Do Catholics take the bible literally or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nMbR1BaRlOwGiRl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nMbR1BaRlOwGiRl

Guest
I was in a Catholic teen group (I’m 100% Catholic 🙂 ) and we were talking about how we should interpret the bible. We couldn’t decide on how exactly to take some parts of the bible. I have always taken the bible literally. For example: God making the earth in 7 day, the whole earth being flooded, etc. In our group they said that the bible might not mean all of that literally, but in more of a metaphor. I don’t know what to think. That just doesn’t seem right to me. I don’t know…

~Jaclyn~
 
From the Catholic Catechism here is how we are to read the Bible:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109
In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

[112](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/112.htm’)😉 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
[113](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/113.htm’)😉 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

[114](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/114.htm’)😉 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)😉 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

[117](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/117.htm’)😉 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/119.htm’)😉 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
Jaclyn,

The short answer to your question is that some do and some don’t, and that most take parts of the Bible literally and other parts non-literally.

My personal view is that if a literal interpretation makes sense and does not contradict something else that I know (not what I’ve been told, but what I know), then I will take it literally. For example …
  • I am quite prepared to believe literally that Methuselah lived 969 literal, 365-day years. I know that people don’t live that long nowadays, and I have been told that people never lived that long, but I don’t know that people never lived that long. I also know that people in other cultures have a much looser concept of numbers, especially large numbers (over a dozen), than we do. So I keep an open mind on the subject.
  • I am not prepared to believe literally that a flood covered all the land masses of the earth in the past ten thousand years or so. There are evidences of other great, but localized, floods from before then that a global flood would have erased; there is also the problem of where all the water went. If somebody could answer my objections I am fully prepared to change my mind, but so far nobody has.
  • I believe literally that when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, the water was in walls on their left and their right. I have studied fluid mechanics for some decades and can state categorically that this does not usually happen, but the Exodus was a very unusual circumstance. We have no direct evidence that this did not literally happen as written.
  • I believe literally that Jesus, when He ascended into Heaven, literally rose from the ground up into the air until He went into (or behind) a cloud. We’re dealing with God Incarnate here, and rising into the air is a small thing for Him.
I hope this helps.
  • Liberian
 
40.png
awalt:
Check out this thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104419) - this topic has been covered in the Pope’s document Dei Verbum.
Awalt,

I took a quick look at the other thread; thank you for pointing it out to me.

I would note that the Church, as far as I know, does not condemn a literal interpretation of all of the Bible; it merely does not require one. An allegorical interpretation of a passage does not exclude a literal one.
  • Liberian
 
40.png
Liberian:
Jaclyn,

The short answer to your question is that some do and some don’t, and that most take parts of the Bible literally and other parts non-literally.

My personal view is that if a literal interpretation makes sense and does not contradict something else that I know (not what I’ve been told, but what I know), then I will take it literally. For example …
  • I am quite prepared to believe literally that Methuselah lived 969 literal, 365-day years. I know that people don’t live that long nowadays, and I have been told that people never lived that long, but I don’t know that people never lived that long. I also know that people in other cultures have a much looser concept of numbers, especially large numbers (over a dozen), than we do. So I keep an open mind on the subject.
- I am not prepared to believe literally that a flood covered all the land masses of the earth in the past ten thousand years or so. There are evidences of other great, but localized, floods from before then that a global flood would have erased; there is also the problem of where all the water went. If somebody could answer my objections I am fully prepared to change my mind, but so far nobody has.

Quite interesting. Especially when you ask to where all the water went, never even questioned it. God is capable. Period. In my opinion. Doesn’t have to have evidence, nor explanation, because his ways are not our ways, and I believe that some of the things he does cannot even be fanthomed in the human mind.
  • I believe literally that when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, the water was in walls on their left and their right. I have studied fluid mechanics for some decades and can state categorically that this does not usually happen, but the Exodus was a very unusual circumstance. We have no direct evidence that this did not literally happen as written.
Again I would just say that anything is possible when it comes to God. Never questioned it.
  • I believe literally that Jesus, when He ascended into Heaven, literally rose from the ground up into the air until He went into (or behind) a cloud. We’re dealing with God Incarnate here, and rising into the air is a small thing for Him.
I hope this helps.
  • Liberian
Just my opinion
 
Liberian:

This is also the belief of Orthodox Jews, who also believe very strongly in the Exodus Story of devine deliverance from slavery in Egypt. There are now some books which state they’ve found Egyptian chariot wheels and other artifacts near a part of the Red Sea where the sea floor tends to form a saddle (not too far from Eilat). The combination can’t be ignored, and neither can the trip of Israel through the Red Sea being a “TYPE” or a “Prefigurement” for BAPTISM…

Liberian said:
- I believe literally that when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, the water was in walls on their left and their right. I have studied fluid mechanics for some decades and can state categorically that this does not usually happen, but the Exodus was a very unusual circumstance. We have no direct evidence that this did not literally happen as written.
  • I believe literally that Jesus, when He ascended into Heaven, literally rose from the ground up into the air until He went into (or behind) a cloud. We’re dealing with God Incarnate here, and rising into the air is a small thing for Him.
I hope this helps.
  • Liberian
…That’s what at least two of the Apostles (one a Greek) said they saw, and they both claimed that the angel said that’s how he was coming back at the end of time.

There’s a form of criticism that states that because something was miraculous, it couldn’t have happened. That completely contradicts the Teaching and the Experience of the Church and of thousands of Christians. The fact that these critics live in a world devoid of the miraculous doesn’t mean the miraculous doesn’t happen; It only means the critics have little or no faith, and that they probably really don’t have anything edifying to say to us.

In Christ, Michael
 
40.png
nMbR1BaRlOwGiRl:
I was in a Catholic teen group (I’m 100% Catholic 🙂 ) and we were talking about how we should interpret the bible. We couldn’t decide on how exactly to take some parts of the bible. I have always taken the bible literally. For example: God making the earth in 7 day, the whole earth being flooded, etc. In our group they said that the bible might not mean all of that literally, but in more of a metaphor. I don’t know what to think. That just doesn’t seem right to me. I don’t know…

~Jaclyn~
I ahve always thought that it was nto metaphor, but not literal. Jesus always talked in examples, not strait forward this and that, but using farmers and kings as sorta metaphorical/symbolic representations. On the 7 days and flood, i don’t think literally 7 days, time is of nothing to God and flood yes, it is evident in almost every history and religion known to man. Not sure if that helps any.
 
I think it is of uttmost importance that we don’t compromise and take on the Atheistic world view of evolution. To blend with this world view out of fear of maybe losing members who embrace it is a horrific compromise to say the least.

Their is sooooooo much evidence now in support of BIBLICAL CREATION, Billions of dead things, laid down in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth. As science advances far beyond Darwins time, we have the tools that he didn’t. This is for people who need proof of Gods omnipotence. But the bible says, “The just shall live by faith”. I have faith that God is not limited in what He can do.

Answersingenesis.org or drdino.com

Their is soooo much evidence accumulating against Evolution of man and I don’t think they even have begun to scratch the surface.

God made life, He is the Creator of all life. Jesus quotes from Genesis many many times, The Apostles, and the Psalms are filled to the brim with the Creation account, just read it and you will see.

As far as the Bible being literal, I believe that it is the inerrant Word Of God, divinely inspired, and meant for all to read. It is a Spiritual book, and for one to properly understand and interpret the scriptures, one must be filled with the Holy Spirit. This is possible for all who are willing, The bible says that one must be born from above, and born of the Holy Spirit. John 3 the whole chapter spells it out very clearly. Always pray and ask God first before you read, that He would show you His word, He is faithful and will do this.
 
Traditional Ang:
Liberian:

This is also the belief of Orthodox Jews, who also believe very strongly in the Exodus Story of devine deliverance from slavery in Egypt. There are now some books which state they’ve found Egyptian chariot wheels and other artifacts near a part of the Red Sea where the sea floor tends to form a saddle (not too far from Eilat). The combination can’t be ignored, and neither can the trip of Israel through the Red Sea being a “TYPE” or a “Prefigurement” for BAPTISM…

…That’s what at least two of the Apostles (one a Greek) said they saw, and they both claimed that the angel said that’s how he was coming back at the end of time.

There’s a form of criticism that states that because something was miraculous, it couldn’t have happened. That completely contradicts the Teaching and the Experience of the Church and of thousands of Christians. The fact that these critics live in a world devoid of the miraculous doesn’t mean the miraculous doesn’t happen; It only means the critics have little or no faith, and that they probably really don’t have anything edifying to say to us.

In Christ, Michael
Archaeology is proving the Bible every day.
 
40.png
nMbR1BaRlOwGiRl:
I was in a Catholic teen group (I’m 100% Catholic 🙂 ) and we were talking about how we should interpret the bible. We couldn’t decide on how exactly to take some parts of the bible. I have always taken the bible literally. For example: God making the earth in 7 day, the whole earth being flooded, etc. In our group they said that the bible might not mean all of that literally, but in more of a metaphor. I don’t know what to think. That just doesn’t seem right to me. I don’t know…

~Jaclyn~
My position has always been that you can take it literal, but never out of context. Thus, don’t read just a verse, read the whole chapter…or the whole book. And, be careful about just WHO says that they are taking the Bible as literal. You would be amazed at the Baptist that I know who make this claim, but then invent their own meaning…consider this: There is no way one can say that they take the Bible as literal…and then fail to believe in transubstantiation of the Eucharist. That is not possible, but some of the people I know who claim to take things literal will argue the Eucharist with me to the death.

Another example of Bible Christians not reading their Bibles.
 
One things we should try to do is read it in the context (& culture) it was written.
 
Here’s another question along these lines that we came up with…

If the creation story is completely literal, how did an entire world population come from Adam and Eve? They had two sons.

Maybe I missed something…
 
40.png
nMbR1BaRlOwGiRl:
Here’s another question along these lines that we came up with…

If the creation story is completely literal, how did an entire world population come from Adam and Eve? They had two sons.

Maybe I missed something…
Adam and Eve had other children than Cain and Abel.
 
As St. Thomas says, the most important sense of scripture is the literal meaning the literary. It is as another poster noted. We can take things literally but never out of context and I would add never apart from the magisterial understanding of Scripture. This is what Church documents are, commentary on Divine Revelation and by reading and understanding the documents of the Church we begin to understand Scripture in context of the unity of revelation.
 
This is a copy of a couple of posts made a while back on this issue. I do not recall who it was who posted the Aquinas Summa quotation. Perhaps Daniel Marsh(?).

In his book Thomas E. Woods Jr.( How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) has a quotation from Edward Grants book “Science and Technology in the Middle Ages” which is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. It says as follows:

“First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguements show it to be false, anyone dare to insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture and the way to faith will be closed to them.”

In this day when there is sufficent archeological and/or scientific evidence that contradicts certain historical or scientific parts of the Scriptures it seems obvious that biblical history and science in the Old Testament needs be taken as possibly carrying only theological truth. So what is to be made of narratives like the Creation, the Exodus, Noah’s Ark, David and Solomons Kingdom and such like?

"http://www.newadvent.org/summa/106801.htm
On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:6): “God said: let there be a firmament,” and further on (verse 8); “And the evening and morning were the second day.”

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
 
The Pope said recently that no one should take every passage of the Bible (especially the Old Testemant in my opinion) too literally, but I do not think he went any deeper in the argument…
 
The Church takes the Bible in a contextualist approach, so the answer is both “yes” and “no”.
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
(Genesis 1:6): “God said: let there be a firmament,” and further on (verse 8); “And the evening and morning were the second day.”
To this scripture it is important to remember that the writer of this story was not there when God created the world, so this is not an eye witness account. It is also important to know the reason the writer wrote this. One of his reasons was to probably explain that it was God that was the Creator. He was omniscient, all powerful and if He gave life, He could also take it away. It was a way of explaining God (in so much as we can explain God) to His people - the people of the covenant of Abraham. God was absolute and the people needed to know this.

The Church says that it is ok if you want to believe that God took 6 days to create the earth and rested on the 7th. The Church also says it is ok if you want to believe that it really took longer than that. It is ok to believe that God’s time is not our concept of time - as long as you believe that God is The Creator and that He is all powerful, omniscent, etc.

Same for the creation of Adam and Eve. It’s ok for you believe that God literally creator one man and one woman (regardless of what Evolution says). It’s also ok for you to believe in the theory of evolution - as long as you believe that there was a man and a woman that we all descended from - not that we came from apes.

There are different views from different people for different people for different reasons. There were many ways in passing on this information or story. It was not written as a journalistic account of salvation history. It was written to pass on a message or lesson from God. God inspired the writers to write what they wrote but He did not limit the way they did it. He let them have their “creativity” so to speak. The cultural issues, idiosyncracies and verbage, sociatal issues were all included in these writtings.

Before you read a book of the bible, read the introductory pages before each book. This will give you necessary information to understand who, how, when and why the book was written and in some cases will tell you about the literary genre they used to express the message. This will help you a great deal when reading the bible. Also, sometimes in the front of a bible, there will be lots of this kind of information as well - read through it. It’s very enlightening.

The Church has actually NOT interpreted alot of passages in the bible. There are a few and these were posted on another thread and I’m sorry, I don’t remember which one it was. Maybe someone else can refer you to that thread and you can see the passages the Church has interpreted.

Don’t fret. Use a little common sense, use your bible’s introductory pages or talk to another informed Catholic to see what or how the church interprets something you don’t understand. Or come here and ask us!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top