Noah's Ark - True Story or Fiction?

[bonaventura]

Returning to the original topic.

I found this:

biologos.org/blog/gilgamesh-atrahasis-and-the-flood-part-3/

W

P.S. Roy, I appreciate that you are attempting an honest struggle, but your language reminds me of the radical fringe, when you ask why not “reexamine doctrines and practices that date back centuries” – I am trying very hard to do the opposite. I am trying to head towards Christ, and away from the world, which is engaged in self-congratulatory game of epistemological tiddly-winks, swirling in smaller and smaller circles, getting more and more lost in its own vanity.

 

[edwest2]

Roy5

You certainly can think about these things but which doctrines or practices seem to conflict with your thinking? The resurrection of Jesus Christ is fact. The virgin birth is fact. Original Sin is fact.

The Church also recognizes various appearances of the Blessed Virgin, who was sent by God to convey important messages.

As an aside, I’ve observed among some people (not you) a desire to turn the Bible either into a series of natural events or a series of stories with a message. Without a clear understanding of what the Church teaches, some people become confused. They sometimes consider opinions to be fact. This should be avoided on a Catholic forum.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

It appears that we have a different view on this issue. I have spent many years reading the Bible, the Church Fathers, and all sorts of contemporary books and opinions. I watch EWTN with some regularly, subscribe to Our Sunday Visitor, etc etc etc. I delight in faith, but I cannot go along with the idea that the faithful cannot reexamine doctrines and practices that date back centuries. Just because they go back to ancient times and have the imprimatur of the Church doesn’t - in my mind - mean that I can’t question them. I guess this means I don’t have a comfortable niche in the Catholic Church. I come from a mixed heritage and perhaps this is where it all started. We were encouraged while growing up to think for ourselves, and I guess I’m guilty of that.

May I point out an error in assumptions.

I can find nothing in Catholicism which says that one cannot re-examine doctrines and practices that date back centuries. Neither is there anything which dictates that one must leave one’s brains at the door. The error in assumptions which is being made is that if someone does re-examine actual doctrinal truths, they will automatically conclude that these truths are wrong. The error in assumptions is that somehow challenging the Church will automatically lead one away from Catholicism.

If I hadn’t stamped my foot and challenged God, I would not be here defending Catholicism. I was in Catholic high school and one day blatantly said to God that I wanted to know right now if He existed. There was no answer. So I did my own thinking, deciding that God was real…

Roy, the niche of doing one’s own thinking and questioning is definitely not comfortable. On the other hand, when one searches Catholicism, one finds amazing gems of truth. All this business about Noah etc. directed me to Adam, the first human being. I am still studying what happened at the dawn of history both from a scientific perspective and a Catholic perspective. I am grateful for my curiosity because that is what is leading me to a deeper appreciation for Catholicism.

By the way, there is plenty of room in my niche.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[Major_Tom]

Returning to the original topic.

I found this:

biologos.org/blog/gilgamesh-atrahasis-and-the-flood-part-3/

Very nice article. That link is to the third in the series. I like this from the first article:

“The authors of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis (not to mention Enuma Elish) all transformed older Sumerian stories for their own time and purposes. This same pattern is at work in the biblical flood story. The biblical story is also a reworking of older, well-known themes for a fresh purpose.”

 

[edwest2]

Very nice article. That link is to the third in the series. I like this from the first article:

“The authors of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis (not to mention Enuma Elish) all transformed older Sumerian stories for their own time and purposes. This same pattern is at work in the biblical flood story. The biblical story is also a reworking of older, well-known themes for a fresh purpose.”

This is incorrect. “Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909.

God bless,
Ed

 

[patg]

Jesus Christ is not a symbol but God and man - a historical fact.

That is pretty extreme as a generalization and quite a stretch of the concept of “history”. If such a radical concept were an accepted historical fact, it would certainly be mentioned in every history text.

Yes, the church teaches that we are to believe this is a historical fact and obviously to the church, it is.

However, that belief is purely based on faith and is not in any way related to the study of history (other than the fact that the church has historically taught it). The concept of Jesus Christ being God made man is totally outside the realm of history and historical evidence, as is the concept of his dying for our sins, etc.

 

[edwest2]

That is pretty extreme as a generalization and quite a stretch of the concept of “history”. If such a radical concept were an accepted historical fact, it would certainly be mentioned in every history text.

Yes, the church teaches that we are to believe this is a historical fact and obviously to the church, it is.

However, that belief is purely based on faith and is not in any way related to the study of history (other than the fact that the church has historically taught it). The concept of Jesus Christ being God made man is totally outside the realm of history and historical evidence, as is the concept of his dying for our sins, etc.

Really? The Church either knows something or it does not. The previous 2000 years have been recorded. Have you read the Bible? This is not a radical concept in any way, shape or form. The current propaganda system has mislead countless people into believing a false view of history and Christianity.

The current secular plan is to deny supernatural events and to substitute what God has done with man’s understanding. Why be Catholic if Jesus Christ is not a historical fact?

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

That is pretty extreme as a generalization and quite a stretch of the concept of “history”. If such a radical concept were an accepted historical fact, it would certainly be mentioned in every history text.

Yes, the church teaches that we are to believe this is a historical fact and obviously to the church, it is.

However, that belief is purely based on faith and is not in any way related to the study of history (other than the fact that the church has historically taught it). The concept of Jesus Christ being God made man is totally outside the realm of history and historical evidence, as is the concept of his dying for our sins, etc.

I get a tad cranky with extreme generalizations. Every history text? That all depends on the kind of documentation one considers as history.

How about looking at history based on corroboration? When I researched a person before the transition to computers, I handpicked newspaper clippings out of alumni files while dodging FBI agents who were doing the same thing. In other words, I used corroborative information to affirm the “history” of a person before writing about him.

Furthermore, there are plenty of concepts in history. Consider the Magna Carta, England, 1215. Just for fun, google “Sermon on the Mount”.

In my humble opinion, one cannot make a total blanket assumption about how the visible Catholic Church relates to the realm of history. The first chapters of Genesis are a perfect example of the different ways Catholicism participates in history.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[patg]

Really? The Church either knows something or it does not.

Yes, throught the eyes of faith it “knows” a lot.

The previous 2000 years have been recorded.

Yes, through the eyes of faith. Those recording it otherwise seemed to have missed this event.

Have you read the Bible?

Yes, and I know it is not a history book and I know that the church teaches that it is.only partly so.

This is not a radical concept in any way, shape or form.

I think that the concept of a god becoming human is quite radical, but maybe that’s just me.

The current propaganda system has mislead countless people into believing a false view of history and Christianity.

I think it is more that you are trying to redefine history to include faith based beliefs.

The current secular plan is to deny supernatural events and to substitute what God has done with man’s understanding. Why be Catholic if Jesus Christ is not a historical fact?

Jesus is a historical fact. What is not supportable as “historical fact” is that he was god. This is a matter of faith.

 

[buffalo]

Very nice article. That link is to the third in the series. I like this from the first article:

“The authors of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis (not to mention Enuma Elish) all transformed older Sumerian stories for their own time and purposes. This same pattern is at work in the biblical flood story. The biblical story is also a reworking of older, well-known themes for a fresh purpose.”

Biologos does not speak for the Church. It is a haven for theistic evolutionists.

The Sumerian accounts are corruptions of the Biblical account.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, throught the eyes of faith it “knows” a lot.

Yes, through the eyes of faith. Those recording it otherwise seemed to have missed this event.

Yes, and I know it is not a history book and I know that the church teaches that it is.only partly so.

I think that the concept of a god becoming human is quite radical, but maybe that’s just me.

I think it is more that you are trying to redefine history to include faith based beliefs.

Jesus is a historical fact. What is not supportable as “historical fact” is that he was god. This is a matter of faith.

Do you believe the same actual living Jesus Christ will judge you after you die? Respectfully, do you believe you pray to an actual person?

Thank you,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Yes, throught the eyes of faith it “knows” a lot.

Yes, through the eyes of faith. Those recording it otherwise seemed to have missed this event.

Yes, and I know it is not a history book and I know that the church teaches that it is.only partly so.

I think that the concept of a god becoming human is quite radical, but maybe that’s just me.

I think it is more that you are trying to redefine history to include faith based beliefs.

Jesus is a historical fact. What is not supportable as “historical fact” is that he was god. This is a matter of faith.

Can we ignore the various faith opinions and go back to considering history per se as I tried to do in post 248?

 

[Roy5]

One more posting on the subject and then I intend to drop it. Other matters pressing for attention.

I find the first eleven chapters of Genesis impossible to believe literally. This includes essentially (1) the chronology of the creation of the earth - for example, the stars, sun and moon created after the earth, (2) the story of Adam and Eve, the forbidden fruit and the punishments for disobedience, (3) the chronology outlined in Genesis 5; (4) the story of Noah, amd (5) the story of the Tower of Babel and the origin of languages. Then, of course, those cryptic and myth-sounding verses found in Genesis 6. verses 1-4. 

I also have serious trouble with many of the atrocities in the Old Testament attributed to God. For example, I can't believe that God could issue the Ten Commandments and then order Joshua to kill the entire civilian populations of Jericho, Ai, etc. Not can I believe that Jehovah sent King Saul after the Amalekites, instructing him to slaughter every single person, including innocent babies, many still in the womb. Etc.

 This does not mean I have difficulty believing in God and in Christ, but I simply am not able to accept myth as history nor to believe that God would tell humanity not to kill, certainly not kill the innocent, then order it done on a mammoth scale. You may respond that God must have had a good reason and all that, but that's where I must part company. I believe in a God of love, mercy and justice and not a God who demands masaacres of the innocent. This doesn't for a moment challenge the goodness and power and love of God, but it does challenge distorted views of God. How can a Christian rationalize these horror stories? I can't.

 

[buffalo]

One more posting on the subject and then I intend to drop it. Other matters pressing for attention.

I find the first eleven chapters of Genesis impossible to believe literally. This includes essentially (1) the chronology of the creation of the earth - for example, the stars, sun and moon created after the earth, (2) the story of Adam and Eve, the forbidden fruit and the punishments for disobedience, (3) the chronology outlined in Genesis 5; (4) the story of Noah, amd (5) the story of the Tower of Babel and the origin of languages. Then, of course, those cryptic and myth-sounding verses found in Genesis 6. verses 1-4. 

I also have serious trouble with many of the atrocities in the Old Testament attributed to God. For example, I can't believe that God could issue the Ten Commandments and then order Joshua to kill the entire civilian populations of Jericho, Ai, etc. Not can I believe that Jehovah sent King Saul after the Amalekites, instructing him to slaughter every single person, including innocent babies, many still in the womb. Etc.

 This does not mean I have difficulty believing in God and in Christ, but I simply am not able to accept myth as history nor to believe that God would tell humanity not to kill, certainly not kill the innocent, then order it done on a mammoth scale. You may respond that God must have had a good reason and all that, but that's where I must part company. I believe in a God of love, mercy and justice and not a God who demands masaacres of the innocent. This doesn't for a moment challenge the goodness and power and love of God, but it does challenge distorted views of God. How can a Christian rationalize these horror stories? I can't.

We should have purged Scripture long ago from these verses. They should have cleaned it up so any questionable or offending verses so it would be a feel good fairytale book.

 

[twinc]

One more posting on the subject and then I intend to drop it. Other matters pressing for attention.

I find the first eleven chapters of Genesis impossible to believe literally. This includes essentially (1) the chronology of the creation of the earth - for example, the stars, sun and moon created after the earth, (2) the story of Adam and Eve, the forbidden fruit and the punishments for disobedience, (3) the chronology outlined in Genesis 5; (4) the story of Noah, amd (5) the story of the Tower of Babel and the origin of languages. Then, of course, those cryptic and myth-sounding verses found in Genesis 6. verses 1-4. 

I also have serious trouble with many of the atrocities in the Old Testament attributed to God. For example, I can't believe that God could issue the Ten Commandments and then order Joshua to kill the entire civilian populations of Jericho, Ai, etc. Not can I believe that Jehovah sent King Saul after the Amalekites, instructing him to slaughter every single person, including innocent babies, many still in the womb. Etc.

 This does not mean I have difficulty believing in God and in Christ, but I simply am not able to accept myth as history nor to believe that God would tell humanity not to kill, certainly not kill the innocent, then order it done on a mammoth scale. You may respond that God must have had a good reason and all that, but that's where I must part company. I believe in a God of love, mercy and justice and not a God who demands masaacres of the innocent. This doesn't for a moment challenge the goodness and power and love of God, but it does challenge distorted views of God. How can a Christian rationalize these horror stories? I can't.

What if it is you that have a distorted view of God - for example just in this world’s scheme of things what about Aids should it be allowed to flourish unchecked - lets not presume we know better than God and suggest we know better how He should run the world or allow or prevent it fron running.He who gave His son to suffering and death surely would not have had there been a better alternative. Presumably there had to be a death before a resurrection - twinc

 

[Major_Tom]

What if it is you that have a distorted view of God

Entirely possible… however, what if you (or any other poster here) has a distorted interpretation of the Noah’s Ark story?

I’ve read several different “takes” on the story in this thread from Catholics. Is it literal, historical/non-historical, symbolic, all of the above to some degree…? Are the ‘Nephilim’ real, or symbolic? Fallen angels? Another race of humans? Was Noah’s son really punished for accidentally seeing his father naked… or was that symbolic language for some other transgression?

I think Roy’s questioning of meaning drew a lot of fire because it was stated more forcefully than others, but his questioning on meaning differs only in scale.

 

[grannymh]

Entirely possible… however, what if you (or any other poster here) has a distorted interpretation of the Noah’s Ark story?

I’ve read several different “takes” on the story in this thread from Catholics. Is it literal, historical/non-historical, symbolic, all of the above to some degree…? Are the ‘Nephilim’ real, or symbolic? Fallen angels? Another race of humans? Was Noah’s son really punished for accidentally seeing his father naked… or was that symbolic language for some other transgression?

I think Roy’s questioning of meaning drew a lot of fire because it was stated more forcefully than others, but his questioning on meaning differs only in scale.

I can’t answer any of your questions,
because to my knowledge there are lots of educated opinions but no real, officially defined Catholic dogma attached to Noah. Noah has had meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament, and tradition. Let’s face it. There is a lot that can be learned about humanity and salvation from Noah. Yet, Noah is not on the same doctrinal level as Adam.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[twinc]

Entirely possible… however, what if you (or any other poster here) has a distorted interpretation of the Noah’s Ark story?

I’ve read several different “takes” on the story in this thread from Catholics. Is it literal, historical/non-historical, symbolic, all of the above to some degree…? Are the ‘Nephilim’ real, or symbolic? Fallen angels? Another race of humans? Was Noah’s son really punished for accidentally seeing his father naked… or was that symbolic language for some other transgression?

I think Roy’s questioning of meaning drew a lot of fire because it was stated more forcefully than others, but his questioning on meaning differs only in scale.

endless problems arise if we deviate from the ruling that the literal or obvious must always be accepted unless reason or neccessity dictate otherwise - anyway why introduce way out,weird and wacky alternatives - twinc

 

[twinc]

endless problems arise if we deviate from the ruling that the literal or obvious must always be accepted unless reason or neccessity dictate otherwise - anyway why introduce way out,weird and wacky alternatives - twinc

for further info etc try www.allaboutcreation.org - twinc

 

[Roy5]

It’s one thing to suggest that God permits sin, disease, atrocities, etc., because of our free will, but quite another to say that he deliberately drowned all humankind (except Noah’s family), that God ordered Joshua and Saul to slaughter the innocent, or that David was greater than Saul because “Saul has killed his thousands but David his ten thousands!”
I consider blaming such outrages against the innocent on God (and in complete defiance of his own commandments) as a vile slander against my eternal Father who is properly characterized as a God of love, justice, mercy, etc. If you can believe in such a vengeful deity, go ahead, but I have to dissent strongly. Certainly that god has nothing to do with Jesus who asked us to forgive one another and even love our enemies.