Wednesday, October 1, 2014

... on Animals on the Ark, and on Magisterium and Fathers

Dawkins and Cardinal Pell on Catholic Dogma
John Draper

Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons-surely the most important theological conundrum of the milennium?. If yes they were not the first parents contradicting the old testament.!! Most medieval paintings show belly buttons. How did Noah manage to squeeze all those dinosaurs into the Ark? . Pell must know!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Noah was not obliged to take each dinosaur on earth into the ark, only a couple of each kind.

If for instance Allosaurus and Tyrannosauras are same kind, if Diplodocus and Brontosaurus and Brachiosaurus are same kind, if all pterosaurs are simply pterodactyl kind, etc, that saves some space.

So would the fact of picking the larger kinds while they were small so they could start growing faster after leaving the Ark. If Pell doesn't know, any creationist these days (at least those with internet connexion) does.
James Ingalls
The Catholic Church has never interpreted those Books literally. Not even before the Synod of Rome in 382 when the canon was settled.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Where did you EVER get that historic disinformation from?

Not from St THomas Aquinas, nor from the Sorbonne of his time, nor from the Historia SCholastica which he read at the Sorbonne, along with Canon Law and Peter the Lombard. In other words NOWHERE, except in modern and biassed resumés.
James Ingalls
Look up the Church fathers. the seven days were seen as a narrative device.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Here is a question, which has been divided into several messages, the bulk of which come from Petrus Comestor - that is from Historia Scholastica:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What is a Nation? part I

The question "what is a nation" having as a classical Christian answer "subdivision of originally non-Hebrew humanity, Hebrews being a special not-quite-parallel, originating by the punishment of God over the Tower of Babel." In this part of my article I cite the Latin and translate into English the parts between the Tower of Babel and the birth of the Twins to Isaac that concern non-Hebrew history mainly. But obviously a Christian author - a textbook writer for Sorbonne, mind you - who can without qualms cite not directly cuneiform given histories of Babylonia, from the Greek, and - as will be shown in next section or next few sections - has no problem speaking about the War of Troy or Hercules and Romulus as people and events actually historic, was NOT into the kind of sham intellectual hyperscepticism that "relagates a literal Flood of Noah" to "the realm of myth".

Nor is anything like that at all what you get if you bother to look up what St Augustine actually wrote in The City of God.

Newadvent : Fathers : The City of God (St. Augustine)

Specifically, book 15:

Ibidem : The City of God (Book XV)

(The previous one being also a very clear indication of taking Genesis quite literally as historically true).

And obviously St Augustine was a Bishop in his life, and a Saint and a Church Father to those he left behind.
James Ingalls
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" -Origen, Church Father. (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Look up the Church fathers. the seven days were seen as a narrative device."

To St Augustine - and to him alone - in one specific context, and there alone, the seven days as a piece of chronological information, and that alone, is considered a device, not so much narrative as observative for the angels, who were watching, as he said in 5th and 6th books of De Genesis ad Literam Libri XII, a really ONE moment creation.

That does not in any way either authorise making the chronology of the seven days longer instead of shorter than seven literal days. Nor doing away with the literal truth of any other part of either creation account or the rest of Genesis.

Get to St Basil, the seven days were seven literal days. And so on.

+James Ingalls You cite Origen.

But Origen is not a canonised Saint nor a Church Father.

Also he is the one ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHOR (correct title of clearly non-saint writers of those days, like Tertullian) who inspired Saint Augustine to his view.

Also, precisely like in St Augustine, his other view is a shorter, not longer timescale than seven literal days for the creation.
James Ingalls
You just pointed out yourself that they disagreed. This is my point. The Catholic Church holds that if the Magisterium has yet to make an official statement, a Catholic is free to speculate.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Except on any item that all Church Fathers agree on.

Now, all do not agree the seven days were fully seven days, but all do agree they were not a second longer than seven days.

PLUS the disagreement on seven days does not cover any liberty of disagreeing about the Arc. Unless you can find a Church Father who said the Flood did not occur or the Salvation of Noah was not through the Ark.

Can you find such a one?
James Ingalls
Once again, that is officially left up to Catholics to speculate on. The Magisterium has not debated on that. Seriously, this isn't that hard to Google.

By the way, Origen is a Church father. You can look that up to.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
A debate of the Magisterium is not necessary in the face of unanimity of the Church Fathers.

See Council of Trent, if you know Latin, here I cite and comment on the relevant canon:

New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
James Ingalls
The Magisterium is the sole teaching authority of the Church. They trump the Church fathers. Come on, this is Catholicism 101 here
Simple, Noah had a whole fleet of arks. Christian archeologist have found 20 or 30 and there's a new one every year or two.

Plenty of room for everybody and everything.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

The dinosaur called Apatosaurus (AKA Brontosaurus) measured about 70-90 feet long and about 15 feet tall at the hips. It weighed roughly 33-38 tons.

Two of those on a 500 ft long, wooden ship? Add to that, 2 of every other creature on earth as well? Wow...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
An ADULT "Apatosaurus (AKA Brontosaurus) measured about 70-90 feet long and about 15 feet tall at the hips. It weighed roughly 33-38 tons."

Now, what if Noah took two of that kind, but as JUVENILE or even BABIES just hatched out of the egg?

What if Apatosaurus was not the choice, but he took a smaller species or race of the Behemoth kind? I mean the ancestor of Mokele Mbembe was on the ark, but if it was Apatosaurus, Diplodocus or even something as small as Mokele Mbembe itself, all this at an adult stage of life, we don't know. Since these are same KIND, Noah only took one pair, not one for Apatosaurus and another for Diplodocus and a third for the relatively small post-Flood documented Mokele Mbembe.

And what if that vast growth was only possible in pre-Flood conditions due to higher air pressure and more oxygen?
James Ingalls
This comment thread needs to die. No one's going to convince anyone of anything,
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That is if you limit audience to participants.

I do not. LOTS of comment threads have found their way from youtube to my blog ...

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

... where they are hopefully read by people making up their minds as they read. And hopefully, many doing it my way.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

So lets say he took 2 Diplodocus babies.

then after the flood, they grew to full maturity. Then they would have had to evolved into the Apatosaurus, (Not sure how thats possible. Both were present on the planet at the same time) Then they would have to migrate around the world, and then die out. that would have had to happen pretty quickly (within a few years) since there is no record of dinosaurs existing with modern man and the flood was only 4,000 years ago.
Hans Georg Lundahl
No, they did not evolve to apatosaurus, those were their larger pre-Flood kin. As far as I know post-Flood behemoths have been seen in Egypt during the battle which installed the Falcon tribe (known to Egyptologists as serpopards, interpreted as leopards with serpent necks) and in Africa even more recently, as I mentioned Mokele Mbembe.

These are recorded co-existence of men and sauropods in post-Flood times. Behemoth need not have been in the area where Job lived, he can have heard of Egyptian ones.

Any skeleton or fossil of a sauropodian is likely to be from the Flood, since that is when most fossils were made anyway, and especially if the location is non-African, that would be the pre-Flood habitat. And a sample that died in the Flood.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You said

"What if Apatosaurus was not the choice, but he took a smaller species or race of the Behemoth kind? "

if he didn't take both, then one had to evolve into the other.

Recorded where? The Bible?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As far as I know, Apatosaurus may very well be as closely related to Diplodocus as Great Dane to Chihuahua. That is, they had a common ancestor before the flood.

The records of post-Flood sauropods were given as three items, only one of which was from Bible.

Behemoth in Job has also been interpreted as either elephant (note that the sauropods in the battle scene from First Dynasty times seem to have been used like battle elephants, to create fear through their immensity) or as hippopotamus (note that hippopotami live like sauropods seem to have lived, with lots of bodyweight relieved by water).

The reference to Mokele Mbembe is to XXth C. Africa.

Here is a picture of a serpopard:

Strange (Fantastic) Animals of Ancient Egypt (by Jimmy Dunn)

In this imagery, the sauropodian features have been reinterpreted (after some while of oral description, no doubt) in feline ways.

Here is from a man not even possibly misled by "Christian (as in Young Earth Creationist) bias":

Thomas P Hopp's Blog : Lo, the Mighty Serpopard–er, Sauropod
Posted on June 14, 2014 by Tom Hopp

"So there is a consistency to the depiction of the creature, and it was clearly distinguished from the giraffe.

"So what could it be? Where did the idea ever come from? Let me offer a suggestion. Outcroppings of Mesozoic rocks occur widely around North Africa and the Middle East. In them, scientists have recently found the bones of huge sauropod dinosaurs. So, if a complete, or nearly complete sauropod skeleton was uncovered by ancient Egyptians, then the legend of the serpopard may have been based upon fact."

For my part I think the battle depicted on the Narmer palette did contain sauropods, alive, surviving between the flood and the Mokele Mbembe of very recent history, and used in the battle like Hannibal later used elephants. So, if Tom Hopp feels the best explanation is Egyptians found a sauropod skeleton, and reconstructed a fable beast and decorated historic battles with fabulous elements, I think he is therein misled by the Geologic column and that Egyptians had access to live sauropods. Not just skeletal ones.

No comments: