I wouldn’t categorize it as erroneous. I would call it a parable, a story meant to convey truth, but not to be taken literally. I agree that it is a reboot of creation. We live in a moral universe, and God is going to punish the immoral.
Hey … I’m fine with that categorization! But do you have a sexier label than “not erroneous, more like a parable”?
If I went to the Erroneous thread and said… forget the whole thing… I think BioLogos accepts that the story of Eve made from a Rib is not Erroneous … it merely thinks it is a Parable!
Do you think @BradKramer could get behind that sentence? I don’t have to use the word erroneous … but I need some accepted wording to use in my future posts.
@BradKramer, any suggestions?
George, you can use any wording you like, but Beaglelady’s wording is much closer to our official views. Here’s our official take on the Flood story, for reference: How Should we Interpret the Genesis Flood Account? - Common Question - BioLogos. (I did the bulk of the writing for that article)
1 Like
Here are 3 paragraphs from that linked article:
[BEGINNING OF QUOTE]
The Genesis Flood story contains many literary clues that its writers (and original audience) were not intended to narrate an actual series of events. The story employs the literary device known as “hyperbole” throughout, describing a massive ark which holds representatives of “every living creature on Earth”, and a flood which flows over the tops of the highest mountains in the world. These are not meant to challenge readers to figure out the practicality of such descriptions, but rather they are important clues that we are dealing with a theological story rather than ancient journalism.
There are other clues that the writers are not intending to relate a literal series of events. One is the command given to Noah to treat “clean” animals differently than “unclean” animals, even though those categories were not given to the Hebrew people until the time of Moses, much later in the biblical story. Also, the massive size of the ark, coupled with the huge number of animals on board and the length of the flood, all indicate that the story is not to be read literally.
A final clue about how to interpret the Flood story comes from its place in the book of Genesis and specifically in the “primeval narratives” of Genesis 1-11. Biblical scholars almost universally see these chapters as having a different purpose than the rest of the book of Genesis. The primeval narratives cover a huge swath of cosmic history and are highly figurative in their language. They serve as the grand and poetic “introduction” to the story of God’s people which commences with the call of Abraham in Genesis 12. While they speak of real events (such as the creation of the universe and the special calling of humankind), they do so in rhetorical and theological ways that have more to do with the purposes of the story than a plain narration of facts. This is completely typical of how ancient people (including the Israelites) wrote historical accounts, especially concerning “primeval” events near the beginning of history.
[END OF QUOTE]
Is there a one-sentence summation of all this ?
If someone asks me: “George, do you think the story of the flood is erroneous?” I can’t respond with three paragraphs. How do I sum it up in a single characterization (i.e. one sentence) that won’t get me in trouble with the moderators of BioLogos?
Again, George, you can say anything you want about the Flood, as long as you’re making it clear that it’s your own opinion.
You’re right that, in most, cases, people don’t have patience for a three-paragraph answer. So here’s my one-paragraph answer:
Ancient people didn’t write history the same way that modern people do. They were much more concerned about getting the present right than the past. This is particularly true of events happening near the beginning of human history. And Genesis bears all the marks of these ancient historical practices. This is true of the Flood story. The writers of this story are taking a real flood event and embellishing it into a story of cosmic extent and significance, in order to make a point about God’s judgment and mercy. One great evidence in the Genesis text is that “clean and unclean” animals are distinguished, even though those categories aren’t defined until much later in the Bible. The writer includes that detail because it made sense to the Israelite people hearing the story and helped them understand its themes.
Is that helpful?
3 Likes
@BradKramer, I think this sentence, Within the Paragraph, makes for a pretty good one sentence summation!
Thank you very much !
Hi Joel,
I am still waiting for the answer to my second question from 16th September (regarding the plants and the flood).
Hi Miguel,
I apologize for the long delay. Thanks for the reminder. Regarding plants, in general most plants would not fair very well being in water for a whole year. There would be some that would have seeds that could survive (easy example would be a coconut) but I think the YEC would likely point to the survival of many plants on huge rafts of floating vegetation. Recently - I don’t remember exactly where - I read one YEC article that was explaining how some animals could have migrated to islands after the Flood so quickly. They explained that there massive floating piles of trees on the seas and that animals could have hitched rides on these floating mats. Some of these mats would have living trees. Even before the Flood there were massive floating forests on the ocean which is how YEC exaplin the origin of coal since some mats got buried under sediments but some of the mats may have survived until the end of the Flood.
What makes no sense to me is that if there were massive mats of vegetation that animals could hang out on then why couldn’t desperate animals during the flood have climbed on board and ridden out the Flood?
Regarding the raven and dove, AiG would be fine with saying that these were common names for the “kinds” of birds these are but the species would not be the same species we have today but rather would represent the common ancestors of all dove and raven species today. So for example, ravens are members of the crow family (Kind) and so are Blue Jays so the bird that Noah sent out could have looked more like a Blue jay than a crow for all we know. Now I think the crow mentioned is the common crow species found in the middle east that would have familiar to the Hebrew audience but with the YEC view of hyperspeciation they really can’t see it that way.
1 Like
Hi Joel,
Thank you very much for your answer.
But then how would you explain the geographical distribution of plants? How could one explain , for instance, that Welwitschias only grow in Angola and Namibia (and not in other deserts), Eucalyptus (originally) only in Australia (in this having in mind that after man took it to other places, now they grow unfortunately everywhere), the rosewoods only in Madagascar, etc.? Would a general flood not make the plant distribution more or less uniform? Why would the waters transport the seeds of some species only to some specific places and not to others?
And I would love if you could comment the olive leaf brought to Noah by the dove…
Hope to hear from you.
Warm greetings,
Miguel
The Harvard demonstration of bacterial evolution in response to a hostile environment makes for a very good visualization of the amazing process!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the most impressive example of multiple genetic evolutions I have yet seen! Note that with each “splash” of a new colony of bacteria (shown in white) … we are seeing a successful evolution of a new strain of bacteria.
It’s not a new species… but it is a new expression of genetics… imagine this going on for a thousand years.
Then ask yourself… would the resulting bacteria from now be compatible with the bacteria strain of the future?
Speciation is cumulative changes… eventually a new strain turns on its ancestors and starts to eat it, kill it, or flee from it!
I am copy/pasting this from another thread:
Using movie technology developed in Hollywood, these scientists developed an impressive way to show how the environment (Hey! @Relates ! ) can induce rapid changes in the genetics of a bacteria population!
It is living proof that as a population becomes stressed and almost wiped out (in this case, just in the frontier region of a giant bacteria culture!) … small changes in chromosomes can quickly spread throughout the stressed region, and create a new genetic baseline for normalcy in the population.
The cyclical process repeats itself every time it bumps into a new concentration of toxic antibiotic chemicals in their environment.
No “intelligence” here … just the constant interplay between life form and environment!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1 Like
While the rest of what you say is right, this statement is false. All the information I have read says that speciation takes place when one strain becomes separate from another, which is caused by a separation of ecological niches.
That’s one kind of speciation. It’s called allopatric speciation, and it’s the easiest process to explain and to envision. The other type of speciation is sympatric speciation, which specifically means that the diverging populations are not separated geographically. In some cases, it may be that they share a space but are subtly inhabiting different niches. But in other cases, the explanation is simpler: reproductive isolation.
The two processes are described in all undergraduate textbooks that I have ever seen, and in any basic review of speciation.
1 Like
Yes, this was explained in the Coursera course “Introduction to Genetics and Evolution.” The organisms might be active at different times of the day, have a different courtship song, etc.
1 Like
Stephen,
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it when someone enhances my comments. My point to George is that speciation is not the result of struggle or conflict between related species, but by different adaptation to different ecological niches or possibly the same niche. This explains both allopatric and sympatric speciation.
In terms of reproductive isolation, it seems to me that if there are no significant change in the way the species adapts to the environment, there is no real evolutionary change, just superficial genetic change, which of course might lead to eventual evolutionary change.
Again life forms are adapting to the environment all the time as the Harvard experiment clearly demonstrates. Speciation takes place when these changes cause these genetic lines to develop separately.
1 Like