Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is the major problem with the universal flood concept: When floods happen and we know they do, for instance the latest disaster in Bangkok, the locals will certainly have tales to tell their grandkids but this flood is in no way across the planet.
Other tales of floods, especially in the dim past, will have been seen by only local people, there woul ...[text shortened]... ction of the Earth's surface.
So they make a legend out of it and say it covered the world.
There is interesting reading on this at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
Not that I believe it.
Here are some excerpts:
quote:
Universality of the Deluge
The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf. Kaulen in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:
The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned [bold added]
[snip explanation, which basically asserts that the science says it is clearly wrong and it is not a "faith and morals" type of belief over which the Church rules.]
The Deluge must have been anthropologically universal, i.e. it must have destroyed the whole human race [bold added]
[it admits the following]:
The above scientific arguments do not favour a partial destruction of the human race absolutely, but only in so far as the uninterrupted existence of the various races in question gives them more time for the racial development and the historical data that have to be harmonized with the text of Genesis. Those who urge these arguments grant, therefore, implicitly that the allowance of a proper length of time will explain the facts on which their arguments are based. As there is nothing in the teaching of the Bible preventing us from assigning the Flood to a much earlier date than has usually been done, the difficulties urged on the part of science against the anthropological universality of the Flood may be easily evaded. Nor can the distribution of the nations as described in the tenth chapter of Genesis be appealed to, seeing that this section does not enumerate all races of the earth, but confines itself probably to the Caucasian.
Science, therefore, may demand an early date for the Deluge, but it does not necessitate a limitation of the Flood to certain parts of the human race.
...
[and comes to the following conclusion:]
The explanations of these passages, offered by the opponents of the anthropological universality of the Deluge, are hardly sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt. We turn, therefore, to authority in order to arrive at a final settlement of the question. Here we are confronted, in brief, with the following facts: Up to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the belief in the anthropological universality of the Deluge was general. Moreover, the Fathers regarded the ark and the Flood as types of baptism and of the Church; this view they entertained not as a private opinion, but as a development of the doctrine contained in 1 Peter 3:20 sq. Hence, the typical character of both ark and Flood belongs to the "matters of faith and morals" in which the Tridentine and the Vatican Councils oblige all Catholics to follow the interpretation of the Church.
unquote