Monday 27 May 2019

With Tim Stables from Catholic Answers, on Noah


11/03/2016 19:54

I
Me to Tim Staples
Sound off when watching this video:

How do we know Adam and Eve existed?
Catholic Answers | 10.III.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8N3uL_6NKM


Is your answer that of Haydock?

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

06/02/2017 18:22

II
Me to Tim Staples
Here I was again sound off ...

were you doubting Noah was a real person here ? :

VIDEO: Was Noah a Real Person? with Tim Staples
Catholic Answers on FB
https://www.facebook.com/catholicanswers/videos/10154771358191006/


III
dito, but:
Ce message a été supprimé car il contient un lien qui est contraire à nos Standards de la communauté.

11 mai 2019 à 03:18

IV
Tim Staples to me
No. Noah was and is a real person.

Vous pouvez maintenant vous appeler et voir les informations concernant le statut En ligne et la lecture des messages.

11 mai 2019 à 13:38

V
Me to Tim Staples
OK, where and when do you consider his Flood occurred?

(btw, it seems one link is being censored - did you see it before it was too late, I even forgot what link it was).

Oh, one more : when does this seem to be to archaeologists?

15 mai 2019 à 09:59
I mean, I suppose you gave the matter some thought and were not just trying to assuage me?

Would you for instance agree Noah lived from 600 before to 350 after 2957 BC?

mer 22:16

VI
Tim Staples to me
We don't know when Noah lived. It is not revealed in Scripture. The genealogies are not strictly literal. And I don't believe the flood was necessarily universal in nature. That is, it did not necessarily cover what is now North America. It would have been an enormous flood that would have covered the "world" as Noah understood it.

jeu 13:34

VII
Me to Tim Staples
"We don't know when Noah lived."

We have a few alternatives, right?

Masoretic, Samaritan and LXX genealogies are given only so many alternatives about how long after Adam's creation, how long before Abraham was born, right?

" It is not revealed in Scripture."

There are genealogies in Scripture, up to Abraham, and from then on somewhat more complex time indicators ... right?

"The genealogies are not strictly literal"

I don't know what "not strictly literal" means.

If you mean "literally taken, not strictly true" I do know what that means. But the quadriga Cassiani does not exactly allow halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths and so on between "literal" and "allegoric".

The genealogy in Genesis 5 obviously has an allegoric sense too - recently discovered or rediscovered by the late Chuck Missler. "Man appointed mortal sorrow, the blessed God shall descend (with the) teaching (that) His death shall bring the afflicted comfort."

You could make a Christmas carol of it.* It is the strictly allegoric sense of Genesis 5. Now, Genesis 5 has a strictly literal, a strictly allegoric, a strictly moral and a strictly anagogic sense. Since the quadriga Cassiani refers to four distinct senses, each of them is strictly itself. 4 - 3 is exactly 1, not 1.414 or 1.618 or 0.707 or 0.618. Arithmetic does not refer to the infinitely divisible.

So, were you saying the genealogies in their literal sense are not strictly true? That would mean they don't indicate time in any meaningful way, but it would also be against what Trent said about Scripture.

"And I don't believe the flood was necessarily universal in nature. That is, it did not necessarily cover what is now North America."

Fr Fulcran Vigoroux agreed with you. He considered the Flood as very large, though, and he used boulders transported hundreds of kilometers from lithic source as proof. Meanwhile, that has been discovered in North America too (see Creation Ministries International).

His disqualification of universal Flood is based on a calculation of room in the Ark matching species fixism rather than baraminology as to each kind.

He also thought that Biblical chronological indications and history could be taken as literally true at least if one took the LXX timeline ... so, certain mussels in Paris basin could have (on his view) been from creation days extending some large periods before Adam (he had not thought of the Mark 10:6 objection), but any man descends from Adam.

Will you agree Kennewick man, builders of Göbekli Tepe, Neanderthals of El Sidrón and Homo praedecessor in Atapuerca descended from Adam and would, on Fr Vigoroux's view, have had to fit within the 5500 years from Adam's creation to birth of Our Lord?

"It would have been an enormous flood that would have covered the "world" as Noah understood it."

And how much of the world as it is would that have been, and why?

Would you agree that on Fr Vigoroux's view, Kennewick man could be pre-Flood, could be post-Flood in a never-flooded area, could therefore have not descended from Noah, but needs to have descended from Adam and Eve?

And would you agree with the species fixism which put restraints on Fr Vigoroux's Ark room? Did the alpaca and the camel never have a common ancestor? Were the emu and the ostrich separate creations? Are mammoths in the genetic sense unrelated to elephants?


* I checked later : "man appointed mortal sorrow" differs from "hark the herald angels sing" only in bisyllabic versus monosyllabic ending. So, when humming the list of name translations as a sentence, the melody I heard at the beginning would have been close to that of "hark the herald angels sing".

No comments:

Post a Comment