Biblical Illiteracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter ServusDei1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm how many lenses do people read the bible by.

Firstly and as an example is the fundamentalist lens. We see people literally using passages to push their own agendas and to establish and maintain cults .
Look at the passages about slaves. We , humanity, don’t enslave, or shouldn’t.
Look at beat the child wife husband cow etc.
it’s illegal to beat people. Or eating vs not eating pork.

Genesis pre Abraham , if we just read in a fundamental manner, we miss the message. Or how about the New Testament building parapets on your house
 
it would be a loss if it’s at the expense of reading in their own language or the original . . .
 
Good catch. We’ll pro-rate time, and allocate 1% of Hebrew class time to Aramaic 🤣😜😱
 
I have read it cover-to-cover…twice. Have you? I’m not an atheist, and your claim is absurd. How about using logic in your argument?
 
Who’s god? I worship God, since he’s the only God that exists, it’s proper that his name is capitalised. Sorry, this is how the English language works. Yet claimed to be atheist, but isn’t your god the lack of belief, not in a god, but THE God?
 
Well I’m currently grinding my way through it, and although I’m still mired in the OT that’s my take so far. In my opinion it’s fantastical nonsense that that is wildly off base scientifically and contradicts it’s own narrative within the first two chapters.
 
Yeah I apologise for that one, autocorrect fail I’m afraid. As for your other point, how on earth can someone make a deity out of non belief? That makes no sense on a conceptual level, one can either believe in a god(s) existence or not.
 
I’m 69 and I feel that I was brought up in a very passive Catholic culture. In 12 years of Catholic school, there was little emphasis on scripture, a secondary emphasis next to the study of “religion.” The bishops of the United States have REFUSED to issues guidelines on Bible study. There are still some bishops who feel it will create fundamentalists out of Catholics. Fr Ronald Witherup wrote a book on Catholic Fundamentalism descrying this very point.

The Bible is hard to read and understand. There are such deep questions and controversies about it. And, it is just too big a book for some people, it’s so easy to just push it aside and ignore it.

It’s so controversial, too. I can’t imagine that so many priests have gone astray with sexual misconduct – priests who should have a much deeper faith commitment, certainly rooted in the Bible.

I’ve said it before – the Catholic Church should be the BEST place to learn about scripture, and that should be no matter which starting point people are at .

A very modern question is, which Bible translation should I use? We should keep in mind that copyright laws prevent plagiarism. So, a more modern Bible may have verses that don’t have that “punch” that other versions have, that we are familiar with. So, you might not even recognize a famous verse.

I’m a couple thousand dollars into commentaries on scripture, and I feel I have just scratched the surface. My library is my preference over having a motorcycle or boat or jet ski or hunting rifles. It’s a conscious decision. Orthodox Judaism emphasizes daily study much more than Catholics do. Muslims are much more book-oriented as well. There are such practices that Catholics should be known for, as well.

Another principle, which I have discussed in another topic – do we have a duty to read the Bible --is relevant here, too. I think we do have a life long duty to read the Bible. NO Catholic should ignore Bible reading and study for their whole life. I need to continue in another comment
 
There are objections to Bible study, as well. One is, you’ve got to have a qualified person to conduct it. Well, that varies considerably in parish Bible studies that I’ve been in. I you have a 100% scripted study like the Little Rock courses, the leader is just a moderator, not a teacher.

That raises a point about which, if any, course to use in a parish study. And, a practical problem is bringing in outside material to aid in the discussion. One source recommends NOT dragging in outside material that everyone does not have access to.

Also, the Church even recommends non-Catholic resources for Bible study, but a lot of Catholics find that suspicious. I find that useful for cases where my Catholic sources just don’t answer the question I need to answer. I find Jewish commentaries very helpful, as well as their translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts, as well.

People have to be open to learning, too. They have to be willing to state their idea and be open to better ideas.
 
TheLittleLady said:
I honestly think that this is going to be a game changer for many people:
Click to expand...
My copy arrived a few weeks ago. We’re going to start Cavins’ Study on Matthew and I plan to use it. Wish I had it when we did the Bible Timeline.
 
You can’t read Genesis through a fundamentalist lens, it isn’t to be taken literally. I would recommend a Catholic study Bible that has footnotes so that you can see the proper context of what you are reading. It’s not as easy to understand when readingit blindly, most especially if you don’t even believe in God.
 
Inquisitor85 said:
Well I’m currently grinding my way through it, and although I’m still mired in the OT that’s my take so far. In my opinion it’s fantastical nonsense that that is wildly off base scientifically and contradicts it’s own narrative within the first two chapters.
Click to expand...
That would depend on your hermeneutic approach, wouldn’t it? I mean, if you approached it as literal, scientific, historical narrative… then you’d have a point. Who ever said that this was the sole approach, though?
Gingersnaps4 said:
You can’t read Genesis through a fundamentalist lens, it isn’t to be taken literally
Click to expand...
Just to be fair: the Church isn’t saying that all of Genesis is allegorical – just that parts are.
 
In a separate topic I suggested that everyone has a duty to read the Bible. search on “duty.”

I’ve been reading the Bible. I’m 2/3 done. It is boring and hard to understand in many places. In Isaiah, for example, in the first 40 chapters, the dialog seems to switch back and forth many times.

The Church doesn’t have a commentary on the whole Bible. In 2 Chronicles (as I recall) there’s 9 chapters of genealogy. A study Bible may help. Well, OK, I’ve got The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (published around 1992).

For me personally, I think I have to read the whole Bible (I’ve done it before) and then try to tease it apart with a commentary. There are patristic commentaries from the early church fathers. In the Middle Ages there were commentaries from a different perspective. With “the enlightenment” which I’ve read is a phony term, there was more skepticism and downright rejection of scripture.

Mostly I suggest reading the Bible with an open mind, open to discovering more and more about its meaning and message as a lifelong pursuit, prayerfully. Come Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
I know it isn’t complete allegory, but he/she cited Gen 1 and 2 so I assume they were reading the creation story through a mostly fundamentalist lens. I’ve noticed that most atheists tend to do that. 7 literal days and all of that… Although, and this is somewhat OT, there is a scientific “ theory” ive read that says it could have been 7 days and space has stretched so much since then that it’s been billions of years from where we sit but only a few thousand years have passed as seen from where the Big Bang started. I know that sounds crazy just hearing it, but it does make sense as being possible when you hear it explained. So who knows, maybe this is a young/old earth and the fundamentalists have it right 😄

 
Allegory is only one way of looking at scripture. I’m not sure thatthe Church has made a generalization like that. Whatever the case, I hardly remember any homily regarding the old testament. The one homily related to the OT made a generalization about Genesis that is not the Church’s position.

We have a “Pontifical Biblical Commission” but I don’t know what they do. I don’t know what they may have published in the last 25 years, for example.
 
I suggest that folks have a library of Biblical references, if possible. One book in that library I recommend is The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd Ed or later. The Church says it’s OK to read such a scholarly work, just keeping in mind our different points of view. (from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Jewish People and their Scripture in the Christian Bible.”)
 
To answer the question, I think it would be great if we had bible study classes as frequently as many Protestant churches do. Many have them on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. The church should also provide catholic bibles with footnotes/commentary. I’ve got an Ignatius study Bible and it’s actually engaging/interesting to read because you learn the historical context and other meanings. Bible literacy also starts in the home. At my parish all of the children enrolled in faith formation get a catholic children’s bible for free, there are 2 versions depending on the age. I’m a catechist and my class is using the St. mary’s press catholic children’s bible. It’s illustrated and is worded in a way as to make the stories interesting to read and easy to understand. My own kids like reading it at home, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top