Do you take Bible literally?

[Lochias]

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.

Is that highly important to you?

 

[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?

I’m never sure exactly how to put this into words.

There are SO many things that we all would like to have witnessed, as they do not agree with our common perception of reality. There are so many supernatural events that astonish us.

But, we are supposed to accept our faith with child-like obedience. Whatever the Bible is, we should read it straight up and act on it in our lives, guided by the Church.

Or, not, if we don’t have faith. We see plenty of that.

“story” You’re upset because these are stories? What is it that you believe that is not a story? So far, science has impressed us, but it has only scratched the surface. It makes demands on us for belief that it does not even express explicity. It advances with skepticism. What the newspapers print are “stories” too. Many people are convicted or not convicted – erroneously – by the BEST of scientists and “experts.”

In short, I take a lot of the bible literally and I accept the rest. I keep telling people to tell me which pages I should tear out of my bible – and I never get an answer.

(You may recall that Thomas Jefferson did exactly that. He eliminated the verses that he didn’t accept. But, such radicalism does not happen often.)

I’m currently reading The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford U Press). In a particular way, Jewish study of the bible resembles Catholic bible study (see the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pont. Bibl.Commission) in that there is no one single analytical tool (method of Bible study) that alone is adequate for explaining and interpreting the Bible. So, a lot of things in the Bible are just not explained. The Jews, like Catholics, don’t have a definitive commentary on Scripture.

The essays at the end of this Jewish Study Bible are very instructive, and well-justify the purchase price of the volume. In one of the essays, the author tries to answer the question if there IS even a Jewish method of interpreting scripture. He is hard pressed to identify it, as the ancient rabbis (teachers) used common methods of the day for studying scripture. In fact, by the year of about 1000 A.D., their “midrash” (writings on Bible study) were mere collections of often contradictory essays about the meaning of scripture.

So, the OP question here is a very deep one, not aided whatsoever by narrowing the subject down, to be easily addressed.

I can’t prove the Bible, but I accept it, within the tradition of the Catholic Church.

 

[Lochias]

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.

But as far as I know, the Church has determined the modes and methods of writing for those OT stories. This offers a guideline when studying the Word, along with proper context within the book itself and the larger context of the entire Bible. Further, my copy of the NAS Bible contains a detailed explanation beforehand of each story’s origins and history as far as the teaching authorities of the Church can determine, both OT and NT.

These things help me to take a logical and guided view of what should and should not be taken literally in the Bible, as directed by Church authority…and in any event, if I have questions, I ask a priest for clarification.

 

[littlebum2002]

Is that highly important to you?

Is the question of whether or not my God killed hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses in a global flood important to me?

Oddly enough, it is. I personally do not care to worship a Deity which murders hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses, then tells His followers that this is one of the worst sins they can possibly commit. Others may be perfectly fine with worshiping a Deity who killed hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses. To each his own I guess.

 

[Lochias]

Is the question of whether or not my God killed hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses in a global flood important to me?

Oddly enough, it is. I personally do not care to worship a Deity which murders hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses, then tells His followers that this is one of the worst sins they can possibly commit. Others may be perfectly fine with worshiping a Deity who killed hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses. To each his own I guess.

Have you asked a priest about this?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Oddly enough, it is. I personally do not care to worship a Deity which murders hundreds of thousands of innocent fetuses,.

1st, those lives a belong to God. 2nd, death is not a bad thing. 3rd, God takes every single life when someone passes. He gives life, He takes life. It is His prerogative and it’s not “murder.” 4th I’ll take the surety of Heaven for an innocent soul any day over the uncertainty of making the right choices after being born. *Oh those lucky and blessed 100s of thousands of innocent fetuses!! *

 

[septimine]

I think that if it’s obvious that the authors mean something to be literal, it’s literal. Some things (like the camel through the eye of a needle) are not remotely literal and are meant to give a picture that gives you the truth behind the picture. Jesus isn’t remotely saying that camels walk through sewing needles, nor is there any evidence that this is some rock formation that a camel walks through on its knees (forget where I heard that one), it’s just a colorful way of saying “it’s really hard to get a rich man into the kingdom”. You remember the camel-needle picture a lot better than you’d remember the paraphrase version, so it’s useful.

Other things, like the exodus, are real events. Nothing about the text suggests that it’s not meant as history. If it’s a metaphor, why all the censuses? A real exodus would need to count people (make sure no one gets lost), but you don’t need to count in a story about fiction. Achilles never counted his soldiers because the Illiad is fiction, and it gets in the way of the story. Moses needs to count because he’s actually moving a lot of people through hostile territory.

 

[littlebum2002]

I’ll take the surety of Heaven for an innocent soul any day over the uncertainty of making the right choices after being born. Oh those lucky and blessed 100s of thousands of innocent fetuses!!

Wow. Then Planned Parenthood must be the holiest organization known to man. Imagine how many fetuses they have sent to heaven!

All I am asking is that God follow the same morals He expects of me. Regardless of whether He has the authority to kill people or not, it it very bad parenting AND leadership to not obey the rules your followers/children are expected to follow.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Wow. Then Planned Parenthood must be the holiest organization known to man. Imagine how many fetuses they have sent to heaven!

Neither Planned Parenthood nor the women who choose abortion are God.

All I am asking is that God follow the same morals He expects of me.

You have no right to have any expectation of God whatsoever. God IS. That’s it. You exist entirely at His Will, you will leave here entirely at His will. God, in fact, “kills” everyone.

You seem to believe death, per se, is a bad thing. It is not.

Regardless of whether He has the authority to kill people or not, it it very bad parenting AND leadership to not obey the rules your followers/children are expected to follow.

God is not a person subject to human standards. Everything God does is perfect, by definition. If you are unable to accept that, the fault is entirely yours.

Read Job.

 

[Lochias]

Wow. Then Planned Parenthood must be the holiest organization known to man. Imagine how many fetuses they have sent to heaven!

Planned Parenthood is not God. When you or Planned Parenthood can create stars with a thought, cause the sun to set and the moon to rise, and create thunderstorms and life-giving rain, please get back to me.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

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?

Well we know that alot of what the bible is was handed down through oral tradition; so the accuracy of the truth of the bible is questionable. I don’t think it is the events within scripture that are important (they don’t make me believe). It is the message of righteousness that matters in scripture. Whether Elijah was assumed into Heaven or Jesus walked on water makes no difference to my salvation, I could care less. It is right living that matters.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Several posts have been removed for being off topic.

Please remain on topic, which is, are we supposed to take the whole Bible literally?

One source that may inform this discussion may be found at MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY (This Rock: October 1993)

 

[A_Gift]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/Off-Topic--Alert.gif
Several posts have been removed for being off topic.

Please remain on topic, which is, are we supposed to take the whole Bible literally?

One source that may inform this discussion may be found at MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY (This Rock: October 1993)

Hello Mr. Francis,

I clicked the link, but it says it does not exist or has been moved. I was interested in reading the material before joining in.

Can you check the link and see if you can get it working?

Thanks and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hello Mr. Francis,

I clicked the link, but it says it does not exist or has been moved. I was interested in reading the material before joining in.

Can you check the link and see if you can get it working?

Thanks and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

That’s so weird! The first time I clicked it, it opened, this time I got page not found. Here’s the excellent article and the link again:

MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY
By JAMES AKIN

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter .aspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to g.asp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

---

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

Try right-clicking and choosing “open in new tab”

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well we know that alot of what the bible is was handed down through oral tradition; so the accuracy of the truth of the bible is questionable. I don’t think it is the events within scripture that are important (they don’t make me believe). It is the message of righteousness that matters in scripture. Whether Elijah was assumed into Heaven or Jesus walked on water makes no difference to my salvation, I could care less. It is right living that matters.

I think you are making a mistake. It matters enormously that you know Jesus walked on water, gave sight to the blind, raised the dead and fed the 5000. It matters because otherwise Jesus is just a great guy who said some nice stuff about charity and love. It matters that you know God is in Time, not just then, but now and forever. You need to know that miracles are not coincidences, that Christ was truly Divine, that you are called to be Christ in life and your prayer is a powerful tool of healing and life.

Jesus without miracles is Judaism following a certain Rabbi. Jesus without miracles makes Padre Pio or Saint Francis inexplicable and your salvation impossible. It makes you (us) the center instead of Him.

 

[fred_conty]

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?

Suppose one guy played a joke on his friend and the friend said in reply, “I’m going to kill you for that.” Should he would take that literally?

“Gone with the Wind” was a great movie. But was it an actual event with real persons? Or just based on real history? Should I take it literally for a fact?

The stories we tell to children about “Pumpkin eater” or “Humpty Dumpty”, or … Should we take them as factual, literal?

But one thing everything written above does have, …truth…, in some fashion, but most certainly not literal.

The Bible is 72 individual books written by different authors, in different literary forms, but they all have, …truth…, in some fashion, but most certainly not all literal.

Just a thought.

 

[banjo]

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?

If you listen to Fr. Barron’s Sermon 580 at the following site you get a good example some of the various ways we can understand scripture.

wordonfire.org/

 

[edwest2]

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?

Here is one problem. The claim that the Bible is not a science book yet questions like this are asked on a regular basis. If God created light before the sun and the moon, then I believe He did. Otherwise, we risk looking at God as having no God-like powers. How did Jesus raise the dead or give sight to the blind or walk on water or calm the wind and waves with His words?

We are taught God created everything from nothing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

We need to realize Jesus referred to the Old Testament on a regular basis.

See John 5:46

bible.cc/john/5-46.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

That is incorrect.

"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).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390)."

Source: Catholic Answers Library

And this: “Genesis does not contain purified myths.” (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)

Peace,
Ed