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

[donsnow]

I must say that I have no idea what you are talking about.

OK, itinerant1 -

There’s the Proverb, “Avoid the appearance of evil”. Maybe that will help. You should be as educated in the wisdom of the Holy Bible and CCC as you are in the wisdom of the world.

BTW, in your post two posts before this one, you closed with the comment that God promised to not destroy mankind again.
No, sir. God promised Noah that He would not again destroy the world with a flood. (Emphasis mine)
As a matter of fact, in the NT we are warned that the Earth will be destroyed by fire. I firmly consider an atrocious solar flare as the agent of that destruction by fire, and deem it necessary to save the faithful.
That’s one reason I have the SOHO web page in my bookmarks and refer to it every few days. Depending on the velocity of the major magnitude solar flare, it will take from two to eight days to reach the Earth from the sun. So far, no such solar flare in sight.

I take scripture seriously, even the incredible scriptures.

Don

 

[donsnow]

Easy, itinerant1 -

Take a few deep breaths and calm down. Just accept that I’m not intimidated by your greater education than mine. You’re three times as educated as I am, if not more; your finances are at least three times as much as mine; by any earthly standard, you are my superior. But, I can sound off, when you belittle the faith that brings the grace that gives salvation to sinners.

So. So, what is your point? What does anything you said have to do with how to read the story of Noah?

Everything. You vaunt too highly your education. It’s not what you got that counts: it’s what you do with what you got. And when you go around beating people over the head with your education…you…do…wrong. Shame on you.

The answer is, “Nothing whatsoever”

In your imagination, maybe.

For some reason, you have gone off on an irrelevant tangent.

No, sir; I’m trying to calm down the high horse of your pride in your education, that you’ve been charging around on; and get you to dismount and stand on the ground calmly, and accept that it’s OK for people to accept a literal meaning to the account of the flood and Noah’s Ark****The Chruch says it’l OK. Does your pride loft you up to the heights, where you can contradict the wisdom of the Church?

itinerant1;6089281:

If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, and don’t start going “Holier than thou” on people. I could be a total wretch, but that would be independent of the arguments I am making. Get relevant, because you are totally off-track on this thread. Or, start your own thread to discuss whatever it is that bothers you.

What heat?
I never said I was holier than thou; why don’t we let Jesus judge between you and me, which one is the holier?
Instead of you calling me names. That’s a no-no on CAF.
No, I’m not going to play the badder than you game. Get a grip. I am relevant and I am not off track, to buttonhole you about your pride, when you use it to insult me.
There’s nothing in our discussion that I think warrants being in another thread. Let’s just both calm down.

Don

 

[edwest2]

In the Middle Ages, when the tendency was to read Noah literally in the historic sense, many Rabbis commenting on Genesis saw the Deluge as harsh, and did not number Noah as highly righteous as were Abraham or Moses because he lacked compassion. They saw no evidence in the story of compassion on Noah’s part for the men, women and children who were destroyed.

Noah’s part? Who was responsible for the flood? This was God’s idea, not Noah’s.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

OK, itinerant1 -

There’s the Proverb, “Avoid the appearance of evil”. Maybe that will help. You should be as educated in the wisdom of the Holy Bible and CCC as you are in the wisdom of the world.

BTW, in your post two posts before this one, you closed with the comment that God promised to not destroy mankind again.
No, sir. God promised Noah that He would not again destroy the world with a flood. (Emphasis mine)
As a matter of fact, in the NT we are warned that the Earth will be destroyed by fire. I firmly consider an atrocious solar flare as the agent of that destruction by fire, and deem it necessary to save the faithful.
That’s one reason I have the SOHO web page in my bookmarks and refer to it every few days. Depending on the velocity of the major magnitude solar flare, it will take from two to eight days to reach the Earth from the sun. So far, no such solar flare in sight.

I take scripture seriously, even the incredible scriptures.

Don

So, you finally show your true colors. You make a pretense to knowing that which you do not know.

Of course I know that in the Deluge story God promises not to destroy the world again with a flood. Pointing out that minor omission of “flood” in my post was silly on your part.

Obviously, you don’t understand the New Testament any better than you understand the Old Testament. If you are waiting for a solar flare fry your “humble” hide you have committed an egregious misinterpretation of the “final conflagration.” Your chronological error in the apocalyptic sequence is more akin to what cults and sectarian readers of the Bible are accustomed to doing. And your interpretation, besides being ludicrous, is definitely not Catholic.

Next, I follow the Church’s instructions on interpreting the Bible. You would know that if you had ever read the Documents of Vatican II. I have been emphasizing the need to correctly identify the genus litterarium of the Noah account. You have not grasped that idea and its critical importance. Perhaps you rebel against it because it would require thinking and studying on your part, and you would also have to give up your simplistic and blatantly false interpretations of Scripture.

I hope you are not blinded by staring at the sun before you read the following excerpt from Dei verbum:

**12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.”

For truth is set forth and expressed differently in text which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.**

( Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation** )

 

[CWBetts]

So, you finally show your true colors. You make a pretense to knowing that which you do not know.

Of course I know that in the Deluge story God promises not to destroy the world again with a flood. Pointing out that minor omission of “flood” in my post was silly on your part.

Obviously, you don’t understand the New Testament any better than you understand the Old Testament. If you are waiting for a solar flare fry your “humble” hide you have committed an egregious misinterpretation of the “final conflagration.” Your chronological error in the apocalyptic sequence is more akin to what cults and sectarian readers of the Bible are accustomed to doing. And your interpretation, besides being ludicrous, is definitely not Catholic.

Next, I follow the Church’s instructions on interpreting the Bible. You would know that if you had ever read the Documents of Vatican II. I have been emphasizing the need to correctly identify the genus litterarium of the Noah account. You have not grasped that idea and its critical importance. Perhaps you rebel against it because it would require thinking and studying on your part, and you would also have to give up your simplistic and blatantly false interpretations of Scripture.

I hope you are not blinded by staring at the sun before you read the following excerpt from Dei verbum:

**12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.”

For truth is set forth and expressed differently in text which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.**

( Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation** )

But aparrently you reject the teaching that the Scriptures are infallible.

 

[itinerant1]

Noah’s part? Who was responsible for the flood? This was God’s idea, not Noah’s.

Peace,
Ed

Argue that against Jewish midrash, though it is not a universally held view among the ancient commentators.

 

[itinerant1]

But aparrently you reject the teaching that the Scriptures are infallible.

I have stated in several posts that the Scripture writers were infallible, and once again in a very recent post. Where have you been? Or, is it that you do not understand what I am saying? Six of one and half-dozen of the other?

 

[CWBetts]

I have stated in several posts that the Scripture writers were infallible, and once again in a very recent post. Where have you been? Or, is it that you do not understand what I am saying? Six of one and half-dozen of the other?

I understand find. I understand that you are trying to turn the Scriptures into mere myth.

 

[itinerant1]

What heat?
I never said I was holier than thou; why don’t we let Jesus judge between you and me, which one is the holier?
Instead of you calling me names. That’s a no-no on CAF.
No, I’m not going to play the badder than you game. Get a grip. I am relevant and I am not off track, to buttonhole you about your pride, when you use it to insult me.
There’s nothing in our discussion that I think warrants being in another thread. Let’s just both calm down.

Don

You are totally funny. You neither know or understanding anything about me.

My neighborhood? My finances? LOL Dude, I am not only not worked up about this but I have not had such a good laugh in a long time. Check my handle “intinerant1”. I am near as poor as it gets, and by choice, being a professed member of the Third Order of Franciscans…Even us poor folk can use a good laugh once in a while.

I’m done with this silly off-topic conversation.

 

[itinerant1]

I understand find. I understand that you are trying to turn the Scriptures into mere myth.

It is clear then that you do not understand.

 

[CWBetts]

It is clear then that you do not understand.

Then explain it oh wise master, who knows all! Explain it to us poor ignorant souls.

 

[itinerant1]

Then explain it oh wise master, who knows all! Explain it to us poor ignorant souls.

I have been explaining all along and you have not caught on in the least. What more can I say?

 

[MonFrere]

Here is an honest question.

(Heb 11:7-8) ** By faith Noa**h, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Heb 11:8) By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

I would see that this passage in Hebrews would indicate that Noah was a true historic personality - not a created person for sacred, yet fictitious legend. I do not have a problem believing the issue that there was no worldwide flood; because scientifically, it is an impossibility. But Hebrews 11: is a listing of those “who did not yet receive the promises”. A fictitious person could not be awaiting any promises; because they never existed.

(Heb 11:39-12:1) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

The genre of Hebrews isn’t a poetical account but a theological essay. It seems to be listing these individuals in Heb 11 as factual historical people. So, because of this IF these were not historical individuals I need someone to give me a reasonable explanation of WHY there is this mixture of historical and fictitious individuals in the same context.

Until I understand otherwise, I say there was a localized flood which was an historic reality.

Comments

MonFrere

 

[CWBetts]

I have been explaining all along and you have not caught on in the least. What more can I say?

It is obviously in your utter lack of ability to explain. It isn’t in my ability to grasp information…my 4.0 GPA will attest to that

 

[donsnow]

So, you finally show your true colors. You make a pretense to knowing that which you do not know.

Of course I know that in the Deluge story God promises not to destroy the world again with a flood. Pointing out that minor omission of “flood” in my post was silly on your part.

Obviously, you don’t understand the New Testament any better than you understand the Old Testament. If you are waiting for a solar flare fry your “humble” hide you have committed an egregious misinterpretation of the “final conflagration.” Your chronological error in the apocalyptic sequence is more akin to what cults and sectarian readers of the Bible are accustomed to doing. And your interpretation, besides being ludicrous, is definitely not Catholic.

Next, I follow the Church’s instructions on interpreting the Bible. You would know that if you had ever read the Documents of Vatican II. I have been emphasizing the need to correctly identify the genus litterarium of the Noah account. You have not grasped that idea and its critical importance. Perhaps you rebel against it because it would require thinking and studying on your part, and you would also have to give up your simplistic and blatantly false interpretations of Scripture.

I hope you are not blinded by staring at the sun before you read the following excerpt from Dei verbum:

**12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.”

For truth is set forth and expressed differently in text which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.**

( Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation** )

Oh, itinerant1 -

We know differently but in the same faith and salvation, because of our different perspectives. I do not condemn yours, please do not condemn mine, nor me.

So, what I deem necessary you deem silly. Okedoke. Your losing my credibility regarding you, quite rapidly, with an excuse like that. Or, do you only care about the credibility of the more educated?

I believe that the end times can unfold quickly and we are at their beginning.
I’m on this forum, because I know I’m weak as a Catholic and need to be with other Catholics.
I do grasp the need and importance of recognizing the *genus literarium *; however, I also recognize the need and importance of accepting the level of faith of street people and people less educated than I; and I believe the Church’s stand on it’s OK if I believe the flood and Ark was real is being overlooked by you.
Maybe my Baptist upbringing does shadow my reading the Bible; but I have the duty and responsibility of preserving the faith that the Lord our God gave to me, when I asked Him for it, after I ran out of faith; that was after my conversion to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I’m not letting go of that faith; and I’m not letting go of your and my superiors in the Catholic Church saying it’s OK to believe in a real flood and Ark.

Let’s just pray for each other and stop this squabbling.

Don

 

[MonFrere]

Maybe my Baptist upbringing does shadow my reading the Bible; but I have the duty and responsibility of preserving the faith that the Lord our God gave to me, when I asked Him for it, after I ran out of faith; that was after my conversion to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I’m not letting go of that faith; and I’m not letting go of your and my superiors in the Catholic Church saying it’s OK to believe in a real flood and Ark.

Don,

I am a teacher by profession. So, I have a sympathetic ear for what you are saying. I think I said that my life was normal through all the years I believed in a worldwide flood. However, now I don’t believe in one. When talking to other people I always try to present my reasons but I always try (not always successful, though) to remember that I also used to resist those who would speak to me with ideas I though beyond credibility. When my teacher instincts would kick in – I would take a few steps back and quit being so insistent but see if I could “find a way” to get my point across.

So, having taken a few steps back I have a recommendation. Begin reading some of the output of Pope Benedict. Some of his writings is very approachable. His book on the early Church fathers is rather easy and quite excellent. His little volume of the 12 Apostles is also easy. The Spirit of the Liturgy is a little more difficult but I think by going through those chapters you will begin to see how very biblical our present Pope is. Through reading Pope Benedict you will slowly begin to absorb this great theologians approach to scripture. You can do it at your own pace and in time you’ll be able to compare how Baptists “read” scripture as to how our gifted theologians “read” scripture. It’s different. As you being to absorb this I think in time a path for thought will be established where you’ll understand where people like itinerant1 are coming from and also learn the WHY as to some of these ideas that you presently find very difficult in accepting.

Please don’t take this as me being condescending. I’m just trying to help a guy I find to be a very friendly fellow. Merry Christmas!!

MonFrere

 

[donsnow]

Here is an honest question.

I would see that this passage in Hebrews would indicate that Noah was a true historic personality - not a created person for sacred, yet fictitious legend. I do not have a problem believing the issue that there was no worldwide flood; because scientifically, it is an impossibility. But Hebrews 11: is a listing of those “who did not yet receive the promises”. A fictitious person could not be awaiting any promises; because they never existed.

The genre of Hebrews isn’t a poetical account but a theological essay. It seems to be listing these individuals in Heb 11 as factual historical people. So, because of this IF these were not historical individuals I need someone to give me a reasonable explanation of WHY there is this mixture of historical and fictitious individuals in the same context.

Until I understand otherwise, I say there was a localized flood which was an historic reality.

Comments

MonFrere

Merry Christmas, Mon Frere -

I just about agree with that; only I’d say, there was a historical person named Noah, who built an Ark as commanded by God, and then God sent the animals to the Ark and Noah and his family and all the animals on the Ark rode out the flood. I like to keep it sort of general, like that. Sorta stand my ground and avoid argument.

Don

 

[donsnow]

Don,

I am a teacher by profession. So, I have a sympathetic ear for what you are saying. I think I said that my life was normal through all the years I believed in a worldwide flood. However, now I don’t believe in one. When talking to other people I always try to present my reasons but I always try (not always successful, though) to remember that I also used to resist those who would speak to me with ideas I though beyond credibility. When my teacher instincts would kick in – I would take a few steps back and quit being so insistent but see if I could “find a way” to get my point across.

So, having taken a few steps back I have a recommendation. Begin reading some of the output of Pope Benedict. Some of his writings is very approachable. His book on the early Church fathers is rather easy and quite excellent. His little volume of the 12 Apostles is also easy. The Spirit of the Liturgy is a little more difficult but I think by going through those chapters you will begin to see how very biblical our present Pope is. Through reading Pope Benedict you will slowly begin to absorb this great theologians approach to scripture. You can do it at your own pace and in time you’ll be able to compare how Baptists “read” scripture as to how our gifted theologians “read” scripture. It’s different. As you being to absorb this I think in time a path for thought will be established where you’ll understand where people like itinerant1 are coming from and also learn the WHY as to some of these ideas that you presently find very difficult in accepting.

Please don’t take this as me being condescending. I’m just trying to help a guy I find to be a very friendly fellow. Merry Christmas!!

MonFrere

Thanks, MonFrere -

For your outreach.
After I joined the USMC in '61, they sent me to school in '62; I learned many things, including how to instruct. Then, my job was to instruct pilots who already knew how to fly about radio instrument navigation, on an indoor electronic/mechanical simulator. After I honorably separated from the 'Corps in '65, I put my talent and experience as an instructor to work, for different employers, by orientating their new hires, after I learned and was doing the job. By '81, the crest of my civilian instruction career was helping fashion the Training course for the Yellow Cab company I worked for here in Fort Worth, and I was earning good money doing nothing but instructing. If there were two or more new hires, I had a classroom in which to instruct them, with training aids; if one, then I’d give OJT in my cab to that one.

So, although not a college educated teacher or professor, I do have an idea what it’s like to pass knowledge on to other adults. It’s exhilarating to see the light dawn, or to see them proficient at what I show and tell them.

So, I will take to heart your suggestion. But, I also want to finish reading the CCC and try again to read St. Augustine’s City of God. But, I have determined to accept more of this Holy Roman Catholic Church that I converted into in '68 into my private life. I’m serious about standing in the faith, hope and love with other Catholics, when it gets rough to be a Christian; and imho that time swiftly approaches. So, as I go along and resume more participation in Church than I’ve done this year, I will act upon your recommendation and also read Pope Benedict XVI’s writings.

Thank you for your patience.

Don

 

[adriancombe]

Adriancombe, it would be very difficult to flood interstellar space with water out to the edge of the Milky Way galaxy, much less to the edge of the known universe.

StAnastasia

True! (I do hope your kidding and realize that’s not what I - or St Peter - meant).

 

[John7]

I would see that this passage in Hebrews would indicate that Noah was a true historic personality - not a created person for sacred, yet fictitious legend. I do not have a problem believing the issue that there was no worldwide flood; because scientifically, it is an impossibility. But Hebrews 11: is a listing of those “who did not yet receive the promises”. A fictitious person could not be awaiting any promises; because they never existed.

hey…that’s a great point