Noahic flood interpretation under a non-fundamentalist view

[Atreju]

I looked it up. Even young earth creationist websites like Answers In Genesis doubt it’s an ark, as it looks remarkably like just a rock formation.

 

[MarlboroMan]

but it’s still not science and certainly not “the most sure.”

Fortunately, the Church disagrees.

 

[MarlboroMan]

The lesson is this: you can’t wipe sin from the world by wiping out sinners. Each of us has the capacity to sin, and each of us must make the personal decision whether to sin or not

Are there any Church Fathers or Scholastic Theologians who teach this interpretation?

 

[MarlboroMan]

You need a citation for my claim that the Church teaches the inerrancy of Divine Inspiration?

Out of posts so i’ll reply here:

What does science mean?

 

[edwest]

Divine revelation counts as real factual information because the Church was given the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. Here, science can only only contribute so much.

 

[IWantGod]

Divine revelation

Is Noah’s flood a divine revelation of something that literally happened in History? If you think so, by what standard do you judge it to be true? You can’t just say the bible alone is your authority, because there are many kinds of literary expression in the bible, that’s why treating it like an history textbook in the strict modern sense of the word is in error to begin with.

Is there real history in the bible? I think there is, but even then it might be expressed in a manner that we are not accustomed to in the modern world. I wouldn’t assume that a particular story in the bible is real history merely on the premise that it’s written in the bible or because Jesus referred to it. I think that’s a mistake and i think it misrepresents what the bible actually is.

Now Noah’s flood could have happened. It could be that it was a supernatural event and thus one could argue that one needn’t assume that any evidence would be left behind. We are talking about God after all. But at the same time i don’t think God would make it look like there wasn’t a flood in-order to confuse us about the matter. God knows that the scientific method would develop and that we would discover things about the world. If i were to find something that would conflict with a literalistic reading of the bible then i would sooner assume that i was biblically illiterate rather than assume that we were being deceived by science.

If Noah’s flood did not happen, i do not see how this fact would undermine the inerrant nature of scripture. It would only undermine our fallible interpretation of it; you should assume this, that is if you really have faith.

 

[Gorgias]

I have some difficulty accepting your first part. Most likely my misunderstanding. But when one speaks of the perspective of the writer of the book of the Bible, I feel it leads one into a dangerous place theologically. The scripture is the words given to us by God, as recognized by the Church. As such, it is God’s perspective here that matters, not the writer’s.

Actually, when the Church talks about the “literal sense of Scripture”, it means what the human author intended.

The Catechism teaches:

109 To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention , the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

And from the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church:

When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.

The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author.

So, it’s not really something I’m making up, but rather, something that the Church teaches.

That said, I appreciate the second part, and it has helped clear up the lesson of the flood. The removal of the sinner does not remove the sin. That is a powerful statement that I will have to reflect on. Thank you.

You’re welcome!

Are there any Church Fathers or Scholastic Theologians who teach this interpretation?

Are they the only source of Church teaching?

I wish I could find a citation for the context in which I first ran across that interpretation. IIRC, it was in a class on Moral Theology. If I can recall where I first read it, I’ll provide a citation here!

 

[edwest]

“our fallible interpretation of it” The Church was given the authority to properly interpret the Bible, not Catholics in the pews. Sure, we can ask the Church questions.

 

[edwest]

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention , the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

[112](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/112.htm’) 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture” . Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

[113](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/113.htm’) 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church” . According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

[114](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/114.htm’) 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith .82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

 

[edwest]

[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense . Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense . We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense . The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge , “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

[119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89"

• Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[IWantGod]

The Church was given the authority to properly interpret the Bible, not Catholics in the pews.

And what has the church said on the matter. In so far as actual history, Is it the infallible teaching of the church that God got upset with humans and wiped them all out with a flood, all accept for Noah’s family?

If you found this not to be true, how would this effect the inerrancy of the bible? You see, you claim that it is not the authority of the layman to interpret divine revelation, and yet that is exactly what you are doing. I think it is you that is making all the assumptions, all of which are unjustified insofar as what the Catholic church teaches.

 

[buffalo]

Chiastic Structure

A Noah (6:10)

B Shem, Ham, Japheth (10b)

C Ark to be built (14-16)

D Flood announced (17)

E Covenant with Noah (18-20)

F Food in the ark (21)

G Command to enter the ark (7:1-3)

H 7 days waiting for flood (4-5)

I 7 days waiting for flood (7-10)

J Entry to ark (11-15)

K Yahweh shuts Noah in (16)

L 40 days flood (17a)

M Waters increase (17b-18)

N Mountains covered (19-20)

O 150 days waters prevail (21-24)

P GOD REMEMBERS NOAH (8:1)

O´ 150 days waters abate (3)

N´ Mountain tops visible (19-20)

M´ Waters abate (5)

L´ 40 days (end of) (6a)

K´ Noah opens window of ark (6b)

J´ Raven and dove leave ark (7-9)

I´ 7 days waiting for waters for subside (10-11)

H´ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (12-13)

G´ Command to leave the ark (15-17 [22])

F´ Food outside ark (9:1-4)

E´ Covenant with all flesh (8-10)

D´ No flood in future (11-17)

C´ Ark (18a)

B´ Shem, Ham, and Japheth (18b)

A´ Noah (19)[1]

 

[IWantGod]

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

Precisely.

 

[edwest]

That does include all other aspects needed to interpret Scripture.

 

[IWantGod]

That does include all other aspects needed to interpret Scripture.

I think what you really intend to convey to us all is that your particular interpretation of scripture is infallible. And i am here to tell you that it is not.

 

[edwest]

Wow. 10 characters

Unless mind reading is one of your abilities, I’ll let this one go.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Thanks for the lesson, as I said it was probably my misunderstanding!

 

[thistle]

Two Views of the Flood | Catholic Answers Q&A

 

[poche]

There are two reasons we could believe in the Flood.
1 - There is a flood story in virtually all cultures and mythologies.
2 - There is DNA evidence of some kind of a cataclysmic event in the past around 75,000 years ago.

 

[Hope1960]

The link doesn’t work.