How many different species were on Noah's Ark

[gluadys]

On the contrary, God states in Genesis 7:4

...for after other seven days I am sending rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and have wiped away all the substance that I have made from off the face of the ground.

God specifically states that he is sending the rain. This is not just an unusual meteorological phenomenon, this is directly caused by a deity. That, I think, qualifies it for the 'supernatural' moniker.

The point is that rain is not an unusual meteorological phenomenon at all. It is a perfectly ordinary, natural phenomenon. God sending rain is, biblically speaking, an ordinary natural event. All rain is sent by God, so God sending the rain for the flood is not a miraculous event. It is God acting through nature in an ordinary way.

The Bible does not say the Flood occurred in the complete absence of divine intervention.

Nor am I suggesting that. But "divine intervention" does not necessarily imply unnatural means.

Thus, since exegesis has failed us, extra-Biblical knowledge can be employed to see how the Flood could have occurred. However, since it turns out that a purely natural (i.e., no "goddidit"s) explanation cannot account for the data, one must begin positing "goddidit"s to keep the story within the realms of possibility.

Ah, well now you are getting into the question of how to deal with the text in the light of extra-biblical information. However, no matter what the extra-biblical information says, we still have a text that suggests a flood due to natural (albeit divinely directed) causes. There is nothing in the text to suggest miracles that go against the order of nature.

In short, either one requires a supernatural explanation for what could not have occurred naturally, or one rejects the relevant texts as not literally true (or simply not true at all).

Please, please, please do not categorize a non-literal understanding of the text as a rejection. It would only be a rejection if the literal meaning was the only legitimate meaning.

 

[vossler]

My question is where do you get this from a plain and simple reading of the text.

I'm a bit puzzled by this but I'll give it my best shot. For me something supernatural is anything that can be directly attributed to God.

But where is it described as supernatural in the biblical text? Are you not importing fallible human reason into the interpretation here. Is it not because you cannot imagine any way for a world-wide flood to be natural that you jump to the conclusion that it was supernatural even though the text does not actually describe it as a miracle.

Why does something need to be described as supernatural in order for it to be considered as such? Of course fallible human reason is being imported into the interpretation of the text. I can't think of any text that doesn't require human reason to interpret.

Why do you expect it of God?

The bible contains miracle stories, but the story of the flood is not set out as a miracle. It is described as having natural causes--quite unlike the plagues of Egypt which are specifically described as miraculous.

Not all the stories of the Bible are miraculous, many are just stories of God doing supernatural things as only He could do, not unlike the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[gluadys]

I'm a bit puzzled by this but I'll give it my best shot. For me something supernatural is anything that can be directly attributed to God.
Why does something need to be described as supernatural in order for it to be considered as such? Of course fallible human reason is being imported into the interpretation of the text. I can't think of any text that doesn't require human reason to interpret.
Not all the stories of the Bible are miraculous, many are just stories of God doing supernatural things as only He could do, not unlike the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

OK. I've never seen before the distinction you are drawing between "supernatural" and "miraculous". Do you see these as different from each other?

I would equate them and then distinguish between the natural things God does and the supernatural (miraculous) things God does.

So perhaps we need to define "supernatural" more closely.

It seems to me, (correct me if I am wrong) that you are identifying as "supernatural" that which is done by a supernatural being, no matter how it is done.

Whereas I tend to identify "supernatural" with the method of operation rather than with the agent.

To me, the fact that God is a supernatural agent does not imply that everything God does is done supernaturally even when it is directly attributable to God as agent. It depends on God's choice of means.

But if "supernatural" means "attributable to a supernatural agent" irrespective of means, then everything God does is supernatural even when it is not miraculous.

Does that make sense?


So, following the description of the text, I would see the flood as directly attributable to God (which would make it supernatural if that means the agency is supernatural), but that the modus operandi is not miraculous i.e. it is not described as going against nature, but as using natural, not miraculous, means.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The point is that rain is not an unusual meteorological phenomenon at all. It is a perfectly ordinary, natural phenomenon. God sending rain is, biblically speaking, an ordinary natural event. All rain is sent by God, so God sending the rain for the flood is not a miraculous event. It is God acting through nature in an ordinary way.

Rain may be perfectly natural, but God making it rain on one specific spot at one specific time is not natural. Indeed, this isn't just any ordinary precipitation: this is rain that submerged the Earth. There were "springs of the deep" as well, of course, but their assistance (and even existence) eventually requires its own "goddidit".

See also my post to Mallon, where I explain my position on 'natural' and 'supernatural', insofar as this discussion is concerned.

Nor am I suggesting that. But "divine intervention" does not necessarily imply unnatural means.

I'm at a loss to see how divine intervention can be considered anything but unnatural means.

Ah, well now you are getting into the question of how to deal with the text in the light of extra-biblical information. However, no matter what the extra-biblical information says, we still have a text that suggests a flood due to natural (albeit divinely directed) causes. There is nothing in the text to suggest miracles that go against the order of nature.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that God must have worked some serious mojo in order to submerge the highest mountain: without things poofing into and out of existence at the will of some omnipotence, there is no way the Flood happened. Indeed, not only is it mechanically impossible, we see absolutely no evidence for it, and a plethora of evidence against it.

My favourite is the fact that Damascus has been continually occupied for 10,000 years, included c.2000BCE (when the Flood was supposed to happen). There's also the complete lack of flood markers in the required place in the geologic record, the massive human genetic diversity (more than if there was a severe bottleneck c.2000BCE), the prevalence of other epic and apocalyptic myths (some flood-based, some not) all the around the world, etc.

Please, please, please do not categorize a non-literal understanding of the text as a rejection. It would only be a rejection if the literal meaning was the only legitimate meaning.

You misunderstand what I mean by 'rejection'. If you reject a philosophy X, that simply means you have considered X, but do not subscribe to it. I have considered becoming a Muslim but, ultimately, I rejected Islam. I have also rejected the 'many world' interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's a perfectly valid hypothesis, I just don't subscribe to it.

So when I say someone rejects a literal interpretation of a piece of text, that simply means that do not interpret said text literally: they reject that particular philosophy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I guess the question is begging to be asked, then: Are some rains sent by God and others not?

Possibly. There should be a study .

If not, and if God sends ALL the rain (sensu Matt 5:45), then is all rain "supernatural"?

I'd say: yes. See below. Though Matthew 5:45 doesn't seem to imply that God sends all rain...

If we refer to God as the Ultimate Cause of all events, does mean that all natural events are, in fact, supernatural?

Yes, I was pondering about that logical eventuality. I concluded that it is an issue of practicality: while the Creation event must surely be considered supernatural, it is simply efficient for us to label all subsequent non-God-sent causes to be 'natural'. So God may have popped the universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago in a "yay let's expaaaaaaand" state, but the subsequent coalescence of stars and galaxies was/is a purely natural phenomenon (assuming, of course, God didn't interfere with how the universe 'evolved' post creatio).

So God snapping his proverbial fingers and setting a bush alight is supernatural, since it would not have happened naturally (bushes catch on fire, yes, but not that particular tree at that particular time. Nor do they subsequently talk). On the other hand, a bust catching fire simply because it's dry and hot isn't supernatural: God had no post creatio involvement.

Yes, I think that works nicely.

So God 'sending the rain' is supernatural, because it otherwise wouldn't have happened. Indeed, the subsequent global flood couldn't have happened otherwise. So there were either supernaturalism afoot, or Genesis 7 isn't literally true.

Sounds more like Christian Science to me.

Aren't they the people who eschew medicinal science in favour of prayer?

 

[gluadys]

I'm at a loss to see how divine intervention can be considered anything but unnatural means.

It would seem in that case that you are drawing a fundamental distinction between God and natural. That is a distinction I reject. I would hold that all events, natural and supernatural, come from God. Nature doesn't work without God making it work.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that God must have worked some serious mojo in order to submerge the highest mountain: without things poofing into and out of existence at the will of some omnipotence, there is no way the Flood happened. Indeed, not only is it mechanically impossible, we see absolutely no evidence for it, and a plethora of evidence against it.

I am not particularly concerned with whether the flood had to be supernatural or not as whether or not the text depicts it as supernatural. I agree that once we start posing the questions you alluded to earlier, we are soon driven to miracle as the only logical explanation of the event. But is this what the text says? That is my key question.

So when I say someone rejects a literal interpretation of a piece of text, that simply means that do not interpret said text literally: they reject that particular philosophy.

I expected that is what you meant, but what you said was:

"one rejects the relevant texts as not literally true"

I am not rejecting the relevant texts because I reject their literal truth. I am only rejecting their literal truth. I am probably sensitive on this point because literalists conflate rejection of the text literally interpreted as rejection of the text. So I want to keep clear that this is not the case.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It would seem in that case that you are drawing a fundamental distinction between God and natural. That is a distinction I reject. I would hold that all events, natural and supernatural, come from God. Nature doesn't work without God making it work.

So the mathematical laws that (appear to) govern actions and events are, in fact, God's rigour? He can make things do whatever he wants, but he chooses to make things follow strict mathematical formulae? I'm not criticising, I just want to be clear.

I am not particularly concerned with whether the flood had to be supernatural or not as whether or not the text depicts it as supernatural. I agree that once we start posing the questions you alluded to earlier, we are soon driven to miracle as the only logical explanation of the event. But is this what the text says? That is my key question.

No. Besides God saying "I will send rain", there are no more allusions to anything supernatural. Indeed, I believe the Hebrews thought the global flood really was perfectly natural: when it rains too much, there is a flood. Keep on raining, and eventually the entire world is flooded. But for the modern Christian to believe there actually was a global flood, they must accept that it was, in part, supernatural: things were poofed into and out of existence, etc.

I expected that is what you meant, but what you said was:

"one rejects the relevant texts as not literally true"

I am not rejecting the relevant texts because I reject their literal truth. I am only rejecting their literal truth. I am probably sensitive on this point because literalists conflate rejection of the text literally interpreted as rejection of the text. So I want to keep clear that this is not the case.

And I understand that. But notice that I didn't say:

"one rejects the relevant texts as not true"

I said:

"one rejects the relevant texts as not literally true"

One could still take them as true. One could interpret the text as being metaphor, allegory, or even being partially literal.

 

[gluadys]

So the mathematical laws that (appear to) govern actions and events are, in fact, God's rigour? He can make things do whatever he wants, but he chooses to make things follow strict mathematical formulae? I'm not criticising, I just want to be clear.

Basically, yes. The strict mathematical formula describe the order embedded in creation by God.

No. Besides God saying "I will send rain", there are no more allusions to anything supernatural. Indeed, I believe the Hebrews thought the global flood really was perfectly natural: when it rains too much, there is a flood. Keep on raining, and eventually the entire world is flooded. But for the modern Christian to believe there actually was a global flood, they must accept that it was, in part, supernatural: things were poofed into and out of existence, etc.

Yes, this is the conundrum I am getting at. Textually, the flood seems to be a natural, if rare, occurrence. And until we started examining geological strata scientifically, no one really questioned that.

But given the geological evidence, we can only sustain belief in a global flood by hypothesizing miracles that are not implied in the text. The flood has to become a different kind of flood than what scripture describes.

This gives rise to a significant exegetical question. Is it allowable for an exegete to so change the textual description of the flood? If these miracles are necessitated by science rather than by the text, what warrant is there for forcing them into the text?

One ends up with an imaginative scenario that is neither scientific nor biblical.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Basically, yes. The strict mathematical formula describe the order embedded in creation by God.

Embedded by God at the Creation event, or embedded by God as he enacts ever cause and effect?

Yes, this is the conundrum I am getting at. Textually, the flood seems to be a natural, if rare, occurrence. And until we started examining geological strata scientifically, no one really questioned that.

But given the geological evidence, we can only sustain belief in a global flood by hypothesizing miracles that are not implied in the text. The flood has to become a different kind of flood than what scripture describes.

Not really: the text doesn't indicate whether the flood is natural or supernatural. Going by the Bible alone, one can't tell either which way. But, when one looks at the evidence, it must have been a supernatural flood, regardless of what the Hebrews believed. The Bible is held as unchanging in this regard; one could always reject the Bible itself.

The real pickle would come if the Bible said a global flood occurred purely by natural order.

This gives rise to a significant exegetical question. Is it allowable for an exegete to so change the textual description of the flood? If these miracles are necessitated by science rather than by the text, what warrant is there for forcing them into the text?

The text itself isn't altered, so I don't see the problem. Almost by definition, the exegete has to be able to invoke all sorts of things about reality in order to keep the Bible in the realms of possibility. And like I said, if you're going to invoke an all-powerful deity (as per the Bible), you may as well take advantage of the supernatural implications.

One ends up with an imaginative scenario that is neither scientific nor biblical.

I disagree: how is it unbiblical?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wiccan_Child,

I think you've walked into an on-going debate that you've missed the context of. That is, YECs routinely accuse non-YECs (in particular, TEs/ECs) of adding to the text or reading into the text or dismissing the text.

I believe that gluadys' point is to push home that these YECs are exhibiting cognitive dissonance (to avoid other word choices) when they posit miracles here when they insist on an absolute literalist reading elsewhere.

The on-going point of the TE side is that YECs add to, modify, and read into just as often as the TE side.

gluadys doesn't have a problem interpreting the text. She's merely pointing out that YECs do it to. (Of course, she's welcome to correct me.)

~Tinker

 

[gluadys]

The on-going point of the TE side is that YECs add to, modify, and read into just as often as the TE side.

You have it mostly right, but I would quibble with this bit. EC/TEs try hard NOT to read science into the text. It is a creationist perspective that we try to find long geological ages or evolution in the text of scripture. That is not the reality.

Other than that, I think Wiccan Child is missing the point that I am discussing principles of exegesis, not how to reconcile scripture with science.

What I am getting at is that if reconciling scripture with science leads to poor exegetical technique, something is wrong with the reconciliation. Just as evidence is the bottom line in science, the text is the bottom line in exegesis.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thanks, correction appreciated.

I suppose I should have worded it something like "Ironically, YECs do X as much as they allege TEs do."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You have it mostly right, but I would quibble with this bit. EC/TEs try hard NOT to read science into the text. It is a creationist perspective that we try to find long geological ages or evolution in the text of scripture. That is not the reality.

Other than that, I think Wiccan Child is missing the point that I am discussing principles of exegesis, not how to reconcile scripture with science.

What I am getting at is that if reconciling scripture with science leads to poor exegetical technique, something is wrong with the reconciliation. Just as evidence is the bottom line in science, the text is the bottom line in exegesis.

Surely the text itself is the bottom line, not exegetical technique? Is it not better to keep to the text? I'm really not seeing your point here, nor what this has to do with the Flood .

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'll let gluadys answer for herself.

The negative point for me, when I was a Christian and TE, was that there is no point in trying to worry about how anything happened. The positive point was to discover why the story was included in the text at all. Why did God intend this text? The answer was that the text exists to convey truths about Man's relationship with God -- not necessarily to relay scientific or historical truth. The story may be true (say historical) but it isn't there because it is historical, it is there because the story tells us something about what we can expect of God and what God expects of us.

As such, it is somewhat silly to wrangle over the historicity of it. It was irrelevant.

Of course, it's all different now.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'll let gluadys answer for herself.

The negative point for me, when I was a Christian and TE, was that there is no point in trying to worry about how anything happened. The positive point was to discover why the story was included in the text at all. Why did God intend this text? The answer was that the text exists to convey truths about Man's relationship with God -- not necessarily to relay scientific or historical truth. The story may be true (say historical) but it isn't there because it is historical, it is there because the story tells us something about what we can expect of God and what God expects of us.

As such, it is somewhat silly to wrangle over the historicity of it. It was irrelevant.

Of course, it's all different now.

Ah, but this whole thread is about the mechanics and whatnot of the Flood and Noah's Ark. At the end of the day, the Bible still tells a flood-based story. The Christian, then, is presented with two possibilities: invoke miracles to explain how it could have actually happened as per the text, or treat it as non-literal metaphor, allegory, parable, motivation, inspiration, etc.

You, Tinker Grey, appear to have chosen the latter option (in your Christian days, at least).

 

[champuru]

This just goes back to the point I just finished making. If you're willing to accept that God miraculously lured the animals onto the ark/kicked off the epic flood/sustained the animals on the ark, why stop appealing to miracles there? Why not just assume that God put adult Brachiosaurus onto the ark by miraculously shrinking them down to the size of a peanut? Why are you reasoning some details but not others?

Then you can put it in a cup of water like those foam dinosaurs, and watch it grow, grow, grow!!!

By the way, I thought YECs thought the dinosaurs were killed in the flood... are they changing the story again?

 

[gluadys]

Surely the text itself is the bottom line, not exegetical technique? Is it not better to keep to the text? I'm really not seeing your point here, nor what this has to do with the Flood .

Absolutely, the text is the bottom line. Exegesis is supposed to draw out the meaning of the text as it stands, not add new material to the text.

That is why, if the text presents the flood as a consequence of natural means (God at most "sending rain") the flood should not be presented as the centre piece of a dozen or so miraculous events.

But as you correctly point out--to make it concord with science, the miracles become a logical necessity.

However, it is the text, not science, that should be the bottom line for the exegete. If you have to import new material into the text to make it concord with science, then the problem is in adopting concordism as an exegetical principle.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Absolutely, the text is the bottom line. Exegesis is supposed to draw out the meaning of the text as it stands, not add new material to the text.

I disagree. If the text isn't being altered, one can use extra-Biblical information to deduce the truth of the matter. In this case, we can use extra-Biblical information to eliminate the possibility that the flood was a perfectly natural occurrence: it was either aided by miracles and divine intervention, or Genesis 7 is not literal. While I'm not expert in Biblical criticism, I don't see the problem with using extra-Biblical material to uncover the true meaning of the Bible.

That is why, if the text presents the flood as a consequence of natural means (God at most "sending rain") the flood should not be presented as the centre piece of a dozen or so miraculous events.

Ah, but the text doesn't depict it as wholly natural, nor as wholly supernatural. It just says God sent rain, and there was a global flood for a year. Whether this was natural occurrence of supernaturally influenced is not mentioned. Thus, nothing is detracted from the text if we conclude that the flood had supernatural components (or, indeed, was wholly natural).

But all this does detract from the central point of the story. But since we're not talking about the message, merely the events, that's a tangent.

But as you correctly point out--to make it concord with science, the miracles become a logical necessity.

However, it is the text, not science, that should be the bottom line for the exegete. If you have to import new material into the text to make it concord with science, then the problem is in adopting concordism as an exegetical principle.

Again, I do not see a problem with this. Is it not reasonable to expect the Bible to conform to reality? The reality, I might add, that the Bible says God created.

 

[gluadys]

While I'm not expert in Biblical criticism, I don't see the problem with using extra-Biblical material to uncover the true meaning of the Bible.

Definitely. I fully favour using extra-biblical material as an aid in discovering the meaning of the Bible. It is when one begins creating imaginative scenarios that are not in the text that problems arise.

It just says God sent rain, and there was a global flood for a year.

And that is where we should leave it. I have seen descriptions of the flood that include earthquakes and volcanoes, an ice age following, a complete makeover of global topography including creating mountain ranges where there were none before and changes in the atmosphere. This sort of thing cannot be justified from the text.

But all this does detract from the central point of the story. But since we're not talking about the message, merely the events, that's a tangent.

Good point.

Again, I do not see a problem with this. Is it not reasonable to expect the Bible to conform to reality? The reality, I might add, that the Bible says God created.

Another reason to stick with the text. The imaginative scenarios created in an attempt to make it concord with modern science do not conform to reality.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Definitely. I fully favour using extra-biblical material as an aid in discovering the meaning of the Bible. It is when one begins creating imaginative scenarios that are not in the text that problems arise.

Why? If these scenarios are in line with what is already given in the text, what's the problem? It's like Star Trek: the live action stuff gives the backbone, and the novelizations flesh it out (though they are not considered canon). Likewise, though the scenarios envisioned by Creationists to explain away the Flood are not explicitly given in the Bible, they are compatible with it.

Once again, I do not see the problem with this.

And that is where we should leave it. I have seen descriptions of the flood that include earthquakes and volcanoes, an ice age following, a complete makeover of global topography including creating mountain ranges where there were none before and changes in the atmosphere. This sort of thing cannot be justified from the text.

The problem with those kinds of scenarios are that they cannot have occurred without divine intervention: more often than not, they lead to the poaching of the entire Earth. And if they all require divine intervention, why not run the full gauntlet?

But again, I don't see any exegetical dilemma.

Another reason to stick with the text. The imaginative scenarios created in an attempt to make it concord with modern science do not conform to reality.

Well, the point is that some of them are within the realms of possibility. Obscenely implausible, but possible nonetheless. The problem is that these scenarios require divine intervention (things poofing into or out of existence, etc).