How much of the Bible do you take literally?

[jmcrae]

Had a great debate in small group church meetings recently about this.

So how literal do most Catholics/Christians take the Bible?

In my case, it depends on how you understand the word “literally.” In my case, I try to understand what the original author of the verses intended, and how his primary audience understood him, and that’s what I would mean when I say that I take the Bible “literally.” I am able to distinguish between fiction, poetry, history, and moral instruction.

For example:

How old is the Earth?

I don’t know.

Did Adam and Eve really exist?

There were a first man and a first woman, who are the parents of the whole human race. We don’t know what their real names were, or what they called each other. “Adam” means “red clay” and “Eve” means “Mother.” The story about the talking snake is probably allegorical, but the fact remains that they did commit sin, and in their disobedience, caused death to enter the world. My personal opinion is that they also discovered fire and created the beginnings of human civilization, and according to my current understanding, that happened about 10,000 years ago. (This does not mean that I think the world itself is only 10,000 years old, though - only human civilization.)

Was the Ark real?

There are trilobyte skeletons (a kind of deep ocean-water creature) in the middle of the desert more than 5,000 miles from any ocean, not far from where I live, in Drumheller - so in my personal opinion, I think it’s entirely possible that ocean water covered the whole earth at some point, but whether that was within the boundary of the last 10,000 years, I really don’t know.

Jonah in the whale…etc…

That one is probably allegorical, although I am open to the idea that it might be real.

The consensus in the group was that these were meant as metaphorical studies, but scientifically there was no real Adam and Eve.

Scientifically - statistically and biologically - the evolution that produced modern humans can only have happened once, which means that there can only be one original pair of human parents- regardless of what their names may have been.

The likelihood of the same mutation event that caused human consciousness to occur happening twice, or more than twice, is astronomically slim.

Also, do they understand the distinction between a metaphor and an allegory? It just sounds odd to describe those particular stories as being “metaphorical” - that seems like a term that would apply more properly to some elements of the Psalms, which are more poetic in style.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I believe that Jesus Christ Literally rose from the dead!

I don’t care if science can account for that literal fact or not!

 

[Cromwell4]

Extremely dangerous to say that Adam & Eve did NOT exist.

Ergo…No Original Sin>>>No Fall>>>No Need for Redemption>>>No Incarnation.

JC was not Son of God>>> No Resurrection>>>No Ascension.

(So all just a myth as Dawkins would have us believe???)

Remove this simple brick of 1st Parents and your ‘House of Cards’ comes tumbling down.

 

[Mystophilus]

Well, Jesus and the Apotles certainly believed them to be true stories and referred to them in regards to his prophetic call as Messiah. Just because stories are cast in mythological langauge doesn’t ipso facto make them false or made up.

Jesus talked about them as if they were true, but that could have been because of his audience rather than his own understanding. The same applies to the lack of advanced medical advice in the Bible: he could hardly tell people that X symptom could be treated by Y method, because the framework necessary to understand the explanation simply did not exist.

Another way of looking at the creation stories is that they were passed down in different forms and then crammed together. They don’t contradict each other, rather some give us more details than others.

They do contradict one another if taken as simply literal histories: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different sequences of events. As a result, the Jews have long understood that at least one of them has to be symbolic, but we Christians have (especially thanks to sola scriptura) lagged behind.

If we are merely products of evolution, and not part of God’s plan, then why bother with faith at all?

Being products of evolution does not necessitate not being part of God’s plan. Natural selection is a very blunt tool, and there are a few points at which a guiding hand seems more reasonable than utterly random chance.

 

[Mystophilus]

Extremely dangerous to say that Adam & Eve did NOT exist.
Ergo…No Original Sin>>>No Fall>>>No Need for Redemption>>>No Incarnation.

JC was not Son of God>>> No Resurrection>>>No Ascension.
(So all just a myth as Dawkins would have us believe???)
Remove this simple brick of 1st Parents and your ‘House of Cards’ comes tumbling down.

Sorry, but no, the logic does not work.

The removal of a literal Adam and Eve removes that version of Original Sin, although there must have been an original sin because it has been followed by a long sequence (most of which are really rather unoriginal).

The Fall, however, does not require Original Sin: it only requires sin, which we all do. Sin brings the need for redemption, and thence the Incarnation.

 

[grannymh]

May I gently suggest that Catholicism may be the only Christian religion left which considers the reality of Adam essential because that comports with the teachings of St. Paul regarding Original Sin and the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age - that it has not existed from all eternity . . .”
. . . “It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction . . .”
. . . The Ark was quite real. . .
. . . That God put Jonah in the whale and had the whale spit him out is entirely credible. . . .

 

[PNEUMA]

Extremely dangerous to say that Adam & Eve did NOT exist.

Ergo…No Original Sin>>>No Fall>>>No Need for Redemption>>>No Incarnation.

JC was not Son of God>>> No Resurrection>>>No Ascension.

Wrong, even if there weren’t any Adam and Eva, our ancestors still lost their natural contact with God.

 

[Richca]

Had a great debate in small group church meetings recently about this.

So how literal do most Catholics/Christians take the Bible?

For example:

How old is the Earth?

Did Adam and Eve really exist?

Was the Ark real?

Jonah in the whale…etc…

The consensus in the group was that these were meant as metaphorical studies, but
scientifically there was no real Adam and Eve…

Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, I believe everything in it should be taken literally unless there are very good reasons to take some passage or story of the bible not literally; otherwise, you may find yourself doubting the very word of God. Foremost among these reasons would be a pronouncement by the official teaching office of the Church. For example, I believe the Church says we do not have to hold that God created the universe and everything in it in seven 24 hour days. This was a literary device used by the inspired writer of Genesis. As God worked for six days in the creation of the universe and rested on the seventh, so the Israelites were also to do their work in six days and rest on the sabbath to keep it holy and to follow the example of God. There is always a good reason why a passage or story of the bible is told in the way it is told; it may have a mystical or spiritual or allegorical meaning if not a literal one.

Biblical studies by exegetes also can help us interpret the bible. The findings of biblical exegetes, though, is subject to the interpretation of the Church.
We should use common sense and the entirety of the Catholic faith and Tradition to help us in the interpretation of the word of God too as well as the interpretations of the fathers of the church, doctors of the church and saints.

The entire bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and he is its principle author and it contains only that which He wanted set forth in writing.

 

[grannymh]

What makes Adam both real and unique is that all humanity is in Adam “as one body of one man.”

Information source:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 404
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
Recommended reading – paragraphs 355-421 and the cross-references in the margins.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Della]

Jesus talked about them as if they were true, but that could have been because of his audience rather than his own understanding. The same applies to the lack of advanced medical advice in the Bible: he could hardly tell people that X symptom could be treated by Y method, because the framework necessary to understand the explanation simply did not exist.

Jesus never coddled people and had no reason to hide the truth from anyone. He believed in Adam and Eve and taught that not on letter or smallest part of a letter would be removed from the law until he had fulfilled all things. He also said that those who teach otherwise will be the least in the kingdom of God.

They do contradict one another if taken as simply literal histories: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different sequences of events. As a result, the Jews have long understood that at least one of them has to be symbolic, but we Christians have (especially thanks to sola scriptura) lagged behind.

There’s no need to read them that way and then set up discrepencies where none exist. They tell the same story but with more or less the same content. The intention of the stories is the same–God created man and woman in his image. That is the important thing for us to remember. The Gospel writers did the same sort of thing. They didn’t give us the same blow-by-blow details about important events in Jesus’ life and ministry, but they all tell us the same thing–who Jesus is and what he came to do for us.

Being products of evolution does not necessitate not being part of God’s plan. Natural selection is a very blunt tool, and there are a few points at which a guiding hand seems more reasonable than utterly random chance.

Being sole products of evolution does do that. God didn’t just set up a system, step back and let it run. He stepped in at key points, as Genesis 1 relates. He’s in full charge of every step and has his hand in it. There is no way that human conscienceness just happened. It was created by God. It doesn’t matter if God used time or did it instantly. He is outside of time–it means nothing to him. We put way too much importance on how long things take or how big they are, etc. To God such things are unimportant. Obeying him, trusting him, believing him–those are what matter to him.

 

[Mystophilus]

Jesus never coddled people and had no reason to hide the truth from anyone.

There is an enormous amount which Jesus never told.

In the Gospels, he never teaches anyone about biology, physics, chemistry, psychology, engineering, or any of the other things which we understand today. There are a vast number of things which we do not know today. Had he taught us these things, hundreds of millions of people could have had longer, happier lives; we could cure some of the horrible diseases which destroy people’s lives today. Since God must know all of those things (and a lot more), the lack of teaching must have been the result of choice rather than inability.

There’s no need to read them that way and then set up discrepencies where none exist. They tell the same story but with more or less the same content. The intention of the stories is the same–God created man and woman in his image. That is the important thing for us to remember.

I agree that the intention and the general sense of the two Creation narratives is the same, but that does not change the fact that different details are asserted, and thus that the stories do contradict one another if taken as simple, literal history. That fact is a very strong indicator that the original compiler(s) of the text did not regard them that way.

This leaves us with several options:
a/ Genesis 1:1-2:2 (let’s call this Creation A) is literally true while Genesis 2:3-4:26 (Creation B) is symbolic in some fashion (e.g., describing humans as the centre of Creation);
b/ Creation B is literally true while Creation A is symbolic in some fashion (e.g., describing humans as the pinnacle of Creation);
c/ both Creation A and Creation B are symbolic in some fashion (e.g., describing humans as the centre and pinnacle of Creation).
The missing option is both being literally true, but that is where the contradiction lies.

What you are describing sounds much like b/ above.

God didn’t just set up a system, step back and let it run. He stepped in at key points, as Genesis 1 relates. He’s in full charge of every step and has his hand in it.

As I said before, “a guiding hand seems more reasonable than utterly random chance”.

 

[adawgj]

If you mean a 6 day/24 hour creation, you are fine. The Church does not read Genesis 1 literistically. She understands that the language is mythological and therefore filled with metaphors. Having said that it’s not that God couldn’t have created the world in an instant, but from the geological record it seems clear he didn’t. Genesis 1 goes out of its way to tell us it took time–a lot of time. In any case, the universe is God’s creation and we his people. That’s all that should really concern us, IMHO. _

The problem is which ones will you believe and which won’t you and why? Are the plagues of Egypt any less likely that Noah’s ark? Don’t we see great disasters in our own time that are “biblical” in porportion? If we were ancient peoples what would we make of such events and how would we record them? Quite differently from our modern newspapers, that’s for sure.

The OT stories have importance in so far as they tell us something about Christ, who is has the primacy in all things since he is our Redeemer and Savior.

For the first one yes that one.

The other ones I mean like the ones that are poems or allegories.

 

[guanophore]

Had a great debate in small group church meetings recently about this.

So how literal do most Catholics/Christians take the Bible?

For example:

How old is the Earth?

Did Adam and Eve really exist?

Was the Ark real?

Jonah in the whale…etc…

The consensus in the group was that these were meant as metaphorical studies, but
scientifically there was no real Adam and Eve…

Well it sounds like your little group needs to get an update on the research on the human genome. Science has proven that Adam and Eve did, in fact, exist.

news.yahoo.com/genetic-adam-eve-uncovered-180706860.html

 

[guanophore]

Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, I believe everything in it should be taken literally unless there are very good reasons to take some passage or story of the bible not literally; otherwise, you may find yourself doubting the very word of God. Foremost among these reasons would be a pronouncement by the official teaching office of the Church. For example, I believe the Church says we do not have to hold that God created the universe and everything in it in seven 24 hour days. This was a literary device used by the inspired writer of Genesis. As God worked for six days in the creation of the universe and rested on the seventh, so the Israelites were also to do their work in six days and rest on the sabbath to keep it holy and to follow the example of God. There is always a good reason why a passage or story of the bible is told in the way it is told; it may have a mystical or spiritual or allegorical meaning if not a literal one.

Biblical studies by exegetes also can help us interpret the bible. The findings of biblical exegetes, though, is subject to the interpretation of the Church.
We should use common sense and the entirety of the Catholic faith and Tradition to help us in the interpretation of the word of God too as well as the interpretations of the fathers of the church, doctors of the church and saints.

The entire bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and he is its principle author and it contains only that which He wanted set forth in writing.

I agree with what you have said here, with the exception of the first statement. Acceptance of Scripture as the inspired and inerrant Word of God does not mean all of it needs to be taken literally, as you point out in the comments that follow. Here is a good summary of what jmcrae was also referencing.

archive.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/churchandbible/magisterial/principlesinterp.cfm2.htm

 

[grannymh]

Well it sounds like your little group needs to get an update on the research on the human genome. Science has proven that Adam and Eve did, in fact, exist.

news.yahoo.com/genetic-adam-eve-uncovered-180706860.html

May I respectfully request that one reads the entire link.
These primeval people aren’t parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren’t the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today.

Please notice that the “first modern humans” when used in genome research means plural as in human beings began as a population. Catholicism teaches that humankind descended from two, real, true, fully-complete, sole human parents. The population concept is often referred to as polygenism which opposes Catholic doctrines regarding human origin and original sin.

Reference: Humani generis, Pius XII

 

[Della]

There is an enormous amount which Jesus never told.

In the Gospels, he never teaches anyone about biology, physics, chemistry, psychology, engineering, or any of the other things which we understand today. There are a vast number of things which we do not know today. Had he taught us these things, hundreds of millions of people could have had longer, happier lives; we could cure some of the horrible diseases which destroy people’s lives today. Since God must know all of those things (and a lot more), the lack of teaching must have been the result of choice rather than inability.

So Jesus should have been a college professor instead of the redeemer of the world? Is it all up to God to ensure our every moment is one of natural happiness on this earth? Where did God promise us that? Jesus told us why he came–to do the Father’s will, which was to teach us what we need to know for salvation and to give himself as a ransom for many. God lets us probe the mysteries of the physical world to discover many things, and that’s all well and good, but the one thing necessary is our salvation.

I agree that the intention and the general sense of the two Creation narratives is the same, but that does not change the fact that different details are asserted, and thus that the stories do contradict one another if taken as simple, literal history. That fact is a very strong indicator that the original compiler(s) of the text did not regard them that way.

And how do you know the intentions of the compliers of the creation stories? They certainly understood what they were doing. I rather doubt many of us do. I am willing to take it on faith that the various stories do line up with each other, like interlacing fingers making a bond of two hands. But then faith is necessary in order to make sense of most of Scripture.

This leaves us with several options:

a/ Genesis 1:1-2:2 (let’s call this Creation A) is literally true while Genesis 2:3-4:26 (Creation B) is symbolic in some fashion (e.g., describing humans as the centre of Creation);
b/ Creation B is literally true while Creation A is symbolic in some fashion (e.g., describing humans as the pinnacle of Creation);
c/ both Creation A and Creation B are symbolic in some fashion (e.g., describing humans as the centre and pinnacle of Creation).
The missing option is both being literally true, but that is where the contradiction lies.

What you are describing sounds much like b/ above.

There is no need to divide the verses as you have done. No part of the story is merely symbolic, if you mean it didn’t happen like that. Each part describes an epoch leading up to the creation of man, which is what God was preparing the earth for. If Christ was meant to be made man before the foundations of the world, and if he is the pinnacle of God’s creation for all was made in him, through him and for him, then that is what God was tending towards in everything. Without this understanding it makes no sense.

As I said before, “a guiding hand seems more reasonable than utterly random chance”.

Indeed, a guiding hand with an overall purpose and an end in sight.

 

[Faith1960]

Thank goodness as Catholics we do not rely on sola scriptura. The Gospels are absolutely true, but as far as the Old Testament is concerned I have problems taking it literally. Used as a teaching instrument for history, it’s OK, but the earth is certainly NOT 5000 years old, and yes, dinosaurs did exist!

There,are those that believe God just made the earth to look old and planted dinosaur bones so we’d THINK they lived.

 

[Faith1960]

Well it sounds like your little group needs to get an update on the research on the human genome. Science has proven that Adam and Eve did, in fact, exist.

news.yahoo.com/genetic-adam-eve-uncovered-180706860.html

Those two didn’t even know each other and lived thousands of years apart.

 

[jmcrae]

There,are those that believe God just made the earth to look old and planted dinosaur bones so we’d THINK they lived.

I don’t think there is any need for that idea, regardless of how one interprets the first couple of chapters of Genesis.

There is a variety of possibilities for the dinosaurs.

One is that they lived millions of years ago and died out while mammals began to evolve, culminating with the rise of human beings.

Another is that they were ordinary lizards who lived for many centuries or even for millions of years until Adam’s sin caused death to enter the world, at which point, they died, and their carbon dates align with their dates of birth, rather than their dates of death. Lizards never stop growing, so if a lizard were to survive for two million years, it could reach the size of the larger dinosaurs that we know of.

Another possibility is that they were created together with the rest of the land animals on the sixth day, together with Adam, and lived until the time of Noah, when they were destroyed in the flood.

Another is that “Leviathan” or “Dragon” is another name for “dinosaur” and that they existed throughout Old Testament and even into the early centuries of the Common Era.

Another is that they never died out at all; they just grew smaller after a catastrophic event, and today, we call them “birds.”