'My Story'

  • Thread starter Thread starter davidn87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the last few days I’ve got over all objections I had to Catholicism - but this new issue, that things in the Bible aren’t true…
As has been mentioned, since the bible is neither a science book, nor a history book, (although it does have verifiable history in it), it must not be looked at that way. It teaches the principles of our relationship with God. Those principles are always true and never change.

I am thinking that a good book to help you in this regard would be Inside the Bible, by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. It gives an overview of each of the 73 books of the bible, providing pertinent details such as date, place, author, theological content, a summary, etc. I find it very useful, as it also notes that God speaks using many different methods.
 
David,

You ask how you can put stock in the whole when a part is ‘not true’.

Nobody said it wasn’t true - Apologies for the confusion.

Nobody here was there either, so we use our common sense and our sources that point us in the logical direction. Like the points above about the reaction of the apostles. If it was all fake, we would never have heard of them.

Even if someone was there to record how it happened in the beginning, consider this - How you and I make a fire, would be different than how God make’s a fire. So the writer at the time would still look like a nut and not be believed.
 
But if it’s ‘divinely inspired’ then why would God have Moses write a pack of lies for 11 chapters?

On another topic; What of the Christian music I listen to? Songs like Saviour’s Here by Kari Jobe, Revelation Song by Gateway Worship, or the ‘Pop-y’ stuff like The Lost Get Found by Britt Nicole or Sing Sing Sing by Chris Tomlin - are these ‘Biblical’ or should I avoid it all?
 
But if it’s ‘divinely inspired’ then why would God have Moses write a pack of lies for 11 chapters?
How is Genesis 1 a lie? I’m assuming one of two things is true. You either think it’s a literal week of creation or you think scientists are right with the Big Bang. On a side note, it was first theorized by Father Georges Lemaître.

Young-Earth: You think Genesis is literal and true, and therefore not a “pack of lies”
Old-Earth:
-“Let there be light” → Big Bang
-Sky → Eventual formation of the Earth
-Land and seas → Eventual gathering of water on Earth and the formation of dry land
-Sun and moon → Okay, so this is the ONLY one that’s out of order.
–Sidenote: How can days have been marked by the Sun if it wasn’t created until the fourth day?
-Fish and birds → Life DID begin in the sea…
-Land animals → Came next
-Man → Came next

Point is, it actually does follow the scientific account quite nicely (or should it be the other way around?)
 
I have always taken it to mean exactly what it says; *this *happened on *that *day, and *that *happened on *that *day. Where this interpreting it as anything other than actual days comes from, I don’t know!
 
I have always taken it to mean exactly what it says; *this *happened on *that *day, and *that *happened on *that *day. Where this interpreting it as anything other than actual days comes from, I don’t know!
Let me try:

It is our human minds and intellect. We associate a day now to be 24 hours, because that is what we know and have been conditioned to think of a day in the Bible as a literal 24 hour period.

Back then, they had no clocks. And God has a different clock and is outside of time.

A day to God maybe 100 years or 1000 yrs of earth time for us. So when the Bible says a day in the genesis account…was it a day per God’s time?

And in addition, this is one of the reasons why the CC has a Magisterium, a teaching authority…to sort this out for us, these difficult passages like this.

Hope this helps.
 
I have always taken it to mean exactly what it says; *this *happened on *that *day, and *that *happened on *that *day. Where this interpreting it as anything other than actual days comes from, I don’t know!
Well this is where you can run into confusion. As another poster mentioned, the Bible is not one book, but 73 books, letters, proverbs, poems, etc, etc,etc. Each book of the Bible is different. They are written in different styles, to different audiences, with different intended messages.

Let’s look at Acts. It is a very specific, blow-by-blow account of the actions of the early Church. Now take a look at the book of Revelation. It is a book written detailing the metaphysical, mystical experience given to the Apostle John. Their style of writing is wildly different. The same is true for all the books.

Genesis has portions which are written in an allegorical style, which convey they intended message through non-literalistic means. Just as if I were to tell you that it is raining cats and dogs outside, are animals falling from the sky? Nope. I am COMPLETELY TRUTHFULLY telling you that it is raining very hard. Same goes for the two creation accounts in Genesis. You are still free to believe the world was created in 6 literal days, and you are free to believe the earth is billions of years old, the Church has not declared one way or the other. The COMPLETE TRUTH that you must accept is that all of creation was created by God, out of nothing, and He did so in an orderly manner with a plan for everything.

I hope this helps.
 
A day to God maybe 100 years or 1000 yrs of earth time for us. So when the Bible says a day in the genesis account…was it a day per God’s time
[BIBLEDRB]Psalm 90:4[/BIBLEDRB]

A day to God is not necessarily a day to us. Also, the Sun wasn’t even created until the 4th day, so how can the first three have even been solar days?

EDIT: Something’s up with the Bible tags. Psalm 90:4 should be “For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past. And as a watch in the night,” The quote in the box is Ps 91:4
 
I don’t mean any of the parables or ‘examples’. If the account of creation is not what really happened, how can anything else in the word of God be trusted? How can we know Jesus’ life and death happened exactly as it is said to have happened?

I cannot understand how one part can be said to be ‘myth’ or whatever without the rest going down with it. Who decides what really happened?
David,
Catholics are entitled to believe or not believe in the literalness of Genesis. It’s not really an all or nothing issue.
I personally do not believe in evolution, but that does not mean the early chapters of Genesis are to be seen as a kind of CNN eyewitness report.
These stories were based on facts, but they (the stories themselves) are myth and they are used to explain something. This is the way the Israelites and other people of the time used literary epic.

The great Biblical Scholar, Dr. Gerhard Von Rad describes the way that some scholars only analyse the historical veracity of the Torah as “historical materialism” in his book Genesis (Von Rad, G. Genesis (SCM Press, Bloomsbury, London, 1961) p.31) Designating this kind of narrative as “saga”, Von Rad explains that the expectation that the saga should either contain historical fact, or else it can be described as merely a product of poetic fantasy is an extremely crass misunderstanding of its essence. It is true, however, that this scepticism has been the attitude prevalent since the 19th Century. The saga then offers a product born of a completely different kind of intellectual activity from that of history (historie), although history (Geschichte) is what it is concerned with.

What then are these narratives? How can they be concerned with fact and yet not be tied to fact by their contents? Von Rad answers by stating:

“Whatever saga we examine, we find with respect to its simplest and most original purpose that it narrates an actual event that once and for all occurred in the realm of history. It is therefore to be taken quite seriously – it is to be believed. In all that follows, therefore, let us hold fast to this: by no means is a saga merely the product of poetic fantasy; rather it comprises the sum total of the living historical recollection of peoples. In it is mirrored in fact and truth the history of a people. It is the form in which a people thinks of its own history.” (Ibid)

The Old Testament sagas then are concerned with Israel itself and the realities the people of Israel found in themselves. In this way they contain a much more real history, a history with much more truth in it than a purely factual historical writing would. They contain the “secret contemporary character of apparently past events”.(Ibid) This character is more than a list of the achievements, wars, political struggles, victories and defeats experienced by a people. It takes place on another level and speaks of inner guidance working and maturing in life’s mysteries.
It is a history with God.
 
[BIBLEDRB]Psalm 90:4[/BIBLEDRB]

A day to God is not necessarily a day to us. Also, the Sun wasn’t even created until the 4th day, so how can the first three have even been solar days?

EDIT: Something’s up with the Bible tags. Psalm 90:4 should be “For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past. And as a watch in the night,” The quote in the box is Ps 91:4
DR has the psalms listed differently than other translations.

Psalms 23 in the DR is Psalms 24
 
David,
Catholics are entitled to believe or not believe in the literalness of Genesis. It’s not really an all or nothing issue.
I personally do not believe in evolution, but that does not mean the early chapters of Genesis are to be seen as a kind of CNN eyewitness report.
These stories were based on facts, but they (the stories themselves) are myth and they are used to explain something. This is the way the Israelites and other people of the time used literary epic.

The great Biblical Scholar, Dr. Gerhard Von Rad describes the way that some scholars only analyse the historical veracity of the Torah as “historical materialism” in his book Genesis (Von Rad, G. Genesis (SCM Press, Bloomsbury, London, 1961) p.31) Designating this kind of narrative as “saga”, Von Rad explains that the expectation that the saga should either contain historical fact, or else it can be described as merely a product of poetic fantasy is an extremely crass misunderstanding of its essence. It is true, however, that this scepticism has been the attitude prevalent since the 19th Century. The saga then offers a product born of a completely different kind of intellectual activity from that of history (historie), although history (Geschichte) is what it is concerned with.

What then are these narratives? How can they be concerned with fact and yet not be tied to fact by their contents? Von Rad answers by stating:

“Whatever saga we examine, we find with respect to its simplest and most original purpose that it narrates an actual event that once and for all occurred in the realm of history. It is therefore to be taken quite seriously – it is to be believed. In all that follows, therefore, let us hold fast to this: by no means is a saga merely the product of poetic fantasy; rather it comprises the sum total of the living historical recollection of peoples. In it is mirrored in fact and truth the history of a people. It is the form in which a people thinks of its own history.” (Ibid)

The Old Testament sagas then are concerned with Israel itself and the realities the people of Israel found in themselves. In this way they contain a much more real history, a history with much more truth in it than a purely factual historical writing would. They contain the “secret contemporary character of apparently past events”.(Ibid) This character is more than a list of the achievements, wars, political struggles, victories and defeats experienced by a people. It takes place on another level and speaks of inner guidance working and maturing in life’s mysteries.
It is a history with God.
Truth is we even have some stories or myths regarding some of our own historic heroes such as George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, Or David Crockett who “killed a bear when he was only three” Or Paul Bunyan who wasn’t even a real person.🤷
 
What is the problem with “Protestant” worship music? I’ve seen it called ‘heretical’ and all sorts!
 
Should I stop donating to ‘Protestant’ radio stations/ministries?
 
Should I stop donating to ‘Protestant’ radio stations?
Family Radio for sure, since it features that guy who keeps predicting the end of the world, Harold Camping. His theology is way off the charts.
 
I’ve done nothing for that particular station other than pray. I think the reaction to his predictions was really sad, I didn’t see anyone doing anything but condemn him, never saw anyone praying for him. He did apologize after all.

The stations I donate to are all here in the UK - Revival FM, Cross Rhythms, UCB. I also donate to The Christian Institute and Abort73.
 
I’ve done nothing for that particular station other than pray. I think the reaction to his predictions was really sad, I didn’t see anyone doing anything but condemn him, never saw anyone praying for him. He did apologize after all.

The stations I donate to are all here in the UK - Revival FM, Cross Rhythms, UCB. I also donate to The Christian Institute and Abort73.
Sorry I missed the part about him apologizing.
 
Harold Camping’s apology - christianpost.com/news/harold-camping-admits-hes-wrong-about-doomsday-predictions-full-statement-71008/

The more I read about Catholicism the more questions I have!

‘RCIA’ - I don’t get it, why do you have to wait so long before you can be baptised?

Can I go to mass before that?
You can go to daily Mass or Sunday Mass or both. If you decide to participate in RCIA it is recommended that you go to Sunday Mass.

RCIA is the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. These classes answer questions and inform you about the Catholic faith. The Church wants you but they want you as a faithful Catholic. I loved RCIA and was baptized into the Catholic Church in 2008. You’ll make friends in RCIA and become part of a parish.

You do not have to commit to becoming Catholic in RCIA but you will learn about the faith and then decide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top