Noah and the Flood is a Legend?

[buffalo]

In the acount you see the dimensions of the ark. Then again you see another explicit number. If legend what is God trying to tell us here?

17And the flood was forty days upon the earth: and the waters increased, and lifted up the ark on high from the earth. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
18For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: and the ark was carried upon the waters. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
19And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. **http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
20**The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
21And all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that creep upon the earth: and all men. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
22And all things wherein there is the breath of life on the earth, died. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
23And he destroyed all the substance that was upon the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and fowls of the air: and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noe only remained, and they that were with him in the ark. http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
24And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.

 

[Melchior]

buffalo:

In the acount you see the dimensions of the ark. Then again you see another explicit number. If legend what is God trying to tell us here?..

Buffalo,

You are on to something important. The text is pretty obvious. It takes skepticism, lack of literary understanding and sophistry to make the Flood acount allegorical. When one reads the account it does not take a Ph.D. to realize that it is a factual account of historical events, miraculous as they are.

Mel

 

[Orogeny]

So, where is the geological evidence left by the flood? Why don’t we see flood deposits from one event through out the world? A recent flood (recent in geological terms) should leave easily, indisputable evidence of it’s existence.

Peace

Tim

 

[Melchior]

Orogeny:

So, where is the geological evidence left by the flood? Why don’t we see flood deposits from one event through out the world? A recent flood (recent in geological terms) should leave easily, indisputable evidence of it’s existence.

Peace

Tim

So… you don’t believe the Bibilical account?

Also, have you looked for that evidence? Perhaps you should google “Geological evidence for the flood”. I bet you find lots.

 

[buffalo]

Forget about the evidence for a minute?

I posted two specific areas of the account that cannot be interpreted any other way. When the account says the waters covered the highest mountain by fifteen cubits what is the salvation meaning of this statement?

In context the history seems pretty detailed. Why?

 

[Orogeny]

Melchior:

So… you don’t believe the Bibilical account?

Also, have you looked for that evidence? Perhaps you should google “Geological evidence for the flood”. I bet you find lots.

I don’t believe the literal account. Do you believe that rainbows didn’t exist before the flood?

I have read many of those documents that you can easily find regarding Noachian flood evidence and find them lacking. There should be overwhelming evidence, not something that has to be interpreted in a certain way.

By the way, have you looked for the evidence? I don’t mean doing a Google search, but actually looked for the physical evidence? If you have, what did you find? Where are your observations published?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Forget about the evidence for a minute?

That’s one way to get around it!

I posted two specific areas of the account that cannot be interpreted any other way. When the account says the waters covered the highest mountain by fifteen cubits what is the salvation meaning of this statement?

In context the history seems pretty detailed. Why?

The details you mention are part of the story. Must every word have a significant role in the salvation meaning of the story? Because a specific number is mentioned, it must be historical?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Tim,

If you don’t believe the literal account then explain the meaning of the texts I quoted.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

That’s one way to get around it!

The details you mention are part of the story. Must every word have a significant role in the salvation meaning of the story? Because a specific number is mentioned, it must be historical?

Peace

Tim

I am asking you to consider the meaning of the texts. To suspend your judgement for a minute and take a close look and search out the purpose the writer had in writing down these details. What was he trying to transmit?

Today’s reading of scripture too often sets aside the what and concentrates on the why.

 

[Melchior]

Orogeny:

I don’t believe the literal account. Do you believe that rainbows didn’t exist before the flood?

I have read many of those documents that you can easily find regarding Noachian flood evidence and find them lacking. There should be overwhelming evidence, not something that has to be interpreted in a certain way.

By the way, have you looked for the evidence? I don’t mean doing a Google search, but actually looked for the physical evidence? If you have, what did you find? Where are your observations published?

Peace

Tim

Tim,

I haven’t published any findings nor have a done a deeply detailed study. I have no plans to do the former. Is that required to believe the Biblical account? I did have a Geology professor in College who was pretty impressed with the evidence for a flood. From the Grand Canyon to other things. But that was a decade ago and his opinion. Neither here nor there.

So why did you find the evidence lacking? And why must it be overwhelming? I could say the same thing about evolution. There is not overwhelming evidence yet I bet you still believe in it. Why?

Say the flood was 15,000 years ago. Any number of things could have happened to make the evidence tougher to find. Or perhaps not enough modern scientists have bothered to seriously look at the evidence. That does not mean it does not exist, it only means that a generation of scientist have been trained to regard scripture as fairly tales not to be bothered with.

Do you believe Sarah really existed and gave birth to a son at an elderly age? If so why? It would not make scientific sense. You need to believe this to be allegory if you wish to be consistent.

Mel

 

[Ghosty]

Melchoir: I wasn’t using the Magesterium to address your argument about the general nature of the flood, and to imply that I was is either a lapse in careful reading on your part, or an intentional attept to get away from my answer.

I was responding specifically to your accusation that we have plenty of reasons to doubt the other accounts in Scripture if we don’t take the Flood as literal, which is absolute nonsense. You stated that we can’t have it both ways, which is completely bogus. With the Magesterium we need never worry about such matters, because we have God’s own guidance when it comes to reading Scripture and understanding what it contains. This guidance is universal, and applicable to all, not subject to personal interpretation ot private revelation. With this in mind, your statement about how to interpret Scripture holds no water whatsoever. Specifically, the Magesterium has spoken definatively on the actions of Abraham, Moses, and the other prophets, so their existance can never be called into doubt by new understandings of Scripture. The majority of Catholics throughout the ages would have understood this principle as well, and would have agreed with it, so using them as a cover is fatuous at best. Dogma ALWAYS trumps personal understanding.

So… you don’t believe the Bibilical account?

Also, have you looked for that evidence? Perhaps you should google “Geological evidence for the flood”. I bet you find lots.

Such “evidence” is nonsense to everyone with a modicrum of understanding in geology and who applies basic God-given reason. Remember, God gave us reason as well, as part of our divine image, and to toss it aside is to spurn God just as much as throwing away God’s revelations. In fact, reason IS one of God’s revelations to us, as well as a divine gift. Adam and Eve were set apart from the animals in part due to their ability to reason. It’s ironic that those who seek to abandon any trace of material understanding also seem to be abandoning one of the primary gifts of God to humanity, and in fact part of our divine image.

buffalo: Similar absolute numbers are given in Chronicles which directly contradict the exact same accounts in Samuel. Both give absolute numbers for things such as the number of sons of Jesse, and the census reports. These aren’t matters of outside accounts contradicting Scripture, but Scripture directly contridicting itself on numerical matters. Of course I don’t believe in the contridiction of Truth within Scripture, but that means that I don’t believe in the literal understanding of all of it, either. Using such numerical accounts from Genesis fall flat on their face when it’s understood that numbers are often the weakest, and most contradictory, figures in Scripture.

 

[Orogeny]

The texts you have quoted are part of the story. If the story is not literal (as I believe), they (the texts) are just part of the story and have no significant meaning in and of themselves.

Now let’s assume the texts are specific because the story is literally true. In that case, let’s not forget the evidence. Rather, please point it out to me. That should be very easy to do.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Melchior:

Tim,

I haven’t published any findings nor have a done a deeply detailed study. I have no plans to do the former. Is that required to believe the Biblical account? I did have a Geology professor in College who was pretty impressed with the evidence for a flood. From the Grand Canyon to other things. But that was a decade ago and his opinion. Neither here nor there.

My reply was to your question whether or not I had studied the issue. I don’t think that you have to do so to believe the Biblical account. My point is that I don’t believe the flood story to be true because there is no evidence that it occurred.

What about my question regarding rainbows? Do you believe they only occurred after the flood?

As far as your college professor goes, the Grand Canyon is one of the most studied features on the earth and there is NO evidence it was created by a single, global flood. But that is another topic all together.

So why did you find the evidence lacking? And why must it be overwhelming? I could say the same thing about evolution. There is not overwhelming evidence yet I bet you still believe in it. Why?

Say the flood was 15,000 years ago. Any number of things could have happened to make the evidence tougher to find. Or perhaps not enough modern scientists have bothered to seriously look at the evidence. That does not mean it does not exist, it only means that a generation of scientist have been trained to regard scripture as fairly tales not to be bothered with.

I find the evidence of a recent global flood to be poor science that is either based on poor scientific skills or intentionally distorted to make a point. That is why I find the “evidence” lacking.

Sorry, but the evidence would be very easy to find. Remember, you are talking about a global event, not a local one.

This doesn’t have anything to do with evolution, but you are both correct and incorrect at the same time. I do accept that evolution has occurred and is still occurring, but you are incorrect in stating there isn’t overwhelming evidence for it. Again, another thread.

Do you believe Sarah really existed and gave birth to a son at an elderly age? If so why? It would not make scientific sense. You need to believe this to be allegory if you wish to be consistent.

Elderly women can’t have children? I do believe that story because, unlike the flood story, there is no evidence it didn’t occur.

Peace

Tim

 

[Melchior]

Ghosty:

Melchoir: I wasn’t using the Magesterium to address your argument about the general nature of the flood, and to imply that I was is either a lapse in careful reading on your part, or an intentional attept to get away from my answer.

I was responding specifically to your accusation that we have plenty of reasons to doubt the other accounts in Scripture if we don’t take the Flood as literal, which is absolute nonsense. You stated that we can’t have it both ways, which is completely bogus. With the Magesterium we need never worry about such matters, because we have God’s own guidance when it comes to reading Scripture and understanding what it contains. This guidance is universal, and applicable to all, not subject to personal interpretation ot private revelation. With this in mind, your statement about how to interpret Scripture holds no water whatsoever. Specifically, the Magesterium has spoken definatively on the actions of Abraham, Moses, and the other prophets, so their existance can never be called into doubt by new understandings of Scripture. The majority of Catholics throughout the ages would have understood this principle as well, and would have agreed with it, so using them as a cover is fatuous at best. Dogma ALWAYS trumps personal understanding.

Such “evidence” is nonsense to everyone with a modicrum of understanding in geology and who applies basic God-given reason. Remember, God gave us reason as well, as part of our divine image, and to toss it aside is to spurn God just as much as throwing away God’s revelations. In fact, reason IS one of God’s revelations to us, as well as a divine gift. Adam and Eve were set apart from the animals in part due to their ability to reason. It’s ironic that those who seek to abandon any trace of material understanding also seem to be abandoning one of the primary gifts of God to humanity, and in fact part of our divine image.

buffalo: Similar absolute numbers are given in Chronicles which directly contradict the exact same accounts in Samuel. Both give absolute numbers for things such as the number of sons of Jesse, and the census reports. These aren’t matters of outside accounts contradicting Scripture, but Scripture directly contridicting itself on numerical matters. Of course I don’t believe in the contridiction of Truth within Scripture, but that means that I don’t believe in the literal understanding of all of it, either. Using such numerical accounts from Genesis fall flat on their face when it’s understood that numbers are often the weakest, and most contradictory, figures in Scripture.

First of all, you are just repeating the same argument in different words. I answered it already. You cannot mask the fact that you have created a mountain of straw and unsupported, negative polemics (absolute nonsense, completely bogus, nonsense (again), spurn God) instead of actually dealing with the fact that I am siding with the historic Catholic position and not an individual interpretation. Talk about nonsense.

So tell me what is the official magesterial teaching on the Flood? Does it disagree with me? If not you should be ashamed of the way you have attacked me. You have been nothing but presumptuous about what I do and don’t believe and frankly your lack of actual engagement with my position as opposed to my argument has been a bit obnoxious.

Your point about conflicting Biblical aacounts is there to apparently show me that I have no hope of understanding anything in scripture without the magesterium. Yet you fail to see where I agree with the magesterium. All I see is someonw who has more faith in modern scientific theories than God’s word and wraps himself in the idea of the Magesterium to mask his skepticism. I can harmonize my belief in scripture with the official teaching of the Catholic Church so your argument is, again, a mountain of straw.

Mel

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

buffalo: Similar absolute numbers are given in Chronicles which directly contradict the exact same accounts in Samuel. Both give absolute numbers for things such as the number of sons of Jesse, and the census reports. These aren’t matters of outside accounts contradicting Scripture, but Scripture directly contridicting itself on numerical matters. Of course I don’t believe in the contridiction of Truth within Scripture, but that means that I don’t believe in the literal understanding of all of it, either. Using such numerical accounts from Genesis fall flat on their face when it’s understood that numbers are often the weakest, and most contradictory, figures in Scripture.

You still haven’t answered the question. What was the author trying to get across?

The numerical accounts are trying to convey something. Say they are approximate and perhaps even contadicted, does this invalidate what the author was saying?

 

[Melchior]

Orogeny:

My reply was to your question whether or not I had studied the issue. I don’t think that you have to do so to believe the Biblical account. My point is that I don’t believe the flood story to be true because there is no evidence that it occurred.

What about my question regarding rainbows? Do you believe they only occurred after the flood?

As far as your college professor goes, the Grand Canyon is one of the most studied features on the earth and there is NO evidence it was created by a single, global flood. But that is another topic all together.

I find the evidence of a recent global flood to be poor science that is either based on poor scientific skills or intentionally distorted to make a point. That is why I find the “evidence” lacking.

Sorry, but the evidence would be very easy to find. Remember, you are talking about a global event, not a local one.

This doesn’t have anything to do with evolution, but you are both correct and incorrect at the same time. I do accept that evolution has occurred and is still occurring, but you are incorrect in stating there isn’t overwhelming evidence for it. Again, another thread.

Elderly women can’t have children? I do believe that story because, unlike the flood story, there is no evidence it didn’t occur.

Peace

Tim

Tim,

You are essentially saying you choose what to believe in the Bible based on what modern scientific studies may or may not show. Very dangerous ground. Science says a dead man cannot rise. Consistency would require you to not believe in the Resurrection.

Also, scientific evidence does say that a woman in her 90’s who was always barren, cannot conceive.

As for the Rainbow, scripture indicates that prior to the flood a mist rose up from the earth as opposed to rain coming down. So prior to the flood God used different means of irrigation. Generally speaking Rainbows would not have been seen without rain.

Mel

 

[Melchior]

buffalo:

You still haven’t answered the question. What was the author trying to get across?

The author is describing the details of what took place. It is not that hard to get that from the text unless you are looking for a hidden meaning. What does the magesterium say?

buffalo:

The numerical accounts are trying to convey something. Say they are approximate and perhaps even contadicted, does this invalidate what the author was saying?

You have to show that there is a contradiction first, then you can discuss the validity of the text. But the burden of proof is on you to show that the text does not mean literally, what it says.

Mel

 

[Orogeny]

Mel,

I appreciate your resolve in this matter, but I really wonder about some of your statements. Do you believe that we must accept everything written in the bible as literally true? Do you believe science (not scientists) is evil?

I ask these questions not to argue against your position but rather to understand some of your contentions.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

**The Covenant with Noah

**

56 After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the “nations”, in other words, towards men grouped “in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations”.9

**71 **God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. *Gen *9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.

**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”: The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.

The magisterium affirms Noah and the flood.

 

[Orogeny]

Melchior:

As for the Rainbow, scripture indicates that prior to the flood a mist rose up from the earth as opposed to rain coming down. So prior to the flood God used different means of irrigation. Generally speaking Rainbows would not have been seen without rain.

Mel

Ever been to a waterfall?

Peace

Tim