Customer Reviews

Noah's Flood, Joshua's Long Day, & Lucifer's Fall: What Really Happened?

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Authors like Woodrow who promote local flood and long age compromises can be summarised as follows:

"'Science' has shown that the earth is billions of years old, therefore the plain meaning of Scripture must be re-interpreted to fit these 'facts'. If we [with our finite understanding] can't explain a clear biblical teaching, it follows that no explanation is possible, so we must re-interpret this also."

However, they fail to realise that science deals with repeatable observations in the *present*, while billions of years ideas are based on assumptions about the unobservable, unrepeatable *past*. Thus science can never show the world is billions of years old. Rather, we should rely on the eye-witness of One who was there, knows everything, and never lies or errs. But Woodrow et al. rely on the testimony of people who weren't there, often err and sometimes lie. So they are using the theories of fallible people to interpret the Word of the infallible God.

We should realise that different biases can result in different *interpretations* of the *same* data. For example, great thicknesses of rock layers could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates ('the present is the key to the past') is often called uniformitarianism.

I show how presuppositions strongly influence explanations about the past in my book Refuting Evolution, and this also contains a chapter on evidence for a 'young' earth and global Flood.

It's sad to see professing evangelical writers fall into the errors that characterise the 'scoffers' prophesied in 2 Peter 3: 'all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.' Peter reveals the huge flaw of the uniformitarian scoffers: they are 'willingly ignorant' of special creation by God and a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood.

To answer some of Woodrow's specific anti-global-flood arguments:

* The word "erets" translated as earth (Gen. 6:17, 7:19-23) sometimes refers to limited land areas.

However, erets is also used in Gen. 1:1-2, where it must refer to the whole earth. It also fits in with 2 Peter 3:6, where the 'world' was deluged (Greek katakluzo, from which we derive the word cataclysm) by water. Here the Flood is described in universal terms, and paralleled with the coming universal judgment. _Erets_ is often used to refer to the entire dry land surface, e.g. Gen. 1:10ff.

*Woodrow says that the phrase in Gen. 7:19,20 "under the whole heavens" is often used in a limited way e.g. Deut. 2:25.

But no one denies that such phrases are sometimes used in a limited way, or that 'all' is sometimes less than universal. But in the Flood account, God is going out of his way to emphasize the universality of the Flood -- from Genesis 7, NIV: 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and *all* the high mountains under the *entire* heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 *Every* living thing that moved on the earth perished -- birds, livestock, wild animals, *all* the creatures that swarm over the earth, and *all* mankind. 22 *Everything* on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 *Every* living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. *Only* Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. Question: just suppose, for the sake of the argument, that God had wanted to teach a global flood -- how could He have said it more clearly than in Gen. 7?

*Woodrow argues that it would require 726 feet of rain per day for 40 days to cover the mountains.

But this assumes that the mountain were at their present height. However, much uplift happened during and shortly after the Flood (Ps. 104:8, 'The mountains rose; the valleys sank down' as the NASB correctly translates it). This is because of the catastrophic earth movements and huge amounts of still-unconsolidated sediments. Woodrow never bothered to find out what creationists actually teach, so set up a straw man, here and many other places. As computer programmers say, 'garbage in, garbage out'.

* Another straw man: cold and thin air above Mt. Everest?

Again, faulty assumption. Also, Woodrow is ignorant of the fact that air pressure depends on the height of the air column over the earth, relative to the main sea level, not altitude as such. Thus even if the Ark was above the mountains, because the sea level was also higher, the pressure would have been almost normal.

*Woodrow has a whole chapter claiming that Ark's crew could not have cared for all the animals.

Woodrow slavishly follows the usual bibliosceptical ploys, assuming that the animals needed to be taken care of, one at a time. But plenty of labour-saving mechanisms would have been available to the crew of eight, for example, long sloping troughs for both food and water that could have been loaded from only a few central filling stations. There are also systems to deal with waste, e.g. sloped or slatted floors; very deep, absorbent bedding; vermicomposting.

Don't waste your money on Woodrow's book -- buy John Woodmorappe's scholarly and comprehensive book _Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study_ for thorough demolition of all attacks on the Ark by atheists and their compromising evangelical lackeys. Woodmorappe shows that only 16,000 land animals would have been needed on board as passengers, and also covers a wide range of topics including rapid post-Flood variation, generation of rare alleles, food for the animals after disembarkation, and much more.

Mr. Woodrow's book is an uncomplicated approach to addressing several instances where the Scriptures have been erroneously interpreted or applied.

In "Joshua's Long Day", he illustrates an interesting understanding of the passage Joshua 10:12-14 and the language it contains (that is, the sun did not stop in its course across the sky - which is of course to say that the earth did not cease revolving on its axis). As well he addresses the legend concerning "space scientists" and the discovery of a "missing day".

In "Was Satan Once an Angel in Heaven?" he points out several passages in the Bible that have been erroneously applied to Satan.

In "Noah's Flood", what is certainly the main topic of the book, occupying half of it, Mr. Woodrow tackles the traditional view of Noah's Flood as a global deluge and argues that it was instead regional in impact. As well, he demonstrates several of the instances where the "global" tradition's point of view creates conflict and contradiction in Scripture. Thus it is entirely both unfair and untrue to call him a Bible scoffer; especially when he is arguing for the integrity of the text.

The knowledgeable Christian understands that the traditional view of a global flood has become fraught with numerous distortions of scripture. For instance, some attribute all or part of Psalm 104 as referring to issues regarding the Flood. But Psalm 104 is written in regard to the majesty of God and the work of Creation, and not at all the Flood.

Some assert the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat and that it did not rain on earth until the Flood. But a precise reading of Genesis 8:4 shows that the ark landed on the "mountains" of Ararat. "Ararat" is also translated Armenia, and it is a country and not a mountain. Thus the text represents the ark coming to rest in the hill country foothills of Ararat, its elevation unspecified. As for a lack of rain before the flood, Genesis 2:5 suffers contortion to support that assertion, but on reading the verse in context it is stating the condition of the earth BEFORE God began bringing order and life to the world.

Yet if one is to challenge the "global" view meaningfully, one must bring into consideration the very structure, method and type of the language of Genesis, and Mr. Woodrow only very lightly touches upon it, and principally leaves it outside the book's scope. If one intends to contest such an ingrained teaching as a global flood effectively, it is essential to demonstrate the accurate intention of the text's written word, the focus of the writer, and the purpose of the Author. Not to mention the true application of prophetic texts which refer to it. This topic, then, cannot be addressed in such a small volume conclusively.

There are a few errors in Mr. Woodrow's book that bear pointing out. One error in logic concerns the ark being carried up to the freezing height of the top of Mt. Ararat. He suggests that "it would not have been floating in water, it would have been frozen in ice (page 73)" But if the water had risen to that height, the atmosphere would rise with it, and even if the atmosphere were spread over a larger surface area it need not result in the ark being ice bound. This conceals the point which follows that after the waters receded, the atmosphere would return to near normal and the extreme cold would have been ruinous to the survivors in the ark; that is if it landed near the top of Mt. Ararat, which the Bible does not say it did.

Another logic error is relying on George Lamsa's view of Scripture. In the subtopic "Water in the Desert", Mr. Woodrow notes that Lamsa thought that Moses in Numbers 20:7-11 used his rod to search in the sand for a rock covering a well. By probing in the sand he might "strike the rock" (pg. 111). But the text indicates this cannot be the case. First Moses is instructed by God to SPEAK to the rock in question when the people were gathered BEFORE THE ROCK. Certainly the rock would be visible. The next subtopic "The Lost Axehead" makes another appeal to Lamsa.

In the subtopics: "Crossing Jordan", I side with the view of the waters rising in a heap on themselves; "Ravens or Arabians" with ravens; and "Was Satan Once an Angel in Heaven?" that Satan was an angel that fell (1John 3:8) - but I agree that several passages of the Bible have been erroneously applied to Satan.

If you choose to buy Mr. Woodrow's book, then test it impartially by the light of Scripture. This is the very thing that many would not want you to do.

It is the duty of every Christian to test the teachings they encounter by Scripture; to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1Thess 5:21). We should be like the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11), and receive nothing that cannot be sustained by Scripture. Reading Genesis prayerfully with a discerning heart, while paying careful attention to its literary form, the magnificence and majesty of this great literary work inspired of God unfolds before our eyes with wonder!

The problem with books like this is that the authors seem to miss major points entirely. While it is useful to do a word study, for instance, the word study does not end the discussion about the meaning of the word used. The only way it would do that would be if EVERY word used in a particular language had only ONE definition associated with it. However, we know this is not true at all, as many words in most languages (if not all), have more than one meaning associated with them.

For instance, the word "left" can mean, or refer to:
1) direction
2) things remaining

So, if I say "Turn left at the next street" to the cab driver, I am referring to direction. However, if I say "I have five dollars left in my wallet," I am referring to something else entirely. So what determines the meaning? Context.

Scientifically, I was also taught that water seeks its own level. Unless there was a solid "bowl" of mountains that served as a type of damn surrounding the area in view, water would naturally seep out, or pour out to find its own level. In that case, people could do the same, yet as the one reviewer pointed out, Scripture clearly indicates that all except Noah and his family survived. A number of good books have been written on the subject of Noah's flood and the possibility of housing that many animals, etc. Ralph Woodrow really does not come close to doing the subject justice, unfortunately.

There are numerous Scripture passages, that speak of the "fountains of the deep" being open. Chuck Missler even states that there may be some scientific evidence that water to completely flood the earth came from other places entirely, like Mars. Whether or not that is true, is beside the point. The Scripture indicates that there was plenty of water available. At the same time, it is clear that the water necessary to cover the earth, would have also very likely created massive physical changes on the earth's surface.

Regarding Lucifer's fall and the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel, there is no way that the entirety of these passages can refer to human kings. While the similarities in characteristics with Lucifer/Satan and the attitudes of these two earthly kings in Isaiah and Ezekiel, it is also clear that God seemed to reference these two kings as a springboard to speak of Lucifer and his fall.

I don't think Woodrow is one who doubts or belittles the Bible. The reality though is that his arguments simply do not stand up under the scrutiny of Scripture.

This book basically just cuts down the Bible and discounts it as untrue. I threw this book away after looking through it.