Noah and the Flood is a Legend?

[itsjustdave1988]

Gotta side with Mel on this until the magisterium corrects me.

Some remarks from Catholic author Robert Sungenis to consider:

Catholic exegesis has been noted throughout history for its doggedly literal interpretation of Scripture, most often in places where other groups and denominations have sought to spiritualize the text!

… if Scripture said it, without any hint of it being metaphorical, it must be understood at face value, no matter how absurd it may be to our senses.

In arriving at the decision of interpreting Scripture at face value did the Church first convene a conference of all the world’s scientists to decide whether transubstantiation was scientifically possible before she rendered her decision? No, not at all. …

I have no problem with someone having a contrary interpretion of Genesis. A Catholic is free to do so, as long as their interpretation is within the bounds of Catholic dogma, and submits to the orthodox guidance of the Church regarding the principles of Biblical interpretation. One is permitted to hold the view that some things in Scripture is merely history in appearance. Yet, to deny the historicity of narratives previously viewed by the Church as historical, one must put forth sound reasons, and submit them to the Church for her judgment. The Church, as far as I can tell, has never denied the historicity of the flood. The literal interpretation (interpretation which takes into context the literary genre), has always been foundational within the Catholic Church. Other senses are built upon it, yet without abandoning it.

“On the historical character of certain narratives. It is not lawful to question the historical character of books hitherto regarded as historical, unless in a case where the sense of the Church is not opposed and where, subject to her judgment, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred writer did not intend to write history (23 June, 1905).” (Decision of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Catholic Encyclopedia, “Bible Commission”)

I don’t consider the Genesis narrative to be historical in every detail. But it seems to me the author did intend to writ history with regard to whether or not a worldwide flood occurred. That detail, although unsupported by science (as is transubstantiation), seems to be the authorical intent, given what the actual words of Scripture say, and the context of Catholic tradition.

 

[Melchior]

Orogeny:

Mel,

I appreciate your resolve in this matter, but I really wonder about some of your statements. Do you believe that we must accept everything written in the bible as literally true? Do you believe science (not scientists) is evil?

I ask these questions not to argue against your position but rather to understand some of your contentions.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

I believe everything in the Bible is literarily true. That is you have to un derstand everything according to it’s genre. I certainly do not think that when Jesus says “I am the door…” that he is saying he is made of wood and has hinges and a knob. I believe you must read everything in context, not in a wooden literal sense. Did the sun stand still? Or was the writer speaking in terms of perception? Obviously, it was in terms of perception. That being said the Flood account is written in a Hebraic literary form that is not in the allegorical style. The church fathers agree as do all traditional Biblical scholars. I don’t think we should mindlessly read everything with a rigid literalism. We must recognize when it is poetic, narrative, didactic, allegorical, prophetic etc.

The reason I feel strongly about this is because discerning the genre is not that difficult. What has happned is that modern scientific theory has prompted a reading of certain Biblical texts in a way that is novel and deviated from thousands of years of scholarship. And frankly, in every case people seem to end up ignoring the details of the text and ignoring the time honored understanding in favor of capitulation to seemingly contradictory theories. In other words, chuck out what has been the concensus because modern athiests say we are dumb if we take it literally. So we must do genre tweaking, even if it does violence to literary rules and common sense.

Mel

 

[buffalo]

Melchior:

Hi Tim,

I believe everything in the Bible is literarily true. That is you have to un derstand everything according to it’s genre. I certainly do not think that when Jesus says “I am the door…” that he is saying he is made of wood and has hinges and a knob. I believe you must read everything in context, not in a wooden literal sense. Did the sun stand still? Or was the writer speaking in terms of perception? Obviously, it was in terms of perception. That being said the Flood account is written in a Hebraic literary form that is not in the allegorical style. The church fathers agree as do all traditional Biblical scholars. I don’t think we should mindlessly read everything with a rigid literalism. We must recognize when it is poetic, narrative, didactic, allegorical, propetic etc.

The reason I feel strongly about this is because discerning the genre is not that difficult. What has happned is that modern scientific theory has prompted a reading of certain Biblical texts in a way that is novel and deviated from thousands of years of scholarship. And frankly, in every case people seem to end up ignoring the details of the text and ignoring the time honored understanding in favor of capitulation to seemingly contradictory theories. In other words, chuck out what has been the concensus because modern athiests say we are dumb if we take it literally. So we must do genre tweaking, eben if it does violence to literary rules and common sense.

Mel

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. John Chrysostom asserted:

"When you hear that ‘God planted Paradise in Eden in the East,’ understand the word ‘planted’ befittingly of God: that is, that he commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that Paradise was creted and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it (Homilies on Genesis 13:3).

I used to be a theistic evolutionist. I’ve decided to retreat from my previously held and “scientifically” explainable interpretations of Scripture, as it seems my “science” was cafeteria science, picking when I’d use science and when I would rely on faith without regard to scientific plausability.

Instead, I’m at a point in my life where I’m quite comfortable not knowing how God does the miraculous things that He does. I think modern science might tend towards crippling my theological studies. I think it best if I abandon my “cateteria sciencist” approach to my Holy Religion and instead rely upon faith without consideration as to its scientific plausibility.

 

[Melchior]

Orogeny:

Ever been to a waterfall?

Peace

Tim

Yep. But maybe they were none there at the time? Or perhaps God has altered somehting atmospheric with regard to the bending of light? Who knows? God does. Perhpas they were simply infrequent due to the nature of “the mist”. Maybe God took an existing phenomenon and applied a new meaning to it as it would be on a larger scale due to rain? Either way the text does not say rainbows came into existence at this time. So the point is rather moot.

How do you deal with God’s covenant never to again destroy the earth with a flood? Since there have been many local flood since then where life was lost, how do you reconcile this?

Mel

 

[Melchior]

Gotta side with Mel on this until the magisterium corrects me.

Some remarks from Catholic author Robert Sungenis to consider:

I have no problem with someone having a contrary interpretion of Genesis. A Catholic is free to do so, as long as their interpretation is within the bounds of Catholic dogma, and submits to the orthodox guidance of the Church regarding the principles of Biblical interpretation. One is permitted to hold the view that some things in Scripture is merely history in appearance. Yet, to deny the historicity of narratives previously viewed by the Church as historical, one must put forth sound reasons, and submit them to the Church for her judgment. The Church, as far as I can tell, has never denied the historicity of the flood. The literal interpretation (interpretation which takes into context the literary genre), has always been foundational within the Catholic Church. Other senses are built upon it, yet without abandoning it.

“On the historical character of certain narratives. It is not lawful to question the historical character of books hitherto regarded as historical, unless in a case where the sense of the Church is not opposed and where, subject to her judgment, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred writer did not intend to write history (23 June, 1905).” (Decision of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Catholic Encyclopedia, “Bible Commission”)

I don’t consider the Genesis narrative to be historical in every detail. But it seems to me the author did intend to writ history with regard to whether or not a worldwide flood occurred. That detail, although unsupported by science (as is transubstantiation), seems to be the authorical intent, given what the actual words of Scripture say, and the context of Catholic tradition.

Amen, Dave.

 

[Ghosty]

I am siding with the historic Catholic position and not an individual interpretation.

The historic position you are siding with IS individual interpretation precisely because it’s not Dogma or Doctrine. At most it would be Discipline (which it is not, since it’s not addressed in Canon Law). Majority rule simply doesn’t apply in these circumstances. Literal reading of the Flood is NOT a divine Tradition, I’m afraid, nor has it ever been authoritatively claimed to be. You’re claiming support that is simply not present.

So tell me what is the official magesterial teaching on the Flood? Does it disagree with me? If not you should be ashamed of the way you have attacked me.

There is no official Magisterial teaching on the Flood other than that Genesis uses symbolic language (this is absolutely a teaching of the Magisterium, though only one instance is explicitly sited as being symbolic, and that’s the account of the creation of Adam; see the Catechism in Paragraph 6, 362), so we are left to our own faculties of reason. Reason is upheld as a divine quality of humanity by the Magisterium, even going so far as to state that sin is crime against reason. The Magisterium teaches that Natural Law can be understood through reason alone by definition, and that reason and faith never actually contridict. We have, in the case of the Flood, a situation in which reason points in no small measure to the interpretation that I have presented, and where faith does not inform us at all on the matter. It is logical and reasonable to conclude, then, that since reason and faith do not contridict, that faith agrees with reason in this circumstance, and as faith is silent, we can draw our conclusions about what the faith is by what reason shows us. In short, the Magisterium does not agree with you on your approach at all, though neither does it explicitly affirm my conclusion (though it does endorse the approach I’m using to reach it). Again you seem to be trying for support that is simply not present.

Yet you fail to see where I agree with the magesterium.

Only because you have failed to show where, or even that, you agree with the Magisterium at all.

All I see is someonw who has more faith in modern scientific theories than God’s word and wraps himself in the idea of the Magesterium to mask his skepticism. I can harmonize my belief in scripture with the official teaching of the Catholic Church so your argument is, again, a mountain of straw.

On the contrary, the Magisterium is my first resort of knowledge on all information I come across. I even bring my Catechism and Bible to work with me for personal study. Everything I come across is checked against those sources first. It is by virtue of this that I have come to the conclusions I have, because the Magisterium has spoken to me of utilizing reason, and has stated explicitly that Genesis is not fully literal. My faith is with God on this one.

 

[RBushlow]

Journeyman:

. . . is the most famous “myth” in the bible, and that the story seeks to explain the evil and suffering humanity now faces.

What is the official Catholic Church teaching on these “stories”?

I believe that 3he Catholic Church proclaims and teaches that the biblical accounts are true.

 

[Orogeny]

Melchior:

How do you deal with God’s covenant never to again destroy the earth with a flood? Since there have been many local flood since then where life was lost, how do you reconcile this?

Mel

Well, I don’t deal with it literally. I don’t believe that He destroyed the earth once; therefore, He cannot do it “again”.

I would have an easier time accepting the historical occurance of the story if it was about a local flood. But it isn’t.

Peace

Tim

 

[Ghosty]

Buffalo wrote:

You still haven’t answered the question. What was the author trying to get across?

That the flood was huge, which I’m in no way disagreeing with.

I also want to point out that this is not a matter of something being “unsupported” by science, as that is not a factor in determining truth. The question is whether or not the Flood, literally and exactly as described, is contridicted by reason, which it plainly seems to be. Reason and Faith DO NOT EVER contridict, and Faith is silent on the matter.

 

[buffalo]

RBushlow:

I believe that 3he Catholic Church proclaims and teaches that the biblical accounts are true.

She has indeed. I believe VII again emphasized it.

 

[Ghosty]

I believe that 3he Catholic Church proclaims and teaches that the biblical accounts are true.

Not to be confused with literally factual, which the Catechism explicitly states is not the case.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ghosty,

From a Catholic perspective, hermeneutics are bound to certain orthodox principles that Catholic are not permitted to violate.

For example,

the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s response of 23 June 1905, dealing with “narratives which are historical only in appearance” (EB 161). The Commission decided that as a rule the existence of such genres should not be admitted in Scripture, but it allowed that there might be exceptions, if it could be proved with solid arguments that in particular books or passages “the inspired writer did not intend to write history in the true and proper sense.”* (The Encyclical Sprititus Praclitus in its Historical Context, *by Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., footnote 33)

I simply disagree that anybody has given “solid arguments” that the “inspired writer did not intend to write history in the true and proper sense” regarding the historicity of the worldwide flood.

 

[Ghosty]

I simply disagree that anybody has yet to give “solid arguments” that the “inspired writer did not intend to write history in the true and proper sense” regarding the historicity of the worldwide flood.

Understandable, and I certainly don’t fault you for taking that stance. I would argue, however, that the mountain of evidence, supplied by reason, that such an event did not occur exactly as described is sufficient to demonstrate that, assuming the author knew the facts of the matter, he did not intend it to be taken exactly as described.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In what way is a worldwide flood contrary to reason that wouldn’t also make suspect a virgin birth?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ghosty,

I’m not defending historical details, but the main premise, which is a worldwide flood that killed everybody but Noah’s family. Does that not seem to be the authorial intent? Doesn’t the common and constant consent of Catholic tradition describe to us that Noah’s family was the only one’s saved by that Ark?

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

that the mountain of evidence, supplied by reason, that such an event did not occur exactly as described is sufficient to demonstrate that, assuming the author knew the facts of the matter, he did not intend it to be taken exactly as described.

Using the word mountain - is that a freudian slip? LOL

I ask again, if they find the Ark at 17,000 feet how did it get there?

15 cubits above the highest mountain - now if I take that literally it gives me a pretty good measurement of how deep the water was.

If I take it figuratively it says - holy mackerel this was one big flood.

In either case - it says a flood of immense proportions.

 

[Ghosty]

In what way is a worldwide flood contrary to reason that wouldn’t also make suspect a virgin birth?

A number of reasons, actually. First, science does not preclude miracles. In fact, it is only THROUGH science that we can be certain that a miracle has actually occured, which is why medical miracles are investigated by doctors before they can be attributed to a saint. Science does not state that a Virgin Birth could not occur, it can only explain how pregnancies normally occur in a repeatable fashion. As a rule, science does not stop at miracles, but rather seeks to understand them in the hopes of finding an underlying rule, but this is a matter of practice for the furthering of knowledge, and not a denial by science that miracles can and do occur. Science does not allow itself to “rest on its laurels”, so to speak, just as Faith does not rest on its laurels, but rather continues to explore the Mysteries that have been revealed to us.

Secondly, in all things we know that faith and reason do not contridict. We have no lingering, testable evidence of the Virgin Birth, so natural reason is silent on the matter (I’ve already explained that miracles are recognized by science, even when they continue to be explored). Faith (through Divine Revelation), however, attests to the event, so we can conclude that it did indeed occur as described, and that it was a miracle in the scientific sense, because reason will not contridict faith. The Flood, on the other hand, is in the opposite situation, where Reason attests to a certain event, and Faith is silent about how it is to be interpreted. Just as with the Virgin Birth, we can take the truth presented by one to illuminate the other. Admittedly, human reason is not as solid as Divine Revelation, so there is a bit more wiggle room on the Flood than there is on the Virgin Birth. My point is merely that Reason strongly points to a local Flood, and therefore I will use that to illuminate Faith until such time as it is contridicted.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We can certainly offer other senses of Scripture than that which is strictly literal. For example, St. Paul speaks of Adam as a type of Christ. It is clear that St. Paul did not use the “historical critical exegesis” of Genesis, but instead found truth within the typological sense. Nonetheless, according to Pope Benedict XV, ***Spiritus Paraclitus ***(1920):

we ought not to desert the path mapped out by Christ and His Apostles, who, while regarding the Old Testament as preparing for and foreshadowing the New Covenant, and whilst consequently explaining various passages in the former as figurative, yet do not give a figurative interpretation of all alike. In confirmation of this … St. Paul, who, when “explaining the mystery of Adam and Eve, did not deny that they were formed, but on that historical basis erected a spiritual interpretation, and said: ‘Therefore shall a man leave,’ etc.”

I find it dangerous to the faith to discount the historicity of a passage in Scripture based upon figurative genres alone. This was not the path mapped out for us by Christ or the Apostles, nor by the long tradition of our Holy Religion.

*Providentissumus Deus *charges us with a rule for interpreting Scripture, “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”

You say that reason makes it untenable, but it doesn’t. Is it so unreasonable to conclude that God can cover the world with water? If so, why?

 

[Ghosty]

Is it so unreasonable to conclude that God can cover the world with water? If so, why?

Absolutely not! I would never argue that God couldn’t do such a thing. What is unreasonable to assume, however, is that all physical evidence would indicate that such an event never occured if, in fact, it had. We’re not talking about absence of evidence, but rather cohesive and contridictory evidence. I believe it is unreasonable to conclude that God would intentionally mask the event from our Reason without a strong argument as to why. God certainly COULD mask it, but throughout history we see just the opposite occuring, as miracle after miracle are attested to by science and Reason. Miracles are, practically by definition, a way for God to break through the veil of perceived normalcy and awaken us to Divine reality. Why would God go against this trend in this specific instance?

In short, if we had evidence of a world Flood, yet science couldn’t explain where the water came from or went, I would say “you can’t explain it because it’s a miracle of God,” and be done with it. In this case we have not only a lack of evidence for the Flood, but we have things that, quite simply, shouldn’t be if such a Flood occured. So I say, “you can’t explain the Flood because it is a Mystery of God, but you can show what did not occur.” I accept the Flood 100%. I believe that God directed Noah, and that God led the creatures to the Ark, and I believe that the relevant civilizations were wiped out, and that from Noah sprang a line leading to Abraham and Jesus. What I do not believe is the reading of the story that is contridicted by reason at this time. This in no way shakes my faith. If someone were to put a gun to my head and say “Recant your belief in the Flood, and in the Ark, or I will shoot,” I would gladly accept death.