Global flood?

[steveandersen]

Mercurius:

The Catholic Encyclopedia allows for a PARTIAL Flood but states that it is a matter of FAITH that ALL men perished (except Noah…) in that Flood.

newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

Is that what you take away from that article?
Interesting

“But if the reason advanced for limiting the Flood to a certain part of the human race be duly examined, they are found to be more specious than true.”

Saying something is specious doesn’t make it so.

…… Up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the belief in the anthropological universality of the Deluge was general….

Up until the 15th century the belief that the world was flat was general

Mercurius:

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. "

Of course the Ark and the Flood symbolize Baptism and the Church. This seems to strengthen the argument that the story is allegorical rather than refute it. As I mentioned in my first post it is not a story about a boat ride with animals.

 

[Mike_O]

PhilVaz:

I guess one of the main difficulties with my local flood idea is that modern science (archeology, paleontology, genetics, etc) tells us that Australia was populated by homo sapiens around 50000 years ago, North/South America was populated by homo sapiens around 13000 years ago, and of course homo sapiens probably originated in Africa long before 50000 years ago, etc but the flood probably occurred between 5000 - 10000 years ago (most young-earthers date it to less than 5000 BC).

If limited to the area where Noah and his family lived (Mesopotamia), all “people” (i.e. homo sapiens) were not killed by this regional or “local flood.” In addition, unless the flood covered the North and South poles (e.g. Antarctica, etc), Penguins and Polar Bears weren’t killed by the flood, and a pair of them didn’t walk to Noah and back too!

Phil P

There are many conflicts between science and teaching about the origins of the universe.

At some point something must be resolved or a choice must be made between what are 2 mutually exclusive realities or potential realities.

Just a sampling of questions I’ve never seen resolved satisfactorily:

1. The Biblical genealogy giving 6,000-10,000 years (time from Adam to Christ + time from Christ until 2006) versus the paleontological/archaeological evidence of some sort of man/hominid having existed for millions of years.

The only conceivable way to resolve this is to propose that hominids were ensouled about 6,000-10,000 years ago (which seems to fit as far as the discovery of the development of culture goes from an anthropological standpoint).

Still, the question is problematic.

1. The Bible’s language about God having created man “from the beginning” versus the evolutionary teaching of man having arrived towards the very end of a 4.5 billion year old universe.
2. The Flood question; it is clear that every living thing on the Earth was destroyed. Hebraologists can twist the meanings of the words until the sun sets; the language is clear. This either had to have taken place at the very beginning of the universe so that a local flood WOULD have wiped out everything, or Catholics are not properly understanding the passage, or scientific evidence has been misinterpreted/is misleading.

These are some of the many problems. I think it is a mistake, as some have done, to back away and claim at some point in time that the Earth was created in 6 24 hour days 6,000 years ago, then see scientists emerge and ridicule this belief with theories, then back off again and make everything “symbolic” or “metaphorical.”

Soon enough this will be done with many other things if this attitude is harvested. It cannot be that the whole of the early Old Testament is all a big “metaphor,” or an “allegory” or “symbolic.”

This was never proposed before until Darwin came along and proposed a theory which people have put on par with gravity. Better not to start another of those threads; evolutionary theory, as said John Paul, is what it is: a hypothesis worthy of critical examination, something which can be valid.

But an apologist who might come along and clean up some of this mess and some of these divergences would also be appreciated.

 

[Mercurius]

steveandersen:

Up until the 15th century the belief that the world was flat was general

Where do you get that from? The “scientific” establishment, Bugs Bunny Cartoon, high school anti-christian propaganda text???

Astrologers and Astronemers saw and contemplated the PLANETS and stars. They knew that the planets were round why would they think the Earth (a planet) would be flat. I chalenge you to find any ancient or medieval writing where the Earth is declared to be ECPLICITALY FLAT.

Indeed St. Thomas in his Summa speaks of the Earth as round as if that is the standard belief. I don’t have the reference on me now.

When Copernicus (sp?) [a Catholic priest] first proposed that the Sun was the centre of the universe and that the earth went around it, no one objected that the Earth was flat and thus was different from the other planets. They simply believed that the Earth was in the centre of the Solar system and not the Sun.

 

[steveandersen]

Mercurius:

Where do you get that from?

it came from my own twisted mind of course

Mercurius:

The “scientific” establishment,

why the " "

Mercurius:

Bugs Bunny Cartoon, high school anti-christian propaganda text???

“high school anti-Christian propaganda” Gracie?
(a) I went to a Christian Brothers school there wasn’t much anti-Christian stuff there
(2) I said nothing about the Church teaching a flat earth
(III) high school was 30 years ago. Stuff I learned there isn’t the first thing that leaps to mind.
(D) What does it have to do with the topic at hand?

You had written about “general” belief
While learned people, astronomers and mariners might understand a spherical earth as far back as classical times (especially in more developed portions of the world) it is not intuitively obvious.
I remember as a kid talking to a guy who knew that Columbus showed the earth to be round which to his mind meant a disk.

My ham handed point was that general belief is not always relevant. Modern geology (founded by the Blessed Nicolas Steno BTW) is a recent development. Prior to this the question of the Flood actually having occurred would naturally not have come up.

 

[PhilVaz]

MikeO << Soon enough this will be done with many other things if this attitude is harvested. It cannot be that the whole of the early Old Testament is all a big “metaphor,” or an “allegory” or “symbolic.” >>

One way out is to see most of Genesis chapters 1-11 as more mythical than historical. Abraham (chapter 12) is where the real history begins. Many modern commentaries see it that way, and yes this was brought about by the rise of modern science. We now know more than the ancient Fathers and Saints did about the nature and history of the world and universe. The Catechism speaks of symbolical or figurative language in Genesis (CCC 337-338, 362, 369, 375, 390, 396), but seems to demand a literal Adam/Eve (CCC 359, 375-377, 379, 388, 390-392, 416-419, etc). I do not know.

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

trumpet152:

In Genesis 6-10, a record is given of Noah and the flood. I have a few questions about it.

a) Should this be interpreted literally, symbolically, or both?
b) If literal, was it a global flood? (Please see note at bottom of post before answering this question)
c) Did it rain before this point in history?
d) Was there a “canopy” of water around the earth before this? (The canopy theory is popular with fundementalists.)

Note on question b:

The Hebrew word for “world” used in Genesis 6-10 does not always mean the entire globe. It can mean land mass, continent, and a number of similar concepts.

If it had been global, we would be in no doubt on the matter, as the rotation of the earth would have been affected by the sudden massive, increase in the amount of water on the globe.​

There are too many kinds of animal in the world to accommodate in a vessel the size of the ark for as long as the texts say. There is nothing to suggest that the composers of the account of the Flood realised what the true extent of the world really was.

IMHO, the text is largely a recasting (and expurgation), into Israelite form and ideas, of two Babylonian Flood legends. I suspect the story may be about the Exodus:

• The number 40 appears in both the Flood narrative and the Exodus narrative
• “Noah” = “rest”; which is what people did on the Sabbath, instituted at Sinai
• the boat into which Moses was put is called a tebah, as is the boat built by Noah
• Canaan is one of the characters in the episode related in the second half of Genesis 9, which seems to have the land of Canaan for its background
• “The land of Ham” is a name for Egypt
• one of the gods responsible for the Flood in one of the Babylonian tales is the weather god Hadad; and Hadad is the god “Baal”, or “Lord” worshipped in Syria who proved to be so troublesome later on in the OT; he is mentioned several times in Exodus and Numbers.

That’s only a bit of thinking aloud though ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

trumpet152:

In Genesis 6-10, a record is given of Noah and the flood. I have a few questions about it.

a) Should this be interpreted literally, symbolically, or both?
b) If literal, was it a global flood? (Please see note at bottom of post before answering this question)
c) Did it rain before this point in history?
d) Was there a “canopy” of water around the earth before this? (The canopy theory is popular with fundementalists.)

Note on question b:

The Hebrew word for “world” used in Genesis 6-10 does not always mean the entire globe. It can mean land mass, continent, and a number of similar concepts.

If it had been global, we would be in no doubt on the matter, as the rotation of the earth would have been affected by the sudden massive, increase in the amount of water on the globe.​

There are too many kinds of animal in the world to accommodate in a vessel the size of the ark for as long as the texts say. There is nothing to suggest that the composers of the account of the Flood realised what the true extent of the world really was.

IMHO, the text is largely a recasting (and expurgation), into Israelite form and ideas, of two Babylonian Flood legends. I suspect the story may be about the Exodus:

• The number 40 appears in both the Flood narrative and the Exodus narrative
• “Noah” = “rest”; which is what people did on the Sabbath, instituted at Sinai
• the boat into which Moses was put is called a tebah, as is the boat built by Noah
• Canaan is one of the characters in the episode related in the second half of Genesis 9, which seems to have the land of Canaan for its background
• “The land of Ham” is a name for Egypt
• one of the gods responsible for the Flood in one of the Babylonian tales is the weather god Hadad; and Hadad is the god “Baal”, or “Lord” worshipped in Syria who proved to be so troublesome later on in the OT; he is mentioned several times in Exodus and Numbers.

That’s only a bit of thinking aloud though ##

 

[rwoehmke]

Mercurius:

The Catholic Encyclopedia allows for a PARTIAL Flood but states that it is a matter of FAITH that ALL men perished (except Noah…) in that Flood.

newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

“But if the reason advanced for limiting the Flood to a certain part of the human race be duly examined, they are found to be more specious than true.”

"The question, whether all men perished in the Deluge, must be decided by the teaching of the Bible, and of its authoritative interpreter. … We turn, therefore, to authority in order to arrive at a final settlement of the question. Here we are confronted, in brief, with the following facts: Up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the belief in the anthropological universality of the Deluge was general. 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. "

That Encyclopedia was published in 1914 or 1916 long before Pius XII wrote that Catholics were allowed to use modern methods of interpreting scripture. I believe that up to that point we were pretty much like today’s protestant Creationists. A lot of water, so to speak, has gone over the dam since 1914.

 

[Mercurius]

Yes I know with the suppresion of the Holy Officethe gates of Hell have opened. Modernist Biblical Criticism denies that GOD, who is TRUTH, “spoke through the prophets” as the Nicene Creed states and is the PRIMARY AUTHOR of Scripture as the Church has always taught.

God who is TRUTH CANNOT inspire LIES.

Therefore “higher criticism” is nothing more than unbelief hiding under the cloak of “science”.

 

[wjp984]

as a Catholic am I required to accept and believe in the Myhoogy of Genesis? What I mean is I am skeptical that anyhing in Genesis ever occurred up until the time of Abraham so I am not so sure there was an Adam and Even or a Garden of Evil and I don’t think there was a Towere of Babel though a partial world flood does seem plausibnle but I question whether there was a Noah.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1) One MUST believe that some catastrophic event led to the death of all HUMAN beings on EARTH other than Noah and his family. That is what scripture says and what the Church and Fathers have always taught.

1. IF it was a LOCAL flood then we must believe that HUMAN beings, at that point in time, had NOT spread all over the Globe and thus were killed in the flood.

St. Augustine declares that one MUST interpret scripture BOTH LITERRALY and Spiritually. However, the spiritual interpretation was not to deny the LITERAL.

The “myth” of a universal flood which virtually killed all humans is almost UNIVERSAL. Not only in Mesopotemian myths, but Egyptian, and even North American Indian myths. Something so universal CAN NOT be just symbolic; it must have taken place at some point in time.

The trouble with appeals to the Fathers is that we and they - not forgetting those in between - are relying on different data for the judgements made. Where the data available differ, so also might the conclusions based on it.​

They could take the Flood as universal, because they did not know that the earth was rather larger than the Biblical composers (and they) supposed. IOW, the question of the extent of the Flood is not the same for us as for them, because of the great increase in geographical and geophysical knowledge since their times. Our pool of data is not the same as theirs.

The argument from widespread traditions is not forceful as it may appear, because knowing that a people or tribe or nation has a tradition of a Flood tells us nothing about the reason for the flood, or its purpose or theology (if any) in that tradition, or its cause, or the origin of the tradition, or the origin of the flood in the tradition, or a host of other details important for interpreting such things.

There may be several Floods, in different parts of the world, all limited in extent, to reckon with. There is no need to conclude to a single universal Flood - there are alternatives to that. Not all flood-tales present the floods they tell about as of the same type; as a Divine judgement on human sin - some are set, not in the world of men, but in that of the gods: as with some of the Hindu floods.

FWIW, the “ark” in one of the Babylonian legends has six storeys, and is otherwise remarkably like a temple tower. It seems, under one aspect, to represent the cosmos.

Ancient thought - the legend in question goes back in its present form to about 1600 BC, AFAIK - is often far more sophisticated than moderns realise. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Mercurius:

Yes I know with the suppresion of the Holy Officethe gates of Hell have opened. Modernist Biblical Criticism denies that GOD, who is TRUTH, “spoke through the prophets” as the Nicene Creed states and is the PRIMARY AUTHOR of Scripture as the Church has always taught.

God who is TRUTH CANNOT inspire LIES.

Therefore “higher criticism” is nothing more than unbelief hiding under the cloak of “science”.

There is absolutely nothing in the higher critical method to stop the critic affirming strongly that God is the Primary Author of all Scripture - there is no contradiction there at all; assuming that the critic is a Catholic or Evangelical; because a critic with different theological ideas might see things differently - not all are Catholics, by a very long way, or even Christians; E.A. Speiser was a Jew. One can perfectly well be a believing Catholic and a critic - such as the Servant of God Pere M.-J. Lagrange (1854-1938):​

"Later that century in France, one of those who responded to his call was a man as much of our century as his – another man who began life as a lawyer but who entered the Dominican Province of Toulouse and in 1890, in an abandoned abattoir, started the École pratique d’ études bibliques in Jerusalem. Christened Albert Lagrange,(22) he carried in religious life a name in honor of her he especially cherished. With him, Marie-Joseph Lagrange, modern Catholic biblical scholarship began. With him a center for research in the text and in the context of Scripture took permanent form. With him a journal of the highest calibre, Révue biblique, came into existence. The Catholic Church began to catch up with the biblical criticism that for over a century had gone on under Protestant and then rationalist auspices. Lagrange’s center made possible the very high standards we have achieved today.

Like Thomas, like Lacordaire, Lagrange had opponents within, as well as without, the Church. Easily suspected at the time of the Modernist crisis in the first decade of the century, his work finally fell a victim to the defensive reaction in Rome. In September 1912, at the age of fifty-seven, after twenty-two years of unremitting devotion to the work of his school, Lagrange was summarily removed from it and ordered by telegraph to return to France. He at once obeyed. He had, by this date, written over one thousand reviews, articles, and books. He gave up all this activity. A soldier, he told his colleagues, does not discuss orders. If God wanted the work to live, it was God who would make it live. “As for recrimination,” he wrote the Master, “I dare to say that that is not in my character.”(23) Within the year he was restored. His obedience, his faith were justified; and the brilliance of Catholic biblical scholarship was assured.(24) "

spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/904221noonan.html

Not only can one be Catholic and a critic - one can be seriously considered for canonisation and be a critic.

Pere Lagrange is a disproof of the myths and misunderstandings some Catholics have on this subject.

And how is the mention of lies relevant to all this ? ##

 

[patg]

wjp984:

as a Catholic am I required to accept and believe in the Myhoogy of Genesis? QUOTE]
You are required to believe the truths that are expressed by the author but not the literal historical truth of the events. Dei Verbum makes this clear (other forms of discourse certainly includes myths):

“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. 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.”

 

[Mercurius]

1. If There was no Adam and Eve then
2. There was no fall, and if there was no fall then
3. There was no need of redemption, and if there was no neede od redemption then
4. There was no need for Christ to die on the Cross

We have to conclude that our faith is vain and we are the most wretched of men … as St. Paul says

 

[Mercurius]

Biblical Chronology: remnantnewspaper.com/archive-2005-0630-evolution.htm

 

[trumpet152]

1) If There was no Adam and Eve then
2) There was no fall, and if there was no fall then
3) There was no need of redemption, and if there was no neede od redemption then
4) There was no need for Christ to die on the Cross

We have to conclude that our faith is vain and we are the most wretched of men … as St. Paul says

I don’t think anyone is questioning the existance of Adam and Eve. Furthermore, this is not an evolution thread. I have no quarrels with the theory of evolution. If you wish to post on that, I ask that you start a new thread.

Thank you all for the answers so far. I think my last two questions have been answered. If a local flood occured, would God then be judging only that area? Perhaps that continent?

 

[KBarn]

The literal account of Genesis prior to Abraham is not to be thrown out arbitrarily. Catholics are bound to believe in Adam and Eve, that the entire human race has them for our first parents, for example. This is why I have a problem with people interpreting the Bible for themselves and not seeking the guidance of the Church. Why no universal flood? Is it because it is simply too outrageous to believe? Why then do we believe in the Resurrection? The parting of the Red Sea (though some dispute this as well)? I don’t like where we are getting are standards for interpreting Scripture. Is it sufficient to simply do the opposite of whatever the Fundamentalists do?

 

[Orogeny]

KBarn:

Why no universal flood? Is it because it is simply too outrageous to believe? Why then do we believe in the Resurrection?

Because unlike the resurrection, a global flood would leave very easily identified evidence. There is none. So, we can choose to believe in a literal flood and ignore the absolute abscence of evidence or we can accept that the flood story was allegorical and that the spiritual meaning is the same whether or not the flood occurred.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

KBarn:

… Why no universal flood? Is it because it is simply too outrageous to believe? Why then do we believe in the Resurrection? The parting of the Red Sea …

The Resurrection and the parting of Red Sea would not be expected to leave behind physical evidence as a global flood would. The problems associated with a literal interpretation can (and have) fill up books.

Could God have flooded the Earth and then returned everything so that it looked like it never happened? Sure…He could have. But like the “God only made the earth look billions of years old” school of thought it raises the question of why. (In addition to the question “couldn’t God have created the world 20 minutes ago and only made it look much older” and we don’t want to go there.)

To my mind the story of the Flood isn’t about a flood. As I pointed out in my first point the story is there to teach multiple lessons, these don’t include boat building or treading water. A flood is just the type of event that was familiar to the target audience.

If the ancient Hebrews lived on a Pacific island it may very well have been Noah’s Tsunami.

As I asked earlier what Truth in the tale would be affected if it were allegorical?

KBarn:

Is it sufficient to simply do the opposite of whatever the Fundamentalists do?

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

Could God have flooded the Earth and then returned everything so that it looked like it never happened? Sure…He could have. But like the “God only made the earth look billions of years old” school of thought it raises the question of why. (In addition to the question “couldn’t God have created the world 20 minutes ago and only made it look much older” and we don’t want to go there.)

Or because of science unknown to us now, it only looks older looking back in time. God does not deceive, but humans can and have deceived themselves.