Jesus and Noah's Ark

[angellous_evangellous]

Then he mislead Theophilus and was a liar, I can't think of a reason to think this of him.

See what I mean.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

 

[LongGe123]

Thanks for the replys guys. Yeah this whole myths topic is quite interresting to debate.
I get confused though on which events/things in the bible are myths, and which are supposed to be 100% truths. How are we to tell?

 

[*Paul*]

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.

The book of Genesis is historical genre though, it reads that way all through it, people with names and genealogies, real places named, real kings named, real nations named, it is a history book which as you said has deeper meanings that come out in the light of other scriptural books.

Also we must look to the Tradition of the chruch on how to interpret

From answers in genesis:
Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

The Fathers believed that the Flood submerged the entire earth. For example, Justin Martyr (c. 100/110–159/165) and Augustine said that the Flood rose 15 cubits above the highest mountains. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115–168, 181) argued, against Greek local flood theories, that the water overtopped every high hill by at least 15 cubits.
The Early Church on Creation - Answers in Genesis

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.

The people quoted above seem to be in agreement with literalism. It's no good pretending that they always had a unanimous consensus on things, Jesus church has often disagreed, I cannot favour origen or augustines allegorical methodology except as sub meanings of the literal interpretation.

 

[*Paul*]

See what I mean.

No

 

[Mr. Peanut]

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

Hi!

Peter said that in the last days men would not be "willingly ignorant" (purposefully stupid), that God destroyed the world with a flood. This is a sure sign we are in the last days:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.(<uniformitarianism) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Timothy also warns us:

Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Cheers!

 

[athanasius]

The book of Genesis is historical genre though, it reads that way all through it, people with names and genealogies, real places named, real kings named, real nations named, it is a history book which as you said has deeper meanings that come out in the light of other scriptural books.


From answers in genesis:
Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

The Fathers believed that the Flood submerged the entire earth. For example, Justin Martyr (c. 100/110–159/165) and Augustine said that the Flood rose 15 cubits above the highest mountains. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115–168, 181) argued, against Greek local flood theories, that the water overtopped every high hill by at least 15 cubits.
The Early Church on Creation - Answers in Genesis



The people quoted above seem to be in agreement with literalism. It's no good pretending that they always had a unanimous consensus on things, Jesus church has often disagreed, I cannot favour origen or augustines allegorical methodology except as sub meanings of the literal interpretation.

Hey Paul, good answers. They made me think!

You are correct, the fathers disagreed on this. There is no unanimous consent or official Church decree on this so the Vatican thus far leaves it up to individuals and Scholars to debate out. Some Catholics do believe in a literal 24 hour day of creation. Others(like myself) do not. I appreciate what Ken Hamm has done and his position I just disagree with it. but hey I could be wrong on this I'm not infallible. However Ken Hamm needs to read the fathers more closely because some of them(like ambrose) he quoted out of context and they do teach a non-literal day. Either which way the father disagreed so there is no one teaching on this. Here is my argument. I tend to follow Augustine.

One day can be as a thousand years to the Lord. The way we measure a 24 hour day is by the revolution of the Earth around the Star, the sun. Yet God did not create the sun until the fourth day. This is a one reason why many scholars suggest that day is not literal. Adam and eve sure were real though. it all depends on how the text is written and what style it is written in. The ancient Hebrews would use true Stories and also use symbolic meanings(like numbers especially) in them to bring out a covenant meaning. Its sacred history not a science book to us. I hope that helps you better understand my opinion as a Catholic. Some Catholics do believe in a literal 24 hour day and they are free to do so. Most do not. However, I may be wrong but this is the theory I hold when I study some books in the Old testament.


You had good clear answers as always. Great talking to you again my friend,
Athanasias

 

[angellous_evangellous]

From answers in genesis:
Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306&#8211;373) and Basil of Caesarea (329&#8211;379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330&#8211;397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

Citations from the fathers would be helpful, since all of them pre-date the calculation that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Thanks for the replys guys. Yeah this whole myths topic is quite interresting to debate.
I get confused though on which events/things in the bible are myths, and which are supposed to be 100% truths. How are we to tell?

If you want reality, watch the History Channel, TLC, and the like. They often run shows about the historicity of Biblical events. If you want to live in a fantasy world, go to church and blindly believe what is told to you. If you believe in a literal Noahic Flood, then I think you have been doing way more listening than thinking.

The overwhelming physical evidence is that there was never a Noahic Flood, and the reasons for this are myriad. There are numerous threads on this topic on this site.

Studying history, geology and the like will get you as close as you can get to discerning which are myths and which are 100% truths, but I warn you, if you start getting into history, you are going to find your Bible to be sadly lacking in real world evidence, be it a dearth of evidence for a Young Earth, the lack of any evidence of the Exodus, no evidence (or even physical possibility thereof) of a Noahic Flood, no Roman references to the Crusifiction of Jesus of Nazareth, nor, more damning, of a 4 hour window of total darkness in the middle of the day (found in the Gospels, but not in any historical account) etc. etc. etc.

I guess what I am saying is, be sure that you want to find the truth before you go looking for it. You may not be terribly happy with what you find.

B.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you want reality, watch the History Channel, TLC, and the like. They often run shows about the historicity of Biblical events.

The specials on biblical events on the History Channel and TLC are not much better than what's told in church.

 

[tomspug]

If you want reality, watch the History Channel, TLC, and the like.

Wow, that's the first time I've been told to find reality on television.

You can believe what you want, but Jesus meant what he said. The Noah story is a narrative that is meant to be taken literally. If you want to disbelieve that one, you might as well disregard the story of Abraham (which the Jewish faith is based on), who btw has his geneology traced back to Noah in the Bible.

So if you're going to go about rejecting things in Genesis, you're better off rejecting the whole thing, as it's all interwoven by a common author.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

He was probaly just as simple-minded and deluded by ancient myths as the rest of us narrow-minded Biblists.:yes:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

Eskimos are a myth just as men landing on the moon is. It was staged in a back room by NASA.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

Luke is a myth as well.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then he mislead Theophilus and was a liar...

Wrong, Theophilus is a myth. :bow:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

Christians are a myth as well.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

Global warming is a myth.:slap:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The book of Genesis is historical genre though...

Myth...:sorry1:

 

[Aasimar]

He was probaly just as simple-minded and deluded by ancient myths as the rest of us narrow-minded Biblists.:yes:

Eskimos are a myth just as men landing on the moon is. It was staged in a back room by NASA.

Luke is a myth as well.

Wrong, Theophilus is a myth. :bow:

Christians are a myth as well.

Global warming is a myth.:slap:

Myth...:sorry1:

Bored sandy?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Bored sandy?

You mythed the point.