Fundamentalism and the Bible

[lak611]

It gets confusing. Literal is used in two different senses. Literal meaning actually means exactly what the writer meant. Literal to a fundamentalist means that every word, every tiddle, is exactly as God directed it to be written. The words must be taken for what they “appear” to mean, rather than what they may actually have meant to the writer. Hope this helps.

I agree that the Bible should be interpreted in the literal sense, as in exactly what the writer meant, not in the meaning of the word “literal” as fundamentalists say.

 

[FightingFat]

Jesus Himself almost always taught in parables, so why would the rest of the bible be any different? We are to learn what the point of the story was, not always just take the words verbatim.

Good post! I also think that God didn’t write anything down…Jesus didn’t write anything down. God has communicated to us with His Word.

 

[FightingFat]

For reading on this subject, for those who are interested, I would suggest

Proventissimus Deus ~Pope Leo XIII
Divino Spiritu Afflante ~Pope Pius XII

And of course Dei Verbum

 

[Michael_G]

Hey guys, on a recent thread I was really suprised to see the majority of people posting believed that the Noah’s Ark story was a factual account. I’m not in any way being disrespectful to those who choose to believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, but I am very interested in how many posters here take that line and why you feel like that!

Thanks in advance!

Just what part of Noah flood is not real from what is written down in the Bible. By the way I am Catholic. I do find it amazing, how repeatable this occurs with modernist thinking of denying certain scripture as literal, something that has been taught as literal for 1800 years and before.

I firmly believe all need to follow the following rules as attested too by three Popes

Rules for interpreting Scripture: Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino… that Leo’s encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to "the supreme guide in Biblical studies"
**Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church
**1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
3. Always to be guided by what the **Bible has to say as a whole **(not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote). One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.
4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable

Do note rule four. Do note that both the Haydock commentaries from the 1800 and the Navarre commentaries that everyone here raves about attest to a literal interpretation of Noah’s flood. Do note that Jesus, and Peter attest to a literal Noah’s flood, and if Noahs flood was local all God had to do was tell Noah to MOVE…

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

2Pet 2:world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

**The same type of not literal interpretations occur for Jona yet Christ attests to this. When one starts insuating the Christ was not portraying an accurate picture we have got problems.
**

 

[Michael_G]

Hey guys, on a recent thread I was really suprised to see the majority of people posting believed that the Noah’s Ark story was a factual account. I’m not in any way being disrespectful to those who choose to believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, but I am very interested in how many posters here take that line and why you feel like that!

Thanks in advance!

Just what part of Noah flood is not real from what is written down in the Bible. By the way I am Catholic. I do find it amazing, how repeatable this occurs with modernist thinking of denying certain scripture as literal, something that has been taught as literal for 1800 years and before.

I firmly believe all need to follow the following rules as attested too by three Popes

Rules for interpreting Scripture: Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino… that Leo’s encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to "the supreme guide in Biblical studies"
Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church

1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
3. Always to be guided by what the **Bible has to say as a whole **(not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote). One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.
4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable

Do note rule four. Do note that both the Haydock commentaries from the 1800 and the Navarre commentaries that everyone here raves about attest to a literal interpretation of Noah’s flood. Do note that Jesus, and Peter attest to a literal Noah’s flood, and if Noahs flood was local all God had to do was tell Noah to MOVE…

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

2Pet 2:world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

The same type of not literal interpretations occur for Jona yet Christ attests to this. When one starts insuating the Christ was not portraying an accurate picture we have got problems.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

I’m not completely positive but, I believe the Church has not (as of yet) has not put in place a strict intreptation of the story of Noahs ark. So I think one is free to believe eather side of the Noah argument.

 

[FightingFat]

Just what part of Noah flood is not real from what is written down in the Bible. By the way I am Catholic. I do find it amazing, how repeatable this occurs with modernist thinking of denying certain scripture as literal, something that has been taught as literal for 1800 years and before.

The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world’s cultures past and present have stories of a “great flood” that devastated earlier civilization.

 

[Michael_G]

The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world’s cultures past and present have stories of a “great flood” that devastated earlier civilization.

yes, indeed there are a number of global flood stories through the world in different cultures. Now, If Noahs Sons were the ones to repopulate the world, one would expect there would be stories of global in any number of cultures, passed on by word of mouth, but only one such story from the chosen race would be the most complete and accurate account of the Genesis flood.

Now, this is all quite logical, yet one will use this as their basis to state that noahs flood is fiction, non literal, but one is denying 1800 years of professing noahs flood as literal, one is stuck with stating that Christ did not know what he was talking about than Christ is not the triune God.

No the culture stories support the reality of Noahs flood not under cut.

 

[FightingFat]

yes, indeed there are a number of global flood stories through the world in different cultures. Now, If Noahs Sons were the ones to repopulate the world, one would expect there would be stories of global in any number of cultures, passed on by word of mouth, but only one such story from the chosen race would be the most complete and accurate account of the Genesis flood.

Have you ever read the Gilgamesh epic Michael?

Now, this is all quite logical, yet one will use this as their basis to state that noahs flood is fiction, non literal, but one is denying 1800 years of professing noahs flood as literal, one is stuck with stating that Christ did not know what he was talking about than Christ is not the triune God.

Not at all. These stories were based on facts, but they are myth and they are used to explain something. This is the way the Israelites and other people of the time used literary epic.

The great Biblical Scholar, Dr. Gerhard Von Rad describes the way that some scholars only analyse the historical veracity of the Torah as “historical materialism” in his book *Genesis (*Von Rad, G. Genesis (SCM Press, Bloomsbury, London, 1961) p.31) Designating this kind of narrative as “saga”, Von Rad explains that the expectation that the saga should either contain historical fact, or else it can be described as merely a product of poetic fantasy is an extremely crass misunderstanding of its essence. It is true, however, that this scepticism has been the attitude prevalent since the 19th Century. The saga then offers a product born of a completely different kind of intellectual activity from that of history (historie), although history (Geschichte) is what it is concerned with.

What then are these narratives? How can they be concerned with fact and yet not be tied to fact by their contents? Von Rad answers by stating:

“Whatever saga we examine, we find with respect to its simplest and most original purpose that it narrates an actual event that once and for all occurred in the realm of history. It is therefore to be taken quite seriously – it is to be believed. In all that follows, therefore, let us hold fast to this: by no means is a saga merely the product of poetic fantasy; rather it comprises the sum total of the living historical recollection of peoples. In it is mirrored in fact and truth the history of a people. It is the form in which a people thinks of its own history.” (Ibid)

The Old Testament sagas then are concerned with Israel itself and the realities the people of Israel found in themselves. In this way they contain a much more real history, a history with much more truth in it than a purely factual historical writing would. They contain the “secret contemporary character of apparently past events”.(Ibid) This character is more than a list of the achievements, wars, political struggles, victories and defeats experienced by a people. It takes place on another level and speaks of inner guidance working and maturing in life’s mysteries. It is a history with God.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t see how that is charitable.

I suppose it might be. It depends upon one’s point of view. I used to be a fundevangelical and was very proud of it!

 

[6glargento]

wow, and i always thought that the catholic church considered the story of noah’s ark to be a true, literal, story

 

[gatorgirlnr]

I believe Bible has to be taken into context. There’s something called the 20 rule, in which if you’re reading a certain verse, you should always read 20 verses before it and 20 verses after it. There so much in the Bible that we ARE to take literal. But as someone said before, Jesus spoke in parables also, so get his point across. You have to ask the HOLY SPIRIT to lead and guide you as you read. I do blieve the stories in the Bible are REAL, like Noah and the Ark. That’s why God made the rainbow, to remind us He would never flood the earth again. Just wanted to share my thoughts!!

 

[Stillkickin]

When reading scripture - here is what the CCC says:

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.
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.”
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.”
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in
accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as
the books which comprise 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.
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.
113 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”).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. 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 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.”
117 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.
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.”
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.

 

[FightingFat]

When reading scripture - here is what the CCC says:

Quite literally, Roma locuta est, causa finita est!

 

[gatorgirlnr]

well I was raised Baptist…my dad is an associate pastor, but the past 6 months I have been going to a Catholic church with my boyfriend. We’ve been doing extensive bible studies the for a while!! It’s been a neat jouney I’ve always been taught “if it’s not in the Bible, then don’t believe it” I’ve had a hard time accepting how Cathoics hold tradition equal to the Bible. BUT…I keep going back to where Paul says to “hold fast to the traditions, whether by word of mouth or written”. I believe the BIBLE is sacred and so HOLY. I do depend on the Holy Spirit to guide me in all truth, even when I don’t completely understand everything I’m learing about the Catholic faith. (like Mary and how the Faith says she was a virgin til she died. I believed, b/c of the Bible, that she had other children) So…there’s alot I’m trying to learn about. It’s certainly not going to happen over night, ya know?

 

[FightingFat]

Good on you! You sound very capable and I have every faith the Spirit will indeed guide your study!

May the peace of Christ be with you!

 

[gatorgirlnr]

Thanks!!! I am enjoying it, although I get a little stressed out. Sometimes I feel my parents (especially my dad) feels I am rejecting the way I was brought up. That’s NOT what I am doing. I still believe everything I was taught as a baptist, but I’m just seeing a lot of things different. I’ve done sooo much research, but still have a lot do to, and my questions is why aren’t they seeing what I am seeing???

 

[FightingFat]

Thanks!!! I am enjoying it, although I get a little stressed out. Sometimes I feel my parents (especially my dad) feels I am rejecting the way I was brought up.

Matthew 10:34 springs straight into my mind!

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.'

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

That’s NOT what I am doing. I still believe everything I was taught as a baptist, but I’m just seeing a lot of things different. I’ve done sooo much research, but still have a lot do to, and my questions is why aren’t they seeing what I am seeing???

I think because faith is faith-- it is something very personal and emotional. When you get to a certain age, you have gotten comfortable with what you have chosen to accept as the truth. You see anything that challenges that as dangerous or disrespectful. I think you have to remember you are on your own journey, but always be respectful of what others believe, especially those you love.

 

[FightingFat]

BTW…

(like Mary and how the Faith says she was a virgin til she died. I believed, b/c of the Bible, that she had other children)

…Read this? catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

 

[gatorgirlnr]

Thanks for that link! I read it. I mean it makes sense that only Jesus, the Holy one could come from Mary’s body, and nothing will ever be as perfect as Jesus, so that’s why she had to say yes to remain a virgin.
Like you said, it’s my journey and I have to stand before God one day, not my parents. It’s just hard on me to think I’m hurting my parents in any way. They are very understanding…but it’s still difficult. It’s something I have to work through!! I’ll be fine.ha