The author rejects the timelines that have been deduced from the "begats" of the Bible. He believes that the geological record simply doesn't support a world that is less than 10,000 years old. In what I would have considered a paradox only a few years ago, he also accepts that the Bible is true and makes an attempt to reconcile the two versions of human history. At one point, I would have considered it impossible - one or the other must be true, and the other false. They are mutually exclusive. But now I'm not so sure.
After all, IMO, the Bible doesn't set out to tell us human history. It sets out to tell us how God has worked in human history. If the Bible doesn't meet modern definitions of history, well, that's not the Bible's fault. So, I kept an open mind in listening to the audiobook.
One important point is that the flood has become a stand-in for proof of the Biblical account of creation. If the Biblical flood story can be "proven" to be true, then the Biblical account of Creation must be true. After all, the creation account is very difficult to prove. The Flood becomes a proxy. The author urges that they be considered separately.
Defenders of the Biblical narrative are on shaky ground when we conflate the two stories. After all, perhaps the flood wasn't exactly as we believe. And if that is the case, does that mean that I have to give up belief in God who created the world and humans? I don't believe so. Both stories need to be evaluated on their own merits.
The author reviews quite a bit of data that questions the idea of a worldwide flood that generated all of the geological formations that we know today. For example, he calculates that there could not have been enough biomass on earth at the time of the flood to generate all of the oil, gas, and coal deposits that we have today. An interesting argument, IMO.
The author believes that the flood as relayed in the Bible occurred during the last of the rapid ice melts that occurred during the last glacial period, approximately 40,000 years ago. He believes Noah lived in the Persian Gulf, which had much lower sea levels than we have today, and survived the flood by building the ark. The ark was necessary because humanity was so violent and wicked that Noah would not have been able to simply move to higher ground without being murdered.
One proof of this belief is the flood stories shared by people who live all over the earth. These stories become increasingly fantastic the further away one moves geographically from the Middle East, and the less related the language is from Middle Eastern languages. He believes this supports the idea that all people share this event and didn't dispurse as God instructed until after the Tower of Babel. He goes so far as to point out that modern humans did not reach Australia as early as claimed. (Additionally, he points out that popular news stories about dating frequently cite the earliest possible date without pointing out the margin of error, which is often very significant).
I found the ideas interesting and compelling. I would have appreciated more proof on why I should accept modern geology. The author appears to me to just accept it.
One point the author doesn't make is that people often wonder what kind of God would only show up after 100 millennia (give or take) of human history? Where has He been all this time? A counterpoint I can think of is to point out that only in the last few thousand years of human history has anything happened worth recording! Everything we can consider to have achieved as humans has all occurred recently in human history! Maybe we couldn't achieve anything relevant until God showed up! I'm grateful he did.
So read the book. Get some new ideas!