Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
Fri Dec 7, 2018, 06:14 PM Dec 2018

What does the RCC say about the Great Flood described in the Bible? [View all]

From the article:

The Catholic Church does not prohibit interpretations of Genesis 6-8 that include a worldwide flood, but neither does the Church require there to be a worldwide flood in all interpretations of these passages. Instead, Catholic theologians understand the first eleven chapters of Genesis contain, in the words of Pope Pius XII, “simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people” (Humani Generis, 38).


Modern readers may interpret passages in Genesis that describe water covering “the earth” as meaning that the entire planet was inundated. But a resident of ancient Mesopotamia may have understood the “the earth” to mean only “the land” or the region he knew. In fact, the Hebrew word for “earth” used in this passage, eretz, can also mean “land,” as in Genesis 41:57, where it says that “all the eretz came to Egypt to buy grain” when a famine struck the region. This doesn’t mean that everyone on the planet went to Egypt to buy grain, just those people who inhabited the region to which the author was referring.


To read more:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-perspective-on-a-new-attraction

And there is also this, from the Catholic Bishops:

How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation-flood story. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead, they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological. They added and subtracted narrative details and varied the plot as they sought meaning in the ancient stories. Their stories reveal a privileged time, when divine decisions were made that determined the future of the human race. The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious, the nature of sexual attraction and marriage, why there are many peoples and languages. Though the stories may initially strike us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill, compression, and subtlety. They provide profound answers to perennial questions about God and human beings.

To read more:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/0

Basically, a Catholic is free to read the story as literal or metaphoric, or a combination of both.
65 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
38% of Americans believe in young earth creationism Major Nikon Dec 2018 #1
Whataboutism. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #2
... Major Nikon Dec 2018 #4
Diversion from your clear use of the whataboutism fallacy. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #6
... Major Nikon Dec 2018 #8
Interesting contribution on your part. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #9
I have no interest in dialog with people who have no interest in dialog Major Nikon Dec 2018 #11
Lol. Love you. tymorial Dec 2018 #52
What about other stories in the Bible? PJMcK Dec 2018 #3
Understood. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #7
Jesus could be (and likely was) a metaphor. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2018 #54
Your view. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #59
The alleged real Jesus also differs with your alleged metaphorical real version of the flood myth Major Nikon Dec 2018 #64
The line, according to the OP, seems to be the end of Genesis 11 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2018 #63
water is great for dunking and drowning accused witches nt msongs Dec 2018 #5
And what did you think about the substance if the article? eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #10
What about the New Testament? edhopper Dec 2018 #12
The link is clear on this. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #13
That is some lame side stepping edhopper Dec 2018 #14
At this point, in this post, guillaumeb Dec 2018 #15
Better answer. edhopper Dec 2018 #16
Thank you. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #17
A combination of both suits me just fine! Literally and metaphorically. sprinkleeninow Dec 2018 #20
I agree. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #21
Thank you. Love you much! sprinkleeninow Dec 2018 #18
No problem. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #19
There's difficulty in being able to see scripture taken in a literal AND sprinkleeninow Dec 2018 #22
Think of the sword as metaphor. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #23
Precisely. Was there a single 'Adam' and a single 'Eve'? Metaphor. sprinkleeninow Dec 2018 #24
And the names make it clear to me clear that it is about life coming from the earth. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #40
I would go with "myth" even though it is often associated with "not true" in English. gtar100 Dec 2018 #25
So "metaphorically" some god drowns Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #26
It's a metaphor for a nice warm bath. MineralMan Dec 2018 #27
Myth does not mean "nice story" marylandblue Dec 2018 #29
True, but still a myth Major Nikon Dec 2018 #30
Pat Robertson doesn't hide behind "metaphors" marylandblue Dec 2018 #31
Seems like a more honest approach at least Major Nikon Dec 2018 #32
Mere criticism doesn't change minds, it just causes further digging in marylandblue Dec 2018 #33
For a small minority this is true Major Nikon Dec 2018 #34
Studies show this is not true because of confirmation bias marylandblue Dec 2018 #36
And yet collective attitudes do change over time Major Nikon Dec 2018 #37
Yes they do, but not by calling bullshit on everything. marylandblue Dec 2018 #43
You describe several instances of calling bullshit Major Nikon Dec 2018 #45
Maybe you called the Matthew Shepard case bullshit, but I called it murder. marylandblue Dec 2018 #46
Where did I say either myth or nice story. Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #39
The incredibly harsh world they actually lived in and a little bit of hope marylandblue Dec 2018 #41
Well that's convenient. Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #42
Who said anything about leaving out the appalling part? marylandblue Dec 2018 #44
Uh, you did? Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #47
I didn't say take it out, I said it wasn't the point. marylandblue Dec 2018 #49
Don't blame me, myths are filled with really bizarre and crazy stories gtar100 Dec 2018 #35
Mythology is absolutely the correct term Lordquinton Dec 2018 #28
With metaphor all things are possible Major Nikon Dec 2018 #38
"I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours." MineralMan Dec 2018 #48
I never metaphor I didn't like Lordquinton Dec 2018 #50
Are you still on the flood? tymorial Dec 2018 #51
Are you asking... NeoGreen Dec 2018 #53
Meh, someone got their ass handed to them in another thread... trotsky Dec 2018 #55
Other than Catholics, who cares? Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2018 #56
Bingo. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2018 #57
Even Catholics don't care. They can believe whatever they wish MineralMan Dec 2018 #58
This applies to all of the Abrahamic religions. eom guillaumeb Dec 2018 #60
Sure. I understand how Genesis fits religions. But in the OP you ask about the RCC. Cuthbert Allgood Dec 2018 #61
Well, in this post I decided to focus on this issue. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #62
Funny thing is... uriel1972 Dec 2018 #65
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»What does the RCC say abo...»Reply #0