keep it clean and sanitary, prevent the creatures from eating each other, and then have time to sleep and eat themselves?  Just to feed the numbers of animals in a modern day zoo requires a large staff od people, much more than 8 people, and the number of animals in a large zoo in extremely small compared to what Noah would have had to contend with.

Last but not least, once the animals were supposedly released, did they suddenly swim to continents hundreds or thousands of miles away?  How, for example, as the flood waters were still receding, did Kangaroos get to Australia without leaving any dead of their kind behinbd elsewhere in the world?  There are simply no Kangaroo skeletons found anywhere else in the world except in Australia.  How does that work?  Again, I have been told by some die-hard believers, that Angels must have carried them there right off the boat.

I am afraid that logistically it was quite impossible for Noah to have built an ark, paid for it, and then filled it with enough food and then kept it ship shape.   No one has ever answered these questions, and I doubt that anyone can, other than to attribute all the work to hidden, secret divine intervention, the same excuse used whenever the questions are too hard to make sense of.

Anyway, that's how I see it. thanks for letting me comment.


Ivan the Terrible profile image

Ivan the Terrible 7 years ago from Madrid

I agree with Chef Jeff.  It is physically impossible to make the Noah's Ark story a reality.  I could see perhaps that some enterprizing farmer along the Tigrus or Euphrates might have loaded his livestock into a raft and this somehow became blown up into the Noah story, but there are simply too many animals out there for Noah to first of  all collected them in one spot, and then loaded them into a huge boat.

It was once calculated that the ship would have been miles long and wide, far too expensive for even the rulers of the day to have built, not to mention the lack of ability of a desert-dwelling man to have the technology and wherewithall to have built it.

As far as I am concerned it goes under the category of interesting but hardly likely.  And as for anyone having found the ark, that is just a bunch of silliness.  It does not rest on Mt. Arafat in Turkey or anywhere else waiting to be discovered.

Also, were did all this water supposedly come from?  And if it was fresh water, it would have diluted the salt in the oceans to the point that no ocean life would have survived. That's just a simple & inescapable fact.


Ivan the Terrible profile image

Ivan the Terrible 7 years ago from Madrid

no body, fossils on the tops of mountains were there when the land masses lifted up by geological forces and these events long predated the supposed age of the ark by several hundreds of millions of years. Sorry, not possible, not feasible, didn't happen buy a giant flood as reported by the bible.


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hi Chef Jeff and Ivan The Terrible. These are interesting comments to say the least. I am not speaking from a historical or logistical perspective, though the hub includes aspects of both. I am speaking strictly from a biblical perspective. The bible doesn't speak on some of the things you touch on. I would like to mention that the bible doesn't speak to or for any of the sciences. It speaks exclusively to God's plan for man. Now, after saying that, I believe you can get better answers to your questions at the website I'm including with this response :

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles.asp

I believe you can find this site very helpful to address many of your questions.

God Bless


Abrushing1968 profile image

Abrushing1968 7 years ago from USA- Florida

CJ- You would tell us that Mr. Darwin was a "Good Christian". This statement exposes your ignorance of the Christian faith. For if you understood Christianity you would not be saying such things. I mean you know disrespect but from a Christian perspective, Darwin was not a "Good Christian" Not as a Priest and definitely not at the end of his life. For actions speak louder then words.

It appears to me that you would have us ignore the FACT that Darwin's theories empowered men such as Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Who used this Godless Doctrine to create a anti-religious and Socially controlled society known as Communism. Because Darwin's theories reduced mankind down to mere animals, Lenin in turn, was able to justify the murder of millions of Russians. To him, It was no different then exterminating mice or rats.

Darwin was a materialist not a Christian. He used materialism as the foundation for Evolution. Materialists believe that only the strong survive. They teach that the only way to make progress is through conflict. That nothing exists outside the tangible, what you can see and touch.

Chef Jeff said "No one has ever answered these questions, and I doubt that anyone can, other than to attribute all the work to hidden, secret divine intervention, the same excuse used whenever the questions are too hard to make sense of."

Your statement above shows that you too lack a faith in God and His divine intervention. As did your godless, materialistic predecessors. If you are not able to believe in divine intervention, then you must believe that Life/creation happened by chance and that "Divine Intervention" was unlikely then as well.

To me, those who promote evolution are the ones that have nothing more to offer then excuses for a lack of knowledge. I reject evolution outright and call it what it is. A False doctrine based on Man's limited knowledge of God.

Wehzo hang with me just a bit more I would like to speak to the believer for a moment:

Consider Ephesians 4:14

14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Did you catch that? Let me say it again for those who missed it!

" by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"

We who know God through the Bible, know the truth. Darwin was nothing more then a man who rebelled against God. who was fooled by the sleight of man, and cunning craftiness, whereby they (Marx, Darwin,Engels and the likes) lie in wait to deceive.

Don't be fooled by these humanistic doctrines that deny the existence of God. God is close, God is personal, and he is tangible for those of us who know him. You can be sure that God lovingly created us in his image, for his good pleasure. Creation is the result of his handy work not some cosmic accident.

Wehzo- thank you for your patience. Definitely food for thought. I personally find the subject of the Ark intriguing and I believe it was possible. Of course, I believe in Divine Intervention! Remove God from the equation and not only is Noah's Ark not possible, but nothing else is either.

In Christ

ABR


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Well said Abrushing1968, I couldn't have said it better. Thank you ABR for that well articulated response. There is nothing else that I could or should add.

God Bless You


LisaG profile image

LisaG 7 years ago from Caribbean

I think a lot of people really believe that Noah had to accommodate two of every single type of animal in the world at that time. However my understanding is just two of each specie of animal. After the flood each specie would then breed the different species that we know of today.

It's just like Adam and Eve bearing different races of people.

The bible does not give account of everything that happens detail by detail we just have to trust what it says. Anytihing is possible through God as Arbrushing1968 said.


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hello LisaG,

You make a very good point. Two of each species would make sense. Thank you for your gracious and insightful comment.

God Bless You


Bill G 7 years ago

You do know that Naturalists (the scientists of the day) were doubting the flood in the early 1700's. Since then the evidence has grown to be overwhelming. You do know there was no "Tower of Babel" either...don't you?

Many things in the Bible are true, but many things are just myths. The trick is to sort them out.


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you Bill G., for your gracious comment.


Dusty 6 years ago

They have found seashells on the top of mount everest. Im no christian by any means, but a great flood indeed has happened before. many many ancient texts tell of a great flood all around the same time. You guys should read into the ancient astronauts/ ancient aliens theories. That is all


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 6 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you Dusty for your meaning comment.

God Bless.


pseudoapologia 3 years ago

Actually, I think people were coming to the conclusion that the earth was really old even with the preconception of a global flood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRCq-ZZBg78&feature...

And a literal interpretation (especially a global flood) was almost entirely absent and undefended by church fathers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tefklqzVtpA&feature...

I would say I believe the flood account but it really depends on what one means by "believe".


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 3 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you pseudoapologia for your contribution to this hub.

God Bless You,


pseudoapologia 3 years ago

You're welcome. I have devoted myself to combating some of the rhetorics promolgated by mainstream Christian "apologists" who are notorious for misrepresenting facts, hiding truths, heretic "carding", and various other things. Most of my research on the book of Genesis has found that most (if not all of it) can in fact be considered historically accurate, however, pending on how it is interpreted and pending on whether the purpose of the text was to give literal historical accounts (for instance, the flood and Genesis 1 may have actually been stolen from pagan traditions to combat for the supremeness of Israel's God). See the similarities between Genesis and the Enuma Elish (Mesopotamian myth) here:

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancie...

Also, the flood account in Genesis has similarities to that of other pagan traditions as well. See the argument for a local flood here:

http://oldearth.org/articles/flood_location.htm

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working