Wondering about Genesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter willy032
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

willy032

Guest
Hello All, just wondering if someone could shed some light on something for me. How is it that the Lord tells Noah to take a certain number of “clean” and “unclean” creatures into the ark with him when Noah (to the best of my knowledge) predates “the law” as given to Moses? I am probably missing something very obvious here, but I would really appreciate any light someone may give me on this. God Bless!
 
That’s a very, VERY good question.
Perhaps there was an early oral tradition about clean and unclean beasts,
even before the Law was given to Moses.

(( Or, and I hate to say this,
but the whole question may be moot.
Why?
Most Catholics that I have ever heard, no longer believe that
a global deluge, or even a local (with a VAST local area, though) flood,
ever occured, and that the whole story is a morality tale emphasizing
that God will punish sin. Even my quite conservative priest holds this
view.
Of course, this creates problems that those who hold this view,
perhaps do not realize.
No flood means no Noah. No Noah means no rainbow covenant
and NO Noahide laws,
just as NO LITERAL Adam and Eve means NO original sin,
and also means that St. Paul was dead wrong when he asserted that
“through one man ((ADAM)) sin entered into the world and death through sin.”
I did not intend to go off on this tangent,
but this whole “new catholic” re-interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11
in favor of the evolutionary world view, has disastrous consequences that
cannot be fudged over. ))
 
👍
Jaypeeto4 said:
That’s a very, VERY good question.
Perhaps there was an early oral tradition about clean and unclean beasts,
even before the Law was given to Moses.

(( Or, and I hate to say this,
but the whole question may be moot.
Why?
Most Catholics that I have ever heard, no longer believe that
a global deluge, or even a local (with a VAST local area, though) flood,
ever occured, and that the whole story is a morality tale emphasizing
that God will punish sin. Even my quite conservative priest holds this
view.
Of course, this creates problems that those who hold this view,
perhaps do not realize.
No flood means no Noah. No Noah means no rainbow covenant
and NO Noahide laws,
just as NO LITERAL Adam and Eve means NO original sin,
and also means that St. Paul was dead wrong when he asserted that
“through one man ((ADAM)) sin entered into the world and death through sin.”
I did not intend to go off on this tangent,
but this whole “new catholic” re-interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11
in favor of the evolutionary world view, has disastrous consequences that
cannot be fudged over. ))
Click to expand...
👍 excellent post.
 
I’d always thought that this simply resulted from the Noah story being written long after the fact, and after the clean/unclean laws had been long established. I don’t know what to believe about a worldwide flood. If nothing else, where did all the water go???

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
I’d always thought that this simply resulted from the Noah story being written long after the fact, and after the clean/unclean laws had been long established. I don’t know what to believe about a worldwide flood. If nothing else, where did all the water go???

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Thats when global warming really started, all the water evaporated ;)😃
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
That’s a very, VERY good question.
Perhaps there was an early oral tradition about clean and unclean beasts,
even before the Law was given to Moses.

(( Or, and I hate to say this,
but the whole question may be moot.
Why?
Most Catholics that I have ever heard, no longer believe that
a global deluge, or even a local (with a VAST local area, though) flood,
ever occured, and that the whole story is a morality tale emphasizing
that God will punish sin. Even my quite conservative priest holds this
view.
Of course, this creates problems that those who hold this view,
perhaps do not realize.
No flood means no Noah. No Noah means no rainbow covenant
and NO Noahide laws,
just as NO LITERAL Adam and Eve means NO original sin,
and also means that St. Paul was dead wrong when he asserted that
“through one man ((ADAM)) sin entered into the world and death through sin.”
I did not intend to go off on this tangent,
but this whole “new catholic” re-interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11
in favor of the evolutionary world view, has disastrous consequences that
cannot be fudged over. ))
Click to expand...
Hi All,
Yea, verily and amen! I am one of those Neanderthal Catholic who still believes that Genesis represents real history. I have always thought that the mention of clean animals in the Noah account was use of liturgical language, (i.e. religious ritual idiom). These where animals set aside as acceptable for sacrifice to God. We are not told if they are the same as the Levitacal sacrificial animals. As for the global or local flood, I have no opinion, all we know that all mankind was killed except for Noah, Mrs. Noah (I think her name was Joan) their three sons and their wives.

I too have been attacked by Catholics for my belief in the historicity of the Genesis narrative. I realize that I am still biased by my Evangelical Protestant background. But to quote an old Baptist saying, “If it was good enough for Jesus and Paul its good enough for me.” I have this horrible fear of getting ot heaven and waking up in a room with Noah, Adam, Johah. “I ask why we are consigned to the ghettos oh heaven.” Adam puts his finger to his lips and says, Shoooooch, no one believes that were hear.” “Who’s that guy in the corner,” I ask, they say," that’s Brother Darwin; we are his penance.”
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
 
I give a footnote in my Study Bible that quotes St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas mentions in 4:3-4 Therefore there were some ceremonies before the Law, but they were not legal ceremonies, because they were not as yet established by legislation. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

7:2-3 The distinction of clean from unclean animals was taking place before the Law, not with regard to eating them, since it is written (Genesis 9:3): “Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you”: but only as to the offering of sacrifices because they used only certain animals for that purpose. If, however, they did make any distinction in regard to eating; it was not that it was considered illegal to eat such animals, since this was not forbidden by any law, but from dislike or custom. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
 
willy032 said:
Hello All, just wondering if someone could shed some light on something for me. How is it that the Lord tells Noah to take a certain number of “clean” and “unclean” creatures into the ark with him when Noah (to the best of my knowledge) predates “the law” as given to Moses? I am probably missing something very obvious here, but I would really appreciate any light someone may give me on this. God Bless!
Click to expand...
The events in Genesis took place BEFORE the law, yes… but who is commonly held as the author of Genesis (and the other first four books of the Bible).

The distinction of clean vs unclean could be on the part of the author rather than from Noah’s perspective…
 
Two Jewish commentaries offer no definitive explanation. The speculation in the preceding posts are probably the best ideas that are possible at the moment.

Matthew Henry’s commentary does not mention this subject.

There is a literary note, that there is evidence for two intermingled accounts of Noah’s flood here, based on the contradiction of taking seven pair of animals into the ark versus taking one of each kind.

The reference to “clean” and “unclean” sounds like a ritual requirement and underpins that section as coming from a priestly source, according that hypothesis.
 
I don’t think it’s stretching things too far to say that this is an example of “merism.”

If you do a search on bing for what is merism, there is a very helpful explanation of merism with illustrations from the Bible and elsewhere, of merism.

So, as wiki says, merism is the use of a list of the most conspicuous parts of something to refer to all of it. Then, to say the “clean” and “unclean” animals means to refer to all the animals. In this case, it highlights that “unclean” animals went into the ark (which you might not expect) as well as the “clean” animals (which you the reader would probably expect).

Yes, and as an earlier poster indicated, this enumeration probably makes reference to the animals from the writer’s point of view, not necessarily Noah’s original point of view.

It might also be an allegory to represent that there will be Jews and Gentiles in the Kingdom of God (represented by the ark).
 
willy032 said:
Hello All, just wondering if someone could shed some light on something for me. How is it that the Lord tells Noah to take a certain number of “clean” and “unclean” creatures into the ark with him when Noah (to the best of my knowledge) predates “the law” as given to Moses? I am probably missing something very obvious here, but I would really appreciate any light someone may give me on this. God Bless!
Click to expand...
traditionally Moses is the one who wrote down Genesis from the older oral tradition and my first guess would be since the question might arise “how come there are unclean animals we are not allowed to eat, why did not Noah just leave them behind?” he was answering the question before it came up by noting God had his reasons for creating and preserving animals unclean for the later generations to eat. so Moses, or whoever committed the tradition to writing in his time period, was of course cognizant of the Law and added that filip of explanation.
 
wfr said:
Hi All,
Yea, verily and amen! I am one of those Neanderthal Catholic who still believes that Genesis represents real history. I too have been attacked by Catholics for my belief in the historicity of the Genesis narrative.
Click to expand...
I’m right there with you. A book everyone should read is *The Doctrines of Genesis *by Father Victor Warkulwiz. It is a defense of the traditional teaching of the Church. Father has a PHd in physics. He has a chapter on Noah’s flood and why it was in fact a world wide flood. He has several chapters on why the six days of creation should be taken literally
 
Third_Day said:
I’m right there with you. A book everyone should read is *The Doctrines of Genesis *by Father Victor Warkulwiz. It is a defense of the traditional teaching of the Church. Father has a PHd in physics. He has a chapter on Noah’s flood and why it was in fact a world wide flood. He has several chapters on why the six days of creation should be taken literally
Click to expand...
Thanks,
In our Catholic faith we have the wonderful freedom to explore Scripture with the guidance and within the bounds of dogma. The question of a worldwide flood remains unanswered for me. What I do believe is that it wiped out all mankind except for Noah and his family. I defend the rights of those Catholics who want to take a more modernistic view of Genesis. Just so their view does not conflict with Church teaching, they can believe anything they wish. Sadly I find that I am not allowed the same freedom of thought by many of these same Catholics. If a Catholic wishes to believe in a literal seven day creation and a worldwide flood, he has every right. But, please; don’t consign us to the loony bin because we don’t buy into the “myth” theory.

Also, we tend to get so wrapped up in the scientific arguments when looking at Genesis we sometimes miss the whole reason that the Holy Spirit chose to give it to us. When I teach RCIA, the question of Genesis and evolution always comes up. Here is my answer, “We do not understand science or the Bible perfectly. But in heaven we will come to see that there is no conflict, for all truth is God’s truth.”
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
 
Hi Bill.
How are you?
I just want to point out that, prior to Darwin,
all of Catholicism believed in a literal Adam and Eve, in a literal Tower of Babel,
in a literal Flood and a literal Noah. As did all of Eastern Orthodoxy.
So did all of the Early Church Fathers and all of the popes who ever wrote on these
topics prior to Darwin’s time.
Even Pope Pius XII, in Humani Generis, when he allowed for Catholic exploration
of evolutionary theories, the good Pope at the same time
utterly forbade evolutionary theories which involved Polygenism ((descent from more than one original man)).
After all, if Sin did not enter into the world through ONE ADAM (man), as Paul emphatically says it did, then the doctrine of original sin is of necessity False.
 
I attended RCIA w/ a friend that was considering conversion last year. (I’m a cradle Catholic). The priest is very VERY orthodox. He discussed that it is acceptable to believe that GOD created the world over millions of years AND believe in a literal Adam and Eve as the first man and woman. He then said that when people challenge him on this (whether it is from a secular perspective of not believing in Adam/Eve or a fundamentalist perspective of not believing that 7 days were eras of time) he says, “I believe that at mass the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. Which is harder to believe?” I thought it was the best thing I’ve ever heard a priest say on this topic. My beliefs are the same as this priest. I teach my children that any neanderthals etc… did not have souls. Nor did Adam come from them. God made Adam the first man with a soul and all humanity is descended from him (and Noah). I also teach them man did not cross the landbridge to America until after the tower of Babel when man spread out over the Earth.

With regards to Noah, I believe that the flood covered a VAST area and wiped out all of humanity. People didn’t even know the other side of the Earth existed until the 1400’s, so the phrase ‘whole world’ for an Old Testament author doesn’t necessarily mean what it does today. However, I also believe it is possible that God covered the whole world with the flood. He’s God. He can do whatever He wants. For me it isn’t as important as believing that the flood happened, that Noah was a real person. and that another covenant was made.
 
With regards to Noah, I believe that the flood covered a VAST area and wiped out all of humanity. People didn’t even know the other side of the Earth existed until the 1400’s, so the phrase ‘whole world’ for an Old Testament author doesn’t necessarily mean what it does today.

That is perfectly true.

But most of the conservative priests I have heard,
don’t believe in the historicity and reality of a literal Adam and Eve,
nor a literal Noah/Flood, nor the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, nor
the Tower of Babel, etc. That has my head spinning, because Jesus Christ
and the apostles referred to all these things as REAL things and real people.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
With regards to Noah, I believe that the flood covered a VAST area and wiped out all of humanity. People didn’t even know the other side of the Earth existed until the 1400’s, so the phrase ‘whole world’ for an Old Testament author doesn’t necessarily mean what it does today.

That is perfectly true.

But most of the conservative priests I have heard,
don’t believe in the historicity and reality of a literal Adam and Eve,
nor a literal Noah/Flood, nor the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, nor
the Tower of Babel, etc. That has my head spinning, because Jesus Christ
and the apostles referred to all these things as REAL things and real people.
Click to expand...
Up here in the diocese of Arlington they do. It really goes back to the seminary in which they studied. These things will be rooted out over time. Reason #422 why I love the Catholic church: it incorporates both faith and reason. I feel that my children will have a much better grasp of their faith, because they will have incorporated both faith and reason into their studies of the Bible and science/history. (For example, I teach them that the Tower of Babel had to have happened before people crossed the landbridge to the Americas.) They will not be sitting their with their history and science studies struggling to shove a cylinder in a square whole. They will most certainly not color pictures of dinosaurs and people living at the same time.😉

God is god. He can do whatever He wants. Just look at all the other miracles in the Bible. I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to believe that he could just make Adam. Poof. There he is. He is GOD.
 
To the OP,

I use the doctrine test to help evaluate what narratives Need to be taken literally. In the case of Noah, no doctrines or dogmas hang in the balance. So ones faith is not at risk if a non-literal approach is preferred.

Peterk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top