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

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe it’s true. We know less about our own oceans then we do about outer pace. I think the compiling of all those other flood myths only supports the idea that a flood accured. Do you know why things don’t grow as large as dinosuars and other pre-historic animals? Because the atmosphere is too dense. That’s EXACTLY why nose-picking skeptics complain that a flood COULD NOT have accured, is the increase of the atmosphere’s density. And remember, the purpose of the flood was to destroy the Nephilim (giants.)
 
MrZetterlund said:
I believe it’s true. We know less about our own oceans then we do about outer pace. I think the compiling of all those other flood myths only supports the idea that a flood accured. Do you know why things don’t grow as large as dinosuars and other pre-historic animals? Because the atmosphere is too dense. That’s EXACTLY why nose-picking skeptics complain that a flood COULD NOT have accured, is the increase of the atmosphere’s density. And remember, the purpose of the flood was to destroy the Nephilim (giants.)
Click to expand...
No way do we know more about outer space (I think that’s what you mean) than our own oceans. Simply, there’s so much of outer space we are completely unaware of.

The flood may or may not have happened, and if it did, it may or may not have happened exactly as described in Genesis. That’s ok for Catholics.
 
diggerdomer said:
No way do we know more about outer space (I think that’s what you mean) than our own oceans. Simply, there’s so much of outer space we are completely unaware of.

The flood may or may not have happened, and if it did, it may or may not have happened exactly as described in Genesis. That’s ok for Catholics.
Click to expand...
Actually, out of all the technology we have today we’re still only scratching the surface of ocean exploration. Only about 10% of our oceans have been pioneered. (I’m not certain but I bet I’m close ;))
 
MrZetterlund said:
Actually, out of all the technology we have today we’re still only scratching the surface of ocean exploration. Only about 10% of our oceans have been pioneered. (I’m not certain but I bet I’m close ;))
Click to expand...
Ok, let’s say you’re right about 10%. Are you claiming we have knowledge of 90% or more of the universe?
 
diggerdomer said:
Ok, let’s say you’re right about 10%. Are you claiming we have knowledge of 90% or more of the universe?
Click to expand...
Have you ever used google sattilites before? Yeah… 😉 You can zoom out past our galaxie and as close to a plant cell in a tree.
 
MrZetterlund said:
I believe it’s true. We know less about our own oceans then we do about outer pace.
Click to expand...
Probably if you mean near space; (below the moon’s orbit) you’d be right. But as someone else pointed out, space is so enormous that it just doesn’t compare.
I think the compiling of all those other flood myths only supports the idea that a flood accured.
Click to expand...
Probably. But it may not have covered the whole planet, since human life only existed in a small area. And all the world’s species would not have fit in the craft described.
Do you know why things don’t grow as large as dinosuars and other pre-historic animals? Because the atmosphere is too dense. That’s EXACTLY why nose-picking skeptics complain that a flood COULD NOT have accured, is the increase of the atmosphere’s density. And remember, the purpose of the flood was to destroy the Nephilim (giants.)
Click to expand...
Actually the atmosphere was DENSER in the earth’s past than now, and held more oxygen.

If you reread Genesis, you’d see that human life was very long prior to the flood (800 to 969 years); and falls off rapidly after it (until Moses lived only 120 years). Those people knew what a year was; so something changed in the earth or its atmosphere to cause human beings to die more easily; a loss of oxygen could have been part of it.

ICXC NIKA.
 
diggerdomer said:
The traditional dates for Matthew that I’m aware of from Catholic scholars is the 70s-80s. Not a stretch at all.
Click to expand...
The old Catholic Encyclopedia had an interesting article
In our day opinion is rather divided. Catholic critics, in general, favour the years 40-45, although some (e.g. Patrizi) go back to 36-39 or (e.g. Aberle) to 37. Belser assigns 41-42; Conély, 40-50; Schafer, 50-51; Hug, Reuschl, Schanz, and Rose, 60-67.
Click to expand...
I based my dates according to Dr. Carroll’s history. Your dates I believe is on modern dating not the traditional dating.
 
MrZetterlund said:
Have you ever used google sattilites before? Yeah… 😉 You can zoom out past our galaxie and as close to a plant cell in a tree.
Click to expand...
… false. the only way we identify planets at great distances is the ‘shadows’ they cast (they dim the light of stars when they pass in front of them)- and that only works for big planets. I highly doubt we’ll ever come close to 1*10^-10 percent of the knowledge of the universe that is out there.
 
adrift said:
The old Catholic Encyclopedia had an interesting article

I based my dates according to Dr. Carroll’s history. Your dates I believe is on modern dating not the traditional dating.
Click to expand...
Yes, the OLD encyclopedia had that article. Great. For 1913. If you care to refer to the new Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003, it notes that the Gospel of Matthew is typically dated to around 85 A.D.

So…that’s Tradition.

I don’t know who Dr. Carroll is, but I hope this doesn’t upset him.
 
AthanasiusOx said:
Where an historical fact is stated or presumed, I would argue it is perverse to assume it didn’t happen unless there are very good reasons as in the book of Judith. In Judith, it is in fact missing the point altogether to suppose that the author ever intended to provide a factual historical account, and in fact most Catholic scholars nowadays are inclined to think that the precise opposite is intended, i.e. deliberate ‘errors’ which draw the reader into the real meaning of the text - signposts, if you will.
.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything like what you are saying in the writing of either Pope - can you provide a direct citation to support your claims?

Also, is there an example of the alleged ‘intentional’ errors in Judith?
 
diggerdomer said:
Yes, the OLD encyclopedia had that article. Great. For 1913. If you care to refer to the new Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003, it notes that the Gospel of Matthew is typically dated to around 85 A.D.

So…that’s Tradition.

I don’t know who Dr. Carroll is, but I hope this doesn’t upset him.
Click to expand...
How do you define tradition? I will also point out that the traditional dates in the Catholic Encyclopedia were discarded by the modern dating without being refuted. As you note that the Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1913 would reflect traditional teachings. As you note the Catholic Encyclopedia of 2003 is a more recent writing that does not reflect traditional dating. Since I haven’t read it does it even discuss why the traditional dating was discarded?
Dr. Carroll is a Catholic Historian who has written a history on the Catholic faith that is very well researched.
 
adrift said:
How do you define tradition? I will also point out that the traditional dates in the Catholic Encyclopedia were discarded by the modern dating without being refuted. As you note that the Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1913 would reflect traditional teachings. As you note the Catholic Encyclopedia of 2003 is a more recent writing that does not reflect traditional dating. Since I haven’t read it does it even discuss why the traditional dating was discarded?
Dr. Carroll is a Catholic Historian who has written a history on the Catholic faith that is very well researched.
Click to expand...
Tradition is what the Magisterium preserves and hands on via its teaching Authority.
 
rwillenborg said:
If so, how could that be? And please, not the ‘All things are possible through God’. If I’m to explain catholic theology to non-catholics, I’d better come better equipped than that. 🙂
And if not, on what basis is it considered allegorical and not true? Why would Noah’s story be false, and our original parents Adam and Eve be true?
How do you reconcile the similarities between the story of Noah and other ancient flood stories?
Any insight would be most helpful. Thanks!
Click to expand...
We cannot choose to make God a liar and opt to accept Noah"s flood as local and not global.It seems that those who do not accept the six days of creation as six literal 24hr days also do not accept the flood as global but only local. iF THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION ARE ACCEPTED AS THOUSANDS OF YEARS,then the 30days of non stop rain would be 30 thousands years,that would only result in a local flood,notwithstanding that water finds its own level,this is of course nonsense - twinc
 
diggerdomer said:
Tradition is what the Magisterium preserves and hands on via its teaching Authority.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

The term “tradition” is used to assert that some teaching is true because that’s what always was taught. Frequently, there is no evidence to support this claim.
 
adriancombe said:
I don’t see anything like what you are saying in the writing of either Pope - can you provide a direct citation to support your claims?
Click to expand...
Do you not?

There is much that one could quote, but we might highlight Divino afflante Spiritu esp. 32-39, e.g. “Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavour to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed…There is no one but knows that the supreme rule of interpretation is to discover and define what the writer intended to express” (here HH quotes St Athnasius with approval on the dangers of missing the “real meaning of the author”). [33-4]

“[The Catholic commentator should] determine… to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation… Not infrequently…when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration perculiar to the ancients.” [39]

I think that is consistent with what I said, although I’d also like to point out that I was not ascribing the part that you selected from my comment to either Pope.
Also, is there an example of the alleged ‘intentional’ errors in Judith?
Click to expand...
Well, for example, saying that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians right at the start, whereas in fact he was king of the Assyrians. Rather than denouncing this as ‘error’, or trying to find ingenious ways of re-explaining the history, it seems more probable that this is a signpost towards a non-historical reading of the text. I may have slightly overstated when I said that ‘most’ scholars think this… let’s rather say that I have read Catholic scholars who have made this argument (not at all the same I know).
 
adrift said:
How do you define tradition? I will also point out that the traditional dates in the Catholic Encyclopedia were discarded by the modern dating without being refuted. As you note that the Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1913 would reflect traditional teachings. As you note the Catholic Encyclopedia of 2003 is a more recent writing that does not reflect traditional dating. Since I haven’t read it does it even discuss why the traditional dating was discarded?
Dr. Carroll is a Catholic Historian who has written a history on the Catholic faith that is very well researched.
Click to expand...
The dating of the Gospels has nothing whatsoever to do with Tradition, while tradition may be helpful but is not dogmatic. The Tradition of the Magisterium is the passing on of the Depositum Fidei received from the Apostles. I guess you could say that the authorship of the four Gospels, which is most certainly ‘traditional’ does belong in Tradition, and perhaps also the ordering of the Gospels, but this is stretching a point somewhat.

The discrepancy in proposed dates is purely and simply a matter of scholarly debate and the evolution of textual criticism. The Church has always been open to further investigation and clarification provided it does not mark a departure from revealed Truth. The later dating derives largely from the widespread (though in my view surely false) acceptance of either the 2 document theory (Q Gospel + St Mark), which demands an earlier dating of Mark’s Gospel and shows Matthew to be derivative. I think I am right in saying that scholarly opinion is now swinging the other way against this theory, with a new vogue for recognising Matthew’s Gospel as earlier and alongside Mark rather than derived from Mark. But the debate goes on.

Furthermore, one should not confuse the date of publication of the Gospels with the date of authorship. Perhaps Matthew’s Gospel in the form we have it now did not come into being until the later part of the first century, but that does not exclude some form of it existing much earlier. The Hebrew or Aramaic version, if that tradition is true (I see no reason why not) may have preceded the Greek version by some time.

Finally, at my own college in Oxford there is a papyrus fragment recently published which can be identified as part of Matthew’s Gospel, and which has been provisionally dated to 60 AD. As an amateur papyrologist myself I am sceptical that any dating can be that precise, but the scholarship seems good. My guess is (for us to have found it) it would be a copy of an earlier text, so the higher dating looks more probable once again.
 
Well, for example, saying that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians right at the start, whereas in fact he was king of the Assyrians. Rather than denouncing this as ‘error’, or trying to find ingenious ways of re-explaining the history, it seems more probable that this is a signpost towards a non-historical reading of the text. I may have slightly overstated when I said that ‘most’ scholars think this… let’s rather say that I have read Catholic scholars who have made this argument (not at all the same I know).
Click to expand...
I meant of course king of the Babylonians. That will teach me to preview before posting!
 
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE:

Could they have been in error?

Or more accurately, since the Gospels were written long after their lives, could it be that the writers simply inserted references into the gospel story of what Jesus and Peter were supposed to have said?
Click to expand...
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]

The theory that Mark’s Gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today, yet this theory has led to serious and widespread doubts regarding the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which rests our understanding of Christianity.
Code: 
        ***The Authors of the Gospels*** sets forth an alternative             view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers such as Clement of             Alexandria, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Jerome and Augustine of Hippo in his later years) and the findings of a non-Markan             school of modern literary analysis, the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology which was             used widely prior to the times of Jerome.
        
        This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the gospels were written by eyewitness             companions of Jesus. The author points out that this teaching was renewed in ***Dei Verbum***, sections 7 and 18, a doctrinal Constitution of the Second Vatican Council.
more…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top