Do Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

[crazzeto]

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.

Personally I don’t doubt the possibility of a 6 creation, but the fact is there are two different creation stories in genisis telling us about creation in seemingly opposed manners (specifically the order of the creation of the animal kingdom).

This is not an error on the part of the bible, rather it tells us God is trying to tell us something more profound in this book than a dry “here’s what happens”. The biblical creation account speaks to the more fundamental questions, why are we here, what is this all about. Some (very literal) truth is there, namely we have a creator God who indeed created Adam and Eve (or a literal first pair of humans). This human creation was the pinnicle of creation, the master work if you will. We were created in His own image and likeness. It speaks a great deal of objective truth about our nature.

But what if creation wasn’t literally 6 days, and literally following these two opposed forumlas? Well that’s not an issue, because that’s not the point.

It’s not that I doubt God could, its just that it doesn’t seem he elected too and frankly that isn’t the point anyway.

Edit
On the other hand, I tend to accept Noah at face value more. Jonah I’m not as sure about, but I’d certainly be happy to accept it.

 

[edwest2]

Vagueness. A common issue here. Jesus literally showed us what God can do: raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, give sight to the blind, instantly. He used zero science to do all this. He walked on water in the sight of His disciples and calmed the wind and storm with His words.

A blanket statement about the literary forms used in the Bible, including analogy, parables, etc. should not distract us from the Living God who exists right now in bodily form. Who do we pray to?

Peace,
Ed

 

[johnnyjones]

Personally I don’t doubt the possibility of a 6 creation, but the fact is there are two different creation stories in genisis telling us about creation in seemingly opposed manners (specifically the order of the creation of the animal kingdom).

This is not an error on the part of the bible, rather it tells us God is trying to tell us something more profound in this book than a dry “here’s what happens”. The biblical creation account speaks to the more fundamental questions, why are we here, what is this all about. Some (very literal) truth is there, namely we have a creator God who indeed created Adam and Eve (or a literal first pair of humans). This human creation was the pinnicle of creation, the master work if you will. We were created in His own image and likeness. It speaks a great deal of objective truth about our nature.

But what if creation wasn’t literally 6 days, and literally following these two opposed forumlas? Well that’s not an issue, because that’s not the point.

It’s not that I doubt God could, its just that it doesn’t seem he elected too and frankly that isn’t the point anyway.

Edit
On the other hand, I tend to accept Noah at face value more. Jonah I’m not as sure about, but I’d certainly be happy to accept it.

“Some (very literal) truth is there”. Are you just choosing the parts that you think are true or feel true? Why accept Adam and Eve as real people but put them in a quasi fictitious environment?

When you start rejecting the literal six days, eventually we start taking about some kind of ape man. Now theres where I don’t see God having “elected” to make man something else. A whole new new layer of man is then open that doesn’t fit into sacred scripture.

 

[crazzeto]

“Some (very literal) truth is there”. Are you just choosing the parts that you think are true or feel true? Why accept Adam and Eve as real people but put them in a quasi fictitious environment?

When you start rejecting the literal six days, eventually we start taking about some kind of ape man. Now theres where I don’t see God having “elected” to make man something else. A whole new new layer of man is then open that doesn’t fit into sacred scripture.

Adam and Eve is doctrine, more over not only is it doctrine but even in an intrinsic way it makes sense. At some point, even in nature there is a literal first pair right? At some point, even if you say evaluation then at some point, there’s a mating couple who you would say is a new species and not of another.

Why would I tend to reject what protistants think of today as a literal 6 day creation? Well let me start with the fact that the doctrine as understood today was invented in the late 1800s. In fact we can very much trace the specific math used for dating back to then. And that the truths I highlighted are the essential truths affirmed by the fathers going back to the beginning.

So no, I wouldn’t say this is random picking and choosing. More over, the Catholic Church doesn’t run from science, rather she embraces it as another way to understand God’s truths.

So - No there’s no reason why the literal 6 day creation couldn’t necessarily have happened as your modern protestant would suggest. But I think there are serious challenges to that belief, not just scientific but also in terms of just basic scripture reading.

 

[johnnyjones]

Adam and Eve is doctrine, more over not only is it doctrine but even in an intrinsic way it makes sense. At some point, even in nature there is a literal first pair right? At some point, even if you say evaluation then at some point, there’s a mating couple who you would say is a new species and not of another.

Why would I tend to reject what protistants think of today as a literal 6 day creation? Well let me start with the fact that the doctrine as understood today was invented in the late 1800s. In fact we can very much trace the specific math used for dating back to then. And that the truths I highlighted are the essential truths affirmed by the fathers going back to the beginning.

So no, I wouldn’t say this is random picking and choosing. More over, the Catholic Church doesn’t run from science, rather she embraces it as another way to understand God’s truths.

So - No there’s no reason why the literal 6 day creation couldn’t necessarily have happened as your modern protestant would suggest. But I think there are serious challenges to that belief, not just scientific but also in terms of just basic scripture reading.

Why Adam and Eve? Just say two creatures started it all if your dropping the six day notion. But then again this gets messy because you need to know what stage these people were in if you buy into a milllions year old philosophy. Are these the pre-simian Adam and Eve?
Remember the church HAS NO POSITION on a literal six days. Why? Not because science is rejected, but the subject is debatable. And personally I feel the church does not want to close the door on instant creation.

There are serious scriptual challenges to a non six day creation as well.

 

[edwest2]

Adam and Eve is doctrine, more over not only is it doctrine but even in an intrinsic way it makes sense. At some point, even in nature there is a literal first pair right? At some point, even if you say evaluation then at some point, there’s a mating couple who you would say is a new species and not of another.

Why would I tend to reject what protistants think of today as a literal 6 day creation? Well let me start with the fact that the doctrine as understood today was invented in the late 1800s. In fact we can very much trace the specific math used for dating back to then. And that the truths I highlighted are the essential truths affirmed by the fathers going back to the beginning.

So no, I wouldn’t say this is random picking and choosing. More over, the Catholic Church doesn’t run from science, rather she embraces it as another way to understand God’s truths.

So - No there’s no reason why the literal 6 day creation couldn’t necessarily have happened as your modern protestant would suggest. But I think there are serious challenges to that belief, not just scientific but also in terms of just basic scripture reading.

So why did the author include the words “morning and evening” to mark off the days? It seems to me that the writer meant days as would be understood at the time.

Peace,
Ed

 

[crazzeto]

So why did the author include the words “morning and evening” to mark off the days? It seems to me that the writer meant days as would be understood at the time.

Peace,
Ed

7 days are theologically significant, in fact the number 7 is used frequently when a literal 7 isn’t necessary meant.

“[21] Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? [22] Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.”

Jesus, second person of the trinity clearly understands numbers. Does he really mean that after the 490th time forgiving your brother you should just stop there?

Seven is a number that points to perfection, it makes a statement about God’s view of creation.

 

[COPLAND_3]

So why did the author include the words “morning and evening” to mark off the days? It seems to me that the writer meant days as would be understood at the time.

Peace,
Ed

It has not been the easiest matter to figure out for me, for the Catechism 337 called it symbolic as far as the “days” go scborromeo.org/ccc/para/337.htm

I personally believe that Genesis lays out a very supernatural complex action by God in the simplest words as possible so that humans can grasp the beginning of creation. This means that God has spoken in words that we can relate to. I by no means believe that Genesis is mythical or symbolic in the sense that what is said means entirely something different, but that metaphors are used to simplify those things that are beyond our comprehension.

Then again, I have no problems with a literal days, I’m fine with that, as a matter of fact I feel you cant go wrong with that way of thinking, though I think the furthur people stray away from the rigid literal sense the riskier it gets to getting dangerous.

 

[johnnyjones]

It has not been the easiest matter to figure out for me, for the Catechism 337 called it symbolic as far as the “days” go scborromeo.org/ccc/para/337.htm

I personally believe that Genesis lays out a very supernatural complex action by God in the simplest words as possible so that humans can grasp the beginning of creation. This means that God has spoken in words that we can relate to. I by no means believe that Genesis is mythical or symbolic in the sense that what is said means entirely something different, but that metaphors are used to simplify those things that are beyond our comprehension.

Then again, I have no problems with a literal days, I’m fine with that, as a matter of fact I feel you cant go wrong with that way of thinking, though I think the furthur people stray away from the rigid literal sense the riskier it gets to getting dangerous.

I would say a man being God is “beyond our comprehension” , yet God choose to reveal that difficult aspect. I always wondered why most Christians embrace that, but have decided our origins would be too hard for us to comprehend. Could creation have taken place exactly the way God says? I don’t see why not.

I’m sure there is symbolism in sacred scripture as the catechism states, but I’m not entirely convinced that all of Genesis is a metaphor because of the rest of the way that scripture reveals these texts.

 

[HelenRose]

I have no idea whether or not everything in the Bible is “literally” true. But I know that it is true in every sense of the word. Now, take the story of Jonah. If God wanted all that to happen well, He has the power to make it so. But having said that, The truth of the of Jonah is so true. So true in the nature of human beings. Poor Jonah. After going through all of the hardships to get to Ninivah to tell them that God is going to destroy them, they repented and God did not destroy them. So what does he do. He sits under a tree and feels sorry for himself.

I see me, oh dear, how well I see me in the actions of Jonah. I can’t say it is my favorite story but it certainly comes close to being so.

 

[edwest2]

7 days are theologically significant, in fact the number 7 is used frequently when a literal 7 isn’t necessary meant.

“[21] Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? [22] Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.”

Jesus, second person of the trinity clearly understands numbers. Does he really mean that after the 490th time forgiving your brother you should just stop there?

Seven is a number that points to perfection, it makes a statement about God’s view of creation.

I understand that. At the same time, I wonder why the book of Genesis is the target of so many posts. It’s as if Jesus, as God, couldn’t perform actual miracles in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, God (which includes Jesus) was just producing symbolisms as opposed to literal events.

I was taught in Catholic school that the events/miracles in Genesis literally happened. And that’s what I’m sticking to.

Best,
Ed

 

[johnnyjones]

I understand that. At the same time, I wonder why the book of Genesis is the target of so many posts. It’s as if Jesus, as God, couldn’t perform actual miracles in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, God (which includes Jesus) was just producing symbolisms as opposed to literal events.

I was taught in Catholic school that the events/miracles in Genesis literally happened. And that’s what I’m sticking to.

Best,
Ed

Yes, a literal Genesis was taught in schools and seemed to be the prevailing view for decades. When I told my father who is 86 one day that many believe Genesis is an allegory for the creation account, he almost pulled out the remaining strands of his hair. He forcefully exclaimed, “that was never taught in my catholic school when I was growing up.”

 

[crazzeto]

It should be noted limbo was a prevailing school of thought for centuries. However it was never made doctrine (like a literal 6 day creation) and was eventually stricken.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I think one mistake that some schools of thought have made is trying to appease so-called intellectuals and abandoned the literal as if was too unsophisticated for “really smart people”. I perfer to not be in that little group, I would rather be in company with the Early Church Fathers and Medival commentators!

 

[aprilfloyd]

No Catholics don’t believe in the literalness of the bible.

It is a book, first and foremost and as such contains stories and allegory. A lot of it is more relevant to and indicative of, the time it was written. It has good passages and poor passages. It is ultimately a work of fiction, albeit a famous and successful published one - but can’t be compared to other great works. It is taken far to seriously by a lot of religions.

My brother went to train to be a priest and as a raised catholic it was explained that it is symbolism or allegory, just like other famous books

 

[Aloysium]

God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh

it is really simple; people seem to be over-thinking this

Gen 1:5 “God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.”
" . . . Evening came and morning came: the second day."
and so on, the third, fourth, fifth and sixth days

what do people do?
they get up at daybreak, they go to tend their flock or their crops; they cook and clean; they chisel away at the pyramid stones, whatever
they get up; they work; they stop working, and go home: that’s a day

for six days, God went to work creating the universe; He rested on the seventh day - which is the rationale for our week

if you are working doing experiments involving time, a day is an average of 86,400 x 9,192,631,770 cycles of transition between two levels of caesium (as measured by atomic clocks) - this is a model used in science; if this was what the Bible intended, it is what would have been written this way, or whatever way we will define a “day” in 2000 years.
i would note that the person doing the experiments does not live his life according to this definition;
he gets up in the morning does his job and goes home - a day

 

[johnnyjones]

No Catholics don’t believe in the literalness of the bible.

It is a book, first and foremost and as such contains stories and allegory. A lot of it is more relevant to and indicative of, the time it was written. It has good passages and poor passages. It is ultimately a work of fiction, albeit a famous and successful published one - but can’t be compared to other great works. It is taken far to seriously by a lot of religions.

My brother went to train to be a priest and as a raised catholic it was explained that it is symbolism or allegory, just like other famous books

Your putting out the same old tired mantra. Genesis is not a parable. Start with that.

 

[crazzeto]

God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh

it is really simple; people seem to be over-thinking this

Gen 1:5 “God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.”
" . . . Evening came and morning came: the second day."
and so on, the third, fourth, fifth and sixth days

what do people do?
they get up at daybreak, they go to tend their flock or their crops; they cook and clean; they chisel away at the pyramid stones, whatever
they get up; they work; they stop working, and go home: that’s a day

for six days, God went to work creating the universe; He rested on the seventh day - which is the rationale for our week

if you are working doing experiments involving time, a day is an average of 86,400 x 9,192,631,770 cycles of transition between two levels of caesium (as measured by atomic clocks) - this is a model used in science; if this was what the Bible intended, it is what would have been written this way, or whatever way we will define a “day” in 2000 years.
i would note that the person doing the experiments does not live his life according to this definition;
he gets up in the morning does his job and goes home - a day

Not entirely sure where your going with this, but the basic problem is this. The bible is full of symbolic language, for instance I challenge you to apply the same interpretive model displayed at the start of this posting to Revelation. Our evangelical brothers and sisters did this, and managed to cook up literal heresy.

Listen, I admit I could be wrong about creation. I admit perhaps it could have been 6 days, God rested on the seventh and God chose this for both its alagorical and literal qualities.

The problem I have right now is that textually Genesis provides some challenges to this interpretation (again, there are TWO back to back 6 day creation stories with opposing order of creation). More over, science which also contains truth contains a truth which doesn’t align with todays 6 day creation model.

More over, in the several thousand years since our Lords time on Earth Holy Mother Church has never officially endorsed a six day creation despite the fact that this ideology has been challenged (and seriously).

Yes God could have done it, but my position is that it seems he hasn’t. There’s every reason in the world for Holy Mother church to declare this doctrine, and yes I’m ready to accept it if they did. But they have not, and they don’t seem to be ready to.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Your putting out the same old tired mantra. Genesis is not a parable. Start with that.

OK Jokiing aside, catholics don’t take genesis literally, most see it figuratively and beleive in the Big Bang and the evolution of humans

 

[edwest2]

God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh

it is really simple; people seem to be over-thinking this

Gen 1:5 “God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.”
" . . . Evening came and morning came: the second day."
and so on, the third, fourth, fifth and sixth days

what do people do?
they get up at daybreak, they go to tend their flock or their crops; they cook and clean; they chisel away at the pyramid stones, whatever
they get up; they work; they stop working, and go home: that’s a day

for six days, God went to work creating the universe; He rested on the seventh day - which is the rationale for our week

if you are working doing experiments involving time, a day is an average of 86,400 x 9,192,631,770 cycles of transition between two levels of caesium (as measured by atomic clocks) - this is a model used in science; if this was what the Bible intended, it is what would have been written this way, or whatever way we will define a “day” in 2000 years.
i would note that the person doing the experiments does not live his life according to this definition;
he gets up in the morning does his job and goes home - a day

The problem is not overthinking, the problem is that the God in Genesis could do nothing without scientific confirmation today.

Peace,
Ed