Monday, July 10, 2006

Modern misreadings of ancient literature

According to Loftus:

“I don't usually comment on science or politics…”

In his case a prudent precaution. His mistake for making an exception to his standing policy.

“...but here's a specific story that speaks to the Biblical story of the Flood”

Does it really?

“Did Noah take these species on the ark or not? If yes, then how did they get here and only here (some of whom are blind)? If no, then how did they survive the Flood?”

How does this speak to Noah’s flood? According to the Biblical account:

1. The command was not to take in every “species,” but a select number of natural kinds. “Species" is a modern taxonomical category.

2.In context, it obviously had reference to natural kinds existing before the flood, not to every modern species.

3.It did not take in every natural kind, but only birds and land animals.

4.Apropos 1-3, the text does not commit to the proposition that every modern species survived the flood.

5.The Biblical text is also silent on the state of prediluvian biogeographical distribution or natural barriers.

This is a textbook illustration of unbelievers who generate pseudoproblems by a systematically anachronistic overreading of the original text.

No comments:

Post a Comment