T
Tim_D
Guest
Jesus references the story of Noah and the flood. I don’t believe he prefaced his statement that Noah and the flood are to held as literal historical fact.
- Status
T
truetofaith
Guest
I just read the account of Noah & the flood Gen. 6 : 13 -22. God told Noah, He will destroy ALL life under the heavens except for Noah, his family & 2 of all the creatures, on the ark.
Why put this in the bible if it’s not accurate? God’s Word is supposed to be true.
D
Darryl_Revok
Guest
The logistics of the ark are where I think the case for literalism breaks down.
Keeping a large number of animals on a ship for an extended period of time would demand a massive amount of food and fresh water, as well as waste disposal capabilities–none of which are readily apparent in the descriptions of the ark.
And you can’t just have one kind of food. You have to have meat for the carnivores, and how are you going to preserve fresh meat for an extended period of time using bronze age capabilities?
Keeping a large number of animals on a ship for an extended period of time would demand a massive amount of food and fresh water, as well as waste disposal capabilities–none of which are readily apparent in the descriptions of the ark.
And you can’t just have one kind of food. You have to have meat for the carnivores, and how are you going to preserve fresh meat for an extended period of time using bronze age capabilities?
J
JM3
Guest
It is accurate, as Peter and the Church teaches.
CCC 1219 The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water”:14
(14 - 1 Peter 3:20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.)
CCC 1093 In the sacramental economy, the Holy Spirit fulfills what was prefigured in the Old Covenant. Since Christ’s Church was “prepared in marvellous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and in the Old Covenant,”14 the Church’s liturgy has retained certain elements of the worship of the Old Covenant as integral and irreplaceable, adopting them as her own: (762, 121, 2585, 1081)
–notably, reading the Old Testament;
–praying the Psalms;
–above all, recalling the saving events and significant realities which have found their fulfillment in the mystery of Christ (promise and covenant, Exodus and Passover, kingdom and temple, exile and return).
1094 It is on this harmony of the two Testaments that the Paschal catechesis of the Lord is built,15 and then, that of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. This catechesis unveils what lay hidden under the letter of the Old Testament: the mystery of Christ. It is called “typological” because it reveals the newness of Christ on the basis of the “figures” (types) which announce him in the deeds, words, and symbols of the first covenant. By this re-reading in the Spirit of Truth, starting from Christ, the figures are unveiled.16 Thus the flood and Noah’s ark prefigured salvation by Baptism,17 as did the cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea. Water from the rock was the figure of the spiritual gifts of Christ, and manna in the desert prefigured the Eucharist, “the true bread from heaven.”18 (128-130)
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
From a purely physical point of view you may be correct, but let’s look at it.
Quite right, it would. But then, the Ark was massive, and many of the animals that were on it were not. There could have been multiple levels of storage in the lower portions of the ark to hold grain, meats, etc. After all, while we do get physical dimensions, we’re never explicitly told how those dimensions are divided vertically. With a ship of that size it’s not difficult or presumptuous to concluded that there were two or three levels in portions of it (fewer in portions where larger animals are kept to allow for headroom.)
It was raining. Constantly.
Fresh water gathering would not be difficult. Even if they were to collect from the sea the water could be purified by boiling and given to the animals. Also, if the flood was truly world wide (a view I don’t personally hold, but for the sake of argument), the salt content of any single portion of it would be drastically diminished, conceivably to the point of being palatable. Either way, while it certainly would have been a pain to manage, it is not impossible to conceive of purifying water for the animals each day, or collecting water from the rains to give them.
Backbreaking, disgusting, boring work; but not impossible. Toss the **** overboard, clean / replace the hay for urine, and use buckets of rainwater to clean the animals themselves.
Uncomfortable, certainly, but not impossible.
Not apparent from descriptions, but all easily conceivable.
Hay and grain can easily keep for forty days, so that’s not a problem. As for the meat, that can be kept the way it has been kept since food storage first became a thing; with salt. Salted meat can keep for forty days with little problem; people used to keep it for much longer in earthen shacks or holes in the ground. Couple salt with the potential for it being kept in the bow of the ship, which would be significantly cooler than upper areas due to it being below water level and therefore naturally cooled by the water around it, and keeping meat for forty days becomes a very simple task indeed.
Now, they couldn’t have eaten a three course meal every day, and I imagine that both the animals and Noah would have been hungry constantly, but that can be managed for a time. Although, Noah and his family would probably have eaten their fill to keep their strength up. fortunately, humans need significantly less than the animals to keep going.
The biggest problem from a purely physical standpoint is really the collection of the animals, which is difficult, but not impossible; and their housing, which would have been cramped and probably dangerous, but again, not impossible.
T
Tim_D
Guest
The idea of building a wooden ark the size of a modern oil tanker without any steel to reinforce the hull is where it breaks down for me. There is no way that something so large could be built by a man and his three sons without some type of metal to be able to hold and secure pieces of wood together. Add to that that the wood would not have been seasoned and that thing would have come apart like a box of rubber bands as soon as it started to get wet! Finally, the enormous weight of such an object would not even be able to float without it all collapsing upon itself because of the weakness of a wooden hull.
It is a nice story, though.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
People have been building wooden ships for ages, and there’s no reason to concluded that such construction had not been undertaken during the time of Noah. As for who built it, there is nothing in the biblical account that says that Noah and his sons built the ark alone; they could very well have hired laborers to aid them in the task (after all, if God expects Noah to provide materials and food for all of this, we can reasonably conclude that Noah was not a pauper.)
As for the feasibility of such a ship; why could the principles used in smaller ships not apply to larger ships? It would have taken more materials, larger pieces of wood, more pitch to seal, etc; but in principle there’s nothing preventing it from working. The wood used was called Gopherwood in the Bible, and scholars generally agree that this is a reference to Cyprus wood, which was commonly used for ship building in areas where it was available. (Still is, I believe).
It would not have been easy, certainly, but again, this does not make it impossible. We know how much time passes between God’s command to build the ark and the actual flood. If we take Noah’s age to be literal, he was six-hundred years old at the time of the flood. If God gave him the command at around age 514 (time enough for Noah to have born his three sons and had them grow into men), that would leave him with 86 years to build the ark. A very long time for something, especially with help.
As for the weight causing it to collapse, why? If it’s properly supported from the interior, this would not be an issue. Again, the principles used in the construction of smaller ships can be applied to larger ships. More materials, more time, more work, but still doable. There’s also nothing in the Bible indicating that no metals were used for ties and supports.
I don’t personally think the story of the Ark is 100% literal, but the construction of the ark is completely possible, just not easy.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
While it’s true that the bible says that it rained for 40 days and nights, Noah and the anipals were apparently on board a lot longer than that. According to this source and others, they were on the ark for a total of 1 year and 10 days.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
The length of time doesn’t really have any affect on the argument being made. I’m not sure of the exact length, but I recall reading that salted meats, especially salted meats kept in cool conditions, can last upwards of two years with minor decomposition.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Hmm. Well, I did say possible. 
T
truetofaith
Guest
As the song says, “Our God is an Awesome God”…no problem…the bible is filled with God’s miracles!
“I believe, help Thou my unbelief.”
T
truetofaith
Guest
Genesis 7: 24 says the water flooded the earth for 150 days.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
The issue was: How long was Noah and the anipals on the Ark? Read further in Genesis (as per the linked source) and you’ll see how the author arrived at his number of 370 days (12 lunar months + 10 days).
T
Tim_D
Guest
Well that was a quick reversal of course, to go from such detailed theories to just concluding that it’s “possible.”Hmm. Well, I did say possible.
Conversely, there’s nothing in the Bible that doesn’t say that little green men from Mars didn’t help build the ark, either. See how that works? On another thread somewhere, a poster stated the impact that protestant fundamentalism has had on Catholicism in America; I think that this is an excellent example of it. If one has to bend logic and reason like a pretzel in order to make things satisfy a certain point of view, then the initial position is probably already in trouble.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
I was a quick theory, nothing too detailed. I was aware that there were issues with it to being with; I just didn’t like that the possibility was discounted altogether. With God’s guidance, I still believe its perfectly possible that Noah knew how to build a wooden ship of the size recorded in the bible.Well that was a quick reversal of course, to go from such detailed theories to just concluding that it’s “possible.”
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
I think it does. The question isn’t simply: How long can meat be preserved? The question is: How long can carnivores survive on a diet exclusively comprised of salted (and desiccated) meat? Forty days may not be a problem, but 370 days might be.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
The main purpose of eating meat is for the protein, which isn’t affected by the drying process. The lack of fluids in the meat can be counteracted by increased water intake, which wouldn’t have been super difficult. It’s not a perfect diet, certainly, but still enough to keep them alive.
It’s also possible that some extra animals were brought on board to be used as a food source. The bible isn’t that specific on the subject of what to feed them or how. Aside from the requirement of keeping a pair alive, there’s nothing forbidding Noah from bringing some animals as fresh sources of meat. It would have required additional grain but not much more than that.
Oh, I agree completely. I’m not trying to convince anyone, I’m just enjoying the discussion of how it may have been handled. My position on the historicity of the story is the same as yours.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
They’re magically delicious!
K
kalbertone
Guest
Here you go Deacon Jeff,to answer your question about fallibilty on papal Canonizations,no ad hominen responses here:
1—the church has never defined an act of canonization as a charism of infallibilty.The code of canon law 1983 states"no doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless clearly established as such: 749.3
2–the act of canonization does not fullfill the essential conditions laid out by vatican 1,that it must be clearly of faith or morals.
3—before a pope declares infallibilty for the whole church,he is morally required to consult the worldwide college of bishops & to seek if a teaching is divinely revealed(As Vatican 1 states,canonizations are not divinely revealed) & if the laity have recieved such a teaching.Hence Pius the IX consulted the world episcopate to see how the laity were recieving the doctrine of the immaculate conception before issuing the dogma & Pius the XII clearly stated in the Assumption dogma “this unniversal agreement between the prelates & the faithful…assures this to be a dogma of faith”.None of this is done in canonizations
4—vatican ii teaches that the infallibilty which christ willed his church(that is the whole people of God) to have in defining doctrine pertaining to faith & morals extends as far as the deposit of revellation …Dogmatic Constitution on the Church vs 25. A canonization of Faustina is a part of revellation----please
!!!
5—in the first 1,000 years popes had nothing to do with canonization,just like they had no primacy over the church.
1—the church has never defined an act of canonization as a charism of infallibilty.The code of canon law 1983 states"no doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless clearly established as such: 749.3
2–the act of canonization does not fullfill the essential conditions laid out by vatican 1,that it must be clearly of faith or morals.
3—before a pope declares infallibilty for the whole church,he is morally required to consult the worldwide college of bishops & to seek if a teaching is divinely revealed(As Vatican 1 states,canonizations are not divinely revealed) & if the laity have recieved such a teaching.Hence Pius the IX consulted the world episcopate to see how the laity were recieving the doctrine of the immaculate conception before issuing the dogma & Pius the XII clearly stated in the Assumption dogma “this unniversal agreement between the prelates & the faithful…assures this to be a dogma of faith”.None of this is done in canonizations
4—vatican ii teaches that the infallibilty which christ willed his church(that is the whole people of God) to have in defining doctrine pertaining to faith & morals extends as far as the deposit of revellation …Dogmatic Constitution on the Church vs 25. A canonization of Faustina is a part of revellation----please
!!!
5—in the first 1,000 years popes had nothing to do with canonization,just like they had no primacy over the church.
K
kalbertone
Guest
Respond on this Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution On the church vs 25 "the infallibilty however that the divine redeemer wished to endow his own church in defining faith & morals,EXTENDS AS FAR AS THE DEPOSIT OF REVELLATION,…
So Faustina & those other saints are part of revellation ? the deposit of Faith ?
Please!!!
[/quote]
So Faustina & those other saints are part of revellation ? the deposit of Faith ?
Please!!!
[/quote]
- Status