Old Testament Myths

[grannymh]

CCC283The question of the origin of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms, and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”

Humani Generis, Encyclical, Pope Pius XII, 1950

 

[grannymh]

So I belong to a little group and we get together to discuss scripture and stuff right after Mass on Wednesdays. Anyway, so during our discussions once I brought up some of the things about Job. Which I was told that the book of Job was just a story told as an example, it never really happened.

In another discussion I brought up Noah and the flood which I was flat out told the flood was a complete myth, it never happened.

Finally and what got me to write this to see what you guys say, I was told that they wished they could part me from my “fundamentalism” and that the Catholic Church really leans left on all these things. Now I’m not exactly sure what that means but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a compliment and I’m not even sure what leaning left on these things could possibly mean. What really gets me is it is two older women, one of them being a religion teacher for decades, that are kind of spear heading all this.

So what is the story? Is the OT a myth? Is it simply a bunch of bed time stories to teach us lessons? What’s the deal…?

(For the record I believe in the OT, and the NT for that matter and no one can part me from that, but I am confused about what the Church teaches now, why these people would say things like that and what I should respond to them with)

Getting back to your post 1.

Do you have a specific “fundamentalist” question about the first three chapters of Genesis which address the dawn of human history? Lots of Scripture students do not like the dawn of human history saga because it flat out disturbs their scientific knowledge. Then there are the Scripture students who want the Divine Creator to be more like a human father.

 

[grannymh]

So I belong to a little group and we get together to discuss scripture and stuff right after Mass on Wednesdays. Anyway, so during our discussions once I brought up some of the things about Job. Which I was told that the book of Job was just a story told as an example, it never really happened.

In another discussion I brought up Noah and the flood which I was flat out told the flood was a complete myth, it never happened.

Finally and what got me to write this to see what you guys say, I was told that they wished they could part me from my “fundamentalism” and that the Catholic Church really leans left on all these things. Now I’m not exactly sure what that means but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a compliment and I’m not even sure what leaning left on these things could possibly mean. What really gets me is it is two older women, one of them being a religion teacher for decades, that are kind of spear heading all this.

So what is the story? Is the OT a myth? Is it simply a bunch of bed time stories to teach us lessons? What’s the deal…?

(For the record I believe in the OT, and the NT for that matter and no one can part me from that, but I am confused about what the Church teaches now, why these people would say things like that and what I should respond to them with)

The OT is huge in my humble opinion.

If you are looking for basic foundational Catholic doctrines, I would stay with, not move from, the first three informative chapters of Genesis.

 

[joemccarron]

Of course we believe all things are possible with God. That said there is a legitimate question whether the original authors/tellers of the Old Testament meant their stories to interpreted as literal events. This is why the church generally does not force us to accept one interpretation or another.

If you read the beginning of Luke where he talks of how he developed his account or the end of johns gospel you will see he intends the miracles to be there for the purpose of giving us reason to believe. The purpose and the methods of the Old Testament authors is not so clear. I mean if the author guided by the Holy Spirit never wanted the stories to be taken literally the church would be in error to teach that. It seems some people think the more literally the way they read the Bible the more holy they are. I’m not saying anyone here thinks that way but we should try to understand what the author is trying to convey. Often whether it is literally true or not is irrelevant. That is why as a catholic people often ask is this literal is that literal, and honestly I don’t really know or care.

But this does not mean truth is separate from reality. The Old Testament teaches us truly things like how our relationship with god is. And in reality that is our relationship.

I would ask other posters to think before just calling other people’s views juvenile. What are you trying to accomplish and what place does that have in reasoned discussion with adults?

 

[grannymh]

Of course we believe all things are possible with God. That said there is a legitimate question whether the original authors/tellers of the Old Testament meant their stories to interpreted as literal events. This is why the church generally does not force us to accept one interpretation or another.

If you read the beginning of Luke where he talks of how he developed his account or the end of johns gospel you will see he intends the miracles to be there for the purpose of giving us reason to believe. The purpose and the methods of the Old Testament authors is not so clear. I mean if the author guided by the Holy Spirit never wanted the stories to be taken literally the church would be in error to teach that. It seems some people think the more literally the way they read the Bible the more holy they are. I’m not saying anyone here thinks that way but we should try to understand what the author is trying to convey. Often whether it is literally true or not is irrelevant. That is why as a catholic people often ask is this literal is that literal, and honestly I don’t really know or care.

But this does not mean truth is separate from reality. The Old Testament teaches us truly things like how our relationship with god is. And in reality that is our relationship.

I would ask other posters to think before just calling other people’s views juvenile. What are you trying to accomplish and what place does that have in reasoned discussion with adults?

Currently, reasoned discussion is not possible because the proper terminology is not used.

For example. There are 50 chapters in the book of Genesis. First, there has to be agreement as to which chapters are to be included in the discussion. Next, the description of appropriate Catholic Doctrines has to be pinned down according to where, why, and source. Then, there has to be a clear distinction between the material world and spiritual world as used in the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth.

Finally, we can get to the legitimate question whether the original authors/tellers of the Old Testament meant that the first three amazing chapters of Sacred Scripture is to be interpreted as literal events. This requires examining actual verses which no one is willing to do.

 

[Tim_D]

Finally, we can get to the legitimate question whether the original authors/tellers of the Old Testament meant that the first three amazing chapters of Sacred Scripture is to be interpreted as literal events. This requires examining actual verses which no one is willing to do.

Like a broken record, you keep stating the same thing about this topic. Your conception of “literal” is not what most (or all) consider to be literal.

 

[grannymh]

Like a broken record, you keep stating the same thing about this topic. Your conception of “literal” is not what most (or all) consider to be literal.

And that stops the sun from rising in the morning?

 

[grannymh]

Some of the so-called literal events in the first three exciting chapters of Genesis are the base or foundation for some rather important doctrines in the Catholic Church.

This fact compels knowledge of Catholic doctrines as a primary element in reasonable discussion

 

[undead_rat]

So I belong to a little group and we get together to discuss scripture and stuff right after Mass on Wednesdays. Anyway, so during our discussions once I brought up some of the things about Job. Which I was told that the book of Job was just a story told as an example, it never really happened.

In another discussion I brought up Noah and the flood which I was flat out told the flood was a complete myth, it never happened.

Finally and what got me to write this to see what you guys say, I was told that they wished they could part me from my “fundamentalism” and that the Catholic Church really leans left on all these things. Now I’m not exactly sure what that means but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a compliment and I’m not even sure what leaning left on these things could possibly mean. What really gets me is it is two older women, one of them being a religion teacher for decades, that are kind of spear heading all this.

So what is the story? Is the OT a myth? Is it simply a bunch of bed time stories to teach us lessons? What’s the deal…?

(For the record I believe in the OT, and the NT for that matter and no one can part me from that, but I am confused about what the Church teaches now, why these people would say things like that and what I should respond to them with)

It is my understanding that many different cultures have ancient flood legends. Therefore I believe that some kind of world-wide flooding disaster actually happened,
Furthermore, our Sacred Teacher has told us that Scripture cannot be broken.

I would like to point out, if I may, a long-standing contradiction in Scripture. In Genesis 8:21 YHWH says that He will never again cause any world-wide disaster comparable to the Flood which caused the death of almost all humans. But in Isaiah 66:15-16 and Jeremiah 25:32-33 we find predictions of just such an event. How can that be possible without violating YHWH’s stipulation of Genesis 8:21?

In the 21st century we finally have a resolution to this dilemma. It is not any “act of God” that causes the next global event. Man has built enough nuclear weapons to bring about the predicted global disaster without any help at all from our Creator.

 

[grannymh]

Looks like there are literal Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three inviting chapters of Genesis in the Old Testament. We can start at the non-myth description in Genesis1: 1.

 

[ericc]

Furthermore, our Sacred Teacher has told us that Scripture cannot be broken.

I’d like to add that the NT mentioned Noah in several places. Significantly in 2 Peter 2:5, Peter quoted the flood and its destruction. If the liquid destruction didn’t happen, Peter would be lying. This is post-Pentecost and the Holy Spirit is working full time teaching . I like to think the HS is teaching correctly since he was there and those pushing for a symbolic interpretation are not. And I won’t dare to offend the Holy Spirit by calling him a liar.

I would like to point out, if I may, a long-standing contradiction in Scripture. In Genesis 8:21 YHWH says that He will never again cause any world-wide disaster comparable to the Flood which caused the death of almost all humans. But in Isaiah 66:15-16 and Jeremiah 25:32-33 we find predictions of just such an event.

There is no contradiction in Isaiah nor Jeremiah. God promised no more destruction by flooding, not that there is no more destruction. Isaiah is destruction by fire, Jeremiah something else. If you look at Revelations, we know there will be massive destruction, but not my massive flooding.

 

[daverod]

In another discussion I brought up Noah and the flood which I was flat out told the flood was a complete myth, it never happened.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

Flood Legends From Around the World

The Ancients Knew of the Global Flood (related article)
Comparisons of Stories from Several Countries
Descriptions of Several of Flood Legends
Links to Flood Legends
Quotes on Flood Legends
Noah’s Ark Homepage

“Perhaps the second most important historical account of a global flood can be found in a Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. When the Biblical and Babylonian accounts are compared, a number of outstanding similarities are found that leave no doubt these stories are rooted in the same event or oral tradition.”

BABYLONIAN BIBLE
Take the seed of all creatures aboard the ship Gen. 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall
bring.
I boarded the ship and closed the door. Gen. 7:1 Come into the Ark
Gen. 7:16 The Lord shut him in.

I sent out a dove . . . The dove went, then came back, no resting-place appeared for it, so it returned.
Gen. 8:8 He sent out a dove…But the dove found no
resting-place . . . and she returned.

Then I sent out a raven . .it was the waters receding, it ate, it flew about to and fro, it did not return.
Gen. 8:7 He sent out a raven, which kept going to and
fro until the waters had dried up from the Earth.

I made a libation on the peak of the mountain. Gen. 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord (on the mountain) and offered burnt offerings.

Africa
Southwest Tanzania
Once upon a time the rivers began to flood. The god told two people to get into a ship. He told them to take lots of seed and to take lots of animals. The water of the flood eventually covered the mountains. Finally the flood stopped. Then one of the men, wanting to know if the water had dried up let a dove loose. The dove returned. Later he let loose a hawk which did not return. Then the men left the boat and took the animals and the seeds with them.

 

[ericc]

It is very dangerous to claim Noah’s Flood is a myth when it is corroborated by God himself. Specifically in Mat 24:37-38/Luk 17:26-27 where Jesus talks about Noah, the flood, the ark, the destruction. An ordinary person may think something is a myth, fairy tale etc i.e. such as a Cinderella story used to illustrate the wicked stepmother/daughters, because he knows not the truth. But when God says it, believe it. There is no need for God to resort to myths to illustrate something. God is my backup. For those non-believers of the Flood, where is your backup? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But when folks start labeling OT events as myths merely because the couldn’t find physical or historical evidence, they have started on the path to materialism and basically challenging the Word of God as unsupported by “facts”. The Bible is a collection of nice and ugly stories, warts and all. Accept it as it is and refrain from putting on a marketing gloss on it. You can’t change an iota of it. If one wants to be a man of science, study science. If one wants to be a man of God, study the Word of God. If one desires logic, it is logical that not all historical events are evidenced by physical evidence purely just because of passage of time and things get hidden, destroyed, decayed, reconverted over time. Archaeologists understand that very well. If one day we find the Ark on Mt Ararat or some other mountain, will that change all atheists/Buddhist/Hindus to Abrahamic believers? I doubt it. It really really really will be very inconvenient to some if the ark were actually found as they would need to jettison their favourite conspiracy theories about religion.

And no, they won’t find evidence of dinosaurs on board the ark. God told Noah to board whatever animals he could get his hands on, not raise the dead.

 

[ericc]

The Catechism, which St. John Paul II declared to be a “sure norm” for the teaching of the faith, says this:

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

There you have it…the Magisterium tells us that Genesis uses FIGURATIVE language… its right there in the Catechism… this IS the mind of the Church. Period.

It only mentions Gen 3 and not the whole Genesis. There are only 24 verses here. Now you have to discern which part of Gen 3 a figurative meaning can be alluded and what alternate meaning is that. I don’t think it is free for all. Perhaps you may wish to identify which part ought to have other meanings? For example the words of God v14-19, is that all figurative or literal? I don’t see many permutations that will significantly change anything radically.

 

[Vico]

…So what is the story? Is the OT a myth? Is it simply a bunch of bed time stories to teach us lessons? What’s the deal…? …

From the Catechism, there are four senses of Scripture.

The senses of Scripture

• 115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
• 116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
• 117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[undead_rat]

YHWH’s specific statement in Genesis 8:21 is that He Himself would never again cause the death of every living thing on earth. The word “flood” is not mentioned in 8:21. However, 8:21 does not say that such a world-wide destruction would never happen again; it simply states that such a catastrophe would not be an act of God. Therefore floods, earthquakes, asteroid strikes, and such must be ruled out as these things are acts of God."

What is not ruled out by Genesis 8:21 is the effects of what man has created. My conclusion is that the disaster that is predicted by Scripture is global nuclear war.

 

[ericc]

YHWH’s specific statement in Genesis 8:21 is that He Himself would never again cause the death of every living thing on earth. The word “flood” is not mentioned in 8:21. However, 8:21 does not say that such a world-wide destruction would never happen again; it simply states that such a catastrophe would not be an act of God. Therefore floods, earthquakes, asteroid strikes, and such must be ruled out as these things are acts of God."

The last phrase of Gen 8:21 says “as I have done”. This point to the destruction by flooding. How can we confirm that reading? Gen 9:11 “never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth”.

Nuclear war or not, we do not know. Man can always devised weapons of even greater destruction than nuclear. Don’t underestimate our ingenuity. Biological and chemical weapons are very effective too. Perhaps they can invent weapons with nano this or quantum that, or electromagnetic wave blast widget that disrupt all your bodily electrical systems.

 

[HarryStotle]

Seeing as you simply don’t “get it,” I’ll ask this question: did Jesus have brothers and sisters? I don’t mean half brothers or step sisters; I mean 100% brothers and sisters. After all, scripture relates this to us:

[2] And when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were in admiration at his doctrine, saying: How came this man by all these things? and what wisdom is this that is given to him, and such mighty works as are wrought by his hands? [3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, **the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? **And they were scandalized in regard of him. [4] And Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and in his own house, and among his own kindred.

Scripture makes it clear. What do you say?

You might be interested in this.

 

[HarryStotle]

In brief, students of the first three sacred chapters of Genesis have to exercise their serious brain power. From what appears on the internet, there are not a lot of serious students.

You might be interested in Jordan Peterson’s series of talks on the Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories. At over 2 hours apiece, they are only for serious students.

See this playlist for the selection:


Click on the playlist icon just below the top left corner of the video panel for a drop down selection of the videos in the list.

Definitely not stealth Arianism.

 

[RobynP]

It is very dangerous to claim Noah’s Flood is a myth when it is corroborated by God himself. Specifically in Mat 24:37-38/Luk 17:26-27 where Jesus talks about Noah, the flood, the ark, the destruction. An ordinary person may think something is a myth, fairy tale etc i.e. such as a Cinderella story used to illustrate the wicked stepmother/daughters, because he knows not the truth. But when God says it, believe it. There is no need for God to resort to myths to illustrate something. God is my backup. For those non-believers of the Flood, where is your backup? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don’t think this follows at all. God in Exodus 20:11 says in six days he made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested, and that was why the Israelites were to rest on the sabbath. Does that mean we have to believe in a literal six day creation? No. God was pretty clearly appealing to the story of creation that the Israelites were already familiar with in order to reveal to them a deeper truth. (That rest and worship are essential)

So why couldn’t Jesus do the same thing with the story of the flood? Use a story all his listeners were familiar with to illustrate a truth? In this instance, he uses the story of the flood to showcase how sudden and unexpected the end of time will be.

I guess I’m just not seeing how it’s “dangerous” to deny the flood. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach such a binary view of scripture. Something can be not literal without being false. That God would reference a myth doesn’t make him a liar.

FTR, I don’t deny that there could have been a worldwide flood. I definitely think there was some kind of catastrophic event in the Near East, since so many different cultures have a flood myth. But my faith isn’t dependent on it. The truth of the Resurrection isn’t affected by whether a flood really happened or not.