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

[prettylarge]

What other authorship is there? Don’t tell my you buy into that JEDP mess, especially since it is inherently anti-semitic and anti-Catholic.

How is it anti semetic or anti catholic? Who do you believe wrote the Pentateuch? Was it Moses…because Moses dies before the pentateuch is over…so that is pretty much out. I don’t think that ONLY JEDP wrote the pentateuch, it was probably many more sources actually. But how is believing that anti semetic and anti catholic? Can you explain that one?

 

[prettylarge]

The JEDP theory is just that, a theory. It does not in and of itself contradict Catholic teaching and similarly is not anti-Semitic. Maybe there are some who use it in those ways, but it’s a pretty standard theory that is clearly not (in and of itself) contradictory to the Catholic faith.

Catholics are free to believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, or not. As long as theories of authorship do not contradict Church teaching, specific questions like these are open to different theories.

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?

 

[prettylarge]

I agree that the story as you tell it is ridiculous but there is no mention of species but only of kinds[127 kinds]and not being totally aware in the boat as to whether it was just a local flood or global they took proper steps to find out so please read the original account carefully and not one of the many fudged accounts -anyway btw where did all the sand in the deserts all around the world come from when they were not there originally or the marine fossils on mountain tops and deserts -twinc

OK, well I still don’t believe that Noah gathered 127 different kinds of animals. And I do think there was probably some sort of flood. The nile probably flooded HUGE. But Noah wasn’t the only person to survive, and he didn’t have all those animals.

And how do you know that sand was not originally in the desert? Are you saying that the sahara flooded, but also the deserts in SW America? Yeah…I don’t think so.

 

[prettylarge]

Again, the NT book Hebrews was not written by Paul himself. It appears to be written by someone in Paul’s inner circle. And so it reflects perfectly Pauline doctrine, but the author himself we can say is Paul only in the broad sense of authorship. Nonetheless, it was probably Barnabas who penned the work.

Actually there are about 6 books by Paul that are debated. Some more so than others though.

 

[buffalo]

What tablets?

And let’s be clear, Catholic are free to accept Moses as the author of Genesis, or not. So regardless of what tables you’re referring to I don’t understand your point.

If the Biblical accounts are true (as you seem to say) were humans created temporally before or after the animals? One can argue either point from the first two chapters.

The Toledoths of Genesis

 

[buffalo]

Not even a possibility. Such an absurd idea was fabricated in order to support a fundamentalist view of Genesis. The assertion is contra-indicated by all available evidence.

How to you fit the Ancient Characters into this?

 

[buffalo]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/flood/images/chart198.gif

 

[StAnastasia]

There is not enough water on the planet to cover it to 30,000’ of depth (the height of the “highest mountains”), and the ark would not have held all of the planet’s animal species. But for the story to work as a record of GOD’s works in history, neither is needed.ICXC NIKA!

GEddie, more precisely, 29,057.5 feet (fifteen cubits about the summit of Mt. Everest).

 

[StAnastasia]

it seems especially for some like yourself that the dimensions of the Ark are given and it seems the Ark would easily store all these 127 kinds of animals in a state of hibernation with very little feeding or slopping out etc - so who is creating the problems - twinc

God didn’t say anything about a “state of hibernation” – you just made that up! And how long did it take Noah to sail around the world to Australia to pick up the maruspials before they were drown? He must have made stops in North and South America and Hawaii and Asia as well to pick up the charismatic megafauna there. That’s a lot of sailing and stops to accomplish in just a few days before Austraila (at least) was flooded.

StAnastasia.

 

[twinc]

God didn’t say anything about a “state of hibernation” – you just made that up! And how long did it take Noah to sail around the world to Australia to pick up the maruspials before they were drown? He must have made stops in North and South America and Hawaii and Asia as well to pick up the charismatic megafauna there. That’s a lot of sailing and stops to accomplish in just a few days before Austraila (at least) was flooded.

StAnastasia.

presumably the Ark pulled in and docked at Sydney harbour be assured all were aboard the Ark before it was lifted up on the water and rode the waters intelligently designed as unsinkable - as for hibernation being invented by GOD it follows that it was cold and dark on the Ark with no flood lights or arc lamps - twinc

 

[twinc]

GEddie, more precisely, 29,057.5 feet (fifteen cubits about the summit of Mt. Everest).

The earth is on a tilt so water was easily sploshed and splashed all over it and there is even now enough water around to cause a second global flood,which will not happen we have been reassured - so who is creating all these problems as if nothing better to be at - twinc

 

[donsnow]

Yikes!

You are right. I didn’t even catch myself on that as I was doing several things at once when I know I am no good at multi-tasking. As a penance for my inattention I will re-work the whole thing into a chronologically and historically accurate account of much greater length, whatever the maximum number of characters is for a post and CAF, and use it for my standard reply to YEC.

So, an even greater good will come from my error. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Thanks, again!

Hi, intinerant1 -

Sure thing, it’s no big deal.

AFAIK, CAF forums limit posts to 6,000 words. I have no earthly idea how many characters that would be.

 

[donsnow]

I’m not a creationist, but you think that Jesus and Peter were referring to folktales when they were speaking of Noah and the flood? I see no theological reason for them to resort to folktales in order to get God’s salvation message across. Real life has enough examples. There is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:8-10 Some people believe that the Incarnation is a folktale (myth) also.

Well, that’s it for me for this thread. We will agree to disagree. Time will tell who is correct.

'Bye, SHW -

I will miss your truthful (name removed by moderator)ut to this thread.

Don

 

[edwest2]

It’s too bad that some deny the work of God. Jesus always spoke the truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[adriancombe]

God didn’t say anything about a “state of hibernation” – you just made that up! And how long did it take Noah to sail around the world to Australia to pick up the maruspials before they were drown? He must have made stops in North and South America and Hawaii and Asia as well to pick up the charismatic megafauna there. That’s a lot of sailing and stops to accomplish in just a few days before Austraila (at least) was flooded.

StAnastasia.

Umm…yeah. Definitely too hard for God. Whatever was He thinking?!

 

[CWBetts]

GEddie, more precisely, 29,057.5 feet (fifteen cubits about the summit of Mt. Everest).

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

 

[donsnow]

Your criteria are Biblically unsound. Noah is an inspired theological polemic. Jesus and Peter can refer to anything in the Bible as containing God’s message…"As in the days of Noah…etc.

Your underlying assumption is that if an account is referred to by Christ or Peter for its message, then it must be historical. However, an account can be true without being historical, as are some parables in the Bible.

You are speaking from a very different mentality and culture than the one in which the Bible was written.

So are you and aren’t we all, reading and speaking from a very different mentality and cultures than the cultures and mentalities that kept the oral tradition and then wrote the oral traditions into scripture?

I find a literal flood story no distracter from the moral, theological and spiritual messages found in the Bible stories, including the one of Noah and the flood.

 

[itinerant1]

So are you and aren’t we all, reading and speaking from a very different mentality and cultures than the cultures and mentalities that kept the oral tradition and then wrote the oral traditions into scripture?

I find a literal flood story no distracter from the moral, theological and spiritual messages found in the Bible stories, including the one of Noah and the flood.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CWBetts]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[MonFrere]

I find a literal flood story no distracter from the moral, theological and spiritual messages found in the Bible stories, including the one of Noah and the flood.

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