Science and Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter wfr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wfr

Guest
The thread on Noah’s Ark brought up a larger subject for me, so I decided to start a new thread. Sadly many Catholic Bible teachers make the claim that stories like Noah’s Ark, the Creation, Job and Jonah and the Whale (great fish) are allegories and not to be taken as serious history. I still have enough of the Fundamentalist in me that I tend to bristle at such claims. For instance, I went to a Catholic retreat several years ago and was told in one of my Bible classes that the Jonah story was fictional. I objected and was treated very rudely by the lady who was teaching. She basically asked me who I was to be questioning her, and that I was confusing, “truth for fact”.

I had no intention of going down that road with her, so I asked her, “If I cannot believe the Bible when it tells me that a large fish swallowed Jonah, and that God miraculously preserved him, then how can I believe the same Bible when it tells me that the consecrated elements that I take at Mass, which look, feel, smell and taste for all the world like bread and wine are in reality the Body and Blood of Christ?” To which she let me know in no uncertain terms that she was the teacher and I was not. Afterward, several of my fellow students thanked me for speaking up, because they were thinking the same thing (I was just the one dunb enough to open my mouth).

I feel too many Catholics dismiss such stories out of hand feeling that they are too scientific to believe old legends. I firmly believe that there is no contradiction between science and the Bible, and that we do not have to explain away scripture in order to make it fit the modern view of things. I believe that on that glorious day in Eternity, when science and Scripture are fully known, we will have the answer and most likely not until then. I would be interested in your views on the subject.

PAX CHRISTI
Bill
 
Regarding Jonah and his whale, salt-water mammals cannot survive in fresh water-bodies. It’s not real history. Remember, in the story, that even the animals “repent.” What do animals have to repent of? Nothing.

This, other aspects of the story, as well as the simple empirical evidence against the story confirm its fictional nature.
 
I have no reason to believe the story of Jonah is not literally true.

Modern thinking often requires a break from the past. New ideas somehow render old ideas bad simply by being old.

All Scripture is inspired by God. Here, the word inspired is not some vague idea, but that the Holy Spirit made the writers free from error. Holy Scripture is not made holy by men.

God bless,
Ed
 
Scripture may not be made Holy by men, but that doesn’t change the fact that salt-water mammals cannot survive in fresh water for three days. In short, the biology and physiology just aren’t right.
 
dnu said:
Scripture may not be made Holy by men, but that doesn’t change the fact that salt-water mammals cannot survive in fresh water for three days. In short, the biology and physiology just aren’t right.
Click to expand...
That is not relevant. Jesus tells one of His disciples to catch a fish. He further tells the disciple that in its mouth he will find a coin. He is to give that coin as tribute for Himself and that disciple.

God can do things we normally associate with the power of God.

God bless,
Ed
 
wfr said:
“If I cannot believe the Bible when it tells me that a large fish swallowed Jonah, and that God miraculously preserved him, then how can I believe the same Bible when it tells me that the consecrated elements that I take at Mass, which look, feel, smell and taste for all the world like bread and wine are in reality the Body and Blood of Christ?”
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
Click to expand...
Please. Do be careful with comparisons. Discernment is needed.

The Book of Jonah, considered one of the prophetic books*,* is not on the same level as John Chapter 6, where the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is speaking. The truth being taught in the Book of Jonah is not equal to the truth of the Real Presence taught in John Chapter 6.
 
The book of Jonah is teaching literal truths, and if we read it in the sense it is meant to be read, the book of Jonah is indeed 100% true.

That said, what is the sense it is meant to be read? I doubt it is meant to be 100% literal history (although Jonah is in fact mentioned elsewhere in the Bible). Possibly this was the legend of Jonah (who was a real prophet that preached to Nineveh). Why do I doubt this? Because the animals repent. Totally absurd and ridiculous. It was meant to be read as a fictional account. However, it teaches, 100% literal, fundamental truths, like its most famous verse:

“God is a merciful God, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.”

One of my favorite biblical verses.

👍
 
dnu said:
Regarding Jonah and his whale, salt-water mammals cannot survive in fresh water-bodies. It’s not real history. Remember, in the story, that even the animals “repent.” What do animals have to repent of? Nothing.

This, other aspects of the story, as well as the simple empirical evidence against the story confirm its fictional nature.
Click to expand...
Scripture never says that a whale swallowed Jonah, it says a “great fish”. It also tells us that the fish was sent by God. We don’t know if the fish was an extinct species, one of those big ol’ cat fish or a special creation. Also it seems that Jesus took the Jonah fish tale as true history (Matthew 12:40), if He was confused on the point then I am in good company. My point here is that we shouldn’t be so fast to dismiss a Bible story just because it doesn’t fit our world view.

PAX CHRISTI
Bill
 
The Prophecy of Jonah: History or Parable?

…
St. Jerome, a wholly authoritative witness to tradition, as one who knew what Greek and Latin authors had commented on Jonah prior to him (49), writes:
“Nor do I forget the people to whom it may seem incredible that a man could live, for three days and nights, in the belly of a whale, wherein the shipwrecked are digested. Certainly they will be either faithful [Christians] or infidels. If faithful, they will be required to accept much greater [miracles, St. Jerome uses Daniel 11 and Exodus 14 as examples, B.D.]…” If unfaithful, those who devour a thousand stupid fables have no reason to reject a true and honest miracle (50). To no one, therefore, does he permit the slightest doubt.

The same line of thought with the same conviction is developed excellently by St. Cyril of Alexandria (51).
His namesake St. Cyril of Jerusalem asserts: “For to me both are alike worthy of credence. I believe that Jonas was preserved, for all things are possible with God; I believe that Christ also was raised from the dead” (52). As one may see, a very clear and firm assertion.
St. John Chrysostom argued with no less firmness against the Marcionite heretics: *“For tell me, was Jonah in the whale’s belly a mere appearance? Nay, thou canst not say so. Therefore neither was Christ in the heart of the earth such” *(53).
 
Marc_Anthony said:
The book of Jonah is teaching literal truths, and if we read it in the sense it is meant to be read, the book of Jonah is indeed 100% true.

That said, what is the sense it is meant to be read? I doubt it is meant to be 100% literal history (although Jonah is in fact mentioned elsewhere in the Bible). Possibly this was the legend of Jonah (who was a real prophet that preached to Nineveh). Why do I doubt this? Because the animals repent. Totally absurd and ridiculous. It was meant to be read as a fictional account. However, it teaches, 100% literal, fundamental truths, like its most famous verse:

“God is a merciful God, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.”

One of my favorite biblical verses.

👍
Click to expand...
I did not mean to get into a discussion of Jonah, but science and Scripture. But …. I just couldn’t stand it. Note the animals did not “repent.” Scripture says:

Jonah began his journey through the city, and had gone but a single day’s walk announcing, “Forty days more and Nineveh shall be destroyed,” when the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in the ashes. Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh, by decree of the king and his nobles: “Neither man nor beast, neither cattle nor sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water. Man and beast shall be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God; every man shall turn from his evil way and from the violence he has in hand. Who knows, God may relent and forgive, and withhold his blazing wrath, so that we shall not perish.” When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out. (Jonah 3:4-10)

The king of Nineveh deseeded that all inhabitants dress in sackcloth and fast, he included the animals in this. That is a far way from saying that the “animals repented.” The foot note on this chapter in the NAB observes, “Beast . . . sackcloth: the animals carried the signs of this repentance, as on occasions of joy they bore garlands.”
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
 
Personally, I have no problem with accepting the description of Jonah being swallowed by the “large fish” as true history for the simple fact that I have never seen any good reason to doubt it. The only arguments I’ve ever seen against its historicity are…er…weak (for instance, rejecting the possibility of the miraculous, period). Perhaps there are good reasons that I am simply unaware of. Certainly, I have no problem (in the abstract) with it being a simply a story and not history, since such is compatible with divine inspiration. But I’ve never seen any good reason to insist that it definitely isn’t historical as some do (as distinct from those simply stating it might not be meant to be understood historically, which is a different matter)

That said, I do admit that I have never understood how the fact that Jesus mentions the incident in Matthew 12:40 shows that he believed it to be actual history, though. Could one not argue that it is simply a literary allusion he used to make his point. As an example, in the seventh chapter of Orthodoxy, when Chesterton writes:
But the man we see every day – the worker in Mr. Gradgrind’s factory, the little clerk in Mr. Gradgrind’s office – he is too mentally worried to believe in freedom. He is kept quiet with revolutionary literature. He is calmed and kept in his place by a constant succession of wild philosophies. He is a Marxian one day, a Nietzscheite the next day, a Superman (probably) the next day; and a slave every day. The only thing that remains after all the philosophies is the factory. The only man who gains by all the philosophies is Gradgrind. It would be worth his while to keep his commercial helotry supplied with sceptical literature. And now I come to think of it, of course, Gradgrind is famous for giving libraries. He shows his sense. All modern books are on his side. As long as the vision of heaven is always changing, the vision of earth will be exactly the same. No ideal will remain long enough to be realized, or even partly realized. The modern young man will never change his environment; for he will always change his mind.
Click to expand...
Obviously Chesterton is simply making a literary allusion in reference to Mr. Gradgrind to make a point; he is not treating a Dickens novel as a history book. Could not the same be true of Christ in Matthew 12:40?

Of course, as I said, at this point I do accept the historicity of Jonah being swallowed by a large fish for other reasons, so I do not believe that in Matthew 12:40 Jesus is simply making a literary allusion. But at the same time, I do not see how Matthew 12:40 in itself shows that Jesus definitely regarded the incident with Jonah and the great fish as historical.

(The repentance of Nineveh, though, is a different story…)

Those are some of my thoughts on the matter…Of course, I have no doubt there are answers to the questions I raised that I’m simply not aware of, but…that’s why I asked. 🙂
 
Anything is possible.

Consider the whale shark. It’s a fish, not a mammal, and lives in salt water but is a plankton eater. It could easily hold a human (barring all the icky and morbid details of air and other sustenance).

That’s not to say that this was Jonah’s jail cell (God could’ve created a creature just for Jonah alone), but some science is there to support the story in current and pre-historic biology–not that science is really needed for justification of our faith. 🙂
 
Of course, as I said, at this point I do accept the historicity of Jonah being swallowed by a large fish for other reasons, so I do not believe that in Matthew 12:40 Jesus is simply making a literary allusion. But at the same time, I do not see how Matthew 12:40 in itself shows that Jesus definitely regarded the incident with Jonah and the great fish as historical.

I could accept this argument except for the direct relationships Jesus is drawing. If it is understood that the Jonah story is metaphorical, then it stands to reason Our Lord’s words about His time in the “belly of the earth” should by logic taken as metaphor also. I don’t see how Jesus would use a literary allusion in pointing the Pharisees to something as important as His resurrection.
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
 
wfr said:
Of course, as I said, at this point I do accept the historicity of Jonah being swallowed by a large fish for other reasons, so I do not believe that in Matthew 12:40 Jesus is simply making a literary allusion. But at the same time, I do not see how Matthew 12:40 in itself shows that Jesus definitely regarded the incident with Jonah and the great fish as historical.

I could accept this argument except for the direct relationships Jesus is drawing. If it is understood that the Jonah story is metaphorical, then it stands to reason Our Lord’s words about His time in the “belly of the earth” should by logic taken as metaphor also. I don’t see how Jesus would use a literary allusion in pointing the Pharisees to something as important as His resurrection.
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
Click to expand...
To be honest, I do not see how that follows…Jesus was asked for a sign. Since there is an obvious parallel between Christ’s being in the “belly of the earth” and the story of Jonah, it would certainly be reasonable to use the story of Jonah as an analogy to point to the “sign” he will give them in reality, and that would be the case whether the story of Jonah was historical or not. After all, if I state someone is treating me as badly as Scrooge did his acquaintances at the beginning of “A Christmas Carol”, it doesn’t follow that either I think “A Christmas Carol” is real history, or that the bad treatment I am receiving from the person I refer to is only “metaphorical” on the basis that “A Christmas Carol” isn’t historical.

That said, I do believe it likely you are right and that Jesus did mean it to be understood as historical, because of the next verse.

There, it appears Jesus does make reference to the repentance of the men of Niniveh as being historical since he says they will rise at the judgment and condemn “this generation” since the former repented at the preaching of Jonah (and literary allusions won’t rise at the judgment, I’m pretty sure 🙂 ) If the repentance of Niniveh is considered historical (as it appears Jesus regarded it as), then it seems natural that the verse before it describes real history, too. I suppose it can be interpreted in a way in which the two events, being distinct, do not necessarily determine the interpretation one has of the other, but again, it does seem natural to interpret them both in the same way as to their historicity. If anyone else had different interpretation, please let me know!

And that being the case, if Jesus considered Jonah being swallowed by the great fish historical, then obviously I would submit to His judgment, since being God, I would say He knows more than I do. lol.

But, like I said, I’m still trying to think this stuff out, so that is why I am asking questions trying to understand why people on either side hold the positions they do. I thank-you for giving me your thoughts!

However, since I’ve asked my questions, I think I will depart this discussion now, and just watch what everyone has to say on both sides. At this point, though, I do accept it as historical.
 
40.png
dnu:
Scripture may not be made Holy by men, but that doesn’t change the fact that salt-water mammals cannot survive in fresh water for three days. In short, the biology and physiology just aren’t right.
Click to expand...
Not to continue the Jonah/Whale discussion (as wfr pointed out, the topic is Science and Scripture), but what makes you think the large fish had to go from salt-water to fresh-water? The story never says Jonah was cast out at Ninevah, but that he was cast out (no mention of where), and then traveled to Ninevah.

I believe Jesus makes it clear that the story of Jonah is a true story (unless you don’t believe Jesus was really raised from the dead - then we need to go to a new thread [and have lots of prayer]).

I have noted some very scientific statements within Scriptures (for example, I believe you can find an explanation of the water cycle in the book of Job - I am going through a move, so I don’t have all my resources available, but I can look them up later if anyone needs them). God clearly established the four seasons, seed time and harvest, etc… However, there are other places where we do not get “exact” figures (such as the diameter of the laver in Solomon’s Temple). My best explanation for this is that they didn’t have the ability to measure things as precisely as we can today, so they “rounded” their figures (under the cisrcumstances, I don’t see a problem with that).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top