Noah Fresco in the Catacombs of Priscilla. Third Century.
Noah is depicted as praying and receiving a dove.
The Ark is represented as a small box.
The fresco reflects the belief of early Christians that the account of Noah’s Flood was
a story of divine salvation. (Fair Use)
Noah and the Presumed Universal Flood
By Ranger
“The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” – Mark Twain.
“When multiple interpretations of Scripture are possible, the church can benefit from considering what God has revealed in the natural world, because a proper interpretation of Scripture will not conflict with what we find there.” – Biologos Website
While the Flood Story is replete with symbolic meaning, I do not believe it is entirely allegory. The Yahwist (J) and Priestly (P) pericopes are not in agreement in some places in the account, but I believe there really was a Noah and there really was a remarkable flood in history. I just don’t believe key concepts in the ancient Biblical account have been accurately translated into modern English. All translators invest their work with political “enrichment” whether they intend to or not. They come to pen, paper, and desk with a set of influences they received from all the sources they have been exposed to. In addition to this, they sometimes have a lurking constituency to worry about. So, politics insinuates itself into translated word. It is not that translators are moral derelicts. It is just impossible for any of us to wholly set our indoctrination and personal connections aside. Let me cite the case of Noah and the putative universal Flood.“Modern science is now just beginning to admit that there really was a worldwide flood some 4,500 years ago in the days of the Noah of the Bible. The flood really did happen and drowned everyone on earth”. – Herbert W. Armstrong, World Tomorrow Radio Broadcast.
The Three-Story Universe as the Declared Context
The Book of Genesis starts by giving us parameters. It specifies the ideological milieu that it is going to draw on. This is the initial definition stack that the subsequent text will rely on. This set of definitions is almost always neglected by criticizing atheists or people who take an apologetic interest in the universal Flood concept. To neglect the Biblical parameters is to veer off into a grossly mistaken scope for the Flood story – e.g., Herbert W. Armstrong’s statement above. HWA’s statement reflects the broadly accepted view among fundamentalists although I am not sure that scientists in large numbers are really admitting to anything as HWA asserts. Genesis in its first chapters gives the scope of this event by explaining ancient Hebrew cosmology. This cosmological model is very similar to the other cosmologies found among Near Eastern peoples around 3000 BC.
Our modern view is that the earth is a blue planetary orb hanging in the deep space of an immense universe - an understanding that comes from contemporary astrophysics. This is not what the ancient peoples of the Near East saw nor was it what was described in the pages of Genesis. What they saw was a flat earth – like a disc. And stretched over this flat earth was an arched vault of blue called heaven. And the vault had firmness to it, a firmament, and it held back waters. The waters are what made the sky blue. And the vaulted ceiling was close enough so that birds could fly up to it. And men could build a tower that could reach it. And if you ever got up there and could find a door, you could go to the other side and that is where God lives. Celestial bodies were small and embedded in this vaulted firmament and were not far away and they all revolved around the earth.
And the “world” was what you could see in a 360-degree scan of the horizon. And you might fall off the flat world if you got to the edge. There were pillars underneath this flat world that held it up. And down underneath somewhere was Hades and down further Tartarus. This is the Three-Story Universe of the ancient Hebrews and Greeks. It consisted of the underworld at the bottom, the surface of the earth at the middle, and heaven above. And heaven, the top story, was divided into the vault of heaven or sky and a higher heaven where God resided (The Book of Enoch divides heaven into seven levels with the third heaven being the abode of the righteous and the seventh heaven being the abode of God).
And the vocabulary of The Flood in Genesis refers to this Three-Story Universe. The vocabulary does not refer to what you will find in a modern text on astrophysics. This is the cosmological context that the Bible sets up as a given at the beginning of Genesis. To try to impose the modern model of the universe on the Genesis model can only result in frustration and error and maybe disbelief.
One thing is clear – this cosmology leads to an ideology and vocabulary of local events not global events for the Flood account. When the author wrote “earth” he did not have in mind the blue globular planet carefully obeying celestial mechanics that we know. And if the waters stretched as far as the eye could see as you stood on the deck of a boat, that was “the World”. This ancient Near Eastern cosmology comports nicely with the Biblical semantics of the Flood story as a local event, discussed later.
Interchangeable Cosmologies
And why can such an archaic model as the Three-story Universe be used as a backdrop to Noah and the Flood? Because the Flood account is not about science but about theology. The Flood account is a source of theological principle. If you look at where Noah and the Flood are referred to in the New Testament, it is always about invoking some ethical principle and is never about science. The ancient Near Eastern cosmology used in Genesis is as good as any for conveying the central moral message. The ethical and theological principles would remain intact in their presentation even if today’s model based on the Big Bang Theory and Relativity were used anachronistically back then. For that matter, today’s model will one day seem archaic to future scientists so how would it be an effective improvement on the Three-story Universe in conveying the essential message? We don’t know what dark matter and dark energy are. Who knows what revolution in astrophysics there will be when we find out. What cosmology you use makes no difference to the intended ethical and theological message.
The Regional Flood Lost in TranslationThe Flood was a regional event that happened somewhere around 2900 BC. It was titanic because many nations in the Near East recall it. It was a regional event because to people in those days “The World” was local. To the Hebrews, eretz, the earth, was what you could see by scanning the horizon. Shemesh, the sun, was a lamp that hung in the sky and was not that far away. The area affected by the Flood was likely the flood-prone Mesopotamian alluvial plain. Flooding is endemic to this region. In 1954 heavy rains submerged hundreds of miles of this plain and threatened Baghdad with destruction. The Noachian Flood wiped out a small civilization with a limited population of people who were descended from a man named Adam who in the literature of Genesis represented humankind. The Ark was small by our standards but large for the day and the troupe of animals probably came out of Noah’s barnyard and pasture.
The reason why the local Flood became global has to do with the biases of the translators. They brought the idea of a global flood, already formed in their minds, to their work. So, they imbued Genesis 6-8 with universal, global language. The Hebrew word used for earth is “eretz”. Carol A. Hill, a consulting geologist at the University of New Mexico, stated: “In no way can earth be taken to mean the planet Earth, as in Noah’s time and place, people (including the Genesis writer) had no concept of the Earth as a planet and thus had no word for it…The clincher to the word “earth” meaning ground or land (and not the planet Earth) is Genesis 1:10: God called the dry land earth (eretz). If God defined ‘earth’ as ‘dry land,’ then so should we.” So, the Bible is not talking about God destroying the planet but, rather, flooding the Mesopotamian alluvial plain where the descendants of Adam were concentrated. And Mark Twain might say that the Global Flood advocates find in the word “eretz” the lightning bug rather than the lightning.
A further issue is where the Ark settled after the flood waters receded. Mt. Ararat is a favorite of entertainment-oriented documentaries. Yet, the Jewish Study Bible states, “Contrary to a common misimpression, the Tanakh knows of no individual mountain named ‘Ararat’.” A high mountain, like Mt. Ararat, suggests that the flood waters were above the mountain peaks, including Everest. Hill states, “…the Bible does not actually pinpoint the exact place where the ark landed, it merely alludes to a region or range of mountains where the ark came to rest: the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4). Ararat is the biblical name for Urartu (Isa. 37:38) as this area was known to the ancient Assyrians.” And also, “…both Islamic and Christian tradition held that the landing place of the ark was on Jabel Judi, a mountain located about 30 miles (48 km) northeast of the Tigris River near Cizre, Turkey.”
As regards archaeology, Hill states, “There is both epigraphical and archaeological grounds for believing that Ziusudra (the Sumerian name for Noah) was a real prehistoric ruler of a well-known city, the site of which (Shuruppak, or the modern-day mound of Fara) has been archaeologically identified. Flood texts found in Mesopotamia and lands bordering it refer to a flood within Mesopotamia and to a righteous Mesopotamian man who survived the flood in a ship. The archaeological record thus definitely points to a flood within the confines of Mesopotamia, but not to a universal flood of planet-wide proportions.” Ziusudra was on the Sumerian King list as the last king of Shuruppak before the Flood.
As regards geology, Hill states “At Shuruppak (and also at Uruk), the last Jemdet Nasr (an archaeological time period corresponding to the age of the Flood – author) remains are separated from the subsequent Early Dynastic I Period by clean, water-lain clay deposited by a flood. This flood clay is nearly five feet thick at Uruk, and two feet thick at Fara… Above these flood deposits, a new era of building and technology was established in southern Mesopotamia starting in the Early Dynastic I Period…”
There are many more considerations too lengthy for this venue, and for a much more comprehensive analysis, see Carol A. Hill’s articles cited in the Reference section below.
A Case of Misdirected Literalism among Fundamentalists and Atheists
Fundamentalists and atheists like to get literal about the English translations of the Flood story. This is because Fundamentalist believe that the word of God was delivered to mankind by some kind of automatic writing and later mapped, with fidelity, into the English language. And atheists like literal interpretations of the English translations because they are an easy target – and atheists have all their arguments already packaged and tuned for that body of writing. But this is not an issue of literalism directly. It is about being literal about the wrong thing. It is the wrong thing because the traditional Flood story has been improperly translated and exegeted. If anyone wants to get literal, they should get literal about the original language, not modern English translations. Otherwise, they’re just flogging a dead horse.
Conclusion
I wrote a longer conclusion but I thought the following statement by Augustine, though I differ with him on some unrelated points of theology, makes my point exceedingly well:
The battle between those who are proponents of a local flood and those who are proponents of a whole planet flood has been going on for some time. In the last analysis, there is no archaeological, geological or genetic evidence for a worldwide flood in the Biblical timeframe. Further, there is no solid Biblical exegesis that affirms a global flood. There is abundant physical evidence for a large and catastrophic but regional flood in Mesopotamia. The traditional global flood account makes a good story-time fantasy for children. It’s fun to imagine the orderly march, like parading soldiers, of interesting and exotic animals into the Ark. But it does not comport with either Science or the Bible.
References
Note: In reference to the fresco at the top, thanks be to our Christian brothers and sisters in the Third Century for receiving the deep meaning of the Flood story. Almost two millennia ago, they were way more spiritually advanced than many modern fundamentalists who are still squabbling about the impossible logistics of how kangaroos got all the way from Australia to the Near East and then back to Australia again. Bravo, brothers!
“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.”
The battle between those who are proponents of a local flood and those who are proponents of a whole planet flood has been going on for some time. In the last analysis, there is no archaeological, geological or genetic evidence for a worldwide flood in the Biblical timeframe. Further, there is no solid Biblical exegesis that affirms a global flood. There is abundant physical evidence for a large and catastrophic but regional flood in Mesopotamia. The traditional global flood account makes a good story-time fantasy for children. It’s fun to imagine the orderly march, like parading soldiers, of interesting and exotic animals into the Ark. But it does not comport with either Science or the Bible.
References
Enns, Peter. Genesis for Normal People: A Guide to the Most Controversial, Misunderstood, and Abused Book of the Bible, Chapters 3 and 6, 2019.
Hill, Carol A. A Time and Place for Noah, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, v. 53, no. 1, 20001. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Hill.html
Hill, Carol A. The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, v. 54, no. 3, 2002. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf
Note: In reference to the fresco at the top, thanks be to our Christian brothers and sisters in the Third Century for receiving the deep meaning of the Flood story. Almost two millennia ago, they were way more spiritually advanced than many modern fundamentalists who are still squabbling about the impossible logistics of how kangaroos got all the way from Australia to the Near East and then back to Australia again. Bravo, brothers!
So many questions and so few answers.
ReplyDeleteI have read much on the topic, from the Creation Museum to Answers in Genesis. Both put for ward compelling arguments for a global flood. It’s entirely fascinating.
I personally believe there was indeed a global catastrophe of a global flood but I am also interested in other opinions.
I remember the Chabad ‘Rebbe’ saying very clearly, ‘I believe in the beginning God created the earth. There was a flood. The earth is 6000 years old if we date from Adam and Eve. But I can not ignore the evidence that says otherwise’
An amazing comment that is available on YT to view.
The comments here will be as interesting and I am sure as informative as the post itself.
The only thing that got flooded was Noah's basement. Happens all the time.
ReplyDeleteWe think of the world's oil fields as having come from layers of dead dinosaur carcases. Wouldn't it be a gas if the oil was from huge mass burial grounds of humans or humanoid characters instead?
ReplyDeleteToo bad oil can't be dna tested! I wonder what haplotype Castrol would be?
Ranger writes:
ReplyDelete“The reason why the local Flood became global has to do with the biases of the translators. They brought the idea of a global flood, already formed in their minds, to their work. So, they imbued Genesis 6-8 with universal, global language.”
I disagree. It was the writer of Genesis, employing ancient near-eastern hyperbole, who imbued Genesis 6-8 with universal, global language.
“After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridu.
In Eridu, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28,800 years.
Alalgar ruled for 36,000 years.
Two kings; they ruled for 64800 years” (from the “Sumerian King List”)
“In terms of the flood story, the most pronounced rhetorical feature is clearly hyperbole.
“Hyperbole is a form of figurative language in order to produce an effect or to make a point. Let me (Tremper) give an example from everyday conversation. When my wife picks up my luggage and says, “It weights a ton” (yes, I tend to pack heavy — it’s the books), WE BOTH KNOW IT DOES NOT LITERALLY WEIGH A TON, BUT SHE HAS MADE HER POINT. She is not lying or misleading me, but I might think she is if I believe she is being literal. Indeed, I would show myself quite obtuse if I responded, “It does not. It weighs seventy pounds, well under a ton!”
“In our opinion, hyperbole PERMEATES the account of the flood...
“And then the flood itself is described in what to ancient readers would have been seen as hyperbolic language. The waters come from “the springs of the great deep” and flow from “the floodgates of the heavens” (Gen 7:11), reflecting ancient cosmology where under the flat earth were the subterranean waters and above the firmament were waters (not the blue sky) that could be released by opening the gates of heaven.
“As the waters flowed from deep within the earth and from the sky, “they lifted the ark high above the earth” (Gen 7:17). Even the “high mountains” were covered (Gen 7:19), and not just covered but with water rising to more than fifteen cubits (twenty-three feet) above the mountains. The description truly is that of a worldwide flood. Though some modern readers don’t see it, the original audience would have understood that such a description is hyperbole...
“With this view, there is no need to translate ’erets as “land,” since as far as the initial reporter was concerned the (actually) local flood did cover the world.
“... we are brought to the conclusion that Genesis 6-9 pertains to a local flood described rhetorically as a worldwide flood to make a theological point...
"We cannot derive the physical scope or range of the event from the literary-theological presentation chosen by the biblical author. If asked, Was the flood global? our answer would be, Yes it is global in is impact and significance, yet we have no reason to think that its physical scope and range was global. Since the Bible uses the rhetoric of hyperbole to describer the flood, it does not claim that the flood was universal in its physical scope and range; it rather portrays it in universalistic terms for rhetorical effect. If we turn to science, we find no evidence that suggests a global deluge. If science does not suggest a universal event, and the Bible (in our nuanced interpretation) does not claim a universal event, we have no reason to conclude that it was a universal event. Such a conclusion would diminish neither the authority of the text nor the significance of the event as unfolded in the interpretation of the author of Genesis...
"... we cannot with certainty recreate the historical event behind the text, though we are right to say that there was a historical event behind the text.
Part 2
ReplyDelete"What is more important is the theological message communicated by this rhetorically shaped presentation of the historical event.
Jn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
“That the biblical authors are giving us a selective and interpretative accounting of the past to present their theological message is well confirmed by the following quote by the Gospel writer: “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20:30-31)” (Tremper Longman III & John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood, pp.23, 37, 41, 47, 93, 178, 22-23).
Group put for the token
Eze 29:12 And I will make the land of Egypt a desolation in the midst of desolated countries, and her cities shall be a desolation forty years among cities that are laid waste. I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them through the countries.
Eze 29:13 “For thus says the Lord GOD: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were scattered,
Eze 29:14 and I will restore the fortunes of Egypt and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin, and there they shall be a lowly kingdom.
“Egypt's exile, though little more than a token captivity of slaves taken in battle by the Babylonians, did last from 586 until 539 B.C. when Cyrus, the Persian conqueror of Babylon, allowed captive people to return to their homelands” (The Preacher's Commentary).
A related theme of projecting modern western thought-forms on ancient near-eastern literature:
“In the Old Testament, this note of imminence is an essential element in the prophetic perspective and must not be forced into modern ideas of chronology but must be interpreted in its own setting. The Day of the Lord for the prophets was both the immediate act of God expected in history and the ultimate eschatological visitation. The prophets did not usually distinguish between these two aspects of the Day of the Lord, for its was the same God who would act. The two events are viewed as though they were one. Furthermore, the prophets were not primarily concerned with the question of chronology but with the ethical impact of the future upon the present. Therefore the warning of the nearness of the Day of the Lord is more a note of ethical exhortation than it is a chronological reference. The question of whether they were guilty of a chronological error is therefore the wrong question and FAILS TO APPRECIATE THEIR WAY OF THINKING. God did act. The Day of the Lord did come; and yet, the Day of the Lord continued to be an eschatological event in the future. This tension between the immediate and ultimate future, between history and eschatology, stands at the heart of the ethical concern of the prophetic perspective. For the important thing is not what is going to happen and when it will happen, but the will of God, who is Lord of both the far and near, for his people in the present” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., pp.74-75).
As a child at Imperial school, we were taught the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood. This post, was the first time in my life, that I have seen someone question the global flood. I am not quite sure how to feel about this.
ReplyDeletethe Flood account is not about science but about theology.
ReplyDeleteWhich means it's about politics, control, manipulation, and deception.
"I..believe there was..a global flood" 7:23
ReplyDeleteOf course, you have to, if you wanna be an Armstrongite
10:31 wrote, "Wouldn't it be a gas if the oil was from huge mass burial grounds of humans or humanoid characters instead?"
ReplyDeleteThe world population 5,000 years ago was estimated to be 14 million. Somebody else computed that if you were to take the entire population of the world now, every last human body would fit into Loch Ness. That is nothing compared to the sedimentary rock covering the earth. You can see the human contribution to the deposition of sediment by a presumptive global flood would be a nit. Moreover, such sediments require millions of years of underground pressure to be transformed into oil and coal not 5,000 years.
I used to think hydrocarbons came from dinosaurs, too. They do a little but not much. Most of such deposits are formed from ancient algae and other micoscopic marine creatures. And, in fact, if you found human remains from 5,000 years ago, if conditions of perservation are good, you could extract DNA from certain bones and identify the haplogroup. Otzi, the preserved human found years ago in the Alps dates from around the time of the Noachian Flood. He was determined to be Haplogroup G. Haplogroup G was around before the Noachian Flood and it is around now. So it survivied the Flood - because the Flood was local.
The global flood idea is very much dependent on Young Earth Creationism. (Herman Hoeh liberated Armstrongism from YEC.) Its proponents must assert that there has been no past history of human beings progressing continuously over 350K years. Such a history, demonstrated scientificallly, leads to the conclusion that the Noachian Flood was local and most of humankind was oblivous to its occurrence.
I have taken time with this because often Armstrongists have knowledge that extends only to the sound-bite level. And if you stop and really think about these sound-bites and do some research, the support for the sound-bites collapses.
Ranger
2:10
ReplyDelete"The flood story is filled with hyperbole that would have been recognized by its ancient audience as a figurative description of an event in order to produce an effect and make a point ... That the Bible uses hyperbole in this way elsewhere can be illustrated by many examples..." - Tremper Longman, Biologos website
I agree that the Flood account is rich with hyperbole. But the meaning of the term "eretz" is not superfluous. It's meaning demonstrates through contrast that some of the language in the account is, in fact, hyperbole. In this case, the second quote I cited at the top of the essay becomes imperative.
Hyperbole is a figure of speech and Biblical literalists largely do not recognize figures of speech and this leads them to either a crisis of faith or an uneasy state of denial. And their compromising the truth leaves them in a fragile condition and if you challenge what they believe it ususally precipitates a sudden upsurge in dissonance along with the consequent anger. My two cents.
Ranger
Anon 5:05:00 AM PST
ReplyDelete‘I ……believe there was……a global flood’….
Of course, you have to, if you wanna be an Armstrongite
Well no, there are numerous people, not related to Armstrongism at all; including myself, a non ‘Armstrongite’, and non church member, who do believe in a flood catastrophe as such, that befell the earth..
And as mentioned in our comments, pointed to two groups, of which there are many more, who provide compelling material to support their stand for a flood of these vast proportions.
As a believer in miracles, I'm in no way troubled by the Biblical account. In the natural world I require results to be reproducible before accepting them.
ReplyDelete11:04 and 12:42
ReplyDeleteIt is a question of do you believe what the Bible says in its exhaustive meaning or do you read the Bible and then just believe what you want to? Are you an indiscriminate consumer of sound bites or do you review with research and an unbiased mind? This essay has to do with how you relate to the message of the Bible.
Ranger
To believe in miracles is one thing. But to believe in miracles that supposedly happened 2000 years ago one has to believe in historians. People. Historians are not Jesus. And the historians that one believes in are only believed in by bible "scholars" and left no record in secular history.
ReplyDeleteSome "sound bites" are witticisms that get to the heart of the matter and devastate bad scholarship.
ReplyDelete"... do you believe in what the Bible says ..."
ReplyDeleteNo. Neither do you.
Ranger @ 2:14:00 PM PST
ReplyDelete‘do you believe what the bible says in its exhaustive meaning..’
I don’t know what you mean by ‘in its exhaustive meaning’.
‘and then just believe what you want to?’…..the answer to that one is no.
As an example, I did indeed advocate and was a great disciple of BI. I believed it scripturally accurate and the evidence provided, abet by Armstrongism sound. That was folly as it is now entirely discredited, but this was the age before the internet and the ready accessibility of information.
I did believe in a local flood. I believed that reasonable and logical, while within the confines of Armstrongism.
As with BI, I have changed my opinion and believe it was a global disaster, as I believe the science points in that direction.
I believe ‘big bang’ occurred, for I believe that is where the science leads also.
This does not negate the need for God or the biblical accounts.
I am open to dialogue and am most certainly willing to change my opinion.
As life teaches, the only constant is change and sadly taxes.
When I look at ‘Christianity’ and faith, I see huge division, and for want of a better word ‘diversity’. But that only reflects humanity as a whole one would say.
2:45
ReplyDeleteI would agree that nobody is perfect but some people are blatant.
Ranger
3:49 "I don’t know what you mean by ‘in its exhaustive meaning’."
ReplyDeleteI mean doing research and going to the original languages rather than believing a few sentences dashed off in a sermon script. Or yet worse believing a sound bite. Someone remarked that sound bites are "witticisms". In fact they are a dumbing down so that indoctrinated people can easiy absorb and remember unsupported statements. There is the hard work of research that Armstrongists are not inclined to do. They want the pulpit meaning not the researched meaning, which likely differs greatly from the pulpit meaning. Yes, I know, the pulpit is inspired.
"I have changed my opinion and believe it was a global disaster, as I believe the science points in that direction."
How about you show us the science? The science I have seem declares that the Universe is only 6,000 years old. Even the old pre-1995 WCG did not believe that one.
Ranger
Spoiler alert from Ranger @ 6:18:00 PM PST
ReplyDelete‘The science I have seen declares that the Universe is only 6,000 years old’.
Are you Ken Ham?
‘Ham advocates biblical literalism, believing the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis is historical fact and the Universe and Earth were created together approximately 6000 years ago contrary to the scientific consensus that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe 13.8 billion years old’……….this from Wikipedia.
And yet we can go out and look into the sky every clear night and see the light from stars that are millions of light years away. So much for the young universe.
ReplyDeleteTheories abound. I remember an evening in 1976, seeing tabloids on the rack at a supermarket as we checked out with our groceries. There was a cartoon rendition of a group of brontosauruses grazing, wind waves emanating from their butts, clothes pins on their noses, and tears in their eyes, the caption: "Scientists Believe that Methane from Dinosaur Flatulence Caused Extinction!" The very idea totally blew me away!
9:40 wrote, "Are you Ken Ham?"
ReplyDeleteSorry I was unclear. I am not a Young Earth Creationist. I was pointing that the "science" I have seen that supports a Global Flood is the same "science" that asserts that the Universe is only 6,000 years old. There may be other less tendentious sources but I have not encountered any. That goes to my request - show us the science.
Fundamentalists/literalists treat issues such as the nature of the Flood in a certain way. I do not think this is a strategy, just a reaction that is founded on their overall engagement with theology:
1. They do not build a counterpoint. They believe their pulpit is inspired and that pre-empts all midrash.
2. They do not respond to the opposing view. They instead go ad hominem and create a diversion.
3. They spew the pre-packaged, sound-bite theology that they drink in from their pulpit. This sound-bite theology is a dumbing down of beliefs for those who have already been indoctrinated and deadened to the need for rational dexplanations.
My view may be hyperbolic. But so far nobody in the has provided a fluent counterpoint to the argument I have made.
Ranger
"My view may be hyperbolic. But so far nobody has provided a fluent counterpoint to the argument I have made."
ReplyDeleteThat's because there is none. It may be that the Armstrongites who would normally try are busy picking up their Winter Family Weekend trees and presents.
There was a book in our local congregation's library on the subject... by the time I got my hands on it, it was already badly out-of-date (and its author was not that well-informed in the first place). But it presented all sorts of arguments for universal flood vs. local flood and blah blah blah.
ReplyDeleteThing is, if you sit down and read the flood story in Genesis and stick only to the text instead of what HWA, the Wolvertons, countless kids books and later commentaries said about it, its really a pretty messy story and sometimes short/inconsistent on detail. At best, its author(s?) wrote WAY after the fact. They may have gotten more than a few aspects of the story wrong by accident. Trying to tease too much info out of it or take the entire text too seriously is probably a fool's errand.
Ranger go easy on Anon 3:49:00 PM PST
ReplyDeleteHe has admitted BI is folly, and I don’t doubt has done the research to prove it as such.
And claims it totally discredited.
And changed his view. Good for him.
That’s not a closed literalist mind here.
Also ‘Big Bang’, he is in agreement with this as he states, that’s where the science leads us.
No Armstrongism here.
He believes science leads us to a global event with the flood.
Rightly or wrongly that doesn’t make one a biblical literalist
He sounds no where near an Armstrongite or literalist in the least.
Quite refreshing to see one doing their research and been so pleasant with his correspondence.
Me things you were a little harsh.
Fascinating post of yours, thanks for sharing.
The thing is, something has to happen to make it all come together and make sense. And, becoming a little Clintonian, by "it" I mean life and everything we see around us, if indeed there is anything of which to make sense. There are various takes on this, and numerous viewpoints, but any religion, science, or philosophy must be badly shoehorned to look like a total answer or solution. Most definitely, Armstrongism, with it's "do all the things our Apostle revealed and don't ask us any hardball questions." does not work! It never has, and never will, despite how zealous one attempts to be! Far too many essential questions are left unanswered or badly and unacceptably answered, and usually with an authoritarian "our way or the highway" (very conditional love) tone to the voice.
ReplyDeleteAt least in science and philosophy, it is freely admitted that there are things which cannot be known or understood, but obviously that also means that these fields do not present the total picture, either.
When I was a kid, early in grade school, teachers could get away with many things that are strictly forbidden today. Curriculum was rather loose, and the materials they selected on their own were not necessarily truthful representative of the cultures from which they allegedly came. Nonetheless, these things were thought provoking. One such example was a narrative of the creation of man supposedly from Native American sources. In this story, God molded some fine clay into the first man, and then baked the clay. The oven was either too hot, or he baked it too long, and he burnt it. That became the black man. Next, He fashioned another man from clay, but was overly cautious and did not bake it long enough. That became the white man. Finally, God manipulated the clay into a third man, and when it came time to bake him, He was extremely careful and watchful, turning him in the oven and watching to make sure the man came out just right. And, that was the red man!
This was very different from what we had learned in Sunday school, but even at a young age, I was fascinated, because it was my first exposure to the fact that there can be alternative points of view. That same teacher used another book, Epaminondas, from the black culture to teach us the value of the logic which leads to correct or appropriate decisions. Google it! It's kind of cool! Unfortunately, several years later, the sun went behind the clouds, because my parents were baptized into Armstrongism, and we were taught that there can be no alternative views, or sources. Everything we were to know or think was single-sourced to Herbert W.Armstrong. We were even told to answer our test questions at school not according to the materials taught, but to be "truthful" by giving the answers taught by Mr. Armstrong!
It seems clear that on the day we die, we become gnostic. Or not! The world would certainly be a much better place if we had the total picture now. It's a shame that people (wolves or tares) fake it and pretend they have it now, to extort, manipulate, and self-aggrandize!
11:06 wrote, "He believes science leads us to a global event with the flood."
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be harsh. I am just puzzled as to what kind of science is being referred to. And I am a little impatient with scientists who just migh wear tinfoil hats.
Ranger
RSK 9:51
ReplyDeleteYou hit a hot button with me. I believe Basil Wolverton's writing was the Armstrongist backbone when it came to scripture. Unfortunately. Many, many people read the Bible Story and read it to their kids. Wolverton's Bible Story gives weight to the Deuteronomistic History - that portion of the Bible that is based on the theology of the Deuteronomy. In the DH, the relationship between God and Israel is transactional. If you do X, then I will do Y. Very different from Jesus who asserted 'love your neighbor.' Very different from how God is presented in the Book of Job. Yet Job may have originated earlier than Deuteronomy.
Ranger
Well, dont get me wrong, I think Wolverton's work has some merit here and there, especially in the way it covers the monarchic period post-Solomon and a few other points.
DeleteHowever its so interspersed with garbage opinions, speculation and assumptions that youd have to edit the thing to death to read it outside of the WCG umbrella and in a historical sense.
On many occasions the holy Spirit put a scripture into my mind to deal with a certain situation at hand. Which confirms bible literalism in my mind.
ReplyDeleteSlapping the label Armstrongite on anyone who disagrees with your point of view is cheap.
I for one believe Noah's flood was a global event. The main reason I believe this is because of God's covenantal promise with Noah and his descendants that He would not flood the earth like He just did to destroy life any more. Yet, local floods have occurred destroying life all over the earth. Further, the global flood is a type of the future global conflagration that will destroy the entire earth as Peter prophesied about. Also, I believe that the land was one landmass in the antediluvian era, which was torn apart through the flood and post-flood continental drift. Just my 5cents.
ReplyDeleteBy the time the Bible Story came out, my family had been in the church for a couple years. It appeared for the first time as a serial in the Plain Truth, and the book or books came later. Having heard numerous sermons by that point in time, the Bible Story seemed to be more or less a paraphrase of them, only in linear sequence rather than "here a precept, there a precept" like the sermons. I don't know that Basil Wolverton was formulating church doctrine so much as putting pictures to what HWA had always taught.
ReplyDeleteThe transactional relationship was one of the basic precepts of the church, and most certainly permeated the church-taught parenting skills. I had no idea that this is also known as conditional love until the end of the 1980's when some people I knew quite well had one of their children in a mental care facility, and shared the fact that for healthy emotional stability, children need to know that their family loves them unconditionally. I believe that is a concept that has largely passed over the heads of the Armstrong churches and their members, because from all reports, members are still totally expendable over trivial offenses and the whims of the ministry.
There are other implications of the Flood being local. Here are some of them and my viewpoints.
ReplyDelete1. Did the Flood kill everyone except the people on the Ark?
No, the Flood wiped out those people who lived on the Mesopotamian alluvial plain. This would be a population of thousands. The world population was very small back then. Other people outside the sphere of that part of the Near East were unaffected. For instance, archaeology and genetics indicate that the ancestors of the British people, known as the Yamnaya people, were tending their herds undisturbed on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe in 3000 BC. Also, archaeogenetics indicates that the haplogroups that existed before 3000 BC continued to exist after 3000 BC.
2. What is the record of geology?
The actual regional Flood left a deposit of clean sand and clay in the city of Uruk that was five feet thick. Geologists have found nothing to indicate a global flood. Herman Hoeh visited Big Sandy in the Seventies and made the argument that floods do not leave much evidence. This is sophistic. If a regional flood left its mark in Uruk, what would a global flood do? There are other principles of geophysics that support the idea that the Flood must have been local but citing this science would require too much space for this venue. Scout the internet.
3. Why would God have destroyed all of humankind by Chapter 6 of the book of Genesis?
He wouldn’t have. God is not a human being who can be surprised by the turn of events. He does not need to evoke Plan B. Known unto him are all his works from the beginning according to Acts. He knew men would be evil. You can’t surprise God as the translators of Genesis imply. And further, is God ineffective? He adjudged humankind to be wicked so he putatively destroyed them all. Has anything changed? They were wicked. He killed them off. And they came back through Noah just as wicked. That is not the model we would expect to see with an absolute God. A punitive action against a confined population is qualitatively different from destroying everyone in the world.
4. Aren’t we all descended from Noah?
No, we are not. The Bible does not assert that. In Genesis 10:32 the Bible states that Noah gave rise to the “clans of the sons of Noah.” And they repopulated the alluvial plain that had been depopulated by the Flood. Noah had a certain y chromosome haplogroup that followed his masculine line. His sons and their descendants would have the same haplogroup. A global flood would impose an extreme genetic bottleneck. Everyone on earth now, if we were descendants of Noah, would have Noah’s haplogroup. But that is not the case. Humankind reflects a great diversity of haplogroups. We even show descent from Neanderthals. And this lays to rest the specious idea that Noah was “racially” pure in his generations. He was not and neither was HWA as Waterhouse once declared.
There is much more but this for now. Advocates of a global flood must address these issues. One cannot just bandy about the sound-bite “a worldwide flood happened” and expect it to have any traction. There are substantive issues against.
Ranger
11:05
ReplyDeleteIn the covenant with Noah, God was talking about a Flood of a large magnitude. Also the scope of the Flood was unique in that it destroyed all the descendants of Adam apparently, save those few on the Ark. It was a large, genocidal flood. God is not refering to the smaller floods we are familiar with. These little floods by comparison are of a different category.
The Flood may foreshadow other future prophetic disasters but I do not think it is a perfect fit. The global flood concept involves global extermination. I do not see that in prophecy. If anything, future diasters, because they are less than total in destruction, would support better the exegesis of a local flood from the Genesis passages.
Ranger
I'm shocked that Herman Hoeh would state that floods leave little evidence. A statement like that does not reflect very deep thinking. The tides would not go away just because Earth was covered with water. Also, the chemistry of the oceans and all sources of fresh water would have been completely altered, killing off the ecosystems of both. Ice core samples from Antarctica go back 2.7 million years. Had there been a global flood, scientists would have pinpointed the exact year in which it occurred.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the Epic of Gilgamesh to deal with, and its hero Utnapishtim.
YHWH should not have lied about the flood. He ruined his reputation in the process. He should have admitted it was not a real story. But the geneology from Adam to Noah and onward, and many other details, show it was asbolutely meant to be taken literally.
ReplyDeleteIf the flood is fake so is the birth of Jesus. He was descended from Noah.
ReplyDeleteDidnt know the Flood birthed Noah...
Delete11:04
ReplyDeleteHoeh mentioned that he had just seen a flood area from an airplane. And he was surprised to see that there was no evidence of a flood that he could identify. And he then connected this to why we don't see much evidence of the Flood.
On the other hand, some acknowledge evidence. An AC ex-faculty member with a scientific background told me that the Grand Canyon was created by the receding waters of the Flood. I doubt that he ever really looked into the Flood research. Like me, he just believed what he heard from the pulpit as an article of faith.
Good to have a look at this:
https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr38Reasons.pdf
I think this needs further clarification. Here are parts of a passage from Genesis 6 as rendered by the King James translators and picked up by many other translators:
ReplyDelete“GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth...And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth...for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”
Here is a revised rendering using Bible Hub:
“GOD saw that the wickedness of ADAM (indicating his descendants, a recognized play on words) was great in the COUNTRY...And God looked upon the COUNTRY, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh (meaning men and not animals) had corrupted his way upon the LAND ... for the LAND is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the LAND.”
Remember the ancient Hebrew word “eretz” can mean the following: common, country, earth, field, ground, land, nations, or way - according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Note that “earth” is in the list of definitions and recall that at the time the authors of Genesis wrote, they did not know the concept of earth as a planet. They believed in the Three Story Universe and the earth was circumscribed by their direct experience.
Ranger
I was just going to check in here quickly to see if there were any new comments on this thread. Was in a hurry because I just got back from the library and had found and checked out all three seasons of the revival of "The L Word" and am anxious to get into it. The original show is one of my favorite TV programs ever!
ReplyDeleteBut, 1:08's comment demands a response. Noah wouldn't have died or failed to be born if there hadn't been a global flood! He and his family, and the regional animals would still have been saved from the local Mesopotamian flood in the ark. The whole tale becomes so much more credible if Kangaroos didn't need to hop up from Australia, Penguins need not have walked up from Antarctica, and the lemurs didn't have to swing and swim up from Madagascar! The kind or scope of flood would not have affected the descendence or birth of Jesus. That's like saying if there was no flood, there are no Jews, when in fact there would actually be more of them!
Also I forgot to mention (I'm 11:05) that another reason why I believe the flood was global was that if it was going to be a local flood then God could have and should have told Noah and his family to simply travel to another area that wouldn't be affected by the flood (especially as some believe if there were other humans alive in other areas of the earth who weren't descended from Adam and Noah that were to survive the flood).
ReplyDelete8:51 wrote, "God could have and should have told Noah and his family to simply travel to another are"
ReplyDeleteSomething happened to Noah that precludes your reasoning. It is captured in the stunning words in Genesis 6:13, words that have come to very few human beings ever. The words are "And God said to Noah...". Noah made an Ark and floated on the waves because God told him to. God chose the way. Noah did not gainsay like Jonah.
Let me create a comparison that will be intelligible to Armstrongists. What if God spoke directly to you and said flee to Petra because the Tribulation is imminent? Would you say. "How about concealing us in this national park instead. It's only 22 miles away. It has an auditorium, housing and a restaurant. Why go all the way to that waste, howling wilderness in the Near East?"
(Just to clarify. I believe that the Tribulation already happened and there will not be a future one. I also believe that the special protection of the church already happened. I am just using that example from Armstrongist lore because I think it connects with Armstrongists in terms they can understand.)
Noah did what God asked him to do. It has no bearing on whether the Flood was global or regional. We must look to other data to form that conclusion.
Ranger
I'll take God's word for it: kol erets, Hebrew for whole earth, all of the dry land. The flood was global and 70% of the globe is still "flooded".
ReplyDelete2:01
ReplyDeleteWe find that Hebrew expression used in the following context:
"For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt." Exodus
This refers to the plague of locusts in Egypt. It is obvious that the locusts did not cover the entire globe. We would have found many ancient histories attesting to this. This was a local event as was the Flood. If you take God's word for it, then you will believe in a local Flood.
Ranger
Oh but in Exodus 10 the whole earth is specified as the land of Egypt - verse 2. Genesis does not specify a location of the flood except the mountains of Ararat, which factor is worthy to excitedly (?) note in that a mountain range or something would have to completely surround a local flood, to keep it local.
ReplyDeleteRanger @ 3:06:00 PM PST
ReplyDelete‘This refers to the plague of locusts in Egypt. It is obvious that the locusts did not cover the entire globe. We would have found many ancient histories attesting to this. (Quite so ) This was a local event as was the flood. If you take Gods word for it, then you will believe in a local flood.’
Well no.
There are many many ancient histories attesting to a global flood from many various population groups across the globe. If you take Gods word for it, then you would believe in a global flood.
Quite a fascinating topic.
7:07
ReplyDeleteFloods happen. People mythologize them. None of those flood stories are exactly like the Genesis account. But it makes little difference. The Bible says what it says. The Global Flood originated as a biased translation because the people who were translating already believed in the myth. Now you have taken their error for your own.
Ranger
Ranger Monday, December 18, 2023 at 6:31:00 AM PST said...
ReplyDelete"Something happened to Noah that precludes your reasoning. It is captured in the stunning words in Genesis 6:13, words that have come to very few human beings ever. The words are 'And God said to Noah...'. Noah made an Ark and floated on the waves because God told him to...Noah did what God asked him to do. It has no bearing on whether the Flood was global or regional..."
With respect Ranger we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Like I said for me God could have, should have, would have, told Noah to simply move from one location to another if the impending flood was going to be local just like He did Abram. I don't believe my God deals in absurdities.
A point that I emphasized in my essay is that one must go to the original languages to construct an understanding of what the Bible is saying on controversial topics. One cannot base Biblical interpretation on an English translation. This was learned painfully by Armstrongists in the controversy over when the day of Pentecost should be kept. Based on interpreting translated English using a Websters dictionary, Pentecost was on Monday. Based on the Hebrew, Pentecost was on Sunday. In an article supporting a change of Pentecost to a Sunday observance, jointly authored by Herbert W. Armstrong and Herman Hoeh, the following statement was made:
ReplyDelete“To base our conclusions (for a Monday Pentecost) on an ambiguous, misleading English translation of the Hebrew preposition "mi," thereby rendering it as "from," would be like trying to prove that we should keep "Easter" because the English translates Acts 4:12 as "Easter" instead of "Passover."”
The word of God is not an English translation. The word of God resides in the original languages and we do not have a dictionary of ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek that was published back at the time. Those dictionaries we do have were compiled in modern times by deducing meaning from context. The word “eretz” must be understood in its definition, usage and larger cultural context. To read the words “the earth” in English and assign to those words the meaning “the planetary globe” is the error of anachronism. It assigns a second millennium AD meaning to a third millennium BC word.
Ranger
Most people in the ACOGs do not realize that translating is, in reality, paraphrasing. They also do not know that for centuries, Hebrew was a dead language, in that it was an historic, sacred, liturgical language, but not a spoken language, or written language actually used by Jewish people until the early 1900s. The discoveries of archaeologists have informed our understanding of the ancient manuscripts, but much of this has not percolated into the mainstream.
DeleteThis adds to the collection of reasons as to why literalism as a certainty today is simply impossible. Anyone who teaches it is making their best guesses, and we've seen how they always seem to gravitate towards the most stringent extremes.
It's so ironic, the fact that they make more guesses than the evolutionists whom they hold in disdain!
9:49
ReplyDeleteWhen the Flood is intended to symbolize baptism and salvation, I would not regard it as an absurdity. God's grace does not always follow our logical expectations. But the symbolism of baptism and salvation is equally represented by either a regional or global flood. So by themselves, the symbols do nothing to settle the question. We must look to other data. There is no geological of genetic evidence of a global flood. To fix your attention on the idea that God could, as a practicality without regard to theological purpose and symbolism, save the eight people by having them hike to dry ground if the Flood were not global, is to focus on a single point and ignore the other data bearing on the issue. To sustain your belief in a global flood you must answer to the many issues that this viewpoint brings up. You cannot treat the theory of a global flood as a terse article of faith requiring no comprehensive support. You have to bring it or warm the bench.
On the other hand, what difference does it make? I am sure many Christians went to their reward believing in a global flood because they did not have the information resources in their time to analyze the event. But these resources exist now. The largest concern that I see emerges if you treat the Bible in general the way you treat the Flood story. And in the last analysis, the essay I have written is about how people react to the Bible.
Ranger
Ex 12:30b and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
ReplyDelete“Of course, the OT often uses language about total destruction hyperbolically, SUCH AS WHEN CANAANITE TRIBES ARE SAID TO BE UTTERLY ANNIHILATED BUT MEMBERS OF THOSE ETHNIC GROUPS TURN UP LATER ON [cp. Dt 7:2 with 7:3). Hence there's room for survivors if you read this as hyperbole, as many commentators do, whether in terms of rhetorical style or for technical reasons like "not every house might have had a firstborn". But since the Bible is silent on this point, that's as far as we can go” (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/39142/question-about-the-egyptian-firstborn-in-exodus).
"For there was not a house where there was not one dead. This is perhaps a slight hyperbole. There would be many families in which there was no son; and some houses might contain no male who had opened the womb. It is always to be borne in mind, that the language of Scripture - especially where exciting and tragical events are narrated - is poetical, or at the least highly rhetorical" (Pulpit Commentary).
"To judge Scripture fairly, we must make allowance for the hyperbole of Oriental thought and expression, which causes the substitution of universal terms for general ones, and the absence of qualifying clauses. The meaning is that in the great majority of houses there was one dead. This may, well have been so, if we include the dependants and the animals. Pet animals - dogs, cats, gazelles, and monkeys - abounded in Egyptian homes" (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers).
Moses described a local flood using ‘universal’ terms for rhetorical effect - typical of Oriental thought and expression. (Solomon may have had only had 70 wives and 30 concubines if a hyperbolic factor of 10 was used; hence 60,000 men on foot as opposed to 600,000 (Ex 12:37) and a whole company of 4,236 as opposed to 42,360 (Ezra 2:62)).
The God who comes
Jdg 5:5 The mountains quaked before the LORD, even Sinai before the LORD, the God of Israel. (ESV).
For me the future “great tribulation” (cp. Rev 7:14) precedes the cataclysmic irruption of God, through Jesus Christ, into history:
“This idea of “the God who comes” is one of the central characteristic of the Old Testament teaching about God, and it links together history and eschatology. The whole history of Israel, from the birth of the nation at Mount Sinai to her final redemption in the Kingdom of God, can be viewed in light of the divine visitations. God visited his people in the wilderness to call them into being and thus became their king...” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.48).
Ex 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
“When God visited Israel at Sinai, the Jews believed that the place literally was shaken. A quake shook the earth and the mountain echoed with thunder and flashed with lightnings. There was also a fearful divine fire and a long trumpet blast which were more than ordinary phenomena (Exod 19:16 ff)” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.49).
Ps 18:6 In my distress I called to the LORD?
I cried to my God for help.
From his temple he heard my voice;
my cry came before him, into his ears.
Ps 18:7 The earth trembled and quaked,
and the foundations of the mountains shook;
they trembled because he was angry.
Ps 18:9 He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet. (NIV).
“Similar language can be used in a purely poetical manner to describe the wonder of any divine deliverance from danger. When God’s servant was in despair of his life, he called upon the Lord. God heard him and enabled him to escape. However, the psalmist praised God for his deliverance as though a might theophany had occurred.
Part 2
ReplyDelete“In such a psalm, the imagery of the visitation at Sinai is applied in purely poetic terms to a visitation of God by which he enables his servant to escape the threat of death” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.50).
“The prophetic expectation cannot be described as “historical” or “this-worldly” in the sense that it looks for the Kingdom of God to be the product of historical forces. The source of God’s Kingdom is suprahistorical; God himself must visit his people. Even in the oldest conceptions, God’s kingship could come to pass absolutely only at the cost of a great change which would mark the end of the present state of things and the establishment of something new” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.58).
Mk 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
Mk 13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
Mk 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
“The question arises of the extent to which such language is to be taken literally or symbolically. We have already discovered that the language of divine theophany which looks back to God’s visitation at Sinai can be used poetically both of visitations to delivers his servant from personal danger and of historical visitations to bring judgment upon an erring people (see pp. 50 ff). Does this not give us reason to interpret all such language about the eschatological shaking of the world, collapse of the heavens, etc., as poetical language used to depict the indescribable glory of the final theophany? The importance of this question can be seen by the fact that this terminology provides the conceptual material for the “apocalyptic” of the New Testament eschatology with it view of a cosmic catastrophe bringing this age to a close and introducing the age to come (See Mark 13:24 and parallels; Acts 2:19-20; II Pet 3:11-13; Rev 6:12-17; 20:11; 21:1). Is such language anything more than traditional language of Old Testament poetry used to describe the majesty of God?” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.62).
“It is impossible to deny that a poetical element exists in such “apocalyptic” language. The fact that this theophanic language can be employed in an altogether symbolical manner to assert the glory and majesty of God and his transcendence over his creation (Ps 18; Mic 1) should warn us against any wooden literalness of understanding. However, the theology which underlies this terminology makes it equally impossible to reduce this language altogether to poetry. The theophanic language describing the eschatological visitation set forth not only the glory and majesty of God and the subordination and dependence of his creation upon its creator; it is also an expression of a profound theology of creation and man’s place in creation...” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.62).
“However, the curse which lies upon nature because of man’s sin means that it cannot be the scene of the final realization of God’s Kingdom apart from a radical transformation; and the new age of the Kingdom will therefore be so different as to constitute a new order of things. The Kingdom cannot be produced by the normal flow of events, but ... only by a cataclysmic irruption of God into history; and the resultant order will be something which is concrete and earthly and yet at the same time supramundane...” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.64).
Eretz with many meanings, Strong's 776, is in many verses which refer to the globe.
ReplyDeleteDate of the flood?: Heshvan 17, 2322 BC to Heshvan 27, 2321 BC - Gen 7:11; 8:14; Josephus, 1,111,3. In the chronology 1656 yrs+427+400+480+429 to 585 BC.
Hey Ranger @ 8:43:00 PM PST
ReplyDeleteEnjoy the posts here, but a question,
Yes floods happen : yes they do.
People mythologize them : yes they do but that does not mean that they are without foundation.
None of these flood stories are exactly like the Genesis account : well the gospel accounts are rather different in their appreciation of Jesus , yet that does not invalidate them at all, or make them myth.
The Bible says want it says: and it was a global event with the destruction clearly mentioned of succession of all life on earth.
The global flood originated as a biased translation because people who were translating already believed in the myth : perhaps they actually believed in the account that they were translating, that it was not myth at all and it happened as relayed to them.
Now you have taken their error for your own : looking at some of the comments posted by you here on this interesting subject I see some consistency which leaves one wondering where the errors lie.
Cheers.
Ranger Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 6:43:00 AM PST said...
ReplyDelete"A point that I emphasized in my essay is that one must go to the original languages to construct an understanding of what the Bible is saying on controversial topics. One cannot base Biblical interpretation on an English translation. This was learned painfully by Armstrongists in the controversy over when the day of Pentecost should be kept. Based on interpreting translated English using a Websters dictionary, Pentecost was on Monday. Based on the Hebrew, Pentecost was on Sunday. In an article supporting a change of Pentecost to a Sunday observance, jointly authored by Herbert W. Armstrong and Herman Hoeh, the following statement was made:
'To base our conclusions (for a Monday Pentecost) on an ambiguous, misleading English translation of the Hebrew preposition "mi," thereby rendering it as "from," would be like trying to prove that we should keep "Easter" because the English translates Acts 4:12 as "Easter" instead of "Passover."'"
We're in agreement here Ranger. In my research and following understanding re the Monday Pentecost issue in WCG I learned that the Bible counts inclusively whereas in the modern Western world we count exclusively, which led to the error. Likewise I believe WCG and its offshoots still follow this error in their dogmatic stance that the Messiah died on Wednesday and rose 3 whole days (ie 72 hours) later when I believe otherwise that He rose on the third day (ie Saturday night/Sunday morning).
11:01
ReplyDeleteWhat you are engaging in is called dissonance reduction. The fact that you are engaged in it indicates that what you have read here genuinely challenges your beliefs and you don't like it. You prefer business as usual. Essentially, you resposes are rationalizations that you are using to permit yourself to hang onto what you believe.
The question I have for you is why is a global flood so important? Why do fundamentalists move heaven and earth to retain the idea of a global flood?
Let me tell you what I believe. It is about retaining membership in a certain religious club. It has more to do with tribalism than either exegesis or theology. Armstrongists are particularly puzzling. They promulgate all kinds of lèse-majesté views of God and lean towards Arianism in their view of Christ but they go postal if the Flood is not a big, respectable Flood.
Let me parapharse Dr. Seuss: A miracle is a miracle no matter how small.
Ranger
Hello Ranger @ 3:24:00 PM PST
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response, cheers.
‘The question I have for you is why is a global flood so important?’.
Well it isn’t. It is an interesting subject through.
Our hope is surely in Jesus Christ, who alone saves; and I have no doubt that many who may not of heard of the flood account, are indeed saved, for we are as you know saved by grace.
The flood account, if we take it literally or not, does not negate the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
There are others who hold different views from your own on the ‘flood’ topic.
These views are not necessarily incorrect.
To claim they are fundamentalist is not necessarily right also.
‘Essentially your responses are rationalisations that you are using to permit yourself to hang onto what you believe’.
I think that is rather harsh and perhaps the ‘fundamentalist’ could be applied to your post and following comments then.
It is noted you did not answer the questions that were posted @ 11:01:00 AM PST.
Either way best wishes to you and good health and well being always in Christ our King.
6:08
ReplyDeleteI will pose counterpoints to the issues you raise in 11:01:
You wrote, "Yes floods happen : yes they do. People mythologize them : yes they do but that does not mean that they are without foundation."
Nor does it mean the myths have a foundation. Other data must be examined to make a determination.
You wrote, "None of these flood stories are exactly like the Genesis account : well the gospel accounts are rather different in their appreciation of Jesus , yet that does not invalidate them at all, or make them myth."
Some of the flood stories may contain some accurate information. Whether are not that is the case depends on carefully analyzing the history of these stories. In particular, the ancient Near Eastern flood stories may contain true elements. If all the flood myths were identical and they all said that the flood was global, this still does not establish the global nature of the flood. A theory must explain all the data and the global flood story does not.
You wrote, "The Bible says want it says: and it was a global event with the destruction clearly mentioned of succession of all life on earth."
The is the Gerald Waterhouse approach to scirpture. "All you have to do is read it. Says it right there in plain English." It is also why the WCG kept Pentecost on Monday for decades. My entire essay is the response to this issue. The idea that the Flood is global is an interpretation. In fact, when you go back to the Hebrew, it is a very weak and implausible interpretation.
You wrote, "...perhaps they actually believed in the account that they were translating"
They may or may not have believed it. Their belief or lack of belief is not determinative. It is what we can deduce form existing data. There are people who ardently believe that heresy is true. That does not make it true.
You wrote, "...looking at some of the comments posted by you here on this interesting subject I see some consistency which leaves one wondering where the errors lie."
This is slightly veiled statement that you do not find what I have presented to be credible. Maybe you should provide a coherent response to the issues that I raise in my essay. Tell us why the essay is wrong in detail rather than operating at the remote sound-bite level. Engage the debate. Your arguments are of the following nature:
"I think the sky is really a vaulted dome. There are ancient accounts that state it is a dome. They can't all be wrong. The people who wrote this seemed to really believe it. The Bible says that the sky is a solid material and calls it a firmament. Maybe it has water behind it. You can see it is blue like water. I have seen rain fall down out of the sky."
What is lacking in this is any appreciation for the scientific data or any coherent Biblical exegesis.
Ranger
Ranger.
ReplyDeleteThe International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states:
"The concise and somewhat cryptic account of the Flood in the days of Noah would fill little more than 225 lines of a modern newspaper. Yet it has given rise to whole shelves of books, which seek to clarify and debate aspects of the flood. Any attempt to interpret the biblical account introduces uncertainty, and all the efforts of modern scholarship have settled little." (PG 316)
"It should be clear from a study of the arguments for and against a universal flood that neither side has the preponderance of answers at the present stage of research. In fact, even if one were to grant the validity of only a local flood, great difficulties would remain". (PG 318, 1982, vol.2, article, Flood,Genesis.)
You present excellent arguments for your view, but that doesn't mean that those who differ in opinion are disciples of Waterhouse or Hoeh. There seems to be expertise on both sides.
I don't know which version is correct, for I have not put in the extensive study as it appears you have. I will say though, what might seem to be a weak and implausible interpretation to you may be reasonable and valid to someone else. Flat earth-ers can be very formidable opponents, of whom I wouldn't care to debate.
12:27
ReplyDeleteYou have presented me with a quote from the 1982 ISBE. The ISBE is an evangelical work. It is hardly an unbiased source. I found the ISBE online and read their article on the Flood. It was written by George Frederick Wright who had been a Congregationalist Pastor and taught at Oberlin Theological Seminary. He was also a geologist. He died in 1921. My guess is that the ISBE is not one of the more impartial sources you could come up with. But in any event, the modern ISBE admits that a local Flood would be possible. The Floods purpose was to destroy the descendants of Adam and the Flood only had to extend far enough to achieve this goal. Apparently, nothing else they encountered (Biblical semantics, genetics, geology, archaeology) precludes a local flood.
I do not want you to walk away from this debate believing that a global flood has just as much traction as a local flood and its all a matter of what you personally want to believe. There are some serious, show-stopping flaws with the idea of a global flood, like the total lack of evidence for it in the geologic record. Creationists in some cases teach that God falsified the record to deceive man. So they would rather turn God into a liar rather than simply admit the Flood was local. I think this stems from some fealty they have towards their own misguided interpretation of the Bible.
I think we have said as much as we can constructively say to each other about this.
Ranger
BP8
ReplyDeleteMy previous post may be a little cryptic. I thought I was responding to 6:08. Sorry.
Ranger
I wouldn't debate flat earthers due to Prov 26:4.
ReplyDeleteWhy bring animals into the ark if the flood wasn't global?
4:23 wrote, "Why bring animals into the ark if the flood wasn't global?"
ReplyDeleteOne of the themes of the Flood story is salvation. The Ark symbolizes to some the salvation not only of man but the Cosmos. Including a selection of fauna in the salvific Ark is a good way of representing this broader salvation.
Flood weenies try to figure out how many clean animals may have been on board and how many would have been eaten by eight people. That kind of irrelevant stuff. Or how did all the species in the word get into the Ark. Hence, the plethora of weird logistics. And thereby miss the point of the story. It is about evil, baptism, salvation and restoration. Noah was obedient to God but that is not what saved him and his family and his animals. God saved him. This is a point totally lost on Armstrongists who believe they must qualify for salvation through their accumulation of works. Noah's obedience did not result in his salvation, rather, his salvation resulted in his obedience. Works did not play as a cause into his salvation. In Hebrews it says:
"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house"
Faith (a gracious gift from God) was the initial condition. The works followed after. And the Ark could not have survived except by the grace of God. If it were built to the specified dimensioins, here is what would happen:
"Scaled up to the immense size of Noah's Ark, a stout wooden box would be unspeakably fragile...If there was even the gentlest of currents, sufficient pressure would be put on the hull to open its seams. Currents are not a complete, perfectly even flow. They consist of eddies and slow-moving turbulence. This puts uneven pressure on the hull, and Noah's Ark would bend with those eddies like a snake. Even if the water itself was perfectly still, wind would expose the flat-sided Ark's tremendous windage, exerting a shearing force that might well crumple it. Whether a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark could be made seaworthy is in grave doubt...The long and the short of it — no pun intended — is that there's no precedent for a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark being seaworthy, and plenty of naval engineering experience telling us that it wouldn't be expected to work. Even if pumps had been installed and all hands worked round the clock pumping, the Ark certainly would have leaked catastrophically, filled with water, and capsized."(Brian Dunning, science writer)
The Ark was a miracle of grace and not of works. Unless the Lord build the house, the weary builders toil in vain. Wasn't there a song...? Whether the "house" is an Ark or your own personal salvation.
Ranger
One of my favorite versions of the Bible is the Brick Testament. It's not my main resource, it's just another valued resource because it's so innocent, and we've often been admonished to see things freshly and innocently as if we were children. There was an animated presentation on You Tube, kind of fascinating, although I doubt that it will resolve the debate over the topic of this thread. However, the animated character, who looked like David Niven, did an awesome job of explaining what the Jewish scholars have always recognized as Noachide Law, which was God's law for mankind prior to the Sinai covenant. It is interesting in that it is nearly verbatim what James recited as the edict from the first Jerusalem Council. I'll let each reader wrestle with that one, because I know it conflicts with the teachings of HWA. But, perhaps exposing it will have an edifying effect on those who read it. After all, your mind is like a parachute. It only works if it's open!
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteGe 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
“The dimensions of the ark are easy enough to determine, and the general shape of it is therefore discernable. Based on one cubit equaling eighteen inches, Noah’s ark is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet deep. If it had a flat bottom, the total displacement would be about 43,000 tons, and it would cover one and a half football fields. In comparison, the ark constructed by Utnapishtim in the Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic is either a cube or ziggurat-shaped (120 x 120 x 120 cubits), with a displacement of three or four times that in Genesis. Since no rudder or sail is mentioned, it is evident that Noah’s ark was not designed to be navigated. Consequently, the fate of the company aboard was left in the hands of God” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.312)...
“What obstacles are there to accepting the global flood view? What stands in the way of thinking that the Flood was restricted to the known world? Answering these questions demonstrates that we are again locked in a situation where science and logic are pitted against the text. Let us consider, then, the case that can be made against a global flood:
“ “According to the conventional interpretation of the Genesis version of Noah’s story, the sea level rose for 150 days until it covered the tops of the mountains and then subsided for another 150 days. It is easy to prove that this is physically impossible. The local sea level can rise several feet for a few hours during a hurricane, but if the sea level rose to the 16,946 foot peak of “Mount Ararat” for 150 days, the sea would have to rise approximately 16,946 feet all over the planet earth. That would have required about 630 million cubic miles of additional water weighing 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons , or three quintillion tons. This is an enormous volume of water. The oceans would have to triple in volume in only 150 days and then quickly shrink back to normal. Where would the 630 million cubic miles of water go during the second 150 days? There is no where an ocean can drain to, because the oceans already fill the lower places. There is no geological evidence that the ocean basins that now exist formed in only 150 days.
“ “It has long been known that rain clouds cannot hold even a tenth of one percent of the water required by the conventional interpretation of the flood story. Soroka and Nelson calculated that three quintillion tons of water vapor would make the earth’s atmospheric pressure about 840 times higher than it is now and sunlight would not reach the surface of the ground. Such an atmosphere would be incompatible with life as we know it” [R.M. Best, Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic, pp.39-40]”.
“Another researcher focuses on the problems concerning the care of the animals:
“ “Assuming that the 21,000 species of amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal had to be presented on the ark, it would require around 42,000 individuals. Assuming that each of the eight people on the ark had to take care of their share of the animals, each person would have 2,637 cages to visit each day for feeding and cleaning. If each person worked a 12-hour shift, then each cage would only get three and two-thirds minutes of attention per day...
Part 2
ReplyDelete“ “A straightforward reading of the chronology outlined in Gen 7:1-10 indicates that Noah and his family had only one week during which to load all the animals. If the eight people were required to lead the 35,000 animals from the ark’s door to its cage, the work load would have been crushing. Each member of the ark’s crew would have to climb the equivalent of a 19.5 story building every hour, day and night, for the entire week prior to the Flood. Even the time constraints are imposing; two pairs of animals per minute must be loaded. Other physical problems include the generation of 78,750 liters of urine per day. To carry fresh water on board to replenish the lost water would occupy 70% of the ark’s volume...” [G.R. Morton, “The Mediterranean Flood,” Perspectives on Science and Christian faith 49.4, p.242]”.
Ge 6:21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them
“Those who argue for a global flood usually suggest some sort of hibernation for the animals to avoid these problems, though it should be noted that Noah was instructed to take food for the animals onboard (6:21).
“These paragraphs raise some of the logistical problems from a scientific standpoint. We can also ask questions such has as these: How can there still be some freshwater lakes and seas if salt water had mixed with all the bodies of water? How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive? And how would animals today found only in Australia have gotten to that continent” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.322-23).
“Other logistics problems arise within the text itself:
“1. If the Flood were sever enough to reach 17,000 feet in 150 days, it would have had to rise at the rate of over 100 feet per day, almost five feet per hour. Even if such a rapid rise were possible and could be sustained over a five-month period, it would have created currents that would have made survival in the ark unlikely.
“2. Those searching for the ark have had to use very sophisticated mountain-climbing equipment to scale the heights of Mount Ararat, and at times have had to abandon the effort. How would Noah and his family and animals such as elephants and hippopotami make the trek down the mountain. [There have been occasional periods of milder conditions that have allowed some explorers to bring beast of burden up to the snow line]. And how did they make their way across mountain chains and over deserts to return to their native habitats?
“3.What did the carnivores eat until their prey populations were replenished?
“4. If the ark ran aground on the still-submerged summit of Mount Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month (8:4) and the tops of the mountains became visible on the first day of the tenth month (8:5), the water receded only 15 feet in 75 days. Yet it would have had to recede 17,000 feet in the next 75 days because by the first day of the first month, the earth was dry (8:13).
“5. The dove flew down into a valley to get an olive leaf (only growing in low elevations) in 8:11). How did it manage to fly back up to 17,000 feet to the ark? Doves are not physically equipped to fly at those altitudes” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.324).
Thirsday, 21, Part I and Part 2: Excellent research, and good points and issues raised. But, it's all going to miss its intended mark with a certain group of people. It's very likely that some reader read your resesrch to his family this evening at the dinner table and exclaimed "Wow! Just wow! Look at the set of just incredible miracles God had to perform in order to make Noah's flood happen!" And his wife probably chimed in with "You know, I never quite understood the depths God had to go to until you read that to us! Where did you find that, Honey???"
ReplyDelete"Oh, it's on a blog I follow where they challenge our beliefs, Hon!"
"Hey, Dad!" says the son. "Did you say challenge? Because they actually strengthened mine!"
Beliefs can be a tricky thing. It all depends on where your ground zero is centered. I say that as one who believes the flood was a local Mesopotamian event, but I hope it helps us understand where the other guys are coming from.
“Part1andPart2” raises some substantive issues with the idea of a global Flood. There is also the genetic problem with a global flood. Noah lived 3,000 years ago and if the Flood was global, Noah was a genetic bottleneck. He and his three sons were all the same y chromosome haplogroup. The y chromosome haplogroup follows the masculine line. That means the only haplogroup to survive the global flood would be Noah’s haplogroup. And 5,000 years is not enough time for anything more than a few minor mutations let alone the rich human genetic diversity that now exists.
ReplyDeleteLet us say that Noah was y chromosome haplogroup J, since this haplogroup characterizes the Jews and the Adnani Arabs who both claim to be descended from Abraham. Then if there was a global flood, every male in the world would be a member of one of the subclades of y chromosome haplogroup J. Since this is not the case, then we must conclude from genetics that the Flood was local and many other haplogroups outside the Mesopotamian region have been continuously in existence for hundreds of thousands of years.
Those who read closely will also note that this means that Noah is not the progenitor of the peoples of the earth. But the Bible nowhere says he was. It says he was the progenitor of “the clans of the sons of Noah.” I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this. The article below is available to anyone who wants to read further. It was published on this blog in 2020 and garnered negligible interest. I think a lot of people consider genetics to be impossibly recondite and are, therefore, suspicious of it. But the article states the case.
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-noachian-bottleneck-and-refutation.html
Ranger
Because there are many types, 1151 is right, beliefs are tricky things. We have core beliefs we developed on our own, and beliefs we have inherited, or forced upon us by society.
ReplyDeleteSubjects like the "flood", the "calendar", the "Trinity", and even "flat earth" are massive and very technical, and to get them right in one's own mind would require a great deal of study and perseverance, assuming you have the interest.
Consider "flat earth". If you think you are going to refute that with a high school textbook or NASA photos, think again. As I said in an earlier post, they are very formidable opponents. They will flood the debate with hundreds of sound bites and inference evidence that can take months of study to correctly address. Or, we can call it a stupid conspiracy theory and move on.
Like many of you, I don't have the time and interest to invest in certain ideas. I too will usually rely on the expertise of others and then weigh the evidence. 2 interesting books on the subject of the flood, I highly recommend:
--Catastrophism and the Old Testament, and
--The Biblical Flood and the Ice Age Epoch,
written by Donald W. Patten, geologist, astronomer, and mathematician.
Both books offer a unique perspective on a global flood, and also a powerful theory on why there is water on Mars. This idea was ridiculed in the 60's when the books were written, but guess what scientists are saying now, 60 years later? --" there's evidence of water on Mars" (see NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today's Mars, September 28, 2015).
Ranger has presented a thought provoking post. I'm not fully persuaded (yet), but I do appreciate his efforts in producing a side of the story I never really considered.
Hyperbole - All
ReplyDeletePart 1
Quotes from previous posts:
“In terms of the flood story, the most pronounced rhetorical feature is clearly hyperbole...
"In our opinion, hyperbole PERMEATES the account of the flood...” (Tremper Longman III & John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood, pp.37).
Instead of “permeates,” using a little hyperbole, it is suggested that the Bible is “saturated,” in keeping with the theme of the “flood,” with hyperbole.
It is this rhetorical feature seen throughout the Bible which swings the debate for me to a local flood. (I also agree with Ranger concerning the “y chromosome haplogroup;” but not with his position on the translators - too much of a modern western exegetical angle).
(I have suggested before, though there are problems with it, what was actually ‘created’ in Genesis 1 &2 was not a literal heaven and earth, but Eden/Garden of Eden (see below) - a microcosm that was eventually supposed to become the macrocosm).
Below are a few examples of “hyperbole” in both the Old and New Testaments.
Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN, were covered.
Dt 2:25 This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.
“It may sound strange to say, but the word “all” is not always absolute in biblical usage. Look, for instance, at Deuteronomy 2:25, where the Lord says, “This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven.” This verse even uses “under heaven” in the same way that Genesis 7:19 does. Yet in context, few would contend that this refers to more that the nations of Canaan and perhaps a few others. In Genesis 41:57, Joseph opens the storehouses of Egypt and “all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world.” I do not know of anyone who contends that therefore the Eskimos must have been included.
“Similar use of language can be seen in Akkadian texts. Most instructional is a text called the Sargon Geography, which names the lands of the known world one by one and concludes that “Sargon, King of the Universe, conquered the totality of the land under heaven.” Based on such examples, it becomes clear that it was perfectly acceptable, and not at all deceptive, to use the word “all” to encompass all those of a more regional delineated area. Such usage does not violate biblical authority because the Bible does not intend to claim more than the regional impact” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.324-25).
Jos 11:23 SO JOSHUA TOOK THE WHOLE LAND, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
Jos 13:1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, AND THERE REMAINETH YET VERY MUCH LAND TO BE POSSESSED.
"A Bible atlas will show visually that this description [Josh 13:1-6] encompasses quite a bit of land. Indeed, a rough estimate would place the success level at around 50 percent at the highest... As a matter of fact, Canaan was not completely subdued until the time of David a number of centuries later. The author is intentionally using universalistic language and intends to convey rhetorically, that the conquest was complete, but did not correspond to the actual geographical scope of the conquest. Thus it uses hyperbole to make a theological point...” (Tremper Longman III & John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood, pp.32).
Part 2
ReplyDeleteMt 18:23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.
Mt 18:24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
“The amount owed by one person (10,000) talents was incomprehensible. This amount indicated hyperbolically the incalculable debt owed by the servant...
“The exact monetary value is difficult to determine... Altogether, therefore [using the year 2001's minimum wage of $5.15], the man owed at least two and a half billion dollars. As extreme as those figures are, comparisons are difficult to appreciate since such a sum in first-century Palestine would be far more disproportionate so the same sum in modern times. Some estimate that the amount is the equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars... In any case, the hyperbole of the parable is dramatic” (Michael J. Wlikins, Matthew, NIVAC, p.623).
Ac 9:35 And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord.
Jer 42:17 So shall it be with all the men that set their faces to go into Egypt to sojourn there ... and none of them shall remain or escape from the evil that I will bring upon them.
Jer 44:14 So that none of the remnant of Judah, which are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall escape or remain, that they should return into the land of Judah, to the which they have a desire to return to dwell there: for none shall return but such as shall escape.
“Not that we need interpret the “all” as meaning literally every single inhabitant, for, as Calvin [I, p.277] wisely comments, ‘when Scripture mentions all, it is not embracing, to a man, the whole of whatever it is describing, but uses “all” for many, for the majority, or for a crowd of people” (John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts, BST, p.183).
Ac 19:10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that ALL they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
“By almost any criterion, this is an extraordinary productive season in Paul’s ministry (cf. 1 Cor 16:9) and helps to explain why Ephesus became the base of his continuing influence within earliest Christianity. This is even implied by Luke’s hyperbole “all the residents of Asia, both Jew and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord” (v.10; see also 4:4, 31; 6:7; 8:4; 12:24; 13:5; 16:32; 18:11)” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.267).
Ac 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
“Luke’s characteristic use of hyperbole again underscore the value of Paul’s personal example...” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.284).
Acts 21:20b "You see, brother, how many myriads there are among the Jews having believed, and are all zealous ones for the Law. (BLB).
“Luke’s sharply draws the contrast between James and Paul for rhetorical effect. On the one hand, James reports that “many thousands” (lit., “many myriads”) of repentant Jews “are all zealous [... zelotes] for the law [Torah]” (21:20b). Luke’s characteristic hyperbole makes the impression keener: The Jewish Christian community in Judea is vibrant and strong, and their strength is tied to their identity as observant Jews” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, pp.292-93).
“... J. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, KEK 2 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1998) 524-25 ... rightly cautions that Luke’s hyperbole must not at the same time underestimate the vigor and success of the mission to traditional Jews in Judea as though such a mission has been superseded in Acts by Paul’s mission to the nations” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.293).
Part 3
ReplyDeleteAc 21:30 And ALL the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.
“... with characteristic hyperbole and local color, Luke describes the riot that ensures (21:30-36)” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.296).
“Luke exaggerates the crowd’s violent reaction to these accusations, but the rhetorical effect explains why the “tribune of the cohort” was thereby alerted” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.297).
Ac 25:24 And Festus says, "King Agrippa and all men being present with us, you see this one concerning whom the whole multitude of the Jews pleaded with me, both in Jerusalem and here, crying out of him that he ought not to live any longer. (BLB).
“Festus’s use of hyperbole when describing the scope of controversy, saying that “this man about whom the whole Jewish community petitioned me, both in Jerusalem and here (v.24a), intensifies the Jewish cast of the problem. The reader will know that in private conversation Festus had made it clear to Agrippa that only “the chief priests and the elders” had petitioned him for a guilty verdict (see v. 15). Perhaps they did so on behalf of the Jewish people and Festus took their claim at face value. It this is true, then his hyperbole simply reflects his ignorance of the Jewish problem with Paul. His expressed sentiment is certainly at odds with Acts, which has been more circumscribed Paul’s antagonists in terms both religious — they are unrepentant Jews — and sociological – they are only (often Sadducean) leaders of the “people” who do not speak for all the people. In this sense, Jesus and his apostolic successors provoked the very same opposition previously, and for the same reasons” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.330).
As per suggested above:
Ge 1:31a And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
Ge 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Rev 21:1a And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:
“YHWH is building a new Temple, therefore creating a new world, and vice versa" (Jon D. Levenson, The Temple and the World, p.295).
Ge 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking [nalak] in the garden in the cool of the day:
Rev 21:3a And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle [skene] of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people,
Lev 26:11 And I will set my tabernacle [skene, LXX] among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.
Lev 26:12 And I will walk [halak] among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
"... the tabernacle was an earthly representation of heavenly reality. It was a microcosm of the created order - hence, a microcosm of the only spotless point in creation, Eden" (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, pp.552-553).
Eden pictures the Most Holy Place and the Garden the Holy Place.
Ge 1:15 And let them be for lights [me’orot] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth:
Ex 35:14 The candlestick also for the light [ma’or] ... and his lamps, with the oil for the light [ma’or],
Ex 27:21b Aaron and his sons are to keep the lamps burning before the LORD from evening till morning
“The Hebrew word translated “lights” (me’orot) is not used frequently (19x in its various forms). Most occurrences are in the Pentateuch (15x)... What is intriguing is that the ten occurrences in the Pentateuch outside of Genesis 1 (Ex 25:6; 27:20; 35:8, 14[2x], 28; 39:37; Lev 24;2; Num 4,:9, 16) all refer to the light of the lampstand that lights up the tabernacle. The use of the word “lights” may then be our first clue that there is another whole dimension to this text that us often eluded us: the description of the cosmos as a temple or sanctuary of God...” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.123-24).
Moses, Ark and Hagar
ReplyDeletePart 1
Ge 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark [tebah], and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch [kopher].
Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Ex 1:22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
Ex 2:3 And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark [tebah] of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch [zepheth], and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink.
“The boy is set in an “ark” (tebah) and set afloat on the Nile (v.3)... tebah provides a clear connection to Genesis. In all of the Old Testament, this Hebrew word is found only here and in the Flood story (Gen 6:14-9:18). The theological connection between these two events is self-evident. Both Noah and Moses are specifically selected to forgo a tragic, watery fate; (2) both are placed on an ark “ark” treated with bitumen and are carried to safety on the very body of water that brings destruction to others’ and (3) both are vehicles through whom God “creates” a new people for his own purposes. Furthermore, Moses’ safe passage through the waters of the Nile not only looks backward to the Flood story, but forward to the passage through the sea in Exodus 14 for all God’s people” (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, p.62).
“The Hebrew word for “basket” is teba. The only other place in the Bible where it appears is in Gen. 6-9 (about twenty-six times) to refer to the “ark” that Noah builds. For that reason, the KJV has Moses’ mother building an “ark of bulrushes” for her baby. Obviously the two are quite different in size! Jochebed does not make a three-story floating zoo for her baby’s bassinet. The appearance of this word in these two places, and only in these two places ties together the lives of Noah and Moses. Two individuals, both major role players in God’s plan of redemption, are saved from certain death by drowning by finding salvation inside a teba” (Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus, aEC, p.20).
“Many writers have noticed the parallel between the events surrounding births of Moses and King Sargon the Great of Akkad (ca, 2350-2294 BC). Yhe latter birth account as follows (translation of Beyerlin 1978:98-99):
“I am Sargon, the mighty king, the king of Akkad
“...
“The enitum, my mother, conceived me and bore me in secret.
“She laid me in a basket of rushes, sealed my cover with asphalt,
“And cast me on the river, which did not rise over me.
“The river bore me to Akki, the drawer of water.
“Akki, the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his ewer.
“Akki, the drawer of water, (took me) as son and reared me.
“Akki, the drawer of water, made me his gardener...
“...
“On the one hand, it would be difficult to see any parallels between Moses and Sargon beyond the child set adrift by his mother in some kind of infant receptacle, and his subsequent discovery and rescue by another individual. On the other hand, there are numerous parallels within Scripture between Moses and other characters. For example, think of similar motifs with Joseph (see Carmichael 1996: 16:17:
“....
Part 2
ReplyDelete“An even closer parallel to Moses than Joseph, and one that is seldom connected with Moses, is Hagar in Gen 16 and 21 (see Dozeman 1996: 28-33):
“1. Both assume roles that blatantly contrast each other. Hagar is household slave and surrogate wife. Moses is a Hebrew slave and Egyptian prince.
“2. Hagar’s shift from household slave to surrogate wife arouses Sarah’s hostility. Moses’ shift from Egyptain prince to Hebrew liberator arouses Pharaoh’s hostility.
“3. To escape Sarah’s hostility, Hagar flees (barah) into the wilderness (Gen 16:6). To escape Pharoah’s hostility, Moses flees (bazah) into the wilderness (Exod 2:15).
“4. While in the wilderness, Hagar encounters “the angel of the Lord” (Gen 16:7), as does Moses (Exod 3:2).
“5. Hagar is instructed to return to her mistress, from whom she has fled (Gen 16:9). Moses is instructed to return to Pharoah, from whom he has fled (Exod 3:10).
“6. While in the wilderness, Hagar receives a gracious promise from the angel (Gen 16:11-12), as does Moses (Exod 3:12).
“7. Hagar gives God a new name (“You-are-the-God-who-see-me” [Gen 16:13]). To Moses, God reveals God’s new name (“Yahweh/Lord” [Exod 3:13-15]).
“8. Hagar’s second encounter with God is near a bush (Gen 21:15); Moses first encounter with God is near a bush (Exod 3:2).
“9. Hagar goes to the wilderness a second time when Sarah demands her expulsion (Gen 21:10, garas). Moses (for the second time) and his people will find themselves in the wilderness, driven there by Pharaoh and his people (Exod 10:11; 12:39, garas).
“10. Both times, God sanctions (Gen 21:2-13) or orchestrates (Exod 11:1) the expulsion, in effect transforming expulsion into liberation.
“11. Food and beverages for the expelled are limited to what one can carry on one’s shoulder (sekem, Gen 21:14 and Exod 12:34).
“12. The absence of (drinkable) water threatens the life of Hagar’s child (Gen 21:15-16), as it does for Moses’s people (Exod 15:22-26).
“13. Thirst produces a desperate cry (Gen 21:16-17 [Hagar’s? Ishmael’s ?] that lead to a divine response of provision of water (21:19). Moses cry to the Lord (Exod 15:25a) leads to a divine response of water (Exod 15:25b).
“All these parallels, hardly incidental, suggest that Hagar is the prototype for Moses, just as her son, Ishmael, provides the paradigm for Israel with their mutual wilderness experiences (Dozeman 1996: 33)” Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus, aEC, p.24-22).
Ge 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
“... in his final speech the author is careful to show that although Ishmael has been excluded from the covenant with Abraham, Ishmael and his descendants are still to live under the blessing of God (v.20). In fact, in his blessing of Ishmael, God reiterates both his original blessing of all mankind in 1:28 (“I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers” v.20a) and his blessing of Abraham in 12:2 (“I will make him into a great nation,” (v.20b). Just as the “offspring” of Isaac would form a great nation of twelve tribes (49:1-27), so the “offspring” of Ishmael, under God’s blessing, would form a great nation of twelve rulers (v.29b). The list of twelve rules is given in 25:13-15" (John H. Sailhammer, Genesis, EBC, Vol.1. pp.140-41).
‘They’re Weird Mob’
ReplyDelete“Working as a labourer [Italian immigrant] Nino becomes mates with his co-workers, despite SOME DIFFICULTIES WITH AUSTRALIAN SLANG AND CULTURE OF THE 1960S. Nino ENDEAVOURS TO UNDERSTAND THE ASPIRATIONAL VALUES AND SOCIAL RITUALS OF EVERYDAY URBAN AUSTRALIANS, and assimilate” (Part of Plot of “They’re Weird Mob”, Wikipedia).
“They're a Weird Mob is a 1966 Australian film based on the novel of the same... It was the penultimate collaboration of the British filmmakers Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger” (Wikipedia).
“Australians live down-under and like flies on the ceiling they never fall off” is the first sentence of the opening narration.
The narration involving various scenes highlighting ‘down-under’ culture and language (slang) and ends with the sarcastic humour comment: “This is called English. They’re Weird Mob”.
Also in the movie there is a cameo scene with Melbourne-born entertainer, radio and TV star Graham Kennedy, playing himself. Kennedy comes to Sydney and in the scene where he is asking for directions, a Sydneysider insults him. The Melbournite Kennedy replies “You’re a weird mob up here you don’t appreciate art”. The Sydneysider responds with “Bloody weird mob in Melbourne if they keep watching you on TV”.
“After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years” (Sumerian King List).
“They’re Weird Mob” captures a sentiment in trying to understand the Bible.
For a “text-dominated modern Western society,” the “oral-dominated Ancient Near Eastern peoples” seem a “weird mob”; and if the latter could view “text-dominated modern Western peoples” they may also conclude that “they’re weird mob”.
In the movie Nino had difficulties with Australian slang, culture, aspirational values and social rituals. Modern Western people may also have “difficulties” in understanding ANE language, culture aspirational values and social rituals. A few observations in this regard:
“It is characteristic of Hebrew literary style to state a preference of one thing over another in terms that sound like AN ABSOLUTE DICHOTOMY TO OUR WESTERN EARS...” (Craig C. Broyles, Psalms, NIBC, p.192).
“The prophetic charge consists of a series of clauses whose sense is not always clear and whose arrangement IS CERTAINLY NOT LOGICAL BY WESTERN STANDARDS” (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, NICOT, p.587).
“... the Old Testament is more familiar to the culture of the ancient Near East, and the New Testament to the culture of the Greeks and Romans, than either is to our twentieth-first century world. We’re thousands of years and thousands of miles removed” (John H. Walton & D. Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture, p.13).
“One of the greatest obstacles we face in trying to interpret the Bible is that we are inclined to think in our own cultural and linguistic categories. This is no surprise since our categories are often all that we have, but it is a problem because OUR OWN CATEGORIES OFTEN DO NOT SUFFICE AND SOMETIMES MISLEAD” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.67-68).
“It means we frequently need to put the brakes on and ask whether we’re reading the Bible in light of the original culture or in light of contemporary culture. While the Bible’s values were very different from ancient cultures, it obviously communicated in the existing languages and within cultural customs of its days” (John H. Walton & D. Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture, p.13).
If the Italian immigrant Nino had some difficulties with his contemporary Australian people how much more modern people with non-contemporary ancient people.
It is suggested that thinking in modern “cultural and linguistic categories” may account for numerous wrong Biblical interpretations...
Here is a scene, entitled “The Shout”, from the movie, which captures the above sentiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65qdMttVaEo
8:06
ReplyDeleteGood point.
Biblical literalism comes in a number of varieties. Most acknowledge that the Bible contains figures of speech and various literary forms. Reading the Bible as if it were a modern engineering text is regarded by literalists to be “letterism.” Much of what I see surrounding the misinterpretation of The Flood is neither literalist or letterist but an error in understanding how Hebrew is used idiomatically and the meaning of words. In the traditional Flood story found in Western Christianity, the word “eretz” is given an implausible meaning that was not in the original ancient Hebrew. Then there is the use of hyperbole. And no doubt other idioms that I cannot discern as a typical Christian lay member.
What this means is that to an ancient Hebrew audience, the reading of the Flood story from Genesis would sound very different from what it would sound like to us today. What sounded local back then sounds global now. And global has become the unfounded majority view. Yet, I believe there have always been people who believed that the Flood was local. But center stage has always been captured by the heady drama of a global Flood.
While the failure to understand scripture in the ancient Hebrew idiom plays a significant role, I think the larger error is to be found in the denial of natural theology. Natural theology has a number of different instantiations but the one that I am referring to is the theology that is based on both God’s Book of Words and God’s Book of Works. The global Flood theory is a denial of God’s Book of Works as understood in “state of the art” science. Instead, the global theory draws on odd, customized “science” that has no standing in the larger scientific community – such as the science that supports Young Earth Creationism. “Science” that can be cited but not credentialed.
The failure to let God’s Book of Words and Book of Works interplay and cross-validate leads to some dilemmas. Professor Stephen Falkenberg’s statement below seems to me to capture the outcome of this errant approach to knowledge:
“I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and sitting on pillars and cannot move (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). Additionally, it says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26).”
Maybe next time, instead of pursuing a topic like the Flood, I will take on the issue of whether or not the Bible corroborates the existence of Godzilla. My guess is that there will be a surprising number of people who believe that the Bible does.
Ranger
All flesh-everything shall die-Gen 6:17; every living substance-7:4; under the whole heaven-7:19; all flesh-every creeping thing-every man-7:21; all in the dry land died-7:22; every living substance was destroyed-7:23; neither will I again smite any more every thing living-8:21; few…8 souls saved by water-1Peter 3:20; spared not the old world, but saved Noah-2Peter 2:5; the flood came, and took them all away-Mat 24:39; the flood came, and destroyed them all-Luke 17:27.
ReplyDelete10:01
ReplyDeleteGen 6:17 may be legitimately translated as:
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the LAND, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the LAND shall die."
This gives eretz its proper scope. Eretz does not mean the planetary globe called Earth. The authors of the Flood story had no notion of what that was. To understand that you need to go back to the cosmological model used in Genesis - vaulted heaven, flat earth, underworld, celestial bodies as lights embedded in a firmament - a hard ceiling.
The remainder of the scriptures that you cite can be exegeted to support a local Flood. And then there is geology and genetics that support the local Flood. I hope it registers on you that you just cannot cite a scripture and have it be all the proof you need to support a global flood. You have to really bring it. You should read my little essay first.
Ranger
Fall of Babylon
ReplyDeleteJer 50:1 THE WORD THAT THE LORD SPAKE against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans BY Jeremiah the prophet.
Jer 51:60 So Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against Babylon.
Jer 51:61 And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When thou comest to Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words;
Jer 50:2 Declare ye among the nations, and publish, and set up a standard; publish, and conceal not: say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces.
Jer 50:3 For out of the north there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.
Jer 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of THE KINGS OF THE MEDES: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.
Jer 51:28 Prepare against her the nations with the kings of the Medes, the captains thereof, and all the rulers thereof, and all the land of his dominion.
Jer 51:44 And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring forth out of his mouth that which he hath swallowed up: and the nations shall not flow together any more unto him: yea, THE WALL OF BABYLON SHALL FALL.
Jer 51:58 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; THE BROAD WALLS OF BABYLON SHALL BE UTTERLY BROKEN, AND HER HIGH GATES SHALL BE BURNED WITH FIRE; and the people shall labour in vain, and the folk in the fire, and they shall be weary.
Jer 51:37 And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, WITHOUT AN INHABITANT.
Jer 51:62 Then shalt thou say, O LORD, thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be DESOLATE FOR EVER.
Jer 51:63 And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates:
Jer 51:64 And thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her: and they shall be weary. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.
“... there is a problem of interpretation, in that the fall of Babylon which ended Judah’s exile in 539 happened without a battle. The city was not attacked by a company of great nations who would come against her from every quarter; open her granaries; pile her up like a heap of grain, and destroy her utterly; nor did God’s people have to flee for their lives. When Cyrus entered, it was as a liberator, to a city intact and welcoming. Half a century later, Xerxes would put down a rebellion there with a heavy hand, smashing its fortifications and pillaging its temples; but the city survived and recovered. Its eventual decline into a heap of ruins (51:37), a wilderness and desert (50:12b), was gradual, due largely to the building of a new capital, Seleucia on the Tigris, in 275 BC; but it still had inhabitants in the first century AD” (Derek Kidner, The Message of Jeremiah, BST, pp.148-49).
Looking at this in a little more detail:
“What can be said regarding the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies concerning Babylon’s fall? Bright’s comments summarize the unfolding of historical events as compared with the prophetic expectation: “It is to be noted that the actual fate of Babylon at the hands of Cyrus could scarcely have been more unlike the awful picture of a slaughter and destruction we see in these poems. Cyrus actually entered Babylon without a fight, refraining from harming it in any way, and treated its citizens with the utmost consideration.”
Part 2
ReplyDelete“For Bright, along with may other scholars, this constitutes proof positive that “it is unthinkable that a prophecy such as the present one could have been composed after the event,” since the unfolding of the event did not correspond with the prophetic pronouncement. Nevertheless, the kingdom of Babylon did ultimately fall, never to rise again, and [some of] the Jewish exiles did return. And centuries later, after the reign of Alexander and his successors, “the population of Babylon was forcibly removed to Seleucia, and Babylon became no more than a archaic sacred site. By the first century BC, its desolation was complete” (IVPBBC).
“How, then, do we evaluate Jeremiah’s words — words that were preserved by subsequent generations as part of God’s Word and therefore believed to be accurate and true, as opposed to the vacuous words of the false prophets? The book of Jeremiah itself (37:18; cf. also 28:8-9) reaffirms the prophetic text of Deuteronomy 18:21-22, requiring that true prophecies come to pass and judging false the prophecies that were not fulfilled. What then can be said of Jeremiah’s oracles here?...
“Another view, in keeping with the line of interpretation followed in this commentary, argues that to one extent the prophecies did come to pass, only not in the expected time frame or to the expected degree, signifying that the final fulfillment was yet future... From a canonical perspective this view point has merit, explaining why the unfulfilled prophecies were preserved in Scripture” (Michael L. Brown, Jeremiah, EBC, rev. Vol. 7, pp.564).
“Nonetheless, the honest interpreter is faced with the fact that Bright’s statement is undeniable: Babylon did not meet with devastating, violent end at the hands of the northern coalition — an end that left the city a desolate, uninhabited wasteland — despite the clear, repeated words that this would happen (see 50:3, 10-16, 21-27, 29-32, 35-46; 51:1-4, 8-9, 11-14, 25-33, 36-44, 47-49, 52-58, 62-64). In fact, the destruction was to be so great that the exiles were urged to flee for their lives in light of the coming onslaught (51:6, 45). Simply stated, this prophesied destruction did not happen... the fact is that the prophecies were not literally fulfilled. Yet these very chapters are followed by the historical appendix in ch. 52, which functions as tacit proof that Jeremiah was a true prophet of God, since his prophecies concerning the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem came to pass” (Michael L. Brown, Jeremiah, EBC, rev. Vol. 7, pp.565).
“... rather than stating that Jeremiah’s words were not entirely true because they did not fully come to pass, the opposite conclusion was reached, namely, that his words must fully come to pass because they are entirely true” (Michael L. Brown, Jeremiah, EBC, rev. Vol. 7, pp.564-65).
"It has troubled some scholars that chapters 50-51 [of Jeremiah] predict the violent destruction of Babylon, whereas its defeat by Cyrus in 539 B.C. took place without a battle and with no damage to the city. But with other predictive prophecies, if a fulfillment does not occur in one period, it is to be sought for in another and future one" (Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah, EBC, Vol.6, p.672).
While I go along with Charles Feinberg’s observation as far as it goes, and concur with George Ladd’s comments below, I still find this all a mystery on how the near-future audience was meant to understand the prophecy. There appears to be another dimension to how the text is to be understood - a rhetoric perplexing to the modern mind.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteDt 7:2a And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them;
Dt 7:2 thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
Dt 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
“When Yahweh had done his part, however, the Israelites however were to do theirs — destroy them totally. As the NIV footnote informs us, the Hebrew word translated here “totally” (heherim) had a technical sense. The common explanation that it meant “devoting” things or people to Yahweh is probably not the best. A better explanation seems to be that it is an absolute and irrevocable renouncing of things or persons, a refusal to take any gain or profit from them. Thus, in obedience to this command, things or persons could be renounced without necessarily being destroyed. This explanation provides a context in which the instruction prohibiting treaties or intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land would make sense. If the local people needed to be destroyed, then verse 3 would be rather unnecessary, since everyone should have been exterminated...” (Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, NIBC, p.109).
When it comes to an apparent ‘failure’ of a literal, from a modern-western perspective, prophecy, Tyre seems to get more press than Babylon:
Eze 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
Eze 29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
“It has become almost a shibboleth in commentaries to see the purpose of this oracle as Ezekiel’s explaining away the failure of the earlier prophecy against Tyre” (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, p.358).
“Donald Gowan is typical when he writes: the prophet “does not find it necessary to defend or explain away his earlier prophecy; in effect he just admits that it didn’t happen” [When Man Becomes God ...103]...” (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, p.358).
“If the passage had been intended as an apologetic against failure of literal fulfillment, it is extraordinary that the prophet chooses such a minor part of his prophecy to defend. If he were confronted by literalists, insisting on a word-for-word fulfillment of his prophecy, one would have expected them to press Ezekiel on the major point that Tyre had not actually been reduced to a bare rock (26:4) but was still a viable city, rather than on the minor point that Tyre had not provided significant booty for her captors. In addition, an oracle with such a purpose would belong properly after the Tyre oracles, not in the middle of the oracles against Egypt.
“In fact, the purpose of the oracle is quite different. There is no mention of any “failure” or an earlier oracle; on the contrary, the essential success of the oracle against Tyre is supposed. Nebuchadnezzar did indeed, as Ezekiel prophesied, assault Tyre and bring her to ruin. The point being made here is simple: The worker is worthy of his hire, and Nebuchadnezzar is acting as the Lord’s worker in his conquests, both of Tyre, so also he will succeed against Egypt, and this time he will receive payment in full” (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, p.358).
But the campaign against Egypt and “payment in full” may be not what a modern reader would expect to happen.
Part 4
ReplyDelete“The hope of the Old Testament is also a historically orientated hope. By this, we mean to say not only that the establishment of God’s reign is seen as the consummation of his working in history, but that the ultimate eschatological hope is directly related to the immediate historical future. The modern mind is interested in chronology, in sequence, in time. The prophetic mind usually was not concerned with such questions but took its stand in the present and viewed the future as a great canvas of God’s redemptive working in terms of height and breadth but lacking the clear dimension of depth. The prophets usually saw in the background the final eschatological visitation of God; but since they primarily concerned themselves with God’s will for his people in the present, they viewed the immediate future in terms of the ultimate future without strict chronological differentiation and thus proclaimed the ultimate will of God for his people here and now” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., pp.64-65).
“A strictly analytical approach might try to separate these two elements in the Old Testament perspective — the hope of the immediate future, and the hope for the ultimate consummation — and to set one over against the other as two kinds of hope. Such a critical analytical approach would only serve to obscure the Old Testament perspective. The prophets have a single hope which encompasses both the immediate historical and ultimate eschatological future. The reason for this (to us) strange lack of chronological concern is the theocentric character of Israel’s hope. Their hope was not in the future but in God and the God who would ultimately act to bring his purpose to its consumption. Therefore, the prophets usually have a single, though complex, hope” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.65).
“Another way of expressing this perspective is to say that the future stands in tension with the present. Eschatology is not an end in itself, standing in detachment upon the horizon of time. Eschatology finds its significance primarily in its relationship to history, for both are concerned chiefly with the will of God for his people. The prophets usually took their stand in the midst of an actual historical situation and addressed themselves to it. They proclaimed God’s will for the ultimate future, that in its light they might proclaim God’s will for his people here and now. The immediate future is interpreted in terms of God’s ultimate purpose. The hope of the Kingdom was not a subject for detached study of for speculative conjecture. Nor was it even a subject of importance for its own sake. The prophets were not philosophers or theologians; they were preachers of the will of God and were burdened for the relationship of Israel to God. This does not mean that the predictive aspect of prophecy should be minimized so that the prophets become little more than moralists. Prediction played a large and important role in the prophetic message. The question is that of the prophetic center of gravity or focus of concern. This was not the future per se but rather the will of God and the fate of his people, especially in their present experience. God who will ultimately bring his people into the Kingdom of God who is now concerned with them and their present sinfulness” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., pp.65-66).
Ah yes, prophecies from a God who considers 1000 years as a day, as a watch in the night, whose thoughts are higher as the heavens, may be somewhat is not altogether.....incomprehensible, difficult to explain.
ReplyDelete9:35
ReplyDeleteLiteralism itself is a collection of different hemeneutics. There is the historical-grammatical form and also "letterism" and others. Letterism is interpreting the Bible according to literal definitions that you would find in dictionary without regard to any figures of speech. But there, too, we do no find a rigid and incontroverbible interpretation because even Websters admits to differing definitions.
The Bible is, as Peter Enns states, incarnate. It is the word of God plunged into the theater of human activity, viewpoint and curation. That is why I find it troubling when someone quotes a verse out of an English translation from Genesis 6 about the Flood as if it settles all issues. You immediately understand that the person does not have a clue about the background and etiology of scripture.
The following scripture is controversial but at least it should gives us pause to consider whether the Bible reflects perfectly God's intentions. Jeremiah claims that he is citing the inspired word of God in this passage:
How can you say, “We are wise,
and the law of the Lord is with us,”
when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie? (Jer. 8:8, NRSV)
Does it mean the scribes changed the Torah or does it mean they misinterpreted the carefully preserved Torah? There could be plausible arguments on both sides. I do know that when Jesus came, he was the fulfilling of the Law and the Prophets. Whatever the actual intent of the Torah, he was it. And he did not start a movement to revise the Torah, remove all the human modifications, so it could be kept properly. He became the living Torah.
Ranger
It is absolutely laughable when some Armstrongite (or other) minister claims to have all the answers and attempts to impose them on hia followers in an authoritarian fashion claiming to have the authority to consign those who will not obey him to the Lake of Fire, or the Second Rez.
ReplyDeleteHumans are limited to five senses, three dimensions, and seventy years + or -. Comprehension varies widely, as does exposure to resources that could cause humans to completely understand.
Life is like the infamous Black Box experiment in Physics class. Or the lesson of the elephant and the blind men. I believe that's what grace is there to cover.
Ranger you write:
ReplyDelete“The clincher to the word “earth” meaning ground or land (and not the planet Earth) is Genesis 1:10: God called the dry land earth (eretz). IF GOD DEFINED ‘EARTH’ AS ‘DRY LAND,’ THEN SO SHOULD WE.”
So would you be happy with this translation:
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the dry land ('erets)?
As an aside “land” is not in the text of 1:10.
At least we can agree that the flood was local. For me, Moses portrayed a local flood in universalistic terms for rhetorical effect in accord with the ‘ubiquitous’ use of hyperbole in the culture of the ancient near-east.
Ge 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry appear: and it was so.
Ge 1:10a And God called the dry Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas:
“The “one place” is in contrast to an implied “every place” when the waters covered the whole earth. It is not that the OT envisages all the water being gathered into a single ocean, as the mention of seas in v 10 makes clear. Whereas we view the continents as islands surrounded by oceans, the phraseology here suggests they saw the world as dry land with seas in it... It was God’s power that had limited the waters to certain areas (cf. Jer 5:22). When these great acts of separation were finished God’s glory was again apparent: “It was good.” In the flood, the bounds established at creation were overstepped, and death and chaos returned” (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC, p.20).
“According to Stadelman (Hebrew Conception of the World, 127), the term ’rs means primarily the entire area in which man thinks of himself as living, as opposed to the regions of heaven or the underworld”... (Gordon J. Weham, Genesis 1-15, WBC, p.15).
Gen 6:6 Yahweh regretted that he had made on the earth, and there was pain in his heart.
Gen 6:7a Yahweh said, “I will wash from the earth the man whom I have created...
“Geographically, the problem is an infested earth. Note that in 6:5-13, the earth (ha’ares) is mentioned eight times. Thus the description has all the appearances of a universal condition rather than a local one. To be sure, ’eres is frequently rendered as “(local) land,” “ground,” and even “underworld.” When ’eres refers to a particular piece of land, however, it is often followed by a prepositional phrase that further identifies the land (e.g., the land of the Canaanites, land of the east, land of the fathers), except in those places where mention is made theologically of the land promised to Israel. Furthermore, the reference in 7:3 to the animals of kol-ha’ares argues for an understanding of ’eres elsewhere in the Flood narrative as “earth” in that almost all uses of kol-ha’ares (outside of Deuteronomy and Joshua-Samuel) are references to the earth (Gen 1:26, 28; 11:1; Exod 9:14, 16; 19:5). Yet, verses such as Gen 13:9, 15 show that even in Genesis kol-ha’ares refers to the whole land” (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17, NICOT, p.273).
“The first two meanings listed above are far and away the most crucial. That is, ’eres designates either (a) “the earth” in a cosmological sense, or (b) “the land” in a sense of a specific territorial designation, primarily the land of Israel.
“In the former meaning, we are informed first (Gen 1:9-13) that God created the earth on the third day. All is done by divine fiat. The earth ... is a sphere that is totally under the control of divine sovereignty. The earth is the Lord’s (Ps 24:1). He is its King (Ps 47:2, [H3]), and its Lord (Ps 97:5)...
“The second major use of ’eres is to designate a particular territory. Here the references to Palestine are of special significance... (Victor P. Hamilton, “’eres, TWOT, Vol.1, p.74).
Ps 24:1a To YHWH [is]
Ps 24:1a the earth [’eres] and everything in it.
Ps 24:1b The world [tebel] and all its people
Isa 34:1a Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people:
Part 2
ReplyDeleteIsa 34:1b let the earth [’eres] hear, and all that is therein;
Isa34:1c the world [tebel], and all things that come forth of it.
Isa 34:2 For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.
“The introductory verses [24:1-2] affirm the authority of Yahweh over the whole earth, its contents and inhabitants, by employing creation terminology. Because he created it, the earth belongs to Yahweh. The parallel words “earth” (’eres) and “world” (tebel) are a standard word pair, appearing often together. The pairing appears in several related types of contexts. In certain passages “earth” and “world” emphasize the stable character of the cosmos Yahweh creates and sustains. “The foundation of the earth are the Lord’s upon which he has set the world” (1 Sam 3:8). “Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved” (1 Chron 16:30).
“In other contexts, the emphasis is on the authority that attaches to Yahweh as the creator of the cosmos.. “The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it” (Ps 89:11). “Let all the earth fear the Lord, let all the people revere him. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm” (33:8-9)” (Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms Volume 1, NIVAC, pp.447-48).
Your appeal to Genesis 1 reminds of HWA’s appeal to this chapter:
“In Genesis 1:4 God "divided the light from darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening [darkness] and the morning [light] were the first day. . . . And the evening [darkness] and the morning [light] were the second day . . . . And the eveningm[now three periods of darkness called night - three nights] and the morning [now three periods of light called day - three days] were the third day" (Gen. 1:4-13). Here we have the only Bible definition which explains
and counts up the amount of time involved in the expression "the third day." It includes three dark periods called "night," and three light periods called "day" three days and three nights, and Jesus said they contained twelve hours for each period - a total of 72 hours.
“That ought to be conclusive! Any seven-year-old, near the end of the second grade, could figure it easily” (The Resurrection Was Not on Sunday, p.6).
But this appeal does not allow for an idomatic sense to “three days and three nights”; following Genesis terminology it could have been “three nights and three days”.
Mt 16:21b and be killed, and be raised again THE THIRD DAY.
Mt 12:40b so shall the Son of man be THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the heart of the earth.
Mt 27:63 ... that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, AFTER THREE DAYS I will rise again. (cp. Mk 8:31).
“Jesus repeatedly said he would be raised “on the third day” (16:21, 17:23; 20:19)... If he was literally three days and three nights in the tomb, he would have been raised on the fourth day...” (Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, NIVAC, p.936, 451).
“... we know that the phrase “three days and three nights” was not a problem for Matthew, for he can use both that and “on the third day” and include no explanation, which he does in other cases where he sees a problem... Having seen what we know, we now need to look at what we may be assuming erroneously... WE MAY BE ASSUMING THAT FIRST-CENTURY JEWS THOUGHT ABOUT TIME IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE DO. IN FACT THEY DID NOT” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, p.380-81).
Ex 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and SANCTIFY THEM TODAY AND TOMORROW, and let them wash their clothes,
Ex 19:11 AND BE READY AGAINST THE THIRD DAY: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
“third day. IN THE HEBREW IDIOM, THIS MEANS THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (cf. verse 12)” (S. Goldman, revised by Ephraim Oratz, Samuel, Soncino, p.122).
2:58 wrote, "So would you be happy with this translation: Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the dry land ('erets)?"
ReplyDeleteYes, I would prefer that translation. That translation would be compatible with the Three-story universe that Genesis 1 describes. Why not have it be consistent? Why impose a totally different standard on the translation of Genesis 1 from the rest of the chapter? The ancient authors believed the earth was a disc of land surrounded by oceans. Something similar was believed up until the time of Columbus. Imposing modern astrophysics on Genesis 1 simply produces confusion and a literary act that seems like subterfuge.
It is easy enough to map Genesis 1 ideologically, without tinkering with its contents or context, to the creation of the Universe. In fact, doing so would be enormously instructive to readers concerning the issues of Bible translation and exegesis. They would know that we are dealing with ancient and superseded viewpoints and much is demanded of the reader. And the field day for atheists would be at an end. They foment concocted and irrelevant controversy over the mismatch between ancient cosmology and modern cosmology.
Just leave it in its ancient archaic language rather than trying to cure the problem through spurious translation and tell readers that is what people used to believe about the Cosmos and it really doesn’t make any difference to the themes of the Bible. Of course, you lose the atheists and the letterists. No great loss.
Ranger