Global flood?

[buffalo]

patg:

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.

Dei Verbum seems to be your anchor. It should be read in context of all other teaching and tradition.

And the JPII article references Dei Verbum quite nicely.

Particular attention should be paid to JPII’s points on philosophy and its bearing on interpreting scripture. Something he thinks has been lost and a mistake.

 

[freesoulhope]

its one thing to say the world is billions of years old. But Once people start saying that flood never happened, the bible begins to fall apart in to the possibility thats its all just a big story. I refuse to believe this. I dont beleive that the bible is a story that puts across spiritual truths. Once adam and eve are thrown out of the garden, the real history of man begins, there is a blood line described in detail( the people who wrote the bible obviouly saw this as important!) all the way up to abraham to signify that we all came from adam and eve, and how humans spread over the earth. We must remmember that from noar and his sons and duaghters, the blood line began to populate the earth again, we are the result of them surviving the flood. I believe the flood was real, and that noar was a real person. I believe that from the time that adam and eve are thrown out of eden wherther that be a place or state of mind, we are seeing real history, regardless of what science and evolution is saying.

 

[PhilVaz]

David Z << No, I’m not David Goforth – though I vaguely remember him . . . I posted way back then as “Abelard”. Became a Catholic a little over a year ago. >>

Welcome! Ah then you remember John Prewett. Blast from the past…I saved a lot of text files!

=============================
BBS: t.a.BBS: t.a.b.b. Tampa, Florida
Date: 01-06-95 (11:30)
From: JOHN PREWETT
To: PETER ABELARD
Subj: Founding Father = Christian?
Conf: OPEN BIBLE​

PA> Hi Leanne
PA> Many of the Founding Fathers were Christians, but quite a few were
PA> Deists or Unitarians instead. However, I enjoyed your defence. We
PA> are rapidly loosing our freedoms.
PA> Incidentally, your conception of the “Dark Ages” was in error. In
PA> numerous cases, the clergy didn’t try to keep the people from the
PA> Bible, the clergy were the only literate people who could actually
PA> READ the Bible. Even some of the clergy couldn’t read. Bibles were
PA> chained to church walls because each one was hand copied. The
PA> Printing PRess had not yet been invented.
PA> During the Dark Ages, the only copies of the Bible were laboriously
PA> copied by monks who spent their lives doing nothing else, so that the
PA> Bible could be preserved for future generations.
PA> Blessings non Nobis, Dominie Peter …

   Next shall you deny that the papacy did in fact doctrinally
   and violently  OPPOSE the distribution of the Bible ?

   Many 'christians',  Roman Catholic AND Protestant,
   don't believe the Bible.

   They believe parts of the Bible,
   and mostly interpretations about the Bible
   that they received whole from some clergy.

   WBW, John

— MacWoof Eval:17Nov94

• Origin: Slinging Seeds, FBKS, AK (1:355/2.1012@fidonet)

===============================
BBS: t.a.b.b. Tampa, Florida
Date: 01-16-95 (15:00)
From: PETER ABELARD
To: PHIL PORVAZNIK
Subj: Trinity in Bible
Conf: OPEN BIBLE​

Hi Phil,

    I enjoyed your post on defending the Trinity.  However, if you would

take a piece of advice from a friend who agrees with you at least 95% of the
time, you would not waste your keyboarding on replying to Mr. Prewitt. Without
any disrespect to him intended, his mind is closed.

    If you access FidoNet's "Biblical Discussions" (at least that is how it

is referred to on the BBS I use), you would be of GREAT value to me, helping to
demonstrate the truth of our God to a few arrogant and obnoxious
Monarchianists/Arianists.

Blessings

Non Nobis, Dominie

Peter

… Oops… Tried to steal my own tagline!

— FMail/386 0.98

• Origin: >>> The Cross Connection - (918) 747-4924 <<< (1:170/558) Tampa, Florida

 

[David_Zampino]

PhilVaz:

David Z << No, I’m not David Goforth – though I vaguely remember him . . . I posted way back then as “Abelard”. Became a Catholic a little over a year ago. >>

Welcome! Ah then you remember John Prewett. Blast from the past…I saved a lot of text files!

Wow, Phil . . . time for a chorus of “It’s a small world after all!”

Feel free to PM me if you wish; we’ll catch up!

Blessings,

 

[AugustineFL]

Orogeny:

Because unlike the resurrection, a global flood would leave very easily identified evidence. There is none. So, we can choose to believe in a literal flood and ignore the absolute abscence of evidence or we can accept that the flood story was allegorical and that the spiritual meaning is the same whether or not the flood occurred.

Peace

Tim

Absence of evidence? Well lets see, the Bible is God’s Holy word…sounds like good evidence to me!

Unless science undeniably proves that the literal reading of Noe and the flood is wrong then I’ll side with the literal reading. After all if God himself can come down and take on human flesh, die, and raise himself up from the dead then I’m sure Noe and the ark could also happen.

This modern idea of not wanting to believe things in the bible that seem too fantastic seems dangurous to me. I understand that the Holy writ wasn’t always written to be read literally, but until I can see for a fact that it wasn’t meant to be read that way I’d rather side with that literal reading of Noe.

Also as for allegorical or literal reading having the same spiritual reading. I kinda disagree. Anyone can tell a story to make a point. Only God could make what happened to Noe and the Ark really happen. I have no problem accepting that God *almighty *could do just that if he wanted.

 

[javelin]

AugustineFL:

Absence of evidence? Well lets see, the Bible is God’s Holy word…sounds like good evidence to me!

Unless science undeniably proves that the literal reading of Noe and the flood is wrong then I’ll side with the literal reading…

Well, I’m sure he meant the complete lack of scientific evidence when plenty of scientific evidence is available for the time period in which the global flood was supposed to happen. While it is true that the absence of evidence proves nothing, the almost complete lack of evidence places it on shaky ground froma historical standpoint.

I would also caution you against taking the position of “unless science undeniably proves it wrong, then I’ll side with the literal reading”. There is rarely completely undeniable scientific proof of anything that may have happened thousands of years ago. You also place yourself in the position of taking everything in the Bible literally at first, which is not the guidance that the Church provides. The sacred texts were simply not all meant to be taken literally.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Joe_Gloor]

I just got here and find this thread very amusing.
Now, do we think that God destroyed all the fish in the great flood?

Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Gen 6:17
Since they are flesh and under heaven, then yes, or were they exempted since they are neither ‘on the earth’ or have ‘breath of life’ being that they breath under water?

 

[AugustineFL]

javelin:

Well, I’m sure he meant the complete lack of scientific evidence when plenty of scientific evidence is available for the time period in which the global flood was supposed to happen. While it is true that the absence of evidence proves nothing, the almost complete lack of evidence places it on shaky ground froma historical standpoint.

Understood. I also agree that we don’t have to hold to the literal perspective. Just that in this case I see nothing to loose with seeing it as literally happening and I don’t see why it isn’t possible. After all God did many other things that seem imposable, why not this?

I don’t think someone is a heretic for thinking that it isn’t literal.

javelin:

I would also caution you against taking the position of “unless science undeniably proves it wrong, then I’ll side with the literal reading”. There is rarely completely undeniable scientific proof of anything that may have happened thousands of years ago. You also place yourself in the position of taking everything in the Bible literally at first, which is not the guidance that the Church provides. The sacred texts were simply not all meant to be taken literally.

Peace,
javelin

I feel safe with my position. Perhaps I should reword it from ‘undeniably proves it wrong’ to ‘prove beyond a reasonable doubt’.

I do not think everything must be literally read; I understand that the scriptures are not all intended to be read that way. I understand there are different types of writing styles in the bible. However, I’m not quick to write off things as ‘symbolic’ that might be literal. I generally at least consider the literal meaning first. I just see too many people lately that want to consider the literal meaning last. I actually heard a priest in an homily say that the feeding of 5000 wasn’t a miracle at all! It was just the ‘miracle of sharing’ fish and bread that people had all along but refused to share before. I’m not saying anyone on this thread is going so far as to deny Christ’s miracles. I just try to be careful not to discount the miraculous simply because it doesn’t seem possible to us.

And Jesus looking on them, saith with men it is impossible; but not with God. For all things are possible with God. --Mark X, 27

 

[Orogeny]

AugustineFL:

Absence of evidence? Well lets see, the Bible is God’s Holy word…sounds like good evidence to me!

Javelin summed it up pretty well. There is a complete lack of scientific evidence for a world-wide flood. The bible is not scientific evidence for anything.

Unless science undeniably proves that the literal reading of Noe and the flood is wrong then I’ll side with the literal reading. After all if God himself can come down and take on human flesh, die, and raise himself up from the dead then I’m sure Noe and the ark could also happen.

I don’t suggest that you must discard your belief in a literal reading of scriptures. My response was to another poster who has claimed that there is evidence of a global flood.

This modern idea of not wanting to believe things in the bible that seem too fantastic seems dangurous to me. I understand that the Holy writ wasn’t always written to be read literally, but until I can see for a fact that it wasn’t meant to be read that way I’d rather side with that literal reading of Noe.

You admit that the scriptures aren’t always written to be read literally. How do you decide which to take literally and which to take figuratively? In the case of Noah, a global flood would have left very obvious evidence. There is not evidence of a global flood. Therefore, this seems to me to be a perfect candidate for one of those times that scripture is not to be taken literally.

Also as for allegorical or literal reading having the same spiritual reading. I kinda disagree. Anyone can tell a story to make a point. Only God could make what happened to Noe and the Ark really happen. I have no problem accepting that God *almighty *could do just that if he wanted.

Nor do I.

Peace

Tim

 

[patg]

buffalo:

Dei Verbum seems to be your anchor. It should be read in context of all other teaching and tradition.

Everyone needs an anchor… It is the current teaching on biblical scholarship; some even call it the “Magna Carta” of the field. The other teaching and tradition are good references for where we’ve been but if you had a heart attack, would you want to be treated with ancient traditions and teachings or the state of the art? I had 50 years of simplistic literalism and I would never go back to it - the modern scripture scholarship encouraged by Diivino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum are what brought me back to the church.

And the JPII article references Dei Verbum quite nicely.

I reference it pretty nicely too…

Particular attention should be paid to JPII’s points on philosophy and its bearing on interpreting scripture. Something he thinks has been lost and a mistake.

That’s nice to know but I don’t think his biblical scholarship is on par with the professionals in the field - I would rather focus on the pontifical biblical commission and other related scholars.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Since I didn’t get any responses to my question regarding whether or not fish were destroyed also in the Great Flood, let me set out my position on whether the Global Flood was an historical reality or not.
Since there is much scientific evidence that there could not have been a flood of Global proportions as described in Genesis, I have to conclude that it is not an historical event.
Part of that evidence is that there is not enough water on the face of the earth to accomplish the task.
We may surely believe that God went outside the bounds of the natural world which He created to make the a Global Flood occur but we generally count on Him to stay within the reality He created.
The problem with taking Scripture over scientific fact when it is not doctrinally necessary is that it casts doubt on the whole Bible for those who do not believe in it.
As Saint Thomas Aquinas said,

First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly, when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguments show it to be false, anyone dare insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture, and the way to faith will be closed to them.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Javelin summed it up pretty well. There is a complete lack of scientific evidence for a world-wide flood. The bible is not scientific evidence for anything.I don’t suggest that you must discard your belief in a literal reading of scriptures. My response was to another poster who has claimed that there is evidence of a global flood. You admit that the scriptures aren’t always written to be read literally. How do you decide which to take literally and which to take figuratively? In the case of Noah, a global flood would have left very obvious evidence. There is not evidence of a global flood. Therefore, this seems to me to be a perfect candidate for one of those times that scripture is not to be taken literally.Nor do I.

Peace

Tim

Revelation is true. It does contain science.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

Everyone needs an anchor… It is the current teaching on biblical scholarship; some even call it the “Magna Carta” of the field. The other teaching and tradition are good references for where we’ve been but if you had a heart attack, would you want to be treated with ancient traditions and teachings or the state of the art? I had 50 years of simplistic literalism and I would never go back to it - the modern scripture scholarship encouraged by Diivino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum are what brought me back to the church.

I reference it pretty nicely too…
That’s nice to know but I don’t think his biblical scholarship is on par with the professionals in the field - I would rather focus on the pontifical biblical commission and other related scholars.

As you know teaching authority stops with the Bishops. Biblical scholars can claim anything they want. Until the Bishops make it doctirne it’s only speculative.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Revelation is true. It does contain science.

So do some books on the occult. Would you consider them scientific evidence?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

patg:

WOW. Quite a statement.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

So do some books on the occult. Would you consider them scientific evidence?

Peace

Tim

There are common scientific truths to be found in many writings since many are observations of the world around us.

Such as: When the wind blows the leaves sway in proportion to the wind speed. Scientific, emperical, repeatable and verifiable.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

WOW. Quite a statement.

Thanks!

Do you have a problem with it? Popes have to be many things and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that any pope is a biblical scholar at the level of those in the church who are recognized experts. That’s why we have the pontifical biblical commission in the first place!

 

[buffalo]

patg:

Thanks!

Do you have a problem with it? Popes have to be many things and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that any pope is a biblical scholar at the level of those in the church who are recognized experts. That’s why we have the pontifical biblical commission in the first place!

Sure, but please don’t forget infalliblity and protection by the Holy Spirit. Biblical scholars cannot trump these no matter what they claim.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

Revelation is true. It does contain science.

Yes it does, and that science is often incorrect. But if you understand that revelation is about the nature of God and God’s relationship with us, you don’t have to argue about the things which only represent the incorrect world-view of the author and you can focus on the revealed truths about God.

 

[patg]

buffalo:

Sure, but please don’t forget infalliblity and protection by the Holy Spirit. Biblical scholars cannot trump these no matter what they claim.

I don’t know that they have had to be trumped. I’m not aware of any ex cathedra/infallible statements concerning literal belief in historicity of the flood, the creation/garden myths, the gospel infancy narratives, etc.