When talking about Noah's flood, or the flood of Genesis (if you are not familiar with the details of the flood story, read Genesis ch. 6-8), the conversation will at some point come around to the controversy surrounding the extent of the flood. Up until about 100 years ago, the idea that the flood was global was never questioned. If you believed the Bible was the inspired word of God, you believed the flood was global. It says right in Genesis (6:17; 7:4, 10, 12, 17-24) that the earth was flooded. This was understood as the entire planet being under water. Not until geology as a science began to develop, and its fundamental ideas and principals were understood, did scientists began to observe the lack of evidence for a worldwide flood. So, does this only serve to bring us back to the science vs. scripture debate, or can we reconcile what scripture teaches with what science teaches? Remember earlier I stated that when scripture is rightly understood and when science is rightly understood there will be no conflict? I also stated scripture doesn't always say what we think it says. And, "all truth is God's truth", if something is true, it does not threaten God or His word. Well, all of that is just my form of an introduction.
Lets begin with what some of the theologians are saying. Now, since this is just a discussion and not a research paper, I can get away with not following strict reference criteria. I will only make broad references to theologians or teams of theologians for this discussion. Please also recognize there are many theologians who are good honest men, and who will fight with their dying breath to protect the literal interpretation of the flood story; I am not going to criticize them. I may be wrong! But I do want to show you something I noticed as I re-read the flood story. (Note: when I study the bible, I use the NASB study bible, copyright 1999 by Zondervan; a very solid bible for serious students). In the study notes I noticed something particularly interesting, and I will quote sections from the notes related to Gen. 6:17, specifically this statement, "flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh...under heaven". The notes read as follows, "...nothing in the narrative of chs. 6-9 prevents the flood from being understood as regional - destroying everything in its wake, but of relatively limited scope and universal only from the standpoint of Moses' geographic knowledge. "Earth," e.g., may be defined in the more resrticted sense of "land." "all flesh...under heaven" may mean all life within the range of Noah's perception." And later, "Since the purpose of the floodwaters was to destroy sinful mankind, and since the writer possibly had in mind only the inhabitants of the ancient Near East, this flood may not have had to be world wide to destroy them." That is what the writers say about it!
Let's take a look at another section of scripture. In 2 Peter 3:6, Peter is making a reference to the flood and says, "through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water." I find it interesting that Peter says "...the world at 'that' time...", implying that even in his day the known world was different, or what was known as the world was different from that in Noah's day. The study notes say this, "The term "world" may refer to the earth or, more probably, to the world of people. All the people except Noah and his family were overcome by the flood and perished. This does not necessarily mean that the flood was universal. It may simply have extended to all the inhahited areas of the earth." These study notes are not developed by religious liberals who really don't believe the word of God is inspired, this team comprises an impressive list of mainstream theologians. Here's what I see in this shift, this new way of thinking about the flood. First, we are seeing the beginnings of an important and necessary integration of science and scripture. Second, Christians are starting to listen to what reasonable, diligent, honest scientists are saying. Third, theologians are going back and taking a hard look at what we traditionally believe scripture says, not to dilute scripture so that it becomes more palatable to science minded people, but because we really need a closer examination to determine if we have really dug out the deep, essential truths of scripture (not just what we want it to say). Please comment if this hits one of your 'hot buttons'. I hope this gets you thinking in a slightly different way, no matter which side of the argument you fall on. Let me know what you think.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Response to the question, Where is Noah's Ark
The whole of the account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is recorded in Genesis, chapters 6-9. There are a couple of references to the flood or Noah in the New Testament but these do not contribute any information for this discussion.
This account, the flood, leads to a lot of disagreement and controversy among Christians and non-Christians alike. I will talk about that later, for now I will give my opinion to the question proposed by my friend, Mindy.
First, I want to give the description of the ark as stated in the Genesis account in chapter 6. The ark was constructed of cypress wood or what is described as a 'resinous wood' in a second translation. The key idea here is that the ark was constructed of some kind of wood. It was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high (approximate measurements). It had a lower, middle, and upper deck with stalls for the animals. The ark was finished to within 18 inches of the top and had a door in the side. The ark was covered with pitch or tar on the inside and outside to seal it against leakage. This was a very large construction project which probably took many years; scripture doesn't tell us how long it took to build the ark.
Jumping ahead to the landing of the ark, scripture tells us the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The name Ararat is a more modern translation of an earlier name, Urarty, which also had an earlier name. Geographic names change as do political boundaries, but the point to make here is that the term 'mountains' is plural, indicating an entire range of mountains and not just a single peak. Many people believe the ark is resting on Mt. Ararat, which is a single peak and may not always have been called Mt. Ararat. Current scholars believe the ark could have come to rest anywhere in the mountains of Armenia, Iran, or Turkey. Ask 10 different people who have an opinion about the resting place of the ark and you are likely to get up to 10 different answers. I think it is safe to say that with the way geographic names change with time, and conquest changing boundaries and languages, we do not know where the ark came to rest. We may be able to narrow the location down to a few thousand square miles of mountain range, but no better.
Now for my opinion. I don't believe the ark exists anymore. Consider the opportunistic nature of man. When Noah and his family left the ark and began to rebuild their lives, the ark would have provided a ready source of finished and shaped timbers and an easy source of wood. Later in the story it says Noah planted crops and vineyards, which were likely at lower elevations than where the ark came to rest. Noah and his family also lived in tents, so it is unlikely they would have used the wood to build homes, but that doesn't mean they would have no use for the wood. Noah and his family and later generations (God told Noah and his sons to 'multiply and fill the earth') would have cannibalized the ark simply because it was a source of a valuable resource. This 'scavenging' could have taken place over a few hundred or even a couple of thousand years. The people who lived in the area would have known about its location and taken advantage of it. Once the last of the wood was used, it would have been forgotten. This probably happened slowly at first, but once the population began to grow in the region, and the few usable wood resources close at hand were being used up, this 'ark-picking' would have accelerated.
My opinion is problematic in this; the ark would have been at a fairly high elevation and it would have been difficult to move the wood to the lower elevations, but at some point the need would have taken precedence over the difficulty. It is unknown at what elevation the people in the area were settling, but it was probably much lower than where the ark sat because of farming, growing vineyards, raising their herds, climate differences at the lower elevations, etc. There are many reasons people would have lived at the lower elevations, but my best understanding of the region indicates that even at the lower, livable elevations there are few sources of wood. Even though this is just my opinion and I have probably not thought this through as deeply as I could have, I think it is likely close to how things actually happened. The ark got used for it's wood.
Many people disagree with me, and that's ok. It' just my opinion, but it gives us a chance to talk about it. I was glad for the question because it gives me a perfect chance to now talk about the flood; was it global or regional. I will approach this topic in several installments because there is so much to consider.
This account, the flood, leads to a lot of disagreement and controversy among Christians and non-Christians alike. I will talk about that later, for now I will give my opinion to the question proposed by my friend, Mindy.
First, I want to give the description of the ark as stated in the Genesis account in chapter 6. The ark was constructed of cypress wood or what is described as a 'resinous wood' in a second translation. The key idea here is that the ark was constructed of some kind of wood. It was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high (approximate measurements). It had a lower, middle, and upper deck with stalls for the animals. The ark was finished to within 18 inches of the top and had a door in the side. The ark was covered with pitch or tar on the inside and outside to seal it against leakage. This was a very large construction project which probably took many years; scripture doesn't tell us how long it took to build the ark.
Jumping ahead to the landing of the ark, scripture tells us the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The name Ararat is a more modern translation of an earlier name, Urarty, which also had an earlier name. Geographic names change as do political boundaries, but the point to make here is that the term 'mountains' is plural, indicating an entire range of mountains and not just a single peak. Many people believe the ark is resting on Mt. Ararat, which is a single peak and may not always have been called Mt. Ararat. Current scholars believe the ark could have come to rest anywhere in the mountains of Armenia, Iran, or Turkey. Ask 10 different people who have an opinion about the resting place of the ark and you are likely to get up to 10 different answers. I think it is safe to say that with the way geographic names change with time, and conquest changing boundaries and languages, we do not know where the ark came to rest. We may be able to narrow the location down to a few thousand square miles of mountain range, but no better.
Now for my opinion. I don't believe the ark exists anymore. Consider the opportunistic nature of man. When Noah and his family left the ark and began to rebuild their lives, the ark would have provided a ready source of finished and shaped timbers and an easy source of wood. Later in the story it says Noah planted crops and vineyards, which were likely at lower elevations than where the ark came to rest. Noah and his family also lived in tents, so it is unlikely they would have used the wood to build homes, but that doesn't mean they would have no use for the wood. Noah and his family and later generations (God told Noah and his sons to 'multiply and fill the earth') would have cannibalized the ark simply because it was a source of a valuable resource. This 'scavenging' could have taken place over a few hundred or even a couple of thousand years. The people who lived in the area would have known about its location and taken advantage of it. Once the last of the wood was used, it would have been forgotten. This probably happened slowly at first, but once the population began to grow in the region, and the few usable wood resources close at hand were being used up, this 'ark-picking' would have accelerated.
My opinion is problematic in this; the ark would have been at a fairly high elevation and it would have been difficult to move the wood to the lower elevations, but at some point the need would have taken precedence over the difficulty. It is unknown at what elevation the people in the area were settling, but it was probably much lower than where the ark sat because of farming, growing vineyards, raising their herds, climate differences at the lower elevations, etc. There are many reasons people would have lived at the lower elevations, but my best understanding of the region indicates that even at the lower, livable elevations there are few sources of wood. Even though this is just my opinion and I have probably not thought this through as deeply as I could have, I think it is likely close to how things actually happened. The ark got used for it's wood.
Many people disagree with me, and that's ok. It' just my opinion, but it gives us a chance to talk about it. I was glad for the question because it gives me a perfect chance to now talk about the flood; was it global or regional. I will approach this topic in several installments because there is so much to consider.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Sparking Discussion
I have been considering how to proceed with this discussion and am not sure which direction to take. There are many options and I was thinking by now there would have been some feedback to give me a place to start. Please leave a comment in the form of questions, disagreements, or specific topics you might be interested in. In the mean time I will organize my material and post more topics that hopefully will elicit some response. This will not be much fun if it is only posts of my thoughts and musings.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
What the Bible is, and is not
When we read the Bible, we must understand what is and what it is not. The Bible is the inspired word of God, given to the human race as a guide to direct us in all matters of faith and practice. It is the revelation of God given to us to tell us things about God, ourselves, and spiritual matters that we have no other way to know. It is in essence a love letter from God to mankind, telling us of His love for us and the great lengths He is willing to go to in order to restore a relationship with Him. A relationship which we turned our backs on. It is our rebellious nature that needs to be fixed in order to be have a right relationship with God.
When the Bible speaks on a subject, it speaks authoritatively and truthfully. We must, however, be careful to accurately dig out the meaning of scripture. How often have cults or misguided spiritual leaders twisted scripture to support their own perspective. If we are to be diligent in our efforts to determine the true meaning of scripture, we must dedicate ourselves to study. By prayerful study and being open to learning from qualified, godly teachers, we will do well in our efforts to learn the true message of the Bible.
Now we must talk about what the Bible is not. For this discussion I must say the Bible is not a science text. The goal of scripture is not to teach us science. When scripture touches on science, it speaks with authority, but we must be careful in how we interpret it. When scripture says 'the sun rises', it does not mean that the Earth is stationary and the sun is revolving around the Earth. That was the teaching of the Church in the middle ages, but we no longer believe that; science has revealed that our planet is not the center of the universe, that it in fact moves around the sun. The world is not flat. When scripture says 'the sun rises', it means from the perspective of the viewer, the sun appears to rise in the sky. Do you now see what I mean about being careful when we interpret scripture. Look at it this way; how many of you would have surgery performed by a doctor whose only knowledge of surgery was learned from the Bible. Or, how many of you would fly in an airplane built by an engineer whose only knowledge of aeronautics was learned from the Bible. Why do we then settle for an interpretation of the physical creation based only on what the Bible says about it? God tells us in Romans 1:19-20, that He reveals Himself in creation. He has also given us the tools to study the creation, the sciences, even if we are imperfect in how we use the sciences. We must be as diligent when we interpret the findings of science as we are when we interpret scripture, and we must sometimes question the motives of some scientists as we must sometimes question the motives of certain religious leaders.
When the Bible speaks on a subject, it speaks authoritatively and truthfully. We must, however, be careful to accurately dig out the meaning of scripture. How often have cults or misguided spiritual leaders twisted scripture to support their own perspective. If we are to be diligent in our efforts to determine the true meaning of scripture, we must dedicate ourselves to study. By prayerful study and being open to learning from qualified, godly teachers, we will do well in our efforts to learn the true message of the Bible.
Now we must talk about what the Bible is not. For this discussion I must say the Bible is not a science text. The goal of scripture is not to teach us science. When scripture touches on science, it speaks with authority, but we must be careful in how we interpret it. When scripture says 'the sun rises', it does not mean that the Earth is stationary and the sun is revolving around the Earth. That was the teaching of the Church in the middle ages, but we no longer believe that; science has revealed that our planet is not the center of the universe, that it in fact moves around the sun. The world is not flat. When scripture says 'the sun rises', it means from the perspective of the viewer, the sun appears to rise in the sky. Do you now see what I mean about being careful when we interpret scripture. Look at it this way; how many of you would have surgery performed by a doctor whose only knowledge of surgery was learned from the Bible. Or, how many of you would fly in an airplane built by an engineer whose only knowledge of aeronautics was learned from the Bible. Why do we then settle for an interpretation of the physical creation based only on what the Bible says about it? God tells us in Romans 1:19-20, that He reveals Himself in creation. He has also given us the tools to study the creation, the sciences, even if we are imperfect in how we use the sciences. We must be as diligent when we interpret the findings of science as we are when we interpret scripture, and we must sometimes question the motives of some scientists as we must sometimes question the motives of certain religious leaders.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Let's Begin at the Beginning
How do we explain the universe? What do we know about its origin, after all none of us were there at the beginning. Only God can legitimately make that claim. The bible tells us something about the creation of the universe but the creation story has caused confusion for a couple of hundred years now. Up until the time that geology developed into a science, the creation was understood only by the Genesis account, and that was enough. It was hard enough for people to survive day to day, much less contemplate the physical universe. With the development of geology as a science, and the western world moving into a period where formal education was becoming more commonplace, we began to see that Genesis was inadequate to fully explain the physical characteristics of the earth.
It is fairly obvious now, to almost everyone, that the earth at least 'looks' old. I think only in the Church do folks believe the Earth to be young. By young, I mean the calculation that the Earth was created in 4004 BC (Julian calendar), by Bishop James Ussher in 1654. Where do we turn, if we pursue truth we have to make a choice. Do we trust science and discount Genesis as mere myth, something for the uneducated dupes. Or, do we mistrust science and hold to the idea of 'scripture only'. Therein lies the problem. Almost everyone comes down on one side or the other and this chasm between the two ideas seems to wide to bridge.
I would now like to propose an alternate idea. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, without error in its original form. I aslo believe the bible is literally true, but cannot always be taken literally. This is what I mean, some parts or books of the bible are historical, some are prophetic, some are law, some are poetry, etc. The Bible cannot always be interpreted literally. Secondly, the bible does not always say what we think it says. For example, how many people believe there were only three wise men that came to see Christ after His birth. Actually, there would have been a large number of wise men and many servants and guards that came to pay homage to the King of the Jews. Culturally, that is how this would have been done. It would have been a long and difficult trip, there would have bandits along the way, they would have had to obtain food and water, care for a large number of animals, etc. This would have been a major undertaking. But, because the bible only mentions three gifts, many assume this means there were only three wise men. The Bible must be read with at least some understanding of the cultural and historical context in which it was written.
On the other hand, even though we have made great progress in the sciences, science is not the final word of truth. We still have a lot to learn. We are doing pretty good but the march forward continues. So, we cannot say that science has trumped scripture. I stated before that I believe when scripture is rightly understood and science is rightly understood there will be no conflict. I believe the creation is old, the universe on the order of 13 billion years and the Earth on the order of 4-5 billion years. When God created the universe that included time, the physical laws that govern how things work, and God created science. Romans 1:19-20 tells us that God reveals Himself to man through the creation. If we are to understand God better we need to study it, thats why He gave us science. Now we have something to talk about.
It is fairly obvious now, to almost everyone, that the earth at least 'looks' old. I think only in the Church do folks believe the Earth to be young. By young, I mean the calculation that the Earth was created in 4004 BC (Julian calendar), by Bishop James Ussher in 1654. Where do we turn, if we pursue truth we have to make a choice. Do we trust science and discount Genesis as mere myth, something for the uneducated dupes. Or, do we mistrust science and hold to the idea of 'scripture only'. Therein lies the problem. Almost everyone comes down on one side or the other and this chasm between the two ideas seems to wide to bridge.
I would now like to propose an alternate idea. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, without error in its original form. I aslo believe the bible is literally true, but cannot always be taken literally. This is what I mean, some parts or books of the bible are historical, some are prophetic, some are law, some are poetry, etc. The Bible cannot always be interpreted literally. Secondly, the bible does not always say what we think it says. For example, how many people believe there were only three wise men that came to see Christ after His birth. Actually, there would have been a large number of wise men and many servants and guards that came to pay homage to the King of the Jews. Culturally, that is how this would have been done. It would have been a long and difficult trip, there would have bandits along the way, they would have had to obtain food and water, care for a large number of animals, etc. This would have been a major undertaking. But, because the bible only mentions three gifts, many assume this means there were only three wise men. The Bible must be read with at least some understanding of the cultural and historical context in which it was written.
On the other hand, even though we have made great progress in the sciences, science is not the final word of truth. We still have a lot to learn. We are doing pretty good but the march forward continues. So, we cannot say that science has trumped scripture. I stated before that I believe when scripture is rightly understood and science is rightly understood there will be no conflict. I believe the creation is old, the universe on the order of 13 billion years and the Earth on the order of 4-5 billion years. When God created the universe that included time, the physical laws that govern how things work, and God created science. Romans 1:19-20 tells us that God reveals Himself to man through the creation. If we are to understand God better we need to study it, thats why He gave us science. Now we have something to talk about.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Defining Terms
One of the parameters that must be defined for this blog is how I use the words 'God' and 'bible' or 'His Word.' When I make reference to the bible I am referring to the King James Version or one of it's derivatives; New International Version, Revised Standard Version, New Living Translation, etc. The particular version is not as important as the ability to access the text in it's original languages, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. With online sources and software this is easily done. I have a healthy scepticism of 'religion' so I will not be arguing from the perspective of any particular one. I will be reasoning from the bible. When I speak about God, I am speaking about the God of the bible, who He says He is, and how scripture describes His character, attributes, and acts. This must be the criteria used as the foundation for this discussion. There must be some common ground to start with, if we can't agree here then a site that deals with apologetics might be a better place to start.
Friday, September 5, 2008
All Truth is God's Truth
If something is true, it is true whether we know about it, whether we believe it, or whether we care about it. It just is, that is the nature of truth. Truth is external and objective. Now if God is the author of truth, and scripture says He is, then nothing that is true can threaten Him or threaten His word. Well, one might say, what about all the science that contradicts the bible! This one idea has created much division within the church and between the church and the secular world. It is time to confront this division, to begin to heal this artificial rift. I am proposing to use this blog as a dialogue for anyone who is interested in following these ideas of theology and science to see where they meet and how they complete and support one another. I believe when scripture is rightly understood and science is rightly understood there will be no conflict.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
