The Flood, a Local Event?
by Andre Reis
The acceptance of a worldwide flood has been the linchpin of Young Earth Creationism because it lies at the heart of the reliability of biblical historiography. But critics of the flood story, even within the Adventist ranks, regard it as a fruit of primitive ignorance about how the world functions. Interpretations of the biblical text have been put forth which question whether it deals with a universal or a local flood.
It has been frequently suggested that in order to align the ancient wisdom of Genesis with current scientific knowledge, we need to free the text from its original moorings, i.e., authorial intent. In other words, Genesis needs to be seen as a draft to be completed with modern scientific knowledge. Modern geological theory has been juxtaposed onto the biblical account to prove that a universal flood is highly implausible. Critics would have us abandon authorial intent in order to create our own story of the flood, a modern day Epic of Gilgamesh so to speak. But once the text and its intricacies are rendered irrelevant, the exegete is free to come to any conclusions he wants, the author’s words are second guessed, details in the account are dismissed, key information not taken seriously.
Below we analyze some of the literary devices used by the author of Genesis which militate against the notion of a local flood.(1) Despite our own personal opinions of what occurred in the misty past, this article will demonstrate that the biblical author intended to describe nothing but a flood of global proportions. A reading of the text in context with an eye to the features of the original language will guide us in this process.
Mabbûl, a global cataclysm
The Hebrew language has a very clear marker for narratives, which involve historical account of sequential events; those are the wayyiqtol verbs. A cursory check of the flood narrative reveals several wayyiqtol verbs: Gen 7 starts with wayyomer yhwh, “and the Lord spoke”; 7:12 reads wayehi haggeshem, “the rains fell”; 7:18: wayyigberu hammayim “and the waters increased greatly”.
This important verbal marker poses a problem for the theory that Noah’s flood was not meant by the author to be a real event. Critics usually accept that some flood did occur. But the wayyiqtol verbs also imply that everything in his account is to be taken seriously as a sequential historical account, including the flood’s universality. This the critics do not accept.
Several other important Hebrew terms are present in the biblical account to express the extent of the flood:
“Mabbûl”, a Hebrew terminus technicus for Noah’s flood which appears twelve times in Genesis and only once in Ps 29:10, also a clear allusion to Noah’s flood. Regular, local floods are described in Hebrew using mostly mayim, “waters” (cf. Ex 15:8), sipeah-mayim, “mass of waters” (Job 22:11; 38:34), tehomôt, nahar and naharôt, “rivers” (e.g., Ps 93:3; 98:8).
This distinction between the mayim “waters, or inundations” and a “mabbûl of water”, a cataclysmic, global flood, which “kills all flesh” on the planet is unmistakable in Gen 9:15 where God says that “the waters [mayim] shall never again become a flood [mabbûl] to destroy all flesh.”
Let’s also take a closer look at Psalm 29. This Psalm deals with God’s power over all nature and v. 10 says: “The Lord sits enthroned over the flood [mabbûl]”. It parallels Isa 40:22: “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth [ha-aretz].” Compare this with Ex 19:5 where God says, “the whole earth [kol ha-aretz] is mine”. Just as God is seated over the whole earth, he was also seated over the mabbûl in Noah’s time, a unique event which covered the whole earth. “Noah’s flood” then becomes a misnomer, the flood was actually “God’s flood” or “Yahweh’s mabbûl”.
“Mankind” ('adam). The wicked 'adam in Gen 6 are the same 'adam that God created in his image in Gen 1:26. They are inseparable from the 'adam “people” in Gen 5 where the genealogies of all mankind, from Adam to Noah are laid out. This leads into the flood account proper of Gen 7 where kol ha-adam, “all human beings” perish (v. 21).
Conversely, the promise in Gen 8:20 is made to ha-adam, “all mankind” even as the rainbow is a sign for the whole earth “eretz” (9:13) “and all flesh that is on the earth” (kol basar asher al-ha-aretz, 9:17).
But if “mankind” in Gen 6 refers to a local tribe as local flood advocates imply, it follows that 'adam in the creation account in Gen 1 and 2 also refers to a local tribe since there’s no indication that the terms apply to a different entity. And if these chapters do not deal with “all mankind”, one wonders how much of the “whole earth” was engulfed in “wickedness” (Gen 6:5). Just parts of it? Which ones? Were there pockets of idyllic peace and civility on earth, maybe even sinless perfection?
This is hardly the case. Genesis 1, 2, 5 and 6, 7, 8 and 9 all deal with the same 'adam, “all mankind”.
“Earth” (eretz). This term can mean “earth” or “land”, depending on the context. The word eretz is often used as a synonym of tebel “world” as in 1 Sam 2:8: “For the pillars of the earth [eretz] are the Lord’s and on them he has set the world [tebel]” (e.g., Job 34:13; Ps 19:4; Isa 14:21; 1 Chron 16:29). Compare this with Ex 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth [eretz]”. It is also often found in apposition to “heaven” as the place where God resides (cf. 2 King 19:15; Isa 37:16; Jer 23:24; Hab 2:20) and to God as the Lord of kol ha-aretz “all the earth” (Zech 4:14; 6:5).
The Hebrew expression kol ha-aretz, “the whole earth” occurs three times in the story of Noah (Gen 7:3; 8:9; 9:19). It also occurs in other passages in the Old Testament not referring to the whole earth but these usually carry a marker of delimitation such as Deut 11:25: “the Lord your God will put the fear and dread of you on all the land [kol ha-aretz] on which you set foot.” These "kol/kal" expressions need to be interpreted according to the context (cf. Ex 10:15; 1 Sam 30:16; 2 Sam 18:7; Zech 14:10).
Some argue that eretz in the flood account could mean the local land of Noah only. But this would require a genitive such as “the land of Nod” (Gen 4:16) or other syntactical device to help the reader to understand which land is in view. The “land of Noah” would be an undeniable proof of a local flood, but this is nowhere to be found. The forty-six occurrences of eretz in the flood account do not delimit this eretz to a specific locale. In the absence of a delimiting feature and considering other universalistic expressions in the narrative, it follows that the whole earth, the entire world, is in view in the flood account.
“All, every”(kal/kol). The term kal/kol occurs eight times in the passage describing the extent and the effect of Noah’s flood in Gen 7:3, 19-23. Gen 7:19-20 states that “The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.” Because of this, “all flesh died”, “all human beings” and “every living thing”, “everything on dry land” was wiped out (Gen 7:21-23). Scholars agree that the narrative reaches a climax in this passage to contrast the absolute universality of the devastation with the fact that “only Noah was left”. (2)
Other important Hebrew terms in the mabbûl account are:
meod meod, “mightily” (7:19); denotes utmost intensity, an exceeding great number and even universality (Gen 17:2, 6).
kol-heharim, “all the mountains” (7:19-20);
kol-hashamayim, “the whole heaven/sky” (7:19);
kol-basar, “all flesh” (Gen 6:13, 17; 7:21; 9:17);
kol asher nishmat-ruah, “all that has breath” (7:22);
kol ha-adam, “all human beings” (7:21);
kol-hayequm, “every living thing” (7:23)
kal-hahay, “all living things” (6:19);
peney-ha-adamah, “the face of the ground” (Gen 7:4, 22; 8:8, 13; cf. Ex 32:12), which is synonymous with al-peney kol ha-aretz, “on the face of the whole earth” (Gen 7:3; 8:9; cf . Gen 1:29; 2:6 al-peney kol ha-aretz; kol-peney ha adama).
What is clear from these passages is that the Hebrew word kal (kol), “all, every, entire, everything” is the choice term to describe the extent of the flood. Together with the technical term mabbûl, these kol expressions contain the most forceful statement that the flood was a unique, indisputable, universal event.
We also need to acknowledge that, while the biblical author had many literary devices at his disposal to describe a local flood, our author did not do so. We look in vain for evidence of a localized event. Conversely, he did not have any other way to express the flood’s universal extent in Hebrew other than the way he did.
But despite the above evidence, opponents of the universal flood want us to read “all and every” as “not all, not the entire, not everything”. This reading has been made false by the Hebrew: there’s no question for the biblical author that the flood was a universal, planetary cataclysm.
It has also been suggested that because the ancient writer could not know the earth was a globe, the flood could not be global. But how can one be so certain he didn’t know this? Moreover, this argument is a non sequitur, an anachronism, which attempts to impose limits on ancient knowledge based on today’s understanding of the world. The fact is that the biblical author did not necessarily need to know that the earth was a globe to understand that the flood engulfed the whole planet, were it flat or round. The implications of knowing that the earth is globe have little or no impact in the description of a universal event.
The curious case of Noah’s dove
Close to the end of the flood, Noah “sent out the dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground; but the dove found no place to set its foot, and it returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth” (Gen 8:8-9).
It has been suggested that because the dove could not possibly fly all over the earth, “the whole earth” can only mean a “local land”. But nowhere does the text say that the dove flew “all over the earth”; this is an incorrect inference. That the dove did not find a place to rest is used by the author simply to highlight the fact that the waters were still “on the face of the whole earth" [kol ha-aretz]. It does not necessarily mean that the dove flew “on the face of the whole earth”. In fact implying that the dove flew “all over the earth” would not make any sense for the author since he already clearly stated, using the force of the Hebrew that the “whole earth” means the entire planet.
But let’s entertain the argument that because the dove could not fly all over the earth, “under the sky” means as far as the dove could fly, or as far as one could see, the horizon. The problem for this theory is that according to simple calculations (3) the horizon for a 6ft person is only about 5 miles away. Any observer’s sky area is a mere 25 square miles!
Now let’s assume Noah let out a mourning dove which flies at the top speed of 55 mph. Assuming Noah let it out at sunrise, the dove probably flew around the ark a couple of times to adjust its internal GPS and then darted off in a straight line as migratory often birds do, looking for its home back in Mesopotamia, 500 miles away. It would have flown approximately 330 miles one way (6 hours), and having found no dry ground, it flew back to Noah, probably in the evening as the other dove did. If this is a likely scenario, the total area of this “local flood” could have easily reached 360,000 square miles.
This is simply too large an area to be considered “Noah’s land” or what Noah could see under his sky. On the other hand, a flood lasting one whole year covering all the high mountains in 360,000 square miles could well have all the hallmarks of a universal event! And these calculations hinge on the flight of a mourning dove; if our primitive species of pigeon flew faster and at a much higher altitude (some birds reach 29,000 feet during migration), the area of this “local flood” could increase to over 1,000,000 square miles! This is well over the 168,000 square miles of the local, “Black Sea flood” theory proposed by Ballard. (4)
Noah’s dove poses absolutely no problem for the idea of a universal flood. In fact, rather than weakening the universality of the flood, the dove’s flight may be strong evidence in its favor.
The local flood theory is further weakened if we consider the possibility that the tallest mountains in the world at that time could be in the region where the Ark was floating, the mountains of Ararat. If that entire region was submerged, it obviously follows that the whole world was also under water.
Limited Revelation?
Opponents of the universal flood insist that while the flood story could be true, it shows signs of implausibility because according to them, God gave a limited revelation. While we can agree that God’s revelation about the natural world has not been exhaustive or scientifically minded, it is not unreasonable to assume that what is revealed can be understood by the human mind. The burden of proof is with those who argue that a global flood would be incomprehensible for those primitive minds. But this is not what we find in the many primitive, universal flood legends found around the world.
Finally, many details in the story simply do not add up to a localized flood; if this mabbûl covered only Noah’s horizon (25 square miles), why build a huge boat and gather animals if most of the earth outside “Noah’s land” was dry and cozy? Even in a major local flood of thousands of square miles, couldn’t Noah simply get out of the way of the waters? He certainly could have migrated to the Caribbean or the Americas in the 120 years it took him to build a boat!
It is hard to imagine that a straightforward reading of the account would lead one to conclude that a local flood is in view, unless one is being coaxed by strong philosophical presuppositions. Our author’s intent is quite clear that this was a global event.
A further step from this essay would be to explore some of the global features in earth’s crust which seem to point to a global catastrophe, such as the uniform layer of fossils suddenly buried by water and observable in all continents of the globe. (5)
Conclusion
Our study has demonstrated that the biblical author used the Hebrew language to describe nothing but a cataclysm of universal proportions, Yahweh’s mabbûl.
Critics of Genesis are free to question the historicity of the Flood from the standpoint of naturalist philosophy, uniformism and mainstream geological theory. But what they cannot do is continue to give lip service to the ancient text of Genesis while undercutting it by questioning the clear intentions of the biblical author.
TO DOWNLOAD PDF VERSION, CLICK HERE:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/133840844/The-Flood-A-Local-Event
____________________________
References
1. For a complete analysis of the flood account from the perspective of the Hebrew, see Gerhard Hasel’s “The Extent of the Biblical Flood”, available here https://www.grisda.org/origins/02077.pdf
2. See for example, Mathews, K. A., The New American Commentary. Vol. 1A, Genesis 1-11:26. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996).
3. See formula here: https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/15/how-far-away-is-the-horizon/#.UVgx_6vwJOw].
4. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/
5. For further study, I have pointed out elsewhere the inadequacies and fallacies of attempting to make the Bible’s catastrophism adapt to mainstream geological theory. “Ice Cores and the Flood” https://spectrummagazine.org/node/4832 and “Drilling a little deeper: how long has snow fallen on Greenland? https://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/11/20/drilling-little-deeper-how-long-has-snow-fallen-greenland?quicktabs_2=0 ].
‘Critics of Genesis are free to question the historicity of the flood using mainstream geological theory. But what they cannot do is continue to give lip service to the ancient text of Genesis while undercutting it by questioning the clear intentions of the biblical author.’
Adres, I really appreciate you offering an alternative perspective, especially hot-off the press of Jack’s own article. It bodes well for the fairness of AToday, as a forum for genuine, as opposed to mere illusory, discussion.
However, you seem to miss a crucial point and base most of your argument on a false assumption. You are fixated on the author’s intention, as if that explains it all. No one is disputing that the author(s) probably intended the account to mean a world-wide flood as they understood then whole world. But that does not mean that from God’s perspective, or the perspective of later readers, it literally meant the whole world.
I don’t doubt that in Daniel 8:14, Daniel probably meant the phrase 2,300 ‘evenings and mornings’ to mean 2,300 literal days. Most Rapture-Dispensationalist Christians reading it this way but Adventists don’t – we read each day as a year. We read this passage in such a way to say that regardless of what the author meant, God was saying something deeper to a future generation, and that future generation would understand that these figures were not to be understood so literally.
It is no different from the same author(s), who in Gen 41:56,57 (same book remember) said the whole world came to buy grain from Joseph in Egypt. Do you really believe literally the whole world came to buy grain – everyone – from everywhere? Do you believe there really was a world-wide famine over all the land throughout the world – affecting every single tribe, tongue and people on every continent? That’s what the Bible says if you read it the same way as you are reading the flood account.
Were there people from China, Japan and India coming to Egypt? Did people from the Americas, or New Guinea, or the Aboriginals of Australia come to Joseph? How did they all get there and communicate with each other in Egypt?
Would such a gathering of people be on a magnitude of importance as a world-wide flood, given there are tribes in say New Guinea that are so isolated they can’t even speak the same language as the people over just the next ridge? Australian Aboriginals at the time didn’t really have any technology at all, so how did they get all the way to Egypt to see Joseph?
If we read Gen 41:56,57 literally, it would make it an overlooked account that is far more impressive that Noah’s flood story, rivaling the story about the Tower of Babel itself.
Whilst you make the flood story a really ‘world-wide’ event, taking those texts so literally, do you instead simply gloss over the ‘world-wide’ event concerning Joseph? Noah’s story is literal but Joseph’s isn’t perhaps? How does one pick and choose?
NOTE FROM ADVENTIST TODAY STAFF
Somehow, an earlier version of this blog was accidentally activated at midnight last night. It has been deleted, which means all comments have been deleted with it. If you have commented there, you need to comment here instead. So sorry for any confusion!
Hi Stephen
Thanks for reading and commenting.
You have brought up an important point, that of "God's perspective". Since there's no indication in Scriptures that God had a different perspective from that of the author of Genesis, we need to stick to that of the author, even though we can agree that based on God's elevation in relation to the horizon, his view of the whole world was probably the best one!
There's absolutely no indication anywhere else in Scripture that "later readers" disagreed with the author of Genesis. In fact, there's plenty of literal reading going on in the NT, even Jesus compared the end-time world to that of Noah; just as the Flood was universal, his coming will also be. The cognitive "smugness" we feel towards primitive peoples is simply not part of the Hebrew mindset, to the contrary, respect for more ancient wisdom is part of their worldview.
So that's my reaction to the notion that there's tension and different "readings" of Scripture within Scripture in regards to the Flood/mabbul.
Now to the passage of Gen 41:56-57. As I mentioned in the article, the kol passages need to be read in context and therefore, kol-ha-aretz can potentially mean "the whole land" with a localized meaning when a delimiter is present. And this is what we find indeed in the story of the famine in Egypt.
So when we read Gen 41:56-57 in the original Hebrew, we can disagree with the translation of the NRSV which reads:
"And since the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land of Egypt. Moreover, all the world came to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain, because the famine became severe throughout the world."
Why is this a bad translation? Because it's inconsistent; the same kol-ha-aretz, which was translated as "all the land" pertaining to "the land of Egypt" in v. 56 is now translated as "all the world" in v. 57. But there's no indication that a different meaning of kol-ha-aretz "all the land" is in view. Such a violent change in meaning in close contextual proximity would be incomprehensible to the original readers.
Also, keep in mind that the seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine in the dream of Pharaoh related solely to Egypt, Gen 41:29-31. We have no reason to surmise that this famine related to the "whole planet".
So a better translation, according to the context is
"And there was famine over all the land, and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land of Egypt. And all the land came to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain, because the famine became severe throughout the land".
The same is true of v. 54:
"and the seven years of famine began to come, just as Joseph had said. There was famine in every land [kol-ha-aretzot] and in all land of Egypt there was grain/bread."
It's interesting that the LXX translates v. 54 as "and there was NO bread in Egypt" which makes sense since the famine had already started to hit that country as v. 55 confirms. One wonders if they had access to a different Hebrew text. This possible rendering would confirm beyond doubt that both instances of kol-ha-aretz "all the land/lands" in v. 54 relate to Egypt. Be that as it may, we must keep in mind that the context deals with Egypt and probably the surrounding areas and NOT the whole globe necessarily.
Moreover, if this passage did in fact use kol-ha-aretz "all the world" to refer to Mesopotamia and Northern Africa alone, it would still be an isolated case having no impact on the force of this expression as used elsewhere with the meaning "the whole planet" as well as with other universalistic expressions present in the flood account.
Having said all that, even if the author meant a worldwide famine (which is unlikely philologically speaking) such an event would not be implausible. After all, even with all the technological advances today, there's close to 1 billion people starving as we speak.
In conclusion, I would say, proof-texting from English translations never works!
Thanks Andres,
credit where it is due, I have gone through your argument and you seem pretty convincing re you explanation of the phrase kol-ha-aretz. I do understand your argument as to whether that phrase has a delimiter or not to localise the phrase or not. Happy for anyone to comment on that interesting aspect.
This is very helpful article given the fact that modern fundamentalist objections to the contempoary scientific understanding of earth history and traditional Adventism Young Life Creationism (YLC) needs a universal flood as the prime mechanism to explain a recent event to deposit all or most of the geological and fossil record. Lacking any knowledge of the Hebrew language, I'm going to assume that the author's exposition of the linguistic contruct of the Genesis narrative is correct.
It seems to me that the idea that whoever wrote or edited the Hebrew Genesis flood story had the whole created world in mind is a very reasonable conclusion. Obviously, whoever wrote or edited those narratives would have no way of knowing how large the "whole created world" actually was. But that he (certainly a he) thought in terms of all terrestrial living things in the "whole world" having been killed makes sense in terms of the theology being advanced. Whether he was concerned about "how long ago" the event occurred can be disputed. If one wishes to argue that the author thought in terms of only a few thousand years, that certainly can reasonably be advanced.
Giiven when and where he lived, that the author(s) or editor(s) may have held these views should not be a surprise to anyone. If these views were indeed held by the author(s)/editors(s), we now know from well-established scientific evidence that, from a factual point of view, such views were mistaken. But, someone might say, so what? He/they and his/their contemporaries thought the earth to be essentially flat and the earth fixed in space. Having a writer of a Biblical text also being factually in error about a recent "universal" flood is no great problem unless, of course, one wishes to believe in an inerrant Bible or, for Adventists, an inerrant Ellen White.
'It seems to me that the idea that whoever wrote or edited the Hebrew Genesis flood story had the whole created world in mind is a very reasonable conclusion. Obviously, whoever wrote or edited those narratives would have no way of knowing how large the "whole created world" actually was… But, someone might say, so what?'
Yes very good point. If we can assume Adres is correct, that the author(s) of Genesis thought the flood covered the whole world, does that mean as a matter of objective fact, as opposed to subjective intention, that it did cover the whole world? Did God intend the author(s) to cover a scientific fact here, or did the author(s) experience a 'limited revelation', which was an expression of the author(s) subjective understanding of the world?
The example I used above is the good-old 2,300 'evening and morning' prophecy in Dan 8:14. Is there any indication that Daniel understood this figure to mean anything other than 2,300 literal days? Yet Adventists read from a different way than the author probably intended. We claim that whilst Daniel may have subjectively meant days, we objectively now understand these as years.
Dan 8:15 is important because it demonstrates some of the difficulties of inspired revelation. Even when prophets receive an image of God, they don't always really understand what they are seeing. They use limited human words bound by a limited human frame of reference to describe things. Could it have been any different for the author(s) of Genesis? If we for a moment assume that factually the flood say was a massive flood over a large portion of the Mesopotamian area, not encompassing literally the whole world but encompassing the then-known world as the ancient’s understood it, would we expect anything other than kol-ha-aretz phrase without a delimiter in the text? Not sure – just asking the question.
As for the ancient’s understanding of science, one need go no further than the guidance provided by Ellen White Estate itself:
Attention has been called to statements that seem to show that Ellen White made grievous errors regarding scientific issues. Prophets are not called to update encyclopedias or dictionaries. Nor are prophets (or anyone else) to be made "an offender by a word" (Isa. 29:21). If prophets are to be held to the highest standards of scientific accuracy (every few years these "standards" change, even for the experts), we would have cause to reject Isaiah for referring to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12) and John for writing that he saw "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1).
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-c2
Not sure if others can think of other examples in the Bible where it is clear what the author(s) subjective understanding and intent was, but what we now know that subjective view was only a limited understanding of the objective.
Thus, are we once again confusing God being with the penmen, but not in the pen?
Thanks Ervin for reading and commenting.
You said: "If these views were indeed held by the author(s)/editors(s), we now know from well-established scientific evidence that, from a factual point of view, such views were mistaken."
I'm no convinced by that line of argument. The theories about what happened in the remote past as put forth by modern science are tentative at best. I think it's more likely that our distance from those events makes us less capable of deciding in such a dogmatic manner that "such views were mistaken". Just ask any archeologist worth her salt if she feels 100% confident about the history of any piece of 3000 year-old piece of broken pottery she digs up.
It is a fact of life that clues to a given event get colder not hotter with the passage of time.
And how likely would it be that at the time of writing Genesis, the author actually had access to more concrete evidence of a worldwide flood than we do today? What if he could actually see the ark as it stood on 16,000 ft up on top of a mountain as he wrote? What if he had access to long lost reports from distant lands about indisputable evidence of a worldwide flood? What if this knowledge had been circulating far and wide for so long that no one would dared to dispute it? Even from a scientific methodology standpoint, we have to give the ancient writer the benefit of the doubt.
And I think from a different perspective, it is the biblical author who is showing open-mindedness about such a wild event as a worldwide flood and those who criticize him who actually show narrow-mindedness. The idea of a worldwide flood was preposterous, even for Noah's contemporaries as it is to many today. And yet, that is precisely what happened, according to him.
Regardless of what one's views on inspiration are, I have no reason to discredit the story the author is telling since I was not with him and have little or no access to the evidence that he had. Unless shown otherwise, I can trust that he is providing an honest and accurate report, even as it may be based on a tradition that originated from supernatural revelation which predated him.
You said: "Having a writer of a Biblical text also being factually in error about a recent "universal" flood is no great problem unless, of course, one wishes to believe in an inerrant Bible or, for Adventists, an inerrant Ellen White."
It would be a major problem if the gist of the story hinges precisely on whether it was a universal or just a local, insignificant catastrophe with few if any implications for human theodicy. It's the difference between a flash flood eating up part of my miserable, weedy n my backyard and the Southeast Asia tsunami.
"Just ask any archaeologist worth her salt if she feels 100% confident about the history of any piece of 3000 year-old piece of broken pottery she digs up."
Very true up to a point. Very few data points in the historical sciences are known at the level of 100% certain.
However, if the pottery in question was dated by an well-documented, associated piece of charcoal dated by radiocarbon at about say 9000 years, then the archaeologist would be able to, with a high level of probability, argue that the pottery was about 9000 years old, not 1000 years old. (to be precise, a 14C date of about 9000 BP (before present) would indicate a calendar age of between about 9700 and 10,400 before present, but let's get be picky)
f someone on the basis of some ancient document says that this pottery is 1000 not a little over 9000 years old, in this case, would we not wish to question the validity of the ancient document much more than this particlar piece of scientific data? .
I was referring to that shard's actual "history".
Merely dating it is probably less difficult from an acheological standpoint than knowing who made it, who did it belong to, which family owned it, what was the community like, what was it used for etc. And even those "dates" are open to serious debate.
The point was, we're too far removed from the ancient source of these stories to be able to dogmatically question what actually happened. The biblical author deserves the same or more credence than we give our tentative scientific theories about what occurred in the past.
'You have brought up an important point, that of "God's perspective". Since there's no indication in Scriptures that God had a different perspective from that of the author of Genesis, we need to stick to that of the author, even though we can agree that based on God's elevation in relation to the horizon, his view of the whole world was probably the best one!'
Why? Andre, why do we have to stick with the author(s) subjective intention where the scriptures are silent on what God actually thought, and where newer objective fact would such the author(s) intention was only a limited one based on then-knowledge?
Do we have any indication in scripture that God disagreed with ancient prophets who thought the world was flat and centre of the universe? And yet everyone today would presumably be willing to admit these ancient prophets were subjectively truthful and honest in the dissemination of their visions from God, and yet those subjective views were limited, not understanding the objective facts of the world and universe around them as we now understand them.
As to this point, can I ask the 'heretical' question about the possibility of two, not one flood accounts, later collated together? Wasn't there possibly one account from the North of Israel (the Elohist account), whilst there was another account from the South in Judea (the Yahwist account), and don't these two accounts have slightly different accounts of this story? What does that say about author(s) subjective intentions and the limitation thereof? I am no scholar, but there appears to be greater scholars than I would assume even you who think so.
How is this any different from say the 4 Gospel stories, which were similar but distinct. Did the Centurion visit Jesus personally or did the Centurion merely send Jewish representatives instead?
Don't the slight inconsistencies of fact between the Gospel accounts, in the Flood accounts, and in accounts in both the OT and NT, demonstrate the imporant difference between subjective intention of authors compared with objective fact as we later know. Is God with the penmakers or in the pen? If God was ensuring the Bible accounts for objective accuracy, as opposed to mere subjective truthfullness, how do we account for slight contradictions and inconsisties between duplicate stories in both the OT and NT?
And talking about the subjective intention of authors, who do you mean? Do you mean Noah who experienced this event? Do you mean Moses who presummably had the revelation? Do you mean oral transmission of these stories? Do you mean the scribes who wrote the stories down (and presumably were the ones who wrote about Moses own death at the end of Deut, presuming you don't believe Moses wrote his own death)? Do you mean the later redactor and editors, who created the OT cannon? And don't we see much the same process in the formation of the NT cannon, or can we even say, in the way Ellen White's own writings were revealed, written, edited, collated and now managed by her estate?
Andre, thanks for rising to my bait! Let’s first agree where we can agree.
So let’s also be clear where we disagree.
Do you think that before the Tower of Babel that the human race had spread out all over the globe? That there were humans all over the antediluvian earth, in Hunza, Hawaii, New Zealand, and Tennessee? 10 generations from Adam to the Flood. Adam had 3 named sons and unnamed daughters, If each pair had 6 children in 10 generations how large was the population of the earth?
Hey, that’s a city the size of Walla Walla! OK so they had more than 6 kids/couple. But the earth was violent and corrupt, and they were killing off each other in fantastic style….. Anyway I don’t see any Biblical necessity for destroying all humanity requiring a global flood.
And as has been noted before it was exceedingly unlikely for Moses to describe a global flood when neither he nor anyone else on earth knew about one for over 1,500 years from his time. Even 500 years after Moses wrote you still quote from 1 Samuel 2:8 where the Bible writers still refer to “the pillars of the earth” upon which the Lord has set the flat earth, surrounded by water.
When Old Testament writers speak of “heaven and earth” it is really not honest to suggest they are speaking of the Universe with our planet spinning in it. They had not the slightest inkling of that and the Holy Spirit never inspired any of them to explain it to their audience. The straightforward understanding of those words in the Bible that applies to everyman everywhere at anytime is not “space and planet” it is “sky and land.” To force a Genesis story to fit a post Copernican, Hubble telescope cosmology is an unjust and unnecessary distortion of the Holy Scriptures.
And again in the Bible God is purifying humanity with the flood, not animals, and not plants, and not birds, and not fish. The total destruction of the wickedness of mankind was the requirement of the flood, not the destruction of duckbilled platypuses in Australia, or snow leopards on Mt. Everest. So unless you imagine a huge population of antediluvians completely unlike the postdiluvians who wanted to cluster together and stay in the plains of Shinar, who God had to force to migrate by language diversification, there is no need for a global flood to accomplish God’s design for destroying the very local population of humans still clustered about Eden in the middle east or northern Africa.
Finally do you want to decide to buy a Honda or a Chevrolet based on linguistic studies of the Scriptures? Should you decide how much Vitamin D to take based on analysis of Revelation 16:8?
Why not decide chemical questions with chemistry. And astronomical question with telescopes and space ships. And questions of topography with geography? And questions of floods and their extent and consequences with geology?
It seems inappropriate to try to consider geological questions with linguistic studies of ancient Hebrew. It makes much more sense to me to understand ancient languages far removed from us by applying chemical, archeological, physical evidences back on the ancient words, than the other way around. We go to the Bible to learn why God permitted a flood, but not about its size or extent. We go to the Bible to learn why God created, not when or how.
Nice one, Jack. Is it ok if I fish in your pond? My arithmetic isn't reliable either, but if these pairs, after the second generation, had 12 offspring each (exceedingly unlikely, imho), then after ten generations, there woudl be closer to 20 million. About the size of greater Los Angeles. (And even today, a lot of LA is easily threatened by local flooding).
But what I do like about your approach is that it takes literality to its logical end point. And, I think you are implying, sometimes it just doesn't make sense.
The main point I took from your post is this: The flood is a story about how God started over with humanity. So by definition, the story has to describe how all but the select few disappear from the face of the earth. Now He can begin again with Noah and family. (And there weren't twelve of them either). And what a good story it is. So good in fact, that over 32 ancient civilisations have seen fit to record and retell it in many and divers ways. Some even recorded it before Moses (& friends) did.
One final bit of literality. If Ussher's chronology approximates the YEC / Flood timetable, then we have problems with the presumably post-flood dates of the early Egyptian dynasties. Back in '72 I was taught in Theology school at Avondale (not by Dr Ford either), that the earliest verifiable date, among a list of Pharoahs, as discovered by an SDA historian, was of the order of 3400BC. Ussher puts the Flood at 2348.
Just doesn't add up.
Thanks Jack for reading and commenting.
You say
So let’s also be clear where we disagree.
• That the flood has to be not only total, but also global, why?
• That a linguistic study of Moses’ Hebrew is the way Adventists should decide physical, geological, material questions, really?
As I stated in the article, you are welcome to question details in the flood account, but doing so is completely outside the purview of the author's intent as found in the text and therefore enters the area of pure speculation.
But there are interesting things in your comment. First of all, you seem to accept that Moses wrote Genesis. Based on what? It can't be on the text itself since it nowhere says so. So, correct me if I'm wrong: you're ready to accept what's NOT in the text while questioning what is IN the text?
Second, your question about whether "Adventists should decide physical, geological, material questions" on the basis of the Hebrew is yet another non sequitur, based on circular reasoning.
Why? Because you begin with what you end up with. In other words, you have already decided that the ancient Hebrew text is unreliable based on modern geological presuppositions and now you want to apply such presuppositions on the text in order to draw you own conclusions about the text!
Your math on the number of inhabitants of earth is incorrect first because it would involve only 10 generations, roughly 200 years maybe 400 and it is too conservative on the number of children people had back then and how long they were reproducing. The flood according to Genesis occurred much later. If we take the most conservative estimates of around 2000 years after creation, that number would skyrocket. Some estimates put the population of earth in the 11 billions (cf. Alfred Rehwinkel "The Flood: In the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology"). This is completely plausible considering people were living hundreds of years back then.
You assert dogmatically:
"When Old Testament writers speak of “heaven and earth” it is really not honest to suggest they are speaking of the Universe with our planet spinning in it [?] They had not the slightest inkling of that and the Holy Spirit never inspired any of them to explain it to their audience. The straightforward understanding of those words in the Bible that applies to everyman everywhere at anytime is not “space and planet” it is “sky and land.” To force a Genesis story to fit a post Copernican, Hubble telescope cosmology is an unjust and unnecessary distortion of the Holy Scriptures."
How can you be so sure they didn't have the "slightest inkling of that" or that there was no special revelation? This statement is highly speculative, you simply cannot back it up. I read "heaven and earth" as referring to the realm of God, the angels and the realm of the human, the earth.
But I find it interesting that you would now call the acceptance of greater ancient knowledge about the world a "distortion of the Holy Scriptures" when all the while you have discredited the same "Holy Scriptures" by questioning the author's honesty and intelligence. When he writes "the whole earth was flooded" you say "Nah…" If it's "holy" why is it if not based on what it says? You can't not believe in the words and at the same time consider it "holy". There's no "wireless holiness" in Scriptures, it's must be tethered to the text.
You say:
"It seems inappropriate to try to consider geological questions with linguistic studies of ancient Hebrew. It makes much more sense to me to understand ancient languages far removed from us by applying chemical, archeological, physical evidences back on the ancient words, than the other way around. We go to the Bible to learn why God permitted a flood, but not about its size or extent. We go to the Bible to learn why God created, not when or how."
Your approach is the result of attempting to conflate ancient historiography with the very young geological sciences. I will repeat to you what I wrote to Ervin:
Dismissing an universal flood would be a major problem if the gist of the story hinges precisely on whether it was a universal or just a local, insignificant catastrophe with few if any implications for human theodicy. It's the difference between a flash flood eating up part of my miserable, weedy backyard and the Southeast Asia tsunami.
You will most definitely have to change your premises before approaching Genesis. You will have to first be reconciled to the text before you're able to ask the right kinds of questions of its author.
"Using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning."
(Feinberg, Joel; Shafer-Landau, Russ (2008). Reason and responsibility: readings in some basic problems of philosophy. Cengage Learning. pp. 257–258).
Andre
It is refreshing to read an exegetical scholar article in AT. I concur with your conclusion “the biblical author used the Hebrew language to describe nothing but a cataclysm of universal proportions, Yahweh’s mabbûl.
Critics of Genesis are free to question the historicity of the Flood from the standpoint of naturalist philosophy, uniformism and mainstream geological theory. But what they cannot do is continue to give lip service to the ancient text of Genesis while undercutting it by questioning the clear intentions of the biblical author”
Great article Andre
If the flood was only a local event it would have been ilogical for God to have asked Noah to build a boat to save animal species from extinction. ONLY a global flood could have threatened the extinction of all creatures and thus the need for a floating sanctuary to preserve them.
But was the ark big enough to save two of every kind of animal from extinction, being some 1 million or more land animal species. The ark seems pretty small to me, at only 137m long, and is a lot small than say the titanic, an aircraft carrier or modern freighter ships:
http://deepakjulien.com/how-big-was-noah’s-ark.html
Some suggest the answer to this is to say only 'kinds' went into the ark, which does not mean 'species', but wouldn't that require rapid evolution of various 'kinds' into a whole range of 'species'?
Nothing is impossible with (man's interpretation) about God. A day can mean a year, or a year can mean a day anytime humans decide that one doesn't fit the previous conclusions. Even in the Genesis story, "day" means 24-hr. periods, but when man was sentenced to die the "day" that he took the fruit, then it becomes nearly 1000 years. So tidy and convenient as chose in later prophecies. This is why we need trained theologians to explain to simple people what the Bible means. Better yet, why not trust the clergy and keep the Bibles locked in the churches? So much easier and less arguing about meanings. The democratic way would be to take a vote on biblical meanings. Why not, we are all free to hold our opinions and there is no final arbiter to declare what is right?
Serge, Erv, Stephen, Jack, et al,
You are all doing a great job of dissecting and analyzing what each of you sees as evidence while ignoring a far bigger question: Why should anyone believe any of the story about which you are discussing your points of view and bodies of evidence when doing that fails to show them the love and power of God?
Many years ago God showed me the utter waste of time that is the first and foremost result of never-ending argument about theology and debate about scientific evidence. But the worst result was I was living believing that such argument was what God wanted me to do, so the even more shocking realization was how ineffective I had become at fulfilling the purpose to which God had called us: proclaiming the Kingdom of God. Apparently none of you has come to that realization, so I pray that you will soon. Never-ending debate about creation does not show God's love in a dying world in a way that creates new believers. Rather, it drives people away from God because they are not seeing His power in action.
Please, guys, turn your focus forward instead of looking backward. Expend your energies doing what builds the Kingdom of God. After all, if we believe that scripture teaches Jesus is returning soon, then it will not be long before the topic on which you love to bloviate will be rendered moot by a far greater reality.
i concurr with much of Jack's above input. Man, since Martin Luther, if modern history is accurately penned, have done battle with the exact messages of God to man, with no universal agreement. Concepts of multiple outlooks have actually expanded, and as education & information, & imagination have become universal, there is no limit to conjecture & revisive histories. Every new generation retells the lore of the previous, in prevailing cultures. It was even more so in the earliest generations, as most of life's basic knowledge was "how to survive the dangerous elements", the murderous ungodly tribes that plundered, raped, killed, & kidnapped; the wild animals, poisonous creatures and plants; finding a place of daily refuge. This lore was passed down from person to person, for the earliest inhabitants, and changed, revised, as knowledge increased, for thousands, or millions of years. There was no Bible in those days. i seriously believe most of the books of Genesis & Exodus are allegorical. Perhaps portions not written by Moses, but lore passed down to a scribe or scribes who finally wrote. Shards of pottery, or cryptic cylinders, or scribed papyrus, all of which are perishable, lost, revised, GOD was not dependent on. Look at modern cultures of revised history, that is being rewritten in our lifetimes. i believe the Bible is a book of fact & fable. How can we be assured of "what is fact, what is fable"???? i believe we are led to knowledge, truth , understanding, & wisdom, by the indwelling of GOD the HOLY SPIRIT. Jesus said, i will not leave you comfortless. The Holy Spirit will come upon you when i ascend to my Father. LOOK UP, THE HEAVENS DECLARE MY GLORY. NOTICE THE INDESCRIBABLE BEAUTY, THE COMPLEXITY, THE ORDER THAT PROTECTS EARTH. THESE ARE MY GIFT TO YOU AND TO ALL WHO BELIEVE IN ME. LOOK UP, YOUR REDEMPTION IS ASSURED WHEN YOUR FAITH, BY GRACE, IS BELIEVED.
If Mr. Reis would agree that his interpreation of the Flood narrative in Genesis is influenced by his prior assumptions about the nature of Biblical inspiration and revelation and those assumptions may be incorrect, I would be happy to stipulate that my views of concerning how to understand an ancient Hebrew story about a great universal flood are influenced by my prior assulmptions, understandings and beliefs concerning the advantages of accepting scientific discoveries concerning the nature of past events and that these prior assumptions, understandings and beliefs may my incorrect. If we can both agree we may be wrong about these matters, then there is no conflict.
Reis: "A creationist’s “prior commitment” should be with the God of the Hebrew Bible, although at the end of the day, we need to humbly acknowledge that we see “through a glass darkly.”
Reis – It is good to have some diversity on this point of interpretation. Thank you.
It appears to me that most are more interested in whether or not everything happened exactly as described than what it means. Actually the descriptions we have of creation are vague. They do not tell how God created or when. I don't think that is what He wants us to focus on. There is more at stake here than proving what happened.
It does tell us that the creation of man was intimate and loving. It tells us that sin came into our Eden world and what that means for all of us. It points to the Son of God who came to give us eternal life through the incredible risk He took in dying the second death. These meanings are not given directly in the OT, but we have to dig for them, and that means prayer, study, and caring enough to know the Truth of Jesus. The truth is not always hard, physical evidence.
I don't question the flood happened and that the ancients passed on their knowledge, not through writing (they had great memories) but through verbal story. Whether it was a large local (not insigificant) flood or worldwide is beside the point. It is what it means and what God was trying to say by destroying the then humanity (which apparently did not spread out until after the flood).
Take a look at Jesus' story of the Richman and Lazarus. Most Christians take this literally as telling what hell is like (along witih other texts). However, in doing so they miss the point that the story was not about hell at all but about what we do with our lives. The same goes with the sheet brought down from heaven containing unclean animals that some think gives us permission to eat all sorts of animals. It wasn't about animals and food.
Our God communicates through humans with symbol, metaphor and allegory in some parts of the Bible as in Revelation. I know He created and it was not through the violence of evolution for it would conflict with the story of salvation. Beyond that, of what good is it to debate that which does not feed our spirits but is materialistic in nature.
Thanks for reading and commenting Ella M.
You say: "Whether it was a large local (not insigificant) flood or worldwide is beside the point. It is what it means and what God was trying to say by destroying the then humanity (which apparently did not spread out until after the flood). "
I'm afraid you're incurring in the same error others here have, namely, to conclude, against the plain meaning of the text that it does not, and really cannot mean what it says. Thus, in order to accomodate the biblical text with the scientific method, you simply dismiss the importance of the words for some a posteriori hermeneutical method. This leads you to conclude, against the text, that it is really not important whether the flood was universal or not, what matters is what it tells you about God.
I agree that the flood tells us something about God, but that something is embedded in its details, in fact, all of them. You can't pick and choose what is important and what is not without doing violence to the text.
The problem is that there's no control in the hermeneutical method you, Hoehn, Taylor and others are proposing, for while you consider some details as literal but the universality as unimportant, I, with an ear to a certain scientific theory, may consider the fact that it was not a flood that was universal but rather another cataclysm, fire.
I then take "rain of water" to mean "rain of fire" and then take the Hebrew word mabbul to stem from the Akkadian root matturul from which we get the English "meteor". This meteor rained fire over the world and destroyed the whole world, including the dinosaurs. The mountains I take to mean the gigantic columns of fire and smoke which reached all the way to the stratosphere.
In this meteoric flood, nothing was left, just Noah as his family in a cave = ark in the Dead Sea, where the fire did not reach (in that case, he may have been the author of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why not?). The clean and unclean animals that he brought into the "ark" = cave I take to mean the good impulses and the evil impulses which Noah and his family harbored in their human heart. When he came out of the cave when the cataclysm was over, Noah dedicated (sacrificed) his good impulses again to Yahweh. But the evil impulses and some good impulses (clean and unclean animals) spread all over the earth, creating conflict in the earth again.
This interpretation tells me that God was able to bring judgment over the sinful and violent world through a much more potent and decisive means than muddy water. Unfortunately, the "unclean animals" took over the earth and here we are again, in a similar situation as in the days of Noah. This interpretation appears to be confirmed in the NT when Peter states that the world, wicked as in the days of Noah, is being "kept in store
Do you disagree with my reading? Why is it implausible? How does it compare to your approach to the text? Why is a consistent hermeneutical method important at all?
The problem is that there's no control in the hermeneutical method you……"
Most of the people reading the flood story will not even know what "hermeneutical" means. We can't simply pull up some theological term to explain a story; for nonbelievers will rarely believe in the literal flood (the ice core history does not show a worldwide flood but a large one in the Mediterrean area). I think it is important for people to begin with what they can accept and then lead them to the meaning which is the most important concept–that which leads to Christ as Saviour.
We cannot deny the fossils that exist.
You say: I then take "rain of water" to mean "rain of fire" and then take the Hebrew word mabbul to stem from the Akkadian root matturul from which we get the English "meteor". This meteor rained fire over the world and destroyed the whole world, including the dinosaurs.
This is an interesting concept which, if true, should be verified by scholars (I haven't heard it before). I cannot say it is not true. And we do know that there is proof that a meteor did strike and destroy life. But like you said about the idea of a local large flood, it is still speculation when compared to the Bible "rain."
The rest of your speculations could be plausible, but there is virtually no biblical basis for the animals representing human impulses. There is a more obvious reason for their presence on the ark.
Thanks for reading and commenting Ella M.
You say: "Whether it was a large local (not insigificant) flood or worldwide is beside the point. It is what it means and what God was trying to say by destroying the then humanity (which apparently did not spread out until after the flood). "
I'm afraid you're incurring in the same error others here have, namely, to conclude, against the plain meaning of the text that it does not, and really cannot mean what it says. Thus, in order to accomodate the biblical text with the scientific method, you simply dismiss the importance of the words for some a posteriori hermeneutical method. This leads you to conclude, against the text, that it is really not important whether the flood was universal or not, what matters is what it tells you about God.
I agree that the flood tells us something about God, but that something is embedded in its details, in fact, all of them. You can't pick and choose what is important and what is not without doing violence to the text.
The problem is that there's no control in the hermeneutical method you, Hoehn, Taylor and others are proposing, for while you consider some details as literal but the universality as unimportant, I, with an ear to a certain scientific theory, may consider the fact that it was not a flood that was universal but rather another cataclysm, fire.
I then take "rain of water" to mean "rain of fire" and then take the Hebrew word mabbul to stem from the Akkadian root matturul from which we get the English "meteor". This meteor rained fire over the world and destroyed the whole world, including the dinosaurs. The mountains I take to mean the gigantic columns of fire and smoke which reached all the way to the stratosphere.
In this meteoric flood, nothing was left, just Noah as his family in a cave = ark in the Dead Sea, where the fire did not reach (in that case, he may have been the author of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why not?). The clean and unclean animals that he brought into the "ark" = cave I take to mean the good impulses and the evil impulses which Noah and his family harbored in their human heart. When he came out of the cave when the cataclysm was over, Noah dedicated (sacrificed) his good impulses again to Yahweh. But the evil impulses and some good impulses (clean and unclean animals) spread all over the earth, creating conflict in the earth again.
This interpretation tells me that God was able to bring judgment over the sinful and violent world through a much more potent and decisive means than muddy water. Unfortunately, the "unclean animals" took over the earth and here we are again, in a similar situation as in the days of Noah. This interpretation appears to be confirmed in the NT when Peter states that the world, wicked as in the days of Noah, is being "kept in store
Do you disagree with my reading? Why is it implausible? How does it compare to your approach to the text? Why is a consistent hermeneutical method important at all?
Thanks for reading and commenting Ella M.
You say: "Whether it was a large local (not insigificant) flood or worldwide is beside the point. It is what it means and what God was trying to say by destroying the then humanity (which apparently did not spread out until after the flood). "
I'm afraid you're incurring in the same error others here have, namely, to conclude, against the plain meaning of the text that it does not, and really cannot mean what it says. Thus, in order to accomodate the biblical text with the scientific method, you simply dismiss the importance of the words for some a posteriori hermeneutical method. This leads you to conclude, against the text, that it is really not important whether the flood was universal or not, what matters is what it tells you about God.
I agree that the flood tells us something about God, but that something is embedded in its details, in fact, all of them. You can't pick and choose what is important and what is not without doing violence to the text.
The problem is that there's no control in the hermeneutical method you, Hoehn, Taylor and others are proposing, for while you consider some details as literal but the universality as unimportant, I, with an ear to a certain scientific theory, may consider the fact that it was not a flood that was universal but rather another cataclysm, fire.
I then take "rain of water" to mean "rain of fire" and then take the Hebrew word mabbul to stem from the Akkadian root matturul from which we get the English "meteor". This meteor rained fire over the world and destroyed the whole world, including the dinosaurs. The mountains I take to mean the gigantic columns of fire and smoke which reached all the way to the stratosphere.
In this meteoric flood, nothing was left, just Noah as his family in a cave = ark in the Dead Sea, where the fire did not reach (in that case, he may have been the author of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why not?). The clean and unclean animals that he brought into the "ark" = cave I take to mean the good impulses and the evil impulses which Noah and his family harbored in their human heart. When he came out of the cave when the cataclysm was over, Noah dedicated (sacrificed) his good impulses again to Yahweh. But the evil impulses and some good impulses (clean and unclean animals) spread all over the earth, creating conflict in the earth again.
This interpretation tells me that God was able to bring judgment over the sinful and violent world through a much more potent and decisive means than muddy water. Unfortunately, the "unclean animals" took over the earth and here we are again, in a similar situation as in the days of Noah. This interpretation appears to be confirmed in the NT when Peter states that the world, wicked as in the days of Noah, is being "kept in store
Do you disagree with my reading? Why is it implausible? How does it compare to your approach to the text? Why is a consistent hermeneutical method important at all?
What did it mean to the Sumerians from where it first came? Did the writer of Genesis used their story to write his own, with minor changes?
Did the writer of baby Moses no read and know of the infant Sargon, long before, who was also placed in a basket on the water and was rescued by a princess?
Did the writer of the Decalogue not know about the earlier Code of Hammurabi that had many similar laws under a god of those people?
What is original about the Flood and other stories in the Bible that were not previously known to the writers?
“It seems inappropriate to try to consider geological questions with linguistic studies of ancient Hebrew. It makes much more sense to me to understand ancient languages far removed from us by applying chemical, archeological, physical evidences back on the ancient words, than the other way around. We go to the Bible to learn why God permitted a flood, but not about its size or extent. We go to the Bible to learn why God created, not when or how.”
It certainly makes sense to clarify what scripture says and what it meant to say about the Flood. It is the same as an expert in the Constitution to give an exposition about the Constitution of the United States.
The fact a discussion about the Flood takes place shows the Genesis Flood Account is taken seriously by many including those who have trainings in natural sciences. By faith many Christians take the Biblical Flood at face value as Scripture states it. Some consequences of that account are found to be at odd with current states of certain natural sciences such as geology by others hence the Biblical Account is deem unscientific hence untrustworthy pertaining to describing the state of nature or what happened in nature.
It is a big jigsaw puzzle to put many current observable facts of nature to attempt to infer about the state of nature at a distant pass. There are plenty missing pieces. Many assumptions have to be made even with very reliable scientific methods. An accurate ruler does not always give accurate measurements depending on how the ruler is used. Take the case of C-14 dating Neanderthal, less than four years ago Neanderthal was thought to interact and even interbreed with human. Today it is doubtful Neanderthal and human coexisted using the same C-14 dating technique.
When methods or techniques of science were used to construct events of the past it assumes the risk of extrapolating outside data ranges. The conclusions are no less FAITH constructs with a façades of scientific fact of nature if one is not careful. The biblical account of the Flood changed little through the ages when what is said has clearly been said. It is for those whose faith lies in the sciences who need to be cautious and patient. The next discovery in nature may change the scientific story substantially.
Andre, I am going to use a recent book by Christian Smith to paraphrase what I want to say about what you call your hermeneutic others might call Biblicism. Biblicism presupposes a text whose words and passages have a single, specific, and readily identifiable meaning, implications, and instructions. Unfortunately, most practicing biblicists to date seem prepared to ignore the..facts, to Adventism's discredit. Adventists should believe that pursuing truth and intellectual honesty under the governing authority of Jesus Christ is more important than protecting a particular, flawed, historically bound theory about the Bible. We need a better, more faithful way to read scriture. Many simply equate biblicism as a theory with Christian faithfulness per se, and so end up having to defend a view that is impossible and dishonest.
God does not need his people to live in denial in order to protect a particular theory of scripture from reality. God's writen revelation in the nature and mode that it has actually taken is perfectly adequate to achieve God's purposes. I am not agreeing that the Bible should not be the central and trustworthy authority in Christian faith and practice. I am just saying that if you demand a hermanutic that requires the Bible to say something that is impossible and for which there is no sustainable evidence, then there is something wrong that the hermaneutic.
There is a risen, living, and reigning Lord, Jesus Christ. His disciples refer to the Noah destruction as "the world that then was." That was Noah's world. That was the world of human antedeluvians.
That does not need to include the entire globe including Greenland and New South Wales. Only your hermaneutic requires that. If in fact a global flood 15 cubits over all mountains was impossible, then why not bow our heads to Jesus and the evidence, and alter our hermaneutic? Not because I say so, of course, but study the evidence and then re-evaulate your theory.
(These are my thoughts but not my words, I have used Christian Smiths"The Bible Made Impossible" from his Conclusion chapter to state them more clearly than I could.)–Jack
Jack,
As I stated previously the major flaw in the method you are proposing is that relies heavily on a logical fallacy: circular reasoning. This is the same error incurred by those who criticize "biblicism". I'll repeat the reason why:
You begin with what you end up with. In other words, you have already decided that the ancient Hebrew text is unreliable based on modern geological presuppositions and now you want to apply such presuppositions on the text in order to draw you own conclusions about the text!
You have not addressed this issue. Until you do so, you will keep repeating the same error.
Another example of this is in your assertion that:
"if you demand a hermanutic [sic] that requires the Bible to say something that is impossible and for which there is no sustainable evidence, then there is something wrong that the hermaneutic [sic]."
Continuing with your circular reasoning, you insist that "God does not need his people to live in denial in order to protect a particular theory of scripture from reality" or that "We go to the Bible to learn why God permitted a flood, but not about its size or extent."
You obviously approach the text with a priori assumptions and unacceptable outcomes. You have already decided that it is "impossible" that a worldwide flood could occur and then you try to make the text fit that assumption. But these are mere opinions which have absolutely no support in the text or even in the history of biblical hermeneutics. Conversely, scholars agree that the author is describing an universal event. For the author, there's simply NO reason why a wordlwide flood could not occur. As I have demonstrated here, there's nothing in the text that allows for an equivocation on the author's intent on the extent of the Flood.
I could take your own method to its logical conclusions and state:
As Dr. Jack Hoehn as cogently argued, no flood ever occurred, be it local or universal. Moreover, Noah never existed and there was never an ark with animals in it. This is obviously an ancient allegory tinged with Akkadian mysticism which attempts to tell us something else about a proto-Israelite deity. A possible explanation is that this story reflects the primitive author's understanding of why there's so much water in the world. The author was clearly attempting to give credit for the rivers and oceans to a certain Mesopotamian deity which we know today does not exist, because no god exists, as demonstrated by modern science."
But one wonder if, as an author, you would accept such distortion of your authorial intent.
Ella: "Whether it was a large local (not insigificant) flood or worldwide is beside the point. It is what it means and what God was trying to say by destroying the then humanity (which apparently did not spread out until after the flood). "
Jack: 'God does not need his people to live in denial in order to protect a particular theory of scripture from reality.'
Andre: "I'm afraid you're incurring in the same error others here have, namely, to conclude, against the plain meaning of the text that it does not, and really cannot mean what it says."
I tend to agree with Ella re what is more important. If objective fact was more important than subjective meaning, then why would the Gospels about Jesus Christ has so many factual inconsistencies.
There are many, many examples, but the one that comes to mind instantly is whether the Centurion visited Jesus personally (Matt 8:5) or whether the Centurion sent Jewish representatives (Luk 7:3). Perhaps you might try to come up with some tortuous way to defend what clearly upon the 'literal, plain and ordinary' reading of the text a contradiction of the facts, as Jack was alluding to.
And by consequence as Ella was alluding to, you will miss the whole point of the story, which isn't about whether the Centurion visited Jesus personally or not, but that the Centurion had great faith. That is the aspect that each of the Gospel writers were focusing on in their albeit 'limited' revelations, which were clearly limited because they got some of the minor details wrong.
As for Noah, obviously what it theologically means is the principal point? As for making things factually fit, how then to you account for contradictions in the Flood story that indicate two, not one flood account, which don't exactly match?
Stephen, can you attempt a rebuttal of the alternative intepretation of the flood account I offered above, which follows the same allegorical method Jack and Ella M have proposed?
I am not sure that Jack would agree with you that his interpretation is allegorical. I think he would say that his understanding is that the story is a literal one, but one of 'limited' revelation, or literally true from the subjective understanding of Noah (or perhaps Moses or the oral transmitters of this story before it was written down).
How do you understand the two Gospel stories about Jesus healing the Centurion's servant I referenced above? I still see these as 'true' stories, and about a literal event, not a mere allegorical one. But one or more of the Gospel writers obviously had a 'limited revelation' of what was going on, others these stories would be 100% factual consistent.
However, the 4 Gospels are full of more inconsistencies. This is not a reflection of the 'error' of God or the Bible, but the limitations of revelation, which is progressive. It is the same with all the various inconsistencies through different and repeated stories in the OT. We can discuss clear contradictions of the same accounts in say Kings vs Chronicles, but I assume you already know all this.
If we take a biblical authors' subjective and limited revelation as the total objective truth as God knows it, I think one is set one's up faith up like a house of cards ready for easy destruction. It doesn't take a scientist to see that.
Stephen
I'm aware of the notion of "limited revelation" and I agree with it in the sense that some concepts were not exhausted in special or natural revelation. Science can continue to illuminate these issues such as the intricacies of the DNA code etc.
At the same time, you need to demonstrate why, against the plain reading of the author's intent, we should conclude that primitive minds could "never" understand that a worldwide flood is impossible, according to mainstream geological theory, and consequently the author described as "universal" a mere local flood. And I can't see you "proving" that without falling in the same logical fallacies which plague the arguments of the critics of the universal flood.
I could also quibble with the cherry picking hermeneutics you apply not only to the story of the flood but also to the gospels for, while you accept that Jesus did perform miracles (supernaturalism) you deny that the same concept applies to the flood, an event that was also supernaturally initiated.
Blessings!
Administrator, I keep having trouble opening this article – something about redirecting too many times?
The Bible writers surely believed that what they wrote was absolutely, factually true. But does anyone offer evidence that the writers of ancient times had more knowledge about the world than we today?
Are we limiting our understanding to only what they believed? If they believed that God caused the earth to open up and swallow people, do we believe that God acted then, and now to cause earthquakes at his will? Does He cause earthquakes, floods, and droughts at his orders? Does he curse people with blindness or deafness?
All of these the people of ancient times believed, and those who wrote the Bible were not all prescient and inspired to write as modern man. If they had all information, why did they make so many mistakes and contradictions–contradictions impossible to explain?
How can we defend the originality and inspiration when many of the stories were copied from earlier accounts? Does inspiration merely use other stories and add God to his retelling?
This will never convince any educated person to convert to such explanations as doctrinally important. Christians find their teachings from the New Testament; the Old Testament is for history of the Jews from which Christianity, an entirely new religion, was born. Why return to the OT where there is no Christ from which Christianity got its name and the Resurrection that gave it birth?
Yes, i agree, if the OT were all we had there would be no atoning sacrifice for sin, we would be lost, just as are the JEWS. Where would God's love be found or accepted. Who could trust the angry God described, who rules with an iron rod, thunderbolt, death ray, murderous armies, killing all who resist, innocent women & children, a local or a worldwide flood, etc. It's difficult to accuse the antideluvians of sin. They were fighting for survival. They didn't choose the tribes or culture to which they were born, then to be annihilated because of the accidents of birth. They sought all the easy comforts they could find. We have a mystery here. Some scribes have been delusive, or outright unknowing in the accuracy of their reporting. Were they influenced by the DARK PRINCE OF THE EARTH?? JESUS said,"if you've seen me you've seen the Father"; My Father and I are one. Yet, in the OT, we have a angry capricious Father, and in the NT, we have a loving sacrificing SAVIOUR, flying to Earth to save His Creation at any price demanded. All down thru history mankind has been betwixt & between as to what kind of God we belong to. We still living today are debating the same historic issues. We just don't know for certainty.
Some have given up, saying the uncertainty is not worth the fight of allegiancy. Others, unable to
give up, have just accepted every word of OT & NT, as being literal, infallible. Still others, knowing
mankind to be a different kind, from all other life forms, refuse to give up, and are using their intelligent brains, which is the basic difference between them & other living creatures, to attempt to
work out the mystery of our origins, which we observe to have infinite complexity of design & purpose. SOMETHING FROM SOMETHING, NOT SOMETHING FROM NOTHING.
WHAT SAYEST THOU?????
We can always read the Bible, realizing that this is how the people thought. But there is nothing telling us to believe just as they did, otherwise, we would be truly back in the dark ages and for that we should be grateful that today we know much more.
They gave their understanding and explanation of how and why things happened. We are not compelled to agree that today God is sending punishment to the Japanese in a tsunami, or for Sandy, or such terrible events: They simply happen, period. We cannot control nature. God asked Job:
"Can you control the wind"?
Haven't you ever wondered why so much of Adventism is based on the OT rather than the NT? The first DESCRIBES how people lived and thought; the second PRESCRIBES how Christian should LIVE.
Interesting comment, Elaine. I'm not sure how well your prescriptive/descriptive distinction would hold up under scrutiny. But it is interesting to see how folks love to selectively use scripture to confirm their own views. Liberals love to use the O.T. to preach social justice, and the N.T. to preach love and acceptance. Conservatives use the O.T. to defend legalism and a God of judgment; and they use the N.T. to emphasize forgiveness, atonement and salvation.
Earl: A logical and spiritual evaluation. We have become too obsessed with the nuts and bolts of creation and Bible stories and ignored their meanings which lead to Jesus. He is the foundation–the finished temple. He was God's representative on earth, and that is what we need to know. He tells what God is like.
I don't want to sound sexist, but this emphasis on proof, details, and being right seems quite masculine. Do women have more ability to find the beauty, mysticism, relationship, and spiritual in a story? It often seems like it, though men can cultivate this ability as well–maybe it takes a double portion of the Holy Spirit?
Many have a distorted view of what inspiration means–it is seeing through a glass darkly–not perfection. The ancients put their world into the language they used. They saw God as directly causing everything that happened. I agree that sometimes He used these things or turned them into a blessing. The ancients didn't at first have a theology of Lucifer who first showed up in the book of Job. (I am not a theologian by profession, but that is how it seems to me.) It has always been my understanding that this church does not take a literal meaning of everything in the Bible or take it as inerrant, and the same with EGW. Did we move away from that in the 1950s? Both sometimes contradict themselves or seem to; we need to use spiritual discernment and common sense.
When faced with a dilemma, choose the spiritual over the material.
Ella, you've tapped into what may be the reason for the constant desire to explain they why and how the Bible describes things that happened. Men are more into DOING, while women are more into EXPERIENCING, and that is where the mysticim comes, and why so many ascribe it to the devil, and yet Jesus went away for 40 days to meditate! Men are uncomfortable with the idea of meditating, they use words and actions.
Today, medical practitioners are finding great health benefit in meditation to relieve pain without medication. Men seek instant solutions, women know that we slowly and gradualy experience.
Ladies I fully agree. We guys need balance. My Bible tells me so. It is NOT good for man to dwell alone. Thank you for helping us calm down a bit and meditate more. Thank you for seasoning our conversations. Jack appreciates it.
Elaine: ‘The Bible writers surely believed that what they wrote was absolutely, factually true. But does anyone offer evidence that the writers of ancient times had more knowledge about the world than we today? Are we limiting our understanding to only what they believed?’
Agreed. Does such thinking try to put God in a box, and mistakes the notion of prophetic revelation as God being in the pen, rather than with the penmen? When we start thinking God was dictating word-for-word to prophets, and mistaking His visions for human understandings of those visions, of the Word of God for the limited human words of describing that Word, then I think we inevitably get into real problems.
For a good analogy, how about going no further than that other great OT nautical story, about Jonah and his fish-whale in Jonah 1:17, 2:1? Whilst many today translate the original Hebrew dag gadol (דג גדול) as ‘whale’, it really just means ‘huge fish.’ But was it really just a 'huge fish' as we moderns understand it?
The ancients didn’t understand the distinction between fish and mammals, and we modern readers obviously don't try to gain scientific understandings about the classification of marine life based on this passage. We don't tell marine biologists that their distinctions between fish and mammals are scientifically wrong because God supposedly lumped them all together in the story of Jonah. We all recognises that the ancients had only a limited understanding of these things, and whilst there were clearly describing some type of marine animal, that understanding was limited.
So how do we deal with this story of Jonah and his fish:
1. Argue it is all allegorical, not being too fanciful to be of actual events?
2. Argue it is a literal event, and so literal that we must understand as being a ‘fish’, like a whale shark, even though that is probably impossible and would be absurd (given whale sharks have big mouths but only a 4-inch throat, so swallowing a man is impossible)? Some Christians do take reading the Bible literally to this extreme level.
3. Argue it is a literal event, but understand that the ancient prophet had a ‘limited revelation,’ in that God was not imparting a scientific lesson in taxonomy, and that the ‘fish’ probably was a ‘whale,’ which is a mammal and not a fish?
I understand people have different approaches to these things. As for me personally, the third option makes most sense. In the sense way Jonah (and/or the person who wrote his story) only had a limited revelation about the scientific classification of the thing that swallowed him, so it could also be with Noah and his understanding of the world.
I don't take a stand on this, but hesitate to say it definitely wasn't factual. Some versions say God prepared a fish. Maybe it wasn't a conventional fish but more like a submarine–a fish to the ancients.
Man has no gills to gather oxygen. Inside a mammal in the sea or ocean, a man would die in a few minutes. The tale of the fishy tail is preposterous, unless, unless, it's the same type of happening as the supernatural extraordinary events of Daniel, lions den, & firey furnace. i view them as allegorical, however Stephen, as you often say, i can be mistaken.
Ok sure. That is why Andre's article has perhaps more complexity than we think. He seems to mistake the notion of an allegorical understanding (option 1) with a literal but 'limited' understanding (option 3), lumping them both together as opposed to literal and final (option 2).
For me, I am happy to admit that Noah's ark involved a literal man called Noah, stuck in a literal ship, just as I believe in a literal Jonah stuck in a literal fish. However, I believe the description of the fish is a 'limited' one, and one that demonstrates that whilst Jonah may have subjectively been inside a 'fish', this was probably not so, showing God was not intending to provide a statement about the taxonomy of marine life. The same might go for Noah's flood.
Was Caesar's census as recorded in the Gospels another case of limited, subjective revelation?
As well as my comments about Egypt's famine in the time of Joseph that affect the whole world (although I accept Ares' argument) and Jonah's fish (which seemed not to be a fish at all but probably a whale), I was thinking today about Caesar's census in the nativity story.
Luke 1:1,2 suggests that the census called was for the 'entire Roman world.' However, very good historical records prove the census wasn't in the whole Roman world covering the whole Roman population. There seems to be Andre's deliniter of 'Roman' with world, but seems to be wrong.
Moreover, the census event occured in 6-7 CE, putting story of Jesus' birth after the death of Herod who we also have good records to show died in 4 BC.
How does Andres and other explain this? First, the erroneous statement in the Gospel of Luke that the census for the entire Roman World, when in fact it was just in two Roman provinces (which may have been the 'whole world' from the perspective of certain strata of soceity in certain locations)? Secondly, the two clearly contradictory accounts re when Jesus was born given Herod died some 9 years before that census ever occured?
Stephen,
I'm curious. Where is the edict of Herod to kill all infants found outside the Bible?
Where is the edict found outside the Gospels that all taxpayers must return to the birth place as recorded in the Gospels?
Not sure Elaine. Perhaps Andre can answer this question as well?
W.M. Ramsay and other historians have shown that during the 1st Century the Roman government held a census every 14 years. A Notice of C. Vibius Maximus, a perfect of Egypt (AD 104) has been discovered which shows the manner of enrolments was just as Luke described. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp 270. Quirinius became governer in 6AD according to Josephus, but “a critical examination of the evidence supports the view that Quiroinius occupied an official position in Syria at an earilier date. There is actually evidence of TWO Syrian Governorshiops of Quirinius . W.M. Calder (Classical Review, vol. 21 1927, pg. 151 So Luke is referring to first governorship 10 to 7BC, Jesus was born 8-6BC according to Tertullian, and as has been noted Herod the Great died in 4BC.
NOTE TO READERS:
In rereading the flood account, I now realize that I left out one VERY important occurrence of "all" in the Flood account: "all the fountains/springs" in Gen 7:11
"on that day all the fountains/springs [kal-hamayenot] of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened"
This is a nice addition to the long addition of "all" in the flood account which point to its universality.
Andre: ‘I'm aware of the notion of "limited revelation" and I agree with it in the sense that some concepts were not exhausted in special or natural revelation. Science can continue to illuminate these issues such as the intricacies of the DNA code etc.’
Great – we agree! Jack will no doubt be pleased of this admission.
‘At the same time, you need to demonstrate why, against the plain reading of the author's intent, we should conclude that primitive minds could "never" understand that a worldwide flood is impossible, according to mainstream geological theory, and consequently the author described as "universal" a mere local flood. And I can't see you "proving" that without falling in the same logical fallacies which plague the arguments of the critics of the universal flood.’
I never said a primitive mind could never understand that a worldwide flood is impossible. I am sure Moses could have understood DNA if God chose to explain it to him, but as far as we know God never did.
Rather, IF science (which I use in a very broad term to include not just physical science but social sciences and logic) demonstrated that it wasn’t a global flood, is it possible that Noah (or whoever had the revelation) could have subjectively thought it was a universal flood, but that objectively was only a ‘limited’ revelation?
‘I could also quibble with the cherry picking hermeneutics you apply not only to the story of the flood but also to the gospels for, while you accept that Jesus did perform miracles (supernaturalism) you deny that the same concept applies to the flood, an event that was also supernaturally initiated.’
Are you saying you deny the use of ‘lesser lights’ to help understand scripture? Isn’t the Adventist paradigm of understanding scripture based on: tradition (i.e. ‘historic’ Adventism), logic, revelation (i.e. Ellen White), experience (Spirit) and indeed ‘science.’
Don’t we Adventists use science (and again I use that in a broad term) every time we run a prophecy seminar and refer to history and archaeology in support of our theories, or in our arguments about the Sabbath? Don’t we use medical science to prove the ‘superiority’ and truth of our health-care message. I see science used in support of our theological and pastoral positions every time I read Ellen White or the latest version of Adventist World.
As to miracles, it is important to realise that there is a difference between saying science is helping us understanding ambiguous or limited interpretations of scripture, compared with recognising there is also a whole range of things that science can’t explain. I never said science is equal to scripture – I only believe it a ‘lesser light’ in accordance with usual understandings of sola scriptura and prima scriptura.
Science tells us nothing about miracles or life after death, because by definition science is human observation about nature, whereas by definition a miracle is something that is outside science. For example, the Big Bang is strictly a supernatural miracle, because it was an event outside of both space and time itself, so it cannot be observed with the scientific method. And yet, the ramifications of the Big Bang can and is observable by science – put the wrong channel and when you see that fuzzy reception that is left-over signals from the Big Bang explosion.
The same goes for the resurrection of Jesus and of all of us in the future. Science cannot explain it. However, theologians routinely use scientific tools to justify its credibility. There is C S Lewis’ arguments of logic (i.e. Christ as mad or a liar). There are arguments from history and archaeology (i.e. that history proves the historical existence of the disciples, and it wouldn’t make sense that they died for a fake cause).
I never said any of these things are easy…
For the record, I also never said a universal flood wasn’t possible either. Rather, I was just adding my voice to the notion that the author’s subjective intent is not in itself proof enough of objective fact.
I guess I should put the question back onto you. Do you believe the world is flat, a disc with a hard dome, situated on an unmoveable pillar, and with four corners, given various Bible texts suggest as such? Before you scoff, remove your 21th Century filters (which derive from ‘science’) and ask Gallileo and Capernicus how people use to read these texts.
And if you read these texts from the perspective of the authors’ subjective intent only, and if you refuse to let science be used as a ‘lesser light’, why do you believe the world is not in fact round? Try to answer that question without relying on science?
I guess I should put the question back onto you. Do you believe the world is flat, a disc with a hard dome, situated on an unmoveable pillar, and with four corners, given various Bible texts suggest as such? Before you scoff, remove your 21th Century filters (which derive from ‘science’) and ask Gallileo and Capernicus how people use to read these texts.
No Bible verse says that the earth is "flat" or any other of those things. I think the problem is that you're reading historical texts as "poetry" and poetic texts as "history". You can't come to the correct conclusions without at least considering literary genres.
"the author’s subjective intent is not in itself proof enough of objective fact"
There's nothing "subjective" in the flood account as I demonstrated in the article.
IF science … demonstrated that it wasn’t a global flood, is it possible that Noah (or whoever had the revelation) could have subjectively thought it was a universal flood, but that objectively was only a ‘limited’ revelation?
Mainstream science has not "demonstrated" anything Stephen, they have put forth mere theories and hypotheses which are as good as the next one. Geologists who have no interest in primitive ignorance about the world would hardly take the story of the flood into consideration as the they dig here and there. On the other hand, there are many reputable scientists who see evidence of the flood on a daily basis. I guess it depends who you're talking to.
And we are not really not discussing the "fact" of the flood but whether the author has meant what he said. None of us can prove beyond a doubt that the flood did or did not occur since we are millenia removed from the event. The question is one of reliability: is the Bible a reliable historical account on creation, the flood, David, Jesus, the resurrection, etc? According to your method, no.
I'm aware of Thompson's incarnational model of inspiration which takes the human side of the Bible to new heights. I see some interesting possibilities as well as severe problems, the main being, the dismissal of authorial intent. Once you remove that, anything goes. He incurred in this error when he suggested that the flood may not have been universal following the same line of argument you have.
Mr. Reis. I wonder if you would explain what you mean by "primitive ignorance about the world"?
The number of "reputable scientists" with appropriate expertise that would allow them to make a reasonable judgment about this topic who think there was a recent universal flood would be at most 1% or 2% of the total number of scientists. Now we all know that majority vote does not render something true. However, when there is a ratio of 98-99% to 1-2% in opposition to some scientific point of view, I would assume that one would want to go with the 98-99% not the 1-2%. Right?
Stephen & Andre. Please provide your understanding of Psalms 104:5-9. "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever …..ect."
Reis: "Mainstream science has not "demonstrated" anything Stephen, they have put forth mere theories and hypotheses which are as good as the next one. Geologists who have no interest in primitive ignorance about the world would hardly take the story of the flood into consideration as the they dig here and there. On the other hand, there are many reputable scientists who see evidence of the flood on a daily basis. I guess it depends who you're talking to."
If I may risk poking my nose in here, Andre, mainstream science has indeed demonstrated something. The very observable, concrete reality of geological data do not show evidence of a simultaneous global flood event. The data in fact shows the opposite; many localized flood events over vast periods of time. I would suggest that in this case the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
We lost a guy in outback Western Australia once. When we were tracking him over the next day and a half, we knew exactly where he had not been by the absence of tracks. Absence of evidence was indeed evidence of absence! "The" flood has indeed been disproven by its total absence of evidence – evidence that would need to fit into all the appropriate geological footprints. With our lost worker, we made no assumptions that he had been where his tracks were not, why would anyone make the assumption a global flood has been where its tracks are not?
As for your last sentence. There are scientists who see evidence for "A" flood on a daily basis. I would put to you that there are NO scientists, who do not have a religious agenda, that see evidence for "the" (global) flood on any basis, let alone daily. And it is not because they are not looking!
cb25: "There are scientists who see evidence for "A" flood on a daily basis. I would put to you that there are NO scientists, who do not have a religious agenda, that see evidence for "the" (global) flood on any basis, let alone daily. And it is not because they are not looking!"
Is having a "naturalistic" or "uniformistic" agenda any better?
Andre,
You miss the point: We should have NO agenda!
Scientific endeavor should be allowed to pursue information and evaluation of same without "expecting" any particular outcome, and certainly no "desired" outcome.
Expectation, or desire to confirm certain biblical stories IS an agenda, as is "a desired outcome". Doing science from a naturalistic basis is not an "agenda", it is part of the methodology, but it does not mean there is a "desired outcome". For such a scientist/researcher/geologist/paleontologist, IF a global/universal flood turned up in the evidence, it would be an outcome with no particular significance in relation to their expectations. For a scientist with a religious agenda, IF a global flood turns up it IS a significant outcome, because they are desperate to "find" it. In such a situation, I suggest, honest outcomes are virtually impossible because every turn is hounded by confirmation bias and preferential selection and treatment of data.
I have a question for you: How do you explain the salt diapers under the Dead Sea in relation to the Rift Valley and the marine fossils in the pyramid blocks?
Taylor: "The number of "reputable scientists" with appropriate expertise that would allow them to make a reasonable judgment about this topic who think there was a recent universal flood would be at most 1% or 2% of the total number of scientists. Now we all know that majority vote does not render something true. However, when there is a ratio of 98-99% to 1-2% in opposition to some scientific point of view, I would assume that one would want to go with the 98-99% not the 1-2%. Right?"
It all depends on the questions one is asking of the evidence. A global flood is absolutely NOT a possibility for mainstream geologists so anything that may remotely point in that direction is reinterpreted as eons of erosion and sedimentary deposition.
If there truly been a reccent world wide flood, it would show up in the geological record and it would be noted and it could now be easily dated. There was a time early in the 20th Century when there was indeed an aversion on the part of professional geologists to any non-uniformatarian geological process. That time is long past. Geological textbooks now carry many descriptions of major, massive, regional events including massive local or regional floods, some of which, from a geological perspective, happened relatively recently (within the last 10,000 years). There was also perhaps a massive world-wide or near world-wide flood about 65 million years ago caused by the impact of a large asteroid or comet on the earth.
These discussions about the "proof" of the Bible's authenticity, continues almost daily. A few minutes ago I received an email, the same one that continues to go around from true believers.
According to the rumor, a NASA scientist, when in a satellite "discovered" a "lost day" which proved the truthfulness of the story of Joshua in the Bible who, in battle, prayed for more time to win and God stopped the sun in its tracks until he had won the battle. This was sent to more than one hundred email addresses, likely begun years ago. The people sending it along certainly believed the truthfulness, but a simple search at Snopes.com would show it began a number of years ago–the identical email, and keeps circulating among Bible believing Christians who want to demonstrate the accuracy of the Bible. The more things change…..
Whether the flood was a regional event or global, it adds no value to your salvation. no one on earth today knows. There is evidence of flooding in every part of the world. Was it ever a simultaneous global flood?? Is the story allegorical??
Earl the problem is only if you claim as the Adventist church of the last two centuries and their YEC fellows maintain that the Bible requires you to believe in a global flood. If you do that you are causing atheism because you discredit the Bible.
The "Save the Bible from Science" agenda is a massive end time delusion to destroy the credibility of God's book. By making impossible to believe demands then the possible to believe truths are discredited, people throw out the Bible and don't care about the plan of Salvation, since they are given an unnecessary and likely false interpretation. An open understanding of the Bible's cosmology and geneologies is all that is necessary to let people learn the more important truths about resting from our works for salvation, resting from our work every week to remember the Creator (however He choose to create), obeying the 2 great laws of the universe, and all the helpful subdivisions of those laws that change with different conditions and societies.
Love your neighbor as yourself is always true, if your ancestors are 6,000 years old or 60,000 years old. Remember the weekly Sabbath is true if creation was 144 hours, or 6 great stages. God is the creator of all, if he did it recently and made it look old, or if he made it the way it really looks……But my way or the highway will bleed the church of intelligence and block the path to salvation of many of a male, scientific bent at least. Andre means well and does a good job at what he is trying to do. I hope we radical flag wavers can get him to rethink what he is doing.
Jack: 'If you do that you are causing atheism because you discredit the Bible.'
This is my primary concern. The fact that the SDA Church promotes YEC is not the problem, because I do believe it is a legitimate theology of origins. Truth be told, I have doubts about what theory is 'truth' but I don't yet have a positive view on what the answer is.
Rather, the problem is that the SDA Church (especially through its official spokespersons such as Clifford Goldstein) tries to say the Bible only allows a YEC interpretation, and so if the YEC is proven wrong, say by science, then the Bible must be wrong. By that, the Church actually sets itself up for failure, especially for young people when they go to College and learn the realities of scientific evidence and consensus. In that sense, the official Church is actually responsible, in my view, for the destruction of the Bible and its authority – not for its saving.
I have seen this happen more than once with young people. Those of you who have had involvement with young people, especially at College, I am sure you have similar stories.
Jack: "If you do that you are causing atheism because you discredit the Bible."
Jack, why don't you take this to its natural conclusions and simply reject the whole story of salvation? Doesn't believing in miracles, healings, resurrections, eternal life also lead to atheism? Doesn't the doctrine of sin, repentance and reconciliation with God make people laugh these days?
Why should we pick and choose what is believable and what is not? Who decides? Do atheist scientists get to decide whether God exists or not?
On the contrary, my belief in Genesis gives meaning to my faith in Jesus and the kingdom of God. There's a reason why, while other books moved within the sequence, Genesis has always been the first book of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Andre, I'm sorry to respond this way, but I'd like to remind you that encouraging me to lose my faith and give up my hope of salvation does not improve the strength of your linguistic arguments.
There is ZERO link between accepting that Noah's world and its destruction by a Divinely mandated flood was sufficient (local) but not fantastic(global), and rejection of the "whole story of salvation".
What a fragile house of cards such a faith must be, if one of your OT Flood theories is found fragile, that all your core beliefs will suffer?
I suspect that you wrote "Why don't you…" but didn't mean it. What was underneath that was the fear, "If I did that, then I might simply have to reject the whole story of salvation." Let me assure you in the strongest possible way, that won't happen, and is a false and I suspect Old Serpent inspired fear.
Let me counter it with this assurance from Jesus, Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. I don't know all the truth, but I don't every find that admitting the truth on a subject leads to the destruction of anything worth holding onto. And "the whole story of salvation" is not slightly damaged by accepting scientific truths to improve Biblical exegesis.
@Andre
Thank you for your wonderful article, you have shown logically, beyond a reasonablr doubt that the text in Genesis concerning the flood, does not allow for a plurality of views. I am impressed you got Stephen to step dance around your challenge to refute your flood of fire hermenuetic.
@Jack
You have not logically shown how the text in Genesis allows for a local flood and your dove theory is a little shallow but please try again, maybe you might convince me! For now I will sttick with the side of logic and systematic application of interpretation.
Trying to use logic to explain Scripture is a journey with no end. Logic is definite and exact; math and physics are not opinions. But there is no end of atheists or apologists in discussing Scripture. Contesting religion is like engaging in a boxing match with Jello; it is a shifting, unclear, amorphous target which every blow displaces to a new shape.
Would those here as apologists for a world wide flood be willing to engage with a space scientist? An ecologist? A physicist? Archeologist? Apologists always need audiences that are not well grounded in the sciences to get a hearing. Questions are deflected and never answered scientifically but on a faith basis. A speaker who proposes and bases answers on a biblical basis is poorly attempting to merge science and faith without evidence.
"Faith" means belief held independently of whether there is testable evidence in its favor, or indeed even in the face of counter-evidence. Even when speaking of "God," there is an assumption that all discussants have the same understanding of a god. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every individual, of any and all religions, have a very personal picture of a god like no one else, which is seldom remembered. Everyone is an atheist about almost all gods, except their own.
There is no "Adventist god," no Roman Catholic, Baptist, Jewish or Muslim god. Yet, they each claim to have exclusive rights to declare their god's thoughts, desires, and definition of sin.
Now if any of this sounds logical, you missed Philosophy 101. Go back and study on your own.
Tapiwa: 'You have not logically shown…'
Elaine: 'Trying to use logic to explain Scripture…'
Logic is permitted to intepret scripture. Of course we can use our human reason, espcially concerning ambiguous, contradictory and difficult passages, that don't sit well with the literal, plain and ordinary meaning. Logic tells us that it is absurd for light to be created on day 1 but only the sun on day 4. Logic tells us that Adam could not have named billions of different species in a single 24-hour period.
Elaine: 'Would those here as apologists for a world wide flood be willing to engage with a space scientist? An ecologist? A physicist? Archeologist?'
That's the thing. Tapiwa has named logic (same name reason), one of the 'lesser lights' (sometimes called formative factors, filters etc etc) for interpreting scripture. Once he cites this lesser light, he opens up the charge then as to why he doesn't accept other lesser lights in helping filter our interpretations of scripture?
Stephen
Not so fast you are misrepresenting my position. I was simply sayying that I am logical and consistent within my belief system. I take my premises to their logical conclusions. I maintain that you do not. You say logic does not allow for light on the first day and the sun on the 4th day. You further say that, that it was impossible for Adam to name all the species in 24hrs fair and fine let me concede these points for the sake of argument. Using your line of reasoning, logic will force us to reject an incarnation or resurrection. Logic will also tell us that Jesus did not walk on water in light of Surface tension, density and gravity. Mr Ferguson logic according to you will also tell us that there is no way 5 loaves and 2 fishes fed 5000 men besides women and children and 12 baskets were left over!
Cliff Goldstein says you cannot be a theistic evolutionist and an adventist at the same time. I believe he is much too kind. I sincerely believe it is logically impossible to deny a literal six day creation and yet believe in salvation, miracles etc. I have yet to be shown how this can be done. JAck and yourself cherry pick which supernatural items in the bible are real and which are not and you do it illogically! This has been my point all along.
Elaine at least is consistent in that she rejects all. I am consistent in that I accept all. You and Jack and your compadres Cherry pick irrationally.
Yes good points. I am happy to admit and point to texts that talk about the Cross being foolishness to the wise. And yet we do use logic everyday when we intepret scripture – we all do. I guess that merely points out that logic is a 'lesser light' – one of many.
A logical religion is an oxymoron. Pretending otherwise is delusion.
Tapiwa, please use your logic and help me out. Show me how it is possible for the whole planet to be covered 15 cubits above the highest mountains during a 1 year period of time. Give me a mechanism.
Show me how a global flood can explain the Greenland Icecap layers with annual pollin flows, and periodic volcanic erruptions proving that ice did not form a single glacier from Noah's Flood. I don't know where you live, but in Wyoming Green lake has flood layers that between the layers have turtle tracks, nests, and eggs. Can you explain how in Noah's flood like it was in mesopotamia, the turtles in Wyoming were mating, making nests, and laying eggs while the flood was going on around them, in multiple different layers?
Can you explain how oil deposits of ages worth of plankton, settling quietly and undisturbed and then being covered by sedement layers, could happen during the 1 year violent Noah's flood?
I'm very open to any evidence showing a global event was possible, or necessary given prediluvian conditions.
No logic required. It is called a miracle! The events you describe Jack are just as unlikely and unexplainable from a logical point of view as the incontrovertibles you insist on about Jesus birth, life, death and resurection. Tapiwa is being logical within his belief system, you are not. I do not agree with the system, but at least these guys are applying it consistently!
You continue to fight for your miracles about Jesus, but argue for science and logic about the natural world when it comes to creation.
To borrow from the Stephens point elswhere, you negotiate'/interpret your creation acount to "logically" include scientific observations, but your ability to do this with the Jesus events is limited. He either rose or he did not etc. Much easier to try to reinterpret a "day", than a resurrection. This forces a foot in both camps, the scientific, logical one, and the faith one. Is that consistent and defendable? I don't think so.
Jack, Rev.3:11 "that no man steal your crown". i have 3 daughters. The eldest was out of school before i
became SDA. The next two were born 11-13 years after the first. They both went thru SDA education from first grade thru university. The middle daughter also spent 2 years as student missionary, she is a traditionalist. The youngest is out of the church & religion (not atheistic); she felt coercion while in high school, demerits for missing vespers, with monitors checking attendence, ect.
i lost faith with conference & GC leadership, but it did not affect my relationship with my Lord Jesus.
Regional or global flood, or any other questions of interpretive understanding of Bible concepts will not steal my inheritance. No person's salvation is dependent on any organized church or religion, it is only dependent on their relationship with our GOD.
I agree with cb25, creationists are "being logical within his belief system, you [Jack] are not. I do not agree with the system, but at least these guys are applying it consistently!"
What Jack is proposing is an exegetical no man's land.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slightest details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.”
“Before God we are all equally wise-equally foolish.”
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”
“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation…his religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
Archives of Origins
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
Here are a few short excerpts from a chapter in one of Cliff Goldstein's books regarding the Flood which is quite reasonable and supports a Global occurrence.
If I might borrow a phrase from a motion picture (I know this will be the kiss of death for our hyper conservative readers, but anyway . . .), "What we have here is a failure to communicate." How many times does the following need to be said: The flood narrative was written as a "universal" one for the people to whom the Flood story was written. It was intended to be understood as "world-wide" in terms of what they thought of as "world wide." This is the 21st Century, we know that there was no recent literal, world-wide flood in the way we now understand "world-wide." Why continue to beat the "dead horse" of a story written down thousands of years ago to mean something literal which we know is not literal? Answer: For some Adventists, denying the literal nature of the Flood story would be the final nail in the coffin of EGW's authority.
It is no more a final nail to the coffin of the reliability of C-14 dating despite the recent flip flop. Both are sustained by the diehard faithful.
Goldstein is the self-appointed scientist, archaeologist, historian and interpreter of doctrines for the SDA church. What are his qualifications to pontificate on subjects which he knows no more, no less than a member in the pew without special education in those varied fields?
The above questions are all superfluous if one simply accepts that the flood story is true. Either it is true, or it is only a common story told by other cultures. If something is considered true, why go to such measures to rationalize and justify its authenticity? None of which makes sense.
An ark will float on a lake and does not indicate a world wide flood. Any set of questions beginning with the conclusions, are merely apologetics presented as questions which are, in effect, statements of belief.
"Why continue to beat the "dead horse" of a story written down thousands of years ago to mean something literal which we know is not literal? Answer: For some Adventists, denying the literal nature of the Flood story would be the final nail in the coffin of EGW's authority."
This is another example of circular reasoning: the story can't be literal because modern day science has "proven" so. So let's apply modern science to the ancient text in order to prove that modern science is correct and the text is wrong!
For the record, I haven't appealed to EGW in writing this article because I didn't need to. In fact, I never appeal to EGW when doing exegesis of the text in the original language, even though I believe her reading of the story is the natural intent of the original author.
The mitochondrial DNA is given by women. 3 types of mitochondrial DNA are found in all continents of the world, pointing to a 3 female possible ancestors. Could be this explained by the 3 daughters in law of Noah?
I was wrong: This is not a failure to communicate. It is an example of a disagreement caused by commitments to two different world views or visions of reality. One based on confidence that the modern scientific world view gives the best information about the history of the physical world and one based on confidence that an ancient text not only communicated important moral and ethical prinicples but alse provides completely accurate information about the history of the physical world which must be taken literally. If one wishes to live in the post-modern 21st Century with a pre-modern, pre-scientific world view, so be it..
"One based on confidence that the modern scientific world view gives the best information about the history of the physical world"
Taylor, you have summarized it well. But here is the problem; who guarantees the scientific theories and hypotheses about what occurred in the remote past are "best information" of what actually occurred?
How can we expect the scientific method whose presuppositions have jettisoned God and the supernatural long ago, to be able to provide the "best information" about God and the supernatural?
This is a cosmic catch-22 if you ask me…
Andre,
Please tell me, what IS the source of "best information" about God and the supernatural? And, why so?
" What Jack is proposing is an exegetical no man's land."
Dr. Hoehn, is not an OT Professor. I am an Adventist layperson trying to study the truth in my Bible and in my world. Andre Reis is a young man, depending on what he has learned for his exegesis, accepting what others have studied and he thinks is true. I respect his right to select.
But I don’t know that he is free to criticize my “exegesis” as being wobbly or off track, when plenty of Conservative students of scripture, who believe in Adam and Eve and Noah as I do, who yet find they do not agree that parsing Hebrew alone can answer questions of Biblical understanding. He is especially out on a limb when his opinions agree with those who have rejected the Bible completely, instead of reinterpreting the Bible partly.
So just for the record I would like to draw into my "no-man's land" , the following Conservative Scholars who know Hebrew perhaps as well or better than Andre? who have come out for a local Noah’s flood:
Dr. Gleason Archer (OT Professor) “Staunch defender of the historicity of Scripture” Yet comfortable with Old Earth, and Local Flood.
Dr. James Montgomery Boice (Pastor and Bible Scholar), Local Flood.
Dr. Meredith Kleine (Old Testament Professor) finds ‘The widespeard insistence on a young earth to be a deplorable disservice to the cause of biblical truth”.
Dr. Gordon Lewis (Theology Professor) and Dr. Bruce Demarest (Theology Professor) “Ultimately responsible geology must determine…”
Dr Pattle Pun (Christian Biology Professor)
Dr. Bruce Waltke (OT Professor).
Dr. John Sailhamer (OT Professor).
Dr. J.P. Moreland (Christian Philosopher).
Dr. Millard Erickson (Theology Professor).
Dr. Kenneth Mathews (OT Professor).
Dr. Normal Geisler (Seminary President).
Dr. C. John Collins (OT Professor).
The Christian scholars cited above and many other evangelical scholars and leaders during the past 200 years all say basically the same thing in different words. In essence, they are teaching the church that science must be allowed to influence the correct interpretation of some or all of Genesis 1–11. And that this is consistent with sound exegesis and Christian faithfulness. It's not a no-man's land, it might be a mighty foundation rock in a weary land, to let science serve the Bible in this manner.
Jack, I could double your list of scholars who fully accept science's claims that a worldwide flood could never have happened. By any stretch of the imagination. (Althought even Gleason Archer admitted that the biblical statements on the extent of the flood "may not be easily disposed of", Introduction to the OT, 194).
But that was really not the point of my humble study. I simply pointed out that, by paying close attention to the clear intent of the author, rejecters of the universal flood cannot and should not selectively base their personal opinions on the biblical text on what occurred in the past.
I have no particular burden to prove to you that the flood was universal beyond a shadow of a doubt. Everyone must choose in what they will and what they will not believe in according to their plain reading of these sacred, ancient texts. The challenge for you, as Christ Barrett so correctly pointed out, is to reconcile your selective reading of Genesis with a selective reading of the rest of Scriptures.
Contrary to what you think, I couldn't think of a quicker route to "atheism" than that.
I'm glad that Jack has highlighted for us the fact that the vast majority of conservative, evangelical scholars (not to be confused with fundamentalist scholars), a few of which he has listed above, have come to the conclusion that whatever the flood of Noah was, it was not world-wide. Adventist scholars adhering to the creed set down by the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) accept and are advocating a fundamentalist understanding of both a recent Creation in seven literal days and a recent world wide flood. So that this can not be misunderstood, let's again state plainly that it is the ATS and its supporters who are pushing the Adventist Church to put into its "Fundamental Beliefs" a fundamentaltist understanding of Creation and the Flood not the understanding of most evangelical Christian scholars and not the majority of Adventist theologicans and scientists.
Jack,
I don't think this can be made into a purely "exegetical argument".
To paraphrase from above, you believe in Adam and Eve and Noah, yet find parsing Hebrew alone cannot answer questions of Biblical understanding. So, you import scienctfic data to partly reinterpret the Bible.
That is key to the points I made above to which Andre was responding by using "exegetical no man's land".
I would probably describe it as "logical no man's land". It is purely a choice you have made to draw the line at where you allow scientific data to impact your "exegesis", "interpretation", "understanding", and where you WILL not allow such. ie your chosen "incontrovertibles".
You are welcome to your view, but it just does not add up when you insist you are being logical and loyal to the the Bible when in fact you are loyal to "how Jacks believes we can balance science and faith". It is utterly inconsistent imho.
And, just for the record: I do not completely reject the Bible. I simply allow scientific data to fully reinterpret/validate the Bible.
If Andre can answer my question above with good reason why the Bible IS the source of "best information" about God etc, I may change my opinion!
ps, I should not pre-empt Andre's answer should I… he may come up with the Koran or something else as the source of the "best information" yet!
If so the "Why so?" question will still require address.
I do seem to recall Andre saying a A creationist’s “prior commitment” should be with the God of the Hebrew Bible…
…but for the life of me I cannot seem to find where he has stated a posteriori reasons why this is so...
Chris,
Christianity's set of beliefs, worldview and eschatological hope are all based on the Judeo-Christian canon. It then follows that we accept its claims to truth and take its text as reliable depiction of facts.
As you have already rejected it, there's really no point in me trying to provide any a priori, a posteriori or ad hoc arguments ad infinitum to convince you. :o)
What are called "facts" do not stand apart from time, location, an the writers. What was accepted as facts two centuries ago, have been disproved by many factors. Belief does not define facts, only a subjective faith. Failure to discriminate between one's beliefs and generally accepted evidence is an illusion that can lead to delusion.
Santa Claus is a "fact" to a small child: he has seen him and knows where he lives. We smile and understand that it the childish and charming view. But no one seriously accepts that there is a Santa Claus living at the North Pole.
Andre, that is a total cop out. My rejection/acceptance of any source is open to alteration based on evidence.
If your arguments for your "prior committment" amount to nothing more than culture and personal choice, then say so. Please don't pass it back onto me as not being willing to listen! I am
I'm doing some research on world views atm with the possible intent of posting a blog on it. It seems to me that a sound world view is one which has undergone, and constantly undergoes examination and reflection. It will consist of interconnected ideas that form a unified whole, and if those ideas require re-shaping in the face of additional evidence, the wise person is able, free, and willing to do so.
Defending ones "position" or "belief system" as a World View, tends to give it credibility or status with the impression that it has been thought through and is valid. The sad reality seems to me that a "prior committment", such as you champion and exhibit, is not able to re-shape and move with growing evidence as a true world view should and must. On this basis, such a "prior committment" does not actually qualify as a validated world view, but is really little more than a position of ignorance, brainwashing, culture, or even denial. Such does describe the way the holder sees the world, but it should not be granted the respect of a world view which has been and is able to be shaped by evidence.
Ignorance is always ignorance no matter the fancy names we like to dress it in.
ps. A world view is the core cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge. We live in a global village and "dark ages" world views, have no place in a global village.
If you would like an example of a "world view" that is unable, and unwilling to be reshaped or questioned, study the photo and first parapraph at the link below. This is how these people see the world, but how can anyone defend their right to such a view of the world? ONLY by subscribing to the same defenses of their "world view" as many writers on these threads. "Prior Committment" to their God.
That is not a World View, that is a culture of brainwashed ignorance quite out of sync with the real world facts.
Andre, can I suggest you are in World View "no man's land", because in the wider world your "prior committment" is as indefensible as those in the pic below.
http://rt.com/news/bangladesh-protest-muslim-blogger-431/
Yes there are two options one given by the Bible and the other By Darwin. The assumption the one given by Darwin is based in science is more like “mirage” when is examined under the rigor of highest level of evidence. Here are some fundamental examples.
David, seems to me that comment is just moving the goal posts to a goal you think you can kick. Can you be so sure you are not just self identifying a rather narrow world view?
“David, seems to me that comment is just moving the goal posts to a goal you think you can kick”
If look the comments before, you will see that Erv gave the options. My replay is that the evolution is not founded in solid evidence.
“Can you be so sure you are not just self identifying a rather narrow world view?”
Reed carefully the four points and correct me if my perception is wrong. Don’t paid attention how narrow or wide my worldview is.
Chris: 'And, just for the record: I do not completely reject the Bible. I simply allow scientific data to fully reinterpret/validate the Bible.'
Chris, I think that is a good way to view the world – and honest. And before people mock me complimenting you, if you replace the 'lesser light' of science with Ellen White, you essentially have the conservative SDA paradigm. One could argue that view is also the essence of core historic Adventist values, being a committment to 'present truth' and 'progressive revelation.'
It is funny how conservative Adventists who deny science can be a 'lesser light' or filter of interpreting scripture so often use their own when it suits them.
Progressive revelation didn't stop in 19th Century North America, any more than it stopped with Medieval Reformation Germany, any more than it stopped with the Ecumenical Councils of the first 3 Centuries, any more than it stopped with the Church Fathers, any more than it stopped with the Apostles, any more than it stopped with the minor OT prophets, any more than it stopped with Moses, any more than it stopped with the Patriarchs.
Funny how every religious group in the world thinks it has the 'final' and 'ultimate' Truth. Seventh-day Adventists used to be a 'Movement' committed to an open discovery of present truth and progressive revelation; however, perhaps we are just another church committed to orthodoxy and the retention of institutional power.
Andre: 'Christianity's set of beliefs, worldview and eschatological hope are all based on the Judeo-Christian canon. It then follows that we accept its claims to truth and take its text as reliable depiction of facts.'
Perhaps throwing a hand grenade here, but where did we get the Judeo-Christian canon? Aren't you just saying you believe in tradition, just like the Roman Catholics we so often mock?
Secondly, what is the 'truth' we find reliable? Obviously it is subjective intent of a 'limited revelation' not objective scientific and historic fact, otherwise contradictory passages such as Matt 8:5 with Luke 7:3.
Thus, I think there is a great irony that those who have the most inflexible and dogmatic view of scripture are arguably the greatest threat to belief in the Bible.
Chris
You have criticized my a priori commitment to the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures in matters of origins and world history. In turn, you [as did Jack, Taylor, Ferguson] proposed that mainstream scientific methods and presuppositions should guide our acceptance of ancient "wisdom" about the world.
I asked you to explain why your own a priori commitment to naturalism is superior to my a priori commitment to faith and the belief in the tenets of Christianity.
You have yet to address this.
Don't you mean why Chris's prior commitment to science is superior to your prior commitment to tradition? I think you might be confusing tradition (which is what 'ancient wisdom' is after all) with faith. I think you are wrongly assume Chris (or Jack, Ervin or myself) don't have faith.
For the record, I do believe tradition is a 'lesser light' as science is. If look at the history of Christianity, it is funny how 'restorationist' groups like the SDA Church have had essentially the same debates as the early Ecumenical Councils – because we ignored tradition.
That said, no 'lesser light' is ultimate truth. They all need to be put into the mix and honestly accepted as imperfect, fallible and limited filters of divine knowledge. Only then can we arrive at 'present truth', which will itself change as progressive knowledge through new updates from lesser lights guide us ever into a better and deeper understanding of God.
So it isn't Chris's science vs Andre's faith as much as Chris's utilisation of lesser lights (with a strong emphasis on physical science, being evidence of the Creator through observing creation) vs Andre's tradition (which as I said is perfectly ok as well). Given how difficult such 'weighing' is involved, perhaps we should be less dogmatic in our beliefs and less sure that we have 'the Truth'?
Andre,
I thought I had, by default, answered your question why a scientific/natural view was superior to your prior committment to the Bible and God. I simply pointed out that your position could not be defended by a posteriori reasoning; the outcomes and conclusions drawn by looking at the world through reason, nature and observation can. Thus it is superior.
I still think you don't understand a posteriori, and the impact its application may have on your assertions about the validity of your "prior committment". Or, perhaps I don't! If you want to understand how I'm using it, perhaps look up my blog on it last year. I may have it wrong, but at least you'll see where I'm coming from. It is under my name, written in 2011 and called "Shift the Way you Think".
Here's a bit of my closing points:
"…will Seventh-day Adventists hunker down oblivious to, or worse, denying the shift in thinking around them? Or will we examine the evidence [a posteriori] as to the validity of granting the Bible final authority, and if necessary, build an apologetic for faith on the new paradigm before it's too late?
One could almost suspect the longer we, or Christians at large for that matter, hunker down and refuse this challenge, the more credibility we will give to atheism and the like. We risk appearing out of touch with reality, and failing to offer a compelling alternative apologetic for faith.
Can we a posteriori hammer out a new apologetic within the framework of this paradigm shift?
I submit we must. I also submit we must do this from understanding what IS, rather than from what is not (God of gaps), or from a Book who's previously [a priori] granted authority will prove indefensible."
ps…Jack if you are reading this, in my quote from myself in 2011, you may see a hint of my motivation for being here on AT. I see echoes of your purpose when you began in 2012. Just sayin…
I have gone further on in my search, but perhaps good to keep in mind that we may in fact share "good intentions"!
I like what Stephen said above: We should all be less dogmatic…
Here we go again. How many angels can sit on a head of a pin? Have you not heard of metaphor or myth? Straw arguments don't do much to verify straw dogs. What did the people know of the world at the time the universal flood was supposed to have happened? Nothing. They thought it a small place, covered by a canopy with holes punched through allowing pin holes of light from heaven leaking through. In that scenario a big pile of water could cover the world?
And then why does it matter? If you are trying to prove the scripture to be word for word verifibly true, you are on a fools errand. It isn't. It is filled with speculation, hyperbole, metaphor, allegory and other human attempts to explain the unexplainable. As I think you may know, there are other "flood" stories outside of the biblical account that are similar.
Do you think the story of Job in the Old Testament is an actual biography?
Does seeing the flood story as allegory diminish the effort of Christ to reveal God as Love? Not at all.
You can perform mental masturbation as much as you want in attempt to verify the unverifiable. But you accomlish nothing. Get a life. Spend time celebrating Christ and His revelation of God.
Having just discovered this paper by Andre Reis today I am late joining the discussion.
Andre someone else has done an analysis of the words translated as "all the earth" and he came to the opposite conclusion that you have.
Here is a book that discussed the flood and related issues: "Creation Reconsidered – Scientific, Biblical, and Theological Perspectives", edited by James L. Hayward, published by Association of Adventist Forums, 2000. ISBN 0-9673694-0-1.
The problem is that it is difficult to find a copy of this book. Interested readers could look for it in the library of an SDA college/university.
In this book is a paper by Raymond F. Cottrell (April 21, 1911, Los Angeles, California – January 12, 2003, Calimesa, California [cf. the Wikipedia]) in which he did a detailed exegesis of every instance [146 as I recall] of the term translated as "all the earth" in the KJV Old Testament. Cottrell discovered that the exact same ancient language terminology was used to describe grasshoppers covering all the earth and enemies covering all the earth.
Now I have difficulty believing that either grasshoppers or enemies covered all the earth so see no compelling reason to believe that water covered all the earth.
It is sad that it takes a "detailed exegesis" of the many times this phrase is used to still believe that it literally means the "whole world" we know today. But some will not be convinced but selectively choose literal or symbolic language apparently to agree with predetermined concepts.
i walked all over the earth today, and boy, am i tired!!! Seriously, it would be just another supernatural event by ONE known for the supernatural creation of all things.
For a creationist to claim that the Creator of nature, would ignore what He had created and break the rules and fine tuning He has carefully instituted, just to do the impossible or improbable is a strange doctrine.
How about a different one?
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and all their intricate laws, relationships, and balance. And now using the rules and tools He carefully designed and implemented, we'll explain to you what He did the next 6 Heavenly Days….and for the rest of human history."
We would then try to understand sacred history within the context of the playing field created by the Creator. Miracles and the results of Divine interventions in history then are not sub-natural or supra-natural, but infra-natural. They are God working within His creation, not outside of it either above or below. He is above creation, but as the Creator doesn't it seem most logical that He would work with us within the system He has created, not outside of it?
The Bible seems to be a sacred history of God working within nature, not outside of it.
It is incarnational. God in the Fallopian tubes, God with a placenta, God with an umbillical cord is not just "natural" but it is not supra-natural either, it is infra-natural.
Interpreting the Noah flood in a way requiring it to be a "supra-natural" event seems to wipe away the Biblical reality of a boat taking decades to build, using shittim wood, and pitch, and having doors and windows, and of a specific size and shape. This is all very natural, very much within nature, using available things like a specific kind of wood and "pitch" (" pitch" which existed before the flood by the way, not as a result of the flood). Then to create the flood God doesn't use magic water from the supra-natural world, He breaks open the fountains of the deep of this world, and the rain from the sky of this earth. This is not random or just "natural" but everything in the Bible suggests it is still within nature. God is working within the realm He created. God is leaving tracks we can see as clearly as the tracks of dinasaurs are left for us to see and believe. So God will leave a flood we can see traces of and believe.
A supranatural Creator, does not suggest that the Creator would then ignore or randomly act outside of that creation. It would surely give Him the freedom to work when and where He chooses within what He has created, which seems to me to be the whole Bible story.
Elijah's sacrifice on Mt. Carmel was not just a random lightening strike that by chance just happened to hit his sacrifice and not Baal's altar. But neither was it a magic show with fake lightening apparantly making the altar and its stones appear to burn up. It was a miracle, but it was real fire, on a real altar, and real melting of the rocks, doused by real water from a real well, or river, or sea. It was God working within nature, not outside of nature.
Please let me have a possible or probable flood, not a magical or improbable one, suggesting God would work outside of His creation, instead of within it, in His judgment and severe mercy on His earth and its creatures.
'Elijah's sacrifice on Mt. Carmel was not just a random lightening strike that by chance just happened to hit his sacrifice and not Baal's altar. But neither was it a magic show with fake lightening apparantly making the altar and its stones appear to burn up. It was a miracle, but it was real fire, on a real altar, and real melting of the rocks, doused by real water from a real well, or river, or sea. It was God working within nature, not outside of nature.'
I wish someone would write an article on their blog post on the nature of miracles. There does appear to be three broad views – as noted by Jack's comment here.
Hoehn: "For a creationist to claim that the Creator of nature, would ignore what He had created and break the rules and fine tuning He has carefully instituted, just to do the impossible or improbable is a strange doctrine. "
What would happen if we apply this presupposition to other "strange doctrines" in Scriptures? What would be left?
Sin
A divine-human being
The miracles
The resurrection of Christ
The Ascension of Christ
The Second Coming
The resurrection of the Dead
The New Earth
Eternal Life
Which ones should we keep and which should we pitch?
Wonderly: "Now I have difficulty believing that either grasshoppers or enemies covered all the earth so see no compelling reason to believe that water covered all the earth."
This has been dealt with Bob, if you take the time to read the comments.
And the flood is not dependent solely on the expression "all the earth", but on several "all" expressions in the flood's account:
kal-hamayenot: "All the fountains" "all the waters" (Gen 7:11)
kol-heharim, “all the mountains” (7:19-20);
kol-hashamayim, “the whole heaven/sky” (7:19);
kol-basar, “all flesh” (Gen 6:13, 17; 7:21; 9:17);
kol asher nishmat-ruah, “all that has breath” (7:22);
kol ha-adam, “all human beings” (7:21);
kol-hayequm, “every living thing” (7:23)
kal-hahay, “all living things” (6:19);
The weight of this evidence cannot be easily dismissed.
There are several flood stories all arising from the Sumerian area. Those others also believed that a god or gods caused that flood. Each group edited and added their own particular explanations and they all fit the common understanding of the world at that time. There is nothing miraculous about how men think then or now: it can only be within their own world view and knowledge. They can attribute natural catastrophes within their world view, and are not prescient or have the scientific knowledge of today.
What is so strange about ancient stories that we try to color them within our world view today? Let them be as they were written without all the scientific attempts toward proving they had today's scientific knowledge. Hyperbole was common then, as it often is today; except there are too many who will prevent such from being furthered.
Elaine
The fact that many ancient cultures around the world have their own modified global flood tales is an evidence in favor of the biblical account.
Admittedly, one could argue that such peoples carried their local flood story with them as they spread from Mesopotamia. But this could point to the veracity of the Tower of Babel account…
Anyway you look it, it's hard to escape the implications of these global legends for the reliability of the biblical record.
The 'weight of the evidence" of the Bible is that the language bespeaks a a total destruction of what Peter differentiates from his Roman world or our New world, as "the old world" (2 Peter 2:5). And again Peter calls Noah's world, "the word that then was" not the world that now is (2 Peter 3:6).
All your linguistic points are fully acceptable, Andre', if you just contextualize them with "of Noah's world" or "in Noah's time".
All the fountains and all the mountains "of Noah's world".
The whole sky "of Noah's world."
All flesh "of Noah's world" or "of Noah's time"
Every living thing (except fish) " of Noah's world"
All living things "of Noah's world"
All these "all" statements can be quite true and quite supportable by the physical evidence, and consistent with the Scriptural New Testament texts contrasting Noah's world with Peter's world, but saying that what happened then to that world, can happen to us now to our world.
I also do not see the difficulty you see with all the miraculous things you quote as happening
within Nature, not outside of it.
Why should a localized flood, create any problem with the doctrine of sin?
Why should a localized flood, and a long term creation miracle, deny the divine/human incarnation?
Why should God working within nature, instead of outside of it create any problem for the very physical death and resurrection of Christ? He clearly stated he was not spirit, and offered a finger in his wounds to prove it. I am not asked to believe in a magic Christ, I am asked to believe in a physical Christ with a physical resurrection.
The resurrection of my body is no more difficult to believe than my first conception and birth from two half microscopic cells. Both are equal miracles and physically performed within Nature.
Belief in the Creator and viewing His actions as within His creation, not outside of it, is entirely consistent with a belief in God acting in nature at other times and other places.
Andre, all our good points about Moses languare are fully compatible with a total flood that did not need cover the unknown and uninhabited parts of the globe. And expecting God to work within his Creation is not contrary to belief in any other important doctrines, except a short term, young earth creation, and a global flood, whiche are not truths of nature or revelation, but mostly supposition and conjecture or our part.
Jack,
You have been using 2 Peter to argue for your local flood theory but I don't think he supports it. He is clearly referring to a "temporal" world, the "ancient world", "at that time" not a geographical world.
More importantly, he is drawing a crucial parallel:
ancient world = total destruction by water (flood = kataklysmos", same word used by the LXX in Genesis and Jesus)
present world = total destruction by fire at Second Coming
With this in mind, it makes no difference if you say that was "Noah's world", it was still the "whole earth" of Noah's time, just as Jesus appearing will affect the whole earth. On the other hand, one must admit that Scriptures become a different book when we start adding words to it in order to change its meaning…
You seem to have missed the important implications of your principle that God cannot operate outside the natural laws now present in the world. Worse, you seem to contradict yourself when you state that natural laws can be changed "naturally", i.e., within nature, in order to accommodate a miracle of healing for example. But miracles occur precisely outside normal laws of nature! The body of Jesus which Thomas "touched" was able to become invisible. When did you last see that in nature?
I'd hate to belabor what is clearly an obvious point: If God cannot interfere, stop or change natural laws as they now occur in this world, we are all doomed.
Happy Sabbath! :o)
We are being confused by mixing different theories.
The godless-naturalist says, there is no God, and things that happen happen randomly, by chance, and exist by undirected, uncaring processes in obedience to natural laws applied uncaringly. There are no miracles only deluded people who think there are miracles in their ignorance.
Neither you nor I agree with this infidelity.
The super-naturalist says, God can do anything He wants. He can make the world in 1 second if He wants, so if the Bible says he made the earth in 6 days, so be it. If the world looks 13.8 Billion years old it is because God made it look old in 6 days. If the Bible says the earth has four corners, it has four corners. And if it says the earth has pillars, it has some sort of pillars. And if the Bible says it moves not, it doesn't move. If the Bible says the Sun stood still, it stood still for several hours.
If nuclear clocks support the ancient age of the Universe and of the sun, moon, and earth, God might have sped up or slowed down the rate of nuclear decay. But we don't care about the "science" because God is above science and does things impossible all the time whenever and wherever He wishes.
I don't know if this is an accurate caricatures of your own position or not, but those who believe this way use your kind of interpretation of the Bible including grammar and linguistic arguments to support their ideas. They claim not to believe in inerrancy because Sister White did not support that, but in practice they look very much like inerrantists.
There is another path. I will be kind to this third infra-naturalist view and call it the “Christian realist” position as it is the one I am traveling towards. This not the godless position. It holds a high view of Creation and Intelligent Design suggesting that the author of this Universe and its apparent laws is the same lawgiver of Sinai, the same Word of John 1. It is based on Biblical propositions like Malachi 3:6, “I change not”; 1 Samuel 15:29 “the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent” ; Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever”; James 1:17 “the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness”. It supports a Universe made this way on purpose, with fixed laws that God created (Jeremiah 33:25 "But this is what the LORD says: I would no more reject my people than I would change my fixed laws that govern night and day, earth and sky") and then uses to work His will within those laws, within His nature. It accepts the fact that this God is supra-natural, but unlike that position expects God to work in the system He has designed, not outside of that system.
The Christian realist believes in a real Adam and a real Eve but accepts that that our DNA traces their heredity to all else God designed and Created before they appeared in history. That they were God formed not as separate from Creation, but as the crown of creation. So we have no problem with common ancestry of all life on earth, we just disagree that it was random and unguided.
We have no problem with Sodom being destroyed by God, but we suspect God used an asteroid or other part of His creation to do it. He accept that Jesus appeared in a locked room but we don’t demand that this happened by suspension of natural laws, but by an application (likely in novel ways not yet understood) of natural law. Or that he had a key they didn’t know about, or came in a window they had unguarded.
A physical resurrection of Christ or Lazarus is no more extra-natural than the creation of Lazarus or Christ the first time from two microscopic cells, in Lazarus’s case one tiny dot of code from a father and one from a mother, and in Christ’s one tiny dot of code from the Holy Spirit and one from Mary. Nature in its usual manifestations is a miracle. So miracles are all natural, just done in unique circumstances or singular ways.
Christian realists are incarnational. We accept that both nature and revelation are valid history of God’s actions in earth’s history. We will let the evidence of nature be a commentary and explanation of inspired thoughts recorded in Scripture. We permit the testimony of scripture to guide our interpretation of the evidence in nature, but not oppose nor disregard it.
I am increasingly pleased by this key thought. Science shows me what happened and how. Scripture shows me why.
I am afraid that Adventism in fear of godless infidelity, atheistic evolution, naturalism has retreated into super-naturalism. But this is a strange home for a church that teaches healing by hospitals and surgery, health by diet and exercise, and spiritual clarity by avoiding intoxicants. Our whole “message” is that God made this earth and cooperating with Him by aligning ourselves with those laws is the path to wholeness and redemption. Adventism is heavily materialistic insisting on a real heavenly sanctuary and heavenly architecture for our theology. Why would be try to backslide to an extra-naturalistic, magical interpretations of the flood or the chronology of creation?
Why ignore reality instead of embracing it in Jesus name? Why not understand what Moses wrote, but contextualize it by Christian sober, scientific reality? Adventists like you and I should excell at being Christian realists, Andre' :o)
“A physical resurrection of Christ or Lazarus is no more extra-natural than the creation of Lazarus or Christ the first time from two microscopic cells, in Lazarus’s case one tiny dot of code from a father and one from a mother, and in Christ’s one tiny dot of code from the Holy Spirit and one from Mary. Nature in its usual manifestations is a miracle. So miracles are all natural, just done in unique circumstances or singular ways.”
Would anyone and I mean anyone, dare to try to make sense of this paragraph; or to decipher it somehow?
Dr. Hoehn, I have tremendous personal respect for you and your great intelligence and knowledge; but this makes very little sense. Frankly, it makes no sense to me. The reason why it makes no sense is that you are also saying that there are such people as super-naturalists, and that you are not one of them. How can you reconcile these contradictory statements? We’re talking resurrection here bro;’ by voice no less!
(This is not an attack on you. I’m sure that much, if not all, that I write makes little to no sense to many, or most, others also.)
“Christian realists are incarnational. We accept that both nature and revelation are valid history of God’s actions in earth’s history. We will let the evidence of nature be a commentary and explanation of inspired thoughts recorded in Scripture. We permit the testimony of scripture to guide our interpretation of the evidence in nature, but not oppose nor disregard it. “
There are no lack of Christian realists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Townes (64 Nobel Laureate), and Schawlow (81 Nobel Laureate), etc., etc.
But to confine one’s faith to the current state of science is an avocation of sand being a firmer foundation than bedrock. Biblical account of creation stands firm in the development of natural sciences from Ptolemy to Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Darwin, Rutherford, Lee & Young, etc., etc.
When the question of whether the Bible agrees with science arises I ask agree with which state of science? If the Bible was 100% in agreement with science 100 years ago, then the Bible is hopelessly out of date today. To insist the current state of science is the criteria with which to judge Biblical account of various natural phenomena is putting too much faith in what is transient. It is rather imprudent unless one is ready to subject one’s view to incessant revisions. As an example, less than five years ago inbreeding of Neanderthals and human had greater credibility than today using the same radioactive dating technique.
As to the extent of flood during Noah’s time, Genesis 1:2 states, “… the Spirit was hovering over the waters” and Genesis 1:9 states,”…let dry ground appear”, together it seems to imply there was enough water to cover the whole surface of the earth. If one holds the Conservation of Mass & Energy to be true and there is no credible evidence of loss, most of the water is still with us. It is also well known that the Marian Trench is deeper (~35,622 ft.) that Mount Everest is tall (~23,622 ft.) today. To consider the topography of the World now is the same as the topography of pre-Flood time is an assumption not an undisputed fact. To insist that Noah’s Flood was local is in accordance with science but to believe otherwise is anti-science, is pure presumption. It is basically saying my basis of faith is better than yours.
It is impossible to list all the Biblical accounts as conforming to science a we know today is ludicrous.
One that was used repeatedly throughout the Bible was the common belief that only the male had generative powers. Woman was merely the incubator. Thus, the man owned the children (that is still the position in much of the sections of the Middle East) and women had no ownership of the children by the fact that they had no genetic inheritance as merely a womb.
It wasn't until the mid-19th century that Mendel showed this idea had been wrong for most of the world's history by demonstrating the necessity of both female and male's contribution to offspring.
Thus, Jesus' ancestry (totally contradictory in Matthew and Luke, was drawn through only the line of Joseph who had no contribution toward Jesus' birth.
Their understandings were primitive when compared to what we know today; but ours will soon be primitive as compared to 10 years or less.
Phillip science is progressive and humility is always appropriate. But to suggest that we can not make any conclusions in 2013 is disingenuous
The evidence Against a global flood is overwhelming on multiple levels. If we can agree that revelation is also progressive we can update our science and our understanding of revelation better in 2013 than At any time before in history. In 2014 we can do it again with better information. I just don't want us stuck back in 1844 understanding.
Jack,
Scritpture account of creation has not changed way before 1844. Continuous revision is progress in science but to make any state of science at any time point as the final word is indeed disingenuous.
Since 1844 Adventists have changed their understanding of the unchanging scriptures on–date of 2nd coming, state of dead, correct day of week to worship on, need for foreign missions, doctrine of the trinity. Since 1844 we have placed great emphasis on what was at that time read as a last days prophecy that "knowledge would be increased and men run too and fro".
Would you hold your understanding of scripture in a bubble free from the discoveries of the chemical table, nuclear and particle physics, germ theory, genetics and DNA, Hubble telescope, Einstein, astronomy, archeology? I would not want to be treated for pneumonia in a 19th century hospital, and I don't want to worship in a church with a 19th century interpretation of the Bible.
Jack,
Your last sentence was so good I want to repeat it:
"I would not want to be treated for pneumonia in a 19th century hospital, and I don't want to worship in a church with a 19th century interpretation of the Bible."
"Jack said: "I would not want to be treated for pneumonia in a 19th century hospital, and I don't want to worship in a church with a 19th century interpretation of the Bible."
The argument is based on the scarecrow fallacy: to divert the attention from the weakness of one's one argument by demonizing the opponents view with, at best, anecdotal evidence.
Not only is this statement based on a logical fallacy, it is also methodologically flawed: it attempts to equate one field of study with another. What do medical views of the 19th century have to do with the understanding of the Hebrew or Greek languages? Absoluletely nothing.
Jack, I have been asking you again and again: "Where's the beef?" In my opinion you have failed to provide strong support for the consistency of your hermeneutical method for studying Scriptures. Yet you insist it works great when reading Genesis as a merely poetic text. But it will not work when dealing with the story of Jesus, the Gospels or New Testament eschatology.
Andre,
Jack does seem to have read or understand my post.
P. Law
Andre you repeatedly mischaracterize my understanding of Genesis as poetic, or allegorical. I fully accept the events as being literal and real. I just reject your expansion of this real story as being global based on linguistics, while you ignore the geography, physics, and limits present in the story making it fairy tale like, instead of realistic and believable. You hold you are a literalist. I hold you are making the story fantastic with gramar and linguistic tools. You claim I am making it poetic and therefore put all reality in the Bible at risk. I hold a believable Bible is less at risk than an unbelievable one. And that acceptance of miracle and wonder is quite compatible with science and reality, unless you try to make the real, unrealistic by refusing to let geology comment and constrain your linguistic exercises with some mud and rocks and physical evidence. Suggesting medical progress in the last 200 years, is only for the purpose of asking you to take seriously the parallel geologic and scientific progress in the last 200 years, that should make you more cautious in your Biblical expositions. I am not trying to convince you, I am merely responding for the sake of unbiased readers of these conversations who have no dog in this fight, but are merely trying to understand why 2 Adventists who believe the Bible come to different conclusions about the flood's footprint, not it's purpose or reality.
Jack,
I agree with your thesis that conflict between science and scripture will be resolved by advances in understanding of both camps. Historically this has been the case.
The Bible accounts stand not having to be fully in agreement with sciences at any past time points. One can only be amazed how Scripture has stood the test of time through the scientific information explosion. Few scientists would waste their time confronting any other religious sacred book for their scientific validity. The superiority of the Bible is unmatched.
However in bringing the faithful up to speed in science one should be extremely careful. A global flood is possible as my previous post stated referencing Scripture and Conservation of Matter and Energy. Arranged in a different configuration of the current topography, the world could sumerge all land masses under water.
What seems to be current preponderance of scientific evidences could be an incomplete and transient knowledge of our world. To consider it a possibility is one thing but to argue that the global flood idea is 1844 misconception is just overstating your case. Your position could very well be another case of dating Neanderthals. In science it is prudent to be cautious less you are just engaging in the same1844 mindset which you so object to in 2013.
For those who maintain the Bible and its stories must be believed by faith, why is there an institution, GRI employed by the church to prove many of those Bible events–like the flood?
RE: "I would not want to be treated for pneumonia in a 19th century hospital, and I don't want to worship in a church with a 19th century interpretation of the Bible."
———–
So which church preaches a 21st century interpretation of the Bible which Dr Hoehn would like to worship in? Is one of the Doctrines of this 21st century church one that teaches that there was death before sin? Which Bible verses can be interpreted this way? At least show one!
If one studies Church history, especially early Church history (first 300-400 years), one will realise many of the disputes, even within Adventism, have been debated before. These include:
Adventism has had these disputes one way or another – nothing new under the sun!
No where in my 2 years of blogging have I ever suggested death before sin. I have suggested however sin before Creation of earth. Which is a biblical and SOP doctrine we have not yet explored.
I don't recall the early church ever debating the IJ or the dates of D&R prophecies. Just think: If they had done so, it would been a great aid to know of the great havenly events far into the future, wouldn't it?
God's church on Earth are those who have by Grace accepted Jesus Christ, by Faith, as the innocent
Lamb of God, who shed His blood, thereby paying the sin debt, death, for all sinners, of all time. The
CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST, is not under the banner of one titled group. The remnant will be found in
all churches, and individuals, who tread this Earth.
RE: "The remnant will be found in all churches, and individuals, who tread this Earth."
———–
Dear Mr Calahan
You express good sentiments in your statement and I understand why you would want to see it this way. Yes, God has his children in other churches (and other religions too I would say) but that is his prerogative and only He decides on this [John 10:16]. This verse shows that Jesus (the Good Shepherd) has those who belong to him but who “are not of this fold.” He then says clearly that when they hear His voice they will come out and join “one fold” as there is also “one shepherd.” So too it is with the Remnant. Jesus the loving shepherd calls his loved ones out from wherever they are into His fold (Remnant Church) of Rev 12:17.
As I have said previously, the identifying of this Church as a remnant is primarily to warn them of the devil's hatred towards them and to correlate this with end time prophecy. There is no pompous exclusivity agenda in this at all but that it only simply states that this remnant are those who 'keep the commandments of God' and 'have the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ The word 'commandments' used in Rev 12:17 is the same word used by Jesus in Matt 5:19, 27, 33, where He elaborates on obedience to his 'commandments' of which the remnant referred to in Rev 12:17 are shown to keep.
Most Christian churches (if not all) boldly state that these commandments are done away with at the cross. Then there are the Catholics who have made a few changes to the Ten Commandments. At this juncture we also find the Sabbath being trampled upon by many, if not all, of the Christian churches. The Remnant in this case will have to include the keeping of the Sabbath commandment which therefore does narrow it down quite a bit.
Those who are faithful in their obedience to God will experience the dragon’s wrath. The Remnant, as I see it, will also teach (and preach) the value of obedience to God and the Salvation He offers to all those who disobey Him. This of course can be only found in Jesus Christ, as you so rightly have stated.
"Andre you repeatedly mischaracterize my understanding of Genesis as poetic, or allegorical."
Jack, isn't it ironic that you are sensitive to being read correctly as an author, while you do not seem to extend the same courtesy to the biblical author?
"I fully accept the events as being literal and real."
I do not believe that is the case, in fact, you have adamantly rejecting what the original text says.
"I just reject your expansion of this real story as being global based on linguistics, while you ignore the geography, physics, and limits present in the story making it fairy tale like, instead of realistic and believable."
Yes, you are "OK" with the general idea of a divine judgment as found in the Genesis account of the flood, but not with how such judgment was accomplished. That much is quite clear. But in the process, you have created your own version of such a judgment, one that is detached from its original textual moorings, a "light" version more palatable to naturalists and the atheistic scientific method. You have abandoned the author's intent (dismissing mere linguistics) for what you think he should have written (favoring geology)
I have been insisting that in order to be consistent, you need to do the same with ALL of Scripture. And that you are reluctant to do, for obvious reasons.
Sorry, it does not feel you are "being consistent" it feels you are just being combative (as I know I can be), that to support your interpretation of Genesis 9-11, you are setting up a false linkage that if I don't accept your interpretation I am forbidden from accepting the rest of scripture? Either swallow my support of a global flood, or give up your faith in the rest of the bible…..? No thanks.
You and Chris Barnett are both trying to say there are only two choices: You from the right of my interpretation, and Chris far to the left. I still keep open my invitation to both of you to come back to the center (hey you can both even come back to the "centre" if you are not Yanks)! A real flood described as the inspired author saw it, in phenomenogical language, the way it looked to them, using the language and concepts of their culture, not ours. Telling the truth even if they didn't know all the facts. And the responsibility and privilege of every later reader to interpret the story as best they can, using all available resources including science, for an unblind faith.
"And the responsibility and privilege of every later reader to interpret the story as best they can, using all available resources including science, for an unblind faith. "
Jack, you are right. We need to keep in mind your scientific assertions are just interpretations. Other interpretations based on science could find no problem with a global flood. With that I hope we can avoid being dogmatic about our views.
When the scene becomes combative, it is time for recess. When two or more learned intellectuals have such a divergence of opinion on a scripture, it must be cool to be just a simple person who is at ease with the flood, recognizing it happened approx 4-5 thousand years (or eons) ago. It has no relevence to
my salvation in Christ Jesus.
Jack, I'm not trying to be "combative", I just won't you let off the hook 🙂
My consistent point has been that your reading of Genesis is that it creates more problems than it attempts to solve.
"You and Chris Barnett are both trying to say there are only two choices: You from the right of my interpretation, and Chris far to the left."
I see Chris Barnett's position as the logical outcome of the one you currently spouse. If you ask him, I would be willing to bet he started out as you did… My appeals for you to be "consistent" with your approach are not so you will end up not believing, but rather, that you reconsider that fallacies of such belief system.
"A real flood described as the inspired author saw it, in phenomenogical language, the way it looked to them."
No one actually "saw" the global flood as it happened. Noah and his family didn't see a thing as didn't the writer. Further, the information that the flood covered "all the mountains under the whole sky" could not have been visually verified by any human being. So, an appeal to phenomenological language is clearly invalid in this case.
"And the responsibility and privilege of every later reader to interpret the story as best they can, using all available resources including science, for an unblind faith."
Why not do the same with the story of Jesus? Did he actually resurrect or was this just phenomenogical language? Does phenomenological language also apply to the New Testament visions of the Second Coming?
I agree with Andre. If you espouse or embrace Jack's belief system and you are honest and systematic within that belief system, the inevitable outcome is atheism. Jack is still a christian because he applies his belief system inconsistently and dishonestly (intellectually) and cherry picks which beliefs in the bible should be corraborated by science and which ones should not. Thats why I beleive Jack's position is a clear and present danger to adventism. Many churches that have taken that route are dying (much faster than adventism anyway). My question is why are Jack and Co project a self contradictory belief system on adventism?
Let's see if I get this:
"Jack is still a Christian because he applies his belief system inconsistently and dishonestly."
Is it your belief that a dishonesty demonstrates one as a Christian? Why are you calling him dishonest?
Silly me. I always thought that being a Christian meant following Christ's command to love one another and to call someone a liar is endangering their soul in hell, or no better than a murderer.
When did belief in all the miracles separate Christians? Is belief in them far more important than living out the principles of honesty, caring for others and respecting them, regardless of their religious beliefs? Did He not also have much to say about judging others? Are those no longer important and now deciding who is, or is not a Christian based on believing the miracles described in the Bible? When and where did that originate? I can find nothing in the NT that demanded this from the believers.
Why should we select parts of the Bible to believe as written, and others that we generously interpret?
If the writer of the Iliad and the Odyssey, or the Book of the Egyptian Dead–all contemporary with the Bible are not accepted as actual, literal accounts, why accept the Bible any differently? Each records beliefs at the time, giving us insight into their world view which does not correlate with our worldview today. Why should it?
Andre and Jack,
Andre, actually, I started out where you are!
Jack, you speak of "unblind faith". What an amazing oxymoron. Faith is belief in the invisible, unprovable, unknowable (by rational means) – there is nothing to "see"! Really, when is faith in this context NOT blind?
Jack, I respect your effort to bring reason back to the table. Andre refuses to do so, and as such certainly exhibits a "blind faith" fully and totally. Weirdly, he is happy to use "reason" to "interpret and understand the "evidence" of Scripture, but not the ground he walks on. But, Jack, you exhibit the same blind faith with your "incontrovertibles". You point blank refuse to allow the same reason you argue for elsewhere to come near your "chosen" non-negotiables. Illogical.
As for coming back to the "middle", "center", or "centre"! Who's centre??? I would like to invite you to my center Jack, it is a far more reasonable place to be. No cognitive dissonance. No living in denial of certain facts to support "incontrovertibles". No blind faith. Simply using ALLLL available resources including science, for an unblind knowledge of the world. In fact No faith required in the Biblical sense.
I do have faith you're both good blokes, and that the sun will get up tomorrow. Sadly, I don't have faith that you two are going to be able to look beyond your chosen mindsets! That would be blind faith because the evidence suggests otherwise.
" No cognitive dissonance. No living in denial of certain facts to support "incontrovertibles". No blind faith." Hi Chris, I thought you were a materialist Evolutionist? Did I miss something?
Things are not as rapted up as popular Science treatments or Evo Evangelists would have it.
Writing in Nature on the 60th anniversary of the elucidation of the DNA molecule's double-helix structure, Dr. Phillip Ball observes:
He's frustrated by the misleading "narrative" or "rhetoric" that portrays scientists as having evolutionary genetics all figured out. He doesn't like it when "the public continues to be fed assurances that DNA is as solipsistic a blueprint as ever."
Philip Ball addresses some well-chosen words to preachers and purveyors of simplistic misinformation, including the current Dr. Evolution himself:
While some evolutionists or evolution skeptics might quibble with Ball's assertion that selection operates at all levels, few could dismiss his overall message. Darwinian evolutionists need to abandon their sentimentality and affection for old ways, because those "old arguments, for instance about the importance of natural selection and random drift in driving genetic change, are now colliding with questions about non-coding RNA, epigenetics and genomic network theory."
"reluctance to acknowledge the complexity" Ball says:
Darrel,
Sorry, as soon as I saw "DNA" I stopped reading….whatever..
Now Darrel,
In answer to your question: Did you miss something? Well, yes, but rather than you embarking on another string of arguments about DNA and the likes, you could have waited for me to suggest what yo missed.
What you missed is this. I am not a "materialist evolutionist" any more than I am anything else.
I happen to believe the sun will get up tomorrow and set at the end of the day at a very precise time according to where I am. You will experience the same sun, on the same planet, but it will rise and set at a specific and absolutely predictable time based on where you are. I tell you this because it illustrates how observations about the way nature/our world/universe behaves can lead to understandings that are essentially FACTS.
I happen, at this point in time, to believe the theory of evolution best explains the data I see.
Read the next sentence very carefully:
The theory of evolution itself is further out on a continuum of certainty of fact than that the sun will rise at a precise time tomorrow, but it is far closer to the certainty of fact than are biblical theories of creation which run counter to the macro evidence of the nature of this world.
So, YES! " No cognitive dissonance. No living in denial of certain facts to support "incontrovertibles". No blind faith." There can be no dissonance if uncertain "facts" are held with openness. There can be no denial of facts if all data is able to be adjusted in its relationship with other data and as more data comes to light. There are no "incontrovertibles". All is open to evidence according to its weight.
kris, your above statement of how you view reality is straight forward and understandable given your
view of empiracal evidence you can actually see, with your own eyes, or accept the study of others,
based on experimentation of replication. As i understand your thinking, you don't nessessarily dismiss
super normal happenings, you just have no evidence of such. That you don't deny there is a God who
created all things, but that His methods are unknown. Is this an accurate understanding??
Earl,
You are pretty close to it.
In fact, I was nearly going to respond to Tapiwa's point when he said this:
"If you espouse or embrace Jack's belief system and you are honest and systematic within that belief system, the inevitable outcome is atheism."
This is so wrong. Neither Jacks, nor my (extension) of his view leads to atheism. In fact, as I see it, this is where it should not lead. Atheism is the belief that there IS no God. We all know the saying "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Why would someone who pursues empirical evidence end up an atheist when finding empirical evidence that God does NOT exist is probably the most difficult and impossible pursuit of all!?
Hence, yes, I do not dismiss super normal happenings, nor do I dismiss God. Who, What, and How "He/She/It is or may be is not so clear.
I see many things in my life and this world which I cannot explain. Whether these are super normal, or simply normal/natural and as yet without scientific understanding/explanation is not clear. We all know the "God of the gaps" is having to be placed into smaller and smaller gaps.
Now a caveat re denying there is a God who created all things. I do have sympathy for ID, in that one can, with imagination, ponder a God behind what we too easily interpret as "complexity", or "design". However, if I were/am to "allow" such thinking to infuence my unerstanding of the cosmos and life, I would require that I begin with that concept on its own merit, NOT with the idea of defending a Biblical God, as Jack, Darrel, and indeed I suspect all IDers do. The moment we have an ulterior motive like that we destroy our ability to let science have a balanced voice. One only has to see how, imho, DNA etc have become a repetitive theme in Darrel's posts to see this.
This is why the SDA Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) is such a fraud. Studying to prove a preconceived opinion is just the opposite of scientific endeavor an only an apologist denominational dream.
But the faithful tithe payers are hoping, even praying that one day, somehow, they will find all the answers revealed. Even if that were to occur, who created the Designer? Back to Square One.