Does the Catholic Church recognize the story of Noah and the flood as being literally true?

[donsnow]

Hi, itinerant1 -

It seems to naturally slow a person down, when dealing with people of less knowledge. I have Stephanie Dalley’s English translation of Myths From Mesopotamia Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others. But, that’s not the same as a college education in Fertile Crescent history or mythology or languages, etc.

In preface to my response, I would like to share something about my household, with you. I have three dogs; two are medium sized and one is toy sized. The two dogs are thrice the little one’s size and older. He’s the latest addition to my household. So, he’s junior in seniority, too. But, if he thinks he’s getting a raw deal, he will sound off at either of the bigger dogs or at me. And, I’ve learned not only from that example, but also from earlier experiences in my life, about sounding off to my superiors.
So, when you go snapping and growling at those whom you deem inferior to you, I can sound off about that.

Now, to respond to your post.

The useless distractions and frivolous uses of time are exemplified by the writers who do mental gymnastics trying to prove Noah could have fit X numbers of animals on the Ark, skewing scientific data to make it suggest a global deluge, adventurers searching for remnants of the Ark, and all such things.

Does all that make you impatient? That’s human nature, which has been assaulted by progressives, politicians, educators and such for over a hundred years, now. Fortunately, these efforts have not made much a change in human nature, which is pretty much the way the Good Lord made it. So, little damage has been done to innocent citizens whose only crime was to live their Christian faith in their human natures.
It seems to me, that’s what you’re complaining about.
So, who are you to judge human faith and nature, then?
Shouldn’'t Catholics, if any judgement at all, judge each other on Doctrine and Dogma of the Church?
The Church requires neither belief nor disbelief of literal interpretations of stories. Right?

The real problem with the gap created by different mentalities and cultural milieus begins to be bridged by studying the historical period in question, reading its literature, and so. These kind of things are conducive to reducing contemporary perspectives being projected onto ancient biblical texts such as expecting and reading a modern sense of history into biblical methods of writing a religious history, genealogies and so on.

No argument with the ideal you espouse, here. Of course, I find no fault in less educated people thinking it’s literal, either. Maybe you should have more patience and Catholic charity, about that, heh?

There are people in this thread who have pontificated about the Epic of Gilgamesh and its relation to the biblical Flood story, but I can tell they have never even read Gilgamesh. What is up with that?

I dunno. I’ve read Dr. Dalley’s translation of the myths in her book. Personally, I think that the Sumerian Flood account and our Biblical flood account are two different reports on the same tradition.

Knowing the ancient languages in which the Bible was written has always been of immense value. Learning New Testament Greek seems to be much more popular with Protestants than with Catholics. They are putting us to shame with our own Bible.

Don’t feel bad. We have translators to do that for us, so we can live our lives without being distracted to onerous study of old languages. Some people have to work for a living.

Concluded in following post.

 

[donsnow]

Concluded from Post # 513

Clearly, one can read the Noah story with little or no background and with little general education, take the story for an actual historical event, yet still benefit spiritually, provided they have faith, from reading what is truly an amazing story. No one should ever doubt that fact. I don’t want to convey the impression that I think otherwise.

Then why do you complain about the people who do that very thing?

On the other hand, to insist on the Flood story as historical is no longer prudent in view of the modern discoveries about the relationship of the biblical Flood story to the Babylonian flood stories, especially the Gilgamesh Epic, and it is to discount the views of a majority of reputable biblical scholars.

Well, sometimes religious imprudence goes along with keeping the faith. And, unless their translations are put in the Magisterium, those scholars aren’t the authority. Authority’s vested in the Church Hierarchy and through secular governments, not through university’s and scholars. Scholars should try not to be jealous of that circumstance. And, others should not enable scholars and other people to the delusion of scholarly authority over anybody not in their immediate circle of influence.imho.

Also, modern, mainstream geology shows “flood-geology” to be what it is – a pseudo-science. The point here, which I made before, is that one throws discredit on the bible and himself by insisting on biblical interpretations that are contrary to what science knows to be the case. I previously quoted St. Augustine’s and Cardinal Bellarmine’s warnings about this kind of thing.

Well, science isn’t the authority on this, either. Science is so sold out to get funding that academics shouldn’t fancy themselves anything other than what they are: dependents of the people’s goodwill; and with that, academics should be more concerned with keeping the people’s goodwill, than with ranting and raving about human nature, which is not their business, either.

When Geologists and Paleontologists have surveyed and dug all the levels of land above and below the seas, then they can pronouce what they have and have not found, not before. imho. Factually speaking, I suspect any science which is hostile to religious faith as having a conflict of interest in looking for the truth of the matter.
Science has made its bed, and seems to surprised to find that people don’t like the way science tries to run things, when we elect politicians, not appoint scientists, to do that. Lately, science has stumbled out of bounds, in trying to exert ‘authority’ over ordinary people.
An academic could get awfully frustrated, try to exert an authority out of classroom, that he has only in the classroom, or over a field team.

I think you have every freedom to have made the comments you have made. I just think you could have said kinder things about your fellow Catholics. Don’t expect ordinary people to think like you do. We don’t have to.

I also think that you have done all you can morally do, when you posted St.Augustine’s and Cardinal Bellarmine’s comments on this. You, imho, would have made a much better impression on those less educated than you, had you silently suffered the differences you complain about, after you posted those notable’s warnings.

Sincerely,
Don

 

[donsnow]

First, I’ve read the the story for years thinking of the flood as a literal count and have lived a perfectly normal life.

Try this logic out. The Church WILL NOT CHANGE it’s moral stand on the life issues. It just doesn’t budge. The Church WILL NOT CHANGE its position on the ordination of priests. The Church WILL NOT CHANGE even its stand on priestly celibacy; even though it’s a discipline and not a dogma built upon Apostolic Tradition. And there are many such examples of issues that the Church WILL NOT CHANGE. So, this tells me that there are some things, things very unpopular with the world, that the Church will hold fast come hell or high water – a perfectly apropos saying for this thread.

However, the literal taking of the opening chapters of Genesis, including the narrative of Noah and the flood, the Church has at very minimum opened the possibility of CHANGE. My sense is that this is the common belief of the “leadership within the Vatican” but they are right and wise to not put demands upon the laity that they must believe this “de fide”. This is NOT the stuff of salvation; and it seems to me THIS is the reason that there is flexibility here. AND also this type of information is a story that’s “becoming” and not a story that’s “finished” – so, we are still in a process of discovery before all the “t’s are crossed” and the “i’s are dotted”.

However, IMO, the reasons for “not” believing the literalness of these stories is so great that our witness to the world would be hindered by holding on to them as being literal. No more different than if we still believed in geocentrism. So, the Apostolic Tradition which the Church is holding fast and refuses to change in spite of it being against the world’s mores and principles can be seen as something “eternal”.

With this in mind when we make public debate with principles of atheism and materialism and relativism we can meet these arguments head on principle for principle. We are weakened holding on to something that can be demonstrably shown to be false by the body of knowledge that is understood to be true, but the religious community is still holding back from accepting. So, the PERSONAL belief of the laity is not “harmed” by IMO being behind the curve on this issue – but the Church would be since the weight of the evidence is against a literal taking of these chapters of the bible by virtually everyone except those who for whatever reason are compelled to be literalists of the biblical texts. For me, this is all the working out of Vatican II in making the gospel credible in our modern age. I think, in time, everyone will “catch up” – but this seems to be the pattern of history.

MonFrere

As far as any falsity of the Bible Stories, just because the world finds them incredible (not false) doesn’t mean we have to change. We can refuse to argue about literal or allegorical, but I think it would be a tactical mistake, in any discussion with a militant atheist or such, to discuss whether Genesis stories are literal or allegorical. We should refuse to discuss the data, and keep our stand on what the church allows…people can believe or disbelieve the literalness of those stores, it’s the message that’s important. That’s the stand we have to defend, imho, because that’s the Church’s stand and we should defend our Church, She does so much for us.

Now, as far as our credibility to the world, I see Jesus as my example. Several times in the Gospels, Our Lord made some hard statements, didn’t back down, and lost disciples because of it. That’s where I stand about educated believers and atheists, who should in no fashion sound alike but who sometimes do sound like each other. If the other person in the discussion gets up on ‘proving’ a false ‘falsity’ about a Bible story? That’s the time to end the discussion and walk away.

There’s better ways to spend our time than getting bashed over the head about our faith, trying to save somebody who doesn’t want to be saved, anyway. If the Holy Spirit, imho doesn’t lead a Catholic into such a discussion, then we have no business discussing those ‘facts’ as individuals with non-believers.

And non-believing Catholics, I’m afraid, there are. And they, not the uneducated faithful, are the disgrace to Catholic Christianity. imho. Because we’re beginning to sound no different from atheists and skeptics, who as much in need of real salvation as they may be, cannot be afforded the opportunity to bash our faith, our Church nor to mock our God.
I think Our Lord spoke on that, when he says, “Sow not your pearls before [dogs?swine?], lest they turn and rend you.”

That’s my two cents worth.
Don

 

[itinerant1]

Concluded from Post # 513

Then why do you complain about the people who do that very thing?

Well, sometimes religious imprudence goes along with keeping the faith. And, unless their translations are put in the Magisterium, those scholars aren’t the authority. Authority’s vested in the Church Hierarchy and through secular governments, not through university’s and scholars. Scholars should try not to be jealous of that circumstance. And, others should not enable scholars and other people to the delusion of scholarly authority over anybody not in their immediate circle of influence.imho.

Well, science isn’t the authority on this, either. Science is so sold out to get funding that academics shouldn’t fancy themselves anything other than what they are: dependents of the people’s goodwill; and with that, academics should be more concerned with keeping the people’s goodwill, than with ranting and raving about human nature, which is not their business, either.

When Geologists and Paleontologists have surveyed and dug all the levels of land above and below the seas, then they can pronouce what they have and have not found, not before. imho. Factually speaking, I suspect any science which is hostile to religious faith as having a conflict of interest in looking for the truth of the matter.
Science has made its bed, and seems to surprised to find that people don’t like the way science tries to run things, when we elect politicians, not appoint scientists, to do that. Lately, science has stumbled out of bounds, in trying to exert ‘authority’ over ordinary people.
An academic could get awfully frustrated, try to exert an authority out of classroom, that he has only in the classroom, or over a field team.

I think you have every freedom to have made the comments you have made. I just think you could have said kinder things about your fellow Catholics. Don’t expect ordinary people to think like you do. We don’t have to.

I also think that you have done all you can morally do, when you posted St.Augustine’s and Cardinal Bellarmine’s comments on this. You, imho, would have made a much better impression on those less educated than you, had you silently suffered the differences you complain about, after you posted those notable’s warnings.

Sincerely,
Don

It’s not like me to be silent.

BTW, I think I am a fairly good judge of genuine science versus politicized science, and ideology confused with science. True science is a gift from God. We should not discount the good science along with the bad.

Flood-geology is not good science in my book. It is just as ideologically driven as are materialist philosophies coated with a scientific veneer.

 

[donsnow]

It’s not like me to be silent.

BTW, I think I am a fairly good judge of genuine science versus politicized science, and ideology confused with science. True science is a gift from God. We should not discount the good science along with the bad.

Flood-geology is not good science in my book. It is just as ideologically driven as are materialist philosophies coated with a scientific veneer.

Hi, itinerant1 -

Thank you, for this response. You are right. With this post, we are agreed.

Sincerely,
Don

 

[itinerant1]

Hi, itinerant1 -

Thank you, for this response. You are right. With this post, we are agreed.

Sincerely,
Don

Does this mean we don’t get to argue any more?

Peace,

Thomas

 

[diggerdomer]

Is there even any evidence that Moses wrote the pentateuch? I mean he DIES before it ends. Have you ever read an autobiography where the guy writing it dies before the end?

And if there was only one author, how do you account for the two creation stories?

Those are common reasons that many question the traditional attribution of Moses as the (only) author of the Pentateuch. It was simply traditional to ascribe authorship to Moses among Christians and Jews. I personally don’t think he wrote it.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Toledoths of Genesis

That opinion/theory is fine, but just that. And I disagree with the way it seemed to “bash” Catholic biblical scholarship since the 1960s. Anyway, Catholics are free to agree with it or not. I’ve never read any Catholic Bible commentary that was as dismissive of the JEDP theory as this article is.

 

[StAnastasia]

1 cubit = 18" (1.5 feet) The math from there is not that hard to figure out. Fifteen cubits is actually only 22.5 feet. The dimensions of the ark are given as 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits, or 450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet. How you figure that the height of Mt. Everest is 15 cubits boggles my mind. Mount everest is 19, 371.667 cubits

In case you don’t know it, Mt. Everest is around 29,035 feet high. The water of Noah’s flood would have had to been 29,055.5 feet deep to cover Mt. Everest by fifteen cubits. That’s a lot of water to account for!

 

[StAnastasia]

Those are common reasons that many question the traditional attribution of Moses as the (only) author of the Pentateuch. It was simply traditional to ascribe authorship to Moses among Christians and Jews. I personally don’t think he wrote it.

Do you think Moses wrote the account of his own death? That would be a clever trick!

 

[itinerant1]

So we are to discard the ancient Tradition of the Church in light of academics whose anly goal is to prove the Bible wrong? I don’t think so

If you think this discussion is about proving the Bible wrong then you have not understood anything at all in this thread. In any case, your comment is impertinent to the matter under discussion. What is that you have difficulty understanding?

 

[diggerdomer]

Do you think Moses wrote the account of his own death? That would be a clever trick!

No I don’t. It would not be impossible, but I don’t think it happened.

 

[diggerdomer]

So we are to discard the ancient Tradition of the Church in light of academics whose anly goal is to prove the Bible wrong? I don’t think so

Academics are not a priori trying to prove the Bible wrong. Some may be, I don’t know. But we are not called to simply reject scholarship and the use of human reason and sciences because such efforts may have not clearly been part of Tradition. Thank goodness, or we’d never have the Nicene Creed (which used words and concepts foreign…at the time…to Christian tradition).

 

[itinerant1]

No I don’t. It would not be impossible, but I don’t think it happened.

Just FYI: did you read the comments I made about “authorship” in post #488

 

[diggerdomer]

Just FYI: did you read the comments I made about “authorship” in post #488

yes

 

[StAnastasia]

The Church WILL NOT CHANGE its position on the ordination of priests. The Church WILL NOT CHANGE even its stand on priestly celibacy;

I take it you’re not a betting person. My bet is that if the Church wants to survive with any more than a small remnant, it will see the handwriting on the wall about the need to address the continuing priest shortage. Before long it will relax the discipline of the celibacy requirement; it has already given over at least in terms of welcoming married priests from other denominations. When numerous congregations had have long experience with married priests, it will not be the scary proposition it seems to be at first.

My bet is also that after another pope or two, the prohibition on ordaining women to the priesthood will crumble. If it doesn’t, we’ll end up with a dwindling church. Maybe that’s good; maybe it’s not.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

So we are to discard the ancient Tradition of the Church in light of academics whose anly goal is to prove the Bible wrong? I don’t think so

I’ve never met a priest who interpreted the flood story literally. No doubt there are some such.

 

[itinerant1]

My bet is also that after another pope or two, the prohibition on ordaining women to the priesthood will crumble. If it doesn’t, we’ll end up with a dwindling church. Maybe that’s good; maybe it’s not.

StAnastasia

Sorry. I’ll bet you any amount. I could use an extra $10,000. The prohibition on ordaining women to the priesthood is not changeable. Priestly celibacy, on the other hand, is changeable, but certainly not prudent to change at the present time.

Just send me the $10,000 now and settle up your debt ahead of time.

 

[StAnastasia]

Sorry. I’ll bet you any amount. I could use an extra $10,000. The prohibition on ordaining women to the priesthood is not changeable. Priestly celibacy, on the other hand, is changeable, but certainly not prudent to change at the present time.
Just send me the $10,000 now and settle up your debt ahead of time.

I’m not a gambler, but I have my ear to the theological ground, and I can read handwriting on the walls (to mix metaphors). I attended a jam-packed Anglican advent service presided over by a woman priest this evening. It felt quite natural to hear hear leading the congregation.

Ordination of women is coming, very slowly of course and probably not wqithin my lifetime, but it will happen as surely as the sun will rise. When it happens, there may well be a split between progressives and traditionalists within the Church.

StAnastasia

 

[twinc]

Ironically, as unbelievable as it may seem, there may in fact have been a “world-drowning” flood. There may have even been an ark.

But the story isn’t intent on teaching history.

Its intent is to typologically teach theology. For example, the dove “carrying” Noah’s hand into the ark is a picture of the Holy Spirit delivering Christ to the Church at the time of the Incarnation. The crow which flies up and doesn’t fly down until after the flood is Christ ascending to Heaven and not returning until the Second Coming at the end of time. The dove bearing the olive twig to the ark is the Paraclete deliuvering the grace of the cross to the Church, in the interim.

Don’t worry about whether the flood is fictional. You are reading it for the wrong reason.

great or tremendous as this may be for some with fantastic imaginations and phantasies it is in total disregard of that the literal and obvious must always and everywhere be accepted first - twinc