Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can’t answer your question because it demands a solution to an impossible problem. So does mine. I’m trying to prove a point, that point being that you are asking me to do something beyond the abilities of all reason; to choose between two equally valid choices based on a perpetually imaginary dilemma.
 
Last edited:
Without room to test which one is less valid, I have to assume they’re both of equal merit. I haven’t found any other research indicating which is more reliable.
 
Last edited:
You know what? No. With all due respect, I won’t do your research for you. You want to prove the inferiority of one method, then present your case. Otherwise, I’ll assume it doesn’t exist since I couldn’t find it, and leave this where it ended: You getting frustrated that I couldn’t answer your question that didn’t have one. I mean no offense in saying this, but I cannot waste more time looking for something that apparently does exist but is hiding so well that I can’t see it.
 
Last edited:
DanielJosephBoucher said:
Does anyone else think that the Flood (with Noah) may have wiped out all the dinosaurs?
Click to expand...
Writing started about 3500 years BC.

Evidence of large area wide floods appears to be be somewhere between 11,000 and 15,000 years ago.

Dinosaurs appear to have become extinct some 65,000,000 years ago - more likely due to one or more massive meteors landing, and/or massive volcanic eruptions.

The Catholic Church does not hold that the Bible teaches science.
 
There certainly were catastrophic floods in prehistoric times and in the early period of historical times. It should be considered that when the ancient Sumerians spoke of a world-wide flood they were speaking of mesopotamia, which was their whole world, and, in a manner of speaking, was in fact the “whole world” since it was the only place where civilization had begun. Most of the rest of the world was still in the dark. Did the flood cover the entire planet? No, it didn’t. Was there a giant boat with every animal aboard? No, there wasn’t. But to the ancients the flood did, in fact, cover their whole world. So when the story states this it is stating a fact that they had experienced. The Sumerian king lists include kings that had ruled both before and after the flood. Those that ruled before are assigned enormously long lifespans, in the thousands of years. This is likely the inspiration for the biblical lifespans of characters like Methuselah. And the story of the tower of Babel was inspired by the Sumerian ziggurates (stepped stone towers) which had been built at the sites of Uruk, Ur and Babylon.
 
Last edited:
DanielJosephBoucher said:
The snake in Genesis is not a snake. He was a serpent. The devil is a serpent, not a snake (a dragon - see Revelation chapter 12). The Bible you are referring to is an incorrect translation. Snakes are not serpents.
Click to expand...
Snakes are serpents. The text does refer to a snake, and specifically refers to the snake as an animal.

This is just one of the many places that those that claim to read the Bible strictly literally depart from literalism when it suits their theology. The text says that a snake spoke to Eve, not Satan or the devil.
 
have you researched the source document hypothesis concerning the synoptic gospels?
 
I think this is an interesting take, especially as the idea of knowledge is so central to the Adam/Eve story.

Yes and, of course, this remains true. The real question to me is why would a Catholic ascribe to an anti-scientific world view when there is no theological reason to do so (at least in Catholic theology).
 
Lucy_1 said:
But don’t we have to believe in Adam and Eve in some literal sense? And that the fall was an historical event in some form or fashion? The catechism says:

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”
Click to expand...
Yes, sort of. The most common current interpretation of Catholic teaching on human origins is that Catholics must believe that there was a first pair of true humans, with the implication that all of us are descended from that pair (monogenesis). There is no requirement that Catholics believe their names were “Adam and Eve” or any of the other details recorded in Genesis. The reason for maintaining monogenesis is principally to make it easier to keep the origin teaching compatible with original sin.

I think the Church is slowly and carefully inching away from monogenesis, as can be seen in Pope Benedict’s writings on original sin, and some of the Church’s statements on evolution. (I am sure that even saying that much will draw howls of protest from some posters.)
 
TMC said:
even saying that much will draw howls of protest from some posters.
Click to expand...
Howling! 😀

Let’s see how this would flesh out. God at some time picked a male and female primate or prehuman of some sort and then perfected them with bodily immortality, freedom from sickness and infused them with knowledge. Then He instructed them to go and populate the earth, which a few hours before they were already doing. Then that former population is somehow wiped out or else we have among us humans free from original sin. They would see the beatific vision and we sinners who depart unbaptized would not. Then God puts Adam and Eve on probation, but the prehumans get a pass. Adam and Eve fail probation and now Jesus has to come to save us. Jesus is then born from the original sinners group.

We also have to ignore God creating Eve from Adam.

The hoops we have to go through… for the sake of provisional science.
 
buffalo said:
I guess they had a fascination with drawing dead things rather than the living reality around them.
Click to expand...
Umm… you recall all the excitement in the world as “modern” scientists in the 19th century discovered a whole range of fossils and were putting them together, don’t you? “Dinomania” isn’t just a 20th century phenomenon! And yes, part of the fascination includes illustrating how they may have looked!

So, please… put the snark away. YES, we humans have a fascination with drawing all sorts of things.
 
Lucy_1 said:
But don’t we have to believe in Adam and Eve in some literal sense? And that the fall was an historical event in some form or fashion?
Click to expand...
Yes! But… a belief in a literal first pair of true human persons does not imply that one must take Genesis 3 literally as if it were historically accurate as written down.

The fall was historical – as you point out in your catechism quote. That’s the whole point: the narrative tells truth through the mechanism of figurative speech.
 
TMC said:
I think the Church is slowly and carefully inching away from monogenesis, as can be seen in Pope Benedict’s writings on original sin, and some of the Church’s statements on evolution. (I am sure that even saying that much will draw howls of protest from some posters.)
Click to expand...
My husband lost his faith and is now an atheist because the bible speaks clearly about the fall/original sin being an event, and he can’t reconcile that with evolution. (Also because he was scrupulous and doesn’t have any idea about the Mercy of God, so I think he was glad of an excuse to get out.) But it does seem to me that the fall/original sin does have to be an historical event (though obviously framed allegorically) because everyone from Paul to Jesus speaks of it as though it happened in time and space. Plus there is dogma handed down at Trent, Orange and I think Carthage about sin transmitted to all by generation. If it’s completely incompatible with evolution, where does that leave us? It’s one of the foundations of the faith-- without it, why do we need baptism, etc., etc.,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top