Saints' Discussion Forums

Well, this is the story of the Noah and the flood.  However, what caught my eye is Genesis 6:1-4.  I didn't notice before that there is a story, like a myth for superhuman beings in the bible.    Like “son of God” ...sort of like Hercules.  In CCB, it used the word “giant”.  In JB, it used the word NEPHILIM. 

Sorry pebbles, but can we go back a little to Genesis 4:16and 17.
Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. (Genesis 4:16)
Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son. (Genesis 4:17)
What does the Church say about the apparent presence of other people from whom Cain chose a wife? It confuses me somewhat

Ok, you’re making me think :) .  And hopefully my answer would be in line with Catholic teaching :)

What I think is this.  Adam and Eve is our connection to God.  I mean that we all have for our ancestors Adam and Eve and they came from God and so basically, God is our true “parent”.   I don’t think we should take it literally that Adam and Eve begat sons and daughter and they intermarry with each other.  Adam and Eve’s story is the story of “how” man was created and “who” created man.  And “what” (disobedience) made them fall from grace.

God could have created “mankind” in every part of the world he created. I say this because we have the bible for the story of the creation of man. And in other cultures they have also stories about the creation of the universe and man.  In my culture (Philippines), we have a story of the creation and the creation of man and woman.  God split a giant bamboo and inside is man and woman.  Although in our myth, the man’s name is Malakas (strong) and the woman’s name is Maganda (beautiful).  Other Asian countries (I forgot which) has a story of how God created the different human races (of course favoring their race :) )  Like this story:

God wanted to create man.  And so he fashioned some mud into human form and put it in an oven.  However, he was very busy creating the universe that he forgot the human in the oven.  And so when he took it out, it was burnt.  And so he tried again but this time he was impatient and took out the human before it was cooked and so it looked pale.  And for his third try, he timed it and took out the human at the right time and the human was baked perfectly and it looked brown…
And so from the burnt ones came the black race, from the pale one came the white race and from the perfectly baked ones, the brown race.
(I hope I’m not offending anybody…this is not a story I created.)

And also, in our myth, we have our own version of the story of the flood.  It didn’t have the ark but it had the crow and the dove.  And only a couple survived.

And so, I think God created a lot of human races and tested one in every race…but only Abram passed :)  which is why the Jews became the chosen people from whom Jesus the savior will come.  ;D

My understanding of the Bible is that this race of people actually lived before the flood. Their origin, though, I never understood until today. Some people are of the opinion that “sons of God” were (fallen) angels, but I am of the opinion that  fallen angels ceased to be "sons of God" when they were banished from heaven, so they could not have been the ancestors of the Nephilim.
I read an answer by Father Echert at EWTN, to the question "who were the Nephilim?". I was satisfied with his explanation as to the origin of this race. This is what he writes, and I quote:

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 1/22/2006

Actually, as Catholics we're required by Faith to believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve and that all people are descended from them. All people gain original sin through that descent. The other idea, called 'polygenism' from the words 'poly' 'many' and 'genesis' is stated to be incorrect by Pope Pius XII:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis)

So the idea that other people were created spontaneously by God after Adam and Eve but not descended of them, is forbidden by the Church. It sounds like a reasonable theory from afar but if you look into the history of Church teachings, it's one that's not allowed.

Naturally we tend towards it as we don't like the idea of near relations marrying, but it seems God permitted this for a time, as it would be necessary for the existence of the human race. What would have happened if there had not been original sin? Well..

In any case the Patristic answer is of course the right answer. We should always go to the saints!  :D

The different spiritual lineages in the scriptures have a great deal of meaning to them, I remember reading about them in the past. They show how the apple does not fall far from the tree, so to speak. Children follow after their parents in sanctity or lack thereof. There is always a holy line throughout the scriptures, and always darker more worldly lines (Canaan).

I once listened to a sermon which basically put forth the truth that while the Jewish creation stories are all the correct ones, quite naturally since everyone comes from this source they have similar stories intermixed with errors and myth. This is proof all the more of the truth of the creation stories, the flood, etc. Everywhere we find people who have been touched by the original truth.

I'm happy to hear about these stories. :D

The holy line of course goes down all the way through to Noah. And then we see how his own children either continue it or start lines that are not.

Since Cain's line was full of people who were farther from God, and this influenced both the husbands and the children negatively, it is like an early lesson in why the Church has always preached against marrying outside of the Faith.

The Douay's Haydock commentary says:

[2] The sons of God: The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in their choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion.

[3] His days shall be: The meaning is, that man's days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge.

I read that men in that time were giants at the least in their vices and virtues. . that going along with the ages well, when people go bad one can only imagine how bad they would go if they lived longer than one hundred years...

It's a very sad story.. when it comes down to the time of Noah.. where only he and his family please God..

'In the time of Noah, the entire human race was submerged by the Deluge, and only eight people were saved in the Ark. Saint Peter says, "This ark was the figure of the Church," while Saint Augustine adds, "And these eight people who were saved signify that very few Christians are saved, because there are very few who sincerely renounce the world, and those who renounce it only in words do not belong to the mystery represented by that ark." The Bible also tells us that only two Hebrews out of two million entered the Promised Land after going out of Egypt, and that only four escaped the fire of Sodom and the other burning cities that perished with it. All of this means that the number of the damned who will be cast into fire like straw is far greater than that of the saved, whom the heavenly Father will one day gather into His barns like precious wheat.'

St. Leonard of Port Maurice

When I think of the Ark as the figure of the Church and I think of Mary it's quite soothing. Rather like being in the midst of a stormy sea and seeing a stately and solid ship come to your rescue.

What is 'patristic' ? :-\

Thank you Shin.
That settles nicely the question of who the "sons of God" were.

Reading similar threads on CAF, it appears that a significant number of Catholics are of the opinion that the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally.  :(

This is an interesting thread.  :)


Yes... It has become quite the thing in recent times for individual speculation to be considered as worthy of a hearing but when it is divorced from the wisdom and divinely inspired knowledge of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church, it can go off in an unorthodox tangent and end up the total opposite of what was previously held to be infallible truth.

I listened to a sermon on Audio Sancto on how every civilization (even the pagan ones) can trace their ancestry back to those who disembarked from the ark after the flood. It is worth listening to. I'll post the title of it when I can find it.

Quite a myth pebbles.  :)

Yes.  I'm just fascinated that other cultures have their own stories of creation and flood even though they are not Christian (they don't have the bible).  I think it only says that in every human being the belief in God cannot be denied. Whether it's mono or poly theism.  


Actually, as Catholics we're required by Faith to believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve and that all people are descended from them. All people gain original sin through that descent. The other idea, called 'polygenism' from the words 'poly' 'many' and 'genesis' is stated to be incorrect by Pope Pius XII:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis)

So the idea that other people were created spontaneously by God after Adam and Eve but not descended of them, is forbidden by the Church. It sounds like a reasonable theory from afar but if you look into the history of Church teachings, it's one that's not allowed.

Ah... ok. So it's actually wrong to speculate that God created other human beings for Cain. Hmm... I have no problem with this since in my speculation, it is always open for the correction of what the Catholic church actually teaches.  And this answers:

Reading similar threads on CAF, it appears that a significant number of Catholics are of the opinion that the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally.   

For in truth, for people who do not know this teaching (like I do... like many Catholics out there) they will speculate.  Most especially for non-believers who will reason only by logic.  For them, logically, they will believe that God created other human.  Especially if they don't believe in original sin.  Because based on the teaching, we are bound to believe by Faith.  Now, I'm wondering, how do Protestants explain this? Hmmm..  :-\

The teaching did not actually say that "No. God did not create other humans." But that we are only limited to believe (due to logical explanation based on faith) that we cannot believe other humans were created since these "new" humans would not have descended from Adam and Eve and would not have inherited "original sin" and it is in our faith that we inherited original sin, therefore, we all descended from Adam and Eve.  

I think it's like imprimatur(?) it's not really an endorsement of the Catholic church but that it is just a seal(?) that says "this book does not contain anything that is contrary to Catholic belief."  (Is that right?)  And it's also the same for the apparitions of Mama Mary.

Like the infallibility of the pope.  It doesn't mean he does not make mistakes, but that he CANNOT teach anything contrary to our faith.

I know there are terms for these things...something with "negative"... I just can't remember...It's what real apologists use :) (so...sorry if I sort of explain stuffs rather weirdly  :'(  :P )

And so my new speculation is: :)  Cain being able to have someone to marry is just a way to make the story foster "generations". A continuation of the story.  Like Adam and Eve begat Cain, Cain begat, Enoch, Enoch begat....  ???

I've always believed that Adam and Eve are our first parents, but I guess my logic will be flawed if I speculated that there were other humans God created.  :'( I'm glad that got settled  O:)

Again sorry for taking us back  ;D
My understanding is that the Book of Genesis was written by at least three authors, each with his own characteristic style or form of writing. These were the Yahwist, the Elohist and the Priestly. The first two I understand, but who were the Priestly authors? What was their form of writing? And while we are at it, what of the Deuteronic authors? ???

Since Moses has always been understood to be the author of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) and this is what the Church teaches (in scripture as well as elsewhere), I have not paid any real attention to the various 'scholarly' articles about any other influences, though I notice them constantly changing over time, and going outside of this truth.

There's a brief response from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, from back aways, dealing with the subject and insisting on Mosaic authorship, while allowing it may be speculated that he worked through assistants, and selected under the inspiration of God from other source materials.

When I read the scriptures I look for the spiritually inspired commentary and understandings about them, rather than the sort of commentary and footnotes one finds in most modern Bibles, often with a 'Catholic' label that in fact contradict teachings of the Faith often enough, as well as deal with subjects that are simply not useful whatsoever to the spiritual life but are matters of quibbles about various historical matters that are either already established traditionally or about matters no one can know the answer to, and which laypeople certainly aren't going to learn anything from or be able to engage in discussions about the details of.

I like to learn the spiritual and moral lessons, the Catholic spirituality. :D

And I think that's where we laypeople can best benefit and discuss without being too out of our field. :D

Ah, here we go:

The Biblical Commission answers the following questions:

1. Authenticity — Whether the arguments amassed by critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are of sufficient weight, notwithstanding the very many evidences to the contrary contained in both Testaments, taken collectively, the persistent agreement of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal arguments derived from the text itself, to justify the statement that these books have not Moses for their author but have been complied from sources for the most part posterior to the time of Moses.

Answer: In the negative.

2. Writer — Whether the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch necessarily postulates such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote with his own hand or dictated to amanuenses all and everything contained in it; or whether it is possible to admit the hypothesis of those who think that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by himself under the influence of divine inspiration, to some other person or persons, but in such a manner that they render faithfully his own thoughts, wrote nothing contrary to his will, and omitted nothing; and that the work thus produced, approved by Moses as the principal and inspired author, was made public under his name.

Answer: In the negative to the first part, in the affirmative to the second part.

3. Sources — Whether it may be granted, without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which, to suit his special purpose and under the influence of divine inspiration, he selected some things and inserted them in his work, either literally or in substance, summarized or amplified.

Answer: In the affirmative.

4. Changes and Textual Corruptions — Whether, granted the substantial Mosaic authenticity and the integrity of the Pentateuch, it may be admitted that in the long course of centuries some modifications have been introduced into the work, such as additions after the death of Moses, either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; certain words and forms translated from the ancient language to a more recent language, and finally, faulty readings to be ascribed to the error of amanuenses, concerning which it is lawful to investigate and judge according to the laws of criticism.

Answer: In the affirmative, subject to the judgment of the Church.

But these sorts of matters really aren't I think the areas we should be discussing, rather the spiritual and moral. :D

And most especially what the saints have to say about these passages.  ;D

For instance in Genesis 8 we have:

'And after that forty days were passed, Noe, opening the window of the ark which he had made, sent forth a raven: Which went forth and did not return, till the waters were dried up upon the earth.  He sent forth also a dove after him, to see if the waters had now ceased upon the face of the earth. But she, not finding where her foot might rest, returned to him into the ark: for the waters were upon the whole earth: and he put forth his hand, and caught her, and brought her into the ark. And having waited yet seven other days, he again sent forth the dove out of the ark.

Did not return: The raven did not return into the ark; but (as it may be gathered from the Hebrew) went to and fro; sometimes going to the mountains, where it found carcasses to feed on: and other times returning, to rest upon the top of the ark.

And she came to him in the evening, carrying a bough of an olive tree, with green leaves, in her mouth. Noe therefore understood that the waters were ceased upon the earth. And he stayed yet other seven days: and he sent forth the dove, which returned not any more unto him.'

And there's a such a depth of deeper meaning to it all.

The dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit. The Ark, the symbol of the Church and Our Lady.

'I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven, and he remained upon him.'

John 1:32

'The Ark, which in the midst of the Flood was a symbol of the Church, was wide below and narrow above; and, at the summit, measured only a single cubit. . . It was wide where the animals were, narrow where men lived: for the Holy Church is indeed wide in the number of those who are carnal minded, narrow in the number of those who are spiritual.'

Pope St. Gregory the Great

And I think there's a good deal we can think about regarding the water and its meaning..  ;D

Odhiambo,

I’ll type here a bit of what the Jerusalem Bible says  in the “Introduction to the Pentateuch”...can't type them all 'coz it's very long :)

"(First paragraph...end half)
Initially there were, it was held , two narrative sources: the Yahwistic (J) which, from the story of  Creation onwards, uses the divine name Yahweh that was revealed to Moses, and the Elohistic (E) which uses Elohim, the common noun for God.  The Yahwistic source was committed to writing in Judah in the 9th century, the Elohistic in Israel a little later.  After the fall of the Northern Kingdom these two documents were combined (JE).  After the time of Josiah the Deuteronomic source (D) was added (JED).  The Priestly Code (P), made up for the most part of laws, though with a certain amount of narrative matter, was after the Exile joined to the existing compilation which it served to weld and bind together (JEDP).  It should be noted that the literary analysis behind this hypothesis was allied with an evolutionary theory of the religious development of Israel.

(Sixth paragraph)
So far as the Book of Genesis is concerned it is not difficult to recognize and follow the threads of the three traditions: Yahwistic, Elohistic, Priestly.  Nor is it hard to trace the Priestly tradition in the closing chapters of Exodus, in the whole of Leviticus and in the greater part of Numbers; but it is difficult to decide which part of the remainder belongs to the Yahwistic tradition and which to the Elohistic.  After the Book of Numbers all three traditions disappear; they are replaced by a single tradition: the Deuteronomic.  This is characterized by a most distinctive style which is exuberant and rhetorical; certain clear-cut formulae frequently recur.  Its doctrine, too, is characteristic – a doctrine it never tires of repeating: of all the nations Israel has been chosen as God’s people by an act of spontaneous divine favour; nevertheless a condition is attached to this choice and to the pact that seals it, namely that Israel must be faithful to the law of its God and to the prescribed worship that is to be offered in the one and only sanctuary.  It may be that the substance of the Deuteronomic tradition basically represents Northern custom as introduced to Jerusalem by Levites after the fall of the kingdom of Israel.  This body of law rediscovered in the Temple during the reign of Josiah, was then promulgated within the framework of a Mosaic discourse.  In the first years of the Exile there was issued another edition, new but on the same lines as its predecessor."

Until you've mentioned these things...I've never really known about them.  They are nice to know to get the background of the Bible.  But they seem more "academic" than food for the soul. Just knowing Moses wrote Genesis is actually good enough for me :)  

I found that sermon I mentioned earlier in the thread.
Go to Audio Sancto site and type into the search box, "Unless We Believe in Scripture We Can Neither Be Christians Nor Be Saved" and that will bring you to the sermon.  :D

It deals with how even non-Christian civilizations can/have traced their ancestry back to Noah's family.
It's very edifying for one's faith to know these things, especially when even the reality of the Great Flood is questioned in our time with the suggestion that we can understand it in a purely metaphorical way rather than literally.

I'm glad you found it Martin! I remembered it too, but I did not remember which one it was!

That has happened to me more than once, I have wanted to recommend one, but forgot which one it was! And it can be quite hard to find again!

Thanks be to God for your finding it! Was it hard work?  ;D

Surprisingly Shin I had an idea as to which category to look under and then when I clicked on the sermon I felt might be it, it actually was.  :D
A small mercy. Thank you dear Lord.  :angelbell:

Oh patristic is just another way of saying 'Church Fathers', like St. John Chrysostom, it's from the Latin 'pater' for father. Which always reminds me of the German, 'vater'.

Uhm... this sort of has nothing to do with the discussion  ;D but in my country a colloquial(?) or groovy(?) way of referring to one's father is "Erpat" (Erpats for plural  ;D "ermat" for mother  ;) ). I've always wondered why.  In my language the word father is "tatay" or "ama" and mother is "nanay" or "ina".  If it's in English father would have been "er-fath". I guess it's from Latin then...  of the "pig-Latin" kind, that is  ;D . Filipinos sometimes would interchange syllables of a word.  Like we have an officemate named Lito, but we call him Tolits (but not plural this time) or our word for hungry "gutom" we'd say "i'm already tomguts". Or an old popular song "Nosi ba lasi" (Sino ba sila....meaning "Who are they, anyway?"  Ok...I'm waaay off  ;D :P

Ah! I see! Er pats from pat er. .. .

It sounds like something I would do, mix up the words front and back. . saying one word before the other rather than in order.. Haha! It's like I have a bit of Filipino in me, even though I don't!

There's still a decent deal of family respect in the Philippines too, isn't there? For elders and elder brothers and sisters, and fathers?

We can see what happens in the scriptures swiftly enough when there's lack of respect!

Thanks for taking the trouble pebbles  :thumbsup:
It is good enough for me too. That was just a "by the way" query  :)

Odhiambo, how is it where you are with respect for parents and elders?

Time was when it was everything.
A young person had a lot of respect for the elders of the family and of the community at large.
Example:
The parents’ word was “law” and no one would think of going against it.
When giving something to, or accepting something from a parent or any  elder for that matter, a young person, if a girl, was expected to kneel respectfully to do so.
A young person did not answer back when being “corrected by an adult”
A youth did not refer to his /her parents with their given names; only as Baba; Mama or Baa and Maa . Adwong and Imat once they have become advanced in years.
Etc.
Alas, young people these days look on some of those earlier customs as “primitive” and no longer adhere to them.  :(

The same goes for India. Respect for elders comes naturally.
Last Sunday at church there was a little Fillipino old lady who was distributing Our Lady of Perpetual Succour novena pamphlets to the people sitting around her and I was one of them. She said they were from the Phillipines and instructed us how to say the novena.  During the Sign of Peace she wanted to bless my children and did so placing her hand on their heads.  I liked that because being blessed by elders is a common part of Indian culture too and is considered very important :D
I bless my children too after the family Rosary.  :)

For Filipinos, as a sign of respect to our elders, we take their hand place the back of the hand to our foreheads. It's an automatic response of children towards their elders since they are taught since they were still babies.  Usually you'd say "Mano po" (Mano is hand I think is Spanish) "po" is basically means respectfully.  You can know a Filipino is not respectful if "po" is not used when speaking to someone who is older than you.  Other versions of "po" is "ho".  But then again in some provinces "po" is not a cultural habit.  (Actually, some people us the "po" so many times in their sentences that my classmates and I used to count who says the most "po"  ;D  After doing this, the one who receives the "mano po." would say, "Bless you!"  I think we got this from kissing the hands of priests during the Spanish era, and how it came to the forehead...hmmm...maybe they don't like their hands being kissed?  ;D  The instances you do this is when your family has a gather and you've not seen older relatives for sometime (and when the get-together is over), after mass, visiting an older relative, and after praying the rosary as a family.   But I think in the past, before you leave the house you do this to say goodbye to your parents and when you get back home. For the more conservative, I think you even have to do this for the elder siblings.  But sad to say, some people don't want to do this and instead, they prefer the Western style of greeting of hugging or kissing the cheeks. 

A Filipino would never ever call their parents by their first names.  The rule for siblings are: If there's only two of you, the eldest brother is called "Kuya" or "Ate" (if the eldest is the sister).  If there are more kids ... For boys: "Kuya" (eldest); "Dikong" (2nd oldest); "Sangkong" (3rd oldest).  For girls: "Ate" (eldest); "Diche" (2nd oldest); "Sanse" (3rd oldest).  There is no need to add their name... the rest who are still not the youngest will be called Kuya or Ate and their name will be added.  Not many use this honorific names these days...only the "kuya and ate".  I have an older brother named Denis...but I never call him Denis.  Only "kuya".  And we don't call older relatives without the honorifics "Tita" (aunt), "Tito" (uncle), "Lolo" (grandpa) and "Lola" (grandma).  I am "Ate" to my younger cousins and "Tita" (aunt)  to my nieces and nephews.  At work, mostly in government offices, we also use "kuya" or "ate" for older co-employees.  These honorific words, I think we got from Chinese and Indian influence.  O:)

This is so similar to Indian culture  :D