Clarifications on the Biblical Flood Narrative

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 02-14-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Clarifications on the Biblical Flood Narrative

Msgr. Charles Pope • February 14, 2017 •

As we read the flood story in Tuesday’s daily Mass, I feel that a few clarifications are in order.

While we are not required as Catholics to interpret every detail of the flood story literally, there does seem to be some evidence (preserved in many ancient cultures) of a flood or “mega event” that drastically reduced the size of the human race. In addition, genetic, geological, and anthropological information point to a period some 70,000 years ago during which humans almost vanished from the planet [*].

How much of the flood narrative is a story and how much is history may be debatable, but something surely happened. In Genesis, God is recounting for us that He intervened at a critical moment to prune and purify the human family of the more egregious effects of sin in the aftermath of original sin.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6:5-8).

This leads to another necessary clarification. God is said to regret that He made us and is described as being deeply grieved. Descriptions such as these are largely held to be anthropomorphisms, which ascribe human traits to God as a way of indicating the thoughts of God by analogy. In whatever manner God is “grieved” or “regretful,” it is not in the same way that we are. We are being told in this text that God has a resolve to set things right and to put an end to extreme wickedness. The artful use of anthropomorphic language to advance the story should not be considered as overriding other Scriptures that remind us that God is not subject to change and passions as we are. For example,

• God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (Numbers 23:19)
• [The Children of men] will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end (Psalm 102:26-27).
• I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed (Mal 3:6).
• Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change (James 1:17).

A third clarification is needed in order to “rescue” God from charges of injustice in this “mass killing” of the human race. God, of course, is the giver of life. As the one who gives it, He also sets the length of our life and the manner of our death. This is His right. Indeed, one might even say that this is His “job.”

By way of analogy, I tend to many rose bushes in front of my rectory. At times, I feed them, water them, and foster their growth. At other times, I prune them. In certain cases, I remove diseased plants from the rose bed. Last year, I removed three diseased rose bushes. Who would dispute my right to do this? Who would accuse me of injustice? This is my work and my proper role.

While it is true that human beings are certainly more precious than roses, it is still God’s role to attend to the life and death of human beings, to the planting and harvesting of individuals, cultures, and civilizations. In His providence, God will at times prune away large segments in order to stave off disease or foster growth in individuals and in humanity as a whole.

Thus in the flood narrative, God sees the widespread evil and chooses to save what little good remains by cutting away the rest. In so doing, He creates a new beginning of goodness for the world. It is not free of sin, but is less beset by grave wickedness.

Yet even here, God does not utterly forsake the wicked whose earthly lives He ends. They are confined in Sheol and await a day of visitation from the Lord. Scripture speaks to the fulfillment of this merciful outreach:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water (1 Peter 3:18-20).

The Lord calls to them once more in His descent to the dead after Good Friday. He awakens them, preaches to them, and summons them to repentance. Did some or all repent? We do not know, but the point remains that in ending their earthly lives, God did not completely forsake them. The worst thing is not dying (which we all will do); it is refusing God’s merciful love though an impenitent heart. God works for our eternal salvation, not merely our earthly comfort.

Here’s one scientific theory; take it or leave it as you wish.

[piusv]

So, my question to you is: why did you even bring up the Immaculate Conception and what the CE said about it in this thread? You know that the Catholic Faith does not always have direct Scriptural support (i.e. specific verses). Sometimes it is based on Scripture as a whole and what we call Sacred Tradition. To answer your question: I agree with whatever the Catholic Faith teaches. Generally speaking, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source to find that (although not always).

We can go round and round about Sola Scriptura again (and I won't), but that wasn't the point of my quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia in this thread. It was meant to show Catholics that traditionally the Deluge was considered historical. It was also a reply to this thread as a result of a ping I received from Zionist Conspirator.

As always, I am not interested in "debating" the heresies of the protestants on this board (especially those who are obstinate in their views). I shook off the dust from my sandals long ago. I have bigger fish to fry these days.

[ealgeone]

The CE was raised as a point of inquiry. It bills itself as the most complete record on Catholic teaching, history and information gathered in all of human history.

If it's claim is inaccurate that's a separate issue unto itself.

The CE supports catholic beliefs on one issue and undermines on another. In this case the IC on both a scriptural and tradition basis to which the CE dismisses the later as "error" by some. And the ones in the list aren't lightweights among Catholics either.

If Catholics claim "tradition" is the unwritten teachings handed down from apostle to apostle then there should be no disagreement amongst the ECFs on these issues. Yet there is on this issue and many others near and dear to the Catholic.

That is why Christianity does not appeal to tradition as an authoritative source. It is not consistent.

Only Scripture can claim consistency and inspiration.

I don't blame you for not wanting to debate what cannot be defended either by Scripture or for the Catholic "tradition".

[piusv]

Where does Catholic teaching teach that Church Fathers must be unanimous and are infallible? Here is what the CE entry on Church Fathers has to say about individual Church Fathers:

There are a few cases in which a general council has given approbation to the work of a Father, the most important being the two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria which were read at the Council of Ephesus. But the authority of single Fathers considered in itself, says Franzelin (De traditione, thesis xv), "is not infallible or peremptory; though piety and sound reason agree that the theological opinions of such individuals should not be treated lightly, and should not without great caution be interpreted in a sense which clashes with the common doctrine of other Fathers." The reason is plain enough; they were holy men, who are not to be presumed to have intended to stray from the doctrine of the Church, and their doubtful utterances are therefore to be taken in the best sense of which they are capable. If they cannot be explained in an orthodox sense, we have to admit that not the greatest is immune from ignorance or accidental error or obscurity.

The key portion of the Immaculate Conception entry is thus:

If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22 ).

So, no, in this case, the CE didn't support one claim (Deluge) and undermine another (Immaculate Conception)...although not everything written in the CE is accurate (mostly due to changes made in recent years to some of the entries).

So when I "don't want to debate" it's not because the Catholic position can not be defended, it's because I am sick of interacting with those who are culpably ignorant.

[ealgeone]

Yet the CE undermines its own argument regarding the ECFs. It is apparent the CE doesn't want to detail the position of the ECFs.

It is also apparent a lot of ECFs were ignorant or made a lot of accidents.

That is why Christianity rejects Roman Catholic tradition.

[piusv]

Actually, no it doesn’t and no they weren’t.

[ealgeone]

You may not have compared the beliefs of the ECFs. They’re all over the place.

[piusv]

::yawn::

[Popman]

In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22 )

1 Corinthians 15:22...For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Maybe you can instruct me on how that passage of scripture in any way declares the Virgin Mary to have born by Immaculate Conception...

[ealgeone]

Maybe you can instruct me on how that passage of scripture in any way declares the Virgin Mary to have born by Immaculate Conception...

The catholic, though try as they might, cannot prove the IC through Scripture. Unless they practice eisegesis...that is, reading into the text something that isn't there.

[Popman]

——. Unless they practice eisegesis...that is, reading into the text something that isn’t there.-—

I think a lot of that goes back to the times when Catholic lay people were not allowed to read scripture and and purposely keep ignorant and had to simply take the priest word on it....

Today, they cannot say the writings of tradition were wrong because that blows up their whole premise, so now it’s simply using blind faith even if it makes no sense or is logical...