{"id":57973,"date":"2021-07-02T11:07:16","date_gmt":"2021-07-02T15:07:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=57973"},"modified":"2021-07-03T19:13:45","modified_gmt":"2021-07-03T23:13:45","slug":"pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html","title":{"rendered":"Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/p>\n

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page<\/a>\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

I am replying to Pearce\u2019s paper,\u00a0Armstrong, the Genesis Flood Contradictions and Multiple Sources<\/a> (7-2-21), which in turn was a response to my Pearce\u2019s Potshots #36: Noah\u2019s Flood: 40 or 150 Days or Neither?<\/a> (7-1-21).<\/p>\n

As is obvious from the title of my previous paper, I didn\u2019t set out to refute or even engage the Documentary Hypothesis (DH): which (full disclosure, if it isn\u2019t obvious) I reject. I simply provided three critical papers of mine: one being a collection of links. My point of view could be set forth without reference to whatever position one holds on the DH, because it was claimed that contradictions existed in the biblical text (i.e., however constructed or by whom) as to the length of Noah\u2019s Flood.<\/p>\n

A person who accepts the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (as I do, and as the Catholic Church does) think that it doesn\u2019t contradict whether or not some form of DH is true and an accurate understanding of the Pentateuch \/ Torah. Thus, all his carping on about DH is perfectly irrelevant to my argument. I specifically chose one part of his argument: the claim of contradiction. Pearce wrote in his paper that I responded to:<\/p>\n

[I]n one part of Genesis the flood is 40 days and nights, and in another it is 150 days. These sorts of contradictions<\/em><\/strong> . . . [my bolding and italics]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In his present paper he refers back to this:<\/p>\n

I posted a quick, \u201cLook, here\u2019s a biblical Genesis flood contradiction, and it\u2019s one of the famous ones for illustrating the multiple source issue\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

He assumes<\/em> it is a contradiction and then proposes that multiple authorship (good ol\u2019 DH) can explain the \u201ccontradiction.\u201d Like the socratic that I am, I go right to the premise.\u00a0I deny<\/strong> that the contradiction is present<\/strong> in the text in the first<\/strong> place<\/em>. That\u2019s a matter of logic and exegesis, not elaborate, wildly speculative and subjective theorizing as to authorship. Two texts can contradict whether one author wrote them or two. They can also be logically consistent\u00a0whether one author wrote them or two. Therefore, the question of DH is, to repeat, a non sequitur<\/em> in relation to the very particular, specific argument I was making.<\/p>\n

But I do want to briefly address one arrogant charge and falsehood that Pearce throws out:<\/p>\n

[N]o serious Pentateuchal scholar adheres to the mosaic authorship and single-source proposal for the Pentateuch.\u00a0I have listened to countless scholars attest to this. No conference, no symposium, no meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature\u00a0entails any scholar advocating for mosaic authorship or a single source of the Pentateuch. It just doesn\u2019t happen.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet the view of Mosaic authorship is very common. In apologetics only. There is a vast chasm that separates serious Hebrew Bible scholarship and Christian apologetics.<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the articles I linked to in my collection of critical articles about the DH was \u201cThe Documentary Hypothesis\u201d<\/a> (Alice C. Linsley, Just Genesis, 1-11-10). She writes:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

The Documentary Hypothesis was the topic of heated discussion recently at Stand Firm. A priest made this this facile comment:<\/p>\n

But the overwhelming consensus of modern scholars is that the Pentateuch is indeed a composite of multiple traditions, coming from a wide variety of times and places and reflecting a considerable variety of theological viewpoints and group interests.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To which a a layman, Michael A. responded:<\/p>\n

The more I thought about this, the more irritated I became, because it is such typical liberal humbug: \u201cThis is what everyone is thinking don\u2019t question it\u201d. Yet it is quite untrue \u2013 *numerous* scholars reject the documentary hypothesis. I assembled a quick list, broken down into (a) liberals or other; (b) jewish (a huge field of scholars that the liberals always ignore); and (c) conservative christian:<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(a) liberal or other<\/b><\/p>\n

*Rolf Rendtdorff \u201cproblems of process of transmission in the Pentateuch\u201d, trans English 1977<\/p>\n

*R.N. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch 1995.<\/p>\n

*Whybray acidly comments: \u201cThere is at the present moment no consensus whatever about when, why, how, and through whom the Pentateuch reached its present form, and opinions about the dates of composition of its various parts differ by more than five hundred years.\u201d<\/p>\n

*Kikawada, Isaac M. and A. Quinn. Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11. Nashville: Abingdon, 1985.<\/p>\n

*Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions, 2008 [This is a huge and detailed study on the subject]<\/p>\n

*Literally from left field are scholars like Gmirkin in \u201cBerossus and Genesis\u201d 2006 who argues that the entire Pentateuch was written in the 3rd century BC! Obviously his position is radically different to mine (I believe it was written\/edited by Moses, as Jesus said). Yet the end result is the same: Gmirkin rejects the documentary hypothesis.<\/p>\n

(b) Jewish<\/b><\/p>\n

*Umberto Cassuto completely debunked the DH. His \u201cThe Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch\u201d is still highly recommended reading (1966 in english)<\/p>\n

*Yehezkel Kaufmann (1950s)<\/p>\n

*Cyrus H. Gordon (1960s)<\/p>\n

There are plenty of recent Jewish scholars who reject the Documentary Hypothesis:<\/p>\n

*Dr. Yohanan Aharoni<\/p>\n

*Amos Hakham<\/p>\n

*Rabbi Dr Joshua Berman<\/p>\n

*Rabbi Yosef Reinman<\/p>\n

(c)\u00a0Conservative christian<\/b><\/p>\n

*John Bimson<\/p>\n

*Bryant Wood<\/p>\n

*Colin Smith<\/p>\n

*R.K. Harrison, An Introduction To The Old Testament 1970<\/p>\n

*K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient And The Old Testament 1966<\/p>\n

*Gleason Archer (d. 2004) of Fuller and Trinity.<\/p>\n

*Walter Kaiser of Gordon-Conwell<\/p>\n

*Ronald F. Youngblood<\/p>\n

*James Orr, The Problems of the Old Testament<\/p>\n

*R.W.L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament<\/p>\n

*J Gordon McConville<\/p>\n

*T Desmond Alexander<\/p>\n

*Edwin Yamauchi<\/p>\n

*Prof. Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History 1969<\/p>\n

*Prof. Randall W. Younker, 1999<\/p>\n

*Duane A. Garrett 1991.<\/p>\n

*Derek Kidner, Commentary on Genesis<\/p>\n

*J Harold Greenlee<\/p>\n

*Prof. Claude Mariottini<\/p>\n

*Joseph Blenkinsopp 1995.<\/p>\n

*McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 1988<\/p>\n

Liberal scholars are of course unaware of any of these, in their intellectual ghetto. Go figure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Catholic writer Mark Shea provided (in 2002: link unable to be found) a\u00a0funny satire\u00a0on Documentary Theory, using\u00a0The Lord of the Rings<\/i>:<\/p>\n

One standard staple of biblical criticism for the past century has been the theory that the Old Testament isn\u2019t composed of \u201cbooks\u201d that somebody \u201cwrote\u201d but is instead a pastische of \u201csources\u201d that religio political factions \u201cassembled\u201d. If you find yourself thinking \u201cOnly an academic\u2013and a German one\u2013could suppose that the foundational literature of Western civilization could be pasted together by a committee and only an academic\u2013and a German one\u2013could suppose that you find out what the text really means by dissolving it in the acid bath of deconstruction to tease out the supposedly original Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P) and Deuteronomic (D) sources\u201d, you\u2019re right. The theory has run into trouble (since nobody seems to agree on which cut n paste fragments belong to which source and nobody knows why the editors who allegedly stuck all these sources together did what they did. But, as with pure naturalistic theories of evolution, your task is to shut up and bow to your superiors, not ask obvious questions.<\/p>\n

In the spirit of redaction criticism, Bruce Baugh now offers some preliminary theories on the variation in sources used by the makers of the Two Towers. I think he\u2019s on to something. Jackson is clearly operating from Rohanian sources for purely political reasons. Truly educated people can see these things right off the bat. It\u2019s obvious to any thinking person that the whole \u201cTolkien Authorship Myth\u201d must go. The Lord of the Rings was not \u201cwritten\u201d by a so-called \u201cauthor\u201d named \u201cTolkien\u201d. Rather, it is a final redaction of sources ranging from the Red Book of Westmarch, to Elvish Chronicles, to Gondorian records, to tales of Rohirrim which were only transcribed centuries later. The various pressure groups which preserved these stories all had their own agendas. For instance, the Gondorian records clearly seek to elevate the claims of the Aragorn monarchy over the house of Denethor. So the record has been sanitized. Indeed, many scholars now believe the \u201cFaramir being healed by Aragorn\u201d doublet of the \u201cFrodo being helped by Aragorn\u201d is a sanitized version of the\u00a0murder<\/i>\u00a0of Denethor by Aragorn through the administration of poison. \u201cFaramir\u201d never existed and is a corruption of \u201cBoromir\u201d, who died under uncertain circumstances in the wilderness. Since the scenes of Aragorn healing \u201cFrodo\u201d also take place in the wilderness, most scholars conclude that \u201cFrodo\u201d is a mythic echo of Boromir, whose quest for Power is like Aragorn\u2019s quest for the Throne. Perhaps, Boromir was one of Aragorn\u2019s first victims. Of course, the whole \u201cRing\u201d motif appears in countless folk tales and is to be discounted altogether. The real \u201cWar of the Ring\u201d was doubtless some small tribal dispute that was exaggerated by bardic sources, much like the Exodus or the Fall of Troy. Gandalf appears to have been some sort of shamanistic figure, introduced to the Narrative by W (the Westmarch source) out of deference to local Shire cultic practice.<\/p>\n

Rohan seems to have been of much help to the establishment of the Aragorn monarchy and so R sources find their way into the final version of the LOTR narrative, but greatly altered so as to give Theoden a subordinate role. Meanwhile, we can only guess at the Sauron and Saruman sources, since they seem to have been destroyed by the victors and give a wholly negative view of these doubtlessly complex, warm, human and many-sided figures. Scholars now know, of course, that the identification of Sauron with \u201cpure evil\u201d is simply wrong. Indeed, many scholars have become quite fond of Sauron and are searching the records with a growing passion and zeal for any lore connected with the making of the One Ring. \u201cIt\u2019s all nonsense, of course,\u201d says Dr. Gol M. Smeagol, \u201cThere never was such a Ring. Still\u2026 I\u2026 should\u2026 very much like to have a look at it. Just for scholarly purposes of course.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

That noted, we move on.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I am supremely confident in what I am claiming, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Excellent! Then maybe he will interact point-by-point with my argument this time: a thing that he scarcely did in this<\/em> paper.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Perhaps I am just really bad at this. I apologise to you all.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I appreciate it. That\u2019s much more likely. He\u2019s a prisoner of his own relentlessly false presuppositions.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Armstrong, in looking for some \u201cwin scenario\u201d took on the simple claim of the flood lasting 40 days and nights vs 150 days and went with it, broadly writing a piece on how the rains lasted forty days but the flood took 150 days to recede, so there is no contradiction,<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Yes I did. That was my issue. I pick out things that can be objectively discussed<\/em><\/strong>, as matters of logic (+ exegesis, if required) or fact. This was one such item. I have a long history of dealing with alleged biblical contradictions, as Pearce himself is, I think, well aware.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
and isn\u2019t Pearce rubbish\u2026<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Not Pearce, just many of his nonsensical and incoherent or factually dubious arguments.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n

The thing is, I\u00a0have\u00a0<\/em>to respond because there will be lurkers here who might want to know how to respond to things like this.<\/span><\/p>\n

How kind and considerate of him.<\/p>\n

What he failed to quote was some in-between bits. But before we get onto that, literally look at his own quote:<\/span><\/p>\n

Genesis 8:3-4<\/strong>\u00a0and the waters\u00a0receded\u00a0from the earth continually.\u00a0At the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters had abated;\u00a0[4]\u00a0and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ar\u2019arat.<\/p>\n

Genesis 8:5<\/strong>\u00a0And\u00a0the waters continued to abate until the tenth month;\u00a0in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This makes no sense. The waters abated\u00a0at the end of\u00a0<\/i>150 days.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, after 150 days they reached their highest level and started to recede. \u201cAbate\u201d according to Dictionary.com<\/em><\/a> means \u201cto reduce in amount, degree, intensity, etc.;\u00a0lessen;\u00a0diminish:\u201d It doesn\u2019t mean \u201cdisappear.\u201d Likewise, the Hebrew word\u00a0cha\u0302se\u0302r<\/em> (\u201cabate\u201d in Gen 8:3; Strong\u2019s word #2637<\/a>) means, in this instance, \u201cto fail, to be lessened\u201d: according to Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon<\/em><\/a>: a standard Hebrew linguistic reference.<\/p>\n

Various English translations of Genesis 8:3 more clearly indicate that the waters just started<\/em> the process of receding after 150 days. They weren\u2019t totally gone (hence, the passage is not saying that the entire Flood was over, with all the additional flood water on the earth\u2019s surface totally gone):<\/p>\n

NIV<\/strong> . . .\u00a0At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,<\/p>\n

NKJV<\/strong> . . .\u00a0At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.<\/p>\n

NASB<\/strong> . . .\u00a0at the end of 150 days the water decreased.<\/p>\n

Amplified Bible<\/strong> . . .\u00a0At the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters had diminished.<\/p>\n

ASV<\/strong> . . .\u00a0after the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.<\/p>\n

Douay-Rheims<\/strong> . . .\u00a0and they began to be abated after a hundred and fifty days.<\/p>\n

JPS Tanakh 1917<\/strong>\u00a0. . .\u00a0<\/span>after the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.<\/p>\n

Knox<\/strong> . . . beginning to abate, now that the hundred and fifty days were over.<\/p>\n

Moffatt<\/strong> . . . began to subside . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Armstrong has quoted himself into a corner! This is precisely what the DH\/SH solve.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, we have a verse that he did include, but didn\u2019t dwell on. I use, always where possible, the NASB as a Bible translation as it is renowned as the most accurate. Here is Genesis 7:17:<\/span><\/p>\n

17\u00a0<\/sup>Then\u00a0the flood\u00a0[l<\/a>]<\/sup>came upon the earth for\u00a0forty days<\/strong>, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The footnote for the \u201cflood came\u201d is that is can be translated as \u201cit was\u201d. So, here we have the flood was \u201cupon the earth for forty days\u201d. NOT, it rained for forty days, but \u201cit was upon the earth for forty days\u201d and \u201cit lifted up the ark\u201d. The waters lifted up the ark for forty days, not the rain from above.<\/span><\/div>\n

We\u00a0know\u00a0<\/em>this is a differentiation from the idea of it raining for forty days because Genesis 7:12, from which 17 is an idea continuation, states:<\/span><\/p>\n

12\u00a0<\/sup>The rain\u00a0[i<\/a>]<\/sup>fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let\u2019s put them together:<\/span><\/p>\n

12\u00a0<\/sup>The rain\u00a0[i<\/a>]<\/sup>fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.<\/span><\/p>\n

17\u00a0<\/sup>Then<\/strong>\u00a0the flood\u00a0[l<\/a>]<\/span>came upon the earth for\u00a0forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At most, at best for Dave, we have a 40-day rain and then a 40-day flood (80 days in total).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This is just silly. Plainly, in context, this particular use of flood<\/em> was synonymous with the forty days of rain. Hence, some Bible translations make this equation crystal-clear:<\/p>\n

Knox<\/strong> For forty days that flood came down on the earth . . .<\/p>\n

Moffatt<\/strong> For forty days and forty nights rain fell upon the earth . . .<\/p>\n

Amplified Bible<\/strong> The flood [that is, the downpour of rain] was forty days . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pearce tries to play with cross-referencing to force the larger text to fit into his erroneous schema, by asserting that Genesis 7:12 and 7:17 differentiate \u201crain\u201d and \u201cflood\u201d (even though both refer to forty days). I could just as well do cross-referencing with regard to \u201cwaters\u201d \/ \u201cwater.\u201d After all, 7:17 refers to \u201cthe flood\u201d and then appears to equate<\/em> this with \u201cthe water increased\u201d (as opposed to saying \u201cthen it subsided\u201d or \u201cthen it dried up\u201d). In Pearce\u2019s ridiculous, contrived, and mythical 80-day Flood, the water would have to dry up<\/em> after the second forty-day period referred to in 7:17. But it does not do so. Rather, \u201cthe water [\u201cwaters\u201d in RSV] increased<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In fact, \u201cflood\u201d and \u201cwater[s]\u201d appear together, in a synonymous use<\/em> seven times in RSV, in Genesis 6, 7, and 9 (including 7:17):<\/p>\n

\u201cflood of waters\u201d: 6:17; 7:6<\/p>\n

\u201cwaters of the flood\u201d: 7:7, 10<\/p>\n

\u201cThe\u00a0flood\u00a0. . . the waters increased\u201d: 7:17<\/p>\n

\u201cwaters of a flood\u201d: 9:11<\/p>\n

\u201cthe waters shall never again become a\u00a0flood\u00a0to destroy all flesh\u201d: 9:15<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If we are to consult immediate context, Genesis 7:18-20, 24 repeat four times that \u201cthe waters prevailed\u201d: with 7:24 adding that they did so \u201ca hundred and fifty days\u201d (not forty or eighty!). It was after 150 days that the waters \u201csubsided\u201d (8:1), \u201creceded from the earth continually\u201d (8:3) and \u201cabated\u201d (8:3). They\u00a0\u201ccontinued to abate until the tenth month\u201d (8:5), which was the eighth month after it started to rain (see 7:11). The waters didn\u2019t totally<\/em> dry up till \u201cthe first month, the first day of the month\u201d: when \u201cthe waters were dried from off the earth; . . . the face of the ground was dry\u201d (8:13). This was about ten-and-a-half months from the beginning of the torrential rains, and it was when the Flood ended, in any reasonable reading of the plain texts.<\/p>\n

Therefore, Pearce\u2019s \u201cexegesis\u201d (or I should say, eisegesis) is atrocious, as always. He sees only what he wants<\/em> to see, and this is the hallmark of all skeptical, hostile, hyper-rational \u201ccan\u2019t see the forest for the trees\u201d eisegesis and Bible \u201cinterpretation\u201d [choke] from those who approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog: big knife in hand.<\/p>\n

Now let\u2019s see the in-between bit he forgot to quote:<\/span><\/p>\n

Genesis 8:6:<\/strong>6\u00a0<\/sup>After forty days\u00a0Noah opened a window he had made in the ark<\/span>\u00a07\u00a0<\/sup>and sent out a raven,\u00a0and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.<\/span>\u00a08\u00a0<\/sup>Then he sent out a dove\u00a0to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So,\u00a0next<\/em>, he opens the window after the fortieth day! How convenient Armstrong forgot this.<\/span><\/p>\n

Genesis 8:6: \u201cAt the end of forty days\u201d (RSV) is not forty days after the beginning<\/em> of the Flood, but forty days after the time mentioned in the previous verse: \u201d\u00a0in the tenth month, on the first day of the month . . .\u201d That\u2019s the context. Then after Noah sent the raven and the dove out, 8:13 asserts: \u201cin the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth\u201d (the end of the Flood).<\/p>\n

Then Pearce tries to smuggle in another alleged pseudo-\u201ccontradiction\u201d having nothing to do with the duration of the Flood:<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s look at the wider context (don\u2019t read the NIV translation as they try to bodge this in utter dishonesty):<\/span><\/p>\n

Genesis 7:2-3:<\/strong>2\u00a0<\/sup>You shall take\u00a0[a<\/a>]<\/sup>with you\u00a0[b<\/a>]<\/sup>seven pairs of every\u00a0clean animal, a male and his female; and two of the animals that are not clean, a male and his female;<\/span>\u00a03\u00a0<\/sup>also of the birds of the sky,\u00a0[c<\/a>]<\/sup>seven pairs, male and female, to keep\u00a0their<\/i>\u00a0[d<\/a>]<\/sup>offspring alive on the face of all the earth.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And:<\/span><\/p>\n

Genesis 6:19:<\/strong>\u00a019\u00a0<\/sup>And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every\u00a0kind<\/i>\u00a0into the ark, to keep\u00a0them<\/i>\u00a0alive with you; they shall be male and female.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What a pointless repetition even if it didn\u2019t contradict.<\/span><\/p>\n

I have dealt with this already:\u00a0Seidensticker Folly #49: Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals<\/a>\u00a0[9-7-20] I have refuted atheist anti-theist Bob \u201cthe Bible Basher\u201d Seidensticker now 72 times<\/a>: without a single peep of a reply.<\/p>\n

Pearce then goes into reams of more analysis of DH (which is utterly beside the point of my paper) and chastises the Bible for \u201cRepetition, redundancy and contradiction\u201d<\/span>. To the contrary, \u201crepetition is a great teacher.\u201d I typed in those words for a Google search<\/a> and tons of stuff came up. Pearce seems oblivious to the possibility that such repetition was a deliberate tactic of one author<\/em>, rather than supposed proof of multiple<\/em> authors. If he wants to see \u201credundancy\u201d Genesis 7:6-13 can\u2019t hold a candle to Psalm 136. It repeats the same phrase: \u201cfor his steadfast love endures for ever\u201d 26 straight times, in as many verses.<\/p>\n

The sad end result (for him) is that Pearce hasn\u2019t refuted a single point of my paper, whereas I have now strengthened and bolstered my argument all the more, which I always do when a challenge is kept up or increased (unless, of course, it is something I have conceded; and I do<\/em> gladly concede where the facts and arguments and evidence warrant it; just as I did in a major way in converting to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism).<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

ADDENDUM: Pearce\u2019s \u201cReply\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ruddy Flood Thing Again. And Armstrong.<\/a> (7-3-21)<\/p>\n

Here, Pearce doesn\u2019t interact with even a single one of my many exegetical arguments<\/strong><\/em> against his charge of contradiction as to the duration of the Flood. He simply repeats endlessly his uncritical praise of the Documentary Hypothesis. At least he was kind enough to include words of mine (seen above, near the beginning) that show how all of this is perfectly irrelevant to my own arguments<\/em><\/strong>, which never were about the Documentary Hypothesis in the first<\/em> place (that\u2019s his<\/em> pet argument, but has nothing<\/em><\/strong> to do with mine<\/em>):<\/p>\n

My point of view could be set forth without reference to whatever position one holds on the DH, because it was claimed that contradictions existed in the biblical text (i.e., however constructed or by whom) as to the length of Noah\u2019s Flood.<\/p>\n

A person who accepts the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (as I do, and as the Catholic Church does) think that it doesn\u2019t contradict whether or not some form of DH is true and an accurate understanding of the Pentateuch \/ Torah. Thus, all his carping on about DH is perfectly irrelevant to my argument. I specifically chose one part of his argument: the claim of contradiction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thank you, Jonathan. If only you could figure out that this renders all of your carping on and on about DH and how supposedly not a single Bible scholar in the history of the universe (with an IQ higher than a pencil eraser) has ever denied it or has been critical of it, null and void. You\u2019re arguing one thing; I\u2019m arguing another. We are literally ships passing in the night.<\/p>\n

[for more on the Documentary Hypothesis, see: Jimmy Akin, \u201cWho Wrote the Books of Moses?\u201d<\/a>, Catholic Answers<\/em>, 1-1-13]<\/p>\n

Rather than engage my exegetical arguments, Pearce \u2014 showing remarkable (and to me, surprising) intellectual cowardice \u2014 decides to opt out with sweeping, unsubstantiated generalities:<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think any of your criticisms of my points hold water. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

If Armstrong seriously thinks he has answered my with his apologetic discourse here, trying to special plead his 40 vs 150 day issue is coherent, he is sadly mistaken. I really have nothing more to say since all of my original points hold. He just hasn\u2019t touched them.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Pearce takes another misguided blank shot:<\/p>\n

And as for the Epic of Gilgamesh, he didn\u2019t even mention it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Because he definitely has nothing to say to that.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s true that I didn\u2019t in this<\/em> paper, because it had nothing whatsoever<\/em> to do with what I was arguing: which was a logical \/ exegetical matter having to do with a few biblical texts in Genesis. And that<\/em> was, of course, why I didn\u2019t deal with it: not Pearce\u2019s wishful mythology that my mouth and mind are sealed shut as to that issue, in abject fear, due to his profoundly unanswerable utterances.<\/p>\n

In fact, I dealt with it several times in my companion-paper, also posted yesterday, along with this present one, in response to someone in his own combox (and announced in the same place):\u00a0Local Flood & Atheist Ignorance of Christian Thought<\/a> (7-2-21; revised a few times today on 7-3-21, as I found some more interesting and relevant material).<\/p>\n

I dealt with it at the very end of the paper, noting that two reputable Protestant scholarly sources that I cited at length and linked to (online versions in their entirety) both addressed the issue. It was in the initial version of the paper before I added material to it and removed some, excepting the very last sentence, that I added today. All<\/em> of it was written before<\/em> I read Pearce\u2019s new article today, making this criticism. Thus, his statement that I allegedly have<\/span> \u201cnothing to say to that\u201d is ridiculous (adding to a long collection of such utterances of his against me \u2014 and the Bible \u2014 and Christianity). Anyway, here is the end section of my \u201cLocal Flood\u201d article from yesterday:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[Baptist theologian Bernard] Ramm [author of The Christian View of Science and Scripture<\/em>] also discusses \u201cThe Babylonian Flood account\u201d on pages 247-249. It can be read online at the link. In the\u00a0International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>,\u00a0George Frederick Wright\u00a0(see the link above) also devotes significant space to it in his sections 9 and 10: for those who want to understand the true nature of the comparison of the Babylonian and biblical accounts. Here are a few striking differences, as elucidated by Wright:<\/p>\n

The dimensions of the ark as given in Ge (6:15) are reasonable, while those of Berosus and the cuneiform tablets are unreasonable. According to Gen, the ark was 300 cubits (562 1\/2 ft.) long, 50 cubits (93 2\/3 ft.) wide, and 30 cubits (56 1\/4 ft.) deep, which are the natural proportions for a ship of that size, being in fact very close to those of the great steamers which are now constructed to cross the Atlantic. The \u201cCeltic\u201d of the White Star line, built in 1901, is 700 ft. long, 75 ft. wide and 49 1\/3 ft. deep. The dimensions of the \u201cGreat Eastern,\u201d built in 1858 (692 ft. long, 83 ft. broad, and 58 ft. deep), are still closer to those of the ark. The cuneiform tablets represent the length, width and depth each as 140 cubits (262 ft.) (II. 22, 23, 38-41), the dimensions of an entirely unseaworthy structure. . . .<\/p>\n

The accounts differ decidedly in the duration of the Flood. According to the ordinary interpretation of the Biblical account, the Deluge continued a year and 17 days; whereas, according to the cuneiform tablets, it lasted only 14 days (II. 103-7, 117-22). . . .<\/p>\n

[T]he duration of the Deluge, according to Genesis, affords opportunity for a gradual progress of events which best accords with scientific conceptions of geological movements. If, as the most probable interpretation would imply, the water began to recede after 150 days from the beginning of the Flood and fell 15 cubits in 74 days, that would only be 3 2\/3 inches per day\u2013a rate which would be imperceptible to an ordinary observer.<\/p>\n

Despite these massive differences,\u00a0(((J_Enigma23)))<\/a><\/span>\u00a0on Pearce\u2019s blog\u00a0wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n

As stated numerous times, the Biblical flood also reads very much like the Flood myth from the\u00a0Epic of Gilgamesh<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Right. The Babylonian ark was 262 feet wide, deep, and long (a giant cube), whereas the biblical ark has similar proportions to actual ocean liners in our time. The biblical Flood lasted over a year, and the waters subsided over seven months\u2019 time. But the Babylonian Flood lasted 14 days. That doesn\u2019t sound \u201cvery much like\u201d to\u00a0me<\/em>. There are several parallels that can be drawn, but having massively different boat descriptions and duration lengths are certainly essential differences.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I have also addressed it (albeit briefly) now and then in my 3600+ apologetics articles through the years. For example, in one of my 46 utterly unanswered refutations<\/a> of atheist David Madison (dated 8-7-19), I wrote:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s often noted that there is a Deluge account in the Epic of Gilgamesh; therefore, this casts doubt on the story of Noah\u2019s Flood. But why\u00a0would<\/em>\u00a0it? Is it not\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0plausible to assert that if in fact (for the sake of argument) such a major Flood had occurred, that other cultures besides Hebrew culture would more likely know about it, rather than not? Say for the sake of argument that the Bible had mentioned Halley\u2019s Comet. We now know that it passes by the earth every 76 years. No doubt many cultures have some written record of observing it. But if the Bible had happened to mention it, it would immediately be suspect because non-Hebrews\u00a0also<\/em>\u00a0wrote about it? Clearly not. . . .<\/p>\n

In fact, Catholic apologist G. K. Chesterton, in his masterpiece,\u00a0The Everlasting Man<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0argued that it is precisely to be\u00a0expected<\/em>, and is an argument\u00a0in favor<\/em>\u00a0of Christianity, that there are many precursors to it: especially in the paganism that flourished in the previous 500 years or so. Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis, in his book,\u00a0The Abolition of Man<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0has a section at the end (\u201cIllustrations of the Tao\u201d) in which he shows (and rejoices in) many similarities of world religions.<\/p>\n

Young Lewis (very much like myself in my teen years) was enthralled with Norse mythology and Wagner\u2019s operas, etc., and was an atheist. He became a theist after a discussion with J. R. R. Tolkien, in which the latter noted that \u201cChristianity was a true myth.\u201d It had never occurred to Lewis that there could be such a thing as a myth that actually\u00a0happened<\/em>. I have written about supposed \u201cpagan elements\u201d in Catholicism: which is a charge that anti-Catholic Protestants often make. It\u2019s fascinating to now see an atheist former Methodist minister use the same fallacious tactic:<\/p>\n

Is Catholicism Half-Pagan?<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Is Catholicism Half-Pagan, & a Blend of Gospel & Lies?<\/a><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I had also dealt with it in an analysis of a deconversion story<\/a>, about four months earlier (3-28-19):<\/p>\n

[words of an atheist, in green<\/span>] One week, he began a 4 part series on the story of Noah and the flood. He came at it from a totally different perspective than I had ever heard or thought of before, and I was enthralled. On the 4th Sunday, he mentioned that there were different interpretations of the story within the church, and he brought up the fact that the flood story actually appeared in earlier writings that were not biblical at all. I was stunned. Could it be true that the bible borrowed the flood story from earlier secular writings (hint: Epic of Gilgamesh)? It was just a fable?<\/span><\/p>\n

Huh<\/em>? The reasoning here is very convoluted. How is it that simply because\u00a0another culture<\/em>\u00a0also had a story of a massive Flood, therefore, somehow it becomes a\u00a0\u201cfable\u201d? Isn\u2019t it much more likely and plausible that an event of such shattering magnitude would be recorded by someone\u00a0besides<\/em>\u00a0the Hebrews? Therefore, the mere presence of a similar story elsewhere is no disproof of the biblical account at all.<\/p>\n

Pagan or heathen parallels or precursors do not necessarily \u201cdisprove\u201d the biblical account. Thus,\u00a0The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(1913) notes how such parallel stories of the Flood,\u00a0confirm<\/em>, rather than disconfirm, the historicity and trustworthiness of the Bible:<\/p>\n

The historicity of the Biblical Flood account is confirmed by the tradition existing in all places and at all times as to the occurrence of a similar catastrophe. F. von Schwarz . . .\u00a0 enumerates sixty-three such Flood stories which are in his opinion independent of the Biblical account. R. Andree . . .\u00a0 discusses eighty-eight different Flood stories, and considers sixty-two of them as independent of the Chaldee and Hebrew tradition. Moreover, these stories extend through all the races of the earth excepting the African; these are excepted, not because it is\u00a0certain\u00a0that they do not possess any Flood traditions, but because their traditions have not as yet been sufficiently investigated. Lenormant pronounces the Flood story as the most universal tradition in the history of primitive man, and Franz Delitzsch was of opinion that we might as well consider the history of Alexander the Great a myth, as to call the Flood tradition a fable. It would, indeed, be a greater\u00a0miracle\u00a0than that of the Deluge itself, if the various and different conditions surrounding the several nations of the earth had produced among them a tradition substantially identical. Opposite causes would have produced the same effect.<\/p>\n

I was deeply shaken to realize that the bible was not the historically accurate document I was always told and completely believed it was.<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know\u00a0why<\/em>. It certainly wasn\u2019t because of the above things mentioned, because that conclusion simply doesn\u2019t follow.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s an awful lot from someone who (according to the inimitable and polemics-prone Jonathan Pearce) supposedly \u201cdefinitely has nothing to say\u201d about the topic, ain\u2019t<\/em> it?\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong>Noah: The Eve of the Deluge<\/i>\u00a0(1848), by John Linnell (1792-1882)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Summary<\/em>:\u00a0Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce invents pseudo-\u201ccontradictions\u201d & engages in lengthy irrelevant diversions on the Documentary Hypothesis, in analyzing the length of Noah\u2019s Flood.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d His words will […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":57976,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[448],"tags":[14090,14087,4121,4129,1043,258,522,1472,1473,525,524,1633,1878,11874,535,140,4107,1362,165,166,167],"class_list":["post-57973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-jews-judaism-old-testament","tag-150-days","tag-40-days-and-40-nights","tag-a-tippling-philosopher","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-anti-theism","tag-atheism","tag-atheist-biblical-exegesis","tag-atheists-the-bible","tag-atheists-theology","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-biblical-skeptics","tag-biblical-theology","tag-deluge","tag-holy-bible","tag-infallibility","tag-jonathan-ms-pearce","tag-noah","tag-noahs-ark","tag-noahs-flood","tag-the-flood"],"yoast_head":"\nPearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce invents pseudo-"contradictions" & engages in lengthy irrelevant diversions on the Documentary Hypothesis, in analyzing the length of Noah's Flood.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce invents pseudo-"contradictions" & engages in lengthy irrelevant diversions on the Documentary Hypothesis, in analyzing the length of Noah's Flood.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-07-02T15:07:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-07-03T23:13:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/07\/FloodEveof.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"423\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html\",\"name\":\"Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-02T15:07:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-07-03T23:13:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce invents pseudo-\\\"contradictions\\\" & engages in lengthy irrelevant diversions on the Documentary Hypothesis, in analyzing the length of Noah's Flood.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux","description":"Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce invents pseudo-\"contradictions\" & engages in lengthy irrelevant diversions on the Documentary Hypothesis, in analyzing the length of Noah's Flood.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux","og_description":"Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce invents pseudo-\"contradictions\" & engages in lengthy irrelevant diversions on the Documentary Hypothesis, in analyzing the length of Noah's Flood.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2021-07-02T15:07:16+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-07-03T23:13:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":423,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/07\/FloodEveof.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html","name":"Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-07-02T15:07:16+00:00","dateModified":"2021-07-03T23:13:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce invents pseudo-\"contradictions\" & engages in lengthy irrelevant diversions on the Documentary Hypothesis, in analyzing the length of Noah's Flood.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/07\/pearces-potshots-37-length-of-noahs-flood-redux.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pearce\u2019s Potshots #37: Length of Noah\u2019s Flood Redux"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57973\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/57976"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}