Fundamentalism and the Bible

[war_eagle]

Umm…this is a Catholic site. We are not discussing the efficacy of fundamentalist interpretations perse but of not falling into the fundamentalist trap. I have no intention of discussing this with a fundamentalist who is not even Catholic. We know what you think. You are free to believe whatever you wish.

Yeah, I didn’t think you’d be able to answer the question or back up your claims.

 

[Michael_G]

Growing up as a United Methodist, I remember our Pastor saying during a bible study, “Everything in the Bible is true…and some of it actually happened.”

As for:

The most recent guidance from the Catholic Church on the proper way to read and intrepret holy scripture is Pope Paul VI’s, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum . This document pretty well spells it out and is what is being taught in our seminaries and formation programs. You can read it at the following link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html .

PAX
Tiber Swim Team 1996

Read carefully it still stands on the three legged stool, Magisterium, Church Tradition i.e. Patristic Fathers, and Scripture. Nothing new here, nothing here that contradicts or overrules the supreme rules for interpretation,

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.

 

[OldRedleg]

Michael G,

I didn’t say Dei Verbum contradicted or overruled your post. I said it is the latest teaching on the subject, along with the 1994 Pontifical Biblical Commission document.

My point is, lets stick with current doctrine/teaching if it is available. The Church has had something to say on the subject since Pius XII.

 

[juliamajor]

Yeah, I didn’t think you’d be able to answer the question or back up your claims.

How about backing yours up?Three solid references from non-creationist sources about a universal flood.

 

[fhansen]

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!

I like to let the bible speak for itself. While I would never put belief in Noah’s ark on the level of a “fundamental”, an article of Catholic belief such as faith in a literal resurrection, unless there is clear evidence that the writer meant the story figuratively or for some reason other than the literal one, I find that nothing is lost and sometimes much is to be gained by being open to literal interpretations. Often I think pride, fear of what others might think, can get in the way of approaching God like a child. But all that being said I wouldn’t much care if this particular story were true or not.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

How about backing yours up?Three solid references from non-creationist sources about a universal flood.

naw Julia don’t bother him. I’ve been in enough debates with fundievangelists to known that evidence is never persuasive. It’s a psychololgical need…that’s why a fundie will adher to any doctrine they perceive they have “interpreted” no matter how silly.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It has nothing to do with right or wrong-your looking at scripture and reading it with 21 st century mindset. That will never do. just like you read different book genres differently (you don’t read a kid’s book in the same way you would a narrative, or a poem or scifi) you read each book of the bible differently.You can take the creation story or noah’s ark , or the Tower of Babel. Why did the author write it ,why did he write it in that way, and what did he mean when he wrote it. Genesis is a series of myths(not a bad word ,really)taken from numerous sources(epic of gilgamesh,Atraharsis, Ennuma Elish(sp?)

Seeing you ask ​

• Atrahasis or Atra-hasis or Atram-hasis - all three spellings are found in discussions of it; & it means “Exceedingly Wise” (or as it has also been translated: “Super-sage” )
• Enuma elish has one N - & means “When on high”
  [/eintro.shtmlenuma (http://www.theologywebsite.com/etext/enuma/eintro.shtml)

There seems not to be a translation of the Atrahasis poem on the Net. Still, something is better than nothing

To mention a few. Did he use these because they were kick butt stories? or to help man understand his relationship to God. Genesis is mythical and also etiological- the origins of things. How did God create the world, why do men do sinful things? If your good , like Noah is life a liitle better-? why is there a rainbow? IF God created all mankind why do we look act and talk differently?- this is all a trail to the most important beginning- Israel & Yahwehism-How the Hebrews became the chosen people:thumbsup:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Michael G:

## The Haydock notes are over 200 years old

…
You attack one source I cited, as to old, you forgot the Navarre which is recent. The navarre is loyal to church teachings loyal to sacred oral teachings loyal to the Patristic fathers

I didn’t forget it - but as I scarcely know it, I can’t comment on it. The other one is a different matter: seeing as you mentioned it, so did I ​

If the Navarre Bible is seeking to present what the Fathers, & only they, had to say about this or that passage of the Bible, that’s fair enough - if the purpose of the NB is to give the true sense of the text, irrespective of which interpreters, Patristic or otherwise, have given it: that is another matter entirely.

As a lot of of Patristic writing is expository, there is a place for translations & anthologies of it. One example is the recent re-publication of the 1841 translation of St. Thomas’s Catena Aurea, which is an exposition of the Gospels based entirely on the Fathers; translations of St. Augustine’s commentaries on the beginning of Genesis are another example of this.

But - that is not the same thing as a commentary on Genesis which is concerned, not with the Fathers so much as with what the text means. And it is no rejection of or insult to them to say that in many respects modern commentators are better equipped than any of the Fathers could be.

In no way is it not “loyal” to use what is now available - the question is not one of loyalty, but of using what is available to find out the proper sense of the text. To argue that St. Irenaeus or St. Jerome or St. Thomas did not know Ugaritic or Hittite, therefore moderns must not either, makes no sense. Why should their ignorance of it, which was unavoidable, hinder those who are in a position to know these things ? How does that help the Church ? Ignorance is not piety - especially when it can be avoided.

That an interpretation is Patristic does not in itself make it true - they did what they could with what they had, just as moderns do. The Fathers are often wrong in their history, their interpretations of languages, their geography, & in other respects - why should moderns bind themselves to the mistaken view of St. Jerome that “Dagon” was derived from dag onah, “fish of mourning”, when it is likelier to be related to the name of the storm-god Dagan, “grain”; of whom nothing was known in his time, or for long after ? Why accept what Eusebius of Caesarea says about Assyrian history, when it’s not accurate ? He could not read cuneiform, & he was not able to use the Assyrian King List - modern Assyriologists can do both: & the AKL is of some importance to the OT.

For Catholics to ignore such things is not wise, as plenty of Jews & Protestants do not; Catholic scholars would be hopelessly out of their depth if they ignored what their non-Catholic colleagues used. Such ignorance would wound not only the Church’s knowledge of the Bible, but all forms of theology.

Dogmatic theology has its place - but it does not profess to study (say) the Ancient Near Eastern setting of the OT: it cannot be used to answer questions it is not equipped to consider. As for the rules you quote, they have nothing to say on the content of the Bible; that is not their purpose - they are concerned with the right use of it, which is not the same thing. To study covenant theology or the Christology of St. Paul, one must look elsewhere. Popes don’t teach how to read cuneiform - that’s not their purpose: that doesn’t make it needless for study of the OT background

Let us by all means read the Fathers & learn from them - but why treat their errors & insufficiencies as beyond correction ? They were not slow to criticise one another, so it makes no sense to treat them as beyond correction; such an idea is anything but traditional.
Michael G:

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

 

[Zooey]

The Bible is meant to be interpreted by the literal sense, not the literalist sense.

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.

 

[Michael_G]

You continue to miss the theological teaching of the stories and assume they were understood factually. There is nothing that would or need suggest that. The stories are meant as lessons of truths, not science classes.

let’s see you are willing to make words which say one thing mean something totaly different based on conjecture of some modernist scholars, the same scholars who deny that Mathew wrote the gospel of Mathew, that John the evanelist did not really write the gospel of John.

Now you have another problem with this conjecture in
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts: and through it he being dead yet speaketh. Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God translated him: for before his translation he hath had witness borne to him that he had been well–pleasing unto God: …Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. Heb 11:9 By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: …

So if you say everything here in Hebrews is factual and not a myth except Noah, it does fit and is nonsensical, if you say all of the OT saints are myth, than the NT is based on myths an fables and you really have no truth that can realistically defended.

So by your instance that the modern day scholar conjectures based on outside sources from Scripture are right, you are in violation of all four rules of interpeting Scripture the very rules which have been ackowledge not to have been overruled or stated as wrong, for even the vatican and Popes have not declared your interpretation as official teaching of the church, conjecture does not make the literal interpretation of Noah unatenable.

I do believe that your position is no longer credible at all, without doing grave damage to all of Scripture

 

[juliamajor]

Seeing you ask ​

• Atrahasis or Atra-hasis or Atram-hasis - all three spellings are found in discussions of it; & it means “Exceedingly Wise” (or as it has also been translated: “Super-sage” )
• Enuma elish has one N - & means “When on high”
  [theologywebsite.com/etext/enuma (http://www.theologywebsite.com/etext/enuma/eintro.shtml)/eintro.shtml

There seems not to be a translation of the Atrahasis poem on the Net. Still, something is better than nothing

Wow-I accept that as high praise, thanks!!my favorite part of the Enuma is when the gods decide to destroy mankind because they can’t get sleep because of all the racket on earth!!. Do you have the ANET-james pritchard? I have the less expensive version and I find it invaluable.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

let’s see you are willing to make words which say one thing mean something totaly different based on conjecture of some modernist scholars, the same scholars who deny that Mathew wrote the gospel of Mathew, that John the evanelist did not really write the gospel of John.

**I am not changing the meaning of any words at all. I simply know from reading innumerable books on Genesis, and from catechesis and RCIA material, that Most people do not read the text literally. You’re mind is clearly made up. Believe as you will. **

Now you have another problem with this conjecture in
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts: and through it he being dead yet speaketh. Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God translated him: for before his translation he hath had witness borne to him that he had been well–pleasing unto God: …Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. Heb 11:9 By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: …

So if you say everything here in Hebrews is factual and not a myth except Noah, it does fit and is nonsensical, if you say all of the OT saints are myth, than the NT is based on myths an fables and you really have no truth that can realistically defended.

**I have said no such thing. and I have no idea what you think you have “proven”. **

So by your instance that the modern day scholar conjectures based on outside sources from Scripture are right, you are in violation of all four rules of interpeting Scripture the very rules which have been ackowledge not to have been overruled or stated as wrong, for even the vatican and Popes have not declared your interpretation as official teaching of the church, conjecture does not make the literal interpretation of Noah unatenable.

As we have shown you your “rules” are outdated. You apparently are not interested in looking at modern pronouncements, nor at Geer’s fine post explaining what you are missing. you continue to use the term “conjecture” and of course that is not at all fair, but is simply a pejorative term meant to convey your own dislike. You ignore that of course both JPII in this theology of the body and Benedict in In the beginning make it perfectly clear they do not adher to a literal belief in the events portrayed in some parts of Genesis.

I do believe that your position is no longer credible at all, without doing grave damage to all of Scripture

**I understand that you do not agree, and you are not open to seeing anything different so what is the point? **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Wow-I accept that as high praise, thanks!!my favorite part of the Enuma is when the gods decide to destroy mankind because they can’t get sleep because of all the racket on earth!!. Do you have the ANET-james pritchard? I have the less expensive version and I find it invaluable.

Yes, I do ​

There are also two paperbacks containing some of the Ancient Near Eastern Texts in a more portable form - they both include selections from ANEP, the ANE in Pictures

What I like about Enuma - one of the things about it - is that it can be read on many levels, as a

• myth about gods
• liturgical work in praise of Marduk
• mythologically-expressed account of the universe
• text to compare with the Biblical texts
  among others.

It certainly brings out the character of the Hebrew creation stories - I don’t think it would be easy to treat it in a Fundamentalist way.

Have you read any of the texts over on the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature ?

 

[jobeyjobey]

An argument that could be forwarded to backup the actual occurrence of Noah and the flood is Christ referring to it.

MATTHEW 24:37-39
LUKE 17:26-27

 

[Lev23]

Its sad to see 73% of people who voted it a “epic story”.

Its madness, complete madness to think this. And to try to explan it away by using “raining cats and dogs”.

Like jobeyjobey said, Jesus refers to this historical and biblical event.

St.Peter said this concerning Jesus-
2 Peter 1:16
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

[PaperMoon]

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!

Well I don’t feel like every single word in the Bible is to be taken literally but I do believe the flood literaly happened as the Bible says. There’s a lot of stuff in Revelations that is symbolic and not literal for example but the flood story itself is literal.

 

[PaperMoon]

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.

Well I believe there’s a mixture. Not everything is taken literal, but everything is not to be taken as symbolic or allegorical either because doing it that way it’s like how do you know the birth and crucifixation of Jesus and everything inbetween, the miracles etc were not just all allegorical? I believe things happened as the Bible says, but not literally word for word because they lacked scientific words to accurately wholey describe creation and the flood the way we would see it today. So somehtings in the food story may be symbolic but I would not say the whole story of the flood itself did not literally happened. I do believe somehting catestrophic happened with water, done by God and involving the whole earth. Exactly HOW it all happened may be left to interpretation but the event did happen.

 

[PaperMoon]

Choice 1 Yes, it all happened just as it is written in Genesis etc.
This is not an example of literal. this is an example of literist.
If I say “it is raining cats and dogs” I am literaly saying it is raining hard.

Exactly! It’s a mixture of literal and symbolism, it is literally raining hard but not literally raining cats & dogs. A literalist would say it was literally raining cats & dogs to the earth and a person who takes everythign allegorically would say it didn’t rain at all but you were referring to somehting else altogether. The bible is inbetween because they may use expressions like raining cats & dogs in their day and language that we can’t understand outside their time period. Like if you went back to biblical days and told someone it’s raining cats & dogs they would not understand that expression like we do. So I think a lot in the Bible are things that literally happened but it may be written down using expressions that are not to be taken literally the same way we would not take the cats & dogs literally but we would know it’s literally raining hard. So the bible is a mixture of true events being told using expressions like raining cats & dogs sometimes but the fact that the thing actually happened is true. Or like the way we use bad, cool, sick and things like that in a positive way, a literalist would totally misunderstand the meaning. Or when you say someone is as big as a house, you don’t literally mean they are the size of a house but you do literally mean they are big. So I think going to either extreme is wrong but you have to look at it as a mixture. So fundamentalists are wrong but it’s also wrong to see EVERYTHING as symbolic or allegorical.

 

[PaperMoon]

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.
**

Y4eah I agree that everything in the Bible is to be taken as really happeneing but maybe not literally as it’s written word for word. I believe the flood happened and I believe the story of Jonah happened. Some kind of big sea creature swallowed him. Was it a whale as we know them today? That part may not be literal because the meaning of whale may be different for them back then, it could have been some big creature gone extinct now where it’s possible for him to be swallowed like that but since it doesn’t exist today people think oh it’s not literal or didn’t really happen. The story really happened but not literally word for word. To me taking things allegorical is like trying to find a way to be a Christian without having to believe certain things that seem impossible. It’s like trying to appeal to the world and be a Christian too. My problem with the allegorical way of thinking is where does it end and how do you know what’s allegorical and what’s real? If everything is allegorical how do you know that Jesus’ birth and crucifixtion is not just “allegorical”? No I believe everything happened that’s written in the Bible it just may not have happened literally word for word. The Flood of Noah really happnened there are even written historical documents all over the world where every culture of the world describes a huge flood but of course not being Christians they saw the flood as having other causes or purposes but they all talk about a huge flood. Same thing with giants and fallen angels mating wiht human women, genesis 6 says this and every culture of the world has their mythological gods/fallen angels who mated with mortals/humans and produced halfbreeds with special powers/giants. Each culture saw these things as having different reasons behind them and some embellished on them but it is true that giants existed and fallen angels/godlike beings came to earth to mate with mortals/human women. the same thing is resurfacing today except today people call them aliens instead of gods. And the bible says as it was in the days of Noah bvefore the flood that it will be that way again in the last days and now people are seeing more and more UFO/alien sightings than ever before.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well I don’t feel like every single word in the Bible is to be taken literally but I do believe the flood literaly happened as the Bible says. There’s a lot of stuff in Revelations that is symbolic and not literal for example but the flood story itself is literal.

The geological evidence precludes a conclusion that there was a world-wide flood at any time in earth’s history. There may have been a fairly catastrophic flood that was localized however. You must distinguish between literal and literalism. Literal means that we attempt the discern the writer’s actual meaning and purpose in what he wrote. Literalism is a belief that every story every fact stated in the bible is actually true, and that everything is written directed by God. Catholics do not believe in this fundamentalist approach to scripture. There is much in Genesis for instance that is simply not true factually. Recent popes have agreed.