Noahs' Ark True of False?

[Orogeny]

Hello, Bill.

As I said previously, I don’t have a problem with you being a literalist. I really don’t.

The only reason I got involved with these threads is because of some scientific misinformation being presented. I don’t see science as a threat to our faith, but when I see someone (yourself and others) making misstatements about things I do know about, I feel I need to try to correct them. I don’t want to change your faith. I want you to continue your path to salvation. If evolution is a threat to you, avoid it. It really isn’t that important.

Evolution is not the problem in the world today. Society’s drift away from God has a lot of roots, but I think the main problem is the lack of catechesis on our part as parents and adults with our children. We don’t build a strong base and when some temptation comes along it is hard for them to keep the faith. If evolution (or geology or chemistry or physics) is taught as a substitute for faith (and I will agree that it is at times), it can be a problem, but the problem is with the teaching, not the subject.

I will leave it at that.

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

Bill << I cannot get away from God’s specific words, “For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.” (Genesis 6:17) >>

Well its not that difficult, even my note in the NIV Study Bible (a conservative evangelical translation) says the word “earth” need only mean the place around where Noah and his family lived. From his perspective “the earth” and “all flesh…on the earth shall die” refers to the area around Mesopotamia. The same idea with St. Paul in Romans 1:8 referring to the faith being reported “all over the world” which didn’t mean the entire earth, since the gospel didn’t reach the Americas or Australia or Antarctica (no people even lived on the latter). Hugh Ross and Glenn Morton give more biblical parallels to “earth” or “world” being restricted in both OT and NT.

So the local or “regional” flood is just as plausible an exegesis and coincides with the strong scientific objections against a recent global flood. What you are doing is totally ignoring the science (or misunderstanding it) and reading the bare biblical text. That’s fine for you, but many people can’t do that, especially those who respect and understand modern science.

As for God’s specific words, the view of the earth and universe from the perspective of the biblical writers appears to be both a flat earth and a non-moving, non-rotating earth and a geocentric universe. That is also “God’s specific words” and the plain reading of the biblical text. This is off the topic of this thread but here are two links, one from the Christian ASA organization, another from a skeptical site

Does the Bible teach a spherical earth? (his answer is No)

The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology

I answer these by saying the Bible is not a book of science, is not a scientific text, was never meant to portray or teach modern science, and God used the scientific knowledge of the time to convey his message of salvation to the biblical writers.

I’ll work on a more sophisticated position on this someday in a new article for my apologetics site covering the whole Adam/Eve, Flood, and Genesis issues and theological objections…

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

carol marie:

Or Jesus the 2nd Adam ?? also

“Last Adam”, according to St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15). And see also Romans 5.​

He and Mary are not related in quite the same way as Adam and Eve, so the phrases can’t be pressed too far.

St. Paul’s text is not in itself proof of an individual Adam - that is not St. Paul’s point. His concern in 1 Corinthians 15 is with Christ, and with why He is important, and with why His Resurrection is important ##

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Bill Rutland:

The fact is that the “uniformitarian understanding” has undergone tremendous change, especially in the 20th century. This is evidenced by Gould’s punctuated equilibria which is rapidly replacing Darwinism and neo-Darwinism (which as you know is based on the uniformitarian principal). In fact Catastrophism is making a come back in scientific circles as it is realized that geological change is often violent and rapid, and not slow and placid.

(end part one)

Though its fun to engage in arm-waving make believe about how Gouldian punk eek has eviscerated the Modern Synthesis and toppled the stodgy Darwinian orthodoxy, it fails to withstand even cursory scrutiny.

Punctuated equilibrium as advanced by Stanley (1975, 1981, 1982), Gould & Eldredge (1972, 1977), Eldredge (1984, 1985), Eldredge & Stanley (1984) and Gould (1980, 1982) and most vociferously espoused by Gould throughout the latter portion of his career, has come under significant criticism by a number of evolutionary biologists. While almost all agree that evolutionary rate is not constant at any one level and can be either bradytelyic, horotelyic, or tachytelyic (Simpson 1944), the specific presentation of punctuated equilibrium by Gould et al as a process of evolution fundamentally at odds with the neodarwinian paradigm, is seriously flawed. Indeed the very argument that evolution progresses continuously in a punctuational manner, has not been borne out by explicit review of the fossil record by which Gould and his colleagues made their argument in the first place. Most damaging are the studies of Phillip Gingerich on morphologic change in Cenozoic mammals demonstrating a more or less continual pattern of gradualism (1976, 1980, 1982), although further research into the pattern of morphologic change in mammals also fails to underwrite Gouldian punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record: see Hurzeler (1962), Chaline & Laurin (1986), Fahlbusch (1983), Harris & White (1979), MacFadden (1985), Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) and Maglio (1973). Carroll (1988) has emphasized that the defense of punctuated equilibrium using operational taxonomic units, per the method of Stanley (1981), is inherently flawed due to the limitations of the Linnean terminological infrastructure employed by taxonomic science, and emphasized that attention to anatomical detail and not taxonomic convention, precludes creating punctuated equilibria where none exist.

As for this alleged triumph of “catastrophism” over uniformtarianism, first and foremost you have completely misunderstood what uniformitarianism actually is. It most certainly is not the “placid” and gentle production of geological features throughout Earth history. This cleared up might you offer some example of “catastrophism” trumping uniformitarianism?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

(part two)

Steven J. Gould’s book The Panda’s thumb deals with this fact. In it Gould jumps through all kind of intellectual hoops to try to get around the obvious facts that one species did not evolve into another.

And the make believe continues. This statement is manifestly untrue, and not a single iota of substantive evidence can be brought to bear to support the veracity such ridiculous claims. Phyletic gradualism is overwhelmingly displayed amongst a variety of clades in the fossil record in which we see iterative, mosaic acquisition of derived character states within a general morphotype that still retains a number of symplesiomorphic characters. From basal avians to basal theropods to basal synapsids, down the phylogenetic tree to stem-tetrapods, and so on, this same pattern is repeated over, and over again. If this is not the case, might you care to explain the character distribution observed in taxa such as Ichthyostega, or Rahonavis, or say, Archaeopteryx. How about Presbyornis or Juncitarsus, or Confuciusornis? How, explicitly, do these taxa conform to your absolutely fantastical proposition that gradual, mosaic acquisition of derived character states does not exist in the fossil record?

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

Bill << I was speaking with a seminary student a while back (now he is a priest) who told me that the Gospels were not written by the men who’s names they bear. >>

Thanks, but the story of the seminary student, though interesting, doesn’t apply to me since I accept the authorship of the Gospels. Such things as Higher Criticism, the Documentary Hypothesis, the “historical” vs “faith” Jesus doesn’t apply to me. I am not some radical liberal modernist, but I do recognize Scripture as containing different genres of writing (poetry, myth, narrative, parables, and historical).

Bill << “If I cannot believe the Bible when it tells me that God parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus walked on water, then how can I possibly believe it when it tells we that what I receive on Sunday morning, that looks and tastes for all the world like bread and wine, is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?” She told me that I was confusing “facts with truth.” >>

Fact is only one way of telling truth - the Parable of Dives and Lazarus does not have to be a potted biography of a rich man and a poor man, in order to be true. Nor is the Parable of the Mustard Seed a lie because there are even smaller seeds; Our Lord was not giving a lesson on botany or arboriculture or horticulture.​

BTW, there is nothing “unCatholic” about Higher Criticism - see the 1993 “Instruction on the Bible in the Church” for the full story ##

But I didn’t say those were scientific. I suggest you read Peter Kreeft/Ron Tacelli’s chapter on the Resurrection of Christ, and I will mail you a two CD set (Best of PhilVaz) containing many William Lane Craig debates. He proves that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation of some key elements: the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus alive after his death witnessed by hundreds, and the very origin of the Christian faith. These all lead to the conclusion that “God raised Jesus from the dead” as the best explanation, as opposed to other explanations (the apostles were hallucinating, they stole the body, they went to the wrong tomb, etc).

So Craig’s apologetics takes both a historical and very scientific approach and demonstrates the resurrection of Christ. I would also look into his apologetics on the Big Bang and the Cosmological Arguments. Science can be a big help in Christian apologetics. What do you have to say to that?

I think the historical approach is wrong-headed - the Resurrection is not an historical event; it’s a meta-historical event: that is, it takes place not just in time and space, but also “beyond” it. That may be why it is ultimately a matter of faith.​

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued, ended]

Bill << At some point you have to depart from what your science tells you is true and believe God’s word. >>

Not necessarily, if you mean “believe God’s word literally all the time.” So you believe the snake spoke in the Garden of Eden? Do you believe the seven-headed dragon rising out of the sea in the book of Revelation is literal? Do you accept that God is a bird with feathers since it says “under his wings shall we trust” in the Psalms. There are literary genres we must take into account when reading the Bible. So No, we cannot simply “believe God’s word” since we need to interpret it carefully.

We do believe it “literally” all the time, because the words are the only means we have of encountering the intended meaning. So how about something such as, the words use the letter to speak figuratively, metaphorically, mythologically - IOW, by all kinds of figures of speech and varieties of genre (as you mentioned) - so that, although much is false if taken simply according to the letter and without attention to context, genre, or figures of speech and the like, all is true in some way if we attend to those things as we should. After all, Aesop is not a liar for making the animals and other beings in his fables reason and speak like human beings. IOW, the letter is always fundamental to the meaning, but that meaning, though in that sense “literal” is never “literalistic” - and IMO, it is these two things, the letter, and literalism, that tend to be confused.​

So of course we should believe God’s Word - but that Word is not always narrating truth by telling facts; sometimes it tells truth by using myths or wisdom or parables or apocalyptic, or in some other way - such as history, or propaganda perhaps. And as it is human as well as Divine, one should expect to find it speaking “as men speak” - with exaggeration, for example.

So: there is no seven-headed dragon with ten crowns, not in any museum or zoo anywhere. But there does not have to be, because the dragon is a mythological beast in an apocalypse, which the author is using as a vivid symbol of something that is all too familiar: great evil. The vehicle of the meaning is “made-up”, fictional - the thing meant, the lesson conveyed, is the reality.

Fundamentalism has done a lot of harm, in perpetuating the identification of truth with (something like) external fact. ##

 

[edwinG]

PaulDupre:

Here it is:

Deuteronomy 34:5-7
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.

And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

And Moses [was] an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

Paul

Hi Paul,
Thank you very much for that.
Christ be with you
walk in lovehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG

 

[PhilVaz]

Since this thread isn’t going off the first page for some time I thought I would add some informative links

The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must Be Local

Contains a lot of interesting exegesis and makes a purely biblical case for a local or regional flood, with answers to typical questions and objections

Genesis Interpretations, sections on Adam/Eve, Evolution, the Flood

The Waters of the Flood by Hugh Ross, gave this one earlier

The Mediterranean Flood by Glenn Morton, assumes a local flood but presents problems with both a local and global flood

Glenn Mortons many articles on the Flood

The Morris-Zindler Debate on Noah’s Flood, Zindler though an atheist presents good objections from science

Last but not least TalkOrigins

Problems with a Global Flood

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

GottleGeer << BTW, there is nothing “unCatholic” about Higher Criticism >>

It’s hard to keep up with the “players” on these threads.

The only thing I meant to say was “unCatholic” was Bill Rutland’s implication that science and Scripture do conflict, and when they do he picks Scripture. I understand a lot of Christian and Catholic people hold that, mainly from a misunderstanding of science and unsophisticated literal reading of Scripture, but according to the Catechism that view is unCatholic or “not Catholic” from paragrahs 159, 283-284 my favorite paragraphs

On criticism, I understand there are various views on that, higher, lower, textual, and form criticism. I meant the type of criticism of the Jesus Seminar folks who deny virtually everything in the Gospels. Anyway keep going, this thread has created a Flood of posts on a Flood of topics…

Phil P

 

[davy39]

Bill Rutland:

I am not going to argue the geologic column with you, I freely admit that although I have always had a great interest in geology and am an amateur fossil hunter, I hold no degree in evolutionary biology or uniformitarian geology. I have no doubt that you have a better understanding of the subject than do I. But, having said this I still cannot allow science to trump my faith, as I said I am unscientific in this respect. I also feel that there are other ways in which the geologic column and fossil evidence can be interpreted than by the evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions.

Ever since brother Darwin made his grand voyage on the Beagle evolution itself have been evolving. What was scientific fact in one generation was replaced by a new set of “facts” in the next. For instance take the theory of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (the theory that a fetus passes through the abbreviated stages of its evolutionary ancestors) which was held as fact for almost one hundred years, but has now been proven completely wrong; but sadly not before it could be used as scientific support for Roe vs. Wade.

Therefore I am content to believe the Bible. If I am wrong so be it. All that I ask is that my evolutionary brethren not look down their noses at me. You would not believe the grief I have suffered at the hands of Catholics who cannot believe that anyone could possibly take a literal view of the Bible seriously. I have been called fundamentalist, naive, blind sighted and even once stupid. So please don’t be so quick to dismiss your creationist brethren, you know, we may just be right

PAX CHRISTI

Bill

Out of all the replies I received on this thread, I believe I like your reply the best. If a person believes the bible, you’re not going to be too far off the truth. Maybe someday in the next life, this will all be explained to us by God, who is the Truth. Thanks too all that replied. It was much appreciated. God bless.

 

[Joanna]

I believe it happened.:yup:

Joanna

 

[buffalo]

One still has to reconcile this :

11 I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.

15 And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.

What exactly was God saying here?

 

[Mijoy2]

buffalo:

One still has to reconcile this :

11 I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.

15 And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.

What exactly was God saying here?

I read this just today (trying to get through the bible cover to cover. So far I am about 1/2 way through Genesis…lol).

I wondered the same thing as I read this. What exactly is the significance of God telling us He will not destroy the entire world with a flood? Why does He specify a flood yet does not mention a plague, or a meteor or for that matter, (more realistically probably) a war?

Is there any significance to His specifically saying a flood? Isn’t it kind of like attempting to comfort someone by saying, chance are you will never die by having a piano fall on you.

 

[patg]

Mijoy2:

Is there any significance to His specifically saying a flood? Isn’t it kind of like attempting to comfort someone by saying, chance are you will never die by having a piano fall on you.

That’s a good one! - I would actually prefer a flood to a lot of other things I can imagine God using.

Of course a being who’d torture you for all eternity for skipping mass or not believing the historical accuracy of the bible has a pretty hard time living up to the “loving father image” even with the promise of no more big floods.

 

[PhilVaz]

From Why the Bible says the Flood was Local

==========

Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) (verse 2, parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5, parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8, parallel to Genesis 1:9-10).

The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: “You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.” (Psalm 104:9) Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.

==========

I don’t know if I buy his exegesis, gotta get those Genesis and now Psalms commentaries.

Phil P

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Mijoy2:

I read this just today (trying to get through the bible cover to cover. So far I am about 1/2 way through Genesis…lol).

I wondered the same thing as I read this. What exactly is the significance of God telling us He will not destroy the entire world with a flood? Why does He specify a flood yet does not mention a plague, or a meteor or for that matter, (more realistically probably) a war?

Is there any significance to His specifically saying a flood? Isn’t it kind of like attempting to comfort someone by saying, chance are you will never die by having a piano fall on you.

In the “Atrahasis” poem the gods send a flood last of all - after plague, and other evils. This is done to cope with human over-population: they are so many people, they are keeping the gods from sleeping.​

Lack of sleep caused by the noisiness of others is also the reason for an attempt (in the so-called “Babylonian Epic of Creation”) by a primeval god to destroy his divine descendants - it doesn’t work

The Flood, by contrast, is sent because of human wickedness. It may be using familiar literary motifs, but it enriches them by making them ethical, and monotheistic. That is why it is important, IMO - not because it was an historical fact. Theolgically, a devastating local flood would be every bit as good for theological use and interpretation as a worldwide one.

People are so concerned with whether the early chapters of Genesis “really happened”, that they miss the literary and theological riches and value of these chapters. Which is a dreadful pity: for, why have a Bible, if one isn’t enriched and built up by it ? Apologetic is secondary to meditation on Scripture, IMHO - the Bible was not given us so that we should tie ourselves in knots about it, but to deepen our communion with God and one another. ##

 

[jeffreedy789]

philvaz - i admire your honesty and candor in sharing your beliefs about the flood, your science, and your faith. i do entirely disagree with you, but i applaud your charity as you share your thinking.

i would like to point something out - you posted ‘I understand that such fast continental drift and plate tectonics activity at that rate would have catastrophic effects.’

you do see the humor of that statement, i hope?

one answer to your many questions (job, ironically, had a few he never got ‘answered’, as well) is the idea of highly accelerated tectonic movement DURING the flood. in other words, part of what the flood WAS involved a huge shift in the floor of the ocean. so the kangaroos rode australia out to its current location.

let me ask this: if this is not the case, how do YOU explain how they all got out there? did they evolve out there? along with the aborigines?

 

[buffalo]

PhilVaz:

From Why the Bible says the Flood was Local

==========

Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) (verse 2, parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5, parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8, parallel to Genesis 1:9-10).

The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: “You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.” (Psalm 104:9) Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.

==========

I don’t know if I buy his exegesis, gotta get those Genesis and now Psalms commentaries.

Phil P

Except that creation is different than God intervening and causing a flood by his command.

 

[jeffreedy789]

perhaps i’m dense on this one (not out of the question), but please explain to me the obvious logic behind the following quotation:

‘Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.’