Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Simple mistakes in the Bible
date
newest »
newest »
I don't think I said those people went to hell, even though I believe they did. Why else say all people were evil and violent? Again, I don't see a point or moral to be learned from the story. Couldn't a local flood Have killed all people? Maybe people weren't spread out very far yet.
We're all stumped, David!Remember, though, flood stories exist in lots of cultures, particularly in the Mediterranean region. SOMETHING happened that remains in human consciousness, and it was big.
The Noah story is very similar to an older story: The Epic of Gilgamesh. Too similar for it to be coincidence. In other words, we aren't talking about stories that were just made up willy-nilly. This is a popular story which was Hebrew-ized.
Good point Lee. I was trying to say what you said in post 54. Whether the story was literally a worldwide flood or not is not important to me. I am curious as to why David, you would assume all these people "went to hell". Do you simply mean the underworld land of the dead where all the dead went in the OT?
As for a moral, think of it this way. I hate, HATE ivy. And other vines. They take over my yard.
Imagine my yard when the house was first built. The builders wanted to create a beautiful yard with flowering plants and trees and birdfeeders. At some point, somehow, ivy and this other vine that is pure evil are introduced. They begin taking over the yard.
Two weeks ago I hired contractors to rip out shrubs, old gates and a shed that was covered in ivy. There was no other solution but to destroy what was there and basically start over.
I see some parallels in the Noah story. It is not that the ivy unjustly went to hell of all eternity (let's not ask questions the story does not ask). It is that evil becomes so bad that purging may be the only solution, just as purging my ivy.
Just the fact the people were evil enough to make God sick of humans makes me think they were sent to hell. I think you guys have a different view of hell than I was brought up with. Hopefully I can change that view because I feel like it's ruining my view of God.
I was brought up with the same view of hell. Solution - read the Bible. You can see my conclusions in the "What the Hell" thread. The eternal torture view just does not have the Bible support we think it does.
I'm deep in my bible every day. I'll check out your thread. I've probably skimmed it and forgotten what was posted.
Its okay, the gist is:*Don't assume humans are automatically immortal - let death mean death and eternal life really be a gift.
*Thus, death really means death. Second death, destruction, perish - all these things speak of an end. God is a consuming fire and humans are like leaves destroyed.
@GuillermoGuillermo wrote: "@Peter
I think Lee's statement in #36 is fine just the way it is. Anyone who doesn't have a clear bias towards a literal interpretation of scripture can come to the conclusion that Noah's ark can't..."
A number of excellent responses have already been given to Guillermo’s questions about Noah, but I thought since he directed his questions to me, I ought also to answer.
Let me begin with my basic orientation to this and every other apologetics questions: (a) I want to believe the truth, whatever that may be. (b) When all of the data is in, and properly understood, then everything must point in the same direction, that is, at the true answer.
Having stated my most fundamental position on this issue, let me begin with Guillermo’s question to me:
Am I a literalist? Do I take the Bible literally?
The point of speech and writing is to communicate. In order to accomplish that objective, the reader has to interpret the written text literally when it was meant to be literal, figuratively when it was meant figuratively, and idiomatically when an idiom is used. To me this is critical to any communication. Let me give an example.
Let’s say, I made the statement: “I’ve been working on this project all day and I’m tired of it.”
Then my listener says, “My, you’ve been working on this project for 24.000 hours—no wonder you’re tired!”
Puzzled, I might then answer, “No, I probably worked on the project for 4.5 hours, but it took longer than I intended, so it consumed my working day. ‘All day’ is just a manner of speaking.”
It seems to me, if I want to receive the written communication, whether it’s a contemporary passage, or an ancient text, I have to learn enough about how the writer conveys meaning in order not to fall into elementary misunderstandings. The exclusively literal person is the tourist who uses a dictionary alone to decipher speech and is constantly falling into embarrassing misunderstandings. My whole intent is to understand the intended meaning. I adjust my reading to the style intended by the writer.
Guillermo, let me rephrase your question on Noah then:
Was the account of Noah an imaginary or fictional account, or was it an account of real events?
Before I give my answer to that question, I have to tell you how I approach apologetics questions in general, and how that relates to my personal faith and experience. In apologetics I want to find common points of agreement with the reader. So I start with the assumption or expectation that we agree (the reader and me) that we’re searching for the truth and will follow wherever the data may lead.
Secondly I want to discuss data that both the reader and I value. As a Christ-follower I have lots of personal, experiential, and anecdotal evidence that means much to me since I experienced this, but will mean nothing to the reader. Although this data is most important to me, it means nothing to the reader. So for the purposes of an apologetics discussion, I leave my most important data about the Bible (how it has worked for me and proven personally reliable) off the table and treat the biblical manuscripts as I would any ancient text and go from there.
Now here comes the problem (as I see it in our discussion). My background is in the physical sciences. In the scientific method, one makes a very clear and sharp distinction between data and hypothesis/theory. One assumes data is correct and always judges hypothesis/theory by data and not the other way around. Of course data is not always correct, but one treats those mistakes, errors, or frauds differently than one treats incorrect hypotheses. If the melting point of camphor is reported incorrectly, then one re-measures it many times, on many samples, by different people and then one places an asterisk against the original offending data point, based on the non-reproducibility.
But one never uses theory to label data a mistake. Otherwise here’s what happens. I have 10,000 data points and a wonderful theory that I believe with full conviction, is accurate and true. But unfortunately, 8000 of the data points don’t fit. So, since my theory is true, I label the 8000 as mistakes. I even think of clever reasons why the researchers who measured those data points made mistakes (they had too many beers; they had pre-commitments to other, competing theories that caused them to selectively read the data etc.). Now my life is wonderful. I have 2000 data points that fit my theory like a glove. I can make up a wonderful presentation, and go on a world tour, and the audience will be amazed at the explanatory power of my theory and how it explains 2000 data points. Labeling data as a mistake (i.e. deleting it from consideration) is a sure fire approach of destroying the power of the scientific method and letting researchers cherry-pick the data to match their own prejudices and preconceptions.
So what about history and historical documents? Here the situation is very much worse than in the physical sciences because we can’t really ascertain the reproducibility of the data and the data is not even a physical measurement, but rather someone’s report. That means the error bars everywhere get bigger (we should be even less prone to categorical pronouncements of truth and accuracy), but the relationship between data and theory remains the same.
Therefore I should do everything I can to make sure my reading and understanding of the ancient texts is as accurate as possible, but I should not label the apparent discrepancies as errors, but rather as data points I cannot yet reconcile.
So having said that, back to the revised question:
Was the account of Noah an imaginary or fictional account, or was it an account of real events?
So what did the writer intend to convey? I think (some or all of these have been mentioned by others) there are three broad possibilities to consider:
1. The writer of the Noah account meant it as a parable. In that case, like other parables, the account is fictional, but was given as a story to make a point.
2. The account describes a local flood, not a worldwide flood.
3. The account describes a worldwide flood. For possibilities 2 and 3, the account of the flood describes real events.
From the perspective of my Christian walk, all three would be helpful to me. The essential teaching to me today would be of value even if it were meant as a parable. I should also point out, none of the three could be termed “a simple mistake in the Bible.” If the author intended this account to be taken as a parable, and we misinterpret it, because we don’t pick up the cues that a parable is being described, that’s our error, not the error of the writer. It would be like a historian who mistook Dan Brown’s novel, DaVinci Code for a serious treatment of the Vatican archives. It’s a mistake on genre on the part of the reader (but not on the part of the author). It only becomes a “mistake in the Bible” if the writer thought he was describing actual events, and they had not happened.
David has already described the ubiquity of references to the flood. Furthermore, I have read in an archaeology book years ago (I don’t have it in my library) that there is a layer of silt found over much of the Middle East, also supporting a local flood.
So let me focus on the third possibility (a worldwide flood), the one most Biblical Minimalists would consider the most improbable.
If a Biblical Minimalist (I’ll call him MB) and I sat down, then the counter argument against possibility three would run something like this:
1. MB would pull out a calculator and, assuming the “Mountains of Ararat” were the same as modern Ararat (5185 m) (apparently the Hebrew has only three consonants transliterated “rrt” for the name), estimate the amount of water is would take. Where would the water come from? I don’t know.
2. Using a reasonable estimate for a cubit, MB would calculate the size of the ark. Where would Noah get so much wood and would he be building it himself? I don’t know.
3. Assuming we could map what “animal” meant in Noah’s time into our modern taxonomy, one could figure out what he had to take along. Where would he get the room, the water, the fodder? I don’t know.
4. How would he feed the carnivores? I don’t know.
5. Finally he might point out, that a rainbow is caused by the refraction of white light as it passes through a spherical water droplet, from a low index of refraction medium (air) to a higher index of refraction medium (water droplet) and the degree of refraction is wavelength dependent. So rainbows existed before the flood since surely there were water droplets in the air. I would agree and point out that the text doesn’t actually contradict that statement but merely states that a rainbow is to be taken as a sign.
Therefore quod erat demonstratum—right?
Maybe not. Even in times before the exodus, the writer would have known of all of these difficulties (with the possible exception of 5, which I don’t see as a difficulty). Indeed the impossibility of the rescue of Noah, his family, and the animals is precisely why the writer recorded it and identified it as something supernatural and unexpected. With God in the equation, arguments based on “the natural course of events” fail because the failure of that assumption is the whole point of the description.
I guess when it comes to history, I look at modern pronouncements of certitude, that some things could not have happened, with a great deal of skepticism. We just don’t know history that well.
So where does that leave me? With respect to Genesis 6, I struggle much more with understanding why such a “severe mercy” was necessary, than I do with whether, with God in the equation (as the writer is claiming), the event is possible.
There are many thorough, and intellectually honest researchers, searching for the ark. If they were to find it, and prove its existence, then our theories would have to be revised. I remain open to that possibility. Our understanding often takes radical turns.
My central point bears repeating. We should set historical data side by side and not label data points as “a mistake,” but rather “not yet reconciled.” To begin labeling parts of the database as mistakes leads to cherry-picking and reverses the theory-data relationship--a fatal mistake for the scientific method.
As I said before, I want to believe the truth, wherever that might lead. I agree, with David, these issues of “Can extraordinary or supernatural events happen?” are secondary questions when placed next to the person and work of Christ.
If you’re still reading at this point, I commend your perseverance and thank you for taking the time. Thanks for the questions Guillermo. They really got me to thinking. ~Peter
Great stuff Peter. Sometimes it's easier and more effective to just say: "Yes, I trust the actual historic account of Noah." :D
I just read that article David posted:http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog...
It's interesting how many people want their religion without God. Or his stamp of approval. They demand a very small god that really hasn't done a very good job of anything - especially giving us a book we can fully trust.
Yet these people demand their opinions about only certain small areas of the Bible be fully accepted. I say why accept any of it? Who cares, their god certainly doesn't really care.
But if the Bible is perfect, then we most likely have a perfect God that is totally trustworthy and on top of every situation.
I wonder how many Hindu's and Buddhist's ask if their god even likes them?
I saw that you discussed about the flood in this thread. This is something I would like to discuss more in depth with young earth creationist. In order to better understand your position, I would like to ask you some questions: Do you think a priori that the Bible is crystal clear in every of its statements and, if there seems to be a contradiction with an external source, that this last is wrong in any case and that no effort to harmonize both sources must be undertaken?
If you don’t agree with this, do you then agree that a heuristic assumption, in order to solve an apparent biblical inconsistency, could be a method to solve the problem? That is, one first postulates a hypothesis and then looks if it gives any sense and solves any problems, which would back the initial assumption. By the way, this is a method often used in natural sciences.
No reaction after 2 hours! Ok, I will tell you what kind of heuristic assumption I am thinking about: Jesus compares the days of Noah and Lot with those of the end times (Luk 17:26-30). He is drawing a parallel between these events. In the time of Noah, destructing rain came down from heaven on earth in form of water; in the time of Lot destructing rain came down in the form of fire; in the end times, there will also be some sort of destructing rain. Some compare it to a nuclear holocaust during World War III. Whatever it will be, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Jesus suggests that the flood account may not only refer to the past but also to the future. So the heuristic assumption is that the flood account does not refer to one single event in the past but to several events happening at different times, in different locations and unfolding to different manners. Once accepted this assumption, which at this stage is purely hypothetical and thereby cannot harm any opinions and beliefs, one can proceed to the next step and analyze whether it is possible to give any sense to this assumption.
So my next question to young earth creationists, and I really hope you will answer this time: Do you think that this problem solving method is legitimate to apply on the Bible as long as no definitive conclusions are made?
Maybe no-one commented because your talking in a language some of us barely understand. You sound like you've spent the last 10 years in university buried in huge books without human contact. "Im just sayin'..."I agree we should test everything. Even Bible verses and stories. But there is a limit. Some cross that and make the entire existence of Jesus a parable.
Your Noah comparison doesn't really say there is going to be another flood. It's pretty specific in it's details. Is Noah going to go into the ark again? Probably not.
Ulrich quote:
"I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Jesus suggests that the flood account may not only refer to the past but also to the future"
I don't see that FACT. Please show us.
Rod wrote: "You sound like you've spent the last 10 years in university buried in huge books without human contact. ""English is not my native language. I effectively learned English in the first place by reading books. Sorry for the academic style.
Is Noah going to go into the ark again? Yes, the modern ark is the saving Church. I don't know if this has a figurative or literal meaning, probably both.
In Luke 17:26-30 Jesus says:
"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot--they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed."
So according to Jesus there is a parallel between the flood and the end time judgment. By extension, the flood account may also point to other events. This a interesting assumption because the flood date can be calculated through the patriarch genealogies. We get 2500 BC or so. If we allow that the genealogies point to other flood dates, we must ask ourselves what other methods must be used to calculate the other dates. Such dates can then be tested with the historic reality.
As you know, to arrive at the 2500 BC flood date and the 4000 BC date young earth creationists consider the creation date of the world, one sums the patriarchs’ ages when they fathered their sons. However, there is a slight problem. The patriarchs are told to reach almost 1000 years of age. Do you think that this needs some clarification? What happens if we suppose that these numbers do not represent ages of persons but of entire genealogies? Then we need to sum the entire ages to retreat back in time. So instead of summing for Adam, Seth, Enosh etc. 130 + 105 + 90 +… we sum 930 + 912 + 905 +… and get about 18’000 years ago for the birth of Adam and 7500 BC for the flood.
Did there happen something special at these dates? Yes, 18’000 years ago the last glaciation came to an end and the sea level started to rise again, with the result that the plain where the Tigris and the Euphrates came together was drown some centuries later. There is some evidence shown by archeologist Juris Zarins that this flood concerned a vast population. When did this happen? At 7500 BC…
Does this arouse your intellectual curiosity a bit, young earth creationists?
Zarins must be referring to the research done by Ryan and Pitman ... see the book Noah's Flood, which is scholarly.Not sure I follow the logic though, Ulrich. You're saying sum up the years in the lives of these guys, as if they didn't live concurrently?
As for Zarins, see http://ldolphin.org/eden.I don't say that these patriarchs didn't live. I just say that they may be at the beginning of a genealogy that lasted hundreds of years. So Adam may be the ancestor of the Adam genealogy that lasted 930 years, after which came the Seth genealogy that lasted 912 years etc. Sum up these numbers up to Terah and you get another date for the birth (or creation) of Adam. Thus, I don't invalidate the traditional dates. I just claim that there are also other methods, which allow to retreat further back in time. All these dates, also the traditional of 4000 BC, point to real history.
I can't explain all this here. If you are interested, see http://historycycles.org/flood.html.
I just can't agree with this. Probably, I'm the one who should be arguing that it's logical to consider the limited knowledge of ancient writers, but a local flood just seems to me like it contradicts the entire point of the story ... that God completely gave up on the world and started over, and had to have representatives of the animal kingdom brought into the Ark because it was the only way he could preserve the animals ... he was about to destroy everything, everywhere.