Do you believe the Flood was a historical event?

[pnewton]

We have evidence of the Deluge, from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the unanimous teachings of the Fathers.

No, we do not. This simply is not Catholic teaching. Saying it over and over again does not make it right, nor give your understanding of Scripture any greater weight.

As the late Carl Sagan used to say (a phrase he borrowed), “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

We have a great deal of evidence in the geological record. Absence* is* evidence when something must be and is not. If I walk into a room and do not see another person, that is good evidence I am alone. If the room is small enough, it is proof.

A world-wide flood is not a doctrine or teaching of the Church. Until it become a matter of doctrine, for whatever strange reason it would be, this speculation is subject to new data, whether you believe or do not believe in it. Yes, you can just take it on faith, as long as you realize it is your personal faith, not a teaching of the Catholic Church. You can do this with almost anything though. You can take it on faith that the world was created on October 23, 4004 BC

 

[Jehannette]

If I walk into a room and do not see another person, that is good evidence I am alone. If the room is small enough, it is proof.

You’re not alone, however! At least one other entity is there:

330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.

336 From its beginning until death, human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession. “Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life.” Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.

 

[pnewton]

You’re not alone, however! At least one other entity is there:

You are using “alone” in a different sense than I did. This is why definition of terms is so important.

 

[edwest2]

I understand that. But for cultural reasons, more than scientific, it is more likely to me that it was a local flood. People use to believe the sun went around the earth. The bible seems to imply that. The church used to teach that, not as dogma, but because that is what the culture as a whole believed. Even the Church Fathers would have believed the sun revolved around the earth. Thus, we can not take the Church Fathers to know anything beyond the understanding of the time when it comes to scientific knowledge.

Similarily we can not think the concept of the whole world meant anything beyond the known world of the author at the time it was written. I mean North America wasnt even discovered until the 15th century. And, they didnt even know the world was round in ancient times.

Why is this important to you? Speaking generally, it appears that some, not you, are saying “God cannot perform miracles UNLESS SCIENTISTS CAN CONFIRM IT.”

So, in the Old Testament at least, we have: The God Who Did Nothing - How Science Proves That None Of The Miracles Attributed to the Christian God Ever Happened. And how to spread that belief to others.

Pope John Paul II is one miracle away from sainthood.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100156.htm

How do you know the ancients didn’t know the earth was round? Look up Eratosthenes (276-194 B.C.).

Peace,
Ed

 

[tabycat]

You know, I always questioned myself IF the Garden of Eden was in this planet or somewhere else… what if some stories of the Genesis didn’t take place on Earth… remembering human beings were immortal before the Original Sin and we all know that every being (fossil or not) on Earth is/was mortal…
what if Adam and Eve were born outside this world and after they sinned the human souls got transferred to mortal Homo sapiens existing in this Earth?
Isn’t it a little bit weird that Homo sapiens exist for thousands of years and they just started a culture and civilization about 10,000-15,000 years ago? What if these “apes” were lacking a soul?

Sounds a bit like ‘Ancient Alians’.

 

[pnewton]

I do not think any one is saying God can not perform miracles or that science must confirm miracles. However, as worldwide calamity should leave some evidence. Better to say that to the extent God does miracles he does it right and it need not be invisible. When he provided manna, it really fed the children of Israel. Therefore, if he flooded the whole world, it would be with real water and real evidence would remain.

 

[tabycat]

Mount Ararat is mentioned as the resting place of Noah’s ark. It’s 16945 feet high and the surrounding plains are 2000 to 3000 feet high. ." Genesis 8:5

All of the translation of Genesis 8:5 that I remember reading have 'the mountiens of Ararat not Mount Ararat. Mount Ararat just happens to be one of the tallest peaks in the area, that is why it has been picked as the resting place of Noah’s Ark in recent times.

Scientists say the earth has been hit by asteroids like forever, right? Well, in Noah’s time a rain of super asteroids of ice crashed into the earth, the friction of entrance melted the ice, part of it fell as rain, part of the resulting water evaporated from the heat,

One slight problem: Where did all of the extrae wather go to? :blushing:

I’m not saying that Noahs Flood did not happen but it did not happen as some Noah’s Ark seekers say it happened.

 

[edwest2]

One slight problem: Where did all of the extrae wather go to? :blushing:

I’m not saying that Noahs Flood did not happen but it did not happen as some Noah’s Ark seekers say it happened.

Opinion does not matter. God can and does perform miracles, even today. Where is the evidence for Jesus raising the dead or giving sight to the blind or cleansing the lepers?

Peace,
Ed

 

[pnewton]

Where is the evidence for Jesus raising the dead or giving sight to the blind or cleansing the lepers?

There was physical evidence in two cases. The blind man got in trouble with the Pharisees and witnesses (the parents) confirmed he was the man born blind. The lepers went and showed themselves to the priests. If were were alive, we too could have seen the evidence. If the world was completely underwater, should we be able to see this evidence today? Probably. He surely have tons of evidence of other historically verifiable floods that occurred locally. Why would God flood all the Earth and then hide the evidence of this flood?

This is not definitive, but it is why I do not believe in a world wide flood. My mother does, and I know many who do though. I do not see it as a critical issue.

 

[tabycat]

Opinion does not matter. God can and does perform miracles, even today. Where is the evidence for Jesus raising the dead or giving sight to the blind or cleansing the lepers?

Peace,
Ed

I’m not saying that God can not and does not perform miracles, Also, my opinion (or yours) does not matter, but we are allowed to ask how He does things, like if the water for Noah’s Flood came from outer space, where did go after the Flood water’s went to. :bounce:

 

[Prieldedi]

One slight problem: Where did all of the extrae wather go to? :blushing:

I’m not saying that Noahs Flood did not happen but it did not happen as some Noah’s Ark seekers say it happened.

Where did the water of the primeval soup go in the first place when the earth was nothing but water, as many scientist claim?

Early Earth 'was covered in water’

Now you have two slight problems. After you solve the first one you’ll have a clue where did the extra water of the flood go to.

 

[Prieldedi]

All of the translation of Genesis 8:5 that I remember reading have 'the mountiens of Ararat not Mount Ararat. Mount Ararat just happens to be one of the tallest peaks in the area, that is why it has been picked as the resting place of Noah’s Ark in recent times.

It’s on the previous verse in my digital Christian Community Bible version.

“In the seventh month, in the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested on Mount Ararat.” Genesis 8:4

Depending on the translator they use “Mountains” or “Mount”, and either “Ararat” or “Armenia”. Either way we are speaking of a range of very high mountains. Whether it was on Mount Ararat (16000+ feet) or any other lower peak at 14000, 12000 feet or less it’s still very high, and those in the ark could not see them.

 

[tabycat]

Where did the water of the primeval soup go in the first place when the earth was nothing but water, as many scientist claim?

Early Earth 'was covered in water’

Now you have two slight problems. After you solve the first one you’ll have a clue where did the extra water of the flood go to.

This is the first time that I’ve heard some one say the earth was nothing but water in the first place. I have not heard of any scientist say that the earth was nothing but water. What the earth was made of 4 billion years ago was simarler to what it is made of now. If you are saying that scientists are not telling the trouth when they say that the earth did not start out as a ball of water, then God made the water into everything else. What I am saying is that God can do what ever He whats, but He is willing to leave hints and clues for us to follow His thinking. :knight2:

 

[Prieldedi]

This is the first time that I’ve heard some one say the earth was nothing but water in the first place. I have not heard of any scientist say that the earth was nothing but water. What the earth was made of 4 billion years ago was simarler to what it is made of now. If you are saying that scientists are not telling the trouth when they say that the earth did not start out as a ball of water, then God made the water into everything else. What I am saying is that God can do what ever He whats, but He is willing to leave hints and clues for us to follow His thinking. :knight2:

I didn’t say it, infallible scientists did, who are part of the same group of scientists that tell you about an asteroid killing the dinosaurs and all those stories. These scientists are the ones who made you laugh, don’t underestimate them, they are professionals.

Did you read their article? Check the link:

Early Earth 'was covered in water’

You can check this one too, it’s the same news.

God’s clues are in His book too, not just in rocks eroded by time. I guess most Christians read better His book than geologist read His rocks. It all is a matter of reading, and scientists can misinterpret what they read too.

 

[Farsight001]

Where did the water of the primeval soup go in the first place when the earth was nothing but water, as many scientist claim?

Early Earth 'was covered in water’

Now you have two slight problems. After you solve the first one you’ll have a clue where did the extra water of the flood go to.

Why do people think that every article pertaining to science in a popular news source qualifies as the truth? The media often promotes such fringe ideas to drum up better ratings. And even if it were true, look at what would be necessary - a nearly smooth surface over the entire world - no mountains, or valleys, or anything of the sort - to accomplish this.

 

[gus]

I believe when the last Ice Age ended the melting of glaciers caused massive flooding. Bodies of water like the Great Lakes were formed and ocean levels rose. Previous inhabitable costliness vanished forever.
Since people tend to settle near water significant rises in water levels could be destructive even life changing. A signicant rainstorm may have been the catalyst for this great release of water.

 

[edwest2]

livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.html

Peace,
Ed

Do you even read your links anymore, or do you have a friend who tells you what they say, so you just post them? The first one talks about a large body of water, but not nearly enough water to flood the earth. the second one talks about water present in minerals, i.e. the chemical composition of minerals. It’s not flowing water. Neither article comes anywhere close to saying what you seem to want them to say.

 

[Prieldedi]

Why do people think that every article pertaining to science in a popular news source qualifies as the truth? The media often promotes such fringe ideas to drum up better ratings. And even if it were true, look at what would be necessary - a nearly smooth surface over the entire world - no mountains, or valleys, or anything of the sort - to accomplish this.

To me is not truth. On the contrary, I don’t believe that scientists, whether they write in a peer review magazine, NG magazine or a website, can tell us what happened thousands or millions years ago. They tell us this or that took place, but to me that is not the truth.

I often say that 49 years ago a President of the United States was killed in front of multiple witnesses in the streets of Dallas, with cameras rolling, open microphones and photographers snapping pictures, and to this moment “the truth” about that murder has eluded us. Was it one shooter or more? Three shots or more? All shots from the rear or some came from the front? And I’m gonna believe what a “scientist” tells me happened 40, 50, 130, 280 millions years ago without the help of witnesses, cameras or photographs?

To me the problem is not science, it’s the scientists. All their hypothesis and theories contradict each other eventually. The age of the Universe has been changed constantly, the disappearance of the dinosaurs has several explanations, and this one example is enough to explain why I don’t believe all they say:

“Dinosaur Farts May Have Warmed Ancient Earth”

Is this serious scientific work? It’s on the Discovery News website.

There is huge amounts of money behind all the scientific work. Science is no longer a vocation, it’s a profession and when money is involved things can be modified if needed. My other example is when NASA presented us with “the rock that fell from Mars” (in 1995 or 1996) that was found in Antarctica. They said it as a fact, “it came from Mars”. Not one scientists said anything, no doubters from the scientific community ever made any comments as far as I recall. The rock felled 13000 years ago they said, and it had been orbiting the earth the previous 13000 years. I don’t believe them, I don’t care they say they are scientists. In a couple of years 3 movies about Mars came out of Hollywood. Was NASA trying to sell the idea on the US taxpayers to fund a trip to Mars?

That’s my truth, I’m skeptical, I don’t consider them infallible.

 

[edwest2]

To me is not truth. On the contrary, I don’t believe that scientists, whether they write in a peer review magazine, NG magazine or a website, can tell us what happened thousands or millions years ago. They tell us this or that took place, but to me that is not the truth.

I often say that 49 years ago a President of the United States was killed in front of multiple witnesses in the streets of Dallas, with cameras rolling, open microphones and photographers snapping pictures, and to this moment “the truth” about that murder has eluded us. Was it one shooter or more? Three shots or more? All shots from the rear or some came from the front? And I’m gonna believe what a “scientist” tells me happened 40, 50, 130, 280 millions years ago without the help of witnesses, cameras or photographs?

To me the problem is not science, it’s the scientists. All their hypothesis and theories contradict each other eventually. The age of the Universe has been changed constantly, the disappearance of the dinosaurs has several explanations, and this one example is enough to explain why I don’t believe all they say:

“Dinosaur Farts May Have Warmed Ancient Earth”

Is this serious scientific work? It’s on the Discovery News website.

There is huge amounts of money behind all the scientific work. Science is no longer a vocation, it’s a profession and when money is involved things can be modified if needed. My other example is when NASA presented us with “the rock that fell from Mars” (in 1995 or 1996) that was found in Antarctica. They said it as a fact, “it came from Mars”. Not one scientists said anything, no doubters from the scientific community ever made any comments as far as I recall. The rock felled 13000 years ago they said, and it had been orbiting the earth the previous 13000 years. I don’t believe them, I don’t care they say they are scientists. In a couple of years 3 movies about Mars came out of Hollywood. Was NASA trying to sell the idea on the US taxpayers to fund a trip to Mars?

That’s my truth, I’m skeptical, I don’t consider them infallible.

That’s my whole point. People still can’t clearly understand all of the details of a shooting that happened in 1963 and then, some scientists are going to tell us what happened millions of years ago? Baloney.

In a report issued in 1979, The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported:

“The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.”

Peace,
Ed