1). Quote - [Concerning the Genesis flood account] ".....much of it is still obscure."

Rebuttal: Exactly what part of the flood account is obscure? To someone not willing to believe the facts of the story, but rather wanting to re-interpret it according to an evolutionary or symbolic point of view, it might appear as obscure. Otherwise, the account is clear.

2). Claim - Noah lived in the Mesopotamian region [before the flood], between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Rebuttal: This statement ignores some rather obvious facts. For example, no one, Noah and his family included, would have any idea where any pre-flood landmarks were located after the flood, since such a global catastrophe would have totally destroyed and rearranged the earth's topography. So, to state where Noah lived prior to the flood is nothing more than sheer speculation at best, or dishonesty at worst.

3). Claim - The events of the flood occurred some 3,000 years before Christ.

Rebuttal: An adherance to the biblical chronologies would give a date for the flood as 2348 B.C. It is also possible that that date might be somewhat in error, since some of the chronologies delete or add a few individuals. However, this would hardly make up for the 652 year discrepancy given by A&E.

4). Quote - [Speaking of the duration of the flood] " 'Forty days and nights' isn't necessarily forty days and nights. It's merely figurative language which means 'it rained a long time' ."

Rebuttal: This statement is meant to cast doubt on the credibility of the written account as being literally true. A&E attempts to undercut the reliability of Scripture at every turn. Every effort is made to make this global flood appear as a mere local flood, and A&E attempts to allegorize the literal reading of the account without a shred of textual evidence for it. If it really did rain for forty days and nights, how much clearer could the author have made the point?

5). Statements - "Did the events really happen? Did a great cataclysm destroy the world? Did a man called Noah survive it?"

Rebuttal: These questions are designed to plant seeds of doubt in the listener's mind as to the veracity of the Flood account. Flood geologists have shown that a global flood did, in fact, cover the earth at one time, and a mountain of manuscript evidence has shown the Bible to be true (as well as archaeology, prophecy, etc.), which in turn tells of a real Noah who survived a worldwide flood. So, to rehash the above questions is simply ignoring the results of sound scholarship which already exists. Additionally, when one hears the above questions, one is reminded of a similarly worded statement in Genesis 3 - "Did God really say you couldn't eat from any tree in the garden?"

1). Claim - Looking for a literal Ark on Mt. Ararat is compared to looking for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

Rebuttal: If they can associate Noah's Ark with things which most people laugh at or ridicule - such as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster - then their job of hurting the historical reliability of the Flood account is that much easier.

2). Claim - Even though the program names such luminaries as Josephus, the Jewish historian, and Marco Polo as reporting the dicovered Ark, the show states that no sighting has ever been "authenticated".

Rebuttal: In addition to the above names, many other accounts of individuals having seen the Ark have been recorded, including an entire Russian army unit which was sent by the Czar. They climbed the mountain in 1917 and meticulously examined the Ark, according to eyewitnesses. A monastery existed for centuries at the foot of the mountain which is said to have contained relics from the Ark, and steps led up from the monastery to the Ark itself for pilgrims coming to its peak (the monastery and the steps were destroyed in an earthquake in the 19th century). Even wooden planking has been brought down from the top of Mt. Ararat, where no wood ever grows. One wonders what exactly is sufficient evidence for A&E to consider a sighting as "authentic".

3). Quote - [An "expert" on the show speaks as if he were someone who believes there is a literal Ark on the mountains of Ararat] "If I could find the Ark, it would prove the Noah story literally true, and if the Noah story is literally true, then Scripture is literally true."

Rebuttal: This is a classic example of a strawman argument. He misrepresents the Christian's position in order to better destroy or ridicule his belief. First of all, Christians don't believe the Bible is literally true based on the existence of the Ark of Noah. The authenticity of Scripture is based on many things, such as manuscript evidence, prophecy, archaeology, the science of statistical probability, etc. Whether the Ark is ever found on the top of Mt. Ararat in the ice and snow has no bearing on the truth of the Bible.

4). Statement - All fragments of wood brought down from Mt. Ararat allegedly from the Ark have turned out to be hoaxes.

Rebuttal: Once again, such a statement is made without any supporting evidence. The show doesn't say "one" fragment, or "some" fragments - it says "all" fragments of wood brought down from the mountain were forgeries. Many, many fragments and pieces of wood have been brought down from the top of Ararat - where no wood should exist. What evidence is given for them all that they are non-Ark wood? None is given. Perhaps A&E believes that merely saying it makes it so.

5). Quote - ".......most scholars agree that there is no Ark to be found."

Rebuttal: This statement is really the height of arrogance. No creationist or creation scientist is ever quoted or interviewed during the show. No Christian ministry which specializes in the evidences for Genesis - such as the Institute for Creation Research or Answers In Genesis - is asked the opinion of. One wonders if the writers for the program went "shopping" for "experts" who would support their pre-conceived opinions.
    Incidentally, most - if not all - creation scientists I know of believe that an Ark did come to rest in Ararat, and it would not have simply disappeared into thin air, so it would still be there. All A&E had to do was pick up the phone, call ICR, and get this opinion from one of their over 600 affiliated scientists.

6). Claim - The Flood story is really meant to be symbolic - not literal.

Rebuttal: Much can be taken as symbolic with the Flood story, to be sure. But to say that it is all symbolic is to do violence to the text. One basic rule of literary interpretation is that context determines the meaning. The story of Noah is written as real history - not symbolism. Additionally, in the Bible whenever it speaks of something symbolic, it clearly says that it is so (Luke 8:9-11, Rev. 1:19-20, for example).

1). Statement - Genesis 6:18 and 7:2 contradict each other. Were there 7 or 2 of each animal taken on board?

Rebuttal: Just as the Genesis 2 creation account is a detailed look at a specific part of creation week in Genesis 1, so, too, is Genesis 7 a detailed look at the Genesis 6 command to save the animals. The basic, introductory command by God is given in Gen. 6:18 to Noah. Then the instructions are elaborated on in Gen. 7:2. Every animal will have two kinds on board - so in that respect, Gen. 6:18 is true. However, some kinds will have more representatives on board - in addition to the two - such as the clean animals and the birds, which would have seven representatives each. This conclusion is non-contradictory when one takes the whole account into consideration, comparing the texts, and coming to a logical end - which A&E obviously did not do.

2). Statement - There were many versions of Noah's Flood, but in the first century only one was chosen and the others were discarded.

Rebuttal: No evidence is given for this statement. Neither Jesus, the apostles, nor the church fathers ever mentioned "other" versions of Noah's Flood. There are obviously Flood legends in other cultures, which are dim memories of the Flood which Noah and his family survived. This doesn't mean that there were "many" Floods; just many accounts of the same Flood. These "other" versions of Noah's Flood exist only in the biased minds of the A&E writers.

3). Statement - The antediluvians were attributed with long lifespans, not because they actually lived that long, but because people liked their heroes to live to great ages.

Rebuttal: Creation scientists have shown that many factors probably attributed to the great longetivity of the antediluvians, such as a "vapor canopy" which would have shielded people from harmful UV rays, or a massive gene pool (from one spoken language at the time) which would have greatly reduced the chances of inherited diseases and such. But A&E flagrantly disregards the historical record of Genesis in favor of their own contradictory viewpoint - with no supporting evidence for it. Just because other cultures may have manufactured heroes which lived to great ages, doesn't automatically mean that the biblical writers did so as well.
 

1). Assumption - Evolution is repeatedly spoken of on the program as "science".

Rebuttal: This is a common tactic of anti-creationists who want the public to automatically associate "science" with the evolutionary theory. Evolution, being a theory of origins, is not scientific at all, but a philosophy. This is a clever, but deceptive, way to give much-needed credibility to evolution, which is rapidly crumbling as a viable theory.

2). Claim - Fossils require long periods of time (millions of years) for bone to be replaced by minerals. Thus, fossil fish in the desert aren't evidence for a global Flood, but merely a result of millions of years of plate tectonics.

Rebuttal: Creation scientists have shown time and again that animals and plants do not need vast periods of time to turn to fossils. Many well-documented cases exist where animals or organic material have turned to stone very rapidly (see Creation ex nihilo magazine). Water action is primarily what replaces bone with minerals, which turn to stone, and since uniformitarians (evolutionists) deny catastrophism - such as Noah's Flood - which would have produced billions of fossils with such water action, they then assume that long ages are required for fossilization. One can see from the program that it is only the viewpoint of the evolutionist about fossils that is considered.

3). Claim - Geological evidence shows that in the last several thousand years, a global flood has never blanketed the earth.

Rebuttal: A&E is evidently ignorant of the wealth of information dealing with a global flood from the multitude of creationist and scientific organizations around the country and world. It isn't that there exists no evidence for a worldwide Flood, but rather that A&E doesn't wish to present the evidence for a worldwide Flood - in order to promote their evolutionary and anti-Bible agenda.

4). Claim - Though science [i.e. evolution] has shown that there wasn't a global Flood, there might have been a regional flood.

Rebuttal: Ignoring the text of Genesis and the rest of Scripture, A&E once again practices eisegesis (reading into the text) instead of exegesis (reading from the text). Disregarding the historical account altogether, the show re-interprets words such as "all life", "all the high mountains were covered", "the whole earth perished", etc., in favor of the Flood merely being local. The universal language of the Bible in referring to the Deluge couldn't be any clearer to the unbiased mind.

5). Statement - Being only a regional flood, the local inhabitants would think that the entire world was under water.

Rebuttal: While fantasizing about a local flood, A&E imagines the people of Noah's day as dolts who, despite nearly a century of warning of an impending Flood, didn't have the common sense to know a universal flood from a local flood. Why spend nearly a century building a massive Ark, bring two of every kind of animal on earth on board, and spend a year on it, if one could simply spend a day or two traveling to higher ground?

6). Statement - There are many myths and legends of a global deluge, where a few people are saved by the gods.

Rebuttal: This argument is used by A&E to show that the bibilcal Flood was really borrowed from other cultures and incorporated into Old Testament history. However, if there really was a global Flood, then wouldn't it be reasonable that all the peoples of the earth would remember it to varying degrees, and pass the memories of it on to their descendants? Wouldn't Flood legends and stories exist in cultures around the world? And what do we, in fact, find? Flood legends and stories in cultures around the world. Isn't it sensible that all these legends have one event in common?

7). Claim - "The Epic of Gilgamesh" [an ancient account of a global flood] is 1,000 years older than the Noachian account, and thus the story of Noah was "borrowed".

Rebuttal: Though it may be true that Gilgamesh lived much earlier than Moses (who compiled the Flood story), this doesn't mean that the actual event occurred at the time of Moses. Many creationists believe that Moses merely gathered together the records of the events of early Genesis, and that he didn't actually write them. Rather, the lineage of Adam down through Noah did this. If this is the case, then the Noah account predates the Gilgamesh account by several centuries.
    It might also be noted that since Moses compiled the Flood account around 1,000 years after it happened, Gilgamesh was actually recalling the same Flood, which was obviously fresh in the memories of the people of that time.

8). Claim - Not just the story of Noah's Flood, but all of the first 11 chapters of Genesis are borrowed from other cultures.

Rebuttal: This is an absurd statement totally without historical foundation. The Hebrews were avidly monotheistic, which was a radical departure from the polytheistic cultures around them. Yahweh commanded them to be separate from the other corrupt cultures. "Borrowing" stories and legends from pagan societies around them would have been unthinkable to the Hebrews. This assertion of "borrowing" (again) by A&E is another unscholarly attempt to undermine the historicity of the Bible.

9). Statement - 1920's archaeologist Sir Willey, who excavated the remains of the city of Ur, discovered a clay layer 12 feet thick. He announced that this was from the Flood, which he knew would bring in much needed money from publicity for his dig [i.e., he was a shyster]. This "flood", it was discovered, didn't even destroy the entire city.

Rebuttal: The sole purpose of this account by A&E is to discredit any discoveries of thick layers of clay or sediment which some say support a Noachian Flood. Here are the words of one of the premier creation scientists of the 20th century - Dr. Henry Morris:
 

1). Claim - Recorded history begins with Abraham - 10 generations after Noah.

Rebuttal: This statement is meant to cast doubt on the historicity of the Noah's Flood account, since the events couldn't even be recorded for centuries. However, the reader must be reminded that in secular history, the Greek writer Herodotus is known as the "father of history", who lived at the same time as the Old Testament prophets Nehemiah and Malachi, the last of the Old Testament writers!
    Additionally, the Flood would have washed away all traces of any pre-Flood civilizations (reminiscent of Atlantis legends), along with any and all written records, except those which Noah and his family took on board the Ark. Once in the post-Flood world, it would take all the energies of Noah and his family just to survive for a time, and it is from this time period that most of our evidence of the Neolithic and Paleolithic cultures probably come, when people lived in caves and such until civilization could rebuild itself. Written records would be sparse during that time at best, with only a few people scratching out a living, and little would be preserved for us to discover today.
    As stated before, the antediluvians were recorded in Genesis as raising livestock, making and using musical instruments such as harps and flutes, working various metals and practicing metallurgy, as well as being architects proficient enough to be able to build a 450 ft. long, multi-deck Ark. Genesis chapter five also speaks of "written" accounts, implying writing was in existence at that time. Since A&E rejects most, if not all, of Genesis as being real (certainly early Genesis), it's no wonder that they also reject the possibility of writing prior to Abraham, despite the antediluvians' obviously advanced civilization.
 
 

    Far from being an accurate narration of biblical stories in A&E's "Mysteries of the Bible", the show is simply a convenient forum by humanists to discredit and undermine the reliability of the Bible. This should come as no surprise in our day and age, when the United States has by and large rejected the morals and commands of Scripture in favor of humanism and evolutionary, atheistic philosophy, as well as relativistic morality. "Mysteries of the Bible" is a sign of the times, indicative that we as a society have fallen far from the high precepts and upright standards taught in the Bible, which is a real account of human history. As society slides further into moral oblivion, more such decadent shows like A&E's "Mysteries of the Bible" will inevitably emerge in order to destroy the eternal Word of God - the Holy Bible.