According to the “correspondence
view” of truth (which is the classical definition of the word) the only way truth
can ever be established is by means of actual demonstration,
irrespective of the context.[i]
When for example the biblical prophets
uttered the phrase “thus says the Lord,” their goal wasn’t to evade
scrutiny, but instead to distinguish the source of the words they declared;
be it Yahweh, or instead the sinful hearts of the false prophets. But substantiating their claims was a
far different matter that was achieved by other means (Deuteronomy 18:15-22, Isaiah
41:21-24, and Jeremiah 28:9) which consisted of testing the words of the
prophets against the actuality of the circumstances that they foretold. This is one glaring illustration as to why it
is that Ham’s means for determining truth utterly
conflicts with the Bible. In terms
of verifying biblical truth-claims for the purpose of discerning whether or not
they be true, they must be shown to reconcile with the reality they
describe, in the same way that scientific hypotheses can only prevail insofar
as they square with the data they address.
This means that scientific and legal claims are dealt with in exactly
the same manner as biblical pronouncements.
I can think of no example in Scripture where it bypasses this very
method of substantiating its own truth.
It so happens that with respect
to Ken Ham’s views, both sides of the equation on the table are sources of
contention which demand clarification. The
first of these concerns interpreting Genesis with respect to, for the
purposes of this paper, the geographical extent of Noah’s flood. I do not challenge the biblical claims about either
the extinction of virtually all of the human race living in Noah’s time,[ii]
or the size of his ark as replicated in Ham’s full-scale model which rests on dry
ground near Williamstown, Kentucky.[iii]
What I instead contest are his views both
that Noah’s flood completely covered the entire globe to such a depth that even
the highest mountains were submerged, and that every mountainous feature today was
caused by that one flood (with the exception of events observed in modern
times).
In support of Ham’s views, he
appeals to such biblical texts as “the waters prevailed above the mountains,
covering them fifteen cubits deep” (Gen. 7:20 – RSV), which, together with
other verses, I fully concede, appears to imply that the flood was
global. The problem with Ham’s tactic, however,
is two-fold. Firstly, the Hebrew vocabulary
yields a moderating view of the heights of the so-called “moun-tains” that are
referenced in this account. Secondly, when
we take note of the context of the similar biblical phrases such as “all
the world,” there are good reasons to downscale the geographical extent of
Noah’s flood[iv] from
a global event to instead a region which was populated with humans (Gen.
11:1-5) somewhere in what is known today as the Middle East. This view which I am taking, by the way, does
not contest God’s ability to cover the globe completely in water if He had
so wished. After all, what problem is
this small matter for “a God” who created the entire universe by His word? (Heb.
11:3). To be continued...
[i] Whether truth is sought in the arenas of science, law,
or with respect to biblical claims, each context abides by this dictum.
[ii] Op.cit. (4).
[iii] Op.cit. (7).
[iv]These insights are spelled out in greater detail in my
paper referenced in note 4, above. I
full acknowledge my indebtedness to the insights of Hugh Ross referenced in
note 7, above.
No comments:
Post a Comment