B
buffalo
Guest
The usual way Catholics are to read the Bible are to understand the what and then move to the why. Only recently has the why eliminated the what.
- Status
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
Wrong! The Church teaches that the Bible IS historically true! You need to read “Providentissimus Deus.” Otherwise, I could say the Virgin Birth is “true” in that it teaches us a message, but it didn’t really happen.
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
That’s heresy. Adam and Eve were certainly real people, why not just accept it happened the way the inspired Scriptures say it happened? You are really influenced by modernism.
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
PLEASE do not read anything by Margaret Ralph!!! She writes for our diocesan paper and is incredibly liberal. She received her education from a liberal protestant seminary. In her latest article in the diocesan paper she wrote that the accounts of Judas being hanged and then falling and bursting asunder are just stories that were made up later and we don’t really know how he died. THIS IS HERESY and goes against the traditional Catholic understanding of Scripture and Tradition. Avoid her like a plague, she’s a heretic!
M
Mirdath
Guest
The bible has a lot of history in it, but to say that it’s primarily an historical document is missing its entire point. It is a religious document, and historical incidents are presented only in a manner relevant to that faith – and with a definite editorial slant.
The language and form of Genesis indicates its source in myth. At first glance God creating the universe through Logos may not, at first glance, seem very similar to Marduk creating the world from Tiamat’s corpse, Chaos giving birth to Gaia, Nyx, Tartarus, Erebus, and Eros, or Damballa making or causing everything to form in sequence – but it is. The story attributes special creation to the divine, just as the movement of Damballa’s coils created hills and valleys, takes place within a very brief time when compared to how long we think it actually took, and pays no heed to self-contradiction (how could one have a day/night cycle before the creation of the Sun?).
And then God rests. Takes a day off. No problem – he’s earned it. Except he’s God: resting is something humans do when they’ve been working for a long time. The God of Genesis is far less anthropomorphic than Zeus, but it’s definitely noticeable.
Another issue with taking the creation story in Genesis as literal fact is that it is linear. God exists outside time; in fact, he created it with day and night, correct? It’s not a matter of ‘a day to me is a million years to you’; God can see each instant of those million years at once and poke things around at any point he likes. Time has no meaning for the divine. But Genesis is a simple story, unconcerned with such matters – it’s meant to teach people that they owe their existence to God, and getting into strange, mindbending philosophy isn’t going to cut it even now, let alone the time it was written.
edit: Looking up, you’re rather quick to throw around accusations of heresy. Mind calming down a touch?
E
Ecce_homo_1
Guest
I would’ve asked the RCIA teacher to provide one Papal encyclical showing the Church teaches that. Quoting an obscure Catholic theologian doesn’t qualify as Church teaching.
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
You have to be kidding me. It’s source is mythology? What does that say about it’s inspiration? God did inspire all of Scripture and is it’s principle author, therefore it is without erro because God cannot err. Are you saying God had to use pagan mythology to explain our origins?? How do you know that the Scripture accounts are based on pagan myths and not vice-versa?
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
B
BillP
Guest
Uh, I think you’ve got the wrong temple there Jerry. The Wailing Wall is a remement of the 2nd Temple destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. The 1st Temple (built by Soloman not David) was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
I’m a bit confused here. How is it that people can know that the stories of the Old Testament are mostly just fiction? These priests and RCIA instructors must be alot older than they appear.
Do you mean that even though we have historical evidence of Jericho and that it was destroyed at a certain time that the story of its fall is just made up?
Do you mean that there was no flood, though we have geological evidence for it? There was no meeting of God and Abraham and Sarah at the Oaks of Mamre? There was no battle between the Kings of the East and the Kings of the West even though we have separate verifiable evidenc found in Syria in 1975? There was no exodus from Egypt? There was no establishment of the promised land?
My, my. Such insight?
CDL
Do you mean that even though we have historical evidence of Jericho and that it was destroyed at a certain time that the story of its fall is just made up?
Do you mean that there was no flood, though we have geological evidence for it? There was no meeting of God and Abraham and Sarah at the Oaks of Mamre? There was no battle between the Kings of the East and the Kings of the West even though we have separate verifiable evidenc found in Syria in 1975? There was no exodus from Egypt? There was no establishment of the promised land?
My, my. Such insight?
CDL
P
Potato1
Guest
It seems to me that the problem with the use of the words and Ideas of myths, or stories, or parables is the human nature involved to discredit a teaching or part of a story we dont necessaruily agree with. The “Old Testament” has som harsh difficult and even boring parts to it and we can and do rely on the new testament to fill our modern immediate need for an answer. I look at it as 100 percent true in the context of what it is teaching. for an example we can talk about the logistics of a 7 day creation or we can accept it as “spiritual truth” and learn from it. Does that mean that there is no reconcilliation with the “science” of creation, no! It means that when looking to the Word of God for enlightenment or answers to life and our own relationship with God we MUST look at 100percent truth and not let our natures discredit what God is trying to tell us.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Its source isn’t necessarily mythology; it is.
As far as I’m concerned you can say what you like about inspiration; but when doing so, remember that Jesus used parables – ie, mini-myths – to teach the crowds. ‘Myth’ does not have to mean ‘deceptive fake’.
No, I’m not. I’m saying the structure, form, and content of the book of Genesis is consistent with that of other mythic creation stories. I don’t know whether the ancient Israelites assimilated Utnapishtim or whether the ancient Babylonians assimilated Noah, and frankly it isn’t too relevant. The Deluge came in both.
As I said earlier, the specifics of what happened, especially with regard to the origins of the universe and of humanity, are not important. It is the themes of Genesis which are the main thrust of its message, not its impossible historical accuracy. The early chapters of Genesis are not history, and they are not intended to be. They are merely vessels for the themes of the book. Ignore the themes, and you miss the whole point.
B
buffalo
Guest
THE KEY TO THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS
(A) The Colophon Phrase
Documents written in Mesopotamia were generally inscribed upon stone or clay tablets. It was customary for the ancient scribes to add a colophon note at the end of the account, giving particulars of title, date, and the name of the writer or owner, together with other details relating to the contents of a tablet, manuscript or book.(14) The colophon method is no longer used today - the information originally given in a colophon having been transferred in our day to the first or title page. But in ancient documents the colophon with its important literary information was added in a very distinctive manner.
M
Melchior
Guest
Because many Catholics have succumbed to liberal, non-religious “Protestant”, “scholarship”. Which tries to diminish the scripture by allegorizing those sections that make them uncomfortable or they think are unscientific.
Mel
S
sfp
Guest
Agreed, except when the commentary states something that is contrary to Church teaching. Example…
Gen: 38:8-10…
The Church teaches that withdrawal during the conjugal act to avoid pregnancy is a sin, and this is a PERFECT Biblical example supporting this teaching. You can reasonably infer that it was in fact Onan’s withdrawal which displeased the Lord, but the commentary incorrectly teaches otherwise…
NAB Commentary on Gen 38:8-10…
(Continued in next post)…
S
sfp
Guest
(Continued from prior post)…
This is neither consistent with Church teaching, nor is it a good Biblical interpretation. Just look at at Deut 25:5-10, which the commentary even references! The penalty for refusing to raise up seed for your brother is PUBLIC HUMILIATION, not death!..
Deut 25:5-10…
Also, look at what DIDN’T happen to Judah (Onan’s father) when he refused to give his next son, Shelah to her to raise up seed (as would have been required by Levirate law)…
Gen 38:11…
Therefore, the purpose of this commentary appears to be to appeal to protestant tradition that it was Onan’s violation of the law, rather than the act of withdrawal which displeased the Lord…which we’ve just shown to be an undeniably incorrect interpretation of that passage.
We must be very careful in reading the commentaries, even within “approved” Bibles.
This is neither consistent with Church teaching, nor is it a good Biblical interpretation. Just look at at Deut 25:5-10, which the commentary even references! The penalty for refusing to raise up seed for your brother is PUBLIC HUMILIATION, not death!..
Deut 25:5-10…
Therefore, the reason for God killing Onan MUST be due to the means he used, rather than for a simple violation of the law (Otherwise, the punishment didn’t fit the crime!)
Also, look at what DIDN’T happen to Judah (Onan’s father) when he refused to give his next son, Shelah to her to raise up seed (as would have been required by Levirate law)…
Gen 38:11…
(Judah was not killed, even though he violated the levirate law as well, by refusing his next son to raise up seed!)
Therefore, the purpose of this commentary appears to be to appeal to protestant tradition that it was Onan’s violation of the law, rather than the act of withdrawal which displeased the Lord…which we’ve just shown to be an undeniably incorrect interpretation of that passage.
We must be very careful in reading the commentaries, even within “approved” Bibles.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Some of the Prophets & the Wisdom literature might be mentioned 
- I don’t think any one seriously imagines that the ruler of Tyre was expelled from the garden of God, or that God has a bow & arrows, or that He will fight a sea-serpent.
Yet this mythological language is part of the text - it does a lot to make the texts more vivid. IMO, people are far too suspicious of any thing that is not an easily intelligible direct statement ##is highly metaphoric and mythical. Consider the story of creation – Genesis says six days, everything right there waiting to be named, yet the Church says the theory of evolution is not in conflict with the faith. The six-day account of creation is not necessarily strictly true by human standards; all the Church requires is that its members believe God was responsible for it all, no matter what method he chose to use.
The fall of Adam and Eve can be looked at as another metaphor. It certainly has the characteristics of myth – it explains natural phenomena (legless serpents, pain in childbirth) through supernatural occurrences. And it gives a reason for human possession of free will. There never necessarily was an apple of knowledge of good and evil; but humanity exists in an imperfect state.
Noah’s ark is an interesting one as well. It’s a story shared with the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, in which an old man named Utnapishtim recounts to the hero the story of how he was commanded by a god to tear down his house and build a boat to hold all kinds of animals before a deluge came. Utnapishtim’s ark even lodged in a mountain as the waters subsided just as Noah’s did. Both were blessed after the flood; the point of the story is that God will never utterly destroy humanity.
In Genesis, it’s the themes that matter most, not the events
Excellent post
C
Contarini
Guest
That inspiration is more interesting than people give it credit for.
God didn’t *have *to do anything. He didn’t *have *to create us in the first place. But given that He embarked on such a course of wild extravagance, who are you to tell Him that embedding truths in pagan myths was going a little too far?
There is no way to be sure that Abraham and his descendants did not preserve truths that are found in a more corrupted form in Babylonian literature, etc. However, the impression given by Gen. 11-12 is that Abraham was just another citizen of Ur when God’s call came to him, not the preserver of some esoteric tradition. This is an argument from silence, so it’s weak. I have no quarrel with you if you think that the true story was always preserved without corruption, but I also see nothing wrong with the idea that the ancient Hebrews were guided by God to a truer understanding of the myths they had inherited from their idolatrous ancestors and neighbors.
In Christ,
Edwin
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Where’s the heresy in that reported comment ?
Accusations of heresy are flung around far too “liberally” - the fact remains that there are two different accounts of his death. Maybe there were two different traditions on the matter - or perhaps the two accounts are theological interpretations of the significance of his death, rather than direct descriptions of it.Matthew describes Judas as dying the death of the traitor Ahithophel, who betrayed David, for example. This is perfectly in accord with Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as a Davidic figure. Acts shows Judas dying like Nadan, who betrayed his uncle Ahikar (see Tobit) - both presentations agree on the death and the treachery.
A
Anima_Christi
Guest
The Church’s traditional exegesis is that Judas hung himself, and later the body fell headlong and burst asunder. The reason the field is called “Hakel Dama” (field of blood) refers not to Judas’s blood but the fact that the field was bought with the price of blood–Christ’s blood. Why not just accept the interpretation given by the Fathers and there is no contradiction between the two accounts? God inspired them, and He cannot lie or give any contradiction.
- Status