RCIA said old testament just "stories"

  • Thread starter Thread starter rosebudfantasy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are certainly various Literary Forms in the Bible.
One in particular is the “Myth Form”
We have to understand that this is not a “fairy tale” but rather, as a Biblical Scholar explain…

Myth Form - is Man;s attempt to express the Inedpressible. (God)

This Evangelical site (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance) is very interesting - on who wrote the Book of Genesis - The Documentary Hypothesis and the various Scholarships etc. Here it the website.
religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm
 
JoeyWarren said:
I am glad someone asked this question.

My own Priest said they are just stories too. They are not to be taken literally. They are akin to the Parables.

I did a double take at the Priest and filed it away for later.
Click to expand...
Gee, it seem the Holy Spirit is out to deceive us by just telling stories. :banghead:
 
richardeekw said:
There are certainly various Literary Forms in the Bible.
One in particular is the “Myth Form”
We have to understand that this is not a “fairy tale” but rather, as a Biblical Scholar explain…

Myth Form - is Man;s attempt to express the Inedpressible. (God)

This Evangelical site (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance) is very interesting - on who wrote the Book of Genesis - The Documentary Hypothesis and the various Scholarships etc. Here it the website.
religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm
Click to expand...
This too: The Toledoths of Genesis
Code: 
             For those biblical scholars who have had the unfortunate experience                  of having the JEPD theory of the Documentary Hypothesis jammed                  down their throats the past forty years in Catholic biblical scholarship,                  and as long since the time of Julius Wellhausen in the late 1800s,                  this will be a real treat. This article will show what an absolute                  sham Catholic biblical scholarship has been since the 1960s; how                  innocent Catholics have been deceived by these pseudo-scholars;                  and why Catholic students all over the world have lost the faith.                  After you read this article, if you own Raymond Brown's "New Jerome                  Biblical Commentary," it may come in handy this winter when you                  need kindling for the fireplace. I hear that liberal biblical                  scholarship burns especially well. I can just hear those pages                  crackling now!

more…
 
buffalo said:
\

AHHHH! Much different. Parables are all clearly identified as such.
Click to expand...
I might be mistaken, but I don’t remember Jesus saying, “OK, fellas, let me tell you a parable, which, of course, is just allegorical and symbolical and not to be taken literally.”😃
 
I don’t consider Genesis to give “two different Creation accounts.” Genesis first decribes Creation in sweeping cosmic terms in Chapter 1, then focuses more on humanity’s creation in Chapter 2. The two narratives complement each other.

Sort of like the reason we have four Gospels : that doesn’t make any one of them less true, it just means that each one has a different focus. In the same way, the presence of two creation narratives doesn’t make either of them less true.
 
Ahimsa said:
I might be mistaken, but I don’t remember Jesus saying, “OK, fellas, let me tell you a parable, which, of course, is just allegorical and symbolical and not to be taken literally.”😃
Click to expand...
His hearers indeed knew when He was using parables. They even questioned Him about why He used them?
 
Ahimsa said:
How did He reply?
Click to expand...
"Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
"And He answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for Me to heal them.’”
“But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.” (Matthew 13:1-16 RSV)
 
I am not a Biblical scholar. But I love the Bible. I have listened to the argument of literal vs. mythical interpretation of the Bible for years.

What I have concluded is that most people want the Bible to fit into their perception of the world, and therefore, it becomes quite difficult to reconcile the differences/contradictions that one finds in, say, Genesis.

The way I see it, is that God is not limited in anyway. He can and does do anything. He could literally make the world in six days, and have it appear to be billions of years old, and have nothing contradict the revealed truths of science.

He could cause a flood that would cover the world and exterminate everything in its path so that only a handful of humans and two of every kind of animal would survive. He’s God. He can do it.

It doesn’t have to fit into our concept of reality. He’ll teach us all about it eventually.

My biggest problem with the debate is when you talk about myth vs. literal vs. literary style and you actually hear people explaining scripture by the myth debate, is how do you separate the myth from fact? If Genesis is myth, and our entire salvation is written in the first book of the Bible, where does the myth end and fact begin? Was Jesus resurrection a myth as well?

I know scholars have debated these things for centuries, and certainly our separated protestant brothers and sisters have their own opinions, but I won’t get drawn into all of that.

If God wanted to do all the things He did literally in the Old Testament, that’s fine with me. If the oral stories got a little twisted and turned but kept the truth of the story, okay too.

I just don’t get all worked up pulling everything in Scripture apart by saying “It couldn’t have been literal, how did He do this when He hadn’t done that, and how could a piece of fruit mess everything up” and on and on and on.

I don’t have a single problem with interpreting scripture literally. I figure He’ll reveal everything to us without the mask on our eyes eventually, whether in this life or the next. He gives us the Church to help us along the way.

P.S. It would be helpful though, if those in the Church could at least get it all together when they teach us. The confusion comes when you hear from one priest his interpretation and then go down the road and hear an entirely different interpretation and both consider their word absolute fact.
 
buffalo said:
"Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
"And He answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for Me to heal them.’”
“But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.” (Matthew 13:1-16 RSV)
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good way to read the beginning of Genesis.
 
buffalo said:
Who told us to interpret Genesis as parable?
Click to expand...
If you analyze the literary form and the abundant clues and symbols the author provides, it is quite apparent that the author is telling us. Saying “the following is a myth” to us in the text would be redundant.

and I heartily second the recommendation for *And God Said What *by Margaret Ralph.
 
Much of Genesis from Abraham forward is historical.

The Catholic Church has always taught that Adam and Eve are our sole parents–all descend from them. That is De Fide and must be believed by all Catholics. They are REAL people!

Now much of the creation stories do not have to be taken literally. The way I look at it is this: King Arthur from England was the source for many myths but most historians would agree that he was based on a real person.

How much more so does this apply to Adam and Eve who aren’t based on “made up stories” but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Adam and Eve weren’t “made up”. They were real. Now when exactly they lived we do not know.

We do know that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Genesis. That doesn’t have to mean that all of Genesis is literally true but the last time I checked the Holy Spirit doesn’t lie!

I’ll tell you this–I much more believe the stories inspired by the Holy Spirit over the cynicism and sceptisicm of some people who believe that all the Bible is is “a bunch of stories”.

For many people who do not know it is wise, learned and “cool” to be Catholic and believe in the bible.
 
Jesus many times refers to the Old Testament in ways that are not like parables. If all the Old Testament was was stories Jesus would always refer to it as stories or parables. He doesn’t.

That doesn’t mean that some of it can’t be taken as parables or stories–take Job for instance.

Just don’t tell me that all the Old Testament is is a bunch of stories or parables. That isn’t true!

Name one time when an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church or a pope in an encyclical stated that the Old Testament was just a bunch of stories or parables.

They have never done that!

And if you don’t believe the catholic church go ask any Jewish rabbi if he thinks that Abraham or David or moses or Solomon was a real person.

And if that won’t convince you go ask a secular person who has no religion if he thinks that David or Solomon existed.

I’ll tell you this–if the catholic Church and many jewish rabbis and even secualr people who have no religion all agree that some of the Old Testament is fact–then don’t tell me that it is just a bunch of parables or stories!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Jesus many times refers to the Old Testament in ways that are not like parables. If all the Old Testament was was stories Jesus would always refer to it as stories or parables. He doesn’t.

That doesn’t mean that some of it can’t be taken as parables or stories–take Job for instance.

Just don’t tell me that all the Old Testament is is a bunch of stories or parables. That isn’t true!

Name one time when an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church or a pope in an encyclical stated that the Old Testament was just a bunch of stories or parables.

They have never done that!

And if you don’t believe the catholic church go ask any Jewish rabbi if he thinks that Abraham or David or moses or Solomon was a real person.

And if that won’t convince you go ask a secular person who has no religion if he thinks that David or Solomon existed.

I’ll tell you this–if the catholic Church and many jewish rabbis and even secualr people who have no religion all agree that some of the Old Testament is fact–then don’t tell me that it is just a bunch of parables or stories!
Click to expand...
I was referring to the beginning chapters of Genesis, not to the Jewish scriptures as a whole.👍
 
I’ll tell you somethings that are De fide about the first few chapters of Genesis. Adam and Eve are our sole parents and Eve was made from Adam.

Both of those things are De Fide take it to the bank and cash it literally positively and unchangeably true!

The Cave man on the Geico commecial didn’t come before Adam and Eve!
 
I had a seminary priest tell us once in class: “Gentlemen, we have educated ourselves beyond our own level of ignorance.”

I am not trying to dismiss the discussion in this thread, but (unless I am misreading things) there is a bit of heat building up through some of the comments.

As I said in my previous post on this thread “language is important”. We can throw around the use of the word “myth” and “story” and “literary device” and what do we get for our troubles? “A lot of heat and a little light.”

So how do we get past it? A simple recognition that the Bible reveals to us the handiwork of God. It doesn’t matter “how” - what matters is “that” - God made all that is.

He placed humanity as His crowning achievement on this planet as stewards of His creation. We failed in that in the persons of our progenitors (a unique couple from which humanity proceeds). Yet God remains faithful to the covenant He made with us and even furthered that faithfulness by sending His only begotten Son to fulfill “all righteousness.”

Now, is that a “sufficient” description of all Divine Revelation? No. But it does describe in a limited way the reality that is in the first chapters of Genesis through to the Incarnation.

Do we really need to argue out anything further? As pointed out by Jerry-Jet, there is a part to the opening chapters of Genesis that the Church has declared as necessary: Adam & Eve (or whatever they called themselves) were real.

I know there are some mixed-up ideas “out there”. I also think everyone posting here recognizes there are mixed-up ideas, and that this thread is trying to “thread” its way through that mess. But, please, let’s not get too caught up in the speculation of a few whose theology is outside - way outside in some cases.

Remember the opening line of my post: “…we have educated ourselves beyond our own level of ignorance.” My Grandma would say: “Too smart for our own britches.” And that is what these “scholars” have done.

Can we remember Rosebudfantasy’s original question? How do we see “story” in the Bible?

Does it mean something is “made up with no historical reference”? Does it mean something is “fictional and should be discarded in view of our more enlightened understanding of history”? Nonsense!

Does it mean something God used to teach us the reality of our condition and position before Him? Does God use history? Does God use story? Yep!!!

What was it I saw recently? Oh, yeah: history is His story.

Again, I don’t want to dismiss the discussion here, but it really is side-stepping the original question. The “stories” of the Bible are true. On what level, in what way? Well, there is the turn of the question. And the answer is much simpler than the “scholars” would make it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top