But note also that, unlike the Jahvistic account, this flood account presents God differently, employs different stylistic devices, and uses different imagery. Whereas in the Jahvistic account, God was referred to as "the LORD," and was presented as being a personal and present deity, here God is referred to as "God," and is much more imperious and transcendent. This author is called the Priestly author, for his focus on the Covenental aspect of Noah's story.

The chief stylistic device to note in the Priestly account is the focus on details. The length, height, and volume of the Ark are all given (and all are multiples of 60, incidentally). Noah's age is given (also a multiple of 60). The depth of the waters over the mountains is given (a factor of 60). And the duration of the flood is given (again, a multiple of 60). The use of multiples and factors of 60 is, then, another stylistic device of the Priestly account (6:15; 7:6,20,24; 8:3), whereas the Jahvist focused on the numbers 7 and 40.

Notice also that the three-tiered universe makes an appearance here in the Priestly author's quest for detail. The ancient cosmological model can be seen in references to the springs of the deep and the windows of the heavens (7:11, 8:2). One final detail to note is how God "remembers" His creation (8:1, 9:15-16), an important message of mercy.

In the Priestly account, God "advances" humanity as a part of His blessing to Noah and his family. If we think back to Genesis 2:16 for a moment, we see God impart the first instruction in the Genesis account concerning what humanity is and is not supposed to eat:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

In Genesis 9:3-4, God rewards Noah and his family in part by expanding their diet:

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

This will be significant shortly, but for the moment let's turn our attention to what is probably the most significant discrepancy between the two accounts: the number of animals taken up into the Ark. According to the Jahvist, seven pairs of every kind of clean animal (and bird) were to be taken up into the Ark, but only one pair of every kind of unclean animal (7:2-3). Conversely, according to the Priestly author, two pairs of each kind of animal were brought into the Ark (6:19, 7:9,14-15).

Now, some evangelical apologists attempt to smooth over this discrepancy by arguing that the latter instruction, to take up two male/female pairings of each kind of animal, somehow supplements the earlier instruction to take up seven pairs of each kind of clean animal, and only one pair of each kind of unclean animal.

Bible students are familiar with the instructions recorded in Genesis 6:19 that God gave to Noah: "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female" (Genesis 6:19, emp. added; cf. 7:15). It seems that fewer people, however, are aware that God also instructed Noah, saying, "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth" (Genesis 7:2-3, emp. added). According to Bible critics, these verses are contradictory. "Are clean beasts to enter by 2's or by 7's?" asked skeptic Dennis McKinsey (1983, p. 1).

To answer McKinsey's question, the clean beasts and birds entered the ark "by sevens" (KJV), while the unclean animals went into the ark by twos. There is no contradiction here. Genesis 6:19 indicates that Noah was to take "two of every sort into the ark." Then, four verses later, God supplemented this original instruction, informing Noah in a more detailed manner to take more of the clean animals. It was necessary for Noah to take additional clean animals because, upon his departure from the ark after the Flood, he "built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the alter" (Genesis 8:20). If Noah had taken only two clean animals from which to choose when sacrificing to God after departing the ark, then he would have driven the various kinds of clean beasts and birds into extinction by sacrificing one of each pair. Thus, after God told Noah to take two of every kind of animal into the ark, He then instructed him to take extras of the clean animals.

The problem with this argument is that Scripture doesn't actually give would-be apologists the necessary wiggle room to assert that Genesis 7:2-3 supplements Genesis 6:19, or that the pairs of animals referred to in 6:19 only refer to unclean kinds. Genesis 6:19 is actually explicit: every living thing of all flesh is to be taken up into the Ark by that instruction. Likewise, Genesis 7:2-3 is not limited in its scope. It does separate clean and unclean categories of animal, but within those categories it is instructed that all kinds be taken.

So we have two distinct instructions to take all kinds of animals, and then in different ratios. Genesis 7:2-3 is no supplement to Genesis 6:19, especially when we remember that Genesis 6:19, being from the Priestly account, must be considered in light of Genesis 7:15-16, in which two male/female pairs (not a single pair) of each kind of beast are brought up into the Ark.

There is one other discrepancy worth noting, between the Jahvistic account, the Priestly account and a later part of Scripture (specifically, the Law of Moses). The Jahvist makes the effort to distinguish between clean and unclean animals…but this flies in the face of the fact that animals were not defined as being clean or unclean until the time of Moses, during the journey of the Hebrews through the desert.

Now, the evangelical apologist has a response to this:

For skeptics to allege that differentiation between clean and unclean animals did not exist before the time of Moses is totally unsubstantiated. Mankind had been sacrificing animals since the fall of man (cf. Genesis 3:20). That God had given laws concerning animal sacrifices since the time of Cain and Abel is evident from the fact that the second son of Adam was able to offer an animal sacrifice "by faith" (Hebrews 11:4; Genesis 4:4). Since "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17), Abel must have received revelation from God on how to offer acceptable animal sacrifices. Such revelation easily could have dealt with which sacrificial animals were acceptable ("clean"), and which were unacceptable ("not clean"). Furthermore, more than 400 hundred years before Moses gave the Israelites laws differentiating clean and unclean animals, God made a covenant with Abraham concerning the land that his descendants eventually would possess (Genesis 15). Part of the "sign" that Abraham was given at that time involved the killing of a heifer, a female goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon (Genesis 15:9). "It just so happens" that all of these animals were later considered clean under the Law of Moses (cf. Leviticus 1:2,10,14).

Without doubt, the distinction between clean and unclean animals existed long before the Law of Moses was given. Although this distinction did not include all of the details and applications given by Moses (since prior to the Flood the distinction seems only to have applied to the matter of animals suitable for sacrifice, not for consumption—cf. Genesis 9:2-3), animal sacrifice to God was practiced during the Patriarchal Age, and it is apparent that the faithful were able to distinguish between the clean and unclean. Noah certainly knew of the difference.

This would be compelling except for one problem. Cleanliness and uncleanliness of animals did not just apply to their use in ritual sacrifice, but to their use as food sources as well. And if we look back at the Priestly account for but a moment, we should take note of Genesis 9:3-4:

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Every moving thing that lives is now acceptable as food for humanity. Presumably, that includes pigs, conies, and the whole host of other animals which Mosaic Law forbids the consumption of on the basis of their uncleanliness. The only limitation God imposes on the consumption of meat is in Genesis 9:4, in which it is forbidden to eat the flesh of a still-live animal, or flesh with blood in it.

And while this last point reflects Mosaic Law, it also reflects the fact that ancient cultures viewed blood as having sacred significance in and of itself; attempting to establish a connection between Genesis 9:4 and the Law of Moses, then, is eisegetical, as is the attempt to read the Law of Moses into the flood accounts. The fact that humanity had been sacrificing animals prior to the Law of Moses proves nothing — it is true that such sacrifices took place, to be sure, but does that mean that a pagan religion extant in those early days was also unknowingly following the Law when it sacrificed animals to its malign deity?

Methinks not.

Now, granted, the cited apologist attempts to dodge around the issue of the fact that no distinction is made concerning the animals which are allowed to be eaten. The apologist attempts to characterize this as evidence of the partial applicability of Mosaic Law prior to the actual giving of the Law starting from Mount Siani. In layman's terms, this is called "trying to have your cake and eat it too."

The fact it, it is an eisegetical error to assume that Genesis invokes or refers to Mosaic Law already, and this error is only compounded by attempting to assert that said Law only applied in part. An audience of ancient Hebrews, upon hearing such reasoning, would probably have laughed heartily at the ignorance of the speaker, for the very idea that the Law of Moses would only be partially applicable is absurd on its face.

And because of this, it just doesn't work when apologists wave their hands and attempt to pull a Ben Kenobi-esque "these aren't the discrepancies you're looking for" trick on attentive readers of Scripture. Any reasonable person can see that there are, between Genesis 6:19 and 7:2-3, two distinct sets of instructions, each concerning every extant animal species. One is not a supplement to the other. And if the evangelical apologist insists only on doing yet more hand-waving in a vain attempt to smooth out, by act of denial, that which cannot be denied about Scripture, then then just such an apologist will achieve only one end in his or her evangelical attempts: "people outside the household of the faith [will] think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture [will be] criticized and rejected as unlearned men."

St. Augustine said that, and it certainly rings true in this case. Denying the discrepancies which so obviously exist in the flood accounts serves only to make evangelical apologists — and, by extension, Christ and the Bible — look foolish in the eyes of others. "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience…[It] is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics."

Sadly, most evangelical apologists also deny that there are two separate flood accounts, penned by two distinct authors at two different periods in history (the Jahvist is thought to have written his flood account in the 11th century BC, while the Priestly account is dated to about the 6th century BC). As if denying the discrepancies that exist between the two flood accounts were not a grevious error already, this second mistake is tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot, and then with a rather large gun, apologetically speaking. Because it is only in acknowledging the discrepancy, and then in acknowledging the two different authors of, at least, the flood accounts in Genesis, that Christian apologists have any hope of presenting a rational, coherent defence of the idea that Scripture really is inerrant and infallible.

If we look at the text of the flood accounts in Genesis in ignorance of the nature of their authors, we can come to only one conclusion: the text contains contradictions. And for those not within the community of faith, such a discovery may in fact be the first of many barriers to faith. The discrepancies are plain to see and ferret out with even only modest skill in the area of reading comprehension, and Christian would-be apologists who attempt to outright deny the discrepancies can only fly in the face of logic when they do so, as has been demonstrated. In so doing, such reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture will be as stumbling blocks (c.f. Matthew 18:6) to those struggling to come to terms with the idea that Scripture can be inerrant in spite of the discrepancies it contains.

By admitting the discrepancies, though, we open the possibility of reconciling the presence thereof with the notion that Scripture is indeed infallible. I'll say that again, more plainly: yes, there are discrepancies between the two flood accounts…and yes, Scripture is, in fact, inerrant and infallible.

This is because the discrepancies that exist are, I think, subtle hermeneutical clues left there for us by the Spirit, to help us distinguish a message of faith from a historical legend. The most important thing to take away from the Genesis accounts is the message, not the record of events depicted. Those events never happened, but the Spirit took those ancient cultural legends and infused them with a theological message of faith.

Remember: if the flood actually happened as described, we'd see indicators of it in the various pieces of natural history that the sciences reveal.

From geology, we would expect to see some manner of rock strata (layer) which corresponds to rapid deposition from a catastrophic, world-spanning flood. No such geological formation exists.

From anthropology, we would expect to see some evidence of a massive population disruption in the roughly 200,000-year fossil history of anatomocally modern humans. We would likewise expect to see evidence of humanity's re-emergence into the entire world from the Middle East in about 2400 BC. We would even expect to see interruptions in human inhabitance of every continent at some point within the last 50,000 years. In each case, however, we lack any evidence of the sort.

"To conclude, Scripture and science do not support the historicity of Noah as described in Gen 6-9. Of course, every Biblical author believed that he existed and survived a world-destroying flood on an ark. But this was the history-of-the-day for the Jews and early Christians[1]. At best, Noah points back to an obscure individual/s who lived through a local deluge/s, most likely in the Mesopotamian flood plain. But more importantly, the iblical flood is an incidental vessel that reveals the inspired message that God judges sin and saves righteous individuals from His wrath." (taken from: Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation, pp. 280-281)

* * *

1) for a modern analogy, think of how 58% of Britons think Sherlock Holmes was an actual historical figure, and not a fictional character.

Contrary to all the histrionics, slander, and hyperventilation of some GS users, I am not a liberal. Nor am I a secularist. Nor am I an academic, at least not in the sense that most mean when they fling that term around. In fact, I tend to be a social, fiscal, and religious conservative, orthodox in my faith and decidedly set against government intervention in society and the market (for the most part).

It is quite a lie to say that I hold esoteric views; my views are quite common, if one can free oneself from the myopia that so often affects the American faithscape. My views are also anything but secretive. And only the most daft could mistake me for a secular person.

I accept that the Scriptures -- the Bible -- contain infallible messages of faith. I accept the inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture, although I reject the solitude of Scripture. I accept that Christ is my Lord and Saviour, and participate in Him through his direct revelation in all the Sacraments. As far as ministry goes, I work in soup kitchens and with youth groups, and I also have my writing and theological study.

But here's the rub (and I'll go into more detail on this tomorrow): I really love Scripture. I mean, I really love Scripture. I love the Bible and all the Word of God. In fact, I love it so much that I strive, at every turn, to defend it and reveal, with reasoning and clarity, that it is in fact inerrant, and that it does contain infallible messages of faith.

But to do that, the first thing I must be is honest. And if I am honest, I must admit that there are contradictions in, for example, some of the various accounts in Genesis (the creation accounts, for example, or the flood accounts). Note, though, that I don't say these are errors; I think the discrepancies were meant to happen under the guidance and design of the Spirit. But are there discrepancies? Oh, yes, yes there are.

But that's just where is starts. Because you see, it is in admitting those contradictions that we can begin to understand the true nature of Scripture, and can begin to construct a truly rational, effective defence of it and its message of faith.

But that is a topic that will have to wait for tomorrow. I can hear my wife stepping out of the bath, and that means that the time to sleep draws nigh.

I've decided to reject the HTML-sapience as my Lord and Saviour, preferring instead to remain faithful to Christ Jesus as evidenced and experienced through the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, the first and foremost of which is the Eucharist. The HTML-sapience, in a fit of misguided evangelism, seems to be under the impression that I need some help interpreting the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis.

Well, I'll worry about that in a bit. First, though, I want my Readers to join me in a thought experiment. If you've done this one before, don't spoil it for those who haven't. If you haven't done this, give it a try. It's pretty cool.

First, open a text editor window (Notepad on Windows, Text Edit on Mac OS X, whatever...). Now, find your preferred online version of Genesis, and copy the following verses into the text editor window:

Genesis 6:5-8, 7:1-5, 7:7-8, 7:10, 7:12,7:16b-17, 7:22-23, 8:2b-3a, 8:6, 8:8-12, 8:13b, and 8:20-22

Now, open a new text editor window (keep the first one open too), and copy the following verses into the second window:

Genesis 6:9-22, 7:6, 7:9, 7:11, 7:13-16a, 7:18-21, 7:24-8:2a, 8:3b-5, 8:7, 8:13a, 8:14-19, 9:1-19

Once that's done, read the contents of the first text editor window through in their entirety. Then read the contents of the second window through, also from start to finish.

Now...what do you see?

I have been set upon by HTML, it seems, which has taken to giving itself the name of a military clergy unit. There appears to be some manner of conscious intelligence behind the HTML, although I suppose that it is possible that the HTML itself has developed a sapient capacity for reason.

Although, as concerns that latter observation, I should perhaps avoid being hasty in passing judgement. Reason is not something to which all sapience aspires.

Well I see the esoteric RC blogger is still trying to use the same arguments that other enemies of the Word of God, secular academic liberals, use to undermine the truth of God's Word.

To the best of my knowledge, my beliefs are not particularly secretive or confidential. Either that, or I am misinformed about the nature of confidentiality; I had previously thought and believed that an opinion or doctrine shared by roughly 1,000,000,000 people world-wide did not qualify as a "select few." But surely the HTML has its reasons for telling me this, and perhaps I can ferret out its message of revelation with further analysis.

Although, as I continue to parse this first sentence, I find I am no closer to an understanding. The HTML accuses me of holding views in accordance with those of secular academics, and then left-leaning ones. This comes as news to me, given my published disagreement with just one such secular liberal academic, and with the many disagreements I have had, published and unpublished, with persons of a secular, academic, and/or leftist bent. But perhaps, in its message of revelation, the HTML purports to reveal to me that in fact, this has not been the case. Perhaps, I have instead been agreeing with the likes of Hans Machel, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, and simply have not been aware of this fact.

It is revealing that he uses verses, taken out of context, words, twisted to his interpretation, and the arguments of secular liberal textual critics to constantly attack the Word of God.

I note that the HTML makes, here, an accusation unsupported by solid evidence or examples. Now, it seems to me that in my distant recollection of the first revelations brought to me by the HTML, such a tactic was described as being in the realm of the secular, the liberal, and/or the academic, and most certainly not in the realm of those who seek the truth. So it is curious to see the HTML use the tactic here.

But perhaps I am meant to learn by a more esoteric means? Perhaps I am supposed to observe the ordinance that the HTML is demonstrating in the breach thereof?

It is revealing to watch him use verses, when it suits him in a literal sense, and other verses interpreted allegorically, when it suits his plan of attack on God's truth, to construct an esoteric doctrine that always attacks and demeans the Word of God and those that believe in it.

The HTML seems to know my innermost thoughts, and I am beginning to better understand the nature of it with this latest revelation. Perhaps the HTML is not back-ended by an intelligence (indeed, it is only back-ended by PHP and SQL, if memory serves), but is (as I had earlier suspected) itself an intelligence, and then a cosmic and divine one. Seeing as how it knows my innermost thoughts without ever having met me, I can only conclude that the HTML is some manner of divinity. Could it be otherwise? How can HTML tell a falsehood?

Indeed, the HTML speaks the truth: I do often practice discernment when analyzing verses of Scripture, noting that some seem to be meant in a literal way, and that others seem to be meant in a more figurative way. Or at least, that had been my previous mode of study. But with the manifestation of the divine as HTML revealing this new truth to me, perhaps I need to re-think said mode of study in favour of an alternate hermeneutic.

This is nothing new. The Catholic Church has done this for centuries to keep the blind in bondage to that institution.

The HTML continues to probe the innermost depths of my heart, and its revelation here is profound. Previously, I had thought that my choice to remain Catholic had been my own decision, freely made and based in reasoned analysis of the doctrines of that Church, and how those doctrines stood up against the reality of the world and natural law. But the HTML, knowing my innermost thoughts, knows that subconsciously, I am but a slave who fancies BSDM techniques. And it wants to meet me for a session in which I will play the submissive role, using "institution" as a safe-word.

Or...wait, no, maybe that's not the sort of bondage being referred to. No, no, actually, I don't think it is. I have misread the HTML, and I humbly supplicate and beg the forgiveness of my most holy and divine counsellor for having done so.

If you step back and think about what he consistently does, rather than just focus on one argument, you will see a pattern emerging.

I like patterns.

That pattern is always an attempt to undermine God's Word, Sola Scripture, and anyone who holds to the belief hat the Word of God is truth and supreme.

This is a most confusing and potent revelation that the HTML has made, as it continues to probe the innermost thoughts of my heart, and then with greater clarity than I -- the owner of my heart and the originator of its thoughts -- am capable of doing. Because you see, O Reader, I had previously thought that the Bible, being the Word of God, was in fact the inerrant and inspired Word of God to His people, and that it had been meant to reveal to humanity the nature of God, and of His Son, and of the salvific message and promise of Christ Jesus.

But now I see that this is not the correct understanding, and I am thankful to the most divine and holy HTML-sapience for revealing the true way to my blind eyes, deaf ears, and un-tasting tongue. Now I see that it is not sufficient to believe in the Word of God and its inerrant message of faith and salvation; I see I must believe that it is a solitary and finite testament composed of fixed words, and must abandon the belief that God -- or, rather, what I had formerly known as God, prior to the revelation in glory of the HTML -- had bestowed to humanity a living, vibrant, dynamic Word capable of speaking to us within the context of history and of our day and age. No, the HTML assures me that the word is closed and finite, and that nothing exists outside the Word.

Which is odd, because I do not recall that the HTML itself is mentioned within the Word. But then, surely this is more of my ignorance as a mere human. The HTML cannot lie, after all, and so must be believed and given due authority over the course of my salvation; it is the revelation of divinity and the power behind the cosmos. How else could it know the innermost thoughts of my heart with such clarity?

He uses every method and esoteric tool put forth by the Catholic Church to constantly attack and undermine God's truth and elevate the teachings and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church above the Word of God.

I see that again, my understanding of what is esoteric is incorrect. Previously, as I had noted, I had thought the word to mean secretive, confidential, and had thought that it referred to something known only to a few people in full. But now I see that the term must mean something known to a billion people (give or take a few million), and must refer to something made open and public on the Internet.

The HTML is a wise and most eloquent master. All praise and glory be to the HTML!

The Catholic Church teaches that when the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church are in conflict with God's revealed Word, which is quite frequently I might add, then the teaching and traditions of the Catholic Church are supreme. They teach that Jesus Christ is bound to accept their proclamations over His Word. If the pope or the magerstium of the Catholic Church has "new revelation" then Jesus is bound to accept that.

Here, the HTML does a most marvelous thing, in that it reverses the very Word it had previously upheld to be truthful, solitary, and fixed! This, to me, affirms the divinity of the HTML-intelligence, because only the very Lord of the Universe could declare that Matthew 18:18 does not, in fact, communicate to humanity the promise of Christ that He would be bound by the agreement of two or three of His faithful.

The HTML also confidently asserts that Catholic faith in this teaching of Christ has been both misplaced and erroneously practiced. And while the HTML provides no substantial evidence for such a claim, how can I dispute the correctness of the HTML's very words, since the HTML has been revealed to me as the divine Lord of all the cosmos?

How convenient. This is no different that what Mohammed did when he put forth the Quran. The Bible warns us about this.

The HTML gives me a yet-greater revelation! Previously, I had not known that Muhammad, the (false!) prophet of Islam, was a valid successor to the hierarchy of the Church by way of apostolic succession. But now, I see that he must have been just such a successor, for the divine wisdom of the HTML implies that this must be the case. How else could there be no difference between the false revelation of Islam and what I had previously thought to be the truthful revelation of the Church?

Jesus Christ confirmed a literal Abam and Eve and all of the Old Testament Scripture as God's Word and truth, which would include the Genesis creation account.

Once again, the HTML demonstrates its power by overriding the very Word it claims is fixed and solitary! Oh HTML, most divine Lord! Truly thou art great beyond compare, and mighty to save!

Previously, I had thought that the Book of Genesis contained two separate accounts of the creation of the world, and that Christ affirmed -- through citation -- both accounts. Of course, I had also previously thought that Christ had affirmed -- through citation -- some of the books of the Apocrypha, but I am evidently incorrect about this as well (this latter revelation has come to me in a dream given by the HTML, and not by any spoken account thereof). Surely, the truth is that Christ has only affirmed the second creation account, and not the first, in which the order of creation is wholly different. And when Christ spoke of how God "made them male and female," when teaching on marriage, He must have simply not been referring to Adam and Eve by name.

It appears that the esoteric is denying that Christ was truthful. That is heresy.

The HTML's revelatory power continues to inspire awe and praise on my part, for now I see that my previously accepted definition of heresy -- which indicates a departure from the beliefs of one's religious denomination -- is incorrect. Demonstrating power to change even the very meaning of words, the HTML reveals its divinity by turning the definition of heresy into meaning the disagreement between oneself and the HTML.

But surely this makes sense, and affirms the godhood of the HTML. For who could be correct when he does not see things at the HTML -- which is already revealed as divine -- does?

Then again, the Catholic church elevates their traditionsand teachings above Scripture and all Catholics are required to conform their beliefs to the teachings of the Church, not Scripture. That is a convenient way to keep people in bondage.

Now I see that the safe word has become "traditionsand," although it would appear that I am still to play the role of the submissive. The HTML wishes to meet me at SteamWorks on Jasper Avenue in Edmonton, my home city.

Oh, wait, no, that's wrong. I have again misunderstood the HTML's meaning, and I beg its divine forgiveness for my error.

Finally, in a parting comment, the esoteric accuses me of being an "effete (feminine) coward" for not allowing comments on my blog. He frequently resorts to this ad hominem tactic.

Here again, I see that the HTML has the power to change the very meaning of words, once again affirming its infallible godhood. I had previously thought that effete meant someone who had lost their fertility, vitality, or strength (traits I assumed must be present in one who seemed afraid of open discussion) -- I see now that the only correct meaning of the word is effeminate. Which seems odd to me, because I had not previously associated infertility, lack of vitality, or lack of strength with the female of the human species. But perhaps this is to be, for me, another revelation by the glorious HTML before me, before whom I can do naught but fall down in supplication.

Surely the HTML does not allow discussion because its words are so infused with perfection and infallibility that all discussion and contrary opinion is both beneath the HTML and impossible on the face of it. O mighty Lord, O HTML, thou art most glorious, and make men speaketh not in thy presence for their error is legion! Of course, this also denies those who agree with the HTML to speak their support for its words, but since the HTML cross-posts its every revelatory outpouring to that which I had previously called the False Witness Union, I suppose it serves much the same purpose. My Lord loves an echo chamber, I see.

I do not allow comments on my blog because I do not want his heresy and vain philosophies and traditions of the Catholic Church cluttering my blog with teaching that are contrary to the Word of God. I prefer to keep my blog free of toxic waste.

Ah, I see I am right. Blessed be the HTML which as guided me to this great truth. Truly, I shall call no lesser thing 'God' if it not be the HTML-intelligence, which presents itself under the name of a military regiment of an oddly dark hue.

His blog performs that storage function quite adequately. Let me assure him that this is not cowardice, it is keeping simply toxic error off my blog.

The HTML shows me the way with its glory and revelation! Previously, I had been keeping comments open, to allow even those who disagree with me to express their opinions openly and in a spirit of debate. But now I see that I should be more narrow and spiteful, and I have only the HTML-sapience to thank for this new course in my ministry of its revelation! Surely all dissenting opinions are toxic and to be stamped out; let there be only silence in the world where the HTML is not speaking!

Well, this has been a wonderful day, and I see that I will need to begin RHIA (Rite of Hypertext Initiation of Adults) post-haste! All hail the HTML and its salvific power! There is no god but the HTML-sapience, and Firefox is its temple!

* * *

(I trust the good Reader recognizes the preceding as satire)

I'm disappointed.

Yes, we're having a bit of trouble on the blog here with False Witness Union members down-voting the agreement ratings of user comments which do not preach a message in line with the distorted values of that Union. Yes, some of you who are not CWU members are probably simmering with anger at the ignorance of our misguided Christian bretheren, while others of you are probably just in a state where all you care to do is roll your eyes at the staggering ignorance that comes up on display.

I sympathize.

But I'm disappointed all the same, because we don't seem to be observing the protocols put forth by Theokhoth when the same thing happened to him. I don't want to see any comments getting downvoted by anyone; even if you think the person leaving the comment is totally out to lunch, I want you to click "AGREE," because I don't want one single comment left on any of my blog posts to disappear into moderation-land.

We only up-vote comments around here.

I see that the watcher has attempted to argue against all of what I just wrote by focusing on the one aspect of my analysis that I didn't elaborate upon, and using this as the basis for a comprehensive rejection of the entirety of my argument.

We've seen this tactic before. Militant atheists are fond of using it, for example, to debunk Scripture -- they pick out one or two (or twenty -- the number is actually immaterial) essentially small "errors" and, from that basis, argue that the whole of the Bible is invalid (or, at least, not factual).

What is the firmament? As noted previously, this is a cosmological structure which appears all through Scripture. As the watcher correctly notes, the word is rooted in the Hebrew word raqa, which means "to flatten," "stamp down," "spread out," or "hammer out."

Notice a common theme there? Flattening, stamping, spreading, and hammering are all actions one applies to a physical object, and then a solid one. This is especially true of hammering and stamping. The nuance of the Hebrew word raqia (which we translate as "firmament") is thus one of something solid, rather than of something expansive.

We see this elsewhere in Scripture, it should be noted.

"Exodus 39:3 and Isa 40:19 use raqa for pounding metals into thin plates, and Num 16:38 employs riqqua (broad plate) in a similar context. The verb raqa is even found in a passage referring to the creation of the sky, which is understood to be a firm surface like a metal. Job 37:18 asks, 'Can you join God in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?' (c.f. Exod 24:10, Job 22:14, Ezek 1:22)" (taken from: Denis O. Lamoueux, Evolutionary Creation, pp. 123)

Let us also remember: "firmament" is an English translation of the Hebrew term. Its root, 'firm,' implies solidity and hardness. The very word itself implies a solid structure. Strong's Concordance is all well and good for referring to the firmament as "an expanse," but that simply goes to show that Strong's Concordance is hardly infallible: the Hebrew word which translates into "firmament" -- raqia, implies something solid, and has always (until relatively recently) been understood as such by the Church.

And this same principle, it should be noted, can be applied to Strong's treatment of "foundations" -- and to the watcher's treatment of same. Job 26:11 and 2 Samuel 22:8 refer to the pillars or foundations of the heavens, while other passages (Deut 4:32 to name but one) refer to the "ends of the heavens". Likewise, well over a dozen references to the Earth having solid foundations can easily be found in just a few books of the Old Testament.

The cosmological model presented in my previous blog post is not something of my own devising; it is a representation of what is called the "three-tiered universe" that is a common fixture of the ancient cosmologies of many Ancient Near Eastern cultures, including the Hebrew people.

And Young Earth Creationists have no way of getting around it, nor do any other strict Biblical literalists. The cosmological model presented in Scripture does not reflect the extant structure of the Universe, as we have now observed it; it only reflects the apparent structure of the Universe, as seen through the eyes of a people living some 5,000 years ago.

If one wants to accept the current, astronomy-derived cosmological model, then one cannot claim to be a strict Biblical literalist, because that cosmological model is not the one described in the Bible. And for a Young Earther, the acceptance of the astronomy-derived cosmological model is a particularly troubling logical mis-step, given that it entails heavily augmenting one's interpretation of Scripture in light of empirical evidence.

Where is the logical pitfall there, good Reader? It is in the fact that those same Young Earthers all too often reject the idea that we must modify our interpretation of Scriptural passages concerning human origins in light of empirical evidence derived from evolutionary theory and research.

In layman's terms, that's called hypocrisy...and it's a hypocrisy that any Young Earth Creationist is guilty of.

One final note. The watcher wouldn't be the watcher if he didn't end a post with a pinch of anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Of course if tomorrow, the pope should come out and state that the church's position is now that Genesis was literal, then he would have to change his beliefs like a puppet to conform to the church's teaching. If he didn't, the Church could take away his hope of salvation., for their hope is truly centered in the Church and it sacraments, and not in the finished work of Christ on the cross. Such great bondage.

Yeah, I've heard these lies before, but I'll respond to them anyhow.

1) if for some reason the 6,000 year creation suddenly became Catholic dogma, it would still be my right to accept or reject the doctrine. Of course, at this point, the only way that the doctrine would shift so drastically would be due to overwhelming evidence that the Earth is, in fact, very young. Given the immense quantities of evidence that the Earth is, in fact, very old, this contrived example rests in the realm of near-impossibility.

But if sufficiently compelling evidence emerged that the Church saw fit to abandon its current, "hands off" stance on creation-related doctrines (apart from the core teachings which I have outlined previously), chances are that I would be convinced by that same evidence, and not because the Church had promulgated a doctrine pertaining to it.

2) my salvation is not imperiled by disagreeing with the Church, but by leaving it. For as I turn my back on the Eucharist, I turn my back on Christ. The same is true of all the other Sacraments as well, which are the gifts of the grace of Jesus and the fullness of the salvation He won for mankind as He hung upon the Cross.

3) it's all well and good to slander Catholics from afar, secure on a blog which disallows comments. But there's no courage in yelling at the world from inside a locked room. It's curious that the watcher never chooses to engage things with which he disagrees directly, through the use of open comment forms, and its doubly curious that he opts to pre-emptively silence his critics on his own blog.

In the end, though, it's just a particularly effete form of cowardice.

I'll come right out and say it: I hope that none of my Readers take the Book of Genesis 100% literally.

I mean that. But I should also clarify.

I hope, for instance, that my Readers take Genesis literally where the messages of faith it delivers are concerned. I hope that my Readers believe what is taught in Genesis about how all the world, and all the Universe, is the creation of God, and that life arose on Earth through the ordination and sustenance of God. I hope that my Readers believe that creation is "very good," and that human beings are the pinnacle of God's creation, made in His image and likeness. I hope my Readers believe that the complementarity of male and female, of men and women, is a part of the design of God, and is intended to give image to His love for the world by the unique unity it is designed to evoke.

I hope that my Reader derives very strong affirmation for his or her faith from Genesis, in other words, and that the book itself imparts important messages of faith to the Reader.

On the other hand, I do not hope that the good Reader looks to Genesis as a historical account. In fact, not only do I not hope this, I actively hope against it. I hope that none of my Readers thinks the world is only a few thousand years old, that humanity preceded all the other creatures, or that dinosaurs and humanity co-existed for a time. And I hope that my Readers do not look to Genesis for their cosmological model of the Universe.

The Cosmological Model of the Ancient Hebrews

It's this last point that I'm going to focus on in today's discussion, because it serves as an example of a few things. First, by looking at the cosmological model presented in Genesis, and by comparing it against what we know today about the structure of the heavens, we can see that the descriptions of the structure of the world, and of the Universe, that appear in Genesis are not meant to be taken literally, as they are reflective of an Ancient Near Eastern understanding of such things only. Even more importantly, however, we will see that even most Christians are not total Biblical literalists, not even the most ardent Young Earth Creationists.

Because if they were completely, totally, 100% literal in their interpretation of the text of Genesis and the cosmological model presented therein (and through the whole of the Bible, as well), they would assert that the Universe is structured like this:

This is an earlier draft of an image I re-constructed in Photoshop for Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux's book Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. The published version is a bit different, but this version contains all the important elements, and so will suffice. Let's review what we see in this image.

First off, we have the firmament (Genesis 1:6-8,14-17,20, Psalm 19:1, Psalm 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22-26, Ezekiel 10:1, Daniel 12:3, Sirach 43:1,8), which separates the waters above it from the waters below it (Genesis 1:7).

Embedded in the firmament are the Sun, Moon, and all the stars — the lights of the heavens which separate day from night (Genesis 1:14-15,17). And the heavens are contained within the firmament; they are of the firmament (Genesis 1:20, Psalm 19:1).

This firmament, incidentally, is a hard dome, a fixed cosmological structure. The very word — firmament — implies (and, in Hebrew, actually means) something solid, something fixed. If one is completely literal in one's interpretation of Genesis, there is no room whatsoever to argue that the firmament can be explained away as the great expanse of space; the word itself has a different meaning.

What else is present in this diagram?

We see the foundations of the heavens (2 Samuel 22:8,16) and the foundations of the Earth (Job 38:4, Psalm 18:15, Psalm 82:5, Psalm 102:25, Psalm 104:5, Proverbs 8:29, Isaiah 24:18, Isaiah 40:21, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13,16, Jeremiah 31:37, Micah 6:2, Sirach 10:16, Sirach 16:19). The sea is also present, as is the land of the world (Genesis 1:9-10). Hades, the underworld, is also depicted (Tobit 13:2, Wisdom 1:14, Wisdom 2:1, Wisdom 16:13, Wisdom 17:14, Matthew 11:23, Luke 10:15, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:27, Revelation 1:18). The "Heavens of the Heavens" — the Highest Heavens (Psalm 148:4) -- are represented, as is the dwelling of the Lord in the Highest Heavens.

This, then, is the view of the Universe of the people of the Old Testament, and would have been shared by all the Hebrews. It is also the cosmological model that the writers of the Old and New Testaments would have used when speaking about the Universe in any capacity. And if, O Reader, you profess the belief that Genesis is meant to be taken as a completely literal historical account, then this must be the cosmological model you profess as well…or else, you're not a complete literalist.

You can't profess this view of the solar system:

You can't profess this view of the galaxy:

You can't profess this view of the Universe:

If, O Reader, you are a Young Earth Creationist who insists on treating Genesis as a literal account of history, you must profess the belief that the Universe is structured as depicted in the first image in this posting, the image I drew. And, if you profess the doctrine of sola scriptura, you are especially obligated to reject the cosmological model presented in the latter three pictures, which is (more or less) the cosmological model presented to us by modern astronomy.

Reciprocally, if you argue that the cosmological model presented by modern astronomy is correct, you are not in adherence to the doctrine of sola scriptura, nor are you interpreting Scripture 100% literally. You are, in fact, augmenting your understanding of Scripture with scientific evidence, and shifting your interpretation of Scripture to match the empirical evidence that scientific inquiry into the structure of the Universe has discovered.

Either way, something must here be acknowledged: there exists a discrepancy between the description of the Universe, as presented in Scripture, and the shape of the Universe as has been observed by mankind.

Implications of this Discrepancy

The difference between the cosmological model presented in the Bible and the observed shape of the Universe is profound. They are not, in any significant way, similar.

On the face of it, at least, Scripture is simply incorrect about the shape of the Universe. That's the main implication of this massive discrepancy: that Scripture is not inerrant and infallible.

So how, as Christians, do we address this problem, if in fact we believe that Scripture is inerrant and infallible? Well, if we believe that the Book of Genesis contains a literal account of creation, and that it is intended to be read as a historically/scientifically accurate work, we can't address this problem. And in fact, this problem is one of many that utterly defeat our viewpoint. Faced with the overwhelming evidence that the shape of the cosmos is vastly different than is described in Scripture, there are only two options left open to a literalist:

1) Admit that Scripture is in error, OR

2) Denounce science, research, and empirical study as demonic

It should be obvious to the Reader, I hope, that the second option — though often indulged in by Christians — is fundamentally irrational, and also out of alignment with Scripture. The Bible tells us, quite plainly, that the natural world reveals the glory of God (c.f. Psalm 19, Job 12), and so shall be for humanity a source of truth and revelation. God Himself is not revealed in the study of the world and of the heavens, because God is not empirically observable. But the heavens and the Earth tell His glory and are a testament to His might and his ordinance of creation. So we cannot dismiss the study of the world and the heavens — science, essentially — as demonic, for God Himself, through the Spirit which inspired the authors of Scripture, assures us that this is not the case.

The strict literalist, then, is left with no choice but to admit that Scripture is in error.

Moving Past Literalism

To this point, we've only looked at the interpretation of Scripture from a strictly literal perspective, which Young Earth Creationists claim to do. Of course, in making such a claim, Young Earthers commit a hypocrisy of sorts, since it is clear that most Young Earthers accept a non-Biblical cosmological model to be valid. Were they really literalists, 100% of the time, their cosmological model would be the same as was used by the ancient Hebrews, which was also reflected in other cultures of the ancient world.

Let's be realistic: ancient cultures did not have the sophisticated tools and rigorous methods that modern researchers employ. They did not have the means to analyze the world and the Universe in as much detail as we do in this modern era. Indeed, they had only their eyes, and what could be observed with them.

We see this reflected in Scripture. Every aspect of the ancient cosmological model presented at the beginning of this writing is explicable when one considers the ancient context of its promulgation. It made sense for ancient scholars to assume that the position of the Earth was fixed, and that the world was set upon firm foundations; can any of us feel the Earth orbiting around the Sun, and can any of us topple the Earth from its position in the heavens? Of course not.

Likewise, it made sense to assume that the sky was a fixed dome, in which the Sun, Moon, and all the stars were fixed — or, at least, it was a reasonable conjecture that this was the case. Likewise, it made sense to assume that a great sea was held back by the great dome of the sky, for how else might it come to pass that water should precipitate down from on high? And why else would the sky have such a sea-like blue hue?

This was the ancient understanding; the early Hebrews knew nothing of the vast distances that separate the stars, or of the nuclear fusion that drove the Sun, or of the fact that it was the rotation of the Earth — and not the movement of the Sun — which caused the cycle of days and nights. And the authors of Scripture — especially Genesis — would have understood the world and Universe through the cosmological model of their day. Their scientific understanding of things, if it can be called that, was an ancient one.

Is it possible, then, that we are meant to interpret Scripture in a less-than-completely literal way? Is it possible, then, that when we interpret Scripture, we must do so in the understanding that the science contained therein is the science "of the day," and that it may not have been intended, by the Spirit, to be understood as a literal explanation of the ordering of the world and Universe? Is it not also possible, then, that we are not meant to interpret as literal what appears, at first glance, to be a historical account in Genesis?

As to a Child

When we explain complicated things to small children, we often have to use simpler examples drawn from the realm of the child's understanding in order to illustrate our lesson to them. And additionally, we have to obfuscate. Think for a minute of, say, a song that is sometimes taught to children:

…the thigh bone's connected to the knee bone.
The knee bone's connected to the shin bone.
The shin bone's connected to the ankle bone…

It's not a bad learning tool, and a decent introduction to basic skeletal biology. And yet: which thigh bone? Which ankle bone? In both cases, there is more than one bone present in the actual human skeleton. But how do you explain that to a small child? The ankle more or less looks like it's made of one bone, and feels as though it is — how do you explain to a small child, in a way that the child will understand, that there are actually many bones in the ankle?

And also: is it even important, for the purposes of the basic lesson you are attempting to impart to the child, to do so?

Accommodation

When we speak to children, we accommodate to their level of knowledge. We don't bombard them with facts (or, at least, we shouldn't) and precise details. We teach by using simpler examples, and by simplifying the concept being taught…for the moment. As children get older, we can teach them the finer details and more complex aspects of the lesson.

Is it possible, then, that God took this approach with humanity, his children? When the Spirit sought to inspire the ancient authors of Scripture to communicate a message of faith — that God is creator of all things — is it possible that instead of bombarding the authors with exhaustive explanations of atoms, amoebas, and astronomy, that the Spirit instead opted to accommodate to the ancient understanding of the author, and use the extant cosmological model of the day as a metaphorical vehicle for a theological teaching?

Could God not have opted to keep the Bible simple for us, that we might come to discover the more complicated aspects of the world and of creation when we were ready to do so…when we were older?

I don't just think this is possible; I think it's likely.

Humanity, at the time that many of the books of the Old Testament were written, was as a child in its understanding of the world and Universe. Humanity "thought like a child…reasoned like a child." And even into the time of the New Testament, that understanding of the natural world had not advanced very much; still, we only understood as a child does.

Now, though, we have become something else. Humanity has grown; is it possible that we should begin to "put away childish things," including the ancient understandings of the world and its origins?

The purpose of the Bible is not to tell us about the structure of the heavens, but to tell us about Heaven itself, about God, about humanity's need for God, and about the glorious plan of salvation that God has effected and made manifest in Christ Jesus. The Bible, as Galileo so ably put it, tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

Perhaps it is time that we respected the Bible enough to admit this.

I see some chapeau d'âne is stalking the comments again, down-voting those posts which express opinions out of alignment with the beliefs of the False Witness Union.

I trust everyone remembers the protocols to observe in such a circumstance?

I'm sure the various members of the CWU are familiar with this passage of Scripture:

[15]"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

[16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

So if we assume, for a moment, that I have sinned against the GS user who began this thread, by suggesting to him (by the only means open to me, since I am still not permitted to join the CWU and defend myself or the Church therein) that a certain other GS user is, shall we say, not a reliable resource to turn to if one is looking for "the truth" about Catholicism...

...then where is the evidence that he, or any other member of what I have come to call the False Witness Union, has followed the above teaching of Christ? A quick search of my private message inbox reveals no attempt by the GS user who began the thread to tell me my fault, and at no point did he and "one or two others" post corrective comments in any of my blog posts (that I can see).

He seems to have skipped to the last step, inasmuch as the False Witness Union can be called a "church."

Hypocrites.

So in the last Wordpress upgrade, I evidently broke some important security parameter on Grace's blog. That sucked. So today, I rebuilt the site from scratch, and then imported all the old posts and comments from the previous iteration. And along the way, I put in a snazzy new template and a new gallery feature.

I hope you enjoy the new digs, darling!