noah and the flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter angell1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

angell1

Guest
from what i know, scientific evidence currently does not support a global flood.

but God did say he would wipe out everything on the earth.

is there another way to understand this wcripture?
 
Allegorically? A real truth about God and his development of the relationship with his creation.
 
CathConvert602 said:
Allegorically? A real truth about God and his development of the relationship with his creation.
Click to expand...
is a local flood acceptable? can it just be accepted allegorically? or maybe science hasn’t been able to really detect it yet?
 
Allegorically? A real truth about God and his development of the relationship with his creation.
 
angell1 said:
is a local flood acceptable? can it just be accepted allegorically? or maybe science hasn’t been able to really detect it yet?
Click to expand...
I think all of your suggestions are acceptable to believe and possible. Truth is we don’t know.
 
The story of the flood and it’s aftermath is the third creation account.

Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is the first creation account.
Genesis 2:4 to 2:25 is the second creation account.
Genesis 7:11 to 9:17 is the third creation account.

The similarities are striking when Genesis 7:11 through 9:17 is read in light of the other two creation accounts - water, giving things for food, the command to be fruitful and multiply, the breath of life, etc. God the Father is the creator - he did not stop at the beginning of the world but constantly creates.

Whether the flood actually happened or not is beside the point. The story of the flood is the third story of creation - the point is creation, not flood, but everyone wants to focus on the flood for some reason.

There are other creation accounts in the Bible besides these three.

-Tim-
 
angell1 said:
from what i know, scientific evidence currently does not support a global flood.

but God did say he would wipe out everything on the earth.

is there another way to understand this wcripture?
Click to expand...
Forget science!

Believe the Bible.
 
TimothyH said:
The story of the flood and it’s aftermath is the third creation account.

Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is the first creation account.
Genesis 2:4 to 2:25 is the second creation account.
Genesis 7:11 to 9:17 is the third creation account.

The similarities are striking when Genesis 7:11 through 9:17 is read in light of the other two creation accounts - water, giving things for food, the command to be fruitful and multiply, the breath of life, etc. God the Father is the creator - he did not stop at the beginning of the world but constantly creates.

Whether the flood actually happened or not is beside the point. The story of the flood is the third story of creation - the point is creation, not flood, but everyone wants to focus on the flood for some reason.

There are other creation accounts in the Bible besides these three.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Last December 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, it sort of hit me in the face that Mary’s immaculate conception is a recapitulation of creation at least in part. the part that matters, a prelude to the Incarnation. Mary represents a “new creation” – in this larger sense of creation accounts and themes or types of creation.
 
This is a nice question and I hope it doesn’t have anything to do with the movie currently in the theaters, about which I know nothing.

The physical history of the earth may have something to do with what happened. It is believed that as little as 5,000 years ago, ocean levels were much lower. Melting of glaciers may have produced devastating floods that coincided with a lot of rain.

The Jewish commentaries suggest that there are actually three flood accounts interwoven in Genesis. That would complicate the picture. When you look at events in recent years, even less than ten years, we’ve had the most powerful typhoon (hurricane) ever recorded and before that, an enormous tsunami in the Indian Ocean that led to many deaths.

Surely the writer(s) of Genesis were perhaps combining traditions (a phrase that the Jewish commentary often uses, when appropriate) which resulted in the account that we have. The lessons are still unmistakably clear.
 
TimothyH said:
The story of the flood and it’s aftermath is the third creation account.

Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is the first creation account.
Genesis 2:4 to 2:25 is the second creation account.
Genesis 7:11 to 9:17 is the third creation account.

The similarities are striking when Genesis 7:11 through 9:17 is read in light of the other two creation accounts - water, giving things for food, the command to be fruitful and multiply, the breath of life, etc. God the Father is the creator - he did not stop at the beginning of the world but constantly creates.

Whether the flood actually happened or not is beside the point. The story of the flood is the third story of creation - the point is creation, not flood, but everyone wants to focus on the flood for some reason.

There are other creation accounts in the Bible besides these three.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
This is a keen observation, but the Flood story is really a tale of the *re-*creation of man. The stories between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 9:17 represent a narrative arc. You can see narrative bridges between Genesis 2:5 (for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth) and Genesis 7:4 ([God] will rain upon the earth), and also between Genesis 3:17 (cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof ) and Genesis 5:29 ([Noah] shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on the earth, which the Lord hath cursed), for example.

The arc is this:
  1. The creation of man out of the slime (from the spring) of the earth.
  2. The fall of man in sin and disobedience.
  3. Man becomes steeped in depravity.
  4. The rise of man in righteousness and obedience (Noah).
  5. The recreation of man from the cleansing fountains of (the deep) the earth.
There are other details of the arc not included here (such as the earth is cursed because of Adam’s sin, while the righteousness of Noah releases the curse).

What we see, though, is immediately following this arc, the pattern begins again. Noah (representing man), immediately after being recreated, plants a “garden” (vineyard). And within this scene, Cham sins, and a curse is pronounced upon him.

This “creation-fall-recreation” theme continues throughout the Old Testament, and the hallmark sign that a “recreation” has taken place is the renewal, or new establishment, of God’s Covenant. God establishes the Covenant with Abraham for his obedience and Faith. He establishes the Covenant with Moses for his obedience and Faith. He establishes the Covenant with David for his obedience and Faith.

And each time this arc repeats itself in OT history, a new element of it is revealed. In the Adam-Noah arc, we see that the fundamental problem is disobedience and sin, and we’re given the image of cleansing waters as a means of restoration (the Flood – Baptism). In the Abraham story, we see the sacrifice of the son as symbol of obedience and Faith. In the Moses story, we are given the image of an oppressed people being freed by the blood of the lamb, and other miraculous works. The theme of passage through water is repeated here, and the Law is given, reinforcing the idea of obedience as righteousness. In David, we learn the value of repentance as essential for seeing the face of God.

It would be a mistake to separate the story of Adam and Eve from the story of Noah. They are not two separate creation accounts, but one creation-fall-recreation account.
 
sirach2v4 said:
Last December 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, it sort of hit me in the face that Mary’s immaculate conception is a recapitulation of creation at least in part. the part that matters, a prelude to the Incarnation. Mary represents a “new creation” – in this larger sense of creation accounts and themes or types of creation.
Click to expand...
God hit you in the face. 😉

He showed you one of the creation accounts in the Bible. There are many. It is a wonderful gift to stumble across them. God never stops creating. It is part of his nature.

The last creation account is at the end of the Bible…

***And he who sat upon the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” *(Revelation 21:5)

-Tim-
 
If I’m not mistaken–and I very well could be–only when God created the heavens and earth in the beginning did He create ex nilo; thereafter, He made things from other things. Therefore, the flood account would be a picture of Baptism. We are 're-made, 're-born.
 
angell1 said:
from what i know, scientific evidence currently does not support a global flood.

but God did say he would wipe out everything on the earth.

is there another way to understand this wcripture?
Click to expand...
I had heard that science supported the idea of a flood.

Do you have a source where you got that information?
 
I don’t think scripture allows for a ‘local flood’ interpretation. It says the whole Earth. It says all humans.

Fortunately, science validates that there is more than water on Earth to entirely cover the whole surface of the planet even without subterrranean aquifers.

Average height of land above current sea level subtracted from average depth of the ocean below sea level is mathematically enough to do it and flooding up to mountain tops is possible if;
a) Mountains were not as high in Noah’s time
b) Tidal gravity from the moon made the flood waters swell
c) God wanted to do it the way the bible describes.

Another scientific fact is the existence of vast reserves of fossil fuels (oil/gas) which are the byproduct of sudden catastrophic mass-deaths of living plants and animals and rapid burial underground - in this case flood sediment.

Flood skeptics mainly base their scientific arguments on the assumption that mountains like Mt Everest for example have always been the same height above sea level despite tectonic movement and erosion. And they argue that God doesn’t exist therefore the Noachian flood cannot have been aided by supernatural intent.

They also base much of their skepticism on age-of-the-Earth logistics, with animal kinds making their way off the Ark and rapidly spreading around the world giving us what we see today. (Eg. were there koalas as we know them, on the Ark and if so how did they get to Australia if the Flood event was only xxx thousand years ago?)

I would never try to debate the Noachian Flood with an atheist/skeptic UNLESS you have your bible handy and you point out to them what the text says. It says God caused it to happen and He helped Noah’s efforts.

If you want to try and do so purely from scientific plausibility, without the bible and without reference to God’s divine intervention, and to theology, I don’t see how that type of dialogue is going to work for you.

Likewise, if you try to sweep the Flood under the carpet and placate the purely rational skeptic by saying…oh well it’s just a symbolic, mythological account not meant to be taken literally, then why bother? They already think the whole bible is myth and you would be simply confirming their no-God hypothesis.
 
Greetings Angell1,
Lets view it not as a natural event. After all if we wanted a meteorological or geological education, we’d simply attend the local university or tune into the 6 pm news. Lets look at the passengers and what transpires. NKJV: The Ark came to Rest on the mountain(s) of Ararat. Ararat means high or Holy ground. Shem receives the Father Son Blessing from Noah. It is believed by many that Shem was Melchezidek or of the Order. We know that Melchezidek was King of Salem and Priest unto God. The earliest known name for Mount Zion was Salem. Later it was called City of David, Mt Zion and then Jerusalem. So lets say one of the two mountains was Mount Zion (Salem). Noah became a farmer, a farmer needs fertile ground, a Garden. There is a garden nestled in the valley Kiddron next to Mt. Zion called Gethsemane. Next, the Dove. She went to and fro and finally returns with a freshly plucked Olive branch in her mouth. Where did she find olive trees, Mount of Olives (Mt Olivette). Shem’s kingdom, Noah’s garden, the Doves Olive tree, all were beneath their feet. That Ark came to Rest on Mt Zion and the Mt of Olives. Its all Spiritual. The interesting thing is that after allllllllll the cleansing, the 1st thing off the Ark upon the cleansed earth was what??? Noah opened HIS Window and released a raven first, 1st!!! Now picture those two mountains with the garden nestled in between with the brooke Kiddron flowing through. A garden is metaphor for a womb, a fertile place. Gen. 49 Jacob speaks 3 blessings over Joseph. The 3rd is the Blessings of the Breasts and of the Womb… He was the 11th born to Jacob, a remnant born unto a barren womb (Rachel). It is no wonder the name Joseph shows up in Mathew as the betrothed to Mary (remember the 3rd Blessing spoke over him by Jacob). Nor is it a wonder that the name Joseph is allowed the body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ at the cross. He is laid in Joseph’s tomb, in a Garden. Those two mountains and the garden, The Land of Milk and Honey! I hope this helps you Angel1, the Holy Spirit will bear witness if its true and you will know. Bless you in the pursuit of knowing Him!
 
angell1 said:
from what i know, scientific evidence currently does not support a global flood.

but God did say he would wipe out everything on the earth.

is there another way to understand this wcripture?
Click to expand...
Have to keep in mind our ‘scientific experts’ today usually have their own agenda, and usually they dont ‘jive’ with christianity or any other religion for that matter.
 
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

This is a good article from the Catholic Encyclopedia that discusses Noah and the flood and the various teachings over the years.

I sometimes think we get to involved in the details and lose the message. Even though all of mankind deserved extinction, God gave us another chance.
 
When one thinks of the flood as told in the bible one has to consider that that those who were hearing or even reading the account thought much differently then we do in our modern times. First of all, ancient man did not view the world as we the modern person does. They thought of the world as a flat disc with a dome covering it. They did not know that the earth was a sphere or that there were other peoples living on the other side of the planet. They only knew of the area around them. So when the flood happened they would naturally think that it covered the whole world at least the world as they knew it, but in the whole of the planet as we modern man knows it.

To the ancients, story telling always seemed to have a moral point or a religious point that they wished to make. The people at that time understood that and tried to lead their lives in accordance with it. In telling the story of the flood it shows God’s inner action with creation and with man and man’s either acceptance or non-acceptance of Him and His laws. I am sure that this story of the flood was told many thousands of times throughout the centuries before it was ever written down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top