Do you take Bible literally?

[Bev17243]

It’s not a book. And it’s not about picking and choosing. It’s the Canon of Scripture and all the different writings from across a 1000 yrs of culture comprise all kinds of writings. So, we don’t look at accounts of the actions of people like the Gospels or Acts the same way we look at the Songs or stories or Laws or Prophetic writings.

It’s only been very recently that technology allowed all these writings to be easily gathered together under one cover and distributed. It’s not a book to be read from cover to cover like a big fat Book of the Faith. It’s a collection. A library. People aren’t picking and choosing, they are just aware of the differences between the works.

I’m aware of differences lets say in book of Revelation or Corintians because there are clearly allegorical imagery in Revelation. My point was that I HAVE met number of people who choose to take a most of Biblical events as book of stories and nothing more and yes, pick and choose whatever they want to believe.
And what do you mean by" its been only very recently that technology allowed all these writings to be easily gathered together under one cover and distributed". Its my understanding that Bible has been in existence far longer than last years years and even before printing press was invented?

 

[Bev17243]

Then how do you explain how light could have been created on the first day “Let there be light.”] when the sun, moon, and stars weren’t created until the fourth day?

what is your take on this?

 

[Julia_Mae]

And what do you mean by" its been only very recently that technology allowed all these writings to be easily gathered together under one cover and distributed". Its my understanding that Bible has been in existence far longer than last years years and even before printing press was invented?

I am making a clear distinction between the Canon of Scripture, which was a lot of scrolls, (well, the Canon is of course a list of writings or “books”) and the Bible, which is from a Greek word that just meant “the books” or “the writings.”

People didn’t have Bibles, even a lot of Churches didn’t have Bibles. People who could read would have maybe a book of Psalms and a Gospel, something like that. They had commentaries that referred to the Scriptures, but even those only the rich had and then only with a classical education.’

The Bible as a book was rare except for big special monastery Bibles until, maybe the 16th century?

But that’s how we get it, how we’ve always seen it, like a single book. So people tend to think of it as a cohesive unit. I know some people pick and choose, I guess, but in the Church there’s a pretty long history of scholarship and tradition about the different books. So, everyone isn’t just making up what they want to believe. Probably some do. (The Historical/Critical people got insane about thirty years ago and rejected Divine intervention altogether, but I think they’re all out of therapy now. )

 

[Julia_Mae]

what is your take on this?

The emanation of the Divine in Space/Time is experienced as light. Read the mystics. God is Light. What we call Reality emerges from nothingness by the power/Light of God. Of course the Light came first.

Suns just generate electromagnetic waves.

 

[Della]

The emanation of the Divine in Space/Time is experienced as light. Read the mystics. God is Light. What we call Reality emerges from nothingness by the power/Light of God. Of course the Light came first.

Suns just generate electromagnetic waves.

Also, the first chapters of Genesis are primarily concerned with the creation of earth and mankind and God’s plans for both, so the light may refer to the very beginnings of the universe with the “big bang”, which was the explosion of light that came before our sun or moon were formed. So, it could be read that way, as well. God’s revelation to Moses was meant to tell us about our relationship with him–that he created all things and made man in his image.

 

[littlebum2002]

Some parts of the Bible should be taken literally, and some obviously should not.

Do we honestly want to worship a God who literally killed hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses in a global flood? I doubt it. Taking this tale literally destroys our entire faith.

Should we literally cut out our eye if it causes us to sin? Are bats birds? Do rabbits chew their cud? Would God really let the devil destroy Job’s life just to win a bet?

It is up to each individual person to decide what parts are literal and which are not. As someone else commented the Bible is NOT a book. It is a collection of books. Asking “is it literal” is like asking “is the library literal”. Some parts are, some parts are not

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think it would be quite safe to say that the Catholic Church believes that at least a majority of the bible IS to be taken literally!

I didn’t say all. Majority equals at least 50%.

Now we’ll see how many people truely don’t believe when they come back and argue with that statement!

 

[TimothyH]

Nor does it need to be. That’s the important point. The Bible is NOT a proof text for doctrine/dogmas. It is one part of Sacred Tradition, which is what our faith is derived from. The Bible is NOT the sum total of the faith nor was it ever meant to be. Our Protestant brethren think so, but there is no evidence for believing it in the Bible itself or the Early Church Fathers.

I agree 100%.

My response was to the person who stated that he keeps asking and searching for explicit reference.

My point was that it was not explicit. That’s a given. So now lets move on.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

The Catholic Church interprets scripture literally - but in the sense of the literal intention of the inspired author.

This is an important point.

I think it would be quite safe to say that the Catholic Church believes that at least a majority of the bible IS to be taken literally!

I didn’t say all. Majority equals at least 50%.

Now we’ll see how many people truely don’t believe when they come back and argue with that statement!

I will not argue with you. I will however, ask that we clarify some words. We are talking about ideas but mixing up the words.

We have to understand the difference between a literal interpretation of scripture and a literalist interpretation of scripture. Catholics interpret 100% of scripture literally. We do not however, have a literalist interpretation of all of scripture.

Literal vs Literalist. There is a big difference.

It was raining cats and dogs!

A literalist interpretation of that phrase believes that puppy dogs and kittens were falling from the sky.

A literal interpretation of that phrase however, looks at the meaning of what the author was trying to say. We might look at other writings to see if other’s use that same phrase, and what the context is. We would ask ourselves what meaning the reference to domesticated animals might have. We might check the weather report on that day and see that there was a thunderstorm. A literalist interpetation of that phrase would conclude that it was raining pretty darn hard.

Catholics take 100% of the Bible literally. Catholics always try to understand what the author was trying to say based on the literary content of the words on the page.

Cutting off your hand and plucking your eye out is the classic example. One who claims to be a Christian and ascribes to a literalist intepretation of scripture is obliged to actually have his hand amputated if it causes him to sin.

Catholics however, look at the surrounding passages and the context. We take into account that Jesus stated these words in the context of equating lust with the sin of adultery. We look at the ten commandments which state that you should not commit adultery, but which also state that you should not covet your neighbor’s wife. We understand that the Jews thought that seperating sinners from the comminity was what kept the community holy and pure. And Catholics conclude that Jesus is using the societal and religious customs and beliefs to teach about self denial as a means to holiniess.

The difference is night and day. But Catholicism has always had a 100% literal interpretation of scripture. We do not however, have a literalist interpretation of 100% of scripture.

-Tim-

 

[Lochias]

Some parts of the Bible should be taken literally, and some obviously should not.

Do we honestly want to worship a God who literally killed hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses in a global flood? I doubt it. Taking this tale literally destroys our entire faith.

Should we literally cut out our eye if it causes us to sin? Are bats birds? Do rabbits chew their cud? Would God really let the devil destroy Job’s life just to win a bet?

It is up to each individual person to decide what parts are literal and which are not. As someone else commented the Bible is NOT a book. It is a collection of books. Asking “is it literal” is like asking “is the library literal”. Some parts are, some parts are not

Emphasis mine. It’s actually up to the authorities of the Church to determine that, as far as I know.

 

[Della]

I agree 100%.

My response was to the person who stated that he keeps asking and searching for explicit reference.

My point was that it was not explicit. That’s a given. So now lets move on.

-Tim-

It’s an important point that needs to be emphasized for some people who don’t have a clue how the Bible fits into Sacred Tradition, thus being easily led into errors or questioning Church teaching. :tiphat:

 

[po18guy]

Any written text, and particularly the bible, must be interpreted by someone with the authority to interpret. We see, from reading Nehemiah 8:5-8, and from Acts 8:26-40, that God appoints those with authority to interpret. The problem enters in when the individual ego is allowed to interpret. The same Lord Who inspired scripture also established, throughout the ages, those who were authorized to interpret. Ultimately, He founded a Church with that authority - not only to write scripture, but also to test the available writings centuries later and winnow the selection down to those that were truly inspired. He did not leave us orphans, but left a Church to decide in all matters doctrinal (Acts 15:1-30). The “Apostles and ancients” who decided the circumcision matter had not one jot of the New Testament to guide them. But, they had the Holy Spirit and the authority. Error always arises when believers choose to disregard Christ’s authoritative Church.

 

[Crumpy]

It seems like I came across number of people on this forum and in real life who proclaim that many events described in the Bible is just a story that has either never occured(and its just a fairly tale sort of a thing) or has allegorical meaning. So what about about Jesus healing the sick, raising the dead and turning water into wine? Curious to know everyone’s opinion but I would think you can’t pick and choose and believe that Jesus turned water into wine and raised the dead but not for example that Eziekiel go to heaven or that he saw angels, etc. Right?

NO ONE can fact-check every statement in the Bible. Many arm-chair philosophers are skeptical, especially about claims to divinity and inspiration.

The Church today and always has preached the ‘truth’ of scripture. Truth is conveyed in many ways. Quite a bit of the Old Testament is poetry. And, as poetry and in poetic ways conveys the truths necessary for our salvation.

Read Psalm 1. A just man is compared, using a simile, to a tree. The is a graphic, down-to-earth way of conveying the essence and character of the man of God.

 

[Zenkai]

Yes, I take it literally (unless a passage is obviously a metaphor, allegory, etc.).

 

[onlyvoice]

A lot of the more allegorical things can be spotted in the writing styles and the historical documents of the time. The creation story, for example, happens twice in the Bible. Both can not be true, because they contradict themselves. Read Genesis 1:1-2:4 and then read Genesis 2:5-25. If you read them closely, they contradict.

Remember these words of Jesus spoken to those who had a faulty understanding of the resurrection?-- “How wrong you are! And do you know why? It is because you don’t know the Scriptures…” (Mark 12:24). He is saying the Scriptures do not contradict. It is your understanding of those two accounts that is faulty. Jesus Himself assures you that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) – it is true forever. If His assurance is sure, then there is no contradiction.

You can also look at the fact that stories like Noah’s Arc already exist in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

What if it’s there? Does it make the story of Noah suspect? Christ Himself spoke about Noah and the flood. Do you think He was speaking about a fictitious event?

There is that story about a savior, Tammuz, who was supernaturally conceived by Semiramis, and after his death, was also resurrected [as the reborn Nimrod]. Does that make the story of Christ’s miraculous birth and resurrection not historical?

Semiramis had the title “mother of god” and “Queen of Heaven.” She and her son Nimrod were the first “mother and child” to be worshipped. But why do you also believe in a “mother and child” union with Mary as the “Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven” (taking the same titles that Semiramis took for herself) and Jesus as her Savior son [just like Nimrod]?

 

[onlyvoice]

Then how do you explain how light could have been created on the first day “Let there be light.”] when the sun, moon, and stars weren’t created until the fourth day?

Read the account again. Light was not created on that first day. “God said, let there be light: and there was light.” God merely allowed light to penetrate the earth’s surface, as we are told in the preceding verse that the earth was in darkness.

 

[onlyvoice]

The emanation of the Divine in Space/Time is experienced as light. Read the mystics. God is Light. What we call Reality emerges from nothingness by the power/Light of God. Of course the Light came first.

Suns just generate electromagnetic waves.

Saying that light was the emanation of the Divine will not do, for there was no light when God made His presence on earth, until He said, “Let there be light.” In other words, if it was light from a Divine presence, then that Light can be turned on and off.

 

[onlyvoice]

Emphasis mine. It’s actually up to the authorities of the Church to determine that, as far as I know.

Yes, but in the meantime, since the CC has not yet determined the historicity of practically all the OT stories, what can the faithful do but decide for themselves which stories are historical and which are not? I may be wrong, but I think that’s what poster littlebum2002 is saying.

 

[Julia_Mae]

In other words, if it was light from a Divine presence, then that Light can be turned on and off.

And your problem with that is…?

 

[littlebum2002]

Actually the Church allows us to decide if we take the stories of Creation, the Flood, etc. literally or not.

Like how they let us decide what we believe about Limbo. Some things they don’t take a stand on, and the historicity of Genesis is one of them.