Biblical inerrancy?

[magisterfaust]

Whilst in church today, it was a C of E, The sermon was all about Jonah and the Whale. It was told as though IT REALLY HAPPENED. So, I am supposed to take the story** literally**. Some one stuck inside the belly of a whale, and vomitted out onto dry land after the Lord heard his prayer?.

Yet when I question other aspects of the bible…such as the bit about God going on about us having to eat the flesh of our offspring if we do not offer ourselve to to him without condition and accept without question that HE is the ONE TRUE GOD,(cannot remember exactly how it goes), I am told it is a metaphor. This seems to me a simple case of hand picking exactly what we want from the bible and interpreting it to suit our own satisfaction. Didnt think it was supposed to be like that.

 

[patg]

Whilst in church today, it was a C of E, The sermon was all about Jonah and the Whale. It was told as though IT REALLY HAPPENED. So, I am supposed to take the story** literally**. Some one stuck inside the belly of a whale, and vomitted out onto dry land after the Lord heard his prayer?.

There s no dogma related to Jonah and the whale. What is important is that you understand the truth of the story, not whether the story is a literalistic retelling of an event. Actually, the Church has made very few statements on what one must believe concerning specific texts.

Yet when I question other aspects of the bible…such as the bit about God going on about us having to eat the flesh of our offspring if we do not offer ourselve to to him without condition and accept without question that HE is the ONE TRUE GOD,(cannot remember exactly how it goes), I am told it is a metaphor. This seems to me a simple case of hand picking exactly what we want from the bible and interpreting it to suit our own satisfaction. Didnt think it was supposed to be like that.

It is not “picking what to believe”, it is recognizing and understanding the literary form of the text, as we are clearly instructed by dogmatic instructions of the Church. The bible is not a single “book”, it is a library containing many forms and styles of writing. It is the mission of the interpreter to :

“… investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.”
.
As I said in another post, we cannot deny that truth can be taught using fiction. As Dei Verbum (one of the Church’s most recent dogmatic statements on divine revelation, quoted above) states: "For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse."

Just as Jesus used fictional stories in the form of parables to teach truths, the authors of scripture used a variety of literary forms to teach their truths - myth, legend, allegory, infancy narrative, etc. The Church does not insist on the fundamentalist’s literalistic interpretation.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It might serve well to follow the Church who has passed on the Traditions of understanding various Scriptures, and determining the literary styles of any of the stories. In antiquity, even some truths were packaged in the form of creative fiction, so they cannot be viewed as lies, when it was a known mode of communication. It is not a matter of “picking and choosing” as you say. It is a matter of determining author intent.

The Church was careful in Dei Verbum to articulate the sense in which Scripture is inerrant.

the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Dei Verbum #11.

See also the Church document:
When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction. Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. II.B.1.b.
You can’t extract an understanding of the Bible from the Church in which it was written. From an outside standpoint, it is very easy to see this as cherry-picking.

 

[grandfather]

Whilst in church today, it was a C of E, The sermon was all about Jonah and the Whale. It was told as though IT REALLY HAPPENED. .

What is more difficult to believe that a person was swallowed by a giant beast and vomitted up alive, or a person was murdered and buried for three days and returned to life?

 

[Mailman]

What is more difficult to believe that a person was swallowed by a giant beast and vomitted up alive, or a person was murdered and buried for three days and returned to life?

Very good point. Of course the story of Jonah is a true story and should be taken literally like all the stories in the Bible (except for the parables). The six-day creation should also be taken literally; the creation of the first human couple, the flood, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.

 

[patg]

Of course the story of Jonah is a true story and should be taken literally like all the stories in the Bible (except for the parables). The six-day creation should also be taken literally; the creation of the first human couple, the flood, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.

Of course you are free to personally believe this but the Church does not promote such thinking.

 

[Fidelis]

Of course you are free to personally believe this but the Church does not promote such thinking.

Nor does she discourage it.

I think one should approach the historicity of certain episodes in whatever way it helps them understand the truth of what the text is intended to teach, under the guidance of the authentic interpreter of the Scriptures, the Church.

Not that anyone here is doing so, but to disparage someone who is edified and is able to live a better Christian life if they take a more literalistic view of certain Scriptural passages is just as uncharitable and smug as disparaging those who find critical scholarship (insofar as it does not deny vital aspects of Catholic doctrine) helpful to them. There’s a place for everyone, but there is no place for those who put stumbling blocks in front of others who are not edified in the same way as themselves. The Church doesn’t and neither should we.

Personally, I enjoy very much many of the insights that have come out of critical scholarship. However, when I am reading Scripture for my own spiritual growth and edification, I read it in the spirit of which the original authors clearly intended it to be understood. Usually that is in a literal manner. This is the way Jesus and the Apostles used Scripture, and it’s good enough for me.