Global flood?

[Mike_O]

David Zampino:

to suggest that everyone who accepts an allegorical, or partially allegorical interpretation of the stories in Genesis 1-11 approach the text irresponsibly is a rather dramatic statement which I cannot accept. Presumably, you would include St. Augustine of Hippo as irresponsible in his interpretation of Genesis?

I think this is not a fair assessment of what I said.

I am also interested in seeing this hypothetical statement by St. Augustine which refers to the flood as allegory.

I mean to say that the text is very clear. Everything on the Earth died. This is what it says:

"I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth.
"

(Gen 6:13)

“I, on my part, am about to bring the flood (waters) on the earth, to destroy everywhere all creatures in which there is the breath of life; everything on earth shall perish.”

(Gen 6:17)

“…nor will I ever again strike down all living beings, as I have done.”

(Gen 8:21)

There are other passages, in case the above do not suffice to establish the point that all living creatures were struck down.

Again, there is a choice. We are speaking here in exclusive terms.

Either God is right and the flood swept away all life, or the geologists are right and the flood did not sweep away all life.

I’m going with God on this one, given that He “can neither deceive nor be deceived”. Whoever wishes to reconcile the details is welcome. The text is clear. I am not sure on what basis one could possibly make the above into some sort of grandiose metaphor. Comparing this to a parable of Jesus or some other Biblical figurative language has given no basis to such a theory.

 

[Mike_O]

Orogeny:

I don’t allegorize everything and quite frankly your opinion that I am abusing scripture is not much of a concern to me. The FACT is is that there is NO geological evidence for a global flood.

I did not say you were abusing Scripture. Please do not misquote. I said that someone who sweepingly attempts to allegorize large portions of the Old Testament to suit scientific purposes FIRST is bordering on abuse of Scripture. Whether this applies to you is known also to you, not me.

How do you reconcile this with the text itself? And to say that there is absolutely no evidence seems extreme. If pressed, human beings could likely find something plausible to prove any number of falsehoods. Because one believes the overall conclusion to be false does not mean that certain points presented as evidence are out and out false.

Or one can have faith in Almighty God and see very clearly that some parts of the bible are allegorical. And when those (us) evil human geologists find no evidence of a global flood, one can understand that the story of the flood is allegorical.

If this is true, God would have broken his promise never to send floods like this again, because we have such floods all the time. And a local flood would not have killed everything on Earth.

To repeat the question I’ve already asked, what, besides your personal opinion, do you cite as evidence to bolster the “allegory” line?

 

[Orogeny]

Mike O:

How do you reconcile this with the text itself? And to say that there is absolutely no evidence seems extreme.

It may seem extreme to you, but if you understood anything about geology, it wouldn’t.

If pressed, human beings could likely find something plausible to prove any number of falsehoods.

That is my point. A recent global flood would not require anyone to be pressed to find evidence because it would be everywhere. It’s not. That is why geologists discount a recent global flood.

Because one believes the overall conclusion to be false does not mean that certain points presented as evidence are out and out false.

If you understood geology and re-read your sources, you wouldn’t make this statement.

If this is true, God would have broken his promise never to send floods like this again, because we have such floods all the time. And a local flood would not have killed everything on Earth.

I didn’t claim a local flood. As far as God breaking His promise, that is only so if one accepts the story as literal.

To repeat the question I’ve already asked, what, besides your personal opinion, do you cite as evidence to bolster the “allegory” line?

The absolute lack of physical evidence to support the literal line.

Peace

Tim

 

[Mike_O]

Orogeny:

It may seem extreme to you, but if you understood anything about geology, it wouldn’t.That is my point. A recent global flood would not require anyone to be pressed to find evidence because it would be everywhere. It’s not. That is why geologists discount a recent global flood.If you understood geology and re-read your sources, you wouldn’t make this statement.I didn’t claim a local flood. As far as God breaking His promise, that is only so if one accepts the story as literal.The absolute lack of physical evidence to support the literal line.

Peace

Tim

It’s unfortunate that you have misconstrued my statements and/or taken them as an endorsement of Answers in Genesis/True Origins. Your apparent visceral contempt for them is something apart from what I was saying.

Also, no one said anything about a recent global flood. No timeline was set for this. My point in reply has been that the Church should step in and make some definitions in this instance.

There is a clear text with literal language. There is no reason to suspect allegory.

I notice that you did not answer my question about what leads you to believe that this is allegory. The response “Because geology says so” really doesn’t fit here; good theology has never been predicated upon the findings of the natural sciences.

 

[buffalo]

Mike O:

There is a clear text with literal language. There is no reason to suspect allegory.

I notice that you did not answer my question about what leads you to believe that this is allegory. The response “Because geology says so” really doesn’t fit here; good theology has never been predicated upon the findings of the natural sciences.

 

[Orogeny]

Mike O:

It’s unfortunate that you have misconstrued my statements and/or taken them as an endorsement of Answers in Genesis/True Origins.

Well, I usually don’t link to sources I don’t agree with unless I clearly state that in my post.

Also, no one said anything about a recent global flood. No timeline was set for this.

You have made numerous references to humans in your posts. Geologically, man arrived on the scene very recently. Are you suggesting that man has been around much longer than science claims?

I notice that you did not answer my question about what leads you to believe that this is allegory. The response “Because geology says so” really doesn’t fit here; good theology has never been predicated upon the findings of the natural sciences.

Of course I did. You don’t like the answer, but I definately answered. If the bible said that the earth was a disk, would I have to believe it if I have observations that tell me otherwise? Must I believe in geocentrism? Does theology exist in a vacuum?

Peace

Tim

 

[Mike_O]

Orogeny:

You have made numerous references to humans in your posts. Geologically, man arrived on the scene very recently. Are you suggesting that man has been around much longer than science claims?

Millions of years ago is “recent”?

At least, compared to the 6,000 year timeline of “Young Earth creationism,” this is not recent.

Of course I did. You don’t like the answer, but I definately answered. If the bible said that the earth was a disk, would I have to believe it if I have observations that tell me otherwise? Must I believe in geocentrism? Does theology exist in a vacuum?

No. The question is simple and remains unanswered. What gives you reason to think this is an allegory besides geology?

Are you a geologist, Orogeny? Are you Catholic?

Hopefully you understand that certain points are binding where belief is concerned for Catholics. The geocentric tangent is nonsense and irrelevant. We are speaking about the flood. The Church has never, to my knowledge, remotely suggested this allegory business. The Church teaches that the Bible, properly understood, is inerrant.

So we are left, yet again, with this problem. I doubt I need to restate what the text says. Maybe one of the staff apologists can take up this question, because this debate has taken us nowhere in terms of answering the question.

 

[TPJCatholic]

When a child hears the account of Noah’s Ark and the Great Flood, they believe without giving a second thought…they trust their parents and their teachers.

*"…Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." *
[Matthew 18:3-4]

 

[TPJCatholic]

How does it matter what the age of the world is?

If the world is is 6,000 years old, how does that change our lives, and how does it change the reality of our God and what He has done for us?

What happens to our spiritual lives of the world is 100,000 years old, or a million, or five billion?

We humans lack trust–imo.

 

[Orogeny]

Mike O:

Millions of years ago is “recent”?

Geologically, yes.

No. The question is simple and remains unanswered. What gives you reason to think this is an allegory besides geology?

That is my answer. Feel free to reject it.

Are you a geologist, Orogeny? Are you Catholic?

Yes. Yes.

Hopefully you understand that certain points are binding where belief is concerned for Catholics.

I don’t recall any teaching that a literal, global flood is a required belief. Can you give a link to the Church’s official teaching that the flood story is literally true and that we, as Catholics, must accept that?

The geocentric tangent is nonsense and irrelevant. We are speaking about the flood.

Why? The point is is that if the bible says one thing but physical science observes something different, are we bound to a literal reading of the bible or are we free to accept the science? The question stands as asked.

The Church has never, to my knowledge, remotely suggested this allegory business. The Church teaches that the Bible, properly understood, is inerrant.

The key is properly understood. What is there to understand if you take the bible completely literally?

Peace

Tim

 

[David_Zampino]

Mike O:

There is a clear text with literal language. There is no reason to suspect allegory.

Greetings, Mike,

Actually your statement here, which you seem to keep asserting, is a matter of opinion. It is your **opinion **that this is a clear text. It is your **opinion **that the language is literal. It is your **opinion **that there is no reason to suspect allegory.

And if this is your opinion, you are certainly entitled to it.

But unless the Church were to make an authoritative pronouncement on the matter (something which, in my opinion is highly unlikely) then you really can’t criticize others for expressing doubt about your opinions, or for holding differing opinions.

Many blessings,

 

[thistle]

What the CCC states suggests to me the Flood is allegorical and not literal.

CCC 1094 It is on this harmony of the two Testaments that the Paschal catechesis of the Lord is built,15 and then, that of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. This catechesis unveils what lay hidden under the letter of the Old Testament: the mystery of Christ. It is called “typological” because it reveals the newness of Christ on the basis of the “figures” (types) which announce him in the deeds, words, and symbols of the first covenant. By this re-reading in the Spirit of Truth, starting from Christ, the figures are unveiled.16 Thus the flood and Noah’s ark prefigured salvation by Baptism,17 as did the cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea. Water from the rock was the figure of the spiritual gifts of Christ, and manna in the desert prefigured the Eucharist, "the true bread from heaven."18

 

[buffalo]

thistle:

What the CCC states suggests to me the Flood is allegorical and not literal.

CCC 1094 It is on this harmony of the two Testaments that the Paschal catechesis of the Lord is built,15 and then, that of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. This catechesis unveils what lay hidden under the letter of the Old Testament: the mystery of Christ. It is called “typological” because it reveals the newness of Christ on the basis of the “figures” (types) which announce him in the deeds, words, and symbols of the first covenant. By this re-reading in the Spirit of Truth, starting from Christ, the figures are unveiled.16 Thus the flood and Noah’s ark prefigured salvation by Baptism,17 as did the cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea. Water from the rock was the figure of the spiritual gifts of Christ, and manna in the desert prefigured the Eucharist, "the true bread from heaven."18

Then you submit the others are too?

 

[TPJCatholic]

I think 1094 shows us that the flood took place.

 

[David_Zampino]

TPJCatholic:

I think 1094 shows us that the flood took place.

But not whether it was local or universal.

Blessings,

 

[TPJCatholic]

David,

I agree, 1094 does not say whether the flood was local or universal; however, the Bible says the flood covered the entire earth.

 

[David_Zampino]

TPJCatholic:

David,

I agree, 1094 does not say whether the flood was local or universal; however, the Bible says the flood covered the entire earth.

And now we’re back to the realm of interpretation. What was meant by “entire earth”? The ancients also believed the earth was flat and spoke of the “four corners of the earth”.

I’ll repeat what I said to Mike. Until and unless the Church decides to make a definitive pronoucement on the subject – which in my opinion is HIGHLY unlikely – one cannot disparage the opposing viewpoint. The Church – not you, and not I – is the final arbiter of interpretation of Scripture.

With regard to the first 11 chapters of Genesis, all the Church has stated definitively (to the best of my knowledge, and I may be mistaken) is that humanity, created in the image and likeness of God, descended from Adam and Eve, and that the Fall was an actual, literal event.

Issues like “global” vs “local” flood do not fall into the above category.

Blessings,

 

[TPJCatholic]

David,

I agree with you, the Church does not give a definitive statement about the flood being local or universal. However, the Church makes it clear the flood did happen…it was a real event and the Church makes it clear that God’s Word is inspired by God…and God’s Word said the flood covered the entire world. We can try to be coy and ask questions about what the “entire world” means, yet God’s Holy Word tells us that the flood wiped out every living creature on earth…it does not say some, or part, or only those in the area…it says every living creature. Sounds like a global flood to me.

 

[David_Zampino]

TPJCatholic:

David,

I agree with you, the Church does not give a definitive statement about the flood being local or universal. However, the Church makes it clear the flood did happen…it was a real event and the Church makes it clear that God’s Word is inspired by God…and God’s Word said the flood covered the entire world. We can try to be coy and ask questions about what the “entire world” means, yet God’s Holy Word tells us that the flood wiped out every living creature on earth…it does not say some, or part, or only those in the area…it says every living creature. Sounds like a global flood to me.

This is fine. The Church certainly permits you to take this point of view. But it still remains an opinon and a personal interpretation of Scripture, rather than a definitive one.

I certainly was not trying to by “coy” by asking for a definition of what was meant by “entire world”. (Heck, in Hebrew, Bill Clintion COULD have gotten away with "It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is – because ancient Hebrew has no verb which translates “to be”! ) My question was legitimate and is the type of question Biblical scholars (who are NOT all liberal wackos) legitimately ask in the course of their study and research.

Do you have difficulty with an allegorical reading of “In His hands are all the four corners of the earth”?

Blessings,

 

[TPJCatholic]

David,

I take no issue with allegorical interpretations, unless there is no literal interpretation to go alongside it.

As for “my” interpratation, I agree. However, quoting what the Bible actually says is not interpreting.