Did the things in the bible actually happen?

[AlNg]

Development of doctrine does not mean changin truth, but developing our understanding of it.

By definition of infallibility, it would be certain, the last word, and would never change.

Development of doctrine would mean that the first word is not always the last word, No?

 

[LovelyLadybug]

Why is everyone so upset because I called the Bible stories cute? I have read the Bible and yes, people get killed in different stories, and that’s sad, but there’s no harm in calling them “cute” either. Kids should read the Bible and removing the violent aspects of it makes it more kid-friendly. Think about all the childrens’ books and toys modeled after Bible stories. Don’t you think those are cute? I think they’re adorable.

 

[whatistrue]

Development of doctrine would mean that the first word is not always the last word, No?

In a word, no. Development of doctrine is not the same as trying to change Dogma or General Revelation.

 

[whatistrue]

For example, some Protestants will say that the Last Supper is an allegory of sorts

That would align with what some say about the Resurrection, which they take to be a figurative truth,

This is why we rely on the Magisterium and not only what is written in the Bible that the Church codified. And the Bible itself should be understood and interpreted in different ways for different parts; to do otherwise is limiting God to a single method of teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

Making bible stories less scary and violent doesn’t mean you can’t learn from them and understand their important message.

I understand where you’re coming from. However, that approach takes the Bible from “source document” and turns it into “someone’s interpretation of the document.” Its value, then, would depend on the particular interpretation given in the text.

The NIV suffers from this dynamic, especially in the Pauline epistles.

So it is true, as the Bible tells us, that God was walking in a garden.

Nope. You’re mischaracterizing. The way that figurative language is “true” is different than the way that historical narrative is “true.” You cannot validly conflate the ways in which to approach the two genres.

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

Since it’s figurative language, then one interpretation might be “God was present to Adam and Eve in the garden”. No feet or strolling necessary.

IOW, the stories in the Bible are true, just as fairy tales are true?

Again, you’re mischaracterizing. Just because some narratives in the Bible are figurative doesn’t mean that all narratives are. C’mon, man…

It is a contradiction in terms. If something is true, it means it is an actual fact.

As Shakespeare once said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, AlNg, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

It is true that it’s unsafe for children to talk to strangers, even if there was never a literal “Little Red Riding Hood”. The story teaches a true lesson through the genre of ‘pedagogical tale’.

Ok. So the Bible is true in the sense of figurative truth.

…the stories in the Bible are not journalistic facts.

Why do you insist on mischaracterizing what’s being said here? It would be more accurate if you wrote “some Bible narratives are true in the sense of figurative truth; some are true in the sense of historical narrative.”

Development of doctrine would mean that the first word is not always the last word, No?

It wouldn’t mean that the last word is substantially different in essence from the first word.

Kids should read the Bible and removing the violent aspects of it makes it more kid-friendly.

You should read children’s fairy tales from centuries gone by. The “cute” stories you think you know are really just whitewashed versions of rather violent tales…

 

[KMC]

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!!!

The Church teaches that the Bible is true for those things that are asserted to be true. There are (3) interpretive criteria:

1. Consider the content and unity of Scripture. In other words, when considering a particular passage, it must be taken in context of the entire Bible.
2. Consider the “living Tradition” of the Church. In other words, a passage must be considered in context of the Church’s liturgical and sacramental life, along with the writings of the fathers, doctors and saints. The oral Gospel (Sacred Tradition) existed before the written Gospel (Sacred Scripture). Therefore, its important to understand what the early Christians thought about Scripture (which would have been the Old Testament prior to the New)
3. The Analogy of Faith. Something cannot contradict an element of the faith already held to be true by Christ’s Church. Example: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is something we get from John Chapter 6. The idea that John 6 should have a figurative interpretation was an invention of the 11th Century Berengarius of Tours, and of the Reformation.

A lot of stuff here, but there is a lot to Scripture. You mentioned the Old Testament. It all depends on the genre, looking at the historical truth presented, and from that determining the theological meaning. Example: Lots of questions about the genre of Genesis. Many believe its “epic poetry”, meaning its true, but not necessarily literal. The Church does teach that Adam and Eve are real people, there was a fall, and we need a redeemer. Whether or not creation happened in 6 days or 15 billions years, is up for debate.

Blessings

I hope this helps.

 

[Gorgias]

The Church teaches that the Bible is true for those things that are asserted to be true.

Actually, it’s much stronger than that: the Church teaches that “Since all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

The notion that there are “true parts” and “not true parts” of the Bible is a recent innovation, and is not taught by the Church.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

The Church teaches that the Bible is true for those things that are asserted to be true.

Actually, it’s much stronger than that: the Church teaches that “Since all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

The notion that there are “true parts” and “not true parts” of the Bible is a recent innovation, and is not taught by the Church.

I appreciate the clarification, and I hope I didn’t give the impression that there are “true parts” and “not true parts.” Specifically, I mean the authors are asserting particular truths, which does not mean they assert particular “untruths”. To use my Genesis example: The author is not necessarily asserting a 6 day creation. The author is asserting (ref Humani Generis) that we had first parents, a fall, a need for a Redeemer. Another example would be Revelation…that is prophetic literature, and highly symbolic. The author is not asserting the New Jerusalem will be a literal cube (ref Revelation 21)

sorry for not being more clear

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

I suppose it would have been better to depict God as the wall surrounding the garden, then?

Or perhaps you have completely misunderstood what the philosophers and theologians mean by “immovable,” granting you that any philosophers or theologians even use the term “immovable” to describe God? I haven’t seen any that do. The more precise terms would be immutable, impassable, uncaused, and the like.

For example…

As I have indicated in earlier posts, the doctrine of divine simplicity is absolutely central to classical theism. To say that God is simple is to say that He is in no way composed of parts – neither material parts, nor metaphysical parts like form and matter, substance and accidents, or essence and existence. Divine simplicity is affirmed by such Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers as Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes. It is central to the theology of pagan thinkers like Plotinus. It is the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the fourth Lateran council and the first Vatican council, and the denial of which amounts to heresy.

The doctrine of divine simplicity has a number of crucial implications, which are, accordingly, also essential to classical theism. It entails that God is immutable or changeless, and therefore that He is impassible – that is, that He cannot be affected by anything in the created order. It entails that he is eternal in the sense of being altogether outside of time and space. It entails that He does not “have” existence, or an essence, or His various attributes but rather is identical to His existence, His nature and His attributes: He is His existence which is His essence which is His power which is His knowledge which is His goodness.
Source: Edward Feser: Classical theism

 

[HarryStotle]

Yes everything written in the Bible is true. All the things written in the Old and New Testament actually happened well the events of Revelation haven’t happened yet.

Some would argue that most of the events in Revelation have happened within one generation based upon Matthew 24:34: Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

There are four “views” regarding the events in Revelation, with many (most?) modern scholars leaning towards a predominantly preterist view.

• Futurist View The book is a cryptic prediction of future events. Its real significance is only available to those alive during the last days – they alone can truly understand the book since they alone will witness the events that correspond to its fulfillment.
  Examples: Tim LeHay - Left Behind series; Hal Lindsay – Late Great Planet Earth
• Preterist View What is being depicted in Revelation are predictions/descriptions of imminent events which were, for the most part, fulfilled in the first century.
  Example: David Chilton – Beyond the End Times
• Historicist View The events of Revelation are being fulfilled throughout history over successive periods or “dispensations.”
  Examples: Standard view of reformers: Wycliffe, Knox, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley
• Idealist View (Sometimes called the “symbolic” approach.) The claim is that the events in Revelation are merely representative or figurative descriptions of “other-world” realities which are not actual historical events.
  Examples: Origen, Augustine

All of these approaches have some problems, but they also all have something to contribute. The first verse of Revelation definitely supports a leaning towards the preterist view: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” (Rev 1:1)

 

[AlNg]

Or perhaps you have completely misunderstood what the philosophers and theologians mean by “immovable,” granting you that any philosophers or theologians even use the term “immovable” to describe God? I haven’t seen any that do.

God may be considered as an immovable point in the centre of a world which, whether as a more or less closely connected group of granulated individuals, or as an absolutely continuous ether mass, turns round Him as a sphere may be supposed to turn in all directions round its centre (St. Thomas, Cont. Gent., I, c. lxvi).

God is immovable, moving all things by His nod.

Publications of the Catholic Record Society, Volume 5

 

[HarryStotle]

God may be considered as an immovable point in the centre of a world which, whether as a more or less closely connected group of granulated individuals, or as an absolutely continuous ether mass, turns round Him as a sphere may be supposed to turn in all directions round its centre (St. Thomas, Cont. Gent., I, c. lxvi).

God is immovable, moving all things by His nod.

Publications of the Catholic Record Society, Volume 5

It is rather ironic that in submitting an apparent quote from Aquinas to support what you claim is a characteristic of God, what you actually submitted was an article by Walter MacDonald with a citation to Aquinas to explain how eternity could possibly be related to all points in time without being a point in time, found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm

The actual related text of the Summa Contra Gentiles reads as follows:

Wherefore the proportion of eternity to the whole duration of time is as the proportion of the indivisible to the continuous, not indeed of the indivisible that is the term of the continuous, and is not present to each part of the continuous — for such is likened to an instant of time — but of the indivisible that is outside the continuous, and yet synchronizes with each part of the continuous, or with each point of a signate continuous: because, since time does not exceed movement, eternity, being utterly outside movement, is altogether outside time. Again, since the being of the eternal never fails, eternity synchronizes with every time or instant of time. Somewhat of an example of this may be seen in the circle : for a given point in the circumference, although indivisible, does not coincide in its position with any other point, since the order of position results in the continuity of the circumference ; while the centre which is outside the circumference is directly opposite any given point in the circumference. Accordingly whatever exists in any part of time, is coexistent with the eternal as though present thereto, although in relation to another part of time it is present or future. Now a thing cannot be present to, and coexistent with, the eternal, except with the whole eternal, since this has no successive duration. Therefore whatever happens throughout the whole course of time is seen as present by the divine intellect in its eternity.

So, far from being a descriptive word for God, the term immovable is being used as a depiction (analogy really) of God’s eternality vis a vis temporality to visually show that the centre of a circle (eternity) is to the circumference of the circle (temporality) as the unmoved centre is to the series of points ostensibly moving along the circumference.

Not quite what you initially proposed philosophers and theologians were meaning as God being immovable.

 

[AlNg]

So, far from being a descriptive word for God, the term immovable is being used as a depiction (analogy really) of God’s eternality vis a vis temporality to visually show that the centre of a circle (eternity) is to the circumference of the circle (temporality) as the unmoved centre is to the series of points ostensibly moving along the circumference.

Here’s another quote:
God is immovable , moving all things by His nod.

Publications of the Catholic Record Society, Volume 5

Catholic Record Society Publications. Records Series - Google Books

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So, far from being a descriptive word for God, the term immovable is being used as a depiction (analogy really) of God’s eternality vis a vis temporality to visually show that the centre of a circle (eternity) is to the circumference of the circle (temporality) as the unmoved centre is to the series of points ostensibly moving along the circumference.

Here’s another quote:
God is immovable , moving all things by His nod.

Publications of the Catholic Record Society, Volume 5
Catholic Record Society Publications. Records Series - Google Books

Sounds like the same quote. I don’t subscribe to Google Books.

 

[AlNg]

. I don’t subscribe to Google Books.

You don’t need to. Just control click and it will appear.

 

[Dan_Defender]

A leather scroll dating to the time of Ramesses II (1303 BCE-1213 BCE) describes a close account of brick-making apparently by enslaved prisoners of the wars in Canaan and Syria, which sounds very much like the biblical account. The scroll describes 40 taskmasters, each with a daily target of 2,000 bricks.
The Merenptah stele, bears the first mention of an entity called Israel in Canaan. It is robustly dated at 1210 BCE.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

A leather scroll dating to the time of Ramesses II (1303 BCE-1213 BCE) describes a close account of brick-making apparently by enslaved prisoners of the wars in Canaan and Syria, which sounds very much like the biblical account. The scroll describes 40 taskmasters, each with a daily target of 2,000 bricks.
The Merenptah stele, bears the first mention of an entity called Israel in Canaan. It is robustly dated at 1210 BCE.

Neither of which supports your original assertion that the Israelites were “too different” to have grown organically.

See here for a scholarly discussion of the Exodus’ problems:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/texts/WDeverArchaeology_ConquestABD.html

As is often observed, there is no direct archaeological evidence that any constituents of later Israel were ever in Egypt. The only Egyptian textual reference, the well known “Victory Stela” of Merneptah (now dated ca. 1207 b.c.; see further Stager 1985b) mentions “Israel” as a “people,” probably an ethnic element, not in Egypt but in Canaan, with no apparent knowledge of any Egyptian derivation.

 

[Candlefish66]

Because something is a matter of faith, that does not mean that faith is not true. Rather, it can’t be proven. Our Father seems to like it that way.

 

[Gorgias]

All the things written in the Old and New Testament actually happened

Just for the sake of clarity, so that the non-Christians in this thread are not confused: what @theorangeandblue asserts is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

God may be considered as an immovable point in the centre of a world which, whether as a more or less closely connected group of granulated individuals, or as an absolutely continuous ether mass, turns round Him as a sphere may be supposed to turn in all directions round its centre (St. Thomas, Cont. Gent., I, c. lxvi).

You’ve bungled your citation, I’m afraid. Thomas didn’t write what you say he did. He only wrote the part about “a sphere may be supposed to turn in all directions round its center”. The rest is from an author from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (which is not a magisterial source).

 

[Gorgias]

All the things written in the Old and New Testament actually happened

Just for the sake of clarity, so that the non-Christians in this thread are not confused: what @theorangeandblue asserts is not what the Catholic Church teaches.