T
twinc
Guest
imho - its just a simple yes or no - and no ifs or buts or dodging the question - twinc
- Status
The_Reginator
Active member
Well, that depends …
S
Scaun
Guest
It depends because there are also some who hold the belief that it was a local flood instead.
Like the author of the following article, just to give an example:
godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
Like the author of the following article, just to give an example:
godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
T
twinc
Guest
imho psalm 104 has nothing to do with creation or the flood but probably post flood so all that follows imho is irrelevant - twinc
1
1ke
Guest
What about it?
Could be. There is no definitive teaching on this topic and a Catholic is not required to have a literal interpretation.
1
1ke
Guest
No.
Catholics are required to adhere to Church teaching that:
- God created everything from nothing, ex nihilo
- God specially creates the soul for each person
- We descend from an original set of first parents from whom we inherit Original Sin
Read Humanae Generis in its entirity.
I
illmatic
Guest
Poetic allegory.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Who says we don’t believe what Moses wrote inspired by God?
Are you saying that we ‘have to’ believe that Moses was reporting an event in an absolutely literal fashion, as though he was Jim Cantore on the Weather Channel reporting the flood as a weather event, bolstered by satellite images?
Are you saying that any but an absolute ‘literal’ interpretation would somehow ‘contradict’ the literal interpretation?
When I say to my child, “You are my sunshine” I don’t mean the child is a literal sun shining down on me from the heavens. However, in the sense that I look on my child as supplying to me the same kind of feeling of being warmed by the sun, the same kind of joy and wonder that one gets from seeing those beams and enjoying the beauties they show. . the child IS my sunshine.
If my child comes to me and says “It’s raining cats and dogs” I don’t expect to see puppies and kittens piling up on the lawn. . .yet it is actually raining, isn’t it? It isn’t bright sun. . .it isn’t even snow. . . it is RAIN. So there is truth in the statement “it’s raining cats and dogs”. Now, that metaphore reflects a quantity but to you it could mean a quantity of heavy rain that is less than or more than the quantity that I envision, or others envision, but that the quantity might differ to a degree doesn’t make MY vision or yours wrong.
So Moses might indeed have been describing an actual event.perfectly literally and accurately as it is written But if we think of it as being a local event we are not ‘contradicting’ the Scriptures. We aren’t saying there was never a flood at all, that there was not an ark at all, etc. At least, I certainly am not. I believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. . .but that does not mean I have to say that every single word in it is absolutely literally 100% only to be understand as absolutely ‘literal’.
1
1ke
Guest
I do not know of any definitive teaching on this particular passage. I would suggest you get a good Catholic study bible as well as reading the Catechism on the senses of scripture. Again, the Church makes no statement regarding a required literal interpretation of the first 11 books of Genesis. You can read the footnotes of the NAB at the USCCB website, see Genesis 6 for a discussion of the flood.
Read the Catechism regarding the senses of scripture.
And, Moses was not an eyewitness to these accounts, nor is it likely he wrote Genesis. There were multiple authors, principally the Yahwist source and the Priestly source-- whose accounts of Creation as well as of the Flood vary within Scripture itself.
While the Church holds that the literal sense of scripture is primary, we are not literalists. There is a difference.
T
twinc
Guest
- Status