Would you take your children to visit the Ark in Kentucky?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_farmer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is widely recognized that the True Ark came to rest at the peak of Mount Ararat in Armenia. Nowhere in the USA.
 
andrewstx said:
It is widely recognized that the True Ark came to rest at the peak of Mount Ararat in Armenia. Nowhere in the USA.
Click to expand...
Why didn’t the Soviets just go see it for themselves so they could be converted?
 
I plan on going. Even though this was a miraculous event, I don’t see anything in the flood narrative that is contrary to reason. What evidence is there that there wasn’t a flood?

Inspired by the Holy Spirit Peter says:

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.’ 2 Peter 3:3-10

Peter says the world was deluged and destroyed and compares that event to the end of the world and I don’t think anyone believes only a “part” of the earth will be destroyed by fire at the end of the world.
 
andrewstx said:
It is widely recognized that the True Ark came to rest at the peak of Mount Ararat in Armenia. Nowhere in the USA.
Click to expand...
I think that since the Turkish government discourages visits to that site, a replica is a good idea.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I think that since the Turkish government discourages visits to that site, a replica is a good idea.

Ed
Click to expand...
I do not know what nation has jurisdiction over Mt Ararat at this time. however Turkey has denied the genocide of Armenia for over a century now.
And of course the USA has been allies with Turkey for the sole reason of oil.
 
edwest2 said:
From Catholic Answers:

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Ed
Click to expand...
Indeed, Catholics are blessed to be free to evaluate the evidence regarding geology and time. In case it might be of assistance, BioLogos currently has a couple of blogs on the topic:

biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/series/the-bible-rocks-and-time-christians-and-an-old-earth


http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/biologos-responds-to-the-ark-encounter
 
There is a fascinating book written by Father Victor Warkulwiz called "The Doctrines of Genesis: a Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins and he argues that the consensus, not all, but the consensus of the Church Father was for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Here is a Catholic group dedicated to upholding the literal interpretation of Genesis

kolbecenter.org/
 
Third_Day said:
I plan on going. Even though this was a miraculous event, I don’t see anything in the flood narrative that is contrary to reason. What evidence is there that there wasn’t a flood?

Inspired by the Holy Spirit Peter says:

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.’ 2 Peter 3:3-10

Peter says the world was deluged and destroyed and compares that event to the end of the world and I don’t think anyone believes only a “part” of the earth will be destroyed by fire at the end of the world.
Click to expand...
Hope you go.

There is evidence of a flood. The Missippippi River gulf outlet sediment has been studied. They have found a huge deposit, one that suggests a continental flood , and dating to about 6-7 thousand years ago.

Blessings
 
Third_Day said:
There is a fascinating book written by Father Victor Warkulwiz called "The Doctrines of Genesis: a Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins and he argues that the consensus, not all, but the consensus of the Church Father was for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Here is a Catholic group dedicated to upholding the literal interpretation of Genesis

kolbecenter.org/
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Fr. Warkulwiz is not infallible, and the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation is not the Magisterium. While holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis most certainly does not imply any form of heresy, one needs to understand that it was Nicholas Steno, a Catholic bishop and an important figure in the Counter-Reformation in Northern Germany, who first questioned the idea that fossils just grew in the ground, among other things, thus making him one of the founders of modern stratigraphy and geology; that it was Gregor Mendel, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas’ Abbey in Brno, who developed the modern theory of genetics, which was synthesized with Darwin’s theory of natural selection to give us the modern theory of evolutionary biology; and that it was Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven, who first deduced the Big Bang theory from Einstein’s General Relativity.

One needs to understand a few things about the history of science and Christianity and their complex interrelationship.

First, natural theology (which is pretty much the same as Intelligent Design nowadays, that is, a kind of theology that focuses on the teleological argument, that is, the argument from design) developed in 17th century Protestant/Anglican England as a reactionary apologetics tool against the so-called atheist scare of the time. When Darwin came out with his theory of evolution, there was a knee-jerk reaction among English natural theologians since this was basically the main form of apologetics at the time, and Darwinian theories were branded as inherently atheistic.

Second, in Catholic countries, Darwin’s theories didn’t cause that much of a tumult, and if they did, it was not because evolution was considered inherently atheistic, but more subtle philosophical and theological issues; it could give rise to materialism (a denial of the existence of the soul) and because polygenism was on the rise, a position which was condemned by the Catholic Church in favor of monogenism. Starting with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical of 1950, Humani generis, all the way up to more recent successors of St. Peter, evolutionary biology has gained more and more widespread acceptance in orthodox Catholicism.

Third, in America, the literal strict interpretation of Genesis is a position that has found its most vocal proponents in fundamentalist Christian denominations. Given all that has been said so far, it would be acceptable to conclude that this is a fairly anti-intellectual approach to the interpretation of Scripture. No, I am not not saying these Christians or the specific Catholics that adhere to a literal strict interpretation of Genesis are anti-intellectual, but I think we can safely conclude that an anti-intellectual approach is not the tradition of the Catholic faith.

In conclusion, we must remember St. Augustine’s Two Books, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. Both ultimately come from God, so they cannot contradict each other. 🤷
St. Augustine:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, **but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
**
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Click to expand...
 
cfauster said:
Indeed, Catholics are blessed to be free to evaluate the evidence regarding geology and time. In case it might be of assistance, BioLogos currently has a couple of blogs on the topic:

biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/series/the-bible-rocks-and-time-christians-and-an-old-earth


http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/biologos-responds-to-the-ark-encounter
Click to expand...
Hi cf,

I would agree that the earth can “appear” to be very old. But then how old was Adam when he was created ? What would his age “appear” to be ? I mean he could have appeared to be a mature male on his first day of existence. So why could not the earth ( a rock, a diamond , a tree ) appear to be "mature’’, old, on it’s very first day ?

On the other hand , I wonder why Genesis says for Adam to "replenish’’ the earth, as in a gap theory (a creation Gen 1:1 and a recreation Gen 1:2…and on for 7 days) ?

Blessings
 
benhur said:
Hi cf,

I would agree that the earth can “appear” to be very old. But then how old was Adam when he was created ? What would his age “appear” to be ? I mean he could have appeared to be a mature male on his first day of existence. So why could not the earth ( a rock, a diamond , a tree ) appear to be "mature’’, old, on it’s very first day ?

On the other hand , I wonder why Genesis says for Adam to "replenish’’ the earth, as in a gap theory (a creation Gen 1:1 and a recreation Gen 1:2…and on for 7 days) ?

Blessings
Click to expand...
That is called “last Thursdayism,” because by this rationale the earth could have been created last Thursday, and we would not know the difference. It is not a very compelling argument. The Church has no issue with following modern science on dating creation and on the origin of species.
 
TMC said:
That is called “last Thursdayism,” because by this rationale the earth could have been created last Thursday, and we would not know the difference. It is not a very compelling argument. The Church has no issue with following modern science on dating creation and on the origin of species.
Click to expand...
👍
 
One thing Mt Ararat is very high and difficult to climb. But I would still prefer it. Aramians are still communion with Rome and it’s bishop. Far different from the people from the Ohio
who would question a Catholic’s salvation.
 
Micosil said:
With all due respect, Fr. Warkulwiz is not infallible, and the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation is not the Magisterium. While holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis most certainly does not imply any form of heresy, one needs to understand that it was Nicholas Steno, a Catholic bishop and an important figure in the Counter-Reformation in Northern Germany, who first questioned the idea that fossils just grew in the ground, among other things, thus making him one of the founders of modern stratigraphy and geology; that it was Gregor Mendel, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas’ Abbey in Brno, who developed the modern theory of genetics, which was synthesized with Darwin’s theory of natural selection to give us the modern theory of evolutionary biology; and that it was Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven, who first deduced the Big Bang theory from Einstein’s General Relativity.

In conclusion, we must remember St. Augustine’s Two Books, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. Both ultimately come from God, so they cannot contradict each other. 🤷
Click to expand...
Augustine isn’t infallible either. Augustine isn’t the magesterium…Augustine’s writings “ultimately come from God”…really??

While Augustine believed Mary led a sinless life, he did not hold that Mary was immaculately conceived so obviously Augustine isn’t infallible
I doubt you have ever read Fr. Warkulwiz’s book which is quite compelling. Since a Catholic is allowed to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis and can therefore question the interpretation of scientific data there is no grounds to belittle any Catholics, such as those at the Kolbe Center, for holding traditional beliefs.
 
Third_Day said:
I doubt you have ever read Fr. Warkulwiz’s book which is quite compelling. Since a Catholic is allowed to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis and can therefore question the interpretation of scientific data there is no grounds to belittle any Catholics, such as those at the Kolbe Center, for holding traditional beliefs.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that Micosil tried to avoid belittling anybody, and distinguished between critique of ideas vs. people, when he wrote: “I am not not saying these Christians or the specific Catholics that adhere to a literal strict interpretation of Genesis are anti-intellectual, but I think we can safely conclude that an anti-intellectual approach is not the tradition of the Catholic faith.”

For those wishing a quick look at a wide range of views on Fr. Warkulwiz’s approach, here are a few links:

Enthusiastic agreement

Formerly in enthusiastic agreement, but then not

Strong disagreement

A review incorporating Ratzinger’s scholarship
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top