Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[HankZ]

Adam doesn’t mention them. Noah doesn’t mention them. Nor does Shem. Nor does Moses. They are probably, in part at least, relics of the creation week. Moses gives us 1656 years between creation & flood - therefore, the number of years between those events is 1656.​

Moses wrote the first five books of the bible, which include Noah’s Ark and the account detailing how God flooded the Earth. Yes, he did speak of these things.

 

[severntofall]

Moses wrote the first five books of the bible, which include Noah’s Ark and the account detailing how God flooded the Earth. Yes, he did speak of these things.

Hank,
Do you think Moses was a hypocrite for including so many explicit approvals of slavery in his books considering the fact that he and his fellow Hebrews had just been released from their captivity in Egypt?

 

[buffalo]

Moses wrote the first five books of the bible, which include Noah’s Ark and the account detailing how God flooded the Earth. Yes, he did speak of these things.

The Toledoths makes the argument that Moses was the compiler of Genesis.

 

[HankZ]

Hank,
Do you think Moses was a hypocrite for including so many explicit approvals of slavery in his books considering the fact that he and his fellow Hebrews had just been released from their captivity in Egypt?

That is an excellent question. If you question the teachings of Moses, then that may be a new thread you could start. This one happens to be about Noah’s Ark and the flood.

 

[Valke2]

Here’s something that may be a bit off topic, or not. Giants are mentioned before the flood and they are mentioned after the flood.

 

[HankZ]

Here’s something that may be a bit off topic, or not. Giants are mentioned before the flood and they are mentioned after the flood.

Could you explain the point of this? I admit, this has caught my attention before. I wonder what your thoughts are on it.

 

[Valke2]

Could you explain the point of this? I admit, this has caught my attention before. I wonder what your thoughts are on it.

My point is that everything not on the ark, that lived on land, was destroyed. If we are to take the story of Noah literally, now do we account for the reappearance of giants after the flood?

 

[HankZ]

My point is that everything not on the ark, that lived on land, was destroyed. If we are to take the story of Noah literally, now do we account for the reappearance of giants after the flood?

I wondered, where did the giant come from to begin with?

 

[Valke2]

I wondered, where did the giant come from to begin with?

If I remember correctly, they may have been the offspring of angels mating with humans. The reason, I believe, that God limits the lifespan to 120 years.

 

[RobbyS]

There is absolutely no evidence of a global flood. I understand it’s possible for such a magnificent event to happen – anything is possible under God’s wing. But don’t you think there would be titanic traces for a titanic flood? Yet nothing is found.

The story makes more sense if it’s seen from a didactic point of view.

Take the story as a given. There is evidence of great flooding in the region. at the end of the last Ice Age. The Mediterranean was a great plain with two narrow entrances. It is now covered by a great deep. The story looks at events from the perspective of a few survivors, a snapshot of a wider history. We do not know what happened over the horizon.

 

[HankZ]

If I remember correctly, they may have been the offspring of angels mating with humans. The reason, I believe, that God limits the lifespan to 120 years.

Then this could have happened before and after the flood. That makes sense. Goliath being over 9 feet tall, could have had demon in his genes.

 

[Orogeny]

Is there scientific evidence that the wafer is the actual flesh of Jesus or are you just taking his literal words to be fact?

I am taking His word to be fact. The Church teaches that the wafer is physically bread.

Why would you consider the words on Noah’s flood to be a story - words like "even the high mountains were covered’? Why would you not also consider the words of Jesus to be a story?

Unless you want to consider the idea that the flood happened and God didn’t allow it to leave the physical evidence that would result from such an event, then there should be overwhelming evidence that the flood happened. There is none.

Your inconsistency here is difficult for me to resolve. How do you resolve it? Your clear answer here would help me out. I am not as good with words as you are so just keep it simple for me - thanks!

I’m not being inconsistent. I am reading the story as the Church allows me to. In accordance with that, I am also using my training as a geologist to say that there is no evidence that the story of Noah is literally true.

I’m still stuck on my original question with you: What is your criterion to determine what scriptures are stories and which ones are facts? You must have criterion - you seem like a smart fellow.

I do and I have given them to you.

It would be the most helpful if your criterion would apply to all of scripture, i.e. God’s flood at the time of Noah as well as Jesus’ words ‘This is my body.’

My criteria do apply to all of scripture.

Thanks for making it simple! Do you believe the literal words of Jesus or not?

Am I a scriptural literallist? Like the Church, no. When Jesus spoke in parables, He wasn’t being literal. When Jesus spoke about Noah, He was speaking about a story that was well known to the audience He was addressing.

Peace

Tim

 

[tortdog]

My first inclination is not on the poll. Not Catholic but I believe that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, the only Begotten of the Father, and believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Regarding Noah, I believe that it is more likely that the story is related from a viewpoint of a man living in that century. That the “entire earth” COULD mean just the immediate area that those people were familiar with.

But I do think that there was a flood. And I do not exclude the possibility that there was a global flood, but find it hard to explain given the scientific facts on the ground. God COULD rearrange geologic strata and such to confuse today’s science, but why would God do that? Seems odd.

I do NOT think that it was merely an allegory to teach a lesson.

 

[Orogeny]

Take the story as a given. There is evidence of great flooding in the region. at the end of the last Ice Age. The Mediterranean was a great plain with two narrow entrances. It is now covered by a great deep. The story looks at events from the perspective of a few survivors, a snapshot of a wider history. We do not know what happened over the horizon.

If the flooding of the Mediterranean was the flood of Genesis, how come there is still water in the Mediterranean?

Gen 8:14 - “In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.”.

Peace

Tim

 

[Valke2]

Then this could have happened before and after the flood. That makes sense. Goliath being over 9 feet tall, could have had demon in his genes.

I don’t think so, although that’s an interesting idea. i’ll have do a little research. I thought that the age limit of 120 yrs was in some way an action that intended to prevent the mating of angels and women. The whole concept seems out of place in Genises and more properly raised in a greek manuscript.

 

[Valke2]

It may be that “Giants” referred to tyrants or kings. I think that it is an interesting story to research a bit

 

[Orogeny]

I understand that you have been exposed to a mountain of geological evidence so that you believe there was not a world-wide flood. You believe that it is demonstrably false for there to have been a world-wide flood. And so you interpret Scripture in a non-historical manner on this point. I would like to persuade you that it is at least describing a historical, local flood, but I don’t have the time or the geological knowledge to accomplish even this.

What I would like to ask of you, my brother, is that you not disparage a historical reading of the text on account of our ignorance of geology. We are bound to a literal reading of the Scriptures unless it can be shown untenable. You have been exposed to scientifically derived conclusions that you feel does this for you. People who believe in a worldwide flood evidently have not. So we’re held to two different standards on this point of interpretation. We who interpret the text historically believe that the text is so clear on this point, that to adopt your alternative interpretation would be to fly as much in the face of reason as it would to remain unpersuaded by the assertions of competent geologists that our interpretation is impossible. I would appreciate… less sardonicism and more sympathy.

Point made. Would you be interested learning why, from a geologic perspective, that the story of the flood cannot be taken as a historic event? I personally don’t have an issue with anyone who wants to take the story as historic. I do have an issue when people post either “scientific” evidence that it did happen or claims that those of us who don’t take it literally are therefore incapable of accepting anything in scriptures as it is literally written.

Those who adopt the position that history is being narrated here in the early chapters of Genesis do not believe that the text is comprehensive. Neither are the historical narrations of the New Testament comprehensive. In fact, no historical narration is comprehensive. And so we supplement the text with the use of reason and imagination, just as do those who reject a historical reading. We should not be denied the liberty to “fill in the gaps.”

I’m sorry, but there is a difference between the New Testament and Genesis. The New Testament stories were recorded by eye witnesses or by people who were told stories by eye witnesses.

We also believe that the order of storytelling was not always intended to correspond with historical chronology, as the example just given demonstrates. And so we seek to reconcile the two accounts. We seek harmony and integration.

You have to do that because a literal reading doesn’t work. That is my point.

He was definitely born after the death of Abel. But he was most likely not born after Cain’s great, great, great, great grandchildren.

Your claim for that is only because, as I noted above, your literal reading doesn’t otherwise work. Therefore, you have to add to scriptures to get to that point.

We know that the genealogy of chapter 5 is not giving us the names of firstborn sons because Cain and Abel were born before Seth and yet they are grouped in the “other sons and daughters” which follow after his birth.

Interestingly, the geneology of Adam doesn’t include the offspring of Cain (Adam’s first born son) and yet, they clearly were, especially if Cain married his sister.

I offered reasonable possibilities for when Cain’s wife may have been born.

Before Cain’s birth: plausible
After Cain’s birth and before Abel’s birth: possible
After Abel’s birth and before Abel’s death: very plausible
After Abel’s death and before Cain’s departure: possible

None of those, except the last, is from scripture. The other three are only added to come up with an explanation of where Cain’s wife came from.

I think it would be fair of you to say, “If I was not convinced by geological data that the flood narration is a fictive account, and that therefore the preceding chapters are also fictive, I would see this interpretation as a reasonable understanding of the text, a reasonable sorting of the Biblical data.”

I don’t have a problem with a statement like that.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

If I remember correctly, they may have been the offspring of angels mating with humans. The reason, I believe, that God limits the lifespan to 120 years.

The 120 years was not an age limit, but the warning time.

 

[buffalo]

Point made. Would you be interested learning why, from a geologic perspective, that the story of the flood cannot be taken as a historic event? I personally don’t have an issue with anyone who wants to take the story as historic. I do have an issue when people post either “scientific” evidence that it did happen or claims that those of us who don’t take it literally are therefore incapable of accepting anything in scriptures as it is literally written.I’m sorry, but there is a difference between the New Testament and Genesis. The New Testament stories were recorded by eye witnesses or by people who were told stories by eye witnesses.You have to do that because a literal reading doesn’t work. That is my point.Your claim for that is only because, as I noted above, your literal reading doesn’t otherwise work. Therefore, you have to add to scriptures to get to that point.Interestingly, the geneology of Adam doesn’t include the offspring of Cain (Adam’s first born son) and yet, they clearly were, especially if Cain married his sister.None of those, except the last, is from scripture. The other three are only added to come up with an explanation of where Cain’s wife came from.I don’t have a problem with a statement like that.

Peace

Tim

Toledoths shows that the information came from tablets. The owners are listed on the tablets.

 

[HankZ]

I am taking His word to be fact. The Church teaches that the wafer is physically bread.Unless you want to consider the idea that the flood happened and God didn’t allow it to leave the physical evidence that would result from such an event, then there should be overwhelming evidence that the flood happened. There is none.I’m not being inconsistent. I am reading the story as the Church allows me to. In accordance with that, I am also using my training as a geologist to say that there is no evidence that the story of Noah is literally true.I do and I have given them to you.My criteria do apply to all of scripture.Am I a scriptural literallist? Like the Church, no. When Jesus spoke in parables, He wasn’t being literal. When Jesus spoke about Noah, He was speaking about a story that was well known to the audience He was addressing.

Peace

Tim

I find you to be very inconsistant. You need proof, which is available, to believe that God judged the world like He said He did, but then you believe that magically a waffer can be changed from one substance to a completely different substance. They tried to prove this, but with the results showing that it stayed a waffer through out each and every test, they deemed that it is body and blood, regardless of the molecular make up. Without the flood, mountians would have been reduced to flat fields considering wind, rain, gravity and other eroding factors.
All I can say is that you have amazing faith, no matter if it is correct or not, it is amazing.