My theory about the Flood

Faith & Science Conversation
184

That’s not what I claimed. I claimed that just because an author presents a narrative in a historical sounding way doesn’t prove anything about its historicity one way or another and I claimed that “either a narrative is 100% factually accurate or it is a mere story/lie/fiction/false account/fabrication” is a false dichotomy.

Have you studied ANE lit? What details or features would suggest folklore to them? It seems to me that you are imposing a lot of your cultural ideas about how history vs stories must be told and assuming they apply in this case simply because it makes sense to you.

1 Like
185

@Dredge,

I have never seen anyone make a convincing “text critical” analysis of Genesis that ends with the conclusion: “… so it must be a true history”.

That tells me that your well-intended attempt to be the first one is because you don’t have enough information to make a text-critical conclusion.

186

And yet I felt sure I had seen exactly this claim being made. I googled a bit and, whether or not it’s original piece I remember reading, this one makes the same points regarding how the chronology of Noah’s flood in fact looks more like a literary device than anything else. Check out page 16!

http://smithandfranklin.com/base/downloads.php?jid=9&aid=43&acid=5&path=pdf&file=1412974198SRC_1_3_144-173.pdf

1 Like
187

1 Peter 3:20 is indeed a crucial verse, which appears in the following context (1 Peter 3:18-22):

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

To interpret this pericope it is important to keep in mind words of Jesus Christ like these: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16: 15-16; Matthew 28:19) „For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”(John 3:16). These quotations make it clear that Baptism is instituted by Jesus Christ to save all the world, where the term ‘world’ means “all creatures in need of Redemption”.

Thus, by stating that “the water in the Noah’s Flood symbolizes Baptism” Peter makes it clear that from “all creatures in need of Redemption” living at this time only “few people, eight in all” were saved.

Your interpretation seems to suggest that: 1) the 14 millions of Homo sapiens creatures living outside Mesopotamia were human beings endowed with free will, and therefore capable of being guilty of sin and in need of Redemption, nonetheless 2) the symbolism of Baptism does not apply to these creatures.

This would mean to suggest that Peter as divinely inspired author is denying the universal need of Baptism as means for reaching Salvation. So your interpretation could be tricky: it risks emptying the meaning of Baptism and Christ’s Cross, and thereby questioning the very foundation of Christian faith; and it risks also nurturing the idea that certain human beings today are irredeemable and not in Image of God.

The reason why the symbolism of Baptism doesn’t apply to the millions of Homo sapiens creatures living outside Mesopotamia at the time of Noah’s Flood is not that “their lands didn’t flood” (notice that for Baptism you don’t need a flood, it is enough with a little spring or pond!). The reason is that these creatures were neither endowed with free will, nor capable of being guilty of sin, nor in need of Redemption.

However, these millions of Homo sapiens creatures living outside Mesopotamia were endowed by God with free will at the end of the Flood, and since this very moment (referred to in Genesis 9: 2-4) all Homo sapiens creatures on earth are in God’s image and in need of Redemption, and can reach Salvation through the Grace of Jesus Christ bestowed in Baptism.

Consequently, the Flood referred to in the Peter’s Epistles should not be called “global” but rather “universal” by analogy to the Last Judgment: Both these events concern all creatures in need of Redemption at the time they happen.

I am the first to endorse that Genesis 1-11, although referring to actual historical events, is not merely giving a historical report and aims primarily to teach us theological truth. However, when it comes to define this truth, one should be careful to neither contemn the data of science nor empty Christ’s Cross and Resurrection of their Salvation power.

If on believes that “God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings” [BioLogos, What we believe, 10], one endorses actually that God created the human persons by endowing Homo sapiens creatures with free will so that they were capable to love Him but also to sin. Whether at 50,000 BC or 3,000 BC the number of these creatures was large. Thus one has to decide whether they were all endowed with free will at once or in a gradual process. On my part I think the process was gradual and still going on at the age of the Flood.

In support of this assumption I refer to the “sons of God” in Genesis 6: 2-4: These characters were precisely human beings created directly by God through endowing Homo sapiens creatures with free will; since their generation happened without mediation of any human parents’ will, they are properly called “sons of God”. And this emphasizes also that the Flood episode is an organization narrative to the aim of explaining how the New World emerges from the Ancient World, and “New Creation” happens.

188

I don’t agree at all that this is what he is saying. He says only eight were “in it” (the Ark) saved “through water”. The whole point of symbolism is that it uses a small representation to call to mind a greater concept, so your insistence that in order for the Flood to symbolize baptism it would have to be universal seems bizarre to me. If you take that logic too far, then how does the symbolism of baptism apply to all those who died in the flood (were not ‘saved through water’ as in a baptism) yet the resurrected Jesus goes to preach to them? As you say, does the symbolism of baptism not apply to them? They don’t need it to reach salvation? Or Jesus is just preaching in vain to them, if they have no hope of it!

I think your argument falls apart when you try to make the statements made about specific events imply a broader context than they specified.

189

Lynn you raise an important issue.

Jesus Christ proclaims:

“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16: 15-16)

We are taught by the Lord that all creatures in need of Redemption are called to Salvation and the ordinary means to reach it is becoming faithful of the Church of Jesus Christ through Baptism. Nonetheless the Lord does NOT say “whoever is not baptized will be condemned” but “whoever does not believe will be condemned”. Everyone who believes and repents will not be condemned even if unavoidable circumstances don’t allow him to be baptized.

Accordingly Peter’s symbolism of Baptism applied to Noah’s Flood and Ark means that:

  1. The Ark is symbol of the Church: all human persons (creatures endowed with free will) in the days of Noah were called to be saved within the Ark, like all human persons today are called to be baptized and saved within the Church. Those who were obedient went into the Ark and were saved from the Flood: they were “eight in all”, as Peter’s Letters definitely state two times.

  2. Those who were disobedient in the days of Noah remained outside the Ark and died. But those who repented before drowning went to the place where “the imprisoned spirits” were awaiting the resurrected Christ to get the Grace of God’s beatific vision.

Suppose there had been people (creatures endowed with free will) living in the area outside Mesopotamia that was not flooded and for this reason they didn’t perish. For such people the area where they lived would have been ‘Ark’ and therefore symbol of the Church as well. If Peter as inspired author does not mention “such people” this means that the Homo sapiens creatures living outside the flooded region were not endowed with free will and could be neither obedient nor disobedient toward God.

In summary, the symbolism of Baptism makes it clear that Noah’s Flood was NOT “global” but it was universal. And thus it highlights also the importance of the introductory pericope of the “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2-4), where it is reported that at this time God continued to create new human persons by endowing Homo sapiens creatures with free will.

To finish I would like to stress how amazing and moving Peter’s teaching (1 Peter 3: 19-20) is regarding those who atoned for their disobedience while they were dying in the Flood and thereby became preserved for eternal life: Only someone like Peter, who had personally denied Jesus Christ and experienced God’s forgiveness and tremendous love after having repented, could have written such a thing!

I thank you for having noticed this and given us occasion to wonder again how science is helping us to discover new Revelation truth contained in Scripture.

Have a blessed Pentecost Sunday!

190

When I think of inspiration this is the verse I use.

John 14:24-26 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me. “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would teach and bring to the Apostles memory “all that I have said.” It doesn’t say the Holy Spirit will fill in the gaps with knowledge the Apostles did not have. As Peter’s knowledge of history was limited to the OT Peter would not have known about people outside of Mesopotamia and the Holy Spirit would not have filled in that gap. So when you say that Peter not mentioning these people must mean something you are mistaken.

Of course there is the ever popular

2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Which points out Scripture was inspired “to make you wise for salvation” and not wise for history.

2 Likes
191

If you rely on “the sudden appearance modern human behavior” and not on the specific behavior of enacting laws (which requires writing), then you should predate the creation in God’s image at least to 315,000 years ago, according to the recent discoveries:

http://www.nature.com/news/oldest-homo-sapiens-fossil-claim-rewrites-our-species-history-1.22114

By the way, these discoveries also question that the appearance was “sudden”.

192

Fossils do not equate with modern human behavior. I already allow for humans to be at least 200,000 years old. I have said that the exact date of the appearance of humans made in God’s image is unknown and unknowable. You want to date it to try to rescue Genesis as literal history.

When I say sudden I mean geologically sudden. Like the dinosaurs died suddenly, over a couple of million years. And I am aware that there is another model that says modern human behavior developed gradually over 100,000 years. In either case at some point you arrive at a modern human.

And I do not agree that a society enacting laws requires writing. The is abundant evidence that humans lived in large social groups that would have required agreed upon rules of conduct without writing them down. Are you aware there is evidence humans conducted business (which would require agreed upon rules) with distant groups long before writing? In fact that may have been the impetus to invent writing.

I don’t remember you commenting on the thread about Gobekli Tepe, which appears to be a temple created 11,600 years ago. That would push your date back further than what you are proposing don’t you think?

193

Bill, this is an excellent idea!

I fully agree that the need for contracts and enacting laws was “the impetus to invent writing”.

This means that when we find writing we have evidence that there are humans endowed with free will, sense of law and thus capable of being guilty of sin.

So I think we can agree in the following points:

  • We can be certain that at 3,500 BC there is evidence of writing and therefore humans created in the image of God.

  • It is all the better if one could infer the existence of humans endowed with free will and sense of law by evidence other than writing, and thereby date the creation of humans in the image of God at a time before 3,500 BC.

I would be thankful to know whether you can agree to these two points above before discussing the other arguments you address.

194

We can be certain that by no later than 3,500 BC there is evidence of writing. This says nothing about being created in the image of God.

Why are you so obsessed with this date? This history of the evolution of behaviorally modern humans places the date at some time around 50,000 BCE with a rather wide error band. Probably wider than the 3,500 years you want to use as a date. I don’t believe there is any way to actually date when we acquired the image of God. Let’s agree that the first person to reach heaven can ask St. Peter at the gate and let the other one know via a dream. :wink:

195

Indeed “the precise chronology in the Flood account” is amazing and echoes the “chronology” in Genesis 1. The account uses this parallel between creation and de-creation to highlight the parallel between the process of creation described in Genesis 1 and “the world‘s recreation” described in Gen 8-9.

The chronology you refer to makes the Flood account to a “second creation narrative” describing how the Creation of humanity comes to completion. This is clearly signified by God’s covenant with Noah in Genesis 9:3-13, which concerns the whole humanity: So for the first time God links the prohibition of homicide to the fact that mankind is made in the image of God (Genesis 9:6) and anticipates the proclamation of the 10 Commandments to Moses in Mount Sinai. The verses Genesis 9:12 (“a covenant for all generations to come”) and Genesis 9:13 (the rainbow “will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth”) clearly acquire a universal (beyond ANE) meaning in the light of Genesis 9:6.

This interpretation is also supported by the introductory pericope of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2-4: These were humans created by God the same way as Adam was created, that is, through endowing Homo sapiens creatures with free-will and thereby making them in God’s image, without mediation of human parents. Genesis 6:4 makes it clear that the creation of such “sons of God” did happen also at after the Flood: Thereby all Homo sapiens on earth were made in God’s image as Adam was, and the creation of humanity as a species of “spiritual beings” [in the sense of BioLogos, What we believe, 10] was complete.

196

You have fittingly suggested that the need for contracts (in “conducted business”) and for enacting laws (“agreed upon rules”) was “the impetus to invent writing”.

This means that when we find writing somewhere, we have evidence that there were humans endowed with free will, sense of law, and thus capable of loving God or rejecting Him. And this is the same as saying these humans were in the image of God.

Such a conclusion seems to me a matter of elementary logic and it is not worth bothering St. Peter about: He would wonder whether we are “in the image of God”.:wink:

197

The discovery of writing would only give you the latest date for saying humans were created in the image of God. The actual date would be earlier than that. Possibly quite a bit earlier. This throws out your 3,500 BC date.

I was suggesting we just ask St. Peter for the actual date as that would be the only way to come to a conclusion.

You have never addressed why you think coming up with a date is important or meaningful.

198

Bill, you formulate exactly the idea I am trying to convey: Evidence of writing is found at about 3,500 BC, and this proves with certainty free will and sense of law, and therefore the presence of humans created in the image of God.

If you can give such a proof by means other than writing, which would allow us to date earlier creation in the image of God, it is all the better and I will be happy!

In any case assuming this creation at 3,500 fits well with Science, New Testament, Old Testament, BioLogos, Theology (Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas), Council of Trent, and Magisterium of the Popes (even Humani generis! @Christy: human monogenesis is not definitely declared in this papal encyclical).[quote=“Bill_II, post:197, topic:35366”]
The actual date would be earlier than that. Possibly quite a bit earlier. This throws out your 3,500 BC date.
[/quote]

Your formulations (“would be earlier“, “possibly”) reveal some insecurity on your part. As far as you cannot prove with certainty free will and sense of law by means other than writing you cannot throw out the 3,500 BC date.

This seems to contradict your previous claim that “The actual date would be earlier than that”.

I think it is both important and meaningful to coming up with a date where we find unquestionable evidence of human behavior revealing spiritual creation by God, and this means, inter alia, behavior patterns that are found neither in non-human animals nor in other human creatures you exclude from being in God’s image (Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo sapiens 300,000 years ago). For the time being I have reached the conclusion that only “written law” provides such an unquestionable evidence. As said, if you can convincingly provide other evidence, I will be happy. But as far as you are not sure and feel the need to use formulations like “would be earlier”, “possibly”, etc. let us keep to 3,500 BC!

199

No. I am just trying to clearly state what the evidence says, not what I want it to say.

First, just because you have evidence that something happened “no later than 3,500 BC” does NOT mean that it happened at 3,500 BC. It is only an upper limit on the date. You can say it didn’t happen at 2,000 BC for example.

But why only “written law”. Why not evidence that humans adopted unwritten codes of behavior? Why not evidence that humans were aware of an afterlife? Why not evidence that humans built temples? Any of these would provide unquestionable evidence that we were created in the image of God.

Sorry but I don’t understand. How can asking St. Peter for the actual date contradict my claim that we as humans don’t know the exact date. I was only assuming that he would know.

The evidence that I believe shows we were created in the image of God dates to no later than 50,000 BC. There is abundant physical evidence for this. Just nothing in writing as it hadn’t been invented yet.

I get that you are stuck on “written law” as it supports your theory, but please address why you don’t accept other indications of modern human behavior as indications of being created in the image of God.

200

Maybe not. But it is my understanding that it says that human evolution is up for discussion, must acknowledge God is the creator of souls and that human origin from more than two distinct ancestors is irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin. I’m happy to be educated.

201

Did you mean more than two?

202

Yes, I will edit accordingly. :anguished:

1 Like
203

I started imagining people positing that all of Eve’s genetic material must have had to come from Adam’s rib for a moment …

(It was easier than imagining the Pope throwing out the doctrine of Original Sin and nobody noticed. :flushed:)