Noah's Ark?

  • Thread starter Thread starter godsent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

godsent

Guest
Does anybody else find this extremly haard to believe,im not doubting it,just need some opnions,the fact that noah built a ship big enough for all those animals,how could noah collect all the animals from the whole land,there wasnt enough water to cover the earth at this time,and also the animals would have got restless from the weather,and my final thought was how could they have enough food for them and all the animals for a whole year??
Very hard to accept,any opnions on this?
 
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?
 
Noah had animals, not different species. He had a Canine, not the 570 different breeds and the tons of wild dogs there are. He had A feline wich eventually developed into different kind of cats. He didn’t have the millions of animals that we see in arc pictures. and its very possible that they were in a deep hibernation for much of the time.
 
40.png
Dunmoose:
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?
Click to expand...
I would hope after 130 years of work it would be sea worthy…
 
40.png
Meggie:
Noah had animals, not different species. He had a Canine, not the 570 different breeds and the tons of wild dogs there are. He had A feline wich eventually developed into different kind of cats. He didn’t have the millions of animals that we see in arc pictures. and its very possible that they were in a deep hibernation for much of the time.
Click to expand...
This is also one reason why the Vatican is not threatened by the theory of evolution, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest what environmental changes the animals developed after the flood.

For example, a few dog species were developed in the 19th & 20th centuries, as well as cow types, well after the flood. So this is a good post to demonstrate how the Bible is a reliable source for Catholic thought.
 
It is my understanding that this is not required by the Church to be taken in a literalist sense. Obviously, the Bible is not a historical textbook (as such), nor is it a text on evolutionary biology. I believe we are free to see Noah’s ark as an allegorical story, and not 100% accurate history. While inerrent, it must be understood to be what it is - the guideplan of God’s revelation of Himself and the lamppost unto our feet, lighting the way to our salvation. If I am wrong, PLEASE CORRECT ME, as I am trying to hold firm to the teachings of the Church and want to obey the Magisterium.

Peace in Christ,
RyanL
 
Regardless is or isn’t God omnipotent? There has been extensive research done on this they have found the ark on Mount Arafat. Sea worthy 40 days and 40 nights of constant rain is enough to make anything seaworthy. I am sure God took care of that for him.
 
Actually, an engineer scrupulously went over the plan of the ark given in Genesis and asked several navy contractors. Not only was it big enough for the task entrusted to it, but it was seaworthy. Also, Noah didn’t gather the animals. The animals came to him.
 
40.png
KBarn:
Actually, an engineer scrupulously went over the plan of the ark given in Genesis and asked several navy contractors. Not only was it big enough for the task entrusted to it, but it was seaworthy. Also, Noah didn’t gather the animals. The animals came to him.
Click to expand...
GREAT ANSWER FOR A CHANGE!👍
 
40.png
KBarn:
Actually, an engineer scrupulously went over the plan of the ark given in Genesis and asked several navy contractors. Not only was it big enough for the task entrusted to it, but it was seaworthy. Also, Noah didn’t gather the animals. The animals came to him.
Click to expand...
Would you mind giving us the name of this engineer and the navy contractors?

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
godsent:
Does anybody else find this extremly haard to believe,im not doubting it,just need some opnions,the fact that noah built a ship big enough for all those animals,how could noah collect all the animals from the whole land,there wasnt enough water to cover the earth at this time,and also the animals would have got restless from the weather,and my final thought was how could they have enough food for them and all the animals for a whole year??
Very hard to accept,any opnions on this?
Click to expand...
First, whether the flood narrative is historical is not important to the Faith. The flood narrative is a “typological word picture” foreshadowing the New Testament salvation process, which is true whether or not the flood narrative is fictional.

That being said, there is surprising evidence, in the mountains of Ararat, that there was an ark.

And where could the water have come from? Without trying to explain the mechanics of The Flood, Immanuel Velikovsky suggested a mechanism whereby the The Flood could have occurred: If it turns out that Venus actually used to be a comet in an elongated orbit around the Sun c which passed very close to that of Earth, then once every couple thousand years Earth would have been badly shaken by a close encounter with Venus. If, in one of these close encounters, Earth accidentally captured Venus in a temporary orbit, then Venus might have been so close that all of the waters of the Earth were drawn high into the sky, by Venus’ gravity, so that the Eath rotated on its axis beneath these miles-high tides, creating the illusion of a giant flood on Earth.
 
40.png
KBarn:
Actually, an engineer scrupulously went over the plan of the ark given in Genesis and asked several navy contractors. Not only was it big enough for the task entrusted to it, but it was seaworthy. Also, Noah didn’t gather the animals. The animals came to him.
Click to expand...
Arrrrrr matey, that be true. The Ark, she be a fine vessel, slim in her lines, loose in her bottom, very seaworthy dimensions. Well seamed and finely constructed, she was a fit barge no doubt.
 
The ark was big enough 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15),
Which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet.

So there would have been plenty of storage for food and as it was an emergency situation then luxury was not top of the list and don’t forget some species hibernate, it was not necessary to collect adult animals, so they could have collected juveniles and as in the case for amphibians you have some that are the egg layers so all that was needed was the eggs. Fish could have survived in the water (but if God choose to destroy them, as can be seen in fossilised fish found on tops of mountains then that was His divine right) although there was plenty of room on the ark for storing aquariums to house the fish. Some birds could fly and also the eggs could be transported, plants as seedlings could have drifted on top of the water and survived which could also of housed the insects in their masses. As was stated in the case of dogs and cats all that was needed was a male and female of each species not each breed.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
First, whether the flood narrative is historical is not important to the Faith. The flood narrative is a “typological word picture” foreshadowing the New Testament salvation process, which is true whether or not the flood narrative is fictional.

That being said, there is surprising evidence, in the mountains of Ararat, that there was an ark.

And where could the water have come from? Without trying to explain the mechanics of The Flood, Immanuel Velikovsky suggested a mechanism whereby the The Flood could have occurred: If it turns out that Venus actually used to be a comet in an elongated orbit around the Sun c which passed very close to that of Earth, then once every couple thousand years Earth would have been badly shaken by a close encounter with Venus. If, in one of these close encounters, Earth accidentally captured Venus in a temporary orbit, then Venus might have been so close that all of the waters of the Earth were drawn high into the sky, by Venus’ gravity, so that the Eath rotated on its axis beneath these miles-high tides, creating the illusion of a giant flood on Earth.
Click to expand...
actually there is evideence that their was a world wide flood.
Do yo know what oil is?
Oil is based on plant matter…a catostropic event, such as the flood could also have divided the continanants, as well as created things such as the Grand Canyon or Victoria falls…

The flood could also explain the scientifically obscure “upside down” mountians in which the newer soil is at the base the mountian and the oldest is on top.

It could explain the end to creaturese such a the wolly mammoth, which has been proven to exist at the same time as humans. (one scientist discovered a frozen wolly mammoth with stone arrows embeded in its flesh)

Where did the water come from…well perhaps when the teutonic plates shifted and the contiants divided the earth became temporary covered in water, perhaps the poles became very warm and they melted and it covered the earth…as the earth became right again rotation pulled water towards the poles where it again froze…this would also explain the wolly mammoths.
 
40.png
Meggie:
actually there is evideence that their was a world wide flood.
Click to expand...
Nope. Just the opposite.
Do yo know what oil is?
Oil is based on plant matter…a catostropic event,
Click to expand...
Nope. Wrong.
such as the flood could also have divided the continanants, as well as created things such as the Grand Canyon or Victoria falls…
Click to expand...
Nope. Try again.
The flood could also explain the scientifically obscure “upside down” mountians in which the newer soil is at the base the mountian and the oldest is on top.
Click to expand...
Nope. Fourth wrong.
It could explain the end to creaturese such a the wolly mammoth, which has been proven to exist at the same time as humans. (one scientist discovered a frozen wolly mammoth with stone arrows embeded in its flesh)
Click to expand...
It could be an explaination, but since there is no evidence that that is the case, there is no rational reason to believe it.
Where did the water come from…well perhaps when the teutonic plates shifted and the contiants divided the earth became temporary covered in water, perhaps the poles became very warm and they melted and it covered the earth…as the earth became right again rotation pulled water towards the poles where it again froze…this would also explain the wolly mammoths.
Click to expand...
You mean tectonic plates? There is not nearly enough water on the earth to come close to covering it as described.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Nope. Just the opposite.

Nope. Wrong.

Nope. Try again.

Nope. Fourth wrong.

It could be an explaination, but since there is no evidence that that is the case, there is no rational reason to believe it.

You mean tectonic plates? There is not nearly enough water on the earth to come close to covering it as described.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
And you better listen to him, Meggie, I’m sure he was there and saw how these things happened first hand so he knows for sure. 😉 It’s obvious he knows what he’s talking about. LOOK at all the detailed evidence he gave refuting you!!!
 
40.png
Meggie:
Where did that water come from?

answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp

also read “The world that Perished”
Click to expand...
If you read closely, AIG doesn’t answer the question. Obviously, according to them, it didn’t come from the sky. As they correctly noted, the volume of water in the atmosphere necessary would have created such high temperatures that all life would have perished, including Noah. So it didn’t come from the sky.

It must have come from the ground. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for it to be there in the first place. So they postulate (extra-biblically, I might add) that catastrophic plate tectonics cause the flood. Unfortunately for them, science, specifically physics and geology, disagrees. The energy generated by such large-scale movement of tectonic plates would have, again, overhelmed life on earth, Noah included. They quote Steve Austin as saying that the sea floor rose 6,500 ft because of the heat generated by the rapid plate movements and that is what caused the flood. Why was the heat only relegated to sea floor lifting. Where did the latent heat go?

Where is the evidence of these massive, catastrophic events that occurred within man’s history? Why do we still have oceans? Where did the water go after the flood? Why is there NO geological evidence of a one-time global flood when floods leave masses of evidence of their existence?

These arguments are not biblical. If you want to say that Noah’s flood really happened and that it was truly global because the bible says so, you can’t reach outside of the bible to explain it. Just claim that it was a miracle and don’t try to use science to explain it.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
adstrinity:
And you better listen to him, Meggie, I’m sure he was there and saw how these things happened first hand so he knows for sure. 😉 It’s obvious he knows what he’s talking about. LOOK at all the detailed evidence he gave refuting you!!!
Click to expand...
You mean, like the evidence of the original claims?

How about this. You give me some evidence that what Meggie claimed happened. We can then discuss evidence.

It’s kinda hard to discuss that which doesn’t exist;) .

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
RyanL:
It is my understanding that this is not required by the Church to be taken in a literalist sense. Obviously, the Bible is not a historical textbook (as such), nor is it a text on evolutionary biology. I believe we are free to see Noah’s ark as an allegorical story, and not 100% accurate history. While inerrent, it must be understood to be what it is - the guideplan of God’s revelation of Himself and the lamppost unto our feet, lighting the way to our salvation. If I am wrong, PLEASE CORRECT ME, as I am trying to hold firm to the teachings of the Church and want to obey the Magisterium.

Peace in Christ,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Ryan, what extreme liberals say notwithstanding, the Magisterium teaches that everything that is affirmed in Scripture is affirmed by the Holy Spirit Himself. Everything means everything. Since the Holy Spirit can neither deceive nor be deceived, this means that everything that is affirmed in Scripture is without error – regardless of the subject matter.

So, if one interprets a particular affirmation as being metaphorical in nature, that is OK as long as one recognizes the affirmation as being true and without any error. So for example if there were an affirmation in scripture that said, “It was raining cats and dogs” – one could interpret that as being metaphorical (which it obviously is) and understand it to be affirming that it was raining heavily – an affirmation that is true and without error. What is not permitted is to say that an affirmation in scripture is in error with respect to history but true with respect to its spirtiual meaning as explained above. So if one were to interpret the affirmations in scripture regarding Noah and the Flood as being metaphorical in nature and still true and without error, then that would not of itself contradict the Church’s doctrine. But if one were to say that some affirmations in scripture regarding Noah and the Flood were in error but that the spiritual meaning still remains true, then that would contradict the Church’s doctrine.

It’s also important to maintain an orthodox Christology.

I don’t know whether the magisterium has taught specifically on Noah and the Flood, but I suspect it must have touched on it over the centuries. I do know that recognizing a real Noah and the real Flood covering the whole earth is the historic, traditional Catholic position. This site has a nice question and answer page:

kolbecenter.org/q_and_a.html
“7. Does the church teach that the flood of Noah was a real historic event or a myth?”

But it’s under construction so no answer is provided yet.

Here’s the main page though:
kolbecenter.org/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top