Did the things in the bible actually happen?

[JapaneseKappa]

There are quite a few artefacts such as inscriptions that talk about who beat who in war and what the spoils were.

I mean, the inscription is from the time when people think these bible stories were being written, so I guess it confirms the Israelites really thought of themselves as the house of David? But that wasn’t really in dispute, its not contemporary to the actual David would have lived centuries earlier.

 

[EndTimes]

How do you justify that statement when physical and historical evidence contradicts it?

No they don’t…

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

We look at all scientific disciplines, including archaeology. For example, a drastic change or loss in culture and technology across the globe when the flood occurred would be proof of the Flood. The complete absence of such evidence contradicts the flood.

Proof of a global flood of that magnitude would be one layer in the geological record. That would be all that would be needed. As the flood covered the entire earth, any artefacts from that time would have been wiped out or severely displaced by the water. So an artefact from a global flood found in Sudan may have come from China for instance and we would not be able to confidently place it within a culture and technology.

But let me ask you this, have you noticed Biblical similarities in the story of Creation and the story of the flood? There are some good comparisons to be made in both stories. Catholics are not required to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis in the Old Testament are literal. The genre of those chapters is non historical allegory.

How does religion complement science? How does science complement religion? In my experience, they are diametrically opposed.

My biggest bug bear is that people polarise these two . The argument goes that it has to be an either or, not a both, you would be surprised how many religious people are scientists and vice versa. For me, I believe God created evolution

Fair enough, but it certainly is interesting that an Israeli scholar, funded by an Israeli university, failed to find evidence of the Exodus.

Why is that interesting is a great question to ask. The answer would include what era was this, what tools did this person have at their disposal, what funding did they have, how big was their team, where did they look, what current cultural and geographic, and political blocks were in their path. How many decades did they search and research the given area?

For instance, you cant just go into Jerusalem, Palestine, Bethlehem, or any other place that has cities built on top of the land, and start excavating. We can and have started at places like Masada, as they are not occupied. But you cant just knock on the door of what you believe might be a place of religious significance and say, hey there, I am going to dig under your home.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Tel Dan inscription fragment reads

Translated in English:

1. [ ]…[…] and cut […]
2. […] my father went up [against him when h]e fought at […]
3. and my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors (viz. became sick and died)]. And the king of I[s-]
4. rael entered previously in my father’s land, [and] Hadad made me king,
5. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from the seven […-]
6. s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed th[ousands of cha-]
7. riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son [of Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]
   [*]g of the House of David, and I set [their towns into ruins and turned ]
   [*]their land into [desolation ]
   [*]other [… and Jehu ru-]
   [*]led over Is[rael and I laid]
   [*]siege upon [ ][15]
   

This text does not state what kind of king David was.
This inscription is discussing an event, that event is the
[I killed Jeho]ram son [of Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]
9. g of the House of David, and I set [their towns into ruins and turned ]
10. their land into [desolation ]

It is discussing killing Jeroram and Ahaziahu, who belonged to the House of David and were a King and his son. Then it mentions destroying the land and towns.

The significance of this inscription stele fragment is that it gives us actual proof of the House of David even though it is discussing his descendants. This incident is also written in Kings in the Old Testament, here is more external proof these Biblical people existed.

 

[EndTimes]

being Catholics, are not required to believe the first 11 chapters of the Old Testament are literal. Therefore discussing the flood is not that relevant to this discussion.

From exactly whence did you arrive at that notion?

Noah receives mention - even from Jesus and Pope Peter in Scriptures.

_

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

I mean, the inscription is from the time when people think these bible stories were being written, so I guess it confirms the Israelites really thought of themselves as the house of David? But that wasn’t really in dispute, its not contemporary to the actual David would have lived centuries earlier.

This inscription was written by the victors, it was their form of social media, Steles were used as news papers and announcements. They were put on hill tops and placed in well travelled areas. The victor would get a big old bit of stone and inscribe in it words to the effect 'I had a great victory and vanquished his army and his people, trashed his towns and cities and took all his livestock"
One stele is great in it states those people will never ever ever return because we annihilated them. You should read what some of these say, they are boasts from victors.

There is plenty of good educational material on this form of spreading news and declaring victories on youtube. There are also a few free courses including the Great Courses Series in HIstory. One woman who is a professor, archaeologist and historian and has conducted her own digs, her most famous probably being Masada, runs one of these courses, she is absolutely fascinating to watch as she takes her students through history and the significance of things like seals, steles, statues, images, and generally what peoples of the ancient world got up to.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

From exactly whence did you arrive at that notion?

From the Magisterium, the Holy See , the first 11 Chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament up until Abraham, we are free to take literally or figuratively. I learned that on this forum
Noah and Jonah both receive a mention from Jesus.

 

[EndTimes]

From the Magisterium, the Holy See , the first 11 Chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament up until Abraham, we are free to take literally or figuratively.
Noah and Jonah both receive a mention from Jesus.

Noah, The Ark and the Flood are mentioned by Jesus

And we are to take Jesus - very literally.

AKA, Noah, Flood, Ark - did exist / occur.

Where in the Magisterium does it say what you say about the first 11 Chapters of Genesis?

 

[Dinsdale]

Here’s a story: There was an Emperor that had a vision from God and saw a huge symbol in the sky. He ordered all his men to put the symbol he saw on their shields. When the opposing army saw the symbols, they all fell into a river and drowned.

Did that actually happen?

Vivat Jesus

 

[Dinsdale]

I’m not allowed to link so go to wikipedia and look up “Constantine the Great”, then go to section 4.1.1 - Constantine adopts the Greek letters Chi Rho for Christ’s initials.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Here’s a story: There was an Emperor that had a vision from God and saw a huge symbol in the sky. He ordered all his men to put the symbol he saw on their shields. When the opposing army saw the symbols, they all fell into a river and drowned.

Did that actually happen?

Vivat Jesus

That is Constantine, he did some amazing things for Christians who were finally allowed to worship, the persecution of Christians declined greatly during his time and after.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Noah, The Ark and the Flood are mentioned by Jesus
And we are to take Jesus - very literally.
AKA, Noah, Flood, Ark - did exist / occur.
Where in the Magisterium does it say what you say about the first 11 Chapters of Genesis?

The first chapters of Genesis are known as non historical allegory. Then the chapter that begins Abraham’s story also begins the historical biblical genre.
The first chapters are primeval history meaning they are not historical (according to the definition of what makes something historical) but they are still very important in our understanding of creation and our place within it.

I dont have the time right now to wade through documents that the Vatican have issued to find the one where we Catholics are not obligated to believe the creation stories in Genesis as actual events and we can believe in Evolution if we wish. Maybe someone with good knowledge of catechism and the documents will point out where this is written. Or, just ask your Priest, he will know.
We dont want to get into the area of fundamentalism vs other readings of the Bible.
We also dont want to get into the area of correct translation of Hebrew words like day, light , darkness, formless and void here on this thread.

 

[poche]

Jesus spoke of the Moses and the serpent and the story of Jonah and the whale as actually having happened.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Jesus spoke of the Moses and the serpent and the story of Jonah and the whale as actually having happened.

That does not negate the fact that the first chapters in Genesis are non historical allegory and Catholics can choose to take them literally or as non historical allegory.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Thomas Aquinas in Summa ( Suppliment, Question 74 ), believed and taught the reality of both the global judgment of the flood, and of the global judgment by fire to come, as well as six day creation ( Question 74, Article 3, Reply to Objection 6 and 7 , and "Second Part of the Second Part "; “Question 122. The precepts of justice”; "Article 4. ).

Do you take figuratively also the judgment by fire to come?

Can you cite the source you refer to?

Again, we are absolutely free to take the first 11 chapters figuratively or literally. We can believe in evolution if we want to. This is Church teaching. As I said, I do not have time to wade through all the documents of the Church to find this, I would suggest reading the Catechism or waiting until someone who is really familiar with this section can jump in and paste the relevant documents.
Or just ask your priest.
It is fine for Thomas Aquinas to believe and teach the reality of the flood , judgement by fire and creation.
By the way, Creation is 7 days, not 6. The Hebrew reading is that God took 7 days to create.
The number 7 is pretty significant. On the 7th day, there were no words, there was God resting, but this is still counted as the 7th day of creation.
As I said earlier, the translation of ‘day’ this far back in Biblical Hebrew should not be interpreted as a 24 hour time frame or as it would be in modern language.

As far as

Do you take figuratively also the judgment by fire to come?

John has written a pretty awesome book in Revelation, it is my favorite book after his Gospel. It has to be taken little by little to read and interpret. If you are referring to the destruction of this world, it wont just be by fire, that is pretty clear in Revelation.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

This is one of the issues I must take with so many on here, that say similar things, whilst I do homework, and make clear my citations, others make generalizations, and no citations. If that is how you feel, so be it. Moving on.

Your citations are incorrect, look at Revelation 12:4. for starters.
I suggest you take the time to read the Catechism of the Church if you are going to stick around on this Catholic forum Or just ASK YOUR PRIEST about non historical allegory and Genesis Ch 1-11.

 

[goout]

goout:

Christian apologists are not justifying the search for God because there is no negative evidence against God.
Christian apologist observe revelation, nature, etc…the way things are, the way human beings behave.
We can observe that human beings in fact look for meaning, purpose, identity, transcendent things that are not subject to material evidence.

This is where your reasoning falls apart. The search for meaning applies to all people, even atheists. Atheists search for a ‘higher meaning’ to life - say propagation of the species or personal happiness or increasing the well-being or happiness of others.

Please quote the part where I said Atheists are not searching for meaning in life.
You set up a big giant straw pinata there.

 

[EndTimes]

The first chapters of Genesis are known as non historical allegory.

Let’s flesh out are review that comment - against the BackDrop of Catholic Magisterium.

HUMANIS GENERIS

1. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13]

This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense

1. 1. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

AGAIN - SINCE JESUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT SPEAK OF PORTIONS OF GENESIS IN THE ACTUALITY SENSE - WE KNOW THAT YES - THEY DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN

 

[Gorgias]

Accurate? Meaning that there was a historical garden, with a talking serpent, etc?

Nope. “Accurate” in the sense that it teaches truth through allegory, not in the sense of historical narrative.

The question is: “what kind of process is to be used to separate the wheat from the chaff”?

The teaching authority of the Church.

And, it’s all wheat…

The expression “null hypothesis” is used in statistics , not in empirical sciences.

Right. 'Cause no one in the empirical sciences uses statistics in their experiments…

On the other hand, the stance of: “since there is no physical proof for God’s existence, it is reasonable to doubt it” and that is NOT the argument from ignorance.

“There is no physical proof of a non-physical entity” isn’t an assertion I’d be proud of, if I were you…

It proves that during the years the church existed, the members of the church did not create such an enumerated list (or lists).

And… so what?

The question is: “what was that real event”?

Man’s first sin against God.

And what independent evidence exists for it? If there is no such evidence, it is just a story, nothing else.

Right. And all the events of antiquity and pre-history are just stories, too? Or do you reserve that judgment only for events you dislike?

By the way, it is incorrect to say: “the church asserts”. (The “church” does not assert anything. The members do.)

“The Magisterium of the Church asserts…”. Better?

One of the things that turned me off to Catholicism was watching a VeggieTales episode

Umm… you realize that Veggie Tales isn’t a ministry of the Catholic Church, nor does the Church have any relationship with it, right?

Why do you blame the Catholic Church for all sorts of things that aren’t part of it?

 

[HarryStotle]

This is where your reasoning falls apart. The search for meaning applies to all people, even atheists. Atheists search for a ‘higher meaning’ to life - say propagation of the species or personal happiness or increasing the well-being or happiness of others.

There is something of a limitation that is inherent to a claim that the basic foundation of the universe and reality is material and causal. What “meaning” is there to be had if everything you think, do, hope for, strive for, etc., are the determined results of unalterable causal chains?

Kind of puts a damper on what “meaning” could possibly mean for atheists, no?

Even if we were to grant you that such catch words as “increasing the well-being or happiness of others” provides something of a simulacrum of “meaning” you still would need to flesh out how a determinably causal order could mean anything to any human being except resignation to the brute fact of existence and no real alternative except physical and chemical determinism.

Perhaps you can provide a metaphysic by which we might seriously understand human free will as arising from brain chemistry and neuro-physics alone?