This is a LOOOOONG and difficult read but is it saying we must believe that only Noah’s family survived the Flood, or are we allowed, according to this, to believe more that the eight on the Ark survived?
To say that “eight survived the flood” doesn’t necessarily mean that only eight people were alive on the earth following the flood.
I agree, but after reading what I linked to, I’m uncertain if the CC teaches or has the position that we must believe on my 8 only survived.To say that “eight survived the flood” doesn’t necessarily mean that only eight people were alive on the earth following the flood.
For example: if I said that only eight people survived the 2004 tsunami, would that mean that only eight people were alive on earth after the tsunami?
*must believe only 8 survived.I agree, but after reading what I linked to, I’m uncertain if the CC teaches or has the position that we must believe on my 8 only survived.
What about the CCC that says 8 survived through water? CCC1219
The article, from the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, asks the question, “are we talking about a flood that affected all of the earth, or only part of the earth (but all of the people living at the time)?” Its answer is interesting: it asserts that the current (at the time!) state of science was that science couldn’t refute the story of the flood, but that it could only point out that – if the flood actually killed off all but eight people – it would have had to have happened a long, long time ago. Therefore, the article asserts, since there’s no conclusive science, we have to go with the authority of Scripture in the matter; and therefore, it says, from a theological viewpoint, it must mean that all but eight of the people alive at the time died in the flood.
So what it’s saying is that at that time there was no science to refute Scripture, so they’ll go with what Scripture says – but 100+ years later science does refute what Scripture says about it?The article, from the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, asks the question, “are we talking about a flood that affected all of the earth, or only part of the earth (but all of the people living at the time)?” Its answer is interesting: it asserts that the current (at the time!) state of science was that science couldn’t refute the story of the flood, but that it could only point out that – if the flood actually killed off all but eight people – it would have had to have happened a long, long time ago. Therefore, the article asserts, since there’s no conclusive science, we have to go with the authority of Scripture in the matter; and therefore, it says, from a theological viewpoint, it must mean that all but eight of the people alive at the time died in the flood.
Here’s the thing: the article’s conclusions explicitly say “science doesn’t offer any refutation, and so we’ll use Scripture to address the ‘science’ of the flood.” The situation has changed since 1907, though. Current scientific evidence (i.e., genetic evidence, gleaned from DNA) suggests that there was never such a severe bottleneck in human populations. Therefore, the article’s logic is outdated. Can we use a 16th or 17th century interpretation of Scripture – unchallenged, as it were, by scientific evidence to the contrary – to ‘prove’ that the flood killed all humans but eight? Not by the logic of this article…
You are not wrong, but you assume too much (so you COULD be wrong). Eight survived the Flood. The problem is when we say ONLY eight survived. This is not supported by Scripture or Catholic theology.
Ok, so as Catholics we’re not required to believe only 8 people survived the Flood?
If we are required to believe it, the Church has done a good job of keeping that requirement a secret.
Thanks
Do you agree that the CC has no position on whether there were 8 survivors or more and that we are free to believe either way?
I believe the flood was global, Noah could either spend 120 years in hard yards building an ark, or he could spend 20 years relocating himself and family to the non-local constraints. Local flood, move away. Global flood only one option.
Or, I suppose, God could have simply redeemed mankind without the whole Incarnation and sacrificial death of the Son.
I don’t believe we could have been redeemed without the whole Cross thing either. The relationship to the flood though is … ? The answer is none.
Darryl, Darryl , Darryl .