Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Neil_Anthony]

Hi Tnystrom,

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:

Oh, that explains a lot! And congratulations on becoming Catholic!

Even for Vatican II deniers, St. Augustine said that scripture should be taken as allegory when it very clearly contradicts what science says. The Noah’s Ark story clearly falls into that category. So it’s not something new from Vatican II. Although, Vatican II helped us see why it is reasonable to treat some parts of scripture differently: because of different genres of writing. If anything, Vatican II gives a more elegant rational way of dealing with apparent conflicts between science and Genesis.

 

[Abbadon]

Where exactly does it say that the ratio of a circle is 3:1. I do not accept anything that is against what the Bible teaches. People try to make science into a god. That is idolotry. Galileo was persecuted by people in the Church…not by anything in the Bible. It was because he had gone against something which had been accepted by humanity.
And there is NOTHING in the Bible which is wrong. There are a number of things in the Bible which Jesus, with His forgiveness and Mercy changed. Like the eye for an eye thing. What people in today’s world fail to understand is this: Jesus changed those things in man…for man. Today, people are trying to change Christ for what man thinks is good for man. People, you can’t change Christ! He is God! And even if we do not understand Him or His creation or His miracles, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong, or not to be believed. That is fallacy. And those who reject it are wrong.
And I am not called to not say things because it might make someone feel bad. The truth is the truth whether I say it, or anyone believes it or not. That is the wonderful thing about Absolute Truths.
And I am NOT against science. Science is a gift from God…though people who believe in science rather than God’s word are wrong! But without science, we wouldn’t have medicine. And medicine saves lives. But when we use science and medicine to try to justify murder or immoral behavior…it is wrong. That is just plain truth. It is simple. We don’t have to know everything that God knows. We just have to accept that He is God, we are humans and not God, and believe in His words.

I hope you come to that.
Cherie

Gottle of Geer pointed our your 100% falsehood, so your NOTHING in the bible is wrong statement is also false.

Yea if only we didnt need medicine and we could have gotten by through prayer alone…

if by murder and immoral behaviour you mean animal testing then yes, but i can asure you that we follow very ethical guidelines and you get blasted for wasting animal life… But if you can show me how science leads to murder and immoral behaviour i would love to know…

I and then we can play a game where i point out where christianity leads to immoral behaviour and we can take turns…

But we really shouldn’t get back to Noahs ark…

I’m honestly confuzzelled why there is even debate about this, actually i’m not really i’m going to guess most of the people on this forum are american, the poll statistics seem to run inline with that…

And a comment on Vaticant II, I must say for all my anti organised relegioness, I will say that catholism has really come a long way, and out of all the mythologies present in today you guys have progressed alot… You guys take alot of **** for satire and the like and you can have a laugh, your not so serious and more often than not peacefull… America seems to be pushing the tide back to the middle ages though and that is concerning…

 

[peary]

Even for Vatican II deniers, St. Augustine said that scripture should be taken as allegory when it very clearly contradicts what science says. The Noah’s Ark story clearly falls into that category. So it’s not something new from Vatican II. Although, Vatican II helped us see why it is reasonable to treat some parts of scripture differently: because of different genres of writing. If anything, Vatican II gives a more elegant rational way of dealing with apparent conflicts between science and Genesis.

**“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. 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. [1 Timothy 1.7]” - *Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis *(De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) **

 

[Brian_Millar]

The more I read here, the more I see what’s going on and it’s disturbing. People, the pope was clear on this matter to me, but obviously is taken completely out of context for the opposing side on this debate. He was trying to spoon feed us the truth and it has been taken too literally on this account. Sure, there are parts of the bible that should not be taken as literal accounts, to me, it’s quite easy to discern those elements, I’ve never needed a church authority to point those elements out. According to the mistranslation along his perspective clearly shown here, let’s expand upon this context, ie. if it doesn’t fit in with scientific understanding, it is allegory. Christ being risen from the dead, that is unscientific, nothing which is clearly dead rises from that state, especially when the body is mutilated with severe mortal wounds, yet he was ressurrected. Matter that is heavier then air/water always sinks, yet Christ walked on the water. Loaves and fishes being held in a basket, no matter how compressed you place them into it will never feed the myriads of crowds, and yet again, in Christs hands they did. Water doesn’t turn to wine, and again, in Christs hands, it did. You see the logic that is missed by you guys here for your literal interpretations yourselves, you missed the message all together. According to your own logic, of which you think is the popes, since Christ’s birth, life, death and ressurrection is contradicting scientific understanding, then he must have been allegory, and the bulk of the NT is just that.

I just don’t buy it, not your perspective, nor your understanding of scripture, it simply does not wash well at all in my heart. There is an even higher authority then the Pope himself that obviously is not a prominent element in the opposing sides lives, it’s sad really, but I already gave this group a chance to reveal that one and as usual, the poll came out vastly short. Those with ears to hear will understand what I say, those without, stick to your microscopes…

A little more insight here, Cherie has not commented in this thread for quite some time, yet we still are getting people quoting her, attacking her. I look at what she wrote and she’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am, she cares about the souls that reside on this board and she has prayed with a contrite heart about you people, regardless of the fact you ridicule her, she has nothing to gain personally. This is an individual God can work with, not because of her mightly knowledge of scripture, but because her heart is in the right place.

 

[Orogeny]

You see the logic that is missed by you guys here for your literal interpretations yourselves, you missed the message all together. According to your own logic, of which you think is the popes, since Christ’s birth, life, death and ressurrection is contradicting scientific understanding, then he must have been allegory, and the bulk of the NT is just that.

Nonsense. You just don’t get it, do you. There would be a massive amount of easily identifiable evidence of a global flood. That evidence doesn’t exist. What scientific evidence would we expect to find that could verify the virgin birth? The resurrection? There is none. Therefore, those things cannot be refuted scientifically other than to say that they cannot have occurred naturally. Which, of course, is the point - they were supernatural events. Miracles.

The flood sediments being absent could also be a miracle. But if God purposely removed evidence that would point to a global flood, He is deceiving us and I reject that completely.

There is an even higher authority then the Pope himself that obviously is not a prominent element in the opposing sides lives, it’s sad really, but I already gave this group a chance to reveal that one and as usual, the poll came out vastly short. Those with ears to hear will understand what I say, those without, stick to your microscopes…

Go ahead and be holier than thou, Brian. Your faith is weak compared to mine. You can’t even picture God using nature to create. I have absolute faith that He did just that. I pity people who are so myopic on this matter that they make saints of themselves in their own minds.

You, my friend, will be in my prayers.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

… According to the mistranslation along his perspective clearly shown here, let’s expand upon this context, ie. if it doesn’t fit in with scientific understanding, it is allegory. Christ being risen from the dead, that is unscientific, nothing which is clearly dead rises from that state, especially when the body is mutilated with severe mortal wounds, yet he was ressurrected. Matter that is heavier then air/water always sinks, yet Christ walked on the water.

I see why it upsets you so much… no, that’s not what I’m saying. Some people might take it that far, but there is a middle ground. Let me explain:

The bible stories from pre-historical times are sacred myths. There is a grey area between pre-historical events which no one witnessed, and more recent events within civilization that were well-documented. Creation and the great deluge both fall into the pre-historic category, Abraham is somewhere between the two periods, and around Moses time it starts to be historical. So there is a progression from myth, to legend based on history, to more factual accounts.

The gospels were written by multiple witnesses and are historical. I believe the miracles of the Gospels really happened. I prefer to think that everything from Abraham on is accurate, although I wouldn’t be too shook up if we discovered that events from the time of Moses are part history and part legend.

The book of Judith and the story of Jonah were quite possibly written as fiction right from the beginning, never meant to be taken as history. I don’t see anything wrong with sacred fiction, as long as it was written as such and understood as such by its audience.

 

[buffalo]

I see why it upsets you so much… no, that’s not what I’m saying. Some people might take it that far, but there is a middle ground. Let me explain:

The bible stories from pre-historical times are sacred myths. There is a grey area between pre-historical events which no one witnessed, and more recent events within civilization that were well-documented. Creation and the great deluge both fall into the pre-historic category, Abraham is somewhere between the two periods, and around Moses time it starts to be historical. So there is a progression from myth, to legend based on history, to more factual accounts.

The gospels were written by multiple witnesses and are historical. I believe the miracles of the Gospels really happened. I prefer to think that everything from Abraham on is accurate, although I wouldn’t be too shook up if we discovered that events from the time of Moses are part history and part legend.

The book of Judith and the story of Jonah were quite possibly written as fiction right from the beginning, never meant to be taken as history. I don’t see anything wrong with sacred fiction, as long as it was written as such and understood as such by its audience.

The Catechism does not agree.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Catechism does not agree.

Your lack of actual quotes from the Catechism to go with your statement says a lot.

 

[buffalo]

Your lack of actual quotes from the Catechism to go with your statement says a lot.

I thought you wouldn’t need it. Do you?

 

[Philipp]

**“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. 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. [1 Timothy 1.7]” - *Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis ***(De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim)

WHICH ITEM (S) AMONGST THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES LISTED BELOW FROM MY PREVIOUS POST NEEDS FURTHER EXPLANATION??? I’ll be glad to provide references from the scientific peer reviewed literature again as I have on this and previous threads.

. I agree with St. Augustine when he reckoned: “From the evidence of holy scripture that fewer than 6000 years have passed since man’s first origin.” He argues from historical records available to him to refute “the nonsense of the writings which allege many more thousands of years, and to show how utterly inadequte is their authority on this subject.” If Augustine were alive today he would have to refute the false science of Darwinism.

I therefore, like Augustine 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 research scientist who uses lab and field data in my own research of 30 years or so and that of others that there is ample evidence to show that the earth has gone through catastrophes 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 as St. Augustine posited, NOT 65 million, 225 million, 450 million etc. We did NOT evolve from a common ancestor.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m also a research scientist who uses lab and field data in my own research of 30 years or so … NOT 65 million, 225 million, 450 million etc. We did NOT evolve from a common ancestor.

Philipp,
We believe in the pope here:

All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

Would you presume to disagree with the pope?

 

[Philipp]

Philipp,
We believe in the pope here:

Would you presume to disagree with the pope?

Which Pope???

 

[peary]

The Catechism does not agree.

The catechism isn’t worried about exegesis, but of the word of God in written language. The whole of Revelation is what the Church considers sacred, and this includes the Bible, even though God used human beings to write the Truth within its pages.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Would you presume to disagree with the pope?

Which Pope???

Exactly. You think you know better than the pope.
I’ll take my advice on Genesis from the Pope, thanks anyway.

 

[Mister_De]

Oh, well if Pope Benedict said it, then it must be true.

 

[buffalo]

The catechism isn’t worried about exegesis, but of the word of God in written language. The whole of Revelation is what the Church considers sacred, and this includes the Bible, even though God used human beings to write the Truth within its pages.

hmmmm

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

 

[Neil_Anthony]

hmmmm

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

 

[peary]

hmmmm

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

With modern scholarship, there isn’t much left of the literal.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

The fact remains that it is simply impossible to read Gen. 6-8 as though we were Israelite pastoralists - because the author of that part of the Bible takes for granted a far smaller world than we can, even if we wanted to. Parroting the Fathers is no use either, for the same reason: St. Augustine did not have take into account the habits of spiders, the distance of Australia from the Near East, or the existence of microbes (or of dinosaurs for that matter), but we have to. The inspired author did not have take account of a long tradition of interpretation that treated the Flood as historical & universal; again, we have to. This has nothing to do with atheism, & everything to do with facts about the sort of place the world created by God really is. We simply don’t have the luxury of ignoring what is known about the world. To do so is not faith, but intellectual cowardice & obscurantism ​

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.

What’s wrong with modernity ? Did God work in the Church only until 1700 or 1900 or some similar date ? A faith that is not up to life in the present, but good only for the past, is not worth having. If Christ cannot handle the problems of modern living, in all their complexities, then He is nothing but a sham, & not worth anyone’s time. The only God worth bothering with is a God Who is big enough for past and present and future; only that God is the Living God. And the same applies to the Church: if it can survive only by ignoring the present, it’s no good to man or beast, & is best thrown away. A real Church can do a lot better.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Then your teachers are in error.

And you know that - how ?​