Old Testament Myths

[NonTimendum]

Sounds like you need to start at the beginning of biblical exegesis. Catholics are not fundamentalists that demand every word of scripture to be “true,” in the sense that things happened exactly as written. Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, is a collection of ancient texts written by a primitive people in a way that would be relatable to those of their time. To try and force that into a modern 21st century understanding of “fact vs. fiction” is to entirely miss the point.

In addition, one will never be able to comprehend the early parts of the Old Testament without a fundamental understanding of the ancient world, where it came from, how it developed and how the ancients thought. To simply “believe in” Noah and the flood or the literal existence of Adam and Eve in the garden is intellectually juvenile.

Yes, a primitive people. Toss out whatever you don’t like because honestly, who is this God character anyway? Where does He get off telling us different than the experts?

Original sin? Please. What a crock. That’s all just a symbol for inherent behavioral patterns. A way to explain purely psychological phenomena to an idiotic, drooling, half-monkey ancient people that didn’t have the sophisticated understanding of modern man. A global flood? Oh man, how childish can you get! Besides, a good God would never actually drown the entire world population for sinning. Focus on the message. Don’t pay any attention to the rain, it’ll stop soon enough.

Look we’re all too intelligent to believe in this silly Scripture anymore. Give us scientific things. That’s modern. That’s sophisticated. That’s the real stuff. Toss out all those silly fables and just hurry up and realize it’s all a rude joke. Inerrant? Please. It’s a buffet. Take what you want and toss out the rest.

As a great man once said:

What is Truth?

 

[Tim_D]

Yes, a primitive people. Toss out whatever you don’t like because honestly, who is this God character anyway? Where does He get off telling us different than the experts?

Original sin? Please. What a crock. That’s all just a symbol for inherent behavioral patterns. A way to explain purely psychological phenomena to an idiotic, drooling, half-monkey ancient people that didn’t have the sophisticated understanding of modern man. A global flood? Oh man, how childish can you get! Besides, a good God would never actually drown the entire world population for sinning. Focus on the message. Don’t pay any attention to the rain, it’ll stop soon enough.

Look we’re all too intelligent to believe in this silly Scripture anymore. Give us scientific things. That’s modern. That’s sophisticated. That’s the real stuff. Toss out all those silly fables and just hurry up and realize it’s all a rude joke. Inerrant? Please. It’s a buffet. Take what you want and toss out the rest.

As a great man once said:

What is Truth?

Congratulations; you’ve missed the point completely.

 

[NonTimendum]

Well that’s just it. What is the point? No real Adam so no real sin. No real Noah so no real covenant. No real Moses so no real chosen people. No real chosen people so no real prophets. No real prophets so no real prophecy. No real prophecy so no real Christ. Jesus was a teacher, a philosopher, a healer. All this base literalism really just muddies the pure spiritual value of the thing.

Satan doesn’t lie sometimes. Satan lies all the time. Ask yourself why you would rather believe the words of men rather than the Word. And realize this is nothing new. Men have been too modern for all these nursery tales for well over two thousand years now.

 

[Tim_D]

Ask yourself why you would rather believe the words of men rather than the Word.

Does that include the Church, too? Because the Church does not teach biblical exegesis in the way that you do.

It is a bizarre point of view to think that if there wasn’t literally a talking snake in a garden thousands of years ago, then somehow Jesus isn’t God and everything comes tumbling down from there.

 

[James248]

I really could care less about what atheist believe.

I fail to see how a fundamentalist belief/disbelief in the early chapters of Genesis either sustains or disproves the resurrection as a real event. Why do you some of you guys believe that belief in every word of scripture is an “all of nothing” dilemma?

Why should it be “wrong?” I fail to see the correlation. You are making my point perfectly. You hold on to a fundamentalist belief in scripture like a dog with a bone when even the Church does not teach such a position. Have you never read what Pope Benedict wrote about the literal interpretation of scripture? Brace yourself, but he would align himself with my position more than he would with yours.

What you demean as a fundamentalist interpretation was held by Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor. So if he were on this forum he’d agree with me more so than you.

It’s pretty touching you call me a fundamentalist for simply taking the words of Scripture at face-value.

 

[Tim_D]

What you demean as a fundamentalist interpretation was held by Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor. So if he were on this forum he’d agree with me more so than you.

It’s pretty touching you call me a fundamentalist for simply taking the words of Scripture at face-value.

As wonderful as Thomas Aquinas is, his view is not the one held by the Church. In fact, very little of his work has been appropriated as official Church teaching.

And yes, your view is one of biblical fundamentalism that is not supported by the Church. Now why do you think that is?

 

[James248]

As wonderful as Thomas Aquinas is, his view is not the one held by the Church. In fact, very little of his work has been appropriated as official Church teaching.

And yes, your view is one of biblical fundamentalism that is not supported by the Church. Now why do you think that is?

It’s more accurate to say the Church doesn’t HAVE a view other than that the events in Genesis describe parts of our human history. All must affirm God created the universe and that man sinned and fell from grace.

 

[Tim_D]

It’s more accurate to say the Church doesn’t HAVE a view other than that the events in Genesis describe parts of our human history. All must affirm God created the universe and that man sinned and fell from grace.

And who has denied that? But where does the Church state that genesis is literal and must be taken to the letter?

 

[NonTimendum]

Does that include the Church, too? Because the Church does not teach biblical exegesis in the way that you do.

It is a bizarre point of view to think that if there wasn’t literally a talking snake in a garden thousands of years ago, then somehow Jesus isn’t God and everything comes tumbling down from there.

I’m gonna turn this around on you, when did the Church ever say that Genesis was just a myth with good morals?

It’s a pretty bizarre point of view that denying everything that lead up to the historical Resurrection isn’t going to color the view of the Resurrection. It’s a pretty bizarre point of view that God decided to make up a bunch of stories out of thin air instead of telling the truth. It’s a pretty bizarre point of view that atheistic scientists are more trustworthy than the Inerrant word of God.

 

[Tim_D]

I’m gonna turn this around on you, when did the Church ever say that Genesis was just a myth with good morals?

The Church has never said that, scholars do not say that and I do not say that. You don’t don’t even comprehend the topic. You do not know a true “myth” is other than the elementary idea that it is just a made up story. You do not do yourself nor other Catholics any good by steadfastly holding on to a position that is not Catholic. Even Wikipedia understands the subject better than you:

"A myth can be a collectively held belief that has no basis in fact. This usage, which is often pejorative,[11] arose from labeling the religious myths and beliefs of other cultures as incorrect, but it has spread to cover non-religious beliefs as well.[12] Because of this popular and subjective word usage, many people take offense when the narratives they believe to be true are called myths.
To the source culture a myth by definition is “true”, in that it embodies beliefs, concepts and ways of questioning to make sense of the world."

 

[NonTimendum]

To the source culture a myth by definition is “true”, in that it embodies beliefs, concepts and ways of questioning to make sense of the world."

Wow, that looks a lot like:

Genesis was just a myth with good morals

But I guess I’m just not sophisticated enough to tell the difference between the various shades of truth. Fifty shades too dark for me, I guess.

You do not know a true “myth” is other than the elementary idea that it is just a made up story.

Wait, so it is a made-up story?

You do not do yourself nor other Catholics any good by steadfastly holding on to a position that is not Catholic.

Well, I guess I’ll have to ask again:

When did the Catholic Church ever say that Genesis was a collection of myths with good morals?

 

[Tim_D]

Well, I guess I’ll have to ask again:

When did the Catholic Church ever say that Genesis was a collection of myths with good morals?

Good grief. I’ve already told you that the Church has never said such a things. Then I guess I can ask you, when did the Church say that Genesis is a literal, historical work chronicling the early history of the world?

 

[Tim_D]

But I guess I’m just not sophisticated enough to tell the difference between the various shades of truth. Fifty shades too dark for me, I guess.

Finally, we both agree on something.

 

[NonTimendum]

Good grief. I’ve already told you that the Church has never said such a things. Then I guess I can ask you, when did the Church say that Genesis is a literal, historical work chronicling the early history of the world?

So then why did you say that the Catholic position was that it is a myth with good morals?

 

[Tim_D]

So then why did you say that the Catholic position was that it is a myth with good morals?

I believe those are your words, not mine. If you are referring to this quote,* “To the source culture a myth by definition is “true”, in that it embodies beliefs, concepts and ways of questioning to make sense of the world,”* then it is obvious you don’t even comprehend the subject.

 

[Thom18]

On a different note this event is much harder to understand:
The prophet Isaiah then called on YHWH who made the shadow [of the sun] go back ten steps on the steps of Ahaz. 2 Kings 20:11

Most scholars dismiss this event as “impossible” as it would require the entire universe to be instantaneously set back in time by several hours.
But as the saying goes, “Is the arm of YHWH so short?” I would suggest being very careful about dismissing OT events as “myth” or “impossible.”

I remember reading that verse last year. I never considered that God would have “had to” set the universe back in time or anything like that. I figured He shortened the shadow, and that was that. Nothing extra needed.

 

[reggieM]

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)

A couple of thoughts:

1. You could point out that they need to open their minds to different perspectives.
2. You could ask for equal time to proclaim the truth of your views.
3. You can find and share an abundance of Catholic material to support your viewpoint and which would conflict with theirs (exegesis on these matters is non-dogmatic).
4. You could ask them to defend their views from Denzinger or Ott or other dogmatic sources.
5. … you could find another little group that would be more supportive of your belief (which is fully justified)

 

[DebChris]

I knew a priest years ago who always used humor in his conversations.
One of his jokes was about a man talking to God.
He begins by asking God about time.
God replies, “A million years is but a second.”
The man goes further and asks about money.
“A million dollars is but a penny.”
So the man asks God for a million dollars.
God answers, “Sure, wait a second.”

What is important when reading scripture is to understand the truth of the message, and not to quibble about details. Each book was written for a particular audience. God inspired a human to write for a particular audience at a particular time. As Chesterton rightly points out, Genesis does not say that the snake in the Garden of Eden is Satan. Still even the most fundamentalist and literal reader understands the symbolism.
I have always understood that Eve meant First Woman and Adam meant First Man. As you continue to read the Old Testament, you will find it written that a thousand years is but a day in God’s eyes. Is there a contradiction between the world being created in seven literal days, and what is written later? Can Catholics accept that God may have used evolutionary means to create the world without losing faith that He is in fact the Creator of the world? As we are reminded in Job, I was not there when God created the world.
Does it matter whether or not Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale? What is the message of the story? Ninevah repented of its sin. God in His mercy spared Ninevah.

I often think of the children’s story of the “Little Engine That Could.” A child does not need to believe that a train full of toys actually climbed a hill to understand the story. The child understands the lesson of not giving up.

Yes, God made man. Man sinned and that sin is a reality. We are incapable of our own salvation. Christ died on the cross that we might enjoy the original grace of original man and original woman.

 

[thistle]

My understanding is that flood myths are found in many cultures. In addition, our Teacher mentioned the Flood and also said that Scripture cannot be broken.
Therefore, the idea that Flood was a real event seems plausible to me, and I cannot understand how the Catholic Church could fail to endorse it.
CCC 1094 and 1296 refer to the Flood and do not say that it never happened or that we have a choice as to whether or not to think that it actually took place.

On a different note this event is much harder to understand:
The prophet Isaiah then called on YHWH who made the shadow [of the sun] go back ten steps on the steps of Ahaz. 2 Kings 20:11

Most scholars dismiss this event as “impossible” as it would require the entire universe to be instantaneously set back in time by several hours.
But as the saying goes, “Is the arm of YHWH so short?” I would suggest being very careful about dismissing OT events as “myth” or “impossible.”

We do have a choice. Catholics are allowed to believe or not believe in the global flood.

Also have a look at the comments of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is an extract about the Flood:

“* [6:5–8:22] The story of the great flood is commonly regarded as a composite narrative based on separate sources woven together. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned 6:5–8; 7:1–5, 7–10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22–23; 8:2b–3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22. The other sections are usually attributed to the Priestly writer. There are differences between the two sources: the Priestly source has two pairs of every animal, whereas the Yahwist source has seven pairs of clean animals and two pairs of unclean; the floodwater in the Priestly source is the waters under and over the earth that burst forth, whereas in the Yahwist source the floodwater is the rain lasting forty days and nights. In spite of many obvious discrepancies in these two sources, one should read the story as a coherent narrative.** The biblical story ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood, preserved in the Sumerian flood story, the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic, and (embedded in a longer creation story) the Atrahasis Epic.**”

 

[PJM]

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

Its good that your discussing our Faith, but you may wish to find another group

Dating from the OT times the bible is some 4,000 years old, which has great importance on HOW it was authored:

2Tim.3 : 16 to 17
[16**] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work"

The HS Inspired Authors included all and ONLY what they were INSPIRED to include, so a BASE essential- Lesson is that everything that is in the bible; is there because GOD desired that it be included.

Job is an allegory; with several very important MORAL teachings:

God remains
in charge

Satan is real and powerful

Faith is a GIFT from God and is always rewarded; all though NOT always in the time and manner WE would have it. … FAITH and its inner peace is its OWN reward

Mortal men cannot outdo God’s Mercy and love for each of us …

One;s first reading of the bible ought to be from a literal understanding perspective as that is by far the most common intent of the Authors; but many other forms are employed as well. … Allegorical and Metaphorical STORIES are too fluently employer to TEACH a moral lesson.

Noah is too a STORY retold, but GOOGLE “Scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark”, … there appears some evidence does exist to support the base biblical recounting

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…?

I’m a bit surprised that Genesis and STORY of Creation was not included in the list.

While much of the OT is in various STORY forms as that was the method at THAT time and place for passing on religious teachings; there is also much history and many clear MORAL teachings: the 10 Commandments for example.

So it is at GREAT risk and self- inflicted peril for anyone to brush off ANYTHING that is in the bible. It is FAR more prudent to seek the very long taught UNDERSTANDINGS that that RCC has passed on to us.

(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)

You’re position is a very PRUDENT one.

GBY

Patrick