Josephus Talks About Noah's Flood

If Noah's Flood were a real event (which it was), it would be an understatement to say it was a significant event in history. Only the eight members of Noah's family who were on the Ark survived the Flood but no doubt they would have told their children about the event. Such a remarkable event would certainly be told and retold generation after generation so that, even centuries after the Flood, everyone in the young world would know about the Flood even if they didn't experience the Flood. We could even predict that every ancient culture would include some account of this Flood in its lore. That's exactly what we find.

The ubiquity of Flood legends isn't just the topic of modern creationists. At least one ancient historian noticed the same thing. In his book, The Antiquities of the Jews, 1^st century, Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus penned this paragraph:

Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berossus the Chaldean. For when he was describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said, there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets, for the averting of mischiefs."--Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phenician antiquities, and Manases, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicholas of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported, that many who fled at the time of the deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark, came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.

Josephus had a lot to say about Noah and other characters attested in the Bible. Being Jewish himself, a lot of what he said is simply his retelling of the events from the Bible. What is significant about this passage is that he takes note of how other, non-Jewish historians corroborate details of the Flood revealed in the Bible – namely that there was a great deluge, that a man survived in an Ark, and that the Ark came to rest in the mountains.

Josephus did not know about the Australian aborigines or American Indians. He wasn't familiar with the Aztecs or Incas. I'm not even sure how much he new about the people of the Far east. But he understood that the many Flood legends among the western cultures gave weight to its authenticity. As western civilization made it's way into the entire world, we've discovered many more Flood legends among even remote populations everywhere in the world. What Josephus knew then is even more true today. The number of Flood legends among so many cultures strongly suggests it was a real event in history.

The Crack Pots are Liberals

Just recently, I had a light-hearted discussion about the statistical fact that believers in UFO's and Big Foot are usually evolutionists. It was a half-joke in response to the common claim that creationists are crack pots who subscribe to junk science.

So, Brian Ross, a “reporter” for the alternative news outlet, ABC, is on the air talking about the CO shooting when he carelessly makes a tenuous connection between Jim Holmes and the Tea Party. You can see the irresponsible statements in this video.

There's something familiar about comments like this. It reminds me of how evolutionists call creationists, “crack pots.” I've noticed that whenever fringe nuts commit crimes, there is a usual response among left-wing “reporters” to quickly blame conservative groups and radio talk show hosts for inciting the incident with their “hateful rhetoric.” Do you remember the calls to tone down the rhetoric after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford? I recall they blamed Sarah Palin for having bulls-eyes over certain congressional districts on her website. The funny thing is that these early, careless reports always turn out to be wrong. The Jim Holmes who is a member of the Tea Party is not the same Jim Holmes who murdered a dozen people in the CO movie theater. The man who shot Rep. Gifford was not political and likely never even visited Sarah Palin's website.

But let's pause for a moment and think about this. What if Holmes really had been a member of the Tea Party? What does that mean? Does that suddenly make the Tea Party a terrorist group? Holmes was also once a PhD student at the University of Colorado. Does that mean the University of Colorado is a terrorist group? Any attempt to link Holmes to any conservative group is nothing more than a pitiful, guilt-by-association argument.

Liberals should think twice before trying to make a connection between Holmes' crime and his religious or political associations. I've seen the pictures and videos of Holmes. I'm not a professional, criminal profiler or anything but let me tell you what I think about Holmes. He doesn't strike me as the church-going type. I would guess he's more likely an atheist or at least he's non-religious. He probably doesn't vote but, if he does, I would wager that he's registered as a Democrat. He has not attended any Tea Party rallies but I suspect he's sympathetic to the Occupy Movement (Occupy seems especially popular among young, college students).  I'll bet he has expressed concerns over global warming and believes we should raise taxes on the rich.  He's not a member of the NRA. He doesn't hunt or fish. He's not a Ditto Head.  I am also 100% sure he is not a young earth creationist but is, instead, an evolutionist. Does anyone think I'm wrong on any of these points?

I think that liberals' attempts to label extremists as “right wing” are red herrings to move the subject away from the truth – that the nuts are usually liberals. Oh, by the way, I did a search of Obama donors and found that there was a James Holmes who gave to Obama's campaign in 2008. Now, I'm not sure if this is the same Jim Holmes who committed the shootings but....

Why Doesn't God Just Show Himself?

Critics of Christianity have often asked, Why doesn't God just show Himself and prove He exists? This is often asked by the controversial and irreverent comedian, Bill Maher. The question is flawed on many levels but the critics must think it's clever so they continue to ask it. I thought I'd take a moment and explore it's many failings.

Questions like this have a sort of doubting-Thomas feel to them. Thomas, you will recall, refused to believe in the resurrection of Jesus until he saw the risen Savior for himself. He was fortunate because Jesus did appear to Thomas prompting him to exclaim, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). It seems natural to think that if God appeared to anyone then that person would believe. Thomas saw and believed but Jesus said that those who believe without seeing would be even more blessed. I certainly look forward to seeing Jesus but so much evidence exists for His life and resurrection that I don't need to wait until I see Him to believe.

When answering this question, we must first remember that God is under no obligation to appear to us. He has already given us His revelation in the form of the Bible. There is nothing else we need in order to know how to be saved. The Bible itself attests that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). If someone wishes to ignore the written word of God and insist that God appear to him personally, then that is his loss (and a very great loss it is).

However, even though God has no obligation to appear to us, He already has! John 1:14 says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” While on earth, Jesus gave us many signs and miracles as evidence of who He was, He told us He was the only way to the Father, He promised eternal life to everyone who believed in Him, and we have the written record of His words and miracles. What more exactly do these people want? Do they expect Jesus to appear every couple of years just to remind everyone that He is real and meant what He said?

Even if Jesus appeared on earth right now, I don't believe that would be enough to convince the skeptic anyway. At His first appearance, many of the people who heard His words and saw His miracles still not believe (John 12:37). Even the Pharisees, as they mocked Jesus on the cross said, “If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him” (Matthew 27:42). Yet when Jesus appeared alive again after His death, their first act was not to repent and believe but to cover up His resurrection (Matthew 28:13). God appeared to these 1^st century Jews and proved who He was through many miracles culminating in His resurrection. Even so, many witnesses still did not believe in Him. I suspect the same would be true today.

Additionally, we know that His one death on the cross was sufficient to atone for every sin (Romans 6:10, Romans 7:27). Therefore, there will be no more incarnations of the same kind as the last one. Someday, though, there will be a glorious appearance of Jesus. At that time, every knee will bow to Him and every tongue shall confess to God (Romans 14:11). Unfortunately, it will be too late then for the non-believers. How sad.

Finally, what is the significance of Jesus not appearing now? There's a subtle implication that God doesn't appear because He isn't real. That's laughable. He did appear and we have the written record of His appearance; we simply were not alive during the time of His ministry on earth. So what if He doesn't appear now? You might as well ask why neither Augusta Caesar nor George Washington appear. What would be the point? Are Caesar and Washington imaginary? I only know these people existed because of the written evidence we have of them. Am I to believe that these critics do not believe in any person they have not seen personally? Yet incredibly, they claim it makes more sense to believe that Jesus doesn't appear to us because He is imaginary!

They Hear Not Moses and the Prophets

And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house — for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Luke 16:27-31

When Jesus spoke this account of Lazarus and the Rich Man, He ended it with a very compelling point: if people do not believe the writings of Moses or the prophets (i.e. the Old Testament), they will not believe even if someone rose from the dead. Of course, there is someone who rose from the dead – Jesus – and there are people who do not believe in Him because they do not believe Moses and the prophets.

A friend of mine posted a link on FaceBook which demonstrates this principle. A 'riches to rags' story in the Christian Post talks about a former Methodist pastor who lost her faith and has now become the public relations director for the American Atheists. In her own words, her descent into disbelief began with her doubts about the Bible. Read this quote from the article:

“There are basically four steps that occurred over a long period of time. One was the contradictory nature of the Bible; the lack of scientific or historical foundation or accuracy, which took me a very, very long time to come to terms with. That was the starting point I guess when I realized that that wasn't true, that the Bible wasn't true.”

So we have an example straight from the horse's mouth as it were. Her decision to embrace atheism began with a rejection of the Bible. It's the Garden of Eden all over again where Eve has believed the lies of the serpent (read this post).

I wonder exactly when this lady began to have her doubts. She only said it was a “very, very gradual” process.  Since she specifically mentions the “scientific” foundation of the Bible, I assume much of her confusion stemmed from evolution and creation. Did she ever ask anyone, “what about evolution?” I wonder what she was told. Was she given any answers or was she only told, “That's not important”? What's worse is that she might have been told, “You don't have to believe that part of the Bible.”

If the church is interested in reaching people, the issue of evolution has to be met head on. I would say that a belief in evolution is the number one obstacle preventing people in the US from accepting Jesus. Sadly, the subject receives barely a mention. The issue of origins is often considered “controversial” and so is avoided too frequently. It's simply not discussed out of fear of offending. When asked about the subject, weak church leaders will hide behind the justification that the correct interpretation of Genesis isn't relevant to salvation. To that I would say that a belief in creation may not be a requirement of salvation but it's far from irrelevant. Jesus convincingly demonstrated that there is a direct correlation between a belief in the Old Testament and a belief in Him.