Aside from the creation account, the flood account is the event in Scripture most often targeted for scientific objections. Normally, this all-out assault isn’t limited to the flood account, but is bound up with a more general offensive directed at flood geology. What are we to make of this?
1.Local or global?
For some reason, critics direct most of their fire at the specter of a global flood. Why is that?
i) Some or many come out of a fundamentalist background. So this is their point of reference.
ii) To their own way of thinking, a global flood presents an easier target.
iii) Perhaps they also feel that young-earth creationism represents a more potent social force or political threat than old-earth creationism or theistic evolution—although, with the rise of the ID movement—any level of religiosity is coming under attack.
2. Flood or flood geology?
For some reason, those who criticize the flood account generally bundle their attack on the flood with a larger attack on flood geology. Why is that?
i) They think it’s easier to attack the flood by linking it to flood geology.
ii) Since they regard both the flood and flood geology as equally erroneous, they don’t bother to distinguish their objections.
But (1)-(2) need to be challenged.
i) As a matter of intellectual honesty, if you claim to be disproving the Bible, or some portion thereof, then the onus is on you come up with your own interpretation of Scripture. What is the best interpretation of the Biblical account?
You cannot merely depend on the interpretation offered by the opposing side, for their position is only as good as their interpretation. Even if you succeeded in disproving their position, that would not, of itself, disprove the Bible. In order to show that the Bible is incorrect, you would first need to show that their interpretation is correct, and then show that the Bible, correctly interpreted (by them), is incorrect.
ii) Likewise, disproving flood geology is not the same thing as disproving the flood. Flood geology is an exegetical and scientific construct. It intersects with Scripture, but it’s not restricted to the witness of Scripture. Hence, even if you succeeded in disproving flood geology (and there’s more than one version), that would not, of itself, disprove the Bible. To pull that off, you would have to show that you are disproving those elements of flood geology which are grounded in the correct interpretation of Scripture. Critics of the flood take far too many shortcuts.
3.Bronze Age literature.
People who disbelieve the flood tell us that this account is bound to be unscientific because it’s reported in bronze-age literature. It was written by authors or redactors who didn’t know any better.
And yet, when they mount an attack on the flood account, or flood geology, they typically construe the exegetical data in a highly anachronistic fashion. What are the standard arguments for the global interpretation? There are two basic lines of evidence:
i) The flood account employs universal quantifiers (“every,” “all”) with certain nouns.
a) At this point, the unconscious instinct of a contemporary reader is to transfer these expressions to his modern image of the world. But there’s nothing literal about that interpretation. For the reader isn’t really taking these expressions at face-value. Rather, he takes the quantifiers literally, yet when he transfers them to his own mental picture of the world, what he ends up with is not a literal interpretation of the text, but a hybrid, acontextual interpretation in which his own picture of the world supplies the object. He’s kept the quantifiers intact, but swapped in a different referent.
If, however, you’re going to take a bronze age approach, then you need to ask yourself what the narrative landmarks would conjure up to the original audience. What was their internal map? How big did they think the world was?
Indeed, we have some examples of ANE cartography, such as the Mappa Mundi and the Sargon Geography. Cf. W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Geography (Eisenbrauns 1998).
Once you make allowance for the perspectival difference between them and us, then the descriptions could be global from the viewpoint of the original audience, but local from the viewpoint of the modern audience.
b) And this would have other consequences, regarding the number and variety of animals represented on the ark, since they would sample the implied geography of the implied reader, and not the space age generation.
Remember, the unbeliever keeps telling us that Genesis is bronze-age literature. And that, in turn, commits him to ANE cartography, not satellite cartography.
If this is indeed taken to reflect the narrative viewpoint of the flood account, then that alone, at one stroke, undercuts almost all of the stock objections to the feasibility of the account. How did the animals migrate from all over the world? How did they disperse? How were they adapted to the diet and climate aboard the ark? How did they all fit into the ark? How could they be loaded in time? How did eight passengers care for so many animals? How did they multiply and diversify so soon after the flood? What did they eat after the flood? How did marine and freshwater species survive the mixing of seawater and freshwater? How did plants survive? Where did all the water come from? Where did it go? How does a global flood account for various geological phenomena around the world?
I’m not claiming that flood geology can’t answer these questions. I’m only addressing the unbeliever on his own grounds. He is trying to saddle the flood account with a string of complications that do not, in fact, derive from his own view of Genesis. To the contrary, he is holding Genesis to an anachronistic outlook which he has superimposed on the text, despite his stated view that this is bronze-age literature.
And even from a believer’s standpoint, the text would be heard by bronze-age ears.
c) I’d add that while the flood account employs universal expressions, it obviously doesn’t intend these expressions to be taken without any limitation whatsoever, for the same account specifically exempts the occupants on the ark. So these expressions were never meant to be all-encompassing. Their force is explicitly moderated by paradigmatic exception of the ark itself.
d) Unbelievers also think that Scripture uses hyperbolic language from time to time. So when do they take the language literally here, but hyperbolic elsewhere?
ii) Another argument involves an inference from the size of the ark, as well as the depth and duration of the flood. Unlike (i), this isn’t a narrative assertion regarding the extent of the flood, be it local or global, but a possible implication. Yet there are some problems with this inference, especially from an unbeliever’s vantage-point.
a) For some thing, the unbeliever also thinks that Scripture assumes a flat-earth perspective. Indeed, the unbeliever will castigate the flood geologist for abandoning his literalism at this juncture.
I’ve discussed what is wrong with this interpretation on more than one occasion, so I won’t repeat myself here, but suppose, for the sake of argument, that the flood account is written from a flat-earth perspective. If so, then how high could the floodwaters rise or remain? Even if the world is flat, it’s not a fish tank. There are no walls to hold the water in. To the contrary, if the earth were flat, the overflowing water would run off the edge of the earth. It is therefore quite inconsistent, on the one hand, to attribute a flat earth perspective to the narrative, and then, on the other hand, to go on and on about the absurdities involved with floodwaters overtopping Mt. Everest.
b) I’d add that whether or not the duration of the flood is consistent with a local or global flood depends, in part, on what flood mechanism we postulate. The Bible gives two sources: one from the top down, and the other from the bottom up. Rainwater is one source, but the other has reference to some vaguely stated geological phenomenon (“the fountains of the deep”).
Because this reference is so unspecific, and even poetic, it leaves the flood geologist with a pretty free hand regarding what flood mechanism he should postulate.
Depending on what model you use, it would be possible to have a local flood of indefinite duration by simply damming the water supply. Mountains and hills function as natural dikes.
c) As to the ark, it’s true that Noah’s ark, or at least an ark of that size, is unnecessary in case of global flooding. But that’s a rather superficial objection. After all, a global flood is equally unnecessary. God could kill just as many men and animals without resorting to a worldwide deluge. And he could spare a remnant without resorting to an ark.
Many things in Scripture are strictly unnecessary. The kosher laws go well beyond what is necessary. But many things in Scripture have a symbolic value. Why did God bring the flood rather than some other medium of judgment? Because that medium signified a reversal of the creative process: a reversion to the formless void.
The triple-decker design is emblematic of the cosmic temple. So the design is both functional and figural. There is also septunarian numerology in play (e.g. seven days, seven animals).
iii) A local flood would also explain why the ark landed in the Ararat range (Gen 8:4). In a worldwide flood, the ark could have landed in any mountain range around the world. So why did it come down in upper Mesopotamia?
The contextual reason is that that garden of Eden was located somewhere in Mesopotamia (Gen 2:10-14). And the human race was still confined to this general region when the flood struck. So that is where the ark was launched. And that was the vicinity of the flooded region.
>>People who disbelieve the flood tell us that this account is bound to be unscientific because it’s reported in bronze-age literature. It was written by authors or redactors who didn’t know any better.
ReplyDelete>>Remember, the unbeliever keeps telling us that Genesis is bronze-age literature.
I would add that this often intersects with an inconsistency in their views. On the one hand, they say Genesis is "bronze age" literature. On the other, for other issues, they'll accept the Documentary Hypothesis. But if that's true, Genesis isn't really "bronze age" literature, since it postdates the that age. Which is it? If they can't get something like that straight, why should I listen to anything they say?
Likewise, if there are enough of these stories in enough disparate cultures and places, then why doesn't this indicate some sort of historical root event, in which case the issue isn't whether or not the event occurred, but which of them presents a reasonably accurate account?
>>>Because this reference is so unspecific, and even poetic, it leaves the flood geologist with a pretty free hand regarding what flood mechanism he should postulate.
>>Why did God bring the flood rather than some other medium of judgment? Because that medium signified a reversal of the creative process: a reversion to the formless void.
And I would add here that what we have is a curtain image , built on the architectural imagery you've covered elsewhere. The rain comes down, the fountains come up. The image is rather like the the tent of meeting being collapsed. The Tabernacle did not touch the ground, remember, and it was held up by a frame. The frame is collapsed and it collapses in on itself from top to bottom and, from another perspective, from bottom to top. The 'waters' "fill" the space between" and thus the earth is flooded' the tent is rendered without form and void.
What are we to make of this?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't hard. A global flood represents *orders of magnitude* mode flood. As a phenomenon, then, a global flood should be much more easily detected and verified forensically. The combination of the enormous amounts of water needed to submerse even Everest across the whole planet make that idea one that stretches credulity to begin with. Add to that the conspicuous absence of *any* of the telltale evidences we would expect to find if such a thing had happened, and critics see this as a trivially easy target to discredit scientifically.
And that it is.
i) As a matter of intellectual honesty, if you claim to be disproving the Bible, or some portion thereof, then the onus is on you come up with your own interpretation of Scripture. What is the best interpretation of the Biblical account?
The critic doesn't carry *any* burden to come up with their own interpretation. What if they think the whole book is a complete hoax?
Critics I talk to say their best interpretation of scripture is that it's completely fictional, and does not reflect anything historical at all with respect to a flood or anything else. That's the interpretation you should expect, in many cases.
You cannot merely depend on the interpretation offered by the opposing side, for their position is only as good as their interpretation.
Right, and it's encouraging to hear you say that. For many critics of global flood interpretations (me, for example), there's a goal of preserving and defending the Bible from wrong-headed and indefensible interpretations.
So I have my own interpretation, and am happy to defend that in its own right. But there's absolutely no obligation to offer an opposing or competing interpretation of scripture, by a fellow believer, or an atheist.
If one makes the claim that a global flood occurred, and then all available evidence not only fails to support that claim, but supports the claim that a global flood positively did *not* happen, then a criticism can be leveled against the global flood claim on those grounds.
Why would we need a competing interpretation to level criticisms at the claims of a global flood, based on all the evidence that works against that claim???
Even if you succeeded in disproving their position, that would not, of itself, disprove the Bible.
And for many critics (me, in the case of a global flood), that would be a grand thing, as the goal may be to *defend* and support the Bible from bogus interpretations.
Defeating an interpretation is goal enough, for many critics, including many atheists.
In order to show that the Bible is incorrect, you would first need to show that their interpretation is correct, and then show that the Bible, correctly interpreted (by them), is incorrect.
That's just nuts. What do you mean, precisely, by "correctly interpreted"? Do you think an atheist feels obligated to provide a "correct interpretation", beyond stating that he thinks the Bible is completely false?
Maybe it would help you, pedagogically, to think about this with the tables turned. Do you suppose that in order to provide a critique of the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an that you would be obliged to also provide a "correct interpretation" of it, beyond "It's false"??? If you can see how ludicrous a demand that would be from a Mormon or a Muslim, than you should be able to see why the above makes no sense.
If you disagree, maybe you can point me to whatever "rulebook" you are relying here on that establishes these obligations....
ii) Likewise, disproving flood geology is not the same thing as disproving the flood. Flood geology is an exegetical and scientific construct. It intersects with Scripture, but it’s not restricted to the witness of Scripture. Hence, even if you succeeded in disproving flood geology (and there’s more than one version), that would not, of itself, disprove the Bible. To pull that off, you would have to show that you are disproving those elements of flood geology which are grounded in the correct interpretation of Scripture. Critics of the flood take far too many shortcuts.
For many critics, simply showing how bogus something like global flood geology is is satisfaction enough; it casts doubt on the proponents of the claim. The thinking goes... "If this is the kind of thinking and rigor that goes into global flood geology, why should we think these guys have any credibility when it comes to other matters?"
That's a good reason why the kind of ridiculous stuff I read on here regularly is so damaging to the faith. When you go on about proto-man not being able to survive in the wild because he didn't have the kind of fangs and back muscles the gorilla did, you reduce yourself and your attachment to Christianity to nothing more than Kirk Cameron proving God as Designer by examining a banana.
Kirk Cameron with a banana as proof of God doesn't disprove the Bible, but it sure does make Christianity look stupid. Heads up, eh?
If you aren't familiar with what I'm refrerring to, watch this:
The Atheists' Nightmare -- Cameron and Comfort
More later...
-Touchstone
Once you make allowance for the perspectival difference between them and us, then the descriptions could be global from the viewpoint of the original audience, but local from the viewpoint of the modern audience.
ReplyDeleteSure, that's how TEs would resolve this, for example. If you're arguing for a local flood, then great. But if one maintains -- in the here and now -- that a global flood happened, then there is a serious problem; it matters not what you think about the Bronze again and ancient models of the earth, the evidence available is deep and strongly against a global flood as a historical fact.
If your intent here is to assert that a local flood interpretation of Genesis is defensible, and a global flood interpretation is not, then I'd say "thumbs up" and would move on.
I’ve discussed what is wrong with this interpretation on more than one occasion, so I won’t repeat myself here, but suppose, for the sake of argument, that the flood account is written from a flat-earth perspective. If so, then how high could the floodwaters rise or remain? Even if the world is flat, it’s not a fish tank. There are no walls to hold the water in. To the contrary, if the earth were flat, the overflowing water would run off the edge of the earth. It is therefore quite inconsistent, on the one hand, to attribute a flat earth perspective to the narrative, and then, on the other hand, to go on and on about the absurdities involved with floodwaters overtopping Mt. Everest.
OK, you had a moment of lucidity above, but this is just silly again. If the earth is flat, why can't the God of the Universe flood the flat earth like a fish tank, with invisible walls holding the water in? I mean, at that point we're not bound to any naturalistic explanations, are we? It's a miracle, a supernatural intervention by God. There's no reason for the ancients (or us for that matter) to think that "water running over the edges of the earth" is a limitation for God.
What we *would* have a problem with, however is a rationale for why the forensic indications of such a flood are not to be found when they should be available in abundance. In other words, if we assume an ominpotent God, a "fishtank flood" is not at all a problem. But it would be very odd to think that God would erase or conceal all evidences of said flood, even as he documents it in Genesis. The real problem with a global flood interpretation is *not* that God couldn't do it, or do it anyway he wants (fishtank style or no), but that if he did such a thing, we naturally would expect the effects of the flood to remain.
b) I’d add that whether or not the duration of the flood is consistent with a local or global flood depends, in part, on what flood mechanism we postulate. The Bible gives two sources: one from the top down, and the other from the bottom up. Rainwater is one source, but the other has reference to some vaguely stated geological phenomenon (“the fountains of the deep”).
OK, check.
Because this reference is so unspecific, and even poetic, it leaves the flood geologist with a pretty free hand regarding what flood mechanism he should postulate.
A "free hand" they use with utter abandon, if you read them.
Depending on what model you use, it would be possible to have a local flood of indefinite duration by simply damning the water supply. Mountains and hills function as natural dikes.
I'm pretty sure you meant "damming the water supply" here, right? "Damning" the water supply is a novel idea, but I don't see how it would help here. ;-)
Many things in Scripture are strictly unnecessary. The kosher laws go well beyond what is necessary. But many things in Scripture have a symbolic value. Why did God bring the flood rather than some other medium of judgment? Because that medium signified a reversal of the creative process: a reversion to the formless void.
Many thing in scripture have symbolic value... hmmm. "All" doesn't mean "all" necessarily... nor does "every".... hmmm.
Don't you believe the Word of God, Steve? Next thing you know, you'll be telling me "day" doesn't mean "day", as in "86,400 seconds".
Off the slippery slope you go...
-Touchstone
Gene,
ReplyDeleteWith respect to:
Likewise, if there are enough of these stories in enough disparate cultures and places, then why doesn't this indicate some sort of historical root event, in which case the issue isn't whether or not the event occurred, but which of them presents a reasonably accurate account?
A good many critics, including atheists, *do* see Noah's flood anchored in a "historical root event". The 11th tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapistim is told by Ea, the Sumerian God who (in their view) created mankind, to build a big boat:
‘O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.
Hmmm. Sound familiar?
Utnapistim goes along with the demand:
‘One (whole) acre was her floor space, (660’ X 660’)
Ten dozen cubits the height of each of her walls,
Ten dozen cubits each edge of the square deck.
I laid out the shape of her sides and joined her together.
I provided her with six decks,
Dividing her (thus) into seven parts.’
Don't have my book handy, but IIRC, he seals the ark with pitch, put some family and friends in, took on a bunch of animals, and waited for the deluge (although I think the deluge was not rain, but wheat?).
Anyway, the point being that here we have another account from Sumer that provides striking parallels to the Noachine flood. It's thought that Avram was Sumerian himself (he came from Ur, a Sumerian city), and that these accounts are thus related by that connection.
But, I ask: how does this "historical root event" help the defender of the Biblical flood? It seems to me that a verdict that the story of Noah is a recapitulation of some kind or an exercise in co-opting other creation myths of the region by YHWH, then we might point to a real flood that both Noah and Utnapistim recount, but one that is now questionable not to its historicity, but to its accuracy and fidelity as a *theological* account.
-Touchstone
T-Stone,
ReplyDeleteFor someone who doesn't know how to tell if a text has been "interpreted right", you sure are doing a lot of textual interpretation.....
Peter,
ReplyDeleteWell, that's just the thing. I can ask questions, and (ok, maybe it's just on other blogs and email lists) get answers back that clarify, deny, adjust, specify, etc.
Interpretation is greatly aided by active verbal feedback, even(especially) when it's hostile. Even so, I don't suppose I've understood everything I read here or elsewhere correctly, and certainly not in the transcendent sense of "right" that our friend Patrick is appealing to.
On other blogs, I will ask if I understand, and receive something in reply to the effect of "Yes, you have it right" or "No, and here's what you misunderstood", or "Almost, but let me add...". So, when I get back a reply that says "Touchstone, you understand what I'm saying.", I take that as a sign that I have in fact correctly interpreted their words, at least in part.
-Touchstone
Peter,
ReplyDeleteShould have added:
Also, I like anyone else have my own heuristics that I apply to scripture, and a "best practice" for getting the most truth I can out of a text. But my question for Patrick wasn't about whether he, or I think we are right in our beliefs. I'm assuming up fron that we both do.
Instead, I'm asking Patrick about his epistemology:
How does he know he's right?
How does would he know if he's wrong?
I'm interested in whether his answers can account for others who have contradictory interpretations to Patrick's but feel similarly convinced *they* are the ones doing "faithful exegesis" rather than Patrick.
Orthodoxy, historically defined, suggested that the wisest path for finding and consolidating on the truth was to draw upon the collective wisdom of the leadership of the Christian church. No single person was normative to what "rightly exegeted" means. A bishop might push Arianism as part of his proposed/affirmed canons, but unless the consensus of the rest of the leadership agrees, it isn't binding on the Church, and thereby him. Patrick, like the rest of us Protestants, has no such constraints.
-Touchstone
There is nothing in scripture that really suggests the story of the flood of Noah is intended to be taken literally. That's just not the point.
ReplyDeleteA disproof of the flood of Noah, in that case (the traditional Christian view, by the way) does not make a disproof of the Bible as scripture, nor of Judaism nor Christianity as religion.
Of course, proving that there was a global flood wouldn't prove the scriptures, either.
Why are you obsessed with this?
T-Stone,
ReplyDeleteI wish I could believe that you were just interested in an epistemological question, but frankly the manner in which you go about it doesn't lead credence to that claim. Seriously, all it looks like you're doing here is trying to score points with Loftus. "Hey look, I can mock the T-bloggers too" and such.
The hypocrisy of your position is clear in the fact that you don't even both submitting your own beliefs to the same criticisms you send Patrick's way. When you critique his views, you become this radical post-modern ultra-skeptic; but when you assert your own position you think you can get away with: "Interpretation is greatly aided by active verbal feedback, even(especially) when it's hostile."
To turn the tables on you: How do you KNOW your interpretation is "aided" (whatever THAT means) by "active verbal feedback" especially of the "hostile" kind? How do you know it isn't hindered by your prideful rejection of rationality and common sense?
But you wouldn't consider applying your pomo scheme to your own view because A) you don't really believe the pomo scheme (it's just your way to attack a T-Blogger to score points with the Debunkers) and B) you yourself don't have a defense against that view, so it's best left "unconsidered" in the first place.
In any case, you said:
---
I'm interested in whether his answers can account for others who have contradictory interpretations to Patrick's but feel similarly convinced *they* are the ones doing "faithful exegesis" rather than Patrick.
---
Earlier you said you appreciated when other people told you if you weren't interpreting a blog entry correctly. Well...you're not interpreting this correctly at all. Patrick's position isn't a "I 'feel' this is the correct interpretation of the text" position. It's not like he's out hugging trees and getting mystic visions or anything. Patrick argues his interpretation from the basis of the text of Scripture itself.
It is no different than reading any text. I could just as easily ask you how you know that you interpreted the front page of the New York Times correctly. Using logic and the rules of syntax and grammar will solve these problems for you. Only the extremely obtuse and those who willfuly wish to ignore what Scripture says on a subject cannot figure it out simply by reading the text using ordinary means.
After all, Scripture was written to be understood. It's language. It's not "hidden" language (except for rare instances, such as apocalyptical literature). It's extremely plain. And furthermore, it is plain on the doctrines that are most important.
The reason God gave Scripture was for communication purposes. God also created human beings. God designed humans with the ability to communicate, and then he communicated with us. As a result, we can know what Scripture says because God created us so that we can know what Scripture says.
So, when two people disagree on an interpretation, how do we know which view is right? The same way that we know which view on any interpration of any text is right. Naturally, we're fallible people and we can err; but human errors of interpretation don't make the text of Scripture erroneous, and these errors can be corrected in the same way that interpretation errors in any other context can be corrected.
This entire process is not as difficult as you make it out to be, T-Stone. It is only "difficult" when you adopt your post-modern "words don't really have any meaning"-type arguments. But those argument apply not only against Scripture, but against all langauge. And since you intend for us to understand your comments (just as God intended for us to understand His word), your very act of commenting belies the pomo argument.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
So, when two people disagree on an interpretation, how do we know which view is right? The same way that we know which view on any interpration of any text is right. Naturally, we're fallible people and we can err; but human errors of interpretation don't make the text of Scripture erroneous, and these errors can be corrected in the same way that interpretation errors in any other context can be corrected.
If you look at my exchange with Rhology earlier today, you will see that I affirm the static meaning of the message, independent of any and all interpretation errors, in God's Word. It's not been suggested that interpretational errors somehow invalidate Scripture; they don't.
But to suggest that we know he have interpreted the Bible correctly in the same we know we have interpreted the New York times article correctly is to miss a very important distinction. There's a distinct advantage available when the author of a text is available to entertain and reply verbally to questions and and requests for clarifications related to statements that are made.
For example, I regular send off emails to writers at CNet, WiredMag and ZDNet asking for clarification about what was said with respect to a particular technology that I'm following, because the article wasn't clear. At least with these three organizations, I can usually expect a detailed written answer back from the writer of the article by the next business day.
Sometimes, my guess is right as to what they meant specifically about an issue. Other times, I was incorrect and the reply from the author (who is authoritative with respect to what she wrote) will provide the desired clarification, correction and specification.
That feedback loop is quite valuable in verifying that I have things correctly understood, when correct understanding matters.
But the Bible doesn't work that way. We can seek wisdom and the mediating influence of the Spirit when reading scripture, and we can test our interpretations as best we can against other parts of scripture and other things we know. But we do not get return emails from God that provide a verbal clarification tailored to our requests for clarification.
So right there, you have a different epistemology. When the author of a message is available to provide active verbal feedback, then we have a high quality means of verifying our "correctness" in understanding the author's words. When interpreting the Bible, we do not have a process available for submitting written questions and receiving written, authoritative answers back. We simply have to go with what we've got.
So, when you answer with: "The same way that we know which view on any interpration of any text is right." I say the way is not the same at all, as it's at least possible for me to track down the writer of yesterday's New York Times article in hopes of a positive response affirming/denying/clarifying my interpretation of his words.
So, an important way we check things out on a day-to-day basis is : I dunno, go ask the author!
That's not an option with the Bible, at least in the sense that we might get a written reply we can show around and say: See, I understood this correctly, the author himself agrees!
I can know I have the correct interpretation of my boss's directives to me by requesting and receiving written confirmation of my correct understanding of his words. This is -- importantly -- not available with respect to clarifying questions about Bible interpretation.
-Touchstone
One problem with Touchstone's argument that we need to have access to the original author of a piece of writing in order to understand this piece of writing is that it assumes (as I've mentioned before) the Bible is not perspicuous -- at least not to a degree where it can communicate truth to human beings.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem with Touchstone's argument is that it assumes we need to be able to know the truth absolutely and exhaustively or we can't know it at all. It's an all or nothing venture. Either we must know the truth in its entirety or we cannot know it at all because at best we only know the truth in part. But if we can only know the truth in part, then we cannot know it at all, since we don't know enough to know whether we actually do know anything at all.
Hence, what Touchstone is really implying is that, unless we are God, we cannot fully know the Bible.
It's true that only God can know truth in its fullness, because only God has a God's-eye-view on all things. Only God is omniscient. We are finite beings. Not only that, but we are fallen, finite beings. We are marred by sin.
But is this a fair standard? That unless we have God's view of truth, we cannot know truth? If it is, then we have to throw out all truth. Touchstone must give up his precious theistic evolution. He has to become a solipsist. And even that's questionable.
However, it is possible to objectively know truth, even if we don't know it exhaustively or absolutely. The fact that Touchstone understands the words I've typed out is a case and point. He might not be able to understand every nuance in every word I've written, or I might not be able to express myself as perfectly as I ought, but he is able to understand certain words and sentences, isn't he? He is able to understand "something" of what I've written -- at least enough so to write responses to what I've written.
Likewise with studying, say, science. We are able to study the natural world around us, are we not? And to understand certain things about it. And to successfully communicate what we've learned to one another. In fact, we're able to communicate with one another so much so that we can, for example, send astronauts to the moon. Or would Touchstone allege that we are not able to know the natural world unless God himself tells us what it means because, if Touchstone likewise wants to affirm his Christianity at the same time, then he would have to believe that God is the Creator of the world, too?
Also, the Apostle Paul was able to effectively communicate the gospel to Athenian Gentiles who had no biblical background whatsoever (cf. Acts 17). They did not necessarily accept the gospel, but they understood certain salient points of the gospel, such as that Jesus was/is divine, had died, and was raised from the dead.
Ed Darrell said:
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in scripture that really suggests the story of the flood of Noah is intended to be taken literally. That's just not the point.
A disproof of the flood of Noah, in that case (the traditional Christian view, by the way) does not make a disproof of the Bible as scripture, nor of Judaism nor Christianity as religion.
Of course, proving that there was a global flood wouldn't prove the scriptures, either.
Why are you obsessed with this?
*********************************
1. It was treated as a historical event in the NT (Mt 24:36-42; Lk 17:26f.; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20-21).
The genealogy preceding the flood account (Gen 5) presupposes the historicity of the event, as does the succeeding genealogy (Gen 10), as well as the covenant with Noah. It also lays the groundwork for the tower of Babel and subsequent vocation of Abraham.
So it's an integral link in a chain of events, a historical cause of what follows.
Without getting into the myriad complications of a global flood and its implications for theology, etc., I would suggest focusing on one particular issue: stratigraphy.
ReplyDeleteCreationists cannot point to the strata which correspond to pre-flood conditions, those which correspond to syn-flood conditions, and those which correspond to post-flood conditions.
The reason they cannot, and will not, attempt such an exercise is that those layers don't exist. Every stratum contains data which falsify the idea of it being laid down suddenly--bird nests, eggshells neatly arranged, tiny skeletal parts that are not disturbed nor connected to one another, mud burrows, etc., etc., etc. These data contradict the idea of the strata being formed in lieu of normal ecology.
Telltale geological marks, like the ripples left in sandstone by the wind and paleosols (soils) and glacial striations are also problematic.
Basically, creationists ought to focus on the geology first, then worry about the other questions. But instead, they go about it backwards--trying to justify how many animals could fit on the boat, or how they were fed...because those things are not empirical and easily speculated. The geological data cannot be speculated away, and the strata tell their own tale -- evidence in each contradicts the idea that they formed outside of normal ecological and geological conditions.
For years now, Prof. Joe Meert (Geo at UF) has issued the same simple challenge to all the hailed and credentialed "creation scientists": identify the flood strata. And not a single one has ever even tried it, because as soon as layer X is identified as pre-/syn-/post- flood, it is easily demonstrated to be full of falsifying evidence.
Well, for eight years I've offered a TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR!!! prize for anyone who can find conclusive proof of a mouse evolving into a bat. Offered it, I tell you!
ReplyDeleteT-Stone said:
ReplyDelete---
It's not been suggested that interpretational errors somehow invalidate Scripture; they don't.
---
Good. My point in mentioning it wasn't because you were denying it, but because it provides a foundational basis for the rest of my argument.
T-Stone said:
---
But to suggest that we know he have interpreted the Bible correctly in the same we know we have interpreted the New York times article correctly is to miss a very important distinction. There's a distinct advantage available when the author of a text is available to entertain and reply verbally to questions and and requests for clarifications related to statements that are made.
---
This assumes, of course, that Scripture isn't clear (as Patrick has already pointed out). Secondly, it assumes that you actually can call up the reporters who write for the NYT and get a response from them. But suppose you cannot. Suppose that the reporter died the day he filed his report and you cannot ask him for clarification. Does this mean you cannot understand the original article? Only if he wrote unclearly in the first place.
By the way, your hypocrisy shows on this issue too. Were you not the one referencing the Creeds and Councils earlier? Yet those Bishops have been dead for over a millinum and a half! How do you know you interpreted them correctly? How do you know you got the Creeds right? Have you been conducting seances with them?
Here's where you problem is, T-Stone. You assume that the fact that some people disagree with my interpretation of a text of Scripture means that I cannot know my interpretation is correct. In essense, it would be like arguing "Peter cannot know that 2 + 2 = 4 because someone else thinks 2 + 2 = 5. There is disagreement, so he can't say for sure that his view is right. He believes it is right, but he doesn't know it is right."
But this is utter hogwash. I can know what 2 + 2 is because of the rules of math and logic. In the same way, I can know how to interpret the text of Scripture given the rules of language and logic. Just because you disagree with my interpretation is no reason for me to doubt my interpretation. You must provide an argument for why my interpretation is wrong.
You said:
---
We can seek wisdom and the mediating influence of the Spirit when reading scripture, and we can test our interpretations as best we can against other parts of scripture and other things we know. But we do not get return emails from God that provide a verbal clarification tailored to our requests for clarification.
---
Why do you assume that we must get "return emails" (yes, I know that's figurative--don't take this as a literal either) in order for us to have certainty of our interpretation?
Not all disagreement on interpretation is due to confusing texts. Indeed, in Scripture, confusing texts are rare and do not affect any major doctrine. This is part of the reason why Scripture is so repetative. If you didn't grasp the point in one way, perhaps an alternate perspective will get it across. Thus, all important, major doctrines are spoken of repeatedly throughout many different books.
Disagreements in interpretation come primarily from the fact that people do not want Scripture to mean a certain thing. They do not want 2 + 2 to equal 4.
But psychological (and sinful) motives in interpretation do not change the objective meaning of the text (as we have already established and as you've agreed to). It remains the same, and simply removing these wrong motives enables the objective meaning to be clear, just as it does with any other text we read.
Thus, if we read a text of Scripture in the normative manner in which we read any text, giving attention to the grammatical and historical events at the time of the writing, we are fully capable of coming to an understanding of that objective meaning.
So suppose that I follow this method and come up with an interpretation of a particular passage. I defend it given the normative rules of language and the specific nuances of the time & culture it was written in. If you disagree with the interpretation I give, the onus is on you to A) demonstrate where I have been blinded by personal biases or have failed to account for a syntax/historical point and B) provide the same argumentation for your own interpretation. To simply say, "I disagree" is not sufficent for me to doubt my interpretation. Further, to say, "I disagree because of the possibility of post-modernism" or "because I'd rather be able to hold to TE" or any other reason that is unrelated to the grammatico-historical approach merely reveals your personal biases, which discredits your disagreement in the first place.
Again, you can believe I have my own biases--but you have to show them to me, not just mention that I might possibly have them. Again, you can believe I didn't read the text in a normative manner--but you have to show that to me, not just mention that I might possibly have done so.
Barring evidence that my interpretations are invalid, I have no reason to think they are invalid. And if I have no reason to think they are invalid, I have no reason to think that your disagreement with me is cause for me doubting what Scripture says.
A good many critics, including atheists, *do* see Noah's flood anchored in a "historical root event". The 11th tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapistim is told by Ea, the Sumerian God who (in their view) created mankind, to build a big boat:
ReplyDelete>>Touchstone is now repeating higher critical theory. Yawn. Touchstone, FYI, I probably know more about text criticism that you do.
Atheists cited this as literary dependence, implying that the Flood account is dependent on the Sumerian account for it content. This is precisely your position when stating:
It seems to me that a verdict that the story of Noah is a recapitulation of some kind or an exercise in co-opting other creation myths of the region by YHWH, then we might point to a real flood that both Noah and Utnapistim recount, but one that is now questionable not to its historicity, but to its accuracy and fidelity as a *theological* account.
A. For example, one version this theory depends on the Documentary Hypothesis to get from Sumer to Babylon to Genesis but the DH long ago fell out of favor. Even liberals have and continue to abandon it for the single author theory, which orthodox Christianity has asserted all along.
B. Or from Sumer to Ur to Abraham to Moses. The problem here is that the assumption is that the Sumerian tale is the root tale and Noah is a version of it, but when you line up the actual text, you have to be able to prove a genetic link. So, have at it, where's the genetic link? This is just warmed over NT copycat theory applied to the OT. It has as much merit as saying that the NT writers ripped off Mediterranean myths and mystery religions to compose the gospels. Where is there any indication that the Sumerian tale is the root tale? Noah in the OT could be the root tale and Gilgamesh taken from it. Or Noah could be a polemic correction to the other tales. The further apart the details in two accounts are, the less likely there is ANY literary dependence. And, since we only know about 'traditions' from actual 'texts' ('traditions' being the 'shared elements' or sometimes, 'family resemblances', between a multiplicity of disparate, but commonly-themed, texts), the further apart the details the specific text (the 'alleged borrower') are from the 'shared elements' of divergent-but-shared-theme texts, the less likely there is ANY tradition dependence. This only leaves two options: independent tradition about the same event(s); or independent events altogether.
There is nothing in scripture that really suggests the story of the flood of Noah is intended to be taken literally. That's just not the point.
ReplyDelete>>Ed, what is the genre of the text at this point? Is it poetry? An epic poem? What is it? How does the rest of Scripture treat it?
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
ReplyDelete“This isn't hard. A global flood represents *orders of magnitude* mode flood. As a phenomenon, then, a global flood should be much more easily detected and verified forensically.”
That depends on what sort of trace evidence we would expect a global flood to leave. And that also depends on what sort of flood mechanism is postulated.
“The combination of the enormous amounts of water needed to submerse even Everest across the whole planet make that idea one that stretches credulity to begin with.”
I’m not unsympathetic to this particular criticism. However:
i) A global flood only requires the floodwaters to overtop the mountain passes, not the mountain peaks.
Likewise, it only needs to reach the treeline, and stay there for a few weeks or months, for any animals that didn’t die from drowning to die of exposure or starvation.
ii) And we also need to distinguish between flood geology and the flood account. For example, Walton, in his commentary (325-26), renders Gen 7:20 in a way that takes ground level rather than mountain peaks as the yardstick.
“The critic doesn't carry *any* burden to come up with their own interpretation. What if they think the whole book is a complete hoax? __Critics I talk to say their best interpretation of scripture is that it's completely fictional, and does not reflect anything historical at all with respect to a flood or anything else. That's the interpretation you should expect, in many cases.”
i) Notice that T-stone never passes up a chance to side with the God-haters. Calvindude pegged him as an unbeliever early on, and T-stone constantly supplies corroborative evidence for Calvindude’s initial identification.
ii) I realize that T-stone isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he’s even duller than usual. Let’s draw a couple of elementary distinctions that he’s too rusty to figure out on his own:
a) There’s a difference between believing *that* the Bible teaches something, and believing *what* it teaches. To interpret the Bible is to establish *that* it teaches something, regardless of whether the interpreter believes in *what* it teaches.
For example, the fact that you may not believe in Dante’s cosmology doesn’t absolve you from establishing what he believed or asserted in the text. It’s a pity that T-stone is too softheaded to distinguish between what the writer believed and what the reader believes. Interpretation is concerned with ascertaining what the author meant. Whether the reader agrees with the author is irrelevant to the process of interpretation.
This is especially the case when we distinguish between an ancient author and a modern reader, in contradistinction to the target audient.
b) In addition, many people disbelieve the Bible precisely because they construe it to teach certain things which they happen to find incredible. Hence, the onus remains on them to establish the meaning of Scripture even for purposes of disbelieving Scriptural teaching.
How would you establish that a book is fictitious or a complete hoax? This depends on first interpreting the book and then comparing its truth-claims to other sources of information that are taken to be factual.
“But there's absolutely no obligation to offer an opposing or competing interpretation of scripture, by a fellow believer, or an atheist.”
If he is attacking what he takes to be the teaching of Scripture, then he needs to establish that teaching by sound exegesis before he can proceed to attack it. For if his interpretation is faulty, then he’s not, in fact, attacking the teaching of Scripture, but a straw man. Sorry you’re too dim to figure that out.
“If one makes the claim that a global flood occurred, and then all available evidence not only fails to support that claim, but supports the claim that a global flood positively did *not* happen, then a criticism can be leveled against the global flood claim on those grounds.__Why would we need a competing interpretation to level criticisms at the claims of a global flood, based on all the evidence that works against that claim???”
The rusty blade continues to hack away at what it cannot grasp:
i) To begin with, what you’re pleased to called “all available evidence” is not the same thing as exegesis. The meaning of the text is not established by these extraneous considerations.
The question is what does the text assert. Evidence for or against a global flood is not the same thing as exegeting a text.
ii) It addition, it is not simply a case of claiming that a global flood occurred. Rather, it’s a case of claiming that the Bible is claiming that a global flood occurred. So exegesis is still indispensable. At issue is not merely a factual claim, but a textual claim. Sorry you’re so obtuse.
“That's just nuts. What do you mean, precisely, by ‘correctly interpreted’? Do you think an atheist feels obligated to provide a ‘correct interpretation’, beyond stating that he thinks the Bible is completely false?”
Yes, for the reasons I’ve given, both in my original post and in my reply to you. Of course, reasons have no purchase on an irrational opponent like yourself.
“Maybe it would help you, pedagogically, to think about this with the tables turned.”
Maybe it would help if you went back to first grade.
“Do you suppose that in order to provide a critique of the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an that you would be obliged to also provide a "correct interpretation" of it, beyond ‘It's false’??? If you can see how ludicrous a demand that would be from a Mormon or a Muslim, than you should be able to see why the above makes no sense.”
Once again, T-stone isn’t very bright, now is he?
i) If I’m critiquing the teaching of the Koran or the book of Mormon, then, yes indeed, I need to correctly interpret the document in question.
ii) There is also more than one way to critique a document. It might be possible to say that a document is probably false if it was produced under highly reliable conditions.
iii) But even if there are cases in which (ii) is a viable option, that doesn’t eliminate (i). And we generally attempt to falsify a document by showing that the document in question is making false claims, which requires us to correctly interpret it in the first place. Is T-stone the only person on earth who’s too obtuse to get it?
“For many critics, simply showing how bogus something like global flood geology is is satisfaction enough; it casts doubt on the proponents of the claim.”
Except that their aims are often more ambitious than that. They are linking flood geology to the flood account, and thereby attempting to discredit the Bible by discrediting flood geology in a guilt-by-association maneuver. Sorry you’re too dense to figure that out on your own. It’s not as if there’s something terribly subtle involved.
“Sure, that's how TEs would resolve this, for example. If you're arguing for a local flood, then great. But if one maintains -- in the here and now -- that a global flood happened, then there is a serious problem; it matters not what you think about the Bronze again and ancient models of the earth, the evidence available is deep and strongly against a global flood as a historical fact.__If your intent here is to assert that a local flood interpretation of Genesis is defensible, and a global flood interpretation is not, then I'd say ‘thumbs up’ and would move on.”
What I personally believe is irrelevant to the stated aim of this post, the purpose of which is to expose the inconsistency of unbelieving attacks on the flood account.
“OK, you had a moment of lucidity above, but this is just silly again. If the earth is flat, why can't the God of the Universe flood the flat earth like a fish tank, with invisible walls holding the water in? I mean, at that point we're not bound to any naturalistic explanations, are we? It's a miracle, a supernatural intervention by God. There's no reason for the ancients (or us for that matter) to think that ‘water running over the edges of the earth’ is a limitation for God.”
Once again, T-stone never foregoes an opportunity to collaborate with the army of darkness. He’s the devil’s stoolpigeon.
And who is the hypothetical individual who introduces this deus ex machina? Is it the critic of flood geology and/or the flood account? But such critics reject ad hoc miracles. Indeed, they generally reject all miracles. So a critic wouldn’t introduce this otherwise unstated deus ex machina into the account to make it self-consistent. He had no incentive to harmonize the account. Rather, he’s out to disprove it.
Who else would invoke this deus ex machina? Not your average flood geologist. Morris, Woodmorappe, Wise, and Walt Brown all reject flat-earth geology.
D SAID:
“Basically, creationists ought to focus on the geology first, then worry about the other questions. But instead, they go about it backwards--trying to justify how many animals could fit on the boat, or how they were fed...because those things are not empirical and easily speculated.”
But, of course, they do this in large part because the critics focus on the logistics of the ark. They are responding to the critics.
But, of course, they do this in large part because the critics focus on the logistics of the ark. They are responding to the critics.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that critics bring these objections up. My point is that the Achilles heel of any flood argument will be its basis in geology. The ark's size and contents are "floating variables" -- easily construed to fit nearly any supernatural scenario (this could be said of the geology, as well, I suppose). The strata are tougher to "fudge" and it is on this basis that I point out that creation scientists aren't serious about making a scientifically-sound model of the flood's geology. The proof is in the pudding: link.
"The Big Puzzle—Flood Geology
Most science in the museum is fairly straightforward, and scientists have very little, if any, disagreement. The wonders of God’s creation are “clearly seen,” as Paul says in Romans 1:20.
But the Flood Geology Room was another thing altogether. The scientists agree that the rock layers were laid down in the past 6,000 years, but they debate which rocks were laid down before, during, or after the Flood. Each interpretation has its own supporters and theories.
Early in the project, I thought a simple solution would be to scatter geologic artifacts around the room—coal, fossils, rocks, etc.—and with each artifact, present a theory that explains the fact. Different scientists could present different theories. It didn’t matter how well they fit together, or so I thought.
I was wrong. As the potential contradictions became clearer, I had to rethink the whole concept for the room."
He goes on to claim that they got some kind of "consistent whole" -- but I sincerely doubt it. I just wish I could see their picture to point out the inconsistencies they claim are absent, but I live too far away. Others will document it and prove me right.
D said: It is true that critics bring these objections up. My point is that the Achilles heel of any flood argument will be its basis in geology.
ReplyDelete1. We're not necessarily arguing flood geology along the lines of Ken Ham and AiG.
2. As Steve pointed out in his original post, there's a distinction between the flood and flood geology. The two are not of a kind. Therefore, it's perfectly possible that there are problems in a creationist's flood geology without these problems contravening the biblical account of the flood. Disproving flood geology does not necessarily disprove the biblical account of the flood. Steve points all this out and more above.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteIt is true that it is possible that a global or local/regional flood could occur without significant geological evidence, if God was involved and made it so. This is a possibility, so you're right on that count.
However, insofar as creationists try to employ "flood geology", or use the fossil record, or geological features generally, as evidence of the Noachian Flood, then you're wrong. And that's what I'm aiming at -- "creation science" -- not theology.
D said:
ReplyDeleteInsofar as creationists try to employ "flood geology", or use the fossil record, or geological features generally, as evidence of the Noachian Flood, then you're wrong. And that's what I'm aiming at -- "creation science" -- not theology
***********************************
Daniel,
I don't think their primary concern is to find physical evidence for Noah's flood. Rather, their primary concern is to use the flood as a way of explaining the fossil record consistent with the creation account.