The Noah Movie and Andy Walton's Crazy Video

by Credo Quia Absurdum

I went to see the Noah film last week – the one with a cast of major actors including Russell Crowe in the title role.  It’s not the greatest biblical epic ever – but it raised some interesting questions.

The story was somewhat embellished from the familiar one in Genesis – with added monsters and fighting so that it could be given the full Hollywood computer graphics treatment.  I have no particular quibble with making up stuff to add to an already made up tale that the bible writers plagiarised from Sumerian legends, but it did seem contrived to make for more epic scenes. 

As for the story line about Ham’s wife (played by Emma Watson) being firstly barren due to injury, then miraculously healed by Methuselah, and then having twin girls which Noah was intent on killing was, as far as I know, pure film-maker invention – though God commanding the killing of a man’s offspring is not without biblical precedent!

But although the film was pretty bad it wasn't anything like as bad as a video that was brought to my attention on Facebook.

Andy Walton is known to many of us ex-Christadelphians for his inane speculations on his “Weekly World Watch” – where he imagines that the bible predicts today’s news.
He has jumped on the publicity bandwagon in the wake of the release of the Noah film, and the Bible Truth Prophecy Video Vault channel on YouTube has put a recording of his illustrated lecture up for the world to see with the promise that “you will be amazed”!

I am guessing they don’t mean amazed by the ignorance and stupidity on display, but that was what struck me.

Firstly it soon becomes evident that Walton has joined the rush of Christadelphians to become the worst kind of creationist – believing in a young earth and a global flood just four-and-a-half thousand years ago.

He quotes Genesis 7:19-20
“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered”
and claims that this proves that
“…it’s just got to be a world-wide flood - there’s just no other way of us thinking about that…” 
Perhaps that is right – if you think that Bronze Age legends are more to be trusted than the findings of science.

Then he makes the claim that the earth was less lumpy before the flood – the mountains were lower and the valleys higher – and apparently this is confirmed by God in Psalm 104:8 – but only if you read it in the English Standard Version:
“The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.”
He makes a point of thanking God for this revelation which helps to overcome the problem of the impossibly large volume of water needed to cover the globe.

I wonder if he also thanks God for the revelation in the same Psalm that “He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved” or that he made the sky by “stretching out the heavens like a tent” – clearly implying that the earth is flat.

Perhaps he also believes that there could be a tree that could be seen from ALL ends of the earth (Daniel 4) or that there is a mountain so high that ALL the kingdoms of the earth could be surveyed in all their glory (Matthew 4).

It’s just got to be a flat earth – there’s just no other way of thinking about that!

Andy Walton is doing is what Christadelphians are expert at.  Taking a verse out of context, and reading it in a translation that makes it say what he would like it to say, to demonstrate what he already believes.  But there is no way that the psalmist was writing to explain anything scientific – it’s just a poem!  If you want rising mountains and deepening valleys then to be consistent you also have to have a flat earth on unmovable foundations with the heavens stretched out like a tent over it.

Then he gets to the bit that is supposed to amaze us.  He plays part of a video about a man called Walt Brown who dreamed up something he calls hydroplate theory.  This involves the pre-flood earth having a crust that floats on huge subterranean oceans.  The pressure in these oceans eventually caused the crust the crack and break up releasing all the water to flood the earth (this explains the “fountains of the deep”).  This is presented as if Walt Brown is a leading scientific thinker and his ideas are new and revolutionary.

A little bit of research online will quickly show that this is far from the truth.  Walt Brown, a mechanical engineer who had a military career before retirement, first published his hydroplate theory back in the 1980s, and not only is it rightly ignored by the scientific community, it is even considered dubious by other creationists.  Brown seems to have a one-man creationist ministry – perhaps he is a particularly contentious character, who doesn't even get on with other creationists – and his theory is complete fantasy, dreamed up with the sole purpose of clinging on to a literal interpretation of the Genesis flood story in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence that such a thing ever happened.
The fact that Andy Walton presents it as a biblical approach to the Noah story shows just how intellectually bankrupt Christadelphians have become.  There is no excuse for such ignorance!

Mankind has been aware for two centuries that the world is much older than 6000 years and that the story of Noah’s flood is a myth – the evidence for our modern understanding of the earth is overwhelming to everyone except those who have a prior commitment of thinking that the collected legends of the Hebrews organised into text some 2,500 years ago somehow have priority over scientific reason.  For most of their history most Christadelphians have generally taught that the earth is old and the flood was local.  It seems that in the 21st century, they are lurching ever further away from science and reason with the widespread use of the internet to promote extreme biblical literal creationism.

Another nail in the coffin of Christadelphianism?


  1. Just wanted to let you know in the movie Ila (emma watson) is not with ham (Logan Lerman) but with shem (douglas booth).

  2. Hmmm.... why do you think that creationists all think that the earth is only 6000 years old ? Genesis states that in the beginning Hod created the heavens and the earth .... no time line on that. Suggest yo stop making sweeping statements and read the text with an open mind

    1. I agree with John re Genesis 1:1 being a summary.

      See the footnote in the NET:
      "In the beginning. The verse refers to the beginning of the world as we know it; it affirms that it is entirely the product of the creation of God. But there are two ways that this verse can be interpreted: (1) It may be taken to refer to the original act of creation with the rest of the events on the days of creation completing it. This would mean that the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 break the sequence of the creative work of the first day. (2) It may be taken as a summary statement of what the chapter will record, that is, vv. 3-31 are about God’s creating the world as we know it. If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter. To follow this view does not deny that the Bible teaches that God created everything out of nothing (cf. John 1:3) – it simply says that Genesis is not making that affirmation. This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter, when God said, “Let there be light.” The first view includes the description of the primordial state as part of the events of day one. The following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the “heavens/sky” did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and “earth/dry land” did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)."
      (emphasis mine)

      Also note that Genesis 1 tells us exactly what it means by the words "heaven" and "earth".

      In v8, heaven is the name given to the firmament.

      The NET renders the word firmament as "expanse", and provides this footnote:
      "sn An expanse. In the poetic texts the writers envision, among other things, something rather strong and shiny, no doubt influencing the traditional translation “firmament” (cf. NRSV “dome”). Job 37:18 refers to the skies poured out like a molten mirror. Dan 12:3 and Ezek 1:22 portray it as shiny. The sky or atmosphere may have seemed like a glass dome."

      Also see the below article which elaborates on the meaning of the underlying Hebrew word, 'raqia':

      "Biblical scholars understand the raqia to be a solid dome-like structure"

      Put simply, the ancient writers (along with writers from other nations in their day) thought the sky was a solid, shiny dome structure. The word "heaven" in Genesis 1 is specifically referring to this structure. Not the universe. Not "the heavens" as we might imagine them. Just "the sky".

      In verse 10 we have the definition of "earth". It is literally talking about the dry land.

      Genesis 1 is not talking about the beginning of the universe. It is talking about the creation of the sky and the ground. Literally. Those are not metaphors. They are not symbolic. We know this because the view they present matches closely with other views from the same time period.

    2. That's not all. The "light" in Genesis 1:3 is not "light" as we understand it. It is not electromagnetic radiation, delivered in tiny photons.

      Verse 5 tells us what it is. It is simply "day". Genesis 1:3 is not telling us about the formation of atoms or photons or anything of that nature. It is telling us about the day/night cycle.

      Why is it telling us about the day/night cycle completely separate to, and some days before, the creation of the sun? Well, because the ancient writers did not know that the earth was a sphere, that the sun was our primary light source, and that the day/night cycle is a result of the earth's rotation.

      I'm not saying they were stupid. No one else knew it at the time Genesis 1 was written either. Actually, the ancient Greeks were just beginning to speculate that the earth was a sphere around this time, in the 6th century BCE (yes, that is when Bible Scholars believe Genesis 1 was written down). However, even the Greeks did not confirm the sphericity of the Earth until the 3rd century BCE.

    3. I have actually watched Andy Walton's video and found it well done and accurate. The director of the Noah movie who is a Jewish atheist butchered the movie and turned it into a fairy tale. The biblical account of the flood is the most accurate account of a global flood ever written and far more accurate and detailed than any of the Sumerian accounts. The theory on how the flood occurs and where the water went after the flood which is not Andy walton's theory is brilliant. Science is now catching up to that theory and it will eventually prevail. Credo what is your current belief system? Why did you leave the Christadelphians ? What have you replaced your belief system with humanism or science which changes continuously.

    4. //The biblical account of the flood is the most accurate account of a global flood ever written//


      //and far more accurate and detailed than any of the Sumerian accounts.//

      Oh, I'm with you on the fact that the Sumerian account is not accurate. It describes a boat that was effectively a cube - not very likely.

      But your comment was that the biblical story was "more accurate". That would suggest you have some additional corroborating evidence, perhaps a third account? Let's see it.

      //The theory on how the flood occurs and where the water went after the flood which is not Andy walton's theory is brilliant.//

      Ah yes, brilliant. And wrong.

      //Science is now catching up to that theory and it will eventually prevail.//

      Do you have links to the published papers?

      //What have you replaced your belief system with humanism or science which changes continuously.//

      I'll leave Credo to answer this one for themselves but I just thought the way you phrased this was interesting. Science is not a belief system. I'm not sure humanism is either. Yes science changes, but that's because it updates when newer information is received. If it didn't, it would be wrong. But not everything in science changes. New discoveries may be updated over time as more detail comes to light, but things such as the Earth orbiting the sun are very unlikely to change in future. Over time a preponderance of evidence builds up and it's these long term trends that tend to converge on the truth.

      The only reason your Bible doesn't change is because it was canonised and written in a book. You could say the same about any book (except an e-book perhaps). Interestingly the Bible did change quite a bit over the time when it was being put together. But that was before your time.


Please do not comment as 'Anonymous'. Rather, choose 'Name/URL' and use a fake name. The URL can be left blank. This makes it easier to see who is replying to whom.