O
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
Wow, really? It is mentioned in scripture? Who’d a thunk?
What is your point? If they knew geology as we know it today, would they still believe that a global flood happened? I seriously doubt it. Unless of course they were willing to put their fingers in their ears and repeat over and over “I don’t care what the evidence is, scripture says that a flood covered the entire earth”.
I guess that you agree with cassini that the earth is the physical center of the universe. After all, it says so in scripture and I have no doubt that the writers of the New Testament believed it to be so. We should ignore the science that says that the earth orbits the sun. Perfect.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
L
Luke65
Guest
Right, unfortunately those “catholics” who think like you are apostatizing at an alarming rate - perhaps this is the cause of your confusion. It looks like pretty soon only the Bible-believing Catholics will be left! As Jesus foretold:
“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:46-47)
H
HankZ
Guest
Out of the multitude of information you have seen on this thread, you chose the most trivial things to argue about. Ok, so even if spiders have lungs, most insects do not.
H
HankZ
Guest
I don’t believe you have any degree in geology. I can’t believe you would have made it through an entire year without arguing your way out of any colledge. You can’t even explain what it is you think would be found after a world wide flood.
C
centurionguard
Guest
I strongly think that if you intend to take the Story of Noah out of context for the sake of argument while dismissing the spiritual message contained in the entire book of Genesis your likely missing the full scope of everything contained in Genesis.
No Judeo-Christian Biblical scholar today would hold that Genesis presents history in the modern sense of that term. The sacred authors conception of history as a linear movement of events determined by divine interventions and tending to a divinely conceived goal militates against such a presentation. Scholars were interested in the “facts” of history only inasmuch as they illustrated the divine plan in God’s creation. This interest was the overriding factor in their choice of material. With regard to the patriarchal history, the basic “facts” included such items as the movements of the patriarchs, their occupations, their relations with their neighbors, and their marriages and deaths.
There is every reason for the modern scientific historian to to accept this basic family biblical history, which serves as the foundation for the authors religious history. The sciences of ancient Near Eastern history and especially of archaeology have shown that the underlying social, judicial, political, geographical, and religious conditions in Genesis are precisely those of the 2ond millennium and could not have been invented by an author living in a much later period. Consequently; strictly on historical grounds, we can admit the existence of these semi-nomadic shepherds who originated at least proximately, in Upper Mesopotamia, migrated in Canaan, lived out their lives much as described in Genesis, and at least some whom descended into Egypt. These basic “facts” however, were primitively recorded and preserved in a popular form. Personal names were given etymological explanation to stress the character other than the person of his descendants. Family incidents were “dressed up”
to serve as material for ballads and sagas sung or recounted for the entertainment and edification of the local inhabitants.
Some events could be given a framework based on local cult legends or cultural practices to illustrate their religious significance. This was the type of historical material that came down, in individual units or, in some cases, in cycles of traditions, to the sacred historians of later Israel. They, in turn made their own literary contributions to clarify their own purpose, which was, above all, religious. They wished to show the divine plan of God successfully revealed in the events of history, and they stressed the divine initiative throughout.
Abraham’s migration to the land of Canaan, is not a haphazard incident conditioned solely by circumstances of the time period, but is “primarily” the result of a divine call he could not ignore.
The patriarch’s adventures in Canaan, his successful transactions with other people, his escapes from harm, the birth of his children–are all introduced and explained in light of God’s plan to form himself a people who would ultimately possess the land and worship God alone. That plan is concretized in the form of a promise made to Abraham and renewed to those of his descendants who are the object of divine choice namely (Issac and Jacob). This unifying divine plan, expressed in the successive promises, similarly explains the adventures of these descendants throughout Genesis. The patriarchal history and stories throughout Genesis, therefore, has an absolute unity by reason of the absolute divine purpose of God’s creation. And because (“it is supernatural”), the purpose of what is contained in Genesis is beyond the effective control of modern scientific history. Therefore; the ultimate meaning of Genesis like that of other books of the Bible, will always elude the historian who works outside its religious postulates.
No Judeo-Christian Biblical scholar today would hold that Genesis presents history in the modern sense of that term. The sacred authors conception of history as a linear movement of events determined by divine interventions and tending to a divinely conceived goal militates against such a presentation. Scholars were interested in the “facts” of history only inasmuch as they illustrated the divine plan in God’s creation. This interest was the overriding factor in their choice of material. With regard to the patriarchal history, the basic “facts” included such items as the movements of the patriarchs, their occupations, their relations with their neighbors, and their marriages and deaths.
There is every reason for the modern scientific historian to to accept this basic family biblical history, which serves as the foundation for the authors religious history. The sciences of ancient Near Eastern history and especially of archaeology have shown that the underlying social, judicial, political, geographical, and religious conditions in Genesis are precisely those of the 2ond millennium and could not have been invented by an author living in a much later period. Consequently; strictly on historical grounds, we can admit the existence of these semi-nomadic shepherds who originated at least proximately, in Upper Mesopotamia, migrated in Canaan, lived out their lives much as described in Genesis, and at least some whom descended into Egypt. These basic “facts” however, were primitively recorded and preserved in a popular form. Personal names were given etymological explanation to stress the character other than the person of his descendants. Family incidents were “dressed up”
to serve as material for ballads and sagas sung or recounted for the entertainment and edification of the local inhabitants.
Some events could be given a framework based on local cult legends or cultural practices to illustrate their religious significance. This was the type of historical material that came down, in individual units or, in some cases, in cycles of traditions, to the sacred historians of later Israel. They, in turn made their own literary contributions to clarify their own purpose, which was, above all, religious. They wished to show the divine plan of God successfully revealed in the events of history, and they stressed the divine initiative throughout.
Abraham’s migration to the land of Canaan, is not a haphazard incident conditioned solely by circumstances of the time period, but is “primarily” the result of a divine call he could not ignore.
The patriarch’s adventures in Canaan, his successful transactions with other people, his escapes from harm, the birth of his children–are all introduced and explained in light of God’s plan to form himself a people who would ultimately possess the land and worship God alone. That plan is concretized in the form of a promise made to Abraham and renewed to those of his descendants who are the object of divine choice namely (Issac and Jacob). This unifying divine plan, expressed in the successive promises, similarly explains the adventures of these descendants throughout Genesis. The patriarchal history and stories throughout Genesis, therefore, has an absolute unity by reason of the absolute divine purpose of God’s creation. And because (“it is supernatural”), the purpose of what is contained in Genesis is beyond the effective control of modern scientific history. Therefore; the ultimate meaning of Genesis like that of other books of the Bible, will always elude the historian who works outside its religious postulates.
C
cassini
Guest
severntofall. Here is a history lesson for you. The story of Noah and the Flood as told in the holy Scriptures was held as literal by all the Fathers of the Church. A theology was built on it.
Then came Galileo with his ‘proofs’ for a fixed sun and moving earth challenging another literal interpretation of the Fathers. In order to try to have his way he pulled one of the most devious ploys out of the bag - he tried to get the Church to disprove a heliocentric interpretation with ‘evidence’. Fortunatly, uncontaminated with intellectual pride as the Pope, Cardinals, theologians (like Bellarmine) were at the time, they threw Galileo out on his ear.
In 1992, when giving the findings of John Paul II’s 1981-1992 Commision on the Galieo case, Cardinal Poupard tried this trick again, stating that no one had disproved heliocentricism so it could be regarded as a truth. The fact that geocentricism could not be disproven either, was not mentioned by him. Thus he cheated the world.
Now note the evolutionists on this thread want ‘evidence’ for a universal flood before any should believe in a world-wide flood. We could say that how else could you get the huge sedimentary plains stretching many thousands of miles all over the earth. What ‘local’ flood could cause such masive deposits. We could offer them many other facts that could be offered as evidence for a world-wide flood but they have a different interpretation of these facts. So, neither side has any real PROOF because we did not witness the cause or causes for it ourselves. Thus the uselessness of ‘evidence’ as a decider or falsifier in the case of G&H, a universal flood etc., is zero.
So to find truth we need something else. For me it is what the Bible said happened, what the Fathers said happened, what the theology infers happened.
So severn, if you prefer to believe the lies of scientists since Galileo (that science proves H, L-F and E, you can and good luck to you, But I, and others thank God, shall stay with the Fathers, the old penny catechism, the theology built up by the great saints and what my Catholic instincts tell me is true.
O
Orogeny
Guest
You made the argument that insects and spiders were not part of the group of animals on the ark because they don’t breath air. Now you say it is trivial. Perhaps you would like to explain to us how insects get oxygen to their cells.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
So? Can you point to any geologic topic I have been wrong about?
I must say that posts like these do give me a good chuckle. Here is a guy who wrote “Without the flood, mountians would have been reduced to flat fields considering wind, rain, gravity and other eroding factors.” And I am accused by that same guy of not understanding geology!
Brilliant!!!
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well, you could but it would only show your ignorance of geology. But go ahead and make that argument.
Well you could if there were ANY facts that supported a global flood, but since there are not any, I guess you could try something like the plains that you mentioned above, but that won’t take long to shoot down.
Well, the absence of proof is FOR a global flood. Which is exactly why anyone who has any sense about them understands that a global flood never happened.
Peace
Tim
C
centurionguard
Guest
Why should anyone have to rely on primitive human science as the one and only litmus paper to prove religious history in the Catholic Church ?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not black listing human science in it’s entirety.
What ever happened to FAITH ?
And the HUMILITY to realize we will never understand everything that God designed and planned for human beings.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not black listing human science in it’s entirety.
What ever happened to FAITH ?
And the HUMILITY to realize we will never understand everything that God designed and planned for human beings.
H
HankZ
Guest
I do not understand geology and do not claim to, I am simply calling you out on what I believe is a lie.
M
Mark_Renaud
Guest
]Dear Brother Tim,
One more try then I’m done – I promise.
I‘m trying to understand your perspective. Several here in Perryville, MO – where the Shrine of the Miraculous Medal is located – share your perspective, but aren’t able to clearly state in laymen terms the nugget of their viewpoint. Would you be willing to help me – I understand if you prefer not to – I know that I am what scripture talks about ‘a weaker brother’ or ‘the least of these’. Please forgive my persistence on this point, but soon the thread will be over and I need it real simple.
I am also not a computer whiz so it is difficult for me to weed through this web and read your past correspondence that you may have written on this topic. But I can find your recent responses to me because they notify me in my email. Remember: I’m a new member here – with emphasis on new.
Could you respond in this format for my puny mind to comprehend? From your understanding:
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.
Also it would be an invaluable boost in my faith to have you give me some encouragement on the following point:
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.
What say ye of Pope Peters proclamations in Scripture? Are we to believe his words as ‘ex cathedra’?
Please know that I will understand if you are out of patience with me – I’m sure I deserve it – but I thought that I would sincerely attempt one final time. If you are uninterested you will not hear from me again.
Thanks, from a weaker, lesser brother, Mark Renaud
One more try then I’m done – I promise.
I‘m trying to understand your perspective. Several here in Perryville, MO – where the Shrine of the Miraculous Medal is located – share your perspective, but aren’t able to clearly state in laymen terms the nugget of their viewpoint. Would you be willing to help me – I understand if you prefer not to – I know that I am what scripture talks about ‘a weaker brother’ or ‘the least of these’. Please forgive my persistence on this point, but soon the thread will be over and I need it real simple.I am also not a computer whiz so it is difficult for me to weed through this web and read your past correspondence that you may have written on this topic. But I can find your recent responses to me because they notify me in my email. Remember: I’m a new member here – with emphasis on new.
Could you respond in this format for my puny mind to comprehend? From your understanding:
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.
Also it would be an invaluable boost in my faith to have you give me some encouragement on the following point:
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.
What say ye of Pope Peters proclamations in Scripture? Are we to believe his words as ‘ex cathedra’?Please know that I will understand if you are out of patience with me – I’m sure I deserve it – but I thought that I would sincerely attempt one final time. If you are uninterested you will not hear from me again.
Thanks, from a weaker, lesser brother, Mark Renaud
M
Mark_Renaud
Guest
Dear Centurian Guard,
I am looking for simple criterion, as outlined below, from your perspective.
Would you be willing to help me Remember: I’m a new member here – with emphasis on new.
Could you respond in this format for my puny mind to comprehend? From your understanding:
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.
Also it would be an invaluable boost in my faith to have you give me some encouragement on the following point:
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.
What say ye of Pope Peters proclamations in Scripture? Are we to believe his words as ‘ex cathedra’?
Thanks, from a weaker, lesser brother, Mark Renaud
O
Orogeny
Guest
Calling me a liar isn’t going to solve the fact that you don’t understand geology.
My suggestion to you is to quit using geological arguments to support a flood that didn’t occur. As you noted, you don’t understand geolgy. That is why you have no clue when I tell you that a global flood would leave flood deposits. You seem to think I am making that up, but I’m not.
Hank, you can believe I am a liar and anything else you want. You are free to be wrong on such a silly thing such as whether or not I am lying about having a degree in geology. Your bigger problem is with your faith. You need to come back to the Church that Jesus founded.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
OK, one more time.]Dear Brother Tim,
One more try then I’m done – I promise.
The Creation Story
The universe and the earth are very old. Life began and has evolved over time until what we have presently.
I believe this because of the very clear scientific evidence. If that evidence wasn’t put there purposely by God to deceive us (which I will never believe), then the creation story is a myth. Not a lie, a myth.
In this case, I am using evidence that points to a different story than that in scripture.
The Flood Story
There was no global flood. There is no geologic or biologic evidence this ever happened.
I believe this because there is a glaring lack of evidence to support the biblical story when there would be a huge amount of obvious, incontrovertible evidence available in both biology and geology.
In this case, I am using the lack of evidence that would be available to see the flood story as a myth.
Resurrection of Christ
There is no evidence that Christ rose from the dead, nor is there any evidence He didn’t. We have eyewitness accounts that He did. Therefore, because there is no reason to believe that the story isn’t literally true, I accept it as such.
That is the case with most miracles. There is no reason to not accept them as written. In the case of creation and the flood, there are reasons to take those stories as just that - stories. True but stories just the same.
I don’t know if this answers your questions because it is basically the same answer I gave you before. But that is how I look at scripture.
Peace
Tim
M
Mark_Renaud
Guest
Tim,
You have answered my questions. I think I understand your perspective.
However you never have responded to my Pope Peter question:
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.
What say ye of Pope Peters proclamations in Scripture? Are we to believe his words as ‘ex cathedra’?
Are we to reject Pope Peters Words in Scripture as fact?
Thanks, from a weaker, lesser brother, Mark Renaud
L
Luke65
Guest
Really? So the fact that the whole earth - all the continents are covered with up to thousands of feet of saltwater sedimentary rock layers that are filled with marine fossils from the middle of the continents to the highest mountains, including the top of Mt. Everest (are you taking notes StAnastasia?), doesn’t count as “evidence” to you? There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Really? So the fact that the law of nature that has been observed and tested innumerable times that dead men do not rise from the dead doesn’t count as “evidence” to you that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? You have an innovative definition of the word “evidence”, to go along with your novel interpretation of Scripture, which our Fathers never knew.
Blessed are those who have not seen but still believe. :yup:
O
Orogeny
Guest
I would say he wasn’t speaking “ex cathedra” any more than the other writers of the New Testament books were.
Peter was discussing the theological implication of the story of the flood. He may have actually believed that it was a historic event, but his writing is clearly about the theological aspects of the story (prefigures baptism).
Clearly not. However, we don’t need to take his words as proof that the flood actually happened.
Peace
Tim
- Status