Noah

[MichaelTDoyle]

On another board an atheist asked something along this vein: If God is Love how could he wipe out all humanity except Noah in a flood?

I answered that the ending of a wicked life in a temporal punishment is merciful if it spares them an eternal punishment.

I also know that it is wrong to judge God, but an atheist in examining the Bible will do just that.

I also was curious how much of the Noah story are we required to accept as Faith in a literalist interpretation?
"
[8] Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,
[9] two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah.
"

No such Ark could HOLD every concievable animal so I assume some other sense is meant. Does Scripture mean Noah’s local ecosystem? Was this provisions for the flood after Noah landed? In an allegorical sense, male and female is contrasted by the corruption of flesh on the earth, which makes an interesting Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. But no one takes the Noah story seriously because the literalist interpretation is outrageous to logic.

Any help in coming to grips with these issues is appreciated. I think there is much value in this Scripture that is applicable to today, but that Ark is a tough nut.

 

[AnAtheist]

MichaelTDoyle:

But no one takes the Noah story seriously because the literalist interpretation is outrageous to logic.

On the contrary, many people take it literally. And with good reason I might add. If you don’t take this story literally, why take the resurrection story literally?

 

[Shibboleth]

First off answer him by saying; “If I make a vase and it fails serve the purpose that I made it for do I not have the right to destroy it?” People were not serving the purpose in which he created us; he had every right to reclaim his own creation.

I am not going to get into the argument of the literal verses other interpretations of the story of Noah. Both sides put forth good evidence for their cause. I think that we need to look at the message of the story more than the other aspects.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

AnAtheist:

On the contrary, many people take it literally. And with good reason I might add. If you don’t take this story literally, why take the resurrection story literally?

Because a literal resurrection is a dogmatic article of the Faith (known as de fide to us eggheads. ), whereas there is no such pronouncement on the literalness or details of the Flood. (At least none I am aware of.)

Scott

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

AnAtheist:

On the contrary, many people take it literally. And with good reason I might add. If you don’t take this story literally, why take the resurrection story literally?

I played fast and lose with the word “no one” Sorry. The ressurection is de fide but also a foundation of my faith with a divine symmetry and a fulfillment of God’s promise to Adam.

The animals jamming into the ark is more like a quirky odd fact. If it was declared de fide I’d try to conform my intellect but it would be difficult and I would have lots of questions.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

I also recall reading in Anne Catherine Emmerichs accounts of Noah…is that God had to keep on Noah who would stop the construction every so often…AND it took almost 40 years to complete the Ark…a GENERATION God gave mankind to repent before the flood.

 

[AnAtheist]

So you rely on what someone else decides about bible verses, whether they are to be taken literally or not?

See, that’s my problem with the bible. If someone only takes those verses literally which concede to a certain worldview and dismiss others, doesn’t that mean, he is creating his own “pick-and-choose” religion?

 

[Melchior]

AnAtheist:

So you rely on what someone else decides about bible verses, whether they are to be taken literally or not?

See, that’s my problem with the bible. If someone only takes those verses literally which concede to a certain worldview and dismiss others, doesn’t that mean, he is creating his own “pick-and-choose” religion?

Nope. It is all about genres. You read the books of the Bible the way you read any other piece of literature. There is no reason to believe that the Flood was not historical. But that does not mean it was neccesary to include every detail. The author had a reason to write the account. There is a bigger picture to the story and minutia does not matter. What was included was the most important aspects. We know Jesus did not jump from 12 to 30 but the Gospels are still historical accounts. But they are selectively historical.

Mel

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

AnAtheist:

So you rely on what someone else decides about bible verses, whether they are to be taken literally or not?

See, that’s my problem with the bible. If someone only takes those verses literally which concede to a certain worldview and dismiss others, doesn’t that mean, he is creating his own “pick-and-choose” religion?

No, I am just asking questions. The Church instructs on revealed Truth. I’m not picking and choosing; I am seeking to understand the accepted revealed Truth and asking if a clear interpretation of the Flood is to be found, de fide.

I don’t think all those animals jamming into the ark is de fide. I am asking though. It could read from a sense of Noah’s perspective: All the animals in his area. I dunno.

 

[Tarcisius]

Can anyone refer me to a good book or article about Noah that is written by a Catholic? I’d like to see what some Catholic experts say.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

AnAtheist:

So you rely on what someone else decides about bible verses, whether they are to be taken literally or not?

In a manner of speaking, yes. As Catholics we accept as authoritative the teachings handed down through Christ’s apostles about Scripture. There are some doctrines (de fide as mentioned) that are decidedly not “pick-and-choose”.

You have indirectly brought up a interesting point: Bible-onlyism, which frankly, I find as incoherent and unsatisying as you probably do. Catholics instead rely on Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium. The dogmas of the Church have to be harmonious with all three.

Scott

 

[Lance]

Scott Waddell:

In a manner of speaking, yes. As Catholics we accept as authoritative the teachings handed down through Christ’s apostles about Scripture. There are some doctrines (de fide as mentioned) that are decidedly not “pick-and-choose”.

You have indirectly brought up a interesting point: Bible-onlyism, which frankly, I find as incoherent and unsatisying as you probably do. Catholics instead rely on Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium. The dogmas of the Church have to be harmonious with all three.

Scott

Excellent answer. I wish I had come up with it. I totally agree with you.

 

[Mandi]

AnAtheist:

On the contrary, many people take it literally. And with good reason I might add. If you don’t take this story literally, why take the resurrection story literally?

Very true, which is why I take it literally.

Intellect tells me that Noah and his ark is nonsense

Faith tells me God said it is so - So it is SO!
If I can believe that at the words of concecration
"FOR THIS IS MY BODY" - That that little white host becomes My Lord and my God! I can certainly believe that if God wanted too, he could fit a “gazillion” animals on one little ark.

Faith - you either have it or you don’t! And if you don’t God have mercy on you.

I use to have a little saying. " If you find it hard to believe in God at least have enough sense to be afraid of hell!!!"

 

[Angainor]

MichaelTDoyle:

On another board an atheist asked something along this vein: If God is Love how could he wipe out all humanity … in a flood?

This isn’t really something we have to guess about. Genesis tells us:The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”
Genesis 6:5-7

As I understand from this website, the Hebrew for “wipe” is like “erase”. I tend to think God was contemplating unmaking man, as if they were never there.

MichaelTDoyle:

…except Noah…

This too we don’t need to guess at:But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Genesis 6:8