Noah/Flood: Best proof? Do you believe the Biblical story?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larry1700
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The world was much smaller then. Well, the world wasn’t smaller, but there were way fewer people and one couldn’t really fly from Jerusalem to New York routinely. My point is, what Noah and/or the author considered the “world” would have more than likely been the world he knew, since it is pretty hard to fathom faraway places especially when, well, no one’s ever mentioned them or the fact that they exist to you. And if you saw stuff happening that indicated your world was about to be overcome with a giant wall of water (and literally anything could be responsible for this), you’d probably want to save what you could to repopulate your world. It’s all perfectly logical in context, and why shouldn’t I believe that God instructed Noah to do all of this? Even if it just popped into Noah’s head one day, someone put the idea there. Stuff happens for a reason.

I’m okay with “worldwide” flood literally, too, though. Why not? No evidence? No matter how hard you try, NOTHING is ever PROVEN. Beyond a reasonable doubt? I guess, but whose “reasonable” are we talking about? What killed the dinosaurs? Was there life on Mars? Is Pluto a planet? We can’t even agree on the basics, where there ARE “facts”. So why can’t I suspend disbelief and accept a worldwide flood?

And finally, at the end of the day, who cares if there was a worldwide flood? The story has a powerful message and someone said above, let’s not lose the message in the debate about whether the flood happened and a foresighted gentleman built a gigantic wooden boat and took a bunch of livestock with him. It’s irrelevant, in many ways. But, if you do believe it, you’re just believing in another example of God’s power. There’s plenty of those.
 
Larry1700 said:
I don’t know much about genetics, but according to Genesis 7:2-3, some of the animals came in 7 pairs:
"2 Take with you **seven pairs **of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also **seven pairs **of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. "

As for your other statements, do you have references/links?
Click to expand...
Alright well even then that means there was only one pair of pigs and other non kosher animals.

For referenced I would sugest rationalwiki. They are pretty snooty “college liberal” types but they are incredibly thorough, particularly on the issue of biblical realism.

Further, Human genetics show that Mitocondrial eve, a human woman to whom all modern women can be traced through Mitocondrial DNA, lived tens of thousands of years ago. If all the people not on the ark were killed we would see this divergence only a few thousand years ago, and the genetic history would trace back to the Middle East rather than Africa.
 
Larry1700 said:
I don’t know much about genetics, but according to Genesis 7:2-3, some of the animals came in 7 pairs:
"2 Take with you **seven pairs **of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also **seven pairs **of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. "

As for your other statements, do you have references/links?
Click to expand...
The confusion over how many animals Noah saved in the Ark stems from the fact that the Genesis narrative combines two different versions of the flood story. In Genesis 6, God tells Noah to save two of each animal, including two of each bird. In Genesis 7, God tells Noah to save seven of some kinds of animals, including seven of each bird.

As many others have said, the Noah narrative is not historical and not meant to be historical. It is meant to convey truths about God’s relationship with mankind, not to convey history. Catholics are free to believe in its historical truth, but the Church does not teach that Catholics must do so (or even that it is necessarily a good idea).

As for “proof,” there is certainly lots of proof of large local floods, and lots of proof that many early civilizations rationally feared disastrous floods, but absolutely no evidence of a world-wide flood like that killed all but a handful of people and animals.
 
TMC said:
The confusion over how many animals Noah saved in the Ark stems from the fact that the Genesis narrative combines two different versions of the flood story. In Genesis 6, God tells Noah to save two of each animal, including two of each bird. In Genesis 7, God tells Noah to save seven of some kinds of animals, including seven of each bird.

As many others have said, the Noah narrative is not historical and not meant to be historical. It is meant to convey truths about God’s relationship with mankind, not to convey history. Catholics are free to believe in its historical truth, but the Church does not teach that Catholics must do so (or even that it is necessarily a good idea).

As for “proof,” there is certainly lots of proof of large local floods, and lots of proof that many early civilizations rationally feared disastrous floods, but absolutely no evidence of a world-wide flood like that killed all but a handful of people and animals.
Click to expand...
I agree. And forgive me if I already asked this, but are you Catholic?
 
Larry1700 said:
Since I can’t read all of the other flood accounts, I chose the one from the Caddos, from the region of the country where I live. This story is vastly different from the Biblical account. I don’t know about the others, but if I told my son-in-law about all the other flood stories, I’m sure he would ask me, “Okay, so how do you know the Biblical account is the correct one?”

I have to get back to work now, but later I hope I can find a comprehensive list of the 1/2 of them which talk about Noah, etc.
Click to expand...
I would gather that the other accounts were real, just not as accurate as the Noah version!

Here is a list of the flood myths below!

ancienthistory.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=ancienthistory&cdn=education&tm=16&f=21&tt=14&bt=6&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.dreamscape.com/morgana/puck.htm

They were tales that got passed down, in a social constructivist type manner, so they were true, to those who believed them, but why is the Noah version more accurate is a good question.

We do not need to strive to arrive at truth, or construct it, apply certain test to find it, or look towards social institutions, we have been given this through revelation.

If there is a God (and we know there is) would the all powerful, all knowing, ever present omniscient God, be able to communicate to His Creation what He desires in His creatures, and still not infringe on our free will?

I would say yes!

I guess you could ask the question, how do we know anything?

Basic epistemology might get this son in law to question belief in truth,as he sees it.

What is being appealed to, in order to discern truth? The free inquiry of the mind?

If we are mere biological chemical reactions within an organ called the brain, than what is mind, and why should I trust it?

naturalism.org/plantinga.htm

God gives us information, through revelation, and authority!

stthomas.edu/cathstudies/programs/Summeruniversityconf/summerseminar/Kemp%201996.pdf

Sure, God has revealed Himself through nature, and people can arrive at certain truths about God, but God has revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ!

Jesus Christ gave us a social order (the Church) to continue to infallibly reveal himself to mankind!

The Church was used to discern and compile scripture, and Noah’s flood is in the scriptures, by authority.

He did not chose other flood myths, and if they did contain elements of truth recorded through narratives, God set the record straight, when this was given to Moses! (At least tradition says Moses wrote it anyways, but it doesn’t matter who, anyways!)

Now, some may say, the flood never happened, or maybe say it was local, but universally, each culture has a flood story, so 🤷

There is no dogma on the flood account, but one is still within the living tradition of the Church, to hold to a literal flood, or not hold to a literal flood position!

I don’t think one man should condemn another either way until Rome speaks on such matters, then we will know the truth behind the curtian, so to speak!

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/09/as-lover-of-history-and-of-faith-i-have.html

I personally, don’t think it was only a spiritual story, but a historical one as well!

God Bless
 
Larry1700 said:
Dear friends at Catholic.com, I come to you once again because I am in a “debate” with an unbeliever (son-in-law), and know that I can speed up the search for info (I’m short on time–once again). Our family was discussing the new movie, “Noah”, and I told them about the article I had read which says it deviates from the Biblical account, so I don’t want to vote with my money.

His reply was:
“noah is a biblical story that changed as it was passed down in generations. if you dont want to see it then thats ur choice. i know u only want to see biblically accurate stories told. i want to see proof of Noah’s ark found somewhere to be honest with you”
  1. What, if anything, is the best scientific proof? I’m somewhat aware of Ballard’s Black Sea expedition, but don’t have time to wade through all the articles.
  2. Just to satisfy my curiosity, do you believe the Biblical account of Noah and the flood? I’d appreciate it (if you don’t mind, of course) if you would state your religion (and denomination, if Christian).
Click to expand...
There is no scientific (geological) proof for a global flood. At the same time, we know that God (the Bible) does not lie. Regarding Noah, the Bible says “and God shut him in” which doesn’t make sense as there was more than just Noah. Also Noah was the one to build the ark so why did God have to “shut him in” (if indeed it means to shut the door of the ark).

I think that Noah’s Ark was related to the ‘Ark of the Covenant’. The Bible speaks about ‘the waters’ above and below the firmament, so I’m inclined to think (based on the geological data) that something supernatural occurred at the time.
 
Larry, To me its spiritual. It is not an easy read. Example, I use the NKJV which was to be translated into the Kings english but as we know at critical points in sentences, a noun is many times left in the original tongue even though there were English words matching. One is Ararat. “High or Holy ground”. Add to this the confusion we see when watching t.v and there is a research group looking for mt Ararat. My bible states, mountain(s) of ]Ararat. So when I read it translated: The Ark came to rest upon the mountains of high or Holy ground. Noah passes the father son Blessing to Shem. Many including me believe Shem was Melchezidek. We know that Melchezidek’s kingdom was Salem The first known name to what was later called City of David, Mt. Zion and Jersusalem. Lets say one of the mountains of Ararat was Mt Zion. Now Noah became a farmer. We know that next to Mt Zion is a garden, Gethsemane. A farmer needs fertile ground, a garden. Across from Mt. Zion is Mt of Olives. We know that the dove went to and fro and returned with a freshly plucked Olive branch in her mouth. The Ark rests upon Mt Zion and The Mt of Olives, with the garden nestled in between. The two BREASTS with the Womb (garden) in between, Remember Jacob giving the Father Son Blessing to Joseph (the 11th born (Remnant) unto a (barren womb), Rachel. Jacob’s 3rd Blessing spoke over Joseph was the Blessing of the Breasts and of the Womb… It is no coincidence that the name Joseph shows up in Mathew betrothed to Mary. Nor is it a coincidence that the name Joseph is allowed the body of Jesus at the cross whereby he took it and laid it in a tomb he had hewn from the rock for himself in a garden. He rolled a stone in front of it. Jacob to Joseph: "for there is the Shepherd, the STONE of Israel. Those two mountains (breasts) and garden (womb) are the Land of Milk and Honey!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top