Old Testament Myths

[USMC_Convert]

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)

 

[NonTimendum]

There are no myths in the OT.

First they said there was no real Adam and Eve. Then it was Noah who was fake. Then they said Moses didn’t really write the Pentateuch. Then they said Abraham wasn’t a real person. Then it was Exodus that was entirely made up. Then they said it was all actually taken from Babylonian captivity.

It isn’t about Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, Abraham, or even the Old Testament. It is always about the same thing: Jesus was not the Christ. He was not God. He did not resurrect and ascend into Heaven. The only reason they don’t start with that is because when they start with that, people instinctively resist it, and the historical evidence of Christ’s existence is too strong to eliminate. So they got wiser and they started small. Poke little holes in it here and there. Create the illusion that it’s important because it’s a good story with an important message but not meant to be taken literally.

Once they’ve got you convinced it’s all about the message and the story and the narrative, then they don’t even have to attack Jesus as a historical person. They can twist his “narrative” to mean whatever they want. And why bother reading to find out if they’re wrong or right? It’s all just myths and legends anyway. If his life isn’t important, but his words, then maybe he didn’t really mean it that way? Or maybe something was lost in translation? Or maybe he only said that because those people needed to hear it that way? Who knows what he really said. It’s the message that’s important.

And who interprets the message? Well, of course everyone has to decide that for themselves. Or better yet, listen to the academics who have studied that sort of thing. A few soundbites will do. Better not to get too hung up on all the details here. Just take the whole idea in a few small, easily digestible bites and move along. There’s no actual facts in the Bible anyway, and isn’t it honestly more beautiful that way? It’s not this old, dry, history book with all those uncomfortable realities… no, it’s just another collection of myths from a silly, uninformed, desert people. Science has done away with all that outdated nonsense anyway. You don’t want to be regressive do you? You know how that looks, right?

You want people to think you’re intelligent and modern, don’t you?

 

[Cathoholic]

USMC_Convert:

For the record I believe in the OT, and the NT

Sounds like you are on the right track to me USMC_Convert.

I’ve noticed your great posts too.

Keep up the excellent work:thumbsup:!

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[thistle]

Catholics are not required to believe in a global flood. They may or may not believe but the Church does not teach that such a flood ever happened.

 

[GEddie]

A flood covering thousands of miles, or two naked people talking to a snake, are far less unbelievable than someone rising from his grave.

If we allow the world to “mythologize” the first two, on what grounds will we defend the last?

ICXC NIKA

 

[jaimeleglise]

I thought that Noah’s Ark was found inTurkey.

I would prefer not to study with that group if it was I.

 

[myway]

Catholics are required to believe Adam and Eve existed. If the first people didn’t exist we could not have inherited original sin from them.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

There are no myths in the OT.

First they said there was no real Adam and Eve. Then it was Noah who was fake. Then they said Moses didn’t really write the Pentateuch. Then they said Abraham wasn’t a real person. Then it was Exodus that was entirely made up. Then they said it was all actually taken from Babylonian captivity.

It isn’t about Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, Abraham, or even the Old Testament. It is always about the same thing: Jesus was not the Christ. He was not God. He did not resurrect and ascend into Heaven. The only reason they don’t start with that is because when they start with that, people instinctively resist it, and the historical evidence of Christ’s existence is too strong to eliminate. So they got wiser and they started small. Poke little holes in it here and there. Create the illusion that it’s important because it’s a good story with an important message but not meant to be taken literally.

Once they’ve got you convinced it’s all about the message and the story and the narrative, then they don’t even have to attack Jesus as a historical person. They can twist his “narrative” to mean whatever they want. And why bother reading to find out if they’re wrong or right? It’s all just myths and legends anyway. If his life isn’t important, but his words, then maybe he didn’t really mean it that way? Or maybe something was lost in translation? Or maybe he only said that because those people needed to hear it that way? Who knows what he really said. It’s the message that’s important.

And who interprets the message? Well, of course everyone has to decide that for themselves. Or better yet, listen to the academics who have studied that sort of thing. A few soundbites will do. Better not to get too hung up on all the details here. Just take the whole idea in a few small, easily digestible bites and move along. There’s no actual facts in the Bible anyway, and isn’t it honestly more beautiful that way? It’s not this old, dry, history book with all those uncomfortable realities… no, it’s just another collection of myths from a silly, uninformed, desert people. Science has done away with all that outdated nonsense anyway. You don’t want to be regressive do you? You know how that looks, right?

You want people to think you’re intelligent and modern, don’t you?

You’re equating the word “myth” as meaning, in effect, “fake news.” The word “myth” has a whole other sense when used in connection with ancient stories. As a graduate-level Scripture professor once said in class, referring to the OT: “All stories are true, and some of them actually happened.”

 

[NonTimendum]

You’re equating the word “myth” as meaning, in effect, “fake news.” The word “myth” has a whole other sense when used in connection with ancient stories. As a graduate-level Scripture professor once said in class, referring to the OT: “All stories are true, and some of them actually happened.”

Divorce truth from reality, because then truth becomes an ethereal concept entirely up to the interpretation of the particular person who is experiencing it. Message is important, not the details. Don’t worry about conforming yourself to a hard and fast rule, because that detracts from the beautiful message.

Anyway, scientists have already determined that there is no objective truth. Quantum mechanics and chaos are then reality of existence. Meaning is my human sensational experience and outside of that entirely personal experience there is no truth. God has no point of view. We are God now.

 

[Tim_D]

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.

 

[undead_rat]

Catholics are not required to believe in a global flood. They may or may not believe but the Church does not teach that such a flood ever happened.

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.”

 

[James248]

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)

Yes. I encountered the same problem.

Ask them this question: Is anything POSSIBLE with God? So with God isn’t it possible that there was a global flood? And are the Extrodinary Form and Eastern Rite lectionaries wrong to commemorate Job on a certain day?

 

[Tim_D]

Anyway, scientists have already determined that there is no objective truth. Quantum mechanics and chaos are then reality of existence. Meaning is my human sensational experience and outside of that entirely personal experience there is no truth. God has no point of view. We are God now.

It is beyond me why you would think that scientific discoveries and understanding of the material universe somehow debunk metaphysical reality. God is not regulated by the motion of particles in an atom nor does the existence of that atom cancel the need for God. There have always been groups who decide to live without God; it is nothing new.

 

[Tim_D]

Most scholars dismiss this event as “impossible” as it would require the entire universe to be instantaneously set back in time by several hours.

No, most scholars do not feel the need to force everything mentioned into the bible as something that is scientifically explainable. Why would they even need to address this topic?

 

[Tim_D]

So with God isn’t it possible that there was a global flood?

That is a very juvenile, unsophisticated argument.

 

[James248]

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.

Kinda like atheists would say believing in the Ressurection is intellectually juvenile?

Are the Eastern Rite And Extrodinary Form lectionaries wrong to commemorate Job and Noah as saints?

 

[undead_rat]

No, most scholars do not feel the need to force everything mentioned into the bible as something that is scientifically explainable. Why would they even need to address this topic?

2 Kings 20:11 is discussed by many bible scholars, none of whom venture to propose that YHWH set the entire universe back in time by several hours. They maintain that the retraction of the shadow was some kind of localized anomaly and, therefore, “scientifically explainable” in some way.

As to why these scholars feel the need to address this subject, you will have to ask them. But it seems to me that addressing unusual Scripture events is just what they do.

 

[Tim_D]

Kinda like atheists would say believing in the Ressurection is intellectually juvenile?

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?

Are the Eastern Rite And Extrodinary Form lectionaries wrong to commemorate Job and Noah as saints?

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.

 

[Tim_D]

2 Kings 20:11 is discussed by many bible scholars, none of whom venture to propose that YHWH set the entire universe back in time by several hours. They maintain that the retraction of the shadow was some kind of localized anomaly and, therefore, “scientifically explainable” in some way.

As to why these scholars feel the need to address this subject, you will have to ask them. But it seems to me that addressing unusual Scripture events is just what they do.

And opinions on this subject, be they scientific or not, are worth exactly what you pay for them. If it makes you feel good to think that Kings 20:11 is an exact, literal description of an ancient event thousands of years ago, then great.

 

[Tim_D]

You’re equating the word “myth” as meaning, in effect, “fake news.” The word “myth” has a whole other sense when used in connection with ancient stories. As a graduate-level Scripture professor once said in class, referring to the OT: “All stories are true, and some of them actually happened.”

I’m afraid that you are speaking over the heads of some here. It is a pity that even in the realm of the Christian religion things (for some) tend to dissolve into liberal vs. conservative.