Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Brian_Millar]

Fire is a general term, a volcano emmits fire in the form of magma which in turn cools into stone. Fire rains down from the sky if we get hit with a large enough meteor or Comet in the form of debree kicked up upon impact. The suns fire would also vaporize this planet in an instant. Nuculear bombs also emitt a form of fire as well. Can we move on from this tangent?

Litereal translation of the bible is always taken into account, in the cases where it’s speaking out as an actual event, it’s quite clear detail wise how to discern the message. The argument here is with the validity of the story. What on earth could any of us possibly ever do with knowing the size and make up of the ark? Now if these details are put into place to reinforce the fact, that this was a true event, that is the only logic I can see behind including it. Do you have another explanation? Also, why on earth are you going to detail a false lineage, or address the number of years a fictional character lived? Again, more details that likely will be totally ignored by the other side of this debate because they have no answers.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Fire is a general term, a volcano emmits fire in the form of magma which in turn cools into stone.

Magma is a form of fire? That’s news to me. Do you have a reference for this unusual claim?

Also, why on earth are you going to detail a false lineage, or address the number of years a fictional character lived? Again, more details that likely will be totally ignored by the other side of this debate because they have no answers.

I suspect the author made Noah 500 years old just to show that this wasn’t a historical story about a real person. Do you know any 500-year old men who build ships?

Fictional characters have details too you know. Where do you get this idea that fictional stories lack details?

 

[Brian_Millar]

Magma is a form of fire? That’s news to me. Do you have a reference for this unusual claim?

• The point here, rocks burn, or rather “melt” given enough heat is applied.

I suspect the author made Noah 500 years old just to show that this wasn’t a historical story about a real person. Do you know any 500-year old men who build ships?

• So according to your logic, not a single person described in the bible that lived longer then our current life span is now considered fictional…

Fictional characters have details too you know. Where do you get this idea that fictional stories lack details?

• And why am I debating about this story with an individual who is clearly athiest or agnostic at best given the information you just provided?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

• And why am I debating about this story with an individual who is clearly athiest or agnostic at best given the information you just provided?

Well, then you’re calling most of the magesterium of the church athiest. Catholics don’t generally think the Noah’s Ark story is historical. Especially the Catholics who have studied theology and stuff.

Can you provide any evidence at all that this pope, the last pope, or any prominent cardinal takes the Noah’s Ark story historically? It’s a rather unusual position to hold.

(The footnotes of the bible on the USCCB website even say that Genesis 6 contains fragments of an old legend: usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis6.htm
“This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” )

 

[Orogeny]

- And why am I debating about this story with an individual who is clearly athiest or agnostic at best given the information you just provided?

Careful there, Brian. Just because someone doesn’t accept the story of Noah as literal like you doesn’t mean that you can start questioning their faith. Neil identifies himself as Catholic and you should respect that.

I don’t accept it as a historical story either and I am just as Catholic as you are.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brian_Millar]

I think you might be a little confused:

A good example to illustrate this shift in thought is the story of Noah’s ark. In the early Church, Noah’s ark, the temporary home of the righteous remnant, was often viewed as a type (a symbol or prefiguring) of the Church, the ark of salvation amidst a troubled and immoral secular world. While the Church Fathers most likely believed that the story of Noah’s ark was literally true, their main emphasis was the typology within the story. Today, many are more concerned with finding the ark to prove the story actually happened, or in the case of skeptics, that it did not. The Church Fathers’ interpretation gets at the heart of the story in light of Christian revelation, in addition to revealing the highest and truest meaning of the text, again in light of Christian revelation. By “in light of Christian revelation,” I mean that as Christians, Christ is the interpretive lens through which we read the Old Testament. This is unpopular today in Academic circles, so much that many Christians learn in seminary that it is wrong to “find” Jesus in the Old Testament. Nonetheless, reading the Old Testament in light of Jesus is faithful to the early Christian method of reading and exegeting Scripture. While the meaning given by the Church Fathers in the Noah’s ark example is not the purely literal meaning of the text, it is still true in the most true way possible, and it does not exclude a literal reading.

Taken from: ancient-future.net/bible.html I’d read what that page has to say, in particular the section that describes the following: “A man by the name of Marcion did this in the 2nd century. He threw out the Old Testament and accepted only a mutilated gospel of Luke and 10 of Paul’s letters.”. This is what is happening now, we really should be looking back at the early days of the church on this matter, for this debate has became quite clouded and muddled up with people assuming others are discussing a fundamentalist perspective. I can assure you, I am in no way a fundamentalist by any definition.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Careful there, Brian. Just because someone doesn’t accept the story of Noah as literal like you doesn’t mean that you can start questioning their faith. Neil identifies himself as Catholic and you should respect that.

I don’t accept it as a historical story either and I am just as Catholic as you are.

Peace

Tim

To be blunt, according to Neils limited understanding of scripture, if the story doesn’t fit in with his modern perspective, that it must be false. khouse.org/articles/1997/12/ here is a good read for those that want to entertain the concept of choosing what’s real and what is not.

 

[Orogeny]

To be blunt, according to Neils limited understanding of scripture, if the story doesn’t fit in with his modern perspective, that it must be false. khouse.org/articles/1997/12/ here is a good read for those that want to entertain the concept of choosing what’s real and what is not.

Regardless, you don’t need to be making your opinion of his faith a matter of record on this or any other thread in this forum.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brian_Millar]

The point’s he’s making are from an athiests textbook perspective, if he’s going to call himself something, he should be true to himself in that regard. I do not pick and choose what to believe, or what not to because it suits me, I do not consider myself to be an authority to overwrite what’s clearly been in place as truth from the beginning. I’m also rather fed up with dealing with individuals that claim to have faith in God, but they clearly only have faith in man and man’s limited understanding of the universe that is around him. These are dangerous times and thinking along the matter, that we are so much more advanced will only get all of mankind into trouble.

This is not a case of education, it’s a case of knowing all of the facts, that we don’t have all of them, but at least God gave us enough to learn and what’s missing, we must fill in with this crazy thing called “faith”. I’d rather rely upon what he has addressed to us within the written scripture rather then some modern, high and mighty perspective, thinking we have some how advanced to such a degree, we can now decide what is worth keeping in the cannon and what to take with a grain of salt.

 

[Orogeny]

The point’s he’s making are from an athiests textbook perspective, if he’s going to call himself something, he should be true to himself in that regard. I do not pick and choose what to believe, or what not to because it suits me, I do not consider myself to be an authority to overwrite what’s clearly been in place as truth from the beginning. I’m also rather fed up with dealing with individuals that claim to have faith in God, but they clearly only have faith in man and man’s limited understanding of the universe that is around him. These are dangerous times and thinking along the matter, that we are so much more advanced will only get all of mankind into trouble.

This is not a case of education, it’s a case of knowing all of the facts, that we don’t have all of them, but at least God gave us enough to learn and what’s missing, we must fill in with this crazy thing called “faith”. I’d rather rely upon what he has addressed to us within the written scripture rather then some modern, high and mighty perspective, thinking we have some how advanced to such a degree, we can now decide what is worth keeping in the cannon and what to take with a grain of salt.

Brian, I learned science from books that another poster on this forum continually insists are atheist textbooks because they don’t include God as a scientific answer. Am I an athiest, Brian?

Take a step back and look at what you are claiming. Because he doesn’t agree with the way you read scriptures, you question his faith. You KNOW what is in his heart. Right.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The point’s he’s making are from an athiests textbook perspective, if he’s going to call himself something, he should be true to himself in that regard. I do not pick and choose what to believe, or what not to because it suits me, I do not consider myself to be an authority to overwrite what’s clearly been in place as truth from the beginning. I’m also rather fed up with dealing with individuals that claim to have faith in God, but they clearly only have faith in man and man’s limited understanding of the universe that is around him. These are dangerous times and thinking along the matter, that we are so much more advanced will only get all of mankind into trouble.

Brian,
This is what I learned in Catholic school theology class, that the early chapters of Genesis are mytho-poetic writing. If I was taught error, please cite a pope or cardinal or encyclical or something. I am just repeating what I’ve learned from people I consider to be orthodox Catholic teachers and clergy.

I like what you said about how the early church father’s emphasized the typology in those stories. I think that’s why they are in scripture, they provide teachings and types that point to Christ and the church.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Brian,
This is what I learned in Catholic school theology class, that the early chapters of Genesis are mytho-poetic writing. If I was taught error, please cite a pope or cardinal or encyclical or something. I am just repeating what I’ve learned from people I consider to be orthodox Catholic teachers and clergy.

I like what you said about how the early church father’s emphasized the typology in those stories. I think that’s why they are in scripture, they provide teachings and types that point to Christ and the church.

Then your teachers are in error.

 

[tnystrom]

Then your teachers are in error.

Do you have a Pope, the Magisterium? Where do you base your reason for this accusation?

 

[Brian_Millar]

Actually, I figured out your category, they call people that believe the way you do as theists. If you want to do some reading, I have a site you should be looking into, upholdingtradition.com the person that runs it happens to be a Catholic priest and I’ve known him for years, he’s currently doing missionary work in Africa, so is rather hands on kind of guy to be dealing with.

 

[tnystrom]

Actually, I figured out your category, they call people that believe the way you do as theists. If you want to do some reading, I have a site you should be looking into, upholdingtradition.com the person that runs it happens to be a Catholic priest and I’ve known him for years, he’s currently doing missionary work in Africa, so is rather hands on kind of guy to be dealing with.

When I was a young follower of Christ and was newly studying theology, I found it necessary to categorize everyone. Then as I grew older in years and in faith, I learned that I can’t know peoples hearts, so I really can’t categorize them as succintly as I believe that I can.

 

[Brian_Millar]

The problem we have on these boards here, the theists have vastly overextended their views to the point, they are misleading devout Catholics, making them think their ways are the Churches ways. These are dangerous times we live in as Christians, much less Catholics, a huge part of it is the utter arrogance modern man is showing when it comes to God and his creation. They want to water down our faith because their’s already is and they cannot stand it if someone else refuses to bow down to the mind and modern thinking of man.

Those that stand up for themselves and the church are considered strange and outcasts, for it is not within the norm of their thinking. I for one refuse to be told bald face lies just to appease some unbelieving, thinking they can analyze God under a microscope individual or group.

Did I say I knew this guys heart ever??? No, I did not, all I can discern is what his “mind” is displaying through the words him and others are writing, both on the boards and accross the WWW. It seems like you will fit in best here by denying the existance of God, that we are mere animals, there is no heaven and there is no hell. That perspective would stay perfectly in line with many of these so called believers understanding, for that is the direction they are going, the direction they are pushing others towards, and the last thing they ever want to do is reflect upon their own true motives and personal spritual lack.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The problem we have on these boards here, the theists have vastly overextended their views to the point, they are misleading devout Catholics,

Brian,

Please tell us who you are, and your qualifications.

I do my best to follow and believe everything the Church teaches. And I’m not a liberal catholic who thinks the Church can change infallible teachings of the past.

So, if you have some information that the Church requires us to interpret Noah’s Ark in the historical literal sense, please present it. And please cite your sources.

My understanding is that I’m on Pope Benedict XVI’s side in this. Do you agree with that or disagree? And if you agree, do you think the pope is in error?

Just show us one statement from any of the last 5 popes, or from the Pontifical Biblical Commission in the last 50 years that takes your side in this matter. If you can do that, I’ll repent and perhaps you will save my soul.

 

[tnystrom]

Brian,

Please tell us who you are, and your qualifications.

I do my best to follow and believe everything the Church teaches. And I’m not a liberal catholic who thinks the Church can change infallible teachings of the past.

So, if you have some information that the Church requires us to interpret Noah’s Ark in the historical literal sense, please present it. And please cite your sources.

My understanding is that I’m on Pope Benedict XVI’s side in this. Do you agree with that or disagree? And if you agree, do you think the pope is in error?

Just show us one statement from any of the last 5 popes, or from the Pontifical Biblical Commission in the last 50 years that takes your side in this matter. If you can do that, I’ll repent and perhaps you will save my soul.

Well said Neil. I just recently swam the Tiber (March 28, 2008) and the similarities between this young man and the far right wing fundamentalist protestants that I know personally are very pronounced.

 

[tnystrom]

The last of the Ecumenical Councils was, indeed, the most controversial for the ambiguous language of the documents opened a Pandora’s Box to allow Church leaders and others to interpret dogma and doctrine in a Protestant light with an emphasis on humanism, ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality in an effort to conform to the modern world rather than the world adhering to what the Church had always taught. dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm

I went to one of the sites that Brian mentions and it seems he is a Vatican II denier. Seems the gates of hell prevailed against the Church for him. :bigyikes:

 

[Philipp]

The problem we have on these boards here, the theists have vastly overextended their views to the point, they are misleading devout Catholics, making them think their ways are the Churches ways. These are dangerous times we live in as Christians, much less Catholics, a huge part of it is the utter arrogance modern man is showing when it comes to God and his creation. They want to water down our faith because their’s already is and they cannot stand it if someone else refuses to bow down to the mind and modern thinking of man.

Those that stand up for themselves and the church are considered strange and outcasts, for it is not within the norm of their thinking. I for one refuse to be told bald face lies just to appease some unbelieving, thinking they can analyze God under a microscope individual or group.

Did I say I knew this guys heart ever??? No, I did not, all I can discern is what his “mind” is displaying through the words him and others are writing, both on the boards and accross the WWW. It seems like you will fit in best here by denying the existance of God, that we are mere animals, there is no heaven and there is no hell. That perspective would stay perfectly in line with many of these so called believers understanding, for that is the direction they are going, the direction they are pushing others towards, and the last thing they ever want to do is reflect upon their own true motives and personal spritual lack.

Philipp: Nicely said. It’s good to have someone argue from a philosophical point of view and to find a category for the people who oppose Moses and the Latern councils of the church and the saintly Pope Pius X. I do sense however that they are practicing Catholics but have become theists thanks to the influence of doubting priests of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These priests are from Notre Dame, Holy Cross etc in this country and British, French and Belgian priests in Europe; they were influenced by Darwinists and have successfully moved the church towards a more theism-type religion.

For the sake of Catholics who are searching for the truth in philosophy, theology and science and who want to keep the faith of our fathers, hang in there brother Brian.

Since we are talking categories I don’t mind putting myself into a specific category. I’m a catastrophist (earth and solar system) in the field of science; and, a traditional Catholic, who, like the church fathers believe that Moses got it right from the Creator. Again I point out Dr. Wiseman’s analysis of Genesis 1-11 that Moses WAS the writer of the book of Genesis eventhough his writings may have been later than Gilgamesh [visit Catholic apologetics for the long but complete analysis].

Yes indeed, my category is that of a traditional Catholic and proud of it. I dumped theism 35 years ago after reading Velikovski’s research books. I’m here to help others do likewise. I furthermore believe the evidence is clear that Moses wrote from the inspired word of God {Wiseman’s studies on Catholic Apologetics emphasized again). I’m also a scientist who uses evidence to show that the earth has gone through catastrophies [as noted above] in the past as do most scientists. However C-14 dating, dinosaur depictions world wide, population calculations and fossil human footprints with dinosaurs CONFIRM that these events happened only 1000’s of years ago NOT 65 million, 225 million, 450 million etc. We did NOT evolve from a common ancester.