Gardens and floods

In the beginning

One of the most controversial parts of the Bible is its opening, the story of creation and the garden of Eden.  Some Christians hold it to be literally true, some say it is true but not literally, some say it is an allegory or parable, and a lot just don’t think much about it at all.  The reason there are so many views on this among Christians is that science deduces a much different sequence of events from the story as presented, so these views represent different ways to balance these two very different models.  For the people that may think it isn’t that important to worry about this stuff, I will make the case that these models cannot be reconciled and it really does matter.  But first, we will briefly look at the two conflicting positions.

Creation

On one hand we have the story as presented.  Obviously the biggest argument theologically is that the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore the story is true as presented.  There are some ideas outside of the Bible to consider as well.  What follows is hardly a comprehensive list, but it has some of the major ideas.

• The biological world has the appearance of intelligent design.  Even noted atheist Richard Dawkins observes this: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (The Blind Watchmaker)

• There is the idea of the fine-tuned universe, which observes that there are a number of physical constants that, if changed just a little, could have produced a significantly different universe, quite possibly one not supporting life as we know it.

• Science has recognized the principle of entropy, which can broadly be defined as a lack of order in a system.  Maximum entropy is when everything is perfectly distributed and the same, and the observation is that everything tends to go in that direction.  If someone builds a castle out of sand, over time that castle is not going to get more complicated, but rather will gradually lose all distinguishing features and become indistinguishable from all the sand around it.  So then, it is counterintuitive that life would continue to get ever more complex on this planet on its own.

• Even science recognizes that the universe has a beginning, and, by all indications, is on a one-way trip of expansion.

• Ultimately, there has to be something we just accept, an effect without a cause.  If this universe was made by a universe-making machine, what made that?  And then what made that?  No matter how many layers there are, eventually there has to be something that just is.  There is no reason that it cannot be an intelligent, vastly powerful being.

• There are some concepts that currently have no clear explanation in terms of evolution, like language.

Evolution

On the other hand we have the theory of evolution as part of a wider scientific view that all we see came about without any action or indication of a designer or outside being.  Here are some points in favor of it and rebuttals to the above.

• We have seen firsthand how repeated random processes can produce something that appears to be designed.  A common technique of AI is to have, in essence, two computers play a game against each other by making moves at random and seeing which one wins.  Naturally, they start off clueless.  After a vast number of games, however, the computers become incredibly skilled, giving the appearance of a sophisticated design.  The game of Go, because of how open-ended it is, was long considered something a computer would not be able to beat a human at for many years, if ever.   But recently, not only was a human beaten, but it was perhaps the strongest world champion of our day, demonstrating moves humans had not even seen before.  It is easy to draw a parallel to random mutations over a vast timeframe slowly introducing newer and better ways of surviving.  Because of how quickly viruses multiply, we are seeing this process in almost real-time with the spread of coronavirus mutations.

• Based on what we know about the way light works and how fast it moves, we can see that there are stars that are mind-bendingly far away from us.  We can infer that the universe is incredibly ancient, as opposed to being created several thousand years ago.  We also can infer the universe is vast.  It is strange to think that this entire universe was created just for us, when we can only see a sliver of it.  It is true, the Bible doesn’t say we are the only inhabitants of this universe, but it also doesn’t say otherwise, and it indicates that the planetary bodies were created for our benefit, “for signs and for seasons and for days and years”.

• In terms of entropy, this planet is not a closed system.  We have heat, radiation, and the occasional meteor strike coming from the outside.  Also, a key consideration is that, unlike sand castles, living organisms are actively bringing order to their environments.

• There are aspects of human (and other) biology that are quite strange if designed on purpose.  This general topic can be called the argument from poor design.

Implications

The problem with this topic is that it refers to a time period so long ago that we simply do not have a way to know for sure, until such a point as we can build a time machine.  If God did create everything, it would certainly be in His power to make it look however He wants, including having a young universe appear as though it is old.  Nonetheless, what we observe does not line up with the literal Biblical account, so there is no evidence to be found there in support of the Bible’s overall claim to truth.  There are of course a minority of scientists that claim what we observe does in fact line up better with creation than evolution, but they are indeed a minority.  Until they convince the other experts in their fields, I cannot place much stock in this.

No compromise

The reality is the majority of Christians (in America) do not hold a literal view of creation.  Many Christians try to reconcile the two ideas in some way, with the Biblical account symbolically describing what took place through evolution, and God playing some vague part as the initial actor or orchestrator of the whole process.  There are significant problems that arise from this approach, however, to the point where I do not think it is possible without doing considerable damage to the rest of the Bible.

Genealogies

Though some people try to explain away much of Genesis as parables or allegories, that is not how it presents itself.  Chapter 5 contains a lineage from Adam to Noah, almost certainly for the purpose of suggesting historical accuracy.

Then we have the genealogies in 1 Chronicles, spanning the first eight chapters.  This is clearly intended to be a historical record.  It begins by listing the lineage from Adam to Abraham.  If Adam is fiction, then it undermines the historicity of this section, presumably one of the more literal parts of the Bible, and it casts a bit of doubt on Abraham too.

Later, in Luke chapter 3, we have a genealogy that traces Jesus back to Adam.  Now we have real problems, because the Gospels are supposed to be accurate accounts of the life of Jesus.  If Jesus’ lineage is traced to a fictional character, then at best it points to Luke not being accurate, and at worst, it undermines the historicity of Jesus himself.

The entrance of sin

Paul lays out some deep theology that repeatedly and specifically treats Adam like a historical figure.  We have this passage that compares and contrasts Adam and Jesus:

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:12–19, NASB95)

It is very hard to look at this with the view that Adam is fictional.  Nothing about this comes across that way.  Adam, Moses, and Jesus are all discussed as equally real figures.  It would be strange to put them in contrast with each other if not.  What does it mean “from Adam until Moses” if Adam is not real?  More importantly, it notes that sin entered into the world through one man.  Adam has to be somebody, or we have to throw out this passage and the foundational principle of original sin.

So who is Adam?  If not Adam as the first created being, then it had to be an Adam that evolved later.  This presents a problematic picture.  In the creation story, all species were created as distinct and unchanging.  Each species may adapt and spin off variations, but they are all still essentially the same species.  Man has always been man, and is distinct from apes and chimps.  But in evolution, change is slow and spans a vast number of years, a gradual accumulation of mutations until the genetics are different enough to constitute a new species.  Before man arose, there were millions of years of hominins (near-humans).  We are left with the idea that all of these lived their lives with no moral accountability until, finally, some genetic threshold was crossed such that God now would hold them morally accountable.

To be more precise, homo sapiens finally reached a level of sophistication such that they could be subjected to a test of obedience that would render their whole species morally accountable.  An important element of the garden story, as made clear by Paul’s theology, is that man, not God, bears responsibility for sin entering the world.  Therefore man needed some choice in the matter.  Did God transplant this Adam (and Eve) into a garden with a tree and a serpent, so that they could make that choice?  If we try to salvage the garden portion of the creation account, we have to carefully pick and choose around the statements that indicate plants and animals had not been created yet and all the other tricky statements to be found there.  Or perhaps they were given some other kind of test?  Possibly, but this is now pure speculation.  It raises the question of why God didn’t tell us what really happened instead of some other, fictional story, given how important a theological point this is.

The wages of sin

Intertwined with this is the problem of death.  In the Romans passage above, it also notes that death entered into the world because of sin.  If sin did not enter the world until evolved-Adam, how could there be millions of years of death preceding him?  We can try to interpret the passage as strictly talking about humanity, even though that is not what it says, but then things get weird.  For humans, death entered when the first true human, evolved-Adam, transgressed, whatever form that took.  For everything else, death was always in the world.  It is often represented that the fallen state of the world, with its diseases, frailties, and animals endlessly killing one another for survival is a byproduct of sin entering the world, but the human-only interpretation means that the world was just created that way, rather than becoming that way.  But the Bible certainly gives the impression that the world, once restored, will be innocent, implying that sin is what makes the world what it is today:

“And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze, Their young will lie down together, And the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:6–9, NASB95)

““The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the LORD.” (Isaiah 65:25, NASB95)

Referenced by Jesus

We also have the fact that Jesus refers to creation, quoting verses from Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

“And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. “FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”” (Mark 10:3–9, NASB95)

It is one thing to illustrate a theological point with a parable.  It is quite another to base theology on a parable.  What good is it to state the reason against divorce is that Eve was created from Adam to be his wife if that is just a story?  By all appearances, Jesus quoted this as literal truth.

Drawing conclusions

The creation account does indeed present many challenges.  We can try to dismiss it as moral fiction, but I’ve shown that there are sizable consequences elsewhere in the Bible for doing so.  At the very least, it should be clear that the rest of the Bible is consistent with the creation story, never giving any indication it should be taken other than literally.

If it is somehow true but not literal, despite the objections I’ve raised, what lessons should we take from it?  Perhaps that God, in some way, was responsible for creation, and man, in some way, did something to deserve moral judgment.  The big problem with being an allegory is that it is entirely unclear what aspects are significant and which are just settings for the story.  Was there in fact some being that tempted Eve, and, if so, what was the nature of it?  Do the seven days, the garden setting, the sword keeping them out, and so on, have significance?  I can think of no benefit in God giving us a fictionalized creation account instead of the real one.  It is one of the most consequential time periods in the Bible because it sets the stage for the rest of the saga of humankind and the need for salvation.

Some people try to portray this as some sort of necessity due to the limited language and scientific knowledge of the human vessels composing the account.  God couldn’t have used words like “evolution”and “natural selection” because the human writers had no words for such concepts.  But this view doesn’t hold up.  For one, God certainly could have framed it in ways they could express.  Secondly, if God is inspiring the writings, the knowledge of the human writers is irrelevant.  No one was there at the beginning anyway, so God had to tell someone what happened.  Imagine if the creation account contained something like this:

In the beginning, more years ago than any man could count, God created the heavens, full of stars beyond measure and farther away than any man could see.  One day God created the first animals using the language of life, a language that man could neither see nor hear.  This language had words for wings and horns and eyes and many other things, but at first it only told stories of animals smaller than any man could see.  Over many years the stories became longer and longer, telling stories of fish and birds and every living thing, until one day they told the story of man.  Someday the children of men would read these stories and rejoice at the wisdom of God.

This truly would be evidence that a divine being was involved in the authorship of the Bible, precisely because it represents truths that humans of that time had no way of knowing.  But as it is, the creation account is indistinguishable from a myth created by men, quoted by other ancient men who didn’t know any better.

Noah and the flood

This story is one of the most problematic ones in the Bible.  It also happens to be perhaps the story most taught to children, likely because of the fun of doing lessons with animals and boats.  Many Christians treat this as another parable of sorts.  Yet, like the creation account, we have the same problems, though perhaps not to the same degree, where other parts of the Bible refer to this account literally.

Issues for Noah and company

The extraordinary obstacles to this account being literally true have been thoroughly documented on sites such as this one, including problems of engineering and construction, logistics and time constraints in boarding and caring for animals, navigation and seaworthiness, genetic diversity, and so on.  I cannot overstate just how many problems there are.

Issues for God

There are also some problematic ideas associated with God in this, in terms of His angelic host and apparent emotions He manifests.

Nephilim

This account is not directly related thematically, but it is adjacent to the flood account, and, at least to me, there is a vague implication that it is a factor in what happens next.  In any case, it is a weird set of statements that has caused much discussion:

“Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:1–4, NASB95)

It is not spelled out here, but elsewhere we are told the Nephilim are giants:

““There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”” (Numbers 13:33, NASB95)

Some have concluded the “mighty men” are just powerful men, in the sense of having influence and money, nothing supernatural.  This makes no sense, because then it would just be men and women having successful children, hardly worth noting; certainly not giants.  There would also be no reason for making the distinction that the sons are of God but the daughters are of men.  The phrase “sons of God” is used elsewhere in the OT for angels:

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6, NASB95)

The reason people want to turn the mighty men into influential humans is because of the hard questions it raises otherwise.  The first hard question is: why would angels have the equipment and motivation to enjoy sleeping with human women?   The text doesn’t say this, but some people assume these must be fallen angels.  Even so, it doesn’t answer the question.  Jesus will later tell us that this is not how angels live:

“Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Mark 12:24–25, NASB95)

It is always possible that when the angels became fallen (which, again, is said nowhere here) it caused them to develop genitals, or that they chose this.  It makes no sense for them to be so equipped if not fallen, given they do not marry, unless the moral standards in heaven are pretty different from here on earth.  All of this is speculation in any case.

The second hard question builds on the first.  Why would angels have the capacity to impregnate human women?  This is even more baffling than the first question.  It all sounds like the Greek myths where the gods would run around sleeping with human women, producing demigods like Hercules.

Last question: why isn’t this still happening?  Nowhere does it say that something changed.  If we read into the text a bit, we can infer that these celestial liaisons and the resulting offspring were part of the wickedness consuming the earth.  One could then assume God told the angels to knock it off.  Of course, the fallen angels, by definition, would not be obedient to God, so it still seems like we should have superheroes being born in the modern day.

Regret

“The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”” (Genesis 6:6–7, NASB95)

It is hard to reconcile the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God with the notion of regret.  Why would He do something that He would later wish He hadn’t done?  An omniscient God would have perfect knowledge of the regret He would come to feel later, so why not do it differently or even not do it at all?  It gives the impression of a God that, while powerful, did not quite have control over or knowledge of what would happen once He created man.

The passage states that all flesh at that point was corrupt, except for Noah who found favor with God.  But it doesn’t really say why, or indicate how things would be different by starting over.  (The Bible only says that Noah was righteous, not his sons or their wives.)  But when God says that this wiping the slate clean will never happen again, at least via a flood, there is an implication of a different regret:

““Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. “I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.”” (Genesis 9:9–11, NASB95)

If what God did was reasonable and justified, why would He promise to never do it again?  What if the earth spiraled out of control again?  It implies that He did something that even in His own estimation crossed a line, perhaps an action taken out of anger, but in any case something He would not want to do again.

As an aside, it states that the rainbow was given as the sign of this covenant.  However, we now know how rainbows work (refraction of light).  For this statement to be true, that rainbows only appeared after the flood, God would have needed to change some fundamental rules of physics at this point.

Excessive wrath

Given that virtually all life on earth was extinguished, a measure of regret is understandable.  It is true, from the perspective that God created everything, it would indeed be His to do with anything He wanted.  The Bible makes clear that a consequence of God’s righteousness is that sin must be judged, and the consequences of sin are death.  But even with all of that, this is excessive.

Answers in Genesis, a well-known defender of creationism and a young earth, gives estimates anywhere from 750 million to 4 billion alive at the time of Noah.  Given that modern estimates put the world population at year 1 at anywhere from 170 to 400 million, and given the supposed timing of the Flood, the estimate by Answers seems quite high.  In any case, we have a broad idea of how many people plausibly could have been alive at that point.

So out of hundreds of millions of people (or more), not one except Noah was righteous.  It doesn’t say his sons were, but since they made it on the ark, one must assume Noah raised them well.  Fortunately Noah and his three sons found the only four women in the entire population worthy enough to accompany them and live.  As for Noah himself, it is unclear how he learned about God or how to be righteous.  His father Lamech was alive for 595 years after Noah’s birth, so Lamech was around, but he is not described as righteous.  Lamech also had other sons and daughters, and neither are they.  Given that there was literally no other person that demonstrated righteousness, Noah’s is a mystery.

Nonetheless, let’s leave that be and move on.  What about the children?  Christians generally believe today that children are innocent until they are old enough to understand right and wrong.  And for good reason: it would be a twisted God that would send a two-year old to eternal torment for their sins, particularly since they never reached an age where they could accept salvation.  Even if you subscribe to the minority view that people are annihilated instead of eternally tormented, we are looking at tens or hundreds of millions of innocent children that were punished with death (along with countless other living organisms).  A God that created everything has the authority to do this, but it is very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile this with the picture of God in the NT.

Parables

Many people try to sidestep all of this by treating the account, like the creation account, as some sort of parable.  But what exactly are we supposed to take from them if this is true?  Looking at the two together, we have the idea that God created humankind in some fashion.  We had the option to remain innocent but didn’t obey God, so it is humanity’s fault that sin is in the world.  Sin, left unchecked, corrupts all of humanity, and the righteous response is punishment by death.

I think this is as abstract as we can get and still have any semblance of the original themes.  Even not taken literally, these stories are still problematic, though.  Since humans were innocent of good and evil, there is no way they could understand the consequences of disobedience.  In the creation account, they are only told they will die, which does not even begin to adequately describe the effects of sin entering the world.  The idea that a just God would even put such a test before them (in any form) raises its own theological problems.  In any case, they disobey, in whatever form that takes, and are sent into the world.  However, God did not give them rules to live by; the law would not come until much later.  Perhaps it is no surprise that the world became wicked.  What is unexpected is that God would punish them without even laying out the rules or giving them a means of redemption.  As I said, even not taken literally, these stories convey some problematic ideas.

References

As with the creation story, though much about the flood story argues for it not being literal, we have the problem that it is referred to elsewhere in the Bible in literal ways.  The flood story is not as important to later theology as the creation story, but it still carries consequences.  

Genealogies

Noah shows up in the same genealogies that Adam does, as described earlier, in 1 Chronicles and Luke.

Isaiah

““For this is like the days of Noah to Me, When I swore that the waters of Noah Would not flood the earth again; So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you Nor will I rebuke you. “For the mountains may be removed and the hills may shake, But My lovingkindness will not be removed from you, And My covenant of peace will not be shaken,” Says the LORD who has compassion on you.” (Isaiah 54:9–10, NASB95)

The Lord, through His prophet, is giving Israel assurances about their future treatment.  This would be meaningless if Noah was a parable.  When the Lord says that the current situation is “like the days of Noah to Me”, He is referring back to something He experienced.

Ezekiel

We again have Noah appearing in the message delivered through a prophet:

“Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Son of man, if a country sins against Me by committing unfaithfulness, and I stretch out My hand against it, destroy its supply of bread, send famine against it and cut off from it both man and beast, even though these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job were in its midst, by their own righteousness they could only deliver themselves,” declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 14:12–14, NASB95)

This is part of a longer passage, all in the same vein, making the point that the land in question was so sinful that even these men, as righteous as they were, wouldn’t be able to help anyone.  What would be the impact of using a fictional character here?  Alternatively, if that doesn’t seem to be a problem, is it possible Daniel and Job are fictional?

Jesus

““Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matthew 24:35–39, NASB95)

One can try to argue that Jesus is just referring to a well known parable to illustrate his point about the nature of his return, but nothing about this passage indicates that.  The events are presented factually.  Jesus does not refer to the parable or story of Noah, or something like “as it is said”.  He says “as in those days”; these are things that happened, and the same sort of things are going to happen again.

Hebrews

“By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.” (Hebrews 11:7, NASB95)

Chapter 11 of Hebrews is commonly referred to as the “Hall of Faith”, a list of people living by faith and thereby pleasing God.  This list is meant to inspire the reader to also live by faith, seeing as how these other people were able to do so.  If Noah is a fictional character, he is a meaningless point of reference, since he then didn’t actually do anything at all.

1 Peter

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.” (1 Peter 3:18–22, NASB95)

There is no room for Noah to be a parable here, because it states that Jesus preached to the spirits of the people that died in the flood.  If the flood didn’t happen, that statement in the passage is flat wrong.  The subsequent parallel drawn between baptism and the flood would also carry less weight.

2 Peter

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment...” (2 Peter 2:4–9, NASB95)

One simply cannot make a point about what God is able to do based on fictional references.  If those things did not actually and literally happen, they provide no evidence and thus no assurance of God’s ability to “rescue the godly” and “keep the unrighteous under punishment”.

Final thoughts

This article looked at two stories that are well known but also frequently overlooked.  Oh, I’ve certainly heard them referred to in sermons enough, but not so much as the central focus of a sermon.  I suspect this is because, when you do look in detail, numerous conflicts quickly arise between these three things:

• The stories as told

• The references to the stories elsewhere in the Bible

• What we know of the world through science

Resolving any two of these is fine, but resolving all three is a major problem.  In the tradition I’ve followed, the stories are true, and therefore all the references are fine, but it requires that mainstream science is wrong about some significant things.  Many Christians take a different route and reconcile science with the stories by treating them as parables: the morals and themes they present are true but the stories themselves are ultimately fiction.  What they don’t consider, and I’ve tried to show here, is that this then causes significant conflict between the stories and the references to them in the rest of the Bible, because they treat the stories as literal, and in some cases depend on them being so.

Depending on our starting point, this may or may not have some troubling implications.  If we start with the view that our beliefs Must Be True, then it really doesn’t matter what we find in our research.  We can simply ignore any science that is contrary.  We can also just ignore any theological complications that arise when the stories are not viewed literally.  But from the view that this stuff Might Be True, at a minimum none of this lends any evidence that the Bible is a true and inspired document (though honestly the implications are worse than that).  The problems we see here are indistinguishable from the kinds of problems we would find if the Bible were a fabrication of men.

Next article: The nation of Israel