Noahic flood interpretation under a non-fundamentalist view

  • Thread starter Thread starter LivingForJesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LivingForJesus

Guest
How do we interpret the story of the Noahic flood? (assuming that evolution is true and that the earth is not 6000 years old) Was the flood just a local flood? Was there even a flood at all? Was Noah a historical person?

I want to hear anyones thoughts on this. Thanks.
 
Personally, I believe that Noah’s flood was a large scale event, but not necessarily a world wide catastrophe . One theory is the Black Sea deluge. I view the story from an allegorical and prophetic perspective.
 
This is just my opinion and not standard catholic teaching:

I think the physical evidence is overwhelmingly against a global flood. Most people using a 6,000 year timeline place the flood around 2,000 BC which is pretty close to the time the great pyramids in Egypt were built, which would mean either the pyramids survived the flood unscathed or they were built within a few generations by Noah’s grandkids. It also really contradicts everything in geology and biology.

A local flood doesnt make a whole lot of sense either, since why would you build a boat instead of just leaving the flood zone?

Ultimately I think you need to go for some sort of metaphorical or mythical interpretation, or live your life denying evidence. I dont think God would require us to ignore evidence, so I dont think belief in a literal worldwide flood is necessary, and in fact I think that teaching turns a lot of people off of the gospel.
 
Last edited:
I think there was a great flood. There seems to be evidence for it though I can’t quote any particular source.

I think it’s counter intuitive to think that Noah took two of everything and placed them all in a boat the size of a small country and drifted around for a while. But who knows… perhaps he did save over a trillion life forms.
 
Last edited:
There were regional flood stories in every ancient civilization. This is a re-telling of those stories from the ancient Hebrew texts. It may have been an actual local flood that was used as the basis to teach something about morality (what we would call a fable), we do not know.
 
It is my understanding that at one time EVERY major world religion had a story regarding a flood. This would seem to indicate that something happened. When it happened, is more open to interpretation. I personally believe it may or may not have flooded the WHOLE Earth, but it was on a massive scale.
 
I don’t think there was an actual world wide flood. MAYBE a local flood. Most likely, it’s a story to teach a lesson. Do you know many Jews? Holy cow they are great story tellers, just don’t take what they say literally. (My wife is Jewish)
 
A local flood also doesn’t work since the supposed impetus for the flood was that God regretted creating humanity. It wouldn’t makes sense then to leave numerous civilizations alive if the whole of humanity were to be wiped out.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
A local flood also doesn’t work since the supposed impetus for the flood was that God regretted creating humanity. It wouldn’t makes sense then to leave numerous civilizations alive if the whole of humanity were to be wiped out.
Click to expand...
On a literal front, no. I think it’s possible it happened so long ago that the story took on a parable element to serve as a warning. A lot of people died, but maybe “everybody” was exaggerated.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
On a literal front, no. I think it’s possible it happened so long ago that the story took on a parable element to serve as a warning. A lot of people died, but maybe “everybody” was exaggerated.
Click to expand...
But it wouldn’t work in a figurative way either. In the story the people were killed because of their wickedness. If this were a local flood that killed some people, their deaths were caused by random chance. There is nothing to warn people about if the story is an allegory.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
40.png
WingsOfEagles:
On a literal front, no. I think it’s possible it happened so long ago that the story took on a parable element to serve as a warning. A lot of people died, but maybe “everybody” was exaggerated.
Click to expand...
But it wouldn’t work in a figurative way either. In the story the people were killed because of their wickedness. If this were a local flood that killed some people, their deaths were caused by random chance. There is nothing to warn people about if the story is an allegory.
Click to expand...
Could be one area was particularly evil … a Soddom and Gommorah.
 
Local Flood?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Local Flood: Then God was not punishing the “wicked” but it was just some rainstorm. Also, “Like the days before Noah” really would have no meaning so Jesus wasn’t saying anything at all.

Also it means that there are men who are the descendents of Cain. Who are those unlucky fellows?

Myth: Has all the same problems except it also means there was no Covenant and we should be living in constant fear of God drowning the Earth.

I believe Noah’s Flood being real and universal (in that every man other than Noah and his progeny were drowned) is de fide.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
Could be one area was particularly evil … a Soddom and Gommorah.
Click to expand...
But then we’re back to the same problem again. In the story, God isn’t looking to wipe out one civilization for being wicked. It’s humanity as a whole.

Also the story has an intentional cause and effect: People are bad therefore they get killed by God in the form of a flood. A local flood that happens because it happens fails to match the story in nearly every key way.

The fact is the text can not be rescued.
 
Why can’t a local flood be God punishing the wicked? Maybe God was punishing the wicked who lived near Noah.
 
on_the_hill said:
Why can’t a local flood be God punishing the wicked? Maybe God was punishing the wicked who lived near Noah.
Click to expand...
Because the Bible says God regretted creating humanity as a whole, not just one subsection of it. Saying otherwise not only misuses the texts but adds to it (which is strongly verboten).
 
Exactly, maybe this was a widespread Middle East flood. Not just one civilization and everybody by the local people’s point of view.
 
But it happened so long ago, that the wording may have moved to this through oral tradition.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
But it happened so long ago, that the wording may have moved to this through oral tradition.
Click to expand...
What percentage of a Biblical passage can be undeniably false, yet still being considered true by the standard of the Catechism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top