How do you interpret the teachings of the Old Testament?

[giddyromilly]

I’m currently re-reading the Old Testament for the first time in almost a decade. When reading it, do you interpret it literally (such as the world is ~6,000 years old, all language was confused at the Tower of Babel, etc.) or take only the spirit of the text into account?

I’m interested in researching the context of the earliest books, especially when considering how far removed the author of Genesis was from the events when they took place. For the purpose of inspiration and divine instruction I absolutely credit it for its content, but I wonder how literally I should take the Great Flood, Lot’s wife being turned to salt, and the creation story.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I used to hear a wonderful series on Catholic radio about the Old Testament. I believe it was done by a Brother Larry Fishbein, who was a convert from Judaism. He explained the Old Testament as “the family stories of the Jewish people”. He explained the Old Testament wonderfully. I might be mistaken about his name though.

 

[Wesrock]

The creation story I understand to be a historical event told through the use of symbols. The Church teaches that we must accept Adam and Eve as the first true man and woman and that all humanity is descended from them, but it does not require that we believe it was 6,000 years ago, a literal garden, that the sin involved literally eating a fruit.

I don’t know if I have a strong opinion either way on the historicity of the Flood. Perhaps it refers to a more localized event rather than global? I feel the same with the Tower of Babel. While not necessarily denying the historicity of prior events, it’s beginning with Abraham that I feel we generally get to events which must be accepted more as actual literal this-is-how-it-happened rather than as being told through the use of symbols.

 

[giddyromilly]

I understand to be a historical event told through the use of symbols.

I love this approach. Some of the best lessons are taught by the use of allegory, as Jesus did with his sermon on the mount. I don’t believe these stories to be fully allegorical, but I do believe them to be events filtered through the understanding of those who were there and who passed on the stories until they could be written down.

 

[Francis]

I’m currently re-reading the Old Testament for the first time in almost a decade. When reading it, do you interpret it literally (such as the world is ~6,000 years old, all language was confused at the Tower of Babel, etc.) or take only the spirit of the text into account?

Yes i agree with this all this because it’s the Truth John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. it could be 6 day ,personally i believe it, because for God all things are possible as said in .Luke 1:37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” Psalm 135:6 Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven and on earth,in the seas and all deeps.

There is also in the psalms Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past,or like a watch in the night.

am also comfortable even if it a thousand years because its God’s years as said in 2 Peter 3:8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. so either way the Bible is right !.

 

[giddyromilly]

He explained the Old Testament as “the family stories of the Jewish people”.

I’ll have to look him up! What a wonderful way to look at it.

 

[giddyromilly]

2 Peter 3:8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

Ah! I’d forgotten about this! Good point. I was raised Mormon and this was taught when I asked about the true length of the six days God worked in the beginning. I hadn’t realized it was Biblical, because much of Mormonism’s understanding comes from the LDS prophets’ interpretations or from the Book of Mormon, which I no longer put stock in.

 

[Thom18]

The Old Testament points towards Christ, so that’s probably the first fact we should take into account.

I’m rereading it now myself as part of Lent (I wish more people would), and I’ve had some fairly “profound” thoughts while doing so. Taking note of the two Creation stories, the first (Genesis 1) presents God as preparing the world for mankind, making it “good” before we arrived so we wouldn’t begin our existence in the complete chaos the world was in before He acted on it. The second Creation story (Genesis 2) depicts the world as being good before man is made, but God sees that it is not all good (“It is not good that the man should be alone”), so He continues to work as He sees that it’s needed- even letting mankind have a part in fulfilling its goodness (God taking one of Adam’s ribs- even though He could have formed Eve the same way He had formed Adam- to create his wife).

The Bible isn’t overly concerned with scientific explanations- let’s leave that to science. What Scripture concerns itself with is describing salvation history, so we shouldn’t necessarily be looking to it for anything but that. Secular history is also described (we don’t understand the Maccabean revolt or Jesus’ ministry, for example, to be just metaphor), but secular history isn’t necessarily included for its own sake. Rather, it’s included as a backdrop to help us understand how God is working.

 

[giddyromilly]

The Bible isn’t overly concerned with scientific explanations- let’s leave that to science. What Scripture concerns itself with is describing salvation history, so we shouldn’t necessarily be looking to it for anything but that. Secular history is also described (we don’t understand the Maccabean revolt or Jesus’ ministry, for example, to be just metaphor), but secular history isn’t necessarily included for its own sake. Rather, it’s included as a backdrop to help us understand how God is working.

I appreciate this explanation very much. I do hold with scientific thought around evolution, considering it a tool of God’s making. I wasn’t sure if it was permissible to think so, though. With the understanding that the Bible is to expand our understanding spiritually I think I can see why the Bible and science/historical accuracy don’t contradict each other.

 

[Joe_5859]

I wasn’t sure if it was permissible to think so, though.

Yes, it is permissible. Though there are some Catholics out there that are young earth creationists (believing the world is only 6000 years old), most Catholics do not believe this.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church takes no position on that issue. If a Catholic wants to believe the world is just 6000 years old, they are free to do so. If they believe that Genesis (especially Genesis 1–11) uses more figurative language to convey religious truth, then that is also okay.

 

[De_Maria]

I’m currently re-reading the Old Testament for the first time in almost a decade. When reading it, do you interpret it literally (such as the world is ~6,000 years old, all language was confused at the Tower of Babel, etc.) or take only the spirit of the text into account?

There is not one rule that holds for all of Scripture. Some Scripture is myth with a spiritual message. Some is historical. Some contains parables and metaphors. There is drama, poetry and song.

I’m interested in researching the context of the earliest books, especially when considering how far removed the author of Genesis was from the events when they took place.

The author of Genesis is Moses.

For the purpose of inspiration and divine instruction I absolutely credit it for its content, but I wonder how literally I should take the Great Flood,

The Great Flood is historical.

Lot’s wife being turned to salt,

Whether it was salt or not, something drastic happened to her which corresponds to the powerful events that happened in Sodom. Something comparable to that which happened to the people of Hiroshima when the A-bomb was dropped there.

and the creation story.

It is true, but it is written in a sort of poetic fashion to convey the fact that God is the All Powerful Creator of the universe.

 

[giddyromilly]

There is not one rule that holds for all of Scripture. Some Scripture is myth with a spiritual message. Some is historical. Some contains parables and metaphors. There is drama, poetry and song.

Thank you! This has helped me vastly while reading through the early books. This is most of what has drawn me to Catholicism over anything else - the Bible may be understood through multiple lenses, and not only through the literal lenses (as many Protestants do, I’m discovering).