A (2:24)

Yeah, less, less gestures with, with my, my left hand, that's for sure.

B (2:29)

I know. And that's, that's sad because you are a big hand gesture person. Like you're always going like this, my.

A (2:36)

Personality doing these things.

B (2:38)

It's going to be interesting to see how restrained you are with only one arm. Here we go. To gesture with.

A (2:43)

So last time we talked about how sometimes there are what seems to be contradictions between what Scripture claims and what science says. Says, for example, Genesis 1 says the Earth was created in six days, but the science says the earth was created over the course of billions of years. And we talked about how these types of apparent contradictions occur when we bring the wrong assumptions or expectations to Scripture, which we often do, Casey, don't we?

B (3:15)

We believe that the right thinking tools and assumptions about Scripture can help us avoid falling into that all too common modern ment rut of expecting Scripture to make scientific claims or to answer scientific questions, when in reality it almost never does either one of those things. So last episode we introduced what we're calling our scripture paradigm sentence. There's got to be a short, let's just say our scripture paradigm.

A (3:47)

But how about the Scott and Casey hermeneutic sentence? And this sentence is our efforts to try to clarify what we can reasonably expect of Scripture. Right?

B (4:00)

Yeah, yeah. So memorize this. There will be a test later. So here we go. The statement is just basically this. Scripture texts are the result of human and divine collaboration written by ancient authors embedded in their own cultures and crafted by those authors primarily for the purpose of doing theology, not science. So there's a lot to unpack there. But the idea is one, we recognize that this is a collaboration between God and human beings. And God speaks to them in their own language and according to their own understanding. And most of the authors are people that lived anciently. And the second major thing is that they existed within the cultures that they existed in. So God's going to use that language to speak to them. And finally, they weren't writing for scientists. They weren't writing scientifically, they were writing theologically. They weren't trying to answer the questions of what, when, where, or how. They were trying to answer the questions of why, which is primarily the realm of philosophy and science. So if we keep those in mind and we keep that kind of mindset in the back of our heads, the Scriptures can really become super illustrative of how we live our lives. As long as we're using them for what they're meant for, which is giving us purpose, reason and morality.

A (5:18)

Yeah. When these assumptions are for firmly established in our minds, like internalized into our understandings, then as modern readers, we can appreciate Scripture's profound, like theological messages without demanding the writing and the worldviews to conform to modern science. And that's super important. Right. For example, we pointed out last episode that the creation account in Genesis 1 accommodates an ancient understanding of the world. Like where the earth is basically flat, supported by pillars, and the sky is a physical, like, actual solid dome. Like, almost like a snow globe which is holding back waters above. Like, God just uses that because that's how the ancients thought about the cosmos. And so he just uses that to teach profound theological truths. For instance, establishing his relationship with creation, mankind's special relationship to God and creation as God's image bearers. Challenging the ancient polytheism that diminished mankind's role. Also establishing the importance of the seventh day as an almost temple, like sacred time. Like it's doing some cool theological things and God just sort of accommodates the worldview of the people at the time to accomplish those points. Right. To make those points very solid. So that's an example of what we're talking about.

B (6:41)

Yeah. To borrow from doctrine and Covenants 1, the Lord spoke unto them according to their language and according to their understanding. He met them halfway from where they were at. So we want to take what we talked about in the last episode, and today we want to explore a couple more potholes to avoid. For instance, one big question would be, well, how much should our modern understanding of science inform how we read Scripture? And the answer to that might be not much. And let me explain why it is possible for us to Thomas Jefferson, the Scriptures, that might seem like a sharp left turn bringing up a former President of the United States. But Thomas Jefferson, who I respect a ton and I really admire, was also a scientist. And Thomas Jefferson had this peculiar approach to the Scriptures. So Thomas Jefferson believes in Jesus Christ, but near the end of his life, he edited his own version of the New Testament. So he basically took a New Testament, and by the way, his work was called the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. And what he literally did was he took a razor and he cut and pasted passages from the four Gospels into a single book. And Thomas Jefferson is influenced by the Enlightenment, his belief in reason. He wanted to separate what he called the diamonds of Jesus, pure rational moral teachings from the dunghill of later corruption, which he termed miracles and supernatural accounts. So Jefferson basically removed anything that was supernatural. He cut out all the miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as well as any passages that spoke about Jesus being divine. In fact, he even skipped over things like prophecies, genealogies, and references to angels. So his version starts with the birth of Jesus, but leaves out anything miraculous in it. And the final Result was an 86 page book that ends with this line. Now, in a place where he was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher and departed. And that's basically where the 19th chapter of John ends in the Bible, right before the resurrection. So when I say Thomas Jefferson, the Scriptures, there's a tendency to take all the miraculous, all the supernatural, everything that we don't currently understand with our modern understanding of science out of the Scriptures. And we don't want to go quite that far.

A (9:27)

As much as we respect Jefferson for his political genius, his method of scripture editing should probably tingle our spidey senses and raise some concerns. Again, the question you raised was how much should our modern understanding of science inform how we read Scripture? And what Jefferson makes clear is that if we only read scripture through the lens of modern scientific, like post age of enchantment, like enlightenment time period assumptions, forgetting that Scripture was written by ancient authors embedded in their own cultures, crafted primarily for the purpose of doing theology, not science, if we kind of forget all that, then we can end up making a mess of Scripture. Okay, so you can actually google Thomas Jefferson Bible and you can see like pictures where he's literally like razored out, like chunks of the New Testament. It's funny and sad at the same time.

B (10:23)

But yeah, we love Thomas Jefferson, but I think it's safe to say we disagree with him on this point.

A (10:30)

We think he went a little too far.

B (10:31)

Maybe a little too far, Maybe a little too much. Okay, so we need to be cautious also of not assuming that since Scripture was written by ancient authors, that all their claims about miracles were figurative or just symbolic or allegorical, as simply ancient superstitions or cultural influence ways of speaking. We do believe that there were genuine miracles. In fact, miracles are a major, major part of why we believe in God and Jesus Christ.

A (11:01)

Yeah, like at the heart of true Christianity is the belief in the miracle of Jesus. Literal resurrection. Take that away. And to Paraphrase Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, you don't have Christianity anymore. You take away the miracle, the resurrection, you don't have that. It's important to recognize that theology and history do sometimes overlap in a few very important moments in Scripture, at the heart of which is the incarnation of Jesus as God in the flesh. Is that theological or is that historical? We would say yes. His atoning death. Was that historical or theological? Both. His resurrection, his ascension to the right hand of The Father. There are a couple moments where like historical and theological reading are overlapping in really core ways that you can't pull apart. And that's, that's at the heart of it. So I would say just a couple things to, to hold on to simultaneously as we read scripture. Okay. And we're going to try some examples of this in a couple minutes. But number one, don't read scripture through the lens of modern scientific assumptions. Otherwise we're going to see science, scripture conflicts all over the place and we may feel compelled to reject the possibility of the miraculous, which is on the other hand the thing we should not do do stay open to the possibility of real miracles in both ancient and modern times. And when I say miracle, I define it as God operating in ways that we don't understand. Otherwise. If we go too far, if we go all full Thomas Jefferson on the Bible, we're going to lose the core theological claims of Christianity, namely the resurrection, the new creation, and to be honest, the core theological claims of the restoration, which would begin with the first vision and the miraculous translation of the Book of Mormon, which still to this day, Casey, I have no way of wrapping my mind around how 23 year old Joseph translated that book other than through a miraculous method. We've done hours on this in previous episodes, but that is a miraculous thing that occurred at the very beginning of the restoration. And there's no way to really wiggle around that. So there are miracles. Don't go so far as to reject miracles. But also don't read scripture through the lens of modern science. Okay. We want to try to balance those at the same time.

B (13:33)

Now sometimes it's more clear when a text is being figurative or symbolic and it's inviting us to sort of learn some profound theological insights. And other times it's not, not as clear if the Scriptures are speaking figuratively or literally. So that's another challenge that we have to navigate. For instance, one approach to the scriptures we're going to label kind of the uber literalist extreme. Okay? So these are hardcore fundamentalists who do a plain reading of the text and take the stories too literally. So you set up this conflict between science and religion. You're saying, well, it must have happened in six literal days. That's what the scriptures same. And you're not open to the idea of other possibilities and that puts you in direct conflict with science. You can also get really extreme in your worship if you read the scriptures this way too. For instance, when Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. Taking this as a literal command is problematic. Would you agree, Scott?

A (14:41)

I would say is one who cannot use my left arm at this time.

B (14:46)

So we don't think Jesus was saying you have to be physically, physically maimed to achieve spiritual purity. Jesus is using exaggeration, he's using metaphor, he's using allegory to convey a spiritual point. So we've got to be cautious in being too literal when it comes to the Scriptures and allow ourselves a little bit more mental room to play around.

A (15:07)

On the other extreme would be those we would call the ultra allegorical readers of scripture, right? Those who, who basically say all scripture is like, more figurative. You know, it's like allegorical. They'll strip the text of its historical anchoring and any external relevance. They'll just basically make the Bible mean whatever I feel like it means, you know, to me. So, for example, like reading the Exodus, like the Crossing of the Red Sea story, right? Someone might read that who's an ultra allegorist and just say this isn't really like a historical event, but it's more like symbolic of the soul's journey, like out of bondage of sin. You know, they'll completely ignore like the literal nation of Israel, like their bondage for 430 years in Egypt, like the whole thing that's actually going to set up like the redemption story, the original redemption story in Scripture, like, like they'll ignore all that in order to, like, you know, feel like scripture just means, like what I need it to mean for me today. You know, got to be careful about that. And I see people do that even with the Book of Mormon, which I think that crosses a serious line. You and I were talking about this before we pushed record, but this idea that the Book of Mormon, you know, you don't have to accept it as like, actually based in true history. You could just accept it as like spiritual allegory, which you and I were talking. Like that that introduces some problems, right? Like how do you explain the individual who came from that civil Joseph Smith in his bedroom and led him to the gold plates, which are an actual artifact from that civilization, etc. Etc. This causes some problems, so be careful of going to the other extreme as well. So you have, on the one hand, you've got the uber literalist, on the other hand, the ultra allegoricalist. Is that a word? So be careful.

B (17:03)

I'm going to suggest that there is a middle path between the two extremes, right? Sometimes scripture is literal, sometimes it's figurative. Sometimes we need to be mentally flexible enough to say it could be both literal and figurative at the same time. A good example of that was one of my old teachers, Joseph Fielding McConkie. And I'm citing him specifically because not only was he a huge influence on my life, but he also comes from a very conservative tradition in the church. I mean, just the name Joseph Fielding McConkie brings to mind Joseph Fielding Smith, who was one of the most literal readers of scripture in the history of the church, And Bruce R. McConkie, who seemed to follow in the same theological school. He was the grandson of Joseph Fielding Smith, he was the son of Bruce R. McConkie, and before he passed away, he was my teacher when I was in the Master's of Religious Education program at byu. And I remember hearing him talk about how early on in his career he wanted to write a book that would just basically provide an all encompassing guide to know when the scriptures are being literal and know when they're being figurative. And he said this in class and all of us were leaning on the edge of our seat like, where can we get this book? And he looked at us and he said, I spent three years trying to do that and it's impossible. He did write a really neat book called Gospel Symbolism that I highly recommend. But he came back basically saying it was almost impossible to tell in every situation when it was being literal and when it was being figurative. So we need to understand the mindset of the writers of the scriptures, both ancient and modern. But understanding the brilliant, the poetic, the figurative theological narratives is also super helpful in resolving the scientifically inaccurate nature of some scripture stories. On the other hand, if we, we start reading scripture as all being figurative, then we go too far and we can stop believing in real miracles like the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So we've got to find this happy medium or this mental flexibility to be able to navigate the middle. If we go too far to the left or too far to the right, we'll fall off the horse. And either one of those is a path to not being able to use science or religion as equal tools in discovering truth.

A (19:33)

I remember once I never took Joseph Fieldy McConkey's class, but I remember hearing him say once he said, if you go on a field trip with me to the University of Hell, where the devils are trained, what you'll hear the devils being trained on is to get people who read the scriptures to think of everything that's literal as being figurative and everything that's figurative as being literal. That will lead to such confusion that you won't have to try very hard as a devil to do the rest of your job.

B (20:07)

Scott, that was a. That was a decent Joseph Fielding McConkey.

A (20:10)

I mean, it was impersonation.

B (20:13)

And he did have that. That cadence where he'd be like, written of God and stuff like that. That was good. That was really good.

A (20:20)

Okay, so let's. Let's try. Let's try a couple examples. Casey. We're not going to claim to be able to do this perfect, but we want to try to channel some of the best, like, scholarship that we admire, that we feel like responsibly handles scriptural text. So, for instance, I want to. Last time we did Genesis chapter one, I want to go all the way to Genesis chapter two for our first example, if that's okay. Casey. Let's go to the part where in Genesis 2 it says that Adam was created from the earth and that Eve was created from Adam's rib, okay? Because we know scientifically that's not how. That's not how it happened. No scientist would get on board with that explanation. They say that humans are the result of an evolutionary process spanning billions of years. You know, that homogeneous. I'm not an expert in this, but it goes back like three something million years. And Homo sapiens is something like a couple hundred thousand years. Don't quote me on that. But. So this story actually goes to the heart of the literary genius, I think, and the theological purpose of the Genesis 2 creation account. So biblical scholarship sees Adam's creation from dirt and Eve's creation from Adam's rib as actually symbolic statements of humanity's nature and purpose and the relationship of men and women together, not as biological reports. Okay, so let me dig a little bit deeper into this because it actually gets cool. So in Genesis to seven, all right, where Adam is made from the dirt and Eve from Adam's rib, it's going to establish two fundamental truths about human identity through what Hebrew scholars see as a word play central to the text. So, for instance, there's a pun in here, Cayce, And I love me a good pun, but if. But I don't speak Hebrew, and so I don't always catch all the puns of the Hebrew writers. So. But. But. But other people do. And so they're going to help us with this. So did you know that man, or Adam is called ha, Adam in Hebrew? Ha, Adam. You can kind of hear the word Adam in there. Ha means the. And Adam means human. The human. Adam means human. And this. This creature is created or formed from the Adama, the ground. Do you. Do you hear the name Adam in there as well? So you have, ha. Adam being created from the Adama, which means the human is taken from the Earth. Or in other words, another name for Adam would be like the proto Earthling. Okay, he's an earthling, someone created from the dirt. Okay? So you have the creature and you've got the source. So this literary device is establishing, like, an unbreakable link between humanity and this earth, which is important theologically. Remember, Jesus is going to talk about this in the Sermon on the Mount. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth. Section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants talks about how mankind's destiny is inextricably tied with this Earth too. When this Earth is sanctified, mankind, those who are sanctified with the Earth get to inherit this Earth and live here forever, ruling and reigning as Genesis 1 set us up to do, as like, having dominion over this world, Right? So from the beginning, right, we have this, like, inextricable link being created between humanity and the Earth. We're made from the Earth. That's part one. But then there's the second half of the creation story of mankind. In this instance, in Genesis 2 is when God breathes into man the breath of life. Remember this? God breathes the breath of life into his nostrils, which actually establishes the other half of the human identity. So on the one hand, we are straight from the earth. We are earthlings.

B (24:14)

Thus thou art. On the other hand, then unto dust thou shalt return.

A (24:17)

100%, yes. On the other hand, God breathed into us the breath of life. We are animate. We are spiritual beings with a direct, now, connection to God. So think of this little theological gem, right? Mankind is fundamentally, According to Genesis 2, a unique fusion of the Earth and God's spirit. There's a spark of divinity within our humanity, our mortality. And so from the very beginning, the origin story of mankind is that we have this divine spark, even though we are inextricably tied to this Earth. And that's not a bug, that's a feature. We're supposed to be tied to this Earth, but we are also imbued with the Spirit of God. So we are kind of these walking, talking overlaps of both the Heaven and the Earth story. And our destiny is that we become the kind of people who live here forever and have Godlike dominion here forever. Like, this is part of our destiny. So that part of the story is so cool.

B (25:23)

Yeah. And I think you can see in there that it's designedly figurative. Right. That we're using all these terms and these puns to play around with the idea that the creation of Adam is being presented here symbolically in order to teach ideas.

A (25:39)

Yeah. By the way, I'll just add that modern prophets are totally on board with this same scholarship. For instance, President Spencer W. Kimball, talking about this Genesis 2 story, says, the story of the rib, speaking of Eve being created from the Adam's rib, of course, he said is figurative. This is figurative. Brigham Young said, when you tell me that Father Adam was made as we make adobes from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale like Brigham Young. Brigham Young did not believe that was literal, even though you could quote it to him right there from Genesis, too. So just. Just to put a fine point on it, like, modern prophets are very clear. Like, yeah, this is a. This is a figurative story. In fact, here's President Boyd K. Packer. He said, what is said in the revelations about the creation is figurative insofar as the man and the woman are concerned. So just three prophets right there talking about the figurative nature of this. So the question that's exciting as a reader is what are these figures meant to, like, theologically explain? Right. So that's one example of Adam being taken from the dirt and having God breathe into him, the breath of life. But Cayce, what about the rib? Eve being taken from the rib.

B (26:54)

Right. This one is sometimes controversial because it can be interpreted as women being lesser or women, women being created for men. But you noted here already three different prophets that have said, this is figurative, this is symbolic. And if we're reading it figuratively, that's how we'll get the most meaning out of it. So the creation of woman from man's side, and the Hebrew word there is selah. It's the central moment in the narrative that defines the relationship between man and woman, specifically addresses issues of equality, of unity and companionship. So love. Start with that Hebrew word that is translated as said selah. While most English Bibles translate the Hebrew word selah as rib, the word's primary and more frequent usage elsewhere in the Old Testament is side, flank, or structural member, for example, meaning the side chambers of the tabernacle were referred to as a selah. So rather than rib, it should probably be side. And a lot of scholars highlight that interpreting it as side carries profound theological meaning. For instance, it's a symbol of unity that man, prior to this operation, this separation, is seen as a singular, undivided human. Ha. Adam is the word Here the woman is created by taking one whole side of the original human, suggesting she is not a secondary addition, but the completion of the original humanity.

A (28:29)

So rib is how we often interpret that. But the actual Hebrew word is like a whole half. Like God took this human and split the human in half, and the other half was Eve from Adam. Like, yeah, I like that. That's cooler and more beautiful.

B (28:47)

And just to acknowledge something, rib is the word used in the King James Version of the Bible, which we use. It's our primary Bible as a church. In the last couple weeks, the church has sent out several messages, likely in anticipation of what we're studying this in the Old Testament, citing other translations of the Bible, like the NIV or the esv, the English Standard Version that you can also use as well. I like a version called the New King James that preserves a lot of the language, but in sometimes more archaic terminology like this modernizes it. So, yeah, I mean, when you're studying the Old Testament this year, there's nothing wrong with opening up another Bible and taking a look at it and just comparing, understanding that the early saints of the Restoration use the King James Bible. And that's what the Book of Mormon quotes in the Doctrine and Covenants primarily, too. And that's likely not going to change. So again, this is one case where a comparative study could be really helpful because rib makes it sound like a really small part of Adam. And the word selah actually denotes the side like this is not a little bit of him, but half of him. And this ties back to another symbolic lesson that they're trying to teach her, which is equality. Well, the classic theological interpretation, which is that the woman was taken from man's side. This is the way Matthew Henry would phrase it. Not from his head as in to rule over him, nor from his feet to be trampled on by him, but from his side, to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. This reinforces the concept of mutual partnership and shared substance. And what is this leading us to? The idea of the recognition of the institution of marriage between men and women. This narrative climaxes with Adam's declaration upon seeing the woman. This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman. The Hebrew word there is Isa, because she was taken out of man. ISS so this denotes and symbolizes companionship, that the creation of woman is preceded by the declaration, it's not good for ha Adam, for man to be alone. This demonstrates that man alone is incomplete and that woman is necessary. She's a suitable helper. And the word there, by the way, is ezer kandigo, and it's translated to King James as help meet, which makes it sound like she's his little helper. I've talked to David Seeley, who's down the hall from me, and said, is that the best way to translate it? He said, they should have put a comma in the middle. So instead of help meet, it was help, comma, meet, meaning equal to him, a help equal to his own powers, required for humanity for this human project to be labeled. Very good. And then that one flesh principle signifies the institution of marriage. By commenting on it actually says, therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. In other words, the whole creation sequence, the separation from a single hadam, one human, provides the narrative origin for this profound truth that marriage is the reunion of the divided human entity into a complementary, unified whole. So just to put this all together, the creation account in Genesis 2 is not about anatomy. If you take it literally, you're probably misunderstanding marriage. Most of the big lessons they wanted to learn. It's a theological manifesto on human nature, that we're a fragile mix of earth and divine breath, of dirt and the power and force of God. It's a reflection on gender equality and that men and women share the same source and the same substance. And on marriage, that the purpose of man and woman is to reunite as one flesh in a relationship of mutual, dependent companionship. So, again, if you're looking at it figuratively, you're going to get a lot more out of it than if you try to take it literally, which is going to set you up for conflicts with science.

A (33:01)

So is it accurate, then? When I say to my wife Sarah, I say, you complete me. Is that theologically accurate, then?

B (33:09)

It's not only accurate, it's really romantic. And you should learn to do it in sign language and all that good stuff. It's theologically accurate. Yes.

A (33:18)

Yes.

B (33:18)

But was Sarah literally, you know, ripped out of your rib or anything like that? No, they're speaking figuratively here.

A (33:25)

The theological implications are way better than trying to get that to sort of fit science, you know, that one's a beautiful example. I love it. So Genesis 2. One example. Let's do one more. Well, let's do a couple more. For our next example, let's do the flood of Noah. Okay, that's coming up in. Come Follow me. Pretty soon, people are going to be dealing with this. This is what Genesis 6 through 9. Okay? This is one of the richest examples of applying the principle of what we called earlier on theological historiography. It's kind of the fancy scholarly phrase for the way this is written. Okay? It's meant to do theology by telling a historical or like, air quotes, historical story. So remember in the. In the narrative, what trips people up scientifically is that it says that. That this flood happens and it submerges the whole earth underwater, even the highest mountains. Like, listen to this in Genesis 7, 19 and 20, quote. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered. All right? So scientists say, Casey, that a truly global flood covering the highest mountains, like Mount Everest is actually inconsistent with everything that we know about geology, hydrology, physics. Like, to put it simple, there is simply not enough water on Earth to actually cover the mountains, even if all the ice caps melt and everything. Like, there's not enough water on Earth, Earth to cover the mountains. Also, scientists say that the sudden disappearance of that amount of water could not happen scientifically. Right? So there again, another big one in the book of Genesis. Science versus religion. What do we do? We are going to recommend always and forever that you see scripture texts as the result of a human divine collaboration written by ancient authors, embedded in their own cultures, crafted by those authors primarily for the purpose of doing theology and not science. So when we do that with this story, what happens? It turns out the author is making some profound theological and covenantal statements here. For instance, remember how in Genesis 1, God separated the waters below from the waters above, and that the waters above were held back by the firmament? Well, it just so happens that in Genesis 7, verse 11, when the waters above, like, collapse in upon the waters below, what theologically is happening here? According to, like, I think the best scholarship on this, I'm thinking of people like John Walton. What's happening here is a reversal of the creation story, all right? That the windows of heaven breaking up, the fountains of the great deep unleashing. What's happening here is there's a dissolution, a dissolving happening between the boundaries that God established during the creation story in Genesis 1. Right. The text is communicating, in other words, a judgment scene of cosmic proportions. Chaos is coming back into the picture here. Remember how we went from Genesis 1, a picture of chaos, of tohu wabohu, into a picture of order and structure and purpose and function and functionaries in functional spaces. Remember this. That is all being undone in the flood story. Right. God is temporarily, in other words, unmaking the world. Why? Because of the sin of violence. That's the great crime. The world is getting so violent that God says, I am going to unmake creation. I'm going to undo what I did. So this idea of water covering the entire Earth and all the high mountains is this ancient, like, author's way of stressing the totality and the comprehensiveness of God's judgment. In other words, nothing was spared God's scrutiny. So there are some liberties being taken here as an author. Right. A literal flood that covers everything, Mount Everest included. That's just based on the author's understanding of the ancient cosmos. Right. And the need to communicate to the reader the absolute divine judgment that's going on here. Right. This is, again, not a modern scientific lesson on geography or hydrology or any of that. Right. So that's an important theological point here. The whole narrative structure of Genesis 7 is framed to convey this eternal truth about God's relationship with humanity. And in this case, it's not good. The human creatures that God has designed to be his image bearers and to reflect his goodness out to all creation, they have gone like nuts. They have started to kill each other in awful ways. And God says, at that point, no, and reverses the creation and says, let's start again. Let's clean the slate and begin again. That's the redemptive side of this story. Right. Is this new beginning in Genesis chapter 8, where it pivots to God being merciful, not annihilating humanity, but saying, let's start over with a new Adam. Right? The new Adam, Noah and his family. So the narrative isn't meant to stay focused on God's anger, but it's about his ultimate choice to preserve life and to reset the creation story one more time. Where the floods recede, the land appears, then we go back to right waters above, waters below, and Noah and his family get to try again. God makes covenant with Noah. Right? Now we're seeing covenantal theology enter into this, right? Salvation is a gift bestowed by God's grace, and it's something that is achieved through covenant here. So there's lots of overtones here. The covenant overtone here. Remember that we talk about the rainbow as a symbol of God's covenant to not do that kind of destruction again. And it's also an expression of God's hope for humanity that we can actually figure it out this time, which, spoiler alert, we don't things will get worse again. In the Old Testament, it's this negative cycle of doing the thing God told us not to do, which we find out does not work and only leads to horrible consequences. But when we covenant with God and try to actually, like, do things God's way, things end up working out really well. That story doesn't really fully come together until Jesus. But, you know, we're getting ahead of ourselves here. So anyway, that's kind of an extended example that the story of the flood, like the facts of the story where you have this single family surviving, There's a big ark, a big boat, there's these animals, you know, two and two of every species, which, again, scientifically not really possible. There's like 7 million species on the earth, and for all them to fit in a little boat, not gonna happen, even a big boat. But the idea of the comprehensive destruction, like all of these are amplified by the author, the ancient author, who's embedded in their own concept, context, in their own cosmic worldview to deliver the absolute theological truth that God is a judge, that God alone saves, that God alone establishes the rules for creation and renewed creation, that God also covenants with his children in order to try to help them, and his mercy is persistent with us. He's not going to scrap the whole creation purposes of the earth altogether. Other without trying again to work with humanity. So these theological points are really what's happening in the midst of this story, which has details that are not scientific. Cayce. But the historical details serve this transcendent message about God's goodness, his mercy, and his willingness to try again when his creatures don't always get it right the first time.

B (41:45)

Yeah, and I'll just add that as long as you accept that the primary intent of the story is to teach theological truths, then you can take the scientific aspects of the story whatever direction you want. I know some people have posited that this was a localized flood, but that it literally happened. I know some church members and leaders have posited that it was a worldwide flood, that it was a kind of baptism of the entire world. That's okay. The spiritual truth here is renewal, rebirth, and restarting, essentially. And the exact precise details of the flood aren't as important as what God is trying to communicate through the covenant that he makes with Noah. And the idea that we're resetting and restarting again, like you said, it's meant deliberately to kind of interact with the creation story as a decree. Creation story to show the sovereignty and power of God. So that's one of those ones, that is probably also best appreciated if you're looking at it figuratively. But there might be literal elements to it. And you're welcome to play in that sandbox if you want to just appreciate the lesson that's trying to be learned here. Like we mentioned in our last episode, one of the tools that's helpful in reading the Scriptures is knowing the genre. For instance, we might mentioned before that Genesis 1:10 is. What was the word we used? Theological historiography. Theological historiography, which I like to sum it up by that great N.T. wright quote where he just says, Genesis 1:10 is the old Testament's Old Testament. It's going all the way back, it's explaining things. But around Genesis 11, it seems like the genre might shift a little bit. It starts talking in terms of concrete locations, places, places that you can go to today and visit. And it seems like the genre shifts towards less theological historiography and more just genuine history mixed in with theology as well. The Scriptures testify that Abraham is a literal person that lived. Abraham is mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants, for instance, as being exalted. Jesus speaks about Abraham like he's a real person. Section 138, Joseph F. Smith's vision of the spirit world talks about Abraham being there, also Adam and Eve. So we would say Even if Genesis 1:10 are theological historiography, we do believe there were people like Adam and Eve and Noah. It's just that the stories are told primarily figuratively to teach spiritual lessons. So there can still be symbolic or figurative elements within these stories. And I. And we need to be comfortable with that idea too, even if after Genesis 11, we're shifting towards a more literal reading of the Scriptures. For instance, Scott, this is one story that I have always wondered over, because it's about Jacob, who. The Scriptures talk about Jacob in very literal terms. And all the stuff we just said about Abraham, Jacob was a real person, but grandson of Abraham, grandson of Abraham. I'm going to give you a story. I'm just going to read it and then let's talk about is this figurative? Is this literal? Or how does it fit? Okay, so this is from the 32nd chapter of Genesis. And the context here is that Jacob thinks that his brother Esau is coming to kill him and his entire family, and he is rightly very worried about it. So it says this Starting in verse 24, Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the Hollow of his thigh. And the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint as he wrestled with him. And he said, let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go except thou bless me. And he said unto them, what is thy name? And he said, jacob. And he said, thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, for as a prince thou hast power with God and men and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked and said, tell me, I pray thee, thine name. And he said, wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel. For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. So, Scott, is that story literal or figurative or. A little bit of both. What do you think?

A (46:05)

Holy cow. So did Jacob actually wrestle with an.

B (46:08)

Angel who broke his.

A (46:11)

Broke his.

B (46:11)

Broke his thighs? Yeah. Yeah.

A (46:13)

Okay.

B (46:14)

Or knocked it out of joint, at least, is what the text says.

A (46:17)

Right. Okay. Knocked it out of joint. And then. Then. Then Jacob gets a blessing from that angel where his name is changed to Israel at a place called Peniel, which. What does that mean? The face of God. He saw the face of God there. Something.

B (46:32)

Yeah, yeah. That's what it states right in the text. Yeah.

A (46:35)

I don't think that's literal. That's where my. That's my. My instinct is. I don't think he really did that. I think anyone who wants to grapple with an angel is going to find themselves always on the losing side of that mat. But also in my theology, Casey, is Joseph Smith talking about how disembodied spirits or spirits who have not yet had bodies minister sometimes to mankind. But angels would be resurrected beings who you could actually touch. But there is no resurrection yet. But, you know, when Jake. When this story's playing out, because he's, you know, a long time before Jesus. So there's no resurrection, therefore no physical angels who could, you know, actually wrestle with him. But on the other hand, in the Old Testament, sometimes the word angel is just used to mean like a messenger. It could be a. Could be a mortal messenger from God. So in that case, there could have been a wrestling where Jacob engaged with a mortal messenger from God. But I don't know. The whole story is kind of weird. And so whenever a story is kind of weird, I think that we're trying to get at some theological point that the author felt like was going to be clear to those in his day. But culturally, we are so far distant from them at this point that it's harder for us to pick up the message. So that's kind of where I land on that. What do you think?

B (48:05)

I think this is one story where we can say it has literal and figurative elements altogether. Right. For instance, Jacob was a real person. And I think this incident with Esau really happened. It's spoken of in those kind of concrete terms. On the other hand, if an angel shows up, I don't think you should tackle them and hold them down until they give you a blessing. I don't quite think that's how it works. But I do love the idea of wrestling with God. The late, great president Russell M. Nelson pointed out that his new name, Israel, literally means may God prevail. And that the idea that you have to work and struggle. And I love the symbolism of the idea of wrestling. I come from a little town in central Utah Delta, where we have. I think we've won state in basketball twice, but we've won state in wrestling almost 40 times. And so every kid in Delta when I was growing up had to learn wrestling. And the thing about wrestling that I learned, and by the way, I was never very good at it. I just want to shout out to all the great wrestlers I knew in high school was that it takes every part of your being. Like you are using your neck muscles and your arm muscles and your leg muscles and everything you can can when you are wrestling. It's not like basketball, where it's primarily running and dribbling. It is a whole investment. And so I'm going to say that there was some kind of divine encounter there. Moses, in writing this particular story in Genesis, felt like wrestling was the best way to capture what was happening and may have even put in those elements like Jacob's hip going out of joint or holding the angel down to try and convey this idea that blessings don't always come easy, that you have to wrestle with God for them, but that when they come, you're reborn, you're given a new name, you symbolically start a new portion of your life. So this is my sterling example of a story where we can't just say, oh, it's figurative. And we can't just say, oh, it's all literal. The best approach is to say it contains elements of both because it's trying to convey the story, spiritual truth, that we wrestle with God to obtain the blessings that we need, that God is trying to help us understand and know that becoming like him and gaining the blessings of exaltation is going to be a wrestle. It's going to test us and try us and cause us to strain with every fiber of our being.

A (50:29)

Yeah. Israel, you can interpret that as President Nelson said, to mean let God prevail, but you can also interpret that to mean. Mean he who wrestles with God. Like, both of those are actually fair translations. And it's interesting if you think back backwards, like you said, the context is Esau was coming, and Jacob thought he was coming to wipe his brother out. He thought he was coming to wipe him out. Right. And this is Jacob, who, by the way, stole a blessing from Esau. Right. And this is a moment, a pivotal moment of reversal. Right. Where Jacob is actually winning a blessing from God, maybe symbolizing that he no longer needs to steal blessings from his family. Like, he now has a. Has a direct connection with God in some way. Something happened. Something happened at Penuel, which created in Jacob a connection with God where he's. He's actually struggled with, wrestled with God, earned a blessing or got a blessing by God's grace, and he now no longer has that need to steal. And I don't know, there's something interesting there, I think, worth probing. And by the way, when Esau meets him, he doesn't wipe out his family. It's embracing reconciliation. Yeah, it's a beautiful story of reconciliation.

B (51:50)

It's a great story. And again, it's a story that contains literal elements, figurative elements, and both are necessary to sort of appreciate the truth that God is trying to convey through the story.

A (52:03)

Okay, let's try one more example. Let's go to the New Testament. Okay. The New Testament, lots of miracles and lots of something. We don't see much in any other scripture, which is casting out of devils. Can we talk about that in Jesus ministry? Every time we read the New Testament together, I Students who will ask, who are sensitive to this idea of, like, ancient authors in their own culture, they'll ask, do you think what. What scripture calls the devil possession in the New Testament, we would call today, like, mental illnesses. I always think it's a fascinating question because I like what they're doing. They're trying to, like, say, okay, I'm going to be compassionate to the scripture author. Devil possession is not something that we really experience or see very often in our own experience, maybe ever. And so what is that?

B (52:53)

What.

A (52:54)

What would they call devil possession? And so I like to go with them a little bit on that. But sometimes I'll read a story like this, like in Mark, chapter one. I'll say, all right, let's. Let's think about that. But with this story, Mark 1, verse 23, there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, saying to Jesus, let us alone. What have we to do with thee? Thou Jesus of Nazareth, art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, hold thy peace and come out of him. And when the unclean spirit had torn him and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. And they were all amazed in so much that they question among themselves, saying, what thing is this? Etc. I'll shoot that at my students sometimes and say, what do you think? Is that mental illness? Or maybe an actual life, like in this case, cluster of evil spirits. Right. This, this. If this is mental illness, it's talking back to Jesus and it's saying, we know who you are. We know that you're the Holy One of God, and we know that, you know, like, you're dangerous to us. Have you come to destroy us? And. And so that that particular story doesn't really feel like mental illness. That. That seems like actual spirit possession. Right?

B (54:09)

Yeah. And. And honestly, the. The way this is written, written, and knowing the genre, which is historical narrative here, I would say this entire passage is literal, that there literally was a person possessed by evil spirits, that Jesus spoke to the evil spirits, and Jesus cast out the evil spirits. And this is one place where I would say, yes, this isn't super common in our time, but in Jesus time. Yeah. In the early history of the Restoration. Yeah. There were even a couple times on my mission when I felt like I may have run into this kind of thing. So I would say to take it literally, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that in other places in the narrative, they're using evil spirits as sort of a representation for something they didn't understand, which was mental illness or mental handicaps or disabilities. For example, same writer. Let's go to mark nine and let's start in verse 17. Okay. One of the multitude answered and said, master, I have brought unto thee, my son, which hath a dumb spirit. Wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him, and he foameth, and he gnasheth his teeth and pineth away, and they brought him unto him. And when he saw him, straightway, the spirit tear him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming. And he asked his father, how long, long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said of a child, he's been this way since he was a child, and ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire and into the waters to destroy him. But if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us. Jesus said unto them, if thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out and said with tears, lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief. When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto them, thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried and rent him sore and came out of him. And he was as one dead, insomuch that many said he is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. So literal, figurative, or both. What do you think?

A (56:22)

I think that's a great counterexample. Like in this case. Let's just think about this theologically. Like, are we okay with the theological idea that evil spirits can enter into children? He said this. Father said this. My son's been like this ever since he's been a child. Evil spirits enter into the children, making them foam and gnash and throw themselves into the fire or into water, wallowing on the ground, foaming at the mouth. Is that something, Something that God allows? Does God allow Satan to have that kind of power over children? I think we, in the Restoration, we would have to say no from a lot of doctrine that we have in the Doctrine and Covenants, right? So this could be an example of an ancient writer mark, in this case, writing a story, something that literally happened. And their assumptions were, this kid is possessed by a devil. Because how else do you explain this today? We might explain that as a mental illness. We might explain this as something was going on in his brain, some pieces weren't working right. And this kid was. I mean, right. And Jesus healed that. He healed it using the assumptions of the time. He said, come out of him, thou dumb and deaf spirit. I charge thee, come out of him. He's using the same language that he uses in casting out devils. But this one feels different to me. This one feels like this. That could be an ancient, ancient person wrestling with the idea of, like, mental illness with my kid. And Jesus healed that, too.

B (57:56)

I don't know if we even have to go so far as to say this was figurative. It sounds like they're literally describing what was said and done. But it speaks towards the language being written in the language of the time and according to the understanding of the people where they're not going to say this kid has mental illness, this kid's schizophrenic, or whatever possible mental ailment this could be, they just interpret it as saying he's possessed by a dumb spirit that doesn't allow him to speak and that's causing him physical harm. So again, this is another great example where you can get the most out of it by accepting the literal elements of the scripture, but also accepting that it was written according to their time. And some parts of the story might not be literally describing what they're describing. It's them trying to relate what mental illness looked like in the first century.

A (58:49)

A.D. and the broader theological point, I got to point out that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all seem to be doing with these devil possession stories is to show that Jesus's kingdom is greater than the kingdom of the devil. That's theologically, they're pointing out that a new king has arrived. And so the kingdom of the devil needs to go. Like, that's one of the like major points Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are making. When Jesus announces that the kingdom of God is at hand and he starts teaching the gospel of the kingdom and he starts giving keys of the kingdom, he calls them in Matthew 16, like he is, he is setting up his kingdom in a way that the devil's kingdom needs to take note of. And anytime they clash, Jesus always triumphs over the clash between those two kingdoms. So that's a huge point that comes up again and again Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are making. So today we might say, yeah, we're some of those mental illness, not devils. Sure. But that doesn't matter to the theological point that they are trying to make. Right. That's the key thing.

B (59:52)

Yeah. And if you read it too literally, you might lose the power of knowing that Jesus can heal mental illness. If you. That's what this young man was suffering from. If you read it too allegorically, you're just going to say, well, it didn't really happen in the first place. And you'll lose the belief that Jesus can still miraculously heal people of both physical and mental ailments even in our time, that there's still literal miracles like this one that happen from time to time. That was fun. We went through a couple scriptural story problems and you might have notice that we also haven't completely solved the problem of when scripture is literal and when it's figurative. We might not even be meant to solve that right now. Like if a guy like Joseph Fieldy McConkie who was very devoted to the scriptures, couldn't solve the question. I wasn't expecting us to in this hour long of the podcast. But nevertheless, the truth remains that we can find principles and truths in the scriptures that guide us and help us in a very literal way. And knowing the genre of the scriptures and the way it was written as a divine human collaboration can help us understand how to reconcile the Scriptures with modern science as well. These are both intertwined approaches to truth, and they can both help us find out what we need to know to navigate our lives down here on Earth.

A (61:11)

We have tried to demonstrate imperfectly on this episode that if you think about the script scriptures as primarily doing theology, you're starting on the right foot. Like, even if it's going to be, you know, difficult as to, was that mental illness or not? Or, or is Jacob really touching? Like, like wrestling with an angel, he's really getting his thigh put out a joint. Like, like, those are, those are interesting modern questions, but, like, start with theology in mind. First question, what is, what is the author saying theologically, like, about how God works in the world, about what God is doing with his people covenantally in terms of enacting mercy upon people that don't seem to deserve it. For instance, in the New Testament case of God's kingdom, supremacy over the kingdom of the devil, like, look for those big theological themes first. And then I think you, you're, you're more situated to, I think, engage the text in a healthy, responsible way and to leave those scientific questions off to the side because the authors aren't trying to do science. That's the point we're trying to illustrate here.

B (62:22)

And this isn't to diminish the importance of scripture or the importance of science, just to point out that they're different tools meant to accomplish different tasks. That that's one of the best ways to reconcile the. Is to just recognize what they're for and what they do. And I will preview our next episode. We're going to have a guest with us, Jamie Jensen, who specializes in this area of epistemology, of finding truth, using science and using faith. And we're going to talk to someone who is a professional scientist about how she lives in both worlds and even finds common ground between the two that can help her navigate her life and find her way forward. So that'll be next time, next episode.

A (63:04)

That'll be fun. Dr. Jamie Jensen, and we've already quoted her in a couple, a couple times in our previous episodes. But, yeah, super excited to talk to her. She actually is an expert on all this stuff, and so that'll be fun.

B (63:18)

Okay, well, until next time. We'll see you then, Scott.

A (63:21)

All right. We'll see you, Casey. Thanks, man.

B (63:22)

Be safe.

A (63:27)

Sa.