Did the things in the bible actually happen?

[Petergee]

By definition of infallibility, it would be certain, the last word, and would never change. The Holy Spirit, who does know, guarantees that as part of Papal infallibility.

He most certainly does not! Infallibility is a negative charism, not a positive one! It is not some magic amulet which the Pope drags out to make what he says perfect!
The Holy Spirit guarantees ONLY that the statement is free from doctrinal or moral error. He does NOT guarantee that it is the last word that can be said on the subject, nor that it is expressed in the best possible way. He does not even guarantee that the pope will say anything at all when the situation is crying out for him to do so.

That being said, infallibility only applies when teaching about faith and morals in exceptionally rare circumstances. Since a person gets the faith and morals from it, allegory or real, there is no need.

No, it is not only in exceptionally rare circumstances. Anything which has always and everywhere been taught and believed by the Church, is infallibly true. I’m afraid you just don’t understand the theology of infallibility.

 

[Leferdion]

do you ask if all biblical stories are fictional or if only certain ones are fictional?

 

[AlNg]

The rest is from an author from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (which is not a magisterial source).

What does the following mean?
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Why is everyone so upset because I called the Bible stories cute?

I am not, I really love a lot of the Bible Stories and think they are quite lovely for teaching children about God.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

The rest is from an author from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (which is not a magisterial source).

What does the following mean?
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Well, first off, what it doesn’t mean is that it’s a magisterial source, let alone an ecclesiastical one.

On the other hand, it doesn’t mean what I’m guessing you think it does. It merely means “we don’t need to censor this book” and “you can go ahead and publish it.” In fact, it doesn’t even mean “we agree with all the assertions made in this book.”

 

[OddBird]

I understand what you’re trying to say, and yes, cute children’s Bibles and toys are a good way of helping them enter the world of the Bible.

But I think people react because, in a way, saying they’re cute miss their point, and, indeed, can prevent from understanding their message. Their point is that violence exists, and it too is called to be “evangelized” by God’s grace. Suffering exists, and God came to share in it. The world, marked by sin, is a place where not just cute and happy events (although they do exist), but also dark and terrible things happen. And one of the messages the Bible tells us is that none of that can separate us from God’s love, that God’s promise and God’s life are stronger than all this. The Bible has an incredible lucidity about evil and the way it pervades the world we inhabit, and it would be dangerous to take that out of it.

If we reduce the Bible to its “cute” factor, how can we learn it ?

 

[Gorgias]

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

And, if you scrolled up to the beginning of the section, you’d see that what you quoted were “epigrams cut with a blunt knife in the walls of the Tower of London while [John Ingram] daily awaited death.”

Hardly a magisterial source; and, in fact, merely verse.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

the Kings in the Old Testament

The evidence strongly suggests there was no historical parallel to the biblical “Kingdom of Israel.” What did exist was likely a small Judean monarchy that was spun into a “golden age legend” while the Jewish people were captive in Babylon.

(Babylonian captivity is historical, there is archaeological evidence that Jewish cities were being destroyed at the time, and contemporary babylonian accounts of military action.)

 

[Gorgias]

The evidence strongly suggests there was no historical parallel to the biblical “Kingdom of Israel.”

Yet, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

 

[Gorgias]

Incorrect. The absence of PROOF is not a PROOF of absence. The absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence.

Sigh. I would encourage you to study your logical fallacies more effectively.

The absence of seven-headed fire-breathing dragons is a very strong evidence of their absence.

But until you prove the null hypothesis, you cannot claim that they don’t exist because you’ve never seen one.

What does “true” mean in this context? And which are the parts which are historically correct? These two questions remain unanswered.

We’ve talked about that for 100 posts now. These questions literally have been answered over and again in this thread.

I especially “like” the expression of “ some of it ”. ( NOT! )

And… there we have it: you are predisposed to disbelieve that any of the Bible is historically true. Well… this discussion is gonna be productive, then…!

 

[Gorgias]

Incorrect. The absence of PROOF is not a PROOF of absence. The absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence.

Sigh. I would encourage you to study your logical fallacies more effectively.

The absence of seven-headed fire-breathing dragons is a very strong evidence of their absence.

But until you prove the null hypothesis, you cannot claim that they don’t exist merely because you’ve never seen one.

What does “true” mean in this context? And which are the parts which are historically correct? These two questions remain unanswered.

We’ve talked about that for 100 posts now. These questions literally have been answered over and again in this thread.

I especially “like” the expression of “ some of it ”. ( NOT! )

And… there we have it: you are predisposed to believe that any of the Bible is historically true. Well… this discussion is gonna be productive, then…!

 

[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.

Look, I don’t need to look at your source nor need we quibble over a definition of immovable.

Your statement that prompted the entire sequence of posts is clearly incorrect, so let’s just cut to the chase.

You claimed…

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.

So the upshot of your objection here makes God to be immobile because, you say, he couldn’t be “walking around in the garden.” Besides the fact that immobile may or may not mean the same as immovable, what philosophers and theologians teach IS NOT that God is impotent and CANNOT move, do, or accomplish anything. What they teach is God is omnipotent and can do anything without constraint.

So both immobile and immovable are not proper descriptions of God, because even in the latter word’s meaning of unchangeable, God is unique in that while other forces cannot change God, God can and does have full rein in changing other things.

Aristotle defined God as the Unmoved Mover, not as the Unmoved Immovable. Note that does not imply God cannot in some analogical sense move himself, just that he cannot be moved by some other force – he is unmoved. Perhaps there is a distinction to be made between unmovable and immovable.

It doesn’t pay to be overly literalistic here.

The classic theistic descriptions of God from Scholasticism are much more precise. God is the Pure Act of To Be Itself (Actus Purus), the Actuality of All Actualities, the Fullness of Being Itself, and such-like. None of those imply impotency nor an inability to “walk around the garden,” quite the contrary. There are no limitations with regard to God being in, around, or in any other relationship to the garden that he wills.

I think you have completely misunderstood this depiction of God from philosophers and theologians.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

The evidence strongly suggests there was no historical parallel to the biblical “Kingdom of Israel.” What did exist was likely a small Judean monarchy that was spun into a “golden age legend” while the Jewish people were captive in Babylon.

What evidence are you referring to?

 

[HarryStotle]

I merely observe that there is no list of verses, which are alleged to be “historically correct” and another list, which is merely “allegorically correct” (whatever that might mean).

While you might be technically correct on that (although there might be such a list somewhere), the reason isn’t because — as might be inferred from your post – that there is wide-spread uncertainty about what is or is not historically correct.

The real reason is because the list of historically correct verses would be so extensive that it would be beyond the capacity of all but the most dedicated Biblical fanatics to even begin to construct such a list.

Ergo, the absence that a list of verses with historical evidences exists is not suggestive of the absence of verses with historical evidences. Quite the contrary, actually.

That is to entirely put aside the question of how any verse from any ancient source would be deemed by you to be “historically correct.”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What evidence are you referring to?

A) Textual evidence (e.g. too many anachronisms in the biblical story, no other contemporary reference to such a kingdom)
B) Archaeological (e.g. Caananite cities are found to be several times larger than Israelite cities at the time, indicating the Israelite cities were unlikely to be as significant a geopolitical power as claimed by the bible)

Yet, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

We’re not talking solely absence of evidence: there is evidence that the texts contain anachronisms (supporting a creation date during the babylonian exile), and that the Israelite cities of the time are smaller/less developed than those around them.

There is some evidence that the Israelites did enjoy something like a united kingdom phase, but it was centuries after David/Solomon.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Gorgias:

Yet, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Incorrect. The absence of PROOF is not a PROOF of absence. The absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence. The absence of seven-headed fire-breathing dragons is a very strong evidence of their absence. But it is not a PROOF, if you know what I mean.

Going back to the beginning of this thread, the question is about the concept of:

"The Church teaches that everything in the Bible is true . . .and that some of it actually happened".

What does “true” mean in this context? And which are the parts which are historically correct? These two questions remain unanswered. I especially “like” the expression of “some of it”. (NOT!)

ALL of ‘it’ happened.

By all means quibble, if you must, about what IT actually consists of - parable, allegory, dream, vision, semantics, nuance, natural or supernatural explanation - but please don’t argue from incredulity.

…I never saw a burning bush, therefore it probably never happened.
…the parts of the bible I like actually happened but all the rest is myth.
…most people think King David is a legend therefore

 

[AlNg]

So both immobile and immovable are not proper descriptions of God

Maybe, but there are Roman Catholics theologians who disagree and say that God is immovable.

 

[AlNg]

I merely observe that there is no list of verses, which are alleged to be “historically correct” and another list, which is merely “allegorically correct”

I suspect that the list changes depending on what side you are supporting.

 

[AlNg]

Well, first off, what it doesn’t mean is that it’s a magisterial source, let alone an ecclesiastical one.

So what?
I am not claiming magisterial or infallible approval. I am claiming that there are Roman Catholic theologians or scholars who said that God is immovable.
It says that the article has ecclesiastical approval which is enough to show that there is at least one Roman Catholic scholar who says that God is immovable. And I have shown that he is not the only one.

 

[Gorgias]

there is evidence that the texts contain anachronisms (supporting a creation date during the babylonian exile)

That would be evidence that they were written down at or following the exile, not developed at that time, though.

and that the Israelite cities of the time are smaller/less developed than those around them.

Umm… wouldn’t that be supporting evidence that the Israelites arrived later on the scene than the Canaanites?