Noah's Ark - True Story or Fiction?

[spauline]

Della:

The reason there are flood stories in far flung places is that the human race spread to those places AFTER the flood event not before. So naturally, the descendants of Noah and his sons would have it as a part of their mythologies.

Human beings nearly went extinct about 70 to 80,000 (I believe that is the numbers) years ago, and scientists are still figuring out why. It may be that was the time of the flood, which took place everywhere humans lived within the Fertile Crescent, before they spread out across the globe.

Dear Della,

I think your statement about that the tale is in various cultures because they spread out AFTER the flood is a good point. however, I am not so sure I can accept that the Flood would have happened about 80,000 years ago. I have trouble thinking that human beings with souls have been around for that long. I realize, though, that that could be erroneous, as I talked with a former Siek (Indian pseudo-Christian) who explicitly stated that the Indian people have historical records of wars taking place around 10,000 BC (and he confirms that they were human beings and not merely animals). However, my gut feeling is that, whereas the earth may be billions of years old, human history properly began like the Bible seems to relate, i.e., about 4,000 BC. I believe this for one reason because I am a postmillie and see the appropriateness of human history being, more or less, 7,000 years total, a “day is as a thousand years.” Of course, the impending Millennium of which I speak is not Fundie chiliasm but the Catholic mystics’ “Age of Peace,” (that is, the Triumph of Our Lady of Fatima’s Immaculate Heart).

God Bless,
Scott

 

[spauline]

Della:

Why? It’s no good making sweeping statements to support either position, you know. Unless you explain why you believe that, we can’t determine if you are basing it on anything solid or merely on personal distaste for supernatural explanations.

As for me, I have already stated what I think, given what we know. I do wish someone would address my proposal instead of merely debating whose science is the more reliable, which seems to be too subjective to be truly useful.

Dear Della,

I echo your concern for those who doubt any historicity of the flood. I think it matters. For example, see this post I gave in steve ray’s forums:

forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=39813

GB,

Scott

 

[Della]

spauline:

Dear Della,

I echo your concern for those who doubt any historicity of the flood. I think it matters. For example, see this post I gave in steve ray’s forums:

forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=39813

GB,

Scott

Regarding the material in your linked postings on the DCF board, gracious sakes, man, you’ve nearly got enough for a book there! Frankly, the topic doesn’t really ring my bells. I think the Church has had periods of great sucess and periods of great failure (speaking strictly in terms of advances and human blunders). Trying to put it all into any kind of pattern only makes my po’ lettle ol’ haad ache!

 

[Mystophilus]

spauline:

I am not so sure I can accept that the Flood would have happened about 80,000 years ago. I have trouble thinking that human beings with souls have been around for that long. I realize, though, that that could be erroneous, as I talked with a former Sikh (Indian pseudo-Christian) who explicitly stated that the Indian people have historical records of wars taking place around 10,000 BC (and he confirms that they were human beings and not merely animals). However, my gut feeling is that, whereas the earth may be billions of years old, human history properly began like the Bible seems to relate, i.e., about 4,000 BC.

With respect, that creates certain problems regarding both history and archaeology. To cite one easy example, the city of Jericho is more than 9 000 years old. As mentioned elsewhere, the Native Americans first immigrated at least 20 000 years ago. There are several cultures which have histories stretching back before 4004 BC.

If we look at the genealogies at the beginning of Matthew and Luke and compare these with the OT, I think that the reason becomes clear. OT writers were not modern, Western news journalists: they did not aim for absolute accuracy in their reporting, and so some things were freely omitted.

 

[Della]

spauline:

Dear Della,

I think your statement about that the tale is in various cultures because they spread out AFTER the flood is a good point. however, I am not so sure I can accept that the Flood would have happened about 80,000 years ago. I have trouble thinking that human beings with souls have been around for that long. I realize, though, that that could be erroneous, as I talked with a former Siek (Indian pseudo-Christian) who explicitly stated that the Indian people have historical records of wars taking place around 10,000 BC (and he confirms that they were human beings and not merely animals). However, my gut feeling is that, whereas the earth may be billions of years old, human history properly began like the Bible seems to relate, i.e., about 4,000 BC. I believe this for one reason because I am a postmillie and see the appropriateness of human history being, more or less, 7,000 years total, a “day is as a thousand years.” Of course, the impending Millennium of which I speak is not Fundie chiliasm but the Catholic mystics’ “Age of Peace,” (that is, the Triumph of Our Lady of Fatima’s Immaculate Heart).

God Bless,
Scott

I think you need to be careful taking numbers from the Bible that represent long stretches of time too literally. A day equaling a thousand years, for instance, does not necessarily mean 7,000 years. It only means a very long stretch of time–it’s hyperbole of the same sort as Jesus used when he replied to Peter that we are to forgive our brother 70 x 7. He wasn’t being literal because that would limit how many times we are to forgive to 490 instead of at all times, every time as Jesus most certainly meant. Besides, the Catholic Church does not attach such a literal translation to such expressions, so we shouldn’t, either.

 

[crobynb]

I am glad there is a current thread about this topic. My husband and I discuss this regularly when thrown into a conversation with someone who does not believe.

Me? Well, call me naive/old school/silly/whatever - I believe the stories in the bible are true. God truly can do ANYTHING. If he wanted an Ark built, it would be built. If he wanted a fish to swallow Jonah, gulp. If he wanted His Son to die on a Cross and come back to life then be raised into Heaven, who am I to doubt??

I realize some of the stories are meant to be moral and lesson teaching, and rightly so. We should be concerned about why we are given this story instead of looking to prove or disprove it. All I know is for me - I cannot start picking and choosing what I think is real, true, myth, fiction, etc. It is all the Word of God and thus indisputable. As Christians it is important to lead by example. If I say I refuse to believe in this or “oh it is only a fairy tale” then how can we show the nonbeliever it is THE TRUTH? If one story is “myth” or fiction then who can prove the story of Jesus our Savior and his miraculous works and life are only fiction too?

 

[buffalo]

Noah’s Ark Search

**Satellite Search Underway For Noah’s Ark **

The Search for Noah’s Ark

 

[Della]

crobynb:

I am glad there is a current thread about this topic. My husband and I discuss this regularly when thrown into a conversation with someone who does not believe.

Me? Well, call me naive/old school/silly/whatever - I believe the stories in the bible are true. God truly can do ANYTHING. If he wanted an Ark built, it would be built. If he wanted a fish to swallow Jonah, gulp. If he wanted His Son to die on a Cross and come back to life then be raised into Heaven, who am I to doubt??

I realize some of the stories are meant to be moral and lesson teaching, and rightly so. We should be concerned about why we are given this story instead of looking to prove or disprove it. All I know is for me - I cannot start picking and choosing what I think is real, true, myth, fiction, etc. It is all the Word of God and thus indisputable. As Christians it is important to lead by example. If I say I refuse to believe in this or “oh it is only a fairy tale” then how can we show the nonbeliever it is THE TRUTH? If one story is “myth” or fiction then who can prove the story of Jesus our Savior and his miraculous works and life are only fiction too?

I agree 100%, crobynb! Well said.

In addition to your fine comments I’d just like to add that Jesus himself quoted from these stories, and not as if they were just morality lessons but as if they really happen. If they are good enough for Our Lord, they ought to be good enough for us, his disciples, shouldn’t they?

 

[crobynb]

Della -

Thank you!! I am sure that I will get a reply or two from nay-sayers and skeptics who will blow me out of the water with superior science, but it is nice to hear someone tell me I am not crazy!! Your reply means quite a bit to me - thanks for making my day!!

 

[Krasnaya_Kometa]

Orogeny:

I’m afraid not. Wood is not structurally strong enough for a boat that size.

Wood was stronger back then then it is now. A 4 x 4 can support more than a toothpick, a 12 x 12 can support more than a 4 x 4. It would be an impressive feat but it is possible, it all depends on the design.

Sounds a little like the chariots of the gods approach to me. Besides, you suggest that Noah would have been one of the advanced civilization, so he would have brought it along with him on the boat and we would know about it.

Not necessarily. Noah may have known that the technology was making civilization corrupt, so he didn’t bring it with him.It’s only speculation, but all I’m saying is that we really don’t know.

You can’t because they are right.

That doesn’t change the fact that the flood did, in fact happen.

Also, we don’t know if it was the whole world that flooded or not. Africa, western Asia, and Europe were the whole world to Noah, and since people hadn’t spread out yet, there wouldn’t be any people anywhere else. How could he know if America was flooded?

What matters is:

1. God will judge us for our sins.
2. God will also have mercy on us.
3. One righteous man can make an unimaginable difference - if there hadn’t been a righteous man like Noah, who would God have elected to build the ark and save humanity?
4. God is all-powerful.
5. God has promised not to destroy the world by flood again, which for us is an even deeper promise - that He will eventually send His Son to the earth to die for our sins.

I don’t know what happened. I know it definitely could happen if God made it happen, I realize the point of the story, but I’m not going to say for sure whether or not it did happen. A lot of the Bible is symbolic. For example, Jesus’s parables.

It wouldn’t affect whether Jesus died for our sins one way or the other, because while the point of the story of the Flood was what I listed above, the point of the Gospels depends on Jesus actually having existed. The point of the Gospels is that Jesus lived and then was crucified for our sins, and was raised from the dead. The story of the Flood doesn’t depend on having happened, but the Gospels do, and since they are still both the word of God, nobody can really say “well what if Jesus was just a story then?”.

 

[Krasnaya_Kometa]

I just realized I said “the flood did, in fact happen” and then said “I’m not going to say for sure whether it happened”. :ehh:

So let me rephrase. What I meant is that how much water on the planet doesn’t change whether or not the Flood happened. If it’s a true story, it’s true no matter how much water we have on the planet.

 

[Della]

It wouldn’t affect whether Jesus died for our sins one way or the other, because while the point of the story of the Flood was what I listed above, the point of the Gospels depends on Jesus actually having existed. The point of the Gospels is that Jesus lived and then was crucified for our sins, and was raised from the dead. The story of the Flood doesn’t depend on having happened, but the Gospels do, and since they are still both the word of God, nobody can really say “well what if Jesus was just a story then?”

I wouldn’t go too far with this line of thinking, though. Jesus referred to Noah as if he actually existed and did what the Scriptures said he did. I know it can be argued by those who want to see all the Bible as merely allegorical that Jesus was only making a point, but he didn’t address the story as if it were just a story. He told it in a very straightforward manner that in no way suggested Noah and the ark was pious fiction. This has a bearing because Jesus likened his death and resurrection to Noah and the flood.

Later, Paul goes on to cite Adam as if he had been a real person who truly effected the bringing of original sin into the world–not as a mere story told to teach us some lesson. This desire to explain things away is dangerous to the very foundations of our faith, which many are all to happy to eliminate so they can do as they please, call it justified, and pretend they still believe. Not you, dear friend, but far too many want to negate the stories of the Bible, which in turn makes many doubt the veracity of Jesus’ life and message as you so clearly stated.

 

[Della]

crobynb:

Della -

Thank you!! I am sure that I will get a reply or two from nay-sayers and skeptics who will blow me out of the water with superior science, but it is nice to hear someone tell me I am not crazy!! Your reply means quite a bit to me - thanks for making my day!!

You’re welcome! We crazy people have to stick together, don’t we?

 

[Krasnaya_Kometa]

Della:

I wouldn’t go too far with this line of thinking, though. Jesus referred to Noah as if he actually existed and did what the Scriptures said he did. I know it can be argued by those who want to see all the Bible as merely allegorical that Jesus was only making a point, but he didn’t address the story as if it were just a story. He told it in a very straightforward manner that in no way suggested Noah and the ark was pious fiction. This has a bearing because Jesus likened his death and resurrection to Noah and the flood.

Later, Paul goes on to cite Adam as if he had been a real person who truly effected the bringing of original sin into the world–not as a mere story told to teach us some lesson. This desire to explain things away is dangerous to the very foundations of our faith, which many are all to happy to eliminate so they can do as they please, call it justified, and pretend they still believe. Not you, dear friend, but far too many want to negate the stories of the Bible, which in turn makes many doubt the veracity of Jesus’ life and message as you so clearly stated.

I see your point. That is why I say I really don’t know for sure. I believe what I have to believe as a Catholic. I ceratinly don’t dismiss Noah’s Ark, it’s there for a reason. I’m split 51/49 as to whether the story was symbolic or not (leaning towards taking it literally), but I am 100% sure that the story either way is valid and inspired by God, and I think that’s what really matters.

 

[spauline]

Mystophilus:

With respect, that creates certain problems regarding both history and archaeology. To cite one easy example, the city of Jericho is more than 9 000 years old. As mentioned elsewhere, the Native Americans first immigrated at least 20 000 years ago. There are several cultures which have histories stretching back before 4004 BC.

If we look at the genealogies at the beginning of Matthew and Luke and compare these with the OT, I think that the reason becomes clear. OT writers were not modern, Western news journalists: they did not aim for absolute accuracy in their reporting, and so some things were freely omitted.

OK, well yes, I know that the Biblical writers, especially with material like Genesis, were not modern Western reporters, so, I can see your point that we should not take figures literally, and, as I indicated about the Sik of India telling me of wars around the year 10,000 BC, there is then, perhaps, certain evidence that human history extends significantly before 4000 BC.

In that vein, maybe I should be thinking in the idea of not a literal 7000 years, but 7 great stages that may not all be exactly 1,000 years.

 

[spauline]

Della:

I think you need to be careful taking numbers from the Bible that represent long stretches of time too literally. A day equaling a thousand years, for instance, does not necessarily mean 7,000 years. It only means a very long stretch of time–it’s hyperbole of the same sort as Jesus used when he replied to Peter that we are to forgive our brother 70 x 7. He wasn’t being literal because that would limit how many times we are to forgive to 490 instead of at all times, every time as Jesus most certainly meant. Besides, the Catholic Church does not attach such a literal translation to such expressions, so we shouldn’t, either.

Dear Della,

Well, yes, I think you are right about the fact that the Church does not always interpret Scripture literally. Yes, I’m well aware of that. So like I just told Mystopholis, maybe I can be thinking in terms of 7 great periods of Salvation History that may not actually be literally 1,000 years.

GB,
scott

 

[spauline]

Della:

Regarding the material in your linked postings on the DCF board, gracious sakes, man, you’ve nearly got enough for a book there! Frankly, the topic doesn’t really ring my bells. I think the Church has had periods of great sucess and periods of great failure (speaking strictly in terms of advances and human blunders). Trying to put it all into any kind of pattern only makes my po’ lettle ol’ haad ache!

Dear Della,

well, yes, I think that Church history has been rather a mess, but I’m still thinking that there is still, roughly, some sort of LOOSE structure to it, in terms of, as mentioned, five or so “epochs” if you will. But if this is not the case, why did no one on that forum respond one way or another? Either they think I’m crazy, or I don’t know. But anyways, thanks for the reply!

sincerely,
scott

 

[Krasnaya_Kometa]

spauline:

In that vein, maybe I should be thinking in the idea of not a literal 7000 years, but 7 great stages that may not all be exactly 1,000 years.

I just had a thought. The passage that says “With God, a day is as a thousand years” is followed immediately by “…and a thousand years is as a day”. This sort of paradox makes me think that perhaps the point of the passage isn’t that a biblical day = 1,000 years, but that the Kingdom of God isn’t bound by the laws of time that He created for our world. If the Bible says something occurs over a thousand years, do you interpret that as meaning a day?

It was only a thought, though. Can anyone back this up?

 

[Orogeny]

Krasnaya Kometa:

Wood was stronger back then then it is now.

You should either back this up with evidence or retract it. What a bunch of make believe to justify a point.

Not necessarily. Noah may have known that the technology was making civilization corrupt, so he didn’t bring it with him.It’s only speculation, but all I’m saying is that we really don’t know.

So the technology that no one knows about and for which there is no evidence made the people corrupt? You’re right, we really don’t know, so you would not disagree with Von Daniken’s thesis?

That doesn’t change the fact that the flood did, in fact happen.

A flood that, in fact, left no record of itself?

Also, we don’t know if it was the whole world that flooded or not. Africa, western Asia, and Europe were the whole world to Noah, and since people hadn’t spread out yet, there wouldn’t be any people anywhere else. How could he know if America was flooded?

How do you know there weren’t any people in America?

What matters is:

1. God will judge us for our sins.
2. God will also have mercy on us.
3. One righteous man can make an unimaginable difference - if there hadn’t been a righteous man like Noah, who would God have elected to build the ark and save humanity?
4. God is all-powerful.
5. God has promised not to destroy the world by flood again, which for us is an even deeper promise - that He will eventually send His Son to the earth to die for our sins.

I agree with those statements.

It wouldn’t affect whether Jesus died for our sins one way or the other, because while the point of the story of the Flood was what I listed above, the point of the Gospels depends on Jesus actually having existed. The point of the Gospels is that Jesus lived and then was crucified for our sins, and was raised from the dead. The story of the Flood doesn’t depend on having happened, but the Gospels do, and since they are still both the word of God, nobody can really say “well what if Jesus was just a story then?”.

I agree once again.

Peace

Tim

 

[Krasnaya_Kometa]

Orogeny:

You should either back this up with evidence or retract it. What a bunch of make believe to justify a point.

Actually, it is. It was stronger even in the begining of the century than it is now. It’s a common topic of discussion among instrument makers and technicians. The really good piano technicians will tell you never to replace an old soundboard in a piano unless it’s shot, because a new one is not going to sound as good.

I noticed you didn’t respond to my statement that a 12 x 12 is stronger than a 4 x 4 which is, in turn, stronger than a toothpick. So I guess I had a point.

So the technology that no one knows about and for which there is no evidence made the people corrupt? You’re right, we really don’t know, so you would not disagree with Von Daniken’s thesis?

I’m only saying, we don’t know what could have happened way back then that made the Flood story possible. Perhaps a high-quality epoxy. Maybe genetically engineered wood. We don’t know one way or the other, so without further knowledge, we can’t just say it’s impossible.

A flood that, in fact, left no record of itself?

That’s debatable whether or not it did. Certainly a few people in here seem to think there’s evidence of it happening, and I perfer to listen to them, seeing as how it’s easier to know something exists, than to say it doesn’t.

How do you know there weren’t any people in America?

Because the Flood supposedly happened before humanity spread out. Although they could’ve spread out before then, been wiped out, and then spread again long after the Flood.

I agree with those statements.

I agree once again.

Yes, but keep in mind that I wasn’t saying the Flood didn’t happen. I’m leaning a lot more to that it did happen.