Questions About the Flood

[pzona]

In the Flood, am I correct in assuming that the entire surface of the Earth was covered in water? This seems like a simple matter, but I don’t have a Bible handy and I don’t remember the specifics of what words were used. Also, if the entire Earth was covered in water, where did the water come from? More importantly, where did it go? Thanks in advance for responses.

 

[catholic1seeks]

As I understand it, the flood was local. The Original Catholic Encyclopedia (created 100 years ago) says this. Go to www.newadvent.org and type in “deluge” – it’ll help!

 

[COPLAND_3]

I believe that it was universal, not local, for the Scriptures says

Genesis 7:19 And the water prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and covered all the high mountains, which were under heaven. 20 Fifteen cubits upwards was the water raised, and it covered all the high mountains.

I think that says it all right there, even gives the depth.

 

[Dan_Parker]

I believe that it was universal, not local, for the Scriptures says

Genesis 7:19 And the water prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and covered all the high mountains, which were under heaven. 20 Fifteen cubits upwards was the water raised, and it covered all the high mountains.

I think that says it all right there, even gives the depth.

Exactly. Why would Noah spend 50-60 years building an ark if he could move to higher ground? Why would he need to take two of each animal to preserve the species?

DRA Genesis 7:3 But of the beasts that are unclean two and two, the male and the female. Of the fowls also of the air seven and seven, the male and the female:** that seed may be saved upon the face of the whole earth.**

 

[Robbinson]

In the Flood, am I correct in assuming that the entire surface of the Earth was covered in water? This seems like a simple matter, but I don’t have a Bible handy and I don’t remember the specifics of what words were used. Also, if the entire Earth was covered in water, where did the water come from? More importantly, where did it go? Thanks in advance for responses.

The flood covered the entire earth. Read Genesis starting at Genesis 6:17 (For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.).
The flood would destroy all flesh on the earth - this wasn’t in a small discrete or local area.

As to where the water came from it came both from the sky, and from the earth (from the existing waters). See Genesis 7:11 **(In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights). **

As to where it went - Genesis 8 talks about the water receding from the earth continually - the science isn’t set forth in scripture, but one might speculate through a combination of returning to the earth from whence it came and evaporation.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[COPLAND_3]

Exactly. Why would Noah spend 50-60 years building an ark if he could move to higher ground? Why would he need to take two of each animal to preserve the species?

DRA Genesis 7:3 But of the beasts that are unclean two and two, the male and the female. Of the fowls also of the air seven and seven, the male and the female:** that seed may be saved upon the face of the whole earth.**

Excellent points Dan!

 

[Dan_Parker]

In the Flood, am I correct in assuming that the entire surface of the Earth was covered in water? This seems like a simple matter, but I don’t have a Bible handy and I don’t remember the specifics of what words were used. Also, if the entire Earth was covered in water, where did the water come from? More importantly, where did it go? Thanks in advance for responses.

Where did the water come from?

DRA Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the floodgates of heaven were opened:

Where did the water go?
“there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105)

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Can we really claim to say that we know all the technicalities enough to be definitive? There’s a relative wealth of technical detail here, but it’s still barely a scientific textbook. Can we even say it’s clear on whether it’s water as in h2o?

Interestingly, from the NI version, it’s not actually clear whether all life is exterminated - sea life isn’t mentioned, is it? In fact, it seems to be specifically left out - which, of course, would make sense in a literal flood.

 

[whm]

Like the creation story, I do not get caught up in the details, but rather concentrate on the meaning(s) being conveyed. Always remembering that God can do anything and that the Bible was written for all different ages to impart that meaning.

 

[DOShea]

Can we really claim to say that we know all the technicalities enough to be definitive? There’s a relative wealth of technical detail here, but it’s still barely a scientific textbook. Can we even say it’s clear on whether it’s water as in h2o?

Interestingly, from the NI version, it’s not actually clear whether all life is exterminated - sea life isn’t mentioned, is it? In fact, it seems to be specifically left out - which, of course, would make sense in a literal flood.

Sea life isn’t mentioned, but phrases like “flesh” indicate it would not include fish. So would the phrase “breath of life.” See Gen 6:17

 

[Dan_Parker]

Sea life isn’t mentioned, but phrases like “flesh” indicate it would not include fish. So would the phrase “breath of life.” See Gen 6:17

Keep reading… it was everything on dry land that died…
NJB Genesis 7:22 Everything with the least breath of life in its nostrils, everything on dry land, died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out, people, animals, creeping things and birds; they were wiped off the earth and only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

 

[catholic1seeks]

From the Original Catholic Encylopedia:

The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:

The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.

(a) The words of the original text, rendered “earth” in our version, signify “land” as well as “earth”; in fact, “land” appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Genesis 4, 5 and 10; why not adhere to this meaning also in Genesis 6:9, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters “filled all on the face of the land”, “all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land”, “all things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died”, “all the high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were covered”? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which Noah lived, but not the whole earth.​

newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

 

[Dan_Parker]

From the Original Catholic Encylopedia:

The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:

The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned

Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.

(a) The words of the original text, rendered “earth” in our version, signify “land” as well as “earth”; in fact, “land” appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Genesis 4, 5 and 10; why not adhere to this meaning also in Genesis 6:9, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters “filled all on the face of the land”, “all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land”, “all things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died”, “all the high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were covered”? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which Noah lived, but not the whole earth.​

newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

If we as Christians cannot defend the flood account in the bible as accurate, then how can we possibly defend Scripture as inspired to those we witness? The Hebrew language is sufficiently capable of describing a local flood that killed all men on the earth except for Noah, but that is not how Scripture describes the event.

 

[catholic1seeks]

If we as Christians cannot defend the flood account in the bible as accurate, then how can we possibly defend Scripture as inspired to those we witness? The Hebrew language is sufficiently capable of describing a local flood that killed all men on the earth except for Noah, but that is not how Scripture describes the event.

AS SHOWN above, the flood does not have to be global. How are we able to answer non-believers who say that there’s no scientific evidence for a global flood?

How do you, as a JW, know that the Bible is inspired?

 

[Dan_Parker]

AS SHOWN above, the flood does not have to be global. How are we able to answer non-believers who say that there’s no scientific evidence for a global flood?

How do you, as a JW, know that the Bible is inspired?

 

[buffalo]

The earth is 3/4 covered by water now. Some think that the mountains were not as high and that the flood actually caused them to uplift. If that were so it would not be that big of a deal to cover the entire earth.

The 1905 encyclopedia article was an attempt to reconcile with the uniformatarian thinking of that time.

This is interesting and shows the power of a flood:

The Mystery of the Megaflood.

 

[David_Zampino]

Like the creation story, I do not get caught up in the details, but rather concentrate on the meaning(s) being conveyed. Always remembering that God can do anything and that the Bible was written for all different ages to impart that meaning.

Exactly!

 

[PeterK]

If we as Christians cannot defend the flood account in the bible as accurate, then how can we possibly defend Scripture as inspired to those we witness?

Hi Dan,

Relax. The veracity of Scripture does not stand or fall on the successful defense of the historical factuality of the details of the biblical flood narrative. Hypothetically: if it were to be discovered - beyond a doubt - that the deluge did not happen, there was no ark or animals and Noah never existed, even if this was presented and accepted by all as undeniable fact, Jesus still historically factually rose from the dead after being crucified. The Bible is many different stories from many different hands composed at many different times all inspired and guided by the One God. It is God that makes the Bible one, not one human author or one sense in which it is to be read.

Catholics are not held to take the flood account as 100% literally factually true. We just aren’t. It doesn’t mean we can’t, but to suggest that we must is not accurate. One could probably further push the issue saying we are not held to even believe Noah actually existed. To be clear, by ‘to be held to believe’ I mean that we are committing a sin if we deny the literal historical facts presented in the biblical flood narrative i.e. Noah’s age. This just is not the case and it is a very good thing that this is not the case.

This is important to note in these Genesis discussions because these quickly polarize into camps. And while it is not often explicitly stated, sometimes the impression is promoted ‘between the lines’ that some are ‘outside of the faith’ if literal interpretations are not paramount and some are ‘outside of their minds’ to demote reason beneath fables. This unfortunate ‘tone’ can also have the net effect of driving some well meaning individuals with sincere inquiries away from the discussion.

Why bring this up?
Well the Church calls us to unite Faith and Reason. For me these Genesis discussions demonstrate how polarized Faith and Reason are - even within the parameters of a Catholic Christian forum.

Contrary to what many believe, the RCC does not micromanage all Catholic thought. In this can be seen the liberating and nurturing characteristic of Mother Church. The Church actually wants us to apply human reason to the understanding of the faith. It really does want us to think for ourselves - not by ourselves, for ourselves. The important thing, the thing the Church actually defends for the faithful by not dogmatically pronouncing on the historical truth of the literal details of the flood narrative is the protection and insurance of our freedom to discuss these matters and form ideas. If serious error arises - as it often does - the Church will step in and correct the error and defend the truth. Regarding Genesis, the Church lets us know the scant literal details that are to be held as true. These have come up on many threads and I don’t need to repost them here.

So to hold that every detail of the flood account is historical fact, to me, does not seem reasonable. Also, to hold that no flood occurred, or Noah never existed due to lack of evidence seems unfaithful to scientific methodology as the narrative itself is valid ancient evidence. There are also other ancient non-biblical texts describing a devastating flood.

A middle road must be struck. Faith and reason must walk forward together. And to be clear, this attitude is not mere sitting on the fence.

With that said I hold that the biblical narrative is primarily theology - that is its goal, to teach us about God, and man’s unique relationship with God. So I do not hold it to be historical fact, for example, that a pair of every animal species was gathered in the ark. That, to me, is just beyond the normal bounds of reason. So I dismiss this detail as exaggerated or understood in a context unique to the author. However, it does not mean that an Ark was never constructed. To diminish the factual veracity of what seems to be an exaggeration does not eradicate the entire story - or Bible.

Some will take all this as setting scripture up to be a liar. No such thing is happening. God wrote the scriptures via - through - by means of - fallible imperfect men. He writes straight with crooked lines. The ancient author may have actually believed his entire world was flooded - this doesn’t mean Australia was. He may have seen mountains sink beneath the waves - this doesn’t mean Mt. Everest did. He may have actually gathered all the animals he could find - this doesn’t mean gorillas were included. So when he wrote ‘the entire earth’ he honestly believed the entire earth. We have a very different concept of earth than the ancient author. To suggest the ancient author’s idea of the world is synonymous with ours today is unreasonable.

Some will consider this a diatribe against inspiration, but it is not.

Hope this helped.

PeterK

 

[pzona]

But how could only part of the Earth be flooded to this extent? If mountains were covered, this implies a massive amount of water. What was containing it? If there were no boundaries or walls to contain the water, it would have just dispersed and flooded the area around it uniformly. The way I see it, either the whole world was flooded (which brings me back to my original question) or none of it was. And if the whole world was flooded, what happened to the water? Evaporation does not even begin to account for this. There is absolutely no way anyone can believe that the atmosphere holds enough water to flood the planet.

 

[buffalo]

But how could only part of the Earth be flooded to this extent? If mountains were covered, this implies a massive amount of water. What was containing it? If there were no boundaries or walls to contain the water, it would have just dispersed and flooded the area around it uniformly. The way I see it, either the whole world was flooded (which brings me back to my original question) or none of it was. And if the whole world was flooded, what happened to the water? Evaporation does not even begin to account for this. There is absolutely no way anyone can believe that the atmosphere holds enough water to flood the planet.

Perhaps as the mountains uplifted the oceans sunk.