Sunday, October 26, 2008
I Have a Hard Time With the Story of Noah's Ark
I think a lot of people are shocked to discover that I believe that, say, Jesus really healed the lame, and that He really did walk on water. Well I do, and if you think that I must not understand modern science, then I think you must have way too much confidence in your understanding of what is "possible." Keep in mind, for example, that the apostles who saw Jesus "walking on water" wouldn't have examined the situation with the eyes of Richard Feynman. I haven't done research on the topic, but just to give you an idea of what I mean, it's possible Jesus was standing on the back of an aquatic creature. You see people "coasting on water" every time you go to Sea World.
Or how about bringing people back from the dead? Does "modern medicine" teach us that is impossible? Of course not. If you were watching Nova and they interviewed a guy in a white coat with an MD after his name, and he said how a person was clinically dead but they fished her out of the frozen lake and revived her, you would totally believe that tale; you wouldn't even bother googling for corroboration. And yet you wouldn't hesitate to confidently tell me the Gospels are myths because it is "impossible" that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.
(Incidentally, some Christians get annoyed when I "cheat" like this; it seems like I'm taking away from God's miracles. But c'mon, I already believe that God created the universe and all of its laws. Obviously God can do whatever He wants. I just think it is more elegant if matter behaves according to some simple rules, and even so yields "miraculous" outcomes that were completely unanticipated by dull humans. This seems more impressive than parlor tricks where He suspends the laws of physics that operate 99.999% of the time.)
OK, now that you know where I am coming from, let me confess that I am having a very hard time taking the story of Noah and the flood seriously. (See Genesis 6-8.) Put aside the logistical problems of getting all the different animals on board, how to feed them, get rid of their waste, etc. etc. There are still some really serious problems with this story.
For one thing, it's not clear to me how the waters can "recede" after it stops raining. If a local area is flooded by rain, then yeah the water levels recede after it stops, but that's because the water goes somewhere and ends up raising the water level in a lake or the ocean.
But if the whole earth was underwater, even the mountains, then how could the water levels have receded? I suppose there could have been cracks in the ocean floor that allowed the water above to drain into underground cavities, but it sure seems like this was a tall tale written by someone who was extrapolating from his experience with regional flooding after a lot of rain.
(It occurs to me that maybe a bunch of the water evaporated. Does anyone know how much water the atmosphere holds? I have no idea, but I'm guessing it doesn't hold so much that a shell of water bigger than the globe would shrink much. But maybe I'm wrong.)
Now a second huge problem: The wording is ambiguous, but it seems that 47 days after dry land first appears, Noah releases a dove from the ark and it flies back with a freshly plucked olive leaf. So how did that happen? Even if you say that somehow the seed of an olive tree survived the flood, even so, 47 days is not enough time for it to grow and generate a leaf, right?
Again, this smacks of someone who is writing a story and didn't think through all of the implications.
So when people ask if I believe the literal word of the Bible, I'm not sure how to answer. I don't, since I'm prepared to say that the story of the flood did not play out exactly as the Bible describes it. But on the other hand, I don't just think the Bible is a collection of myths "with a good lesson." I really think there was a guy named Jesus who healed the sick and rose from the dead. In future posts, I will eventually explain why I think my belief in Him is more "rational" than those who dismiss it as a fairy tale.
Or how about bringing people back from the dead? Does "modern medicine" teach us that is impossible? Of course not. If you were watching Nova and they interviewed a guy in a white coat with an MD after his name, and he said how a person was clinically dead but they fished her out of the frozen lake and revived her, you would totally believe that tale; you wouldn't even bother googling for corroboration. And yet you wouldn't hesitate to confidently tell me the Gospels are myths because it is "impossible" that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.
(Incidentally, some Christians get annoyed when I "cheat" like this; it seems like I'm taking away from God's miracles. But c'mon, I already believe that God created the universe and all of its laws. Obviously God can do whatever He wants. I just think it is more elegant if matter behaves according to some simple rules, and even so yields "miraculous" outcomes that were completely unanticipated by dull humans. This seems more impressive than parlor tricks where He suspends the laws of physics that operate 99.999% of the time.)
OK, now that you know where I am coming from, let me confess that I am having a very hard time taking the story of Noah and the flood seriously. (See Genesis 6-8.) Put aside the logistical problems of getting all the different animals on board, how to feed them, get rid of their waste, etc. etc. There are still some really serious problems with this story.
For one thing, it's not clear to me how the waters can "recede" after it stops raining. If a local area is flooded by rain, then yeah the water levels recede after it stops, but that's because the water goes somewhere and ends up raising the water level in a lake or the ocean.
But if the whole earth was underwater, even the mountains, then how could the water levels have receded? I suppose there could have been cracks in the ocean floor that allowed the water above to drain into underground cavities, but it sure seems like this was a tall tale written by someone who was extrapolating from his experience with regional flooding after a lot of rain.
(It occurs to me that maybe a bunch of the water evaporated. Does anyone know how much water the atmosphere holds? I have no idea, but I'm guessing it doesn't hold so much that a shell of water bigger than the globe would shrink much. But maybe I'm wrong.)
Now a second huge problem: The wording is ambiguous, but it seems that 47 days after dry land first appears, Noah releases a dove from the ark and it flies back with a freshly plucked olive leaf. So how did that happen? Even if you say that somehow the seed of an olive tree survived the flood, even so, 47 days is not enough time for it to grow and generate a leaf, right?
Again, this smacks of someone who is writing a story and didn't think through all of the implications.
So when people ask if I believe the literal word of the Bible, I'm not sure how to answer. I don't, since I'm prepared to say that the story of the flood did not play out exactly as the Bible describes it. But on the other hand, I don't just think the Bible is a collection of myths "with a good lesson." I really think there was a guy named Jesus who healed the sick and rose from the dead. In future posts, I will eventually explain why I think my belief in Him is more "rational" than those who dismiss it as a fairy tale.
Comments:
I have to agree with you. I think its a fine line to walk being a christian but not thinking that every word of the bible is literally true, where do you draw the line?
I have a really hard time with Noah's flood, but to answer at least part of your problem with the story, the world could flood with melting icecaps!
I have a really hard time with Noah's flood, but to answer at least part of your problem with the story, the world could flood with melting icecaps!
Right, but I wasn't asking where the water came from, I was asking where it went when it "receded." Did it freeze into the polar ice caps?
I will readily admit that I haven't done much study on this...
First answer - it is evident that there have been some serious cataclysmic events in the history of the earth. For example, seas shells are found in mountains (therefore they were apparently lower at some time), there is significant evidence that the continents were once joined, there is evidence of at least one huge asteroid impact, there have been huge climatic changes, etc. What I am saying is that the past looked very different than the present.
Was the earth flatter at the time? Did the Lord remove moisture from the system afterwards, even through "natural" means? Did He change "time"? I really don't know. There were once huge ice caps covering large parts of the earth - what happened to that water?
In that light, it is not too difficult to imagine scenarios of how the waters rose over the mountain tops, and and then receded into the basins we call oceans.
(As I said, I haven't studied this much, and a geologist would likely tear me to shreds ...)
Second answer - I guess that is part of what the "unseen" part of faith is about.
I have wondered as well about that leaf.
Regarding scriptural inerrancy, I believe that a God who reveals himself through the authors of the Bible is quite capable of making sure they get it right. Therefore I think the original form is inerrant, but acknowledge that current versions cannot be inerrant, as they do differ between them.
If it sounds all too "wrapped up and neat", OK, I'll accept that.
First answer - it is evident that there have been some serious cataclysmic events in the history of the earth. For example, seas shells are found in mountains (therefore they were apparently lower at some time), there is significant evidence that the continents were once joined, there is evidence of at least one huge asteroid impact, there have been huge climatic changes, etc. What I am saying is that the past looked very different than the present.
Was the earth flatter at the time? Did the Lord remove moisture from the system afterwards, even through "natural" means? Did He change "time"? I really don't know. There were once huge ice caps covering large parts of the earth - what happened to that water?
In that light, it is not too difficult to imagine scenarios of how the waters rose over the mountain tops, and and then receded into the basins we call oceans.
(As I said, I haven't studied this much, and a geologist would likely tear me to shreds ...)
Second answer - I guess that is part of what the "unseen" part of faith is about.
I have wondered as well about that leaf.
Regarding scriptural inerrancy, I believe that a God who reveals himself through the authors of the Bible is quite capable of making sure they get it right. Therefore I think the original form is inerrant, but acknowledge that current versions cannot be inerrant, as they do differ between them.
If it sounds all too "wrapped up and neat", OK, I'll accept that.
Dr. Murphy,
Consider that the flood may have been regional and not global:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml
Here's another article about the logistics of the ark that may interest you:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/skeptics/noahzoo.shtml
-Ben
Consider that the flood may have been regional and not global:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml
Here's another article about the logistics of the ark that may interest you:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/skeptics/noahzoo.shtml
-Ben
There is plenty of water here now to cover the earth, it just has to be pushed around. Raise an ocean floor a bit. Lower mountains some.
If I take the Bible too literally then I can live with that. I'm okay if the brights think I'm an ignorant hick. They think man can plan the economy and multitudinous other utopian fantasies with disastrous and deadly results.
Hang in there, Bob.
My current battle is explaining to my friends that you don't have to have wall-to-wall Christians for freedom to work.
If I take the Bible too literally then I can live with that. I'm okay if the brights think I'm an ignorant hick. They think man can plan the economy and multitudinous other utopian fantasies with disastrous and deadly results.
Hang in there, Bob.
My current battle is explaining to my friends that you don't have to have wall-to-wall Christians for freedom to work.
# posted by 
: October 27, 2008 at 9:41 AM
: October 27, 2008 at 9:41 AM
I agree with Tolstoy in his treatment of miracles: they are not important. In fact, his translation of the New Testament (The Gospels in Brief) leave out any mention of miracles (including the resurrection) and just provide the teachings of Jesus.
Really, how much does it matter now whether this or that story from the Bible is really true or not? How do these questions help lead me to living a better life?
Bob, one of these Sundays I'd like to see your views on Tolstoy, particularly since you are both pacifists.
Really, how much does it matter now whether this or that story from the Bible is really true or not? How do these questions help lead me to living a better life?
Bob, one of these Sundays I'd like to see your views on Tolstoy, particularly since you are both pacifists.
"But on the other hand, I don't just think the Bible is a collection of myths "with a good lesson.""
There is a tendency of people taking the Bible as entirely myth or as entirely unhistorical. The problem with both of these views is that they fail to see the Bible for what it is. The Bible is the story of a central figure, the Trinity with an emphasis on Christ. All the books of the Bible, in some way reveal the infallible Truth of the Trinity.
Not all the books of the Bible are historical, some are poetic, some are polemic (yet inside a historical context), and some are fictional literature. But all books reveal infallible Truth.
Criticisms and apologies of the Bible that fail to take its complex nature into account, are extremely problematic.
There is a tendency of people taking the Bible as entirely myth or as entirely unhistorical. The problem with both of these views is that they fail to see the Bible for what it is. The Bible is the story of a central figure, the Trinity with an emphasis on Christ. All the books of the Bible, in some way reveal the infallible Truth of the Trinity.
Not all the books of the Bible are historical, some are poetic, some are polemic (yet inside a historical context), and some are fictional literature. But all books reveal infallible Truth.
Criticisms and apologies of the Bible that fail to take its complex nature into account, are extremely problematic.
The story does not claim that rain was the only source of the flood waters.
There have been various explanations offered. Of course, if you don't believe the story, the explanations will be unbelievable, too.
Here is one theory that the flood is global:
http://www.creationism.org/patten/
There is also this theory, which has a local (maybe regional would be a better term) flood. I saw a show on the History Channel that was based on this book (I think).
Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History by William Ryan and Walter Pitman http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Flood-Scientific-Discoveries-Changed/dp/0684859203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225120785&sr=8-1
There have been various explanations offered. Of course, if you don't believe the story, the explanations will be unbelievable, too.
Here is one theory that the flood is global:
http://www.creationism.org/patten/
There is also this theory, which has a local (maybe regional would be a better term) flood. I saw a show on the History Channel that was based on this book (I think).
Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History by William Ryan and Walter Pitman http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Flood-Scientific-Discoveries-Changed/dp/0684859203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225120785&sr=8-1
# posted by : October 27, 2008 at 11:27 AM
: October 27, 2008 at 11:27 AM
The bible isn't one book. It's an anthology. Therefore, it is possible to look upon its different parts in different ways.
To wit: Genesis is more than likely an allegory (as is Job and others).
Exodus is history mixed with mythology--something like the Iliad.
Others (e.g. Leviticus) are legal histories.
Some are prophesies (e.g. Isaiah)
The Gospels, especially Luke, are history.
Paul writes polemics.
And St. John foresees "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" in Revelations.
Too many people think of the bible as one book because it is published between two covers. It's not one book, and it has multiple authors.
To wit: Genesis is more than likely an allegory (as is Job and others).
Exodus is history mixed with mythology--something like the Iliad.
Others (e.g. Leviticus) are legal histories.
Some are prophesies (e.g. Isaiah)
The Gospels, especially Luke, are history.
Paul writes polemics.
And St. John foresees "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" in Revelations.
Too many people think of the bible as one book because it is published between two covers. It's not one book, and it has multiple authors.
# posted by : October 27, 2008 at 8:53 PM
: October 27, 2008 at 8:53 PM
The point of the flood story is that God can destroy the world, and indeed he probably should.
As Jonathan Edwards observed, we are all "sinners in the hands of an angry God."
Nothing other than God's mercy keeps us from the Hell that we have merited.
As Jonathan Edwards observed, we are all "sinners in the hands of an angry God."
Nothing other than God's mercy keeps us from the Hell that we have merited.
I'm not sure about any details of the mythical or real Noah and what he could have managed with all those animals on an ark, and what happened to the water, etc... But the reason I'm writing is to say that several other ancient cultures from across the world have a huge flood in their folklore-histories. Cultures from the western hemisphere, others fairly far removed from the Middle East, I think. So it probably isn't a coincidence that the deluge "myth" is so pervasive. Something like that probably did happen (though possibly only regionally each time).
# posted by : October 28, 2008 at 5:55 PM
: October 28, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I read everyone's posts but I just want to announce that I can't keep up and respond to everything... Thanks for the interest though.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]