At what point do you believe the bible to be historical

[Ducklyn]

God telling a story≠God Lying

if, as I think, creation was not in 7, 24 hour, days, it would be no more a lie than the prodigal son, which is to say it wouldn’t be one at all

Hi SenorSalsa,

The Lord God told Moses to write down what he gave him. The Lord God would not need parables to tell the truth about the amount of days it took. How long does it take for man to cure Leprosy and for the skin to return to normal? How long did it take Christ to cure the 10 Lepers where only one came back to thank him?

The concept of time is not a barrier to God. Unlike ourselves who are restricted to time and it’s boundaries, the Lord God tells the end from the beginning being Omniscient.
If God says he created the world in 6 days and rested the 7th day. Why would that be impossible for him. Luke 1:37 says nothing is impossible for God.

Do you think in Christs time or anyone elses there was a ‘prodigal son’? Why would God not know about it, if there was? Being ‘omnipresent’ does he not know the words that come out of everyones mouth before they speak them?** Psalm 139:4.For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.**
There was a prodigal son because God put his own Words in the mouth of Christ Jesus.
We must never make God limited by the same limitations as human beings.
We must never lessen the power or the person of God to be human in his limitations.
We know that God cannot lie and the Old Testament is Truth. The OT was given directly from God to Moses. The idea was not to explain the creation but to let us know he did it and that it took him 6 days. Not because we know and understand how he did it, but so we can trust him and believe him because he said he did.

Abraham accepted what God told him and this was accounted to him for righteousness.
Faith comes from hearing the word of God and believing it. If we cannot believe the OT then it makes anything in the NT unsafe too.

D.XxX

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Is it possible that the creation story in Genesis 1 is only a vehicle for telling deeper truths – that viewing it as a set of shockingly-correct jots and tittles (because God can’t lie) is to be too simple-minded about it, and to miss the point?

The deeper truths are about the salvation process. Because “two” symbolizes “Church” in the Bible, the creation of the firmament covering the world on the “second” day foreshadows God’s gift, on “Church” day, of the Church, to save.

Because “three” symbolizes “God’s will” in the Bible, and because the fig tree not only stands for Israel and Judaism, but also for “the law of the commandments” in Judaism, the creation of trees including the fig tree on the “third” day foreshadows God’s gift, on “God’s will day,” of the “commandments.”

Because “four” symbolizes “everyone” in the Bible, and because Christ is the “light of the world,” the creation of stars on the “fourth” day foreshadows God’s gift, on “everyone” day, of those around us, as sources of salvation.

Because “five” symbolizes “Christ” in the Bible,. and because Christ is symbolized by birds, fish and a sea monster, the creation of such creatures on day “five” foreshadows the gift on “Christ” day of God’s Son to mankind.

Because “six” symbolizes “evil,” the creation of mankind on day “six” implies that man has an “evil” problem, which needs to be addressed by the other things foreshadowed.

 

[ahollars]

The creation story needs to be separated according to what the author wanted to separate. Notice how generic everything is about the earth and its creatures, but from the moment God creates Adam, everything becomes very specific with details and events that all occur within a normal person’s adulthood, including naming rivers that we know where to locate today.

I believe that man was created independent of the animals “from the dust of the ground”. Using Genetic Theory, even if they can’t seem to agree on the date, it is supported that all men have a common ancestral father, and same for women, except they lived far apart from each other. Answer: Noah. Noah and his three sons were all related, and only they survived. Noah’s wife and the wives of his sons were not related, thus their lineage traces further back.

Abraham lived in and visited cities that we know existed and have evidence for today. The story of Moses can be found in archaeology in Egypt. Everyone think: how do we know that Ramses was the pharaoh of Exodus? Just like Moses’ name isn’t on any monuments, Ramses’ name is nowhere in the Bible, yet we all know he was the one. The proof is in his own history recorded in stone regarding the status and location of the Israelis during his reign.

For history’s sake, the bible becomes reliable by today’s standards with Joshua and the introduction of the Judges. Make what you will about the story of Jericho, except for the fact that they did take over the city. From that point on there are very few miracles, let alone ones that all the people could see. I will attribute this to the world’s willingness to believe that Israel is capable of exterminating entire civilizations. Whatever…

People need to remember that in the beginning the was no need to remember history. Only when something was thought to be so evil that it could not be allowed to return did people begin to record history, beginning with Moses and his contributions to the Torah, whichever parts were his. Once Israel was free from Egypt, only then was there a sense of necessity to remember, having learned it from the Egyptians. Before that, there was only oral tradition. Again, do not underestimate that value, particularly when it was the only way for so long. It is difficult for us to understand only because we don’t use it. However as Catholics, we should have a greater appreciation of Tradition with Scripture, just as Israel did in the beginning.

 

[juliamajor]

a parable is not an actual event- it is a story that teaches lessons very common in the ANE and resemble the Rabbinic stories of the Modern era .They are meant to make you think out of the box.

 

[juliamajor]

Fiction or myth do not equal lies.Storytelling is a very ancient and honorable way of teaching truths . Facts don’t= truth!
Fact-abortion is a medical procedure
Truth - it kills babies!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I don’t accept the 7 day creation at all. I believe that the author we call the Final Redactor intentionally and carefully brought together two essentially contradictory creation accounts into one book, Genesis. IMHO, the inspired Final Redactor had no intent, at all, to teach creation history. I think that he was intent on teaching underlying theology.

The gymnastics many devout Bible readers engage in to avoid contradiction between Genesis 1 on the one hand and Genesis 2-3 on the other, and to square creation accounts with science, are wrong. “Inspired” =/= “historical,” IMO.

I don’t know if Noah existed. I believe that there was a flood of cosmic proportions. I believe that there was an ark. But I don’t believe that the account is intended to be historical. It’s intended to teach theology wqith symbolism.

I believe that Abraham existed. But, many of the chapters of Abraham’s story appear to be ancient fairy tales borrowed from other cultures, according to Frazer and Gaster. Ditto for Joseph and Moses.

Moses’ name is extremely interesting. A friend of mine, Norman Totten (who I haven’t talked to in years, I confess, and who may have passed away by now) wrote an article arguing that Moses isn’t really Moses’ name, but " ]-Moses" – “Moses” preceded by an invisible first syllable. His argument was that Ramases’ name in effect was also “Moses,” “Moses” of the god Ra – “Ra-Moses,” get it? And Thutmose was really “Moses” of the god Thut – Thut-Moses, get it? So, Moses was called “Moses” because he was “Moses of the un-nameable god” – " ]-Moses," get it?

There is a number of Egyptian names among the descendants of Levi - Moses is only the most obvious & the best known ​

Aaron
Phinehas
Miriam

are others. R. de Vaux O.P. discussed these names (& others, IIRC) in the first volume of his unfinished “Early History of Israel”. If the people who made up (what became) Israel spent time in Egypt, something of the sort is perhaps not surprising.

 

[garysibio]

Do you accept the 7 day Creation?
Noah?
Abraham?
Joseph?
Moses?
Some later point?

I tend to not believe in the 7 day creation, and I have some qualms about the flood story. Past that I have little problems taking it literally

Where do you stand, and more importantly, at what point would the Church say you have to take the scripture literally?

Gen 1:1

What is it about the creation account in Genesis that makes you think it was not intended to be taken literally. There are portions of the Bible that are not meant to be read that way but there is some sort of indication that a metaphor or symbol is being used.

If we can just pick and choose which parts of the Bible are symbolic, then we really can’t gripe when Protestants take Jesus’ words in John 6 as symbolic.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

I can understand why you look to the magisterium of the church for guidance. If God couldn’t create the world in 6 literal 24 hour days, on what basis do you contend that the Pope is infallible? If you don’t believe Noah and the flood, on what basis do you believe the Resurrection? If you don’t believe Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt, on what basis do you believe in infant baptism? If you don’t believe the Bible, on what basis do you believe the church?

Amen!

Some Catholics are just to willing to capitulate when it comes to the truth of the Bible.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

“7” and for that matter “40” had expanded meaning in those times. 7 days also meant “all days” while 40 also mean " a period of complete discernment"

True, but irrelevant. Why do those numbers have a special significance? Because God created the world in seven days (including the day of rest) and because it rained for 40 days and nights.

Do you think the ancient Hebrews sat around one day and said, “Hey, we need some significant numbers. I know. Let’s go with 7 and 40?”

Gary

 

[Luke65]

“In the beginning…”

Meaning to say, if you press too hard that what’s in the OT isn’t “real”, people might apply your standard to what happened in the NT, and if Christ isn’t risen, bretheren, our faith is in vain.

Great minds think alike! I mean yours and Jesus’, of course. (see my sig)

The gymnastics many devout Bible readers engage in to avoid contradiction between Genesis 1 on the one hand and Genesis 2-3 on the other, and to square creation accounts with science, are wrong. “Inspired” =/= “historical,” IMO.

The only “gymnastics” I see are from those who say: “We don’t take the Bible literally, except when we do take the Bible literally.” But harmonizing seemingly contradictory scriptures is what the saints have done for 2000 years - its in our job description! Many a Christian have apostatized because: “The Gospels contradict each other.” Of course, many more have apostatized because of what is “falsely called science” (1 Timothy 6:20).

I believe that man was created independent of the animals “from the dust of the ground”. Using Genetic Theory, even if they can’t seem to agree on the date, it is supported that all men have a common ancestral father, and same for women, except they lived far apart from each other. Answer: Noah. Noah and his three sons were all related, and only they survived. Noah’s wife and the wives of his sons were not related, thus their lineage traces further back.

You are correct, sir! “Mitochondrial Eve” apparently lived before “Y-chromosome Adam”. But if scientists knew their Bibles better, let alone believed, they would know he should be called “Y-chromosome Noah”, since Noah is our most recent male common ancestor from whom all men get their Y-chromosome.

I believe the bible is the Word of God and is Truth. It is certain that he made the world in 6 days and he rested the 7th day. Two reasons for this belief. 1.) God cannot and will not lie.
2.) Nothing is impossible for God.

:yup:

I have heard all the arguments and the excuses by atheists. The one thing God does…

I can understand why you look to the magisterium of the church for guidance. If God couldn’t create the world in 6 literal 24 hour days, on what basis do you contend that the Pope is infallible? If you don’t believe Noah and the flood, on what basis do you believe the Resurrection? If you don’t believe Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt, on what basis do you believe in infant baptism? If you don’t believe the Bible, on what basis do you believe the church?

Yes, that last one was the one that ensnared me. 12 years of Catholic school taught me to not take the Old Testament seriously, and then they’re shocked, shocked! That I stopped taking the Church seriously. But now I know the truth, and the truth has set me free! (I hope the Lord doesn’t have to humble you like He humbled me to bring me to obedience to His Bride.)

 

[SenorSalsa]

Gen 1:1

What is it about the creation account in Genesis that makes you think it was not intended to be taken literally. There are portions of the Bible that are not meant to be read that way but there is some sort of indication that a metaphor or symbol is being used.

If we can just pick and choose which parts of the Bible are symbolic, then we really can’t gripe when Protestants take Jesus’ words in John 6 as symbolic.

Gary

Probable science theories including the origins of life, the age of the earth and of the universe, etc.

Biblical Geneologies take us back ~6000 years, radiometric dating takes us back about 4.5 billion.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The only “gymnastics” I see are from those who say: “We don’t take the Bible literally, except when we do take the Bible literally.” But harmonizing seemingly contradictory scriptures is what the saints have done for 2000 years - its in our job description! Many a Christian have apostatized because: “The Gospels contradict each other.” Of course, many more have apostatized because of what is “falsely called science” (1 Timothy 6:20).

The gymnastics I refer to are all of the explanations given for various verses of the Bible viewed as an historical document elsewhere in this website.

For example, “If Adam and Eve were ‘it,’ then didn’t Cain have to have sex with a sister to beget children?”

“Oh,” say the litreralists, “Incest was okay early in human history.”

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Or, “The Genesis 1 account has plants being created before man; the Genesis 2 account has plants being made after man.”

“Oh,” say the literalists, “No problem: In Genesis 2, only the Garden of Eden is being referred to. The rest of the world was planted!”

Those gymnastics.

 

[Contarini]

Do you accept the 7 day Creation?
Noah?
Abraham?
Joseph?
Moses?
Some later point?

I tend to not believe in the 7 day creation, and I have some qualms about the flood story. Past that I have little problems taking it literally

Where do you stand, and more importantly, at what point would the Church say you have to take the scripture literally?

Note that I’m Episcopalian, not Catholic. My own view is that we have nothing remotely like history until Genesis chap. 12 (Abraham). Even then, we are dealing with legends passed down over centuries, and there may be many parts of the story where, for instance, groups are spoken of as if they were individuals. Only with 1-2 Samuel, in my opinion, do we start to have accounts that may well have been written very soon after the events that they describe (I take the somewhat old-fashioned view that the “Court History of David” was written in something like the form we have it by a contemporary or near-contemporary).

However, I do believe that even the early chapters of Genesis describe things that happened in time. They do so mythically and symbolically, not literally or historically, but I think that creation, fall, and a succession of divine interventions in fallen human history leading up to the call of Abraham really describes a course of events rather than making timeless statements about human nature.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Abraham lived in and visited cities that we know existed and have evidence for today.

But there are some fairly clear anachronisms–the reference to the Philistines, for instance. Of course this could be referring to an earlier people who lived in the southern coastal plain, but it’s still a counter-example to the argument you are making above.

The story of Moses can be found in archaeology in Egypt. Everyone think: how do we know that Ramses was the pharaoh of Exodus? Just like Moses’ name isn’t on any monuments, Ramses’ name is nowhere in the Bible, yet we all know he was the one.

No, we don’t. In fact, if we take the Biblical chronology as being literally accurate, he certainly wasn’t the one, because the Exodus would have had to have happened a couple hundred years earlier. Ramses is the most likely guess, taking the Biblical account seriously as a historical source but not accepting the chronology as completely accurate.

The proof is in his own history recorded in stone regarding the status and location of the Israelis during his reign.

I would like to see some reference to this alleged “history recorded in stone.” The first reference to Israel that I know of is from the reign of Merneptah, the son of Ramses II, who claimed to have wiped Israel out (apparently in a military campaign in Canaan).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What is it about the creation account in Genesis that makes you think it was not intended to be taken literally. There are portions of the Bible that are not meant to be read that way but there is some sort of indication that a metaphor or symbol is being used.

The “indication” is in the nature of the narrative. It doesn’t sound like history to me. Does it really sound like history to you, or are you just convincing yourself that it must be history because you think your faith will collapse otherwise?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I can understand why you look to the magisterium of the church for guidance. If God couldn’t create the world in 6 literal 24 hour days, on what basis do you contend that the Pope is infallible? If you don’t believe Noah and the flood, on what basis do you believe the Resurrection? If you don’t believe Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt, on what basis do you believe in infant baptism? If you don’t believe the Bible, on what basis do you believe the church?

You could ask just the second question in each case. You are assuming that the basis of each pair must be the same, but there’s no reason for this assumption.

My reasons for believing in infant baptism (as an Anglican, I don’t contend that the Pope is infallible) have nothing to do with Lot’s wife. In fact, Biblical literalism generally leads people to reject infant baptism. So your arguments work against you. This is obscured by the fact that the version of Catholicism represented on this board has taken to using fundamentalist arguments against fundamentalists. (Hence the untenable claim that John 6 must be taken with complete literalism–applying literalism to any part of the Gospel of John is a pretty bad idea, in my opinion.)

Edwin

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The gymnastics I refer to are all of the explanations given for various verses of the Bible viewed as an historical document elsewhere in this website.

For example, "If Adam and Eve were ‘it,’ then didn’t Cain have to have sex with a sister to beget children?"

“Oh,” say the litreralists, “Incest was okay early in human history.”

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Or, “The Genesis 1 account has plants being created before man; the Genesis 2 account has plants being made after man.”

“Oh,” say the literalists, “No problem: In Genesis 2, only the Garden of Eden is being referred to. The rest of the world was planted!”

Those gymnastics.

It would seem you’re speaking to me? Let me ask it to you this way, would an evolution only person believe incest never occured?

Second as meantion earlier “7” also meant “universal” or “all” to those authors so who is sure the proper translation is not “god created in all days” which could even conclude god is creating now! Oh, can I guess we are simply to smart not to see creation before our eyes. However that would be counter to evolution theories!

I hope that helps

 

[Peter_Dawson]

It would seem you’re speaking to me? Let me ask it to you this way, would an evolution only person believe incest never occured?

Second as meantion earlier “7” also meant “universal” or “all” to those authors so who is sure the proper translation is not “god created in all days” which could even conclude god is creating now! Oh, can I guess we are simply to smart not to see creation before our eyes. However that would be counter to evolution theories!

I hope that helps

I am an “evolution only” person. I think that God somehow made adequate arrangements to make functional bestiality unnecessary. For example, homo sapiens infused with a soul from the tribe (all of whom were “monogenetically” descended from a common ancestor generations back) could readily distinguish between members similarly infused and those not infused, and found intimacy with the uninfused members as repulsive a prospect as copulating with a dog, so that they preferred, and sought, sexual partnerships with with the infused homo sapiens, only.

I agree with typology. I believe that through some version of the natural selection process God in fact is creating today.

 

[o_mlly]

Catholics believe Scripture is inerrant. Unlike, the infallibility of the pope, the historical inerrancy in the Bible is not limited to matters of faith and morals but in all things as a salvation history the Bible is without error.

Pope Pius XII wrote: “God wished difficulties to be scattered through the Sacred Books inspired by Him, in order that we might be urged to read and scrutinize them more intently, and, experiencing in a salutary manner our own limitations, we might be exercised in due submission of mind” (DAS 45).

In the end, the Church calls us to adopt a reverential attitude toward the Scriptures. In a letter to Saint Jerome, St Augustine wrote: “I have learned to hold those books alone of the Scriptures that are now called canonical in such reverence and honor that I do most firmly believe that none of their authors has erred in anything that he has written therein. If I find anything in those writings which seems to be contrary to the truth, I presume that either the codex is inaccurate, or the translator has not followed what was said, or I have not properly understood it” (Letter of Augustine to Jerome, 82, 1, 3).

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[joemccarron]

I can understand why you look to the magisterium of the church for guidance. If God couldn’t create the world in 6 literal 24 hour days, on what basis do you contend that the Pope is infallible? If you don’t believe Noah and the flood, on what basis do you believe the Resurrection? If you don’t believe Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt, on what basis do you believe in infant baptism? If you don’t believe the Bible, on what basis do you believe the church?

Well our sources for the Gospels/NT are better than our sources for the Old Testament events. You are over simplifying. Much of our Catholic teachings are based on the New Testament. When you read Luke you know he is not giving us mythical stories. When you read the Old Testament it’s not really clear.

I mean we can gauge that there may have been a time of oral tradition from the events that occurred in Luke to the time of his writing them down. Try to figure that out for Genesis.