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

[buffalo]

From looking over the posts, it appears to me that the issues being brought up are pseudo-issues, artifacts of reading the Noah story out of context. The story needs to be understood in its context as a theological response to, or polemic against the Babylonian flood stories.

Otherwise, pseudo-problems will be endlessly multiplied and argued to no end until the end, the Parousia. I expect the next post to be an argument over whether Noah could have done any fishing since he only had two worms.

I cannot resist replying - sure he could. He just had to cut the worm below the heart and use the end without the heart. He could keep doing this.

 

[itinerant1]

The Catholic Encyclopedia indicates the world.

newadvent.org/cathen/11088a.htm

And from the Library of Catholic Answers: “Noah’s flood, once the butt of scholarly ridicule, finds support in the oral and pictorial record of primitive peoples.”

Peace,
Ed

I would agree with the Cathen article you linked to which says,

“It has been objected that, even though the most liberal value is allowed for the cubit, the ark would have been too small to lodge at least two pairs of every species of animal and bird. But there can be no difficulty if, as is now generally admitted, the Deluge was not geographically universal (see DELUGE; ARK).”

 

[itinerant1]

I cannot resist replying - sure he could. He just had to cut the worm below the heart and use the end without the heart. He could keep doing this.

Sure, just like your He “could of, should of, would of,” arguments about God.

Say, “coulda, woulda, shoulda” ten times every day, to keep yourself indoctrinated.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Catholic Encyclopedia indicates the world.
newadvent.org/cathen/11088a.htm
And from the Library of Catholic Answers: “Noah’s flood, once the butt of scholarly ridicule, finds support in the oral and pictorial record of primitive peoples.”
Peace,
Ed

The story of creation of the earth by a muskrat diving for mud also finds support in the oral record of primitive peoples.

 

[juliamajor]

The Catholic Encyclopedia indicates the world.

newadvent.org/cathen/11088a.htm

And from the Library of Catholic Answers: “Noah’s flood, once the butt of scholarly ridicule, finds support in the oral and pictorial record of primitive peoples.”

Peace,
Ed

Well we know there was a great flood. More then likely the Black Sea flood which was enormous and probably created a mass of folktales. Folktales are the way peoples of prehistory period (no writing) would circulate information around. There are kernels of truth.But theology is the point of the story- not history. As far the the Catholic Encyclopedia- that’s like from a hundred years ago. We have learned more about the history , stories and language of that area in the last 70 yrs then all the time before. History and scholarship (yes even biblical scholarship ) change.They cannot and must not stay still. Look how they just found Nazareth. it it looks like the bible implied small(about 50 houses) and unsophisticated. If we didn’t have the art and science of Archaeology it would not have been found.

 

[itinerant1]

No there are many literary genres. You have seen me post many times as to how Catholics read Scripture, that is what the author intended to convey consistent with the long held teachings and understanding.

I very rarely have an issue with the CE, but the early 1900’s article on the flood was a reaction to Lyell.

Noah lived, He had offspring, they survived… Something happened - that much is clear.

There is still no scientific or geological evidence for a global flood.

I very rarely have an issue with the CE, but flood-geology is a reaction to reality. It cannot even recognize de nial river for what it is.

 

[donsnow]

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.

Uh, itinerant1…

“Oh you of little faith.”

Don

 

[donsnow]

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.

Hi, Adrian -

I think Peter’s cosmological reference was to our planet.

Don

 

[donsnow]

Don, do you believe the ark had diesel engines or only sails? Diesle would have allowed Noah to avoid being broadside to the swells even in unfavorable weather. And if God is God, it would not have been impossible for him magically to have created diesel engines (and a one-year supply of diesel) for Noah. The fuel tanks would have been in the hold.

Hi, StAnastasia -

This is satire, right? You really need to use the or or other such icons, when you do satire, so my little military mind will know what you’re doing, without having to think

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi, StAnastasia - This is satire, right? You really need to use the or or other such icons, when you do satire, so my little military mind will know what you’re doing, without having to think

Oh, Donsnow, iconography escapes me. But I wouldn’t say this was satire so much as it was speculation on what God might have done for Noah. Because if God is capable of manufacturing 29,053.5 feet of water and then making it disappear, God is also capable of creating diesel engines and a supply of diesel for Noah’s ark. That seems simpler than moving Australia all the way over to the Ancient Near East to deliver the marsupials to Noah, and then moving it back again after the flood.

Happy Christmas Adam to you! (the day before Christmas Eve)

StAnastasia

 

[donsnow]

Even if we don’t take this story to be literally true, this is still a story that says that God once got so angry that he decided to kill every human being on the planet. Is this even a story that Catholics want to think of as true in some non-literal way? Do you think of God as the sort that could get mad and kill all of humanity for sinful behavior? Do you think of God as one who could change his mind and decide to save one righteous family? Does God sometimes change his mind? That would be impossible for an omniscient being wouldn’t it?

By the way, what were the people doing that was so wicked that everyone including children and babies and even the unborn children in the wicked women’s wombs needed to be not just instantly and painlessly killed but actually drowned to death?

Only Noah was innocent? Not even the unborn babies? It is interesting that the Noah story is one of those popular children’s Bible stories (likewise the Jericho story). Pro-life?

The Noah story seems to me to have bigger problems for Catholics than just the logistics of accumulating enough water and packing all those animals in a boat. Those are the least of the issues here.

Best,
Leela

Hi, Leela -

Yes, I want to think of God like that. He is love, and love includes protective anger. You left out the violation of all the animals, which He loved; the corruption of all the land, which He loved; the sins of that generation soiled everything, even the unborn babies. If you had any concept of true evil, you would understand the depths of Divine love. And, a love like that, I want; not some watered down, politcally correct, white-washing and man-judging-God type of love.

Regards,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Can I just say that if you believe that the flood happened as it said in the bible (even though the bible actually contradicts itself, so even that would be impossible) you cannot consider yourself an intelligent person. This goes the same for believing in Adam and Eve. These things did not happen, we have no evidence of them happening, and it is nonsense to believe they actually happened. I can’t believe this is an argument…because if people were rational, it would not be. What is wrong with some of you people…seriously, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!

Hi, prettylarge -

I would like to quote Mother Teresa, and then develop what she said, to answer you. She said words to the effect, “Successful people don’t please God; He wants faithful people.”

So, I respond to prettylarge with, We don’t have to be intelligent or rational, but we do need to keep the faith.

Don

 

[CWBetts]

I thought you thought I was too modern! I don’t want a an abortionist God. I want a merciful God, a loving God, a Fatherly God.

What about a Holy God that makes demands on the faithful?

 

[donsnow]

Oh, Donsnow, iconography escapes me. But I wouldn’t say this was satire so much as it was speculation on what God might have done for Noah. Because if God is capable of manufacturing 29,053.5 feet of water and then making it disappear, God is also capable of creating diesel engines and a supply of diesel for Noah’s ark. That seems simpler than moving Australia all the way over to the Ancient Near East to deliver the marsupials to Noah, and then moving it back again after the flood.

Happy Christmas Adam to you! (the day before Christmas Eve)

StAnastasia

Hi, StAnastasia -

Well, let me speculate on the drama of several different Bible stories which Cecil de Mille spread across the Technicolor screen in the '50’s. He caught the drama of Moses, Samson and such quite well. So, with that in mind, diesel engines or sails just don’t have the drama of fulfilling Christ’s words of having a minute faith and moving mountains. (Really need a tongue-in-cheek icon, here).

May you and yours have a wonderful Christmas Holidays, starting now, too:thumbsup:

Don

 

[itinerant1]

Hi, prettylarge -

I would like to quote Mother Teresa, and then develop what she said, to answer you. She said words to the effect, “Successful people don’t please God; He wants faithful people.”

So, I respond to prettylarge with, We don’t have to be intelligent or rational, but we do need to keep the faith.

Don

Soap box time:

If “We don’t have to be intelligent or rational,” as you just stated, then why did God give us intellects and an innate desire to learn?

Aristotle said, “All men by nature desire to know.” We have a moral obligation to be educated, and to the best that our individual circumstances permit, everyone according to his own abilities.

In the area of religion, there is little merit to a blind faith. According to St. Augustine, faith is only the first step. Understanding is the reward of faith. We believe in order that we may understand.

Orestes Brownson says (Catholic Polemics, Works, 20),

**“No amount of pious training or pious culture will protect the faithful, or preserve them from the contamination of the age, if they are left inferior to non-Catholics in secular learning and intellectual development. The faithful must be guarded and protected by being trained and disciplined to grapple the errors and false systems of the age. They must be not only more religiously, but also more intellectually educated. They must be better armed than their opponents,—surpass them in the strength and vigor of their minds, and in the extent and variety of their knowledge. They must on all occasions and against all adversaries, be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them.”

**

 

[itinerant1]

Uh, itinerant1…

“Oh you of little faith.”

Don

Uh, donsnow…

“Oh you of little wisdom.”

Thomas

“The pursuit of wisdom especially joins man to God in friendship.”
– St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[StAnastasia]

What about a Holy God that makes demands on the faithful?

Demands I can handle; divine drowning of innocent babies I can’t.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, all -

I have just finished reading from page 48 to here. I left off at page 47, yesterday. You folks have really been rocking right along.

What I see, is the differences of opinions between more educated, some educated and less educated people, with a little atheist seasoning.

I would like to submit, that what is at issue here, is the Catholic faith. Some of us play down the opinions of the more educated, to keep the faith. Or, at least, I do. It’s important to keep the faith, and resist doubt.
I don’t think we’ll convert any atheists or skeptics by watering down our faith. I would like to repeat, we should offer the Church’s stand, that it doesn’t matter if people believe or don’t believe there was a world flood and Ark, but we must believe the theological, spiritual and moral messages in all the stories in the whole Holy Bible.

That’s what I think. It dismays me to see Catholics arguing with each other about the validity of this Bible story. Let us believe, and let us love those who don’t believe; let you cling to your education and let you love those who believe differently than you.
All this Christmas season, from now to Ephiphany, let us share Christ’s peace with each other.

In closing, I think God did not abandon His natural order on earth, but that that very natural order picked up after the flood, and gave us what we have now; insects were living in the hides of the animals on the Ark and in the timbers of the Ark and in the feed for the animals, on the Ark. Insects are no problem. Neither, then, is glorifying God in this story any problem.
So much for me.

Don

 

[StAnastasia]

May you and yours have a wonderful Christmas Holidays, starting now, too:thumbsupon

Thanks, Donsnow! I find diesel engines pretty dramatic. Happy Midnight Mass!

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

I would like to submit, that what is at issue here, is the Catholic faith. … I would like to repeat, we should offer the Church’s stand, that it doesn’t matter if people believe or don’t believe there was a world flood and Ark, but we must believe the theological, spiritual and moral messages in all the stories in the whole Holy Bible. That’s what I think. It dismays me to see Catholics arguing with each other about the validity of this Bible story. Let us believe, and let us love those who don’t believe; let you cling to your education and let you love those who believe differently than you.
All this Christmas season, from now to Ephiphany, let us share Christ’s peace with each other. So much for me. Don

Beautifully put, Donsnow! What you say is so true: “we must believe the theological, spiritual and moral messages in all the stories in the whole Holy Bible”

War regards,
StAnastasia