Loading...
Loading...
Welcome back to Samus Popre. I'm Joe Hashemar, and I want to ask three questions today about Noah's Ark and the Great Flood.
Question number one, did it really happen, or is it just a retelling of older Babylonian stories?
Question number two, if it did really happen, was it a global flood or a local original flood?
And finally question three, are we missing the point of the story and asking these questions?
Now, if you like videos like this, I encourage you to like, subscribe, comment, all that jazz.
If you really like videos like this, I encourage you to join my Patreon and shamelessjo.com.
If you hate videos like this, I'm really sorry, I'm doing what I can.
All right, question number one, is the story of Noah's Ark historical, or is it just a retelling
of ancient Babylonian myths? The case for it being just a myth is that we find similar versions
of the Great Flood story and things like the Epic of Gilgamesh and scholars date these texts to
earlier than they date the Book of Genesis. And so the argument goes, the author of Genesis
just reworked these pagan stories and replaced their gods with the god of Israel.
Now that could lead to a complicated debate on the dating and authorship of the Book of Genesis,
but I suggest we just leave all of that aside because the true story is a bit more complicated
because it's not just in Gilgamesh and Genesis that we find an account of the Great Flood.
As the archaeologist John Henderson explains, we actually find similar Great Flood stories around the
world. I think there's no doubt that almost every culture in the world has a flood myth, a deluge
story, because we developed as a species within this pd devising sea level. So we find flood narratives
everywhere from India to the new world, and many of them like the Greek myth of Dukhaleon
follow the same basic pattern. The earth was dominated by man's greed and peace had completely
abandoned the earth. Zeus enraged took drastic action. He summoned Poseidon to Olympus.
The supreme god asked his brother to flood the planet, exterminating all men.
Okay, so humanity has wiped out, save for Dukhaleon and his family. Now there's actually different
versions even of this Greek myth, but in at least some of them, the pious Dukhaleon is spared,
so he and his family board a boat with pairs of every kind of animal to be saved from the flood.
The accounts are so obviously similar that St. Justin Martyr explicitly described Dukhaleon as
just a Greek name for Noah back in the 100s. Now amongst the different versions of the Great Flood
story told throughout the ancient world, the Mesopotamian ones, the ones from Babylon, are the
most important because they're the ones scholars believe are the oldest. But as the archaeologist
Tickva Frimer Kinsky explains, we actually have records of at least three different Babylonian
stories of a great flood. And like the three of Noah's Ark, they share some striking details with
the biblical account, despite some divergences. For instance, animals are placed in an ark,
the arc lands on a mountain, birds are sent forth to see if the waters have receded. Despite
the differences then, she refers to these as different retellings of an essentially identical
flood tradition. No, I would suggest that leaves us with basically three ways of accounting for
this evidence. One is to say, you know, floods are a recurring thing. Oops! Floods are a recurring
thing. Natural disasters were seen as evidence of designed disfavor, so it's not shocking to
imagine different cultures coming up with different stories involving floods. The movie Twister,
it's not a retelling of the Wizard of Oz, for instance, it's just tapping into the same basic
human fascination with and fear of tornadoes. No, I think that explains some of the stories we see.
I don't think that works completely. I don't think it can account for the number of details
we find in common in some of these ancient accounts. So it's going to get you some similar stories,
but it's not going to get you essentially identical ones. Okay, so the second theory is that everyone
is copying the oldest story, perhaps the atracist's epic, and retelling it in ways it makes sense in
their own culture, in their own region, or else they're copying those copies. There can be some
truth to that. As Pope Pius XII points out, it's perfectly possible to believe both that the ancient
sacred writers have taken things from popular narrations, and they did so with the help of divine
inspiration through which they were rendered immune from any error in compiling and transmitting
these sacred stories. What the third theory is just that these various floodments exist because
it really was a great flood. In other words, we find real and fictional accounts of the great flood
for the same reason that we find real and fictional accounts of the Civil War because it's a thing
that happened. It was a traumatic event that people wanted to talk about for ages afterwards. Maybe
they processed through art and storytelling. Well, the fact is, I think all three of these theories
might be true. They're not actually incompatible. It's perfectly possible to believe that floods are
a regular phenomenon. People like to talk about them. That there really was a great flood in which
God spared Noah and his family. They ended up on a mountain. And that the author of Genesis is
drawing upon earlier partially true tellings of that great flood story and presenting his own
divinely inspired version. We even have biblical precedent for this. In Second Peter II,
Saint Peter mentions that God casts a fallen angels into Tartarus. Now, he's describing an
event recorded in the Old Testament, the Fall of Satan. But he is employing the language of
Greek mythology to do so. That's where the idea of Tartarus comes from. So the author of Genesis
might be doing something similar with the language and framing of Babylonian mythology. Now,
all of that is to say that I think there are good reasons to believe that the great flood really
did happen. Even if a lot of the language used to describe it is mythological language. But just
how great was this great flood? That's question two. Growing up, I believe the great flood had to be
understood as global. After all, doesn't the Bible say the water prevailed so mightily upon the earth
that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered? And that it wiped out every living
thing that was upon the face of the ground? And that raises some practical difficulties. Things like
how did Noah keep polar bears and penguins in the like alive on the ark for 40 days? Or how was
there enough water on the planet to flood the entire world, including the highest mountains under
15 cubits that's about 25 feet of water? And if there was that much flooding over the entire earth,
where did all that flood water go afterwards? Now look, you can write all those difficulties off
as miracles. Obviously, God can do whatever he wants to do. But I think there's a bigger problem with
the way I'd heard the story as a kid and the problem is this. The Bible doesn't actually say
that the flood covered the entire earth. I know it says it in many English Bibles. But what it actually
says is that it covered the whole land. The Hebrew word there is just erets, which means land.
So word used for the holy land, for instance. And even colorets translated in many Bibles as the
whole earth, it means the whole land. In Genesis 13, Abraham says to Lot that the whole land,
colorets is before him because they're standing before the Jordan Valley. But he's not saying that
a lot is standing before the entire planet. He means the land before them, the whole area they're
looking at, not all of planet earth. So the Bible doesn't actually say that the flood was global.
But there are still people who insist that it must be read as if it did.
Answers in Genesis, for instance, argues that the flood must be understood as global because
Genesis refers to the face of the earth, erets, and the face of the whole earth, colorets being flooded.
But in the same article, they admit that erets also means ground, land, soil, or country.
So why insist on reading it as planet here? Well, they claim that it must mean the whole planet here
because in the flood narrative, the context doesn't indicate a geographically limited area.
In other words, they're just assuming it means the whole planet because the text doesn't explicitly
say how large the land is that got flooded. So the Bible says the whole land got flooded.
And answers in Genesis assumes that means all of planet earth because we don't know how much
land Genesis 7 is referencing. But there's simply no reason to accept that reading as the only
possible reading of Genesis 7 because the Hebrew doesn't require that. And also because there are
plenty of times in which the Bible sounds like it's saying the whole world when it's really only
talking about a small portion of the world. For instance, in Acts chapter 2, St. Luke says that
they were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. Now that
language actually sounds much more clearly like we're going to be dealing with the entire planet
rather than a vague expression like the whole land. And yet even here, there weren't literally people
from every nation under heaven. We know this partly because Luke actually records a list of who
was present in verses 9 to 11. And it's people from across and around the Roman Empire.
No one from the New World showed up at Pentecost, for instance. But neither do we hear of people
from places like Ethiopia or India or Spain, nations which we know the biblical authors,
like St. Luke, knew about because those places are referenced elsewhere in the Bible.
So it's not that St. Luke made a mistake here as if he thought every nation was present there
and we know better today. No, Luke knew that not literally every nation was there. He doesn't
literally mean the entire world. Modern readers are simply taking these texts in a stiffly literal way
that isn't how ancient authors tended to write. And the problem is we're doing the same thing when
we demand that a flood over the entire land must have covered all of planet earth instead of say
the entire region. Now to be clear, I'm not demanding that you read the great flood as a strictly
regional event. I'm simply pointing out that the arguments for it being global are often quite
and that demanding a global interpretation creates a number of difficulties in interpreting
the text. So please just don't force your personal reading on others if you are someone who
believes it was a global flood. For myself, I would suggest that the debate about the extent of the
flood geographically risks just missing the point entirely. And this is the third question I want
to explore because it'd be like reading the story of the prodigal son and focusing all of your
attention on trying to figure out what percentage of the property would have gone to the younger son
by right. Is he getting 50 percent or less? That's not the point of the story. As St. Paul said of
the Exodus, these things were written for our instruction. In other words, whenever we're reading
of a past event in the Bible, we don't just want to know what happened, but what am I meant to learn
from this? So how did the early Christians understand the point of the story of Noah? Three ways. First,
it's a foreshadowing of the final judgment. Jesus treats it this way in Matthew 24. At some point,
Jesus is going to return and God will wipe out the old world of sin just as He did in the days of
Noah. Only the righteous will be left behind. Second, the wood of the ark passing through the
waters of the flood is a foreshadowing of the saving power of the cross and baptism. St. Augustine
taught that Noah with his family is saved by water and wood. As the family of Christ is saved by
baptism as representing the suffering of the cross. For some of you, that might sound like a stretch,
but that actually lines up perfectly with how St. Peter describes the ark in the New Testament.
He said that in the ark, a few, that is, eight persons were saved through water. And then he adds
baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you. So it's through baptism that we're united with
Jesus Christ who died for sins once for all. The righteous for the unrighteous that He might bring
us to God. Or St. Paul puts it, do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death? In other words, we are united with the wood of the cross
through the waters of baptism. And just as the old world of unrighteousness was destroyed in the flood,
so too we were buried therefore with him by baptism into death. So this Christ was raised from the
dead by the glory of the Father. We too might walk in newness of life. Our old unrighteous self
dies in the waters of baptism and we are reborn to new life through union with the cross of Christ.
Third, the ark represents the church. St. Cypriot of Carthage famously warned that you can no more
be saved outside the church than you could have escaped destruction if you were outside of the
ark when the flood came. Or in the words of St. Jerome, a church father that I know is beloved by
many Protestants, and his letter to Pope Damasus in 377, quote, my words are spoken to the successor
of the fisherman to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader, save Christ, so I communicate
with none but your blessedness that is with the share of Peter. For this I know is the rock on which
the church is built. This is a house where alone the Paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the
ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.
End quote. My fear is this, if we spend our time fighting about the historical and geographical
details of the great flood that Noah's ark, we risk missing the deeper spiritual points,
the instruction we are meant to take. And I think that instruction is this. Someday,
maybe a long time from now, maybe any moment, God will come and set the world right again.
And on that day, we want to be left behind, like the righteous in the days of Noah,
and to do that, to be left behind, we need to be saved by the water and the wood, by baptism in the
cross. And thereby be incorporated into the ark of Christ, the church. Now, unfortunately,
many Christians today have been taught that it's actually bad to be left behind based on this
false teaching called the rapture. Now, if that's what you've been taught, I hope you'll take a
look at this biblical explanation that I've made, debunking the most commonly used proof text
for the rapture, and see that this whole idea is actually quite biblical. For Shamist Popery,
I'm Joe Hashmire. God bless you.

Shameless Popery
Shameless Popery
Shameless Popery