Do you believe the Flood was a historical event?

[Zenkai]

I personally think it was probably historical.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I voted that it is symbolic, though to me it’s a very puzzling subject, and I’m not very confident about what little understanding I think I have about it. Certainly there seems to be no physical evidence for a world-wide flood, though it’s possible to imagine very complex scenarios in which the physical evidence and the idea of an actual world-wide flood could be reconciled.

Also, it might not be a true either/or. The story of the Fall found in Genesis seems to be highly symbolic, and yet it also seems represent an actual event at the start of human history.

 

[Allamanda]

I think that a great flood has been mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh as well (Sumerian) as well as some other early writings from the area (not certain about these). So there probably was some major flood in the area?

 

[triumphguy]

How about: I don’t know?

 

[stephe1987]

Both.

I think there was some sort of flood, but a global flood seems to be highly unlikely according to geologists.

 

[Zenkai]

What exactly would “geological evidence” look like from a global flood that occurred 4500 years ago?

 

[Moore11]

Both.

I think there was some sort of flood, but a global flood seems to be highly unlikely according to geologists.

I think this is probably the most likely. A flood in the cradle of civilization at the time.

 

[Moore11]

What exactly would “geological evidence” look like from a global flood that occurred 4500 years ago?

well if you are talking about a worldwide flood, a whale carcass on a high hillside in the alps would be helpful.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I would say no.

Scientifically, it’s far too unlikely.

There’s only one good reason to believe the flood was historical and that is because it’s in the Bible. However, we know this about the Bible:

-Many of the books of the Bible were not intended to be historical accounts.

-While Biblical authors were highly intelligent people, they did not share our historiography. So even if something was intended to be an historical writing it is not necessarily trustworthy as one (though it may certainly be trustworthy for edification.) For example, an ancient historian might write history based on what they think should have happened, or, what they think *could * have happened based on their educated guesses about the personalities of those involved… even if doing so means they have to “invent” events that probably didn’t happen. Modern historians do not treat the subject quite like this.

I think that a great flood has been mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh as well (Sumerian) as well as some other early writings from the area (not certain about these). So there probably was some major flood in the area?

Actually, if I recall, there were great flood myths all around the world. I’m thinking it’s due to either: 1) lack of understanding of just how big the “entire world” is (so that local floods get recorded as if they covered the whole planet), and/or 2) a common symbol related to man’s unconscious. Many symbols (or in this case, symbolic stories) were shared between cultures far before they ever interacted. Examples would include the construction of pyramids in Africa and South America, or the use of a symbol like the cross (which is basically the easiest symbol to make - just draw one line and another line intersecting it, not to mention it’s connection to the sun and so on)

 

[LumenGent]

Seeking an answer from Geologists is tantamount to gaining one about the Big bang from Astronomers. The fact of the matter is that Science can’t provide us with any explanation. Also keep in mind that whatever science proposes, will be largely fueled by an atheistic sentiment.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Seeking an answer from Geologists is tantamount to gaining one about the Big bang from Astronomers. The fact of the matter is that Science can’t provide us with any explanation. Also keep in mind that whatever science proposes, will be largely fueled by an atheistic sentiment.

That approach seems to be working perfectly for doctors. When it’s time for an exam, they don’t throw you out the door and say, “Well, I’m sure if there’s anything wrong with you that God will just handle it, so why are you coming to me?” Yet many (if not most) doctors practice some religion or another.

A theistic approach to geological inquiry would undermine the entire endeavor.

 

[Farsight001]

well if you are talking about a worldwide flood, a whale carcass on a high hillside in the alps would be helpful.

If you’re thinking of a recent, non-fossilized one, perhaps. Better evidence would be like a singular unit of shale or slate that covers nearly the entire land surface of the planet, among other things. That is, of course, an oversimplification. There’s a lot more that could happen, but it gets complicated quick.

As for me, I say there was a large, regional flood in the middle east that would have appeared to cover the whole world to someone who lived thousands of years ago, which there is geologic evidence for, but not a truly global flood.

 

[oyaji]

Well since it has ALWAYS been taught as being a historical event; I believe it was.

 

[Farsight001]

Well since it has ALWAYS been taught as being a historical event; I believe it was.

Since when has the Church taught that it was a historical event?

 

[oyaji]

Since when has the Church taught that it was a historical event?

Are you serious? I mean…really?

The Church Fathers were virtually unanimous in their support of a historical world wide flood which compels us to accept the flood as historical; despite what atheistic scientists have to say.

 

[Farsight001]

Seeking an answer from Geologists is tantamount to gaining one about the Big bang from Astronomers. The fact of the matter is that Science can’t provide us with any explanation. Also keep in mind that whatever science proposes, will be largely fueled by an atheistic sentiment.

Thank you for the most gracious insult towards me, my friends, and my peers in the geologic field.

 

[Farsight001]

Are you serious? I mean…really?

The Church Fathers were virtually unanimous in their support of a historical world wide flood which compels us to accept the flood as historical; despite what atheistic scientists have to say.

Yes, I’m serious. And seeing as how the Church Fathers, however good and wise, were not infallible and as we all know made errors in their teachings, they are not the Church. I asked if the Church made it official, not for the personal opinions of Church Fathers. In addition, having read several Church Fathers, I can say that I have found no such literalistic statements as you imply. Not that it matters, again, of course, because I was talking about the Church in an official capacity declaring it historical. Since it’s not a matter of faith or morals, it can’t make such a statement in the first place.

Also, quit with the “atheistic scientists” crud. They’re scientists. Some of them believe in God and some of them don’t. Their religion or lack-there-of is irrelevant and not to be used as some Ad Hominem jab at the validity of science itself as you are using it to be.

 

[Marie_Anthony]

I’ve always had some major logic stumbling blocks about the Flood.

1. According to the relevant Bible passages, enough rain fell to cover the highest mountain on Earth. Okay, even if that wasn’t necessarily Everest, some of the mountains near the Middle East are still a couple miles high. So that means a couple miles of water covering the whole planet! I keep wondering: where did all that water come from within the forty days and nights that it rained, and where did all that water go within a year? Plus, that’s an awful lot of water pressure! A thought: does anyone on here know if that much water pressure would make rock formations look older than they are?
2. Just how long is a cubit? I’ve heard one description say a cubit is a dimension as long as a man’s forearm from elbow to fingertips. That would not make a very big ark, and cramming in a pair of all the animals in the world at the time begins to sound like one of the tasks of Hercules. I’ve heard another descriptions say a cubit represents the height of a man. Now, that would make for an ark the size of an aircraft carrier! That would lend more plausibility to getting all the animals on board. And that would have some explanation for the dinosaurs we don’t see anymore, thanks be to God.
3. There is no doubt that plate tectonics are a factor in how the continents are presently shaped and located, but was that always the case? There is fossil evidence to show that South America and Africa once dwelt cheek-by-jowl, so to speak. Is it possible that once upon a time, all land was in a single massive continent that was not plagued by earthquakes and volcanoes and such until after the Flood? That would mean the world as it was known then could have been covered in water to the highest mountain top, and then all the water would have somewhere to drain to. And maybe all that water pressure could have triggered all the forces of plate tectonics. It’s a hypothesis, but no more than that.

I think it’s far more important to bear in mind that the Bible uses many senses to convey Salvation History to us, the historical, mythical, and literary senses among them. How God did everything He did is not nearly so important as that He did it. Yes, all He does tends to be done within the framework that He’s set up for us in Creation, but what was the more important outcome of the Flood: that God brought about a gigantic swamping of the planet, or that very early on God selected and protected the people through who He Himself would eventually become Incarnate and walk among us and save us from the consequences of our sins?

I won’t deny that my family has fun discussing things like how the Flood would have affected the world or what mankind would be able to do (and might have done) if people lived for nine hundred years. But in the end, the most critical fact is that Christ died on the Cross to save us from our sins and that we worship Him at Mass.

 

[LumenGent]

That approach seems to be working perfectly for doctors. When it’s time for an exam, they don’t throw you out the door and say, “Well, I’m sure if there’s anything wrong with you that God will just handle it, so why are you coming to me?” Yet many (if not most) doctors practice some religion or another.

A theistic approach to geological inquiry would undermine the entire endeavor.

No it wouldn’t. Just so you know, there is a large part of the scientific community that is outright atheistic. Even if they could justify that the flood did occur (which they can’t), they definately would not want to lend any support to a Christian story.

My whole point is that it is a question that is within the domains of the Church to answer, not the scientific community. The same way that science can’t tell us whether the sin of Adam and Eve had taken place or not, they can’t state with certainty whether the flood happened or not.

 

[LumenGent]

Thank you for the most gracious insult towards me, my friends, and my peers in the geologic field.

I’m sorry you feel this way, but there is nothing in my intention nor my post which offends anybody in any shape or form.