Did the things in the bible actually happen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LovelyLadybug
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LovelyLadybug

Guest
I love the cute stories in the Bible (Daniel in the Lion’s Den, Noah, and his Ark, David, and Goliath, etc…) and I enjoy reading about them, but did those things actually happen or did the biblical writers just write them as analogies or symbols to demonstrate God’s power and love? What does the Catholic Church teach about this? Thank You!!! 🙂
 
Last edited:
I would suggest that you use a good Bible commentary and also read some articles on “Historicity of…” whatever story or person you are reading about.

Also, to describe the stuff you just described as “cute stories” is missing the point that they are God speaking to his people (including us) and the subject matter is generally anything but “cute”. It’s pretty profound actually.
 
MasterHaster said:
Why can’t the Church infallibly clear this up?
Click to expand...
  1. Because it’s not important enough.
  2. because it would take such a massive effort of historical, theological etc. study that it would consume all of the church’s resources.
  3. Because even if that was done there may be new discoveries in future (e.g. in archaeology, theology, Biblical exegesis, new documents discovered etc. etc. so it would be impossible to say “this is the last word on whether this story is an actual historical event”.
  4. Even then there would likely be some stories which it would be impossible to ever say (in this life) with certainty whether they actually happened
 
You can research Bible archaeology. There are some interesting finds. For example, most secular scholars used to dismiss the story of Samson as a fable, until excavations of ancient Philistine temples showed that their design had two central pillars along a center axis, separated by 2 meters. This design makes it possible for a tall man to dislodge them and bring the entire structure down, supporting the story of Samson. Of course, nothing would convince skeptics.
 
Last edited:
MasterHaster said:
For example evidence of the Exodus is scant to non-existent.
Click to expand...
I was about to point this out. I incline more to the idea that Exodus is the mythologized national origins story of the Jewish people. Doesn’t necessarily mean that the Bible is fraudulent, merely that it’s not a history textbook. Genetic and historical evidence firmly places the ancient Israelites as a subset of the wider Canaanitic populations.
 
Last edited:
I definitely care if the Old Testament is literal history or not. That’s inherently interesting. Why doesn’t God reveal which is which? We might then be tempted to place a measuring stick on everything that distracts us from the message, and could get convoluted, as this part is literal, that one is figurative or exaggerated, this event happened but subtle differences or shifts for dramatic emphasis; this one actually was a dream, that one was a poetic story, and this was a record.

It also may present obstacles that are unnecessary: it may be revealed that something most believers are sure is figurative, allegorical, symbolic etc. actually is literal history. “No way,” they would say, and the church would infallibly declare something that would cause many people to leave the church, for an event that is not even essential to the faith.

The Bible is a library of human work and God inspired it, as is. The final revelation is Christ. Truth transcends fact. The exploration of salvation history is also an adventure that would be truncated by some revelation pointing out the facts as if they were more important than the transcendent truth.
 
Last edited:
Indeed! What we do know is that the lessons regarding faith and morals are true. Our Lord taught using parables, and there is zero evidence that “there was a man…” was an actual person or situation. However, he used them to teach a moral good. And we can fairly safely infer that at least some of the incidents in the OT are allegorical. Not all, however.

Many today may desire to read a purely factual account - but from the parables, we see that is not how the Lord desires to teach us. I can think of no better teaching example than His.
 
I tend to believe the stories are true, but a literal reading of the Old Testament does not preclude from reading the broader ethical, moral, or allegorical implications.
 
Salibi said:
I incline more to the idea that Exodus is the mythologized national origins story of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...
IMO, the Jewish nation cannot be explained historically or theologically without an Exodus. They appear in history as a nation rather suddenly and are too different from the nations around them to have any other source.
 
MasterHaster said:
For example evidence of the Exodus is scant to non-existent.
Click to expand...
You could say that about nearly all of the (putative?) history of antiquity though, no? So… are you denying that ancient history happened? Or do you just have a chip on your shoulder regarding the Bible? 😉
 
MasterHaster said:
No it wouldn’t. It would only take revelation by God. After all, how much “massive effort” was expended to declare the Assumption of Mary?
Click to expand...
Sorry but that is heresy. Catholic dogma is that Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. There can be no “New revelation” of any truths additional to those passed down from the Apostles (which include the Assumption).
 
We learned all about the exodus in my history class. That at least, is interesting.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Also, to describe the stuff you just described as “cute stories” is missing the point that they are God speaking to his people (including us) and the subject matter is generally anything but “cute”.
Click to expand...
I think many of us remember the illustrations we saw as children of such passages. I don’t think there is anything wrong with appreciating those depictions. There is joy to be found in the outcome of each event even if a more realistic depiction of the events would be gruesome.

“Matthew-
{18:3} And said: amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
{18:4} Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven”
 
Judging the historicity of a scriptural passage is not new revelation, it is interpreting the existing one. The Assumption was scarcely based on the Scriptures, it was mostly a matter of the Tradition, but it was not new revelation, either, and could be declared infallibly.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top