Читать книгу The Genesis Cataclysm - W. Joseph Stallings - Страница 10

Christian scholars have an obligation to lead the way toward a renewed reverence for God’s truth wherever it can be found. . . . Christians should be preeminently motivated to investigate the intricacies of God’s created order, confident that a better grasp of both God’s Word and God’s works will be forthcoming.1

Within the story of human antiquity, there are probably few things more enigmatic—and more controversial—than the matter of the Noahic Flood. As geomorphologist David R. Montgomery forthrightly states: “Noah’s story is central to one of the longest-running debates between science and religion as people sought, and still seek, to reconcile scriptural interpretation with observations of the natural world.”2 In this regard, he is absolutely right on the mark. There is frequent debate among scholars, even among those who are evangelical Christians, about such things as the Flood’s historicity, extensiveness, and significance. In their classic 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb and Morris make this statement:

The question of the historicity and the character of the Genesis Flood is no mere academic issue of interest to a small handful of scientists and theologians. If a worldwide flood actually destroyed the entire antediluvian human population, as well as all land animals, except those preserved in a special Ark constructed by Noah (as a plain reading of the Biblical record would lead one to believe), then its historical and scientific implications are tremendous. The great Deluge and the events associated with it necessarily become profoundly important to the proper understanding of anthropology, of geology, and of all other sciences which deal with historical and prehistorical events and phenomena.3

Just what one believes about the Noahic Flood has tremendous implications across a vast array of scientific and historical arenas. Furthermore, from an integrationist perspective, we believe that these scientific and historical implications are all tied together by the Flood’s importance within the realm of orthodox-evangelical Christian theology. As such, Whitcomb and Morris add this:

But of even greater importance are the implications of the mighty Flood of Genesis for Christian theology. For that universal catastrophe speaks plainly and eloquently concerning the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men and in the processes of nature. Furthermore, it warns prophetically of a judgment yet to come, when the sovereign God shall again intervene in terrestrial events, putting down all human sin and rebellion and bringing to final fruition His age-long plan of creation and redemption.4

It is our contention that the Flood must be viewed from both the broad and the narrow as well as the blatant and the hidden perspectives in order to grasp its veracity.5 Following Whitcomb and Morris, the Scriptures do not statically present the Noahic Flood as just another notable event which happened sometime in the distant past, but as a divine apex action inundated with profound theological meaning that occurred within the bounds of both natural and human history. They also offer a reminder that the Flood event of history serves as a precursor to another cataclysmic event—an event in chronos that is still yet to come—the eschatological return of Christ and the Final Judgment. This particular concept, as shall be later shown, is extremely important.

There are three major views concerning the Flood. First, there is the traditional view, which posits that the Flood was an actual historical event that transpired as a global, worldwide cataclysm. Second, there is the local view, which posits that the Flood was an actual occurrence, but was limited and somewhat regional in nature (most regional models place the Flood in the Mesopotamian area). Third, there is the symbolic view, which holds that the Flood was not an actual historical event, but rather a story written to teach theological truth.6 It should be additionally noted that it is also possible to devise creative hybrid understandings as well. For instance, some scholars will formulate various combinations of the local and the symbolic view (e.g., Longman and Walton).

We immediately refute the symbolic view on the grounds that the biblical account of the Noahic Flood is self-affirming of its historical nature. While scholars may attempt to refute the historicity of the biblical Flood on empirical and extra-biblical grounds, it is a pointless endeavor to claim that the intention of the scriptural revelation is not to present the Deluge as an actual, factual event.7 As Richard M. Davidson8 states:

[W]e must note the evidences within the biblical account affirming the historical nature of the Flood. In the literary structure of the Flood story, the genealogical frame or envelope construction (Genesis 5:32 and 9:28–29) plus the secondary genealogies (Genesis 6:9–10 and 9:18–19) are indicators that the account is intended to be factual history. The use of the genealogical term toledot ([Hebrew for] ‘generations,” “account”) in the Flood story (6:9) as throughout Genesis (13 times, structuring the whole book), indicates that the author intended this story to be as historically veracious as the rest of Genesis. Walter Kaiser analyzes the literary form of Genesis 1–11 and concludes that this whole section of Genesis must be taken as “historical narrative prose” . . . [Furthermore] The historical occurrence of the Flood is part of the saving/judging acts of God, and its historicity is assumed and essential to the theological arguments of later biblical writers employing Flood typology.9

He concludes: “Thus according to the biblical writers, far from being a non-historical, symbolical, or mythical account written only to teach theological truths, the Flood narrative is intended to accurately record a real, literal, historical event.”10 We concur with Davidson that the Noahic Flood, as recorded in Scripture, was a divine event set in human space-time history.

Having said that, there are those—even some who are professing evangelicals purported to have a conservative theological bent, such as Francisco—who claim that the Noahic text should not be modernly interpreted as it appears plainly written. According to this view, the narrative was simply given as somewhat of an emblematic story (probably itself derived from “correspondencies between the Hebrew and Babylonian stories” which are likely “based upon a common antecedent,”11 whether that antecedent was an even older story or group of stories, or an actual prior local flood event or series of local events that occurred over time, or some sort of combination of the above) which the author embedded with a (hyperbolic) Hebrew extremism literary device (i.e., in this case, by crafting it into a worldwide event) to clearly make a much stronger “moral of the story” point. In this light, Francisco states just how he perceives the real truth to be:

The biblical account does not [really] demand the interpretation that every foot of the earth be covered with water any more than the statement in Acts 2:5, that there were in Jerusalem “devout men from every nation under heaven,” claims that even men from America were there! Just as Acts declares that men were there from all the civilized world, the essential claim in Genesis 6 is that the water covered all the inhabited earth.12

Francisco’s assertion could possibly pass some degree of logical muster if it were not for, at least, one small feature in the Noahic text: that is, the important depth detail in Genesis 7:20—”the waters prevailed above the mountains covering them from fifteen cubits deep.” Mind you, not fourteen nor sixteen; not ten nor twenty; not greatly nor deeply nor barely, but fifteen. While we concur that the Acts 2 text (which is also historical narrative prose) does indeed utilize a Hebrew extremism device in order to make an emphatic point,13 the comparison of the two texts is not an equal one and thus essentially presents a strawman argument. It would have been much more appropriate to compare the Noahic text with, say, the passage in John 21, specifically verse 11—“So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them.” Mind you, not a hundred and fifty-two nor a hundred and fifty-four; not a hundred and fifty; not just a boatload or a lot or a few, but a hundred and fifty-three. These seemingly inconsequential details in the story are really not so inconsequential. Completely aside from any presumed emphatic points to be made, or from any interpretation of the meanings of these passages whatsoever, both of these texts present their details with a very narrow specificity for one reason and one reason alone: because they each chronicle exactly what happened. Not only did Peter and his fellow fishermen catch a whole lot of fish, but they caught 153 of them (and even “large” ones, no less). Likewise, not only did the Noahic Flood cover every foot of the planet Earth including the highest peaks (which alone is self-affirming that every foot of the ground was indeed already covered), but it covered those highest peaks to a depth of 15 cubits (which is the equivalent of 22.5 feet in our modern English system of measurement). We contend that these are both cases of precise detail and narrow specificity designating actual history.14

Meanwhile, in a vein of thought similar to that of Francisco (above), yet presented in the form of a notable hybridic variation of the symbolic view, Longman and Walton agree that the Noahic text is indeed fully intended to present a worldwide Flood event. However, in their understanding, the Mosaic author was actually using rhetorical language with graphic imagery—not because it actually happened that way—but because anything other than a dramatic universal Flood presentation would not have the necessary impact to effectively communicate the desired theological truth.15 In this line of thinking, the historicity (or degree of historicity) of the Flood is not essentially important; it is rather the deeper theological message that really matters.16 The reality of its actual occurrence is, at best, secondary—perhaps even irrelevant.

Of course, the problem with these sorts of postulations is that if the event portrayed is removed from (or even diminished within) history, then perhaps the theological truth can be removed (or, at least, greatly diminished) as well. In fact, John Warwick Montgomery17 speaks forcefully of such a divorce: “History can be removed from Christian theology only by the total destruction of theology itself.”18 The vital implication is that the truth of both history and theology would be mutually eradicated by their severance. The occurrence of the biblical events in general history is the bedrock of their theological truth. It is our firm conviction that the Judeo-Christian reality is an actual reality because it is indeed fully set in space-time. We believe that one of the most important features of the Hebrew-Christian scriptures is that they purport to place its recorded events in some form of actual historic geochronology. This is the very reason that the Bible regularly includes—squarely in the midst of its proclaimed theological and spiritual precepts—certain personal and historical details on its sacred pages. The point of the details is to substantiate that the particular thing recorded really happened. The mighty acts and lessons of God and our respondent faith and life as set in actual time and place are as fleshy real as it gets. The efficacy of the faith itself—as well as the authenticity of its theological teaching—is deeply rooted in its historical truth.19 The two—history and theology—are not in conflict nor disconnected from one another, but are, in fact, necessarily commensurate. In the case of the Noahic Flood, it is presented in the Bible as a purposeful divine action that occurred in the form of a specific event on Earth and at a specific time on Earth. Its factual historicity, in every possible sense of the word, is crucial to its theological and spiritual relevance. As Davidson so aptly avers:

The Genesis Flood narrative presents profound theology. But this theology is always rooted in history. Any attempt to separate theology and history in the biblical narratives does so by imposing an external norm, such as Greek dualism, upon the text. Read on its own terms, the biblical narratives, including the Flood narrative, defy attempts to read them as nonhistorical theology.20

Still following Davidson, yet forcefully pushing a step further, we aver that the biblical narratives even defy attempts to read them as merely some form of semi-historical theology (viz., having some mere kernel of historical truth deeply hidden somewhere beneath the many layers of developed fable and allegory). To diminish the historicity of the Flood in any way is to also dissipate its deeper truth in every way.21

There are other such biblical texts as well upon which hinge major theological truth. Imagine, for instance, the illegitimacy of Christian soteriology and eschatology if the New Testament records of the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and coming consummation of Christ were merely considered to be a rhetorical and figurative storyline. Think about it: What would be the ramifications if the writers of the four Gospels intended for the resurrection of Christ narrative to be some form of hyperbole? As Montgomery again presents so forthrightly:

The New Testament most definitely presents the Christian faith as a matter of concrete, cognitive truth. Whether one looks at Christ’s demands (“Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me”—John 14:11) or at the explicit creedal affirmations of the apostles (“I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures . . . and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures”—1 Cor. 15:3, 4), one sees that Christianity is not primarily a matter of feeling or even action, but a religion of factual belief that yields genuine religious experience and meaningful social action, only because of its objective truth.22

Despite the incredible theological implications conveyed in the scriptures concerning the person and work of Christ, if Jesus did not physically and bodily rise from the grave, then he is still dead—and so is all subsequent Christian theology and faith.23 No mere resurrection of Christ in the “hearts” of the people, nor some sort of mystical resurrection “within the ‘kerygma’” will do it; if God-the-Son did not become physically incarnate in the human being known as Jesus of Nazareth and did not die on the Cross of Calvary (located at a specific geographic site just outside the walls of Jerusalem) and literally rise from the dead (in every physical and bodily sense), then there is no salvation available. Moreover, if that were to be the case, then all of Judeo-Christianity is a lie and the entirety of Christian faith is a farce (1 Cor 15:12–28). The unbridled telos of such thinking is essentially an insidious and hollow existentialism which conflicts with virtually every biblical tenet of evangelical-sacramental Christianity. The fact of physical and material incarnationality is the essence of the scriptural Judeo-Christian reality.24

So—within the realm of the empirical universe, which notion is more difficult to embrace: that God, in accordance with the OT Scriptures, caused a global Flood upon the Earth during the time of Noah; or that God, in accordance with the NT Scriptures, caused the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead during the governorship of Pontius Pilate? Which, if either, fits more securely within the parameters of common reason, everyday experience, and the evidences of naturalistic science? Certainly, the notion of God raising the dead back to life should confound the rationalistic thinker at least as much as the notion of God causing an Earth-immersive Flood.25 Yet, again, the Scriptures equally proclaim both to be actual occurrences in the material world of which we now live. Both are proclaimed to be unqualified truth.

Please know this: Neither a symbolic Christ Event—nor a symbolic Flood Event—would have any truth significance whatsoever. Taken as merely stories outside of concrete history—regardless of any lessons we try to assign to them, they both become only tall tales rendering even the lessons invalid. The doctrines and the theology of the faith must always be founded on firm and objective historical factuality.26 Otherwise, they too—like the message-conveying fabulistic stories themselves—would be veraciously null and void. Symbolism without factuality is fluff. Therefore, with the symbolic interpretation cast aside, the issue then becomes a matter of determining whether the Flood is best understood as a global or a local/regional phenomenon.

The nature and importance of the historic Noahic Flood should cause those with a concern for Christian apologetics to seriously consider that the event must have indeed left its recorded footprint, both textually and terrestrially. Much chronological time has passed since the Noahic Flood event within the context of all biblical paradigms (i.e., Young-Earth = c. 4–4.5 ka27; Old-Earth = possibly much further back in time28), thus the overtness of the geo-terrestrial footprint has most certainly faded to some degree over the ages through natural attrition. Yet, while we resolutely and unwaveringly stand on the evidence of God’s preserved scriptural revelation of the event, we are also quite confident that God has preserved at least some of the diluvial evidence in nature and history and allows it to be made presently visible to those seekers who truly want to see.29 An inquiry into this collaborative (scriptural/natural/historical) assertion shall be the major quest of this book. Are there sufficient evidences to plausibly warrant positing a global Noahic Flood within the auspices of a specific Old-Earth biblical paradigm? If so, what are they?

1. Young, The Biblical Flood, 312.

2. Montgomery, The Rocks Don’t Lie, xiv.

3. Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, xix.

4. Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, xix.

5. The old saying about “the forest and the trees” constantly comes to mind. If we only look at the forest, we may very well miss many, if not all, of the trees. If we only look at the trees, we may not see the entire forest right before our eyes. For example, there are a number of trace evidences that could point to a global Flood, yet may not be definitive in and of themselves. However, several such evidences when viewed together may be considered to be much more convincing. Thus, an investigator would do well to look at each piece of evidence individually and then consider them all as a composite whole before finally reaching a conclusion. This is an important principle of good forensics and good basic investigation. Furthermore, it is also imperative to view the Flood within the greater eschatological context. God is indeed going somewhere—an ultimate destination—with his actions in and through all of those things of which he has created.

6. Davidson, “Biblical Evidence,” 79

7. It is the common praxis among those who attempt such a refutation to disregard the built-in textual intention of Scripture—even when that teaching is blatantly obvious on its face and truly leaves no other viable options—and thus, in so doing, to subordinate the Bible to accommodate their perception of nature. When it comes down to it, the underlying presumption is that nature actually carries more weight in a given discussion. As just one representative sampling of this from among many other similar works, see David R. Montgomery, The Rocks Don’t Lie (2012). He concludes: “We may argue endlessly about how to interpret the Bible, but the rocks don’t lie. They tell it like it was” (257). Of course, this view fails to seriously consider the duo-reality that, first, the natural order is fallen; and that, second, the Bible, without blemish, tells it like it was, is, and forever will be.

8. Davidson, who is Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at Andrews University, has done a tremendous amount of work concerning the biblical teachings of the Noahic Flood.

9. Davidson, “Biblical Evidence,” 79–90.

10. Davidson, “Biblical Evidence,” 79–90.

11. Francisco, “Genesis,” 139.

12. Francisco, “Genesis,” 139. This is essentially a regional Flood view—”all the inhabited earth,” in his understanding, refers only to the Mesopotamian region.

13. Francisco is likely correct implying that there were not any Native Americans present for the Acts 2 event.

14. By the way, there are several other such details in the Noahic text as well. For example, notice the specifics given as to the Ark’s dimensions (Gen 6:14–16), as well as the specifics given as to the day the Flood began (Gen 7:11), etc. Accounts with explicit details, particularly those using very precise numbers, lend themselves to being a conveyance of historicity.

15. Longman III and Walton, Lost World of the Flood, 145–49. In their particular case, Longman and Walton believe that the Noahic narrative actually does have some sort of historical event behind it (possibly some sort of spectacular local event or events), but they “cannot be sure” exactly what it may have been because “we have [physical] evidence of more than one flood that would be potential candidates for the inspiration of the story” (145); yet, they are also equally convinced that “there is absolutely no [physical] evidence for a worldwide flood” (146).

16. Longman III and Walton, Lost World of the Flood, 92–93. Moreover, they also state earlier in the same book: “The deepest reality, that which is most true, must not be constrained by what eyewitnesses can attest or demonstrate to have ‘actually happened.’ The accounts in Genesis 1–11 can be affirmed as having real events as their referents, but the events themselves (yes, they happened) find their significance in the interpretation that they are given in the biblical text. That significance is not founded in their historicity but in their theology; not in what happened (or even that something did happen) but in why it happened. What was God doing? That is where the significance is to be found” (17). As Longman and Walton try to gently navigate around this matter, they seem to be claiming that the presentation of the historical referent itself (if one does even exist) may be less true than the “most true” theological interpretation of that referent. In other words, the implication is that there can be a significant interpretive why without a fully historical what of which to interpret, or a significant theological meaning of something with or without the actual occurrence of that something. As such, they appear to assert that, regardless as to whether or not the Noahic Flood actually happened on the Earth as it is presented in the biblical text, we do have its story in the Bible; therefore, there is great theological truth that we can and should learn from it simply because it is a story. Unfortunately, however, this makes the Noahic narrative more akin to a fairy tale with a moral attached than to a historical narrative through which God actually worked. For many of us of particularly non-Gnostic persuasion, such a viewpoint will render even the theological lessons quite hollow and without much substance.

17. Montgomery is a renowned theologian (and attorney) who specializes in Christian apologetics.

18. Montgomery, “Karl Barth and Contemporary Theology of History,” 45.

19. Note that there are certainly times when phenomenological language is used in the descriptive scriptural presentation of certain historical events (e.g., the creation narrative of Genesis 1–2). However, such use does not negate the literal historicity of those events in any way. We strongly demonstrate this notion in The Genesis Column (2018).

20. Davidson, “The Genesis Flood Narrative,” 52. Both Barth and Bultmann incorporate a more contemporary variation of dualism in their attempts to grapple with biblical history. We will briefly discuss Barthian neo-dualism, in particular, in the next chapter.

21. While there are various literary genres represented in the total body of Holy Scripture, we concur with Kaiser (mentioned above, in Davidson) that the text of Genesis 1–11 (inclusive of the Noahic text of Genesis 6–9) is intended to be a form of historical narrative prose (for further on this, see Kaiser, “The Literary Form of Genesis 1–11,” 48–65). This means that it is to be understood similarly, not only to the other historical OT texts, but also to the NT events of Jesus’s life as documented in the Gospels as well as to the events of the early apostolic church as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. For instance, it might be duly noted that most of the tangible artifacts, etc. inherent to the human life of Christ as Jesus of Nazareth are now removed from our empirical experience or hidden from our view. This in no way negates the absolute requirement of the faith for God Incarnate to have actually lived, died, and risen in true and literal physical human form. In fact, for many, this is the basal motivation for the classic search for the historical Jesus, which continues from generation to generation. If God did not actually become physically incarnate in the human person of Jesus of Nazareth, then the Jesus Christ of Scripture and all things attributed to him in the scriptures are completely irrelevant. This is likewise certainly true with the Flood of Noah.

22. Montgomery, Faith Founded on Fact, 29.

23. And, by the way, if that be the case, so are we (1 Cor 15:12–28).

24. God has willfully provided for his Kingdom actions to be accomplished within the unrestrained purview of space-time history. It has always been his ongoing plan and practice not to keep either himself or his works at a place of distance from his creatures (nor even from the enemy). Thus, he knows that, in so doing, both himself and his works will certainly be attacked and even exposed to the risk of discreditation; yet God, who is himself Truth, is willing and able to do this because he also knows that he and all of his works are completely and perfectly trustworthy and true and will ultimately be borne out as such in the plain sight of all the universe.

25. By the way, there are other resurrection events directly related to Jesus. Before Jesus died and was raised from the dead, the scriptures proclaim that Jesus himself raised, at least, three other deceased people: the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11–17), Jairus’ daughter (Matt 9:18–26; Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56), and Lazarus (John 11:1–44). It is upon physical resurrection which hinges everything about the authenticity of the Christian faith; yet, we cannot help but wonder just how truly and evidentially believable any of this can be to the global Flood disavowist? Afterall, apart from the record of Scripture and the ongoing testimony of the Church, what definitive empirical evidence is there in the natural world for any of these resurrections by Christ—or even for the resurrection of Christ?

26. Note that Jesus also spoke quite “a-matter-of-factly” about the historical Noah himself and the Flood in the parallel texts of Matthew 24:37–39 and Luke 17:27 in terms of both its sure historical occurrence and its connection to a certain just-as-sure future occurrence.

27. Osgood, “The Date of Noah’s Flood,” 10–13. See also Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, 241.

28. As an OEC, Ross, for instance, seems to support a Flood timing of about 20,000 to 30,000 years ago. See Ross, A Matter of Days, 223. His calculation is based on a combination of certain specific historical markers (such as a relative dating for Abraham at about four thousand years ago and the interpretation of the Peleg text of Genesis 10:25 to refer to the breaking up of the Bering Strait land bridge at about 11,000 years ago) and the assumption that the life spans recorded in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are proportional to the actual passage of time. As shall be shown later, we advocate for a Flood time even much further back in time than does Ross.

29. Ross possibly disputes this. See Ross, The Genesis Question, 159–60. Here he states: “The assumption that clear evidence ‘should’ remain must be challenged. The Flood, though massive, lasted but one year and ten days. A flood of such brief duration typically does not leave a deposit substantial enough to be positively identified thousands of years later. . . . a one-year Flood in the region of Mesopotamia, even to a depth of two or three hundred feet, may leave behind insufficient evidence for a positive geological identification ten to forty thousand years later.” First, keep in mind that Ross’s skepticism is grounded in a regional Flood view rather than in a global Flood view, which we refute. Second, in partial agreement with Ross, there is no doubt that there are some geological evidences—particularly depositional—which were either never substantial enough nor made permanent enough to clearly identify today as being Noahic. This will be discussed later.