Letters to the Editor - June 4

June 03, 2012

A man who discredits Word of God is on shaky ground

To the editor:

Once more in the pages of The Herald-Mail, a former professor from Hagerstown Community College discredits the first 12 chapters of Genesis. He calls the story of Noah a “myth of antiquity.” It has to be a myth because the flood story was found in the library of King Ashurbanipal of Assyria in “668 to 627 B.C.” During the excavation of Nineveh of 1853, the story was found on the 11th tablet of a 12-tablet piece. It is called the Gilgamesh Epic. Moses was in Egypt in 1448 B.C. When he wrote the book of Genesis, it was his attempt to “reinterpret” the Gilgamesh Epic. There are two very important types of history — oral history and written history.

Recent historians have been giving a great deal of credence to oral history because it is almost always based upon some fact. As we examine scripture, the Ark of Noah was built during the Neolithic Age. There was domestication of animals, development of agriculture, manufacturing of pottery and use of wooden objects. This means the Ark was built between 9000 and 7000 B.C. The story of Noah and the Ark had deep roots in oral history.

Historian J. E. Hartley has made an examination of oral history. He points out that flood stories have been found on all continents, nearly all nations and large tribes. By examination, he has found there are over 260 accounts in oral history of the fact of a flood. It is true these stories have been modified. Eighty-eight percent said it was done to save a family; 70 percent said their survival was due to a large boat; 66 percent said the flood was due to human wickedness; 67 percent said animals were saved in the boat; 57 percent said survivors landed on a high mountain. Sixty-six percent said that one who built the boat received a warning that if he did not follow God there would be a coming catastrophe.

How can Allan Powell discredit the universal account of oral history and the fact of a flood that was proved by sedimentary deposits even on high mountains?

I am well aware that people laugh at the power of God. Make no mistake about it, the flood of Noah was a miracle in which Almighty God determined to save human life. A miracle won’t fit in Powell’s test tube.

In America, we are entitled to believe whatever we want, and I believe a man is on shaky ground who discounts or discredits the truth of the Word of God.

Robert Stone
Mercersburg, Pa.

Farmers should be exempt from septic regulation

To the editor:

I was alarmed when I read about the new proposed $1.1 billion watershed plan. The provision that disturbs me the most is the proposal to make everyone pump their septic system every three years and to eventually force every septic system owner to make expensive upgrades and or replacements of their system.

I think that this broad brush, “one size fits all” approach to every septic system is misguided and in many cases unnecessary. Specifically, I believe that people like myself who own and operate a farm should be exempt from these provisions. Every farmer in Washington County already has a nutrient management plan that keeps close track of the nutrients in our soil and the nutrients that run off our soil. Farmers are required to have their soil tested every year; and if a problem crops up, we are already required to fix it. Therefore, it is not necessary for farms to be included in the new septic plan; we are already dealing with any issues of nitrogen and phosphorous runoff from our properties.

In addition to what my nutrient management plan calls for, I have personally fenced off and planted 800 trees and 200 shrubs along the stream banks on my farm, and I allow the grass there to grow very tall as an added buffer to nutrient runoff. I personally think that many of the folks who live in town and add fertilizer to their lawns without ever testing their soil to see if it is needed are a much larger problem than the problems caused by septic systems. In towns, there is no place for the lawn runoff to go except directly on to streets, in to storm drains and eventually in to the bay. This is not the case on farms.

Requiring farmers to comply with this proposed new regulation would be an unnecessary financial burden on a business that simply cannot afford the expense. There are three septic systems within the 102-acre area of my farm and I cannot afford to do what the new regulations would require. I am sure that I am not the only one.
Rodney Pearson Sr.

Auxiliary membership fine for some, but not me

To the editor:

The term auxiliary is defined as a helper, an assistant or someone functioning in a supporting capacity. While I at times perform these tasks, it is of my choosing when I do this. When I am interested in being part of an organization, it is to be a member. I find it demeaning and insulting when I am told that I may only be an auxiliary member.
Now, don’t get me wrong for those who desire that type of membership. I think it should be available to you no matter your gender. I believe that everyone should have the right to belong to any organization at the level that suits their wants and needs. I personally do not desire to be an auxiliary anything.

I have had the privilege of being a member of many organizations. I do not believe any organization should be told who their members should be, but I can guarantee you that any organization that offers me an auxiliary position will not get my membership nor my dollars. I speak for myself and many others when I voice this opinion.

So, to those clubs out there, and I hope you know who you are, who want to continue things just the way they are, realize that there are many like myself who will not come to you, will not join you and who will watch you slowly go away because you failed to change. You see, I am a female, over 50, motorcycle riding, lifetime NRA member who is retired from the military. I won’t be in your auxiliary, but I will find an organization who wants my time, energy and money, and I will move on with them.

Teresa Spruill

The Herald-Mail Articles