Is the Bible Literally True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DD2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tobinatorstark said:
Yes it is literally true
Click to expand...
But it is not always literalistically true. We cannot deny that truth can be taught using fiction. As Dei Verbum states: "For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse."

Just as Jesus used ficional stories in the form of parables to teach truths, the authors of scripture used a variety of literary forms to teach their truths - myth, legend, allegory, infancy narrative, etc. The Church does not insist on the fundamentalistā€™s literalistic interpretation.
 
patg said:
But it is not always literalistically true. We cannot deny that truth can be taught using fiction. As Dei Verbum states: "For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse."

Just as Jesus used ficional stories in the form of parables to teach truths, the authors of scripture used a variety of literary forms to teach their truths - myth, legend, allegory, infancy narrative, etc. The Church does not insist on the fundamentalistā€™s literalistic interpretation.
Click to expand...
good point
 
I kinda take the view that unless thereā€™s a lot of evidence to the contrary, the bible is literally true. So, for example, I donā€™t think God created the world in 6 24-hour days, because thereā€™s an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary: so the first chapter of Genesis is somewhat metaphorical. Itā€™s not disrespectful of Godā€™s power in my opinion: after all, he could have created the entire universe in a fraction of a second if heā€™d wanted to; thatā€™s just not what he chose to do. I do, however, believe that Adam and Eve lived in Eden, Noah built the ark, Moses parted the red sea, etc.

Why not? Miracles happen even to this day. Of course most of these stories have some sort of ā€œlessonā€ in them too; not all, but a lot of them.
 
DD2007 said:
Do you believe the Bible is literally true or just a kind of guide book for faith and morals only? šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
The stance of the Church has been the text should be regarded as literal when the context points to a literal interpretation, when a historical grammatical approach indicates it is allegory (symbols in Revelation for example). Now, not all the Church Fathers agreed on what sections were Literal and which were allegory, nor do modern Scholars in the Church. People, THIS is why examining the writings on Scripture is so fun!šŸ™‚
 
DD2007 said:
Well, you knowā€¦the miracles and thingsā€¦like the burning Bushā€¦the red sea partingā€¦

Stories of Giantsā€¦and stuff.

Is it a sin to not believe those kinds of stories?
Click to expand...
What makes those stories any more fantasical than God becoming man, healing the sick, turning water to wine, rising from the dead, ascending to heaven, etc?

Are we supposed to believe those things really happened? Of course. With God, anything is possible!
 
Mea_Culpa said:
Here what Dei Verbum says about Sacred Scripture:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore ā€œall Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kindā€ (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

Phrases like ā€œteaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truthā€ indicate to me that the Bible teaches truth, and it teaches that truth without error. Some modern theologians teach that parts of the Bible are not literally true, like the infancy narratives of Jesus. To me, that doesnā€™t fit with the official Church teaching that the Bible teaches solidly, faithfully and without error.
Click to expand...
Of course everything it teaches it true. But some of it is done with allegory or parable.
 
mattkubes said:
Genesis in its entirety? No sorry, that has never been the Churchā€™s interpretation.
Click to expand...
Oh my goshā€¦are we going to pick everything someone says apart? Hereā€™s a small example: the Church does not require that you believe the world was actually created in 7 daysā€¦only that God is the creator. Sorryā€¦6 days. Rested on one. You get the idea.
 
DD2007 said:
For fantastical see post #15

Thanks. Just wondering. I hear people often say they believe the important things in the Bible but not the ā€œotherā€ things that people arenā€™t required to believe.
Click to expand...
FOR DD2007 - Hi!

Cā€™mon be honest! Admit it! You are no Catholic convert! You are here in disguise just to test us and make us tear our hair out!šŸ˜ƒ :eek:

People do it all the time! They say things to provoke and infuriate and just drive people crazy:crying: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:
 
does DD2007 believe Jesus
is alive from the dead ?
living right now ?
fantastic !
 
DD2007 said:
Do you believe the Bible is literally true or just a kind of guide book for faith and morals only? šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
Just a guide book. Take Matthew 19: 11-12. At first it seems to be simple. We have eunuchs who were born that way. Nowadays, they get testosterone shots at puberty and beyond to function as normal males. But back in Jesusā€™s time, such unfortunates were impotent and unable to father children.šŸ˜¦

Those who were made eunuchs tended to be prisoners and slaves. If done after puberty, they might be able to function sexually, with a reduced libido, but could not father children. :o

And finally Jesus mentioned that there were those who had made themselves eunuchs. Castrated themselves. For the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Again, depennding on age of castration, they might be able to function sexually with a reduced libido. But again could not father children:eek:

(Medical sidenote: Eunuchs can lust, and satisfy that lust, if only at reduced levels. The reason is the adrenal glands.)

Except that the Church teaches that although that is what Jesus said, that is not what he meant. šŸ¤· He meant chastity. The word ā€œeunuchā€ was somehow, someway, supposed to mean those who did not choose to marry, for whatever reason.šŸ˜Š
 
Mea_Culpa said:
Here what Dei Verbum says about Sacred Scripture:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore ā€œall Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kindā€ (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

Phrases like ā€œteaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truthā€ indicate to me that the Bible teaches truth, and it teaches that truth without error. Some modern theologians teach that parts of the Bible are not literally true, like the infancy narratives of Jesus. To me, that doesnā€™t fit with the official Church teaching that the Bible teaches solidly, faithfully and without error.
Click to expand...
I lighted on these words :*Some modern theologians teach that parts of the Bible are not literally true, like the infancy narratives of Jesus. * Such ā€œtheologiansā€ pretend to know what they cannot possible know, which is that Matthew and Luke do not give true accounts of events. Skeptics like Dom Crossan think that the Evmgelists simply ransacked Scripture to create a "background " story for Jesus that would impress the Jewish-gentile-Christian congregation he led. A simpler explanation is that Matthew simply told what he knew, which was not necessarily a full account.
 
mattkubes said:
Genesis in its entirety? No sorry, that has never been the Churchā€™s interpretation.
Click to expand...
Amen! The Church Fathers DID debate on whether it had allegory here and there, I am not sure if one (of great importance) who stated Genesis in itā€™s ENTIRETY was an allegory. Read your Patristics. Pax.
 
DD2007 said:
Well, you knowā€¦the miracles and thingsā€¦like the burning Bushā€¦the red sea partingā€¦

Stories of Giantsā€¦and stuff.

Is it a sin to not believe those kinds of stories?
Click to expand...
Iā€™d say those things are less fantastical than the Incarnation and the Resurrection!
DD2007 said:
  1. The alternate I hear is the explosion of a volcanic Greek island called Theraā€¦some say that happened about the same time as the parting of the red sea storyā€¦other people believe it was a miricleā€¦some just think the story was made up.
Click to expand...
How precisely did an exploding volcano part the Red Sea, keep it parted for a night, and then bring it back together again?
 
Back in my Baptist days, some ā€œscholarsā€ had concluded that God didnā€™t really part the waters - the Israelites walked through the Red Sea at a place where the water was merely ankle-deep. My pastor said that even if that were true, there was still a miracle there, because Pharaohā€™s army drowned in that ankle-deep water! šŸ˜›
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top