Is Noah's Arc Literal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tyler_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tyler_1

Guest
I had someone ask me how did Noah feed all those animals? Which got me thinking about the logistics involved… and also, how would he get penguins and stuff?

I know that sounds stupid, but is Noah’s arc meant to be taken literally? Why or why not?

Thanks
 
Not a stupid question at all. 🙂

I don’t think there are any church declarations on the matter, so exactly how much of the account is literal is open to discussion. It could be that Noah collected animals from his region, and not the whole world. Or it could just be a myth. Or it could be… Lots of possibilities. 🙂

You might find the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on it interesting: newadvent.org/cathen/01720a.htm
 
thank you very very much. i think that was the direction i was heading (no declaration), but the confirmation was all I needed.

thanks again!
 
tyler said:
I had someone ask me how did Noah feed all those animals? Which got me thinking about the logistics involved… and also, how would he get penguins and stuff?

I know that sounds stupid, but is Noah’s arc meant to be taken literally? Why or why not?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Yes, it is meant to be taken literally. The Bible has real people and real events. Stories that do not have any names, but provided a story are the parables. They are listed as a parable before the story begins. So why wouldn’t you want to believe or take it literal of a real life account??
 
tobinatorstark said:
Yes, it is meant to be taken literally. The Bible has real people and real events. Stories that do not have any names, but provided a story are the parables. They are listed as a parable before the story begins. So why wouldn’t you want to believe or take it literal of a real life account??
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the Catholic Church allowed different interpretations in this regard. And that’s how it is acceptable for Catholics to believe in some form of evolution or that the earth is millions of years old, as opposed to many evangelical groups which take the Bible literally and reject evolution and “old-earth” theories as un-Christian.

The second paragraph of the Catholic Encyclopedia article I linked to in my previous post seems to support this. The second paragraph reads, in part:
"The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable."

To clarify: When I said “it could be just a myth” in my first post… I did not mean to suggest the story had no substance. I just meant maybe the events just weren’t quite like they might seem from reading the Genesis narrative. I guess that didn’t sound too good. 😊

And a disclaimer: I’m not trying to support evolution, old-earth theories, or cast doubt on biblical literalism. I actually tend to take the biblical account quite literally myself. I’m only saying that those viewpoints are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
 
Sapphire_Dragon said:
I was under the impression that the Catholic Church allowed different interpretations in this regard. And that’s how it is acceptable for Catholics to believe in some form of evolution or that the earth is millions of years old, as opposed to many evangelical groups which take the Bible literally and reject evolution and “old-earth” theories as un-Christian.

The second paragraph of the Catholic Encyclopedia article I linked to in my previous post seems to support this. The second paragraph reads, in part:
"The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable."

To clarify: When I said “it could be just a myth” in my first post… I did not mean to suggest the story had no substance. I just meant maybe the events just weren’t quite like they might seem from reading the Genesis narrative. I guess that didn’t sound too good. 😊

And a disclaimer: I’m not trying to support evolution, old-earth theories, or cast doubt on biblical literalism. I actually tend to take the biblical account quite literally myself. I’m only saying that those viewpoints are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to teach Dogma or anything like that. But the events in the Bible are proven literal actual events. I for one believe in creation as it happened in Bible. I believe all stories with names and such to be true because they were delivered unto Moses. I reject evolution and the old earth theory. The parable are listed as parables and provide no name for a reason. The church doesn’t have a dogma on evolution and old earth theory. That is such a shame. The mass is totally 100% biblical and the tradition are based of biblical experience. Not every moment of history up to the last word in the Bible is recorded. But God does provide factual truth through the Bible. It does not provide claims for or against evolution or old earth. But it does provide literal truth in all stories such as Noah’s arc, Moses, Abraham, Adam and Eve. It also distinguishes the difference between fact and fiction. The fiction however does provide a biblical lesson from God. The question is how cannot the Bible be interpreted literally?? If they weren’t factual or have some lesson then why would they be in the Bible. How can one provide that Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses, Aaron, Jonah, Joseph, Mary, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Apostles and many didn’t exist and not be literal. Give some proof on why Noah couldn’t be literal and provide documentation. Not believing that these stories as literal just makes it sound like God doesn’t work and mysterious ways and doesn’t exist. That is my opinion. The Bible proves itself to be literal. I believe in God and everything that happen in the Bible other than the parable to be literal and true accounts.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I am not trying to teach Dogma or anything like that. But the events in the Bible are proven literal actual events. I for one believe in creation as it happened in Bible. I believe all stories with names and such to be true because they were delivered unto Moses. I reject evolution and the old earth theory. The parable are listed as parables and provide no name for a reason. The church doesn’t have a dogma on evolution and old earth theory. That is such a shame. The mass is totally 100% biblical and the tradition are based of biblical experience. Not every moment of history up to the last word in the Bible is recorded. But God does provide factual truth through the Bible. It does not provide claims for or against evolution or old earth. But it does provide literal truth in all stories such as Noah’s arc, Moses, Abraham, Adam and Eve. It also distinguishes the difference between fact and fiction. The fiction however does provide a biblical lesson from God. The question is how cannot the Bible be interpreted literally?? If they weren’t factual or have some lesson then why would they be in the Bible. How can one provide that Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses, Aaron, Jonah, Joseph, Mary, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Apostles and many didn’t exist and not be literal. Give some proof on why Noah couldn’t be literal and provide documentation. Not believing that these stories as literal just makes it sound like God doesn’t work and mysterious ways and doesn’t exist. That is my opinion. The Bible proves itself to be literal. I believe in God and everything that happen in the Bible other than the parable to be literal and true accounts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response, tobinatorstark. 🙂 I understand what you’re saying and I agree with you.

I wanted to note the part that I emboldened. I think in my first post I focused too much on the “non-literal possibilities”… But God gave Noah the instructions for the Arc. And he very well brought animals from far away to him, and kept their food supplies well-stocked. The flood itself was supernatural. So it’s not at all out-of-place to suppose that the logistical difficulties _tyler originally asked about were also supernaturally taken care of.

I wasn’t trying to overlook or ignore this… Was just trying to say there was no dogma on it, as far as I knew.

Interesting discussion though, and thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I am not trying to teach Dogma or anything like that. But the events in the Bible are proven literal actual events. I for one believe in creation as it happened in Bible. I believe all stories with names and such to be true because they were delivered unto Moses. I reject evolution and the old earth theory. The parable are listed as parables and provide no name for a reason. The church doesn’t have a dogma on evolution and old earth theory. That is such a shame. The mass is totally 100% biblical and the tradition are based of biblical experience. Not every moment of history up to the last word in the Bible is recorded. But God does provide factual truth through the Bible. It does not provide claims for or against evolution or old earth. But it does provide literal truth in all stories such as Noah’s arc, Moses, Abraham, Adam and Eve. It also distinguishes the difference between fact and fiction. The fiction however does provide a biblical lesson from God. The question is how cannot the Bible be interpreted literally?? If they weren’t factual or have some lesson then why would they be in the Bible. How can one provide that Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses, Aaron, Jonah, Joseph, Mary, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Apostles and many didn’t exist and not be literal. Give some proof on why Noah couldn’t be literal and provide documentation. Not believing that these stories as literal just makes it sound like God doesn’t work and mysterious ways and doesn’t exist. That is my opinion. The Bible proves itself to be literal. I believe in God and everything that happen in the Bible other than the parable to be literal and true accounts.
Click to expand...
Ugh, this is going to be like the argument that the Earth is the center of the Universe thread again.

To put it simply, the facts of the story don’t line up very well with the facts of the reality. Even giving a generous size for the ark of 500 or 600 feet in length (far larger than any modern builder has ever been able to make a purely wooden ship), the Ark would still be far too small to hold two of every land animal and bird species that still exists today (let alone the even more that would be required if like many Young Earth Creationishts, one holds that the Dinosaurs must have existed at the same time and therefore been on the Ark).

St. Augustine, 1500 years ago argued against a literal interpretation of the Bible when such an interpretation clearly contradicted what we knew to be true from natural philosophy since to do otherwise only makes a mockery of Christianity. I am not saying that Noah was not a real person who following God’s word survived a catostrophic flood on an ark; I simply believe that arguing that such a flood covered all the land on the Earth and that the Ark held the descendents of all currently living animals simply contradicts what we know about the world.

My own belief is that Noah probably lived in Mesopotamia, essentially modern day Iraq on either the Tigris or Euphrates rivers. I believe that God guided him in such a way that he survived a major flood of those rivers that covered the plain between the rivers and made it look like the whole of the Earth was covered in water.

–
Bill
 
tyler said:
I know that sounds stupid, but is Noah’s arc meant to be taken literally? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
There is no problem with the story of a man, his family and animals surviving a flood in a wooden boat. The problem comes if the flood is thought to have literally covered the entire world.

A worldwide flood brings in a whole shipload (:)) of problems that a large local flood avoids:
  • Where did the water come from?
  • Freshwater fish cannot survive in brackish water; salt water fish cannot survive in brackish water.
  • Where did the water go to?
  • A large boet with no means of propulsion is going to turn sideways to any waves (broach) and capsize in short order.
  • How did Noah get all the Australian marsupials onto the Ark?
  • How did eight people shovel the output of all those animals overboard? Go and ask your local zoo about the number of staff needed to feed, water and shovel for just a few animals.
  • How was storage and distribution of specialised and fresh food for all the different animals handled?
  • How did the marsupials all get back to Australia, and nowhere else?
  • Why did the Egyptians not notice all being drowned in the flood? Ditto the Chinese.
  • Very few plants can survive a year underwater. What did the herbivores eat once they were off the Ark? What did the carnivores eat?
  • Why are there no genetic bottlenecks in the vast majority of current mammal species? If they were reduced to two (unclean), seven (clean), or eight (human) individuals within the last 4,000 years or so then the signs of a massive genetic bottleneck would be obvious in their, and our, DNA. We can see such a bottleneck in Cheetahs from about 10,000 years ago. Why can we not see similar effects in other species?
  • If most of geology was laid down in the flood year, then why wasn’t Noah and all his animals and family boiled to death as the seas evaporated under a massive meteorite bombardment and massive volcanic eruptions?
Better to take it as a story of a local flood in Iraq, or wherever, as is the similar story from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

rossum
 
mchale said:
Ugh, this is going to be like the argument that the Earth is the center of the Universe thread again.

To put it simply, the facts of the story don’t line up very well with the facts of the reality. Even giving a generous size for the ark of 500 or 600 feet in length (far larger than any modern builder has ever been able to make a purely wooden ship), the Ark would still be far too small to hold two of every land animal and bird species that still exists today (let alone the even more that would be required if like many Young Earth Creationishts, one holds that the Dinosaurs must have existed at the same time and therefore been on the Ark).

St. Augustine, 1500 years ago argued against a literal interpretation of the Bible when such an interpretation clearly contradicted what we knew to be true from natural philosophy since to do otherwise only makes a mockery of Christianity. I am not saying that Noah was not a real person who following God’s word survived a catostrophic flood on an ark; I simply believe that arguing that such a flood covered all the land on the Earth and that the Ark held the descendents of all currently living animals simply contradicts what we know about the world.

My own belief is that Noah probably lived in Mesopotamia, essentially modern day Iraq on either the Tigris or Euphrates rivers. I believe that God guided him in such a way that he survived a major flood of those rivers that covered the plain between the rivers and made it look like the whole of the Earth was covered in water.

–
Bill
Click to expand...
Thank you Bill for your post. I am a teacher and would put myself in the category of a theistic evolutionist. It is a position that many sincere Christians are under attack. I especially appreciate your comment on St. Augustine. Could you email me or post where that came from?
mlz
 
Sapphire_Dragon said:
Thanks for the response, tobinatorstark. 🙂 I understand what you’re saying and I agree with you.

I wanted to note the part that I emboldened. I think in my first post I focused too much on the “non-literal possibilities”… But God gave Noah the instructions for the Arc. And he very well brought animals from far away to him, and kept their food supplies well-stocked. The flood itself was supernatural. So it’s not at all out-of-place to suppose that the logistical difficulties _tyler originally asked about were also supernaturally taken care of.

I wasn’t trying to overlook or ignore this… Was just trying to say there was no dogma on it, as far as I knew.

Interesting discussion though, and thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I am not saying that I am right or that I am wrong, these are just my personal beliefs on what I have been taught. Any way I try to make my statements without the use of science and evolution garbage. Somehow some people keep dragging science and evolution on how this cannot be possible. I would love just one conversation where science and evolution wasn’t mentioned. As in this discussion, neither science or evolution has no business.(nor I believe that it should have any business regarding the Bible, sorry science and evolution fans)
 
The first read of the Bible is always “literal,” which is the way the author intended it to be read.

Does “literal” always mean “historical”? Absolutely not. When we read the Bible “literally,” we are supposed to read it the way the author intended it to be read.

The questions we have to ask ourselves are these: Why a flood? Why two of every species? Why only Noah and his friends? Why a rainbow? Why a dove? Why a giant wooden boat which Noah had to build himself?

These are the important questions which we must ask ourselves.

To be honest, I find the questions regarding the historicity to be rather annoying. They tend to distract many from the most important questions. Certainly, a historical reading can enhance our understanding of cultures and events, and sometimes our understanding of how the author intended the Scripture to be read, but it is not imperative to its being understood.
 
Noah’s Ark = a big boat

Noah’s Ar**c **= the rainbow! 🙂

VC
 
awesome… thanks for the replies.

the Church has no official position, so my question has been answered… it is something currently open for debate.

thanks so much… i didn’t mean to stir anything up. :cool:
 
tyler said:
awesome… thanks for the replies.

the Church has no official position, so my question has been answered… it is something currently open for debate.

thanks so much… i didn’t mean to stir anything up. :cool:
Click to expand...
oddly enough it doesn’t have an official position, but I feel the Church should
 
Sorry, but it’s not all that accurate I’m afraid. Shangdi, as worshiped in ancient China (though it wasn’t called China at the time) was clearly, as far as we can tell, part of a polytheistic belief, though he was the ‘Supreme god’ as it is translated. In the 19th Century, though, missionaries translated the Bible with ‘Shangdi’ for the Christian God, simply because it worked, not that they believed this ancient deity was God.
And most Buddhists don’t worship Buddha 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top