Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.
@george: George, redaction in the Bible basically involves updating place names and probably rearranging some material. I guess there could be a later redactor who would be inspired to add some new material, but in the case of the Pentateuch, the material is very ancient, and I see no reason to discount the hand of Moses in recording all of this historical data. So yes, I am open to the use of redaction criticism, but only in this limited sense. However, you still have not explained why you favor the Documentary Hypothesis.
In comparing Gen 1 and 2, Wellhausen argued that the latter chapter contradicts the former by suggesting that God created Adam first and everything else later. Hence Gen 2 must have proceeded from the hand of J and Gen 1 from the hand of P. However, Wellhausen’s theory overlooks the grammatical fact that Hebrew verbs can function as pluperfects as well as simple pasts. For example, compare the timing of the creation of the animals in Gen 2:19 (KJV) with the timing of their creation in Gen 2:19 (NIV). The KJV rendering supports the Wellhausen theory, but by introducing a pluperfect, the NIV rendering does not. Also the contrast between the use of Elohim in Gen 1 and YHWH Elohim in Gen 2 need not indicate different authors. It is more likely that Elohim connotes transcendence, while YHWH Elohim connotes immanence. With regard to the flood account, Wellhausen’s supposed contradiction between Gen 6:19-20 and Gen 7:2-3 disappears when it is remembered that the Hebrew word for “two” can also mean “pair.” In summary, I fail to see where you finding all these contradictory creation and flood accounts. Clearly, there are simple ways to explain the textual data without resorting to the fanciful Documentary Hypothesis.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
I will be out of town for a while. I may or may not have computer service. If not, I’ll pick up on this discussion when I return.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
George, why do liberal critics of the Bible almost always assume that the Hebrews borrowed the creation and flood stories from the Babylonians? Why couldn’t the copying have been from the Hebrew original, as Sean has suggested above. Or maybe there was an earlier account (perhaps oral) from which the Babylonians and Moses both borrowed. I fail to understand the logic of assuming that the Genesis account was borrowed from the Babylonians because there is no evidence for it. To me, it comes across as an unwarranted and ad hoc attempt to undermine the authority of scripture.
Furthermore, the Babylonian stories are not the only ones that resemble Genesis. Even North American and Polynesian cultures have their own native flood accounts that are remarkably similar to the one in Genesis. There is also a Chinese symbol for a ship that depicts a boat with 8 mouths in it (Remember – Noah’s family had 8 members on the ark). How do you explain all this? Why assume that the Hebrews copied from the Babylonians when the flood tradition is worldwide? And how did such a story become known all over the globe. . . unless it represents a collective memory of a real and extremely ancient event?
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@george: “Why should the word of God have any redactions whatsoever?”
George, if someone believes that God dictated the words of scripture and that the actual words are inspired, that is a legitimate question. Muslims make such clams about the Koran, which is why they frown on even translating it. But please bear in mind that I am not a fundamentalist (at least in the sense that the term is commonly used today). I believe that the ideas in scripture are inspired, but not the words. As time passes, names of locations, etc. change, and sometimes editing is needed for effective communication. You seem to attribute a higher view of scripture to me than I actually hold. Yes, I have a conservative view of scripture, but not a fundamentalist one.
You also asked about embellishing different accounts to make them agree. But before I can comment on that, I first need to pose the same question I have asked you twice before. Where do you have any clear evidence of different accounts coming from different hands?
I realize that you directed your questions to Dr. Pitman, but they really concerned material that I had posted to you, so I decided to reply. Dr. Pitman can also have a stab at it.
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I believe in good medicine and am thankful to God for the Moderna vaccine. Walter Veith deserves to be ignored, and not just on this issue.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Carlos: Far from being outdated, I would say that Sean’s arguments are cutting edge. As for the assertion that scientists don’t use Darwin’s model for evolution, that is correct – because Darwin had no knowledge of Mendelian genetics. The original Darwinian model was replaced by the Neo-darwinian Synthesis about 1940, which claims that evolution takes place as natural selection acts on random mutations. Although this model still dominates biology today, it is facing increasingly serious problems, which Sean has touched on.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Sean Pitman: OK, I see it now. Sorry – I missed it earlier.
Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Sean, Dr. John Sanford, who was an important contributor to the development of GMOs, has written a book on this issue entitled, “Genetic Entropy.” I don’t see him quoted anywhere in your article, and I’m wondering if you are familiar with his work. It is noteworthy that Dr. Sanford has abandoned Darwinism and adopted creationism/intelligent design, not originally for religious reasons, but because of this problem.
Evolution from Space?
Sean, once again I urge you to publish your material in book form, preferably with a non-Adventist publisher. You have such wonderful material, but the Educate Truth audience is so small.
