Noah's Ark - True Story or Fiction?

[Christ4Life]

I did not mean by bringing this thread back to life after a long time to arouse hard words between you.

I am Oriental Orthodox, therefore my thinking and my insistence on such things is more important to me than what you may think. I allow myself to say that none of us is in charge of saying who is a heretic, lets leave that job to those who have it. Also, none of us are in the position to say who is judging who. I hope, that, as Christians, we can argue amongst each other in complete love.

That being said, yes this theology is more important to me than many may think. Its not just dismissing a story of the Bible as a “myth”. I strongly believe that God created us the way He did and took us by the hand and led us little by little, even when we fell. He made the covenant with Noah and gave him trust and love. It actually happened. Do you have any idea how compassionate that is? For God to chose the one person in the whole world who is righteous and to show him that his God truly is just, and that this same God would never forsake him, that is the complete expression of love. Do you not think that after the fall, and the subsequent halt of communication between man and God that mankind might have lost hope? They did lose hope, for only Noah was righteous. Was God to the whole world be full of filth? No, He was to cleanse it, but He was also to give it hope. My words may not have any hard proof in them, but the hard proof is coming later. This is simply the emotional proof of it.

 

[juliamajor]

I did not mean by bringing this thread back to life after a long time to arouse hard words between you.

I am Oriental Orthodox, therefore my thinking and my insistence on such things is more important to me than what you may think. I allow myself to say that none of us is in charge of saying who is a heretic, lets leave that job to those who have it. Also, none of us are in the position to say who is judging who. I hope, that, as Christians, we can argue amongst each other in complete love.

That being said, yes this theology is more important to me than many may think. Its not just dismissing a story of the Bible as a “myth”. I strongly believe that God created us the way He did and took us by the hand and led us little by little, even when we fell. He made the covenant with Noah and gave him trust and love. It actually happened. Do you have any idea how compassionate that is? For God to chose the one person in the whole world who is righteous and to show him that his God truly is just, and that this same God would never forsake him, that is the complete expression of love. Do you not think that after the fall, and the subsequent halt of communication between man and God that mankind might have lost hope? They did lose hope, for only Noah was righteous. Was God to the whole world be full of filth? No, He was to cleanse it, but He was also to give it hope. My words may not have any hard proof in them, but the hard proof is coming later. This is simply the emotional proof of it.

You really and truly misunderstand my position- apparently the my emotional note made no impression. I thought is was very clear what I feel about it and how important it is.What do you believe that I’m saying here? God Brought the world into being with a mere thought. His words brought the universe into being.His Spirit moved over the dark waters of the abyss. He brought Light and stars. he brought the birds of the air , the fish of the sea and the cattle of the field. Flowers bloom, grass grows and the insects filled the air with their song… All good, all made by the Potter’s loving hand- all for us. and from the simple clay of the earth He molded us breathing life and soul into dust. Out of love he put the world into motion - out of love he created us- out of love He set salvation history into motion culminating in the greatest act of love He could possibly show us.Jesus’ death and resurrection are painful reminders to us humans of God’s all encompassing , infinite love-are we worthy of it, do we deserve it?Apparently our Triune God thinks so. what began in Genesis will end in the victory of His return.Not taking Noah or Nimrod or anything of those etiological stories as fact in no way diminishes the effect that those stories have on us.THey are many milleniums old - if they didn’t have an impact on us - it wouldn’t have lasted this long.You have no idea how seriously and how important I take Genesis- yes and the theological import is profound. I can tell you from experience that the way I was taught in my Bible school gave my a greater respect and love for scriptures. Before I would have viewed them as “fairytale stories” with little impact-. But having learned what I have learned and experienced the deeper meaning of them and how important they are. My studies have increased my respect and love of the profound nature of Scripture and the importance it had and has on my life and that of the world. Keeping it in the realm of cute stories is what I honestly think denigrates it in the eyes of many. For centuries the books of the bible have been argued and debated over- each generation finding how this ancient book is vibrant and living- and relevant to our understanding of God and our relationship to Him.I see nothing wrong in debate, if anything it is a very catholic way of scholarship… Peace

 

[dranzal]

I know there have been “scholars” in recent years casting doubt on the historicity of these stories. As I previously said, it doesn’t matter what I think or what you think. The Church has spoken:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**58 **The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.

**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.

**1080 **From the very beginning God blessed all living beings, especially man and woman. The covenant with Noah and with all living things renewed this blessing of fruitfulness despite man’s sin which had brought a curse on the ground.

**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”.

The Church speaks about this as actual history. God made a covenant with Noah.

Isaiah 54:
9
This is for me like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah should never again deluge the earth; So I have sworn not to be angry with you, or to rebuke you.

In the Gospels, Jesus speaks of Noah as actual history.

Luke 17:
26
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man;
27
they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

 

[spauline]

Wow-judgmental much! You are sooo way out of line.- i’m glad you are not in charge of who heretics are- the only one who wouldn’t be thrown to the outer darkness would be you.I never saw
anyone as smug with their beliefs as you- oh, I misspoke- there in the gospels and are called Pharisees! Watch out for that log in your eye feller- it can be a real killer.

Dear Julia,

I apologize for being pharisaical. You are right, I have no authority to tell you even that you are bordering on heresy, as I am not the Church. So I ask you to forgive me, for being judgemental. I get carried away.

I should have pointed out what i had to say in a more charitable way.

But as the other posted showed from the CCC, the Church, even if not dogmatically, does seem to recognize less than infallibly that some sort of covenant was formed with Noah, and that humanity descending into a general fall after Adam and Eve that warranted the supernatural intervention of a Flood.

The precise nature of the Flood doesn’t necessarily matter (was it literally worldwide, or just local? The animals?). What matters is, in some sense, the near whole of humanity was wicked, and God needed to Intervene not in wrath but in mercy to cleanse the earth of sin. The Church seems to believe in general teaching that something of this nature occurred. Obviously, like Genesis 1-3, the text is explaining it allegorically, BUT, in some sense it is history, just as there are dogmas concerning the Creation and Fall of man, and that therefore, Genesis 1-3 is dealing with history, and not merely fictitious parables, even if in symbolic form.

 

[buffalo]

But what proves that they were using it as a metaphor? Nothing does. In fact, we have reason to believe it isn’t a metaphor. When Christ describes the times of Noah and compares it to his times, we have reason to believe that the Ark actually existed. It’s like saying life in some third world countries is like that of the French Revolution. Is that a metaphor? No, I mean it literally. So what makes Christ’s analogy any different?

This is really interesting:

Ancient Chinese Characters

 

[juliamajor]

Dear Julia,

I apologize for being pharisaical. You are right, I have no authority to tell you even that you are bordering on heresy, as I am not the Church. So I ask you to forgive me, for being judgemental. I get carried away.

I should have pointed out what i had to say in a more charitable way.

But as the other posted showed from the CCC, the Church, even if not dogmatically, does seem to recognize less than infallibly that some sort of covenant was formed with Noah, and that humanity descending into a general fall after Adam and Eve that warranted the supernatural intervention of a Flood.

The precise nature of the Flood doesn’t necessarily matter (was it literally worldwide, or just local? The animals?). What matters is, in some sense, the near whole of humanity was wicked, and God needed to Intervene not in wrath but in mercy to cleanse the earth of sin. The Church seems to believe in general teaching that something of this nature occurred. Obviously, like Genesis 1-3, the text is explaining it allegorically, BUT, in some sense it is history, just as there are dogmas concerning the Creation and Fall of man, and that therefore, Genesis 1-3 is dealing with history, and not merely fictitious parables, even if in symbolic form.

maybe I wasn’t clear but my point was and is that it is not literal history’" but in some sense it is history"that is a concept very foreign to the west but familiar in the East. That was my basic point but I guess I expressed myself badly . may the Peace of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always. In Christ- Julie

 

[dranzal]

For you, in “what sense” is it history, if not literally?

 

[spauline]

maybe I wasn’t clear but my point was and is that it is not literal history’" but in some sense it is history"that is a concept very foreign to the west but familiar in the East. That was my basic point but I guess I expressed myself badly . may the Peace of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always. In Christ- Julie

thank you for accepting my apology, Julia.

really, then, we are on the same page, I just misunderstood your position.

I pray blessings on you as well.

In Him and Her,
Scott

 

[spauline]

For you, in “what sense” is it history, if not literally?

I am sorry to hear of your loss, dranzal, may Jesus be with you.

 

[para8888]

Noah’s Ark is a fictional fable…There was no flood. There was no guy named Noah (who supposedly 600 years old when he built this boat) and he didn’t collect all the animals of the earth.

It’s fiction folks. Don’t take everything you read so literally.

 

[buffalo]

Noah’s Ark is a fictional fable…There was no flood. There was no guy named Noah (who supposedly 600 years old when he built this boat) and he didn’t collect all the animals of the earth.

It’s fiction folks. Don’t take everything you read so literally.

Thanks. I believe because you say so.

 

[para8888]

Thanks. I believe because you say so.

…and I suppose you believe everything in the bible because it says so??

 

[mich2]

Noah’s Ark is a fictional fable…There was no flood. There was no guy named Noah (who supposedly 600 years old when he built this boat) and he didn’t collect all the animals of the earth.

It’s fiction folks. Don’t take everything you read so literally.

Being a catholic, I disagree, of coarse. Certainly you have every right to believe or reject as truth anything you wish.
I would agree the story might have metaphysical
elements. I would go as far as saying the “world” which has been destroyed by the flood was a spiritual one and may not have been a “world wide” flood as we identify it. My personal opinion would be the Flood destroyed the “second” Heaven, a spiritual world, or metaphysical one, if you wish. However, I do believe the story is true, whether I understand it’s content or not.

Andre

 

[para8888]

Being a catholic, I disagree, of coarse. Certainly you have every right to believe or reject as truth anything you wish.
I would agree the story might have metaphysical
elements. I would go as far as saying the “world” which has been destroyed by the flood was a spiritual one and may not have been a “world wide” flood as we identify it. My personal opinion would be the Flood destroyed the “second” Heaven, a spiritual world, or metaphysical one, if you wish. However, I do believe the story is true, whether I understand it’s content or not.

Andre

Is it possible that the men who wrote the bible made up the story?..Does that even cross your radar?

 

[Orogeny]

Is it possible that the men who wrote the bible made up the story?..Does that even cross your radar?

No.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

…and I suppose you believe everything in the bible because it says so??

Pretty much. I agree with the Church’s understanding of Bible passages.

Now we couple this with Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium and we get a pretty clear picture.

And what do you base your criticism of the Bible on?

 

[para8888]

No.

Peace

Tim

Sorry to hear.

Peace

Greg

 

[mich2]

Is it possible that the men who wrote the bible made up the story?..Does that even cross your radar?

Of coarse it did… However, to simply dismiss everything because what is read might sound outrageous, is not how I personally deal with what I personally accept as truth or erronious.Quantum Mechanics has also outrageous theoretical implications as well, and I’m certain that you accept, by faith only (and I can prove it) that you would not oppose such implications on the grounds that it is “scientific” in nature and not religious…If what I’m saying is true, it would identify an irrational acceptance of scientific belief and a rejection of religious ones on your part.

The bible is not one book written by one person. Even within the book of Genesis lies many authors. Yet, in my opinion, too many common elements within those books exists in order to personally believe that each and every authors invented independantly their own particular stories.

Andre

 

[para8888]

Of coarse it did… However, to simply dismiss everything because what is read might sound outrageous, is not how I personally deal with what I personally accept as truth or erronious.Quantum Mechanics has also outrageous theoretical implications as well, and I’m certain that you accept, by faith only (and I can prove it) that you would not oppose such implications on the grounds that it is “scientific” in nature and not religious…If what I’m saying is true, it would identify an irrational acceptance of scientific belief and a rejection of religious ones on your part.

The bible is not one book written by one person. Even within the book of Genesis lies many authors. Yet, in my opinion, too many common elements within those books exists in order to personally believe that each and every authors invented independantly their own particular stories.

Andre

I never said it was written by one person. But to take for fact everything in a book because some people considers it “holy” is ridiculous. You should question all of it with a dose of healthy skepticism.

Does it really make sense to you that “God” would get this supposed 600 YEAR OLD man to build a boat and collect animals so that he could drown everyone on earth.

…where do I start. Where in your brain is plausible that men lived to be 800 and 900 years old?..Come on…The Greeks had their myths too, but I don’t see anyone trying to rationalize those.

No wonder that Christianity is split into so many different paths. No one can agree on anything that it says.

Do you also believe that God co-authored the Quran too?..Is everything in that book fact also?

 

[mich2]

I never said it was written by one person. But to take for fact everything in a book because some people considers it “holy” is ridiculous. You should question all of it with a dose of healthy skepticism.

Does it really make sense to you that “God” would get this supposed 600 YEAR OLD man to build a boat and collect animals so that he could drown everyone on earth.

…where do I start. Where in your brain is plausible that men lived to be 800 and 900 years old?..Come on…The Greeks had their myths too, but I don’t see anyone trying to rationalize those.

No wonder that Christianity is split into so many different paths. No one can agree on anything that it says.

Do you also believe that God co-authored the Quran too?..Is everything in that book fact also?

You are wise indeed to ask all of these questions;
however, to simply reject any/all of it , in my opinion, is simply surrendering to your/our biased way of accepting as truth only that which agrees with our interpretation of what we are capable of observing. Imagine, for a moment, that the gift of sight would not exist. What type of universe would we be able to accept as scientifically true? What if, through genetical error, one person is born with the gift of sight, and explains the existance of the vast (almost infinite) universe with all it’s stars, the moon and sun to the rest of humanity. How could one scientifically accept such a world without receiving first the gift of sight? We do have many, throughout the age of humanity, who have claimed to witness a different world as existing. Why so many? True, our brain can indeed play tricks on us at times…but is it really a
valid reason to discredit all of those who claimed to having witnessed such a world?

As for Genesis, Adam and Eve first lived in Paradise. Jesus said to the thief beside Him:“Today, you will be with me in Paradise”. Clearly He is speaking of a “spiritual” or metaphysical dimention. After they are sent away from Paradise, an angel is place to prevent them from re-entering. This spiritual dimention is the setting till after the flood, which is why I suspect the flood destroyed a “spiritual world”. So, what if such a world has a much different time frame of reference where as to give 1000 years to a living person is not impossible? If, according to Einstein, this reality can exist with a travelling twin, why not within another metaphysical spacetime dimention?

However, to speak of a spiritual world does not mean that there would be no connection to the physical world we experience. Therefore, the Great flood, which might have destroyed a spiritual world, also could have destroyed a “local earthly place”… I personally would point to Egypt.

Andre