Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Orogeny]

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.

No, that is clearly not evidence of a global flood.

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.

Do you reject the story of the resurrection? How about gravity? Do you reject the virgin birth? How about photosynthesis?

You mean you don’t have to choose one side or the other? Really? Why then do you insist that I must do so?

Peace

Tim

 

[LeroyCRHP]

We are called to believe the bible even if we cannot understand everything. We should take what we understand about the story of Noah and use that in our life every day and what we do not understand pray that we do someday. The story of Noah is a great message.

There are so many great miracles and stories and maybe some really are stories but there is a message in each for us.

One of our priests had an Old Testament study and the great message I took from it was “we as Catholics do not have to take every story in the old testament literal”.

Do we have to have “proof” before we believe any of these miracles? Certainly stories in the New Testament are easier to believe even though we do not have proof in every case. We should not doubt his word even if we do not understand everything.

Nature Miracles

1. Stilling the Storm
2. Feeding the 5000
3. Walking on the Water
4. Feeding the 4000
5. Temple Tax in the Fish’s Mouth
6. Withering the Fig Tree
7. Draught of Fish
8. Turning Water into Wine
9. Second Draught of Fish
   Healing Miracles General Healings
10. Cleansing of a Leper
11. Healing a Centurion’s Servant
12. Healing Peter’s Mother-in-law
13. Healing the Sick at evening
14. Healing a paralytic
15. Healing the Hemorrhaging woman
16. Healing Two Blind Men
17. Healing a Man’s Withered Hand
18. Healing the Gentile Woman’s Daughter
19. Healing the Epileptic Boy
20. Healing a Blind Men
21. Healing a Deaf Mute
22. Healing a Blind Man at Bethsaida
23. Healing the Infirm, Bent Woman
24. Healing the Man with Dropsy
25. Cleansing the Ten Lepers
26. Restoring a Servant’s Ear
27. Healing the Nobleman’s Son (of fever)
28. Healing an Infirm Man at Bethesda
29. Healing the Man born blind
    Resurrections
30. Raising the Ruler’s Daughter
31. Raising of a Widow’s Son at Nain
32. Raising of Lazarus

 

[Luke65]

No, that is clearly not evidence of a global flood. Do you reject the story of the resurrection? How about gravity? Do you reject the virgin birth? How about photosynthesis?

You mean you don’t have to choose one side or the other? Really? Why then do you insist that I must do so?

I have chosen. I choose to believe God. And I choose to demolish any argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, because that is what God has called me to do. And so when you say, “There was no global flood.”, in the face of the Word of God and the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, you put yourself in my crosshairs. If you don’t like the heat, then get out of the kitchen. Then you won’t have to worry about me exposing your illogical arguments. And no, I don’t insist that you believe anything, just that you don’t make false statements like the one I just quoted. Peace?

 

[Orogeny]

We are called to believe the bible even if we cannot understand everything. We should take what we understand about the story of Noah and use that in our life every day and what we do not understand pray that we do someday. The story of Noah is a great message.

Agree 100%!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I have chosen. I choose to believe God.

Me too.

And I choose to demolish any argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, because that is what God has called me to do.

I will also argue against any argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.

And so when you say, “There was no global flood.”, in the face of the Word of God and the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, you put yourself in my crosshairs.

Actually, it is in perfect alignment with God. Unless, of course, you believe in God the Deceiver. I know that I don’t.

If you don’t like the heat, then get out of the kitchen. Then you won’t have to worry about me exposing your illogical arguments. And no, I don’t insist that you believe anything, just that you don’t make false statements like the one I just quoted. Peace?

Am I supposed to be intimidated in some way? Do you think that God is a deceiver? Man, that is really not cool Mr. Avenger.

Peace

Tim

 

[Luke65]

Do you think that God is a deceiver? Man, that is really not cool Mr. Avenger.

No, God told us the truth. Including the fact that vengeance is His! :bowdown:

 

[Orogeny]

No, God told us the truth. Including the fact that vengeance is His! :bowdown:

So you accept the evidence He has given us regarding the past. Good. Now, since you acknowledge that you accept that evidence, how come you are willing to ignore it? Why are you denying God’s truth?

Peace

Tim

 

[Luke65]

So you accept the evidence He has given us regarding the past. Good. Now, since you acknowledge that you accept that evidence, how come you are willing to ignore it? Why are you denying God’s truth?

Peace

Tim

“Denying God’s truth”? Again, you are leveling that charge against all the Church Fathers, Saints, and Christians (and Jews) who taught the global flood. Are you saying that God deceives His own people and makes a laughingstock of us in front of the world for a lie? No, He told us the truth. He created the universe - supernaturally and instantaneously over six days - in a mature state, and destroyed the earth with a supernatural flood event.

And the scientific evidence shows that the laws of nature were indeed altered in the past, including in the flood layers with carbon dating completely contradicting other radioisotope dates. And if mainstream science would go where the evidence leads, instead of ignoring the evidence that contradict their theories, and scoffing at these two supernatural events and mindlessly proclaiming, “the present is the key to the past”, or “free the science from Moses”, then they would easily understand the evidence as Creationists do. But they don’t; they refuse to love the truth and you should know what happens next.

Now, does this look familiar to you:

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. (2 Peter 3:3-6 NIV)

And this is precisely what we see happening today - scoffers denying these two supernatural events, denying what Moses wrote, and apostasy has ensued as prophesied for the end times. What’s so hard to believe? It’s happening before your own eyes! :sad_yes:

 

[Orogeny]

“Denying God’s truth”? Again, you are leveling that charge against all the Church Fathers, Saints, and Christians (and Jews) who taught the global flood.

No, I am levelling that charge against you. Those that you cited didn’t have the knowledge of the earth that we currently have, but you do. So for you to ignore it is a deliberate act by you to deny God’s truth.

Are you saying that God deceives His own people and makes a laughingstock of us in front of the world for a lie?

I am specifically saying that He doesn’t do that. You are the one who insists that we ignore the evidence and THAT would make us a laughingstock.

No, He told us the truth. He created the universe - supernaturally and instantaneously over six days - in a mature state, and destroyed the earth with a supernatural flood event.

Ah, in the mature state. In other words, He made it look like it was old. Kinda deceptive, no? So you DO believe in God the Deceiver!

And the scientific evidence shows that the laws of nature were indeed altered in the past, including in the flood layers with carbon dating completely contradicting other radioisotope dates.

Scientific citations for those absurd claims, please.

And if mainstream science would go where the evidence leads, instead of ignoring the evidence that contradict their theories, and scoffing at these two supernatural events and mindlessly proclaiming, “the present is the key to the past”, or “free the science from Moses”, then they would easily understand the evidence as Creationists do.

Yep. But ignoring evidence is all a creationist can do. Once a scientist does that, they are no longer scientists.

And this is precisely what we see happening today - scoffers denying these two supernatural events, denying what Moses wrote, and apostasy has ensued as prophesied for the end times. What’s so hard to believe? It’s happening before your own eyes! :sad_yes:

God the Deceiver. How long have you worshiped him?

Peace

Tim

 

[cassini]

Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.)

The fathers for example, St Cyprian, St Jerome, St Augustine, St Fulgentius, regarded, as types of the necessity of the Church for salvation, the saving Ark of Noah and the house of Rahab.

1 Peter 3:20

These in times past had been disobedient when the patience of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was building.

Some myth?

 

[Orogeny]

Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.)

Where has that been disputed in this thread?

Some myth?

Yes.

Peace

Tim

 

[LeroyCRHP]

If I could join this discussion, this is interesting! I am an engineer and normally look for the science of everything and still do, but…

The language I hear from our priests is that the old testament has a lot of “figurative language, but affirms a deed that took place”. Even my Jewish friends say they do not believe many of these stories in the Torah (first 5 books of old testament), but they either give example to live by or symbolically tell us something, hence their “oral tradition”. If you believe these stories great but not required (words from my Priest). Teaching the flood is ok and trying to figure out how many gallons of water it would take to cover to the highest mountain is interesting, but finding proof this happened is very difficult.

It is a fine line for me to believe a story like this and not be looking for the much deposits from the flood.

Thanks
Leroy

“Denying God’s truth”? Again, you are leveling that charge against all the Church Fathers, Saints, and Christians (and Jews) who taught the global flood. Are you saying that God deceives His own people and makes a laughingstock of us in front of the world for a lie? No, He told us the truth. He created the universe - supernaturally and instantaneously over six days - in a mature state, and destroyed the earth with a supernatural flood event.

And the scientific evidence shows that the laws of nature were indeed altered in the past, including in the flood layers with carbon dating completely contradicting other radioisotope dates. And if mainstream science would go where the evidence leads, instead of ignoring the evidence that contradict their theories, and scoffing at these two supernatural events and mindlessly proclaiming, “the present is the key to the past”, or “free the science from Moses”, then they would easily understand the evidence as Creationists do. But they don’t; they refuse to love the truth and you should know what happens next.

 

[cassini]

Where has that been disputed in this thread?Yes.

Peace

Tim

Perversions like you postulate have consequences on theology and even dogmas. Subject myth for fact and you undermine the dogma as understood by the Church.

If the saving Ark of Noah is a myth how could the dogma of Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation be justified?

I take it you consider St Peter talking rubbish too.

Anyway there is so much anti-traditional venom on this and other threads by you and StA especially that I shall retire from giving you more Catholic doctrine to ridicule.

 

[Luke65]

Anyway there is so much anti-traditional venom on this and other threads by you and StA especially that I shall retire from giving you more Catholic doctrine to ridicule.

Ditto, brother.

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. (Acts 19:8-9)

“But when some were hardened, and spoke evil of the way, having departed from them, he separated the disciples.” (Acts 19:9) He put a stop, it means, to their evil-speaking: he did not wish to kindle their envy, nor to bring them into more contention. Hence let us also learn not to put ourselves in the way of evil-speaking men, but to depart from them: he did not speak evil, when himself evil spoken of. (St. John Chrysostom)

 

[cassini]

Ditto, brother.

Thank you for that post Luke65. You are the one good thing that has happened to me on this forum. Let us contend ourselves with the words of Christ ‘Where two or three of you are gathered in my name, there too I shall be.’ God bless you. Like ships passing in the night I say good bye good friend.

 

[Mark_Renaud]

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

Tim,
I find it intriguing that you communicated that Peter “may have actually believed that it was a historic event” … but you also say, “we don’t need to take his words as proof that the flood actually happened.”
Your thoughts are obviously higher than mine - I simple cannot resolve how Peter - the first catholic Pope, who was one of the three inner circle of close friends of Jesus, who actually walked on water, performed recorded miracles in Scripture, was crucified because of what he testified about the Lord Jesus, and now I am told that even though he may have actually believed what Moses recorded in Genesis and what Jesus mentioned about the flood that it didn’t actually happen?
Wow, I am stuck!
"However, we don’t need to take his words as proof that the flood actually happened" - do you actually think this way or are you being sarcastic.
Sincerely, Mark Renaud

 

[Robertsxxx]

I do not believe this actually happened. Then again I’m not a believer in general.

 

[bcuster]

Noah is a real person. The biblical account is based on a real event. Whether the entire known world flooded or only a huge area in the area where Noah lived, I do not know.

 

[Orogeny]

"However, we don’t need to take his words as proof that the flood actually happened" - do you actually think this way or are you being sarcastic.

I mean it 100%. Perhaps this *is *over your head.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Perversions like you postulate have consequences on theology and even dogmas. Subject myth for fact and you undermine the dogma as understood by the Church.

Just as you do with your insistence that geocentrism is required by the Church?

Anyway there is so much anti-traditional venom on this and other threads by you and StA especially that I shall retire from giving you more Catholic doctrine to ridicule.

I am not anti-traditionalist. I am pro-faith/pro-science. You are clearly anti-science. You would fit well in Answers in Genesis where one has to swear to ignore any evidence that contradicts one’s personal interpretation of scripture.

Peace

Tim