The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-08-27
LIGHT ON THE OElUCE.
The Flood Of Noah's Day Covered
Only a Part of the
Earth.
a Noted Scholar Delivers a Start
ling Lecture at Plattsburg,
New York.
He Shows Why tho Flood Need not and
Could not Have Extended Over
the Whole Globe.

DR.. Zahm's lecture at the Catholic sum
mer school at Plattsburg, N. Y, OF
"Noah's Deluge" was a startling one t,
the audience. He denied the universalit,
Of the flood, and presented many argu
ments in proof of his assertions. The fol
lowing are extracts from his lecture:
Barring the creation of the world and o.
man, it may be questioned il any event re
corded in the Testament has given rise tc
moro commentaries and provoked more
discussion than the terrible cataclysm re-
corded with such mi%nuteness and detail in
the seventh chapter of Genesis. Thefathers,
in their interpretations of the inspired vol
ume, and the schoolmen in their ponderous
tones, devoted entire t~reatises to the con-
sideration of the subject. The eXegetists
who succeeded the schoolmen found the
question of the deluge no less interesting,
and Judging from the space they gave to
the subject they considered its calculation
of prime Importance.
With scarcely a dissenting voice the ia
theirs, the schoolmen and the cXegetists,
who Immediately followed them, were at
once regarding the universally of the ca
tastrophe. The words of the Bible were
taken literally, and the almost general con-
sensus of opinion among theologians and
commentators was that the deluge was
universal, not only in relation to mankind,
but also in reference to the earth'S surface.
One of the first to seriously c~ontrovert the
theory of the geographical universality of
the delugc was Isaac Noss in his 'Dissertatio
de Vero Mundi Etatc." He maintained that
not more than one-hundredth part Of the
earth was submerged by the food.
0V,o ,l;.$i,1,,;phnl pe,n3iottra Nov, AZ,
billion, having at the request of the congre.
cation of the index examined the work of
Voss regarding the nonuniversality of the
deluge. gave it as his opinionthathi his teach
ing was neither against faith nor morals
and could therefore be tolerated. In the
first place, no one could any longer seriously
maintain that the fossils found in the vari-
Gus strata of the earth's crust were depos-
iteE there by the deluge Of Noah. Such a
view was now regarded as simply unten-
able, if not absurd.
Again, owing to the active researches of
naturalists the world over, it was discov-
cred that the number of species of animals
was in excess Of what had previously been
imagined By far, and then a new difficulty
presented itself that could not be ignored.
Contrary to what Iindens had taught, Gu
vier and others pointed out the fact that
there were several distinct foci or centers
of animal life; that certain species and
classes of animals are found in one part of
the world, while other species have their
habitation in another. 1t seems unreason-
able, therefore, to suppose, even if the ark
had been large enough, that representatives
of the different species of animals Of the
various distant countries of the world cana
or were brought to the ark, and how were
tho rerrasa,t atiyac nf f1a yorio1,c fa,,ro ~
distant countries and far off isles of the
ocean returned to the places whence they
came?
In the light of science, therefore-espe-
cially in the light of geology, zoology and
physical g~eography-the theory Of a uni
versal deluge is untenable. Onany ground
it is untenable without assuming the eX-
istence of such q number of miracles that
the theory p~erforce falls by its own weight.
But it will be asked, What explanation is
to be given Of the universal terms employed
in the biblical account of the deluge? It is
"all" men and every" living creature that
are to be destroyed. 1t is the whole earth
that is to be submerged. The words ''all'
and "every' are absolute and exclude moth
ing, and it is these words, we are told, that
must be satisfactorily explained before we
are at liberty to accept any other theory
than that which proclaims that the deluge
was universal.
In speaking of the famine which pre-
vailed at the time of Jacob, Moses declares
that the famine prevailed in the whole
world that the famine increased daily in
all the land, and that the provinces came
into Egypt to buy food and to seek some
relief for their wants. None Of these pas
sages, however, are to be taken literally.
Not Wy, 1cfa yli,r fIn ,,ca Of tln a1~r1,,A
terms "all" and "whole,n Moses refers only
to the countries and people known to the
Hebrews. And so it is in many other in
stances that might he adduced. he"whole
earth sometimes applies only to the prom
Used land; sometimes it embraces only
Egypt; at others it is made only to refer to
the kingdom of David or of Solomon, and
at others again to a stretch of country
bounded by the invisible horizon. Thu del
uge was not, as we may believe, universal
to the earth's surface, nor as to all forms of
animal life was ii, excluding those that
We're in the ark.
Neither the church, nor the fathers, nor
the schools defined or showed tina the uni
versal destruction of mankind by the flood,
excepting of course those in the ark, was
of faith. The first serious objections to a
universal destruction of our race came
from SCIENCE, and slngularly enough when
the results Of scientific discoveries pro-
claimed the necessity of revising the inter
probation that had been in vogue regard
ing the destruction of the race by the del
uge, it was found that there was lG.i.ing
in the sacred text that forbade such IT.
vision. What the extent Of the flood was
cannot be determined, but it seems to be
almost certain that it was very limited,
both as to the amount of territory sub
merged and to the number of the human
race destroyed.
To find fault with the fathers Of the
church for having 1000 or 1000 years ago "A
less extensive knowledge OF the natural
sciences and physical sciences than we our
selves possess would be simply preposter-
Gus. We must judgc them as we ourselves
under similar circumstances would wish
to be judged. We may not indeed with
out new and weighty reasons reject the
teachings OF such venerable authorities ON
questions like the one now under discus
sion, but when sufficiently grave reasons
are forthcoming we may safely, without
mourning the note Of ~rashness, modify our
opinions so as to make them harrnonize
with the certain data and consensus of
science.
She Kept Her Secret.
AtipiyT, frn1ag II,,r;- l,,,.. -