How can you tell which passages in the Bible are symbolic and which ones are literal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kgerber20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kgerber20

Guest
How can you tell which passages in the Bible are symbolic and which ones are literal? For example, the 144000 in Revelation is obviously symbolic, and Jesus’ death on the cross is obviously literal. There are some other places though like Genesis (Adam and Eve), the Christmas story, that some people think are symbolic, even though I have always believed in their literal meaning and they actually happened the way it was written.
 
For us normal folk, looking to the Church for its teaching is the best we can do, but for those more learned, understanding context, not just in light of the rest of scripture, but also in context of the time period with knowledge of the culture, phrasings, and what the people of the time believed.
 
You really need to be guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding the literal and figurative aspects of each biblical story. The story of The Tower of Babel, is very real, but has figurative aspects as well. The remnants of The Tower of Babel is with us today, and I believe is responsible for the arguing and miscommunication amongst humans.
 
I’ve always wondered this, too.
The creation stories of Genesis are usually not taken literally. I have never met anyone who does. Various arguments are that it is ridiculous that the human race could come from a genetic origin of just two people, it flies in the face of everything we now know about evolution, there would have been incest committed, etc.
So, if I claim that the Genesis stories are “faith stories” which attempt to make a wider point about the role of God in creation, the relationship between humanity and God, and the inherent sinfulness of humanity, I would not be kicked out of the church for believing that. Indeed, I would be regarded as a normal, modern Catholic.

Now, imagine if I suggested that John 6 (the “flesh and blood” statements) should not be taken literally because it flies in the face of everything we know about chemistry and physics, it’s gratuitous and unnecessary, and it goes beyond cannibalism to take the substance of God into your digestive system. I’d be dismissed as a heretic, someone unwilling to bend to the church’s interpretation. The literal interpretation of John 6 is absolutely, staunchly required of all the faithful.

It seems that the church is happy to accept various readings of one passage, while betting the house on another passage.

I don’t think we can pick and choose as it suits us. At the very least, we should not force an interpretation on anyone. As was noted a few posts above, many people take the Genesis creation stories as literal fact. Let them believe it. Let others believe that God’s flesh is eaten and his blood drunk in a bizarre ritual, performed every minute of every day.
 
hansard said:
It seems that the church is happy to accept various readings of one passage, while betting the house on another passage.

I don’t think we can pick and choose as it suits us. At the very least, we should not force an interpretation on anyone. As was noted a few posts above, many people take the Genesis creation stories as literal fact. Let them believe it. Let others believe that God’s flesh is eaten and his blood drunk in a bizarre ritual, performed every minute of every day.
Click to expand...
No one picks the literal nature of the passages of Scripture willy nilly as one might pick a lottery number.

Much scholarship goes into analyzing the language, customs, archeology, history and genre of the words and passages. Further, a study of other near eastern cultures and literature is conducted to better understand Scripture. There was a story in ancient near eastern literature called Enuma Elish. It was written well before the creation story in Genesis. Both Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 are very similar. In essence, it is not that the creation story is untrue, but it must be understood that it is a re-origin of the Babylonian myth. The truth of the story is theological not historical.

John 6 was quite different. In spite of the mumbling of the Jews, Jesus persisted in the affirmation that one must eat His body and drink His blood for salvation. Catholics take this passage very seriously and thus re-present the passion of Christ in an unbloody manner each time at Mass. That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, rather it is the complete emptying of our God for his people, you and me. That is unfathomable love…
 
cargau said:
Catholics take this passage very seriously and thus re-present the passion of Christ in an unbloody manner each time at Mass. That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, rather it is the complete emptying of our God for his people, you and me.
Click to expand...
"In an unbloody manner"? It’s the blood of Christ! It’s done in an entirely bloody manner, otherwise there would be no blood, metaphysical or actual, present.

**“The complete emptying of our God for his people” **–what does this even mean? How is God “emptied” for his people? Would I want to believe in a God who empties himself? This implies that God is not whole or continent, and is composed of a constitution which can be emptied completely. Can you see how this is just a touchy-feely platitude, a feel-good statement that has no biblical or theological validity? I mean, it sounds nice: “God has just emptied himself completely for us all”, but it means nothing.

(editing in: I have no doubt that it means a great deal to you, but when you put it in those terms, I switch off completely. I need more than those vague sentiments. I hope you understand.)

And I don’t know why it’s “unfathomable love”. Why unfathomable? Am I too stupid to understand it? I’m sure I can employ my intellect (as I hope God would want me to) in order to understand some of these matters, or at least try to. And what if I can fathom it, after all? Then it becomes “fathomable love”, doesn’t it?
 
hansard said:
And I don’t know why it’s “unfathomable love”. Why unfathomable? Am I too stupid to understand it? I’m sure I can employ my intellect (as I hope God would want me to) in order to understand some of these matters, or at least try to. And what if I can fathom it, after all? Then it becomes “fathomable love”, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
Because we as humans are limited in our understanding.
 
Every passage in the Bible has a literal meaning. The literal meaning is the meaning which the human author intended. That’s what we have to understand first and then we can look at the spiritual meaning. But every passage has a literal meaning. The Catechism explains it well.

****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."83

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.
  1. 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”.
  2. 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.
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.*​

Every passage in the Bible has a literal sense and three spiritual senses.

-Tim-
 
Some passages are obvious and some are not. For those I am not sure about, I first check to see if the Church has offically interpreted the passage. If not then I see what the Church Fathers and other excellent Catholic commentators say. If the passage is interpreted in various ways by great commentators then I chose which one makes the most sense.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Some passages are obvious and some are not. For those I am not sure about, I first check to see if the Church has offically interpreted the passage. If not then I see what the Church Fathers and other excellent Catholic commentators say.
Click to expand...
👍
 
hansard said:
"In an unbloody manner"? It’s the blood of Christ! It’s done in an entirely bloody manner, otherwise there would be no blood, metaphysical or actual, present.

**“The complete emptying of our God for his people” **–what does this even mean? How is God “emptied” for his people? Would I want to believe in a God who empties himself? This implies that God is not whole or continent, and is composed of a constitution which can be emptied completely. Can you see how this is just a touchy-feely platitude, a feel-good statement that has no biblical or theological validity? I mean, it sounds nice: “God has just emptied himself completely for us all”, but it means nothing.
Click to expand...
The precious blood remains in the form of wine despite the substance being changed into Christ’s blood. This is very different than the blood that Christ shed during his passion which was also precious blood but in the form of human blood. That is why it is an un-bloody sacrifice.

Christ gave his all on the Cross. That is what is meant for Christ to empty himself for us, his people. Actually, it means everything. Once we grasp the notion that God sent his only son to suffer and die for us, we see what real, divine love is all about.

You call it a platitude, I call it faith. Most of the early Christians and many since have died for that very faith.
 
This again? There is no such thing as a modern Catholic.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"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

Peace,
Ed
 
Zenkai said:
Actually, modern science says that all humans are in fact descended from 2 people. We all have common ancestors.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Click to expand...
I wonder if you read these articles. There is no Adam and Eve story in these theories. They are just explaining the (rather obvious) fact that modern humans must have common ancestry, even reducible to single individuals, but that those individuals did not even need to be contemporaries of each other.
My point (clearly missed) was that people often make the claim of incest, because the Genesis story is so simplistic as to lead a reasonable person to that conclusion.
 
hansard said:
There is no Adam and Eve story in these theories.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say there was, now did I?
My point (clearly missed) was that people often make the claim of incest, because the Genesis story is so simplistic as to lead a reasonable person to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Yes, most YECs claim that there was incest.
 
kgerber20 said:
How can you tell which passages in the Bible are symbolic and which ones are literal? For example, the 144000 in Revelation is obviously symbolic, and Jesus’ death on the cross is obviously literal. There are some other places though like Genesis (Adam and Eve), the Christmas story, that some people think are symbolic, even though I have always believed in their literal meaning and they actually happened the way it was written.
Click to expand...
If you have a Bible with introductions before each section and book, they will help you understand how to read them. I use NABRE Kindle Edition 2011 and compare it with Ingatius Catholic Study Bible (NT) and Ryrie Study Bible NIV (OT/NT very Protestant).

And for my cheeky response: If it’s important to take literally, it’ll be in the Nicene Creed. :whistle:
 
hansard said:
I wonder if you read these articles. There is no Adam and Eve story in these theories. They are just explaining the (rather obvious) fact that modern humans must have common ancestry, even reducible to single individuals, but that those individuals did not even need to be contemporaries of each other.
My point (clearly missed) was that people often make the claim of incest, because the Genesis story is so simplistic as to lead a reasonable person to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
If there were only two people to start, how could there not be incest?

Is incest forbidden by God?

If yes, why would He make it impossible to propagate without forbidden acts?

I could never take Genesis literally because of this.
 
hansard said:
I’ve always wondered this, too.
The creation stories of Genesis are usually not taken literally. I have never met anyone who does. Various arguments are that it is ridiculous that the human race could come from a genetic origin of just two people, it flies in the face of everything we now know about evolution, there would have been incest committed, etc.
So, if I claim that the Genesis stories are “faith stories” which attempt to make a wider point about the role of God in creation, the relationship between humanity and God, and the inherent sinfulness of humanity, I would not be kicked out of the church for believing that. Indeed, I would be regarded as a normal, modern Catholic.

Now, imagine if I suggested that John 6 (the “flesh and blood” statements) should not be taken literally because it flies in the face of everything we know about chemistry and physics, it’s gratuitous and unnecessary, and it goes beyond cannibalism to take the substance of God into your digestive system. I’d be dismissed as a heretic, someone unwilling to bend to the church’s interpretation. The literal interpretation of John 6 is absolutely, staunchly required of all the faithful.

It seems that the church is happy to accept various readings of one passage, while betting the house on another passage.

I don’t think we can pick and choose as it suits us. At the very least, we should not force an interpretation on anyone. As was noted a few posts above, many people take the Genesis creation stories as literal fact. Let them believe it. Let others believe that God’s flesh is eaten and his blood drunk in a bizarre ritual, performed every minute of every day.
Click to expand...
That some things appear literal and others appear metaphorical is an issue also with so called bible Christians. The best way for a Catholic to read these things is through tradition. Someone who isn’t Catholic, perhaps research Jewish interpretations and tradition of the OT. It is my understanding that Genesis wasn’t perceived as “literal” in the way that it is often meant, rather the literal (closely related to literary) meaning is the confluence of covenantal imagery that denotes the beginning of the family of God.
 
hansard said:
**“The complete emptying of our God for his people” **–what does this even mean? How is God “emptied” for his people? Would I want to believe in a God who empties himself? This implies that God is not whole or continent, and is composed of a constitution which can be emptied completely. Can you see how this is just a touchy-feely platitude, a feel-good statement that has no biblical or theological validity? I mean, it sounds nice: “God has just emptied himself completely for us all”, but it means nothing.

(editing in: I have no doubt that it means a great deal to you, but when you put it in those terms, I switch off completely. I need more than those vague sentiments. I hope you understand.)

And I don’t know why it’s “unfathomable love”. Why unfathomable? Am I too stupid to understand it? I’m sure I can employ my intellect (as I hope God would want me to) in order to understand some of these matters, or at least try to. And what if I can fathom it, after all? Then it becomes “fathomable love”, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
From the beginning of what we can conceive as reality the Father is eternally begetting the Son. This begetting doesn’t diminish the Father or the Son because it is a life giving which we call the Holy Spirit. It is fruitful, rather than diminishing. This is the basis for the teaching of the Church on the openness to life of Catholic families. So the “emptying” is rather a pouring out that doesn’t diminish because the essence of the Trinity is life-giving love. The pouring out is the adoption of all men and women, who so desire, as children of God. Not the appearance of children, but the actuality of children.

This is a thousand times bigger than Geppetto and Pinocchio, which is why it is unfathomable. Like the ocean. I can try to wrap my head around the idea of the ocean, when I look at a globe or a picture from space. But if I’m sitting on the beach… I can’t fathom the actuality of the ocean. Really, I’m just happy to be near the water.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top