Noah's Ark?

[buffalo]

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.

The details of Bible accounts are compelling.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

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.

I’m not too concerned over this story, because as the Church allows, I look at it figuratively. So i’m not worried having two different numbers. What I object to, saying on the one hand that we must interpret the Bible at its literal meaning – problem is that isn’t where the real treasure lies – that’s just the outside. the problem is we keep our minds busy thinking about the literal meaning because so few people actually let the deeper senses, where the real payload is, can get through.

Alan

 

[Third_Day]

=JackQ;7713789]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.

I accept what Saint Robert Bellarmine said “Nor can one answer that this (geocentrism) is not a matter of faith. And what Pope Paul V and eleven cardinals in 1633 in the sentencing of Galileo “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.”

But tell me, does geocentrism accept the distances of stars from the earth that modern science claims?

It’s quite simple. When Christ said let there be light there was light that stretched billions of miles across the universe. When the sun and planets were created they were placed billions of light years away. There was no big bang

Does it believe in other galaxies? Are the discoveries of the Hubble telescope real?

Of course. Why not?
Here is what Edwin Hubble had to say "Such a condition ( Geocentrism) would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe…This hypothesis cannot be disproved , but it is unwelcome…Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcomed position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…such a favored position is intolerable.”

Is the speed of light a constant? That is an unknown.
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?

Many discoveries in physics are valid but many are simply theories. No one knows if the speed of light is constant. The theory of relativity was created because the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to prove heliocentrism

 

[Third_Day]

=AlanFromWichita;7716253]I’m not too concerned over this story, because as the Church allows, I look at it figuratively

.
Where does the Church teach it is firgurative? Scripture and Tradition teach that a world wide flood destroyed the earth.
Are you saying that Noah never existed or the flood never happenned?.

 

[JackQ]

I accept what Saint Robert Bellarmine said “Nor can one answer that this (geocentrism) is not a matter of faith. And what Pope Paul V and eleven cardinals in 1633 in the sentencing of Galileo “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.”

It’s quite simple. When Christ said let there be light there was light that stretched billions of miles across the universe. When the sun and planets were created they were placed billions of light years away. There was no big bang

Of course. Why not?
Here is what Edwin Hubble had to say "Such a condition ( Geocentrism) would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe…This hypothesis cannot be disproved , but it is unwelcome…Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcomed position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…such a favored position is intolerable.”

Many discoveries in physics are valid but many are simply theories. No one knows if the speed of light is constant. The theory of relativity was created because the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to prove heliocentrism

Well, if the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, then the most distant objects in space, which circle about the earth once a day, must be traveling at impossible speeds. At some point it seems that you’re going to run right into relativity, which requires that the speed of light is a constant, and also that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. I’m not a physicist, but that’s how it looks to me.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter, because I think you’re pulling our leg.

 

[Third_Day]

=JackQ;7716637]Well, if the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, then the most distant objects in space, which circle about the earth once a day, must be traveling at impossible speeds

.
What is an impossible speed?

At some point it seems that you’re going to run right into relativity, which requires that the speed of light is a constant, and also that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. I’m not a physicist, but that’s how it looks to me.

The speed of light doesn’t have to be constant. Einstein says “We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity, its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitional field on the phenomena of light.” Relativity

A limitation on the speed of light is only true when gravity does not effect the light so General Relativity can permit an object to move faster than the speed of light.

Anyway, what’s the difference? If the earth is moving how fast is it moving? A rotating Earth among fixed stars or stars that revolve around a fixed earth are equivalent according to Relativity.

 

[StrawberryJam]

.
Where does the Church teach it is firgurative? Scripture and Tradition teach that a world wide flood destroyed the earth.
Are you saying that Noah never existed or the flood never happenned?.

The Catholic Church does a lot of things I can agree with.

One of the main things you have to know regarding the topic is that

You are not obligated to believe in a literal world wide flood event.

Why do you think I am still here if that were not the case?

 

[Third_Day]

The Catholic Church does a lot of things I can agree with.

One of the main things you have to know regarding the topic is that

You are not obligated to believe in a literal world wide flood event.

Why do you think I am still here if that were not the case?

Whether or not you are obligated to believe in a literal world-wide flood it is nonetheless a teaching from scripture and Tradition.
I suggest you read *The Doctrines of Genesis A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins *by Father Victor Warkulwiz. The Book is endorsed by Bishop Robert Francis Vasa who says “The prupose of this book is to help restore traditional Catholic theology on orgins to its rightful place in the belief of Catholics.”

 

[grannymh]

I accept what Saint Robert Bellarmine said “Nor can one answer that this (geocentrism) is not a matter of faith. And what Pope Paul V and eleven cardinals in 1633 in the sentencing of Galileo “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.”

May I respectfully point out that certain individual passages and *sentences *of the letters, etc., of Saint Robert Bellarmine’s letters, etc., have been carefully chosen to support a personal agenda such as the position of one planet in the entire universe.

Please consider the various theories regarding the reality of Noah’s Flood which have been proposed. Has the Catholic Church met in a major Council to declare one of the formal scientific theories absolutely true and to declare that all the rest of the theories are formally heretical?

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 1

 

[buffalo]

Well, if the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, then the most distant objects in space, which circle about the earth once a day, must be traveling at impossible speeds. At some point it seems that you’re going to run right into relativity, which requires that the speed of light is a constant, and also that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. I’m not a physicist, but that’s how it looks to me.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter, because I think you’re pulling our leg.

If you are on a merry go round right at the edge how fast are you moving with respect to the merry go round?

 

[grannymh]

The issue of Noah’s flood brings up the question as to what are scientific speculations and what are Catholic dogmas which flow from Divine Revelation.

Obviously, science deals with our material/physical surroundings from the earth under our feet to the stars above our heads. Anyone can wonder about God’s marvelous universe and seek solutions to its grandeur. It is important to realize that high ranking Catholic clergy, like everyone else, are free to speculate and develop explanations for the workings of our world.

This freedom to evaluate scientific matters is not the same as formulating Catholic theological dogmas pertaining to faith and morals.

Theological dogmas develop the full significance of Divine Revelation. Declaration of a particular dogma usually occurs when there is a challenge to Catholic teaching regarding God and the salvation of human beings.

It is very important to understand that Catholic leadership focuses on God as the Creator who continually calls us to share in His life through knowledge and love. Since God is specifically calling you and me, Catholic leadership focuses on our human nature and what we must choose to do in order to remain eternally in God’s friendship. Thus, Catholicism emphasizes the True Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

Because the Catholic focus is always on the teachings of Jesus Christ, Catholic leadership searches the Church Fathers for their teachings about Jesus Christ and salvation. Knowledge about the physical/material universe was good in itself, but it was deemed unnecessary for salvation. Knowing how the sun and moon work has nothing to do with sanctifying grace. Acknowledging that God exists does not depend on an exact knowledge of natural science.

Jesus Christ did not build His Church on speculations regarding scientific theories in the 17th century or questions about the size of floods. Anyone can use the four-letter word heresy, especially when someone contradicts a personal agenda. But local free speech does not automatically become a defined theological dogma of the universal Catholic Church.

Scripture is both a precious gift and a mysterious one. This is why the Holy Spirit is the Protector of Divine Revelation when it comes to formally defined dogmas.

Blessings,
granny

The search for truth needs Catholicism.

 

[Third_Day]

=grannymh;7717487]May I respectfully point out that certain individual passages and *sentences *of the letters, etc., of Saint Robert Bellarmine’s letters, etc., have been carefully chosen to support a personal agenda such as the position of one planet in the entire universe.

St. Bellarmine was the leading theologian at the time and he held a literal interpretation of scripture. Please quote from him saying otherwise.

Please consider the various theories regarding the reality of Noah’s Flood which have been proposed. Has the Catholic Church met in a major Council to declare one of the formal scientific theories absolutely true and to declare that all the rest of the theories are formally heretical?

The was never any reason to meet in a Council because scripture has never been disputed over the flood which was held to be true by the Church Fathers. The day may come when it will be necessary for the Church to call a Council to infalliblly decree thatscripture is without erro,r not only in matters of faith and morasl but also science. That day hasn’t come yet.

 

[Third_Day]

The issue of Noah’s flood brings up the question as to what are scientific speculations and what are Catholic dogmas which flow from Divine Revelation.

Obviously, science deals with our material/physical surroundings from the earth under our feet to the stars above our heads. Anyone can wonder about God’s marvelous universe and seek solutions to its grandeur. It is important to realize that high ranking Catholic clergy, like everyone else, are free to speculate and develop explanations for the workings of our world.

This freedom to evaluate scientific matters is not the same as formulating Catholic theological dogmas pertaining to faith and morals.

Theological dogmas develop the full significance of Divine Revelation. Declaration of a particular dogma usually occurs when there is a challenge to Catholic teaching regarding God and the salvation of human beings.

It is very important to understand that Catholic leadership focuses on God as the Creator who continually calls us to share in His life through knowledge and love. Since God is specifically calling you and me, Catholic leadership focuses on our human nature and what we must choose to do in order to remain eternally in God’s friendship. Thus, Catholicism emphasizes the True Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

Because the Catholic focus is always on the teachings of Jesus Christ, Catholic leadership searches the Church Fathers for their teachings about Jesus Christ and salvation. Knowledge about the physical/material universe was good in itself, but it was deemed unnecessary for salvation. Knowing how the sun and moon work has nothing to do with sanctifying grace. Acknowledging that God exists does not depend on an exact knowledge of natural science.

Jesus Christ did not build His Church on speculations regarding scientific theories in the 17th century or questions about the size of floods. Anyone can use the four-letter word heresy, especially when someone contradicts a personal agenda. But local free speech does not automatically become a defined theological dogma of the universal Catholic Church.

Scripture is both a precious gift and a mysterious one. This is why the Holy Spirit is the Protector of Divine Revelation when it comes to formally defined dogmas.

Blessings,
granny

The search for truth needs Catholicism.

The question of whether or not scripture is without error in all matters, not just salvation, is what is to be considered. For example the day will come when scientists will claim that it has been proven beyond any doubt that homosexuality is a natural human trait. Scripture says it is un-natural. Science will say it is natural. What side will you be on, scripture and Tradition or science?

 

[grannymh]

The question of whether or not scripture is without error in all matters, not just salvation, is what is to be considered.

Frankly, I cannot figure out why anyone uses this argument when there is no Catholic dogma involved. “The Question” needs to address some real theological dogma. Or “The Question” needs to address the protocol of Catholicism in the early centuries. Since an official Catholic dogma has not been presented, it is common sense that “The Question” is not applicable.

For example the day will come when scientists will claim that it has been proven beyond any doubt that homosexuality is a natural human trait.

I understand where you are coming from. However, it is important to remember that science only deals with material/physical matters such as properties of water or dirt.
It cannot deal with the fully complete human nature which, in itself, uniquely unites the material and spiritual worlds.

Scripture says it is un-natural. Science will say it is natural. What side will you be on, scripture and Tradition or science?

I’m a Catholic, not a Protestant. Therefore, I am not limited to a single choice between Scripture/tradition and science.

Because of the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church does not solely depend on human interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. Even though Divine Revelation is already complete in Jesus Christ, the Fullness of All Revelation, it remains for His Catholic Church to gradually grasp Revelation’s full significance over the course of centuries.

The Holy Spirit protects Divine Revelation by guiding the formulation of theological dogmas. The protocol of Church Councils expresses this guidance.

Homosexuality comes under God’s revelations regarding human nature with its dignity of procreation. Instead of looking only at the natural aspects of anatomy, we need to look at human nature as a whole created in the Image of God and subject to the laws of God.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I hope I don’t sound preachy, I’m just trying to share a little insight that I’ve gotten somehow, in case you might like to hear it.

There are many senses of the scripture. True unitive connection with the scripture requires no particular words, spoken or written, from us, in order to work. They word whether we believe the literal, or not. Whether we argue, or not. As long as we are passionate about it, God can interchange whether the passion is to be deemed sorrowful or joyful, in case you have a particular preference. If we are lukewarm, then we are as robots going about whatever we were trained by other imperfect beings to do.

That said, I love to hear discussions, heated or not, on literal meanings. If you look through the angry accusations, you hear love expressed from two different points of view, but spoken in slightly different languages.

Now please, pay not attention to the “man” behind the curtain…

Alan

 

[JackQ]

.
What is an impossible speed?

The speed of light doesn’t have to be constant. Einstein says “We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity, its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitional field on the phenomena of light.” Relativity

A limitation on the speed of light is only true when gravity does not effect the light so General Relativity can permit an object to move faster than the speed of light.

Anyway, what’s the difference? If the earth is moving how fast is it moving? A rotating Earth among fixed stars or stars that revolve around a fixed earth are equivalent according to Relativity.

An impossible speed is one that is faster than the speed of light. Indeed, unless you are light, you can’t even go as fast as light because you would arrive at infinite mass. I may be a little overweight, but my mass won’t ever become infinite. Your quote from Einstein pertains only to special relativity. Special relativity disregards gravity. That’s why Einstein developed the general theory that does take account of gravity. And the general theory has been experimentally verified.

General relativity does not predict that anything can move faster than the speed of light. That is flat wrong.

What’s the difference? A model of the universe that contravenes known physical laws cannot in any way be useful. I’m not expert enough to do the math, but it seems that the most distant objects in the universe, if geocentrism was to hold, would have to travel such distances in order to make their daily circuit that they would have to be traveling faster than the speed of light. I’m now officially in over my head. If there are any physicists out there who would like to jump in at this point it would be greatly appreciated.

Contrary to popular opinion relativity isn’t relative. Indeed, it asserts that there is an absolute relationship between events referred to as the interval.

Anyway, I’m not a qualified apologist for modern physics. The relevant question is whether geocentrism is Church dogma. That is the case you need to make, and thus far you have not.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Frankly, I cannot figure out why anyone uses this argument when there is no Catholic dogma involved. “The Question” needs to address some real theological dogma. Or “The Question” needs to address the protocol of Catholicism in the early centuries. Since an official Catholic dogma has not been presented, it is common sense that “The Question” is not applicable.

I understand where you are coming from. However, it is important to remember that science only deals with material/physical matters such as properties of water or dirt.
It cannot deal with the fully complete human nature which, in itself, uniquely unites the material and spiritual worlds.

I’m a Catholic, not a Protestant. Therefore, I am not limited to a single choice between Scripture/tradition and science.

Because of the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church does not solely depend on human interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. Even though Divine Revelation is already complete in Jesus Christ, the Fullness of All Revelation, it remains for His Catholic Church to gradually grasp Revelation’s full significance over the course of centuries.

The Holy Spirit protects Divine Revelation by guiding the formulation of theological dogmas. The protocol of Church Councils expresses this guidance.

Homosexuality comes under God’s revelations regarding human nature with its dignity of procreation. Instead of looking only at the natural aspects of anatomy, we need to look at human nature as a whole created in the Image of God and subject to the laws of God.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

Yes, Paul talks about how a woman can be saved by childbirth.

What the

 

[DavidPalm]

Yes, Paul talks about how a woman can be saved by childbirth.

What the

It actually makes great sense from a Catholic perspective. Childbirth is a combination of intensity of physical pain combined with self-giving on behalf of another that men rarely are able to experience. If this unique suffering is offered up to God vicariously on behalf of others and oneself, there are great graces here, for one’s own salvation and to help others on the journey toward Him.

That’s my $0.02 U.S. anyway.

And now we really are very far afield from the thread topic indeed…

 

[joe371]

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?

The cosmological singularity described by the big bang points to an eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, uncaused, first cause that created everything within the universe from absolutely nothing. If God can do this (and God did) then manipulating His creation, logically speaking, would be just as easy. Wouldn’t you agree?

“…but with God all things are possible.”

 

[edwest2]

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?

I think God can do anything, since He is God. A global flood? Why not? Not to scale replicas of Noah’s Ark have been built and would have survived rough seas. I believe it 100%.

Peace,
Ed