Knife

In a discussion with a devout catholic, he informed me that his bible study group includes a non-catholic evangelical christian. The evangelical christian believes the flood as history, while the catholics (at least in the study group) view it as metaphor. In the words of my catholic friend, "it is obviously a metaphor". I had never really considered the catholic stance on the subject prior to this conversation, but I have to say it struck me strange that catholics believe it as metaphor. This is because previously in conversations my catholic tends to support his beliefs with this type of argument:

1) It is in the bible and 2) the early christians believed it.

He used this argument to support his belief that bread actually turns into jesus during mass.

This leads to my thought...if the flood is in the bible (it is) and early christians believed it (which I would like to confirm), then he should believe that the flood actually happened.

So my question is...

What was the early christian view on the flood (specifically the Roman Catholic view)? Metaphor or History?

By early christian I am thinking prior to around 350 CE.

I assume that for most of the early christians the flood was viewed as history, but I dont have any sources to back this assumption. Any help would be appreciated.

robto

"Metaphor or history" is a false dichotomy. Philo treats the OT stories as metaphors of a person's inner life, but he also apparently belived them to be true history. I suspect you would find similar attitudes among early Xians.

Genesis was generally taken as literally true in Europe until evidence from geology began to call it into question in the late 1700's. I'm just now reading The Map that Changed the World, about William Smith and the creation of scientific geology, and that's the picture he paints.

As I understand it, the Roman Catholic church has generally been more open to scientific discoveries like this than the Protestant churches, because RCs recognize both scripture and church tradition as authoritative, while Prots went for Sola Scriptura - Scripture only.

Spitfire

I am Catholic and I believe the flood really happened. Though much of the Bible is metaphorical, that can't be denied. I just don't think the whole thing is completely metaphorical.

Chili

Clearly metaphor. In Catholicism the flood has been replaced by Advent with the advent wreath representing our ark wherein the white candle offers a glimmer of hope in recognizing that that candle is our very own baptism candle during the great flood (advent) of our own life.

Floods happen all the time but an ark must be built in anticipation by 'a' noah before 'the' naos can be exposed. That is why the Church must send the flood upon us while we built our ark during ordinary time.

Spitfire

I can see it now: "PEANUT GALLERY - Chili vs. Spitfire!"

Think that would be a big draw? :Cheeky:

The fathers of the Church accepted it as a historical event and nearly every other culture in the world, as far as I know, has some legend about a catastrophic flood which destroyed the world a long time ago.

Julian

And why is that meaningful in any way? Were they experts in geology? Logical fallacy: Appeal to authority.
It just so happens that most parts of the world have some amount of flooding. Why is this remarkable?

Does it impress you at all that modern science can say decisively, beyond a shadow of a doubt with absolute certainty that there never was a global flood? I mean, does the fact that it never happened make any difference to your belief in it?

Julian

Spitfire

We were talking about Catholics in this case...

And beyond a shadow of a doubt, with absolute certainty to you doesn't automatically mean I'm equally convinced, no.

Julian

Sure, my only point was that they were in no better position to know. Actually, they were in a far worse position due to the lack of sophisticated science.
First off, you certainly have the right to believe whatever you wish, I am not trying anything here, I was merely curious since I have no experience with religious faith.

On one hand we have all the facts and evidence that says it never happened, it is impossible actually. On the other hand, we have the bible which says it happened. I know that faith is belief in the absence of, or in spite of, evidence. All I wanted to know, I guess, if it is a conscious decision to believe the bible over science even though the event is impossible, or if it is just an assumption not based on study of the science. I am honestly interested and not being facetious.

Julian

Reanimator

Surfing around here and talkorigins.org and reading the devastating evidence against the possibly of a global flood played an enormous role in my conversion to atheism. The flood myth is either meant to be a historical account when taken literally, in which the rest of the miracles of the bible must also be historical, or it is fiction, in which the rest of the happenings in the bible much also be metaphorical. This doesn't allow for picking and choosing which you think truly happened and which you can dismiss as fiction.

I chose to look at it as a work of fiction, just like the rest of the bible. Why should I follow the rules of this book more than I should follow the Lord of the Rings?

Spitfire

It goes something like this. The evidence you present which proves beyond any doubt to you that something did indeed happen a certain way to me is actually evidence that it MAY (or MAY not have) have happened that way, when there is also evidence supporting other possibilities, only one of which being the considerable agreement in cultural traditions all over the world that a really major flood occured unlike any flood there has ever been since then. We weren't there. We didn't see it happen. How I see it, there is evidence that it may or may not have happened. So it does indeed take a certain amount of [that awful word] to believe that yes it did but at the same time I am not believing in something which I feel really has been proven beyond any doubt not to have happened.