Precisely because YECs don’t appeal to the “miraculous”, I think Jim’s suggestion is worthy of being discussed more in depth.
Here three reasons:
Jesus Christ himself (Luke 17:24-36, Matthew 24:27-39) and the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:5-6, 3:6) refer to Noah’s Flood both as a historical and miraculous event.
Miracles are by definition extraordinary events beyond human operational capabilities. Nonetheless in the light of today’s quantum physics it is clear that they do not conflict with science: Miracles do NOT violate any “laws of nature”.
They are quoting Genesis, which uses the Flood to make theological points. NT writers have access to the literary tradition of the Hebrews, not some sort of special access to “what really happened” in primeval times (beyond what Genesis says). Genesis is an ancient sort of stylized history which uses hyperbole and other rhetorical devices to make its point. It is not meant to give us some sort of special window into natural history. For more of this, check out the new book The Lost World of the Flood by @JohnWalton and @tremperlongman.
True, but this historical event is a catastrophic flood event in the ancient Near East, not a worldwide cataclysm. We need to be clear about what we are talking about. It is the interpretation of the Flood that is inspired, not the event itself.
Who is the intended audience for this article? “[Genesis] is silent on the scientific questions we might wish it to answer.” With this text being bolded early, I would argue that it is aimed at those who see historical significance in Genesis. The use of “plain sense” and “plain facts” certainly is targeted at YEC.
I’m not sure who puts this stuff together, but this is not a helpful column for at least two reasons:
It fails to consider the audience. If a YEC reads this, they will immediately reject Biologos. They will think, “Anyone who puts man’s word above God’s word is hopeless.” Similarly if an OEC (like me) reads this, they would wonder if Biologos’ aggressive partisanship might make engaging with them hopeless.
“scientific questions we might wish it to answer” is a straw man. I certainly have no “wish” that the Bible would answer scientific questions and I don’t know anyone who does.
There are many points in the article with which I agree, but I’m trying to understand why this was put out there with this tone. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. To everyone who does not already agree with you, this is vinegar. Why burn bridges?
I’ll argue one more point. Biologos treats Genesis in a black and white way around what we now know from science, that it must be completely silent on events that modern science has described to us. Since it isn’t perfect, it must be nothing. It seems reactionary to YEC, swinging the pendulum completely the other way. I find myself questioning the credibility of those who hold black and white views on non-essential matters.
If there were one trait on Biologos that I find most annoying, I think it is a lack of humility. I might call it “scholarly self-superiority.” It’s that ivory tower academia, patting others on the head for their quaint little views. Clearly not everyone here is like that, but enough are, and this article has too much of it.
I’m certainly not trying to pick a fight here, but I think you deserve to hear how this comes across to someone who doesn’t agree. And honestly, I’m hoping the feedback is helpful. You guys need to think about not only what you believe, but how this stuff comes across.
Marty, thank you for your feedback on our article, Is Genesis Real History?. I confess I’m taken aback by the strong negativity you express, but I’m nevertheless glad (truly!) to know how this article, and BioLogos itself, comes across to you.
You asked about the intended audience for the piece. All of the Common Questions are aimed at a general audience - they are meant to be accessible to a non-scientist / non-theologian, but should be nuanced enough to more or less appease the scholars among us (though obviously the brevity makes that challenging, and it’s anyway impossible to appease everyone!). In most of the biblical interpretation articles, we’re writing in response to the kinds of questions raised by conservative Protestant Christians. They will span the spectrum on origins. So yes, we had hoped this article would help YECs and OECs as well as help Evolutionary Creationists better understand the BioLogos approach to Scripture. The terms “plain facts” and “plain sense” were used because they seem better than “literal,” since “literal” means something different in a hermeneutical context than how we use it in everyday language. And yes, we were trying to communicate using words that people familiar with YEC rhetoric will understand.
You said, “I’m not sure who puts this stuff together.” In this case, I was the lead editor, but I worked closely with three noted biblical scholars (Tremper Longman @tremperlongman, Richard Middleton @JRM, and John Walton @JohnWalton). At least 3 BioLogos staff members besides myself were involved. This particular article took several months to bring to completion.
As for your point #1, many YECs will reject BioLogos a priori, without actually reading any of what we have published. They will do so because they believe Genesis 1 cannot be understood in any other sense than referring to 6 24-hr days. I would actually agree with them that there is no hope for anyone who puts man’s word above God’s word! But that is not what we are doing. I believe we are trying to take seriously all of God’s revelation to us.
As for your point #2., you quoted part of the bolded statement earlier in your comment, but the first bolded sentence is important for context. Here they are together.
We believe Genesis is a true account that, like other ancient narratives, uses vivid imagery to describe past events. It is silent on the scientific questions we might wish it to answer.
We do believe Genesis is talking about past events, and that it is in this sense true history. Maybe you don’t wish the Bible would answer scientific questions, but I do! I would so love to have a more accurate picture of reality. Right now we see through a glass so darkly! It would be fascinating and clear up so much conflict if God had decided to speak more clearly about the age of the earth and the extent to which he used regular processes like natural selection to create the diversity of life and about genetic inheritance and the nature of the soul and where exactly Jesus’ glorified body went when he ascended and so on. But he didn’t, and that’s ok. God’s word is still true and it’s what he in his divine wisdom wanted us to know. It is perfectly suited to its purpose, which is to reveal Himself to us and make us wise unto salvation.
You wrote, “Biologos treats Genesis in a black and white way around what we now know from science, that it must be completely silent on events that modern science has described to us.” This is certainly not how we view what we do. There are many areas of science that are not black and white and we try to indicate where there are competing hypotheses. But this is a question about the Bible, not science, and we have three respected Bible scholars telling us that Genesis doesn’t talk about science.
The thing I find most difficult in your comment is your assessment that we are lacking in humility and showing “scholarly superiority.” Ouch. Probably there is some truth in that, and I will pray for conviction about particular instances of this in my own heart. If there are particular phrases that you found especially irksome in the article, please send me a private message.
I don’t consider myself superior (intellectually or spiritually) to people who don’t share my perspective, but I DO trust that calling upon the expertise of Bible scholars leads to an infinitely more reliable article than I, as a cell biologist, could produce on my own. I’m so grateful for the wisdom and training of those who have spent their professional lives trying to understand the languages and cultures of Bible times. I know many feel this is “elitist” but to me this is a recognition that the Body has many parts. Of course all of us non-Bible scholars can still read the Bible profitably on our own, but our understanding is increased when we consult a commentary, study notes, talk to a pastor, etc.
Marty, again thank you for pointing out where you see areas of weakness. We don’t want to be stuck in an echo chamber and need people like you to help us understand when we’re not communicating as well as we might.
I agree. But Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:29, 37–39; Luke 17:26–29) and the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:5-6, 3:6) compare the theological points Genesis makes about the Flood to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and sulfur rained down from heaven, and to the events at the End Times like the darkening of the Sun and falling of stars.
This makes clear that they are interpreting the Flood as an extraordinary miraculous event.
And me too:
If I understand well you are stating this:
Jesus Christ accepts the tradition of the Hebrews and teaches that “what really happened” is “what Genesis says”.
In my view one should more accurately say:
Jesus Christ teaches that “what really happened” is what He states Genesis says.
So for instance Jesus doesn’t quote anything about the Tower of Babel, and hence we cannot pretend He teaches this episode “really happened”. The same holds regarding the “6 days of Genesis”.
By contrast in Matthew 19:4-6, and Mark 10:6-9 Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to teach “what really happened” in the beginning, and thereby corrects “Moses interpretation” and “the literary tradition of the Hebrews”.
From this we should conclude that what Jesus Christ (God’s Word) quotes about Noah and the Flood is “what really happened”.
And by equating Noah’s Flood to what will happen in the End Times Jesus Christ shows He considers the Flood a similar extraordinary miraculous event.
I would be thankful to know your reasons for excluding “miracle” as an explanation of Noah’s Flood, if you endorse such exclusion.
I fully agree to all what you say here and dare to notice that I don’t see therein any argument which invalidates my explanation of the Flood as a miracle.
What is more, John Walton himself in the YouTube IP video where he explains the main message of his book states that in Genesis:
“the Flood narrative works as a Re-creation narrative, you have the same patterns as in the Creation narrative” (at time 3:38);
“from a literary standpoint of view they [the Flood verses] are reiterating Creation” (at time 4:00);
the basic element of creation is “establishing order”: “In the Flood narrative we have the idea that order has been disrupted by all the violence, and so God brings Non-Order as waters cover the land, and then order reemerges in the sense of a Re-creation act” (at time: 4:30-4:41).
All these quotations plainly reinforce Jesus Christ’s linkage of the historic Flood in the Ancient Times to His prophecy for the End Times cataclysm wherefrom the new Heaven and the new Earth will emerge. John Walton interpretation clearly strengthens the universal character of the event: From the Flood universal order reemerges.
Now on the basis of the data we have we can derive that there was no geographically worldwide cataclysm in the ordinary world we live in. Therefore, if Genesis 6-9 is a Recreation narrative this means that the event was miraculously worldwide and affected all living Image Bearers.
This is the argument of John Walton in the IP video-interview at time 20:48.
My point is that what is inspired is primarily Jesus Christ’s interpretation of the event.
And since according to this interpretation the event is a miracle, then the event itself is inspired as well.
By the way, you have the burden of giving geological evidence for a “catastrophic flood event in the Ancient Near East” that could be considered the “historical event” referred to by Genesis 6-9.
“a flood event happened several thousand years ago is probably the most likely historical event behind the Flood”.
I asked IP which specific event was here referred to and got this answer:
“It was an event around 5500 BC around the black sea. Check out the book, Noah’s Ark: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event that Changed History.”
The problems this explanation raises have already been discussed in other threads in this Forum. Here I would like only add:
The trouble with the “Black Sea Flood” is that it is an ORDINARY natural phenomenon. If you claim that the Genesis narrative is simply “Hyperbole” of a local “Black Sea” event, then you should also claim that Jesus prophecy for the End Times is “Hyperbole” and conclude that there will be neither such a worldwide End nor a general Judgement.
YECs try to explain Genesis 1-11 by “upgrading” ordinary natural events to extraordinary miraculous ones.
You try to explain Genesis 1-11 by “downgrading” extraordinary miraculous events to ordinary natural ones.
I think the explanation of the Flood as a miracle is worthy of being discussed more in depth, that is, acknowledging both ordinary natural phenomena and extraordinary miraculous ones as equal real events.
To my best knowledge this has not yet been done, and in particular is not mentioned in all the stuff you have collected for this thread. Nonetheless I will be happy if one proves me wrong with precise quotations.
Before finishing let me stress once again: If the event is a miracle it fits perfectly well within today’s quantum physics. Accordingly we don’t have to bother about any conflict with science.
When Jesus said the Queen of Sheba came “from the ends of the earth” is He teaching that there is an actual end of the earth?
Jesus and Peter were using the generally accepted stories of the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to make a point. In Matthew 24 Jesus was impressing on the Apostles the sudden and unexpected day of His return. Will stars actually fall to the earth? Who knows, the original readers certainly thought that it was possible and not result in the destruction of the planet.
I think the original readers would be more likely to see “stars falling from heaven” as an apocalyptic convention. The same metaphor, after all, occurs in the prohets about the Fall of Jerusalem. N T Wright is good on explaining this, specifically in relation to the glorification of Chrost.
In the light of 2 Peter 2:4-22 and 3:1-13, I think that those who were listening to Jesus during the meetings reported in Matthew 24 and 25 got the impression He was referring to events in the End Times consisting in something more as stars falling to the earth like coconuts.
I apologize for repeating:
YECs try to explain Genesis 1-11 by “upgrading” ordinary natural phenomena to miracles, to the risk of mocking scientific knowledge based on observation.
You try to explain Genesis 1-11 and the NT by “downgrading” extraordinary miraculous events to “Hyperbole” of ordinary natural phenomena, to the risk of emptying Scripture and Christian faith of any extraordinary intervention of God.
My proposal is to keep to both: ordinary evolutionary phenomena and extraordinary miraculous ones.
And therefore I think it is worth exploring the option of Noah’s Flood as a “miracle”. This has been suggested by Jim Stump in this Essay, but has not been further developed afterward to my best knowledge.
The article at the origin of this thread had been a good opportunity to do it:
So I would like to suggest to @Kathryn_Applegate to complete the valuable work taking account of the “miracle” perspective.
We consider it a metaphor because we know it can’t happen. The original readers “knew” that it could happen but doesn’t in the normal course of events. The point being made is that extraordinary events will happen. Exactly what they are doesn’t matter. What matters is that when they happen, whatever they are, we will know this is time which God is speaking about. As an example the moon could be rotated 180 degrees so the dark side is facing us. That would be an extraordinary event, up to the time when we obtain the ability to do it ourselves.
The listeners would consider many or all stars falling as an extraordinary event. A single “star” or a shower of stars (think meteor) would be considered normal. All that matters is that extraordinary events will happen.
Since the Ancients were familiar with the physics of asteroids much more than they were with the physics of stars, it is most likely that they thought a “falling star” would be something smaller than a house.
Jesus Prophecy about the End Times sounds like if after the “extraordinary events” the earth will become unfit for the habitation of mankind, Humanity will reach the end of temporal existence and enter eternal life.
In physical terms such an event would probably be a bit more than a 180 degree rotation of the moon… wouldn’t it?
Can you imagine the world wide panic if people looked up at the moon and watched as it was rotated? I do believe it would get 24/7 news coverage.
There will be “signs” of the end times that would let a person know that they have arrived. We don’t know exactly what those signs will be. To the original readers stars falling from the sky would be such a sign but that doesn’t have meaning for us because we know it can’t happen.
True, but exactly how the earth becomes unfit isn’t specified. It might be world wide thermonuclear war. It could be a gigantic meteor, the sun explodes, a black hole hits the earth, etc., etc. Who knows. All we know for sure is it will happen.
You are letting the proof flow in the wrong direction. The End Times will be a period of extraordinary events. As an example of this Jesus used the accepted story of flood. To me this doesn’t mean the flood has to be taken as reality but only as an easily understood example of extraordinary events, like the mustard seed being the smallest of all seeds (which we know isn’t true but was accepted as true at the time).
Jesus uses the mustard see as a parable among many other parables to explain the Kingdom of God (Matthew 13).
The crucial feature in this parable is the growth of the mustard seed from an almost imperceptible size to a large plant. And this growth has to be taken as reality: Jesus teaches the growth of the Kingdom of God will be as real as the growth of the mustard see.
If we apply this to Jesus explanation of the End Times we are led to this conclusion:
The End Times have to be taken as an extraordinary event which is as real as Noah’s Flood.
If you assume that the Flood is “hyperbole” you can as well assume that the End Times and General Judgement are “hyperbole”.
On the other hand, till now neither you nor anyone in this thread has proposed an argument proving my interpretation of Genesis Flood as miracle wrong.
To reject this option without giving arguments amounts to deny the possibility of miracles by “downgrading” extraordinary events to ordinary ones. In my view this is as great a prejudice as YECs trying to “upgrade” ordinary events to miracles.
That is not my point. Jesus started with the accepted truth that the mustard seed was the smallest seed.
It is wrong for the simple reason that there is no evidence that it ever happened in this world. I am not saying the God couldn’t have flooded the entire planet and then removed all traces that he did. It is just the Bible gives no indication that this is what happened. The same could be said for the six days of creation so why don’t you argue that it is also a miracle?
