Noah's Ark?

[buffalo]

The constant teaching and understanding of the Church has been that the Bible is not a science text and that we should not be trying to use Scripture in that manner. Augustine in particular taught that trying to use Scripture as a guide to science is dangerous to the faith. From De genesi:

Also from De Genesi:

The constant teaching and understanding of the Church has been that Noah and his family survived the flood.

 

[Third_Day]

=DavidPalm;7702256]And this is bolstered by John Paul II in his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Science in which he echoes his predecessors by stating that, “the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world” and that, “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.”

The Commission studied the Galileo affair for ten years and yet this is the Popes’ strongest statement on the Galileo affair? Saint Robert Bellarmine was the lead theologian who was doing exactly what the Church teaches, “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires it.” For Saint Bellarmine there was no reason to depart from the literal sense and there still isn’t any reason to depart from the literal sense of scripture.

Pope John Paul also says this:
“Secondly, the geocentric representation of the world was commonly admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible of which certain expressions, taken literally seemed to affirm geocentrism. The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.”
The Pope affirms that taken literally the word of God affirms geocentrism and is in conflict with heliocentrism.

*“Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.” *

I would be willing to bet that this entire speech was written by Cardinal Poupard. “Most of them did not know how?” Robert Bellarmine didn’t know how to interpret scripture ? I think the Pope is succumbing to” historical criticism” where some theologians teach that John did not write John, Jesus never performed miracles and the writers put words in the mouth of Jesus. These same theologians who “did not know how” to interpret scripture accepted the literal interpretation of scripture to teach transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration.

*Cardinal Poupard has also reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and that the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele.(7) *

Father Coyne who was a member of the Commission to study this issue has this to say about the above statement:

"So far as we can conclude from the circumstances of the condemnation, Pope Urban VIII and the Cardinals of the Holy Office did not themselves think it to be “reformable.” Furthermore, if it was reformable, why has the condemnation of 1633 or, for that matter, the Decree of the Congregation of the Index in 1616 never explicitly been “reformed.?”……The imprimatur of 1822 did not refer to Galileo or to the sentence of 1633. It referred to the teachings of Copernicanism. And if it is claimed that the Imprimatur implicitly reformed the sentence of 1633, why was it not made explicit? As a matter of fact, the works of Copernicus and Galileo remained on the Index until 1835 more than a decade after the Settele affair. And since the sentence of 1633 refers explicitly to Galileo’s failure to observe the decree of 1616, why was that decree not also reformed? Of course, if the tactical maneuver of the Commissary of the Holy Office, Olivieri, for granting the imprimatur to Settele’s book were to be accepted, then the decree of 1616 and the sentence of 1633 would have been fully justified. At the recommendation of the cardinals of the Holy Office, in order to resolve the issue and to “safeguard the good name of the Holy See,” Olivieri devised the following formula. Copernicus was not correct, since he observed circular orbits and epicycles. The Church was, therefore, justified on scientific grounds to condemn Copernicanism in 1616 and 1633. Obviously, there was no need to revoke a decree which rejected what was incorrect at the time of the decree! It appears, from the diaries of Settele, that Olivieri himself had some doubts about his argumentation. Considering all the circumstances, the resolution of the Settele affair can hardly be considered a definitive reform of the sentence of 1633.” The Church and Galileo.

In my opinion Pope John Paul’s speech fails to prove that the Church erred in her condemnation of heliocentrism
The Pope said that theologians erred yet he makes no mention of Robert Bellarmine, Pope Paul V and Urban VIII. Why not specifically say that they erred?

Why didn’t the Pope formally reject the sentence of the Inquisition which reads:

"The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture…The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”

 

[Faith1960]

f

Which is why it is important to recognize openly that the writers of scripture were not scientists and that it is O.K. for them to have been mistaken on certain points relating to such things as geocentrism or global flooding. Rather than burying our heads in the sand and insisting that scripture is 100% literal at all times, it is important to acknowledge that the expertise of the writers of scripture extended only to matters of faith, not to matters of astrophysics. Trust me, kids will much more easily lose faith in scripture if we insist on literalistic interpretations of things that have all but been proven false than if we tell them that the important and infallible messages in scripture relate to God and Jesus Christ and not to the movement of the Earth or some supposed global flood that is scoffed at by every reputable scientist alive today.

 

[JackQ]

The Hebrew word is raqiya’, raw-kee’-ah; frm H7554; prop. an expanse, i.e. the firmament or visible arch of the sky
The Greek word used is stereoma {ster-eh’-o-mah} from 4732; TDNT - 7:609,1077; n n 1) that which has been made firm 1a) the firmament, the arch of the sky.

You are putting too much emphasis on the idea of a “solid” dome. What exactly is meant by that? Moses saw the sun, moon and stars in the firmament so how “solid” was the firmament. Hebrew was a limited language and Moses was using what was available.
Genesis 1:8 says “And God called the firmament Heaven.” Seems to me the firmament was quite expansive. Its meaning is in one sense the same as Heaven.

Science says there are massive amounts of water in space and therefore more than enough to flood the entire earth. As Peter tells us “by the word of God heavens existed long ago and **an earth formed out of water **and by means of water through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.” 2 Peter 3:5-6

Psalm 148:4 says: ‘Praise Him, highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens!

astrobio.net/pressrelease/142/cold-clouds-and-water-in-space

You’re assuming that by” foundations” it is meant that the earth is being held up. The word could also be used to show the earth does not move which is a description of geocentrism which has never been disproven

The article put words in Pope Joh Paul’s mouth.

The media may call it an apology but John Paul never said the charge of heresy was removed. I have the Pope’s speech in its entirety in the book Galileo *Was Wrong the Church Was Right *with an analysis of every line of his speech.

You may think that the Pope overturned the decision to condemn Galileo by his speech but this is not the case. There was no bull, no encyclical, no decree, and no abrogation of the Galileo charge of heresy. This is no accident. The Holy Spirit would not allow the Pope to commit error.
After ten years of preparation, the speech without any papal authority, was given to a small group of scientists not to the Church. All he had to say was “the Church accepts heliocentrism” but he did not.
Without a formal disavowal nothing has changed. The charge against Galileo still stands. Nowhere in his speech does the Pope say Galileo was right the Church was wrong to condemn him. All he had to say was that the charge of heresy was an error and he didn’t say that.
In Pope Benedict’s book *Jesus of Nazareth *he writes "It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium but it is solely an expression of my personal search. Everyone is free to contradict me.’
Pope John Paul’s speech was also not an exercise of the magisterium.

Read *Galileo Was Wrong the Church Was Right *and see if you change your mind.

As MIT Physics Professor Wolfgang Smith says in his book *The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology “*As regards the Galilean controversy, I propose to show that Galilean heliocentrism has proved to be scientifically untenable, and that in fact the palm of victory belongs to the wise saintly Cardinal Bellarmine.”

I think you’re giving too much status to the tribunal’s ruling in the Galileo case. That tribunal wasn’t authorized to pronounce dogma, and can’t be considered magisterial. Besides, I thought that, technically, Galileo was convicted of disobeying a previous order of the tribunal. All of that aside, I get it. You’ve found a way to argue that geocentrism was, and remains, a belief of the Church. Why should I spoil the fun? But tell me, does geocentrism accept the distances of stars from the earth that modern science claims? Does it believe in other galaxies? Are the discoveries of the Hubble telescope real? Is the speed of light a constant? Are special and general relativity accurate models? Is the passage of time relative to the observer? Does force equal mass times acceleration? In other words, do any of the advances and discoveries in astronomy and physics since Ptolemy have any validity at all?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Forgive me if this was mentioned, but I skimmed the thread and didn’t notice it.

First, the Church does not require the story of Noah to be interpreted literally.

For those who do – and I’ve asked this question before and got a confusing answer – tell me this: how many of each kind of the “clean” animals did God tell Noah to take on the ark? If you read Genesis 1, you get one answer. In Genesis 2, there is a contradictory answer.

So tell me whether Noah was to take 2 of each animal, or 7 pairs of some of them?

Alan

 

[grannymh]

Forgive me if this was mentioned, but I skimmed the thread and didn’t notice it.

First, the Church does not require the story of Noah to be interpreted literally.

For those who do – and I’ve asked this question before and got a confusing answer – tell me this: how many of each kind of the “clean” animals did God tell Noah to take on the ark? If you read Genesis 1, you get one answer. In Genesis 2, there is a contradictory answer.

So tell me whether Noah was to take 2 of each animal, or 7 pairs of some of them?

Alan

Suggestion. Put Noah into the search bar for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[buffalo]

Forgive me if this was mentioned, but I skimmed the thread and didn’t notice it.

First, the Church does not require the story of Noah to be interpreted literally.

For those who do – and I’ve asked this question before and got a confusing answer – tell me this: how many of each kind of the “clean” animals did God tell Noah to take on the ark? If you read Genesis 1, you get one answer. In Genesis 2, there is a contradictory answer.

So tell me whether Noah was to take 2 of each animal, or 7 pairs of some of them?

Alan

What has been the constant teaching and understanding of the Church?

Was there a Noah?
Was there a flood?
Did Noah and his family survive it?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What has been the constant teaching and understanding of the Church?

Was there a Noah?
Was there a flood?
Did Noah and his family survive it?

Are these rhetorical questions, a quiz, or are you keeping us in suspense?

Alan

 

[jschutzm]

Additionally, would a wooden boat of the dimensions given in the biblical account be seaworthy in the first place? Wouldnt wave action tear the ship apart?

Actually, there has been quite a bit of scale model and computer modeling work done and in fact the Ark is a VERY stable and seaworthy design.

At my school… our 7th grade Religion project was to build scale models of the Ark. Before we built them, we watched some videos discussing what engineers have discovered about the design. This was circa 1990s

"Research by staff members of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon, showed that the ark “could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 metres” "
conservapedia.com/Noah’s_Ark

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Suggestion. Put Noah into the search bar for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

First, I didn’t mean Genesis 1 and 2. I meant Genesis 6 and 7.

Now, I’ll see your link and raise you a quote:
Gen 6:

18
But with you I will establish my covenant; you and your sons, your wife and your sons’ wives, shall go into the ark.
19
Of all other living creatures you shall bring two into the ark, one male and one female, that you may keep them alive with you.
20
Of all kinds of birds, of all kinds of beasts, and of all kinds of creeping things, two of each shall come into the ark with you, to stay alive.

Gen 7:

1
Then the LORD said to Noah: "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for you alone in this age have I found to be truly just.
2
Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate;
3
likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female. Thus you will keep their issue alive over all the earth.

 

[buffalo]

First, I didn’t mean Genesis 1 and 2. I meant Genesis 6 and 7.

Now, I’ll see your link and raise you a quote:

The Flood story seems to be a blended account.

Some think that one part of the account was by Noah himself and other parts by one of his sons.

 

[buffalo]

Are these rhetorical questions, a quiz, or are you keeping us in suspense?

Alan

I was just curious as to what you thought the tradition was. So the questions stands.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Flood story seems to be a blended account.

Some think that one part of the account was by Noah himself and other parts by one of his sons.

That works for me. Either way it seems if one claims authenticity based on the belief that Genesis must be literal (which the Church does not teach) then you must be able to reconcile both accounts as being literal truth at the same time.

Alan

 

[buffalo]

That works for me. Either way it seems if one claims authenticity based on the belief that Genesis must be literal (which the Church does not teach) then you must be able to reconcile both accounts as being literal truth at the same time.

Alan

I view it this way. Say you had 4 people standing on different corners at an intersection. An accident happens. Each of them will see the same thing a little differently, but all can be still true.

 

[grannymh]

That works for me. Either way it seems if one claims authenticity based on the belief that Genesis must be literal (which the Church does not teach) then you must be able to reconcile both accounts as being literal truth at the same time.

Alan

Genesis is a large book. Along with figurative language and personal styles of writing, there are some real events.

 

[TMC]

Genesis is a large book. Along with figurative language and personal styles of writing, there are some real events.

I agree. In fact Genesis is probably better described as a large amalgam of many smaller writings. Many of the events in Genesis are “real”, and all the teaching in Genesis is real and important. I don’t know if Noah was a real person or not, but that does not effect the value of the lesson of Noah and the flood. If I had to take a stand, I would probably say that Noah was an historical person, but that the flood was not literally as expansive as described in Genesis. But the important point to remember is that the story of Noah was not recorded to give us a historical lesson, but a spiritual one.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I view it this way. Say you had 4 people standing on different corners at an intersection. An accident happens. Each of them will see the same thing a little differently, but all can be still true.

I agree. It doesn’t change what happens, but changes what we see about it.

That works for me, but then we should admit that it is risky to claim that any particular word is to be taken literally.

Alna

 

[edwest2]

I agree. In fact Genesis is probably better described as a large amalgam of many smaller writings. Many of the events in Genesis are “real”, and all the teaching in Genesis is real and important. I don’t know if Noah was a real person or not, but that does not effect the value of the lesson of Noah and the flood. If I had to take a stand, I would probably say that Noah was an historical person, but that the flood was not literally as expansive as described in Genesis. But the important point to remember is that the story of Noah was not recorded to give us a historical lesson, but a spiritual one.

Jesus makes a reference to Noah, as Noe. The point is, there is nothing risky about believing it literally happened. God, being God, can do such things.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here is a reference from the Catholic encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/11088a.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[shocktrooper]

Forgive me if this was mentioned, but I skimmed the thread and didn’t notice it.

First, the Church does not require the story of Noah to be interpreted literally.

For those who do – and I’ve asked this question before and got a confusing answer – tell me this: how many of each kind of the “clean” animals did God tell Noah to take on the ark? If you read Genesis 1, you get one answer. In Genesis 2, there is a contradictory answer.

So tell me whether Noah was to take 2 of each animal, or 7 pairs of some of them?

Alan

He was to take 1 pair of each animal and 7 pair of the clean ones. 7 is the number of the covenant.

One text says that Noah had to bring a pair of all animals and the other says he had to bring 7 pair of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals. Now, what was the first thing Noah did when he got off the Ark? Also, what animals were used to offer sacrifice, clean or unclean? Is it safe to say that the extra pairs of clean animals were brought so that they could be sacrificed without killing off the only two remaining of its kind? If this event really didn’t happen, then why would the author go in such minuscule detail?

Pax Christi.