B
buffalo
Guest
Catholic teaching is He sustains and participates in His creation.
Does the Catholic Church recognize the story of Noah and the flood as being literally true?
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What century do you inhabit? We don’t have “spiritual heads of household” in our parish.
M
MonFrere
Guest
Absolutely! I’m not saying anything different but I think when we try to understand this is “space-time” terms we’re going to come up short. WE are told by the Lord to pray - Give us this day our DAILY bread. But God already knows our tomorrow and His provisions He has made for those provisions BEFORE we even ask them. So, we live in space-time and the LORD works within our limitations and explains things within our limitations. What we see as “direct intervention” by God has been already known to the One who lives in the eternal now. This is how I understand things like the miracle of the sun at Fatima.
So, this doesn’t make God as a person who “wound up the clock” of the Universe and is no longer needs to intervene in it. His intervention is woven into every moment of its existence. It exists through His will to have it exist. I think God has done this so marvelously that WE DON’T SEE IT because He has so subtly worked through the nature of things that He has created. This is why I weigh in favor of their not being a worldwide flood – for it would go against this working with nature that has been established from the foundations of the world. This isn’t done in some sort of rebellion against the Church and her way of understanding things. Rather it is a way of understanding things that leaves for less glaring questions an impossible outcomes. And, frankly, these are not my thoughts but the thoughts of those in the Church that are far smarter than I; including Pope Benedict himself. I am simply doing my very best to understand this great God we honor and serve using the very best teachers in the Catholic Church that my limited mind can understand. Honestly, I do not read liberal theologians. But I do seek out those that are on the “cutting edge” of where the Church is at in terms of understanding the issues that she faces today. So, I spend my time not only reading those pre-Vatican II but also a good amount of post-Vatican II material too – for even though there are problems in the Church today I am confident that there are many who really have correctly captured the vision of that great council and are going about making our Holy Roman Catholic Church are real moving force in the 21st century. It takes some very holy and smart people to distinguish modern from modernism – there has been a continuity of this thought since Pope Pius X – and it is my conjecture that this is where there is confusion in the Church today among those who are deeply and committed Catholics. There is a lot of material to slog through and I’m still slogging. I certainly wish you the very best.
MonFrere
C
CWBetts
Guest
The century has no bearing on God’s model for the family.
I
itinerant1
Guest
At least you got one issue right in this thread.
I have a real problem with the following statement made by CWBetts: “A proper husband, being the spiritual head of the household, should have nothing to ask the wife.”
I can’t make any sense of it. What kind of relationship would it be in which the husband “should have nothing to ask the wife?” That seems to miss the whole point of marriage as a partnership, each helping the other. But the wife seems reduced to a non-thinking, non-contributing “thing” in the marriage.
B
buffalo
Guest
That’s mighty big of you iteinerant1.At least you got one issue right in this thread.
I have a real problem with the following statement made by CWBetts: “A proper husband, being the spiritual head of the household, should have nothing to ask the wife.”
I can’t make any sense of it. What kind of relationship would it be in which the husband “should have nothing to ask the wife?” That seems to miss the whole point of marriage as a partnership, each helping the other. But the wife seems reduced to a non-thinking, non-contributing “thing” in the marriage.
I
itinerant1
Guest
True! But next time spell my name correctly.That’s mighty big of you iteinerant1.
B
buffalo
Guest
Hey even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. At least I am not an 0 for.True! But next time spell my name correctly.
Give me a break. This laptop keeps moving every time I breath and when these threads get me all worked up it gets even worse. Fat fingers and small keys don’t help either.
Merry Christmas!
J
juliamajor
Guest
I
itinerant1
Guest
I was only joking. I make my share of typos. No need to get all worked up. Just chill out, kick back, relax, at least until I make my next post.
Q. Was Noah the first one out of the Ark?
A. No, he came fourth out of the ark
Q. Where did Noah keep the bees?
A. In the ark hives.
B
buffalo
Guest
I know…
I
itinerant1
Guest
Yes, all very interesting, yet there was no accurate model built and water tested. The Biblical account is of an Ark loaded with animals. The animals would require many tons of food supplies. This all makes for a very heavy box. And there was no load test that I saw.
The Ark was three stories, and the wood for that would be of an incredible weight. Of course, there was no captain’s lounge, and every deck was a poop deck.
But more significant is the fact a genuine model cannot be built. The reason is the ark was about 450’ long, 75’ wide, and 45’ tall. This size of a box could not even accommodate a significant sample of the animals in the middle east. One can get a glimpse of the logistical problems by considering just the animals named throughout the Bible. I believe the online Catholic Encyclopedia has an article that lists those varieties, which of course does not include all of the type in the middle east.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I looked through a number of medieval and modern Jewish sources on Genesis, which included rabbinic commentary, midrash, and other scholarly comments. What is common in the modern sources is the acceptance of multiple traditions interwoven in Genesis. The Noah story is widely held in Judaism to consist of the J2 and P traditions.
Here is an excerpt from an online Jewish Encyclopedia (1901–1906) regarding the Flood. The Hebrew tradition is known to have originated later than the Babylonian flood stories. The following paragraph explains the blending of traditions.
Source of the Hebrew Tradition
In the Babylonian, and especially in the Hebrew, tradition there is the blending of two still earlier legends, the one of the destruction of mankind, wholly or in part, by the punitive judgment of the divine powers, owing to man’s wickedness—a legend of a character similar to that of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or the story of Philemon and Baucis in classic lore; the other, that of a flood as such, either local or universal. The Flood was not in the tradition’s view universal, as “universal” would be understood at present, simply because the world of the early writers was a totally different world from that of to-day. This latter legend again undoubtedly goes back ultimately to a nature-myth representing the phenomena of winter, which in Babylonia especially is a time of rain. The hero rescued in the ship must originally have been the sun-god. Thus the Deluge and the deliverance of Pêr-napishtim are ultimately but a variant of the Babylonian Creation-myth
Here is an excerpt from an online Jewish Encyclopedia (1901–1906) regarding the Flood. The Hebrew tradition is known to have originated later than the Babylonian flood stories. The following paragraph explains the blending of traditions.
Source of the Hebrew Tradition
In the Babylonian, and especially in the Hebrew, tradition there is the blending of two still earlier legends, the one of the destruction of mankind, wholly or in part, by the punitive judgment of the divine powers, owing to man’s wickedness—a legend of a character similar to that of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or the story of Philemon and Baucis in classic lore; the other, that of a flood as such, either local or universal. The Flood was not in the tradition’s view universal, as “universal” would be understood at present, simply because the world of the early writers was a totally different world from that of to-day. This latter legend again undoubtedly goes back ultimately to a nature-myth representing the phenomena of winter, which in Babylonia especially is a time of rain. The hero rescued in the ship must originally have been the sun-god. Thus the Deluge and the deliverance of Pêr-napishtim are ultimately but a variant of the Babylonian Creation-myth
I
itinerant1
Guest
This is an excerpt from the 1963 Catholic Encyclopedia about the Biblical Flood story.
**
Historical and Scientific Issues**
The composite character of the Biblical account and the variations in details within the Mesopotamian accounts suggests that no one of these is an account of a particular historical flood. Floods were common in ancient Mesopotamia, and occasionally devastated whole cities; but no scientific, geological, or historical evidence even suggests that at one time a single flood totally wiped out all of civilization in ancient Mesopotamia, let alone the whole world. That marine fossils are commonly found in the mountainous areas throughout the world is the result of geological uplifts. Periodically, news accounts appear about wood that is claimed to be from the ark, recovered on Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Carbon 14 tests consistently show that the wood is from the current era, about 1600 years old. The wood is thought to come from the ruins of an ancient monastery that served the pilgrims’ hostel.
The various flood accounts from Mesopotamia suggests that experiences with devastating local floods helped human imagination to construct accounts of an even worse flood in the distant past that did almost destroy humanity. The accounts reflect the helplessness that humans experience in the face of raging flood waters capable of devastating entire cities. The accounts similarly reflect belief that such natural phenomena were expressions of divine power and will, brought on out of spite or irritation or capriciousness. Because some humans survived each local flood, in each account some humans survive, sometimes due to chance, and other times to the intervention of a sympathetic divine power.
The ancient authors of the Genesis flood wove their Israelite traditions around one such devastating flood to create a compelling story about their God and His relationship with humanity. The scientific or historical accuracy of the biblical narrative, measured by modern standards, is irrelevant to the accounts’ abiding theological significance.
**
Historical and Scientific Issues**
The composite character of the Biblical account and the variations in details within the Mesopotamian accounts suggests that no one of these is an account of a particular historical flood. Floods were common in ancient Mesopotamia, and occasionally devastated whole cities; but no scientific, geological, or historical evidence even suggests that at one time a single flood totally wiped out all of civilization in ancient Mesopotamia, let alone the whole world. That marine fossils are commonly found in the mountainous areas throughout the world is the result of geological uplifts. Periodically, news accounts appear about wood that is claimed to be from the ark, recovered on Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Carbon 14 tests consistently show that the wood is from the current era, about 1600 years old. The wood is thought to come from the ruins of an ancient monastery that served the pilgrims’ hostel.
The various flood accounts from Mesopotamia suggests that experiences with devastating local floods helped human imagination to construct accounts of an even worse flood in the distant past that did almost destroy humanity. The accounts reflect the helplessness that humans experience in the face of raging flood waters capable of devastating entire cities. The accounts similarly reflect belief that such natural phenomena were expressions of divine power and will, brought on out of spite or irritation or capriciousness. Because some humans survived each local flood, in each account some humans survive, sometimes due to chance, and other times to the intervention of a sympathetic divine power.
The ancient authors of the Genesis flood wove their Israelite traditions around one such devastating flood to create a compelling story about their God and His relationship with humanity. The scientific or historical accuracy of the biblical narrative, measured by modern standards, is irrelevant to the accounts’ abiding theological significance.
I
itinerant1
Guest
One more excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia
Source of the Hebrew Tradition.
It is maintained by many that the Hebrew tradition, especially as preserved in J2, was directly borrowed from the Babylonian at the time of the ascendency of Assyria, that is, about 700 B.C., when Judah was a vassal kingdom of Assyria (see Haupt, “Sintflut Bericht,” 1881, p. 20; Usener, l.c. p. 256; Stade’s “Zeitschrift,” 1895, p. 160; Budde, l.c. p. 457; “Am. Jour.of Theology,” Oct., 1902, pp. 706, 707). It is, however, more correct to assume with Zimmern (“Biblische und Babylonische Urgesch.” p. 40) that these Babylonian legends were first made known about the Tell el-Amarna period among the original Canaanite inhabitants of Palestine, from whom they passed to the Israelites when the latter settled in the land. Others assume later Aramean or Phenician mediation (see Gunkel, “Genesis,” pp. 67, 68; Winckler, “Altorientalische Forschungen,” ii. 140 et seq., 160 et seq.).
Source of the Hebrew Tradition.
It is maintained by many that the Hebrew tradition, especially as preserved in J2, was directly borrowed from the Babylonian at the time of the ascendency of Assyria, that is, about 700 B.C., when Judah was a vassal kingdom of Assyria (see Haupt, “Sintflut Bericht,” 1881, p. 20; Usener, l.c. p. 256; Stade’s “Zeitschrift,” 1895, p. 160; Budde, l.c. p. 457; “Am. Jour.of Theology,” Oct., 1902, pp. 706, 707). It is, however, more correct to assume with Zimmern (“Biblische und Babylonische Urgesch.” p. 40) that these Babylonian legends were first made known about the Tell el-Amarna period among the original Canaanite inhabitants of Palestine, from whom they passed to the Israelites when the latter settled in the land. Others assume later Aramean or Phenician mediation (see Gunkel, “Genesis,” pp. 67, 68; Winckler, “Altorientalische Forschungen,” ii. 140 et seq., 160 et seq.).
I
itinerant1
Guest
This is for those who missed the much earlier post consisting of an excerpt from the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
III. UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE
…But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:
**(I) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned. Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth. **
(a) The words of the original text, rendered “earth” in our version, signify “land” as well as “earth”; in fact, “land” appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Gen., iv, v, and Gen., x; why not adhere to this meaning also in Gen., vi-ix, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters “filled all on the face of the land”, “all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land”, “all things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died”, “all the high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were covered”? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the Flood covering the whole land or region in which Noe lived, but not the whole earth.
III. UNIVERSALITY OF THE DELUGE
…But two hundred years of theological and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:
**(I) The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned. Neither Sacred Scripture nor universal ecclesiastical tradition, nor again scientific considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth. **
(a) The words of the original text, rendered “earth” in our version, signify “land” as well as “earth”; in fact, “land” appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Gen., iv, v, and Gen., x; why not adhere to this meaning also in Gen., vi-ix, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters “filled all on the face of the land”, “all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land”, “all things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died”, “all the high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were covered”? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the Flood covering the whole land or region in which Noe lived, but not the whole earth.
A
adriancombe
Guest
And he remained ‘solvent’
A
adriancombe
Guest
If you look back, I made a similar argument earlier on. I’m no longer so sure this is valid. I say this because it seems Peter (thanks whoever posted this) had a different idea. When he referenced the flood he used the term ‘kosmos’ not ‘ge’. AFAIK this is a term referencing all of creation - it has a connotation of universality.
I would appreciate feedback.
I
itinerant1
Guest
The sense of kosmos in 2 Peter cannot be all of creation since “creation” includes the heavens as well as the earth. Kosmos can also mean all of humanity, or the entire earth, and so on. Peter is speaking of kosmos in the sense of the Deluge story in which the flood is said to cover the earth. He is speaking within the tradition of the story and using that story to illustrate a point.
καὶἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰὄγδοον Νῶε δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα ἐφύλαξεν, κατακλυσμὸν κόσμῳ ἀσεβῶν ἐπάξας,
κόσμος,n {kos’-mos}
1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government 2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts’, as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3 3) the world, the universe 4) the circle of the earth, the earth 5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family 6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ 7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly 7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ 8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort 8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) 8b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19.
Additional references:
Noah is also referenced in the OT in Is 54:9; WS 10:4; 14:6; BS 16:7; 44:1 ff (BS 44:17-18). In the Gospels the suddenness of the flood is compared to the sudden coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:37-39; Lk 17:26-27). Noah was saved by faith (Heb 11:7). The flood is an example of God’s patience (1 Pt 3:20), and the waters from which Noah was saved are compared to the saving waters of baptism (1 Pt 3:30); and Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Pt. 2:5).
Just as an aside, I found it interesting that there is a strong tradition in ancient Judaism that views Noah as not all the righteous. He was only considered righteous in comparison to the times. Rabbinic comments include the idea that Noah lacked compassion for those who were destroyed; that the predominant sin of the time was a refusal to have children (sort of like a contracepting society) and Noah was counted among these because he did not have children until late in life, and other such reflections that can come as a surprise to the modern reader, but are well-reasoned in many cases with supporting references from Genesis.
- Status