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

[juliamajor]

1. Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently - to mention only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.
2. When then such modes of expression are met within the sacred text, which, being meant for men, is couched in human language, justice demands that they be no more taxed with error than when they occur in the ordinary intercourse of daily life. By this knowledge and exact appreciation of the modes of speaking and writing in use among the ancients can be solved many difficulties, which are raised against the veracity and historical value of the Divine Scriptures, and no less efficaciously does this study contribute to a fuller and more luminous understanding of the mind of the Sacred Writer.

40.ancient writers, as well as their manner and art of reasoning, narrating and writing. In this connection Catholic laymen should consider that they will not only further profane science, but moreover will render a conspicuous service to the Christian cause if they devote themselves with all due diligence and application to the exploration and investigation of the monumen Let those who cultivate biblical studies turn their attention with all due diligence towards this point and let them neglect none of those discoveries, whether in the domain of archaeology or in ancient history or literature, which serve to make better known the mentality of the ts of antiquity and contribute, according to their abilities, to the solution of questions hiobscuretherto .
41. For all human knowledge, even the nonsacred, has indeed its own proper dignity and excellence, being a finite participation of the infinite knowledge of God, but it acquires a new and higher dignity and, as it were, a consecration, when it is employed to cast a brighter light upon the things of God.

 

[juliamajor]

1. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

 

[dranzal]

The Gospels are accounts of the life of Jesus (God incarnate) written by two of His apostles, a follower of St. Peter (another apostle), and a follower of St. Paul.

It is illogical to maintain that the Bible is inerrant (which the Church teaches) and that words expressly attributed to Jesus are not to be taken as “Gospel truth”.

In other words, if a Gospel quotes Jesus as saying “ABC”, then the Church maintains that He did, in fact, say “ABC”.

Therefore, when Jesus references the “days of Noah” in His description of the end times, He is either:

1. Not quoted accurately. Let’s face it, everyone (self-proclaimed scholars) knows that Noah didn’t really exist and the Gospels can’t be considered reliable.
2. Referencing an inspired fairy tale. The numbskulls who populated the Middle East in Jesus’ day wouldn’t know any better. At least we do. For us, Jesus would have to use something more like “as in the days of Frodo.” That would be an interesting literary reference, but could only be taken as fictional. Jesus doesn’t sound like He’s doing this. I don’t think He was trying to confuse His followers.
3. Referencing a real, historical event. If anyone would know the conditions at the time of Noah, He would.

That…and the fact that an entire COVENANT between GOD and His creatures is based on NOAH, something which would have little significance if NOAH didn’t exist. It’d be like talking about the great covenant between God and Frodo; God and Cinderella; God and Optimus Prime. Anyone speaking of such “covenants” seriously should be quickly dismissed.

 

[twinc]

---

III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

This I do,as a matter of course,as best as I can so this must apply to you and some others who might not and do not,so guess who has got a problem - twinc

 

[diggerdomer]

It is illogical to maintain that the Bible is inerrant (which the Church teaches) and that words expressly attributed to Jesus are not to be taken as “Gospel truth”.

In other words, if a Gospel quotes Jesus as saying “ABC”, then the Church maintains that He did, in fact, say “ABC”.

Where does the Church teach these? I don’t think the Church uses “inerrancy” at least not in the manner it may have been previously. As has been posted, see CCC 107 for the Church’s statement on the truth of the Bible.

Also see for example this sentence from the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels”:

For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense

 

[itinerant1]

Hi, intinerent -

Oh, my, what a way to start my day.

You are entitled to your opinions about me and my thoughts. I"m entitled to my opinion of logic without love or faith. Your opinions follow the majority of reputable Catholic Scholars is your defense. Nevertheless, the Holy Bible and the CCC present the Deluge as having happened. Maybe you ought to investigate the minority interpretations of Catholic Bible scholars.

My interpretation of Genesis stems from NT quotes by Jesus Christ. He’s the authority for my interpretation.
I didn’t know I came across as speaking for God. God’s side of the story, imho, is based upon His faithfulness, truthfulness, Majesty, mercy, powers etc. So, you speak for the scholars and I’ll speak about God and His side of the story.

Now, I’d like to agree to disagree. I’m not going to argue this, anymore.

That’s fine. The Catholic Catechism actually says nothing to the contrary regarding the interpretation I presented. Clearly, you cannot support your position with reasonable argument, facts, or reputable Catholic authorities on Biblical exegesis.

Cheerio!

 

[MonFrere]

(Mat 24:37-42) But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Is Jesus, in this statement, saying that the flood was geographically universal? NO He is simply taking a point out of the story and relating it to “the coming of the Son of man”. His point is to take this point from the scriptures concerning Noah’s flood – WATCH THEREFORE …

We - IMO - are assuming that Jesus believes what we have assumed to be the message of the scripture because of our natural inclination to take things literally – that the flood was a literal fact in man’s history. When you believe this, NEVER having been questioned or challenged on this point, and someone comes along and says – this may not, in fact, be a literal historical fact, or at least not as we imagined – we go back on all our assumptions - such as Jesus believed in the flood; so, that’s enough for me. And, humanly, to go against that mindset, is to go against our belief in God. So, we are mentally behind the “eight-ball” and cannot consider the challenge.

This, combined with a theological climate of scholarship that is deficient and suspect in certain regards, and stated as such by Pope Benedict - make it very difficult to give the time of day to these “crazy ideas”. HOWEVER – I’ve also read Pope Benedict and the writings of those like him … and I find, even though they readily see limitations is certain approaches to theology, 1) do not reject ALL OF IT and 2) write and clearly state what can and cannot be accepted and 3) support such ideas by writing how to understand Noah’s flood - cosmology - evolution etc.

There are different ways people take this information above. The most radical way is to say we have no legitimate pope. Some will not go to this extreme but will say the church is on the verge of going off the deep end into apostasy. Some will not go quite that far but say the Church is being severely tested. Some will be a bit more positive and say that we “over interprete” these papal statements and writings saying they do not mean what they seem to say. And some will say - no, these writings are pretty straight forward and they mean what they state. Of course, there are always people who will believe anything - but I enjoy the statement of Pope John Paul II who said – “Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn’t misuse it.” And, to end this with a touch of myth, in one form or another we must remember that sage for the dim Forrest Gump – that great mythical creation of Hollywood – who said STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES.

MonFrere

 

[juliamajor]

This I do,as a matter of course,as best as I can so this must apply to you and some others who might not and do not,so guess who has got a problem - twinc

ah, yes smarminess is next to Godliness!
You in fact don’t do what the documents called for. and you try again the smoke and mirrors switcheroo-apparently you can’t debate without trying to degrade or humilate your opponent.saying “so’s your old man” to an opponent makes as much sense as you retort.
let’s make this simple.

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

which has all been said by me and others . What did the sacred author mean when he wrote those words?You have to go back in time to a specific culture , land and time to discern what is being said,and why they are saying it.-that’s it.

 

[SHW]

It would interesting if you presented some real facts to support you interpretation. Just because the Bible has subsequent references to the Deluge and Noah is not conclusive proof that the genus litterarium is historical. In fact there are many Biblical references to events and things in other parts of Scripture that are parables, pre-scientific cosmological notions, and so on. When Christ, St. Paul, or various Old Testament writers speak of Noah and the Flood, there are referring to the true religious and moral message of the story. Hence, your fundamentalist interpretation is dry docked…

Almost all scientists realize that seashells on land, including mountain tops are not necessarily a sign of a flood. There are other known causes which you probably don’t know about because you haven’t studied geology. You haven’t shown that you have any awareness of the kinds of geological evidence that are genuine indications of deep flooding. Nor have you researched the issue from reliable sources.

You only pick websites that agree with your opinion. However, there are actually compelling objections to every one of your points. You have not even consulted the Catholic Encyclopedia. The 1913 edition is very conservative and many of its articles do not reflect, of course, later advances in Biblical exegesis or scientific discoveries.

Yet, what does the this older Catholic Encyclopedia say about the idea of a literal, historical universal flood? Let me quote:

" III. UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE.—The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:

"(I) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned. Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth."

++++++

My gosh! **“The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned.” **Is the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia modernist, also. Here is the link to the page right here on Catholic Answers: Deluge

Will you now say, too, that the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong, as well, because it does not agree with your fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible?

Just wait till I hit you with some quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger. I want to see you reply that Ratzinger is free to believe whatever he chooses. Sorry, but I’m saving the very best event for last.

Go ahead and . I will continue to believe that the flood happened. Was it a localized flood of the then known whole world? That I cannot answer.

You do not have any problem finding websites that agree with your own views either.

As far as the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is concerned:

…Moreover, the Fathers regarded the ark and the Flood as types of baptism and of the Church; this view they entertained not as a private opinion, but as a development of the doctrine contained in I Peter, iii, 20 sq. Hence, the typical character of both ark and Flood belongs to the “matters of faith and morals” in which the Tridentine and the Vatican Councils oblige all Catholics to follow the interpretation of the Church… oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Deluge

 

[diggerdomer]

Go ahead and . I will continue to believe that the flood happened. Was it a localized flood of the then known whole world? That I cannot answer.

You do not have any problem finding websites that agree with your own views either.

As far as the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is concerned:

But the Church didn’t stop teaching in 1913.

The current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (2nded. Detroit: Gale, 2003.) has an entry on “Flood” (no entry on “Deluge”) that includes:

The composite character of the Biblical account and the variations in details within the Mesopotamian accounts suggest that no one of these is an account of a particular historical flood.

and

The scientific or historical accuracy of the biblical narrative, measured by modern human standards, is irrelevant to the accounts’ abiding theological significance.

 

[SHW]

But the Church didn’t stop teaching in 1913.

The current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (2nded. Detroit: Gale, 2003.) has an entry on “Flood” (no entry on “Deluge”) …

No, it didn’t.

But, this still does not mean that the flood/deluge never happened. Like I said, we each have free will to believe what we desire, regardless whether what we each believe is true or not.

Some people believe that all Scripture is fable and that it was specifically written to deceive the gullible.

After all, they reason, surely it is only the gullible who believe that the Son of God (for the sake of argument, if there is One) could and would ever become a man and die on a cross in order to reconcile us to God. And, not only that, these gullible people actually believe that He chose to die in order to reconcile us, because thousands of years earlier, just one man committed one sin which then alienated all mankind from this God and the gates of heaven were closed because of this one sin by this one man.

And, also they say, that no one except the extremely gullible believes that it is possible for a person to actually eat the flesh and blood of this God.

They even admit that a worldwide flood, even if it occurred strictly because of natural causes such as a large direct comet hit which shifted the axis of the earth for a time, that this sounds a whole lot more plausible than these “strange” beliefs about a God.

 

[twinc]

ah, yes smarminess is next to Godliness!
You in fact don’t do what the documents called for. and you try again the smoke and mirrors switcheroo-apparently you can’t debate without trying to degrade or humilate your opponent.saying “so’s your old man” to an opponent makes as much sense as you retort.
let’s make this simple.

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

which has all been said by me and others . What did the sacred author mean when he wrote those words?You have to go back in time to a specific culture , land and time to discern what is being said,and why they are saying it.-that’s it.

so God being God set out to make it difficult or impossible for most to read or search the Bible and remain ignorant of scriptures which speak of Him and so remain ignorant of Him for ignorance of scriptures is ignorance of Christ and not know that these things are written so that we may believe and believing have eternal life or know that all scripture,inspired of God,is profitable to teach,to reprove,to correct,to instruct[2Tim.3:16] - all this is saying is at better said by Pope Leo XIII and Proventissimus Deus and Verbum Dei and the Catechism etc - for one cannot and does not contradict the other - twinc

 

[juliamajor]

so God being God set out to make it difficult or impossible for most to read or search the Bible and remain ignorant of scriptures which speak of Him and so remain ignorant of Him for ignorance of scriptures is ignorance of Christ and not know that these things are written so that we may believe and believing have eternal life or know that all scripture,inspired of God,is profitable to teach,to reprove,to correct,to instruct[2Tim.3:16] - all this is saying is at better said by Pope Leo XIII and Proventissimus Deus and Verbum Dei and the Catechism etc - for one cannot and does not contradict the other - twinc

These are quotes from the catechism, dei verbum, divino spiritu afflante, which uses Proventissimus Deus as it’s jumping off .Each encyclical is not independent of the other.one encyclical will expand or clarify another.
Your sentences run on-they are not very clear.Please clarify them if I’m misunderstanding you.
We are talking about Genesis and the OT primarily-not NT.

 

[buffalo]

Again I ask, why did God promise never to do something again that He never did in the first place? He made a covenant - pretty serious stuff.

 

[donsnow]

I’m not sure what compels you to profoundly misrepresent the interpretation I presented. Your response is nothing more than a straw-man fallacy. And since you claim to be speaking for God, I never thought God’s side of the story would be based on a logical fallacy.

My interpretation is in the general trend of exegesis among the majority of reputable Catholic Bible scholars and the kind of interpretation accepted by the Catholic Biblical Commission.

It’s very revealing that you claim the interpretation strays from the Bible and also imply that it also contradicts the CCC. Yet you cannot present any facts or evidence to support your personal, private interpretation of Genesis. All you have done is skew what I said.

So, until you can make an informed and rational response your post remains totally without merit.

Such a total flip off.

With that ad hominum from you to me, I bow out of any conversation with you.

 

[donsnow]

That’s fine. The Catholic Catechism actually says nothing to the contrary regarding the interpretation I presented. Clearly, you cannot support your position with reasonable argument, facts, or reputable Catholic authorities on Biblical exegesis.

Cheerio!

First you write, that’s fine, regarding, I presume, my offer of agreeing to disagree.

Then, you continue with what looks like a rant.

It’s not that I cannot, but that I will not argue with you. Life is too short to waste it on rants.

 

[MonFrere]

Again I ask, why did God promise never to do something again that He never did in the first place? He made a covenant - pretty serious stuff.

Let’s take the creation of the “rainbow” from the story. A rainbow couldn’t have been a “creation” that God made at that moment in time as a sign of his promise He wouldn’t destroy the world by a flood again. What we understand about nature mitigates against such a literal reading of this story. So, this type of element in the story tells me that we are speaking of something mythic.

However, other posters have stated that the “truth” contained in these early biblical stories are not in any way diminished by the understanding that they are fabulous. To use another example - Does the story of Job depend upon the fact that he was a real historic figure or not? Does the words of God in the story or the words of Job in the story lose an ounce of their “truth” if this is a fictitious story or a real one? If God said to Job that He would never afflict him with boils again and say that the singing bird would be a sign of God’s favor toward Job. And every spring when we would hear the birds singing we would thing of the story of Job. Would this make the story of Job any less truthful? Problem is - most people would remember the singing of the birds - and forget the real teaching from the book of Job,

MonFrere

 

[SHW]

Some scholars teach that there never was a rainbow before the flood because it had never rained before. They teach that the earth was watered by only dew and mist up until the flood and that this is one of the reasons why all the people were laughing at Noah. He spent many years building an ark and they taunted him for his foolishness.

The flood was not entirely caused by rain from the sky. “All the fountains of the great deep were broken up.” Probably by volcanic action.

The rainbow is a natural phenomenon now, but perhaps the very first one came after the flood when God made His covenant with Noah.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

[itinerant1]

Some scholars teach that there never was a rainbow before the flood because it had never rained before.

No Bible scholar of any repute would say that. Consider the extreme fundamentalist nature your source.

The Bible does not say there were no rainbows before the Flood. An absence of reference in the Bible to thing does not mean the thing did not exist. Some so-called Bible scholars are short on logic, among other things.

The flood was not entirely caused by rain from the sky. “All the fountains of the great deep were broken up.” Probably by volcanic action.

What do you think the “great deep” meant to early Hebrews?

The rainbow is a natural phenomenon now, but perhaps the very first one came after the flood when God made His covenant with Noah.

Or, perhaps not.There is no cultural or scientific evidence to support the interpretation that says rainbows did not always exist.

And, besides, these questions about rainbows all miss the point of the Noah story.

 

[SHW]

No Bible scholar of any repute would say that. Consider the extreme fundamentalist nature your source.

This is your opinion.

The Bible does not say there were no rainbows before the Flood. An absence of reference in the Bible to thing does not mean the thing did not exist. Some so-called Bible scholars are short on logic, among other things.

It also can easily mean that it did not exist prior to this event. Some posters are also short on logic.

What do you think the “great deep” meant to early Hebrews?

Seas. Lakes. Oceans.

Genesis 1:10
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Or, perhaps not.There is no cultural or scientific evidence to support the interpretation that says rainbows did not always exist.

There is no cultural or scientific evidence to support the interpretation that they did exist before the flood either.

And, besides, these questions about rainbows all miss the point of the Noah story.

I think the rainbow is important. The rainbow is the sign of the covenant between God and Noah. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.

Opinions are just opinions, even yours.

Jesus stated that the flood happened. I believe Him. His Word is much more reliable than yours.