Did the things in the bible actually happen?

[Bruce_Killian]

Did you read the paper? “Bad Egyptian Chronology” means scientific dating. If you ignore scientific dating, and take liberties with your dates (sometimes by centuries) you MAY be able to resolve some inconsistencies. For example, in the Bible, it says “God shook the heavens”. Well, that may mean that the stars were out of alignment for 500-800 years or so, which means Joseph and Moses really lived 800 years earlier than archaeology shows, and there was a famine 800 years before Joseph lived, so then, assuming the stars were moved by God, you could say that famine 800 years earlier could in fact be the famine mentioned in the Bible. Of course, nothing else lines up though. For example, even if you move the Exodus by 1000 years, you still find no evidence, but if you also move it north by several hundred miles and shrink the number of people involved, you can perhaps say some clay shards found then could be part of such a wandering. Not very convincing.

I am a retired engineer and a Bible scholar. I read 200 books on Egyptian/Bible archaeology and at least a hundred on Bible chronology while doing research for my dissertation. I have read thousands of journal articles as well. Bad scientific assumptions lead to bad scientific conclusion. I resolved the major chronological inconsistencies with archaeology and the Bible at every period, something that I have never seen anyone else. My article that I linked to is only a summary if you actually read what the archaeologist suggest is the Bible sequence almost noting lines up see the chart on page 3 of my article. Feel free to do as much independent research as you have time for. You will find I am correct. Note there is a very common topic of a Bronze age collapse that lasts about 600 years that almost nothing happened anywhere. You can’t use the dates they propose, you must use the archaeological periods like MB meaning Middle Bronze, etc.

 

[EndTimes]

Nope. “Accurate” in the sense that it teaches truth through allegory, not in the sense of historical narrative.

NOPE -

HUMANIS GENERIS

1. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13]

This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense

1. 1. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

AGAIN - SINCE JESUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT SPEAK OF PORTIONS OF GENESIS IN THE ACTUALITY SENSE - WE KNOW THAT YES - THEY DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Why are you yelling at me in bold and in capital letters?

AGAIN - SINCE JESUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT SPEAK OF PORTIONS OF GENESIS IN THE ACTUALITY SENSE - WE KNOW THAT YES - THEY DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN

None of this negates the fact that the first Chapters of Genesis up until Abraham are known as non historical allegory. The Bible has quite a few genres, it is not all just historical.

there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament.

This in no way negates the genre of non historical allegory either. I do not know what you believe my reading or interpretation of these chapters of Genesis are, and mine is not important.
I am repeating what Catholics are free to believe , and we are free to believe and read a fundamental reading of these chapters of Genesis or take them as similar to proverbs, myth, or something else in line with Catholic Tradition. (by the way the meaning of myth is not what you might be thinking it is, for Sacred Scripture) Jesus spoke a lot in Proverbs.

This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense

key words here that you have stated yourself

not conforming to the historical method

do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense

Can you state 100% what God means in Genesis 1:3 about ‘let there be light’ before God had created the physical artefacts of light in Genesis 1:14-16.
What did God mean by ‘light’ and ‘let there be light’ in Gen 1:3. What light is God referring to here? There was also night and day before the artefacts of night and day were created by God in Gen 1:14-16 and beyond.

Please explain what ‘light’ meant in Gen 1:3, when it clearly did not mean the physical artefacts of Gen 1:14-46.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Just what does light mean in Gen 1:3 if we are proposing a fundamentalist literal reading of this verse, given the stars and artefacts of the universe that we know as giving light and heat, had not yet been created.

Please answer this question from your own words, not quotes, as there are probably no quotes that will adequately answer this question.

 

[EndTimes]

None of this negates the fact that the first Chapters of Genesis up until Abraham are known as non historical allegory.

Hold the phone. Let’s Check with the Magisterium of The Catholic Church

This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense

Anything else?

_

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Anything else?

yes, answer my question about light, perhaps read my post first before responding.

 

[EndTimes]

yes, answer my question about light, perhaps read my post first before responding.

Re: The First Eleven Chapters of Genesis:

Since the Magisterium “nevertheless pertain to history in a True Sense”
debunks your ‘non-historical allegory’ notion,
We’re not going to skip by that … so quickly…

_

_

 

[AlNg]

SINCE JESUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT SPEAK OF PORTIONS OF GENESIS IN THE ACTUALITY SENSE - WE KNOW THAT YES - THEY DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN

By actually happened, do you mean that the events related in Genesis did really occur in the real world as real actual events in the real world, and not in some allegorical sense and not in some figurative sense?

 

[EndTimes]

By actually happened, do you mean that the events related in Genesis did really occur in the real world as real actual events in the real world, and not in some allegorical sense and not in some figurative sense?

Let’s not forget that I’m speaking of and reflecting Catholicism’s Teachings…

Since Jesus Himself clearly projects that He indeed takes events in Genesis as actually occurring…

Your very question strongly suggests that it reflects that of which the Church warns of…

_

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Re: The First Eleven Chapters of Genesis:

Since the Magisterium “nevertheless pertain to history in a True Sense”
debunks your ‘non-historical allegory’ notion,
We’re not going to skip by that … so quickly…

WE are discussing a literal vs figurative reading of Genesis the first 11. I have asked for your Exegesis of what God meant by light in Gen 1:3.

You cannot cherry pick quotes that you are taking out of context as proofs for your argument because you would then have to explain what the Magisterium means by

pertain to history in a True Sense

So perhaps answer both questions, what is your Exegesis of light and give an exact meaning of what the Magisterium means ‘in a true sense’

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

If I may attempt a response?

yes please, there are a few ideas, it is a very nice question to meditate on,

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

yes sure

 

[Gorgias]

NOPE -

HUMANIS GENERIS

So… you’re asserting that the Catechism contradicts Humani generis? Hmm… I wonder how that got past the authors and editors of the CCC?

the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense

That’s what I’m claiming, too, ET: they speak to truths, even though they don’t do so through the genre of historical narrative.

Hold the phone. Let’s Check with the Magisterium of The Catholic Church

pertain to history in a true sense

Anything else?

Yes. Do you actually read the quotes you post? Do you understand what they mean?

Since the Magisterium “nevertheless pertain to history in a True Sense”
debunks your ‘non-historical allegory’ notion

No… it actually supports it!

 

[TMC]

Since Jesus Himself clearly projects that He indeed takes events in Genesis as actually occurring…

This is a red herring. Jesus never said Genesis was historically accurate, or anything close to that. Jesus’ occasional references to Old Testament figures says nothing about the historical accuracy of Genesis.

 

[Gorgias]

You just admitted defeat. The title of this thread is “did the things in the Bible ACTUALLY happen”.

You have a weird idea of what ‘defeat’ means. I never claimed that the Bible was 100% historical narrative.

However, the things it claims are true. There was a “first sin of our first true parents”. The narrative of Genesis 3 teaches this truth through allegory. So, yeah… a first sin really did happen; the Bible teaches it allegorically.

Not sure where you perceive ‘defeat’ in that.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

In your paper, you specifically state that “God shook the heavens”, and therefore you have the right to take as many liberties with astronomical dating as you wish. How can anyone take such a proposal seriously? You are starting with the premise that “it’s in scripture, therefore it is true”. Such a foundation is not sustainable.

I believe God is the author of science and uses His creation. I do believe the Scripture and we will have to disagree that that foundation is unsustainable, but the church teaches it as sustainable. Archaeologists generally do not see any catastrophe greater than an earthquake. But saint Peter said 2 Peter 3:5-6 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, 6 through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. I did another article on the earth shaking events that shook the heavens see http://www.scripturescholar.com/JoshuasLongDay.pdf.

 

[EndTimes]

WE are discussing a literal vs figurative reading of Genesis the first 11

Yes… And as we know … they do contain history in a true sense…

REF: " the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense "

Are you tripping over the true sense of Genesis?

WE are discussing a literal vs figurative reading of Genesis the first 11.

You make it sound as it that’s an Either-Or Matrix … It is not…

And you make it seem as it, for instance - the event surrounding Original Sin - may not have been an actual primal event…

Let’s examine how the Magisterium speaks of the First 11 Chapters of Genesis and Adam

And how the New Testament - also inspired by God - speaks of Adam

From Catholic Magisterium

Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

[388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

[389] The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

FROM Sacred Scriptures

1. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
2. To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

AGREE?

_

 

[Gorgias]

What was it, do you believe, if not as actually recorded?

What was the actual sin, you mean?

The Church describes it qualitatively, rather than as a sequence of discrete events. The description in the Catechism is:

Man… let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness. In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

You believe that Genesis (primarily first few chapters at the least) are to be read allegorically, and that the flood of Noah was either allegorical or ethnocentric, and that you also believe that the earth is not est. 6K, but much older, is this correct?

I have not stated what I believe. I have only stated the position of the Catholic Church. Bottom line is as a Catholic I hold the Line of the Holy See.

we should really start a new thread on this so we dont hijack this one Happy to discuss it there.
It involves examining meanings of words in Hebrew, translations, as far as time goes, Hebrew history, where and why specific books were written, and their message to the original reader, and the global discoveries of knowledge.

 

[Gorgias]

I am asking what was the specific “command” that was “disobeyed”, if not, as you believe, recorded.

Allegorically, “don’t eat of the fruit of this tree.” Literally? Historically? Not recorded, as such.