Global flood?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

TPJCatholic:

patg,

“We” are the living Body of Christ. Yet God’s Word is unchangeable and does not “move” or “live.”
When God said “Thou Shall Not Steal,” He was not talking about chewing gum. ## If it is nothing else - and it is many things - it does most definitely live. To say it does not, implies that the glorified Jesus is a corpse. Which is like the mistake involved in saying that Jesus is alive but His saints in Heaven are not.

It is living, dynamic, explosive, powerful, creative, fertile, holy, pure, gracious, God-bearing: and that is before we get into Psalm 119, which is a veritable hymn to the Law: it is not a dead, inert, thing; it is very much alive not of itself, but because it is the word of the Living God and is made alive by the Spirit of God. It’s not static at all; any more than its Author is

The Church is dooming herself to anorexia or to an unbalanced diet if she is not indwelt by Scripture. ##

 

[TPJCatholic]

gottle,

I agree that the Church must be indwelt with the Word of God, both the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus and the written revealed Word of God we call the Bible or Scripture. We receive the living Word of God everytime we go to communion–the written Word of God is not living, it can only take life when we place it into our hearts and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us with that same Word. The written Word of God is unchanging.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

buffalo:

patg and gottle,

Please, I implore you to study this JPII document.

excerpts:

Later, in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII warned against mistaken interpretations linked to evolutionism, existentialism and historicism. He made it clear that these theories had not been proposed and developed by theologians, but had their origins “outside the sheepfold of Christ”.(68) He added, however, that errors of this kind should not simply be rejected but should be examined critically: “Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in human hearts, cannot afford to ignore these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these theories well, not only because diseases are properly treated only if rightly diagnosed and because even in these false theories some truth is found at times, but because in the end these theories provoke a more discriminating discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths”.(69)

There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God. One currently widespread symptom of this fideistic tendency is a “biblicism” which tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth. In consequence, the word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone, thus eliminating the doctrine of the Church which the Second Vatican Council stressed quite specifically. Having recalled that the word of God is present in both Scripture and Tradition,(73) the Constitution *Dei Verbum *continues emphatically: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture comprise a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church. Embracing this deposit and united with their pastors, the People of God remain always faithful to the teaching of the Apostles”.(74) Scripture, therefore, is not the Church’s sole point of reference. The “supreme rule of her faith” (75) derives from the unity which the Spirit has created between Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the three can survive without the others.(76)

Moreover, one should not underestimate the danger inherent in seeking to derive the truth of Sacred Scripture from the use of one method alone, ignoring the need for a more comprehensive exegesis which enables the exegete, together with the whole Church, to arrive at the full sense of the texts. Those who devote themselves to the study of Sacred Scripture should always remember that the various hermeneutical approaches have their own philosophical underpinnings, which need to be carefully evaluated before they are applied to the sacred texts.

OK - but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to impress upon me.​

 

[I_Leatherman]

Pardon for butting in. Re: Thread title.
Wondering did Christ ever mention Noah, if so, does Noah then become an historical figure - who had once been associated definitely with very exceptional environmental events.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

TPJCatholic:

gottle,

I agree that the Church must be indwelt with the Word of God, both the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus and the written revealed Word of God we call the Bible or Scripture. We receive the living Word of God everytime we go to communion–the written Word of God is not living, it can only take life when we place it into our hearts and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us with that same Word.

I disagree, in part ​

I see things the other way round - Scripture is made alive as the living word of God, and is a living word to man, in so far as it is made alive savingly by the Holy Spirit of Christ. It is appropriated by a man as a living and saving word, only in so far as it is appropriated to him by the grace of this Holy Spirit - it cannot be appropriated by any human power, is not saving by any human power. Man by his native power can make nothing of it - it is not a saving word, and the Sacraments are not saving acts of Christ, unless the Spirit, the Word, the Father, the individual believer, and the Church are indwelt by one another. Take away the Blessed Trinity, and both Bible and Church wither and die. We "place and “keep things in” our hearts, only because the Spirit of Christ enables us to do so. This is not against our free will - it is what makes us free in the first place.

“All the riches of wisdom and knowledge” are in Christ - surely that includes both Church, Bible, and all that in them is ? ##

The written Word of God is unchanging.

It depends what one means by this - it is true in at least one sense, and not true in at least another.​

Its written expression is not unchanging; the detail of the text is not - this is true of the order and contents of books, chapters, passages and verses, and of the meaning it has been considered to give. It may be unchanging, but not in a sense that allows it to be “set in stone”; and even stone ceases to be. ISTM that it is more like a living person than a stone tablet. Personal identity is in some sense constant from cradle to grave, but it is the identity of a being who is changeful. Even if there is an unchanging Idea of the Bible in the Mind of God, the Bible can still be changing in its life on earth yet unchanging in its identity.

If the personal Word, made flesh, was subject to changes in this passing world, just as those He came to save are - why should the written Word be changeless when He was not ? The Bible is not above its Master, any more than we are.

This has nothing to do with the thread - not directly: I don’t want to be person who is the cause of its being closed ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I Leatherman:

Pardon for butting in. Re: Thread title.
Wondering did Christ ever mention Noah, if so, does Noah then become an historical figure - who had once been associated definitely with very exceptional environmental events.

He does mention him:​

• Luk 17:20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;
• Luk 17:21 nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
• Luk 17:22 And he said to the disciples, "The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will not see it.
• Luk 17:23 And they will say to you, ‘Lo, there!’ or ‘Lo, here!’ Do not go, do not follow them.
• Luk 17:24 For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day.
• Luk 17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
• Luk 17:26 As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of man.
• Luk 17:27 They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
• Luk 17:28 Likewise as it was in the days of Lot–they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built,
• Luk 17:29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom fire and sulphur rained from heaven and destroyed them all–
• Luk 17:30 so will it be on the day when the Son of man is revealed.
• Luk 17:31 On that day, let him who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away; and likewise let him who is in the field not turn back.
• Luk 17:32 Remember Lot’s wife.
• Luk 17:33 Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.
• Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left.
• Luk 17:35 There will be two women grinding together; one will be taken and the other left."

Luk 17:36 Other ancient authorities insert verse 36, “Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.”]

• Luk 17:37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.” → 18.1

…but this tells us nothing about the reality or extent of the Flood

You’re very tactful

Here are all references to Noah after Gen. 10.32 (there is a second Noah, but she is a lady ) -

• 1Ch 1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
• Isa 54:9 For this [is as] the waters of Noah unto me: for [as] I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
• Eze 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver [but] their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.
• Eze 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, [were] in it, [as] I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall [but] deliver their own souls by their righteousness.
• Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
• Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
• Luk 3:36 Which was [the son] of Cainan, which was [the son] of Arphaxad, which was [the son] of Sem, which was [the son] of Noe, which was [the son] of Lamech,
• Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
• Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
• Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, 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.
• 1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
• 2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

 

[I_Leatherman]

Grazie, ciao.

 

[patg]

TPJCatholic:

Yet God’s Word is unchangeable and does not “move” or “live.”

Maybe in some unattainable absolute sense that is true. But the only thing we have to work with is our developing understanding of it and our application of it in our time and in our lives does change as radically as our lives have changed from those of thousands of years ago.

And our interpretation of God’s word obviously does change - we eat shellfish, we wear clothes of blended fabrics, we eat rare steaks, etc, etc - all those things were once abominations to God.

When God said “Thou Shall Not Steal,” He was not talking about chewing gum. What? And when god said thou shalt not eat fish without scales or wear clothing of blended fabrics, just what was god talking about then???

 

[patg]

buffalo:

patg and gottle,

Please, I implore you to study this JPII document.…

That’s nice but what’s your point? I see no reason not to go directly to Dei Verbum and include analysis of literary forms and historical criticism as part of scriptural interpretation. At least that allows us to call a myth a myth when we see one. And that, my friends, is what the story of Noah is.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

The Church’s understanding of the Bible grows organically, it gets fuller.

Yes…

First of all Tradition reconciles with the Bible. One cannot research the Bible in a vacuum and then draw conclusions then claim it changes.

I think that proves my point - present day knowledge must be used to develop current interpretations.

If you are suggesting future doctinal reversals are coming because of recent Biblical Scholarship - not!!!

I agree that they won’t - but I strongly think they should. Otherwise the church will continue to be less and less significant.

If it were truly living in the sense I believe you are speaking of, then why no more Revelation?

As I’ve said elswhere, life changes, the world changes, and knowledge changes. As we learn more, we are able to interpret better. It doesn’t matter that the absolute message is unchanging - we don’t know what that message is (except in the broadest sense) and we will always be on a journey of growth and discovery. And we will leave the bible behind if it a dead document.

 

[David_Zampino]

## Apart from saying that God is also Lord of Narnians & Eldils

Gottle of Geer:

I was wondering whether there is a way of persuading people that that question is indeed legitimate. I have no objection to reading Father Most, but I very much doubt that those who read him will ever read Wellhausen or Schweizer - let alone anyone more modern. If only the old is valid, we should all be Hindus.

Good point! Jesus did say that the Kingdom of Heaven was like a householder who brings forth from his store treasures both old **and **new.
Gottle of Geer:

Attempting to ignore all Biblical scholarship since 1800 or so - however satanically possessed and devil-inspired one may think the critics to be - risks making Catholic thinking about the Bible as irrelevant to the world at large as sticking to Scholastic categories & concepts as an all-sufficient theological method did during the 17th century.

I agree. Yes, there have been biblical critics over the last 2 centuries who have done a great deal to “tear down” the tradition. But this is not universal – not by a long shot – and I am very concerned with those – both Catholic and Protestant – who seem to want the throw the baby out with the bath water.
Gottle of Geer:

And a Church which is irrelevant, is a Church which is not carrying out her commission. ##

True.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

buffalo:

The Bible is not a living document changing to suit the times. :tsktsk: It is the gold standard by which we measure ourselves.

True – but this is not what Gottle of Geer was saying. Seems to me that Cardinal Newman wrote something on this . . . “On the Development of Christian Doctrine”.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

##

Critical study of the Bible is not a replacement for doctrine - but neither is doctrine a replacement for critical study of the Bible. The magisterium of the theologians (critical scholars included) can’t replace the magisterium of the bishops; but the bishops can’t replace the scholars either. It would be very good & convenient if the bishops and theologians were still the same people: but they have not usually been that for a long time. That’s why the bishops need their periti at Ecumenical Councils. ##

Indeed! The two groups need to work together. I believe that the late Holy Father recognized this when he appointed several theologians to the Sacred College.

But for this view to work, both theologians and bishops must recognize their need for one another. The bishop who states “Theologians? Theologians? We don’t need no stinkin’ theologians!” is just as guilty as the Dan Maguires and Hans Kungs of the world who seem to take delight in thumbing their noses at the rest of the Church.

Blessings,

 

[PhilVaz]

For those of you who take the Genesis 6-9 text as meaning a literal worldwide flood that killed everything…

How did Polar Bears get to Noah and the Ark and back?
How did Kangaroos get to Noah and the Ark and back?
How did Pandas get to Noah and the Ark and back?
How did Penguins get to Noah and the Ark and back?
How did Sloths get to Noah and the Ark and back?

How did any of these animals survive on the Ark since many require special diets, special temperature, special climate to survive? Did Noah have a refrigeration system on the Ark for the Penguins and Polar Bears?

There are approx 1.5 to 2 million separate species of animals and insects in existence known and classified today (another 10 million or more that haven’t been discovered). How many of those were on the Ark, and if all of them, was the Ark 200 miles wide, and 500 miles long? If only some of them, how did we get to 1.5 to 2 million (or 10 million or more) species of animals in just a couple thousand years?

And for those of you who are young earth, why didn’t the two T-Rex dinosaurs that were on the Ark eat all the other animals on the Ark, including Noah and his family? Not to mention problems with the other “ferocious” animals? And I’d like to know how Noah and his family coaxed the T-Rex into the Ark, not to mention the other 1.5 to 2 million species of animals (some of those quite large and ferocious).

Were all the now extinct species of animals also collected and saved on the Ark? Since it is estimated that 99+% of all species ever alive on earth have gone extinct, you can do the math and calculate how many animals had to be on the Ark. Not just 10 million species, but approx one billion species of animals on the Ark. Requires a fairly large Ark, and a fairly fast Noah and his family to collect 2 of each of those. You are talking Superman here. Was Noah Superman?

Do you invoke all kinds of miracles of God to explain these kinds of things, even though such miracles of God are nowhere mentioned in the Genesis 6-9 text?

In addition to the geology problems already mentioned, these are the kinds of things why I find this biblical exegesis of a “local flood” plausible and why Christian creationist geologists over 150 years ago didn’t accept a worldwide flood.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

EDIT: Only scientific problem I have with Rich Deem’s otherwise interesting biblical interpretation is this, he says:

“At the time of the flood, all humans were in the same geographic location (the people of the world were not scattered over the earth until Genesis 11).”

But it seems humanity (homo sapiens sapiens) had spread from Africa, to Australia, and the American continents, and much of Europe BEFORE the local Mesopotamian flood occurred, assuming he dates the flood AFTER 10,000 B.C. So the flood would not have killed everyone in Africa, Australia, the American continents, and Europe. Assuming also these were true humanity (body and soul people). Another “theological” problem for me to resolve, they are starting to pile up.

Phil P

 

[steveandersen]

PhilVaz:

… Another “theological” problem for me to resolve, they are starting to pile up.

Phil P

This is why the more science I know the better the allegory explanation works for me

Sometimes it is best not to dig too deeply on reconciling certain issues when a simple “we don’t know” or an “it’s mot important to the lesson” will work just fine.

It’s supposed to be Good News. It shouldn’t be that hard.

 

[PhilVaz]

Steve << This is why the more science I know the better the allegory explanation works for me >>

Are you telling me these creatures were NOT on the Ark?

But the Bible literally says:

“You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive, including the 200 TON, 140 FOOT LONG, 50 FOOT TALL monster dinosaurs.”

“Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, including the monster Pterosaurs with 30 foot wing spans, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.”

I just read the Bible for what it says: two Bruhathkayosaurus, two Seismosaurus, two Supersaurus, two Argentinasaurus, two Paralititan, two Argyrosaurus, two Diplodocus, two Brachiosaurus, two Sauroposeidon, and on and on.

ONE BILLION SPECIES ON THE ARK, it cannot be denied Genesis 6-9 teaches that.

So Noah did what he was told. He went into a phone booth and emerged as…the Man of Steel, able to Leap Tall Dinosaurs in a Single Bound.

Phil P

 

[I_Leatherman]

Could Noah have lived in Egypt.
Countries flood in some parts or other most years, but a recorded Noah flood must have had something unusual about it, to make it stick in popular memory.
The Nile river probably didnt exist until 10 or 12 thousand yrs ago.
When lake Victoria and lake Albert overflowed to create the Nile, since there was no pre-existing river-course to follow, the water could have spread over a large area in places until channels were cut.

            ...?

Noah could have carried some animals from the African continent with him, or maybe not. The animals could have become separated from west Egypt by the new river and simply …ahem…followed and spread along naturally with or shortly after Noah, and so become associated with Noah and his arrival east in a new, more productive land . All could have migrated across the Sinai Penninsula to the middle east.
I think I remember it said that that area [Israel] once had lots of large animals mostly associated with Africa, lions and such-like.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Bruhathkayosaurus…how do you pronounce that again.

 

[PhilVaz]

ILeather << Bruhathkayosaurus…how do you pronounce that again. >>

I do not know, but I know it was huge, and Noah set aside at least 50 miles of his Ark just for its excrement. Not to be crude but here is an article by Glenn Morton.

Phil P