Which is how the majority will always think: beyond mere religion, in politics.
I see that in your post, you have put together a “diagnostic tool” to assess whether or not a person (me in this case) holds to a modern view of truth, which you hold is not a legitimate view when dealing with the initial chapters of Genesis.
So to answer your first question, the biblical wrote using their own personalities, language and grammar, and in doing so, conveyed precisely what God wanted to communicate. Yes, God can do that without dictating to the authors the precise words to write.
The Biblical text says,
“Then the men were seized by a great fear and said to him, “What have you done?” The men knew he was fleeing from the Lord’s presence because he had told them. 11 So they said to him, “What should we do to you so that the sea will calm down for us?” For the sea was getting worse and worse.
12 He (Jonah) answered them, “Pick me up and throw me into the sea so that it will calm down for you, for I know that I’m to blame for this great storm that is against you.”
So yes, according to the text, Jonah expected that being thrown overboard would calm the storm.
The answer to the second and third questions is also “yes,” because that is what the text plainly says.
So now you have your answer. Your diagnostic tool then tells you that with the answers I have given, it shows that I have a modern view of truth that is contrary to the way the readers to which this text was written would understand it. Interesting. Hmm. Your diagnosis is designed to give the answer it was designed to give.
Now, let me ask you. Are Genesis chapters 1-3 literal history? You will answer “no.” That is not how the original readers would have understood it.
You would consider that to see Genesis 1-3 as literal history would be a modern way of reading them. Well, consider this:
“Several Hebrew scholars and academic experts have affirmed that the author(s) of Genesis 1–3 intended the narrative to be understood as historical, not merely figurative or allegorical. James Barr, a respected Hebrew scholar and former professor of Old Testament at Oxford, stated in a 1984 letter that, as a Hebrew scholar, he believes there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe the writer(s) of Genesis intended the account to be taken as historical. Similarly, Professor Emanuel Tov, a leading expert in Hebrew Bible textual studies, affirmed that for the biblical people, the creation narrative was understood as history, even if it is difficult for modern readers to accept this view. Peter Williams, the current warden of Tyndale House, a renowned theological research library near Cambridge, has stated that the position—that the author of Genesis 1–2 meant to convey a literal six-day creation—is nearly universally held among scholars who do not have a religious requirement to interpret the text otherwise. These scholars emphasize that the narrative structure, including the use of historical markers like “the generations of,” and the presence of direct speech from divine and human figures (e.g., God in Genesis 1:27, Adam in Genesis 2:23), supports its classification as ancient historical narrative rather than purely poetic or mythical?”
So what do Hebrew scholars have to say about Jonah as an historical account:
“The question of whether Hebrew scholars believe the original readers of the Book of Jonah considered its events as real history involves a range of scholarly perspectives, with significant divergence between traditional and modern academic views.
“Traditional Jewish interpretation, as reflected in the Hebrew Bible and early rabbinic literature, treats Jonah as a historical figure. The prophet Jonah is mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25 as a real individual who prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II, and his hometown, Gath-hepher, is specified. This reference supports the idea that the original readers of the biblical text may have viewed Jonah as a historical person. Furthermore, the Book of Jonah is read annually in Jewish tradition during the afternoon of Yom Kippur, a practice that underscores its significance as a serious religious text rather than a mere allegory.
“However, mainstream modern biblical scholarship generally regards the Book of Jonah as a literary work composed long after the events it describes, likely during the post-exilic period or even the Hellenistic era (332–167 BC), due to its use of Aramaic vocabulary and motifs. Many scholars consider the book to be fictional, possibly satirical or parabolic in nature, rather than a historical account. For example, some argue that the story’s narrative structure, use of irony, and theological themes suggest it was intended as a literary or didactic work rather than a factual report. The fact that the book contains no specific historical markers such as names of kings or precise dates beyond the reference to Jeroboam II has led some to question its historical reliability.
“Despite this, the book’s internal consistency with ancient Near Eastern literary forms and its detailed depiction of Assyrian culture—particularly the city of Nineveh—have led some scholars, such as Donald J. Wiseman, to argue that the story reflects an accurate historical understanding of Assyria and thus may be based on real events. Wiseman contends that the details in the book are consistent with eighth-century BCE history, suggesting that the author had access to reliable historical knowledge.
“Jesus’ references to Jonah in the Gospels—particularly in Matthew 12:38–41 and Luke 11:29–32—have also been interpreted as affirming the historicity of the events, as he refers to Jonah’s time in the fish and the repentance of Nineveh as real historical occurrences. This has been used by some scholars and theologians to argue that the original readers of the biblical text likely viewed the story as factual.
“In summary, while traditional Jewish and early Christian views, supported by references in 2 Kings and the teachings of Jesus, suggest that the original readers may have considered the events of Jonah as real history , modern academic scholarship often interprets the book as a later literary composition with possible satirical or allegorical intent, reflecting theological rather than historical concerns. Thus, the belief among Hebrew scholars varies: traditional interpretations affirm historicity, while many contemporary scholars view the book as a fictional or symbolic narrative.”
So the issue is up for debate, generally between more conservative and more liberal scholars.
So what is the Hebrew view of truth versus the modern view of truth?
The ancient Hebrew view of truth differs significantly from the modern Western view of truth, particularly in its foundational understanding. In ancient Hebrew thought, truth is primarily understood as a property of being or character, especially of God, rather than as a correspondence between statements and facts. The Hebrew word emet (אֱמֶת), often translated as “truth,” conveys qualities such as faithfulness, reliability, firmness, and steadfastness, emphasizing moral and relational integrity. This view positions truth not as an abstract idea but as a lived reality rooted in the character of God, who is described as “faithful” and “without deceit” (Deuteronomy 32:4). Thus, truth is first about who is true—God—and then about how humans, by imitating God’s character, live truthfully in their actions and relationships.
In contrast, the modern Western view of truth, heavily influenced by ancient Greek philosophy—particularly Plato and Aristotle—tends to prioritize the correspondence theory, where truth is defined as a statement aligning with objective reality or fact. This intellectual tradition values abstraction, logical consistency, and impersonal rationality, often separating truth from personal or divine context. As Alfred North Whitehead noted, Western philosophy is largely a series of footnotes to Plato, reflecting this enduring Greek legacy.
Moreover, the Hebrew worldview emphasizes dynamic, concrete, and relational experiences of truth, shaped by divine encounter, covenant, and moral commitment, rather than detached intellectual contemplation. The Hebrew Bible portrays truth as something to be lived, not merely contemplated. This contrasts with modern secular perspectives that often treat truth as a cognitive or propositional matter, focused on verification and evidence rather than character or divine revelation.
While modern thought may incorporate elements of both traditions, the ancient Hebrew view retains a distinctive emphasis on truth as relational, ethical, and rooted in the person of God, which continues to influence religious and philosophical discourse today.
In conclusion, I learned quite a bit in researching this with help from my friends, which includes that my view about truth is a bit eclectic. I firmly believe that truth is grounded in the very character of God, which is also completely comparable with the idea that truth is that which corresponds to reality.
So we do not agree on the historicity of Genesis 1-3 and the book of Jonah. But it is not as simple as saying that to believe in their historicity means a person is using a modern and illegitimate definition of truth when looking at ancient documents.
I am sorry to see you using a straw man argument. Who would say that? No one.
I basically agree with what you have stated. But the statements in Job are in agreement with our current scientific understandings and have sometime led to important scientific discoveries. For example:
“Matthew Fontaine Maury was inspired by the phrase “the paths of the seas” in Psalm 8:8, which states: " whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas."  According to multiple accounts, Maury—a devout Christian—was struck by this verse while reading the Bible, reportedly during a period of illness. He interpreted it as a divine indication that ocean currents existed as fixed “paths,” much like rivers. This insight motivated him to study thousands of ship logs and chart the world’s ocean currents and wind patterns, leading to revolutionary advancements in navigation. His work confirmed the existence of systematic oceanic and atmospheric circulation, such as the Gulf Stream, and earned him the title “Pathfinder of the Seas.” A monument in Virginia even cites Psalm 8:8 and Ecclesiastes 1:6 as his inspiration.”
If you want a poetic account of creation, read Psalm 104. Then read Genesis 1 and find another account written as historical narrative. The difference is clear.
As to your last paragraph, the evolutionist often interprets evidence through their evolutionary lens without examining contrary positions–a common affliction to all.
Randy, was it you that was asking for the source of a William Lane Craig quote–
” . . . William Lane Craig said something like this: . . .”
Here is the source: “The statement by William Lane Craig expressing concern that young-earth creationism might be true was made during an interview with Sean McDowell, published on September 26, 2021, titled “Is Adam Historical?” This interview was part of the promotion for Craig’s book In Quest of the Historical Adam. In it, Craig described his “great fear” that young-earth creationists are correct in their literal interpretation of Genesis, as this would create a perceived conflict with modern science, history, and linguistics.”
I searched for this answer, so I asked my AI “friend” Leo who quickly answered my question.
1 Like
Thank you, Mr Ewoldt. I have to laugh that AI is better than Google. I am curious what you think about that comment. I did like the Four Views on the Historical Adam–we have some discussions about it. I have a tough time with interpretation, sometimes.
I guess I have to keep falling back on believing that God knows our hearts, and that it’s hard to know the answer; that He is just, and more –that He’s a Father.
Thanks.
1 Like
Randy,
Whoa, such a quick response. You must have already been on the forum or reading email.
Yes, we should be careful in our use of AI, but it is clearly a good way to search for specific information such as this.
I guess the part of his comment that strikes me most is the one above, about creating a perceived conflict. First, I find it interesting that he called it a “perceived” conflict rather than an actual conflict. I don’t know what to make of that, because if he doesn’t see YEC in actual conflict with modern science, history, and linguistics, why wouldn’t he just accept that the conflict is only perceived, and accept Genesis 1-11 as an historical account? Then he could have written a book on how there is no actual conflict between the Genesis historical creation account, and dispensed with researching all four views. Well, I guess there would still be four views, and I found his interviews on his book to be interesting and informative.
As YEC, I would agree that there is a perceived conflict, but would further assert that there is no actual conflict.
I appreciate your comment. It is good to hold our positions with humility, believing that God is more concerned about our heart than our correct interpretation or theology. I am certain I am wrong or ill informed about many issues, but I look forward to a cordial conversation with Jesus about all of that. Maybe we will both laugh enthusiastically as under the tutelage of Jesus the light dawns in my mind: “Wow, why didn’t I see that; it seems so clear now that you explain it.” Maybe we can go and ask some questions together. I am sure that his calendar will be clear, and we can drop in without an appointment.
Thanks for a link on the BioLogos forum on WLC’s book.
1 Like
Which makes it of dubious value as we were only just discovering the kinds of literature that fit much of Genesis. Any commentary on Genesis that does not take the new discoveries into account is useless.
When you know that (1)ancient writers had no such thing as “historical narrative” and (2) Genesis 1 matches two different ancient literary types, you’ll know it isn’t historical narrative.
Some AI is. Some can use Google, Bing, and other engines simultaneously while searching multiple encyclopedias online at the same time. Some are even self-correcting: ChatGPT5.2 yesterday caught itself using wrong o=information and corrected itself in the middle of a statement (which blew me away!). [I should ask it about that.]
1 Like
Thanks. I enjoy this passage. I think that Jesus’ calendar will be clear! And I agree–the fact that some things are not clear to us, may also indicate that they are not the things God is most concerned about.
I found another interesting discussion here