Scripture Problem

[t68ware]

I was Protestant for over 39 years, and even went to a Protestant Bible college and have an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, so when I became Catholic, I thought Catholics viewed the Bible like i did,esp when it came to scholoarly matters of interpretation, but I recently read in the preface of my new Catholic Bible that Catholics do not interperet the Creation story as literal, that the words of Paul and Jesus may or maynot have been theirs and in the end, it doesnt matter if they said those exact words, but as long as the reader gets the truth in those statements, that’s what matters, etc. Needless to say, I am very shocked, for the way I view sacred Scripture seems to be very different from the Catholic Church, and I just cannot give up how I interpret Scripture.

 

[OraLabora]

I was Protestant for over 39 years, and even went to a Protestant Bible college and have an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, so when I became Catholic, I thought Catholics viewed the Bible like i did,esp when it came to scholoarly matters of interpretation, but I recently read in the preface of my new Catholic Bible that Catholics do not interperet the Creation story as literal, that the words of Paul and Jesus may or maynot have been theirs and in the end, it doesnt matter if they said those exact words, but as long as the reader gets the truth in those statements, that’s what matters, etc. Needless to say, I am very shocked, for the way I view sacred Scripture seems to be very different from the Catholic Church, and I just cannot give up how I interpret Scripture.

You can interpret Genesis literally if you like. Don’t confuse “literal” with “literalist”. I suspect you are thinking the latter. A literal interpretation does not mean a historically true interpretation, it just means you read the story at face value, that the crux of the message and the truth is contained in the story itself: God created the world, then Adam and Eve, they sinned, were expelled from the Garden of Eden, etc. In the Jewish tradition of Bible reading this is the starting point for reading a Bible story, then there are deeper hidden meanings to be uncovered from the Biblical account (see “midrash” on wikipedia)

A literalist view would say it happened in exactly six, days, etc. My favourite analogy on this:

Imagine you were a modern-day prophet and on your travels you wrote a letter to your disciples saying “I am in England and it is raining cats and dogs outside”, then you go on to describe your preaching as you walk through the countryside. Your disciples would understand exactly what you were saying: it is raining hard outside and making your travels miserable. Now imagine somebody from a future civilization finds your letter 1000 years later and the knowledge of subtleties of 2011 English were long lost (figures of speech, etc). The historian making the discovery would have no idea what was meant. He may think “wow, a miracle, cats and dogs were falling from the sky”; that’s a literalist interpretation. He may conjure up something like “cats and dogs fight, so perhaps the prophet was trying to say that the sky was angry and stormy”, and he would be closer to the truth. Then suppose he found a book on favourite expressions from the same era and it would become clear that it just meant raining hard outside. The literal interpretation is simply “it is raining hard outside and it made the prophet’s job difficult”, showing persistence in adversity.

We haver probably lost a lot of the literary techniques and language subtleties early Biblical authors used, and thus while it is de fide that God created the world, as well as the first man and woman, it isn’t de fide to say it happened in exactly 6 days, remembering also that God operates outside of time, a concept probably very difficult to explain thousands of years ago.

As for the historicity of the authorship of certain words from St. Paul or Jesus, I think it is probably quite possible that some writings were incorrectly attributed. What matters is that they are canonical, and thus do in fact contain the truth that contributes to the economy of salvation in the New Covenant.

This is why private interpretation of scripture is fraught with risk, and we have an authoritative Church to lead us in that regard. Catholics have never been big on private interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Heliotropium]

I was Protestant for over 39 years, and even went to a Protestant Bible college and have an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, so when I became Catholic, I thought Catholics viewed the Bible like i did,esp when it came to scholoarly matters of interpretation, but I recently read in the preface of my new Catholic Bible that Catholics do not interperet the Creation story as literal, that the words of Paul and Jesus may or maynot have been theirs and in the end, it doesnt matter if they said those exact words, but as long as the reader gets the truth in those statements, that’s what matters, etc. Needless to say, I am very shocked, for the way I view sacred Scripture seems to be very different from the Catholic Church, and I just cannot give up how I interpret Scripture.

What Bible are you using because I have two Catholic Bibles and none of them say that? It is true that Catholics do not interpret the Bible privately and that the Church’s Magisterium holds the teaching authority to explain the scriptures to the faithful like Philip did with the Ethiopian; “30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 31“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth.33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.” 34The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus”–Acts 8:30-35. Yet I have not found anywhere in my Bible where it says that the words may or may not have been from Jesus or Paul in the Gospels or the Epistles. Regardless in answer to your question about Genesis the Church has not defined the position to be taken on Genesis and therefor Catholics are free to accept a literal view of the creation account or not.

The Bible is clear on the matter that there is no private interpetation of Scripture. There is not one account of anyone in the Bible interpreting the scriptures on their own. Infact the one account that they do have of someone trying to understand the scriptures is that in Acts that I mentioned above. The Church was given the teaching authoirty by Christ Himself. It was not given to every man and the error of the doctrine of private interpretation can be seen in the division it has caused within Christianity. This is why there is One Holy Catholic Church and why there are hundreds of thousands of Protestant Churches all believing different things based on their private interpretation and all claiming they got theirs from the Holy Spirit. Now this is either a false claim by them or its a true one and the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself which is not possible because God does not contradict Himself.

 

[laszlo]

I was Protestant for over 39 years, and even went to a Protestant Bible college and have an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, so when I became Catholic, I thought Catholics viewed the Bible like i did,esp when it came to scholoarly matters of interpretation, but I recently read in the preface of my new Catholic Bible that Catholics do not interperet the Creation story as literal, that the words of Paul and Jesus may or maynot have been theirs and in the end, it doesnt matter if they said those exact words, but as long as the reader gets the truth in those statements, that’s what matters, etc. Needless to say, I am very shocked, for the way I view sacred Scripture seems to be very different from the Catholic Church, and I just cannot give up how I interpret Scripture.

I was born and raised Catholic and when I read in the intrroduction of the Gospels that those are not written by eyewitnesses

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark … Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date,

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV9.HTM

I was shocked. The traditional theory was that Matthew wrote the Logia (the collection of the 5 sermons of Jesus) in 36 AD (when they had to flee Jerusalem after the martyrdom of St Stephen); Mark wrote down St Peter’s sermons about Jesus in Rome using Matthew’s Logia; and somebody composited the present Matthew certainly before 70 AD, probably in the fifties. Luke was written under the supervision of Paul, so before 67 AD.

This introductions to the NAB are mistakes and w/o any scientific basis.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I was Protestant for over 39 years, and even went to a Protestant Bible college and have an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, so when I became Catholic, I thought Catholics viewed the Bible like i did,esp when it came to scholoarly matters of interpretation, but I recently read in the preface of my new Catholic Bible that Catholics do not interperet the Creation story as literal, that the words of Paul and Jesus may or maynot have been theirs and in the end, it doesnt matter if they said those exact words, but as long as the reader gets the truth in those statements, that’s what matters, etc. Needless to say, I am very shocked, for the way I view sacred Scripture seems to be very different from the Catholic Church, and I just cannot give up how I interpret Scripture.

Be very careful on what purports to be Catholic teaching today regarding Biblical interpretation. The Church officially teaches that the Creation account in Genesis must be interstood literally. The following questions were answered by the Biblical Commission under Pope St. Pius X. At the time, the Biblical Commission was an official arm of the magisterium (unlike today).

Replies of the Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909 (found in Denzingers #2121): Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis

Question I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?

Answer: In the negative.

Question II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, **may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification? **

Answer: In the negative to both parts.

Question III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?

**Answer: **In the negative. (END)

Regarding the literal and historical truth of Eve being formed from the rib of Adam, which was removed when we was locked in sleep, Pope Leo XIII said the following:

Pope Leo XIII: “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation,** having made man from the slime of the earth**, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep” (Arcanum).

For a good encyclical on the teaching of the Church with respect to Biblical Interpretation (which was written in responce to the Liberals of the day), read PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS by Pope Leo XIII. I think it will reinforce your view of Biblical interpretation, and it is the official teaching of the Church.

 

[Scoobyshme]

I was Protestant for over 39 years, and even went to a Protestant Bible college and have an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, so when I became Catholic, I thought Catholics viewed the Bible like i did,esp when it came to scholoarly matters of interpretation, but I recently read in the preface of my new Catholic Bible that Catholics do not interperet the Creation story as literal, that the words of Paul and Jesus may or maynot have been theirs and in the end, it doesnt matter if they said those exact words, but as long as the reader gets the truth in those statements, that’s what matters, etc. Needless to say, I am very shocked, for the way I view sacred Scripture seems to be very different from the Catholic Church, and I just cannot give up how I interpret Scripture.

Here’s a really good six-part audio series on how Catholics view/read the Bible:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Fr.%20Corapi—Word%20of%20God—Pt.%201%20Divine%20Revelation%20Itself.mp3

alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Fr.%20Corapi—Word%20of%20God—Pt.%202%20Transmission%20of%20Divine%20Revelation.mp3

alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Fr.%20Corapi—Word%20of%20God—Pt.%203%20Scripture%20Inspiration%20&%20Interpretation.mp3

alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Fr.%20Corapi—Word%20of%20God—Pt.%205%20The%20New%20Testament.mp3

alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/Fr.%20Corapi—Word%20of%20God—Pt.%206%20The%20Life%20of%20the%20Church.mp3

This series is by Fr. John Corapi, who has a doctorate in Divine Scripture (among other degrees) from the University of Navarre in Spain. Very interesting, although one can only do so much in six hours. Good overview, though.

You might also enjoy a short video series on “Origin of the Bible” here:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

God bless!

 

[catsrus]

I question the R.C.I.A. program you attended. These questions and this information should have been covered while you were still in R.C.I.A. This was the topic of an entire 2 hour session when I was in R.C.I.A.

 

[5Loaves]

See the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part One: The Profession of Faith › Section One of Part One: “I Believe” - “We Believe” ›› CHAPTER 2: God Comes to Meet Man ››› Article 3: Sacred Scripture. Doubtless Fr Corapi covers this in the links Scoobyshme provided above.

 

[JackQ]

I was Protestant for over 39 years, and even went to a Protestant Bible college and have an undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, so when I became Catholic, I thought Catholics viewed the Bible like i did,esp when it came to scholoarly matters of interpretation, but I recently read in the preface of my new Catholic Bible that Catholics do not interperet the Creation story as literal, that the words of Paul and Jesus may or maynot have been theirs and in the end, it doesnt matter if they said those exact words, but as long as the reader gets the truth in those statements, that’s what matters, etc. Needless to say, I am very shocked, for the way I view sacred Scripture seems to be very different from the Catholic Church, and I just cannot give up how I interpret Scripture.

Regarding the biblical account of the fall of man, the Catechism says this:

"How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

So what we have is figurative language describing a real primeval event. That is the official Catholic position, straight from the Catechism.

As for the rest of the issues you raise, there are a variety of opinions that one can hold without being guilty of heresy. The New American Bible notes express views that some take to be “liberal”. They are not magisterial, and you are free to disagree with them.