did Noahs Ark really happen?

[EnemyPartyII]

Many disagree with your interpretation of the evidence here.

science is not a matter of plebiscite. The theory that best explains the observed evidence with the least contradictions is the one considered "most correct"

Therefore, from a strictly scientific standpoint, gradual, eonic geology is most correct, and "Great Flood" catastrophism is... well, not.

 

[busterdog]

There is evidence, especially in the Bible but also from personal observations, that the earth is flat. Does that mean that it is possible that the earth is flat?

There is much more evidence that the earth is flat than there is that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate account of an historic event. There are still Christians today who believe with all their heart that the earth is flat based upon a literal and historical interpretation of several passages in the Bible. And there are, with even less evidence to support their belief, still Christians today who believe with all their heart that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate account of an historic event. However, I respect your right to believe as you choose to.

Non sequitur.

Assuming that there is evidence that the earth it is of a completely different quality than evidence of a flood. The flat earth is not in the Bible any more than the geocentric universe is in The Fiddler on the Roof.

Like it or not, that is how standards of proof work. That there is some evidence means that the proposition has some basis in science. If one cannot accept that proposition, it is an indication of the ability to dialogue and of prejudice.

There are probably Christians today who believe that their pets are channelling St. Paul. That means nothing to me.

 

[Breetai]

Therefore, from a strictly scientific standpoint, gradual, eonic geology is most correct...

I disagree.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I disagree.

you can disagree all you like. But unless you have empirical evidence to back up your position, well, you won't convince many people

 

[Servant222]

Genesis 6:

So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Here God says He will wipe out only air breathing creatures, including man. No mention of fish or other sea creatures.

13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

(my bold)

Here God is saying he will DESTROY THE ENTIRE EARTH- so do we take this literally, the entire earth will be vaporized? If this is true, then there wouldn't be a need for an ark, because the earth would be gone (unless the ark was really a spaceship, I suppose).

17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

Again, the quote here is confusing- is God going to really destroy ALL life under the heavens, or just air breathing ones on land? The last line again is confusing- is it all living things, or just those on the land?

Everything on earth will perish.

Continuing on......

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

So what about creatures that are sexless- were they excluded? Does this passage imply that fish were once again exempt? What about bacteria, viruses, and other microscopic things- were they rounded up too?

Genesis 7:

4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

So does God really mean "every living creature", or just a select few that live on land or have male and female entities?

18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 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. [h] , 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.

So where did the olive branch that the second dove brought come from (see below)? Did an olive tree continue to live on some mountain top, even though covered with more than 20 feet of water?

And was it really "every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out", or just land animals and birds?

Genesis 8:

8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf!

This must have been some dove- able to fly to every speck of the entire earth in a matter of a few days at most, staying airborne the whole time without food or water. And TWICE yet!

I am not trying to be disrespectful of God, only pointing out that us mortal human beings cannot possibly understand all that is being said. So we have to be very careful about what we read into the Bible, and not assume that we will ever really know the whole story until we get to Heaven.

 

[Rut]

Rut, I think your insistance that "sudden-death" fossils necessarily indicate a global flood is misplaced. Moreoever, I think you will find other YECs here, like laptoppop, who will agree with me (since, according to "global flood models", the Flood wasn't necessarily violent. Nor are mammoths found in Paleozoic/Mesozoic rocks, which YECs ).
I also don't think you are aware that every living geologist accepts catastrophy in the fossil record (i.e. not necessarilly gradualism), and are more than willing to accept localized, catastrophic events. I can point to the sedimentary record and show you examples of landslides, dune collapses, turbidites, river swells, asteroid impacts, etc. All these things could kill animals with a bolus of food still in their mouth. Geologists reject the global Flood account because there is simply no evidence for it (and much evidence against it, in most cases).

I agree that can happen small catastophe in the world.

Have you read The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch,
Composition and structure of the atmosphere of D.R Bates and the earth and the atmospher?

Have the geologist gone away of the thought now that was a tropical temerature on the polar regions?

Remember too that in the Bible it say that the weather change after the Flood.The Bible talks about things that the Bible have nevere talked about before Genesis 9:13,
8:22

I find a intresting website about what we have talked about for example Was the ark large enough? How many types of animals did Noah need to take.I don`t sure if I can post it

 

[gluadys]

Have the geologist gone away of the thought now that was a tropical temerature on the polar regions?

Yes, since we learned of plate tectonics we now understand that it was not the case that polar regions were once tropical, but that the land which currently lies in polar regions was once located in tropical regions and has since drifted to the current locations.

Remember too that in the Bible it say that the weather change after the Flood.The Bible talks about things that the Bible have nevere talked about before Genesis 9:13,
8:22

No, it says nothing about weather changing after the Flood--certainly not in the references you provided. If anything, Gen. 8:22 shows a restoration of normal weather, and 9:13 a promise that normalcy will continue. Be careful about reading into the bible what is not really there.

I find a intresting website about what we have talked about for example Was the ark large enough? How many types of animals did Noah need to take.I don`t sure if I can post it

Try this one. Very irreverently tongue in cheek, but I bet it raises a lot of questions you never considered before.

http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Might I add that all the evidence is against anyone coming back to life, after having been dead a couple of days?

Unlike the theories surrounding millions and millions of years of evolution, you can test death again and again and again. The evidence for not rising from death is much stronger than the evidence used to hypothesize millions of years of evolution. It's been scientifically proven, through millions of 'experiments', that you cannot rise from death. Therefore, the Bible must be wrong in this case. There must is no truth in a literal reading in the resurrection myth. It has to be a lie.

The Bible portrays the resurrection of Christ from the dead as being the greatest miracle of all time. The very same Bible portrays Noah, his family, and every genetically discrete population of animals as being preserved, not by any miracles of any kind, but by being aboard a boat built by Noah, a human being. If we take Genesis 6-8 literally, no miracles of any sort occurred in their preservation, and therefore a literal interpretation of Genesis gives us an account of that which is infinitely more impossible than a man rising from the dead.

Genesis 6-8 is an epic tale and for Christians to represent it as an accurate account of historic events makes a mockery of the Bible, the gospel, and the Christian faith, a mockery that has done more to discredit the Bible, the gospel, and the Christian faith than any other ploy devised by man, sending countless millions to an eternal doom in hell.

There has never been, in the entire history of the Church, a teaching more destructive to the cause of the gospel than young earth creationism and the baggage carried with it.

This thread is not about evolution—it is about a boat full of animals.

 

[Servant222]

Even worse than geocentrism?

 

[Jadis40]

Even worse than geocentrism?

Well, possibly so, at least according to this quote from John Calvin:

• "Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'" - John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

There are other quotes here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part2.html

 

[busterdog]

You should also have added

e. there is evidence which could not possibly exist if a global flood had occurred, especially a recent one.

Well, that's really the point of my question. It is simply not reasonable to say there is no evidence of a global flood simply because e. is true, or assuming e. is true. Said otherwise, there is no such thing as absolute rule-out evidence in science as a general proposition (straw men such as the flat earth need not apply).

The only reasonable position is to say, for example, that the massive coal field spanning Utah and extending into adjacent states is best explained by an enormous flood. The massive mats of flotsom that underly the permafrost near the artic circle are similarly best explained by a global flood.

Even if we assume that they are reasonably explained by a global flood, as opposed to conditions "best explained" by that event, the result is the same.

It means that one must deal with the aggregation of evidence in a complex world. Such evidence is always somewhat conflicting. That is a fact that cuts on both sides. But, admitting it changes the nature of the debate.

When you have evidence of enormous catastrophism or even incredible changes such as seashells in the yellow band on Everest, the notion that one can rule out anything in this complicated, largely unexplored, earth is an enormous act of hubris. Logically it just doesn't work.

In a world of conflicting evidence, what happens when you put Genesis on the table as evidence (which is where it belongs)? Fear of the Lord happens. Open-mindedness happens. That the surface text is surface text after all happens as a meaningful proposition.

My objection to TE is that TE won't allow "some evidence" of a flood to be evidence at all. Because, if you can do that, then it is easier to deny that there is a surface text in Genesis that means what it says (right or wrong). If you completely rule out ANY evidence for a flood, you are less likely to worry about whether the surface text of Genesis is evidence at all.

I don't worry as much that TEs have formed a reasoned conclusion on the basis of the evidence. In that process, you weigh conflicting evidence. But, when you presume to completely rule out the possibility that conflicting evidence has any meaning at all, you have just ruled out the ability of God to speak and man to hear, except by your rules.

 

[Breetai]

Well, that's really the point of my question. It is simply not reasonable to say there is no evidence of a global flood simply because e. is true, or assuming e. is true. Said otherwise, there is no such thing as absolute rule-out evidence in science as a general proposition (straw men such as the flat earth need not apply).

The only reasonable position is to say, for example, that the massive coal field spanning Utah and extending into adjacent states is best explained by an enormous flood. The massive mats of flotsom that underly the permafrost near the artic circle are similarly best explained by a global flood.

Even if we assume that they are reasonably explained by a global flood, as opposed to conditions "best explained" by that event, the result is the same.

It means that one must deal with the aggregation of evidence in a complex world. Such evidence is always somewhat conflicting. That is a fact that cuts on both sides. But, admitting it changes the nature of the debate.

When you have evidence of enormous catastrophism or even incredible changes such as seashells in the yellow band on Everest, the notion that one can rule out anything in this complicated, largely unexplored, earth is an enormous act of hubris. Logically it just doesn't work.

In a world of conflicting evidence, what happens when you put Genesis on the table as evidence (which is where it belongs)? Fear of the Lord happens. Open-mindedness happens. That the surface text is surface text after all happens as a meaningful proposition.

My objection to TE is that TE won't allow "some evidence" of a flood to be evidence at all. Because, if you can do that, then it is easier to deny that there is a surface text in Genesis that means what it says (right or wrong). If you completely rule out ANY evidence for a flood, you are less likely to worry about whether the surface text of Genesis is evidence at all.

I don't worry as much that TEs have formed a reasoned conclusion on the basis of the evidence. In that process, you weigh conflicting evidence. But, when you presume to completely rule out the possibility that conflicting evidence has any meaning at all, you have just ruled out the ability of God to speak and man to hear, except by your rules.

That was better worded than anything I could write, right now.

 

[gluadys]

Well, that's really the point of my question. It is simply not reasonable to say there is no evidence of a global flood simply because e. is true, or assuming e. is true.

Quite right. The point is that if e. is true (and it is) it doesn't matter how much evidence may be supportive of a global flood. If any evidence exists which falsifies a global flood, there was no global flood. End of story.

This comes down to two principles. First is that any scientific theory must be falsifiable. That is, there must be a way to test the theory that will say either "this theory has been proven false" or "this theory has not been proven false."

Note that neither choice is "this theory is true". No limited amount of evidence can prove a theory true, and we do not have and never will have in this world an unlimited amount of evidence. So, in principle, a theory can never be shown absolutely to be true. But it can be shown to be false.

Second principle: you only need one definitive piece of falsifying evidence to outweigh any amount of supportive evidence. This is easily seen from the concept of studying the colour of crows. Most crows we see are black. You can study crows for years, examine thousands of crows and always find them to be black. Does this prove that all crows are black? It makes it very probable, but not absolutely certain. However finding just one white crow proves absolutely that not all crows are black.

So, yes, you can interpret a lot of evidence as supporting a global flood. But as soon as you find evidence that is quite incompatible with a global flood, you have falsified that hypothesis. And the evidence you interpreted as favoring a global flood must be re-interpreted to conform to the falsification of a global flood.

Said otherwise, there is no such thing as absolute rule-out evidence in science as a general proposition (straw men such as the flat earth need not apply).

Ah, but there is absolute rule-out evidence in science. In fact, no theory that does not include a test for possible falsification is deemed to be scientific.

The only reasonable position is to say, for example, that the massive coal field spanning Utah and extending into adjacent states is best explained by an enormous flood. The massive mats of flotsom that underly the permafrost near the artic circle are similarly best explained by a global flood.

No. They may require a massive, even continent-wide flood (though I am dubious even of that), but they do not require a global flood.

It means that one must deal with the aggregation of evidence in a complex world.

Right. And when that aggregation includes evidence that falsifies the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be abandoned, unless it can be revised to fit the evidence.

When you have evidence of enormous catastrophism or even incredible changes such as seashells in the yellow band on Everest, the notion that one can rule out anything in this complicated, largely unexplored, earth is an enormous act of hubris. Logically it just doesn't work.

Enormous catastrophism is not ruled out by standard geology. Evidence shows that at various times the earth has suffered massive vulcanism, extensive ice ages, huge meteor impacts, even wide-spread floods. What it does not show, and what is contradicted by much evidence, is a global flood.

In a world of conflicting evidence, what happens when you put Genesis on the table as evidence (which is where it belongs)?

In science, evidence is part of the physical world. No text is evidence. A text only records what the writer thought. Even if the text recounts what the writer witnessed, it is at best testimony of evidence, not evidence in itself.

My objection to TE is that TE won't allow "some evidence" of a flood to be evidence at all.

Because it is not a matter of totting up which hypothesis has better evidence for it. It is a matter of determining which hypothesis is falsified by the evidence. Both hypotheses may have reams of evidence in their favour, including evidence which may be cited in favour of both. But if either or both is faced with evidence which is contradictory to the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be abandoned or revised to include the evidence. When the latter course is impossible, the hypothesis must be abandoned. That is the situation in regard to a global flood. No matter how much evidence is adduced in its favour, the falsifying evidence is just too strong to continue admitting it as a scientific possibility.

If you completely rule out ANY evidence for a flood, you are less likely to worry about whether the surface text of Genesis is evidence at all.

The surface text, and even the deep text, of Genesis is not scientific evidence. No text is evidence of anything other than the opinion of the author. And opinions are not evidence.

And remember, we are not talking about ANY evidence for a flood, we are talking about evidence which falsifies a GLOBAL flood.

 

[Servant222]

Forgive me, Busterdog, if I have taken your remarks out of context, but here are a few comments on some specific points.

The only reasonable position is to say, for example, that the massive coal field spanning Utah and extending into adjacent states is best explained by an enormous flood.

Well, first- coal deposits are not formed by turbulent water conditions as occur during a flood. They are a product of the slow burial of a vast area of lush vegetation, such as a near-shore jungle similar to that found in Florida or the lower Amazon.

Second, the Utah coal deposits are no more evidence of a world-wide flood than the multitude of evidence that supports the notion of the Mediterranean flood, which covered far more area than Utah (see my post #49).

When you have evidence of enormous catastrophism or even incredible changes such as seashells in the yellow band on Everest, the notion that one can rule out anything in this complicated, largely unexplored, earth is an enormous act of hubris. Logically it just doesn't work.

The presence of sea shells in the yellow band on Everest- or for that matter, the presence of fossils right on the summit of Everest, does not require a world-wide flood, or for that matter, any manner of sudden, catastrophic event.

For one, the Biblical flood only lasted for 150 days- a pretty short time for all those fossil beds that make up the Everest massif to have been laid down.

But more important is that both the formation of the coal deposits in Utah and the presence of fossil shells on Mt. Everest is readily explained by modern plate tectonics, which has a vast array of independent evidence to support it, not the least of which is modern precise survey data that can actually track the movement of plates.

In the case of coal deposits, they are believed to form when a vegetated area like the Amazon delta slowly sinks due to collision and downwarping of a section of crustal plate near a continental margin. As the vegetation dies and falls into swampy ground, it is preserved in the brackish water, and then covered with sediment from nearby rivers. As downwarping continues, and more and more sediment accumulates, the preserved organic material is subject to ever increasing pressure, which transforms it first into lignite, and then into higher grades of coal. Of course, for the coal to be accessible near the surface requires that the rock in which it is found be uplifted at some time after formation- again, due to plate interaction.

The Everest fossil deposits formed when the ancient sea located between the Asian and the Indian plates was pushed up by the enormous collision of these two masses of continental crust, and formed the Himalayan Mountains.

As I said earlier, I have no doubt about the authenticity of the Bible, and therefore no doubt that God created some sort of massive catastrophic flooding event that wiped out a good part, or maybe even all, of mankind, and a bunch of other air breathing creatures.

However, I don't pretend to understand the literal story of the Genesis flood, and have to assume that we are not yet to the point where we can correctly interpret what it says in the Bible about this event.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, that's really the point of my question. It is simply not reasonable to say there is no evidence of a global flood simply because e. is true, or assuming e. is true. Said otherwise, there is no such thing as absolute rule-out evidence in science as a general proposition (straw men such as the flat earth need not apply).

The only reasonable position is to say, for example, that the massive coal field spanning Utah and extending into adjacent states is best explained by an enormous flood. The massive mats of flotsom that underly the permafrost near the artic circle are similarly best explained by a global flood.

Even if we assume that they are reasonably explained by a global flood, as opposed to conditions "best explained" by that event, the result is the same.

You mean like 'sunrise' and 'sunset' are best explained by geocentrism?

My objection to TE is that TE won't allow "some evidence" of a flood to be evidence at all. Because, if you can do that, then it is easier to deny that there is a surface text in Genesis that means what it says (right or wrong). If you completely rule out ANY evidence for a flood, you are less likely to worry about whether the surface text of Genesis is evidence at all.

If we take the surace text of Genesis as eyewitness testimony of the events, we still don't have a global flood, because the eyewitnesses can only describing what they saw.

What they saw was their whole land covered in water, with every hill from horizon to horizon under water. These neolithic witnesses did not know the world was a globe, could not see how the flood effected other parts of the globe, and simply described what happened to their land.

We run into problems because we translate 'the land' as 'the earth' and interpret that from our very different perspective. But lets not take that misreading of their testimony as evidence of an event they did not describe.

In a world of conflicting evidence, what happens when you put Genesis on the table as evidence (which is where it belongs)? Fear of the Lord happens. Open-mindedness happens. That the surface text is surface text after all happens as a meaningful proposition.

Actually I find YECs very closed minded about the meaning of the text

 

[Rut]

Try this one. Very irreverently tongue in cheek, but I bet it raises a lot of questions you never considered before.

http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm

I have read this website.What is the questions that I have never considered before? If I understand this website correct I have found the answers for what they ask for what I can see.So what question should I think more about?

Even if we can`t find every single answer on our questions I believe what it say here in 2 Thimothy 3:16
That have shown many times that the Bible have correct against the science for example about health

 

[gluadys]

I have read this website.What is the questions that I have never considered before? If I understand this website correct I have found the answers for what they ask for what I can see.So what question should I think more about?

How about why did neither the Egyptians nor the Chinese notice a world-wide flood occurring?

Where did the people come from to build the pyramids in Egypt so soon after the flood?

How did fish survive the flood? There is no indication that anything other than air-breathing animals were taken aboard the ark, but fish are very sensitive to changes in pressure and salinity. Neither fresh nor salt-water fish could have survived the mixing of fresh and salt water that had to have occurred during the flood.

How did plants surivie the flood? How could there be an olive tree alive so soon after the waters receded?

What about the fig trees and fig wasps, neither of which can surivive without the other?

And how did we go from (presumably) one species of each to over 900 species of each in the time since the flood, each species of fig and wasp adapted to symbiosis with just one of the 900?

How were koalas fed?

Even if we can`t find every single answer on our questions I believe what it say here in 2 Thimothy 3:16
That have shown many times that the Bible have correct against the science for example about health

I believe in the inspiration of scripture too, but I don't make the mistake of assuming that because scripture is inspired my interpretation of scripture is also God-given. That is a distinction you need to make about your interpretations of scripture. Your assumptions about how scripture should be read have nothing to do with divine inspiration.

 

[Rut]

How about why did neither the Egyptians nor the Chinese notice a world-wide flood occurring?

I suppose you have read alot of books and make up your mind as me.When I have look in the internet I have seen many website against and for the Flood.

Do you mean with this question about Egyptian and Chinese that they say that the flood haven`t been?

When I search for it I find website that said that Egyptian knows about the Flood.They even celebrate the day - 17 Athyr - they say that the flood began that date. I give you a link for that http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/ancientsknew.html

About the Chinese can you go to Wikipedia and search for the deluge. There can you read about the chinese thoughts

I can try to look up you other questions too if you really want that

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Those persons who tell us that the story of Noah’s Ark in Gen. 6-8 is an accurate account of an historic event are faced with two possible choices:

The number of animals aboard the Ark was hundreds of times larger than the number of animals that could possibly have been squeezed into the Ark, let alone be maintained there.

Or:

A few thousand animals evolved in just five or six thousand years to where we now have several hundreds of thousands of species and millions of subspecies! Not even the most fanatical evolutionist that has ever lived has taught that such a rate of evolution was evenly remotely possible (it is thousands of times faster than possible as shown in tens of thousands of studies of speciation), and yet young earth creationists by the millions tell us that evolution is a lie!

Many young earth creationists tell us that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago, and cite as proof of that what they claim to be foot prints of both dinosaurs and people walking around in areas where man had not yet reached until after the time of Noah. If this claim is true, it is incontrovertibly necessary that the dinosaurs that made those foot prints (or their very near ancestors) were aboard the Ark with Noah and his family!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I suppose you have read alot of books and make up your mind as me.When I have look in the internet I have seen many website against and for the Flood.

Do you mean with this question about Egyptian and Chinese that they say that the flood haven`t been?

When I search for it I find website that said that Egyptian knows about the Flood.They even celebrate the day - 17 Athyr - they say that the flood began that date. I give you a link for that http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/ancientsknew.html

About the Chinese can you go to Wikipedia and search for the deluge. There can you read about the chinese thoughts

I can try to look up you other questions too if you really want that

It is true that many ancient stories of floods have come down to us, but when I read these stories I learn that the floods occurred either along rivers or along the coast of an ocean, and that those who survived the floods did so by retreating to higher ground. In some of the stories specific hills are named to which the survivors retreated. These stories do not substantiate the claim of young earth creationists that their particular interpretation of Gen. 6-8 is true; the use of these stories by young earth creationist to defend their particular interpretation of Gen. 6-8, however, shows how desperate they are for some sort of “evidence” that their particular interpretation of Gen. 6-8 is correct.

It is no accident that the vast majority of Old and New Testament scholars today believe that Gen. 6-8 is an epic tale and that over 99.9% of biologists teaching biology today in an accredited college or university teach that the earth is billions of years old.

This reminds me of the “evidence” that the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) uses to “prove” that Jesus was nailed to a stake rather than a cross. The two pieces of evidence that they most commonly cite are the following:

• An illustration in a 17th century book of what they claim to be an illustration of Jesus having been nailed to a stake. However, when we look at the illustration in the book, we find that the author of the book does NOT say that the illustration is of Jesus. Indeed, the book includes another illustration of a man who has been nailed to a cross and the author of the book says that it is an illustration of the crucifixion of Jesus. In other words, the “evidence” is not real and the Watchtower Society knows for a fact that it is not real and is willfully and deliberately deceiving their readers.

• The Watchtower Societ, in their literature, quotes the following words from the first edition (1957) of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Christian Literature, “σταυρὸν….’upright, pointed stake’ or ‘pale.’” The Greek word σταυρὸν is the word translated ‘cross’ in our English Bibles, but what the Watchtower Society does not tell you is that if we open that lexicon to page 772 where the quote is taken from, the lexicon is citing the use of the word by Homer and other pre-Christian writers and on the very same page, for more than a very long column of highly-abbreviated small type, the lexicon cites numerous Christian writers using the word σταυρὸν, NOT in the sense of a stake, but of a “cross.” Therefore we know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that the Watchtower Society had the truth right in front of them and that, rather than tell their readers the truth, they chose to willfully and deliberately deceive them.

In other threads I have posted examples of where young earth creationist organizations have employed the same dishonest tactics of the Watchtower Society. Indeed, they are willing to go to whatever dishonest means they believe are necessary to defend their particular interpretation of Gen. 1-11.