A
AlNg
Guest
IOW, the stories in the Bible are true, just as fairy tales are true?
- Status
A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
That would be a childish way of putting it. I believe the stories in the Bible are true, literally true. However, that only goes as far as language is able. When you find supposed absurdities or discrepancies, you must seek out the metaphorical truth that is always present whether the story is written in a literal or figurative sense.
This isn’t the gotcha moment you think it is, you just have a narrow and immature way of reading the Bible.
This isn’t the gotcha moment you think it is, you just have a narrow and immature way of reading the Bible.
C
Chistian-ity
Guest
I can see where you’re coming from, calling them “cute”. They definitely appear like that through the context of those little kids Bibles.
A
AlNg
Guest
I see the question about whether or not the things in the Bible did actually happen.
I can’t make sense of the answers being given.
The Bible says that God was walking in a garden.
You say:
What does literally true mean?
Did it actually happen that God was walking in a garden, or is this a fairy tale?
I can’t make sense of the answers being given.
The Bible says that God was walking in a garden.
You say:
Others say:
What does literally true mean?
Did it actually happen that God was walking in a garden, or is this a fairy tale?
Last edited:
A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
You’re free to interpret that story in whatever way you wish, so long as you assent to the Church teaching that there were two original people, they fell into sin, and earned the condemnation of God.
For me, I believe in the story, but I don’t get caught up in the minute details. Did God walk in the garden? Yes, in the sense that He had a personal and direct relationship with Adam and Eve. And afterthey sinned, they attempted to hide from Him once they were aware of their fault.
For me, I believe in the story, but I don’t get caught up in the minute details. Did God walk in the garden? Yes, in the sense that He had a personal and direct relationship with Adam and Eve. And afterthey sinned, they attempted to hide from Him once they were aware of their fault.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Those two are not the only choices. Something can be true even if it didn’t actually happen in this world.
A
AlNg
Guest
If God did not walk in the garden and the Bible is literally true, what are the other possibilities?
W
whatistrue
Guest
The same as has been stated repeatedly - use of figures of speech to illustrate a point that is true, without necessarily documenting an actual event. Were each of Jesus’ parables a description of actual people and events, or were they illustrations of moral truth? In other words, true but not actual.
A
AlNg
Guest
It is a contradiction in terms. If something is true, it means it is an actual fact.
So it did not actually happen that God was walking in a garden?
I.e., it is not true that God was walking in a garden?
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
It can be true, and a fact, but not an actual event. Jesus Himself used stories that were not necessarily actual events to give us moral truths that are real facts.
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t think so. The question is whether or not the things in the Bible did actually happen. Did it actually happen and is it literally true that God was walking in a garden.
To say something is literally true means that it actually happened.
G
goout
Guest
Catholics are not fundamentalist literalists. We know that God can convey saving truth outside the genre of journalism.whatistrue:
I don’t think so. The question is whether or not the things in the Bible did actually happen. Did it actually happen and is it literally true that God was walking in a garden.
To say something is literally true means that it actually happened.
God can use parables, analogies, poetry…none of which are meant to convey journalistic facts.
Do you think God is limited to journalistic facts?
W
whatistrue
Guest
The best answer in this entire thread came in post # 2 from @(name removed by moderator). Some of it actually happened, some didn’t, it’s all true.
A
AlNg
Guest
Ok. So the Bible is true in the sense of figurative truth.
Although some Christians are fundamental literalists, others do agree that the Bible should be interpreted in a figurative or allegorical manner. For example, some Protestants will say that the Last Supper is an allegory of sorts, so that the Bread and the Wine metaphorically remind us of the presence of Jesus.
OK, so the stories in the Bible are not journalistic facts. That would align with what some say about the Resurrection, which they take to be a figurative truth, or a metaphor indicating a hope of man, but should not be taken as a fundamentalist literal truth as a journalistic fact.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
The Bible is a series of books. Are the Gospels true, Acts, will Revelation become true, how about Abraham, the Kings in the Old Testament, the great building projects such as the spring under the City of David, Exodus, were Jews slaves, Moses, did he receive the law and the Commandments we have, from God, Nineveh and Jonah, spoken of by Jesus in the Gospels, God walking amongst His people.
The prophets, Ruth, all the great women of the Bible.
Humankind discovered Archaeology and thought it would prove/disprove Scripture in its early days. Now it is more Scientific and concentrates on past life and culture. In its revelations it does occasionally throw up real evidence of Biblical figures, but isnt oral and written tradition evidence itself, especially when given by God.
We get a name in Scripture, written evidence from a Bible book centuries old, then we find a seal, inscription, or similar from that person. Again a name written on an artefact of a seal or inscription. Which evidence is more accurate from the human perspective, the Scriptural reference or the artefact?
Faith is not about physical evidence, even when that happens , this forum demonstrates how it is rejected.
The prophets, Ruth, all the great women of the Bible.
Humankind discovered Archaeology and thought it would prove/disprove Scripture in its early days. Now it is more Scientific and concentrates on past life and culture. In its revelations it does occasionally throw up real evidence of Biblical figures, but isnt oral and written tradition evidence itself, especially when given by God.
We get a name in Scripture, written evidence from a Bible book centuries old, then we find a seal, inscription, or similar from that person. Again a name written on an artefact of a seal or inscription. Which evidence is more accurate from the human perspective, the Scriptural reference or the artefact?
Faith is not about physical evidence, even when that happens , this forum demonstrates how it is rejected.
Last edited:
A
AHapka
Guest
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought that there is always the possibility of development of doctrine.
A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
Development of doctrine does not mean changin truth, but developing our understanding of it.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
The evidence explicitly contradicts this. The evidence is that the earliest Israelite settlements are basically identical to the Canaanites, just without pig bones. Everything points to the Israelites slowly growing apart from the rest of the Canaanites, not arriving suddenly from somewhere else.
A
AHapka
Guest
Doctrine, yes.
But what was mentioned in the original comment was infallibility. That’s a completely different thing and exceptionally rare. Most Popes haven’t even made an infallible statement during their Papacy.
- Status