Did the things in the bible actually happen?

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Can you first supply the specific meaning of ‘true sense’
this discussion is a non starter until we understand those two words.

and answer my question on the light verse

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

we are not allowed to hijack others threads to take them on another path, we will get flagged off topic if we do. Thats why I suggested another thread.
It will go into territory of translations, etc

 

[Gorgias]

I am not asking for the allegory, you believe. I am asking what the specific disobedience was.

It is not recorded as such.

For instance, according to the text, Adam and Eve actually and literally disobeyed the command “not” to eat of the actual tree.

“According to the text”? Yeah. “Actually and literally”? The Church teaches that the text is figurative, not literal.

This is why Jesus, as the second Adam, had to overcome in the same way, by being victorious over desire/appetite, in the wilderness temptations, by living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of His Father, rather than listening to and obeying the adversary in trusting in judgment apart from His Father.

I mean, that’s a nice eisegesis, or at best, an edifying spiritualization, but not strictly true. You’re seriously saying that, if Jesus died on the cross and rose again, but didn’t have 40 days of fasting in the desert at the outset of His ministry, that it wouldn’t have “worked” or “counted”?

That’s not at all what the Church teaches.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It is not recorded as such.

What do you suspect was the literal disobedience that occurred? Assuming that God’s plan was to have humans live forever and avoid a fall, what could have occurred that was so monumental as to change the course of human history forever?

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

As stated, I do not believe it is off topic at all, as going into translations, is still on the subject of whether or not “Did the things in the bible actually happen?”

If you desire to vacate the thread and post elsewhere I will not be following.

Asking an individual’s position is taking this thread off topic as the question posted is ‘Did the things in the bible actually happen’
rather then posting the question
'what is your position on if the things in the bible being literal or figurative.

CAF gets quite strict on this issue. Just saying because you are a new member. Most of us learned this the hard way.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

This is not true. The Church does NOT teach that the Bible is literally accurate.

You added the word literally which I would not because the Spirit breathed scripture is not meant to be easily understood which is necessary for how you apparently use literally. He is a quote from James Akin
" Dei Verbum thus teaches the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture" the whole article is here Library : The Accuracy of Scripture | Catholic Culture
grace and peace, Bruce

 

[AlNg]

The article is confusing.
It says:

1. The first three chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events, no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends.
2. The Genesis story is real but not literal.
   This idea of real but not literal seems ambiguous. Take for example the question about the tree of life and that if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life they would live forever. How could that possibly accord with biology and the theory of evolution. If Adam and Eve evolved from animals, how could they live forever? Animals are born, live and die. So, it is said that the story is real but not literal and not a legend. Also, how does one observe God walking around in a garden if God does not have a body. Or did God assume a body at that time? it seems like if God really did assume a body, then it would be literally true, otherwise it would not have really happened.

 

[Bernoulli]

There is a kind of problem with the idea that many of the foundational stories of the Old Testament did not happen in history. For St Peter, it was essential to point out that their encounter with Jesus was not merely an allegorical story or a myth but it was based on their own experience:
“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16)

If on the other hand, many stories of the Old Testament are not based on history but are “cleverly devised myths”, applying the same principle to the Old Testament would lead to a quasi-Marcionist conclusion that the Old Covenant was not true.

 

[EndTimes]

Was there ACTUALLY a talking snake that tempted Adam to east a forbidden fruit in a garden where Adam was created out of dust by God?

Talking snake? Isn’t that pennywise and pound foolish?

From The Magisterium of The Catholic Church

1. The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event,
2. as deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man .
3. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history
4. is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

The FALL - ORIGINAL SIN - Occurred…

Our First Human Parents - Adam and Eve were fully Human endowed with a Soul by God…

PS – The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan , who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

_

 

[Gorgias]

Was there ACTUALLY a talking snake that tempted Adam to east a forbidden fruit in a garden where Adam was created out of dust by God?

*sigh*

“Figurative language”, Jan.

Yes, there was an actual event in which our first true human parents sinned.

No, the narrative of Genesis 3 isn’t literal. So, we’re not claiming “talking snakes” or “naughty fruit eating.”

This is not true. The Church does NOT teach that the Bible is literally accurate.

@Bruce_Killian spoke of “believing Scripture” and you responded with “Bible as literally accurate.” You can see that these two aren’t the same thing, right?

However, if by “literally accurate” you mean “accurate through the lens of a literalistic hermeneutic” then the answer is “no, that’s not what the Church teaches.” On the other hand, if you mean “the Church really teaches that the Bible teaches truth accurately”, then yes – that is the teaching!

What do you suspect was the literal disobedience that occurred?

Does it really matter? It was disobedience to God, as all sin is.

Assuming that God’s plan was to have humans live forever and avoid a fall, what could have occurred that was so monumental as to change the course of human history forever?

You’re gonna hafta work on the precision of your language. We would say that God’s plan does come true. Although it would’ve been nice if there was no physical death and no fall of humanity, that doesn’t imply that since it happened, God’s plan failed.

 

[Gorgias]

Then you agree the things in the bible did not “actually” happen.

No. I agree that there was an actual event. I agree that this event is represented figuratively, not literalistically in a historical narrative.

The events are actual, albeit not literal.

Why can;t you just answer the question directly?

I keep doing so. You keep muddling the language and switching terminology.

many of the events and stories described in the Bible did not actually happen; they are either allegorical descriptions of real events

I’m calling “literal” or “historical” what you’re naming “actual”, and I’m calling all of these – whether historical or allegorical – “actual”.

 

[AlNg]

Then you agree the things in the bible did not “actually” happen.
Why can;t you just answer the question directly?

It is confusing and it seems that some people want it both ways. Did God walk in a garden? They will say:
No. God did not literally walk in a garden.
But it is true that it did actually happen. It was an actual event.

 

[Gorgias]

It is confusing and it seems that some people want it both ways. Did God walk in a garden? They will say:
No. God did not literally walk in a garden.
But it is true that it did actually happen. It was an actual event.

Not the walking. The narrative is about sin and consequences. That’s what the figurative narrative is describing; that’s what was an “actual event.”

The claim is not to “have it both ways”. On the other hand, the defense here is against arguments that want to claim that we can have it neither way…

 

[EndTimes]

“Figurative language”, Jan.

Yes, there was an actual event in which our first true human parents sinned.

No, the narrative of Genesis 3 isn’t literal. So, we’re not claiming “talking snakes” or “naughty fruit eating.”

this sounds like a response that I’d expect a ‘talking sneak’ to give

Geogias says the events occurred.

Jan says to Geogias - 'So you agree that the event did not occur."

Figurative does not equate to ‘did not occur’…

Serpent = Devil = Satan…

 

[OKComputer]

One of the little things I like about Catholicism is that you don’t have to check your ability to think at the door. I find it highly unlikely that Jonah was really eaten by a whale, or that the entire world was covered by a flood. However, I find them both to be beautiful parables that provide great meaning. I often times think that those who argue if they “really happened” or not miss the big picture.

 

[EndTimes]

I often times think that those who argue if they “really happened” or not miss the big picture.

Of Course - Without FAITH - one can never see the whole picture

And I see many who seemingly spend hour after hour dwelling and peddling Skepticism and Doubt

• as having an agenda which is geared to oppose Jesus.

_

 

[Gorgias]

this sounds like a response that I’d expect a ‘talking sneak’ to give

Geogias says the events occurred.

Jan says to Geogias - 'So you agree that the event did not occur."

Figurative does not equate to ‘did not occur’…

I think that she and I are simply using terminology differently. She wants “actual” to mean “literal” or “historical”. So, when I say “actual”, she replies, “oh, historical, then?”, and when I say “not historical”, she replies, “oh, not actual, then”?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Yes, they actually happened. just not physically, in history.

8p

 

[Gorgias]

You have an unusual definition of “actual”. Can you provide it?

I think you’re missing the fact that we’re really talking about the dynamics of interpreting a variety of literary genres.

Figurative narratives discuss events that “actually happened”, although the ways in which they describe those events are not literal.

Historical narratives discuss events that “actually happened”, and the ways in which they describe those events are more or less literal.

“Myth” – in the context of literary genre, and not in casual conversation – doesn’t mean “fake stories”. Rather, this genre of literature discusses “foundations” – of peoples and nations, of prehistory, and even of creation itself. It would be quite odd to say “since the genre of the Creation Narratives in Scripture is ‘myth’, therefore, creation didn’t actually happen.” Rather, we look at the narratives of Genesis 1 and 2, viewing them through the lens of the genre of the texts, and interpret them appropriately.

Did a snake tempt a human being that had no physical parents in a garden? Yes or No?

Asked and answered. Many times over.

 

[Gorgias]

So untrue I struggle to even take the time to debate it.

Then don’t. We’re just shouting past each other at this point, anyway.

If I write a story saying that a giant cow in space was milked by a giant farmer in space, and it’s milk became the ocean - you are saying that “actually happened” because the ocean DID come into being. But it “literally” didn’t happen.

Then I say “this is an origins story of the actual event of the creation of the oceans.” See how simple that is?

I think your thought process is completely outside the realm of rational discourse.

I suspect that the feeling is mutual, Jan. Have a nice day!