Is the story of Noah's Ark true?

[Gorgias]

That would be incorrect.

Umm… what part, precisely, is “incorrect”?

I didn’t assert that there weren’t “a literal two first parents”, or advocate to “change the Old Testament” or “making things symbolic” (BTW – it’s the Church herself who asserts that the narrative of Genesis 3 is figurative). I didn’t say that there’s no original sin or no need for Jesus.

So… are you sure you’re responding to my post?

 

[vsedriver]

Evolution does not recognize two first parents, Adam and Eve. Due to their disobeying one command, Original Sin occurred. For this reason, Jesus Christ was born.

So? Evolution is science not theology.

 

[vsedriver]

Soooo. Do you think God would quote something erroneous? Or do you think he meant something else…

truth is truth even if it is presented in a story. Just quoting scripture doesn’t not imply that the event actually happened. It implies that Jesus taught a truth using the text. He used the text to illustrate his teaching.

 

[Tryingtobecatholic1]

Just because there were Homonid species before humans does not mean that Adam and Eve did not exist.

How do we know that God didn’t make all the different species throughout the course of what is known as Evolution?

Evolution is a scientific theory that explains in this case, Biodiversity. Maybe God made all the different species throughout existence including Homonids for the sake of Biodiversity.

As for the first Humans (Homo Sapiens), God could have made the first Humans as Adam and Eve and made them in God’s image as the Imago Dei is defined by the Church as rational beings with immortal souls which only Humans have. God could have made the first two Humans using already existing Homonid genes to allow for DNA replication and Gene Expression which might be why we share 98% of our DNA with other Homonid species existing today. Just an aside here Humans did not directly evolve from Monkeys, Charles Darwin said that himself. According to Evolution Humans and Monkeys both came from a common ancestor.

Adam and Eve then sinned against God and then were cast out of the Garden of Eden.

Evolution doesn’t necessarily disprove God.

The only problem here is that the first Homo Sapien skeletons were found in Africa. The question then is. Where was the Garden of Eden located and where did Adam and Eve live and die at after being kicked out the Garden?

As for the story of Noah’s Ark. I don’t quite know what happened there.

 

[Tryingtobecatholic1]

I think I may have found an explanation to Noah’s Ark.

How my priest said that you could believe that it was a localised flood.

My question as to why God would flood one particular area where there would have been less believers in Judaism than what there were in the Middle East. Could be answered by some people on here saying that Judaism didn’t exist at that time which I will believe.

However the flood happening in one part of the world would make sense as that was where Judaism originated and God decided to use some form of chastisement to ensure that people remained faithful and so Judaism could be born. The Christianity came from that after Christ’s death on the Cross and then Resurrection. The religion grew globally after that.

As for the other question of mine as to why Noah would build an ark when it was a localised flood and they could have simply fled the area. I guess Noah and the other people who were on the ark didn’t have knowledge that it would have been a localised flood and believed God’s command to build an ark in order to save the believers and animals of that localised area.

I think those make sense. I’m pretty new to Catholicism so I apologise if there was anything there that didn’t match the Bible.

 

[Hume]

Like most tales that predate the enlightenment, there’s certainly embellishment.

It likely started with a guy who lived 5000 years ago in the Euphrates river valley, a disaster-level flood occurred and he stayed alive with his wife and kids on his floating roof for a week or two with some of his flock lucky enough to be tied up against the sides.

Story grew from there.

Past that, the story requires multiple miracles to happen. For example, wooden ships simply can’t get that large. After a certain scale, the normal flexing of a boat in water would flex the midship so much that water would rush in between the hull cladding.

Focus more on what the story is trying to teach rather than what actually happened.

 

[gama232]

It is very important for Catholics to know that the Church connects the two.

 

[gama232]

Miracles happen. God can do the impossible. Popes become saints through miracles attributed to their intercession. Note to new Catholics: Only God can grant the miracle and cause it to happen. I would question anyone who assumes otherwise. I am sure if modern scientists were standing next to Jesus when He raised the dead that they would be clueless, and perhaps realize He was God.

 

[Metis1]

Focus more on what the story is trying to teach rather than what actually happened.

And that really hits the nail on the head as this is what the real importance of the narrative, especially since it appears likely to be a counter to Babylonian polytheism.

 

[gama232]

The Bible was not written by a bunch of guys out to counter Babylonian anything. The Bible has God as its author as explained in the Catechism.

 

[KyPerson]

I don’t really obsess over details. I believe there was a flood, there was a man and his family (Noah) and he took animals on a large ship.

 

[Metis1]

The Babylonian creation account was written earlier and was much more widespread throughout the Mediterranean region than was the Genesis accounts, thus they offered a serious challenge to our monotheistic faith. I have studied those accounts in detail at a local synagogue, and we took around six sessions in order to finally complete it.

IOW, it’s far more likely to be allegorical than any reflection of literal history and science, thus it’s true to what it does. Same is true with the Flood narrative.

 

[gama232]

I am very familiar with this account. The Bible has God as its author even though men wrote it. It is important to highlight the supernatural nature and ability of God. It is also important to recognize God and the actual things He does in the present day. Miracle healings and so on.

There was no challenge to the concept of faith. God corrected things in the Bible. Yes, the writers used what knowledge they had but God was the actual author. The clear campaign here to separate science and theology needs to end. The Church connects the two. She can comment on science and on theology. The Church is not limited like science is.

It is fine to ask questions but who was Jesus? Just a guy with good stories to tell?

 

[Gorgias]

the flood happening in one part of the world would make sense as that was where Judaism originated and God decided to use some form of chastisement to ensure that people remained faithful

That contradicts the narrative, though. The text asserts that God caused the flood because of sin. (And, immediately following the flood, we see that sin still exists!)

So, unless we’re saying that God was merely attempting to “pump the brakes”, I’m not seeing how this works…

I guess Noah and the other people who were on the ark didn’t have knowledge that it would have been a localised flood

“Localized” just means “super-regional” – i.e., as far as the eye could see, and not able to be ‘outrun’.

Story grew from there.

It doesn’t really matter what existing legends were floating around, though: what matters is the inspiration given the inspired author, such that he structured the narrative as he did.

Focus more on what the story is trying to teach rather than what actually happened.

“Drink less wine.” and “Stay away from your mom.” …?

The Bible was not written by a bunch of guys out to counter Babylonian anything.

Right. That’s why the first creation narrative looks very much like a counter to Babylonian creation myths…?

After all, it could be both, right? God inspires a person to write the story which has the lessons God wishes to teach. The person chooses the form of the narrative he will tell. And, if that includes a dynamic that shows that Babylon’s story is false, then so be it!

The Bible has God as its author even though men wrote it.

Both God and man are authors of Scripture.

 

[Kei]

We must not accuse the Sacred authors of unscrupulous exaggerating some past event beyond due measure (say, for linguistic reasons), for the beautifully inspired Scriptures often contain a correction to the falsities and falsehoods of the pagan accounts.
Interesting enough, the ship would be able to float, but the issues with the possible fragility of the huge vessel are one of those issues that I think is silly to deny on account of miraculous intervention, for the entirety of the story is concerned with miraculous intervention.
Why, then, you may wonder, even go through the whole issue of having him build a boat, etc?
And I think the answer is in one of the key lessons of the story: we are to work with God. Noah had to do the work given him for decades and decades and work very hard on the boat tending to the cargo. But he trusted in God, in apparent contrast to those around who did not hear his warnings about the Flood that was coming.

 

[Hume]

I don’t think sacred authors did anything out of the ordinary.

When the Euphrates flooded and destroyed that guys house in pre-recorded history, he was amazed he was alive.

Surely it was for a reason? Maybe he was more righteous than his dead neighbors?

Either way, the story almost certainly lived verbally before writing came along to kind of “nail it down”. By then it has synergized with the rest of the mythos of the people writing it.

Even still, it was probably tinkered here and there until the babylonian captivity when Jewish scholarship really began to bloom.

By then the story was as old to them as Jesus is to us.

 

[Kei]

I don’t think sacred authors did anything out of the ordinary.

As a skeptic, I recognize that that’s what you’d think. As a Catholic we would very much disagree! There was a lot of “setting the record straight” as they were inspired by God.

When the Euphrates flooded and destroyed that guys house in pre-recorded history, he was amazed he was alive.

Of course this is simply a guess of sorts of some way some story that simply cannot be the Biblical one became exaggerated by everyone, even the Sacred Authors.

Either way, the story almost certainly lived verbally before writing came along to kind of “nail it down”. By then it has synergized with the rest of the mythos of the people writing it.

Of course, the story of the ark and flood can be seen around the world, and so there is a very high likelihood it was around prior to writing. But, the Sacred Authors were not just recording mythology to synergize with the surrounding mythologies, but wrote stories, inspired by God, that stood in contrast to them. As I pointed out in another comment, the flood wasn’t for some asinine reason like that humans were too noisy, but that they were too wicked.

 

[Hume]

Fair and charitable reply. Thanks for the view.

 

[gama232]

Those books that were chosen to make up the Bible were extraordinary. The Holy Spirit was at work.

 

[esieffe]

truth is truth even if it is presented in a story. Just quoting scripture doesn’t not imply that the event actually happened. It implies that Jesus taught a truth using the text. He used the text to illustrate his teaching.

And so you know if it is a truth, or if it is a parable, right?