- Status
F
Faith1960
Guest
I’m in an email convo with my SD.
F
Faith1960
Guest
but what about the CCC and what it says about this?
C
campeador
Guest
There is hope, my friendI think that if that’s true, I’m in trouble.
:Many difficulties have been raised, especially in our epoch, against the pages of the Bible in which the history of the Flood and of the Ark is narrated. This is not the place to dwell upon these difficulties, however considerable some may appear. They all converge towards the question whether these pages should be considered as strictly historical throughout, or only in their outward form. The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, **they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. **This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable.
newadvent.org/cathen/01720a.htm
C
campeador
Guest
Not nessissarily:
In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a ‘long bottleneck’ to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[6] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[7]
wiki link
C
campeador
Guest
On the age of the earth and evolution:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
F
Faith1960
Guest
There is hope, my friend
Many difficulties have been raised, especially in our epoch, against the pages of the Bible in which the history of the Flood and of the Ark is narrated. This is not the place to dwell upon these difficulties, however considerable some may appear. They all converge towards the question whether these pages should be considered as strictly historical throughout, or only in their outward form. The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, **they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. **This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable.
newadvent.org/cathen/01720a.htm
/QUOTE
So we’re supposed to believe it all literally or not?
The last sentence seems to contradict your bolded sentence.
Faith 1960,
you are wise to discuss the issue with your spiritual director.
I think your fundamental problem is expecting the Bible to be literally true in all its details. There are myths in it. Why don’t you study this issue of Biblical interpretation?
For example look at " Is Everything in the Bible True?" by Karlo Broussard.
you are wise to discuss the issue with your spiritual director.
I think your fundamental problem is expecting the Bible to be literally true in all its details. There are myths in it. Why don’t you study this issue of Biblical interpretation?
For example look at " Is Everything in the Bible True?" by Karlo Broussard.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Hope do I study it? Where do I start?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Wait – the fact that non-literal passages exist in the Bible leads you to believe that there are no literal passages? You realize, of course, that the Bible isn’t one book, it’s a collection of books, and a variety of literary genres exist in its pages?
If you read an anthology of all books published in the U.S. in 2014, and among the works, there was poetry, would you presume that all the works therein are poetry? That just doesn’t make any sense…
Faith1960
Perhaps you would like to start with “Is Everything in the Bible True?” by Karlo Broussard (catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-everything-in-the-bible-true).
Gorgias gives a very solid post here that answered the issue clearly, concisely and simply.
Perhaps you would like to start with “Is Everything in the Bible True?” by Karlo Broussard (catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-everything-in-the-bible-true).
Gorgias gives a very solid post here that answered the issue clearly, concisely and simply.
F
Faith1960
Guest
But what about what’s written in the CCC where it says …" a few, that is 8 persons, were saved by water?"
I got a PM that helps a lot but I’d like your opinion.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No, I don’t think that’s accurate.
By saying “the majority of humankind was saved…”, I presume that you mean “saved from the flood”, and not “saved by Christ and baptism into His Church.” Am I correct? (After all, the fact of my baptism doesn’t depend on an OT reference – it only depends on Christ’s command to the apostles to “baptize all nations.”)
On the other hand, though, if you’re saying that “the majority of humankind was saved outside of the method that reflects the symbol of baptism”, that doesn’t make any sense, either. Circumcision – that is, that precursor and symbol of baptism we find in the OT – itself is a method in which a majority of humanity did not participate. Does that mean that, since only a relatively few people experienced circumcision prescribed by the Law of Moses, then circumcision does not prefigure baptism? That’s just untenable. Similarly, then, whether it’s “eight out of all humanity” or “eight out of those afflicted by the flood”, the symbolism of salvation through the ark from the flood remains intact.
Not at all. Just as Noah and his family were saved through the waters by the ark, we are saved through the waters by the Church. There’s no theological downside to a super-regional flood.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. You claimed that the CCC asserts that Noah was “the patriarch of the only surviving family”; yet, the CCC doesn’t make that claim – that’s something that you’re asserting. The CCC only affirms the Scriptural teaching that, through the ark, eight were saved from the flood. It affirms Peter’s assertion of the same fact. And yet, Peter doesn’t make the assertion you do – that, by virtue of the fact that eight were saved, all the rest of the ancient world was killed. (You can make that assumption, if you wish, but not hold us to it, inasmuch as the Church does not hold us to it.)Gorgias:
That doesn’t annul the direct reference and the “why” of the reference.
Your claim was that the covenant of Noah holds for us if and only if we all are descended from the eight who survived the flood. That’s not what CCC 56 claims, and that’s why I cited it to you. Rather, CCC 56 points out that the covenant was in effect – for the ‘nations’ (which is weird, since if all were killed but the eight, then there would be no more ‘nations’, only Semitic people) – only until the proclamation of the Gospel. In other words, there is no requirement that we receive baptism through any relationship with the covenant of Noah. (That is, no ‘annulment’ necessary.
)
C
clem456
Guest
The Catechism is a true norm for any question of the faith.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
The senses of scripture, the nature of inspiration.
Faith1960
In #1219 the CCC is quoting 1 Pet 3:20, and, as has been pointed out, the Bible is not always literally and historically accurate.
There is no problem.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Ok, thanks for your patience(assuming you are being patient).
I have O C D and worry about religion. Kind of dumb for me to read and post here under those circumstances. I need to learn not to get so worked up; I get all upset over things turn out to be nothing.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I thought I was going to have no other choice than joining the nearby UCC.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
There’s nothing to reconcile. You’re making a huge big deal out of absolutely nothing.
C
campeador
Guest
Thanks Noel.
Yes, Trent Horn posted an excellent blog thread on Fr Lemaitre just a year ago… catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/reflections-on-the-latest-big-bang-discovery
And I hope you noticed the last paragraph of the Vatican link I posted:
As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.
- Status