Noah and the Flood is a Legend?

[mlchance]

Numbering added:

1. If I were very prone to interpret everything in the Bible as symbolic, then I might well have concluded that the Holy Eucharist is symbolic too.

1. Well if you want to say that story as ficticious, then doesn’t that mean you are less likely to believe other things the Bible tells you?
2. It seems to me that God has provided salvation for those who are not righteous. That seems to be contradictory to what you say you learned from your myth of Noah.

I never said everything in the Bible is symbolic, did I? Distorting a position before responding to it isn’t very sensible. Furthermore, one cannot legitimately conclude that the Eucharist is purely symbolic because that is a matter pertaining to salvation which has been infallibly defined by the Church.

To answer your second point: No.

Finally, my interpretation that the meaning of the Noah story is that God preserves the righteous and allows the destruction of the wicked comes from noting the simple fact that this is what Scripture says. Why was Noah spared? Because he was righteous. Why weren’t others spared? Because they were wicked. It’s right there in Genesis.

Also, to give credit where credit is due, my interpretation isn’t really mine. I’m just using the same one Jesus used. See Matthew 24:37-39. I feel I’m pretty safe ground saying that Jesus could authoritatively interpret Scripture.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[buffalo]

I wonder what God meant when he promised the following:

1. gI will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.
2. And God said: This is the sign of the covenant which I give between me and you, and to every living soul that is with you, for perpetual generations.
   13. I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me and between the earth.
3. hAnd when I shall cover the sky with clouds, my bow shall appear in the clouds:
4. And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.
   16. And the bow shall be in the clouds, and I shall see it, and shall remember the everlasting covenant, that was made between God and every living soul of all flesh which is upon the earth.

 

[Melchior]

Of course the flood happened. I am truly amazed by the amount of skepticim by Christians.

Those who constantly refer to science OVER scripture really are confused. Scripture has genres and must be read as such. The flood account makes makes no sense as legend in it’s literary form, especially given Peter’s refernece to it as fact is clearly a recounting of an actual event. It could not have been merely local if the entire human race, save one family, was destroyed. Why do you skeptics skip those inconvenient parts?

Peter makes no sense if the flood did not really happen. It trashes the meaning of the text.

For those of you who prefer the skeptical theories of unbelievers you can have your theories. I will go with the literal understanding of the overwhelming majority of believers throughout time. It is simply arrogant to try to plug modern theories into every Biblical account to show how or betters were ignorant. God abviously performed many miracles at this time. He brought the animals to Noah, he sustained them etc. Why is that so hard to accept? Why do you not question the Resurrection? It does not make scientific sense does it?

The flood happened. It was worldwide and it was as scripture said. Otherwise the completely isolated Australian aborigines would not have had a flood account of their own.

Mel

 

[jmm08]

mlchance:

I never said everything in the Bible is symbolic, did I? Distorting a position before responding to it isn’t very sensible. Furthermore, one cannot legitimately conclude that the Eucharist is purely symbolic because that is a matter pertaining to salvation which has been infallibly defined by the Church.

You are correct – you didn’t say it was symbolic. But I think you misinterpret it. And if somebody thinks the flood is a myth, how likely are they to also think a lot of the bible is myth?

mlchance:

Finally, my interpretation that the meaning of the Noah story is that God preserves the righteous and allows the destruction of the wicked comes from noting the simple fact that this is what Scripture says. Why was Noah spared? Because he was righteous. Why weren’t others spared? Because they were wicked. It’s right there in Genesis.

Also, to give credit where credit is due, my interpretation isn’t really mine. I’m just using the same one Jesus used. See Matthew 24:37-39. I feel I’m pretty safe ground saying that Jesus could authoritatively interpret Scripture.

– Mark L. Chance.

I read Matthew 24:37-39 in NAB. Jesus didn’t say that Noah was righteous. Jesus didn’t say what you say he said. Mary was the immaculate conception, not Noah.

Noah was just far less wicked than the others and at least he sought after God with his heart. In doing so, Noah had faith and found grace (and he did good works too – built an ark amidst persecution and ridicule). In Genesis 9:20-24 we see that Noah got drunk too. So it isn’t like he was perfect. I’m no better than Noah. If I had seen so many people die like he did, I suppose I would have also been quite sad.

I suppose the idea behind the flood was to get rid of the wild excessive wickedness of Noah’s generation while keeping Noah and his family so things could start over – without the extreme excessive wickedness (including killing off the Nephalim / Anakim of Numbers 13).

In Matthew Chapter 24, Jesus has excellent speaking skills and uses Hebrew poetry – telling the same thing over and over in different ways, each illustration shares the parallel message. In Hebrew poetry the ideas rhyme instead of the sounds of the words. That is why the Psalms are so beautiful no matter what language you translate them into. But in Hebrew, many of the Psalms are also acrostic (A, B, C, D, etc.).

Parallel ideas with the same message in Mt 24:
Tribulation.
Fig Tree.
Noah and the Flood.

The main point: when “the coming of the Son of Man” happens, it will be fast and many will not know it or be prepared for it.

 

[jmm08]

jmm08:

I suppose the idea behind the flood was to get rid of the wild excessive wickedness of Noah’s generation while keeping Noah and his family so things could start over – without the extreme excessive wickedness (including killing off the Nephalim / Anakim of Numbers 13).

This does get back to the original question (real flood or legend).

This is why I suppose the flood wasn’t small. Noah’s flood seems to be how God got rid of the Nephalim / Anakim (along with many other very wicked people). And I bet the Nephalim / Anakim lived almost everywhere that ordinary men were living – but I don’t know and obviously I wasn’t there.

I wonder though if wrestling champion “Andre the Giant” somehow wound up with some of the genes. God could have gotten rid of Nephalim / Anakim another way, but He doesn’t reveal it in the Bible (or does He)?

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t see many people here saying that the flood story is a myth. That’s an undeserved strawman. I’m not even skeptical about the story; I believe it transpired as described. I just don’t believe that it’s being described in literal language, nor is there any reason whatsoever to believe so. The Resurrection is taken literally because it is specifically emphasised as literal in numerous places in Scripture, and not merely as a rote recounting of an ancient tale. The Flood, on the other hand, is spoken of in a very different manner, and hundreds of years removed from the culture of the Apostles’ day (incidently, check out that fully correct use of the word day and tell me that Genesis must be taken literally).

Peter’s writing keeps getting brought up, but that implies that some kind of supernatural knowledge of events was imparted into his brain, which is NOT at all what Inspiration means or implies. It’s a false proof at its worst because it assumes a knowledge that is not claimed or implied by Scripture. The same can be said for Moses as well, who wrote Genesis.

As for the Nephilim, I certainly agree with jmm088 to a degree, but I see no reason to assume that the Nephilim were a world-wide occurance. Oh, and Andre the Giant had a hormone imbalance caused by a malfunctioning gland. You could theoretically replicated the same growth with minor tweaking in any child, no genes necessary

 

[Melchior]

Ghosty:

I don’t see many people here saying that the flood story is a myth. That’s an undeserved strawman. I’m not even skeptical about the story; I believe it transpired as described. I just don’t believe that it’s being described in literal language, nor is there any reason whatsoever to believe so. The Resurrection is taken literally because it is specifically emphasised as literal in numerous places in Scripture, and not merely as a rote recounting of an ancient tale. The Flood, on the other hand, is spoken of in a very different manner, and hundreds of years removed from the culture of the Apostles’ day (incidently, check out that fully correct use of the word day and tell me that Genesis must be taken literally).

Peter’s writing keeps getting brought up, but that implies that some kind of supernatural knowledge of events was imparted into his brain, which is NOT at all what Inspiration means or implies. It’s a false proof at its worst because it assumes a knowledge that is not claimed or implied by Scripture. The same can be said for Moses as well, who wrote Genesis.

As for the Nephilim, I certainly agree with jmm088 to a degree, but I see no reason to assume that the Nephilim were a world-wide occurance. Oh, and Andre the Giant had a hormone imbalance caused by a malfunctioning gland. You could theoretically replicated the same growth with minor tweaking in any child, no genes necessary

Ample reason to doubt the existence of Adam & Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons and Moses. You cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the appropriate rules of literature or you don’t. Casting doubt on some cast doubt on all. Genesis is one book, it does not switch genres other than using particularly poetic language in the creation account. You would be hard pressed to allegorize any of the life accounts in Genesis. Once you do you have allegorized them all. Any good traditional Biblical commentator will tell you the same.

Mel

 

[jmm08]

Ghosty:

IAs for the Nephilim, I certainly agree with jmm088 to a degree, but I see no reason to assume that the Nephilim were a world-wide occurance. Oh, and Andre the Giant had a hormone imbalance caused by a malfunctioning gland. You could theoretically replicated the same growth with minor tweaking in any child, no genes necessary

Genesis 6:4-6 “At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. When the LORD saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil, he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.”

I suppose the “sons of heaven” were demons or devils. While they were going at it to violate heaven’s laws, did they care about any other laws or respect any particular earthly region or territory? Perhaps it happened anywhere that daughters of men lived.

You are right about Andre the Giant. The official web site says: “Andre, however, suffered from acromegaly, a disease that results in an over abundance of growth hormones.”
andrethegiant.com/bio.html

 

[mlchance]

Melchior:

Genesis is one book, it does not switch genres other than using particularly poetic language in the creation account.

Genesis is one book now. It wasn’t always one book. Genesis does indeed contain many different genres compiled from several different sources, cobbled together (often awkwardly by modern standards) into a single narrative.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[PhilVaz]

Mel << Ample reason to doubt the existence of Adam & Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons and Moses. >>

Okay, tell me when you think Adam/Eve would have lived then. Please respond in this thread When Did Adam/Eve Live?

Phil P

 

[Philthy]

Scott Hahn says the Bible is a narrative of SALVATION history, not natural or scientific history. Attempts to extract scientific, or human history from it must only be viewed in the context of salvation history.

As an aside, the current debate going on in scientific circles regarding the origin of Homo Sapiens has supported rather than disproved the concept that all humans have a common ancestor. DNA testing on blood samples taken from humans around the world can theoretically tell us whos blood line is oldest. This testing has led many to believe that we all originate from Africa, and that man is not nearly as old as once thought. In other words, Noah is still standing his ground!

 

[Philthy]

Ghosty:

…The Flood, on the other hand, is spoken of in a very different manner, and hundreds of years removed from the culture of the Apostles’ day (incidently, check out that fully correct use of the word day and tell me that Genesis must be taken literally).

Yea I know what you mean here. We define a “day” as the amount of time it takes the earth to rotate once during it’s revolution around the sun. However in the creation account, the Sun had not yet been created even though the first day was complete. See my earlier post regarding “scientific truth vs salvific truth” the bible reveals the history of salvation - not true scientific history…

 

[Ghosty]

Ample reason to doubt the existence of Adam & Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons and Moses. You cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the appropriate rules of literature or you don’t.

I have the Magesterium to guide me in this regard. This is another reason why Sola Scriptura is an absolutely untenable argument. Without the guidance of the Church, arguments like yours pop up where they needn’t even exist.

Obviously you seem to be relying on some kind of Sola Scriptura basis, which leaves me with no wonder as to why you believe faith could be shaken by basic rationality and reason.

 

[PhilVaz]

Mel << The flood happened. It was worldwide and it was as scripture said. Otherwise the completely isolated Australian aborigines would not have had a flood account of their own. >>

You’re ignoring all the scientific evidence and problems I mentioned above. Not good. The Australian aborigines probably did have stories of floods, again local ones not worldwide ones. I respect science and Genesis both. Get Hugh Ross, get Glenn Morton, they will change your mind.

Here I found this for you. Listen to this Real Audio program and learn (1 hour of information, from Reasons To Believe July/2001)

A Geologist’s Perspective on a Global Flood

Some of the questions discussed:

If the entire geological record was laid down roughly 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in a global flood, what predictions could we make about what the geological record would look like?

What if the layers of rock and the fossil record were formed over a long period of time with a mixture of slow changes due to natural causes and local catastrophes, what would we expect to discover in the record of nature?

What would the geological record look like? What predictions could we make? How do these predictions for both of these models compare to what we actually see in the fossil record?
Which model has better support? Can you briefly describe for us one particular geological sequence? Isn’t it possible that all the geological deposits could have been laid down quickly? Can you give us a couple of examples of geological deposits that require long ages of deposition? What about rocks?

How was the Grand Canyon formed? What about places in the Grand Canyon where we see trees growing through several layers of sediment? How would your model account for this? What about layers of sedimentation that are in the wrong order? How does your model account for that?

I’ve heard some Christians assert that the geological column is merely a hypothetical idea, not an actual series of rock layers. That nowhere do we observe the complete sequence of from the creation of Earth to the present. Is that true?

What about the fact that scientists have found fossils of marine fossils on the top of Mt. Everest? Doesn’t that prove that Noah’s flood was global?

Etc…etc…I’m telling you, Hugh Ross is awesome in this area. He is interviewing one of the leading evangelical Christian geologists Keith Miller of Kansas State Univ. These guys respect science and Scripture both and know what they are talking about.

And read this The Waters of the Flood by Hugh Ross

Phil P

 

[mlchance]

jmm08:

You are correct – you didn’t say it was symbolic. But I think you misinterpret it. And if somebody thinks the flood is a myth, how likely are they to also think a lot of the bible is myth?

Maybe quite likely. Maybe not. That’s why it’s important for people who are not well-schooled in reading the Bible to submit just teaching authority.

jmm08:

read Matthew 24:37-39 in NAB. Jesus didn’t say that Noah was righteous. Jesus didn’t say what you say he said.

Yes, Jesus did. Read for the message rather than just looking at which words are there and which ones aren’t. The point of Jesus’s story in Matthew 24:37-39 (and the surrounding parables) is that only the righteous will be spared disaster at the end of days. Genesis 7:8 likewise notes that Noah found favor with the Lord. Why? Because he was not depraved like his neighbors. He was spared due to his righteousness.

jmm08:

So it isn’t like [Noah] was perfect.

Righteous does not necessarily imply total perfection or sinlessness. We are all called to be righteous.

jmm08:

Parallel ideas with the same message in Mt 24:
Tribulation.
Fig Tree.
Noah and the Flood.

The main point: when “the coming of the Son of Man” happens, it will be fast and many will not know it or be prepared for it.

And, being prepared involves what? YOu guess it, folks! Living a righteous life.

And so we’ve come full circle back to my original point.

Finally, the comment about the flood having to had actually affected the entire world (rather than referring to a local flood that destroyed what the author of Genesis understood as the world) is completely unsound.

First, similarity of appearance does not demonstrate similiarity of origin.

Second, if the aborigines of Australia were affected by the Flood (which they weren’t), then all of them would have died and there’d be no one left to pass on the stories.

Unless, of course, you now expect people to believe some ancestors of Noah managed to sail all the way across the Indian Ocean to a continent that they didn’t even know existed and then repopulated Australia, in the process becoming a people with no relation at all either ethnically or linguistically to the Semitic people who would have spawned them.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Ghosty]

Here’s another head scratcher for those who insist on both a Young Earth and the world-wide Flood. The Chinese have a recorded history that actually predates the time that the Flood would have occured, and it has no interuption or records of such an event. They were writing things down before Noah built his ark, and possibly before he was even born. They actually laughed at Western accounts of the age of the Earth and the Great Flood when the European missionaries arrived, because they knew full well that such things couldn’t be true as they were being presented.

It’s glaring errors like these that make such claims so difficult to take seriously, and I’m a devout Catholic who believes 100% in the Ressurection, Transubtantiation, and the Virgin Birth! I have absolutely no agenda against the faith, but rather stand up for it daily.

 

[jmm08]

1 John 1:5-10 Now this is the message that we have heard from him and proclaim to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say, “We have fellowship with him,” while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin. If we say, “We are without sin,” we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. If we say, “We have not sinned,” we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Just to set the record straight – I am a sinner. My own righteousness is quite worthless. And I seem to be unable in my own strength to do anything about it.

If God is out to save the righteous, He should pass me by. But He hasn’t passed me by yet. God has been reaching out to me the last few months.

One day Fulton Sheen went to “Hell’s Kitchen” in New York. He heard that a girl named Kitty was sick. When he found Kitty, she was in one of the dirtiest rooms he had ever been in. Kitty said “I cannot go to Confession because I am the worst girl in the city of New York.” Fulton Sheen told her “You are not the worst girl in the city of New York; the worst girl in the city of New York says that she is the best girl in the city of New York.”

Kitty did not understand. But God worked with Fulton Sheen to reach out to her. She had been poisoned, but she recovered after being anointed and given the Sacrament of the Sick.

See Fulton Sheen’s autobiography “Treasure in Clay” Chapter “Making Converts” pages 268-269.

What does it have to do with Noah? Perhaps this.

Noah’s righteousness was not perfect. He wanted to get good and drunk. And who among us wouldn’t have been very grieved after losing all of humanity except close kin?

God is able to transfuse or impute Christ’s righteousness into us. 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 says to me that faith, good works, spiritual gifts and selflessness are not enough. Some argue on whether Faith is enough or if it takes Faith and Good works. I think 1 Corinthians 13 says we must have Love in addition to Faith and Hope. The good works come from Christian Love, Agape love. And that Christian Love comes from Jesus Heart that must be inside.

 

[marciadietrich]

Journeyman:

The text also states that the story of Adam and Eve is the most famous “myth” in the bible, and that the story seeks to explain the evil and suffering humanity now faces.

Though there are parts not literal surrounding Adam and Eve, say if it was actually the eating of an apple from a tree that was the act of disobedience, Adam and Eve are considered to be real people and parents to all humanity.

[375](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/375.htm’) The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

…

**389 **The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

[390](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/390.htm’) The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

I’m going to guess that at most the flood would have to be a real event locally to Noah … but perhaps “40 days and 40 nights” and other aspects are perhaps not literal but representative of a complete cycle of some sort.

Since the flood prefigures baptism it must be on some level literal … but just like baptism could be by pouring instead of immersion doesn’t necessarily need to have been a worldwide event. Though perhaps needs to be literal in terms of all of humanity at the time of the flood.

[845](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/845.htm’) To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

Marcia

 

[Matt16_18]

GuibertOfNogent:

I’ve always been baffled by the logistics of it all … if you had two of EVERY ANIMAL in the world on a boat, how much would the food required to feed those animals for 40 days weigh?

Good point. Has anyone ever done a calculation about how much space would actually be required to built a ship and provision it with enough food and animal cages for “every beast according to its kind, and all the cattle according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth according to its kind, and every bird according to its kind, every bird of every sort”?

The ship would have had to been of enormous proportions, and it would have required Noah to have made trips to Australia, Africa, Antarctica, the Americas, etc. to find all the pants and animals indigenous to those continents.

Obviously, we can’t take the story of Noah that literally.

 

[Melchior]

Ghosty:

I have the Magesterium to guide me in this regard. This is another reason why Sola Scriptura is an absolutely untenable argument. Without the guidance of the Church, arguments like yours pop up where they needn’t even exist.

Obviously you seem to be relying on some kind of Sola Scriptura basis, which leaves me with no wonder as to why you believe faith could be shaken by basic rationality and reason.

Phil and Ghosty,

First, Ghosty. Respectfully, it gets old and tired when someone tries to quiet an opposing view by saying “Well, your whole problem is you believe in Sola Scriptura”. That is not an argument. That is a very weak way to silence an opposing view. I stand with the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout history in my view of Noah and the Flood. So you will have to accuse them of Sola Scriptura if your argument against me is true.

Now, Phil. I have no interest in going to another thread to hash this out. It is a matter preference. Either you prefer to start with scripture (and tradition) and harmonize modern or past scientific theory with it, or you choose to start with modern or past scientific theory and try to harmonize scripture according to it. I choose the former, you choose the latter. What is intersting is that your position requires an allegorizing of the text and a pretty obvious skepticism of the coherence of scripture. Scipture is reduced to merely being accurate about Salvation History and presumably wrong about everything else. I believe their was a worldside flood because the biblical account in context, while leaving out details (not a science or history text after all) does exclude certain possibilities, like a local flood. How was all of humanity destroyed in only a local flood? You must first deal with the text specifically before you criticize it. There are too many holes in you theory. But specificlly your presupposition is that the Genesis account of the flood is not accurate and not literal for the most part. This is a dangerous starting point as it betrays both a lack of confidence in the account and a distrust of things not modern. It also allows you to minimize what is actually said and ignore the text. Further it is rather apparent that the Apostle and Jesus assumed the flood acontn was not allegory. That alone should give you great pause.

You also assume one must be a young earther to believe the account. One can be an old earther or a younger earther and still believe in a worldwide flood.

Further, you should check out the account of the aborigines. They talk of a world wide flood not a local one. As many other culture have. I am seriously troubled by those who are skeptical about any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that does not support their theories. I appreciate your mind and wanting to work these things out. But starting with assumptions that poo-poo those who were not born in the last 150 years is chronilogical snobbery and it will lead to serious doubts about other things in a few decades unless you start to be more trustful of those who have gone before you.

As for me I believe the Biblical account of the flood until someone proves otherwise. And please don’t try to say that others have proven otherwise. It ain’t so. Others have theorized otherwise.

In Peace,

Mel