S
severntofall
Guest
Exteamly.
- Status
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Good day, Tim!
I am certainly open to hearing the evidence. But I doubt that we have the time that it would take for you to convince me on this point. I’m a natural born skeptic.
It is hard for me to come to conclusions when I only have pieces of data here and there. It would also be difficult for me to accept that we would know what to look for in terms of evidence for a one-time unrepeated historical event. But again, I am speaking from a position of ignorance in suspecting this, so maybe it is an easier case than I think. Here is a link to my local library. Do you see any recommended reading there?As far as I know, there are very few Christian geologists who believe that a worldwide flood happened. The vast majority of Christian geologists think that it did not happen. As you share the evidence, would you please also share what those very few say in response to your points, for the times that you’re aware of any such responses?
I think I remember you suggesting that you see possibility in a local flood being described in Scripture. Is this true?
Yeah, sorry. I know you’ve been harassed on a number of threads and questioned as to your orthodoxy. Don’t let it make you bitter.
Remember, you are one of Christ’s witnesses to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters. We who hold to the historical interpretation need to be careful of what Augustine warns us about:
“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion” (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk 1).
Also, in line with Augustine’s thought, I believe that the faithful task of Christians who hold to a fictional understanding of the early chapters of Genesis is to show that the New Testament interpreters of the Old Testament understood them as fictional too. Because I am personally unable to do this, I currently hold to a historical reading.
There is a difference, I agree. But, as Buffalo pointed out, much of the Genesis record may have been recorded by eyewitnesses as well and compiled and edited by Moses.
And the same problems occur in the New Testament witness to history as they do in Genesis. For example, we need to “add” to the accounts of the nativity in order to harmonize them. If you’re not aware of the places where additions need to be made, I’ll share them with you.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
“The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation” (CCC 116). I think we should steer away from using the word “literal” when specifically referring to a historical reading, as if a fictional reading is not also considered “literal.” We believe that a historical narrative is the literal sense. This does not mean that we interpret that narrative in a literalistic manner. Likewise, those who hold to a fictional account believe that that is the literal sense.
I believe that our holy authors were not intending for the reader to understand the accounts as strict chronology when the narration of one event follows after another in the order that we encounter them while reading the text. It is not an arbitrary selection in deciding what may have occurred in a different order, but one driven by the textual data. It is not contrary to the data, but rather explains the data in light of the possibilities. When we watch a movie and the director has a flashback scene, we do not understand the material in the flashback to actually occur after the current events taking place in the movie, even though the flashback occurs second in the order of depiction. Understanding the flashback to be a flashback is the literal interpretation of a flashback. Likewise, a historical account that does not say that “this” happened after “that” is open to the possibility of “that” happening before “this” even if “that” is narrated after “this.” If the text says, “this happened after that”, then that is the certain established order. What I’m arguing in support of is flexibility where no such time indicators are given.
The problem of chronology occurs in the gospels too. For example, Luke presents the order of Jesus’ temptations differently from Matthew. But Luke uses “and” each time while Matthew uses “then.” So we do not understand Luke’s order as chronological, but we do for Matthew. I believe that we have the same freedom with the Genesis chapters where we suspect them to have done the same thing that Luke did.
Here is an example from Matthew of finishing out one scene before going back to pick up on another scene, the latter scene having happened earlier in history:
My response was:bengal_fan said:
”It is well known how much Augustine loved Sacred Scripture, proclaiming its divine origin, its inerrancy, its depth and inexhaustible riches; and it is well known how much he studied Scripture. But the aim of his own study, and of his promotion of study by others, is the entirety of Scripture, so that the true thought, or as he says, the ‘heart’ of Scripture may be indicated, harmonizing it where necessary with itself…Pete_Holter said:
“In the controversies that arose concerning the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, [Augustine’s] recommendation was that one should discuss ‘with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian charity,’ until the truth itself be grasped, which God “has set…upon the throne of unity.” One will then be able to see that the controversy had not broken out in vain, because it ‘was the occasion for learning’ and progress has been made in the understanding of the faith” (JPII, Augustinum Hipponsensem).
The Lord be with you!
O
Orogeny
Guest
I personally think that is a good thing!Good day, Tim!
I am certainly open to hearing the evidence. But I doubt that we have the time that it would take for you to convince me on this point. I’m a natural born skeptic.
I am not sure these links will work, but here are a few suggestions:
fcpl.org/uhtbin/cgisirsi/m9143QYydg/AR/164730019/9
fcpl.org/uhtbin/cgisirsi/lX1nRfUbj7/AR/164730019/9
fcpl.org/uhtbin/cgisirsi/7PCwlOzBkh/AR/164730019/9
fcpl.org/uhtbin/cgisirsi/Y7HT33xFAV/AR/164730019/9
None of those are specifically about the Genesis flood because a geology book about that would be very small (that is a bit of sarcasm - there is no geologic evidence for a global flood). But they look like some good introductory books to geology and one introduction to stratigraphy.
That is a good observation. I think the key term there is not geologist, but Christian. Most of the time when this topic is discussed and the fact that no geologic evidence for a global flood exists, I think a lot of people on this forum immediately think “non-believer”. But the fact is is there are a lot of Christian geologists who know what they are talking about when they say that. And it is funny how many people are instantly experts in a field that they have really no clue about.
I suppose it is possible that the story had its origin with one of many local floods. That is clearly something that has frequently happened in the past. Since people tend to live near water, floods would be a phenomenon that would have to be dealt with.
No need to worry about that. I usually get a chuckle out of the things that some people post as “scientific” evidence for a global flood.Yeah, sorry. I know you’ve been harassed on a number of threads and questioned as to your orthodoxy. Don’t let it make you bitter.
I disagree with you there. For example, I don’t have to show that the writers of the New Testament understood that the earth orbits the sun for me to accept that. In fact, I suppose they thought that the sun orbits the earth. But that is because they didn’t have the information we have today. Same with the flood.
Well, unless Noah or his sons wrote that part of Genesis, there were no eyewitnesses.
I don’t have a problem harmonizing the scriptures that way. I think, though, that some posters do take ALL of scriptures literally. And I mean literally. Those people, in my opinion, have the problem of harmonizing scriptures because that requires them to interpret rather than just read. They don’t allow my interpretation so I don’t accept their interpretation.And the same problems occur in the New Testament witness to history as they do in Genesis. For example, we need to “add” to the accounts of the nativity in order to harmonize them. If you’re not aware of the places where additions need to be made, I’ll share them with you.
Peace
Tim
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
You were right, Tim. I can’t figure out what books they were. Author and title will work, if you want to take the additional time.
I’d like to encourage you in this direction then.
For reasons such as… Noah is an ancestor of Jesus, etc.Ok… but I’m going to stick with Augustine on this one.
It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial. What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side? But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with the knowledge he has acquired, may resolutely withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation. (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk 2, 9:20)
In other words, the sacred writers, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were able to write true things about the universe in a language that is obscure enough to be interpreted in many different ways. And when all has been revealed, the words of Scripture – which for the time being seem to be at odds to some interpreters with the “words” of the book of nature – will be shown to have rightly spoken of these things (without, I think, resorting to the genre of fiction).
Scripture Cannot Be in Contradiction with Itself or with Science
But someone may ask: ‘Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?’ (Psalms 104:2). Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false. The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men surmise. But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault (cf. Isaiah 40:22). For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but to be reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved. (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk 2, 9:21)
Yup! That’s the hypothesis of that article.
The LORD be with you!
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well, go to that library and look for introductory books for geology, stratigraphy and geomorphology.You were right, Tim. I can’t figure out what books they were. Author and title will work, if you want to take the additional time.
Noah could very well be a historic figure. My argument doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not he really lived. It has to do with the story of the flood.I’d like to encourage you in this direction then.
He is a pretty good guy to stick with. I would suggest that Augustine would side with me on this subject. From On the Literal Meaning of Genesis:Ok… but I’m going to stick with Augustine on this one.
St. Augustine:
So, he takes the position that we should not insist that scripture be taken literally when it is clear from other sources such as science that certain stories should not be taken literally.
Peace
Tim
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Hey! I just quoted that from him! Are you skimming my posts???
I agree with both of you on this point. The point where he disagrees with you is where you said that the New Testament authors may have thought that the story of the flood was historical and commented about it in Scripture as if it were, and yet it is really fiction. What I’m saying, and what Augustine is saying, is that if it can be demonstrated by clear proofs that the Genesis account of the flood is not conveying information about a historical event, then it must be shown that this was not only not intended to do so by the author of the account itself, but also not understood to be doing so by the New Testament interpreters of the account.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!
C
cassini
Guest
Ever since the Earthmovers convinced the whole world that the earth has been proven to move around the sun, the Bible has been labelled ‘unscientific’, supposedly reflecting the illusions of men in a pre-scientific age. To my knowledge, and in spite of all that is propagated to the contrary, no science, no anthropology, archaeology or anything has ever proven the Bible, or to be more precise, the Fathers’ interpretation of it, to be untrustworthy in any sphere, whether in its age for the world, its geocentric basis, its shape for the earth (Is. 40:22), its flood-caused geology, its sketch of the water cycle (Eccles. 1:7), its fixity of kinds, diversity of species and methods of generation, its sanitation laws (Deut. 23:12-14), even its rules for quarantining (Lev. 13:1-5) and so on. As regards human society, here again the Bible cannot be found wanting. Genesis tells us created man was monotheistic, intelligent and civilised from the very beginning. After the Fall and again after the Flood, many did lapse into primitive ways, seeking out any environment that could sustain them, whether village, jungle, desert, cave or mud-hut, such as can be found even today. Nevertheless, because man is an ordered, intellectual and social creature, records were prone to be kept, both oral and written. It is reasonable to say then that if the Bible records a real 6,000-year history, surely this past should be evident in the traditions of all peoples, whether primitive or sophisticated. As it happens, this is the case. There is not a single culture discovered that had/has not a perfect language and a history of the world that begins with the biblical account, an original couple and a flood. For examples let us consider the following studies:
(1) An investigation into Chinese palaeography, God’s Promise To The Chinese. In a summary of this book, the reviewer states:
‘The three joint-authors have clearly demonstrated, to this reviewer’s satisfaction at least, that the inventor of the original Chinese characters, which were inscribed on tortoise shells and bones, knew and believed in an identical account of creation and earth’s beginnings to that found in Moses’ Book of Genesis…. The Chinese have always revered their writing system. Calligraphy ranks supreme in their artistic scale of values…Just 142 of the earliest hieroglyphic pictograms contain, in a highly condensed (and therefore mentally portable and ineradicable form) key components of the Book of Genesis. Since the truth or otherwise of the Flood has profound implications for the study of geology, in the Book of Documents (Sha Ching), written 3,000 years ago, we read: “The flood waters were everywhere, destroying everything as they rose above the hills and swelled up to Heaven.” ’—Tim Williams, Christian Order, November 2001, pp.629-63, reviewing God’s Promise To The Chinese by E. Nelson, R. Broadberry and G. Chock, Read Books, HCR 65 Box 580, Dunlap, TN 37327, USA, 1997.
The authors show the earliest Chinese were monotheists who worshiped ShangDi or the one ‘God Above’. For more than 4,000 years they sacrificed to Him in the imperial city of Beijing in what was called the ‘Border Sacrifice’. Confucius (551-479BC) thought the Border Sacrifice so significant that he accredited the efficient ruling of the Chinese empire to it. The Border Sacrifice ended only when the Manchu Ch’ing dynasty was deposed in 1911.
(2) In the book, After The Flood (Bill Cooper: After The Flood, New Wine Press, 22 Arun Business Park, Bognor Regis, West Sussex, PO22 9SX, England, 1995.) - a 25-year study into Middle Eastern/European palaeography - Bill Cooper traces the early post-flood history of the Middle East and Europe. His task was to see if the ‘Table of Nations’ (Genesis Chapter 10 and 11) could be verified in the history of nations prior to Christianity. If he could find a lineage from the Japhetic line in these histories it would confirm the Bible also recorded true history. Cooper found ample evidence in eastern and western archives to confirm Middle East and European lines are both descended from the Japhetic tree. In Britain, Wales and Ireland he found the records of the early settlers went back 2,000 years, with the same genealogy to European differing only in language. What amazed Cooper was that the evidence of this history was so easy to find and so evident that he concluded its absence from textbooks, schools, universities etc., could only be a deliberate omission by those determined to undermine the Bible as recording true history.
(1) An investigation into Chinese palaeography, God’s Promise To The Chinese. In a summary of this book, the reviewer states:
‘The three joint-authors have clearly demonstrated, to this reviewer’s satisfaction at least, that the inventor of the original Chinese characters, which were inscribed on tortoise shells and bones, knew and believed in an identical account of creation and earth’s beginnings to that found in Moses’ Book of Genesis…. The Chinese have always revered their writing system. Calligraphy ranks supreme in their artistic scale of values…Just 142 of the earliest hieroglyphic pictograms contain, in a highly condensed (and therefore mentally portable and ineradicable form) key components of the Book of Genesis. Since the truth or otherwise of the Flood has profound implications for the study of geology, in the Book of Documents (Sha Ching), written 3,000 years ago, we read: “The flood waters were everywhere, destroying everything as they rose above the hills and swelled up to Heaven.” ’—Tim Williams, Christian Order, November 2001, pp.629-63, reviewing God’s Promise To The Chinese by E. Nelson, R. Broadberry and G. Chock, Read Books, HCR 65 Box 580, Dunlap, TN 37327, USA, 1997.
The authors show the earliest Chinese were monotheists who worshiped ShangDi or the one ‘God Above’. For more than 4,000 years they sacrificed to Him in the imperial city of Beijing in what was called the ‘Border Sacrifice’. Confucius (551-479BC) thought the Border Sacrifice so significant that he accredited the efficient ruling of the Chinese empire to it. The Border Sacrifice ended only when the Manchu Ch’ing dynasty was deposed in 1911.
(2) In the book, After The Flood (Bill Cooper: After The Flood, New Wine Press, 22 Arun Business Park, Bognor Regis, West Sussex, PO22 9SX, England, 1995.) - a 25-year study into Middle Eastern/European palaeography - Bill Cooper traces the early post-flood history of the Middle East and Europe. His task was to see if the ‘Table of Nations’ (Genesis Chapter 10 and 11) could be verified in the history of nations prior to Christianity. If he could find a lineage from the Japhetic line in these histories it would confirm the Bible also recorded true history. Cooper found ample evidence in eastern and western archives to confirm Middle East and European lines are both descended from the Japhetic tree. In Britain, Wales and Ireland he found the records of the early settlers went back 2,000 years, with the same genealogy to European differing only in language. What amazed Cooper was that the evidence of this history was so easy to find and so evident that he concluded its absence from textbooks, schools, universities etc., could only be a deliberate omission by those determined to undermine the Bible as recording true history.
H
HankZ
Guest
H
HankZ
Guest
Sooooooooo, this means you don’t have a clue what you would find, huh? Flood deposits? This thread is close to the 1,000 limit, so if you actually have any idea what you are saying about what evidence would God have to provide you with for you to believe He judged the world once already as he said and will judge it again, the next time with fire. I think 2 Peter talks about how people will forget about the flood and Jesus return will be mocked. Sounds as though Peter hit it on the head.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Right. I don’t have a clue. I have absolutely no idea what we should find. Floods leaving deposits. What a joke!
I could tell you, but then you would understand the deep secrets that we geologist have and that would be unacceptable. Besides, you know there is tons of evidence that a global flood happened. In fact, I bet you wouldn’t have any problems listing, oh let’s say, 10 of them with supporting scientific documentation.
You know, maybe I should have come to CA for my education in geology. It would have been much easier than actually learning something and I could claim to be an expert (which I don’t now) and poo poo anyone who actually did study the subject. But at least I would have my literal interpretation of scripture on my side.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
O
Orogeny
Guest
Or you could try to find some scientific examples. I guess that would be asking too much.
Peace
Tim
M
Mark_Renaud
Guest
M
Mark_Renaud
Guest
Tim,
Even the first Pope Peter mentions God’s Flood at the time of Noah - where only eight people were saved. In fact (I know you have a hard time with historical facts related to the flood) Pope Peter mentions it in both of his New Testament Letters.
It would be wise to read Pope Peters words that were canonized by the Catholic Church. I’m assuming that you would believe that Pope Peter was speaking ‘ex cathedra’ when the Holy Spirit was using him to write scripture.
Also you may or may not be aware but Noah and the flood are mentioned not only by Moses in Genesis but also by Isaiah, byTobit, in the book of Sirach, by Ezra, by Matthew, by Luke, by the Hebrews writer and by Pope Peter - sounds like a whole bunch of evidence to me.
None of these men had Geology degrees that we know of. Yet none of them required to see ‘scientific proof’ in order to take God at His Word either.
What say ye of Pope Peters proclamations in Scripture?
Still wondering about your criterion,
Mark Renaud
M
Mark_Renaud
Guest
Tim,
I can’t find your criterion. Would you be willing to do a little cutting and pasting and list out your criterion from the past that you said you have already did? I either missed it or it went right over my head(which is pretty easy to do)
I would appreciate it - it really would help me to use this format:
Here is the specific criterion that I use to know that a passage of scripture is a ‘theological story’:
1.
2.
3.
4. etc.
Here is the specific criterion that I use to know that a passage of scripture is 'historical fact:
1.
2.
3.
4.etc
Here is the specific criterion that I have used to know that God’s Flood at the time of Noah was just a story and didn’t really happen:
1.
2.
3.
4.etc
Here is the specific criterion that I have used to know that the Passover/Communion bread actually did change in to the actual scientific proven Flesh of Jesus Christ:
1.
2.
3.
4.etc
Sorry but I really need it to be this simple. I appreciate your help on this and your clarity and your patience with one who really does want to understand.
Sincerely, Mark Renaud
M
Mark_Renaud
Guest
Tim,
Please remember that I am wearing the “Scarlet Letter” called a ‘new member’. I’m still wet behind the ears. Sorry.
Mark Renaud
C
cassini
Guest
I do not need any pseudo-science to believe what the Bible clearly says.
Only God knows for sure and He says it covered the whole world. How else could you get down to only 8 humans.
S
severntofall
Guest
Is this response supposed to be a parody of fundamentalist nut cases or is it genuine…I can’t tell anymore? I’ve come to expect more from catholics than this.
- Status