by
Damien F. Mackey
Part One: Our Western obsession with ‘Science’
“We live in a world dominated by materialism and scientism. The reduction of every aspect of life to “science” has corrupted the soul of Western Civilization. This is one key to understanding the related popularity of both futurism and Creation Science. They are both perfectly compatible with the scientistic spirit of the modern age”.
Tim Martin
“The time has
come to move beyond Creation Science”, announces Protestant pastor and author
Tim Martin in Beyond Creation
Science. “How many Christian conservatives would have looked at The Genesis Flood [by
John Whitcomb and Henry Morris] a little more carefully”, he writes, “if they
were aware up front of its Adventist roots?”
And Vatican
astronomer Guy Consolmagno (S.J.), quoted as saying that ‘creationism is a kind
of paganism’ - though he denies having said that exactly, but something akin to
it - has answered this question:
The National
Academy of Sciences states that creationism doesn’t belong in the classroom. Do
you agree?
With:
“That’s what the
Catholic Church has been saying all along. After the law was passed in Kansas
[forbidding teaching of evolution in schools], the only place you could learn
about evolution was in a Catholic school. Creationism isn’t science; it’s
theology. And in fact most religious people aren’t creationists. That’s an
incredibly naïve understanding of religion”.
Consolmagno’s
comments have prompted Michael Fishwick, a writer for the Kolbe Center for the
Study of Creation - a Catholic lay apostolate
promoting creationism - to entitle a response: “Kolbe Center for the Study of
Paganism!?”
And, to the
question:
What is
‘creationism’ anyway?
Consolmagno
replies: http://planetpreterist.com/content/beyond-creation-science-how-preterism-refutes-global-flood-and-impacts-genesis-debate-%E2%80%93-par-5
There are different flavors to it. In
the U.S. context, if it’s “Do you believe God created the universe?” – I think
most Western believers would say yes. But creationists have a creed that the
Bible is literally true; Genesis is a blow-by-blow description of what God did
at the beginning. That’s not how Genesis was written; it’s a very flawed
understanding of how to read the Bible.
It’s also kind of peculiar, because
there are three different creation stories [sic?] in the Bible, so which is
true?
Mackey’s comment: For what I
believe to be the correct interpretation of the ancient sources used for the
compilation of early Genesis, see my:
Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP
Even more strongly critical than Consolmagno
is Tim Martin again (who used to espouse creationism), when he calls Creation
Science “a right-wing form of modernism”:
We live in a world dominated by materialism and scientism. The reduction of
every aspect of life to “science” has corrupted the soul of Western
Civilization. This is one key to understanding the related popularity of both
futurism and Creation Science. They are both perfectly compatible with the
scientistic spirit of the modern age. In fact, dispensational futurism, at
least, is impossible apart from it. Christians aid this scientistic syncretism
through Creation Science methods of reading Scripture. They do it by reducing
even the language of the Bible to the “scientific.”[1]
Viewed in this light it is not difficult to see that Creation Science
ideology is a right-wing form of modernism. Conrad Hyers puts it this way:
Even if evolution is only a scientific theory of interpretation posing as
scientific fact, as the [young-earth] creationists argue, [young-earth]
creationism is only a religious theory of biblical interpretation posing as
biblical fact. To add to the problem, it is a religious theory of biblical
interpretation which is heavily influenced by modern scientific, historical,
and technological concerns. It is, therefore, essentially modernistic
even though claiming to be truly conservative.[2]
Catholics (those
tending to be of the conservative variety) who have followed Creationism over
the years would be well aware that mainstream Catholic scholars have shown
virtually no interest whatsoever in its teachings, and that official Catholic
documents never seem to support Creation Science.
Why might this be
so?
Surely Creation
Science, teaching a belief in God the Creator of all things, and vehemently
defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures, ought to be warmly welcomed
by the Church as an invaluable ally.
On the other
hand, the God-fearing are not always right in their estimations, no matter how
sincere, and they may need to be corrected.
Consider Our
Lord’s constant corrections of good people along the lines of:
‘You have heard it said … but I tell you’
(e.g. Matthew 5:21-22).
Some traditions,
even those of very long standing, may need some correcting. The conservative
friends of Job had to be awoken from their dogmatic slumber and traditional
views about the Divine and retribution. So was the case with the Apostles in
regard to the blind man (John 9:3).
So may it be,
likewise, that Creation Science, though a generally sincere and
well-intentioned effort to uphold orthodoxy, truth and religion, might have
quite missed the mark, leading to chaos, and hence needing to be corrected.
That is the view that will be taken here, that it is now time to move beyond
Creation Science, as author Tim Martin has said. That does not mean, however,
that we accept the criticisms of Brother Guy Consolmagno, who may be associated
with Teilhardian-inclined evolutionary-minded colleagues. On père de Chardin, see
my:
The Sheer
Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin
Nor that we must espouse
evolution, see e.g. my:
Theory of Evolution
Cartoonishly Dumb
Creation Science
has turned upside down the conventional evolutionary theory.
Dismantling the
‘scientific’ pillars of Creationism
Assuredly,
Creation Science is built largely upon the assumption of a global Flood and its
geology, but also to some extent upon a so-called ‘science’ of a Six Days of
Creation.
As we shall see,
the methodology is artificial because the approach is entirely ‘Procrustean’,
forcing all the data to conform to the a
priori concept. It is exactly like the approach to reality of the
highly theoretical physical scientists, many of whom are not believers.
The concept of a
global Flood has arisen from the universal language of the Flood narratives as read in translation, without a proper appreciation of the
original language, of antiquity, of the Middle East, or of ancient scribal
methods.
Geologist
professor Carol A. Hill tells of into what sort of a scientific bind the global
Flood model places its proponents when she writes (“The Noachian Flood:
Universal or Local?” http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf):
Biblical Evidence
One of the basic tenants of many
biblical literalists (creation scientists) is that Noah’s Flood was a
universal phenomenon—that is, flood waters covered the entire planet Earth up
to at least the height of Mount Ararat, which is ~17,000 feet (5000 m) in
elevation. Corollary to this view is the position held by flood geologists—that
most of the Earth’s sedimentary rocks and fossils were deposited during the
deluge of Noah as described in Genesis 6–8. To explain this universal flood,
flood geologists usually invoke the canopy theory, which hypothesizes
that water was held in an immense atmospheric canopy and subterranean deep
between the time of Creation and Noah’s Flood. Then, at the time of the Flood,
both of these water sources were suddenly released in a deluge of gigantic,
Earth-covering proportions. Along with this catastrophic hydrologic activity,
there was a major geologic change in the crust of the Earth: modern mountain
ranges rose, sea bottoms split open, and continents drifted apart and canyons
were cut with amazing speed. All animals and plants died and became encased in
flood sediments, and then these fossil-bearing sediments became compacted into
sedimentary rock. There are modifications of the canopy scheme, such as the
“ice-lens,” “greenhouse,” “invisible,” and “visible”canopies … but essentially
the canopy theory claims that waters released during Noah’s Flood caused all
(or most) of the sedimentary and geomorphic features we see today on planet
Earth.
Now, just because
we are arguing that Creation Science is not genuine science does not mean that
we do not appreciate the great work done by its many contributors over the
years, nor do we reject all of its conclusions.
It has turned
evolutionary geology right on its head.
Just as we do not
accept many of the conclusions of conventional science, even though we
sometimes find that scientists have better interpreted biblical hermeneutics,
re Genesis, than have some of the Christians. In the past we have written in
regard to this anomalous situation:
… there sometimes occurs the ironical
– even humorous – situation whereby agnostic scientists will occasionally call
for a more enlightened exegetical approach to Genesis than do the upholders of
the biblical tradition; whereas the latter will at times arrive at a more
accurate interpretation of the scientific data than do their scientific
opponents.
Professor Hill
now tells of the scientific bind for those who uphold a global Flood:
Part Two: Genesis Riverine System
“This interpretation of the Garden of Eden as existing on a modern landscape presents a major conflict between what the Bible says and what flood geologists say. …. The reason is this: there are six miles of sedimentary rock beneath the Garden of Eden/Persian Gulf. How could Eden, which existed in pre-flood times, be located over six miles of sedimentary rock supposedly deposited during Noah's flood?”
Carol A. Hill
Professor Hill now
moves on from the biblical evidence (refer back to discussion in Part One) to tell of the geological
evidence (“The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?”) http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf
Geologic Evidence
No geologic evidence whatsoever exists
for a universal flood, flood geology, or the canopy theory. Modern geologists,
hydrologists, paleontologists, and geophysicists know exactly how the different
types of sedimentary rock form, how fossils form and what they represent, and
how fast the continents are moving apart (their rates can be measured by
satellite). They also know how flood deposits form and the geomorphic
consequences of flooding.….
Flood Geology. In addition to
a lack of any real geological evidence for flood geology, there are also no
biblical verses that support this hypothesis. The whole construct of flood
geology is based on the original assumption that the Noachian Flood
was universal and covered the whole Earth. Since the Flood was supposedly
worldwide, then there must be evidence in the geologic record left by it. Since
the only massive sediments on Earth are those tied up in sedimentary rocks, and
because these rocks often contain fossils, this must be the “all flesh” (Gen.
7:21) record left by Noah’s Flood. And since sedimentary rock can be found on
some of the highest peaks in the world (including Everest, the highest), then
these mountains must have formed during and after the Flood. The “leaps of
logic” build one on top of another until finally, as the result of this
cataclysmic event, almost all of the geomorphic and tectonic features present
on the planet Earth (e.g., canyons, caves, mountains, continents) are
attributed by flood geologists to the Noachian Flood.
Does the Bible actually say anything
about mountains rising during the Flood? No, but it does say that mountains and
hills were in place before the Flood (Gen. 7:19, 8:4). Does the Bible
say anything about sedimentary rock, fossils, or drifting continents? Not one
word. All of these things are read into the Bible from a
centuries-past interpretation of it. Most important from a literalist
perspective, it can be shown from the Bible (Gen. 2:10–14; Gen. 6:14) that the
four rivers of Eden flowed over, and cut into, sedimentary rock strata; that
the pre-Flood landscape was a modern one (similar to the present-day landscape;
that is, overlying sedimentary rock); and that the bitumen (pitch) used by Noah
to caulk the ark was derived from hydrocarbon-rich sedimentary rock. ….
Therefore, sedimentary rock must have existed before the Flood.
The Bible itself never claims that all
of the sedimentary rock on Earth formed at the time of the Noachian Flood— only
flood geologists make this claim.
Well and sensibly
said.
I, like Tim
Martin, had once favoured the notion of a global Flood but then had to drop the
idea. My own point of departure from this model occurred when I had thought to
search for the location of Paradise and had realised that the ancient world of
Adam and Eve, the world of Genesis 2, was structured around the four rivers
Pishon, Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates; rivers that editor Moses connected with
real locations in his own day (e.g. Kush and Ashur) (and still active more than
a millennium later, in Sirach’s day, Ecclesiasticus 24:25-27).
In other words,
there was a continuity between the antediluvian and post-diluvian worlds,
contrary to global floodists, who posit a Flood so massive that no trace
whatsoever of the former world could have remained.
The biblical
evidence for the basic ‘shell’, at least, of the Adamic world still being with
us even today has devastating effects for global floodism. This, so well
explained by Carol Hill (though I would reject her location for Eden),
effectively sounds the death knell to creationist geology, Professor Hill
continues:
The Garden of
Eden: A Modern Landscape
In this paper, I try to apply the
findings of modern geology to Gen. 2:10-14. I deduce from the evidence that the
four rivers of Eden--the Pishon, the Gihon, the Hiddekel [Tigris], and the
Euphrates--were real rivers which existed on a modern landscape before Noah's
flood. …. Oil-drilling in southern Iraq confirms that six miles of sedimentary
rock exist below the biblical site for the Garden of Eden. This same
sedimentary rock is the source of bitumen at Hit, a site which may have
supplied Noah with pitch for constructing the ark. The question is asked: How
could pre-flood Eden have been located over six miles of sedimentary rock
supposedly formed during Noah's flood?
….
Implications for
Flood Geology
So far in this paper, I have argued
that the Bible locates the Garden of Eden at the confluence of the four rivers
of ancient Mesopotamia. The Bible correctly identifies the Pishon River as
draining the land of Havilah (Arabia), from whence came gold, bdellium, and
onyx stone. The Bible also correctly identifies the Euphrates and Tigris, both
of which are modern rivers which drain approximately the same area of
Mesopotamia as they did in ancient times. The Gihon …. not positively
identified [Mackey’s comment: I do not accept Hill’s location of
this river in Iran, it was clearly in Ethiopia, Kush] is probably the
Karun (and/or Karkheh), which "encompasses" (winds around) the whole
land of Cush (western Iran). Thus, the Bible locates the Garden of Eden …. on a
modern landscape similar to that which exists … today.
Six Miles of
Sedimentary Rock Below Eden
This interpretation of the Garden of
Eden as existing on a modern landscape presents a major conflict between what
the Bible says and what flood geologists say.67 The reason is
this: there are six miles of sedimentary rock beneath the
Garden of Eden/Persian Gulf. How could Eden, which existed in pre-flood
times, be located oversix miles of sedimentary rock supposedly
deposited during Noah's flood? What flood geologists are implying is
that the Garden of Eden existed on a Precambrian crystalline basement and then
Noah's flood came and covered up the Garden of Eden with six miles of
sedimentary rock. But this is not what the Bible says. It says that Eden was
located where the four rivers confluenced on a modern landscape. It says that
the Garden of Eden was located on top ofsix miles of sedimentary rock,
and thus this sedimentary rock must have existed in pre-flood times.
[The
Bible] says that the Garden of Eden was located on top of six miles
of sedimentary rock, and thus this sedimentary rock must have existed
in pre-flood times.
of sedimentary rock, and thus this sedimentary rock must have existed
in pre-flood times.
The fact that six miles of sedimentary
rock exist beneath the Persian Gulf area is well known by geologists, since
this area has been extensively drilled for oil, down to the Precambrian
basement. The fact that the Persian Gulf is located in an area of oil recovery
is equally as evident to the layperson who, in 1991, witnessed on television
the numerous oil fires set off in Kuwait during the Gulf War. The six miles of
sedimentary rock below the Garden of Eden area include Tertiary, Cretaceous,
Jurassic, Triassic, and Paleozoic rock up to a depth of about 32,000 feet
before the Precambrian basement is encountered.68
….
Whilst I would
definitely agree with professor Hill and Tim Martin that the biblical Flood was
local rather than global, my own view, unlike theirs, is that it was not
confined just to the region of Mesopotamia, where Hill has the confluence of
the four Genesis rivers (in the Persian Gulf), but that it extended right
through at least the Fertile Crescent, from Mesopotamia, through Palestine, to
Egypt/Ethiopia– where we believe the Gihon river ran.
According to
Hill, this could not have been the case, because the Flood did not reach even
unto Jericho (let alone Egypt and Ethiopia). Thus she writes (The Noachian
Flood):
Archaeological
Evidence
There is also no archaeological
evidence for a universal flood. No flood deposits correlative with those in
Mesopotamia have been found in Egypt, Syria, or Palestine, let alone in other
parts of the world more distant from the Middle East. Archaeological mounds in
Syria and Palestine (such as Jericho), which exhibit fairly continuous
occupation since at least 4500 BC, show no signs of a great flood. ….
That the Flood did not extend even to
the land of Israel is alluded to in Ezek. 22:24: “a land [Israel] …
nor rained upon in the day of indignation [day of God’s judgment by the
Flood].” ….
How Local Was the
Local Flood?
Is she right
here? And, if the biblical Flood was not global, then how far did it extend?
Professor Hill
has optimistically made Ezekiel 22:24 above indicate that the Noachic Flood did
not extend even to the land of Israel. Whether it did or not, the prophet
Ezekiel in this passage is saying nothing of the sort. Far from the prophet’s
words being meant to be a blessing, insofar as Israel was saved from a
catastrophe, Ezekiel is foretelling (like Amos and others) that the blessing of
rain will be withheld from Israel “in the day of indignation”, because of its
sin; this being a terrible blow to an agricultural people.
Now it is my conviction
that the Flood extended right across the entire Fertile Crescent, the world of
the four rivers of Genesis 2. This is the only world that the Bible has given
us up to Genesis 6-8, and so it must be “the world that then was” of St. Peter
(2 Peter 3:6), that was destroyed by the Flood. So my own local model is far
vaster than are the typical local models. How else to explain that Jerusalem
was once under the ocean? (“Diggings”, December 1994, Vol. 10, No. 12),
"Why Hezekiah's Tunnel Has the Bends" (p. 5):
…. A geologist may have the answer …
an Israeli geologist, Dan Gill, has done some research on the matter and has
come up with some very plausible explanations.
Dan identifies two types of rock in
the tunnel area -- limestone and dolomite. The former is fairly soft and
porous, the latter comparatively hard. It is rather interesting that this
limestone consists of about 30% fragments of fossil shells and some coral,
which means that Jerusalem, which is now about 700 metres above sea level, must
have been beneath the ocean at some time in the past.
And so apparently
was the entire Giza plateau in Egypt once under Flood according to the
following: http://www.gizaforhumanity.org/report-from-mr-sherif-el-morsi/
Report
from Mr Sherif El Morsi
Preface
…. for the last 20 years now I have
also been collecting evidence of sea erosion due to deep water saturation on
the Giza plateau. My own theory (already published in France in 2007) is that
the last Great Flood … came up the Giza plateau, and that the Ancient Egyptians
with their incomparable skills adapted the plateau from the beginning in order
to protect their population and their science beneath it....
This is not surprising when one
considers the enormity in size of the ancient Nile (‘Ur Nil’), as
told by C. Pellegrino (Return to Sodom and
Gomorrah, Bard, 1998, p. 47):
Under the Nile itself are remnants of
a deep valley to rival the Grand Canyon. River silts began covering it up as
soon as the Gibraltar dam broke open and the Atlantic spilled in, but oil
geologists drilling through thousands of feet of mud have located the solid
bedrock of the Nile Canyon’s floor. It lies nearly two miles beneath the city
of Cairo.
For a brief time, for perhaps two or
three thousand years [sic] …the [ancient] Nile poured over a cliff forty times
higher than Niagara, but within a half million years [sic], at a rate of inches
per day, it had chewed back the bare limestone, slashing the Earth from Cairo
to Aswan. The river ran east of Karnak in those days; the slash bypassed
Karnak’s limestone fields, left them intact for stonecutting beings, who were
then only a distant potential in dryopithecine descent.
Pellegrino’s reference to “the
Gibraltar dam [breaking] open and the Atlantic spill[ing] in” refers to the
very same incident that caused the Black Sea Flood that William Ryan and Walter
Pitman have equated with the biblical Flood, though dating it to c. 5600 BC (Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed
History, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998).
Now it is most interesting
(particularly for Catholic readers) that German mystic Blessed Anne Catherine
Emmerich has focussed upon the Black Sea region as being one of the hotspots of
evil at the time of the Flood. As I wrote on this previously:
Interestingly, with regard to [the]
correlation of the Black Sea Flood with the Genesis one (despite the supposed
significant time difference) … Catherine Emmerich had claimed that very wicked
people had lived in the Black Sea region prior to the Flood and were there
destroyed by it. Here is part of her fascinating account of it:
One of Cain's descendants was
Thubalcain [Tubal-cain], the originator of numerous arts, and the father of
the giants. I have frequently seen that, when the angels fell, a certain number
had a moment of repentance and did not in consequence fall as low as the
others. Later on, these fallen spirits took up their abode on a high, desolate,
and wholly inaccessible mountain whose site at the time of the Deluge became a
sea, the Black Sea, I think. They were permitted to exercise their evil
influence upon men in proportion as the latter strayed further from God. ….
I saw Cain's descendants becoming more
and more godless and sensual. They settled further and further up that
mountain ridge where were the fallen spirits. Those spirits took possession of
many of the women, ruled them completely, and taught them all sorts of
seductive arts. Their children were very large. They possessed a quickness, an
aptitude for everything, and they gave themselves up entirely to the wicked
spirits as their instruments. And so arose on this mountain and spread far
around, a wicked race which by violence and seduction sought to entangle Seth's
posterity likewise in their own corrupt ways. Then God declared to Noe [Noah]
His intention to send the Deluge. During the building of the ark, Noe had to
suffer terribly from those people. ….
So the Black Sea
region will definitely need to be included in our antediluvian geography.
What about the
Universal Language of the Flood Narratives?
Both Professor
Hill and Timothy Martin have discussed this issue in detail. as have we in our:
According to Hill
(The Noachian Flood):
Universal Language
of Gen. 6–8
The best argument, biblically
speaking, for a worldwide flood is the “universal” language used in Gen. 6–8,
and this is no doubt the main reason why people in centuries past have believed
that Genesis was talking about the planet Earth, and why this traditional
interpretation has continued to the present day.
In Gen. 6–8, “earth” (eretz or
adâmâh) is used forty-two times, “all” (kol or kowl)
is used twenty times, “every” (also kowl in Hebrew) is used
twenty-three times, and “under heaven” (literally, “under the sky”) …. is used
two times.
Earth. The Hebrew for
“earth” used in Gen. 6–8 (and in Gen. 2:5–6) is eretz (‘erets)
or adâmâh, both of which terms literally mean “earth, ground, land,
dirt, soil, or country.” …. In no way can “earth” be taken to mean the planet
Earth, as in Noah’s time and place, people (including the Genesis writer …) had
no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had no word for it. …. The biblical
account must be interpreted within the narrow limit of what was known about the
world in that time, … not what is known about the world today.
Biblical context also makes it clear that “earth” does not necessarily mean the
whole Earth. For example, the face of the ground, as used in Gen. 7:23
and Gen. 8:8 in place of “earth,” does not imply the planet Earth. “Land” is a
better translation than “earth” for the Hebrew eretz because it
extends to the “face of the ground” we can see around us; that is, what is
within our horizon….. It also can refer to a specific stretch of land in a
local geographic or political sense. For example, when Zech. 5:6 says “all
the earth,” it is literally talking about Palestine—a tract of land or
country, not the whole planet Earth. …. The clincher to the word “earth” meaning
ground or land (and not the planet Earth) is Gen. 1:10: God called the dry
land earth (eretz). If God defined “earth” as “dry
land,” then so should we. ….
The great
Pentecost event as recorded in Acts 2 of the New Testament provides us with a
wonderful example of how differently the ancient Middle Eastern scribes thought
by comparison with today’s logical Western man. “Every nation under heaven” is
said to have been assembled in Jerusalem to hear the Apostles from Galilee
proclaiming the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in this thrilling bouleversement of the Babel incident.
All of these
foreigners could understand the Apostles despite their differences in language.
Universal language is used here, as in the Flood narratives. Taken on its own,
we would expect “every nation under heaven” to include antipodeans as well, and
peoples of deepest Africa and the Americas, and South East Asia, and Australia.
But that is not
what the text tells us:
5 Now there were staying in
Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When
they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one
heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they
asked:“Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it
that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians,
Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and
Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt
and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome11 (both Jews
and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders
of God in our own tongues!”
Here are
mentioned only such nations as fall largely within my geography of the world of
Adam and Noah, and not of the vast global world that we know today. And yet the
author of Acts 2 can consider this as representing “every nation under heaven”.
We would not say that today. This fact alone should perhaps jolt proponents of Creation
Science out of their customary tendency to read the Bible in a surface fashion,
in translation, employing a modern mentality that approaches the Bible with an a priori agenda.
If the Flood Was
Local, Why Did Not Noah Go Elsewhere?
In previous
articles I have suggested that, with the distinctive topography and formation
of the antediluvian world, perhaps also encircled by the Tethys Sea (for which
there is apparently scientific evidence) - the “Oceanus” (Okeanos) of the
ancients - it was impossible for Noah and his family to have gone elsewhere.
The Ark was the
only refuge to salvation.
But Tim Martin,
who, like professor Hill, has embraced a much more limited Flood model - with
people who were not even on the Ark, and living elsewhere, also surviving (and
both writers rejecting a ‘young earth’ view of things) - offers an argument
that has Noah entering the Ark out of theological
necessity:
Why would God need to tell Noah to
build an ark when Noah could have walked out of the region affected by the
flood? Rather than presenting a problem for the regional flood view, this
question exposes how Creation Science’s plain literal priority in reading the
account entirely misses the biblical emphasis of the account. God planned the
events to picture salvation by grace through faith. There is a spiritual need
for the ark, because the ark is a picture of Christ in the midst of God’s
judgment. What Creation Scientists often miss in their zeal to defend a plain
literal reading is the story of Noah’s ark is not about the geological history
of planet earth. It is about the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In God’s plan it was important, as a
picture of Christ, that Noah enter the ark as an “incarnation” of the gospel,
resting in Jesus Christ for salvation. Noah was figuratively “in Christ” while
he was “in the ark.” God has a plan whenever he gives his servant a mission,
whether it is Noah, Abraham, Ezekiel, or Hosea. Any speculation that wanders
from the redemptive purposes of God has lost touch with the biblical emphasis.
Once we understand the redemptive purpose God has revealed, the answer to this
question is clear. To tell Noah to hike over there where he would be safe
from God’s judgment is to teach that man must get up and save himself by his
own two feet. We ought to focus on the example of faithful obedience Noah
sets rather than speculate on how God would have acted if the flood had been a
localized event.
My own view, by
contrast, is that, whilst Lot was told by angels to flee Sodom and Gomorrah
(Genesis 19:15) because he could, Noah was told to build an Ark because there
would be no other place of escape for him.
But, to conclude
positively on Creation Science, I turn once again to Tim Martin (op. cit., pp. 66-67):
The Creation Science movement was a
result of sincere Christians desiring to defend the credibility of the Bible in
the face of modern skepticism and unbelief. That motive is one that should be
evident in all Christians who name Jesus Christ as Lord of all and wish to see
the Kingdom of God expand in our day. The problem in this case is not the
sincerity or spiritual goals of those within the movement. Nor is the problem
their dedication to the cause. The problem is that the movement has backfired
on its proponents.
Reading the Bible according to the
methods of Creation Science ideology will convince those who read the Bible carefully
of the fallibility of the Bible. It leads logical people to unbelief and
ultimately to atheism.
And, on the Six Days of Genesis 1,
which is not basically a scientific account of Creation, Martin has this to say
(pp. 122-):
The creation of the universe is
obviously a historical event, as is the creation of Adam and Eve. They are
real, historical humans who were created innocent, yet they sinned and broke
the covenant relationship between God and man. While this is perfectly compatible
with apocalyptic, it is equally clear that a plain, historical record is simply
not the purpose of the creation account. That it all happened according to the
wisdom and benevolence of God is the point. How it all happened in scientific
detail and physical phenomena is not in the priority of apocalyptic
communication … Put simply, the apocalypse of creation is about worship and
covenant relationship, not science. Understood this way, it is just as
relevant to God’s people today as it was in Moses’ day as Israel was leaving
Egypt with all its pantheistic idolatry of the creation … We are so used to
reading Genesis in terms of the intramural origins debate among Christians or
the creation-evolution debate that we have totally missed the reality that the
apocalypse of creation is a powerful unveiling of the meaning, essence and goal
of covenant life between God and man … Christians desperately need to change
their focus from the supposed scientific implications of creation and instead
feed off the apocalyptic vision of creation which demands covenant faithfulness
in all aspects of life and dimension of God’s world.
According to my
article:
World's First Book? Genesis 1:1-2:4
the account of
the Six Days of Genesis was composed in ancient book (i.e. a series of tablets)
format. I fully accept the view of Sts. Augustine, Albert the Great and Thomas
Aquinas that the Six Days is, not essentially a narrative of God’s work of
creation, but rather a revelation of
that work already effected.
And, as Martin
rightly observes, the document is about worship and covenant relationship,
not science.
A Concluding Note
The problem with
the imposition upon the Bible of a sophisticated but unscientific ‘science’, as
is done by Creationism, is that genuine scientists will be put off the Bible
altogether, not wanting to believe a book that supposedly demands conformity to
a pseudo science. Scientists and sceptics laugh loudly at the notion of an
ancient Ark filled with all of the world’s animals (perhaps even including
dinosaurs), and riding out a global Flood. And so they should. Whilst this can
be hurtful to many conservative Bible believers, it is in fact a nonsensical
exegesis that needs to be discarded.
Therefore I must agree
with Tim Martin that “the time has come to move beyond Creation Science”.
Part Three:
U.S. Creationists not happy with my Genesis model
“The only way
Genesis 7:19-20 could be accomplished is by a worldwide deluge, not to mention
that the same fossils that are found in the Mesopotamian region are found in
the Americas, Australia and the Far East”.
A colleague from Missouri wrote:
Hi, Damien -
Not all your readers find very persuasive your case against a global Flood.
Here are a few thoughts from two American Catholic creationists. ….
….
Hi, Damien -
Not all your readers find very persuasive your case against a global Flood.
Here are a few thoughts from two American Catholic creationists. ….
….
Here's my
take:
RS: The Greek of Acts 2:5 means, of the nations that had Jews living in them, all of them were gathered in Jerusalem. It is not including any region of Earth that did not contain Jews. So this context is not the same as Genesis 6-9.
Mackey
will need to prove that the expression “all the earth” cannot apply to the
whole earth. He will not be able to do so since the Bible uses such expressions
in both local and global ways.
More
significant is 2 Peter 3:5, which compares the earth completely covered by
water at the creation in Genesis 1:1-2 with the flood of Noah’s day that will
once again cover the Earth completely with water. The Greek di means “between,”
and thus tells us that the Earth was surrounded by water (i.e., water covered
the entire spherical circumference). Since creation is global, so is the flood.
It then
compares the judgment by fire of the whole earth with the judgment of the whole
earth in Noah’s day. Since the fire is global, so is the flood
There is
no suggestion that an of these three events: (1) creation water over the earth,
(2) judgment fire on the earth at the last day, (3) Noah’s flood, are merely
local events.
Genesis
7:19-20 says that the water rose 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain,
which is about 300 feet. Whatever the height of the highest mountain, the laws
of physics say that water seeks the lowest point and assumes the shape of its
container. Water could never reach a height of 300 feet over a mountain
locally, since the water would always seek a lower point somewhere on the
earth, no matter how far it extended. The only way Genesis 7:19-20 could be
accomplished is by a worldwide deluge, not to mention that the same fossils
that are found in the Mesopotamian region are found in the Americas, Australia
and the Far East.
The
proposition that the Garden of Eden was sitting on sedimentary rocks has no
evidence to support it. Genesis doesn’t hint to such a circumstance. The only
mention of rare earths or elements is Gen 2:12 (gold, bdellium, onyx stone),
but these are speaking of what is there as of the writing of Genesis by Moses,
not necessarily what was there in the time of the Garden of Eden. Even if they
were existing during the time of Eden, gold is a naturally occurring element,
not a sediment. Bdellium is the product of tree. The only possibility of
something built by layers is the onyx, but that is a quick crystallization
process, not a sedimentary process.
The other
instance is the use of bronze and iron at the time of Gen 4:22, but these are
either naturally occurring elements or forged mixtures of elements, not
sediments.
As for the
four rivers, flood waters would not necessarily erase the elongated earthen
cavity that holds river water. In fact, the exceeding pressure from water that
is a mile or two high (as in our oceans) preserves rather than destroys. Once
the mile or two of water is removed, the cavity that held the river remains.
The only way the cavity would not be present after a flood is if the flood
waters were in great turbulence and literally broke up the cavity, but that
requires proof of some great turbulence, not assumption.
....
And
In
a message dated 2/23/2013 8:45:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time .... :
....
I don't know how Damien can argue that he is able to interpret Genesis better than ALL of the Fathers of the Church, especially since the geological evidence fits perfectly well with a global Flood and a post-Flood Ice Age. It seems extremely arrogant to think that the Fathers were incapable of interpreting the Scriptures that refer to the Flood correctly and that we needed the speculations of anti-Catholic scientists like Darwin and Lyell to interpret them aright! ....
I don't know how Damien can argue that he is able to interpret Genesis better than ALL of the Fathers of the Church, especially since the geological evidence fits perfectly well with a global Flood and a post-Flood Ice Age. It seems extremely arrogant to think that the Fathers were incapable of interpreting the Scriptures that refer to the Flood correctly and that we needed the speculations of anti-Catholic scientists like Darwin and Lyell to interpret them aright! ....
For
more recent reading on all of this, see my:
The Bible Illuminates History & Philosophy. Part One: From Creation to
the Flood
No comments:
Post a Comment