Does the Catholic Church recognize the story of Noah and the flood as being literally true?

[catholic1seeks]

This could be of interest. It’s by Fr. William Most…

CHAPTER 9: THE BOOK OF GENESIS
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=6&chapnum=10&id=1879&repos=7&subrepos=0&searchid=544465

The Babylonian story is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and probably goes back to at least 2000 B.C. In both stories, there is a hero who is to be saved - Noah in Genesis, Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh. Each is told to build an ark, with detailed specifications. Then comes the cataclysm. The ark finally rests on a tall mountain. Both Noah and Utnapishtim release series of birds to see if the water has gone down. Each account mentions a dove and a raven. Each hero offers sacrifice, but there are great differences: The biblical flood is a punishment for sin; there is no motive given by the gods in the Babylonian version, it is mere caprice. In the Babylonian text, the gods cowered in fear of the flood. When Utnapishtim offered sacrifice after the flood, they came down and “swarmed like flies” around the sacrifice - the gods needed sacrifices for food. The gods admit Utnapishtim to the ranks of the gods, he becomes immortal. (The complete text of the Gilgamesh epic can be found in Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, University of Chicago, 1949.

**We do not know the relation of the two. Perhaps the writer of Genesis took the Babylonian account, purified it of polytheistic elements, and used it. On the other hand, the two accounts could have been independent accounts of a historical flood. **

But there are new discoveries today, which make the deluge certain. A high pentagon official told me he had been permitted to see high resolution photos taken from our satellite, which show the ark up on Mt. Ararat. At some seasons is it largely covered with snow. He told me further the army had sent soldiers up to the ark. They had entered it, had seen the animal stalls, and had founds its measurements are those found in Genesis.

Another set of claims is this: The Turkish government today has set up a Noah’s Ark Park farther down. Ron Wyatt and associates discovered there a buried ship, of the same measurements. Using subsurface radar --with trained expert operators-- he found there is a pattern of regularly occurring spots, which he takes to be metal brackets in a pattern of lines from stem to stern, and also going crossways.

There can be no reasonable doubt about the ark seen from space. What Wyatt found is something real, but different. Though not highly trained himself, he did employ radar specialists. He has published a video showing in detail the explorations and the results (Wyatt Archaeological Research, Nashville, TN).​

 

[catholic1seeks]

RESPONSE;

THe Hebrew story of Noah and the Flood was copied from a much older Sumarian legend of which two cruniform copies are extant.

The original in on the Web. ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

Tablet 11
O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.
Roof it over like the Apsu.
I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea:
'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered
I will heed and will do it.

Which seems to be OK:

However, our interest is other. The land of Sumer, between the Tigris and Euphrates, had annual floods in those times. To speak of the flood in such a context surely stands for a king sized flood.

The Babylonian story is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and probably goes back to at least 2000 B.C. In both stories, there is a hero who is to be saved - Noah in Genesis, Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh. Each is told to build an ark, with detailed specifications. Then comes the cataclysm. The ark finally rests on a tall mountain. Both Noah and Utnapishtim release series of birds to see if the water has gone down. Each account mentions a dove and a raven. Each hero offers sacrifice, but there are great differences: The biblical flood is a punishment for sin; there is no motive given by the gods in the Babylonian version, it is mere caprice. In the Babylonian text, the gods cowered in fear of the flood. When Utnapishtim offered sacrifice after the flood, they came down and “swarmed like flies” around the sacrifice - the gods needed sacrifices for food. The gods admit Utnapishtim to the ranks of the gods, he becomes immortal. (The complete text of the Gilgamesh epic can be found in Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, University of Chicago, 1949.

We do not know the relation of the two. Perhaps the writer of Genesis took the Babylonian account, purified it of polytheistic elements, and used it. On the other hand, the two accounts could have been independent accounts of a historical flood.

But there are new discoveries today, which make the deluge certain. A high pentagon official told me he had been permitted to see high resolution photos taken from our satellite, which show the ark up on Mt. Ararat. At some seasons is it largely covered with snow. He told me further the army had sent soldiers up to the ark. They had entered it, had seen the animal stalls, and had founds its measurements are those found in Genesis.

Another set of claims is this: The Turkish government today has set up a Noah’s Ark Park farther down. Ron Wyatt and associates discovered there a buried ship, of the same measurements. Using subsurface radar --with trained expert operators-- he found there is a pattern of regularly occurring spots, which he takes to be metal brackets in a pattern of lines from stem to stern, and also going crossways.

There can be no reasonable doubt about the ark seen from space. What Wyatt found is something real, but different. Though not highly trained himself, he did employ radar specialists. He has published a video showing in detail the explorations and the results (Wyatt Archaeological Research, Nashville, TN).
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=6&chapnum=10&id=1879&repos=7&subrepos=0&searchid=544465​

 

[SHW]

I never denied there is a covenant.

What do you think the covenant was/is in relation to if not the flood since the CCC states that there definitely is a covenant between God and Noah?

I believe the flood “story” since the Bible explains exactly why He made His covenant with Noah and the Church upholds this teaching about this covenant in her catechism. This was also, I believe (correct me if I’m mistaken), the first Biblical record of covenant relationship between God and man.

 

[JP_Marat]

How do you know that the Israelites/Jews “copied” the Sumerians?

The sons of Abraham/Israelites/Jews have their own written explanation for creation and many other events in human history, including the flood; and they claim that it was given to them by God and written down on scrolls by Moses who was chosen by God to do this task.

It really does not matter if the Sumerians have an earlier written record about a flood. As Christians, we only need to be concerned about our own written record about it: the Bible.

RESPONSE:

Even if were copied from a older legend with God substituted for Ea?

And if you do a little reading, you will find that Moses really didn’t write the Pentuarch. The reason, many of the events described occurred after his death.

 

[diggerdomer]

What do you think the covenant was/is in relation to if not the flood since the CCC states that there definitely is a covenant between God and Noah?

I believe the flood “story” since the Bible explains exactly why He made His covenant with Noah and the Church upholds this teaching about this covenant in her catechism. This was also, I believe (correct me if I’m mistaken), the first Biblical record of covenant relationship between God and man.

The covenant was/is between God and Noah. That’s an important/essential thing to take away from the witness in Scripture. Whether or not there was an actual flood and ark as literally described is, as I’ve said, left open. Similarly, we can disagree on the number of animals taken on board…there are different accounts in the narrative, we’re not obliged to take either one numerically literally.

 

[leitis]

RESPONSE:

Even if were copied from a older legend with God substituted for Ea?

And if you do a little reading, you will find that Moses really didn’t write the Pentuarch. The reason, many of the events described occurred after his death.

Perhaps I have things confused. I had thought that the Pentatuch consisted of the first 5 books, Genesis through to Deuteronomy, and that the last chapter of the last book was Moses’ death. Unless I have something wrong, how is it possible that events that the events in those books happened after he died? I can’t locate the passage at the moment, but I had thought that Moses was instructed to write down something (I can’t remember if it was just laws or laws and history) to be read every however-many years.

But that’s beside the point. I think there’s a lot of room for error in our analysis of events that far back in time. Just because one group has something recorded before another doesn’t mean they were the first ones to experience it. It only means they thought to write it down first. We can wonder and try to figure it out all we want., but chances are a lot of things are lost to time.

 

[diggerdomer]

Perhaps I have things confused. I had thought that the Pentatuch consisted of the first 5 books, Genesis through to Deuteronomy, and that the last chapter of the last book was Moses’ death. Unless I have something wrong, how is it possible that events that the events in those books happened after he died? I can’t locate the passage at the moment, but I had thought that Moses was instructed to write down something (I can’t remember if it was just laws or laws and history) to be read every however-many years.

But that’s beside the point. I think there’s a lot of room for error in our analysis of events that far back in time. Just because one group has something recorded before another doesn’t mean they were the first ones to experience it. It only means they thought to write it down first. We can wonder and try to figure it out all we want., but chances are a lot of things are lost to time.

Moses’ death is recounted in the opening verses of Deuteronomy 34. There are more verses in that chapter following his death. Also, of course, the whole book of Genesis recounts events before Moses was born so how or if he wrote that book (along with the narration of his own birth in the beginning of Exodus) may also be something to consider.

 

[adriancombe]

If so, how could that be? And please, not the ‘All things are possible through God’. If I’m to explain catholic theology to non-catholics, I’d better come better equipped than that.
And if not, on what basis is it considered allegorical and not true? Why would Noah’s story be false, and our original parents Adam and Eve be true?
How do you reconcile the similarities between the story of Noah and other ancient flood stories?
Any insight would be most helpful. Thanks!

I would say it is literal but some who state otherwise make good points. I think someone stated there is not that much water in the world and one said that no single boat (even by today’s standards) could hope to hold representatives of all animal and plant species on this blue green orb we call Earth.

An important consideration is source language vs translation. For instance, here is the lexical entry for the Hebrew word rendered ‘earth’.

אדמה 'adamah

1. ground, land
   a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
   b) piece of ground, a specific plot of land
   c) earth substance (for building or constructing)
   d) ground as earth’s visible surface
   e) land, territory, country
   f) whole inhabited earth
   g) city in Naphtali

So if you go with definition e) you cover two of the more serious logistical problems mentioned - while still allowing for the literal meaning.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

that story is from God, written by an inspired hand, and that is good enough for me.

“Inspired” =/= “history”

 

[crazzeto]

“Inspired” =/= “history”

What aspect of the story do you have a problem with? What aspet of this story, do you think the God of all creation, is incapable of. Please enumerate how this is impossible, thanks.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

What aspect of the story do you have a problem with? What aspet of this story, do you think the God of all creation, is incapable of. Please enumerate how this is impossible, thanks.

First, you’re asking the wrong questions. Your questions should be, “Why am I, crazzeto, so focused on whether or not this book is historical? Why aren’t I reviewing the book for its spiritual value?”

You’re even “pickin’ for a fight” on the history issue, sitting there, ready to pounce on someone who dares to infer that such a story might not be history “down to the jot and tittle.” Proof? Read Post #2 in this thread, especially this sentence: “Ironically, as unbelievable as it may seem, there may in fact have been a ‘world-drowning’ flood. There may have even been an ark.”

You’ve missed the point oif the story!!! It’s not about a flood and a great big boat with animals.

It’s about Christ, the salvation process and the Church.

If I believe that there masy have been a flood and even an ark, why did I write, ’ “Inspired” =/= “history” ’

Because sometimes the Holy Spirit writes fiction to teach theology.

You have no right to command God to write non-fiction only.

 

[crazzeto]

First, you’re asking the wrong questions. Your questions should be, “Why am I, crazzeto, so focused on whether or not this book is historical? Why aren’t I reviewing the book for its spiritual value?”

You’re even “pickin’ for a fight” on the history issue, sitting there, ready to pounce on someone who dares to infer that such a story might not be history “down to the jot and tittle.” Proof? Read Post #2 in this thread, especially this sentence: “Ironically, as unbelievable as it may seem, there may in fact have been a ‘world-drowning’ flood. There may have even been an ark.”

You’ve missed the point oif the story!!! It’s not about a flood and a great big boat with animals.

It’s about Christ, the salvation process and the Church.

If I believe that there masy have been a flood and even an ark, why did I write, ’ “Inspired” =/= “history” ’

Because sometimes the Holy Spirit writes fiction to teach theology.

You have no right to command God to write non-fiction only.

No I’m not, and no I’m not missing the point of the flood story. What I’m asking you is what part of that story is impossible for God. Please point out which part God can’t do. There is in fact a literal sense to that story, the CCC clearly states that the base sense, the senes on which all other senses are rooted in is in fact the literal sense. With out a literal sense you can not have a spirital sense, which is exactly what you are hoping for.

So if you would kindly answer, what part of the flood story is impossible for the God of all creation? And if the story is false, why does every culture on earth have an astonishingly similar flood story to tell?

 

[kamalayka9]

The Babylonian story is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and probably goes back to at least 2000 B.C.

That is false. There was ONE tablet found with the “epic of Gilgamesh” flood story 150 years ago. It was dated to around the** 11th century BC**.

 

[diggerdomer]

That is false. There was ONE tablet found with the “epic of Gilgamesh” flood story 150 years ago. It was dated to around the** 11th century BC**.

Just because that one tablet is dated to the 11th century doesn’t mean that is when the story originated. The earliest complete copy of the New Testament that we have is from 4th century A.D. but no one is claiming that is when the New Testament originated.

Most scholars do suggest that the Epic of Gilgamesh goes back to around 2000 B.C. (maybe earlier, maybe later).

 

[Peter_Dawson]

No I’m not, and no I’m not missing the point of the flood story. What I’m asking you is what part of that story is impossible for God. Please point out which part God can’t do. There is in fact a literal sense to that story, the CCC clearly states that the base sense, the senes on which all other senses are rooted in is in fact the literal sense. With out a literal sense you can not have a spirital sense, which is exactly what you are hoping for.

So if you would kindly answer, what part of the flood story is impossible for the God of all creation? And if the story is false, why does every culture on earth have an astonishingly similar flood story to tell?

Will you please calm down, friend.

I don’t think that you are reading my posts carefully.

Tell me, based on what I aleady wrote, do I or do I not probably believe that there was a flood and an ark?

 

[diggerdomer]

So if you would kindly answer, what part of the flood story is impossible for the God of all creation? And if the story is false, why does every culture on earth have an astonishingly similar flood story to tell?

I didn’t read any comment in this thread that suggested the flood story is impossible for God. I certainly agree it’s possible for God.

 

[crazzeto]

So what’s with all these people suggesting we can read this story in a purely spiritual sense? Even though we know, from the CCC that you can’t do this? Why are people trying to suggest that “well that couldn’t have happend, they stole it from the babalonians (or whoever else)”. Like I said before, I’d caution anyone against rationalizing their faith to the point of being irrational. Start with what it is you do beleive. Do you beleive God could do this? Then why do you have a problem believeing it happend? If you have a problem beleiving this happend, then do you truely beleive that this is possible with God?

Of course I am speaking here, of those who have or are teetering on totally rejecting the historicalness of this story. Even as a possiblility, just couldn’t have happend, no way no how… But oh yeah, I do beleive in Jesus, the resurection and that I’m saved. But hey, since I don’t choose to beleive the flood, then I guess I’ll also choose to selectivly not beleive the same Jesus I call God, that rose from the dead on the 3rd day after being crusified, could possibly have cleaned a leper. Or that he could have heald the blind. I know he couldn’t have done that, because I don’t see Dr’s today doing that by way of miricle.

You see where rationalization to the point of irrationality goes?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

So what’s with all these people suggesting we can read this story in a purely spiritual sense? Even though we know, from the CCC that you can’t do this? Why are people trying to suggest that “well that couldn’t have happend, they stole it from the babalonians (or whoever else)”. Like I said before, I’d caution anyone against rationalizing their faith to the point of being irrational. Start with what it is you do beleive. Do you beleive God could do this? Then why do you have a problem believeing it happend? If you have a problem beleiving this happend, then do you truely beleive that this is possible with God?

Of course I am speaking here, of those who have or are teetering on totally rejecting the historicalness of this story. Even as a possiblility, just couldn’t have happend, no way no how… But oh yeah, I do beleive in Jesus, the resurection and that I’m saved. But hey, since I don’t choose to beleive the flood, then I guess I’ll also choose to selectivly not beleive the same Jesus I call God, that rose from the dead on the 3rd day after being crusified, could possibly have cleaned a leper. Or that he could have heald the blind. I know he couldn’t have done that, because I don’t see Dr’s today doing that by way of miricle.

You see where rationalization to the point of irrationality goes?

You didn’t answer my simple little question with a simple little answer, friend-in-Christ.

 

[diggerdomer]

Start with what it is you do beleive.

I for one am starting with what I believe. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church does not teach that Catholics have to accept as historically true the story of the flood and the ark (among many similar examples in Scripture). Catholics are free to interpret it as historically true or not.

 

[donsnow]

RESPONSE;

THe Hebrew story of Noah and the Flood was copied from a much older Sumarian legend of which two cruniform copies are extant.

The original in on the Web. ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

Tablet 11
O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.
Roof it over like the Apsu.
I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea:
'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered
I will heed and will do it.

Hi, JP Marat and all -

Another poster has already mentioned the theological differences between the Genesis and Gilgamesh stories. I would like to point out the technological difference.
Following the first bold text of above, the dimensions of the boat are the length equal to its width, a 1:1 ratio.
When you read Gen 6, 15 we find that God says,"…the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits…", or a 6:1 ratio.
These are not the same vessel, their dimensions differ. So, imho, these are two different stories of the same event.

Also, yet another poster mentioned around 500 different stories of the flood.

I would like to add mho about allegorical meaning from the literal flood and ark story.
I can see Noah and the Ark as a type for other families and their animals on other ships from different climes with different animals.

I have read all of your posts. I am glad to discover the latitude the Church allows us in reading scripture. If one of this forums moderators, familiar with church teaching, would comment, I’ll accept correction if I’ve gone too far. And I would be humbled, if my views are not inappropriate with Church teaching.

God is love,
Don