Noah's Ark

[dchezik]

I said in my introductory post as a newcomer that Noah’s Ark was absurd on its face and someone asks me for the absurdities.

There are so many, it’s hard to know where to begin, but here goes:

1. How could an omniscient God “repent” for anything; i.e., be sorry he had done something, such as create humans? Being omniscient, it seems unlikely he would make a mistake and not know how wicked people would become. Took him by surprise, I guess!
2. Instead of a flood, why didn’t He send a plague to selectively wipe out those sufficiently wicked, and spare children and animals, who couldn’t be wicked?
3. How could Noah and his family collect male and female of every species, which would have to include insects, invertebrates such as scorpions, cockroaches, as well as reptiles such as rattlesnakes, cobras, bushmasters, pythons, crocodiles, Komodo dragons, etc.??
4. How could the ark accommodate the logistics? – the food, water, bedding, and disposal of excrement?
5. And why did God favor some animals in the choice of extermination? All animals that weren’t on the ark, drowned, but the marine life was not touched! Maybe sharks and whales are inherently good?
6. What about plants that somehow survived being underwater for several weeks? Were they on the ark, too? Try this on your houseplants!

I’d really like to hear some of your reasons for believing these things! Remember, you’re in good company – James Irwin, former astronaut believed it! I’d really like to know why!

1. Well, let’s move on to Sodom and Gomorrha… more wickeness! I guess God dealt with this evil threat pretty effectively. Once again, he didn’t care about the collateral damage of children who weren’t old enough to really be sinful. They were fried to a cinder with all the rest.

Still, it seems that over the years God has grown more tolerant of wickedness. He now leaves untouched some real sin cities with their dens of prostitution, crack houses, etc., although Pat Robertson apparently believes 9-11 was God’s response to our increasing tolerance of gays and lesbians! Of course, he has yet to lower the boom on the Vatican for the tolerance of all the pedophile priests! Is he showing favoritism or has He just resigned himself to human wickedness??

Here’s to some critical thinking! Don’t just accept – question! Explore! THINK!

 

[JohnDamian]

As early as the fifth Centuary; we see Theologians such as St Augustine arguing for an allegorical interpretation of the bible.

 

[Apollos]

God repents of things the same way he changes his mind - we’re talking about an unchanging and unchangeable being, so to say he repented is just to say that he did one thing with apparently one motivation and then another thing with apparently some other motivation - that is, apparently to us. It’s not really a paradox.

Ultimately I don’t know why he killed everybody indiscriminately, but one rationale that makes sense to me is that human society was thoroughly wicked, so that if he unleashed a “smart plague” everybody would have succumbed to it anyway.

The ark did not necessarily contain a pair of every species as we define species today, but could have had something that pro-flood apologists call “kinds”. Something like a pair of horses that would eventually differentiate into zebras and so forth.

Furthermore, there need not have been insects and certain other examples you mentioned, for the text actually says animals having “flesh” and “the breath of life” in them were to be saved. And a rationale for not killing the fish of the world is that … well, it was a flood. But as for the inherent goodness of sharks and whales, maybe the fact they lived in the seas with little contact with man guarded them from the influence of human evil.

Before you question the logistics, work out what the dimensions and internal arrangement must have been. But what was it like inside the ark? It must have been a total zoo in there.

Finally, plants can drown, but seeds are a different matter. And what makes you think those children were innocent?

 

[edwest2]

Does anyone read the Bible here? Noah lived for hundreds of years, he had plenty of time. God spoke directly to him, as He did to the other prophets.

I have no reason to believe that the Ark was not exactly what was described in the Bible and functioned exactly as described in the Bible.

Repent means to turn away from. God warns the people at numerous points in the Bible to not do certain things. He does this through the prophets. When the prophet tells God’s words to the people, sometimes they said, “Tell God we will change our ways.” Then God told His prophet that if the people will actually do what He tells them then He will repent from the punishment He had planned for them.

God bless,
Ed

 

[fermat]

This is the line of reasoning that results from a ‘I can read my bible all by myself’ mentality. You are ignoring the history and purpose of these writings in favor of pursing the more ludicrous aspects, such as animal waste. Does it really matter where the elephants pooped?

The last word in your post is THINK. I suggest you do that.

And of course fish are sinless, that why Christians use them as our symbol !

 

[dchezik]

This is the line of reasoning that results from a ‘I can read my bible all by myself’ mentality. You are ignoring the history and purpose of these writings in favor of pursing the more ludicrous aspects, such as animal waste. Does it really matter where the elephants pooped?

The last word in your post is THINK. I suggest you do that.

And of course fish are sinless, that why Christians use them as our symbol !

Ok, ok, I slipped. I didn’t mean to get into an argument about the absurdities. My quest is to find out why this would be believed. Just because you think there are no absurdities isn’t adequate reason to believe. What does make sense as that as information starts to enter the realm of improbability (as this surely does!), there should be evidence proportional to the improbability. Where is it?

For example, if I say I have a blue Honda, that is not highly improbable and can be believed with ease with little evidence. But if I say an omnipotent being killed the entire human race – children along with adults, wildlife along with humans – for general wickedness, that starts to requires some evidence. What is the evidence?

What really makes this improbable from a logic standpoint is that it seems the world is every bit as wicked now as it was in Noah’s time and yet God doesn’t kill everyone and start all over again. Has he given up? Has he become more tolerant? If I were as homophobic as God is reputed to be, I would send a blazing fireball into the heart of San Francisco. Yet he does nothing!

Since he promised he wouldn’t destroy the world again by flood, is he going to use a comet as he did 65 million years ago? Oh, we forgot about that, didn’t we? Apparently all the dinosaurs were very wicked and had to be destroyed, so that we could emerge from the evolutionary rubble!

Well, back to my main quest: Given that lack of absurdity is not a reason to believe, and even granting that the story is not absurd, why should you believe it?

PS. Actually I think the reason a fish is used is because Peter was a fisherman (Am I wrong about that?)

 

[dchezik]

So the children were as sinful as their parents? Do you think they were “playing doctor” with each other?

Doesn’t your own religion teach that even unbaptized babies and children don’t go to hell? (Even though they have original sin?)

We’ll have to talk sometime about limbo, purgatory and hell!

 

[rvilbig]

I said in my introductory post as a newcomer that Noah’s Ark was absurd on its face and someone asks me for the absurdities.

A very early tradition in the Church held that Noah’s ark was a prefiguration of Christ’s Cross: the wood carrying us through the wages of a world destroyed by sin. As Saint Ambrose wrote:

“You see water, you see wood, you look on a dove, and you hesitate to believe in the mystery? The water is that in which the flesh is dipped, to wash away all its sin. In it all wickedness is buried. The wood is that to which the Lord Jesus was fastened when he suffered for us. The dove is the one in whose likeness the Holy Spirit descended, as you have learned from the New Testament: the Spirit who breathes into you peace of soul, tranquility of mind.” (Saint Ambrose,* Treatise on the Mysteries*).

Seen in this context, the real purpose of this story becomes apparent: the saving power of the Cross of Christ.

1. And why did God favor some animals in the choice of extermination? All animals that weren’t on the ark, drowned, but the marine life was not touched! Maybe sharks and whales are inherently good?
2. What about plants that somehow survived being underwater for several weeks? Were they on the ark, too? Try this on your houseplants!

In City of God, Saint Augustine wondered how animals arrived at distant islands after being destroyed by the flood. And he wondered why all these species weren’t destroyed. His answer:

“It might, indeed, be said that they crossed to the islands by swimming, but this could only be true of those very near the mainland; whereas there are some so distant, that we fancy no animal could swim to them. …] If, however, they were produced out of the earth as at their first creation, when God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature’, Genesis 1:24 this makes it more evident that all kinds of animals were preserved in the ark, not so much for the sake of renewing the stock, as of prefiguring the various nations which were to be saved in the church” (City of God, Book XVI, Chapter 7)

Make sense?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Apollos]

So the children were as sinful as their parents?

And you think they were immaculately conceived?

 

[Rafael]

I understand that finding in the Bible descriptions that you consider illogical may be disappointing.

By the way, welcome to the club of “unsatisfied”, Saint Agustin also belonged to it. Yes. He recognized there were obscure points in the Bible, and advised to enlighten the obscure points with the clear points (De doctrina christiana 2 c.9) –I took that reference from a Bible, hope it is accurate.

I think the degree of detailed explanations that are exigible to a description to be considered reliable may vary depending on the epoch. I have noticed that in scientific descriptions. Scientific papers published 80 years ago -not so long ago compared with Noah Arch description- would not be accepted these days. But they matched what was expected by the scientific community when they were accepted for publication.

If you consider something as important for us as Jesus life, it has “missing” details according to our mentality: we would like to know more, but the evangelist restrains himself from giving all these details (John 21, 25). Today’s science is able to show -if you consider true the Shroud of Turin- coins that were put inside the eyes of Jesus death body -matching the uses of that time- and we say: “why didn’t they mention that in the Bible, is important!”. But important for what? Just to satisfy our curiosity or to strengthen our faith?

It is curious the answer given by Jesus in the parable of rich Epulon and poor Lazarus (Luke 16, 30-31) : incredulous people won’t be convinced even if they see something as extraordinary as a resurrection. It happened when Jesus made his friend Lazarus come back to life (Juan 11, 43-53). And in my opinion it happens again these days: the number and quality of details achieved by today’s science in the study of the Shroud of Turin, and the scientific conclusion of many studies (shroud.com/papers.htm ) should be able to convince people with scientific mentality. But what I have seen in the discussions (long ago, sorry, maybe now is not available) is that there is a point in which the scientific mentality of sceptic people disappears and simply reject it for no reason.

So, it is important to give rational foundations to our faith, but it seems that there is an step that must be done “naked”.

Why? Well, even if you give the most exigent rational foundations to your faith, there will be a moment in your life in which you’ll have to make a moral choice between something your brain says is a high risk choice –like walking on top of the water (Mateo 14, 29-31) – and something that is easier and most people do. Then, reason will not be of great help. If you take, against reason, the high risk choice, you’ll see that amazingly, you really can “walk on top of water”, and your faith will be strengthened. Next time you face a similar choice, it will be even more against reason… And the need to make those choices will last all your life, I’m afraid.

So, for me, living as a christian believer means accepting some darkness. We all would like everything crystal clear, but somehow, God allows our path be sometimes -too many!- in darkness. That is faith.

Of course some rational gaps of Scripture are filled in every epoch by science, archaeology… and following developments in a particular topic is these Internet days easier than before, but at the end, it just helps in the soft days, not in the difficult ones.

Hope that helps. Greetings.

 

[edwest2]

So what are you saying? Science, which cannot put God in a laboratory, is somehow needed to explain the miraculous? Why? All the miracles Jesus did - all of them - what is the scientific explanation? What would a scientist standing right next to Him tell his colleagues about how He did it?

Science is right out regarding this question.

God bless,
Ed

 

[FaithJoy]

Are there any opinions that there might have been a problem with translation? The part were the whole world was flooded? Was it the whole world or was it the world in relation to what Noah new of? I read this somewhere, but never looked into it.

 

[FaithJoy]

I found this interesting.

Word Study of the word “earth”

Strangely, no one took Elijah’s famine of three and a half years as a worldwide event seriously, even though Apostle James said that it was “on the earth”. Why? Because we have not been taught (or led to believe) that it was a global event! We take it to be only in the land of Israel.

Jam 5:17-18 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

Of course, if everywhere on Earth – worldwide - were impacted by famine for that long a time without food and water, a catastrophe perhaps equal to that of Noah’s Flood would have resulted. All man, beast and trees alike would have perished. But since Elijah still have many people around him after the famine, Apostle James’ intention for “on the earth” must be understood to be a local happening.

The word “earth” used in Gen 6 to Gen 8 is translated from two Hebrew words, marked as Strong’s number #127 and #776. A good example is in Gen7:4 when both words are used and translated to the same English word.

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth #776] forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth #127].

In the King James Version, Strong #127 (Hebrew ‘ad-aw-maw’ – relating to ‘soil’) is translated as “ground” 4 times between Genesis chapter 6 and 8 in Gen 7:23 and in Gen 8:8, 13 and 21 (and 5 times as “earth”). And if one studies the 43 translations of this word in the book of Genesis and the 225 times used in all the OT books - land(s)-125, earth-53, ground-43, country-1, husbandman-2, husbandry-1 – we could see that it was translated to ‘land’ and ‘ground’ 3 times more often than to “earth”. It does give a better rendering if translated as “ground” or “land” (‘a large piece of ground’) most of the times as their context require it. A few examples as follow:

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth #776], and watered the whole face of the ground #127].
Gen 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth #127 (ground)],
Gen 47:23 Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land #127]for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land#127 (ground)].

As for Strong’s #776 (Hebrew ‘eh-ret’ – relating to ‘firm ground or area’), it is used 311 times in Genesis and 2504 times in the OT - land-1543, earth-712, country-140, ground-98, world-4, way-3, common-1, field-1, nations-1, wilderness-1. Whereas Strong’s #127 is more restrictive in its use, as ground or land, Strong’s #776 is more generic and expansive, from ground and land, to include also the planet Earth, the whole world as when the context demands it (as in Gen 1:1). Nevertheless, it is being translated to “land” more than twice as often as it was translated to “earth”.

In fact, we see that even the writer of the Flood account used the two words, #127 and #776 interchangeably too, and the translators had translated it rather freely into “land” and “earth” as well. This is more obvious when we compare Gen 7:8 and Gen 7:14 where both words are used for the same phrase.

from:preteristarchive.com/Hyper/2003_cheo_noahs-flood.html

 

[dchezik]

And you think they were immaculately conceived?

Having original sin is a little like having “eternal life.” You can’t see it or touch it or feel it. So I guess this baby right out of the womb deserves to die? Did it have a choice? Free will? A baby that is stillborn doesn’t get into heaven?

Does that really seem likely to you? Would you have ever come up with that on your own? Or did someone teach you that? At what stage is a zygote infused with original sin? Is the sin gene carried on the X or Y chromosome? Maybe original sin is carried in the genome?

Here’s an interesting question: Assuming there is intelligent extraterrestrial life, do they have original sin, too? Does Jesus have to visit all the life-bearing planets in the universe and be crucified there too? Or do we just have to send missionaries to spread our Christian doctrine to them? Of course what if they’re more advanced than we are?

I’m really not the first to bring this up. I think they’re very interesting questions, don’t you?

By the if you really want a jolt to your religion, look up the story of Mithra sometime!

 

[fermat]

Having original sin is a little like having “eternal life.” You can’t see it or touch it or feel it. So I guess this baby right out of the womb deserves to die? Did it have a choice? Free will? A baby that is stillborn doesn’t get into heaven?

From the Catechsim of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1261:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

God desires that all are saved. God is love and he is merciful. We can have hope of salvation for those who have gone to His arms with out the ordinary means of salvation.

Does that really seem likely to you? Would you have ever come up with that on your own? Or did someone teach you that? At what stage is a zygote infused with original sin? Is the sin gene carried on the X or Y chromosome? Maybe original sin is carried in the genome?

Of course someone taught me that. It’s the church’s job.

Original sin?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2319:
Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

Original sin is part and parcel with being human. We get it along with our soul. We get our soul at conception, and we contract original sin at conception.

By the if you really want a jolt to your religion, look up the story of Mithra sometime

No, I don’t want to jolt my religion. I want to follow Jesus Christ.

Dchezik, Jesus gave us a church to handle these exact questions. There are many mysteries in the life and there are many knowns. It is critical that we follow Christ, know Him, love Him and submit to Him. We should not accept things blindly, but neither should reject the teaching of his church. Many of the questions you ask already have answers, but it I am not sure you really want answers so much as you want to try and poke holes in the truth for sake of poking.

And for aliens: This is not a magisterial document, but this is interesting…

 

[Pieman333272]

By the if you really want a jolt to your religion, look up the story of Mithra sometime!

(30 minutes of research later)
The story of Mithra, and Zoroastrianism itself, has been bent over the last 1000 years. His original story may have some similarities to Jesus, but not as much as the new version does. Zoroastrianism was founded in 6th Century B.C., so after the rule of King David, even. (historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab71) Also, if you ignore all the miracles and deeds of both figures and boil down their divinity, Jesus is STILL a great moral teacher, philosopher and healer whilst Mithra is merely a judge. Also, Jesus has much more evidence for his existence than Mithra: He left behind a shroud, a lance, a crown, some wood, a box, and of course, a Church!

Hit me with more! I love debating Theology!

 

[Apollos]

Having original sin is a little like having “eternal life.” You can’t see it or touch it or feel it. So I guess this baby right out of the womb deserves to die? Did it have a choice? Free will? A baby that is stillborn doesn’t get into heaven?

Does that really seem likely to you? Would you have ever come up with that on your own? Or did someone teach you that? At what stage is a zygote infused with original sin? Is the sin gene carried on the X or Y chromosome? Maybe original sin is carried in the genome?

Here’s an interesting question: Assuming there is intelligent extraterrestrial life, do they have original sin, too? Does Jesus have to visit all the life-bearing planets in the universe and be crucified there too? Or do we just have to send missionaries to spread our Christian doctrine to them? Of course what if they’re more advanced than we are?

I’m really not the first to bring this up. I think they’re very interesting questions, don’t you?

By the if you really want a jolt to your religion, look up the story of Mithra sometime!

Was Jesus joking when he said you need to be born again? When do “innocent” children become guilty adults?

Do you think sin only hurts the individual sinner but not society as well?

What makes you think extraterrestrial life would be descended from Adam? Do Enoch and Elijah colonize the Alpha Quadrant in your mythology?

I got two jolts from looking up Mithraism. The first was when I found out what that religion was all about. The second was when I found out the time frame of its development.

 

[Rafael]

At what stage is a zygote infused with original sin? Is the sin gene carried on the X or Y chromosome? Maybe original sin is carried in the genome?

I think there is a common mistake concerning the doctrine about the original sin. In my opinion that mistake is due to a confusing use of the word “sin”.

Let’s see first some of the facts about the transmission of the original sin, as they appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#III:

-Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act. (404)

-…] human nature …] is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, …] subject to …] the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (405)

Notice that it says the original sin is transmitted by our parents, but we do know our parents do not transmit us our soul -that is created by God for each of us-, they transmit us just our physical body with its properties. It makes no sense that the soul is created by God with a sin. So, the original sin is something vinculated to our body, say our biological body, our flesh. That is in agreement with what the Catechism says: “affected the human nature, that is transmited in a fallen state” and “the consequences for nature, weakened” “persist” after baptism. The Catechism also says (400) that “Death makes its entrance into human history” due to the original sin. So, there is a critical change in Adam and Eve nature due to the original sin: their bodies will die.

Indeed, that change in flesh nature has an spiritual implication, due to the intimate connection between body and soul: we will be “inclined to evil”.

The Catechism also stresses: “is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ …] - a state and not an act”, thus putting limits to the word “sin”.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

My understanding is that The New Testament is literal while the Old Testament is both allegorical and literal. Genesis has both literal and allegorical elements, the Book of Kings is literal, and the Book of Job appears to be allegorical. Like Genesis, the story of Noah seems both literal and allegorical. There are accounts of a great flood found in other traditions, so there is supporting evidence that the flood did occur. Did Noah live to be 600 years old? I doubt it, but a friend of mine believes he did and there is no way to prove either of us wrong. The point is that the Old Testament is meant to teach us something and we shouldn’t let the details obscure the message.

 

[edwest2]

My understanding is that The New Testament is literal while the Old Testament is both allegorical and literal. Genesis has both literal and allegorical elements, the Book of Kings is literal, and the Book of Job appears to be allegorical. Like Genesis, the story of Noah seems both literal and allegorical. There are accounts of a great flood found in other traditions, so there is supporting evidence that the flood did occur. Did Noah live to be 600 years old? I doubt it, but a friend of mine believes he did and there is no way to prove either of us wrong. The point is that the Old Testament is meant to teach us something and we shouldn’t let the details obscure the message.

“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909.

God bless,
Ed