This started as a reply about hermeneutic in the context of the flood on my personal blog. Do we take the flood literally or not. My interlocutor was exasperated exclaiming that to not take the text literally implies words have no meaning. This is exactly backwords. Here is my response to him.
Yes, you are exactly right. Words have meaning. There is this word hermeneutic, which I have used on more than one occasion used in this sentence. Yet, you gaily trounce in with replies like “Why start with the Bible at all? Why not just make up your own stories if that’s what you’re going to do anyway?” or other remarks along the “making it all up” line as if every religious person just takes their preconceptions and hammers the text until it fits. That is not what any honest theologian does (and I think the majority of people atheist or faithful are as honest as they can be). That word, hermeneutic means, “the method by which one extracts meaning from a text.” See that word there. Method. It is there for a reason. 
Look at the Garden of Eden story for a first example, as it is a little easier. At the beginning of the story there is a mention that this story is at the juncture of four rivers. Real rivers which however in reality are nowhere near each other. They do not “meet” anywhere. This we are taught is a signal found in other literature from the period. It is a sign or signal that the story at hand is poetic or symbolic. It doesn’t portray a real place but a noetic one. In the story of the flood, God finds every person but “Giants were in the land” and “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Now, a reasonable person might find that this is just such a similar obvious signal in the text. Giants are mythic or noetic creatures. Similarly the idea that every man but Noah thought of nothing but evil continually is also unreasonable. That the following is a not historic but a moral tale. This is a consistent method for locating symbolic text. There are other hermeneutical methods, historical-critical, literary methods, and so on. The early Christians searched the text for signs and symbols of New Testament events, as noted early in this discussion where the Fathers located types or signs Baptism in the story of the Flood (through water evil is washed away) in this story and so on. Again, a consistent hermenuetical method. It is not “made up.” The method is developed outside of the text and then consistently applied.
Did everything recounted in Exodus take place exactly as the text recounts? Well, as a comparison there may have been a historic King of rocky Ithaca named Odysseus but that does not mean he killed a giant man with one eye. That also does not mean that nothing recounted in the Odyssey took place or that the story contains no great moral truths because Polyphemus is purely or mostly noetic.
You have never granted anything but literal interpretation of the meaning of these words in a modern Western anthropological context as a valid hermenuetic to be used. While this is consistent with your intention of belittling religion is it not useful in interactions with anyone but a small percentage of fundamentalists within of any modern religion today. You should realize that there are a variety of hermenuetics and any one person may find one (or even to use more than one at the same time) a useful method when approaching texts.
Again, its just like with the Year of Our Lord, a poetic phrase used on a graduation document filled with artistic calligraphy and other poetic imagery to note a rite of passage. Yes, the original people who founded that phrase meant it literally. But does that mean that it is the only way to extract meaning from text? No. This phrase also means just plainly a definition of a year 1 to be used in common. And you are exactly right words have meanings. But the plural there is important. They have many meanings and can hold many meanings at the same time. You want to hold to the literal meaning in this case, because it can rile you up and anger you. But the problem is that doesn’t correspond to the reality. Most people don’t think of Jesus birth when they read “In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty” on their High School diploma at all. To pretend differently is just plain dumb. And as I suggested because there is no poetic rendering of CE that is why “In the Year of Our Lord” remains today.
Finally, you wonder that a person who does believe in the literal flood and I, who does not, can be said to worship the same religion. There is another word I’ve used frequently on this site. Adiaphora. This word is used to describe doctrine. One differentiates statements made by and about a faith as either dogma (which means essential) or adiaphora (which mean not dogma or unessential). For me, and for I think most modern Christians with whom I interact, whether you take the flood literally or not (or whether Moses himself wrote the Pentateuch) is adiaphora. It is not important. The empty tomb is dogma. That is, if you don’t believe the tomb was empty, then you do not follow the same religion as me.
For the Eastern Orthodox defining the boundary between dogma and adiaphora is not the same as the legalistic West. There is not complicated legalistic “Confession of Faith” defining the line between dogma and adiaphora. We hold as dogma the Creed, that which was stated by the 7 Ecumenical councils and has been accepted by the church, and in that which has been proclaimed as true based on a collective reading of the Church Fathers. But there is there is a lot of leeway within some well defined boundaries here. The Fathers for example wrote bookshelves full of texts which don’t always agree … you have to find the center. What does “accepted by the Church mean” regarding the councils. For that, knowledge of church history, our liturgy, and tradition defines and describes those boundaries. Exactly where this boundary is might be termed a mystery. And the word mystery here is taking the meaning I noted in an earlier post, as that which cannot be put into words but is experienced instead. Hence, there is not now and will likely ever be an Eastern Orthodox confessional statement.
Our liturgy doesn’t talk about the literal Pharaoh and Moses but the noetic Pharaoh is mentioned more than once. You can believe in him and his interactions with Moses as history or not. Adiaphora. What you cannot do is dismiss the story as worthless for the liturgy and tradition does not. The noetic Paraoh is real (and a mystery).
Cheers.
April 6th, 2010 | 7:52 pm | #1
Thanks for documenting the fact that the Orthodox Church is quite liberal. Some misguided Evangelicals convert to Orthodoxy under the illusion that Orthodoxy is a bastion of conservative theology in the midst of liberal theology. You have, albeit unwittingly, put that misimpression to rest.
April 6th, 2010 | 8:14 pm | #2
Steve Hays:
Dude, you realize you’re criticizing a Christian community that traces its thought literally to the time of the Apostles and the early Fathers for being “liberal” in comparison with, presumably, a strain of Christian thought about a hundred years old?
Or perhaps “conservative” and “liberal” are more or less useless labels when talking about theological disputes.
April 6th, 2010 | 8:50 pm | #3
Dude, I’m more concerned with a “Christian community” which feels free to relegate Bible history to fictitious “adiaphora” except for a dogmatic residual. And that’s not something the Apostles would have done.
April 6th, 2010 | 9:28 pm | #4
Steve,
First, I think the liberal/conservative distinction is not useful, I agree with sd on that point. For example, if you attempt to labeled EO as a “liberal” theological bastion, you might consider and compare the problems modern liberal protestants are wrestling with right now … and note that Orthodoxy is by comparison not doing so at all.
Finally, are you proposing that the flood being historical fact is a dogma to stand aside Trinity and the Empty Tomb? When St. Paul talks of the Gospel … that includes the necessity in believing in a literal flood? How about giants? A heroic age? Every person on Earth thought of nothing but evil thoughts?
The teaching and lessons from the flood contain truths and dogmas. It contains normative lessons. Whether the story is noetic or fact is adiaphora. There is no relegation to “fictitious adiaphora” going on here.
April 6th, 2010 | 10:46 pm | #5
Mark Olson:
“First, I think the liberal/conservative distinction is not useful, I agree with sd on that point. For example, if you attempt to labeled EO as a ‘liberal’ theological bastion, you might consider and compare the problems modern liberal protestants are wrestling with right now … and note that Orthodoxy is by comparison not doing so at all.”
Really? Explain the difference between a liberal Democrat and Michael Dukakis, Arianna Huffington, George Stephanopolous, or the late Paul Tsongas.
“Finally, are you proposing that the flood being historical fact is a dogma to stand aside Trinity and the Empty Tomb?”
I take it that this is how you’d apply your Orthodox hermeneutic to, let us say, the Gospel of John:
John 1:14: Dogma
John, chapters 2-19: Adiaphora
John 20:9: Dogma
“When St. Paul talks of the Gospel … that includes the necessity in believing in a literal flood?”
Apparently the Jefferson Bible is the official Bible of the Orthodox Church.
“How about giants? A heroic age? Every person on Earth thought of nothing but evil thoughts?”
I don’t see any evidence on your part that you’ve made the slightest effort to exegete those passages in a scholarly fashion. What exegetical literature have you consulted?
“Whether the story is noetic or fact is adiaphora.”
That’s an assertion in search of an argument.
“There is no relegation to ‘fictitious adiaphora’ going on here.”
Either the flood account is literal or fictitious.
April 6th, 2010 | 11:49 pm | #6
Steve,
Huh?
Let’s see for the flood and the garden I indicated that in that time period there were literary triggers to indicate that a story was to be taken as a literal account or not, like four rivers which do not meet are told to meet.
Huh? Aren’t they politicians. I’m unclear on where they stand theologically. Normally however, I find politicians completely out of depth theologically and vice versa, that is theologians are normally completely out of depth when they offer political opinions.
It’s unclear why a mid to late first century author writing in a different genre would be expected to follow the same pattern. But hey, if you want to talk at me and not with me go ahead. But if you want to just cast insults and aspersion, I’ll shut down comments on this thread.
“Either a account is literal or fictitious is not true.” In the US here, we have a story of George Washington as a youth chopping a cherry tree. This is a tale which has instruction about honesty and consequence. You suggest the story is either literal or fictitious. I reject that binary statement. The story truly instructs. What if the actual historical truth (that is what really happened) was that this was a neighborhood story, but that George didn’t chop the tree down, but a buddy of his did and George took the blame and never corrected the story. The story as passed down isn’t exactly right. But it is truly instructive … and not completely fictitious. My point is that a narrative can be true but not have exact correspondence to an accurate video playback.
Have you read St. Gregory’s Life of Moses? Didn’t St. Athanasius (or was it St. Antony I don’t recall right now) write about the passage out of Egypt and the struggle through the desert and into Canaan entirely in terms of personal spiritual journey from sin to salvation, crossing the Jordan as Baptism and so on. Let me ask you this? Which is more important today to you, historical accuracy or the spiritual lessons like that?
Do you know how Hebrew verbal tradition worked? Why do you assume that “literal” inscription and remembrance of events or ideas was the norm? Why do you transpose 20th century narrative norms and values on cultures which are basically alien to you? Even first century Israel was a Mediterranean honor/shame society with a completely different notion of economic and social norms. Why do you expect a plain reading of even the Gospels makes sense if you don’t take the worldview of Jesus and his audience into account?
April 7th, 2010 | 12:10 am | #7
FWIW, I think that both the Flood and the persons of Adam and Eve are fact-narratives in the Book of Genesis.
And while affirming that these fact-narratives are “not” doctrinally salvific, neither are they adiaphora.
One needs to affirm the historicity of these fact-narratives to be (lower-case) orthodox or conservative. To either deny the historicity of these fact-narratives or to claim that it is adiaphora is to rightfully be labeled and looked upon as sub-orthodox or liberal.
April 7th, 2010 | 3:09 am | #8
TUAD,
When Natural Revelation confirms that a global flood – which would have reduced life in the Bronze Age to boat-load of specimens – simply did not occur, then we know that a plain literalist theology (in this instance) is not true. Both Natural and Special Revelation must be respected as equally authentic and complimentary.
April 7th, 2010 | 6:51 am | #9
“Finally, are you proposing that the flood being historical fact is a dogma to stand aside Trinity and the Empty Tomb? When St. Paul talks of the Gospel … that includes the necessity in believing in a literal flood? How about giants? A heroic age? Every person on Earth thought of nothing but evil thoughts?”
Really! It’s so … stuffy to insist that God tells the truth in His Word. After all, if you can’t trust God’s Word, who can you … erm …
Oh look! A robin! Spring is here at last!
April 7th, 2010 | 8:24 am | #10
Mark Olson
“Huh?”
The question is whether you only affirm the historicity of just those portions of the Fourth Gospel which your denomination happens to dogmatize. Is that your hermeneutic?
“Let’s see for the flood and the garden I indicated that in that time period there were literary triggers to indicate that a story was to be taken as a literal account or not, like four rivers which do not meet are told to meet.”
Yes, you said “At the beginning of the story there is a mention that this story is at the juncture of four rivers. Real rivers which however in reality are nowhere near each other. They do not “meet” anywhere.”
And why do you think that’s a plausible argument? Rivers can converge at numerous points. For example, tributaries can originate in a common body of water upstream (the headwaters). They can also converge downstream (e.g. at a delta). Or they can intersect somewhere in-between. It’s easy to document real-world examples.
As far as literary triggers are concerned, Gen 2:10-14 situates the story in Mesopotamia. The Tigris and Euphrates are real rivers. And they were known to the target audience. So that’s a real world setting.
“Huh? Aren’t they politicians.”
Of Greek Orthodox extraction.
“I’m unclear on where they stand theologically.”
What about where they stand morally? What about the fact that the Greek Orthodox church doesn’t hold them to basic standards of Christian social morality?
“It’s unclear why a mid to late first century author writing in a different genre would be expected to follow the same pattern.”
You’re assuming that John was written in a different genre than Genesis. What’s your justification for that assumption?
“My point is that a narrative can be true but not have exact correspondence to an accurate video playback.”
But you’ve already indicated that you don’t think the flood account corresponds to a genuine historic event–situated in real time and real space.
“Have you read St. Gregory’s Life of Moses? Didn’t St. Athanasius (or was it St. Antony I don’t recall right now) write about the passage out of Egypt and the struggle through the desert and into Canaan entirely in terms of personal spiritual journey from sin to salvation, crossing the Jordan as Baptism and so on.”
And how is that relevant to the correct interpretation of Exodus?
“Let me ask you this? Which is more important today to you, historical accuracy or the spiritual lessons like that?”
So the Resurrection doesn’t need to be a real event as long as it teaches us spiritual lessons. Is that it?
You’re reducing Christianity to a set of ideas–like Buddhism. In Buddhism, it doesn’t matter what Buddha really said or did.
But Christianity is grounded in events. The spiritual truths are grounded in events. We can derive spiritual truths from the Exodus because it really happened–as a result of which we can analogize from various elements of that event to comparable situations.
“Do you know how Hebrew verbal tradition worked? Why do you assume that ‘literal’ inscription and remembrance of events or ideas was the norm? Why do you transpose 20th century narrative norms and values on cultures which are basically alien to you?”
Have you read John Currid’s commentary on Gen 2:10-14? He has a doctorate in archeology from the Oriental Institute. Have you read David Tsumura’s monograph on The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament supplement Series 82? Have you read Kenneth Kitchen’s discussion of Gen 2:10-14 from his work On the Reliability of the Old Testament? Kitchen is Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology at University of Liverpool?
If anyone is transposing 20C narrative norms to an ancient text, that would seem to be you, not me.
“Even first century Israel was a Mediterranean honor/shame society with a completely different notion of economic and social norms. Why do you expect a plain reading of even the Gospels makes sense if you don’t take the worldview of Jesus and his audience into account?”
You mean, like Craig Keener’s 2-volume commentary on the Gospel of John? Yes, I’d said that I’ve taken their worldview into account. Have you?
April 7th, 2010 | 8:49 am | #11
The glaring problem with this, Mark, is that Jesus Christ openly disagrees with your hermeneutic, at least in this regard. See Matthew 24.36-39, where Jesus’ argument DEPENDS UPON our understanding the Flood as an actual historical event.
Whose hermeneutic is more to be trusted, Mark–yours, or the Son of God’s?
April 7th, 2010 | 9:17 am | #12
Mark Olson
“At the beginning of the story there is a mention that this story is at the juncture of four rivers. Real rivers which however in reality are nowhere near each other. They do not ‘meet’ anywhere.”
Over time, rivers can change courses. Over time, rivers can dry up.
April 7th, 2010 | 9:30 am | #13
R Hampton: “TUAD,
When Natural Revelation confirms that a global flood – which would have reduced life in the Bronze Age to boat-load of specimens – simply did not occur, then we know that a plain literalist theology (in this instance) is not true.”
#1. I did not say “global flood.” I’m saying that THE Bible declares that a flood occurred as a historical fact.
#2. A clear example of plain literalist theology is the Roman Catholic Church teaching that the bread is literally the body of Jesus and that the wine is literally the blood of Jesus.
That is plain literalist theology.
Does this revelation by the RCC Magisterium conflict with natural revelation, R. Hampton?
April 7th, 2010 | 9:48 am | #14
Mark,
I would be interested to know am how you see your “noetic” hermeneutic method to be any different from the liberal protestant concept of myth. It certainly sounds pretty similar.
April 7th, 2010 | 10:20 am | #15
“Over time, rivers can change courses. Over time, rivers can dry up.”
Steve’s onto something here, and it’s ironic. Don’t you think that perhaps, just perhaps, a global flood could have rerouted some of those rivers? That same flood which you won’t recognize as a real historical event (even though Jesus clearly did) might in fact be the explanation to another perceived problem in the text.
April 7th, 2010 | 10:21 am | #16
R Hampton, natural revelation also tells us that no one can rise from the dead.
April 7th, 2010 | 10:56 am | #17
Mark Olson: For the Eastern Orthodox defining the boundary between dogma and adiaphora is not the same as the legalistic West. There is not complicated legalistic “Confession of Faith” defining the line between dogma and adiaphora. We hold as dogma the Creed, that which was stated by the 7 Ecumenical councils and has been accepted by the church, and in that which has been proclaimed as true based on a collective reading of the Church Fathers. But there is there is a lot of leeway within some well defined boundaries here. The Fathers for example wrote bookshelves full of texts which don’t always agree … you have to find the center. What does “accepted by the Church mean” regarding the councils. For that, knowledge of church history, our liturgy, and tradition defines and describes those boundaries.
This strikes me as a little idealized. For example, there is the perennial issue of Tradition and traditions that Lossky, Meyendorff, and others have dealt with. It’s not always so clear, and the bishops within Orthodox churches are not always so generous in the appeal to mystery as might be let on. I remember having to get some intervention on the part of one Greek Orthodox priest to speak at a conference because he was viewed with suspicion for his charismatic leanings even though he grounded them in St. Symeon the New Theologian’s notion of a baptism in the Spirit. Symeon is one of only three Orthodox thinkers with the title theologos.
I’m not concerned one way or the other over the issue being discussed here, but the idealized portrait of Orthodoxy tends to gloss over a lot of what is there. The churches of the West don’t have the corner on the market when it comes to “legalism.”
April 7th, 2010 | 11:52 am | #18
David,
Myth vs noetic as a term? Angels and Demons are noetic beings … not mythic. They have a real but purely noetic existence. So if Adam/Eve existed in a noetic garden prior to expulsion that means something different than a mythic garden.
Curtis,
Sorry I fail to see how Jesus statements in that passage depend crucially on the flood being historical.
Steve,
It would be good if you tried to make more sense.
Let’s see a river east of Assyria, a river going around the country of Ethopia and sharing a common source with the Euphrates. Yet, somehow over time that makes sense, over time Eastern Africa and Western Afghanistan shared common waters. Gotcha.
Well, for the EO patristic commentary is somewhat important. I did in fact mention that in the above piece.
Why do you suggest that only two chapters of John are part of EO liturgy and teaching?
On the existence of liberal Greek Orthodox American political leaders. I’m don’t know whether they attend nominally or devoutly, I’m not their confessor, but my guess would be that they realise that the call to repentance, turning their life to God, and that as is said in every service that “Jesus came to save sinners, of whom I am first” is something we all can say truthfully. It’s unclear to me where you are trying to go with this. Do you want me to start asking why you aren’t in communion with the church that has a patriarchy in Antioch on a street called Straight for 1800+ years?
And no I haven’t read the commentaries you referenced, but judging from your remarks, if you have indeed read them yourselves … you’ve demonstrated quite well that reading does not infer comprehension, seeing that you consider John a book written in Greek in the first or second century to share the same literary patterns as Genesis, a book derived from an oral tradition and written down by authors in the kingdoms period.
Can you cite an example of how your literal interpretation the Noah story draws from honor/shame anthropological norms?
April 7th, 2010 | 11:58 am | #19
On the issue of literal history vs moral story…moral stories are, if not literal history, untrue. Correct?
So the question is, at what point does Genesis become history and stop being “Moses’ fables”?
Also, while 6 day creation and a global flood are not intrinsic to salvation, if they are merely moral stories, then for what reason do we call the resurrection historical fact and not merely a story about the resurrection of our lives at salvation, or the resurrection of Israel or some other “against all odds” kind of story, as so many today interpret it?
Why did the Jews keep the Sabbath? Because a character called “God” in one of Moses’ fables, stopped working and took a break in a story? Or because, as Exodus 20 attests, God actually created the world in 6 days and actually entered into His rest on the 7th day?
Further to that, as someone once said (I forget who, it was a blog commenter somewhere), am I to believe that I am born with a sin nature and stand condemned before a holy God because some character in a story Moses made up, ate from a fictitious tree?
Or am I sinful from birth because, as Paul taught, a real guy, the first real guy, represented me in the Garden of Eden, and condemned him, me and you to death with his rejection of God?
Because if I’m condemned by a fictional character in a fable, how am I not then redeemed by a fictional character on a made up cross?
The thing is, all of the “fablization” or this-is-a-story-about-Israel-not-how-it-all-really-happened-ness of Genesis, has huge repercussions once you get to the NT.
April 7th, 2010 | 12:22 pm | #20
“For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man….”
Jesus is speaking about the literal inbreaking of God’s Kingdom coming upon the earth in physical immediacy and real-time judgment. He says, furthermore, that the judgment of God and the consummation of the Kingdom will come upon the earth in the same fashion as it did during Noah’s days. If there was no literal, historical flood, then God made no literal, historical judgment upon the earth in Noah’s days, and Jesus’ dire warnings throughout chapter 24 would be entirely pointless.
Further, it would mean that we could take Christ’s Second Coming to be every bit as “figurative” as the Flood. If we’re not meant to understand that the Flood actually happened, then in what sense can we trust that the return of God in power will actually happen?
Perhaps a better question, then, Mark, is, How can you NOT see that Jesus’ statements demand a literal, historical understanding of the Flood?
April 7th, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #21
Ironically, fundamentalists are just as guilty of “liberalism” when they read between the lines of scripture to assert things that scripture itself does not–drawing conclusions that the biblical authors were never inspired to spell out for us in the first place.
Thus, a YEC invents all sorts of wild, hairy “scientia” in order to cram together unnaturally all the statements of scripture, while a liberal invents all sorts of “scientia” in order to preserve the “redemptive arc” or whatever they call it.
Of course, the fundamentalists can say “this is how our fathers did it”. Therefore, it must be right, because, as we all know, the scriptures have such a high view of how faithful our fathers are and how we should copy their religion. And, as we all know, knowledge is exponentially dwindling in these last days, as scripture says.
April 7th, 2010 | 12:49 pm | #22
“You suggest the story is either literal or fictitious. I reject that binary statement.”
If you have problems with the flood and Noah, you may as well hang up the Infancy Narratives and the Incarnation.
April 7th, 2010 | 12:51 pm | #23
“You suggest the story is either literal or fictitious. I reject that binary statement.”
The third option, I suppose, would be, in error (as shown in the George Washington/cherry tree example Mark provided.
I would think that the authorship of God would rule out the third option.
April 7th, 2010 | 1:38 pm | #24
“Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.”
John 8:56-58 (NRSV)
I’m not a seminarian, but it seems like Jesus was not only speaking of a real guy, but one he knows personally. The rest of the theology of the passage aside, Jesus says pretty clearly that “Abraham was.” Well, if that part of Genesis is literal and true, how do I know what other parts aren’t? It seems a little bit like the way Isaiah ridiculed carving gods from wood, pondering how they could discern their “god” from the bits they burned to keep warm and cook their food. (Isa 44:9-20)
Like someone else said here, I’ll take my cues from my Savior, thanks. If He referred to it as literal truth, even events of which He had personal knowledge like this one, it’s probably safe for me to trust it as well.
April 7th, 2010 | 2:08 pm | #25
Curtis,
I’ll try to answer you more fully later.
David,
As I said, I don’t think history vs fiction is a binary proposition. And contra Daryl “error” is not the singular third choice.
Evan,
As I suggested the text itself carries markers that cue what is history and what is not. I don’t find those markers around the story of Abraham like one does around Eden and the Flood. Rivers encircling Ethopia and meeting the Euphrates is such a marker.
Joe,
Well, I’ll offer you a counterexample, namely me. I don’t think Noah and the flood are historical and yet I believe in the Incarnation, the Virginity of the Theotokos and the Resurrection.
April 7th, 2010 | 2:17 pm | #26
So how does one know that the rivers mentioned in Genesis 2 have kept their names since? To my knowledge, scholars have no consensus over two of the four. This wiki link does a good job of describing some of the options: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gihon
April 7th, 2010 | 4:58 pm | #27
Mark Olson: “I don’t think Noah and the flood are historical…”
Not good.
“… and yet I believe in the Incarnation, the Virginity of the Theotokos and the Resurrection.”
Good.
———
I should imagine that this cuts both ways. As long as a person believes in the Incarnation, the Virginity of Mary, and the Resurrection, then they’re a Christian.
So if someone regards Apostolic Succession, the veneration of Icons, the Real Presence in the Sacraments of Communion, and the Filioque as adiaphora, or doesn’t even believe in them at all (just like you don’t believe in actual Flood or Noah), but they do believe in the Incarnation, the Virginity of Mary, and the Resurection, then they’re a Christian.
April 7th, 2010 | 5:05 pm | #28
Mark,
I don’t think it’s relevant whether or not you believe in the Incarnation, Virgin birth, resurrection etc. are historical facts over and against creation and the flood.
What is relevant is whether you have a basis for that belief. That’s the issue.
People believe all kinds of things with no basis.
April 7th, 2010 | 6:19 pm | #29
Mark Olson
“It would be good if you tried to make more sense…Let’s see a river east of Assyria, a river going around the country of Ethopia and sharing a common source with the Euphrates. Yet, somehow over time that makes sense, over time Eastern Africa and Western Afghanistan shared common waters. Gotcha.”
You have a habit of making bald assertions without furnishing any supporting data. Once more, what exegetical scholarship have you consulted on the rivers of Eden or the location of the Garden?
You seem to take for granted that you know what the Biblical place names and tributaries refer to. But ancient geographical references can be obscure. What was common knowledge some 3000 years ago may be long-forgotten. And there can be more than one candidate.
I also don’t think that “Gotcha” is an appropriate response to God’s word. That’s more akin to the attitude of the murmuring Israelites whom God condemned to perish in the wilderness.
“Well, for the EO patristic commentary is somewhat important. I did in fact mention that in the above piece.”
How is St. Gregory an expert on the ANE?
“Why do you suggest that only two chapters of John are part of EO liturgy and teaching?”
Your hermeneutic evidently takes the position that you only have to affirm the historicity of those few portions of Scripture which your denomination has chosen to dogmatize.
“But my guess would be that they realise that the call to repentance, turning their life to God, and that as is said in every service that ‘Jesus came to save sinners, of whom I am first’ is something we all can say truthfully.”
What about excommunication?
“It’s unclear to me where you are trying to go with this.”
You said, “For example, if you attempt to labeled EO as a ‘liberal’ theological bastion, you might consider and compare the problems modern liberal protestants are wrestling with right now … and note that Orthodoxy is by comparison not doing so at all.”
Since in you invited a comparison, I’m taking you up on your invitation.
And that’s not the only point of comparison. What about the very liberal view of Scripture taught at St. Vladimir’s?
“It’s unclear to me where you are trying to go with this. Do you want me to start asking why you aren’t in communion with the church that has a patriarchy in Antioch on a street called Straight for 1800+ years?”
You’re more than welcome to ask me that question if you’d like–although you might also want to preface your question by explaining why I should care.
“And no I haven’t read the commentaries you referenced, but judging from your remarks, if you have indeed read them yourselves … you’ve demonstrated quite well that reading does not infer comprehension, seeing that you consider John a book written in Greek in the first or second century to share the same literary patterns as Genesis, a book derived from an oral tradition and written down by authors in the kingdoms period.”
Thanks for once again corroborating my point that Eastern Orthodoxy has become a haven for theological liberals–and thereby confirming the fact that the situation Eastern Orthodox is, indeed, quite comparable to “the problems modern liberal protestants.”
I appreciate your frank admission. That’s just one more reason take Eastern Orthodoxy off the table.
“Can you cite an example of how your literal interpretation the Noah story draws from honor/shame anthropological norms?”
Can you demonstrate how honor/shame conventions are germane to the historicity (or not) of Gen 6-9?
April 7th, 2010 | 7:19 pm | #30
TUAD,
I agree that the flood was local, but a literalist will argue that the Bible clearly says that only eight people were left alive. How could a local flood kill the rest of humanity? Unless, of course, the flood is a history of the Jewish peoples and not all of humanity. Which do you believe?
April 7th, 2010 | 9:19 pm | #31
Mark, you made a positively wonderful post, and the comments so far have been nothing but drivel. I applaud you for this post.
There is very serious emphasis placed in the Bible on the historicity of the Incarnation and the death, burial, and resurrection. This is meant to be taken as historical. The cues given in the flood narrative, or the book of Job or Jonah? Not so much.
People have no sensitivity to genre and they put God in a box, saying “if God ever speaks hyperbolically the way we humans do, then his word is untrue! They must have had only evil thoughts continually. That must be taken at face value, but God is not true if he actually exaggerates in stories the same way ALL HUMANS do.” God could endorse a symbolic narrative about a flood, folks. He doesn’t have to fit into your literalistic box.
April 7th, 2010 | 9:28 pm | #32
Gary: Thanks for missing the point. If the rest of the writers of Scripture (and indeed Jesus Himself) understood the Flood, the life of Job, the life of Jonah, etc., to have actually happened in real history (and Mark faces an enormous burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise), then to argue these events DIDN’T is to call them all liars. Does God not even have to “fit into the box” of basic truthfulness and trustworthiness?
April 7th, 2010 | 9:47 pm | #33
Gary Simmons
“Mark, you made a positively wonderful post, and the comments so far have been nothing but drivel.”
What is drivel is your resort to tendentious assertions.
“There is very serious emphasis placed in the Bible on the historicity of the Incarnation and the death, burial, and resurrection. This is meant to be taken as historical. The cues given in the flood narrative, or the book of Job or Jonah? Not so much.”
What about the Exodus?
“People have no sensitivity to genre…”
I notice that you don’t present an actual argument for that assertion.
“…and they put God in a box, saying “if God ever speaks hyperbolically the way we humans do, then his word is untrue! They must have had only evil thoughts continually. That must be taken at face value, but God is not true if he actually exaggerates in stories the same way ALL HUMANS do.”
To the contrary, Mark is the one who seems unable to make allowance for the hyperbolic phraseology.
“God could endorse a symbolic narrative about a flood, folks.”
God could also send a real flood, Gary.
“He doesn’t have to fit into your literalistic box.”
No, he has to fit into Gary’s mythological box. How convenient!
April 7th, 2010 | 11:41 pm | #34
R Hampton,
I already answered the question of what I believe. Please answer this question that I’ve posed to you previously:
A clear example of plain literalist theology is the Roman Catholic Church teaching that the bread is literally the body of Jesus and that the wine is literally the blood of Jesus.
That is plain literalist theology, don’t you agree?
Does this revelation by the RCC Magisterium conflict with natural revelation, R. Hampton? Yes or No?
April 8th, 2010 | 1:03 am | #35
Curtis, I’m glad I could make your day and be a target for your negativity, criticism, and sarcasm!
Here is my reason for believing that, to one degree or another, Genesis is *divinely intended* to be read as something other than what people today mean by “history.” Genesis 1 omits seaweed. Yes, that’s right. Seaweed. Since the Bible doesn’t say God made it, where did it come from? Historically, there’s no good answer. However, if we are to see that Genesis is setting us up to take the dry land as the chief environment (rather than the sea or sky or orbit), then we can understand why Genesis consciously and deliberately omits the creation of seaweed.
The creation of plants at the end of day 3 parallels the creation of humanity at the end of day 6. Poetically, both day 3 and day 6 give the earth a bonus the other environments don’t get an equivalent for. If the author is trying to make a literary point at the expense of history/science, then we can probably call this literature rather than history. In the flood of Genesis 6-8, God is not grieved because of the corruption of the sky or sea, but of the earth. Genesis 1-11 makes an interesting point in humanity’s relationship to the earth. Genesis 1 sets us up for that by day 3 and day 6 of creation. To do so requires conveniently excluding the fact that the sea also has vegetation.
Does that mean there’s nothing historical to it at all? Not necessarily. But it is primarily literature and not history. Trying to judge what is or is not historical is not interesting to me. God is trustworthy and his word is true regardless of whether he chose to communicate through literature or through something else. But if the cues in the text point toward literature rather than history, even if it’s literature about historical events, then we need to keep that in mind.
God’s word is not immune to being misunderstood. You must still learn letters and words in order to read. People who can’t write their own name can’t magically pick up a Bible and read it. We are still limited by education in understanding the Bible. That is why people need guidance in learning to read for the first time. (I am not talking about illiteracy as in exegetical training, although I wish that was more common; I’m talking about grade school learning.)
As for the Exodus, like I said: I don’t worry too much about the historicity of things, usually. I think the Exodus is so crucial to Judaism and Christianity that, quite likely, God did indeed bring the Israelites out of Egypt by a miraculous display of power. So, in short, yes. The flood? God certainly could have flooded the world. He’s God. Did he actually do it? I see no reason why not. The dinosaurs had to die somehow. But that doesn’t mean I take Genesis’ account as a straightforward history of it.
Here is what I’m saying: “From the way the text itself is written, it looks more like literature than history.” Here is what some of you seem to be hearing: “I just don’t believe that could have happened.” I don’t understand why you are hearing that. I never said, and Mark never said, that God couldn’t have flooded the world. Never did we say that God couldn’t have performed miracles before Pharaoh. Never did we say that God couldn’t have created things in six days. Mark and I both are taking our cues from the writing style of the text. We are not making a priori judgments based on liberal skepticism about the Bible’s inerrancy. Please don’t be so quick to expect historicity of the Bible.
The Bible consciously omits details that aren’t relevant to the story at hand. Literature does this. History does not. History would tell you the name of Noah’s wife. History would tell you where Cain’s wife came from. History would tell you what Adam was doing while Cain and Abel were having their sacrificial rivalry thing. (Seriously. Shouldn’t he have sacrificed, too?) History would tell you what exactly Ham did to Noah, and why it was Canaan who was cursed instead of Ham. Literature doesn’t have to be exhaustive, but history does. The Bible doesn’t burden us with irrelevant details, therefore it looks more like literature.
QED.
April 8th, 2010 | 6:01 am | #36
“It is a sign or signal that the story at hand is poetic or symbolic.”
That’s interesting thinking. If there’s anything that looks odd or clashes with your other beliefs, it’s a signal that the story is only poetic and the reader is thus free to make up his own meaning.
I declare the same for the resurrection. Did you ever notice how much the stories of meeting the resurrected Jesus resemble stories of Elvis sightings?
I once had a paperback book of Elvis sightings. One I remember very well: some people were in a tavern. A stranger entertained them with his guitar playing and singing. After he politely excused himself and left, they suddenly realized – That was Jesus!
Compare that to Luke 24:13-35, where Jesus is met on the road to Emmaus, is not recognized, talks with them, enters an inn with them, breaks bread and gives it to them and only then do they recognize him. (At which time he vanishes – whether out the door or in a poof of smoke is not disclosed.)
Clearly this whole story is poetic, just like the Elvis sightings. Suddenly all questions are answered and the Bible makes sense.
(It could be worse. In another sighting, a man taking a shower sees Elvis walk by his bathroom window. He runs outside clad only in a towel, steps barefoot on the tines of a rake, the handle flies up and hits him in the face and as he falls to the ground holding his wounded foot, he looks through his tears and sees Elvis vanishing around a corner. I don’t know if that’s poetic or not, but it’s certainly more likely than resurrection from the dead.)
April 8th, 2010 | 6:03 am | #37
Ah sorry, the people in the tavern realize that was Elvis, not Jesus. But no problem, it’s all poetic. Believe what suits you.
April 8th, 2010 | 6:55 am | #38
Gary: On your model, it seems that for something to be history, it has to be completely comprehensive. I submit that that’s arrant nonsense to which you would hold no other document. Are Paul’s letters not historical because they make no mention of his contemporary Seneca? Is the Book of Acts not historical because it fails to comment on the socio-political arena of the various environs of the apostles’ missionary journeys? Of course not–to argue such would be absurd. And yet, to do so would make JUST as much sense as denying the historicity of Genesis because of…seaweed.
For all your bombast about literature, Gary, you seem to be woefully ignorant about how to approach the Bible literarily yourself–just because Genesis isn’t a history text in the way that, say, Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall” is a history text doesn’t mean that the events it relates are not HISTORICAL. For all the talk you and Olson have made about genre, etc., NEITHER of you has bothered to explain how it follows that if Genesis doesn’t fit neatly into your 21st Century notions of what the historical genre means, then therefore certain events must be read as non-historical. Assertions are not the same things as arguments, I’m afraid.
And again, you failed to address my actual argument: If Paul, Jesus, and Peter all viewed the Flood narrative as an actual historical event, and if the Flood was NOT an actual historical event, then either these three men are liars or they’re incorrect. And if they’re incorrect about this, there’s no reason to trust them on anything else. Would you care to address that problem, please?
I also find it quite amusing that you seem so offended by MY “negativity, criticism, and sarcasm,” but have no quarrel when Mark Olson demonstrates the same. Apparently he cornered the market on acerbity while nobody was looking.
April 8th, 2010 | 7:54 am | #39
“Genesis 2 describes a verdant paradise-like garden in which Adam and Eve lived and worked. There has been a tendency to regard the Eden episode as legend or myth, that is, not as a historical account, and to view Eden as a symbolic place rather than a real location. Archaeology cannot settle this question, but Genesis 2:10-14 surely offers a specific location for the garden by naming the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The English name Tigris is actually the Greek vocalization of the ancient Sumerian name id-dikaltu, which means River Diklatu. The Hebrew preserves the Sumerian as Hiddekel. Euphrates echoes the Akkadian name of the river—purattu. These are real rivers whose names were known in ancient cuneiform texts, and whose names survive to this day. Little is known of the other two rives, the Pishon and the Gihon (Genesis 2:10-13). The former is said to flow through the land of Havilah, a Hebrew term for northern Arabia. The idea that a river once flowed across the deserts of Arabia, and somehow connected with the Tigris and/or Euphrates River, seems far-fetched. But this all changed when evidence for such a river came from satellite radar images taken during the 1994 mission of the Space Shuttle Endeavor. Boston University geologist Farouk el-Baz, who studied the images, noticed that traces of a defunct river that crossed northern Arabia from west to east were visible beneath the sands, thanks to the ground-penetrating capabilities of the radar technologies. He called it the ‘Kuwait River,” for that is where it apparently connected with the Euphrates or emptied into the Persian Gulf. Some scholars have proposed that this is the Pishon River of Genesis 2. Environmental studies in the region suggest that this river probably dried up sometime between 3500 and 2000 BC when an arid period was experienced. This new evidence suggests that the Bible has preserved a very ancient memory that predates the era of Moses. By the mid-second millennium BC, this river had already turned to desert 1,000 years or more earlier,” J. Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible (Lion Book 2008), 34-35.
“Both [Tigris & Euphrates] take their rise in the mountains of present-day Turkey (eastern Anatolia)…Today they join up in south Iraq to form the Shatt el-Arab to enter the gulf, but this was not always so in antiquity…Best contenders for the name of Gihon would either be the Kerkheh River or (better, perhaps) the Diz plus Karun Rivers,” K. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003), 429.
“The Pishon has long proved a tougher nut to crack, until recently…Torrid north Arabia hardly seemed the setting for a river to rival the other three mentioned. But in very far antiquity, just such a river once existed, and its long-dried course has recently been traced from its rise in the west Arabian goldlands (in Havilah) east and east-northeast toward the head of the gulf, via modern Kuwait. This may well have been the ancient Pishon. If so, the ancient author’s enumeration runs counterclockwise, from southwest (Pishon) across east to the Gihon, then north and northwest to the Tigris and Euphrates, in a continuous sweep,” ibid. 429.
April 8th, 2010 | 8:13 am | #40
I’m just curious as to whether Gary can provide a single example of historical writing, anywhere, anywhen, that was/is exhaustive of all possible information.
And how would you know?
No such example exists. Anywhere.
Even were you to describe this year’s Easter dinner at your house, you wouldn’t, and more to the point, couldn’t, do it. So I guess your account of Easter dinner would be a literary device used simply to describe that you have a family, or that they like each other, or something.
At what point, in Genesis, is there a discernible break between what is literature and what is history?
Funny how, except for the resurrection itself, it’s only when the events described seem bizarre and incomprehensible to an unbeliever (creation in 6 days, world-wide flood, miracles in Pharaoh’s court, man swallowed by fish, God using Job to show off to Satan, to name a few) that the “it’s only literature and not actual history” ploy is used.
When that reasoning is used on reasonable sounding things, like David crowned king, Naomi leaving Bethlehem to escape a famine and Peter preaching in Jerusalem, then maybe I’ll think there is a legitimate reason for it. But for now, the link to extraordinary events if just too obvious.
By the way, was manna real?
April 8th, 2010 | 9:03 am | #41
Gary Simmons: “The Bible consciously omits details that aren’t relevant to the story at hand. Literature does this. History does not. … Literature doesn’t have to be exhaustive, but history does. The Bible doesn’t burden us with irrelevant details, therefore it looks more like literature.
QED.”
QED?
What parts of the Bible, if any, provide sufficient and comprehensive enough detail so as to be read as history for you, Gary Simmons, and by anyone else?
Some parts of the Bible have these boring genealogies. Are these genealogies literature or are they history?
Are the Gospels history or literature? There are many unaccounted years in Jesus’ life and there is nothing in the way of details about Jesus’ physical appearance. And are there enough details about the Virgin Birth? By your measure the Gospels are not comprehensive enough and should be read as literature, not history.
BTW, I do think your contributions to this thread are worthwhile, Gary. They serve to show the approach to Scripture that Liberal Protestants (LibProts) take and what Conservative Protestants contend vigorously against.
April 8th, 2010 | 9:14 am | #42
I don’t think it’s coincidental that Olson is a physicist by training. He views the creation account and the flood account as unhistorical because he views them as unscientific. That’s the real reason.
Then, to feel justified in his position, he launches a preemptive strike on Bible-believing Christians in an effort to put them on the defensive.
April 8th, 2010 | 9:28 am | #43
He’s a physicist? That explains a lot.
Gary said: “Curtis, I’m glad I could make your day and be a target for your negativity, criticism, and sarcasm!”
Gary, you should apologize to Curtis for your disingenuous comment. I see nowhere in his comment where he was negative or “targeting” you. That was a terribly un-Christian thing to say in response. It amounts to slander. Be careful brother.
April 8th, 2010 | 9:57 am | #44
A clear example of plain literalist theology is the Roman Catholic Church teaching that the bread is literally the body of Jesus and that the wine is literally the blood of Jesus.
That is plain literalist theology, don’t you agree?
Nope. Jesus said that the bread was his body and the wine his blood while he was at the table holding it in his hands. Since his body was intact and intact human bodies do not exist in two places at once, the plain literalist reading of the passage is that Jesus was using a metaphor. Any other reading needs to import complex philosophical arguments (e.g. Aristotelian concepts of substance and accidents) from outside of the text.
Anyway, why argue about Noah or the Garden of Eden? I don’t see a plain literalist reading getting past the first few versus of Genesis 1. A plain reading of Genesis 1 6-10 and 14-19 describes a cosmos in which the sun, moon, and stars move in a space between two layers of water. Anyone agree that’s an accurate description of the solar system?
April 8th, 2010 | 10:01 am | #45
Nickp–At issue here is not whether the Genesis narrative is scientifically accurate, but whether it MUST be scientifically accurate (or historically exhaustive) in order for it to record real historical events. I and others are submitting that this need not be the case–Genesis can record real human history without being either scientifically precise or historically exhaustive according to arbitrary 21st Century conventions of historiography.
April 8th, 2010 | 10:50 am | #46
I have a question, and it may well be ignorant, but it is what it is.
Does your hermeneutic actually change anything in the end result interpretation of the story of Noah, or any other story you declare to be differently-true? I mean, all I see in your article is a smug self-satisfaction in your cleverness at being able to somehow discern the truth of events that were ancient history when Jesus was a baby. (Which, by the way, any thinking man would reject out of hand as you have zero chance of meeting the burden of proof necessary for your claims)
But, I don’t see where any theological impact has actually been made aside from the obvious questions raised about the value of human wisdom against the living Word of God. You haven’t changed the meaning of the story, though I suppose you have diminished the importance of the story by declaring it differently-true rather than literally-true, and that could have a ripple-effect on lots of other things.
So what’s the point? Why with all the cleverness? If the final point to which you arrive in your exegesis is the same whether you believe it to be literal truth or noetic truth, why the smug superiority over the obviously misled yokels believing the earth was created in a short week? If all you’re doing is taking a different route to the same truth, wouldn’t it be the height of arrogance to claim your way is superior, or perhaps even the only way to that truth, ignoring the fact that others arrived there through different paths?
And if your hermeneutic changes the outcome, changes the theological truth contained therein, what sort of ripple-effect impact does that have on the rest of the bible? After all, if you change one part of the bible, other parts that depend on it must change as well, and with that change come others that depended on THAT, and so on. How do you chart the impact of the changes your hermeneutic causes, if it does in fact change the outcome?
Color me confused.
April 8th, 2010 | 10:52 am | #47
It’s interesting to try draw a distinction between historicity and scientific accuracy, but now I’m not sure I see any difference between your view and that described by Mark Olson in the original post.
If the flood account is historical but not “scientifically precise or historically exhaustive according to arbitrary 21st Century conventions of historiography,” then it seems acceptable to view the “real historical event” as a local one, rather than the worldwide event described in the text. Perhaps Noah was a Mesopotamian farmer who built a raft out of reeds, etc.
But in his original post, Mark mentions the Odyssey, which describes real places and, perhaps real historical people, so his noetic approach and a historical approach aren’t mutually exclusive. It all depends on your arbitrary conventions of historiography and how much scientific accuracy you demand, does it not?
In any event, regarding Matthew 24:36-39, if I described two people as acting like Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy, would my argument depend on the historicity of Pride and Prejudice? Seems to me that Jesus’s argument is consistent with the flood being a historical event, but it doesn’t require that the flood be a historical event.
April 8th, 2010 | 11:11 am | #48
Nickp–
First, as to the differences between my own approach and that of Olson, they are both enormous and enormously simple. I assert that there was an actual event–the Flood described in Genesis–that actually happened. He asserts that the same event–the Flood described in Genesis–did NOT. (The discussion about whether said event was global or local really doesn’t come into play here.) The two views could not be more different.
Second, your example with regard to Matthew 24 begs the question–we wouldn’t expect an appeal to Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy to have historical moment BECAUSE ALL OF US ALREADY KNOW THAT’S A WORK OF FICTION. Jesus is speaking in this context about the Kingdom of God coming in visible, tangible power in actual human history–it would make NO SENSE for Him to assure us of the inevitability of that coming Kingdom by appealing to a story that everyone knew was fictive. “The Kingdom of God is just as surely coming as it did in that story we all know that didn’t really happen.” What on earth would be the point of saying that at all?
Also, it should be pointed out that the plainest, most natural reading of Jesus’ words clearly suggests that the event in question was a literal, historical event–thus, there’s an enormous burden of proof upon the critic to demonstrate otherwise from the text of Matthew itself. So tell us (and I hope Olson attempts to answer this challenge as well)–what from MATTHEW’S TEXT indicates to you that Jesus understood the Flood in a mythical or noetic (i.e., NON-literal) sense?
April 8th, 2010 | 11:34 am | #49
NickP: “Jesus said that the bread was his body and the wine his blood while he was at the table holding it in his hands. Since his body was intact and intact human bodies do not exist in two places at once, the plain literalist reading of the passage is that Jesus was using a metaphor.”
Aaaaahhhhhh. R. Hampton, do you agree with Nick P? R. Hampton, does the RCC Magisterium agree with Nick P. Mark Olson, does the Eastern Orthodox Church agree with Nick P. that Jesus was using noetic metaphor when referring to the bread and wine as His Body and as His Blood?
April 8th, 2010 | 11:36 am | #50
(Forgot the question mark symbol.)
R. Hampton, does the RCC Magisterium agree with Nick P?
Mark Olson, does the Eastern Orthodox Church agree with Nick P that Jesus was using noetic metaphor when referring to the bread and wine as His Body and as His Blood?
April 8th, 2010 | 11:57 am | #51
Curtis:
I assert that there was an actual event–the Flood described in Genesis–that actually happened. He asserts that the same event–the Flood described in Genesis–did NOT.
Ahh, I understood Mark to be saying (via his discussion of historicity of lack thereof in the Odyssey) that whether or not the flood was an actual event was irrelevant. The important truths of the story are poetic or symbolic. I understand you to be saying that the flood was a real event, but the important truths of the story are not dependent on arbitrary standards of accuracy or historiography (i.e. the degree to which the story accurately describes what actually happened). That seems like a pretty fine distinction.
Second, your example with regard to Matthew 24 begs the question–we wouldn’t expect an appeal to Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy to have historical moment BECAUSE ALL OF US ALREADY KNOW THAT’S A WORK OF FICTION.
So? We both know P&P is a work of fiction, but an external observer of our conversation would not necessarily know. In the case of Matthew 24, Jesus and his listeners would certainly know whether or not they believed Noah to be historical, but WE DO NOT. In both examples, a real situation (Jesus’s second coming, the friends I am describing) is described by analogy to a reference that both speaker and listener understand. What is important is that the listener is familiar with the reference. The historicity, or lack thereof, of the reference is irrelevant.
. So tell us (and I hope Olson attempts to answer this challenge as well)–what from MATTHEW’S TEXT indicates to you that Jesus understood the Flood in a mythical or noetic (i.e., NON-literal) sense?
Nothing from Matthew’s text indicates that Jesus understood the flood in a mythical sense, and nothing from Matthew’s text indicates that Jesus understood the flood in a historical text. My argument is that the text does not contain that data, so it cannot be used to attack Mark’s view of the flood or to assert which interpretation is the plainest reading.
April 8th, 2010 | 12:06 pm | #52
To expand/clarify:
From Matthew 24, we can conclude that Jesus knew the story of Noah. We can conclude that he expected his listeners also to be familiar with the story. If we assume Jesus accurately gauged their knowledge, we can conclude that the did know the story. We cannot conclude anything else about the story of Noah from Matthew 24.
April 8th, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #53
OK, one last one:
“The Kingdom of God is just as surely coming as it did in that story we all know that didn’t really happen.” What on earth would be the point of saying that at all?
I don’t think that’s an accurate paraphrase of Jesus comments. He isn’t saying that the kindom of God is coming as inexorably as the flood, he’s saying people won’t expect it. “The Kingdom of God is coming just as unexpectedly as the flood did in that story we all know” doesn’t sound so strange to me.
See also verse 43, a reference to a scenario both speaker and audience understand, not necessarily a reference to a specific event.
April 8th, 2010 | 1:45 pm | #54
Nickp: “To expand/clarify:
From Matthew 24, we can conclude that Jesus knew the story of Noah. We can conclude that he expected his listeners also to be familiar with the story. If we assume Jesus accurately gauged their knowledge, we can conclude that they did know the story. We cannot conclude anything else about the story of Noah from Matthew 24.”
Nickp, Please expand/clarify:
Is this the same approach that you take with all the other Gospel passages which cite Jesus mentioning an OT reference for His listeners?
I.e., Jesus knew the OT reference, His audience knew the OT reference, but we can’t conclude anything else in regards to whether Jesus and His audience thought these OT references were historical fact-narrative, or whether they thought they were noetic literature with a didactic message.
April 8th, 2010 | 2:14 pm | #55
TUAD,
To Catholics, the transubstantiation of bread and wine into flesh and blood does not alter their empirically measurable forms: no white blood cells or muscle tissue can or will be detected. None the less, by the miracle of God’s Word, the presence of Christ has become real. Beyond symbolic, it is a supernatural transformation.
If literalists were to view the Flood in the same way, then they would admit that flood was indeed geographically localized and the loss of life (man and animal) regional. However, by the miracle of God, the spiritual human race was reduced to just eight members and the animals they needed for food, utility, and sacrifice.
Again, this is a history of Jewish salvation which only incorporates the rest of human spiritual (supernatural) history with the sacrifice of Christ; when gentiles are adopted into the Hebrew lineage.
April 8th, 2010 | 2:24 pm | #56
TUAD,
RE: #49, #50 — Please understand that I’m not ignoring you. It appears that we live in different time zones and/or have different schedules which often results in considerable lag between responses (for both you and I.)
April 8th, 2010 | 3:21 pm | #57
R Hampton: “To Catholics, the transubstantiation of bread and wine into flesh and blood does not alter their empirically measurable forms: no white blood cells or muscle tissue can or will be detected. None the less, by the miracle of God’s Word, the presence of Christ has become real. Beyond symbolic, it is a supernatural transformation.”
Does the RCC Magisterial teaching of the “transubstantiation of bread and wine into flesh and blood” conflict with natural revelation?
Let’s recall what you wrote in your comment #8 above:
“When Natural Revelation confirms that a global flood – which would have reduced life in the Bronze Age to boat-load of specimens – simply did not occur, then we know that a plain literalist theology (in this instance) is not true. Both Natural and Special Revelation must be respected as equally authentic and complimentary.”
So let’s transpose slightly and apply your reasoning to RCC Communion:
When Natural Revelation confirms that the bread and the wine in the RCC sacrament of Communion do not become flesh and blood – it simply does not occur, then we know that a plain literalist theology (in this instance by the RCC) is not true. Both Natural and Special Revelation must be respected as equally authentic and complementary.
April 8th, 2010 | 3:34 pm | #58
R Hampton, Mark Olson, and any other RC’s and EO’s reading this thread,
Do you agree that if scientific apparatus and equipment was set up or hooked up to a RCC or EO communion participant to scan and detect whether the Elements of bread/wafer and wine/juice as it goes into the mouth, chewed and masticated and swallowed, down the throat and esophagus, and then into the stomach for further processing, that the scientific equipment will not detect any transformation of these Elements into Flesh and Blood?
Would you at least stipulate that Natural Revelation will not affirm and will actually contradict what you say happens to the Communion Elements which the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches as Special Revelation?
April 8th, 2010 | 3:55 pm | #59
TUAD:
I.e., Jesus knew the OT reference, His audience knew the OT reference, but we can’t conclude anything else in regards to whether Jesus and His audience thought these OT references were historical fact-narrative, or whether they thought they were noetic literature with a didactic message.
In most cases, I suspect that Jesus uses the OT references for didactic purposes, regardless of whether they are fact-narrative or not. It suffices that Jesus, his ancient audience, and his modern audience all recognize the reference. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I may assume that the OT reference is fact narrative, but I probably wouldn’t be unduly disturbed to learn that it was noetic literature or, alternately, that it is fact-narrative that isn’t “scientifically precise or historically exhaustive according to arbitrary 21st Century conventions of historiography,” to use Curtis’s formulation.
Those are just general thoughts without knowing what specific passages you are considering. In the specific case of the flood, I think there are strong reasons for not treating it as straightforward fact-narrative. Those reasons are both extra-biblical (archeology, geography, geology, biogeography, genetics, etc) and some internal to the text itself. But, whether it is purely noetic literature or some species of history that isn’t “scientifically precise” (i.e. local flood, etc) I don’t find to be terribly important.
April 8th, 2010 | 4:08 pm | #60
Nickp: “In most cases, I suspect that Jesus uses the OT references for didactic purposes, regardless of whether they are fact-narrative or not.”
Steve Hays: “[C]hristianity is grounded in events. The spiritual truths are grounded in events. We can derive spiritual truths from the Exodus because it really happened–as a result of which we can analogize from various elements of that event to comparable situations.
You’re reducing Christianity to a set of ideas–like Buddhism. In Buddhism, it doesn’t matter what Buddha really said or did.”
Nickp (and anyone else), you need to realize that didactic effect and effectiveness often hinges on whether its grounded in historical events or whether its grounded in noetic literature.
April 8th, 2010 | 4:45 pm | #61
I don’t think C.S. Lewis reduced Christianity to Buddhism.
April 8th, 2010 | 5:05 pm | #62
Wow, a lot has happened over the past twelve hours! Well, Darius, in Curtis’ first comment to me he said “thanks for missing the point.” That was sarcasm. His “thanks for missing the point” was parallel to me telling Mark “thanks for this post.” I found that rather offensive, and actually, the general attitude of certain interlocutors has not been very good, either. I went out of my way in comment 35 to clarify that the illiteracy I spoke of did not include any interlocutors, but then…
Curtis also said: “For all your bombast about literature, Gary, you seem to be woefully ignorant about how to approach the Bible literarily yourself–just because Genesis isn’t a history text in the way that, say, Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall” is a history text doesn’t mean that the events it relates are not HISTORICAL. ”
Other than the ignorance remark, what Curtis says here is a point I also made. I never said Genesis refers strictly to events that are in no way historical (though Mark may take that view; I don’t know). What I said was that it is referring to events through literature rather than an intentional chronicle that seeks to be exhaustive. Here is the quote where I said it, on comment number 35: “As for the Exodus, like I said: I don’t worry too much about the historicity of things, usually. I think the Exodus is so crucial to Judaism and Christianity that, quite likely, God did indeed bring the Israelites out of Egypt by a miraculous display of power. So, in short, yes[, I do believe the Exodus happened]. The flood? God certainly could have flooded the world. He’s God. Did he actually do it? I see no reason why not. The dinosaurs had to die somehow. But that doesn’t mean I take Genesis’ account as a straightforward history of it.”
In short, Curtis called me “woefully ignorant” of how to read the Bible as literature, even though what I said is pretty much the same as what he is saying: “it is literature and not historical chronicle, but it refers to events that are based on something historical.” Maybe not completely historical in that it happened exactly this or that way, but it’s not simply “made up.”
Anyone who said I was denying the “historicity of the flood” is misunderstanding me. I am specifically talking about whether the book of Genesis is seeking to be exhaustive historically.
If I understand the rest of Curtis’ comment, apparently nothing could be exhaustive enough to satisfy my definition of history. That is untrue. History seeks to chronicle all relevant details about all relevant characters. During Genesis 4, there were only four people plus God. It wouldn’t be asking too much to chronicle what Adam and Eve were doing in the meantime (unless they were too busy having other sons and daughters, as chapter 5 says!). The absence of Adam and Eve in chapter 4 is a glaring omission from a historian’s perspective. So are little easy-to-add details like the name and origin of Cain’s wife. Or who was the reigning king in the book of Jonah, so we could set a date for it. Or where Jonah came from. Data like that, which the Bible *does* give for other events.
Oh, and if you want an example of what I call history, a good one would be Everett Ferguson’s Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Good stuff, that book. Does it seek to chronicle everything right down to how flatulent a particular emperor was? No. But it seeks to cover a whole lot of data and organize it in a helpful way. It is quite exhaustive — a little too much for my liking, but that’s why it’s called a “reference work.” If you don’t have it, I’d highly recommend it.
April 8th, 2010 | 5:23 pm | #63
TUAD: I thank you for the charity in your comment. To be honest, I deem myself a moderate prot rather than liberal. I believe the Gospels mostly seek to be literature also. Historically, I believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, he grew up while growing in grace and favor with both God and man (as did Samuel, I believe). Off to a good start. He lived a sinless life and died for our sins. He also had revolutionary teachings on faithfulness, charity, love, devotion to God, Heaven, Hell, and enduring persecution. Reciting and meditating on the Sermon on the Mount is one of my delights. I try to do so daily. I’ve got an insatiable appetite for memorization and recitation. Oh, and back to Jesus: He’s God, and he’s coming back.
I believe that, like I said, the Gospels are literature and not what we would call chronicle/history. But that doesn’t mean I deny any of the orthodox doctrines of Christianity (virgin birth, penal substitution, inerrancy, etc.). Literature can make historical claims, too. Seeing four separate claims made about Jesus being Son of God who died for our sins (and that’s just for starters — Paul and the other epistle writers confirm it!) is pretty darned good evidence to me.
I do not reduce Christianity or Judaism to mere symbolism as Buddhism is. It’s foolish to place one’s eternal hope on mere symbolism. However, if the book of Jonah doesn’t name a king reigning at the time (so we could date it), doesn’t mention Jonah’s hometown, and the only main characters with names are Jonah and the Lord, then I am left with the impression that it’s a religious novel. Looking at the passion narratives, however, we are bombarded with names that could have easily been omitted, such as Pilate, Herod, Joseph of Arimatheas, Caiaphas/Annas, etc. That seems to be seeking to make a clear historical claim about the events.
In Luke 13:1-5, Jesus takes the local news (rumor mill, really) and uses it as an example to give a didactic message. When the disciples point out the beautiful stonework of the Temple, he uses that as an example for a didactic message. To me, it seems Jesus will take whatever is at hand and use it, whether it is the immediate situation, a rumor, or Scripture. If a certain scripture is noetic, then Jesus would still use it. That is my conviction, anyway. After all, he did use parables based off clearly hypothetical situations: TEN talents is a million billion dollars, give or take a zero. So, Jesus using a scripture does not mean he takes it historically any more than it means he takes parables historically.
Also, if I understand it correctly, Transubstantiation is relating to a metaphysical transformation, not a physical one. Of course, I could be mistaken. I’m not EO or RCC.
April 8th, 2010 | 5:38 pm | #64
Side note to Curtis: those genealogies have a purpose in advancing the story. They are not just boring records.
Consider Matthew 1:
First there was Abraham. Then, 14 generations later, there was King David. Then, 14 generations later, there was the deportation to Babylon. Then, 14 generations later, there’s Jesus.
It reminds me of a movie trailer in some ways, though it’s nowhere near as exciting. Maybe it would be if that one guy who voices all movie trailers read Matthew 1, I don’t know. But in any case, the opening genealogy for Matthew obviously sets Jesus up as something that will change the fact of Judaism permanently, just like both of those figures and that event did. Already, a Jewish reader would get the impression that Matthew is setting up Jesus as [at least] as important as Father Abraham. That’s a very important thing to say, isn’t it? Besides, the first words of Matthew are the same as the “these are the generations of” of Genesis. That is also relevant.
Now, as to the genealogies in Genesis 4-5. Consider this: Cain’s genealogy does not say he has a father. This implies he was disowned. Seth’s genealogy says who his father is. Plus, it’s prefaced by saying God made his father Adam. That contributes very significantly to the story and is not simply a boring “fast forward.” Also, Cain’s descendants don’t get their deaths recorded. Not recording someone’s death is kind of like not burying them. That implies severe dishonor. Plus, they did not have “other sons and daughters” the way Seth’s line did. If you look at the names of Cain’s descendants, there is a counterpart for each one with a similar name in Seth’s lineage, PLUS Seth gets bonus generations. Cain’s Enoch attained immortality through having a city built after him — relying on man’s power. Seth’s Enoch attained immortality by walking with God and being “taken up.” Cain’s Lamech boasted in his prowess and “prophesied” that he would avenge himself far better than God could avenge Cain. Seth’s Lamech “prophesied” of what good things his son would do to provide relief from the curse on the ground.
Both in Matthew 1 and in Genesis 4-5, the genealogies contribute significantly to the stories. The wicked perish in obscurity with few children, even though they advance “civilization” by building mighty cities, creating music, agriculture, and metallurgy. The righteous who rely on God rather than man’s power instead will prosper.
I don’t know how all the genealogies in the Bible contribute to the story, but I am convinced they all play some role in the story, such as Revelation’s story omitting two tribes of Judah and instead having two of Joseph’s tribe filling their place.
April 8th, 2010 | 6:37 pm | #65
TUAD,
Please take the time to re-read my post (#55) as it answers the questions you ask in #57 & #58. As I stated previously, Natural Revelation (empirical detection) can not “see” transubstantiation because it is a supernatural (miraculous) change. Materially, the bread and wine are still present, but spiritually the have been imbued with Christ.
April 9th, 2010 | 12:26 am | #66
“TUAD,
Please take the time to re-read my post (#55) as it answers the questions you ask in #57 & #58. As I stated previously, Natural Revelation (empirical detection) can not “see” transubstantiation because it is a supernatural (miraculous) change.”
Okay, I’ve re-read your post #55. I understand your answer thusly: The RCC Magisterium’s Special Revelation trumps and takes primacy over Natural Revelation when it comes to the transubstantiation of the Communion Elements.
Second, if I take your answer and apply the very same measure of reasoning to the Flood, it would be this:
“As I stated previously, Natural Revelation (scientific empirical detection) can not “see” the Historic Flood because it is a supernatural (miraculous) event.”
———-
So either Special Revelation takes primacy over Natural Revelation
Or (if you wish)
Natural Revelation cannot “see” Special (Supernatural) Revelation.
Either way, by the same token and measure that you use to justify the RCC’s doctrine of Communion and the inter-relationship between Natural Revelation and Special Revelation is exactly the same by which to justify the historicity of the Flood.
April 9th, 2010 | 7:42 am | #67
Nickp (and anyone else), you need to realize that didactic effect and effectiveness often hinges on whether its grounded in historical events or whether its grounded in noetic literature.
That’s why I have been sticking to the specific case at issue. “Often” means not always, and “grounded in historical events” could mean historically accurate in every respect or just some historical basis with a noetic overlay. That being the case, I’m comfortable discussing whether the didactic effect of the flood hinges on its historicity in the specific case of Matthew 24, but I suspect we would need to discuss other examples specifically, rather than attempting to generalize.
April 9th, 2010 | 10:14 am | #68
The soul is supernatural AND real, but can not be seen nor measured, do you disagree? So when bread and wine are imbued with the soul of Christ , they become a physical home (flesh and blood) for the metaphysical spirit. Is that really so hard to understand?
The supernatural aspect of the flood is that it destroyed all but eight Jews – those people whom God favored with a personal relationship. So while a flood in the Middle East almost ended the Hebrew lineage, Mankind was “safe” and unaware elsewhere; the Americas, Africa, Asia, etc. These other people were outside the saving grace of God, so Noah meant nothing to them. But Christ opened salvation to those not born Jews, and in doing so Jewish history became gentile history. While neither of us may be direct descendants of Noah, he has become our forefather in spirit – a supernatural patronage.
April 9th, 2010 | 10:31 am | #69
@R Hampton,
Noah and his family were not Jews. They were not even Hebrews. Noah’s son Shem is the one from whom we derive the word Semite. Abraham was from Ur, and he is considered the father of the Jews, although, again, he himself was not a Jew or Hebrew. Isaac is essentially the first Hebrew.
April 9th, 2010 | 11:13 am | #70
They are all Jews in that they worshipped, and communed with, the same God (the one we know of today through the teachings of Jews) — unlike the rest of humanity who only knew of false gods.
April 9th, 2010 | 12:01 pm | #71
That’s not what the Bible teaches. Adam and Eve weren’t Jews. Abel wasn’t a Jew. The Ninevites repented; they weren’t Jews. Ruth came to believe in God; she wasn’t a Jew.
April 9th, 2010 | 12:27 pm | #72
And then, of course, there is this…
“Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
Did God mean that he wouldn’t destroy the Jews by a flood? But He said “all life” so He had to have meant the Jews and all the animals that live near them.
He couldn’t have just meant “all the people in a local area” because that has happened since then, and saying “ever again” means it happened once.
I seems like for every question answered by making the flood local, or a teaching story (primarily), 10 more are created.
April 9th, 2010 | 12:58 pm | #73
Daryl,
That’s kinda what I meant about little changes having a rippling affect across the Bible. Deny one thing, and you’ll end up having to deny three others that rely on the first, and 12 more as a result of those, etc.
Pretty soon you’re Brian McLaren and have contorted Christianity to be in your own image.
April 9th, 2010 | 1:09 pm | #74
I teach Biblical Lit. I’m not an expert, but here’s what I’ve come to believe:
One) The flood account allows for multiple understandings that disagree with each other but do not necessarily contradict the concept of inerrancy.
Two) Every ancient culture has a catastrophic flood story. That should tell us something.
April 9th, 2010 | 1:17 pm | #75
Mark Olson: “I don’t think Noah and the flood are historical and yet I believe in the Incarnation, the Virginity of the Theotokos and the Resurrection.”
Orthodoxdj: “Every ancient culture has a catastrophic flood story. That should tell us something.”
Like maybe the Flood was a historical event?
April 9th, 2010 | 1:31 pm | #76
orthodoxdj,
God’s (Special) revelation is only open to those who worship him, thus when the Ninevites repented, they returned to the spiritual ancestory of man. But we don’t (culturally) recognize God by way of Ninevite (Assyrian) names and customs, but of Jewish traditions. Why? Because Jesus was born a Jew, and Jesus traces his origins, by direct descent, to David, Noah, and Adam. And it is through Jesus that we are adopted into his family.
So when we gentiles look back at the Biblical pre-Jews, we recognize them as the people who knew God as the Jews did, as we do. Those who did not know this God – because they turned away and/or worshipped false gods – lost God’s saving grace. By the time of Christ, the only people left who knew God as such were the Jews (hence my use of “Hebrew lineage” to denote what you might call the lineage of God’s chosen or the lineage of those with a personal relationship with God)
Daryl Little,
As I mentioned earlier, “all life” refers to all life in the region. Only the eight Jews (as I have been referring to them) and the animals they needed to survive were spared. Animals not essential to Noah (for food, utility, sacrifice, etc.) died in the regional flood, but others of their kind lived elsewhere and so their species did not go extinct. And of course most animals didn’t even live in the region – like kangaroos – so there was no reason to save them.
TUAD,
Every ancient culture has a catastrophic flood story because catastrophic floods occur with terrible frequency all over the world, like the great floods of the Mississippi in 1993 and 1927. I bet that every ancient culture also has a catastrophic earthquake story as well.
April 9th, 2010 | 1:59 pm | #77
R Hampton,
So then God promised what with the rainbow?
Does the rainbow mean anything at all to us today? Because if the issue is local floods, then God has failed to keep His word?
Is it then also reasonable to assume that no one in the area survived? Surely some near the boundaries of the area fled and survived? So is the Bible lying?
Also, if all the “mountains” in the valley in which they lived were covered by 20 feet of water, from the rain, we’re not exactly talking about a lot of water.
More and more, it is plain to me that this idea comes, not from revelation, but from accepting a particularly ungodly brand of science as a base of reasoning. Why not take the science (and there is a lot of it) that finds evidence of a global flood, and finds it everywhere?
I find it implausible that anyone has come to these conclusions without letting what is essentially, atheistic, or at least, anti-supernatural, science lead the way.
April 9th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #78
Orthodj,
I find your last point, about all cultures having a catastrophic flood story, to be quite compelling.
They don’t convince me that the bible is true, mind you, I’m convinced already. But it does seem obvious that a flood that leaves only 8 people alive on the earth, with be told about in all cultures everywhere.
April 9th, 2010 | 3:12 pm | #79
Daryl Little,
I think my first reply was lost (perhaps I never posted after previewing?) In any event, a rewrote it as best as I could remember.
The Flood destroyed God’s chosen people – those who had knowledge of God through Special Revelation. But those who did not know God in this way, like the Aboriginal Australians, were not punished as such because they were already outside the possibility of Salvation – they had nothing to lose.
And never again has God threatened to destroy the Jews by way of flood. Now that we gentiles have been adopted into the family, a global flood would actually be necessary to destroy God’s people. Not so in the time of Noah.
Because of Natural Revelation (genetics, anthropology, etc.), we know that Aboriginal Australians have lived continuously on their continent for 40,000 years. Their lineage has not been broken by a catastrophic flood. Since God does not lie nor contradict through Natural and Special Revelation, we can conclude that the Flood was local – targeting only those who had knowledge of Special Revelation, those who had a personal relationship with God.
April 9th, 2010 | 4:32 pm | #80
Hampton,
I find parts of your argument compelling, but I’m not convinced about Noah being a Jew. Maybe we’re equivocating on the word “Jew”.
Daryl,
My argument about every ancient culture having a flood story (including Australian aborigenes) is that it seems compelling to me that there must have been a flood that killed many, if not nearly all, people.
April 9th, 2010 | 4:41 pm | #81
The flood story in Genesis 6 is talking about God unmaking what he had made. It is as if he removed the barrier that separated the two waters on day 2 and it all came crashing down. It is, without a doubt, speaking in what we would now call global terms.
Possibility 1: There was no flood, and the story is completely noetic. I don’t buy that.
Possibility 2: There was a local flood, and the noetic overlay put it in global terms. That could work for me.
Possibility 3: There was a global flood, simple as that. That could work for me, too.
The text itself, however, is certainly not speaking in localized terms. If the people Noah lived with had Special Revelation and they corrupted the earth through their violence, and there were Aborigines without Special Revelation, chances are they also were corrupting the earth with their violence and the land there needed cleansing, too. The reasoning of the text speaks in global terms. This is why I take position number rather than 1.
April 9th, 2010 | 6:43 pm | #82
Gary Simmons,
I understand, but when you to fail to account for the Truth revealed by Creation itself, you will never know the full Truth.
Letter of His Holiness John Paul II
to Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J.
Director of the Vatican Observatory
The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion science. On the contrary, unity always presupposes the diversity and the integrity of its elements. Each of these members should become not less itself but more itself in a dynamic interchange, for a unity in which one of the elements is reduced to the other is destructive, false in its promises of harmony, and ruinous of the integrity of its components. We are asked to become one. We are not asked to become each other.
To be more specific, both religion and science must preserve their autonomy and their distinctiveness. Religion is not founded on science nor is science an extension of religion. Each should possess its own principles, its pattern of procedures, its diversities of interpretation and its own conclusions. Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic. Science must bear witness to its own worth. While each can and should support the other as distinct dimensions of a common human culture, neither ought to assume that it forms a necessary premise for the other…
Contemporary developments in science challenge theology far more deeply than did the introduction of Aristotle into Western Europe in the thirteenth century. Yet these developments also offer to theology a potentially important resource. Just as Aristotelian philosophy, through the ministry of such great scholars as St Thomas Aquinas, ultimately came to shape some of the most profound expressions of theological doctrine, so can we not hope that the sciences of today, along with all forms of human knowing, may invigorate and inform those parts of the theological enterprise that bear on the relation of nature, humanity and God?
April 9th, 2010 | 6:46 pm | #83
Forgot the last bit I wanted to quote from the letter:
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”
April 10th, 2010 | 1:40 pm | #84
R Hampton: “So when bread and wine are imbued with the soul of Christ , they become a physical home (flesh and blood) for the metaphysical spirit. Is that really so hard to understand?”
I’m wondering whether you’ve anathematized yourself according to the Council of Trent. Read the following a couple of times:
‘‘If any one shall say that…[in the Mass]…there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into blood, the species of bread and wine alone remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema [cursed]’’ (1551, Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 2).
Again, does the RCC Magisterial teaching of the “transubstantiation of bread and wine into flesh and blood” conflict with natural (scientific, empirical) revelation?
April 10th, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #85
R Hampton,
This is not, in any way, about science. It’s about history.
Science doesn’t give long ages and dates, it gives chemical and carbon signatures, that are then interpreted, with a wide range of variance, by people with significant presuppositions about how old things must be.
Why, for instance, are different dating techniques, interpreted as giving such varied dates?
Why did the decade old rocks from Mt. St. Helen’s give dates of millions of years?
It seems that you say “The Bible says it wrong”.
April 11th, 2010 | 2:40 pm | #86
Truth Unites… and Divides,
You are right to question the notion of “metaphysical spirit” changing. But Trent says that the substance (real essence of the thing) changes miraculously at the consecration and that the accidents (i.e., outward appearance) remain the same. Science, though, can only observe accidents and can reason from them to substances. In the case of Christ’s body and blood (indeed, of the Incarnation of the Son in general), the generalities of scientific observation fall short of observing the real and substantial Incarnation (via the Holy Spirit) of Jesus Christ through whom the world was created. Normally, scientific generalization from repeated observation ought to be trusted. Jesus Christ, though, is not a specimen for a microscope, but is a person who has promised to be present to us as we remember him and as we join him in his death and resurrection through the sacraments.
April 12th, 2010 | 2:00 pm | #87
Daryl Little,
Your “concerns” about the accuracy of carbon dating, radioactive decay, geological deposition, etc. is an attack against all of Science. It’s not just “Darwinism” that you find unacceptable, but every discipline that has confirmed that Life, Earth, and the Universe are billions of years old. In other words, you believe that’s God’ created Universe is a vast deception – that Natural Revelation itself is false – because the Scientific method has disproved the Literalist’s interpretation of Biblical Creation. So sad that is, to deliberately blind yourself to half of God’s Revelation because your faith is too weak to live in Truth.
April 12th, 2010 | 3:01 pm | #88
Nope, R, to question the accuracy of carbon dating, radioactive decay, etc., is NOT an attack against all of science or even part of science. Science tells us nothing. Nature tells us nothing. Rather, scientISTS, using empirical methodology (which itself cannot be proven), and based on various presuppositions and viewing data through various lenses, arrive at various conclusions, which may or may not be accurate.
It is quite alright to question their presuppositions, examine their biases and even offer alternate interpretations of the data. It does not violate God’s creation nor His revelation to do so.
The problem about Genesis 1-11 is not that they are difficult chapters to understand. It is all pretty plain, as the Church understood for the first 18 centuries or so. No, the real problem is that Genesis 1-11 do not correspond with the current conclusions (interpretations) of scientists based on certain presuppositions (which began to be assumed just a few hundred years ago).
And so began a variety of novel approaches to the interpretation of those chapters, taking what was simple to understand and convoluting it in a number of interesting and speculative ways. Along the way, the principle of parsimony (all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one) has taken quite a beating.
I think it is more intellectually candid to take those first chapters in Genesis by their plain reading and then either accept or reject what they say, instead of trying to twist and stretch the text and tilt one’s head a certain way and squint one’s eye in a particular manner to make it seem to say something different.
April 12th, 2010 | 3:24 pm | #89
R Hampton,
A little elementary reading on those “dating” methods demonstrates why they are so inaccurate. As Jeff indicated, they measure various chemical (and other) changes and then the scientist takes the observed frequency of those changes and assign date to it.
Which, incidentally, is why no two methods of dating ever produce the same results, and why 10 year old rocks from Mt. St. Helens, we dated into the multi-millions of years. Did the news service lie to us about when Mt. St, Helen’s blew? Or do the scientists still not understand how to date things?
If that’s an attack on science, so be it. It’s a far wiser attack than to attack the plain teaching of Scripture.
How often have you looked at scientific conclusions and said “those findings don’t square with Scripture, they must be wrong?”
How is it deception of God to do something we don’t understand and then allow us to misinterpret that data to our own ends? Is it deceptive of me to buy a car, only to have my kids tell the neighbours that I found it in a parking lot in town? They are wrong, they don’t understand.
Scientists who trumpet evolutionary science and long ages are wrong, they don’t understand.
Funny how so many come across as willing to call God a liar based on, what will always be, vastly incomplete and faulty data.
April 12th, 2010 | 6:09 pm | #90
Again, it’s all of Science you discredit. We know from tree rings, pottery, burial sites, etc., the human beings have been around for millions of years.
The physics of the flood alone are impossible. For a 40 day period, the amount of rain needed To cover the Himalayans would shot down at a pulverizing rate of an inch every 10 seconds! That would have torn apart Noah’s Ark, or simply sunk it from the weight of the water.
Then again, if the pre-flood Himalayans were only 10,000 instead of 29,000, then they would have needed to rise more than 7 per year. So in 1910, they should have been 700 feet shorter. That kind of growth only happens with active volcanos, but the Himalayans are covered in thick glaciers.
There are countless avenues of scientific evidence that simply can’t be ignored or chalked up to accuracy errors. God’s Natural Creation reveals its secrets through reason, and the Scientific Method has shown – conclusively – that a Young Earth is simply untrue.
It takes an act of considerable hubris to look at God’s Creation and reject it because it doesn’t fit with your understanding of Scripture. God is what he is regardless of your ability to comprehend his works, or judge them acceptable.
April 12th, 2010 | 8:10 pm | #91
“God’s Natural Creation reveals its secrets through reason, and the Scientific Method has shown – conclusively – that a Young Earth is simply untrue.”
God’s Natural Creation reveals its secrets through reason, and the Scientific Method has shown – conclusively – that Transubstantiation is simply untrue.
April 12th, 2010 | 8:11 pm | #92
R,
Well at least it’s clear that you’ve never really looked into this stuff. Your thinking that the landscape as we know it was even remotely like it is now demonstrates that.
Again, the word of God trumps all, or should.
Creation fits very well with my understanding of the plain teaching of Scripture. And the point at which it doesn’t, is the point at which our observations of the world are incorrect.
Science is not monolithic as you seem to imagine. Not across disciplines, not from scientist to scientist, not across the decades.
And if believing Scripture discredits science, then science isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. As someone once said, let God be true, and every man a liar.
April 12th, 2010 | 8:18 pm | #93
R, you make a lot of assumptions and assertions. And you continue to mistake what scientists assume (and they make a LOT of them) and their interpretations of data (through the colored spectacles they choose to wear) for Natural Revelation or God’s Creation. They are not the same. You also seem to be unable to make the very important distinction between science (the philosophy and methodology) and scientISTS.
April 12th, 2010 | 8:29 pm | #94
R. Hampton,
If you say that Science can’t find evidence of Supernatural Transubstantiation, then (by the very same measure and argument that you use) Christians who affirm the Flood can also simply say that Science can’t find evidence of a Supernatural Flood.
It cuts both ways.
April 13th, 2010 | 1:34 am | #95
R. Hampton,
Does the RCC Magisterium affirm the historicity of the Flood?
April 13th, 2010 | 8:03 am | #96
R Hampton,
I know this is dragging on and on, and no doubt you’re getting tired of it…I don’t blame you.
But a question occurred to me this morning that I thought might be illuminating.
Let’s say you’re right. Let’s say that I am denying all of science in my attempts to stay true to my interpretation of Scripture.
We both know that I’m not claiming to do that and that you are saying that I am, but let’s put that aside for a moment.
Let’s further proposed that all of science, even the plain obvious bits like gravity and the temperature that ice melts, contradicts what Scripture plainly teaches, and that we both agree on what Scripture plainly teaches.
Would you, at that point, jettison Scripture as inerrant and infallible, or would you jettison science as somehow misunderstanding either in what is being observed, or how to interpret it or something.
That is, would you jettison your understanding of science or Scripture.
I know it sounds like a trap. And it probably is, but that’s not my intention.
So far, rather than insisting that I’m misunderstanding the text of Scripture, you sound like I should jettison Scripture, saying that I must misunderstand it based on an appeal to science. That is, not because the text is clear but because the science is clear.
I’m wanting, if your willing, to understand whether you think there would be a point in which real science, properly understood, would need to be chucked because it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. (Recognizing that we both probably believe that real science properly understood would never contradict Scripture, but go with it for the sake of the argument)
April 13th, 2010 | 11:32 am | #97
“I’m wanting, if your willing, to understand whether you think there would be a point in which real science, properly understood, would need to be chucked because it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture.”
Hi Darryl,
I’m aware that your question was directed to R Hampton, but I would like to share one instance where I have happily chucked Science and given it the heave-ho with a strong construction-boot kick to the seat of Science’s pants at the end for extra good measure.
Jesus’ Resurrection.
Science observes that dead people don’t rise from the dead. But Jesus did. So much for Science, philosophical naturalism, and methodological naturalism. Buh-bye. Special Revelation trumps Natural Revelation.
QED.
April 13th, 2010 | 11:38 am | #98
I don’t think the Resurrection contradicts science. Since the Resurrection happened, i.e. is historical fact, science would have to be on its side.
April 13th, 2010 | 12:01 pm | #99
Orthodj,
I agree. The laws of science don’t disallow interventions.
In some ways, you could compare the resurrection to a ball player catching a ball. The laws of gravity say that it should fall to the ground, but the intervention of a ball glove hardly contradicts science.
Certainly the real issue, as made plain by the originators of the theory of evolution, is the elimination of God and His law from our lives.
If He’s there, He can intervene, if not, I can do as I please.
April 13th, 2010 | 12:07 pm | #100
I think the biggest question in all this is whether or not the Bible teaches anything about the age of the Earth and/or universe. I don’t think it does. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if the Earth/Universe is old (can the the universe even be old or young?). Science cannot give ultimate meaning. Only God gives meaning. Without a spiritual reality as ultimate, the material world is pointless. Science cannot say why we are here, how we ought to live, what happens to our souls at/after death, etc. Only God makes sense of life.
April 13th, 2010 | 12:32 pm | #101
Orthodj,
I recognise going into this comment that you’ll disagree.
But still, when the bible gives a breakdown of years lived from birth (or creation in Adam’s case) to a specific child, and then to death, such that it’s a simple thing to add up the time right to the birth (at least) of Jacob, even demonstrating that Shem, who rode the ark, is alive when Jacob is born (or maybe it’s when Isaac was born, I forget now), it’s a little tough to swallow the idea that the bible doesn’t address the age of the earth.
Add to that the fact that the whole NT treats Adam as a real guy…
Again, I see an almost imperceptible step from your comment to affirming that the spiritual lessons to be gleaned from Jesus’ resurrection don’t require an actual resurrection.
I know you disagree, but I’m just sayin’.
April 13th, 2010 | 12:42 pm | #102
Orthodj: “Since the Resurrection happened, i.e. is historical fact, science would have to be on its side.”
Bingo!
Since the Flood happened, i.e. is historical fact, science would have to be on its side.
April 13th, 2010 | 1:56 pm | #103
Bishop Ussher tried to figure out the age of the Earth by using genealogies in Genesis. It didn’t work for him, and it won’t work for anyone else. The genealogies are not strict. Seth begat Enoch can means Seth is Enoch’s dad, Seth is Enoch’s grandpa, Seth is Enoch’s great grandpa, Seth is Enoch’s great-great grandpa.
The Bible stands on its own. We make it look foolish at times by imposing on it concepts that aren’t there.
As for my hermeneutic ruling out a literal resurrection, I just don’t see it. My argument is that the Genesis is not concerned with the canons of western science. How that affects my view of the literal resurrection of Christ is hard to see. I believe the Gospels ARE concerned with the LITERAL resurrection of Jesus.
April 13th, 2010 | 3:02 pm | #104
“Noetic Noah and the Fluffy Hermeneutic”
Might as well say:
“Noetic Transubstantiation and the Fluffy Hermeneutic”.
Noah and the Flood is adiaphora. Okay. Then Transubstantiation is adiaphora too.
April 13th, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #105
Daryl Little,
That’s the difference between you and I (and the Catholic Church)
Accepting Science does not require rejecting the Truth of Scripture, but the “Truth” of your (literalist) theology. Catholic Theology, for example, affirms the Truth of Science and Scripture and has repeatedly stated that neither can nor do conflict. Science should only be “chucked” when it does not accurately measure and describe Creation.
As I made the point before to TUAD, transubstantiation is both Real and Supernatural, but Science (our reason and our senses) will never be able to detect the Soul of Christ present in the bread and wine. Because it/we can’t see the soul, neither can we see the flesh and blood miracle – the supernatural transformation. Notice that neither “side” loses, nor is wrong, in stating its case. The fullness of Truth, embodied by Christ, can only be understood in the unity of Natural and Supernatural Revelation.
April 13th, 2010 | 4:02 pm | #106
R. Hampton,
When it comes to the partaking of Communion, I shall echo what you have written (with slight modification):
Accepting Science does not require rejecting the Truth of Scripture, but the “Truth” of your (Catholic literalist) theology of Transubstantiation.
————–
R. Hampton,
Does the RCC Magisterium affirm the historicity of the Flood?
April 13th, 2010 | 4:51 pm | #107
R Hampton,
Yup. that pretty much sums it up. I’m glad you said it, I was thinking it but didn’t want to open the potential Catholic/Protestant firestorm again.
Thanks for the discussion.
April 13th, 2010 | 5:00 pm | #108
[...] E. Sagers Fred Sanders Justin Taylor Gayle Trotter Frank Turk David Wayne Recent Comments Noetic Noah and the Fluffy Hermeneutic (107)Daryl Little: R Hampton, Yup. that pretty much sums it up. I’m… Thoughts On Ritschlian [...]
April 13th, 2010 | 7:25 pm | #109
TUAD,
The short answer is that the Catholic Church believes the Flood, which is a symbolic Baptism, was also a real event, but not a global catastrophe a few thousand years old. Why not you read the teachings of the Church for yourself? http://www.vatican.va
Prefigurations of Baptism in the Old Covenant
1219 The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water”:
The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.
1220 If water springing up from the earth symbolizes life, the water of the sea is a symbol of death and so can represent the mystery of the cross. By this symbolism Baptism signifies communion with Christ’s death.
Symbols of the Holy Spirit
701 The dove. At the end of the flood, whose symbolism refers to Baptism, a dove released by Noah returns with a fresh olive-tree branch in its beak as a sign that the earth was again habitable. When Christ comes up from the water of his baptism, the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, comes down upon him and remains with him. The Spirit comes down and remains in the purified hearts of the baptized. In certain churches, the Eucharist is reserved in a metal receptacle in the form of a dove (columbarium) suspended above the altar. Christian iconography traditionally uses a dove to suggest the Spirit.
April 14th, 2010 | 12:22 am | #110
R Hampton: “The short answer is that the Catholic Church believes the Flood, which is a symbolic Baptism, was also a real event, but not a global catastrophe a few thousand years old.”
Mark Olson: “I don’t think Noah and the flood are historical and yet I believe in the Incarnation, the Virginity of the Theotokos and the Resurrection.”
April 14th, 2010 | 1:23 am | #111
Noetic Noah and the Fluffy Hermeneutic
Mark Olson: “I don’t think Noah and the flood are historical …”
R Hampton: “[T]he Catholic Church believes the Flood… was also a real event…”
Hey! Maybe the RCC Magisterium has a fluffy hermeneutic!
;-)
April 14th, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #112
TUAD,
Please, please read the documents for yourself.
In a forum like FirstThings wherein many people with various views are following the discussion, saying the Flood either was or was not historic without mentioning what specifically I or you or someone else means can be confusing.
If I was speaking directly to you, knowing how you read Scripture, then I would agree that the Church does not believe a global Flood was an historic event. However, if I was speaking directly to someone who understood Scripture supports a much smaller Flood, then I would agree that the Church does believe the Flood to be historic.
To make matters even more confusing (to you), the Church accepts that Noah’s story may be a Jewish mythic narrative based on an even earlier true event. This then leads to a discussion of the Gilgamesh epic, but suffice it so say that the Church does not mistake Scripture as Science.
April 14th, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #113
It does, however, apparently mistake science as Scripture…
April 14th, 2010 | 4:20 pm | #114
R Hampton: “… saying the Flood either was or was not historic without mentioning what specifically I or you or someone else means can be confusing.”
No, it doesn’t. All that’s being considered is whether the Flood occurred.
The scale of the Flood is not the issue. The issue is whether it occurred.
“… the Church accepts that Noah’s story may be a Jewish mythic narrative based on an even earlier true event.”
So the RCC Magisterium now says that Noah’s story may now be a Jewish myth? Earlier, you said “[T]he Catholic Church believes the Flood… was also a real event…”.
So which is it? Is the Magisterium (The Infallible Interpreter of Scripture) saying that the Flood is a real event or not? And if not, then it’s a Jewish mythic narrative?
April 15th, 2010 | 8:49 pm | #115
Daryl Little,
No, the Catholic Church does not mistake Science as Scripture, but as an equal to Scripture. I have made that abundantly clear both in my own comments and in the quotations presented above (re: Natural and Special Revelation).
TUAD,
… Jewish mythic narrative based on an even earlier true event
Be he called Yahweh or God, the names reference the same being. Likewise the man known to the Jews as Noah may have been known by another name.
The Catholic Encyclopedia – Suffice it to remark that the text of Genesis 8:4 mentioning Mount Ararat is somewhat lacking in clearness, and that nothing is said in the Scripture concerning what became of the Ark after the Flood. Many difficulties have been raised, especially in our epoch, against the pages of the Bible in which the history of the Flood and of the Ark is narrated. This is not the place to dwell upon these difficulties, however considerable some may appear. They all converge towards the question whether these pages should be considered as strictly historical throughout, or only in their outward form. The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable.
April 15th, 2010 | 11:45 pm | #116
No, the Catholic Church does not mistake Science as Scripture, but as an equal to Scripture.”
That’s a distinction without a difference. If science is equal to Scripture, then it is qualitatively Scripture.
It’s heresy to put anything up as equal to Scripture, and it leads to Biblically unsound conclusions, as this whole thread demonstrates.
April 16th, 2010 | 12:15 am | #117
R Hampton: “… the Church accepts that Noah’s story may be a Jewish mythic narrative based on an even earlier true event.”
Catholic Encyclopedia: “according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable.”
R Hampton, try reading the Catholic Encyclopedia entry again.
April 16th, 2010 | 10:36 am | #118
R Hampton: “Daryl Little,
No, the Catholic Church does not mistake Science as Scripture, but as an equal to Scripture. I have made that abundantly clear both in my own comments and in the quotations presented above (re: Natural and Special Revelation). ”
Daryl Little: “It’s heresy to put anything up as equal to Scripture…”.
It’s rather clear what Daryl is saying about what R Hampton is doing here.
April 16th, 2010 | 5:09 pm | #119
Daryl Little,
Like many modern American Protestants, you reject Natural Revelation because you don’t like what God has revealed through Creation.
R.C. Sproul “Uniformly the Reformers acknowledged general revelation as a source of knowledge of God. The question of whether or not that general revelation yields a bona fide natural theology was and is widely disputed, but there is no serious doubt that the Reformers affirmed a revelation present in nature. Thus the (Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura) does not exclude general revelation but points beyond it to the sufficiency of Scripture as the unique source of written special revelation.”
Stephen J. Grabill “the Reformers famously emphasized Scripture as the ultimate authority for doctrine and Christian living, the modern doctrine of sola scriptura falsely pits the Reformers against the Scholastics on the issue of tradition. Unlike modern Protestants, the Reformers did not pit Scripture and tradition against each other as antithetical sources of authority, even though they did affirm the normative priority of Scripture in theology and ethics. The Reformers also did not play special revelation off against general revelation, as tends to happen today, both were considered legitimate forms of revelation that served distinct roles in theology. This is why the modern Protestant rejection of natural law in favor of supernaturally revealed legal or moral instruction is skewed in relation to the thought of the Reformers.”
TUAD,
The “mythic” view is supported by good arguments. Don’t forget that this quote is from a version of Catholic Encyclopedia more than 80 years old, and much has been discovered since. From the New American Bible:
The story of the great flood here recorded is a composite narrative based on two separate sources interwoven into an intricate patchwork. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned ⇒ Genesis 6:5-8; ⇒ 7:1-5, ⇒ 7-10, ⇒ 12, ⇒ 16b, ⇒ 17b, ⇒ 22-23; ⇒ 8:2b-3a, ⇒ 6-12, ⇒ 13b, ⇒ 20-22. The other sections come from the “Priestly document.” The combination of the two sources produced certain duplications (e.g., ⇒ Genesis 6:13-22 of the Yahwist source, beside ⇒ Genesis 7:1-5 of the Priestly source); also certain inconsistencies, such as the number of the various animals taken into the ark (⇒ Genesis 6:19-20; ⇒ 7:14-15 of the Priestly source, beside ⇒ Genesis 7:2-3 of the Yahwist source), and the timetable of the flood (⇒ Genesis 8:3-5, ⇒ 13-14 of the Priestly source, beside ⇒ Genesis 7:4, ⇒ 10, ⇒ 12, ⇒ 17b; ⇒ 8:6, ⇒ 10, ⇒ 12 of the Yahwist source). Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it.
April 17th, 2010 | 8:38 am | #120
[...] Waltke’s video at the BioLogos website and his subsequent resignation from RTS, as well as the long comment thread here at Evangel about events in Genesis, I thought I would post some thoughts about the relationship [...]
April 17th, 2010 | 10:14 am | #121
R Hampton: “Don’t forget that this quote is from a version of Catholic Encyclopedia more than 80 years old, and much has been discovered since.”
You’re too much. YOU were the one who originally cited and quoted The Catholic Encyclopedia, not me.
Again, here’s my original question: “Does the RCC Magisterium affirm the historicity of the Flood?”
Does The Catholic Encyclopedia or embedded commentary in the New American Bible represent the infallible teaching of the Magisterium as to the question of the historicity of the Flood? If not, don’t cite them.
April 19th, 2010 | 10:02 am | #122
[...] Waltke’s video at the BioLogos website and his subsequent resignation from RTS, as well as the long comment thread here at Evangel about events in Genesis, I thought I would post some thoughts about the relationship [...]
April 20th, 2010 | 7:52 am | #123
[...] Waltke’s video at the BioLogos website and his subsequent resignation from RTS, as well as the long comment thread here at Evangel about events in Genesis, I thought I would post some thoughts about the relationship [...]