Do you take Bible literally?

[bogeydogg]

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 take the Bible literally, that is the Bible is literature. For example a Proverb is a statement that is generally true based upon a set of circumstances but it should never be confused with a promise.I see this one all the time.

“The Bible says if you sow richly you will reap a rich harvest, so sow your money into my ministry and God will give you a bountiful harvest.”

Well the problem is, is that is a proverb, it is generally true. If you do not sow you will not reap, that is true. If you want a harvest you must sow, that is also true. But no matter how richly you sow, if God does not send the rain you will not harvest (think the curse of Ahab called down by Elijah on this one)

So some of the Bible is history, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges,Maccabees, The Gospels ect. And some is Wisdom, Psalms, Proverbs, Ben Sira, some are letters,the Epistles of Paul, Peter, John, and James, and some is Prophetic and/or apocalyptic Isaiah Jeremiah, the 12, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation.

And all of these writings need to be treated first as true, and then in accord with what style of literature they are. Because there are many preacher who do not use this method who twist the Bible to their own destruction making religion a means of financial gain from which is the root of all sorts of evil.

That is why the Church recommends we read our Bibles, but do so with care.

God Bless.

 

[Della]

edwest2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Della
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

Um, where did I say anything about Jesus’ quoting the OT? My statement has nothing to do with that. To my knowledge Jesus never referred to the verse in which God creates light before he created the sun and moon. I don’t see the relevance to the topic at hand.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event,…

Which doesn’t mean there was a garden with two people in it that God walked around in and they were tempted by a serpent.

 

[edwest2]

Why do you think that?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bev17243]

to clarify-I didn’t mean about taking everything literally such as eye for an eye, camel through the eye of the needle or whatever everyone was refering to. My question is-for example, when OT talking about Eziekiel going to heaven or seeing angels, or when Job is swallowed by the fish? I know some people already answered it so this is just to clafify my initial post

 

[Della]

to clarify-I didn’t mean about taking everything literally such as eye for an eye, camel through the eye of the needle or whatever everyone was refering to. My question is-for example, when OT talking about Eziekiel going to heaven or seeing angels, or when Job is swallowed by the fish? I know some people already answered it so this is just to clafify my initial post

You mean Eziekiel’s visions of chariots and wheels in heaven? Yes, we do believe in that, and seeing angels. Some of the most important turning points in the Bible involved visitations from angels including the Incarnation. And even today there are sharks large enough to swallow a man whole. We moderns refer everything to the scientific method of proof, as is it were the main/only standard by which to judge phenomenon. But, that is to limit God to following the ideas of men, and eliminates the possibility of miracles and spiritual mystery. There is no reason, and I mean the word as plainly used, to disbelieve any of the events described in the Bible merely because we weren’t there to see it or cannot reproduce it in a test tube. Indeed, who would really want to try to outdo God, as if he needs to consult us as to how he will do what he decides to do.

 

[Lochias]

Why do you think that?

Peace,
Ed

Speaking for myself, because the exact nature of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, ect. it’s more or less unimportant next to the main purpose of Genesis: To describe the nature of God in regards to his creation, and most specifically to us, His children. I believe that God cares for us and will be merciful to us, and will justly punish our transgressions for our own benefit, regardless of whether or not the world was actually made in 7 days.

 

[Ubenedictus]

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.

hahahahahaha, guy i love this. Best post

 

[Ubenedictus]

Which doesn’t mean there was a garden with two people in it that God walked around in and they were tempted by a serpent.

hmmmm atleast there was a unique devine presence with two people (that alone makes a kind of paradise) there was also temptation, im not sure if it was a serpent with hand and legs… who say thatz not posible? Maybe serpents had legs, hahaha they would look funny.
Ubenedictus

 

[A_Gift]

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”

Thank you for the information. I hope anyone who reads that can see the error of presumption it contains. No Christian would declare that no outside authority is needed to understand Scripture - that is false presupposition (see Red above) and such a statement from anyone would contradict the words of God. 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. I have no doubt that many “Protestants” would make such an argument, but not one who has been effectually called and grown in the knowledge and love of God - a mature Christian in other words, would make such a presumption.

If Scripture needs outside help from man to interpret, then as the bible clearly teaches, that the Holy Spirit, as well as the Trinity is the one who illuminates the Scripture. Scripture we know is from God, but traditions of man outside of God’s revelation nullified His word and that is what got the Pharisees in such “Hot-Water” with Jesus. We can look at the words of Jesus alone to see that is what He taught. What did He say to the devil about spiritual food for man? If that was all He or the disciples ever said it would be enough for me.

Here is another problem; no one can understand the Scripture unless they are born from above according to God; what is implied there? That Christians are the only ones who can understand the Scripture. No person will fully understand all of the truths contained in Scripture because of the source (His ways are higher than ours) and the breath and depth of Scripture (His mind is way above ours), but on essential truths; all will agree because they are taught of God. Does that mean one throws out all commentaries and such; not at all - on the contrary God has used many men as tools to help others understand God and His word.

The gospel is contained in Scripture and it is the foolish tool God uses to either make people stumble or believe unto salvation, which is called eternal life and eternal means “forever”. God is the one who called it foolish-not me.

 

[edwest2]

Speaking for myself, because the exact nature of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, ect. it’s more or less unimportant next to the main purpose of Genesis: To describe the nature of God in regards to his creation, and most specifically to us, His children. I believe that God cares for us and will be merciful to us, and will justly punish our transgressions for our own benefit, regardless of whether or not the world was actually made in 7 days.

Then why is this subject brought up so frequently? I can think of only one primary reason: to deprive God of any supernatural power to do as He wills, especially in the Old Testament. God performs miracles in the present and they are disbelieved. Jesus specifically waited for Lazarus to die so that He could show those disbelieving what God can do:

bible.cc/john/11-42.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lochias]

Then why is this subject brought up so frequently? I can think of only one primary reason: to deprive God of any supernatural power to do as He wills, especially in the Old Testament. God performs miracles in the present and they are disbelieved. Jesus specifically waited for Lazarus to die so that He could show those disbelieving what God can do:

bible.cc/john/11-42.htm

Peace,
Ed

I feel the need to bring this subject up hardly at all. Who is doing the bringing up of the subject? Who is denying that God is capable of miracles in any day or age? Catholics have the miracle of the Eucharist every week at Mass. This is such a large disconnect from the original subject that I’m having a hard time trying to figure out where you’re coming from. How does not taking every part of the Bible as a literal re-telling of events discount God’s power? Do you believe that every last page of the Bible must be explained as fact-for-fact, literal truth in order for miracles to happen?

Do you not trust the teaching authorities of the Church to best guide you in your studies of the Bible?

 

[onlyvoice]

And your problem with that is…?

For one, it’s hilarious. Imagine God turning the light emanating from Him on and off like a light bulb. And to turn it on He would say, “Let there be light.” If you don’t find that funny, I do.

Now, if God’s light was turned off when He first made His presence on earth, when and why did He turn it off? Could you give one good reason why He would turn it off? What difference would it make if God just left the light on?

Also, if that light did indeed come from God’s emanation, why was there darkness again? Three times there was darkness on earth before the sun was made. Did God turn His emanated light off three times? But why would He do that?

 

[Della]

For one, it’s hilarious. Imagine God turning the light emanating from Him on and off like a light bulb. And to turn it on He would say, “Let there be light.” If you don’t find that funny, I do.

Now, if God’s light was turned off when He first made His presence on earth, when and why did He turn it off? Could you give one good reason why He would turn it off? What difference would it make if God just left the light on?

Also, if that light did indeed come from God’s emanation, why was there darkness again? Three times there was darkness on earth before the sun was made. Did God turn His emanated light off three times? But why would He do that?

I agree for “in him there is no darkness at all”, although “his raiment is darkness”, which merely means he is an eternal mystery to the finite mind.

I am much more inclined to think of the light as the creation of the larger universe and the darknesses described afterwards as pertaining only to the condition of the earth as God was forming it.

 

[bogeydogg]

For one, it’s hilarious. Imagine God turning the light emanating from Him on and off like a light bulb. And to turn it on He would say, “Let there be light.” If you don’t find that funny, I do.

Now, if God’s light was turned off when He first made His presence on earth, when and why did He turn it off? Could you give one good reason why He would turn it off? What difference would it make if God just left the light on?

Also, if that light did indeed come from God’s emanation, why was there darkness again? Three times there was darkness on earth before the sun was made. Did God turn His emanated light off three times? But why would He do that?

That is what the Bible teaches, if you don’t believe it then it is you who need to explain. I personally think Moses was teaching the people the source of light is God Himself and not the Sun and thus Egyptian Sun worship was absurd. But that is very different than openly doubting the word of God.

God Bless

 

[Della]

That is what the Bible teaches, if you don’t believe it then it is you who need to explain. I personally think Moses was teaching the people the source of light is God Himself and not the Sun and thus Egyptian Sun worship was absurd. But that is very different than openly doubting the word of God.

God Bless

I can think of nothing in Scripture that contradicts onlyvoice’s post. Could you cite where his words do?

In any case, the question at hand is how is Scripture to be interpreted according to Church teaching. And that question has been answered.

 

[grannymh]

Speaking for myself, because the exact nature of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, ect. it’s more or less unimportant next to the main purpose of Genesis: To describe the nature of God in regards to his creation, and most specifically to us, His children. I believe that God cares for us and will be merciful to us, and will justly punish our transgressions for our own benefit, regardless of whether or not the world was actually made in 7 days.

Emphasis mine.

The exact nature of Adam, in the first three chapters of Genesis, is extremely important because of Adam’s relationship to the purpose of the New Testament.

Adam as the first human and then as the father of all humanity had the primary role of living in free submission to his Creator. Adam ignored this requirement when tempted by the devil, he let his trust in his Creator die in his heart. He preferred himself over and against God. By his act of disobedience, Adam scorned God.

None other than Jesus Christ, True Man and True God, could atone for Adam’s fateful choice. The New Testament is the story of the salvific mission of Christ and the Catholic Church He founded.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[onlyvoice]

I agree for “in him there is no darkness at all”, although “his raiment is darkness”, which merely means he is an eternal mystery to the finite mind.

That’s right. “And there shall be no night there” (Rev. 22:5) in the place where He is present, but in Genesis there was “evening and morning” for three days.

I am much more inclined to think of the light as the creation of the larger universe and the darknesses described afterwards as pertaining only to the condition of the earth as God was forming it.

If you will recall, the earth was already formed on that first day when God said “Let there be light.” The earth then was in a state of chaos, desolation and ruin (Hebrew tohu and bohu). But God could not have created the earth in such a chaotic state, and then straighten it out, because the Scripture tells us that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33) but of order and peace. Also, we read in Isaiah that when God created the earth, “he created it not in vain (not tohu), he formed it to be inhabited.”

So, to be consistent with Scripture, we have to understand Genesis as not a recounting of the original creation but of a re-creation, or a renewing to a former state. Notice that In the book of psalms, David was inspired to write this of the creation: “Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth” (Psa. 104:30). Clearly, God only renewed an already existing earth in the Genesis account.

Upon a closer examination of Genesis, it does not really say when the original creation happened. For example, Genesis 1:1 is merely a general statement of fact – that it was God who was the Creator of “the heavens and the earth” in the beginning. Verse 2 then brings us to that time when the earth “was tohu and bohu.” Here, we should note that the English word translated “was” is from the Hebrew word “hayah.” This word can be translated “became” as in Gen. 2:7., 9:15 and 19:26. In other words, the earth “became” chaotic. It had not always been that way. Something happened to the earth to cause it to become chaotic and desolate. It must have undergone massive and such widespread destruction that smoke, dust and debris in the atmosphere completely blocked the sun’s rays, putting the entire earth in total darkness.

That was the earth’s condition that God was looking at on that first day of creation. His first act in bringing it back to its former state was to thin the obstruction in the air enough to let light from the sun filter to earth. Then, on the fourth day of creation, God cleared the dust and smoke away so that the sun, moon and stars could be clearly seen.

 

[Della]

That’s right. “And there shall be no night there” (Rev. 22:5) in the place where He is present, but in Genesis there was “evening and morning” for three days.

If you will recall, the earth was already formed on that first day when God said “Let there be light.” The earth then was in a state of chaos, desolation and ruin (Hebrew tohu and bohu). But God could not have created the earth in such a chaotic state, and then straighten it out, because the Scripture tells us that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33) but of order and peace. Also, we read in Isaiah that when God created the earth, “he created it not in vain (not tohu), he formed it to be inhabited.”

So, to be consistent with Scripture, we have to understand Genesis as not a recounting of the original creation but of a re-creation, or a renewing to a former state. Notice that In the book of psalms, David was inspired to write this of the creation: “Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth” (Psa. 104:30). Clearly, God only renewed an already existing earth in the Genesis account.

Upon a closer examination of Genesis, it does not really say when the original creation happened. For example, Genesis 1:1 is merely a general statement of fact – that it was God who was the Creator of “the heavens and the earth” in the beginning. Verse 2 then brings us to that time when the earth “was tohu and bohu.” Here, we should note that the English word translated “was” is from the Hebrew word “hayah.” This word can be translated “became” as in Gen. 2:7., 9:15 and 19:26. In other words, the earth “became” chaotic. It had not always been that way. Something happened to the earth to cause it to become chaotic and desolate. It must have undergone massive and such widespread destruction that smoke, dust and debris in the atmosphere completely blocked the sun’s rays, putting the entire earth in total darkness.

That was the earth’s condition that God was looking at on that first day of creation. His first act in bringing it back to its former state was to thin the obstruction in the air enough to let light from the sun filter to earth. Then, on the fourth day of creation, God cleared the dust and smoke away so that the sun, moon and stars could be clearly seen.

It can be interpreted that way, but really there’s no need for it. The days and nights are not literal 24 hr days but epochs, as the original Hebrew indicates. And in the process of forming anything there is going to be what appears to be chaos because that’s the nature of making anything. I speak from personal experience when we demolished a rundown part of our 100 year old house to replace it with new construction. What a mess! But it was “organized confusion” not random–there was purpose in everything we had to do until we had the new house section completed. So, there doesn’t have to be such an elaborate explanation for the creation of the universe and the earth nor is God’s authority in question if the planet was not yet inhabitable for humans until it was made ready. This is why the Catholic Church doesn’t interpret every word of the Bible literalistically–because it is not the right way to do it and because it creates more problems than it solves–having to invent all sorts of convoluted explanations for what doesn’t need to be explained.

 

[StevenFrancis]

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?

The Bible is made up of different books from different authors, written over a 3 milennia period of time, and then to top that off it is written in many literal forms. It is not a single volume textbook prepared by a university to give us the history of the judeo christian peoples. It is a collection of books in many many literary forms. There is poetry, historical narrative, song, yes…some allegory (OT), and perhaps even a fable in one or two books. So here’s the thing. It IS all true. It is all literal. There are some books or passages of books in the Old Testament which don’t comport with extreme LITERALISM, whish is it’s own whole seperate idea. What is being said to you is true. The prophets of the OT, are giving you, well, their visions as they came to them from God. Parts of Genesis, such as the creation and the fall of man had now witness, save for God, and his initial people. Did God create the universe? Yes. Did man fall to original sin in a world which was created in a state of perfection? Yes. Was Satan a snake who talked to Eve in her language? We don’t know. Does it matter? What happened was absolutely real.

By the time we get to mid Genesis in the historical books, we’re getting pretty firmly grounded in actual events as they are stated. There is nothing in Exodus or beyond which need be thought of even allegorically, aside from the poems/songs, the symbolism given to the prophets, and the story of Job, which may likely be a fable to establish a point, (but not necessarily).

It’s best to simply accept that the whole is the word of God. As Mother Angelica says, it is how God thinks.

Now, when we get to the Gospels, the Acts, the letters of the Apostles, well, those are deeply historical books. There is no reason to doubt that there is a single event in the NT which didn’t happen, just as written. Period. The NT (save for Revelation), which is a book of prophecy, is as clear a history of Jesus Christ, his followers, and then his Church as we have of any events from any source, for any events, at any time in ancient history. There are hundreds if not thousands of eye witnesses to all the events. There is corroboration, with only minor differences between the evangalists. The epistles (letters) are just that! Letters from the apostles to the Churches. The NT can be taken at face value without wondering “did this really happen?” It did. Miracles and all. I guess the only thing I keep open on historically are the opening events of Genesis, and frankly, I can’t think of any better way for man to explain events that man didn’t see without putting out a cumbersome science book. Genesis isn’t a science book. When we find science that fits Genesis, (and we do, all the time), then it just lends more support to the accounts, which have no need to be historically accurate events. It is not their point. When we get to the people, after the fall, I suspect it is all truly, historically accurate, (including the destruction by the flood, the saving of Noah and his family, etc.). Why not? Nothing has proved against these accounts, just as they are, and every so often, science and archaeology find things which actually support the stories, as related. Just because life doesn’t behave the same way now while we’re experiencing the last phase before Christ returns, doesn’t mean that it didn’t behave that way before Christ, and certainly during the incarnation.

Just pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and belief when reading scripture, and you’ll hear God speaking to you, and always with something important to hear and know.

Thanks be to God.

:Your’s in Christ,

Steven

The Psalms are poems/songs from the psalmists. Mostly King David.