The Flood.......Again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Six Evidences for the Genesis Flood
Evidence #1—Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

Evidence #2—Rapid burial of plants and animals.
We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

Evidence #3—Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.
We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

Evidence #4—Sediment transported long distances.
We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global flood.

Evidence #5—Rapid or no erosion between strata.
We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

Evidence #6—Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

Conclusion
Jesus Christ our Creator (John 1:1–3; Colossians 1:16–17), who is the Truth and would never tell us a lie, said that during the “days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26–27) “Noah entered the Ark” and “the Flood came and took them all away” (Matthew 24:38–39). He spoke of these events as real, literal history, describing a global Flood that destroyed all land life not on the Ark.

Therefore, we must believe what Christ told us, rather than the ideas of fallible scientists who weren’t there to see what happened in the earth’s past. Thus we shouldn’t be surprised when the geologic evidence in God’s world (rightly understood by asking the right questions) agrees exactly with God’s Word, affirmed by Jesus Christ.
👍🙂
 
The CIA has photos of what it calls “the Ararat anomaly,” located on a mountain in Turkey. It is claimed the Turkish government will not allow an expedition to examine the Ark location due to security issues. It is also claimed that higher resolution photos of the Ark exist that were taken by a U-2. As someone who studies Intelligence history, the actual image quality of such photos are purposely degraded before publication in order to conceal the true resolution abilities of our imaging equipment from our “enemies.”
Ed


WOW, I have read some things about this awhile back but never heard anymore…I bet this is the real deal, hopefully someone will get this info out the public sometime soon!

Just imagine everything that could have been preserved in ice!! I wonder why the Vatican doesnt get involved in this and try to get a team to travel there and investigate?
 
So, when Christ told us that “a man had two sons…,” or “it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants[a] and entrusted to them his property…” are we to literally believe that there was a man with two sons or that a master entrusted his property to his servants, since He “would never tell us a lie?”
Of course not. The Church knows that It was intended by Christ to be a parable (a story). It’s pretty cut and dry (no pun intended ;)) On the other hand, with the flood, is the Church resolute that it’s a parable? If not, I can’t blame those who choose to believe in the actual event, especially in light of the historical data.
 
The Genesis 1 narrative begins with the creation of the universe and culminates with God’s special creation of Adam and Eve. Historic Christianity holds that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, uniquely made in God’s image, and that all humanity has descended from them. The biblical genealogies (both Old and New Testament), Jesus’ teachings, and Paul’s epistles all refer to Adam as a real individual.

Genetic, linguistic and pathogen studies support a historical Adam and Eve. This research indicates that humanity arose 1) recently (within the last hundred thousand years or so), 2) at a single location (close to where Bible scholars place the Garden of Eden), and 3) from a small population as small as a single pair of one man and one woman. Scientific evidence supports the historic Christian idea that all humanity descended from two historical persons, Adam and Eve.
 
The Genesis 1 narrative begins with the creation of the universe and culminates with God’s special creation of Adam and Eve. Historic Christianity holds that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, uniquely made in God’s image, and that all humanity has descended from them. The biblical genealogies (both Old and New Testament), Jesus’ teachings, and Paul’s epistles all refer to Adam as a real individual.

Genetic, linguistic and pathogen studies support a historical Adam and Eve. This research indicates that humanity arose 1) recently (within the last hundred thousand years or so), 2) at a single location (close to where Bible scholars place the Garden of Eden), and 3) from a small population as small as a single pair of one man and one woman. Scientific evidence supports the historic Christian idea that all humanity descended from two historical persons, Adam and Eve.
Earliest man was 800,000 years ago (at least in the U.K) and we know that these early humans did not derive from the U.K. Although I do believe that Adam and Eve were the names given to our first actual parents who were given a choice in the ways described in Genesis.

(Really finding the Ark details interesting).
 
Of course not. The Church knows that It was intended by Christ to be a parable (a story). It’s pretty cut and dry (no pun intended ;)) On the other hand, with the flood, is the Church resolute that it’s a parable? If not, I can’t blame those who choose to believe in the actual event, especially in light of the historical data.
Actually, as I have posted the Church does make clear that the early book of Genesis are not meant to be a scientific or profane historical account of the beginning of things. It is the message, not the means which is the important part. I am simply amazed that so many (not directed at you, Evania) take a position that if we allow that one facet is not literally and historically “true,” then somehow that brings down the whole house of cards.
 
Genetic, linguistic and pathogen studies support a historical Adam and Eve. This research indicates that humanity arose 1) recently (within the last hundred thousand years or so), 2) at a single location (close to where Bible scholars place the Garden of Eden), and 3) from a small population as small as a single pair of one man and one woman. Scientific evidence supports the historic Christian idea that all humanity descended from two historical persons, Adam and Eve.
You are being pretty fast and free with the facts here.

I think it interesting that you note “Bible scholars place the garden of Eden…,” yet rebuff the same scholars who do not hold to a literal telling of Genesis.
 
Actually, as I have posted the Church does make clear that the early book of Genesis are not meant to be a scientific or profane historical account of the beginning of things. It is the message, not the means which is the important part. I am simply amazed that so many (not directed at you, Evania) take a position that if we allow that one facet is not literally and historically “true,” then somehow that brings down the whole house of cards.
  1. So what about Moses and the escape from Egypt?
  2. So what about Abraham and his beginnings?
  3. Who gives you or your ‘scholarly’ sources the authorisation to say that the Beginnings of things in Genesis are not historical and are allegorical only (discounting the first Creation Story)?
  4. Please cite your sources who have absolute knowledge of all things…
 
Catholics are not bound to believe the Flood is literal. See Father Charles Grondin from Ask An Apologist:

"The Church does not have a teaching on the Flood. Catholics are free to accept the basic three theories:
  1. That the story is literally true.
  2. That the story is not literally true but is included in the Scriptures to teach us valuable theology about who we are and God’s relationship to us.
  3. That the story, while primarily poetic and non-historical, is based on an actual ancient flood and uses literary style to make theological points.
Focusing on whether something happened in a literal historical manner misses the point of what the Scriptures are. The Scriptures are not some dry history lesson, they are God’s revelation of Himself, His will, and our destiny. Historical events that are told as literal history in the Scriptures are not included because they are historical but because they tell us something about God."
 
Catholics are not bound to believe the Flood is literal. See Father Charles Grondin from Ask An Apologist:

"The Church does not have a teaching on the Flood. Catholics are free to accept the basic three theories:
  1. That the story is literally true.
  2. That the story is not literally true but is included in the Scriptures to teach us valuable theology about who we are and God’s relationship to us.
  3. That the story, while primarily poetic and non-historical, is based on an actual ancient flood and uses literary style to make theological points.
Focusing on whether something happened in a literal historical manner misses the point of what the Scriptures are. The Scriptures are not some dry history lesson, they are God’s revelation of Himself, His will, and our destiny. Historical events that are told as literal history in the Scriptures are not included because they are historical but because they tell us something about God."
We know the focus is the meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures and that there are various ways of writing meaning into the fabric of a peoples’ culture to express their history, but please cite the authoritative document that says all of the Genesis beginnings are not to be taken literally, period. We certainly know the first two Creation stories don’t have to be literal, especially the first, yet the Second - the Adam and Eve story - needs to be treated with great care as in there are profound mystical truths and I would have said that out of reverence it is important to permit the possibility of historical truth but just not as the main focus. So again, who has ever said Noah is not a true story: where is your Magisterium source?

I don’t think it is overly important that this story has to be true but at the same time it lacks respect for our ancient ancestors if we don’t hold that it could be true - a lack of respect for their lives and a lack of trust in our Creator’s power to work miracles. Anyone would think He is not the Creator. All modern scholars will try and say that everything is a metaphor only but it doesn’t make them right. And for some posters to call people 'fundamentalists because they do believe is really out of order. I wonder if sometimes people think they know more than our Creator. And how about the prophets - what next? Start saying they didn’t exist?

We know that if updates in science says certain things in Scripture seem inaccurate then it is interpretations of Scripture that needs to be looked into but this doesn’t mean tearing apart people’s faith and presuming that just because something is miraculous then it didn’t happen.

People make the mistake of thinking that the Bible is reliant on thinking in a western way that is reliant on an overly materialistic existence in which reality of a spiritual depth is beyond the pale.

In Acts, or one of the letters, we are warned about overly progressive teachings on Scripture. Not sure it was referring to this specific subject but still…

The mystical reality that underlies all of the OT is the most important aspect of it and this knowledge shows us that we should be reverent in our attitude towards it because of the fact that Scripture is divinely inspired, and with this reverential attitude, comes the awareness that there is always the danger of Scripture being reduced to putting our Creator in a box that can fit snugly into our own comfort zones.

.
 
We know the focus is the meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures and that there are various ways of writing meaning into the fabric of a peoples’ culture to express their history, but please cite the authoritative document that says all of the Genesis beginnings are not to be taken literally, period.
.
You don’t say if you’re Catholic.
If you’re not, skip this post as it will simply be another thing to argue about.

If you’re Catholic consult your catechism because the arguing with other posters is pointless. I posted some passages (which you simply dismissed without addressing), please address them specifically, and comment.

You don’t understand several things:

what the word “literal” means and how the other senses relate to it
what the word “inerrant” means
what the word “inspiration” means
what the word “fullness” means, and who it applies to
In short, what the Church believes and what we are asked to believe as Catholics.
Another good document is Pope Benedict’s “Verbum Domini”.
All easily accessible material.

Please note, these are Magisterial sources.
You need not bother arguing with posters, everything you need to know on these issues is in there. If you can’t accept what is in there, then your issue is not with anyone here but with folks a little higher up the chain of command.
 
  1. So what about Moses and the escape from Egypt?
  2. So what about Abraham and his beginnings?
  3. Who gives you or your ‘scholarly’ sources the authorisation to say that the Beginnings of things in Genesis are not historical and are allegorical only (discounting the first Creation Story)?
  4. Please cite your sources who have absolute knowledge of all things…
Thank you for proving my point.

I refer you to thistle’s excellent post which is what the Church teaches about the early stories in Genesis.

My “scholarly sources” are the teachings of the Church herself, with a bit of St. Augustine thrown in. Please cite for me the credentials that allow you to be a higher authority than the Church.
 
Thank you for proving my point.

I refer you to thistle’s excellent post which is what the Church teaches about the early stories in Genesis.

My “scholarly sources” are the teachings of the Church herself, with a bit of St. Augustine thrown in. Please cite for me the credentials that allow you to be a higher authority than the Church.
(I know what St. Augustine taught and I happen to concur, FYI.)

As I said before:
  1. So what about Moses and the escape from Egypt?
  2. So what about Abraham and his beginnings?
  3. Who gives you or your ‘scholarly’ sources the authorisation to say that the Beginnings of things in Genesis are not historical and are allegorical only (discounting the first Creation Story)?
  4. Please cite the Vatican sources?
(I happen to agree with all Magisterium sources, FYI).
 
You don’t say if you’re Catholic.
If you’re not, skip this post as it will simply be another thing to argue about.

If you’re Catholic consult your catechism because the arguing with other posters is pointless. I posted some passages (which you simply dismissed without addressing), please address them specifically, and comment.

You don’t understand several things:

what the word “literal” means and how the other senses relate to it
what the word “inerrant” means
what the word “inspiration” means
what the word “fullness” means, and who it applies to
In short, what the Church believes and what we are asked to believe as Catholics.
Another good document is Pope Benedict’s “Verbum Domini”.
All easily accessible material.

Please note, these are Magisterial sources.
Please cite EXACTLY where, in these documents, opposition to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, I have posted so far in this thread is detailed.
You need not bother arguing with posters, everything you need to know on these issues is in there. If you can’t accept what is in there, then your issue is not with anyone here but with folks a little higher up the chain of command.
How arrogant of you.
 
Please cite EXACTLY where, in these documents, opposition to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, I have posted so far in this thread is detailed.

How arrogant of you.
Interesting.

Do you have comments on the catechism or any of the other reference materials presented?
 
Genetic, linguistic and pathogen studies support a historical Adam and Eve.
No, they don’t.
If you have reliable studies that say otherwise, please post them.

**More importantly, faith in the Church’s teaching about Adam and Eve does not even require this support. So the lack of it should not threaten full assent to the Church’s teaching. I give my full assent and good faith to the Church’s teaching in Genesis, and the fact that science cannot quite get a handle on this simply tells me that God is a very large person and science and history are inadequate to explain his mysterious being and creative activity. **

(as an aside, if you want a profound exposition of Genesis, read Theology of the Body by Saint John Paul 2nd. He wastes NO TIME worrying about whether the literature is “factual”. ZERO. But he exposes the truth about God and mankind in a profound way.)
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
 
Several miles from the location of the Ark, huge stones were discovered, some standing upright while others lying on the ground. These stones, weighing many tons, have holes carved in them. Scientists have determined that they were anchors and the holes would have been their attachment to a ship with hemp rope.

The huge anchors would have been suspended from the keel of the ship. This was a common practice among ancient mariners to stabilze a heavy ship and ensure that the bow is always facing the on-coming waves. A “top heavy” ship, such as the Ark, could easily be capsized by a wave approaching from the side. This is yet further proof that Noah’s Ark was a reality.

In the year 1872 one George Smith, a bank*note engraver turned assistant in the British Museum, astounded the world by discovering the story of the Flood – much the same as that in the Book of Genesis – inscribed on a cuneiform tablet made of clay that had recently been excavated at far-distant Nineveh (in present-day Iraq).

Smith announced his discoveries at a meeting of the Society of Biblical Archaeology in London, on December 3, 1872. August dignitaries were present, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and prime minister, WE Gladstone

British Museum In 1985 a cuneiform tablet was brought in by a member of the public.
Douglas Simmonds owned a collection of miscellaneous objects and antiquities that he had inherited from his father, Leonard. Leonard had a lifelong eye for curiosities, and, as a member of the RAF, was stationed in the Near East around the end of the Second World War, acquiring interesting bits and pieces of tablets at the same time.
He had found a second cuneiform tablet that was a copy of the Flood story.

The Simmonds cuneiform tablet (henceforth known as the Ark Tablet) was virtually an instruction manual for building an ark.

In the years 1928 and 1929 important discoveries were made on sites in Iraq that were taken to be evidence of the biblical Flood itself. At Ur, excavation beneath the Royal Cemetery disclosed more than 10ft of empty mud, below which earlier settlement material came to light. A similar discovery was made at the site of Kish in southern Iraq. To both teams it seemed inescapable that here was geological evidence of the biblical world Flood itself.

The Ark Tablet, dates from around 1900BC and exactly matches the biblical instructions God gave Noah on how to build the Ark.
In ancient Assyrian on the tablet is written the exact instructions for building the Ark that God gave Noah, including the instructions for pitching the Ark to keep water out, and also the words “animals” and “two by two.”
This actual historical artifact dates 1,000 years before the Old Testament was even written.
 
Apparently you don’t if you can’t answer your own questions.
I can, and I have. So taking this out of the realm of petty insults, my first example will be when St. Augustine spoke of Genesis - first Creation account - pointing to the fact that this story, if it were literal truth, each element in life would have to be named, which they are not (he spoke about this in Confessions; point being, that the text uses figurative language, and when we approach any exegesis with Christological insight, we can furthermore see the whole Truth illuminated, from the text…

Combining his insight with Vat. II and* Dei Verbum*, exegesis is by way of certain methods, which helps to inspire the exegete interpret the circumstances of the rough time any text was written. We can then gauge the form and the genre - we can enter into relationship with the people of that time:

*'CHAPTER IV
THE OLD TESTAMENT

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

'First He entered into a covenant with Abraham (see Gen. 15:18) and, through Moses, with the people of Israel (see Ex. 24:8). To this people which He had acquired for Himself, **He so manifested Himself through words and deeds as the one true and living God that Israel came to know by experience the ways of God with men… **

‘These same books, then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. Christians should receive them with reverence.’*

The second creation story - considered to be the first in terms of when it was written - is mentioned in the CCC:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm:

**'How to read the account of the fall
**
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.

264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

No one said that historicity is the main focus but rather we recognise that understanding the history of the times gives us clearer indications as to what inspired the texts to be written. However, the Church, as she asserts above, insists that we had “primeval” parents, and the actual “event” took place - detailed using “figurative language”, which marked our spiritual origins as created beings. There are mystical truths and the whole of the books/texts of the OT are to be treated with the upmost care: 'Christians should receive them with reverence.

Following this, I see no reason why Noah did not exist, and if people want to believe he did, as I do believe all the characters from Genesis mentioned do exist, this is not ‘fundamentalism’. I don’t think it changes anything as to the reasons why it was written if not historical and rather a story which people wrote to put a point across, but I do anyway, as there is no reason not to.

I’ve said all this.

And yes, Clem, my first point of call is always the CCC, and so I do look to those who serve the Church with their deeply spiritual insight, to help inform my understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top