The Documentary Hypothesis

[Daniel]

This is from Dr. James F. McGrath's blog, Exploring Our Matrix.  I'm curious what you think about the ideas presented.  Does Genesis, for example, do the same thing?  Are there changes in the language and what words that are used that support different sources of authorship or different times of writing?  I'm not as up on this topic as I'd like to be and would appreciate your thoughts...

[Bit Brush]

What if there are no references in the Bible that others outside of Noah's family survived? I think the Bible is clear that all died. For there to be an exception outside of God's provision of the ark would make him out to be a liar and Jesus would be a coconspirator who perpetuated that lie. The theological desaster of the flood being local would be huge. Chiefly, you cannot place your trust in God because He lied. There is no room for faith if God is liar. We are the biggest fools.

As far as evidence for any biblical event, what exists that is a smoking gun? We were not there so we need to rely on the statements of those who were there. That testimony comes from God himself. Some reject that idea and insist that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of the writings of men. So if one doesn't believe in the inspiration and preservation of God's Word, then this is all moot then anyway, because we could be debating Shakespeare, Voltaire, Confucius, etc.

Is there evidence for local floods? Sure. Is there evidence for a global flood. Sure. Ever seen a fossil of a land animal or a plant? Don't ask if it really happen, ask why it happened. The former questions if God is telling us the truth, the latter assumes God's truthfulness and asks God to reveal his plan to us.

Daniel said:

The whole "doesn't mean there was no global catastrophe as the Bible states" bit kinda begs the question, doesn't it?  I agree that the text CAN be understood that way.  But if there was a verse that, for example, spoke of people that survived the flood, I don't think folks would be as adamant about this "must be global" bit if it were listed on the atheist web sites as a glaring contradiction.  We'd be quick to point out that "global" isn't the only understanding of the text.  So when there is a total absence of physical evidence on a global scale for something claimed to have made a tremendous change to the planet, and since there are more than one passage that suggests some survivors, I don't see any reason to be adamant about the extent of it one way or the other.  When we actually follow what the text says to "look around and see what I've done", that just doesn't line up with some of the interpretations of the text - but it DOES line up with others.  Shouldn't that matter?

You've brought up a lot of the typical YEC points in a topic initially created to discuss authorship.  I love discussing this stuff.  But can I suggest that you create new topics in the "creation, flood, and fall" category for these things like global nature of the flood, appearance of age, whether an interpretation of special revelation should trump the overwhelming evidence from general revelation, and so forth?  Even your claim that you are submitting to The Word as the final authority is something that I would challenge.  I believe you believe that, but I don't think that is practically the case and would love to explore that.  But this topic on authorship is not a good one to do all of that because folks not interested in the topic of authorship may be missing out on all these other topics that they feel strongly about.

[Daniel]

I think the Bible is clear that all on the land/earth died.  But it again doesn't tell us if it is intending an understanding of countryside or entire planet.  Could be either.  So the idea that "the Bible is clear" is ultimately false because the context ISN'T clear.  Understanding it a a limited sense doesn't damage theology at all if that was the intent.  It CORRECTS theology.  It still shows God's sovereignty and judgement and anything else that the Bible says about the topic.  It just makes the ark less of an example of some universal salvation that many see it to be.  Doesn't mean that they are right just because it would be a wonderful picture of something.  

As far as asking for a "smoking gun" goes, there are LOTS of things that suggest the flood wasn't global.  Some are more convincing than others, but they all add up, to me, to a very convincing argument.  So does the fossil evidence that you seem to think indicates a global flood. If you want to get into that, I'd be very glad to (and the rest of the site groans!) , but can we get THIS topic back to authorship and discuss it on a new topic?  Why don't you start a topic on evidences for the flood, list all your evidences for a global one (point by point), and I'll respond with the truth other point of view.

Bit Brush said:

What if there are no references in the Bible that others outside of Noah's family survived? I think the Bible is clear that all died. For there to be an exception outside of God's provision of the ark would make him out to be a liar and Jesus would be a coconspirator who perpetuated that lie. The theological desaster of the flood being local would be huge. Chiefly, you cannot place your trust in God because He lied. There is no room for faith if God is liar. We are the biggest fools.

As far as evidence for any biblical event, what exists that is a smoking gun? We were not there so we need to rely on the statements of those who were there. That testimony comes from God himself. Some reject that idea and insist that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of the writings of men. So if one doesn't believe in the inspiration and preservation of God's Word, then this is all moot then anyway, because we could be debating Shakespeare, Voltaire, Confucius, etc.

Is there evidence for local floods? Sure. Is there evidence for a global flood. Sure. Ever seen a fossil of a land animal or a plant? That only happens when there is a quick burial or else natural processes disintegrates the remains in weeks. Won't get into where in the world some of these fossils were found. Change the question around from when the plant or animal lived to how they were buried so that we could see it today.

Same with creation and the flood. Don't ask did it really happen. Ask why it happened. Why 6 days? Why the order of the actions. Why the flood? Why 40 days? Why water? The former questions if God is telling us the truth, the latter asks God to reveal his plan to us.

Daniel said:

The whole "doesn't mean there was no global catastrophe as the Bible states" bit kinda begs the question, doesn't it?  I agree that the text CAN be understood that way.  But if there was a verse that, for example, spoke of people that survived the flood, I don't think folks would be as adamant about this "must be global" bit if it were listed on the atheist web sites as a glaring contradiction.  We'd be quick to point out that "global" isn't the only understanding of the text.  So when there is a total absence of physical evidence on a global scale for something claimed to have made a tremendous change to the planet, and since there are more than one passage that suggests some survivors, I don't see any reason to be adamant about the extent of it one way or the other.  When we actually follow what the text says to "look around and see what I've done", that just doesn't line up with some of the interpretations of the text - but it DOES line up with others.  Shouldn't that matter?

You've brought up a lot of the typical YEC points in a topic initially created to discuss authorship.  I love discussing this stuff.  But can I suggest that you create new topics in the "creation, flood, and fall" category for these things like global nature of the flood, appearance of age, whether an interpretation of special revelation should trump the overwhelming evidence from general revelation, and so forth?  Even your claim that you are submitting to The Word as the final authority is something that I would challenge.  I believe you believe that, but I don't think that is practically the case and would love to explore that.  But this topic on authorship is not a good one to do all of that because folks not interested in the topic of authorship may be missing out on all these other topics that they feel strongly about.

[Bit Brush]

You totally amaze me, Daniel. And there are others out there that think as you do. Out of curiosity, what Bible do you read and study from? I'm wondering if different version might be clouding our communication. I also believe that finding out what the "Hebrew" says is also being problematic. Indicative in the faith you have in God's Word. Not that my theology is correct, but I don't question IF something is true. I question WHY its true. Where I think that such debates are not thought very highly here. I think I stepped into the snake pit myself, I don't think it productive to spend the amount of time it would require of me to debate you any further on this point.

I'll let my comments on here stand so other may read them and decide for themselves. I'm sure we'll lock horns on future threads because I see where your theology might be skewed because of your willingness to call into question the truth of the supporting columns of our faith.

[Daniel]

As a kid, most of my memorization was from the KJV.  I got a Scoffield Reference Bible in the early 70s (supported the Gap Theory).  For in-depth word studies, I tend to go with the NASB.  For casual reading or looking things up, I prefer the ESV.  But I don't think it is a translation issue.  The translations typically do a good job in translating the word into an English equivalent that, like the original word, can be understood in a narrow or wide context.  Questioning WHICH is true is not the same as doubting THAT it is true.  As to it being problematic to try to find out what the Hebrew says, I've never heard anyone but KJV-Only folks suggest such.  Are you KJVO?

Bit Brush said:

You totally amaze me, Daniel. And there are others out there that think as you do. Out of curiosity, what Bible do you read and study from? I'm wondering if different version might be clouding our communication. I also believe that finding out what the "Hebrew" says is also being problematic. Indicative in the faith you have in God's Word. Not that my theology is correct, but I don't question IF something is true. I question WHY its true. Where I think that such debates are not thought very highly here. I think I stepped into the snake pit myself, I don't think it productive to spend the amount of time it would require of me to debate you any further on this point.

I'll let my comments on here stand so other may read them and decide for themselves. I'm sure we'll lock horns on future threads because I see where your theology might be skewed because of your willingness to call into question the truth of the supporting columns of our faith.

[Bit Brush]

If you believe that the Bible is simply man's narration of God's work and is not necessarily accurate, then who cares what Bible you use. We have had all kinds of influence over the centuries where "which" version of the "story" is the correct one. Such talk moves from searching the scriptures for truth and lands in the realm of philosophy. I see that in science as well when it comes to origins, and such. Science is no longer science when it comes down to personal interpretation. It is philosophy. For example, Scoffield introduced his own interpretation and philosophy. He did a good job at polluting the Word by adding to it his own vain imaginations. But since the Bible only contains God's Word and is a narrative of events from man's perspective only, then so what?

The KJV? Yes, I am one of those fools that doesn't waste his time trying to get the translation just right. I just trust God that he's inspired and preserved for us a completely reliable English version just as he provided reliable version and translations for his people all throughout history. Too many verses that says something like this is not only possible but what has and will continue to happen.

[Daniel]

Bit, just because I don't understand it the same way you do doesn't mean that I don't think it is accurate.  And Scoffield's interpretation wasn't something he invented.  He was just expressing a belief held my many of the most conservative Christian leaders of the day.  He no more "polluted" the Word than did some archbishop that added to it a date of 4004BC.  

Why don't you start up a topic on the KJV and "polluting" Bibles and we can start there with a discussion of accuracy and assumptions?  I think I can help clear up a lot of stuff there that might help us when we get into discussing specific books or specific words.