to me, that’s poetic imagery.
The text makes a differentiation between the “rain” and the “springs” I see this as an historical text. I found an interesting link thanks to another posting regarding polygeny . the link is about “toledoths” which are markers in the text of the bible with dates, authorship and such.
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/jepd1.htm
but regardless, I’ll restate my position on this. if you choose to believe in ye arke as a miracle, then, that’s it, end of argument from me, and, I suspect, StA as well.
the text makes it clear that there was at least some extent of miracle involved. It says that G_d shut them in the Ark.
on the other hand, why do you now find it necessary to explain a miracle by shoehorning it into the language of engineering, marine architecture and physics?
on the one hand… some parts are clearly miraculous… I agree let’s not shoehorn them.
On the other hand some other parts are either not miracles or it is uncertain> but at least historical. ( We should remember what was the original question: Wasn’t there an actual ark???
So what is historical is possible ( and BTW factual) .
Therefore depending on the level of miraculous intervention, scientific inquiry may or may not answer the question.
However… if there is a possible /feasible explanation then one can show that the item in question is not an impossibility. Impossibility is important as it is used a support for the myth hypothesis)
because it doesn’t work that way, you will never make it work, you’re not even close to addressing actual problems.
In some ways I agree; in some ways not. I assume that you are right in saying that we do not know how to construct the Ark out of wood.
As far as the flood goes : The existance of the flood supports a need for the existance of the Ark. What is really problematic is that many current scientific inquiries into the past are merely apologetics for Materialism. These so called theories are used often to fight against the faith. When they are allowed to persist then even people who are believers use them. That is a reason for discussing them.
Secondly I have seen some good theories and ideas about the past that are worthy of consideration (as well as some current scientific theories that are garbage.) I really like the research into wooly mamoths done by Dr. W. Brown. Whether or not you accept his conclusions or theories about what took place , the evidence gathered makes mincemeat of other proposals.
trying to do so makes Christians look foolish and attracts mean spirited anti-Christian elements just waiting to strike.
We are going to look foolish anyway… either by the kind of foolish you mean uneducated and in error… or foolish as in not accepting the worldview and wisdom of the world.
I agree that Christian scientists will make mistakes (just as secular ones do) Some of the mockery comes from not accepting what others accept as common knowledge. However the issue is in part: why do they accept it. 1. because some people who are “experts” have an agenda and promote it. and or 2 it fits conveniently into their worldview and helps them to avoid Christ. and or 3. the ideas have been promoted for a very long time.
B. They are always waiting to strike. Both because we believe and sometimes because we make mistakes
(and thanks for the link to Dutch’s site and criticism of the Piri Reis map.)
responding to a challenge from a nonbeliever trying to get a rise out of you by saying, “its an article of Faith and I’m not going to argue hull displacement” is a LOT better than trying to engage on the practicalities of ship building only to rely on the handwave of God as a final resort, and if you’re going to do that, why not handwave a gas turbine engine into the equation?
Your last statement is quite logical. (I will say that I will try to consider it in the future in cases where there could be a preception of handwaving.) If I remember correctly: I started talking about miracles because you seemed to be stating that ye arke was not a physical possibility and therefore never existed.
So I restate my position: 1 The Ark is an historical thing and the flood is an historical event.
2 History is never repeated You can establish that people don’t know how to do something today. However that doesn’t prove that someone didn’t know how to do something previously (Unless of course: you believe/ assume that knowledge is always evolutionary)
3 Our culture interferes with acceptance of the historicity of the Ark and the Flood.
It is certainly not worth of a Catholic who is heir to the great intellectual tradition of Augustine and Anselm, Albertus Magnus and Saint Thomas.
