Do Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

[aspirant]

the prophet Jonah WAS a historical person.

Perhaps more than one, even.

Jesus also confirmed that Jonas “WAS three days and three nights IN THE WHALE’S BELLY,” as the Scriptures recorded. Unless Jesus lied, you cannot say “there may have been a big fish.” There has to be!

For reasons already elaborated on more than one occasion, this does not logically follow.

My question was: What stories in the Bible are you absolutely certain are historical?

And I answered.

Read His words again. It was not just Jesus’ burial and resurrection that will be the sign.

Yes, it is.

if Jesus was really in the grave for only portions of three days and nights, He could not be the Messiah

According to the gospels, he was buried in the afternoon before the Sabbath and rose the morning of the first day of the week (that’s part of one day, one night, a whole day, a night, and part of a third day) and he is the Messiah.

Satan has caused you to scoff at Jonah’s story

Scoff? Hardly. My friends get tired of me talking about how awesome it is.

 

[grannymh]

Three questions:

1. What stories in the Bible (Genesis to Revelation) are you absolutely certain are historical?

According to Catholic doctrine, the historical or true fact in Genesis is that there are two sole parents of the human species known as Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[Mailman]

Perhaps more than one, even.

Are you now saying there really was a Jonah who preached to the Ninevites, and that there could even be more than one?

Mailman: My question was: What stories in the Bible are you absolutely certain are historical?
aspirant: And I answered.

You answered but you did not answer THE question. Can you not name even one story in the OT that you are absolutely certain is historical?

According to the gospels, he was buried in the afternoon before the Sabbath and rose the morning of the first day of the week (that’s part of one day, one night, a whole day, a night, and part of a third day) and he is the Messiah.

I believe this is what you mean?

Friday afternoon = part of one day
Friday night = one night
Saturday morning = a whole day
Saturday night = one night
Sunday morning = part of one day

Now, even if we cheat a little and consider parts of a day (the daylight part of a day) as one day, Jesus would still be only 3 days and 2 nights in the grave – not portions of 3 days and portions of 3 nights. So, there is still no truth to Jesus’ claims that He will be 3 days and 3 nights in the grave.

If we don’t cheat in our count, and also consider what was written in the gospels, Jesus’ numbers would be off by a mile. Notice that Jesus was buried as the day ended – “when the even was come” (Luke 27:57 and Mark 15:42) – and the Sabbath “drew on” (Luke 23:54). The daylight part of Friday, therefore, should not be included in the count.

Also notice that the women went to the tomb “when it was yet dark” (John 20:1), when the sun was just starting to rise (Mark 16:2). Now, if we assume that it was at that point in time [when the sun was just starting to rise] that Jesus rose, then the daylight part of Sunday should not be included in the count either.

So, if we are honest in our count, Jesus was just 1 day and 2 nights in the grave, a far cry from the 3 days and 3 nights He said will be the sign of His Messiahship. Jesus was only half the time He said He will be in the tomb before being resurrected. Yet you believe Jesus is the Messiah? Could it be possible that the Jesus you worship – the one who was not able to fulfill his only sign – is a counterfeit Christ?

 

[aspirant]

Are you now saying there really was a Jonah who preached to the Ninevites, and that there could even be more than one?

I’ve been saying this all along.

Can you not name even one story in the OT that you are absolutely certain is historical?

Asked and answered.

I believe this is what you mean?

Friday afternoon = part of one day
Friday night = one night
Saturday morning = a whole day
Saturday night = one night
Sunday morning = part of one day

No. A day includes both the dark and the light.
Friday afternoon = part of one day
Sundown Friday through sundown Saturday = one whole day
Sundown Saturday through Sunday morning = part of one day
Because a day includes both the dark and the light, those three days include two nights (the beginning of Saturday and the beginning of Sunday).

And that’s what the gospels say: Jesus died Friday afternoon and rose Sunday morning.

The daylight part of Friday, therefore, should not be included in the count.

This is incorrect. He died and was buried at the end of Friday.

if we assume that it was at that point in time [when the sun was just starting to rise] that Jesus rose, then the daylight part of Sunday should not be included in the count either.

This is erroneous. Sunday began the night before at sundown.

So, if we are honest in our count, Jesus was just 1 day and 2 nights in the grave

Incorrect. Jesus was in the grave part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday, just as the gospels say. That’s three days that include two full nights.

Could it be possible that the Jesus you worship – the one who was not able to fulfill his only sign – is a counterfeit Christ?

No, because he did fulfill the sign.

 

[Mailman]

No. A day includes both the dark and the light.
Friday afternoon = part of one day
Sundown Friday through sundown Saturday = one whole day
Sundown Saturday through Sunday morning = part of one day
Because a day includes both the dark and the light, those three days include two nights (the beginning of Saturday and the beginning of Sunday).

Oh, so you were referring to a 24-hr day. The “day” I was referring to is the daylight part of a [24-hr] day. Here’s what I said:

Friday afternoon = part of one day
Friday night = one night
Saturday morning = one full day
Saturday night = one night
Sunday morning = part of one day

Is there anything wrong with that? In this case, Christ would be in the tomb two full nights and one full day (the light part of a day) plus portions of the daylight part of a day.

And that’s what the gospels say: Jesus died Friday afternoon and rose Sunday morning.

No, the gospels do not say that. What the gospels say is that Jesus died the afternoon of “the day before the Sabbath” – not the afternoon of the sixth day [which is what Friday is].

The gospels also do not say Jesus rose Sunday morning. What they say is that when the women arrived at the tomb very early Sunday morning “when it was yet dark,” Jesus had already risen. There were no eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection and the gospels are silent on the day and time of that event.

This is incorrect. He died and was buried at the end of Friday.

Jesus cried out – and died – soon after “the ninth hour” or shortly after three o’clock in the afternoon. He was buried just before the sun set on that same day, “because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath…” (Jn. 19:31).

If Jesus was buried “at the end” of a day, we should not include that day in the count because the day was about to close. Notice the count starts at the time of Jesus’ entombment, not at the time of His death.

This is erroneous. Sunday began the night before at sundown.

Don’t our Sundays begin and end at midnight? It was the first day of the week [not Sunday] which began the night before at sundown. The day called the “first day of the week” would start sundown Saturday and end sundown Sunday.

Incorrect. Jesus was in the grave part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday, just as the gospels say. That’s three days that include two full nights.

If we assume Jesus rose early Sunday morning, yes, Jesus would be in the grave part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday. That’s three incomplete days that include two full nights.

But why don’t we check how many light parts of a day (days) and how many dark parts of a day (nights) are in those three incomplete days? Remember Jesus did not just say three days (“days” as in Friday, Saturday, Sunday), but three daylight parts of a day and three night parts of a day.

Since our days begin from 12 midnight and end at 12 midnight, we have this:

1. On Friday:

12 MN to 6 AM (6 hrs, or half a night) – Jesus not in tomb
6 AM to 6 PM (12 hrs, the full daylight part of Friday) – Jesus not in tomb
6 PM to 12 MN (6 hrs, or half a night) – Jesus in tomb

1. On Saturday:

12 MN to 12 MN – Jesus whole time in tomb, or
Jesus in tomb the full daylight part of Saturday and all night.

1. On Sunday:

12 MN to 6 AM (6 hrs, or half a night) – Jesus in tomb
6AM – Resurrection

As you can see, there’s one half-a-night on Friday and another half a night on Sunday, or one full night if we sum up the two. Since there’s another full night on Saturday, then Jesus was in the tomb two full nights – exactly like you said. But notice He was only one full “day” [the daylight part of a day] in the tomb. And that was from Saturday morning 6 AM to Saturday afternoon 6 PM.

One daylight part of a day and two full nights – that was all the time Jesus was in the tomb. As you can see, that’s only half the time He said He will remain buried before being resurrected.

No, because he did fulfill the sign.

He could not have. He was only half the time He said He would be in the grave. The sign Jesus offered was not the fact of the resurrection itself. It was the length of time He would repose in His grave, before being resurrected. Notice what He said: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Here is my 4 point rule of interpreting scripture;

Literal-I take the literal words of the particular passage.

Symbolic-I try to find any deep meaning or lesson that could be drawn from the text.

Historical Background-I use historical and cultural information behind the text.

Tradition- I use the traditional commentaries by the church to further my understanding and to make sure my view is orthodox.

 

[mike91]

Yes, Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. However, let me clarify the definition of “literal”. Many people think that a literal interpretation means interpreting the Bible EXACTLY how it says, for example, the earth was created in exactly 6 actual 24-hour days. But, this is not what the word literal means.

The word literalist (notice the difference) describes interpreting the Bible exactly word for word as it is written. This is the position of many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, believing the earth to be created in 6 24-hour days, etc.

Catholics, however, believe not in the literalist approach, but in a literal sense. Literal here simply means interpreting the message the author intended to convey. The author may use poetry, symbolism, idioms, or a number of other literary devices but Catholic try to determine what the author intended to mean by researching the idioms and phrases of the culture and things like that.

For example, if someone wrote “it was raining cats and dogs outside”, the literalist (Fundamentalist) interpretation would be that dogs and cats are actually falling from the sky like rain. The literal (Catholic) interpretation would be what the author intended to convey, i.e. it was raining very hard.

How does this apply to the story of Jonah? Well, technically the Church does not say we have to interpret the story of Jonah and the big fish as an actual event or just a story, that’s left up to us. It could be a real historical story or it could just be a story to foreshadow the 3 days Christ spent in the tomb before He was raised. The Church doesn’t say we HAVE to believe one or the other. Personally I believe it is true historical fact but that is just me.

The Church is about researching the culture and determining what the author intended to convey with what he wrote. This is the literal interpretation.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

 

[StMarkStLuke983]

Mike91 you hit the nail on the head on that one!

Especially when it comes to literal versus literalist interpretation. The literal interpretation allows for not just literally, but symbolic, figurative, metaphors…etc.

With the literal approach, it allows for a huge big bag of “critical tools” to properly and “accurately” interpret Scripture.

The literalist approach is taking the Bible too literally, but only when it’s convenient to take the Bible too literally. Example: John 6 in the discourse of the bread of life. Do Evangilicals and Fundamentalist take those passages literally? Of course not! The explicitly specific and take it literally is not a convenient interpretation of John chapter 6.for those groups. In fact, the literal interpretation of John ch 6 contradicts both the “Faith Alone” theory as well as the “Bible Alone” theory.

To deal with your other question about Jonah; although Catholics recognize the Bible as being infallible and inerrant in regards to faith, morals, ethics and history, the Bible does use symbolism, figures of speech, parallels and word picture metaphors to get the point across. Swallowed by a fish is a parallel or symbolism, because if you keep on reading subsequent passages where it says he called out from the “Pit” then you realize he was not in the belly of a fish but in Sheol (sp?) or Hades (not to be confused with hell); in other words, purgatory. When he found himself in Ninevah (sp?) it was only after he had been ressurected from the pit.

Hope this helps.
God Bless

 

[Elvis_Guy]

A thing I Love about Catholocism!!! We have a unity in diversity !! I tend to hold…more literal readings, narratives in particular. My priest , is more an Allegory man, We both are Agustinian and usually come to same or close conclusions. Hence I enjoy and celebrate the Unity in Diversity in Catholicism , when in the spirit of Love…it’s not a mishmash or discord…when one sees it at its best…sure many of you have…it is like a Symphony different instruments…in a poly symphonic arrangement different notes but same chamber same director weaving a lovely tapestry . Sorry I got off the op a tad…all that to say I’m a Catholic with almost Evangelical (in a classic sense) views on Scripture. But get on very very well with my Brethren who have more Allegorical takes …blessings!

 

[StMarkStLuke983]

Maybe it’s best to just simply answer the question.

Answer: Catholics believe in the literal interpretation, but not in the (contradictory to literal) - prone to total gross error method - of the literalist interpretation.

I think that other participants of this thread have done an excellent job of defining the HUGE and very distinctive differences between the responsible, accurate and precise method of the literal interpretation above and against - in a contrast comparison - to the totally irresponsible and prone to error method of the literalist interpretation: well done folks!

To both summarize and clarify that which has already been very well presented; and especially to clear up some confusion:

Just because symbols, metaphors, figures of speech…and the like…is included in a historical narrative does not declare or even imply that the historical narrative fiction. The reason why such things are included in a historical narrative is to better relate and more readily convey important messages by offering a ways and means to the reader an easier way to understand what was really going on.

Example: In Jonah ch. 2:1-2 describes Jonah being swallowed by a great fish the Lord had sent yet in Jonah 2:3 describes that Jonah finds himself in the nether world, so is “nether world” symbolic to the actually reality of being in the belly of a fish or is being in a belly of a fish symbolic to the reality of being in the nether world?

Doesn’t matter which way you choose to perceive it because either way you still end up dealing with a symbolism embedded in a absolutely TRUE inerrant historical narrative.

A newly wed couple “makes love” on there wedding night, amongst other things, in hopes of a “new addition”. To take the “making love” too literally would mean that love could be manufactured by assembling component parts together to produce the object of love like (on a parallel) assembling component parts to produce - say - an automobile. Just because the idiom of “making love” is used in such a narrative does not make the described wedding night events fictional. However, figure of speech, figurative language, symbolic, word picture, “Making love” is an acceptable quasi-synonym of the necessary “personal intimacy” to conceive a child as well as to consummate the marriage.

When correctly interpreted and properly understood, symbolism, figure of speech, metaphors…etc. are rightly recognized and respected as true components of a true story.

Conversely, there are some (but not all) passages in the Bible that can and should be taken literally; such as, John 6:53-56.

I have heard of this theory of “only take the Bible literally”, but are the same adherents of this theory still adherent to this theory when it comes to John 6:53-56?

If it were true that one should only take the Bible literally then we could expect to find somewhere in the Bible where the Bible would literally state “only interpret the Scriptures literally”. But obviously such adherents have never ever coughed up a Bible basis for such an assumption whereupon there methods of interpreting Scripture are simply not Biblical.

In conclusion, when correctly interpreted and properly understood, the literal method is perfectly Biblical and the literalist method is Anti-Biblical.

 

[kdganey1991]

Not really. We believe in Hell, but it’s probably not fires and flames, it’s just an allegory to describe the agony of existing without God, a choice we reject.

 

[edwest2]

It is unfortunate to see few references in discussions like this. Personal opinion does not matter.

"The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

I think there is fear in some circles that if men should believe that God did impossible things, people in the present might be strengthened in their faith. However, by presenting a God that did not act in a miraculous way in history, which Jesus Christ did on many occasions, the hope is that, at least for the Old Testament, by promoting miraculous events as imagery or allegory and not reality, it would cast doubt on many things that actually happened in the Old Testament.

In my Religion Class in my Catholic School, we were taught that Noah and the Ark were real, that Jonah and the Whale were real and that Adam and Eve are the parents of all human beings alive today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[wapsboo]

Hi. We covered “The Bible” in my last RCIA class and the speaker mentioned Jonah & the big fish as an example of how God deals with disobedience. He also mentioned Noah & the ark. Question: Does the Catholic Church teach that those were historical events that actually happened or does the church view some Bible stories as just “stories?”

 

[aragonjohn1]

Hi. We covered “The Bible” in my last RCIA class and the speaker mentioned Jonah & the big fish as an example of how God deals with disobedience. He also mentioned Noah & the ark. Question: Does the Catholic Church teach that those were historical events that actually happened or does the church view some Bible stories as just “stories?”

True and literal according to the (infinite) Meaning of the One who inspired the writing holy God and the same as in the sense of that Time.
I bet there may be Him in every word contained …

God bless You and peace

 

[Aloysium]

i think OP has her answer

just wanted to add my 2 cents Re: Jonah, which is one of my favorite stories in the OT

He comes so alive in the story:
trying to get away, sleeping in the bottom of the boat,
in the belly of the fish, so cold
and he is so miserable on that hill watching Nineveh

so much Faith, so much Hope, a little short on compassion

the story comes across as real as it gets for me

recognizing that Jesus spoke of him i began considering whether it was “real”
what became clear is how automatically my mind fills with
assumptions of what reality consists
rules of what can and cannot be
rules and beliefs that were keeping me from new possibilities of experiencing reality
yeah, i love Jonah

if only i had the rapport he had with God
other than that i can imagine myself in his every experience
it is not hard to know every emotion, every feeling he would have had

fact is there is nothing that can disprove that it happened as it is written
it is even possible to come up with a rational description of the physical events that would have transpired

 

[Abu]

See: Chapter 10 Pope Leo XIII on Principles of History at:catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=216&ChapNum=11

For the whole of Fr William Most’s extensive writing see:
The Father William Most Collection at:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216

Hope you have a worthy development of faith.

 

[grannymh]

The Church does not have an “official” position on the literal historicity of these or any other Bible stories. Whether they are are not has no bearing on whether the lesson they impart is true. Catholics are free to understand them as literal or not. The Church only insists that the Bible is inspired and inerrant and that what it teaches is the truth.

I personally have no trouble with, for example, Jonah, being a true story. If there is no such fish that a man can live inside for three days, I believe God could make one.

The Catholic Church does have an “official” position on the historical Adam and Eve in the first three chapters of Genesis. This position (doctrine) is yes, two sole parents of humanity definitely existed as real people at the beginning of human history.

 

[crazzeto]

The Catholic Church does have an “official” position on the historical Adam and Eve in the first three chapters of Genesis. This position (doctrine) is yes, two sole parents of humanity definitely existed as real people at the beginning of human history.

Yes exactly, though the percise means God put them there is generally left to the scientific realm.

 

[johnnyjones]

Amazing how God can do all things, even raise Himself and others from the dead but a good portion of Catholics still doubt a real Noahs Ark, a man inside a whale, and a literal six day creation.

 

[johnnyjones]

Yes, Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. However, let me clarify the definition of “literal”. Many people think that a literal interpretation means interpreting the Bible EXACTLY how it says, for example, the earth was created in exactly 6 actual 24-hour days. But, this is not what the word literal means.

The word literalist (notice the difference) describes interpreting the Bible exactly word for word as it is written. This is the position of many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, believing the earth to be created in 6 24-hour days, etc.

Catholics, however, believe not in the literalist approach, but in a literal sense. Literal here simply means interpreting the message the author intended to convey. The author may use poetry, symbolism, idioms, or a number of other literary devices but Catholic try to determine what the author intended to mean by researching the idioms and phrases of the culture and things like that.

For example, if someone wrote “it was raining cats and dogs outside”, the literalist (Fundamentalist) interpretation would be that dogs and cats are actually falling from the sky like rain. The literal (Catholic) interpretation would be what the author intended to convey, i.e. it was raining very hard.

How does this apply to the story of Jonah? Well, technically the Church does not say we have to interpret the story of Jonah and the big fish as an actual event or just a story, that’s left up to us. It could be a real historical story or it could just be a story to foreshadow the 3 days Christ spent in the tomb before He was raised. The Church doesn’t say we HAVE to believe one or the other. Personally I believe it is true historical fact but that is just me.

The Church is about researching the culture and determining what the author intended to convey with what he wrote. This is the literal interpretation.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

Who told you this?