Old Testament Myths

[reggieM]

How is not believing in a literal reading of Genesis “kowtowing to atheists?”

If an atheist says, “Moses never existed” and the supposed believer says “true, it’s just a myth”, then you don’t have the Exodus. It’s just a fictional story.
Kowtowing to atheists means going along with their skepticism.
Atheists believe that no miracles occurred. A Christian who agrees that Genesis does not describe any miracles that ever actually occurred and that nobody should take any of Genesis literally is kowtowing.
After Genesis, why not the rest of the Old Testament?

 

[Tim_D]

If an atheist says, “Moses never existed” and the supposed believer says “true, it’s just a myth”, then you don’t have the Exodus. It’s just a fictional story.
Kowtowing to atheists means going along with their skepticism.
Atheists believe that no miracles occurred. A Christian who agrees that Genesis does not describe any miracles that ever actually occurred and that nobody should take any of Genesis literally is kowtowing.
After Genesis, why not the rest of the Old Testament?

Why do you guys go to the extreme? One can not accept the literalness of of the early chapters of Genesis without throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is the spiritual truths that are important, not the ancient stories that were used to convey them.

And is it too much to ask of those who are so offended by the word “myth” to actually look up the word and see what it means when it is used in a literary sense? It is amazing how much Catholicism in America today has absorbed protestant fundamentalism.

 

[reggieM]

Why do you guys go to the extreme? One can not accept the literalness of of the early chapters of Genesis without throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is the spiritual truths that are important, not the ancient stories that were used to convey them.

I know you’re very passionate about this. The people who deny all of the miracles of the bible do not think they’re “extreme” about it. Right, it’s not “just a myth”, but rather “the power of storytelling”. So it’s all positive here.
So, just a suggestion: Perhaps it’s best to explain exactly what miracles you don’t believe to be a myth - and why not?
I’ve heard a Catholic priest say that the parting of the Red Sea never happened, the feeding of the people with manna and quail was not miraculous, but just a natural phenomenon, Jesus did not walk on the water (it was a sandbar). Wise Men did not visit the manger, feeding of the 5,000 was sharing what people already had not a miracle - and more.
Is that your version of scriptural interpretation? Or do you have another one?

 

[Tim_D]

I know you’re very passionate about this. The people who deny all of the miracles of the bible do not think they’re “extreme” about it. Right, it’s not “just a myth”, but rather “the power of storytelling”. So it’s all positive here.
So, just a suggestion: Perhaps it’s best to explain exactly what miracles you don’t believe to be a myth - and why not?
I’ve heard a Catholic priest say that the parting of the Red Sea never happened, the feeding of the people with manna and quail was not miraculous, but just a natural phenomenon, Jesus did not walk on the water (it was a sandbar). Wise Men did not visit the manger, feeding of the 5,000 was sharing what people already had not a miracle - and more.
Is that your version of scriptural interpretation? Or do you have another one?

I’ve never declared any biblical miracle to not be “true.” I do recognize, however, that God’s miracles can often function in accord with nature, the miracle of manna being an excellent example. How are we to understand the nature of a miracle? Is it always God’s finger dictating precisely what He wants to occur (which can certainly be the case) or can it also be something much more sublime, like the conversion of a sinner who one day “gets it?” It is interesting to me that the Greek word that we translate as “miracle” is actually more correctly translated as “signs.” Ultimately, it becomes almost pointless to try and rationalize something that is metaphysical. When Jesus turned water into wine, there was no flash of lightening, no claps of thunder, no darkening of the sky; it simply became wine. It is the same with the forgiveness of sins in the confessional or transubstantiation during the Mass. They do not become something akin to a parlor trick. We cannot know or even hope to comprehend the nature of miracles. In the same way, we need to understand how the inspired authors of scripture determined the best way to convey their message. This idea of asking if one believes the bible to be “true” is pointless. There are many things in scripture that are literal and nonliteral. It doesn’t have to be a one or the other choice.

 

[Tim_D]

I’ve heard a Catholic priest say that the parting of the Red Sea never happened

Then he is very wrong. If he means that it never happened in the way that we think of it, like the scene in the Ten Commandments, then yes, he has a point. But there are far more nuanced ways of understanding what it means about the Hebrew nation “coming out” of Egypt and simply declaring that “this” never happened or “that” never happened is to miss the point entirely.

 

[grannymh]

Why do you guys go to the extreme? One can not accept the literalness of of the early chapters of Genesis without throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is the spiritual truths that are important, not the ancient stories that were used to convey them.

And is it too much to ask of those who are so offended by the word “myth” to actually look up the word and see what it means when it is used in a literary sense? It is amazing how much Catholicism in America today has absorbed protestant fundamentalism.

Please.
What are the “spiritual truths” in the very first and only first three definitive chapters of Genesis?

I am not interested in chapters 4 and following.

 

[Tim_D]

Please.
What are the “spiritual truths” in the very first and only first three definitive chapters of Genesis?

I am not interested in chapters 4 and following.

Are you really interested or are you simply baiting me? I ask because we’ve been through this many times before.

Simply put, the early chapters of Genesis relates these spiritual truths:

• the world, the universe and everything in it was a determined act of creation by God who created everything out of nothing.
• that God created man in His image, that is, as a spiritual being with an immortal soul as opposed to the animals of creation who are simply creatures and bestowed on him a natural dignity.
• that man, of his own will and volition, freely chose his own good instead of God’s will and by this action, wounded the original grace with which he was bestowed by God.
• that God has not abandoned mankind to forever be slaves to sin and cut off from what should have been his natural relationship with God.
• that in the early chapters of Genesis we already have the promise of a savior - Jesus Christ - who will redeem us and restore us to an unblemished relationship with God the father.

 

[grannymh]

Are you really interested or are you simply baiting me? I ask because we’ve been through this many times before.

Simply put, the early chapters of Genesis relates these spiritual truths:

• the world, the universe and everything in it was a determined act of creation by God who created everything out of nothing.
• that God created man in His image, that is, as a spiritual being with an immortal soul as opposed to the animals of creation who are simply creatures and bestowed on him a natural dignity.
• that man, of his own will and volition, freely chose his own good instead of God’s will and by this action, wounded the original grace with which he was bestowed by God.
• that God has not abandoned mankind to forever be slaves to sin and cut off from what should have been his natural relationship with God.
• that in the early chapters of Genesis we already have the promise of a savior - Jesus Christ - who will redeem us and restore us to an unblemished relationship with God the father.

Over the years, I have asked this question regarding spiritual truths. The question was either ignored or the answer was so general, it was practically useless.

You are the first person to answer in depth. Thank you sincerely.

 

[reggieM]

I’ve never declared any biblical miracle to not be “true.” I do recognize, however, that God’s miracles can often function in accord with nature, the miracle of manna being an excellent example. How are we to understand the nature of a miracle? Is it always God’s finger dictating precisely what He wants to occur (which can certainly be the case) or can it also be something much more sublime, like the conversion of a sinner who one day “gets it?” It is interesting to me that the Greek word that we translate as “miracle” is actually more correctly translated as “signs.” Ultimately, it becomes almost pointless to try and rationalize something that is metaphysical. When Jesus turned water into wine, there was no flash of lightening, no claps of thunder, no darkening of the sky; it simply became wine. It is the same with the forgiveness of sins in the confessional or transubstantiation during the Mass. They do not become something akin to a parlor trick. We cannot know or even hope to comprehend the nature of miracles. In the same way, we need to understand how the inspired authors of scripture determined the best way to convey their message. This idea of asking if one believes the bible to be “true” is pointless. There are many things in scripture that are literal and nonliteral. It doesn’t have to be a one or the other choice.

You accept that Jesus turned water into wine – so that’s good to know. As for other matters, you use your own interpretation, just as the rest of us do.

 

[reggieM]

Then he is very wrong. If he means that it never happened in the way that we think of it, like the scene in the Ten Commandments, then yes, he has a point. But there are far more nuanced ways of understanding what it means about the Hebrew nation “coming out” of Egypt and simply declaring that “this” never happened or “that” never happened is to miss the point entirely.

I guess so, but people say all sorts of things. Even Catholic priests. They’re not going to come to you for the correct answer. In the end, God left it to us to revere His Holy Word and He helps us gain understanding.

By the way, Protestant fundamentalists do not read Genesis in a way that is different than Catholics read it hundreds of years before there were any Protestants. So, they learned it from us. Historical criticism, form criticism and other mythologizing interpretations came from Protestants and modernists. Not saying that makes it right or wrong, just saying that calling an interpretation “fundamentalist” may not help anyone very much.

 

[Tim_D]

You accept that Jesus turned water into wine – so that’s good to know.

I can’t imagine why over the course of conversation that you would suspect that I didn’t. Is it the myth/literal/non-literal thing?

 

[reggieM]

I can’t imagine why over the course of conversation that you would suspect that I didn’t. Is it the myth/literal/non-literal thing?

Yes, exactly. I have no way of knowing what you interpret as non-literal.
For example, you state:

When Jesus turned water into wine, there was no flash of lightening, no claps of thunder, no darkening of the sky …

I will immediately conclude, upon the death of Jesus for our redemption, you do not believe that there was an earthquake, an eclipse of the sun and that the veil of the temple was miraculously split. Or do you? I’ve read enough of your posts over the years to think that you accept at least some Catholic doctrine - but I have no idea which parts of the Bible you read as literal and which not.

 

[grannymh]

I can’t imagine why over the course of conversation that you would suspect that I didn’t. Is it the myth/literal/non-literal thing?

Small question.

Is Adam, in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis, a literal blood and guts real human man?
Yes or no.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[DebChris]

Small question.

Is Adam, in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis, a literal blood and guts real human man?
Yes or no.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

Adam means “First man.” What is important about the creation story is that God is the creator of all. There is a difference between man and lower animals, even if a person accepts that God may have chosen to create using an evolutionary process, as scientists would have us believe. It was a monk who first discovered genetics. It is God who continues the creative process even now. Man and woman co-operate in that creative power to create a new person.
It is God who gave man his intellect and creative power, to control the environment. Man has been given stewardship over the environment. Man has been given power to tame animals. It is part of his dominion that God has given him.
I like the prayer from the LOTH, one of the intercession, that begins God “source of our science.”
Did the first man (Adam) and the first woman (Eve) sin, and fall from God’s grace? Yes. The sin is believing that they did not need God. They lost original grace. Original grace could only be restored by the Sacrifice of the cross.
As St. John Paul II writes in Theology of the Body, man only discovered that he was made in the image and likeness of God once woman was also created. Woman reflects man.

Scientific theories about how the world began will always remain theories that can never be proven. Nobody was around when God “laid the foundations of the earth.” Genetics has been used for a long time to grow hybrid plants. It is being used more in the medical field to look for genetic markers for specific diseases.

 

[Tim_D]

Small question.

Is Adam, in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis, a literal blood and guts real human man?
Yes or no.

I thought that we already covered this. Is Genesis a text meant to relate spiritual truths by refashioning creation myths of the time or is it a literal, historical telling of the very first man and woman in existence? To accept that Genesis reveals spiritual truths and then turn around and ask “was Adam real” is to not only 1) miss the point but 2) expect something from the text that it does not mean to convey. Its like asking if George Washington and the cherry tree is “true.”

 

[Tim_D]

Seeing as how the Gospels mention nothing about thunder claps and lightening strikes when Jesus turned water into wine, I fail to see how my statement could have any influence on what you think I believe about other things presented in the Gospels.

I will immediately conclude, upon the death of Jesus for our redemption, you do not believe that there was an earthquake, an eclipse of the sun and that the veil of the temple was miraculously split.

In regards to the veil of the temple being split, do you not think that there would be some outside source recording something which would have been seen as so miraculous and disturbing for the Jews of the time or do you not give the slightest possibility to the fact that the Gospel author used it as a device to illustrate that the veil that that symbolized the separation of man from God was dissolved and that the temple sacrifice of burnt offerings was no longer efficacious due to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? Is it not possible that things were presented in such a way that would speak to the Jews of the time, the same way that Christ speaking the beatitudes was presented as Moses the lawgiver giving the Hebrews the laws of God?

Or do you? I’ve read enough of your posts over the years to think that you accept at least some Catholic doctrine - but I have no idea which parts of the Bible you read as literal and which not.

The meteorological events during Christ’s miracles and the crucifixion are not Catholic doctrine.

 

[Tim_D]

What is important about the creation story is that God is the creator of all…Did the first man (Adam) and the first woman (Eve) sin, and fall from God’s grace? Yes.

This is a point that seems to be lost on the vast majority of people on this forum. For them, it seems to be more important for Adam & Eve to be “real” than the spiritual truths that are contained in Genesis. It is a peculiar point of view to think that if one accepts that Adam & Eve, Noah and Jonah are not “real” or “true,” then we can extrapolate that Jesus was not God, the resurrection didn’t happen and that it is all just a myth in the same vein as Zeus, Apollo, Achilles and the Trojan War.

It startles me that so many seem to have never really progressed beyond a fourth grade understanding of the bible.

 

[DebChris]

This is a point that seems to be lost on the vast majority of people on this forum. For them, it seems to be more important for Adam & Eve to be “real” than the spiritual truths that are contained in Genesis. It is a peculiar point of view to think that if one accepts that Adam & Eve, Noah and Jonah are not “real” or “true,” then we can extrapolate that Jesus was not God, the resurrection didn’t happen and that it is all just a myth in the same vein as Zeus, Apollo, Achilles and the Trojan War.

It startles me that so many seem to have never really progressed beyond a fourth grade understanding of the bible.

There was a great emphasis when I went to school on Aesop’s fables starting in second grade, of looking for the underlying message within the story. What is the moral of the story?
I was taught the same thing in Catechism classes. Christ taught in parables for a reason. Look for the lesson within the story.
Because of my age, I made my First Communion in First Grade. I already knew my prayers from home, and was given one week to prepare. Quick transfer from public school to parochial school, and a talk from my mother to the parish priest.
What that meant is I was always a year ahead when we moved again, and I was taking regular catechism classes. Fourth grade was Bible study plus I had already read my brother’s 8th grade Catholic school approved science book, imprimateur included.
The first time I read James Clavell’s Children’s Story was part of seventh grade catechism. Chesterton emphasizes that faith and reason go together.

I rarely lived where there were many other Catholics, let alone many Christians. I learned quickly that simply reciting the answers I learned in first grade to the Baltimore Catechism wasn’t going to cut it with my peers. I needed to understand my faith, not simply memorize it.

 

[Tim_D]

I learned quickly that simply reciting the answers I learned in first grade to the Baltimore Catechism wasn’t going to cut it with my peers. I needed to understand my faith, not simply memorize it.

Excellent point.

 

[grannymh]

Unfortunately, the few people who understand modern (stealth) Arianism are no longer here.

In a heartbeat, they would explain that Adam had to be a real, fully-complete human person in order to be in a friendship relationship with a real Divine Creator. It is the original humanity/Divinity relationship which necessitates the fully divine Jesus Christ.

If Adam were not real, Original Sin would not be real . Therefore: any prophet among human prophets would suffice as a messenger bringing the Ten Commandments to us. That is modern Arianism.