Fact or Fiction !>

  • Thread starter Thread starter twinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twinc said:
should Catholic scientists and teachers in Catholic schools and Churches accept and teach Noah’s global flood as fact or fiction - twinc
Click to expand...
First, let me say that I accept the events of Gen 6-8 as being completely historical. I see nothing in the Bible that indicates to me that there is anything allegorical about the early chapters of Genesis.

Having said that, history is not something tat can be proven in a scientific sense. We can’t prove there was a Noah or an ark. The same is true about the other historic details.

On the other hand, if there was a world-wide flood as Genesis says, there should be indications of this in the geological record. It is a mistake to assume that these signs are not present because they have not been looked for. An ancient Earth formed by natural processes occurring over billions of years is the unproven assumption behind science today and scientists don’t like people to disagree with them. The Church has nothing on science when it comes to dogmatism.

However, I would not venture to tell any Catholic scientist how to do his investigations. I would hope that, as Catholics - and the same would be true for Christians who are not Catholic - that their love of the truth would cause them to keep an open mind in their investigations regardless of where it leads them.
 
Spencerian said:
twinc,

The flood, as described in Genesis (as with all stories in the Bible) should always be treated with canonical respect as to its authority. In simpler language, Sacred Scripture tells us important information not necessarily fixed on history or science, but morality. That is why we will never see the Pope speak “infallibly” on matters that do not correspond with faith and morals as it pertains to Catholic doctrine or dogma.

Not that Wikipedia is the best source for anything, their article on the “Deluge myth” and its many sources illustrates something important: If there was any event that caused great destruction, fear and change in ancient society (and even today), it was a flood. Floods literally wiped away civilizations, and it was a matter feared by all. As a result, flood stories were the ancient’s version of today’s “apocalypse” stories.

Needless to say, the story of Noah is more a tale of *morality *than survival. But by using the unquestioned destructive power of a flood, the story of Noah gets it point across–without us Catholics having to worry whether a specific flood happened here or there or then.

And to answer your question from official teachings, the Catechism teaches the story of Noah as accurate in that it maintains an important covenant with God. So, yes, Catholic teachers should be teaching Noah’s story as biblical and historical for purposes of our faith. Science and history, as with the initial start of the Story of Genesis, are not relevant here.
Click to expand...
Are the scriptural accounts of Jesus’ miracles history or only for the purposes of teaching without relating historic events? If you believe them to be historic events, on what basis can you believe them that is not also applicable to the Genesis account?
 
edwest2 said:
It is interesting to see some post here to say that a certain passage’s symbolic meaning outweighs the actual event. No, there are no scientific formulas in the Bible but it does record things God actually did. Some want to reduce the actual work of God to something they can always explain. Today, miracles related to the intercession of Pope John Paul II are being waited on. By definition, science will not have a natural explanation for them. Instead of writing that Bronze age sheep herders were too stupid to understand certain things, what explanation could anyone offer here if they were standing next to Jesus and He raised Lazarus from the dead? Or brought back to life a boy being carried in his own funeral procession?

It matters very much that Catholics understand events in the Bible as they are written unless the Magisterium of the Church tells us otherwise. Science cannot study supernatural events and the constant attempts to find scientific explanations by knowledgeable people are likely to fail since they sometimes compete with Divine Revelation. And some critics have little to no grasp of what the Church teaches or selectively quote only certain things without considering the full picture. Jesus Christ could manipulate the world around Him because He is God. He did not use science of any kind.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Amen, Ed.

While it is true that the Bible is neither a science of a history book, it does not mean that, when it touches on these areas, it is not absolutely correct. Luke’s Gospel is not written to be a history of the period but has been shown over and over again to be historically accurate. Archaeologists regularly uncover evidence showing that the Bible provides accurate historical information.
 
PeterK said:
As parable. Parable based on a historical reality but upon which it is not slavishly dependent for its details.

Teaching in the manner of The Teacher.

PeterK
Click to expand...
PeterK,

When Jesus taught in parables it was quite clear what He was doing. Where is the evidence that the early chapters of Genesis are parables? If we reject Noah as a historical figure, why should we accept Abraham, Isaac, Joseph or the rest? Why should we accept any of the Bible, including the gospels, as containing historic truths?
 
Robert Ballard- the oceanographer that found the Titanic wreck- has discovered in the Black Sea (maybe Caspian I forget) ruins under the water that date to the time of the flood-if you take the timeline of the Bible as fact.
 
diggerdomer said:
I don’t think I did. My point is that I don’t think science teachers should plan their curriculum and teaching based on the Bible.
Click to expand...
It could be easily argued that to reject Genesis as historically and scientifically accurate is just as religious in nature as accepting it as literal truth. The only difference is which religion you are teaching: Christianity or secularism.

Jesus clearly believed that Moses was a historical figure or He couldn’t have spoken of “the days of Noah” (Matt 24:37). I find it better to be in full agreement with the Son of God.
 
rdscheirer said:
Robert Ballard- the oceanographer that found the Titanic wreck- has discovered in the Black Sea (maybe Caspian I forget) ruins under the water that date to the time of the flood-if you take the timeline of the Bible as fact.
Click to expand...
There is a theory that the Black Sea area underwent a massive flood at some point and this is the historical basis for Noah’s flood. There may be some who believe that this flood covered the entire land portion of the planet but I have not heard of any. This flood may correspond to Noah’s flood but it would have to have been worldwide for that to be the case.
 
rdscheirer said:
Robert Ballard- the oceanographer that found the Titanic wreck- has discovered in the Black Sea (maybe Caspian I forget) ruins under the water that date to the time of the flood-if you take the timeline of the Bible as fact.
Click to expand...
excuse me we are discussing a global flood not a local one - there have been and are many local but God promised to never again sent a global flood not local ones to prove Him a liar - it gets ridiculous after all - twinc
 
garysibio said:
There is a theory that the Black Sea area underwent a massive flood at some point and this is the historical basis for Noah’s flood. There may be some who believe that this flood covered the entire land portion of the planet but I have not heard of any. This flood may correspond to Noah’s flood but it would have to have been worldwide for that to be the case.
Click to expand...
millions of dead things buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth[repeat all over the earth] - twinc
 
garysibio said:
First, let me say that I accept the events of Gen 6-8 as being completely historical. I see nothing in the Bible that indicates to me that there is anything allegorical about the early chapters of Genesis.

Having said that, history is not something tat can be proven in a scientific sense. We can’t prove there was a Noah or an ark. The same is true about the other historic details.

On the other hand, if there was a world-wide flood as Genesis says, there should be indications of this in the geological record. It is a mistake to assume that these signs are not present because they have not been looked for. An ancient Earth formed by natural processes occurring over billions of years is the unproven assumption behind science today and scientists don’t like people to disagree with them. The Church has nothing on science when it comes to dogmatism.

However, I would not venture to tell any Catholic scientist how to do his investigations. I would hope that, as Catholics - and the same would be true for Christians who are not Catholic - that their love of the truth would cause them to keep an open mind in their investigations regardless of where it leads them.
Click to expand...
not would be but is, but who is going to accept "millions of dead things buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earthrepeat all over the earth - twinc
 
twinc said:
millions of dead things buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth[repeat all over the earth] - twinc
Click to expand...
I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the result of organisms which died during Noah’s flood. My point was that no one I know of says the Black Sea flood covered the Earth as Noah’s flood did. This does not mean that they are not one and the same but, if they are, then the Black Sea flood must have been worldwide and not limited to that area.
 
twinc said:
not would be but is, but who is going to accept "millions of dead things buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth[repeat all over the earth - twinc
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are asking.
[/quote]
 
garysibio said:
I’m not sure what you are asking.
Click to expand...
this was in reply to your post that there should be indications in the geogolical column - btw the textbook geological column is just that “a textbook geological column” not found as such in reality as I read it - twinc
 
twinc said:
this was in reply to your post that there should be indications in the geogolical column - btw the textbook geological column is just that “a textbook geological column” not found as such in reality as I read it - twinc
Click to expand...
Your statement is correct. The evidence of the geological column in certain locations is a problem for evolutionists. For example, there are places where the strata are laid down in the exact reverse order from which we would expect. The fact that there is a geological column at all is good evidence for a worldwide flood.
 
There are flood stories from the civilisations of the Iraq/Iran area that date to several thousand BC. I think there is also a Hindu flood story as well- if any Hindus are on please let me know if I am wrong.
 
garysibio said:
It could be easily argued that to reject Genesis as historically and scientifically accurate is just as religious in nature as accepting it as literal truth. The only difference is which religion you are teaching: Christianity or secularism.

Jesus clearly believed that Moses was a historical figure or He couldn’t have spoken of “the days of Noah” (Matt 24:37). I find it better to be in full agreement with the Son of God.
Click to expand...
Science teachers should teach science. If you want to talk about teaching religion start a new Thread.
 
diggerdomer said:
Science teachers should teach science. If you want to talk about teaching religion start a new Thread.
Click to expand...
absolutely agree - so why don’t they? - watch for my coming topic “Is today’s “Science” True” - there is no pronlem with the true science bits that are being taught - the problem is the pseudo/phony bits that have crept in, in the disguise of true science and these should not be taught as science but more rightly as philosophy or even religion as they take a lot of believing - twinc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top