Literal or allegorical?

[atheistgirl]

I referenced a passage in Job in another thread, as an example of a passage in the Bible I have trouble with. You will no doubt be aware that many atheists much more biblically informed than me, have a whole armoury of passages they can cite to evidence brutality, anger, lust, rape, polygomy slavery human sacrifice etc etc as being morally approved of by God, if not directly commanded by Him.

My question is this - has the church categorically defined what parts of scripture are literally and historically true and what parts are supposed to be taken as an allegory or a morality tale or whatever.

Sarah x

 

[po18guy]

I think that you might be assuming some facts not in evidence. Human sacrifice “approved”? Are you speaking of a misinterpretation of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis? As well, the Church does not rigidly define all passages of scripture.

 

[atheistgirl]

I think that you might be assuming some facts not in evidence. Human sacrifice “approved”? Are you speaking of a misinterpretation of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis? As well, the Church does not rigidly define all passages of scripture.

I was refering to Jephthah and his daughter but anyhow, would you know what passages of the Bible are rigidly defined in terms of meaning by the church?

Sarah x

 

[COPLAND_3]

The list of bad things that you have on your original post, such as, “brutality, anger, lust, rape, polygomy slavery human sacrifice”, are not all necessarily approved by God. For example God never approved of lust and rape, but those are things that the Bible does mention people doing. The Bible says that Judas hung himself, but that does not mean that hunging ourselves is permitted by God. As for Polygamy I have a footnote in my Study Study Bible

In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1610) It is well known that the history of the Old Testament is the scene for the systematic defection from monogamy. This fact must have a fundamental significance in our understanding of the prohibition: “You shall not commit adultery.” Especially at the time of the patriarchs, the abandonment of monogamy was dictated by the desire for offspring, a very numerous offspring. This desire was very profound, and procreation as the essential end of marriage was very evident. This was so much so that wives who loved their husbands but were not able to give them children, on their own initiative asked their husbands who loved them, if they could carry “on their own knees,” or welcome, his children born of another woman, for example, those of the serving woman, the slave. Such was the case of Sarah regarding Abraham (cf. Gn 16:2) or the case of Rachel and Jacob (cf. Gn 30:3). (Pope John Paul II Theo Bod 32.2) Christ restored marriage to its first perfection, by banishing polygamy, and forbidding divorce Mt 19. (Augustin Calmet Dic Bible)

As for slavery, here is a footnote from my Study Bible

The issue and history of slavery are quite complex. Throughout history, the Church found Herself among cultures practicing slavery and had to deal with it. An early example is St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. St. Paul appears to tolerate slavery, but he also warned slave masters that they too have a Master in Heaven who would judge them (Col. 4:1). Due to Her weakness in political affairs, the Church could not stop every evil practice. However, political weakness is quite different than approval. There are many examples of saints buying slaves and then setting them free (e.g. St. Nicholas, Trinitarian Fathers & White Fathers). Unfortunately there were also Catholics and even clergy, who participated in slavery, and their sins caused scandal to the Church….

To further complicate this issue, there are different forms of slavery. Even though repugnant to our modern sensitivity, servitude is not always unjust, such as penal servitude for convicted criminals or servitude freely chosen for personal financial reasons. These forms are called just-title servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which brought an end to racial slavery in the U.S., does allow for just-title servitude to punish criminals: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Even today we can see prisoners picking up litter along interstates and highways accompanied by armed guards. Also the 1949 Geneva Conventions allow for detaining power to use the labor of war prisoners under very limiting circumstances (Panzer, p. 3). However, such circumstances are very rare today. During biblical times, a man could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay off his debts (Deut. 15:12-18). But such slaves were to be freed on the seventh year or the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:54). The Church tolerated just-title servitude for a time because it is not wrong in itself, though it can be seriously abused. The Popes did, however, consistently oppose racial slavery which completely lacks any moral justification.

Now we usually think of slavery in terms of innocent people who were unjustly captured and reduced to “beasts of burden” due solely to their race. This was the most common form in the U.S. before the Thirteenth Amendment. This form of slavery, known as racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America…. Those faithful, who did not obey, were excommunicated ipso facto. This is the same punishment imposed today on Catholics who participate in abortion….

Hope this helps.

 

[po18guy]

God allowed this, but it is a stretch of credulity to say that He approved of it, or commanded it. The book of Kings is about fidelity to God, and to promises made to Him, not about human sacrifice. Jephthah made the error in his promise. Compare this to the punishment of David via the death of his son, due to David’s arranging of the death of Uriah, so that he could have Uriah’s wife Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11, 12). We are taught that actions have consequences, and that others may be victimized by one’s own actions.

However, we must also approach scripture from the vantage point that we are God’s creations, and He is free to cause, or to allow, anything He desires to happen to that which He alone has created. Mankind’s concepts of justice or fairness simply do not apply. The artist has the right to preserve, or to destroy any painting made, correct?

 

[atheistgirl]

The artist has the right to preserve, or to destroy any painting made, correct?

Perhaps. At this stage Im not looking to debate specific passages, fascinating as they are. The examples I gave, if you read what I say, are examples of things atheists regularly throw up (rightly or wrongly) to christians as examples of Gods dubious character and behavior.

Some of the passages Ive read, and that other atheists use, only have the conveyed meaning they impune on the texts if it is taken literally. And we know many christians are Bible literalists.

What I am asking is this - has the church defined what parts of the Bible must be read literally, and what parts of the bible are allegorical or figurative etc. And if so, what parts are literal, and what parts are not to be read literally.

Sarah x

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

According to one claim, there are seven passages defined for us, I am not sure how valid it is but thought I would post it to give you a place to start. This information was attributed Jimmy Akin on this site. I tried looking through the text from the Council, but I did not see a clear statement on a particular verse. But the text is quite long and it’s entirely possible that I missed it.

Other than that, we are free to interpret Scripture as we will as long as we keep within the teaching of the Church. For example, Catholics are free to take the Creation account 100% literally or not… but we MUST believe that we had two original parents, that original sin exists, etc. Here is a link to what the Church teaches about what Scripture is and how it is to be interpreted.

Here is the information that was attributed to Jimmy Akin:

"As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their
senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were
made by the Council of Trent:

(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of
baptism.

(2-3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1
Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

(4-5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22-23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to
forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.

(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of
the Christian community."

 

[atheistgirl]

This is what Im after - thanks Prayer_Warrior.

Sarah x

 

[Warrenton]

What I am asking is this - has the church defined what parts of the Bible must be read literally, and what parts of the bible are allegorical or figurative etc. And if so, what parts are literal, and what parts are not to be read literally.

Sarah x

The answer to your first question is no. From the beginning, Catholics have a lot of freedom to decide what to believe literally or what to belive figuratively, or allegorically. Great saints have come down on opposite sides of the question.

To the second question, some scholars say this or that book or part of a book is allegory, this or that book history. They get approval to teach their thougths as “acceptable.” I do not have to agree or disagree with them, though.

Basically, the Church decided what scriptures where inspired, and then told the faithful “these are worthy of belief.”

If you’re an atheist, you don’t have to believe that Carl Sagan was correct. You can believe that Lurcretius was right, instead. Either way, you’ll be within the fold of atheism.

Likewise, the Church defines what we must believe, but grants much more freedom for why we believe it.

Hope that helps!

 

[atheistgirl]

Likewise, the Church defines what we must believe, but grants much more freedom for why we believe it.
Hope that helps!

Thanks for your reply. I’m not sure it helps, in this sense: Imagine I want to take on a particular atheistic argument such as, the claim that God is bad tempered and easily angered - two very human traits not worthy of a deity. Let’s say the scripture quoted to prove the case is the example of when God struck down the poor guy carrying the arc of the covenant for stumbling and touching it. No mercy, no understanding, no sympathy - just instant vindictive retribution.

Now, I come along and I say nope, youre reading that wrong, it’s not meant to be read literally, it’s meant as … whatever …

The person Im debating with say, right then, show me the church documents that say this is not literally true - and from whats being said, there are none!

This atheist is perfectly right, according to the church, to read the verse literally.

Similarly with slaughtering the amelikites, taking virgins, accepting human sacrifice etc etc - Im sure youve heard them all before.

Without a definitive statement from the church, it defeats any argument that a literal reading of the Bible is not the way to understand the message of the inspired word.

Can you see what Im trying to say here?

Sarah x

 

[Warrenton]

Without a definitive statement from the church, it defeats any argument that a literal reading of the Bible is not the way to understand the message of the inspired word.

Can you see what Im trying to say here?

Sarah x

Yes, I think I understand.

As with any formula, we need to ensure we tackle the problem in the correct order.

This is basic to algebra as well as exegesis.

For ease of analysis, let’s assume a literalist interpretation.

The order is: miraculous event (whether the flood or God telling someone to destroy another people, or striking down a priest or transgressor), recordation of the event, study of the event, derivation of a lesson.

My sense is many people want to start with the lesson, and argue backwards that the lesson does not flow from the event.

This is not logical from an exegetical standpoint, because the Bible was not written in the manner of Aesop’s fables. It was also not written like a novel.

It is more like a long history, or the proofs of a proposition.

There are parts of the bible that remain obscure even now, thousands of years after their composition.

For any given passage or story, one needs to research the exegesis for that passage. that will yeild the “lesson” that scholars have derived from it. If, having read the lesson, one thinks it contradicts another passage, then the exegesis for the other passage needs to be researched and the lessons compared.

In arguing with an atheist, in order to focus the discussion, it is helpful to lay the groundwork for what will be given on each side in advance. Will the atheist concede that in the Christian perspective, all humans could be justly damned absent divine salvation? If so, this obviously overcomes certain apparent difficulties with what appears to be rough justice.

If the atheist will not concede this, where shall the discussion commence? Depending on the answer, we will know which passages are most conducive to resolving the debate, or at least highlighting the areas of interest.

In a word, before the debate starts, let’s be clear what we need to establish - it saves time and confusion.

A little better?

Happy Tgving!

(presuming you believe in pumpkins )

 

[atheistgirl]

In arguing with an atheist, in order to focus the discussion, it is helpful to lay the groundwork for what will be given on each side in advance. Will the atheist concede that in the Christian perspective, all humans could be justly damned absent divine salvation? If so, this obviously overcomes certain apparent difficulties with what appears to be rough justice.

If the atheist will not concede this, where shall the discussion commence? Depending on the answer, we will know which passages are most conducive to resolving the debate, or at least highlighting the areas of interest.

In a word, before the debate starts, let’s be clear what we need to establish - it saves time and confusion.

A little better?

I think so. But I do find it very interesting that after 2000 years of formaing the canon of the bible, then studying and teaching it, there is next to no definitive interpretations of scriptural passages. Surely this makes it difficult to tell other christians, who use the scriptures to say x y or z which is not what catholics believe, that they are wrong, or interpreting the passages wrongly?

I could almost seem like not wanting to commit, lest further down the line you might be in a position you can no longer defend, if that makes sense.

I think it also means, even if my atheist friend agrees from the christian perspective, people can be damned in the absence of salvation, in the story above, God is still seen as a bad tempered tyrant, quick to strike down dead a man for nothing more than stumbling. Because according to what youve just said, they CAN, if they wish, say that story is literally true!

Sarah x

 

[centurionguard]

I think so. But I do find it very interesting that after 2000 years of formaing the canon of the bible, then studying and teaching it, there is next to no definitive interpretations of scriptural passages. Surely this makes it difficult to tell other christians, who use the scriptures to say x y or z which is not what catholics believe, that they are wrong, or interpreting the passages wrongly?

I could almost seem like not wanting to commit, lest further down the line you might be in a position you can no longer defend, if that makes sense.

I think it also means, even if my atheist friend agrees from the christian perspective, people can be damned in the absence of salvation, in the story above, God is still seen as a bad tempered tyrant, quick to strike down dead a man for nothing more than stumbling. Because according to what youve just said, they CAN, if they wish, say that story is literally true!

Sarah x

Have you considered the understanding inspired in scripture that goes beyond the mere Literal or allegorical? How about mystical and/or supernatural understanding that only the Holy Spirit can impart. I would think the supernatural essence of scripture is the least thought of or for that matter sought after. It is given to the humble whom God chooses.
All scripture has a supernatural essence.

 

[atheistgirl]

I would think the supernatural essence of scripture is the least thought of or for that matter sought after. It is given to the humble whom God chooses.
All scripture has a supernatural essence.

And isnt this precicely what those breakaway sects claim - they are all inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet they have beliefs and practices that do not agree with the catholic church - whih leads to another atheistic retort, namely, how can all these people be inspired by the same Holy Spirit?

If the church had clearly defined the meaning of the scripture, then it would be clear - but as it hasnt, Im not sure how anyone can tell anyone else theyre wrong

Sarah x

 

[TimothyH]

And isnt this precicely what those breakaway sects claim - they are all inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet they have beliefs and practices that do not agree with the catholic church - whih leads to another atheistic retort, namely, how can all these people be inspired by the same Holy Spirit?

If the church had clearly defined the meaning of the scripture, then it would be clear - but as it hasnt, Im not sure how anyone can tell anyone else theyre wrong

Sarah x

Given your question, the differnce between the breakaway sects and Catholics with regard to scrpture is threefold.

First, if a Catholic checks his understanding against the teaching of the Church, and finds that the Church says that their intperetation is incorrect, the Catholic must abandon his intepretation, and admit that he was wrong. Other sects don’t do that. They can just say that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Second, intepretation based on authoritative Church teaching is based on the fact that the Holy Spirit does not inspire individuals into infallible interpretation. The Holy Spirit insprires the teaching office of the Church into infallible intepretation. Individuals may, at any given time, be part of the magesterium, but the gift of infalliblity is a gift to the Church, not to individuals.

Third, the Church is not in the business of catagorizing each verse and telling everyone what each particular verse means. That is not how Catholicism operates. Each verse has a context, an audience to whom it was written, and a time and place which it references. The Church teaches ideas, and doctrines, not verses. Verses are like nuts and bolts which hold the Chapters of scripture together. The chapters are the parts which make up each book, like the engine and the transmission. Each book is part of the whole machine, which can’t operate without the other parts, steering, engine, transmission, suspension, interior, lighting - all the books make up the Bible as a whole, and it all serves the human, the driver, go get him to his desitnation, heaven.

Telling you what an individual verse means is like giving you a fan belt and sending you off on a trip. You won’t get very far. We are not about individual verses. Individual verses are not the end, they are just the begininng, and they serve a greater purpose, to teach us the ideas of God on how to get to heaven. That is how Catholicism operates.

-Tim-

 

[fhansen]

I referenced a passage in Job in another thread, as an example of a passage in the Bible I have trouble with. You will no doubt be aware that many atheists much more biblically informed than me, have a whole armoury of passages they can cite to evidence brutality, anger, lust, rape, polygomy slavery human sacrifice etc etc as being morally approved of by God, if not directly commanded by Him.

My question is this - has the church categorically defined what parts of scripture are literally and historically true and what parts are supposed to be taken as an allegory or a morality tale or whatever.

Sarah x

The Church defines our faith, and in so doing, she defines the nature of God insofar as it’s been revealed to her. And that revelation describes a God of reason, justice, and, most importantly, love. Very few individual passages of scripture have been definitively interpreted. My own opinion about many Old Testament stories is that they reflect the understanding of the Jews at the time-based on their level of “spiritual maturity” and knowledge of God, often, presumably, to support an agenda of their own (an all-too-common reason) -and not necessarily the truth as to His nature or will.

 

[atheistgirl]

Given your question, the differnce between the breakaway sects and Catholics with regard to scrpture is threefold.

First, if a Catholic checks his understanding against the teaching of the Church, and finds that the Church says that their intperetation is incorrect, the Catholic must abandon his intepretation, and admit that he was wrong. Other sects don’t do that. They can just say that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Right. I can see this. Except the church hasnt defined what the scriptures mean, definitively, so how can it say someones interpretation is wrong.

Second, intepretation based on authoritative Church teaching is based on the fact that the Holy Spirit does not inspire individuals into infallible interpretation. The Holy Spirit insprires the teaching office of the Church into infallible intepretation. Individuals may, at any given time, be part of the magesterium, but the gift of infalliblity is a gift to the Church, not to individuals.

Right. I can understand this. However, I now have to ask, if the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into infallible interpretation, why has the church not simply published what these infallible interpretations are - thats the bit I dont understand

Third, the Church is not in the business of catagorizing each verse and telling everyone what each particular verse means.

I dont quite follow why it wouldnt do this

Telling you what an individual verse means is like giving you a fan belt and sending you off on a trip.

That was too funny

That is how Catholicism operates.

Ok. But how does an individual catholic read the Bible then when the church doesnt teach the catholic what the verses mean - in a difinitive sense

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

My own opinion about many Old Testament stories is that they reflect the understanding of the Jews at the time-based on their level of “spiritual maturity” and knowledge of God, often, presumably, to support an agenda of their own (an all-too-common reason) -and not necessarily the truth as to His nature or will.

I can definately see the nation building element of the OT as ‘‘an agenda’’ political - not spiritual, and how ideas of divinity could be misused in this context.

Seeing as God appeared to several people, and worked great miracles in the OT and His voice seemed to be heard by all of the prophets, and whole nations witnessed miracles and they were given the commandments, I dont quite understand how they could be spiritually immature It seems to me they had an awesome advantage over even people of today.

Sarah x

 

[dandingo]

…I dont quite follow why it wouldnt do this …

…Ok. But how does an individual catholic read the Bible then when the church doesnt teach the catholic what the verses mean - in a difinitive sense

Sarah x

Hi Sarah,

My dad has studied the bible most of his life and always has something interesting to say.

**1 Kings 4:32 **states this …“and he (Solomon) spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.”

But in the book of Proverbs there are only about 1000 Proverbs. My dad told me that when asked why the numbers don’t add up, the Jews responded that each Proverb has at least 3 meanings. I have found that much of the bible is similar to this.

 

[beehumble]

Thanks for your reply. I’m not sure it helps, in this sense: Imagine I want to take on a particular atheistic argument such as, the claim that God is bad tempered and easily angered - two very human traits not worthy of a deity. Let’s say the scripture quoted to prove the case is the example of when God struck down the poor guy carrying the arc of the covenant for stumbling and touching it. No mercy, no understanding, no sympathy - just instant vindictive retribution.

Now, I come along and I say nope, youre reading that wrong, it’s not meant to be read literally, it’s meant as … whatever …

The person Im debating with say, right then, show me the church documents that say this is not literally true - and from whats being said, there are none!

This atheist is perfectly right, according to the church, to read the verse literally.

Similarly with slaughtering the amelikites, taking virgins, accepting human sacrifice etc etc - Im sure youve heard them all before.

Without a definitive statement from the church, it defeats any argument that a literal reading of the Bible is not the way to understand the message of the inspired word.

Can you see what Im trying to say here?

Sarah x

Actually, in a way, you are showing why sola scriptura is impossible. There must be a Magesterium, a teaching body, to help us wade through the verses and steer us on the right path so we stay on course to knowing what God wanted to tell us. Without this guidance, it is impossible to stay on course, hence the thousands of Protestant denominations with thousands of ‘truths’, all different. Peter warned about this.

God bless you.