Noah and the Flood is a Legend?

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

but there is no way a boat as literally described in the Genesis could literally have held two of every kind of creature on Earth. The dimensions of the boat are given, after all.

./

See this and decide - Could Noah’s Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?

 

[Ghosty]

That website is full of pretty obvious errors! There are 1 million species of insects alone, not 1 million species of animal total. The website also claims that amphibians would not need to be accounted for, but that does not take into account the fact that rain is fresh water, and the sea is salt water, and many, if not most, water-dwelling creatures can only survive in one or the other. The fresh water areas would be overflowing with ocean water if the ocean levels rose, and the ocean would greatly desalinated by the fresh water rain, leading to deaths on an enormous scale. This counts for purely water-dwelling animals as well. Anyone who’s tried to keep tropical fish alive in a tank knows how critical every little measurement is. The website also fails to account for the fact that many amphibians, such as many frogs and turtles, depend on land insects for food, and would starve without access to them.

The website goes further into absurdity in claiming that even extinct animals would have been brought onto the ark, such as dinosaurs. Even conservative estimates put the number of now-extinct species, many of which were very large animals, in the tens of thousands. One problem that is apparently not dealt with is what happened to the plant life? A blanket of water over the whole earth would all but destroy all non-aquatic plant life without any possibility of the survival of viable spores, yet we have evidence of plants that existed millenia ago still existing today in healthy numbers, most notably coniferous trees.

I’m sorry, but that website is so off-base as to warrant little more than a chuckle. It’s exactly the kind of thing that St. Augustine warned against when he said:

“It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.”

 

[mark_a]

Many civilizations have a “great flood” story, but I don’t know if each story has a “Noah”. Many cultures practiced circumcision, etc.

None of this negates the truth in the bible.

 

[tuopaolo]

Catholic2003:

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is a very important part of the Vatican curia, and is most certainly a part of the papal magisterium. Here is what the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus by Pope John Paul II has to say about the status of the PBC (see article 55):

No, you are incorrect. Just because it is presided over by the cardinal prefect of the CDF doesn’t make it part of the papal magisterium. As I mentioned it used to be part of the papal magisterium but is no longer:

Pope St. Pius X made the rulings of the Commission a part of the Magisterium, the supreme teaching authority of the Church. This extension of the Magisterium was later removed after the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Ratzinger writes: "The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars …"5 In other words, Pope St. Pius X made the Commission an organ and that organ taught us, publishing its decrees in the A.A.S. Its promulgated decrees were and remain to this day ordinary Magisterial teaching. But after Vatican II the PBC no longer enjoyed this authority.

rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html

The quotation from Cardinal Ratzinger in the quote above is from the preface to a PBC document called The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church which can be found here:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM

 

[SojournerOf78]

Ghosty:

That website is full of pretty obvious errors! There are 1 million species of insects alone, not 1 million species of animal total. The website also claims that amphibians would not need to be accounted for, but that does not take into account the fact that rain is fresh water, and the sea is salt water, and many, if not most, water-dwelling creatures can only survive in one or the other. The fresh water areas would be overflowing with ocean water if the ocean levels rose, and the ocean would greatly desalinated by the fresh water rain, leading to deaths on an enormous scale. This counts for purely water-dwelling animals as well. Anyone who’s tried to keep tropical fish alive in a tank knows how critical every little measurement is. The website also fails to account for the fact that many amphibians, such as many frogs and turtles, depend on land insects for food, and would starve without access to them.

The website goes further into absurdity in claiming that even extinct animals would have been brought onto the ark, such as dinosaurs. Even conservative estimates put the number of now-extinct species, many of which were very large animals, in the tens of thousands. One problem that is apparently not dealt with is what happened to the plant life? A blanket of water over the whole earth would all but destroy all non-aquatic plant life without any possibility of the survival of viable spores, yet we have evidence of plants that existed millenia ago still existing today in healthy numbers, most notably coniferous trees.

I’m sorry, but that website is so off-base as to warrant little more than a chuckle. It’s exactly the kind of thing that St. Augustine warned against when he said:

“It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.”

Fine, you say this wasnt possible, that is your opinion.

Theres also a few things that need to be looked at that make a local flood just as ridiculous as you say a global flood is.

How did the Ark raise to a height higher than the highest mountains in the area? Water follows the path of least resistance, if the water is higher than any land then there is obviously nothing resisting it any longer, so what is containing the water 15 cubits above the mountains??

If it was a local flood why did it take so long for the waters to abate???

These are just a couple of examples. You really have only two choices, to believe its all a fanciful tale with overembellishing or its a true account of history.

And what is the theory?? That God cause a local flood yet inspired Moses to write of it as a Worldwide flood? Thats not artistic license, thats making stuff up and confusing people.

 

[mlchance]

BayCityRickL:

The “myth” ideas about scripture go back a couple hundred years and originate outside the Catholic Church.

“Myth ideas” about Scripture go back more than a couple hundred years, and such notable Catholics as Augustine of Hippo weren’t adverse to treating Scripture in such a way when it was warranted. For example, Augustine wrote the seven days of Creation aren’t to be taken literally, but are what we would today term a literary device.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[GaryZak]

Everything ever WRITTEN pays homage or respect to it’s time frame, which God apparently does not. Time is meaningless to God… Noah’s life time was approx. about 900 years old, and about the time of Noah’s grandson God imparted to man that the limit of life for humans was too long and set the limits to 125 years old… That’s a lot of time to build a hugh RECTANGULAR BOX of petrified wood… If one is so ,“SCIENCTIFICALLY INCLINED,” then one should study classified US military satelites pictures and SEE Mt. ARARAT in today’s TURKEY, under the GLACERS and SNOW… The Jewish brothers and sisters still venerate Noah’s grandson, who like ELIJAH, did NOT experience death, but just went to HEAVEN after a very long life… Carbon dating of the petrified wood, (a former living enity with carbon), puts it in the ball park of when Noah should have lived, keeping in mind all lifetime to that time frame are NOT LINEAR, and lifetimes once were different in duration with a LOT MORE GRIEF and SORROW…

 

[Ghosty]

Fine, you say this wasnt possible, that is your opinion.

My “opinion” is a matter of basic facts. You can write what I say off as opinion, but you can’t write off facts.

How did the Ark raise to a height higher than the highest mountains in the area? Water follows the path of least resistance, if the water is higher than any land then there is obviously nothing resisting it any longer, so what is containing the water 15 cubits above the mountains??

If it was a local flood why did it take so long for the waters to abate???

You really have only two choices, to believe its all a fanciful tale with overembellishing or its a true account of history.

You recognize that I do not take the passage literally, and yet you try to refute me with literal readings of the passage. That hardly makes any kind of sense. The figures of time, and the figures of water level, are clearly examples of hyperbole to prove a truth. This mode of communication was quite common in the ancient world, and still exists today. Figurative language does NOT negate truth, for example I can say, “he sailed down the stairs to open his gifts on Christmas morning,” but this in no way implies that this boy used a boat to go down the stairs. In this case figurative language is used to impress upon the reader the truth that the boy moved very quickly and with some excitement; reading it literally actually makes the passage nonsensical and destroys the truth. So a story can be both embellished AND completely true, and the embellishment can actually be used to better convey the truth in certain cases. This understanding is insisted upon by the Church when reading the Scriptures, BTW.

And what is the theory?? That God cause a local flood yet inspired Moses to write of it as a Worldwide flood? Thats not artistic license, thats making stuff up and confusing people.

No, what’s making stuff up to confuse people is making a world in which ALL evidence points to a local flood at most, and using a boat too small to fit all required life, yet insisting that the literal reading is the absolute truth. Moses understood hyperbole, he would not have even intended the reading you’re suggesting.

 

[PhilVaz]

Sojourn << And what is the theory?? That God cause a local flood yet inspired Moses to write of it as a Worldwide flood? Thats not artistic license, thats making stuff up and confusing people. >>

Get the Hugh Ross book The Genesis Question or the Glenn Morton book Foundation, Fall and Flood. They go into a lot of detail showing how scientifically a global flood a few thousand years ago killing off all the species on the planet (except the two of each “kind” Noah brought on the Ark) just isn’t possible. A local flood makes scientific and biblical sense, and these two books go into great depth on that.

One major point is (as mentioned above) there are at least 1.5 to 2 million different species of animals on the planet today (perhaps up to 5-10 million that haven’t been discovered yet). If you are to take the Genesis Flood story as literal and covering the whole planet, then you have evolution working about 10,000 times faster than any modern evolutionist. This is because all the 1.5 million species (or more) existing today would have had to evolve from the 2 of each “kind” of animal Noah brought onto the Ark in just a couple thousand years (depending on when you date the Flood). And how in the world did the Kangaroos (marsupials) get to Australia (and only Australia) from the Ark near Ararat anyway?

Again, a local flood makes more sense, and there are (as I understand) other comparable flood stories from the Babylonian, Egyptian, and other cultures.

See also the TalkOrigins articles on Flood Geology. This young-earth “flood geology” was abandoned in the early 19th century (well before Darwin) by even the creationist geologists. It wasn’t “revived” until the Seventh-day Adventist George Macready Price (1920s) and later the 1961 Whitcomb/Morris book The Genesis Flood made it popular among fundamentalist Protestants again.

Phil P

 

[SojournerOf78]

Ghosty:

My “opinion” is a matter of basic facts. You can write what I say off as opinion, but you can’t write off facts.

You recognize that I do not take the passage literally, and yet you try to refute me with literal readings of the passage. That hardly makes any kind of sense.

I wasnt trying to refute you by bringing those points up, I was solidifying the fact that if taken literally it could not be a local flood, thus eliminating a third option for this debate, after writing out reasons that the descriptions in scripture being taken literally would make a local flood nonsensical, I then explained that you have one of only two options.

Thats why I said at the end its either a fanciful tale with overembellishments or its a worldwide flood going off of what is stated in scripture

The figures of time, and the figures of water level, are clearly examples of hyperbole to prove a truth. This mode of communication was quite common in the ancient world, and still exists today.

So are you saying the dimensions of the Ark were an embellishment, or were they the actual dimensions??

Figurative language does NOT negate truth, for example I can say, “he sailed down the stairs to open his gifts on Christmas morning,” but this in no way implies that this boy used a boat to go down the stairs. In this case figurative language is used to impress upon the reader the truth that the boy moved very quickly and with some excitement; reading it literally actually makes the passage nonsensical and destroys the truth. So a story can be both embellished AND completely true, and the embellishment can actually be used to better convey the truth in certain cases. This understanding is insisted upon by the Church when reading the Scriptures, BTW.

Thanks Ghosty, I think I have a pretty solid grasp on the usage of figurative language in the scriptures. There is a vast difference in saying something such as the boy sailing down the stairs and what is going on here.

Why does Peter say in 2Peter3:3-7 that the “World that then was, perished”???

Why wouldnt Peter say that the inhabitants in Noahs area perished but the rest of the world survived??

No, what’s making stuff up to confuse people is making a world in which ALL evidence points to a local flood at most, and using a boat too small to fit all required life, yet insisting that the literal reading is the absolute truth.

Thats strange, Ive also heard scientists who claim that there is a ton of evidence for a worldwide flood. But of course since you dont agree with them, you will say that they make outrageous claims and then cite some other scientist that refutes their claims…whereas I in turn would be able to furnish other scientists refuting your scientists claims, so lets skip that.

Moses understood hyperbole, he would not have even intended the reading you’re suggesting.

Of course he understood hyperbole, you just assume he wouldnt intend the reading I am suggesting, why does Peter assume this same reading of the flood story in 2Peter 3:3-7?? Or is this just some other form of speech wherein you sum up a localized flood into a couple sentences that confirm it to be Worldwide??

So, I am guessing that if somebody told you that the “The boy sailed down the stairs, couldnt stop and knocked his head clean off”, you would immediately understand that they meant he got a scratch on his forehead?? There is a time and place for hyperbole, so make sure you take that into account.

It seems like youre listening to certain scientists that mock the flood story or at least downsize it and then youre looking at scripture to match what they say about it, in this case, your only option is to say that it was an embellishment of the facts.

 

[buffalo]

First of all, start with “All things are possible with God”. When someone makes a claim something is impossible they are basing it on what makes sense to them. I cannot start with impossiblilty, I start with possiblility. Then you have to prove it was impossible. But what is the real purpose of trying to prove it didn’t happen? Can the flood story really be proven to not have happened?. Since no one living today was there, how do we really know?

When you read scripture read what was said and why it was said, not just the why it was said.

If the Ark is proven as claimed on Ararat, what will be the reason it is so high up on the mountain? !7,000 feet is pretty darned high.

 

[Ghosty]

There is no scientific evidence to support a world-wide flood, I’m afraid. You can bring up “scientists” who believe anything, but their “evidence” has never been verified by fact, or by exhaustive scientific studies. Doctorates and book writing do not make for good science on their own. The website that Buffalo listed claimed to be backed by scientists, yet contained errors that even a layman could spot. Young Earth Creationists often toss around the word “scientist” as if that should impress those of us with a grounding in science, but that term holds about as weight as the term “respected preacher” does for a Catholic. Just because a scientist says something does not make a matter even based in fact, just as the words of a preacher don’t automatically represent Church Dogma.

Evidence of a world wide flood would have to be much more than a simple reexamination of some bits of data, but rather a complete and total overhaul of every single piece of evidence ever collected in geology and meterology. Barring that we would have to explain why God would perform such acts, and then make the entire Earth point in a different direction with its natural evidence. You would have to answer why God would desire to confound our powers of reason, which He Himself gave us as part of our Divine Image. I’m saying that it’s not possible, just that it doesn’t fit with any theological reasoning, and directly contradicts all applications of natural reasoning.

As for the quotation of 2 Peter, I honestly don’t see anything more there than a quotation of Genesis. First off, Peter would not likely speak in local terms if the source does not, regardless of what he really believed. Second, even if Peter DID believe in a world-wide flood, that would not negate the truth of the matter. God Inspired the authors of Scripture, He did not impart knowledge of all matters into their brains. We do not see the Apostles making an effort to cross the Atlantic to reach the then-unknown American Indians, for example, despite their attempts to preach to all people.

Reason is the spouse of faith, and both inform our hearts of God. This is what the Church teaches, and I’m more than happy to dwell within the teachings of the Church. There can be NO contridiction between Faith and Reason, another teaching of the Church, and since the evidence of Reason is standing very firm at this point, and Faith points in a few directions, including the one that Reason is holding at, I would suggest that Faith and Reason must meet at the firmest point that they agree, in this case a local flood with world-spanning implications. Anything less, I argue, is directly perverting the divine gift of Reason that God has given us in order to better understand Him.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

Reason is the spouse of faith, and both inform our hearts of God. This is what the Church teaches, and I’m more than happy to dwell within the teachings of the Church. There can be NO contridiction between Faith and Reason, another teaching of the Church, and since the evidence of Reason is standing very firm at this point, and Faith points in a few directions, including the one that Reason is holding at, I would suggest that Faith and Reason must meet at the firmest point that they agree, in this case a local flood with world-spanning implications. Anything less, I argue, is directly perverting the divine gift of Reason that God has given us in order to better understand Him.

I agree with most of this. The problem is that only so much is revealed to us through our own reason. Faith and reason cannot contradict because they come from the same God.

Science can only prove repeatable events. So it could never prove a flood, by its own definition. It cannot disprove a miracle nor prove one. Science has its limitations in explaining the world.

To look only at science as the only basis of our reasoning is lacking.

We never have to explain why God did something. He can do anything He wants for His own purposes. Who are we as His creatures to expect he rationalize his works to us. As if an “explanation” that makes sense to us is required. Seems pretty arrogant. We are His creatures, and answer to Him, not the other way around.

 

[Ghosty]

Science can only prove repeatable events.

This is actually incorrect, taken in the manner you are proposing. The Big Bang is not a repeatable event, but it CAN be proven. Science is not only the study of repeatable events, but the application of the knowledge gained from such events to construct models that will explain not only those vents, but unseen future events that may occur. A scientific model is proven when it can do both to such an extent greater than sheer random “luck” would indicate. Accepted scientific models, by definition, are what is called in scientific terms “useful”, namely they can be used to predict events with great accuracy. Any “science” that can only study and account for repeatable events isn’t actually a science at all, merely an observation.

Gravity is a good example of this. Observing that objects fall when dropped is NOT proof of gravity, no matter how often if can be repeated, any more than it is proof that invisible faeries immediately pull objects down to the ground. Gravity is proven only by constructing a model that not only explains how and why objects fall, but can also predict the exact manner in which they will do so under various circumstance, including those that are unforeseen. We can’t, for example, ever see with our own eyes how gravity affected the movements of the planets 100 million years ago, but we can apply the model we have developed to the current structure of the cosmos, and actually predict the existance of objects that can’t be seen, and this has been done with such stunning regularity that even the prediction is taken as discovery in lieu of actually observing the objects themselves. Every time such things have been rigorously predicted, they’ve later been properly observed. The planet Pluto is a good example of an object that was predicted by scientific model long before it was observed.

Similarily a flood could be proven even if not observed simply because accepted, integrated scientific models can account for, and predict, the discovery of evidence. Our scientific models tell us exactly where we can expect water if we drill for it, where we can find certain kinds of minerals, and at what depths. Similarily, our models show us where and at what depth we can expect to find ancient river beds, certain types of animal fossils, and even evidence of floods. These same models demonstrate that a global flood could not have occured literally as described, and no evidence has popped up that is not accounted for by these models.

In essence, science is specifically about proving that which is not repeatable through the use of a repeatable method. I’m rather confused about how science came to be confused with mere observation.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

This is actually incorrect, taken in the manner you are proposing. The Big Bang is not a repeatable event, but it CAN be proven. Science is not only the study of repeatable events, but the application of the knowledge gained from such events to construct models that will explain not only those vents, but unseen future events that may occur. A scientific model is proven when it can do both to such an extent greater than sheer random “luck” would indicate. Accepted scientific models, by definition, are what is called in scientific terms “useful”, namely they can be used to predict events with great accuracy. Any “science” that can only study and account for repeatable events isn’t actually a science at all, merely an observation.

.

Might this be called inductive reasoning?

 

[jmm08]

I’m Baptist and signed up for RCIA.

So excuse me for believing the Bible as written (when it comes to Noah, Moses and Jonah). Believing the Bible as written is mainly why I’m signed up for RCIA (the Bible doesn’t say the Holy Eucharist is “symbolic”, although my new Baptist minister never fails to say the word “symbolic”).

I also like music and used to collect old hymnals. Some as old as mid to late 1800’s. I recall finding an old hymnal once with a story of a more modern day Jonah. The topic of Jonah came up Tuesday morning at a breakfast. I’ve misplaced my old hymnal.

Here is a link to quite a skeptical publication.
straightdope.com/columns/010914.html
They admit that the story of James Bartley was published in many secular sources. The story is the way I recall it (but with fewer details), so I’m sure it is the story of the same man I read about more than 25 years ago.
Straight Dope:

As claimed in numerous religious tracts, whaling books, and the like, Bartley was a seaman aboard the whaling ship Star of the East. In February 1891, while the ship was near the Falkland Islands, a lookout spotted a sperm whale several miles off. Two boats were launched; one succeeded in harpooning the whale, but the second was upended by the whale’s tail and its crew tossed into the water. One man drowned and another, Bartley, could not be found.

The whale was killed and hauled to the side of the ship, where the crew set to work carving up the carcass. The next morning they hoisted the stomach on deck and were surprised to see signs of life. Inside they found the unconscious Bartley, who they doused with seawater and soon revived. For two weeks he was a raving lunatic, but by the end of the third week he’d fully recovered. Bartley recalled being swallowed by a great darkness, then slipping along a smooth passage until he came to a larger space. He felt slimy stuff around him and realized he’d been swallowed by the whale. He could breathe, but the heat sucked the energy out of him and eventually he passed out. The only lasting effect of the incident was that the skin of his face, neck, and hands was bleached to the color of parchment by the whale’s gastric juices.

It is my opinion that if Jonah looked the same as James Bartley did, then that was just one more reason the people of Nineveh were shocked and repented. My recollection of the more detailed story was that Bartley was bound with ropes in the Captain’s quarters because he was a full raving lunatic until his right mind returned.

Whether Noah’s flood covered the whole earth or just destroyed that part of the earth that was inhabited by man – I don’t know. But if Noah was fiction, then a lot of other things need to be explained. If it was a local flood, I guess it might have been caused in part by a breakthrough of the Atlantic Ocean near the Rock of Gibraltar – filling up the Mediterranean Sea. Maybe before the flood the Mediterranean Sea was smaller and below sea level. But I am not a geologist, and God could have made the flood another way.

 

[mlchance]

The Bible does not say Jonah was swallowed by a whale. It says he was swallowed by a big fish.

As to the flood, the entire “world” as known by Noah would have been a rather narrow stretch of fertile land between and around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. That area of the world is prone to horrible floods.

As is often the case, people who read the Bible miss the point. The point of the Noah story isn’t that there was a flood that covered the entire world in water in 40 days. The point is this: God preserves those who are righteous, and allows the destruction of those who are not.

When compared to other contemporary flood stories, such as in the Epic of Gilgamesh, it is obvious that the Hebrew story is radically different.

One final point: The Catholic Church does not say that the entire Bible is, word for word, without error. The Catholic Church that the Bible is free from error in matters pertaining to salvation.

Whether or not there really was a Noah who built a real big boat that really had two of every animal, et cetera, et cetera, is not a matter pertaining to salvation.

That God preserves those who are righteous, and allows the destruction of those who are not, on the other hand, is certainly a matter pertaining to salvation.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[PhilVaz]

The Bartley-Whale story is a well-known urban legend

Urban Myths: Swallowed by a Whale
From the Scientific Christian site:
A Whale of a Tale: Fundamentalist Fish Stories

Would it help if I layed out some of the scientific objections to a global flood? Those who accept a global flood must accept:

(1) rapid evolution around 10,000 times faster than Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin or Richard Dawkins – to get from the thousands of “kinds” of animals onboard Noah’s ark to the 1.5 million or so species that we see today in just a couple thousand years (depending when you date the Flood)

(2) there must have been about 2,100 different kinds of living animals per acre of land on earth just before the Flood (the calculation is taken from estimates of the Karoo Formation in South Africa which contains the remains of some 800,000,000,000 (billion) animals representing approx 1% of total, divided by number of acres of land on earth)

(3) the “evolutionary” ordering of the fossils found throughout the geological strata (fish before amphibians before reptiles before mammals, etc), a global flood would mix up the order considerably, or sort by “weight” which we definitely do not see

(4) no evidence of a global flood in ice cores (going back 40,000 years) or tree rings (going back 10,000 years) or varves such as the Green River Formation (going back 20,000,000 years with each layer requiring at least a month to settle)

(5) a global flood cannot explain limestone deposits (billions of microscopic sea animals thousands of meters thick), chalk deposits (plankton settle very slowly), salt and sedimentary (30,000 feet thick) deposits requiring much time to form (not possible in one year of a flood)

(6) species distribution and diversity (biogeography), how did the Kangaroos (marsupials) get to Australia (and only Australia) from the Ark near Ararat?

(7) where did all the water come from, and where did it go?

Simple questions like that. A local flood can be found in the Genesis text by noting that “world” (in Hebrew or Greek) does not necessarily mean “the entire planet” or “the entire surface of the earth.” It need only mean “the world where Noah and his family lived.” Although God inspired the Scriptures, God worked with the limited knowledge of the biblical writers. They didn’t know about the American continents (for example). And God would have no need to flood Antarctica since no people even lived there. More examples are in Hugh Ross, will look those up.

Phil P

 

[jmm08]

mlchance:

The Bible does not say Jonah was swallowed by a whale. It says he was swallowed by a big fish.

If you never saw a whale (or knew what a whale was), you would say it was a really big fish. Was there a word for “whale” in ancient Hebrew?

mlchance:

As is often the case, people who read the Bible miss the point. The point of the Noah story isn’t that there was a flood that covered the entire world in water in 40 days. The point is this: God preserves those who are righteous, and allows the destruction of those who are not.

If I were very prone to interpret everything in the Bible as symbolic, then I might well have concluded that the Holy Eucharist is symbolic too.

mlchance:

One final point: The Catholic Church does not say that the entire Bible is, word for word, without error. The Catholic Church that the Bible is free from error in matters pertaining to salvation.

I agree. Logically I could conclude that believing the Bible will greatly help towards salvation. Maybe I wouldn’t be a good scientist, but that isn’t as important to me as salvation.

mlchance:

Whether or not there really was a Noah who built a real big boat that really had two of every animal, et cetera, et cetera, is not a matter pertaining to salvation.

Well if you want to say that story as ficticious, then doesn’t that mean you are less likely to believe other things the Bible tells you?

mlchance:

That God preserves those who are righteous, and allows the destruction of those who are not, on the other hand, is certainly a matter pertaining to salvation.

– Mark L. Chance.

I quote a Catholic web site that says:

The Catholic Church is, and has always been a hospital for sinners, and not a hotel for saints (Mark 2:17). The visible Catholic Church is populated by fallible human beings, and “All have sinned”.

It seems to me that God has provided salvation for those who are not righteous. That seems to be contradictory to what you say you learned from your myth of Noah.

Don’t mind me, I am only a beginner.

 

[Ghosty]

Well if you want to say that story as ficticious, then doesn’t that mean you are less likely to believe other things the Bible tells you?

This is where the Magesterium of the Church comes in. I believe without any difficulty those things that the Church says must be taken absolutely. The Church, however, says explicitly that not all of Scripture is to be taken literally, and I again follow the Church’s guidance in this. The Church does indeed teach that Genesis specifically uses figurative language in many places, so none of this hampers my faith at all, nor does it cause me to doubt other parts of Scripture.