Noah's Ark!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Drew0426
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
What about them?
Click to expand...
Were they not “basic” as you claim? Why or why not?

How about dinosaurs?

Does the Bible or the Catholic Church teach that only “basic” animals were included?
 
diggerdomer said:
Were they not “basic” as you claim? Why or why not?

How about dinosaurs?

Does the Bible or the Catholic Church teach that only “basic” animals were included?
Click to expand...
I do not know if a unicorn was basic or not. Do you?

Let us say that dino’s were taken aboard. What guarantees their survival/proliferation afterwards?
 
StrawberryJam said:
I’m calling a Poe on this one.
Click to expand...
The interpretation of allegorical myth can take on philosophical implications; that is to say, a myth can be construed as being a poetic way of communicating a philosophical idea. Such an idea is an ancient one. Sallustius, in On the Gods and The Kosmos, mentions this form of interpretation, with regard to Greek myth, as being one of five he then goes on to detail.

Now, If we interpret Noah’s Ark in this method, then we might arrive at certain theological constructs which we can then compare to other aspects of ancient Hebraic myth. Doing such a thing might lead one to have the sort of perspective I mentioned in my original post in this thread. Such sentiments as I explained earlier, then, are not meant to be a parody of what Christianity believes, but are meant as a speculation as to what our original myth might have intended to express.

But thank you for explaining to me what a “Poe” is in your response, as I would have hated to have relied upon a mere Google search. Your second sentence was unintelligible to me.
 
Noesis said:
The interpretation of allegorical myth can take on philosophical implications; that is to say, a myth can be construed as being a poetic way of communicating a philosophical idea. Such an idea is an ancient one. Sallustius, in On the Gods and The Kosmos, mentions this form of interpretation, with regard to Greek myth, as being one of five he then goes on to detail.

Now, If we interpret Noah’s Ark in this method, then we might arrive at certain theological constructs which we can then compare to other aspects of ancient Hebraic myth. Doing such a thing might lead one to have the sort of perspective I mentioned in my original post in this thread. Such sentiments as I explained earlier, then, are not meant to be a parody of what Christianity believes, but are meant as a speculation as to what our original myth might have intended to express.

But thank you for explaining to me what a “Poe” is in your response, as I would have hated to have relied upon a mere Google search. Your second sentence was unintelligible to me.
Click to expand...
One still has to consider on whether the original intent conveyed has been preserved by the Church?
 
buffalo said:
One still has to consider on whether the original intent conveyed has been preserved by the Church?
Click to expand...
Only certain sects of modern Judaism would want to argue such a thing, because the original authors did not adhere to a theology which closely resembles modern Catholic theology. The latter, it has to be said, has incorporated what it sees as being valid revelation which the former was not privy to.

As I remember, Catholicism usually interprets this story of Noah from the point of view of its implications for ecclesiology and its role in the salvific work of Christ. Such interpretation could not be possible for a Hebrew society existing before the life of Jesus and the time of the early Christians.

Whether or not the interpretation of the Church is the ‘correct’ one has no relation to the intent of the original authors of this portion of scripture. It is instead based on matters of authority, which often must trump textual analyses which imply differences of opinion from established norms of theology.

For the Catholic, if his reason should take him to a place the Church has disagreed with, he must either abandon his reason as being too incomplete to be taken seriously; or else he must fall into heresy. This applies to many things, and not just the Deluge Story.
 
Noesis said:
Only certain sects of modern Judaism would want to argue such a thing, because the original authors did not adhere to a theology which closely resembles modern Catholic theology. The latter, it has to be said, has incorporated what it sees as being valid revelation which the former was not privy to.

As I remember, Catholicism usually interprets this story of Noah from the point of view of its implications for ecclesiology and its role in the salvific work of Christ. Such interpretation could not be possible for a Hebrew society existing before the life of Jesus and the time of the early Christians.

Whether or not the interpretation of the Church is the ‘correct’ one has no relation to the intent of the original authors of this portion of scripture. It is instead based on matters of authority, which often must trump textual analyses which imply differences of opinion from established norms of theology.

For the Catholic, if his reason should take him to a place the Church has disagreed with, he must either abandon his reason as being too incomplete to be taken seriously; or else he must fall into heresy. This applies to many things, and not just the Deluge Story.
Click to expand...
Then the next question would be when would that have been evaluated?

SO the Jews would claim it was a historic event and the Catholics would come along and say - nope?
 
buffalo said:
Then the next question would be when would that have been evaluated?

SO the Jews would claim it was a historic event and the Catholics would come along and say - nope?
Click to expand...
Well, I am not so much concerned with the historicity of the deluge, but with the theology I interpret it to describe. The theological perspective of the author(s) of the story, was not the same as that of later Catholics, because Catholicism includes a ‘greater fullness’ of revelation. This is not a critique of Catholicism, but is indeed based on Catholic assumptions.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your first question.
 
rev_kevin said:
Look at it logically, 2 of every kind of land animal on the size of Ark that was built. They would not all fit.
“Bread that the people of Israel called the manna. which is really not bread. It was white like coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey.” Exodus 16:31.
Click to expand...
I think one must be careful when interpreting the bible to apply human restraints to that interpretation. All things are possible with God. If you discount Noah’s Ark story, what about Daniel? Did he really walk through the fire?, Was there really handwritng on the wall? Where does one draw the line?
 
rockymountain said:
I think one must be careful when interpreting the bible to apply human restraints to that interpretation. All things are possible with God. If you discount Noah’s Ark story, what about Daniel? Did he really walk through the fire?, Was there really handwritng on the wall? Where does one draw the line?
Click to expand...
Agree’d

Not only that but if you consider the entire world population. Each individual is not as distant form the next as one might wrongly assume. Every individual on earth is 4-people away from a common acquaintance. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents. Simple fact of life which your invited to research. DNA is a common bond which can be researched. Now when we reduce the population to what can be comprehended through numbers. Its not a vast as one might again assume.

Now when we view Noahs Ark from this perspective its really not far fetched. The animals are a weak argument to deny a reality which isn’t clearly known “yet”. Think about living on a remote island. Now, whats a fact is all the worlds animals wouldn’t live on that island. Matter of fact there may even have been a much smaller number of all living than one might assume. Thinking on these lines would it not be possible? Lets forget whats probable and concentrate on “possible”. Because anything is “possible” with God.

The clear message of Noahs Ark is the fact that there was No, None, Zip, Zero, salvation outside that Ark. And the reality of this brings us back to what caused the Deluge.

Now as we move through time in Archaelogy, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus, among countless other realities have in fact been discovered. It doesn’t get much older in the Bible then Sodom and Gomorrah. This isn’t 1960 anymore when the Bible was considered no more real than the Wizard of Oz. Yearly Archaelogy is confirming every single detail of the Bible.
 
Drawing the line is clearly the issue. And today, we have a Bible Explanation Industry that attempts to apply “scientific” explanations to Biblical events. Or to put it another way: “I’ll believe that miracle over here but not that one over there.”

So-called science would tell us that a crucified man could not walk out of his grave afterwards. That same man could certainly not walk on water. That’s ridiculous! Raise the dead, heal the sick, give sight to the blind? Even more ridiculous!

So Noah and the Ark? You have got to be kidding. No way. It doesn’t make sense! My rational mind is offended! Really? Why?

But today, spurred on by a desire to “scientifically” disprove parts of the Bible, it’s no, no, no. Recently, an ocean of water was discovered under China:

associatedcontent.com/article/168666/ocean_under_china.html

So, does that mean more people might find the Noah’s Ark story true? Maybe.

God bless,
Ed
 
Torpedo Ye Arke, an analysis of the ark by marine architects, has been around a while, and its a great read, as it demolishes any scientific attempt to prove the ark was real.

Sure, if you want to believe it existed, as a matter of faith its beyond debate, but its a total fail if the claim is asserted as testable.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
Torpedo Ye Arke, an analysis of the ark by marine architects, has been around a while, and its a great read, as it demolishes any scientific attempt to prove the ark was real.

Sure, if you want to believe it existed, as a matter of faith its beyond debate, but its a total fail if the claim is asserted as testable.
Click to expand...
Agree, yet disagree with the premise that there was a Scientific attempt to ‘prove’ the ark was real. Nitpicky, I know.

By the way, glad to meet you here
 
edwest2 said:
Drawing the line is clearly the issue. And today, we have a Bible Explanation Industry that attempts to apply “scientific” explanations to Biblical events. Or to put it another way: “I’ll believe that miracle over here but not that one over there.”

So-called science would tell us that a crucified man could not walk out of his grave afterwards. That same man could certainly not walk on water. That’s ridiculous! Raise the dead, heal the sick, give sight to the blind? Even more ridiculous!

So Noah and the Ark? You have got to be kidding. No way. It doesn’t make sense! My rational mind is offended! Really? Why?

But today, spurred on by a desire to “scientifically” disprove parts of the Bible, it’s no, no, no. Recently, an ocean of water was discovered under China:

associatedcontent.com/article/168666/ocean_under_china.html

So, does that mean more people might find the Noah’s Ark story true? Maybe.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Reminds me of an Atheist argument I once heard regarding Joshua and his stopping the Sun from moving across the sky. The Atheist maintained that that was impossible since it would have caused the Earth to get out of its orbit around the Sun. Of course the answer to that would be that one is trying to find a naturalistic, scientific explanations to a God-caused event. :rolleyes:
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
Its a shame Noah’s legacy of marine engineering was lost to history.

I meant how convenient.
Click to expand...
Yep the same shame on losing how the Roman’s build some of their structures (modern engineers still can’t figure out how they did it with out modern machines or computers), a shame we lost the ability to build pyramids and put them in such a way that it puzzles engineers and scientists today, a shame that Stonehenge and the Statues on Easter island perplex modern scientists… I can keep going if you like
 
Mcklintock82 said:
Yep the same shame on losing how the Roman’s build some of their structures (modern engineers still can’t figure out how they did it with out modern machines or computers), a shame we lost the ability to build pyramids and put them in such a way that it puzzles engineers and scientists today, a shame that Stonehenge and the Statues on Easter island perplex modern scientists… I can keep going if you like
Click to expand...
Well, the UFOs used sky hooks to carry around big blocks of stone, everyone knows that.

What are the Roman structures you’re talking about?

And as for the pyramids, when your idea of advanced architecture includes not having gotten around to inventing the arch or pulley or wheel and you don’t have a firm grasp on the concept of a “load bearing wall”, you’ve got to do the next best thing: pile up rocks on top of each other, so your finished product has the inherent stability of a … collapsed building, or, a pile of rocks.
 
I could be wrong, but was Pompeii recently in the news? I guess you can milk it for only so long without a structional engineer.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
Well, the UFOs used sky hooks to carry around big blocks of stone, everyone knows that.

What are the Roman structures you’re talking about?

And as for the pyramids, when your idea of advanced architecture includes not having gotten around to inventing the arch or pulley or wheel and you don’t have a firm grasp on the concept of a “load bearing wall”, you’ve got to do the next best thing: pile up rocks on top of each other, so your finished product has the inherent stability of a … collapsed building, or, a pile of rocks.
Click to expand...
Yeah a lot of the pyramid techniques are theory, I saw a documentary (either Nat. Geo or Discovery) that said engineers couldn’t figure out how the Egyptians made such straight cuts and moved such massive stone blocks, they came up with some rather amusing theories but nothing solid. On another documentary they couldn’t figure out how Romans built the aqueducts or domes without modern machines such as height and precision.
Also Nazca Lines come to mind. Scientist, to my knowledge, still haven’t figured out how they could make such gigantic “drawings” without current or somewhat current technology (like flight to be able to see if they were actually making a shape). They discovered things from ancient times that perplex today’s “experts”, why should a giant ship be so far off?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top