Do Catholics believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

[Aloysium]

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.

just a few points for clarification:

• science is composed of models, some of which are completely mathematical; these models are temporary, and will sooner or later be replaced by others which are more inclusive.
• to understand biology, one requires a different “language” than that used in quantum mechanics
• bearing this in mind, yes, truth is expressed utilizing different styles in the Bible; this is the nature of human thought - one has to try in different ways to express the truth
• i am not an apologist for science, but perhaps the first “day” lasted the most miniscule part of a second; the second day, 200 million years, the third thirteen billion; for me, altho’ God is infinite, He presents to us in human terms. Creation happened one day at a time.
• other thoughts that come to mind reading the truth that is in this part of Genesis include: as creation occurred, time manifested itself as sequential in that events followed each other, and they did so in a cyclical pattern and also layered so that the structure of the universe was built up.

 

[johnnyjones]

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.

A non literal Genesis presents “challenges” as well, plenty I might add. You say the church never endorsed a literal creation as if it fully endorses ONLY theistic …you know what.

God “did it” (instant creation) because Jesus said he did it in the Gospels. Yes, symbolism is present in scripture but I lean towards God being more revealing of how we came into existence because he seems to want to speak to us with clarity. After all he told us the hardest thing possible, that a man was God.

 

[johnnyjones]

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

The catholic church endorses neither of the two major views about creation. What people feel or want to believe is not dogma.

Giving yourself a “thumbs up” is about as cocky as it gets.

 

[Aloysium]

i suppose my difficulty lies in understanding what a “literal interpretation” is

it seems that “literal” ultimately means what the hearer understands of the ideas being expressed;
the hearer usually holds the same views as those generally accepted by their society - the current world-view being scientism

so if i say “day”, the interpretation these days would be 86,400 seconds;
anything else is considered metaphorical, because the world has been reduced to quanities

i sit with someone for an hour and am told just about their dreams, nothing else; i sit with another person and am told about their vital statistics: age, marital status, occupation, blood pressure - so called, objective facts.

after that hour i will be able to tell you who that first person is as a human being

while i might (if i knew how to do it) be able to determine what the second person’s life insurance premium should be, i will know nothing about them

using this scenario as an analogy for our understanding the universe: the Bible is the first case; science is the second

 

[aprilfloyd]

The catholic church endorses neither of the two major views about creation. What people feel or want to believe is not dogma.

Giving yourself a “thumbs up” is about as cocky as it gets.

A thumbs up here means ‘friendly’

The church does ‘endorse’ the big bang and evolution. But whether it did or not would not change anything or research into them. In my opinion most Catholics do not take the bible literally. I don’t know any who do.

 

[edwest2]

A thumbs up here means ‘friendly’

The church does ‘endorse’ the big bang and evolution. But whether it did or not would not change anything or research into them. In my opinion most Catholics do not take the bible literally. I don’t know any who do.

Here’s one.

"The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago."

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”

"Adam and Eve: Real People

“It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).”

Source: Catholic Answers library.

Opinions don’t matter. Church teaching does.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

A thumbs up here means ‘friendly’

The church does ‘endorse’ the big bang and evolution. But whether it did or not would not change anything or research into them. In my opinion most Catholics do not take the bible literally. I don’t know any who do.

What does the Church endorse? References please?

Peace,
Ed