Did the things in the bible actually happen?

[goout]

I definitely care if the Old Testament is literal history or not. That’s inherently interesting. Why doesn’t God reveal which is which?
…

Because we are flesh and blood persons, human beings living in the human condition. We are not dictation machines, and scripture is not dictation or DVD captchas of events, journalism style.

Because we are human beings made for love, God desires our reflection, or discernment, our prayer, our communion with him. In short, we are made for love, and faith is our response to that love. And that requires hard work for human beings.

If God gave us the signs we demand (Mk 8:12, Mt 16:1-4), we would not exercise the virtues of faith, hope, and love. And we would be less human, not more.

Human life is messy. And that includes scripture. Human living requires virtue, and virtue is the very practice of it. God in his wisdom does not give us pat answers, because he wants us using the muscles of faith, hope, and charity.
And those are most fully embodied in Christ. These conundrums are an invitation to know Christ, to pray with his life, to ponder the scriptures in light of his life.
Because that is the fullest lens, in fact the only lens that matters.

 

[goout]

Look at today’s Gospel. Mk 8: 14-21
The disciples are looking for answers to merely material questions.

They concluded among themselves that
it was because they had no bread.

Christ himself then asks them to open their hearts, and use their eyes and ears in light of his works. And you have to admit, his explanation does not satisfy any need for pat answers, it opens up even more mystery.
I read through three different expositions of this passage this morning, and all three explored different avenues and presented different challenges.

 

[LovelyLadybug]

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.

So many children’s books have been based off those stories. Yes, they are excellent examples of God speaking to his people, but I still don’t see any harm in calling them “cute”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s fine to think of them as “cute” if you’re going off the children’s book/ Noah’s Ark toy interpretation, but as adults we’re called upon to ponder the deeper truths in these stories. Also to have an understanding of just how serious and frightening the situation was. David and Goliath in particular isn’t particularly cute; it’s a bit of a superhero tale because we all know David wins, but if you read the full story of David in the Bible, the man was pretty constantly in serious physical danger. Just imagine a shepherd kid with a slingshot and a couple rocks going up against Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator, or Darth Vader, and if he lost, then his whole people would likely be annihilated a la Hunger Games and every other dystopian show out there. If you then read the rest of the story of David, he spends a huge amount of time trying to escape being murdered by his former friend Saul who appears to have become psychotic and just tries to kill him out of the blue. He has various hairbreadth escapes with the help of his best friend who just happens to be Saul’s son, and his wife who just happens to be Saul’s daughter. It’s more like Game of Thrones than nursery rhymes.

David btw was a real king. They used to think he was made up, until somebody found archaeological evidence that he actually did exist.

If we move on to Noah’s Ark, just picture something like Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Katrina and a guy trying to ride that out in a homemade boat with his family and a bunch of animals.

As for Daniel, I’ll admit I think lions are cute, but the rest of his story has his companions being thrown into the fire of a raging furnace and miraculously preserved by the Lord. Not exactly a bedtime story for children, although interestingly enough, I did have a child’s book that told the furnace story and the other one about a disembodied hand writing on the wall which was spooky to me as a kid.

This is not Sesame Street stuff.

 

[EndTimes]

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!!!

Certainly not “cute” . They occurred…

 

[LovelyLadybug]

You make a good point, and I guess the idea of people drowning in a flood, being eaten by lions, or killed by a slingshot, doesn’t sound very “cute” I was thinking of all the childrens’ books and toys modeled after those stories and all the cartoons. If you make those stories sound very serious and sad, nobody will want to read them, but making them into cute, children’s stories will encourage more people, especially kids, to read the bible, and that’s good, right? We can still understand the importance of those stories, while understanding their cuteness at the same time. They don’t have to be scary. Those bible stories can be cute and fun, while understanding their lesson and message at the same time.

 

[EndTimes]

I was thinking of all the childrens’ books and toys modeled after those stories and all the cartoons. If you make those stories sound very serious and sad, nobody will want to read them, but making them into cute, children’s stories will encourage more people, especially kids, to read the bible, and that’s good, right

Yet? Kids? Today? Are drawn to stories of horror and bad guys who kill… without blinking…

I’m thinking that our forebears didn’t overly candy-coat Scriptures to their children…

for in doing such - one could be spawning generations of puff-balls… yes?

Just as one progresses nurture from infancy onwards - so too -
children are properly learned to deal with death and Truth…
so as to be strong… and not scaredy cats…
for the purpose of gearing them to learn - the fear (properly understood) of the Lord…

_

_

 

[LovelyLadybug]

for the purpose of gearing them to learn - the fear (properly understood) of the Lord…

You can fear the Lord while enjoying the bible stories.

Yet? Kids? Today? Are drawn to stories of horror and bad guys who kill… without blinking…

Not all kids are like that. Plus, you can make the story exciting without being too scary.

 

[EndTimes]

Not all kids are like that. Plus, you can make the story exciting without being too scary.

I’d say most… such as any who partake in Halloween… They see… and don’t even blink

scary? seems to be subjective… some folks are easily scared and project their POV upon others,
which in turn - sub-conciously ‘teaches’ scariness…

in other words, again, and age-appropriate - i see no need to ‘sugar-coat’ Scriptures.

_

 

[LovelyLadybug]

in other words, again, and age-appropriate - i see no need to ‘sugar-coat’ Scriptures

I don’t see any harm in “sugar-coating” scriptures. You’re just making it more kid-friendly. That’s a good thing.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

It has in several councils beginning with Constantinople.

 

[LovelyLadybug]

I’d say most… such as any who partake in Halloween… They see… and don’t even blink

scary? seems to be subjective… some folks are easily scared and project their POV upon others,
which in turn - sub-conciously ‘teaches’ scariness…

in other words, again, and age-appropriate - i see no need to ‘sugar-coat’ Scriptures.

Maybe there’s no need for it, but it doesn’t hurt anything. It can only be an improvement. Making bible stories less scary and violent doesn’t mean you can’t learn from them and understand their important message.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

That may be appropriate in specific circumstances, but not as a rule. The Bible is violent and shocking, and it remains so. To downplay this is to risk missing the message.

 

[AlNg]

So it is true, as the Bible tells us, that God was walking in a garden. The philosophers teach that God is immovable, so there is a question as to how God could be walking around in a garden. Unless of course, the philosophers and theologians are wrong if they say that God is immovable.

 

[Petergee]

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.

Yes that’s exactly my point.

 

[LovelyLadybug]

That may be appropriate in specific circumstances, but not as a rule. The Bible is violent and shocking, and it remains so. To downplay this is to risk missing the message.

No, it doesn’t. The bible doesn’t have to be violent. It can be fun.

 

[AlNg]

I don’t understand. Was it true or not that God was walking in a garden?

 

[AlNg]

What does that mean?

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

fig·ur·a·tive

/ˈfiɡyərədiv/

adjective
departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical.

 

[EndTimes]

Maybe there’s no need for it, but it doesn’t hurt anything. It can only be an improvement.

Our presentations - somewhat mutually vague

• are therefore thus far insufficient for making any clear cut determination.

Being too timid - indeed infuses inordinate timidity -

So… exactly “where” to draw the line ?

_