What is the Catholic Church's official stance on Noah and the flood? Was the flood a global deluge or a local flood....or was it something completely different?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Flood
- Thread starter Larry
- Start date
- Status
In a related story, last night on the Discovery Channel was "Noah's Ark: The True Story".
I was rather skeptical of the title's claim.
The program mentioned all the animals that would've needed to be on the ark, and that so many would be impossible to fit. The program explained that the Bible states more specifically which types of animals, which makes the possibility more credible. 9Waffling by the secular program, but not as anti-Christian as most of these types of "documentaries".
And the original photographs from spy planes were shown...verry verry blurry btw.
And then, the discovery in the mid 1800s of the clay tablets in Iraq in some ancient city. The tablets spoke of a flood, yadda yadda... the Story of Gilgamesh. And the program went through that entire story of the Sumerian. The program showed a reenactment of Gilgamesh, the businessman who would boat his goods down the Euphrates, and of the flood which hit the region and how Gil and his family went on his large river barge and were swept down into the Persian Gulf. The program, while showing this reenactment of the Gilgamesh tale [Gil dressed in a long kilt and with black eyeliner makeup and a shaved head], kept calling the man Noah, which irritated me.
What I found most ammusing, were the scientists who had been interviewed who spoke prior to the Gil tale portion, all about the impossibilities of a global flood.
**
Off topic side note:
I bet these same scientists would tell of the impossibility of the Sun pinwheeling in the sky and coming close to the Earth, in which rained on wet clothes would be dried in less than a minute, yet none of those thousands present would receive any radiation poisoning.
But then, these scientists may never have heard of Fatima.
I was rather skeptical of the title's claim.
The program mentioned all the animals that would've needed to be on the ark, and that so many would be impossible to fit. The program explained that the Bible states more specifically which types of animals, which makes the possibility more credible. 9Waffling by the secular program, but not as anti-Christian as most of these types of "documentaries".
And the original photographs from spy planes were shown...verry verry blurry btw.
And then, the discovery in the mid 1800s of the clay tablets in Iraq in some ancient city. The tablets spoke of a flood, yadda yadda... the Story of Gilgamesh. And the program went through that entire story of the Sumerian. The program showed a reenactment of Gilgamesh, the businessman who would boat his goods down the Euphrates, and of the flood which hit the region and how Gil and his family went on his large river barge and were swept down into the Persian Gulf. The program, while showing this reenactment of the Gilgamesh tale [Gil dressed in a long kilt and with black eyeliner makeup and a shaved head], kept calling the man Noah, which irritated me.
What I found most ammusing, were the scientists who had been interviewed who spoke prior to the Gil tale portion, all about the impossibilities of a global flood.
**
Off topic side note:
I bet these same scientists would tell of the impossibility of the Sun pinwheeling in the sky and coming close to the Earth, in which rained on wet clothes would be dried in less than a minute, yet none of those thousands present would receive any radiation poisoning.
But then, these scientists may never have heard of Fatima.
Upvote
0
Dominus Fidelis
ScottBot is Stalking Me!
In 1973, Mary mentioned the "deluge" at Akita when she warned of something worse being prepared for the earth if men didn't repent. This apparition has Church approval, so it would seem to be an endorsement of a real flood of the earth.
Of course, I don't know how that jives with God's promise not to do what He did ever again?
Of course, I don't know how that jives with God's promise not to do what He did ever again?
Upvote
0
KennySe said:In a related story, last night on the Discovery Channel was "Noah's Ark: The True Story".
I was rather skeptical of the title's claim.
The program mentioned all the animals that would've needed to be on the ark, and that so many would be impossible to fit. The program explained that the Bible states more specifically which types of animals, which makes the possibility more credible. 9Waffling by the secular program, but not as anti-Christian as most of these types of "documentaries".
And the original photographs from spy planes were shown...verry verry blurry btw.
And then, the discovery in the mid 1800s of the clay tablets in Iraq in some ancient city. The tablets spoke of a flood, yadda yadda... the Story of Gilgamesh. And the program went through that entire story of the Sumerian. The program showed a reenactment of Gilgamesh, the businessman who would boat his goods down the Euphrates, and of the flood which hit the region and how Gil and his family went on his large river barge and were swept down into the Persian Gulf. The program, while showing this reenactment of the Gilgamesh tale [Gil dressed in a long kilt and with black eyeliner makeup and a shaved head], kept calling the man Noah, which irritated me.
What I found most ammusing, were the scientists who had been interviewed who spoke prior to the Gil tale portion, all about the impossibilities of a global flood.
**
Off topic side note:
I bet these same scientists would tell of the impossibility of the Sun pinwheeling in the sky and coming close to the Earth, in which rained on wet clothes would be dried in less than a minute, yet none of those thousands present would receive any radiation poisoning.
But then, these scientists may never have heard of Fatima.
Yes. I watched that program. That's what prompted me to ask the question about the Catholic Church's position on the flood. I find it interesting that the Church has no official position on such a grand scale event, recorded in Holy Scripture. I mean, this is HUGE!!!
Upvote
0
Cosmic Charlie
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated
If I am not mistaken, the Church's "official" postion is that the vast majority of Genesis is alogorical in nature.
Historically, every civilization in the Near and Middle East in the 9000 to 3000 BC timeframe had a "Great Flood Story" all of them similar but very different in tone. The Hebrew flood story is the only one that has a moral. This is the one found in the Bible.
The point of Noah and flood isn't the flood itself but the moral(s) of the story and what it tells us about God and His relationship with man (and vis a versa)
Historically, every civilization in the Near and Middle East in the 9000 to 3000 BC timeframe had a "Great Flood Story" all of them similar but very different in tone. The Hebrew flood story is the only one that has a moral. This is the one found in the Bible.
The point of Noah and flood isn't the flood itself but the moral(s) of the story and what it tells us about God and His relationship with man (and vis a versa)
Upvote
0
A
Ark Guy
Guest
If Genesis was allegorical, you know the creation and the flood...just a moral story then why not the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
The people who make the allegorical claims do so on what they consider as scientific grounds. That is the literal six day creation and the flood of Noah have been scientifically proven to be impossible.
The interesting part is that these same "christians" fail to realize is that the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ BOTH are also scientifically impossible....yet they believe it to be actual literal history.
The people who make the allegorical claims do so on what they consider as scientific grounds. That is the literal six day creation and the flood of Noah have been scientifically proven to be impossible.
The interesting part is that these same "christians" fail to realize is that the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ BOTH are also scientifically impossible....yet they believe it to be actual literal history.
Upvote
0
KennySe said:In a related story, last night on the Discovery Channel was "Noah's Ark: The True Story".
I was rather skeptical of the title's claim.
And then, the discovery in the mid 1800s of the clay tablets in Iraq in some ancient city. The tablets spoke of a flood, yadda yadda... the Story of Gilgamesh. And the program went through that entire story of the Sumerian. The program showed a reenactment of Gilgamesh, the businessman who would boat his goods down the Euphrates, and of the flood which hit the region and how Gil and his family went on his large river barge and were swept down into the Persian Gulf. The program, while showing this reenactment of the Gilgamesh tale [Gil dressed in a long kilt and with black eyeliner makeup and a shaved head], kept calling the man Noah, which irritated me.
I had to read the Epic of Gilgamesh in a Philo class in college. It annoyed me also that they kept calling him Noah. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the person who build to arc was named Utnapishnon, not Noah.
Upvote
0
Spotty
ilikemovies
- Jun 28, 2003
- 949
- 53
- 43
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The Resurrection is necessary, both scientifically and spiritually. Primarily because of the amount of necessary evidence which could only point conclusively to an actual Resurrection, and not an allegorical myth developed years later, or a "deeper" spiritual Resurrection which was meant only to inspire the faith of the faithful. A Resurrection, unlike a global flood, had to occur to ignite the faith of Christianity and its first witnesses. William Lane Craig is brilliant with the Resurrection:Ark Guy said:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/
6 days of Creation was an allegorical tale delivered to the Hebrews for the sake of communicating a Divine message to a simple and scientifically uneducated people - how else was God to do it, relay truths about proteins, amino acids and macro evolution? No - the only way it could be done was to tell them they were created by Him, from "the dust of the earth." Simple as that - YHWH did it, follow YHWH - no confusion.
The flood was not global but was an ourpouring of the Mediterranean into the Black Sea (or vice versa - I forget). It caused an enormous flood which was chronicled by the people of the known "world" into the tomes of the known "world" and explained by the actions of various gods by various indigenous cultures. YHWH, however, took this well known tale and used it allegorically to explain the punishment for sin to His people, and how the ultimate extreme punishment (universal death) would not be used by Him.
-Spotty
Upvote
0
A
Ark Guy
Guest
If Genesis is just an myth...then why do the NT authors lie when they talk about it?
Why is Adam presented as literal along with Moses?
ROM 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
How did this allegorical guy become a living being?
1CO 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Is the following a lie? Was man not really formed from the dust?
1CO 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
Was Eve a descendent of an evolved primate or formed after Adam?
1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Think about it, if the bible is fulled with so many errors as the Theo-Evo crowd requires..then what good is it? How do you seperate the fact from fiction?
Speaking of seperating fact from fiction, you'll love the next post.
Why is Adam presented as literal along with Moses?
ROM 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
How did this allegorical guy become a living being?
1CO 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Is the following a lie? Was man not really formed from the dust?
1CO 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
Was Eve a descendent of an evolved primate or formed after Adam?
1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Think about it, if the bible is fulled with so many errors as the Theo-Evo crowd requires..then what good is it? How do you seperate the fact from fiction?
Speaking of seperating fact from fiction, you'll love the next post.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
While your enthusiasm in defending the faith is commendable, I wonder if it might not be more appropriate to make these posts in one of the creation/evolution forums, and merely direct inquirers there, rather than going so far off topic for this thread.
Upvote
0
A
Ark Guy
Guest
The bible contains two linages. One is of Mary's and the other is of Josephs.
If Adam is an allegorical person and not really created as per Genesis, that is he was an evolved being...then where does this list change from fact to allegory?
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Can you bible believing allegorist tell me?
If Adam is an allegorical person and not really created as per Genesis, that is he was an evolved being...then where does this list change from fact to allegory?
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God.
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God.
Can you bible believing allegorist tell me?
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I would be happy to have a discussion on this issue, but it seems to me that it would be inappropriate to further derail a thread specifically about Catholic beliefs about the Flood. Since, so far as I know, neither of us is Catholic, this is probably the wrong place for such a discussion.
Upvote
0
A
Ark Guy
Guest
seebs said:
This topic...in my opinion would only be slightly off topic.
It was presented as a responce to Genesis, which contains the flood account as being allegorical.
The verses I quoted from the Word of God shows that the NT authors believed that the flood and the creation, both in Genesis were literal, historical, factual happenings.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
