What do you mean you don’t believe that the story of Noah’s Ark in Genesis is a literal account of history, great flood and all?What do you mean that you don’t believe the bunnies hopped in two-by-two? Oh yes, those two bunnies got their twitchy noses and fluffy stump tails up in that boat, don't you doubt.
And here is the proof (found via a post on Jim West’s blog earlier today).
8 comments:
While it seems pretty clear this is just a bunch of rocks ... would you be willing to share your interpretation of the flood account?
Chris, I think you should lead an archaeological expedition in search of the remains of those two bunnies -- when you find them, the Christian faith will be gloriously vindicated before the whole world!
Hi Justin,
Yes, perhaps I will do that - after I'm done posting on the Küng book. I have a long history in relation to Genesis and its interpretation, so it may be worthwhile.
But in short: First, I think it is a myth, legend, i.e. doesn't reflect a historical event. The question then becomes, second, ‘what does it mean for us today?’ Von Rad suggests that 'J' uses the story to interpret the 'constancy of the natural order' (OT Theol, 156), but 'P' expanded on this to stress the affect of the flood on the whole world.
All of this is possible, but whatever we are to think of the various source hypotheses, I would read the story as an ancient culture's attempt to make sense, both as theology, and a more general life-orientation-providing story, using and adapting stories from their own culture. Küng will put things far more eloquently, and I’ll be blogging on that in the near future.
What do you think, btw?
All the best,
Chris
Exactly, Ben. A glorious vindication of the Christian faith - not through acts of kindness, or the existence of the body politic of which Christ is head, or of the word of God spoken in Christ. No. By finding some bunny bones.
Chris,
I suppose I’m slightly more willing to conclude there is a ‘historical’ basis for the flood account. That being said, it would seem to me there would have been a ‘universal’ not a ‘global’ flood.
I find it very hard to believe the entire globe was flooded (just as I don’t believe the ‘whole world’ had heard the gospel in Colossians 1 or that ‘all the world’ was to be registered in Luke.) I can however see that as ‘all of’ Noah’s world (mainly the Middle East.)
Of course, this would also to push the date of the flood to something like 30,000 years ago to really make sense --- so I suppose if there were any historical basis it would have had to of been a long ago ‘cultural memory’ which moves the story more into the realm of historically based ‘myth’ then a straight-forward historical account.
If you do not believe the opening chapters of Genesis, what else are you willing to compromise? I will be a fool and take a literal, narrative approach to the Book of Genesis: including Creation, the Flood, and Adam's naming of the animals.
Thanks for your thoughts, Justin.
Anon (from Finland?), I do believe the opening chapters of Genesis, but not as literal history. Rather, I believe them as inspired religious symbolism to explain the nature of the world, humanity and God's relation to it. So I don't see any compromise here.
And why be a fool, as you see it? You don't have to be.
Chris,
So you do not believe that Genesis 1-11 is literal history. Therefore you decide what is truth and what is not, correct? So again I ask you what else are you willing to compromise or what else are you willing to say is not literal history? You are travelling down a dangerous road my friend. I will remain anonymous so that you will not judge me on where I live or where I received my education. For now I will only tell you that I believe the Bible. All of it. I will be a fool for Christ and retain my high view of Scripture.
Post a Comment