Featured Noah_slide4-3

Published on March 17th, 2014 | by Dr. Joel McDurmon


Ray Comfort’s ten tall tales about Noah and the Last Days

[After reviewing this article, please also read the companion UPDATE here.]

If you don’t like polemic, turn away now.

In an attempt to take advantage of the upcoming film Noah, Ray Comfort has produced what purports to be a documentary about the biblical view of Noah and the last days, according to Comfort.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with taking advantage of such an event like Noah. I am doing so myself with a short eBook, Noah: The True Story. I am not against using events like these to advance your cause. I am against the very shady and unworthy way in which it has been done.

After watching the trailer, I fully expected the standard premillennial or dispensational slant on the last days, only focusing on a presentation of those New Testament passages that refer to Noah. I expected Noah and Last Days from a premillennial perspective, but at least some attempt at solid exegesis. So I was prepared for what I would argue is bad eschatology, but at least a sincere attempt at demonstrating it.

Not only was I wrong, my expectations were nowhere in the ball park. The enormity and nature of the errors committed in Comfort’s little film are beyond mere error. These are verging on conscious dishonesty, if not already there. And all in the name of the Gospel.

There will be some of you who get upset with me for accusing Ray Comfort of dishonesty. I’ll admit it sounds harsh. But read on, and I will show you there is no other explanation short of a cavalier sloppiness with the text that would disqualify anyone from being a public teacher of Scripture.

Comfort begins with the claim that “according to Jesus, the events surrounding the life of Noah are directly related to you.” He refers to the text where Jesus says, “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt. 24:37; Luke 17:26–27). This all, of course, assumed Jesus was talking to you and not His audience, but more of that as we go.

Based on that verse, Comfort then makes the startling claim: “In a moment you’re going to see clearly that the end of the age is happening now.”

This is certain. There should be no doubt when we’re done.

Now this is his general thesis. I disagree, but I do not think he is lying here. I think he is truly sold to the paradigm in which this passage applies to us today, not to the audience to whom Jesus was speaking. But even here there is a crack in his sincerity. I will return to this at the end; for now, just know that he is confident, and can confidently assure you of the conclusion that the end of the age is upon us, definitively, now.

With that, he states, “Here are ten major biblical signs for which we ought to look:”

And this is where the nonsense begins. Again, this is not just about my disagreement with Comfort. It is about exegesis so outlandish it can only be explained by total incompetence or some level of dishonesty.

Alleged sign number one: “There will be money-hungry Bible teachers that will slur the faith and deceive many.” For scriptural support of this, the video shows 2 Peter 2:1–3, and recites verse 3: “And in their greed they will exploit you with false words.” To prove this is happening today, Comfort shows clips of “health and wealth” preachers.

Sure there’s no shortage of these guys today, but there always has been, and moreover, this passage says nothing about the last days. It also says nothing specifically about our day. On the contrary, it is focused specifically upon Peter’s day. Peter warns his audience that just as there were false prophets in Old Testament times, so, his audience should be aware that “there will be false teachers among you.” Get that: among you, first century hearers, not two thousand years in the future.

The verse also really says nothing about Noah, either. A few verses later, Peter invokes Noah to argue about the certainty of judgment upon these false prophets, but again says nothing about the last days or two thousand years in the future. Just as God surely judged the wicked in Noah’s day, and surely judged the wicked in Lot’s day, so you can rest assured He can reserve these wicked ones (first century) for judgment as well.

And indeed, John assures us that false teachers and “antichrists” had already come in their day, and it was these first-century teachers who were “those who are trying to deceive you”—in their day (1 John 2:18–27).

There have always been money-grubbing false preachers out there. The early church fathers warned against them. The middle ages burned a few, then adopted their practices. The Reformers were convinced that this verse spoke of Roman Catholic indulgences and money-grubbing, traveling evangelists like Tetzel. Today we have health and wealth. No one who knows Scripture and history is shocked, and none should think they especially mean Christ is coming back in our generation now.

The text doesn’t say this, and Comfort should have paid closer attention before claiming it did.

And besides, as long as we’re talking about money-grubbing: how about charging $19.99 for a so-called “documovie,” purportedly about Noah, that runs for only 28 minutes, says very little about Noah, and spends over the last quarter of its time in classic Comfort-style, high-pressure, 1-on-1 evangelism.

Several things: First, the title is misleading. The video says very little about Noah. It does very little if any true unpacking of the story of Noah.

Second, the description “documovie” is misleading. There is no movie element at all. It is almost entirely Ray Comfort interviewing people on the street filmed by a single hand-held camera. The interviews are interspersed with short, cheap graphics portraying floodwaters, bible verses, etc.

Third, the “documovie” is extremely short, not comparable at all to what you expect for the price—though it does say the time in one place on the website. Think of it: full-length feature films on DVD that cost millions of dollars to produce sell for less than this.

Fourth, an entire quarter-length of that very short time is devoted to a surprise gospel attack, not addressed at all to the subject the movie purports to be about. This is deceitful.

Now I know Comfort is passionate about evangelism. But this kind of hidden-agenda, stealth-attack approach is the very thing that turns away more people than it saves—because it is dishonest. It does not deliver what it promised, and it delivers something besides which it promised.

Some people will say that it’s OK because we should do anything we can do to save souls. We should reach them anyway we can. But if a preacher will effectively deceive you, and make you pay above-market prices for that pleasure, is this really honoring to God? Is this really the way of the Master? What message does this really send?

This “nothing matters more than saving souls” approach takes more away from Christ’s Commission than it wins. It shows the world that Christians will lie and extort in order to do what Christians are allegedly supposed to do. That’s the very point Comfort is decrying here, and yet he’s, in my opinion, exemplifying it.

A gospel with questionable ethics is no gospel at all.

Alleged sign number two:  “there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.” This is from Matthew 24:7. Yes this does pertain to Jesus’ discourse about the last days, but it says nothing about Noah, and it says nothing about us now, today.

That whole discourse pertains to Jesus’ audience, which is why He is constantly throughout that passage saying to them at that time, “you . . . you . . . you.” “See that no one leads you astray.” “They will deliver you up.” “When you see these things.” Etc.

Gary DeMar does a fine job of showing that, indeed, the famines and earthquakes were taking place in those times. Acts 11:27–29 says very clearly there was a great famine over all the world at that time. Secular historians of the period wrote about famines as well—Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus all record them. Likewise, Acts 16:26 records a great earthquake. Again, others are recorded by secular historians of the period.

So there is no question here that this was a first century phenomenon just as much as today, except back then, there were enough of them concentrated in the Mediterranean world that Jesus’ audience and their generation would have experienced it clearly enough.

Just for the record, Comfort’s point here is merely in error. There is no apparent particular dishonesty on this point.

Alleged sign number three: “the moon will become blood red” (Acts 2:20). Again this is just error, but here it is particularly sloppy. All he had to do was back up a few verses in the context and see that Peter was reciting that verse for the specific purpose of saying it was being fulfilled right there, then, at that time. With the disciples speaking in tongues in public and being accused of drunkenness at nine in the morning, Peter responded concerning that Pentecost event:

For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh. . . . And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day” (Acts 2:15–20).

This is it, folks. That was roughly AD 30. First century. Moon to blood, per Peter. Not today. Make of that what interpretation you will, but you can’t deny Peter’s confirmation of the timing.

Jesus had also referenced this phenomenon in Matthew 24:29. The problem for Comfort’s claim that this is proof we are in the last days now is that in the very passage Comfort quoted to make his point, Peter said it was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost way back in the first century.

Alleged sign number four: “blasphemy will become commonplace.” Comfort bases this on 2Timothy 3:1, 2. This is a very common passage quoted because it does say “in the last days,” but again, what “last days” are we talking about here? A “last days” two thousand years in Paul’s future, or the last days of that old covenant administration that Jesus said would be destroyed, block by block (Matt. 24:1–2), in that generation (Matt. 24:34) and Hebrews says was already then passing away (Heb. 8:13)?

Paul was speaking to his audience, and fully expected them to see such blasphemers, because he instructs his readers, then, to “avoid such people” (2 Tim. 3:5). Must have been some of them around already.

He also said such men “will not get very far,” but “their folly will be plain to all.” So Paul did not expect a society overrun and pervaded (“commonplace”) by such men, but for them to fail in their efforts because everyone (“all”) plainly saw through them.

This is not the picture Comfort paints. He interviews several people about how bad Hollywood movies have gotten in regard to using the Lord’s name as a curse word. That may be a genuine problem, but it has nothing to do with what 2 Timothy 3 is talking about.

Alleged sign number five: “an increase in the acceptance of homosexuality” (Luke 17:28–30). Here’s where I began to get angry. This “sign” is obviously calculated to describe our time and make people think the Bible says we’re in the last days because of something that is so uniquely in the news in our time. But the Bible says nothing of the sort. Not only does it not, it doesn’t come close to that, and Ray Comfort has done some creative manipulation of the text in order to make this claim.

The creative edits he makes here is why I began to suspect some level of dishonesty.

In order to make this claim, Comfort shows a screenshot of an edited Bible verse from Luke 17:28–30. It is deceptive, but it is accompanied by a voice-over that is even worse that the on-screen edit.

The on-screen verse says, “Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot… But the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”

The voice over, as the screen focuses and re-focuses on the sections of the passage that are read, says this:

“Another sign of the end of the age is an increase in acceptance of homosexuality, as there was in the days of Sodom; even so will it be in the day that the son of man is revealed.”

Now that is creative. It is also a very misleading use of Scripture.

There is no denying that homosexuality is sin. But it has nothing to do with why Jesus referred to Lot in this passage. Just as Peter did for point one above, Jesus was only referring to Noah, and then to Lot, to argue that people will be living their lives normally and will be taken by judgment unsuspectingly. That is all; the text has no other intentions or references.

It in fact says nothing about homosexuality at all. It says everything only about normal life being carried on: eating, drinking, and family. Here’s the unedited version (with the parts Comfort took out in bold):

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17:26–30).

There is no reference to homosexuality at all, let alone an “increased acceptance” of it. Only the cycles of normal life while being oblivious to coming judgment.

Now here’s my problem: Ray Comfort had to be conscious of exactly what he was leaving out. And that section, if he had read it and stuck to it, would not have allowed him to make the point he wanted to make. So, he put in an ellipsis, and made up his own context for the sake of his agenda.

Then, on top of the little ellipsis, Comfort and his accompanying voice talent spoke an even greater elliptical version, with his own words added onto the front end, as if it were one seamless sentence from the Word of God. It was not.

There’s a word for this: eisegesis, or, reading one’s own preferred meanings into a text where they do not fit. When this is done consciously, there is also a word for it: deceit. I am sorry, but I don’t see how it can be explained otherwise.

If a preacher is willing to twist scripture so transparently like this, how can you trust anything else he says?

And if your eschatology is resting on such a twisted edifice, it may be time to consider something that rests more soundly on the actual text.

Alleged sign number six: “religious hypocrisy will be prevalent” (2 Tim. 3:5). This is the same passage as point four above, and so falls under the same criticisms. Comfort spends nearly the whole time needling people who profess to be Christians about watching R-rated movies and watching the “sex scenes.”

Granted, there are plenty of professed Christians with compromised ethics. It’s always easy to needle people in regard to sexuality on these, but if this is the extent of “religious hypocrisy” which proves we’re in the last days, then when have we not been?

Then there is a bit of overstatement: “Hollywood is nothing but a glorified pimp who provides clientele for America, actors who will take their clothes off and prostitute themselves for money.”

I may have to add this statement to a future edition of my Biblical Logic: In Theory and Practice, particularly the fallacy of “Reductionism” (see pp. 114–121).

What about hypocrisy in dozens of other areas? For example, say, Christian ministries bordering on false advertising and selling videos filled with half-truths and hidden agendas?

Alleged sign number seven: “People will deny that God created the heavens and that He judged the world through Noah’s flood” (2 Pet. 3:3, 5, 6). Well, people may do that, but that’s not what the text in question is talking about. Again, here is another text ripped from context, added to, and all to make a point Comfort wants to make about modern society.

The text reads,

knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished (2 Pet. 3:3–6).

The text does not say these “scoffers” deny that God created the heavens or that Noah’s flood occurred. On the contrary, they specifically refer to the world as “creation”? They are not Darwinists or evolutionists, they are creationists.

It says specifically that their scoffing amounts to the question, “Where is the promise of his coming?” The disciples, following Jesus in Matthew 24, and Peter’s claim of fulfillment of Joel in Acts 2, were predicting a cataclysmic judgment upon Jerusalem and unbelieving Israel. These scoffers are denying that this judgment “coming” would happen, because everything continued as normal as it ever had “since creation.”

Peter says that this argument “deliberately overlooks” the story of Noah. He does not say they denied the flood of Noah took place; he says their argument overlooks the fact. “Hey guys, you’re forgetting something: God judged the world in Noah’s time, and He can destroy this place, too.” And He did, in AD 70.

This is not describing modern-day uniformitarianism, Darwinism, skepticism, atheism, etc. It is Peter referring to the Noah story in the exact same way Jesus did in Matthew 24 and Luke 17:26–27. People would be caught unaware because they did not factor in the significance of covenantal judgment like Noah’s for their own time.

So while there may be people who deny creation and Noah’s flood today, this has nothing to do with the last days referred to in 2 Peter 3, and in fact the text is not even talking about people who deny those things. The scoffers of 2 Peter 3 actually affirm creation, and simply overlooked the significance of the flood in their scoffing. Again, these are truly sloppy oversights unfitting of any would-be professional teacher.

Alleged sign number eight: it will be “marked by fear of the future” (Luke 21:26). No real big issue here except, again, the timing and scope. This is part of Luke’s version of what Jesus taught in the Olivet discourse of Matthew 24. The immediate context makes it clear this has specific reference to setting in which Jerusalem is surrounded by armies, people are literally falling by the sword, and Jerusalem is trodden down  by Gentiles (Luke 21:20–24). Two verses later, Jesus says men’s hearts will then fail because of what is happening.

So when Ray Comfort walks around and asks people on the street randomly, in general, if they are “fearful of the future,” this is about as far removed from the meaning of that text as it could be. To use it as proof of the last days now is downright silly.

And again, when has this, in general, not been true? And that leads us to Comfort’s attempt to insulate himself from criticism:

Alleged sign number nine: “scoffers will mock the second coming by saying these signs have always been around” (2 Pet 3:3, 4). Oh my! I’ve done that like six times in this one article alone! I must be confirming Ray Comfort’s “signs” as we speak. I can just see him pointing at me: “Look! He said it again!”

This type of defense is not tough to break through, especially when you recognize that, once again, the text is pulled out of context and doesn’t even say what he claims it says.

The Scripture in question reads:

scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

Now, you read that and tell me where it says anything about how “these signs” (any particular signs, let alone the ones Comfort has presented) “have always been around.” It says nothing about any particular signs, or any signs of the last days. It says the opposite: it was the argument of the scoffers that nothing out of the ordinary had happened. No signs had taken place at all—not that signs had been taking place the whole time.

In sum, they were scoffers for denying the fact that Jesus was about to come in judgment; not that these signs had always been around.

So this claim is purely manufactured. But why would Comfort make up a claim like this? It makes a convenient way to dismiss critics like me, and others, who say these alleged “signs” Comfort is pointing to in order to highlight now as the last days have always been around.

And that is in fact true. What made them special “signs” to the Apostles’ generation was their concentration in and around the Roman Empire, and specifically at a time when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, and specifically confirmed by apostolic testimony at the time that those were the last days, such as Peter in Acts 2 as we have seen. Again, this all took place exactly on cue in that generation, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Alleged sign number ten: people are ignoring the warning of the Gospel: they’re eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage (Matt. 24:37–39).

Of all the alleged signs, Comfort gets closest to the actual text here. Indeed, it was this very verse he excised earlier when trying to argue about “increased acceptance of homosexuality.” Now he says it refers simply to carrying on with normal life while ignoring the warning of the Gospel. Indeed! That was the only reason Jesus referenced Noah in these passages at all.

But his pictorial application of this is a howler: he actually flips to a scene of people enjoying champagne at a wedding.

Really? Is this a sign of the end times? Is that what the point of the passage means? When people are getting married and “drinking” we should expect Jesus to return suddenly? Come on. And again, when as there not been a time in which people were eating, drinking, and marrying?

That’s not the point of the passage, and it does not refer to today. Eating, drinking, and marrying are not signs of the last days. They are signs of normal life. Jesus’ point was that His generation must not be so distracted by normal life that they ignore the warning that society-wide judgment was coming, as if nothing was coming, just as happened to many people in Noah’s and Lot’s days.

It was at this point, at about 21:10 through the video, that Comfort turns to his brand of high-pressure evangelism for the rest of the flick.

While I support evangelism, obviously, I did not pay twenty bucks to watch Ray Comfort needle people on the spot about their sins. I paid to hear about Noah and the Last Days. Considering he spent the last seven out of 28 minutes doing this, I want at least 25 percent of my money back.

Considering how little real attention was paid to Noah or the text of Scripture at all, and considering how poorly this flick was thrown together, I really think I want it all back.

And I do so especially after Ray made a little caveat at the end. At about the 27:50, Comfort states that “respected Bible scholars may disagree on the timing of some of these signs. . . .”

You think?

But if that is a fact, why did he begin video claiming that “you’re going to see clearly that the end of the age is happening now.” Which is it? Do “respected” scholars disagree, is it “clearly” happening “now”? You can’t have it both ways.

And if Comfort knew ahead of time that there is respectable disagreement, why would he present the whole thing as certain from the beginning?

Why would he pervert and twist Scripture—openly add to and take away from it—in order to prove the “now” claim he began with? Why would he go to such lengths to maintain a narrative he has to know is dubious at best, he has to know he made part of it up, if he knows there are respected disagreements out there?

Again, he has to know exactly what he is doing. And for this there is no other word than deceit. Like I said earlier, this is not about my disagreement with him alone, it is about the lengths he would go to maintain his outrageous claims that are nowhere found in Scripture—just to make it sound like Scripture is speaking specifically about today.

In short, he knows what he did, and he knows better. This is beyond sloppy error. It is in places dishonest. As conscious as he has to be of this, it is bordering on fraud in my opinion.

[After reviewing this article, please also read the companion UPDATE here.]

Print Friendly

About the Author

Dr. Joel McDurmon

Joel McDurmon, Ph.D. in Theology from Pretoria University, is the Director of Research for American Vision. He has authored seven books and also serves as a lecturer and regular contributor to the American Vision website. He joined American Vision's staff in the June of 2008. Joel and his wife and four sons live in Dallas, Georgia.

48 Responses to Ray Comfort’s ten tall tales about Noah and the Last Days

  1. Bob Stenson says:

    Look at the order of the Church in the Bible: local elders (plural and co-equal) who shepherd the flock, receiving no salary and functioning in submission to the government of traveling elders and deacons (apostles) who do receive their expenses–who are set to receive the revelation. Notice that men are set into offices by the indication of the Holy Spirit, not elected or self-called. There is unity among the apostles and no chief apostle. They are each under the government of all the others. Notice the love and submission required between members. Notice the requirement for unity. Now, look at your own church. How does it compare to what God designed for the church. See sayeth He that you build all things according to the pattern.

    Considering that, it’s no wonder there is division.

  2. Greg says:

    Do you honestly believe this discourse blesses the heart of God? If it does, then I’m in real trouble!

  3. rhology says:

    Dr McDurmon should repent and apologise for several things in this article.

    • AD2014 says:


      While Ray, you, and myself will all stand before God, as we should be aware that we do stand before Him each day, your arguements that Ray wanted to use the title Noah (due to the Movie) to reach the world, who will be drawn the “Hollywood Movie” is wrong…is wrong.

      I see you used Ray’s Movie to get people to come to your site. Logo and everything.

      Those who follow and agree with you will clap at your (you shouldn’t heal on the sabbath) retoric.

      People will die:so share the gospel, disciple the nations, and continue to seek God for He is worthy.

      God Bless–

  4. Bill says:

    The Noah flood story in Genesis is a mythical story based on Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. It was written by two sources P (priestly) and J (Yahweh) and that is why it contains contradictions and inconsistencies. When we try to read it as real history we are reading it from a 21st century western culture point of view. We need to read Noah’s flood story from an Ancient Near eastern worldview. What did it mean to the original audience?

    • Ursula says:

      What nonsense. There is evidence of a world-wide flood everywhere. The layers of rock, earth and fossils have nothing to do with evolution, but everything to do with a worldwide flood.

    • Michael Earl Riemer says:

      “What did it mean to the original audience?” Ah…well…how about death by water… by a lot of water flooding over the earth…get on the ark or you will drown.

    • Tom Mills says:

      This has been around for a while. You have your data wrong, the earliest versions of the story (3,000BC) with Gilgamesh does not even have a flood story in it, the flood element was added much later in the 1700′s, so someone has been adding to the story as we went along. The orginal authors said nothing of a flood.

      Recently a 4,000 year old tablet containing the story of Noah’s ark was found and it is Babylonian and dates from the same time that the Gilgamesh story starts to have the flood legend inserted into it. This whole P and J thing has been copied and pasted from some random corner of the internet. Letters are often given to unknown documents. Matthew and Mark are said to have been derived from a single source often called Q. To take these letters for hypothetical documents…

    • Tom Mills says:


      To take these letters for hypothetical documents and then attribute them to authors (Yahweh??) is silly.

      You post would seem like wisdom except firstly you don’t know who the audience is here, the Gilgamesh story is most certainly a retelling of an even older story and second the REAL audience were the children of those who survived on the ark. They would have understood it just as it was written.

      • Bill says:

        Since American Vision ALWAYS censors my links I suggest you Google the following two stories and read them:

        Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and the Flood by Peter Enns at BioLogos

        Who Wrote the Flood Story? by Richard Elliott Friedman on Nova’s website

        • Tom Mills says:

          Why cant you defend your own position? I am already well familiar with what other people say about this story, as I am already familiar with the story itself. The bottom line is that the oldest copies of the Gilgamesh and Atrahasis stories do NOT contain a flood legend. Period. They were added over a thousand years later by different authors.

        • Chad Trotter says:

          We don’t censor your links Bill. They’re blocked by our spam filters.

        • Bill says:


          There are two reasons why it seems that when I provide a link it is filtered.

          1. There is a link by Steven that was published. It got through.
          2. My link initially appeared after I posted my comment for a while, then it disappeared.

        • rhology says:

          LOL @ this guy linking to Peter Enns and Nova with a straight face.

          Do you even presuppositionalism, bro?

        • Chad Trotter says:

          Our Spam filters are a little over clocked. If you stick with one url you should be fine most of the time. It also depends on whether you type it out or are simply pasting a url. The combination of speed and pasting presents to the filtering program as spam.

      • Bill says:

        Where is your evidence that only the flood portions of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis were added later?

        • Tom Mills says:

          How can you not know that? Its even on wikipedia! Google “Gilgamesh and Atrahasis” and read the first link you come to! To quote one excerpt, “The story itself “evolved” so to speak. The earliest copies of Gilgamesh are Sumerian and may be as old as the third millennium BC. Also, the earliest versions of this epic did not even include a flood story.”

        • Tom Mills says:

          That last reply sounds more harsh that I meant it to as I re read it, sorry about that. I only meant to point out that atheists love this story and deliberately hide things about the story like this and it surprises me that you have read multiple articles on this and never heard that bit of info.

        • Bill says:

          Yes, I had forgotten that the flood portions were added later. I knew the original versions were older from the Sumerians. I believe the bottom line is the Noah story was probably somewhat based on Atrahasis and Gilgamesh.

      • Bill says:

        From Wikipedia
        “Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Epic of Gilgamesh have counterparts in the book of Genesis, notably the accounts of the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Flood.

        The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars. In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity.”

        • Tom Mills says:

          Doesn’t the fact that there are similarities lend credence to the fact that it’s true? If everyone descended from Noah of course the story would be in lots of places. Likewise for Adam and eve. The fact that there are similar stories supports the story not re-butts it. This has gone on enough as well, you cannot convert someone in comments. You have the same data as me, you decipher it as you see fit. it was nice talking to you.

    • Kyle says:

      Mathew 24. “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days
      that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah
      entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of
      man be.

      Tough question: shall I go with Bill or Jesus?

      Bill: I’m calling you to repentance toward the Father and faith in Christ Jesus of Nazareth for the forgiveness of sins!! Amen.

  5. James Z. says:

    Thanks, Joel McDurmon, for informing and entertaining me with this article. Jesus told us to judge with righteous judgment and continually exposed the false teachings of the religious leaders. There is no shortage of false and erroneous teaching among today’s church figures either. What you said about people drinking champagne at the wedding scene was especially funny!

  6. Bryon says:

    I’m shocked to see how many people rebuff the author. Is not his what the apostles warned us about? To avoid men who twist the scripture and strive for the true gospel. The Bible never takes this lightly, nor should we.
    Now we should see how Ray Comfort responds…
    Personally I’ve always liked Ray Comforts ministry but if he does twist scripture this badly and doesn’t repent then it will make me sad.

  7. JET says:

    What you are writing about here is the principle of TIME/AGE RELEVANCE. To understand Scripture properly this principle must be observed. Also, important to understand is AUDIENCE RELEVANCE, CULTURE/CUSTOMS RELEVANCE, LANGUAGE RELEVANCE. Perhaps you mentioned this in your article above, but I did not have time to read the entire piece. These principles plus realizing that the Bible is prolific with figurative language which brings out the spiritual significance/application of Scripture. Trying to restrict all Scripture to a literal interpretation/meaning deprives us of the most important and highest message of the Bible.

  8. Matthew says:

    I find the whining of the premillennialists and futurists on here fascinating. Perhaps Joel, you should just do as Brannon Howse and most of the futurists do on their sites and just censor anyone who dares propose a response to their assertions. We give sound and reason responses to their assertions, and they are removed lest the “faithful” think for themselves. All they have offered here is vitriol.

  9. Brian Alexander says:

    Eschatology usually becomes a very emotional for most. None of us want to be wrong. I wish we could all turn in our homework assignments to Jesus, and have then graded, so we can find out how right or wrong we are on the issues. I also know Ray Comfort is a very beloved evangelist in our Church. Truth is, though, some of the arguments Joel is complaining about are items which I would take issue with as well. And I’m a dispensationalist—although heavily modified: I’m a Calvinist, I’m mid-tribulational where the resurrection of the Church is concern. I believe the 144.000 and New Jerusalem are symbolic names for us, the Church. I hold to the angelic view of Genesis, Chapter Six. I think we all need to wait and see how history develops for awhile before being too sure of ourselves.

  10. Ducky says:

    - Seems Comfort has established himself as somebody to not discern against.

    - I would pay $100 to see Comfort, Friel, or Miano preach against real power and not regular folk. You know real power that dictates our morals like D.C. or even powerful Hollywood execs who have actors strip down to nothing.

    I would pay $500 for MacArthur to go to the White House and preach against their practices. He was a guest there once; he walked away from there as a guest as well.

    For real, that offer stands. I mean, it’s more or just as much money than the G3 conference, so why not? I will pay. Of course college kids and mega conferences behind closed doors are easier.

    • Ducky says:

      Used to think the whole street preaching thing was sorta cool. Now it seems to be scenarios to make a Youtube clip. At times, it comes off as rude towards the questioned people.

      I think it would be more believable if those same preachers would stand up against real power and sought out answers and truths in all things. Not just swallowing lies that even the college kid that is being preached at knows are lies. Though the issues are never spoken of, why would I ever believe somebody that thinks the War on Drugs is good or the state should be adhered to even when it’s killing babies and others around the world? It’s a contradiction with the Ten Commandments, that are often put against the college kid. Just resonates as lies.

      • Rev55 says:

        Amen to that, Dr. Duck

      • Rev55 says:

        Mr. Duck, you are probably familiar with the Lesser Magistrate doctrine. Do a search for it and check out the book and web site of the same name, I think you will like it, also there

  11. Carham says:

    Some Christians can’t stand the thought that their favorite Bible teacher might not be perfect in all that he does. This article made good observations. Thanks for sharing it. It was interesting that those defending video focused on the cost observation but had little to say about the other 90 percent of the article.

  12. Joel
    I’m saddened by your piece . I have enjoyed many of your essays but this is awful my friend . Honestly brother you need to wise up . I don’t know what bible you’re reading but your the one who is doing most of the eisegesis . Stay away from eschatological theology and write more on general apologetical- philosophical issues arising out of scripture . That’s your talent in my view .

    • Bryon says:

      There really is no separating eschatology and apologetics. A big part of the good news of the Gospel is that Jesus is coming again, the increase of His Government, that Jesus is right now sitting at God’s right hand ruling the earth, and all the other details surrounding what Jesus is doing and will be doing.
      God has done a perfect job on His Word and everything written in the New Testament can be properly viewed through the context of the Old Testament. Such as “Son of Man” is a reference to the Old Testament Prophets. As well as the signs of the stars falling, sky being rolled up as a scroll is a sign of judgement found word for word in the Old Testament prophets. The New testament does an excellent job stating that the timing of the end. If only we’d listen…

  13. Rev55 says:

    I like Ray Comfort, I think he’s dome some good stuff over the years, but like most evangelists, he should probably stick closer to evangelism. Thanks for the review, Joel. I was disappointed when on the urging of local Christian radio I picked up a copy of “Unidentified”, only to find out that it centered on demonic activity masked as alien abductions in order to hide the truth of the rapture. ????? So thanks for the heads up.

  14. Dave M. says:

    I didn’t have to read past sign number one to see how skewed and malicious your “story” is. Anyone who was concerned about truth in reporting and taken the time to look would see that the pre-release pricing of $20 for Comfort’s Noah is plainly labeled to support the project itself. It is plastered everywhere that the video will be free on YouTube on March 28. Omitting those points is dishonest at best and says a lot about your objectivity. I’m sure the cost to produce Comfort’s Noah far exceeds the cost of producing your downloadable Noah book. Please tell me when your book will be available for free as I’m sure you don’t want the extortionist tag that you so freely give to others.

    • Bryon says:

      You should finish reading the post.

      • Dave M. says:

        Did I say I didn’t read the entire post? I was stating that I didn’t have to read very far to see how slanted and disingenuous the author was. If Joel is concerned that nobody has told the true story of Noah “until now”, as the description of his book claims, then I’m sure he will make it available for free on March 28 as well so that curious moviegoers can discover his “truth”.

  15. WTOMA says:

    The sad thing is that Joel McDurmon probably thinks he is serving the Lord by spending most of his time attacking other Christians, however ill informed they are compared to the final revelation on all things that McDurmon and most Calvinists think they have.
    The question is often asked why the Church is having so little impact on society and culture. But the answer, in part, is that so many like McDurmon are cloistered away in safety behind a computer screen blasting away at other Christians.
    Regardless of how ill informed Ray Comfort might or might now be, at least he is out in the streets being used of the Holy Spirit to transform lives for the Kingdom of God.

    • Eric says:

      Regardless of how ill informed Ray Comfort might or might now be, at least he is out in the streets being used of the Holy Spirit to transform lives for the Kingdom of God.
      So did Simon Peter. Paul still “opposed him to his face”, and in public!

    • Kyle says:

      @WTOMA: I am asking you with the utmost in charity and love here! Did you just not do the exact same thing that you accused Mr. McDurmon of doing? Just asking.

      BTW: Mormons, JW’s, and now even Professing Atheists are out in the streets also. What it really hinges on is this: are we declaring the excellencies of King Jesus, and proclaiming His gospel of repentance toward the Father and faith in Christ Jesus of Nazareth for the forgiveness of sins. We are to make disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – not after ourselves.

      May I get an Amen?

  16. Steven says:

    This is pure nonsense. In order to make his claims he must be able to prove his claims. I am sure he does not know Ray or plan on engaging him. He just wants to promote his dominionism and postmil eschatology. Not that there is anything wrong with that, however this accusatory stance that “American Vision” takes is normal and should make any reader very weary.

  17. Michael Earley says:

    When you paid for the movie, did you miss this?:

    “Those of you who took advantage of our pre-release download offer on “Evolution vs. God” enabled us to fund the production of “Noah—And the Last Days.” We would be grateful if you would consider doing the same with this movie, and in turn help us to continue producing similar projects in the future.

    When you download this movie for $19.99, you will get a free downloadable Companion Guide (valued at $4.99) containing further evidence for the Ark and the worldwide Flood, plus a special video message by Ken Ham, “Creation and the Last Days” (valued at $12.99). “Noah—And the Last Days” will be available on YouTube and DVD starting March 28.”

    I request you withdraw your slights about money. You sir, are in the wrong on that…

  18. Pilgrim says:

    Well, no more reason for me to be following this blog.
    Paint me outtaHere.

  19. Robin Gray says:

    Thank you for showing how someone’s views can unfortunately allow them to take Scripture out of context. I am a little familiar with Ray Comfort’s ministry, but I am always saddened when anyone uses the Gospel for their own gain – especially when it can be shown through reading the Scripture that they message is skewed. Whether or not your views are “well within orthodoxy” is no excuse to take Scripture out of context. And pointing that out is NOT attacking, it is being FAITHFUL to the WORD OF GOD.

Back to Top ↑