Was The story of Noah real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Teen9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From a historical standpoint I find it very fascinating that nearly every culture on Earth has a flood myth. I don’t think that this means there was a global flood though. Regional floods happen all the time. I think that there was very likely a flood that covered the known world at the time. I do think that someone survived it. I also think that this story was passed down for hundreds, if not thousands, of generations and the morals of that story teach what really matters from it. Whether or not Noah was a real person, or the ark really existed, or two of every animal even in a single region was on it, is really the point. 🙂
 
Was it true? Yes. Was it an actual historical event? Well, there can be discussion on that. I think in a post-enlightenment world, we tend to want everything that is accurate and true to modern conventional standards, sometimes measuring truth by its historicity. However, that isn’t really the case with pre-enlightenment theology. In biblical times, stories were a useful tool in highlighting theological truths. One example can be seen in Matthew’s Gospel where St. Joseph fled to Egypt, had a dream, and King Herod killed young male babies (see a parallel with Joseph in the Old Testament?). Or, there is a differing story in the Gospel of Luke where Mary had Jesus in a manger (where animals ate), and shepherds (essentially the lowest class above thieves) appeared. Luke speaks a lot about the poor and Jesus as the Bread that feeds, which we see even in Jesus’ infancy narrative.

Now, do I believe the story of Noah to be true. Absolutely. There are many theological points to get out of the story that are beneficial to growing in virtue. Do I believe it to be historically true? Well, I see great parallels with the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Ark. Modern science shows a worldwide flood to be pseudoscientifical. I doubt the authenticity of an actual, historical, and worldwide flood, but I do think that an event where a local flood in Mesopotamia occurred which involved a virtuous man having faith in God is fully consistent with reason and historical evidence. But, my faith in God and the story in Noah is not dependent on everything being historically true. I tend to focus more on the theological meanings.
 
Last edited:
Mountie said:
Joseph fled to Egypt, had a dream, and King Herod killed young male babies (see a parallel with Joseph in the Old Testament?).
Click to expand...
Sure, and the apostle who wrote this parallel or was pointing towards the same event, Moses. In the book of Luke, the Song of Mary points toward the prophet Samuel but toward Elizabeth, as well - for being barren. But Samuel made this comment toward the people who wanted a King Messiah - Then Samuel said to the people, “It is the Lord who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your ancestors up out of Egypt. 7 Now then, stand here, because I am going to confront you with evidence before the Lord as to all the righteous acts performed by the Lord for you and your ancestors.

Is there another parallel in the book of Acts with the apostles Stephen, Peter and Paul to the Sanhedrin? The prophet Samuel was reminding the people what God had fulfilled to their ancestors but also, that their true King and Saviour is God - But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Following up with this passage- We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
 
Last edited:
You are welcome to disagree as much as you wish, but that is not what I said; you are extending it to everything Christ ever said.

Christ spoke both of people who had existed (Moses, Elijah) and those who did not exist; and the fact that he spoke of Noah does not mean Noah existed, just as he spoke of Jonah and that does not mean Jonah existed.

Taking anything to its logical extreme becomes illogical. No one has evr produced evidence that the entire world was flooded; there certainly have been major floods (I mentioned 2 i the western part of the US) and there appears to be evidence of a large flood in parts of the Middle East; projections put it back in conjunction with the last Ice age so about 11,000 to 15,000 years ago. And that is well before written records.
 
Sure, I believe it to be real.
As to the how’s …well, God made me…He can do anything!
 
Neithan said:
The literal interpretation of Genesis is not the ancient interpretation; it’s more modern, Protestant, and fundamentalist.
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by that. St. Augustine for example believed that humans had only existed for 6000 years.

Just because something is wrong doesn’t mean it has to be ascribed to Protestants.
 
Last edited:
He also reasoned that the universe was created instantly, and the six-day account was to help the reader better understand that God created everything . Augustine actually argued against the literal interpretation of Genesis specifically, but he held up scriptural accounts of history as superior to the chronologies of the Egyptians and Greeks.

Sola Scriptura gave a new force to the literal interpretation of scripture, because it elevates the words to the highest authority. Protestantism is similar to Islam in that way, the book is the sole norm and the plain meaning is the most obvious, so that should be accepted.
 
Last edited:
Here is St Augustine on prime matter:

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION - A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE BY HENRY WOODS, S. J.

…Such prime matter, nevertheless, can exist only under some form. “We must not think of God as first creating matter,” the Saint admonishes, “and after an interval of time giving form to what He had created without form; but as creating it simultaneously with the world. As spoken words are produced by the speaker, not by giving form afterwards to a voice previously without form, but by uttering his voice fully formed, so we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world. Still not uselessly do we tell, first that from which something is made, and afterwards what is made from it; because, though both can be made simultaneously, they can not be narrated simultaneously.”23 This we find again in the treatise we are especially discussing. “When we say matter and form, we understand both simultaneously, though we cannot pronounce them simultaneously. As in the brief space of speaking we pronounce one before the other, so in the longer time of narration we discuss one before the other. Still God created both simultaneously, while we in our speech take up first in time what is first in origin only.”24

Prime matter can be called not only what it actually was under some elementary form, but also what it was to become by future formation. This most important principle St. Augustine lays down in explaining against the Manicheans the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He says: “Unformed matter is here called heaven and earth, not because it was this, but because it was able to become this; for heaven, it is written, was made afterwards. For if, considering a seed, we say that roots and wood and branches and fruit and leaves are there, not because they are there now, but because they are to be from it, in the same way it is said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ as if he made the seed of heaven and earth, when the matter of heaven and earth was still confused. But, because heaven and earth were certainly to be from it, matter itself is already called heaven and earth. Our Lord Himself uses this manner of speech when He says: ‘I will not now call you servants, because the servant knows not what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.’25 Not that he had actually done so as yet, but because the manifestation was certainly to take place.”26

and…

27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.
 
It actually happened the way it was described. What don’t you understand about “real”?
 
Good question. I think we should distinguish between the Noah story actually occurring vs. if the authors believed it was literal. The former would take logic and evidence to confirm but the latter does not require that. The latter scenario requires only that the ancients Jews believed it and they presumably did so based on their understanding of the world.

One thing people should not do is confuse the two. If real world evidence conflicts with the Noah story then the ancient Jews belief was wrong (assuming it was something to be literally believed). When the Bible conflicts with real world evidence, too often I find many Christians calling the story in question “non-literal” as opposed to accepting that the biblical authors were wrong in their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
AgnosticBoy said:
The latter scenario requires only that the ancients Jews believed it and they presumably did so based on their understanding of the world.
Click to expand...
Believing it, and believing it to be literally true are different things. Jewish midrash treats Genesis 1-11 as a legendary account, with hyperbole and metaphor, of God’s primeval covenant with human beings. The sacred writer, when transcribing the Noah epic, does not claim to have a literal eyewitness testimony (contrast with the Gospel writers). The non-literal reading is not shifting the interpretation according to empirical science, but following an ancient tradition.
 
Last edited:
What about mosquitos? Is Noah the one responsible for mosquitos surviving the flood?
 
Neithan said:
Believing it, and believing it to be literally true are different things. Jewish midrash treats Genesis 1-11 as a legendary account, with hyperbole and metaphor, of God’s primeval covenant with human beings.
Click to expand...
My point covers the Jews believing something to be true when I stated that they “believed it was literal”. You’ll have to show me some evidence for your view as it relates to Noah. Was Noah understood to be a historical or literal person? Was the Flood understood to be literal? Should the interpretation of the rabbis be taken over the interpretation of Christians?

Josephus talked about the Creation story in a literal sense. He attributes the information to Moses. He mentions that Moses starts to talk in a “philosophical” only when relaying the details after the 7th day of Creation.
Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul.
Click to expand...
Antiquities of the Jews…http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-1.htm#EndNote ANT 1.2b

To relate this back to my point, I will say again that biblical accounts conflicting with modern-day evidence should not be a reason to label something “non-literal”. To do so is a cop-out to avoid the conclusion that the Biblical writers were simply wrong in their belief of “literal” events in the world. Showing some biblical account to be non-literal should involve showing that the Jews understood it to not be literal.
 
Not to say that Noah was not a real person or the flood did not actually happen in history, at some point [why do so many disparate cultures have the same basic story?] — only that it is not a literal, eyewitness detailed report of the event like the Gospels are. The writer was not an eyewitness and does not claim to be. That goes for most of Genesis but 1-11 especially are more figuratively related.
 
Last edited:
No there wasn’t. It was falsified by the end of the 18th century
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top