Is the Genesis flood account plagiarized?

Floyd Rogers

Let’s consider some universal things.  For example, everyone eats. When ancient people learned how to write, they recorded stories about every part of life including stories about people eating. Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to conclude that whomever was the first to make a written record of people eating must have invented eating? Is this rather absurd assumption any different than the presupposition made by those who claim the flood account originated with an author that pre-dates Genesis.

Other cultures may have written down flood stories that pre-date our oldest copies of Genesis, but this only indicates they were the first to write it down.  After all, Genesis records a flood that happened when the earliest humans walked the earth, possibly before anyone had written language. Isn’t it interesting that cultures from the Mesopotamians to the Mayans have written stories of a great flood? It’s what you would expect to find the flood were an oral tradition handed down to all descendants no matter how far apart they eventually settled.

What are your thoughts?

The Perry’s announce changes

STAFF

The Perrys announced Monday the addition of Scott Brand as lead singer and new baritone Austin Olvey.

Scott, a native of Lineville, Alabama, is a former member of Gold City and has toured with Ernie Dawson and Heirline.

“Libbi and I have been friends a long time and it’s a great honor to not only be apart of a 50 year old rich legacy but be on stage with one of the greatest voices that has ever stepped on a gospel stage! The future is very bright and I’m looking forward to what God has planned for me and for The Perrys,” said Scott.

Austin is from Chattagnooga, TN. He says he’s always dreamed of singing with a group like the Perrys since he was a child.

“The Bible says, if you delight yuorself in the Lord, He will give you the desires of your heart. He is faithful and has kept His promises,” said Austin.

The first date with the new members is August 6 in the US.

Something that leaves Hitchens’ Razor a little rusty

FLOYD ROGERS

Christopher Hitchens wrote, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” Hitchens was speaking of God. While I have never disagreed with the logic of his statement, I do disagree with his presupposition that millions of people having the same experience is not evidence worth exploring. I also disagree with the apparent presupposition that evidence and proof are the same thing. These presuppositions leave Hitchens’ Razor a bit rusty.

There is a very big difference between lack of evidence and rejection of evidence. A person who knows something because of his or her experience may not be able to prove it to me. Their experience is no less evidence than testimony in a courtroom. One person’s experience is very weak evidence.  But if millions of others report the same experience, it shouldn’t be dismissed so easily. A good example would be that I can never know what it’s like to be an African American woman.  She may describe to me what it feels like to be the target of discrimination, she may show me data that indicates she has been discriminated against, but I will never KNOW what it’s like to have that experience. All I can know is her (and other’s) testimony.  And it would be wrong for me to presuppose that her experience must be a delusion; and therefore, something to be dismissed without investigation. Millions of people having the same experience is evidence worth exploring, but not proof. Proof is something totally different.

There is a big difference between proof and evidence. We certainly wouldn’t spend billions of dollars on the search for extraterrestrial life if evidence and proof were the same thing. Conditions are what we would expect them to be if there is life on other planets; Therefore, we search for life based on this evidence. Oxford says evidence is, “The AVAILABLE body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”  Evidence remains evidence unless it is proven or demonstrated to be the result of a rival causal factor. 

I have no way to prove God’s presence or absence if the only way to know Him is through a faith given as a gift to those who will accept it. It would not be rational to claim that those who say they have this experience are mistaken unless I can demonstrate a rival cause for their experience.  Oddly enough, if one “believes” that other people’s faith is just wishful thinking then they too have a faith unless they can prove the other’s are in error. Let me be very clear here: I did not say the other people’s faith is true because I cannot claim it to be false.  I said the proposition that their faith must be false because they cannot prove it is not rational.  The only rational claim in that situation would be, “I don’t know.”