Wasn't there an actual ark?

  • Thread starter Thread starter athenaluvsdoves
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
William_inquire said:
Why would there even be a question about this? Perhaps it’s because so many of us have been schooled in a humanistic worldview. So much of what the world teaches fights against the Church’s teachings. Consider these things:
  1. if you want to know some scientific reasons to support the flood , you may be interested in how the Wooly Mamoths were frozen almost instantaneously. Many many mamoths have been found in exceptional condition For one of the mamoths the mouth was filled with grass, which had been cropped, but not chewed and swallowed. Normal decomposition would have made this dissolve. The theory is that the flood created an ice storm when the deep waters from under the earth broke open shooting like a gyser into space. Want to know more : google : “dr brown flood”.
  2. everytime archeology tests out a biblical fact , it supports it.
  3. Jesus cited the canonicity of scripture.
  4. There have been many critics of the bible, such as Bultman (spelling?) who are basically ethnocentric thinkers and seeking to discredit the Bible and Christianity. Bultman said that Moses couldn’t have written the Bible as writing came after. We know now that the tablets of Ebla far preceed Moses.
  5. Consider this; Were you taught that the “Theory of Evolution” was just a theory? Many things that have been taught for a long time gain credence even after they are shown to be unlikely or even disproven. Human teachers often pass on futile philosophies as truth.
Click to expand...
I’d like you to tell me how noah designed and built a 400+ foot long wooden vessel that wouldn’t hog or straddle, open its seams, break its keel and sink, because that’s an art lost to 21st century (AD) maritime architects.

and then tell me which of the animals carried the ebola virus and which human carried smallpox (which has no other vector).

I’m curious.

FYI, here’s a discussion of why the so-called flash frozen mammoths weren’t. you’ve got to get away from the velikovsky nonsense.
 
Wirraway said:
you’ve got to get away from the velikovsky nonsense.
Click to expand...
I learned something today. I didn’t know anything about
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979). I just read a brief bio and he seemed well connected to many of the big brains of the mid-1900’s. It was because of this man that the Hebrew University was able to stock their library during some pretty hard economic times.

Some of this man’s thoughts were off in left field, that’s for sure. Unfortunately, people think of these off-based contemplations and not for the good that he did. Velikovsky was trying to figure out why things didn’t correlate between different cultures. Events like Noah’s flood were evidenced in historical finds in at least three cultures, but time-line wise, things were off by more than one-half a millennium. He thus proposed some thoughts as to why this was.

What is interesting to me when talking about historic figures–these people were deeply religious and motivated by their personal search for God. Today, I think it is rare to find scientists, great thinkers, medical researchers, etc. all motivated by a personal wonderment of God.

Excuse me if I am wrong, but MOST of our minds today aren’t coming from a solid foundation nurtured by religion like in the past. The heart blood and soul of the today’s minds are as cold as ice. I think of my very own brother who is of superior intelligence. He is a complete atheist, and that clearly shows up in the scientific work that he does. Personally, if you ask me, when a person toils and toils without any kind of divine consideration, the fruit that is bore is worthless and many times bent on destruction of the human race… Velikovsky, maybe he didn’t quite get it right most of the time, but at least his heart was desirous in the right direction. You’ve got to give him credit for that.
 
athenaluvsdoves said:
In my RCIA class today, we were talking about the Old Testament. The person leading the class said that that there wasn’t a literal Noah’s Ark. I’ve never heard that in my life before and it really is concerning me. Is that the official teaching of the Catholic Church and if so, where would I find it in the Catechism? :confused:
Click to expand...
When someone says that something DOESN’T exist, A L W A Y S ask them to prove it!

When they say that they can’t prove it, ask them if it’s OK with them if you DO choose to believe in it until it’s proven to be nonexistent.

This method applies especially well when matters of faith and morals are in question.
 
It’s not an official teaching, but the idea that there was no literal Ark is compatible with both modern science and the Catholic Church.

In other words, the Catholic Church says “You can believe in a literal Ark if you want, but it’s not a requirement to be Catholic.” They’ve not said this specifically about the Ark but, it has been mentioned that Catholics need not be Bible literalists, and we never really have been (in terms of requirements). The Ark story applies to this.
Science indicates that a global flood is impossible for a variety of reasons, and also that a variety of evidence indicates it never happened.
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

It is probably best to not outright say “the Ark incident” didn’t happen in RCIA. However to do so just means that the person in question accepts what the vast majority of scientists say, while still not disagreeing with the Catholic Church.
If I were teaching RCIA, I’d mention that Catholics need not be Bible literalists; perhaps mention Noah’s Ark as being one example, but try not to take it any farther than that.

Having the Ark mentioned in the New Testament means little in terms of it’s actual existence. Jesus has a habit of teaching through stories that aren’t real; but to make a point.

In reference to actually building an Ark today:
Objects have a limit on their size due to cross-sectional area compared to their mass. Basically, gravity and inertia effect an object based on it’s mass and volume. But to scale an object up, you increase it’s mass faster than it’s cross-sectional area. Eventually you can make it too big, to the point where it may snap in half from it’s own weight. (Or where a beast like King Kong would have it’s bones broken if it jumped, if not before.)
fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701757/

The Ark’s size, and the fact that it was made of wood, make it very unlikely that the thing would have ever been sea-worthy. Most large wooden boats today require re-enforcement with pieces of steal.

I just did a search on “noah’s ark rebuilt” and their foundations use steal and cement. It’s designed to be a modern building (meant to be a school), that’s shaped like an Ark.
I also found a site with a boat being built by Greenpeace. But they are building an “Ark” as a statement to warn against global warming. They aren’t planning on making a fully scaled sea-worthy boat.

In short…
To say the Ark incident literally happened:
IS in line with the Catholic Church
IS NOT in line with science and physics

To say the Ark incident didn’t literally happen:
IS in line with the Catholic Church
IS ALSO in line with science and physics
 
From the Catechism:

The Covenant with Noah
[56](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/56.htm’)😉 After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the “nations”, in other words, towards men grouped “in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations”.9
57 This state of division into many nations is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity10 united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel.11 But, because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism.12
[58](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/58.htm’)😉 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.13 The Bible venerates several great figures among the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchisedek - a figure of Christ - and the upright “Noah, Daniel, and Job”.14 Scripture thus expresses the heights of sanctity that can be reached by those who live according to the covenant of Noah, waiting for Christ to “gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad”.15
 
buffalo said:
From the Catechism:

The Covenant with Noah
[56](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/56.htm’)😉 After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the “nations”, in other words, towards men grouped “in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations”.9
57 This state of division into many nations is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity10 united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel.11 But, because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism.12
[58](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/58.htm’)😉 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.13 The Bible venerates several great figures among the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchisedek - a figure of Christ - and the upright “Noah, Daniel, and Job”.14 Scripture thus expresses the heights of sanctity that can be reached by those who live according to the covenant of Noah, waiting for Christ to “gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad”.15
Click to expand...
Here, here. Totally eloquent. Hits a person square on.
 
LMP said:
I learned something today. I didn’t know anything about
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979). … You’ve got to give him credit for that.
Click to expand...
no… he was a first class k00k, he’s not taken seriously by anyone you should take seriously.
 
I have no problem believing in the literal Ark. I do have a problem believing there was a flood which covered the entire Earth.

Fortunately, the Church doesn’t require that I believe that. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable.
Click to expand...
 
Wirraway said:
depending on your choice of length for a cubit, the ark would be about 450 feet long. at around 300’, with a wooden hull, the distribution of weight and buoyancy warps the hull (hogs and straddles as the ends and middle move in opposite directions as the hull floats) and the ship cannot stay watertight. steel bracing – obviously not available to noah – works, but severely diminishes cargo capacity. here is the usual citation for the engineering problems: Robb, A.M. (1958). “Ship-Building.” In Singer, Charles, Holmyard, E.J., Hall, A.R., and Williams, Trevor (ed.), A History of Technology, vol 5: The Late Nineteenth Century, c1850 to c1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp350-390.
Click to expand...
Thanks wirraway, I appreciate your reply . However I have seen some interesting “debunkings” that really debunk nothing.
Bultman is a prime example: he sought to prove that the Pentateuch couldn’t have been written by Moses.
Many times these experts really are just set on an agenda to disprove the Church and Christ. There are quite a few of these in “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”
So why do I hesitate with your example? Ethnocentricity. The authors who are expert in building ships ( I assume that this is true) are going on what they know from current technology and their own cultural background . there are some ancient technologies that are not known to us and we are simply not able to do some things that the ancients could. (vice versa is also true)
They did prove that recent known technology couldn’t solve the problem. That doesn’t prove that God didn’t help Noah farther than what is in the text. ( Able had sisters, but are they mentioned?)
 
Wirraway said:
torpedo ye arke is a debunking of an actual ark from various disciplines and a source of earlier posts.

an interesting read.
Click to expand...
Hi Wirraway, I read your link. it mentions a “lot of evolution” . Gene pools from “Kinds” do NOT use evolution, just breeding. (I really don’t know why God wouldn’t just make new animals, but He chose not to do so.) The fact that you cite so much evolution may show that you are intelligent and highly educated. (not pejorative, nor sarcastic.)
Perhaps uniformitarianism is more engrained in our educational system than most people understand. Evolution is based on this very philosophy. But keep in mind that it assumes that what we see today is exactly as what was in operation way back when. And don’t the books tell us that the earth was molten at one time? How is then that those geological processes are exactly the same now as then?
Other assumptions: that the animals actually ate It is necessary today under normal conditions for any human undertaking for the animals to eat, but is that the case for God? Here is the crux of the problem: IF you believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth, then you believe a miracle far greater than a hibernation or suspended animation state that could have been employed. IF you don’t believe in a Creator, then what is the Prime Cause? Science tells us that there was a beginning and this requires a Prime Cause.
 
theistgal said:
I have no problem believing in the literal Ark. I do have a problem believing there was a flood which covered the entire Earth.

Fortunately, the Church doesn’t require that I believe that. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Click to expand...
Well, when they say the world in the Old Testament, don’t they typically mean the Middle East?
 
William_inquire said:
Thanks wirraway, I appreciate your reply . However I have seen some interesting “debunkings” that really debunk nothing.
Bultman is a prime example: he sought to prove that the Pentateuch couldn’t have been written by Moses.
Many times these experts really are just set on an agenda to disprove the Church and Christ. There are quite a few of these in “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”
So why do I hesitate with your example? Ethnocentricity. The authors who are expert in building ships ( I assume that this is true) are going on what they know from current technology and their own cultural background . there are some ancient technologies that are not known to us and we are simply not able to do some things that the ancients could. (vice versa is also true)
They did prove that recent known technology couldn’t solve the problem. That doesn’t prove that God didn’t help Noah farther than what is in the text. ( Able had sisters, but are they mentioned?)
Click to expand...
what technologies would those be?

I think the arke problem is much more fundamental that you are giving it credit for. there are physical limitations on what anyone can do with wood. this isn’t cultural background, its the physics of volume and buoyancy and the building properties of wood.

I don’t have an online reference for you but, see, Pope, Life in Nelson’s Navy, Naval Institute Press, p. 37 for figures on the amount of wood needed to construct HMS Bellerophon, a ship smaller than either the *HMS Victory *or HMS Victoria. At 168’ along the gun deck, this ship was about a third as big as the arke was supposed to be. it was built around 1800.

it took at least 2,000 oak trees, about 50 acres of forest were cleared. as in, felled, stripped of bark and branches, transported to the building site to be shaped and cut. you’d want oak for strength, and you’d prefer that it be seasoned oak, which can take years so it won’t rot while at sea. add in pitch, iron and copper fittings, nails, oil, paint, specialized tools trained builders and the services of a navy yard and after a couple of years you’d have a ship.

noah was a shepherd.

come on.

you and I both know that the purpose of the arke story is not supposed to be a lesson on naval architecture.
 
William_inquire said:
Hi Wirraway, I read your link. it mentions a “lot of evolution” . Gene pools from “Kinds” do NOT use evolution, just breeding. (I really don’t know why God wouldn’t just make new animals, but He chose not to do so.) The fact that you cite so much evolution may show that you are intelligent and highly educated. (not pejorative, nor sarcastic.)
Perhaps uniformitarianism is more engrained in our educational system than most people understand. Evolution is based on this very philosophy. But keep in mind that it assumes that what we see today is exactly as what was in operation way back when. And don’t the books tell us that the earth was molten at one time? How is then that those geological processes are exactly the same now as then?
Other assumptions: that the animals actually ate It is necessary today under normal conditions for any human undertaking for the animals to eat, but is that the case for God? Here is the crux of the problem: IF you believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth, then you believe a miracle far greater than a hibernation or suspended animation state that could have been employed. IF you don’t believe in a Creator, then what is the Prime Cause? Science tells us that there was a beginning and this requires a Prime Cause.
Click to expand...
thank you sir. I think the link addresses many of your points better than I can.

yes, God could fix every challenge raised. so there’s no need to make strained and strange arguments about animals not eating, or “kinds” vs. species. you don’t even have to explain which humans were the smallpox vectors or which fleas carried plague. the Church doesn’t require us to believe in an actual ark, and it is perfectly acceptable to say that God willed it.

the problem is that that is where the discussion should end. unfortunately, many of our protestant brethern are determined to “prove” the existence and possibility of the ark and have to make insanely stupid arguments that attract smart, educated, debunkers – engineers and shipwrights, historians, etc., – with an anti-Christian agenda, like moths to flames.

so if you believe that the ark existed, fine, something like, “its in God’s hands” is sufficient. don’t argue practical shipbuilding with professional shipbuilders.

if you have any evidence that shows that physical laws changed over the last 5,000 years, I’d love to hear it.
 
athenaluvsdoves said:
In my RCIA class today, we were talking about the Old Testament. The person leading the class said that that there wasn’t a literal Noah’s Ark. I’ve never heard that in my life before and it really is concerning me. Is that the official teaching of the Catholic Church and if so, where would I find it in the Catechism? :confused:
Click to expand...
One has to be careful here. There is no historical evidence that there was a Noah’s ark. This is true. The only reference that we have to it comes from the Torah. Jewish scholars and Christian scholars can find anything outside of the Torah to support the statement. There are no other references in any other works of literature or history.

That being the case, one can’t deny its existence as an absolute either. One has to say it as it is. We have no historical evidence.

That being said, if you look at the Torah Noah’s ark is part of a bigger picture that the author tries to paint. That picture is historical. God is the creator of the world. All creation is subject to him. Man is his greatest creation and reflects his image. God calls man to a covenant of love. God promises to care for man. God creates all things for a purpose and with an order. Any attempt on man’s part to manipulate God’s plan or the order that God has put into nature brings tragic consequences.

These truths were revealed to Israel and written in the Torah. During the first century of the Christian Era the Church integrates the Torah into the canon of inspired books that we call the Bible. The Torah is referred to by Christians as the Pentateuch. These books are meant to be read together. These stories are meant to be mediated together or they become confusing and obscure when separated from each other.

As to where the Church says this, the answer is “no where.” The policy of the Catholic Church is to avoid making statements about history. When Church leaders make statements about history they deliberately avoid putting them into official writings. The Church does not want to compromise herself this way. She is not a resource for history, archeology, anthropology, or other academic disciplines. The Church encourages these disciplines and these studies. But never integrates them into her formal teaching.

The reason is simple. The Church is about faith, not about history. All too often people on CAF will ask where does the Church say this or that. The answer is usually, “no where.”

The Church engages in these studies for the sake of knowledge. But the Church is in the business of faith and these studies do not add or delete anything from faith. Therefore, they don’t enter into her official writing. You may find mention of them in private writings of Catholic scholars, even private writings of popes and saints who were scholars. For example, if you look you will find writings on philosophy and evolution by St. Maximilian Kolbe. But the Franciscan Order has never sanctioned those writings or given them approval or disapproval. It lets them stand on their own. They are not representative of the Church or the Order. They are the writings of Maximilian the philosopher and scientist.

This happens with studies on such topics as Noah’s ark, the parting of the Red Sea, and other stories. We are bound to believe what these stories teach us about God and his will for us. We are not bound to believe everything in the Bible literally. Some things we are, some things are up to us. That’s why some of these debates are almost futile, because the Church will take no sides.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top