Jesus and Noah's Ark

[LongGe123]

Hey, sorry if this come up in debates before, but I'm just interrested on what Christians views are on this point. Here are 2 quotes from Jesus showing that he believed the Ark story:

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-7)

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:37)

I sort of assume (probably wrongly) that most Christians believe that the story of Noah's ark is just a myth, or was not meant to be taken literally. So why does Jesus talk about it if it didn't actually happen?

In my opinion, Noah's Ark story is a little too un-believable, so I find it very surprising to read that Jesus believed it happened. (I only recently read these verses - i had no idea previously that Jesus had ever mentioned Noah)

Anyways, thanks for any replys.

 

[*Paul*]

Jesus treats the genesis account Noah as historical. I don't personally know any brethren who believe the Noah account to be myth so for me at least your assumption is unfounded and I am suprised at your suprise.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Jesus treats the genesis account Noah as historical. I don't personally know any brethren who believe the Noah account to be myth so for me at least your assumption is unfounded and I am suprised at your suprise.

Ha! There are many Christians who treat Noah's Ark as myth, and have for about 200 years now. The references to the Ark in the NT could merely be referencing the story and not as an historical event. If they did reference the Ark as a historical event, that's fine too, because they had a different perception of historical fact - myths could be literally true, or historical events don't need geological or scientific proof.

There's a few books about if Greeks believed their myths but I haven't read them yet.

 

[athanasius]

The Old testament is a real history and beleived to be such by Jews. But it is not history in the 21st century fashion. It is sacred history. Sacred history used myths(Myths does not necessarily mean it didn't happen) and other things that may not be used or viewed as the same in the scientific critical studies of history or genesis. Nonetheless it written as a real(Sacred) history.

 

[*Paul*]

Ha! There are many Christians who treat Noah's Ark as myth, and have for about 200 years now.

I am aware of this, the same as I am aware that eskimos exist, I just don't personally know any as I said.

The references to the Ark in the NT could merely be referencing the story and not as an historical event.

I had thought of that but there isn't a biblical reason to think so, if people want to apply what they think is science to the bible then they may want to come to this conclusion and they are free to do so, but really that make science their canon for faith not scripture.

If they did reference the Ark as a historical event, that's fine too, because they had a different perception of historical fact - myths could be literally true, or historical events don't need geological or scientific proof.

There's a few books about if Greeks believed their myths but I haven't read them yet.

It might be stretching it a bit far to add it to a mans geneology though:

Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

 

[*Paul*]

The Old testament is a real history and beleived to be such by Jews. But it is not history in the 21st century fashion. It is sacred history. Sacred history used myths(Myths does not necessarily mean it didn't happen) and other things that may not be used or viewed as the same in the scientific critical studies of history or genesis. Nonetheless it written as a real(Sacred) history.

What myths did sacred history use Athanasius?

 

[athanasius]

What myths did sacred history use Athanasius?

wow it has been a while and I do not know if I can answer that question in a way that would be needed. I am a bit rusty on my old testamant as I am no old testament major but do rembering learning that from solid orthodox Catholic Scholars. Let me try to look up some stuff I'll get back to you.

 

[*Paul*]

wow it has been a while and I do not know if I can answer that question in a way that would be needed. I am a bit rusty on my old testamant as I am no old testament major but do rembering learning that from solid orthodox Catholic Scholars. Let me try to look up some stuff I'll get back to you.

Fair enough, bit if you're gonna make me wait it had better be good.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It might be stretching it a bit far to add it to a mans geneology though:

Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Myth is regularly incorporated into genealogies. Many remarkable ancients - Pythagoras comes to mind - had gods (like Apollo) and mythological characters (like Homeric heros) added to their genealogies. The practice was quite common in the first century.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

wow it has been a while and I do not know if I can answer that question in a way that would be needed. I am a bit rusty on my old testamant as I am no old testament major but do rembering learning that from solid orthodox Catholic Scholars. Let me try to look up some stuff I'll get back to you.

You could have just said "all of it..." It would have been a marvelous guess.

 

[*Paul*]

Myth is regularly incorporated into genealogies. Many remarkable ancients - Pythagoras comes to mind - had gods (like Apollo) and mythological characters (like Homeric heros) added to their genealogies. The practice was quite common in the first century.

That may or may not be but Luke is concerned with facts, he speaks of his recipient knowing of a certainty of the truthfulness of what he has believed by faith to be true. If Luke knowingly introduced a myth into the genealogy of Jesus then he destroys it's whole object because if Noah was a myth then so were his descendants and parents who also interacted with other biblical characters.

 

[athanasius]

Fair enough, bit if you're gonna make me wait it had better be good.

There is alot to study on this. But I think one good example is the six days of creation. Genesis is a true and real history however, Many Scholars now beleive that the six days were not literal days as we know it scientifically. One can look to the style of writing and context that genesis is written in. Theologically speaking the six days represented the covenant(typology really reveals this nicely) and gave a explanation to explain that God creates things in a covenants in a hierarchical order of good and he intimately shares that with Man whom he create din his image(with free will and Intellect). Now, we (the Catholic church officially does) do teach that Adam and Eve are real(the Catechism demonstrates this) and the fall was quite real. O happy fault. The genre of writing of Genesis helps as with any book of the bible to discern what may be symbolic and what may be actual. I hope that helps.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That may or may not be but Luke is concerned with facts, he speaks of his recipient knowing of a certainty of the truthfulness of what he has believed by faith to be true. If Luke knowingly introduced a myth into the genealogy of Jesus then he destroys it's whole object because if Noah was a myth then so were his descendants and parents who also interacted with other biblical characters.

I guess what will really bake your noodle is what if Luke knowingly introduced myths about Jesus himself.

 

[*Paul*]

I guess what will really bake your noodle is what if Luke knowingly introduced myths about Jesus himself.

Then he mislead Theophilus and was a liar, I can't think of a reason to think this of him. For me what you have said is not an option but that is a choice of faith I guess.

 

[Papersock]

Where I grew up most of the Christians I knew took all of the Old Testament as literal historical events. If Jesus believed it, that would be more the reason for them to believe it too.

 

[*Paul*]

There is alot to study on this. But I think one good example is the six days of creation. Genesis is a true and real history however, Many Scholars now beleive that the six days were not literal days as we know it scientifically.

This cannot be a basis for calling it a myth surely, especially when there are both scientists and scholars who strongly disagree. It does have deep typological meanings as do many other parts of the Old testament but that does not remove their historicity, equally rich in typology is when Abraham takes Isaac to the mount or the slaying of the paschal lamb. As Christians the meanings and what the Spirit says to us is probably more important than the plain text, however to relegate the account to myth is to remove any meaning in terms of it's authority as God's Word because myths are man made not God made.

 

[*Paul*]

Where I grew up most of the Christians I knew took all of the Old Testament as literal historical events. If Jesus believed it, that would be more the reason for them to believe it too.

I think that is good logic for a person who believes Jesus is God incarnate.

 

[athanasius]

Where I grew up most of the Christians I knew took all of the Old Testament as literal historical events. If Jesus believed it, that would be more the reason for them to believe it too.

Good point. I would agree. But on the other hand Jesus is God himself and always knew how to properly teach anyone of any culture. He may have jsut reiterated the same things to them to teach them. I am not saying I do not believe in Noahs ark. I do , I am just trying to explain why Jesus may have used certain literary tactics to explain things.

 

[zenzero]

Friend LongGe,
Noah's ark is a story like any other except that like the Global warming and the Ice melting; is not the first time that it is going to happen. It is known that such a cycle of melting/ cooling has happened on earth before and then there will be safe places where life will reamin and regrow.
Love & rgds

 

[athanasius]

This cannot be a basis for calling it a myth surely, especially when there are both scientists and scholars who strongly disagree. It does have deep typological meanings as do many other parts of the Old testament but that does not remove their historicity, equally rich in typology is when Abraham takes Isaac to the mount or the slaying of the paschal lamb. As Christians the meanings and what the Spirit says to us is probably more important than the plain text, however to relegate the account to myth is to remove any meaning in terms of it's authority as God's Word because myths are man made not God made.

I agree with you that this does not remove its historicity. It is a real history. But it is not history the way we think of it in the 21st century. It is sacred history. I also agree that what the Spirit says is important. That is why Catholics believe the bible is polyvalent and has many deep spiritual meaning apart from its literal meaning. We are looking at literal meaning here though and However, The Spirit also calls the faithful to exegesis which in turn calls us to study prayerfully the literal meaning too. Part of the literal meaning is determined by contextual exegesis and study on the generes of the books and how they were written. Also we must look to the Tradition of the chruch on how to interpret and also the magisterium in certain cases. We need to read the bible from the heart of Jesus' church that gave it to us. That will guide the parameters to proper exegesis and proper scholarship.