What makes you so sure?All cultures thought the world talk of a gigantic flood. There was a flood but it wasn’t the entire world.
Because Native Americans. When it talked about the “world” it was talking about the known world of the the ancient Mediterranean society.What makes you so sure?
And how do we know that?Because Native Americans. When it talked about the “world” it was talking about the known world of the the ancient Mediterranean society.
Keep in mind that I do not yet know whether or not I should interpret Noah’s flood as local or global but here is an article that summarizes the local view: answersincreation.org/genesisflood.htmAnd how do we know that?
How about we look at what Genesis says?Keep in mind that I do not yet know whether or not I should interpret Noah’s flood as local or global but here is an article that summarizes the local view: answersincreation.org/genesisflood.htm
Whenever possible, I do not engage in my own private interpretation of Scripture. I look to what the Church teaches. Historically, that is a global Flood. That leaves me strongly inclined toward that view. However, has the Magisterium confirmed this as true and infallible Catholic teaching? That is why I have asked for some kind of official statement from the Church, not just my or anyone else’s speculation on what the Church’s teaching is.How about we look at what Genesis says?
Man’s sin is the cause of the deluge. Noe is commanded to build the ark.
That is a very good question. I’m not sure it settles the issue, though.A simple question - why didn’t Noah just move? He was warned well in advance. He could have just moved to higher ground, or moved somewhere else.
Deem makes a compelling argument. But I have to go with the constant understanding and teaching of the Church too.That is a very good question. I’m not sure it settles the issue, though.
It seems to me that this issue gets far less attention than the issue of evolution, though it is just as important.
Absolutely enough water.@ChristIsTheWay
You said “Whenever possible, I do not engage in my own private interpretation of Scripture. I look to what the Church teaches. Historically, that is a global Flood.”
What would your opinion of me be if we were discussing evolution and I said “Whenever possible I do not engage in my own private research regarding the theory of evolution. I look to what Richard Dawkins (the pope of atheism, snark snark) teaches, and he teaches that evolution is true and religion is wrong/dangerous”
I just want you to be aware that however uninformed, ignorant and/or arrogant that statement sounds to you, your statement sounds equally so to those of us who don’t share your faith.
The obvious problems with a global flood are that A) there isnt’ that much water on earth and B) there is no way every species could fit on the boat in the bible, along with the food needed to feed them.
The common answers, are along the lines of “well god can do anything” Correct me if you disagree on that.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I grant that a god exists and can do anything. Could he not be using christianity to separate those who utilize the intelligence he gave, in the way he intended, from those who do not and that in the end he is just screwing with you and I go to heaven and you go to hell?
I did not, I repeat, did not say I don’t do my own private research regarding Scripture. Do you think I’d bother discussing the issue if I didn’t do that? You have created a strawman to argue against.@ChristIsTheWay
You said “Whenever possible, I do not engage in my own private interpretation of Scripture. I look to what the Church teaches. Historically, that is a global Flood.”
What would your opinion of me be if we were discussing evolution and I said “Whenever possible I do not engage in my own private research regarding the theory of evolution. I look to what Richard Dawkins (the pope of atheism, snark snark) teaches, and he teaches that evolution is true and religion is wrong/dangerous”
I just want you to be aware that however uninformed, ignorant and/or arrogant that statement sounds to you, your statement sounds equally so to those of us who don’t share your faith.
It also assumes that the kinds mentioned in Genesis correspond to species and not to another modern classification, like a family.Species. Depends on what one means. Infantile or fully grown?
Right - or a genetic classification.It also assumes that the kinds mentioned in Genesis correspond to species and not to another modern classification, like a family.
YepIt also assumes that the kinds mentioned in Genesis correspond to species and not to another modern classification, like a family.
OK, I am not sure where the disconnect lies but I am going to assume there is one. I will once again directly quote you “Whenever possible, I do not engage in my own private interpretation of Scripture. I look to what the Church teaches” Right there, you said it! You try to avoid interpreting scripture yourself. So you do interpret yourself but you try to avoid doing so? I am not trying to charge a claim right now, I am just trying to understand how you feel about individual study/interpretationI did not, I repeat, did not say I don’t do my own private research regarding Scripture. Do you think I’d bother discussing the issue if I didn’t do that? You have created a strawman to argue against.
Contrary to what you might think, while I am predisposed to literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11, I am undecided on the correct interpretation.
On to your example: it would be ignorant of anyone to discuss the theory of evolution without consulting the consensus of the scientific community. That is the closest approximation in the scientific community (that I can think of) to the Church’s Magisterium. Of course, since they make absolutely no claim to infallibility, anyone with enough knowledge of the issue is free to dissent.
The rest of what you’ve said is totally irrelevant and flows from your misunderstanding of my position.
I am not seeing what the issue is. I look to the Church’s teachings. The Church has not defined what most Scripture means nor has it defined what all Scripture means in all its senses, e.g. literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. I can and I must use the latest Scripture scholarship to help me understand Scripture but I am guided by the Magisterium and any interpretations that conflict with the Magisterium are rejected. There is no private interpretation on my part, I look to scholarship and the Church. I lack the credentials to study the Scriptures in their original languages and in their correct cultural settings and contexts.OK, I am not sure where the disconnect lies but I am going to assume there is one. I will once again directly quote you “Whenever possible, I do not engage in my own private interpretation of Scripture. I look to what the Church teaches” Right there, you said it! You try to avoid interpreting scripture yourself. So you do interpret yourself but you try to avoid doing so? I am not trying to charge a claim right now, I am just trying to understand how you feel about individual study/interpretation
Your example was not hard to follow at all. I am happy to fill you in on my beliefs, though if your questions start to stray off topic, I’d recommend a new thread.I will forgo discussion of my analogy to address something else, and try to keep myself short. I do acknowledge that what i said about you being deceived by god may be hard to follow because it is diametrically opposed to your beliefs. However I want to address it further. Please fill me in on your beliefs so I don’t end up building straw men. After all- straw men are the only thing left to argue against if you don’t tell me what you believe.
This doesn’t have much to do with Noah’s flood, especially considering the Flood is part of Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs but I’ll answer it. I do not see any evidence that it is true. I was not born a Catholic and I am a convert. I studied many religions and dabbled in quite a bit before I converted. In all my searching and seeking, I found that Catholicism was the most rational and reasonable faith. My cumulative research and experience has led to me the conclusion that the Church is right and your scenario is wrong.Here is the million-dollar question: How do you know that christianity isn’t something created by the devil to lure people away from the true wishes of god, which could be that everyone lives as a jew. I want it to be known that the fact that this theory (not in the scientific sense of the word) only makes jesus the son of satan as collateral damage, and is absolutely not in an attempt to be blatantly insensitive or offensive.
.=VicApple;7722651The obvious problems with a global flood are that A) there isnt’ that much water on earth
The ark had a volume of 3.6 million cubic feet.( assuming that a cubit equals two feet) Young small animals not fully grown were chosen. No species of marine creatures were taken since they can survive in water as well as no aquatic mammals such as whales.there is no way every species could fit on the boat in the bible, along with the food needed to feed them
This has been addressed before. The account in Genesis does not say every species was brought on board the ark but that “kinds” were. We don’t know exactly what was meant by “kind” or what a “kind” would correspond to in our modern classification system. It could be a larger grouping like a family. In this case, the number of animals on the ark would have been much smaller. Issues related to space and food would be less daunting.It is simply mathematicaly impossible to fit every single species on the arc. And what did they all eat.
Or did god do a miracle and make the lions eat air?