Was The story of Noah real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Teen9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KevinK said:
It actually happened the way it was described. What don’t you understand about “real”?
Click to expand...
“Real” could mean:
  • the flood happened literally and historically as the Bible narrates it (i.e., global flood, all animals in one crowded, stinky boat)
  • the flood happened, and we’re getting the story from the inspired writer’s perception of the events (the “super-regional flood” interpretation)
  • there was a flood of some sort, and the author of Scripture was inspired by God to teach a true theological lesson based on events that happened (we’re getting closer to “truth via allegory” here)
  • the author of Scripture made it up wholecloth, as a nice pedagogical story (this take is really at odds with Church teachings!)
So, “real” can mean a range of things, addressing not only “historical truth” but also “theological truth”. What don’t you understand about ‘real’? 😉
 
I find more and more and more Catholics who question events from the Bible lately. Did Noah ever really exist? Wasn’t the entire book of Exodus made up? The Nativity didn’t really happen the way we thought it did in a manger. Book of Revelation is one gigantic metaphor.

What is wrong with some of you people?
 
Have you ever heard of Modernism? Catholics nowadays are pretty tame compared to the demythologizers of previous generations. Questioning the literalism of biblical stories is not some new trend, it’s been an issue since the ancient church.
 
Definitely; but that was 65 million years ago… way before human beings.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Neithan:
Definitely; but that was 65 million years ago… way before human beings.
Click to expand...
Putting aside the dating for a moment…
Click to expand...
Milk out of my nose moment.

What Buffalo means is that he will pick the parts of the article that back up his views and deny the science in the rest. Works every time!
 
SteelArchangel said:
I find more and more and more Catholics who question events from the Bible lately. Did Noah ever really exist? Wasn’t the entire book of Exodus made up? The Nativity didn’t really happen the way we thought it did in a manger. Book of Revelation is one gigantic metaphor.

What is wrong with some of you people?
Click to expand...
It’s not unexpected. When apologists use this idea that all can mean some, and global can be local, and X can be not X, etc. it makes for a very easy escape clause. But when such an escape clause is allowed repeatedly (without restraint or rigor) it’s going to be used to explain away things you might think are actually true.
 
Well, what’s your solution? The fact is that science has turned up no evidence of a global flood? Or to put it another way, if you’re interpretation of Genesis runs counter to all the physical evidence, where do you go from there? From the outside looking in, it strikes me that insistence on literal interpretations of Genesis are bound to make the Bible look foolish, like little more than any other mythology of Antiquity.
 
I’d recommend looking into the hydroplate theory for fun scientific theiries… one does not have to believe the flood was real to be Catholic, as I lean towards it probably being rooted in truth but maybe not being exactly true… but whether or not it happened doesn’t really matter as much as how God uses that story to bring us closer to him. So maybe or maybe not is my final answer
 
The story is real. Yes. In that. There is a story about Noah.

It’s a story.
 
niceatheist said:
Well, what’s your solution? The fact is that science has turned up no evidence of a global flood? Or to put it another way, if you’re interpretation of Genesis runs counter to all the physical evidence, where do you go from there? From the outside looking in, it strikes me that insistence on literal interpretations of Genesis are bound to make the Bible look foolish, like little more than any other mythology of Antiquity.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you’ve written. There is no evidence for a global flood. It’s likely there was a local flood that spawned the Noah story (or more accurately spawned the story that spawned the story that spawned the story that spawned the Noah story).

The solution, to me, is an easy one – believers should admit the story is false. The story tells of God being mad at humanity as a whole and wanting to wipe out humanity as a whole, so to say the story is true while simultaneously claiming it is a local flood makes no sense.

I don’t take kindly when people want to play fast and loose with language all to say a story is true – not partially true, but out-and-out true. I find the push and pull between those who see all of the Bible as literally true versus those who say some of it is literal and some of it isn’t very interesting. As you noted, Noah (and other Biblical stories like it) don’t stand up to science. The pickers-and-choosers don’t make their decisions based on the text, but whether a tale can be disproven or not. So long as it’s within the realm of possibility they are likely to hold steadfast that those passages are literally true.
 
So is the story real or not? Or just parts?
Click to expand...
Define “real”.
Click to expand...
Let’s start by defining our terms. The nature or essence of truth is often described as absolute truth, ultimate truth or, as our Founding Fathers put it, self-evident truth. The biblical view of reality is one in which truth exists, can be known and is relevant for all people. Author and speaker Josh McDowell phrases it this way: “That which is true at all times in all places for all people.” Nicely said.

Reference: The Absolute Existence of Truth

By Alex McFarland •

Pope insists that Bible’s truth is found in its totality​

Pope insists that Bible’s truth is found in its totality

While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.

“It is possible to perceive the Sacred Scriptures as the word of God” only by looking at the Bible as a whole, “a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding,” the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
 
Last edited:
Although it is not De fide dogma, the plenary inerrancy of scripture (which Pope Benedict XVI also upheld) is still church doctrine and Vatican II did not alter it (although there was pressure to do so from many bishops). So the necessary question is: What did the inspired author intend? Were they intending the reader to believe a literal-historical report? Or were they telling a mythic story with a message? What the author (the original author) intended is how we are to read it. At the very least we do know that it’s not eyewitness testimony.
 
Last edited:
Just about every geology text written in the last two centuries, not to mention distribution of animals, and so on. It’s a myth. It did not happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top