Was the flood/creation account Historical?

[John_of_Woking]

twf:

My biggest problem with this whole issue is this. The Church teaches that one should interpret Scripture based on what the author wished to convey. The Church lists ‘history’ as one of the genres the sacred writers used; thus there IS history in Scripture. I realize that not all of Scripture is history, but there are many portions of Scripture that ARE written as history, and since the Magisterium over the centuries has made it very clear that Scripture can not err in any form whatsoever, it follows that any portion of Scripture which the sacred writer intended to be history must be taken as true history. I realize part of the issue is determing what was meant to be history and what was not, but it seems to me that many Catholics, including several on this board, have a very hard-time of seeing the history genre at all in Scripture.

Regarding the Gospels, I thought that the Church had infallibly defined that they are to be taken as historical works. They do convey spiritual truths, but I thought that it has already been established by the Magisterium that the Gospels are historically accurate.

I also struggle with the notion that 1800 years of tradition was false; that every saint, bishop, and doctor of the Church for the VAST MAJORITY of Church history was misguided with serious misunderstandings of Scripture. (If NAB footnotes are to be trusted, then the vast majority of Catholic saints, doctors, and bishops throughout history were indeed in error). I fear what scholars of the future will teach. How far will it go?
(Regarding the NAB footnotes, some of the teaching contained within them have really shocked me…I mentioned to my bishop that I found the footnotes quite liberal, and even bordering on heresy in some places—and he seemed to agree. At the very least, I think all must agree that the vast majority of popes throughout history would have considered the NAB footnotes heretical).

I could not have put it better myself. Many of the modern biblical scholars who seem so obsessed with the historico-critical method are guilty of shoddy scholarship anyway. I think it is foolish to think Fitzmeyer, Raymond E Brown, Harrington e.t.c have somehow advanced our understanding of scripture and Theology more than Hahn, Garriggou-Lagrange, and some of the more traditional exegetes. I endorse the Navarre Bible Commentary as the best commentarys along with Ignatius Press’s study guide.

 

[John_of_Woking]

miguel:

The tension between those in authority and those subject to it goes back to the Garden.

Cardinal Ratzinger also isn’t doing end runs around proper Church authority to get his pet ideas accepted by the masses.

Trust is a two way street. If the proper Church authority isn’t trusted by the “learned”, the “learned” won’t be trusted by the “pious”. And the temptation will be to retreat into Fundamentalism.

It is true. It seems if you dissent from the prevailing and current opinions which are manufactured by the likes of the proponents of the NJBC you are branded as a fundamentalist or ignoramus.

 

[patg]

twf:

Regarding the Gospels, I thought that the Church had infallibly defined that they are to be taken as historical works. They do convey spiritual truths, but I thought that it has already been established by the Magisterium that the Gospels are historically accurate.

This is a totally fictional account - although it is what some here believe is reality.

 

[patg]

twf:

I also struggle with the notion that 1800 years of tradition was false; that every saint, bishop, and doctor of the Church for the VAST MAJORITY of Church history was misguided with serious misunderstandings of Scripture.

No, they weren’t misguided, they were totally controlled by an authoritrian church hierarchy. For the period you mention, the church controlled every aspect of biblical research and interpretation - do you think anyone would dare to think an original thought, much less publish it? Now that the research is more open, we can apply a much more scholarly, critical, and rigorous process to investigating our history.

Relying on the pre-Enlightenment church to answer historical questions about the bible is like asking a pre-1990’s cigarrette manufacturer if their product was safe…

 

[PilgrimJWT]

I was a little startled to find that the Biblical accounts of creation and the flood are accepted as scientific truth by the plurality of voters (so far) in the poll. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who said that if revelation seems to teach us one thing and science another, that we have not understood revelation correctly, since there is only one truth.
God not only gave us faith–he also gave us brains. Science is a marvelous tool given us by God. Scientific “truths” are always open to change–anyone who can present good evidence to change them can do so. Revelation is truth that is not subject to change, and tells us what science cannot.
Science can be understood by any educated person in the world. But revelation comes by a faith which, as the Church teaches us, is a gift–and therefore not necessarily accessible to every person.

 

[miguel]

patg:

No, they weren’t misguided, they were totally controlled by an authoritrian church hierarchy. For the period you mention, the church controlled every aspect of biblical research and interpretation - do you think anyone would dare to think an original thought, much less publish it? Now that the research is more open, we can apply a much more scholarly, critical, and rigorous process to investigating our history.

Relying on the pre-Enlightenment church to answer historical questions about the bible is like asking a pre-1990’s cigarrette manufacturer if their product was safe…

I guess Jesus lied then when he promised his Apostles at the Last Supper that he would send them the Spirit of truth who would guide them to all truth. Or is that also not to be taken as historical?

Why should we trust the “Enlightenment” when it gave us the militant secularists who viciously persecuted the Church during the French Revolution? These same sons of the “Enlightenment” continued their vicious persections under Communism and Nazism.

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

I guess Jesus lied then when he promised his Apostles at the Last Supper that he would send them the Spirit of truth who would guide them to all truth. Or is that also not to be taken as historical?

Did Jesus come to this earth to teach us history or science? Or did He come to teach us the truth of salvation and to redeem our sins? If the story of Noah is not literally true, is your faith gone? If the stories in Genesis 1 & 2 are figurative and not historical accounts, will you no longer believe in the truths taught by Jesus?

Peace

Tim

 

[patg]

Let me ask you, if the response would have been “My name is Green” instead of “My name is Legion”, would you have taken that as a direct reference to the Irish?

If the Irish had occupied the Jewish land and persecuted the Jews that would be a possibility.

 

[Pinklady]

The Bible is a book that talks about God and our relationship with Him. It isn’t a science or history book.

 

[miguel]

Orogeny:

Did Jesus come to this earth to teach us history or science? Or did He come to teach us the truth of salvation and to redeem our sins? If the story of Noah is not literally true, is your faith gone? If the stories in Genesis 1 & 2 are figurative and not historical accounts, will you no longer believe in the truths taught by Jesus?

Peace

Tim

truth = faith and morals (i.e., the particular areas of truth for which the Church claims divine guidance, not scientific truth)

 

[miguel]

patg:

If the Irish had occupied the Jewish land and persecuted the Jews that would be a possibility.

This is really an absurd discussion. But let’s try this one last time. If the word legion was only used in connection with Roman soldiers (i.e., if it was defined as multitude of Roman soldiers), then I could see how it could be a “direct reference to the Romans.” But since Mark 5:1-20 uses it to refer to a multitude of demons, you can’t say that he was talking about the Romans. He even defined the term in the passage. Likewise “green” is not only associated with the Irish.

 

[patg]

miguel:

This is really an absurd discussion. But let’s try this one last time. If the word legion was only used in connection with Roman soldiers (i.e., if it was defined as multitude of Roman soldiers), then I could see how it could be a “direct reference to the Romans.” But since Mark 5:1-20 uses it to refer to a multitude of demons, you can’t say that he was talking about the Romans. He even defined the term in the passage. Likewise “green” is not only associated with the Irish.

I’ll check some translation references - it is possible that the Greek term in the gospel refers specifically to a group of soldiers but I don’t remember. It’ll have to wait unitl tonight.

 

[John_of_Woking]

miguel:

I guess Jesus lied then when he promised his Apostles at the Last Supper that he would send them the Spirit of truth who would guide them to all truth. Or is that also not to be taken as historical?

Why should we trust the “Enlightenment” when it gave us the militant secularists who viciously persecuted the Church during the French Revolution? These same sons of the “Enlightenment” continued their vicious persections under Communism and Nazism.

That is Exactly my view as well. Why should we trust certain scholars as well. A lot of it is just idle speculation so that they can cash in on their latest theological fad

 

[John_of_Woking]

Orogeny:

Did Jesus come to this earth to teach us history or science? Or did He come to teach us the truth of salvation and to redeem our sins? If the story of Noah is not literally true, is your faith gone? If the stories in Genesis 1 & 2 are figurative and not historical accounts, will you no longer believe in the truths taught by Jesus?

Peace

Tim

Yes but if you strip the historical elements of for example John’s Gospel what’s to stop you saying the Resurrection was not historical. Let’s not underestimate the importance of a historical, human, physical and tangible Incarnation, Crucifixion, Ressurection, Ascenscion. The Apostles’ Easter Faith is based on historical fact not fables.

 

[John_of_Woking]

Pinklady:

The Bible is a book that talks about God and our relationship with Him. It isn’t a science or history book.

It is a book given to us ‘for the sake of our salvation.’ Our salvation relies on the Historical event of the Paschal Mystery

 

[miguel]

John of Woking:

Yes but if you strip the historical elements of for example John’s Gospel what’s to stop you saying the Resurrection was not historical. Let’s not underestimate the importance of a historical, human, physical and tangible Incarnation, Crucifixion, Ressurection, Ascenscion. The Apostles’ Easter Faith is based on historical fact not fables.

Exactly.

 

[patg]

John of Woking:

Yes but if you strip the historical elements of for example John’s Gospel what’s to stop you saying the Resurrection was not historical. Let’s not underestimate the importance of a historical, human, physical and tangible Incarnation, Crucifixion, Ressurection, Ascenscion. The Apostles’ Easter Faith is based on historical fact not fables.

No one has suggested you strip the history from anything - the focus has been on making sure we recognize the various literary forms in the writings. History is a literary form BUT there are a lot of others , all of which are used in the bible to teach the truth.

It is interesting that you specifically mention John’s gospel as it is generally considered to be the least historical of all - written long after the others with a very highly developed Christology and very heavy Greek influence. Its Jesus is a far cry from from the simple, human Jesus of the earlier works. It even places the passion and death on a different day than the synoptics so be careful basing historical truth on anything contained therein.

 

[patg]

miguel:

This is really an absurd discussion. But let’s try this one last time. If the word legion was only used in connection with Roman soldiers (i.e., if it was defined as multitude of Roman soldiers), then I could see how it could be a “direct reference to the Romans.” But since Mark 5:1-20 uses it to refer to a multitude of demons, you can’t say that he was talking about the Romans. He even defined the term in the passage. Likewise “green” is not only associated with the Irish.

It seems that the Greek source for our translation of Luke’s version of this story actually contains a Latin phrase - and the Latin phrase designates a group of 6000 Roman soldiers (a legion). This story also appears in Matthew (but the name of the demon isn’t given) and in Mark.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

32% said
" Yes, historically true. It all is. Evolution is a hoax"
:banghead:

sometimes I fear for the human race :crying:

 

[patg]

Steve Andersen:

sometimes I fear for the human race

Yes, maybe its good that catholics were traditionally not encouraged to read the bible - 32% are apparently not aware of how the church teaches it should be read.