The Flood.......Again

[Bonnie]

I understand that but this in particular has me worried. The CCC says 8 were saved by water or something to that effect. Is the CCC inerrant?

Reference in CCC please?

 

[Tim_D]

I understand that but this in particular has me worried. The CCC says 8 were saved by water or something to that effect. Is the CCC inerrant?

I highly doubt that the catechism mentions the exact number of people who were supposedly saved on the ark.

It sounds to me like you are looking for the Great Big Book of Truth that lists all truths of all things. Sorry but it doesn’t exist. We must employ our critical thinking skills when we delve into scriptures. Even St. Augustine did not take a literal view of the early chapters of Genesis. I wonder why it is so important for you?

 

[Faith1960]

The Church does not teach that the stories in the early chapters of Genesis are “real history,” in that they are expressed in literal terms. The Church has always said that the importance of these stories is not the medium that is used to present them but the spiritual truths that are revealed. It is not “history” in the sense of our understanding of history.

Does that include the supposed eight people left on the earth? Because like I mentioned in my last post, the CCC mentions it too.

 

[Faith1960]

I highly doubt that the catechism mentions the exact number of people who were supposedly saved on the ark.

It sounds to me like you are looking for the Great Big Book of Truth that lists all truths of all things. Sorry but it doesn’t exist. We must employ our critical thinking skills when we delve into scriptures. Even St. Augustine did not take a literal view of the early chapters of Genesis. I wonder why it is so important for you?

CCC. 1219: The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism for by it " a few, that is eight persons, were saved through water."14

The waters of the great flood you made a sign of the waters of Baptism, that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.15

 

[Faith1960]

I highly doubt that the catechism mentions the exact number of people who were supposedly saved on the ark.

It sounds to me like you are looking for the Great Big Book of Truth that lists all truths of all things. Sorry but it doesn’t exist. We must employ our critical thinking skills when we delve into scriptures. Even St. Augustine did not take a literal view of the early chapters of Genesis. I wonder why it is so important for you?

I’m a complicated person.

 

[Tim_D]

Does that include the supposed eight people left on the earth? Because like I mentioned in my last post, the CCC mentions it too.

What you are mentioning from the catechism, 1219 "The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water” is a quote from Peter 3:20. It isn’t a magisterial statement as to how many people were on the ark, anymore than a New Testament mention of Jonah is proof that Jonah and his experience was a literal, historical event.

It means exactly what it says; that the Church sees a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism in the story of Noah and the ark. It isn’t a dogmatic statement that Noah and the ark are “true.”

 

[Tim_D]

Does that include the supposed eight people left on the earth? Because like I mentioned in my last post, the CCC mentions it too.

The catechism is simply quoting the Epistle of Peter 3:20. It isn’t issuing a dogmatic statement about the event.

 

[Tim_D]

I’m a complicated person.

Well, you certainly have a knack for complicating things that are best left less complicated.

 

[Bonnie]

What you are mentioning from the catechism, 1219 "The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water” is a quote from Peter 3:20. It isn’t a magisterial statement as to how many people were on the ark, anymore than a New Testament mention of Jonah is proof that Jonah and his experience was a literal, historical event.

It means exactly what it says; that the Church sees a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism in the story of Noah and the ark. It isn’t a dogmatic statement that Noah and the ark are “true.”

You said it well. This topic reminds me of a good Protestant call-in show I used to listen to. A woman caller insisted that since Jesus would never lie, every parable in the NT was literally true. The host tried hard to explain to her that one doesn’t need to tell a “true” story to reveal Truth, but she couldn’t get it.

 

[Faith1960]

Well, you certainly have a knack for complicating things that are best left less complicated.

Um…thanks??? J/k

 

[Faith1960]

What you are mentioning from the catechism, 1219 "The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water” is a quote from Peter 3:20. It isn’t a magisterial statement as to how many people were on the ark, anymore than a New Testament mention of Jonah is proof that Jonah and his experience was a literal, historical event.

It means exactly what it says; that the Church sees a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism in the story of Noah and the ark. It isn’t a dogmatic statement that Noah and the ark are “true.”

Oh. Thanks!

 

[friardchips]

What you are mentioning from the catechism, 1219 "The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water” is a quote from Peter 3:20. It isn’t a magisterial statement as to how many people were on the ark, anymore than a New Testament mention of Jonah is proof that Jonah and his experience was a literal, historical event.

It means exactly what it says; that the Church sees a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism in the story of Noah and the ark. It isn’t a dogmatic statement that Noah and the ark are “true.”

It is true that it is the meaning expressed in the OT that is the most important and in the case of Genesis we are told that it can be taken as figurative only in parts but the historicity of the OT has not been rejected as pure fiction as the OT is the living WITNESS/Testament of the ancient Jews in relationship to the Creator. A living story. There are various genres in the different books but the use of ‘creativity’ - a word we could not rightly use unless the books were divinely inspired - does not mean a lack of authenticity or even historical facts e.g:- I have heard it said that the Red Sea parting is only a metaphor for our Creator always being there to see us through troubled waters. However, I have always maintained that I believe our Creator has and does perform miracles and so there is no reason to doubt the actuality of this event. Anyway, recently it was discovered - secular media channels did not obviously point us towards these miracles - that in places where there were tsunamis of differing size, wherever there were Churches and people celebrating Mass inside the Church, the tsunamis did not destroy or harm those buildings in any way. The people inside the Churches came out unscathed.

There was also the real life story of the people trapped inside the towers on 9/11. Some people prayed the Our Father as the buildings were coming down. They were inspired to move towards the lift area. They survived.

So, why doubt?

Regarding Noah’s Ark - you might not have any physical evidence because the Ark was made of wood and wood tends to rot.

(They have figured out that the Ark was probably round. In case that is of interest).

 

[Faith1960]

The catechism is simply quoting the Epistle of Peter 3:20. It isn’t issuing a dogmatic statement about the event.

So it doesn’t mean eight people only survived the Flood and we must believe that?

 

[Tim_D]

So it doesn’t mean eight people only survived the Flood and we must believe that?

1. The catechism is quoting Peter 3:20. Traditionally, on the ark was Noah, his wife, his three sons and their three wives. That equals 8 people. Peter is simply stating what Jews familiar with the ancient text knew. That doesn’t make the story a literal historical event; it is simply a reference to Genesis. We then find ourselves at the same place as where we started; is Genesis a literal historical account? We have already seen that the Church does not teach that position. The Church teaches that the important thing is the eternal truths that are expressed in the story. Other than that, I don’t know what to tell you.
2. The Church does not demand that we “believe” any of the story of Noah’s ark. Our beliefs are summed up in the Nicene Creed. Last I noticed, there wasn’t a statement of

I believe in Noah’s ark, big and wooden
Built by his and his son’s hands
Full of animals, hay and family
Two by two, side by side
Cats, dogs and other furry things
Floating on the waters that fell for 40 days
It rested upon the mountain Ararat
Where spy planes and satellites took its picture

Or at least, we never recite that at my Church…

 

[twf]

Agreed - shocking & sad.

The rest of the Catholic world, outside of America, just shakes its head in wonder. We’ve had generations of popes who have repeatedly told us that we are not bound to interpret Genesis in a “literalist” historical manner…why doesn’t that memo trickle down? Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict, in his commentary on Genesis, declared the common descent of all living things (including humans) a “virtual fact”. The pseudoscience arguments that crop up on these threads is always pasted, sometimes verbatim, from questionable evangelical sources that are very much at odds with Catholic teaching in numerous ways. The whole evangelical creationist movement is rooted in a very Sola Scriptura mindset…so why do so many American Catholics turn to the authority of these “Sola Scriptura” Protestants on this particular issue? Just makes me scratch my head.

 

[eazyduzit]

It is true that it is the meaning expressed in the OT that is the most important and in the case of Genesis we are told that it can be taken as figurative only in parts but the historicity of the OT has not been rejected as pure fiction as the OT is the living WITNESS/Testament of the ancient Jews in relationship to the Creator. A living story. There are various genres in the different books but the use of ‘creativity’ - a word we could not rightly use unless the books were divinely inspired - does not mean a lack of authenticity or even historical facts e.g:- I have heard it said that the Red Sea parting is only a metaphor for our Creator always being there to see us through troubled waters. However, I have always maintained that I believe our Creator has and does perform miracles and so there is no reason to doubt the actuality of this event. Anyway, recently it was discovered - secular media channels did not obviously point us towards these miracles - that in places where there were tsunamis of differing size, wherever there were Churches and people celebrating Mass inside the Church, the tsunamis did not destroy or harm those buildings in any way. The people inside the Churches came out unscathed.

There was also the real life story of the people trapped inside the towers on 9/11. Some people prayed the Our Father as the buildings were coming down. They were inspired to move towards the lift area. They survived.

So, why doubt?

Regarding Noah’s Ark - you might not have any physical evidence because the Ark was made of wood and wood tends to rot.

(They have figured out that the Ark was probably round. In case that is of interest).

For a long time liberal scholars doubted that King David was an a real man until a stone was found with an inscription bearing his name and title.

BTW, the ark was not round. The exact dimensions are given in the bible. The proportion specified is the most stable platform for a sea vessel. It was used for the first large iron battleships because they needed the best stability for the huge guns.

 

[Faith1960]

1. The catechism is quoting Peter 3:20. Traditionally, on the ark was Noah, his wife, his three sons and their three wives. That equals 8 people. Peter is simply stating what Jews familiar with the ancient text knew. That doesn’t make the story a literal historical event; it is simply a reference to Genesis. We then find ourselves at the same place as where we started; is Genesis a literal historical account? We have already seen that the Church does not teach that position. The Church teaches that the important thing is the eternal truths that are expressed in the story. Other than that, I don’t know what to tell you.
2. The Church does not demand that we “believe” any of the story of Noah’s ark. Our beliefs are summed up in the Nicene Creed. Last I noticed, there wasn’t a statement of

I believe in Noah’s ark, big and wooden
Built by his and his son’s hands
Full of animals, hay and family
Two by two, side by side
Cats, dogs and other furry things
Floating on the waters that fell for 40 days
It rested upon the mountain Ararat
Where spy planes and satellites took its picture

Or at least, we never recite that at my Church…

Ill note the sarcasm but I am smiling here anyway.

 

[Tim_D]

It is true that it is the meaning expressed in the OT that is the most important and in the case of Genesis we are told that it can be taken as figurative only in parts but the historicity of the OT has not been rejected as pure fiction…

We have always been told that the early stories of Genesis are a poetic telling of spiritual truths in many differing literary styles. To ascribe them as being literal history is as wrong as to simply dismiss them all as being no more than myth. Just as Jesus used parables and allusions to Old Testament events to make a point, so, too, does Genesis use stories and devices that would have been familiar to people of the ancient world to make its point.

Shakespeare used real people and events in his stories without being bound to a literal accuracy. It is beyond me why some think that the idea of the ancient authors doing the same thing is unacceptable. I have never understood this idea that the Bible must always be shown to be “true.”

 

[eazyduzit]

So it doesn’t mean eight people only survived the Flood and we must believe that?

This would seem to be what St. Peter believed. Some also believe he was the first pope of their church. Does that not carry any authority?

 

[friardchips]

We have always been told that the early stories of Genesis are a poetic telling of spiritual truths in many differing literary styles. To ascribe them as being literal history is as wrong as to simply dismiss them all as being no more than myth. Just as Jesus used parables and allusions to Old Testament events to make a point, so, too, does Genesis use stories and devices that would have been familiar to people of the ancient world to make its point.

Shakespeare used real people and events in his stories without being bound to a literal accuracy. It is beyond me why some think that the idea of the ancient authors doing the same thing is unacceptable. I have never understood this idea that the Bible must always be shown to be “true.”

So with this comparison you believe that the OT contains accounts that are no truer than Shakespeare’s flights of fancy? So what about the prophets then - do they not exist either?