Biblical Flexibility

[PlipPlop]

Hello folks. Please tell me your thoughts.

I was reading a thread somewhere on these forums about the great flood, and how it wouldn’t cover the entire earth. Someone adeptly pointed out that, to the writers of the Bible, the “earth” means dirt, soil, the area in which we live, etc. To the ancient Biblical Scholars, the Mediterranean area was their “world”. There have certainly been floods that covered everything there.

So, basically, the interpretation of the Bible changes as life goes on. This is okay with Catholic teaching, isn’t it? Does this include thinking of the Bible more as a guide than everything-is-literal-period?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jesus_123]

+The information you mentioned having read is false and is neither true about Sacred :bible1: Scripture nor is it Catholic . . . below are some examples of the Holy See’s gravely serious definitive and corrective point of view on some Biblical translations on the market today . . .

:bible1: The Holy Bible (Douay Rheims Version [Douai-Rheims], Revised by Bishop Richard Challoner) is a wonderful translation . . .

The Douay Rhiems Version (DRV) was first translated . . . word for word . . . from the Latin to make it more readable in English . . . it was the only English Catholic Bible for over 300 years and has been greatly blessed of God as such . . . and insofar as I know it is still the official English Catholic Bible . . . The original Latin translation was accomplished by the Holy Spirit’s Inspiration through the blessed St. Jerome . . . the Old Testament from the Hebrew . . . the New Testament from the Greek . . . and some of the manuscripts **St. Jerome **used are no longer in existence . . .

Pope Pius XII stated that the
Holy :bible1: Bible
Douay Rheims Version
was **
*“free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” ***
With **St. Jerome **. . . **who as well as being a SAINT is a HOLY DOCTOR of the Catholic Church . . . and . . . ** the Vicar of Christ’s (this Pope’s) declaration of support . . . you can’t go wrong with this edition . . .

Below are quotes from the Eternal Word Television Network’s (EWTN’s) website:

:bible1: Douai-Rheims.[Douay-Rheims] The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. Bishop Challoner’s 1899 edition is available from TAN Books.​

**The renown teaching priest Father John Corapi ** endorses and highly recommends the **ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition ** of Sacred :bible1: Scripture as his favored modern English translation . . . and used in tandem with the Douay Rhiems the full richness of Scripture is amplified considerably . . . please note that this is the ORIGINAL Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) . . .

:bible1: Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition. Translated for an American audience from the original languages in the 1940s and 1950s by the National Council of the Churches of Christ, and adapted for Catholic use by the Catholic Biblical Association (1966). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press . . .******​

The enemy of souls most unholy spirit has used the grave and disordered error of “inclusive language” (stripping God the Holy Spirit’s designated use of masculine and feminine words from text re God and mankind and neutering them) to make serious inroads in corrupting that which the **God the Holy Spirit **has entrusted to the Christ’s Most Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church . . . When purchasing a Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition be very careful to request the trustworthy **ORIGINAL RSV-CE **. . . the newest untrustworthy version which is being heavily promoted nowadays contains real errors . . . the NAB version has a similar problem . . .

New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language … ******​

NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was **due to the use of vertical inclusive language **(re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States. ******
​

. . . all for Jesus+
St. Jerome please pray for us+
thank You Lord for Thy Wonderful Holy Word+​

 

[wardrandolph]

I live in the mountains of SE.Ky…About 15 yrs.ago the mountain in back of our house had a 'crack’caused by strip mine blasting.The Dept.of mines and reclamation came in with bulldoziers ect.to fix this 'break’to keep the mountain from sliding off.My neighbor and I walked up the mountain,well over a 1500ft.Welooked over area where they were working and found numerous sea shells which Univ.of Ky.now have most of them.The great flood of the Bible I believe deposited these there.I’ve worked in underground coal mines and surface[strip]mines for years.I’ve seen to many examples like this that convine me of the reality of the great flood.Rocky.

 

[PlipPlop]

Thanks for the work you put into that!

However, I don’t think it fully answers what I was looking for.
What I mean is, does Catholic teaching dictate that I have to take everything in the Bible literally? For instance, Eve was created out of a rib from Adam. According to Catholic beliefs, do I have to believe that God actually took a rib out of Adam and grew a woman from that rib? Is it possible for me to believe that it’s symbolic (i.e. the rib represents the basic form of a human, and God made both sexes from that basic form) while avoiding conflict?

Also, if we cannot change our view of the Bible, and the Church’s doctrine is static, then I take it that you agree with slavery and think that it’s bad to have a woman hold power over a man?

wardrandolph: tectonic plates could be a contributing factor, as well as local floods. What I’m saying is that the whole entire world, as we know it, doesn’t appear to have been flooded all at once. However, most (if not all) of the world has, at some point, been covered with water.

Please forgive me for seeming somewhat rude, I really am trying to understand my faith better. I hope you guys are open to these questions.

 

[grace_singh]

well… i am not a Catholic, but i am a Christian who takes the Bible literally.

i do believe the Bible is the Word of God, and True, and that we are to take the narratives therein literally, when they are described or presented as historical / actual occurences and not, for example, within a parable of Christ. and the entire Bible (reading out of and not into the text) presents itself as an historical narrative recording real events.

slavery, in its basic sense, is one human legally owning another and getting work from that person, in exchange for food, shelter, protection, etc. Jesus did not condemn slavery socially, but the Bible does urge believers with slaves to treat them kindly, and fairly.

in India, weathly families may live on a compound with servants’ quarters full of what are basically, slaves. the slaves are essentially servants living on the grounds who do house work, clean, take care of the grounds, etc. slavery, according to the Bible, is not in itself evil. cruelty and exploitation within that system, however, is.

as to women not ruling over men, i am fine with that. this is outlined in Genesis, and reiterated by Paul (refering to Genesis) in passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-13 and 1 Corinthians 11:3. man is to rule over women, not the other way around. this does not mean that men are to mistreat or disregard women, only that women within the church are not to teach or exercise authority over men, but to learn, listen, and obey their superiors. women within the NT also prophecy and minister within the church (parish), but not as the heads of those churches.

 

[wardrandolph]

Sacred Scripture as I’m sure you know was written in defferant littuary styles[poetic,history,allegory etc.]There are two stories of the creation,slightly differant from each other.Are these meant to be science or exact history.no.What exactly is God trying to tell us?Taken literally,there is a conflict in these two stories.The writer is telling us God created everything,not how He did it.The Church has the authority to give us the meaning of Sacred Scripture.Some things are to be taken literal,some are not.

 

[grace_singh]

actually, there really is no contradiction.

as to the creation of animals in Genesis 2, a more literal translation of Genesis 2:19 would be “and out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field…”, if we follow the Hebrew tenses, showing that the animals had already been created, and were at that time being shown to Adam for naming.

“Genesis 2” according to the narrative actually begins at Genesis 2:4 with a shift of narration as the narrative zooms in on the garden, from the larger story of creation.

 

[Detales]

A friend of mine teaches a class in comparative religions. He was on his way to becoming a Jesuit priest so has great knowledge of Catholic theology. He and others who teach such courses often use a book with a very horrible title, but exceptionally useful contents regarding considerations surrounding Biblical interpretation. It is very well annotated in a scholarly way, yet is delightful to read, and even has exercises to do to get a “feel” of what a translator has to consider when attempting to re-state an original work in another, sometimes very dissimilar language.

The book is called Insights for the Age of Aquarius (I told you!) and is authored by Gina Cerminara. I would recommend it for anyone of any religion as a source book for mental tools relative to interpreting and critical thinking in religion, science, or any belief system, as the principles she puts forth are universally applicable.

I like the DRV, and chose it from about a hundred others to use in my signature. No one has got the significance of that reference yet, though.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Below are quotes from both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture regarding the Holy Word of God. As Catholics we know our **Wonderful God as TRIUNE in Nature . . . three persons in One . . . 1. God the Father . . . 2. God the Son . . . and 3. God the Holy Spirit . . . **and we know **God the Holy Spirit **as the one and only **Holy Author **of **Sacred Scripture . . . using mankind as His holy scribes/writers/secretaries . . . To gain a fuller and more comprehensive view of how our Holy Mother Church truly views Sacred Scripture **. . . the rest of these sections of the Catechism are marvelous enlightening and informative reading . . .

**. . . :coffeeread: . . . **

**CATECHISM **
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

81
Sacred :bible1: Scripture is the **speech of God **as it is put down in **WRITING **under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE

104
In Sacred :bible1:Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it NOT as human word, “but as what it really is, the **Word of **God.” **In the sacred books,
**the Father who is in heaven ****
comes lovingly
to meet his children,
and talks with them.

---

Link: usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.shtml

:bible1: “How precious also are **thy thoughts **unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b

:bible1:“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8

:bible1:“So shall **My word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I **sent it.” Isaiah 55:11

:bible1:“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but **my words **shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35

:bible1:“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1​

“And the
**Word **
was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth.”
John 1:14

**“To be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ.” **- St. Jerome

• God said it . . . I believe it . . . and that settles it for me +
  . . . all for Jesus+
  . . . thank You Blessed Lord+
  . . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
  . . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
  . . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[Detales]

Jesus_123, methinks thou doth protest too much.

Quoted from the Thread “Call no man Father:”

I think that the question you pose is closely tied with one that seems to baffle speakers of English. It is vaguely referenced in the quote from Mark in my signature, and it goes like this: In English, which is a language based on the premise of dualism, it is exceptionally difficult to translate certain subtleties found in the language of parables and in the Teaching language of the Middle east and the East. In those languages and usages such terms as “I,” “Self,” and “Father” have entirely non-personal and deeply metaphysical meanings which are not in the tool box of the vast majority of translators.

This is in part due to something called “dialogic process” and in part due to an ignorance of some aspects of Eastern Teachings. Unpalatable as it may seem, for me a verification of this is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia itself,as it fails to match certain definitions within it to actual usage in the philosophies it claims to explain.

As a minuscule example of what might be at hand here, I will reproduce a short exercise from a book on tools for critical thinking as applied to religious matters and other areas. It came to mind because of the capitalization and punctuation in the passage quoted by Derek. Here it is, with some comments and addenda. I will supply the appropriate “translations” on request:

*There is also the question of where is one studying the bible from? As in the thread question, understanding of the Bible has “evolved.” Does one study the Bible piously from the inside, having made a faith commitment to a particular stream of consensus, or from the outside as a phenomenon of history, literature, and interpretive thought, or both?

How many ordinary readers of the Bible, for instance, have considered such pertinent disciplines as anthropology, archeology, comparative linguistics and religion, theory of meaning, semantics, symbology, General Semantics, mythology, the natures of abstracting, witnessing, memory, collections, processes in the formation of groups and their interactions, the nature of belief itself relative to human psychology, integrational philosophy, communication theory, single and multi- level logics, etc, etc, etc?

Not many have, I wager, even taken a superficial course that includes these matters, as easy as it is to get a course book on such. Eg, here is a very simple exercise in translation. Below are four sentences in English. Can you come up with the exact meaning? The question is based on the fact that texts in Hebrew and Aramaic are written without vowels, punctuation, or capitalization and depend on context for the meanings of consonant groups. Try it:

1: THSSNXPRMNTNTHDCPHRNGFMSSG

2: THBBLFTHHBRWSWSWRTTNNTHSMNNRWTHTVWLSNDWTHTPNCTTNFNYKND

3: TSMSCLRTHTMNYRRRSFNTRPRTNCLDBMD

4: FRXMPLGDSNWHRCLDBNDRSTDBYSMNTBNSTDGDSNWHR

One might soon agree with Robert Ingersoll that it could take twice as much inspiration to read such text as to write it. And then, despite crediting earlier translators with devotion and piety, and knowing in more detail some technicalities of language, are we in our century yet familiar with words, idioms, and modes of thinking of the original writers of whose work we only have copies, some of them obviously altered? For my part, I have to ask myself: Am I devoted to theological ideas based on original perception, or on linguistic events that took place well after the fresh revelation?

Again, how many know that “rope” is in fact the preferred translation now of the consonant group GML, not “camel.” Also, in the story of Elijah, is RBM “Arabs,” “ravens,” or “the inhabitants of Oreb,” a village hard near where Elijah was ensconced on the brook of Cherith? The only sensical translation is now thought to be “the inhabitants of Oreb.” And two millenia of misogyny might be attributed to the mistranslation of TZD, which actually means “side,” not “rib” and all the implications ancient and modern that go with that.

These differences are predicated on the actual speaking of Aramaic as we now know it. A critical example to some points of faith is this one: where is the comma in Luke 28:43? Is it “Verily, I say unto you, today…”? Or is it “Verily, I say unto you today, …”? The second is the nuance preferred by native speakers of Aramaic in their idiom, changing a major point of “proof” theology. The Bible, all of the versions of it, are riddled with such considerations.

That last one hinges on a comma!!! Which wasn’t there! In Fresno, California, on May 5, 1969. a barber and another man shot each other to death over the true meaning of certain passages of the Bible. The true meaning!!! Is that the kind of piety and devotion we are at the level of here? Is that what we have evolved to? What an excellent recommendation (along with Northern Ireland etc, etc.) for christianism."*

 

[Jesus_123]

So, basically, the interpretation of the Bible changes as life goes on. This is okay with Catholic teaching, isn’t it?

The subject of this thread deals with Sacred :bible1: Scripture as contained in the Holy :bible1: Bible and the original poster’s above question deals specifically with the Catholic perspective . . .

We are encouraged by the moderators here at Catholic Answers Forums to stay on subject . . .

. . . all for Jesus+​

 

[Detales]

Back then, to post #1, though I fail to see, Jesus, that anyone went off track. Here is a passage from Robert Ingersoll:

“I read the writings of Shakespeare…What do I get out of him? All that I have sense enough to understand. I get my little cup full. Let another read him who knows nothing of the drama, who knows nothing of the impersonation of passion, what does he get from him? Very little. In other words, every man gets from a book, a flower, a star, a sea, what he is able to get from his intellectual development and experience. Do you then believe that the Bible is a different book to every human being that receives it? I do. Can God, then, make the same revelation to two men? He cannot.”

And from Andrew Jackson Davis:

“Does the mind see the world only through it’s own characteristics? Yes. For example, a master-mind goes into the world and begins an examination of what he calls the Word of God. We will suppose that this mind is Martin Luther. He therefore looks through his own mental characteristics, sees the word of God, and Lutherizes it from beginning to the concluding sentence. Again: take the man named John Calvin. He owns an imperious, positive, hereditary character. Taking that, with his acquired abilities, he sets his mind conscientiously to a religious work. His twofold character…compels him to see and render new translations to every chapter, verse, and word. In short, the book is logically Calvinized from begining to end; and it depends on your inherited and acquired characteristics whether you become a Lutheran or a Calvinist.”

Now before you dismiss that because it is about Protestants, Jesus, remember that we are speaking here of tendencies attributable to anyone of any religion, or those tendencies as applied to science, politics or anything, including Catholics to the Catholic Bible. The inerrantcy you attribute to the Bible is not in the Bible nor the Church, because if it was, no man or woman would have any different reading of any passage than but a single interpretation that was a spontaneously similar or same exegesis to everyone else’s. And yet there is contention even in the Church as to the meaning of passages. Perhaps, in all humility, Jesus, we ought to come to you for the correct interpretation?

So, PlipPlop, you are forced to read the Bible with your own tools. Even if you go to someone who is acknowledged as the best interpreter of the Catholic version of Bible that ever was, you wold yet have to understand what was revealed to you through your own lens of perception as best you could. And if you are going to listen to someone as to what it means, who will you listen to when the abstraction of “The Church” resolves to one or another speaker claiming its authority and yet differing? After more than 50 years of listening to sermons, I can tell you that will not be easy. You, angel, are always and only the final arbitrator of what you will shape your life by. Choose well, and respect the vital gift that God gave you as His Child in the form of not only a heart, but a mind as well, both to be used dancing with each other around a common Center.