Board index ‹ Noah's Ark & the Flood

[J Lord]

> it can also connote the completeness of the judgment

But if you are trying connote a judgment that is more complete than it actually was then it would be deceptive. So for whatever reason the writer of the text wound up being deceptive about geography. I am assuming it was through ignorance because the writer didn't know such a flood was impossible.

And it doesn't really matter whether it was all mountains were underwater or just covered in some other sense. It goes beyond geography to include biology, genetics, physics, and so on. Things that the writers were not aware of because their worldview was so limited, as you have pointed out already.

?a theory proposed by Glenn Morton

That does not contradict my claim that a flood caused by rain could ever cover mountains with water in a local area. His theory involves a huge inflow of ocean water. It also couldn't be the flood referred to in the bible if he's saying it happened 5.5 million years ago.

> There's another possibility at least for our understanding

This possibility would not accord with the bible story in terms of location or the impact it would have on human and animal life.

>Except that this story is told in many separate cultures.

There are lots of myths that different cultures either borrow from each other or come up with independantly. Why is this one more believable? I would say to me it is less believable because there would be evidence if it had happened. Wheras something like dying and rising god myths are also common, but would not be expected to leave any evidence behind.

[jimwalton]

> if you are trying connote a judgment that is more complete than it actually was then it would be deceptive.

I understand what you mean, but I obviously see it differently. One of my ancestors was stationed in Nagasaki after WWII, and he took some photographs. I've seen the photographs, and my comment would easily be, "Everything was rubble. The city was leveled and decimated. Incredible." Now, if you really study the picture, amazingly there were still some structures standing. Some things actually survived the blast. Am I guilty for trying to connote a judgment (explosion) that it more compete than it actually was? Have I been deceptive? I don't think so. The destruction was complete. Not totally absolutely unconditionally, but in reality yes.

> That does not contradict my claim

I was never trying to assert (and I think I said it explicitly) that Glenn Morton's proposal was the biblical flood, nor was I trying to claim that the flooding of the Black Sea was it either. All I was trying to do was to establish the credibility of the possibility of floods in that area that were continental in scope. If it happened twice (and there's evidence of it), then it could possibly have happened a third time. That's all I'm contending. To me it answers the question, "Is it reasonable to believe that such a thing as the biblical flood actually happened?" To me the answer is, "It could easily be reasonable."

> There are lots of myths

There is a vast difference between historiography and mythography. Walton and Sandy quote: "Mythography is less interested in portraying events than in rendering the world meaningful through addressing how the world works and how it got that way. Though often adopting a narrative structure by recounting events, it is generally not interested in those events as events that can be connected with the human world. yet if we could ask mythographers whether they believe those events were real, they would likely be baffled by the question. Given what they know of the gods, and given what they know and think about the current shape of the world, this literature provides the best explanation they have to offer—the one most consistent with their beliefs and perspectives. It is their core reality." In that sense mythography is very different from historiography, pertaining to different planes of reality. Here's maybe a way to understand it: mythography is about ideology, and historiography is about representing events in the human realm. I would contend that the flood story of Genesis 6-8 was written as history, not myth. Its intent is to communicate a human event, not a divine ideology.

[J Lord]

What elements of the bible story do you think are historical? Because if you believe other myths refer to the same event you must take the position that many aspects of the bible story are not historical.

[jimwalton]

I believe that all of the elements of the Bible story are historical. And while the other accounts (Gilgamesh, Atrahasis) refer to the same geological event, their writing about it is from a theological vantage point, not a historical one. The author of Genesis wrote to represent a particular reality associated with a geological event to reveal the theological import of that event. The Mesopotamians, on the other hand (as quoted from Jean-Jacques Glassner), had a different teleology at play: "The Mesopotamian had no progression of historical as we understanding it today, nor its methods or perspective. As they say it, the problem was not critical assessment of sources, nor was the question, fundamentally, knowing how and in what causal sequences events considered unique had occurred. the primary task was to choose, according to a definite focus of interest, among the carefully collected data from the past events, certain facts that, from that point of view, had acquired universal relevance and significance." As I mentioned, they were writing the ideological perspective of the event, while the Biblical author was writing the theological roots behind a historical incident. Mythography is less interested in portraying the event than they are trying to show how the world works. The writer of Genesis was interested in portraying the event, but explicating the divine reason, causation, method, and consequence.

[J Lord]

> I believe that all of the elements of the Bible story are historical.

You've already said it wasn't a global flood. So presumably this means most humans and animals were not killed by the flood. And this would mean it wouldn't really matter whether Noah took two of each animal on the ark. These are all elements of the story that you are saying didn't happen.

If you think it was history being written, what do you think the author's source material was?

[jimwalton]

> So presumably this means most humans and animals were not killed by the flood.

There is no way to determine the population of the earth at the time of the flood, particularly since we don't even know when it happened. No time referents are given. So I can't say whether or not most or a minority of life was affected.

> And this would mean it wouldn't really matter whether Noah took two of each animal on the ark.

There was a still a need to preserve the life forms of the region where the flood would take place. Taking two allows life to perpetuate when it's over, even if those life forms exist elsewhere on the planet. Gn. 6.20 says that he was to bring "two of every kind...to be kept alive." Not "maintain life," but "stay alive." It's very possible that others of those species existed elsewhere, but Noah was to keep them alive to repopulate the immediate area.

> These are all elements of the story that you are saying didn't happen.

No, these things did happen. I believe the elements of the Bible story are historical.

> what do you think the author's source material was?

The ancient world was hearing-dominant, not a textually-dominant culture. Stories were carefully passed from generation to generation by authority figures in the community. It was significant in communities to transfer the history and beliefs of the clan. There is no way to trace back to know the origin of this story, but since it shows up in several cultures of the ancient Near East, I have reason to believe it had a historical referent, and was translated by the different cultures and faith systems into a story explaining their theological view of the event.