Was the Flood literally global?

 by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

A friend has e-mailed the following:

 “…. A couple of matters related to one of my classes last night:

 

1.   Reason(s) that we hold that the Flood was literally global.
2. I was told many years ago that there had never been rain until the Flood and that people were at first delighted and amazed at what they were seeing.

 

Can you help me with either of these? ….”

 

 

My response: A ‘literally global’ Noachic Flood is what I used firmly to believe, as well as the notion that rain was formerly unknown to the antediluvians.

But I don’t anymore.

 

And I feel sorry and embarrassed, now, for those, such as ‘Creationists’ with their ‘Creation Science’, who hold to 1) in particular, “the Flood was literally global”.

Why?

Because, as I see it, they are reading the Bible in a modern language, say English, with a modern ‘scientific’ - even to a great extent a pseudo-scientific - mentality, instead of in a way that gives due consideration to the meaning of the language used by the ancient (not modern) scribes with those scribes’ intended meanings.

 

Previously I have quoted Tim Martin on the modern tendency to reduce everything to science – and one could probably add, to numbers and statistics. Tim Martin has actually called ‘Creation Science’ “a right-wing form of modernism”: http://planetpreterist.com/content/beyond-creation-science-how-preterism-refutes-global-flood-and-impacts-genesis-debate-%E2%80%93-par-5

 

We live in a world dominated by materialism and scientism. The reduction of every aspect of life to “science” has corrupted the soul of Western Civilization. This is one key to understanding the related popularity of both futurism and Creation Science. They are both perfectly compatible with the scientistic spirit of the modern age. In fact, dispensational futurism, at least, is impossible apart from it. Christians aid this scientistic syncretism through Creation Science methods of reading Scripture. They do it by reducing even the language of the Bible to the “scientific.”^[1]

Viewed in this light it is not difficult to see that Creation Science ideology is a right-wing form of modernism. Conrad Hyers puts it this way:

 

Even if evolution is only a scientific theory of interpretation posing as scientific fact, as the [young-earth] creationists argue, [young-earth] creationism is only a religious theory of biblical interpretation posing as biblical fact. To add to the problem, it is a religious theory of biblical interpretation which is heavily influenced by modern scientific, historical, and technological concerns. It is, therefore, essentially modernistic even though claiming to be truly conservative.[2]

 

Catholics (those tending to be of the conservative variety) who have followed Creationism over the years would be well aware that mainstream Catholic scholars have shown virtually no interest whatsoever in its teachings, and that official Catholic documents never seem to support Creation Science.

Why might this be so?

Surely Creation Science, teaching a belief in God the Creator of all things, and vehemently defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures, ought to be warmly welcomed by the Church as an invaluable ally.

On the other hand, the God-fearing are not always right in their estimations, no matter how sincere, and they may need to be corrected.

 

Consider Our Lord’s constant corrections of good people along the lines of:

 

‘You have heard it said … but I tell you’

(e. g. Matthew 5:21-22).

 

‘Creationists’ will take biblical phrases such as “the whole earth”, or “all flesh”, and bestow upon these a universal or global status – intending the entire globe.

 

At least they do so when it suits them, such as in the case of the Flood or Babel.

For they are not consistent. If they were they would have the Queen of the South, who came “from the ends of the earth” (Matthew 12:42), making her way northwards from somewhere in the southern hemisphere.

And how do they account for the fact that, at Pentecost, people “from every nation under heaven” are actually listed as being inhabitants of only a very small part of the global world – basically, Rome, Crete, and Egypt, through Syria and Turkey, to Mesopotamia? (Acts 2:5-11):

  

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, ‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?  Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God’.

 

The misinterpretation of the ancient texts by modern (say, Western) minds in regard to the Flood is well explained in the following piece by Rich Deem:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

 

The Genesis Flood
Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalm 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?). In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalm 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood.

The Bible's other creation passages eliminate the possibility of a global flood

The concept of a global Genesis flood can be easily eliminated from a plain reading of Psalm 104,¹ which is known as the "creation psalm." Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) (verse 2,¹ parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5,¹ parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8,¹ parallel to Genesis 1:9-10). The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: "You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalm 104:9)¹ Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local. Psalm 104 is just one of several creation passages that indicate that God prevented the seas from covering the entire earth.² An integration of all flood and creation passages clearly indicates that the Genesis flood was local in geographic extent.

The Bible says water covered the whole earth... Really?

When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered all of planet earth.³ However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible nearly always refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."⁴ We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets. ….

[End of quote]

 

‘Creationists’, having arrived at their completely artificial - and quite laughable, if they weren’t so serious - interpretations of the Bible, will then insist upon one’s adhering to their peculiar ‘biblical’ Weltanschauung as behoving Christians dedicated to the preservation of scriptural inerrancy.

 

Well, I would suggest that no one would have been more surprised than Noah (and his family) to learn that he had once ridden out a global Flood in a sea-going vessel the size of the Queen Mary!

 

As to point 2) ‘there had never been rain until the Flood’, it has no solid biblical support as far as I can tell.

And even some ‘Creationists’ now seem to have dropped this idea. For example: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/was-there-no-rain-before-the-flood/

 

Was There No Rain Before the Flood?

 

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood;

however, as Dr. Tommy Mitchell shows us,

a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

 

….

 

Conclusion

 

While we cannot prove that there was rain before the Flood, to insist that there was not (and even to deride those who think otherwise) stretches Scripture beyond what it actually says. ….

 

Thomas L. McFadden on Teilhard

The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin

 

Part Six:

Thomas L. McFadden on Teilhard

 

 

 

  

 

“It could be said that Père Teilhard was as much a poet and mystic as he was a scientist. 

It is no small thing to be a poet and a mystic (St. John of the Cross managed it impressively), but poetry and mysticism are not fit substitutes for empirical science”.

 

Dennis Q. McInerny

 

 

 

 

Professor Dennis Q. McInerny touches on this subject in his review of McFadden’s excellent book, Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism: A Discussion for Those Who Believe (2016):

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/review-of-creation-evolution-and-catholicism-a-discussion-for-those-who-bel when he writes:

 

Evolution, theology and the Teilhardian heresy

 

 

The book’s treatment of the relation between evolution and theology, which is the subject taken up in Chapter 7, is especially noteworthy for its discussion of the thought of Père Teilhard de Chardin. His not entirely felicitous influence, especially among Catholic intellectuals, has had the effect of leading them, many of whom were clearly unacquainted with the relevant scientific data, to see in the whole way of evolutionary thinking an intellectual hardiness, and a potential for beneficial wide-ranging applicability, which it simply doesn’t have.

 

It could be said that Père Teilhard was as much a poet and mystic as he was a scientist.  It is no small thing to be a poet and a mystic (St. John of the Cross managed it impressively), but poetry and mysticism are not fit substitutes for empirical science. In any event, Sir Julian Huxley, in the Introduction he wrote for the English translation of The Phenomenon of Man, revealingly refers to Père Teilhard as a strong visualizer, and does not seem to have much to say about the strictly scientific aspects of the Jesuit’s thought.

 

A particularly perspicacious critique of Père Teilhard’s ideas appears as an appendix to Jacques Maritain’s The Peasant of Garonne; the French philosopher ends his short essay with this pointed sentence: “He was without a doubt a man of great imagination.” (269) The best book length study of Père Teilhard’s thought to date is Wolfgang Smith’s Theistic Evolution: The Teilhardian Heresy, which was published in 2012. Mr. McFadden weaves much pertinent information into this chapter, and in doing so builds a commanding case against evolution as a viable scientific theory.

Humani Generis and evolution

But for that matter the entire book is chock full of pertinent information regarding evolution and its many ramifications, specifically as affecting Catholic faith. I was particularly struck by the studied treatment the author gives to Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Humani Generis, a document which is especially important for what it has to say about evolution. It is often read without proper care, unfortunately, with the result that the ways in which it is sometimes interpreted are not consonant with the text itself. Mr. McFadden sets the record straight in that respect, and thereby performs a valuable service. He is quite right in saying that in the encyclical the pope is by no means giving anything like a blanket endorsement of evolutionary theory. The larger concern of the encyclical, as Mr. McFadden points out, has to do with the problematic aspects which are to be found in modern philosophy as a whole. The pope discusses evolution as a particular instance of what is worrisome about much contemporary thought. ….

[End of quote]

 

And, regarding philosopher Jacques Maritain’s opinion of Teilhard de Chardin in Maritain’s classic, The Peasant of the Garonne, John B. Killoran will write in “FALSE AND GENUINE KNOWLEDGE: A PHILOSOPHICAL LOOK AT THE PEASANT OF THE GARONNE: http://people.stfx.ca/wsweet/EM/08-%201992/No.%208%20John%20B.%20Killoran.pdf

 

….

Ironically enough, the most powerful salvos of The Peasant of the Garonne were reserved for a thinker who cannot be considered an ideosopher, viz., Pere Teilhard de Chardin. For the generation of Catholics that came to maturity in the 1960's, Pere Teilhard was more than just a distinguished Catholic paleontologist. He was rather the living embodiment of aggiornomento, Catholicism's opening to the world of modem thought. Maritain writes that Teilhard had a healthy sense of reality -- indeed Teilhard's thought is permeated by an incarnational view of the universe. Nevertheless, like many of his scientistic contemporaries, Teilhard fell prey to the cardinal error of the modern era, the failure to make distinctions, for "the idea of a specific distinction between the different degrees of knowledge was always completely foreign to him.”³⁹ In Teilhard writings poetic intuition masquerades as theology, with the result that the line between nonconceptual and conceptual knowledge is obliterated. What emerges is a sort of "theology-fiction.”^4O How else is one to interpret the neologisms such as "noosphere" that abound in the Teilhardian vocabulary than as the consequence of an effort to marry a profound poetic vision to an "up-to-date" scientifically based metaphysics? While Maritain, of course, has no objection to a metaphysics that takes into consideration to discoveries of modern science, he points out to the disciples of Teilhard that if the appropriate distinctions are not made the consequence will be the proliferation of a false knowledge that purports to answer the most fundamental questions of the human mind but which, in the end, leaves it entirely barren. This intellectual emptiness is what false knowledge has instilled into modern life. ….