Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[CHRISTINE77]

Apparently what you know about biblical scholarship could fit on the head of a flea. I have a firm grasp of biblical scholarship- have been certified by my Archdiocese , my bishop my pastor. The Archdiocese of NY(EGAN) is not a crazy liberal diocese. I have been taught by my diocese in my local seminary.I learned what the priests learn (I guess everyone is inadequate in biblical scholarship except you-how profoundly arrogant, smug and self serving- one of the “loyal remnant”) .If you need some insight I refer you tho “Divino Spiritu Afflante”, “Dei Verbum” and the BenedictXVI book on Genesis-should be an eye opener for ya. Oh by the way , any biblical scholarship worth it’s salt refers to and acknowledges ECF. Modern scholarship doesn’t always throw the baby out with the bath water not matter what you believe.The outrageous is what makes headlines- but they are far from the majority.
Apparently you’ve read but not understood-the aim of Genesis was not to relate historical facts as we know them(polybius was the first true historian, unlike Herodotus ) History as we know it is a more modern invention. Writers of histories of the past did not go investigating all claims and stories that came their way.Much was plain old gossip( Suetonius, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, to name a few were of that ilk.Jewish History is primarily concerned with YHWH’s relationship to hHis people and God’s interaction with humanity. I direct you to Jewish scholar Nahum Sarna’s book on Genesis- for the Jewish view.
You make a totally absurd leap from Genesis to The Gospels.Gospels were written 60-100 ad. under Roman rule in a Hellenistic writing style. Much different-not quite modern history but we know that Josephus writes of many personal experiences that he was eyewitness to- he writes about Christ and there are other extrabiblical documents that cement the fact that Jesus did exist.Comparing Genesis and reading it like you would the Gospels is as silly as you can get.Each book in the Bible has a different style, point of view, uses different images, and has it’s own moral and lesson to be taught.So comparing OT to NT is like comparing apples and zebras.

:clapping: :clapping:
Excellent! I couldn’t say it better myself! The Bible is full of different books - poetry, prophets, even the erotic Song of Solomon. It is NOT a history book!!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Bible is historically true from Genesis on. That modern “scholarship” currently holds sway does not make that scholarship accurate. It does not mean that history is complete or covers every detail unless that was the intend of the Holy Spirit and the author. But the way some people think really makes scripture useless if what they believe about it is true. I would just as soon leave the faith (as I have seen many do who have had their faith destroyed by what the were told was how we should view the Bible) if I believed what some did about the Bible because they feel it needs to be re-imagined as to appear enlightened to an unbelieving world.

Scripture is to be read in faith and according the genre of each book. That some try to make, say Genesis or other books to be a different genre to make them feel more comfortable with science or so called scholarship is of no consequence. Let God be true and every man a liar.

So which is it - are we to distinguish the literary types, or not ?​

Of course scripture is not a science text but when people try this baloney about the historical narratives in the Bible being “true myths”

If a myth cannot convey truth, presumably the parable of the talking plants who wished to choose a king (Judges 9) is to be read as a record of what the plants & trees actually said. What about Rahab & Leviathan in Job, & the sea-serpent in Isaiah 27.1 ? Are we to believe that God is going to fight a sea-monster ? For that is what the text says. Deny that there are true myths, & you risk turning Revelation into a menagerie of weird & wonderful livestock. - at least, I’ve not seen a seven-headed dragon wearing ten diadems, & I know of nobody who has.​

As for histories being made into true myths, which part of the Bible are we talking about ?

it is just nonsense conjured up by latew 19th century and 20th century skeptics with flimsy theories that sadly hold sway. The Patrisitic and historical-grammatical methods of studying scripture make much more sense and line up with the general study of literature in general much better than higher criticism. Which would be laughrd at if applied to nearly any other literary study.

Except that similar methods have been applied to other texts, such as the “Babylonian Creation”, & to the Homeric epics, fruitfully too. The use of such methods in studying the Bible stimulated, & was stimulated by, the use of similar methods for studying the Classics. The notion that such methods are applied to the Bible alone is tosh.​

BTW - Historical-critical methods pay a lot of attention to history, grammar & literature.

It is embarrassing how weak it is and yet scholars feel compelled to tow the line simply because that is the school that their profs adhere to.

So - the scholars are cowardly, as well as thick ? A crash course in the history of the study of Genesis seems called for - Vol. 1 of Westermann’s commentary on Genesis provides that. If scholars are so witless, why did Cassuto not say this in his commentary on Genesis 1-13 ? He didn’t - & he opposed the usual separation into JEPD. Maybe the reason is that he knew rather more about what this sort of study involves than those who malign it do.​

So you cannot progress if you deviate from the new orthodoxy.

Read scriptures in faith.

There is no contradiction between doing so, & applying critical methods. How does assigning Gen.5 to J, & 1-2.4a to P, undo the inspiration of the book ?​

If it is cleary a narrative take it as such. ingore novel theories that did not exist for 1900 years of church history.

The Lord of the Rings is also a narrative - as yet, there are no societies for the excavation of the area involved: not unreasonably, as the narrative is a fiction. The Da Vinci Code is a narrative - it has verisimilitude, but that does not make it a narrative of fact.​

As to theories being novel - why bother with Christ ? The Chosen People got on perfectly well without Him for 1000 years. That something has been got on without for a long time, does not make it illegitimate or evil. By your reasoning, we can do very well without the definitions that came after 1800 or so. Why have Christological definitions after all of 300 years: because they are useful ? So is Biblical criticism, very useful.

If Fall did not literally happen then it renders the need for a literal redemption and the entire reason for the second Adam non-existent. No first Adam, no need for a second Adam.

The problem is sin, & would be whether there were an Adam-story or not. How sin came about is immaterial - we would still need a Saviour. The work of Christ is no more dependent on the reality of Adam, than on that of Harry Potter.​

And really why would God not tell us what really happened and instead give us a myth instead?

Because a myth is a better way to say what had to be said ? It was told to Israelites - not to Fundamentalists foolish enough to imagine that no previous generation mattered. Instead of imposing our own ideas on the ancient texts, we need to shut up & listen to what they say & don’t say. It was not told to us originally.​

Ten seconds of thoughts makes such ideas absurd. Jesus and the Apostles believed in a literal Adam and a literal Noah. Nothing more needs to be said. If the second person of the Trinity believed it. It was true. End of discussion.

This is not a matter of Christology, but of exegesis.​

 

[cassini]

Marco: In answer to your opinion that geocentricism is not a matter of faith and morals I answer that your opinion differs to that of Cardinal Bellarmine who said that because the Scriptures reveal it then it is a matter of faith, just as the virgin birth is. This opinion was upheld by the Church in 1616, 1633 and 1664. The logic goes like this. The Bible states in many places that the sun moves. Thus it becomes a matter of revelation. It was defined and declared as such in 1616. Now if that is not true then the Bible contains errors or the Church cannot interpret the Bible correctly. A sort of catch 22 Marco.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco: In answer to your opinion that geocentricism is not a matter of faith and morals I answer that your opinion differs to that of Cardinal Bellarmine who said that because the Scriptures reveal it then it is a matter of faith, just as the virgin birth is. This opinion was upheld by the Church in 1616, 1633 and 1664. The logic goes like this. The Bible states in many places that the sun moves. Thus it becomes a matter of revelation. It was defined and declared as such in 1616. Now if that is not true then the Bible contains errors or the Church cannot interpret the Bible correctly. A sort of catch 22 Marco.

You are talking of the Gallileo episode, no? I’m sorry, but the Church does not make infallible statements that do not pertain to faith or morals. The Church has not said that all interpretations of Scripture are a matter of faith as you state above. Cardinal Bellarmine cannot by himself make an infallible statement. The Church does not espouse that every interpretation of Scripture by scholars will be infallible, nor was that interpretation at that time infallible, just from the fact that it wasn’t on faith or morals.

The Church has historically accepted mythical interpretations of Scripture apart from Fundamentalism from the beginning. The Church is infallible when the Magisterium speaks on faith or morals in one voice with the Pope or when the Pope meets several criteria on matters of faith and morals only.

The tribunals to which you are referring, are not the arena in which the Church exercises infallibility. No ecumenical council met on this matter. The pope did not make any ex cathedra statement on this matter. Even three of the ten judging cardinals refused to sign the verdict condemning Gallileo. Cardinal Bellarmine, by the way, is only “wrong” by today’s science…who knows what tomorrow will bring.

So it is untrue that the Catholic Church is not able to interpret Scripture infallibly. But conditions rather must first be met. I recommend reading the Catechism if you want to understand infallibility and when the Church exercises it (begin at #888).

 

[juliamajor]

Marco: In answer to your opinion that geocentricism is not a matter of faith and morals I answer that your opinion differs to that of Cardinal Bellarmine who said that because the Scriptures reveal it then it is a matter of faith, just as the virgin birth is. This opinion was upheld by the Church in 1616, 1633 and 1664. The logic goes like this. The Bible states in many places that the sun moves. Thus it becomes a matter of revelation. It was defined and declared as such in 1616. Now if that is not true then the Bible contains errors or the Church cannot interpret the Bible correctly. A sort of catch 22 Marco.

Do you have any sources not 400 yrs old? Something of more modern vintage.?
It also says in the Bible that a donkey talked- is that also revelation? does having an animal speak really enrich faith, help you on your spiritual journey- gain you salvation?

 

[juliamajor]

Marco: In answer to your opinion that geocentricism is not a matter of faith and morals I answer that your opinion differs to that of Cardinal Bellarmine who said that because the Scriptures reveal it then it is a matter of faith, just as the virgin birth is. This opinion was upheld by the Church in 1616, 1633 and 1664. The logic goes like this. The Bible states in many places that the sun moves. Thus it becomes a matter of revelation. It was defined and declared as such in 1616. Now if that is not true then the Bible contains errors or the Church cannot interpret the Bible correctly. A sort of catch 22 Marco.

I also suggest you read post number 49.It’s fairly clear.

 

[cassini]

Please do not ridicule what was a solemn decree by the CHURCH in 1616 or you risk bringing papal decrees down to the status of dinner talk. There are only two times in history when the CHURCH ruled OFFICIALLY on the matter, in 1633 and 1820 (is that recent enough juliamajor) when the first defined it as an ‘immutable’ decree. This statement can be found by anyone as it was declared when passing judgement on Galileo in 1633. The second time the decree was publicly acknowledged for what it was happened in 1820. In his defence of the 1616 decree a Fr Anfossi said it was unreformable. The reply, agreed to by pope and Holy Office once again is to be found in Maurice Finocchiaro’s book Retrying Galileo when he quoted as follows:

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’

In other words, even Olivieri agreed that the 1616 decree was papal and irreversible and had to be defended as such.

There has never been any other official (as distinct from personal opinions) declaration on the matter. There has never been any abrogation - a legal way of reversing any decision.

So, now we come to a serious debate for any who believe and state the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost. Making jokes about it degrades those Churchmem, that is popes, cardinals saints, the Fathers etc. Making jokes about it may appease one another but any non Catholics reading in will see few take Church history and events as having any real authority at all. The dogma of ex-cathedra infallibility was not defined until 1870. The same Vatican I also reiterated that the Church has an ordinary infallibility and that matters such as defining and declaring a specific interpretation of the Scriptures are part of that.

So, we can all make jokes for another fifty posts and the problem will not be solved. What has to be addressed is how can we show the Church does not make false ‘immutable’ decrees. The answer to this lies in a REAL faith, not 257 years of futile excuses as has happened since 1741. Alas, it is my experience, such a faith is very rare.

 

[seeker_of_God]

I’m extremely ignorant on this issue, but just wanted to ask that if there were not actually only two humans in the beginning, regardless of whether their names were Adam and Eve or not, how could there be original sin? The doctrine from the New Testament seems to be that since Adam and Eve sinned, it affected the entire human race, and thus our need for Christ. But if there were more than two humans, what if some of them didn’t sin? Then only some are affected and some are not, or did the effects of original sin affect all, anyway?

Just interested how a different view of the first humans would fit into the doctrine of original sin. Thanks to anyone who can explain it.

 

[cassini]

seeker of God, your thinking has the logic of a true Catholic. Alas, we are up against the ‘heresy of all heresies’ as St Pius X called it - Modernism. What this means is that sice 1820, when Churchmen finally conceded to placing their faith in ‘scientists’ and not in the Church’s tradition and decrees, there emerged a NEW theology, especially designed to take into account the THEORIES of men. This meant that when the evolution of man became fashionable among intellectuals in the Church, they had to REVISE how the doctrine of Original Sin could be explained in an evolutionary scenario. From Cardinal Newman’s time, this mixing began. Soon these ‘theologians’ were given the status of ‘brilliant’ etc.
What the flock were left with was a kind of evolutionary original sin, that is, that man became prone to sin with its effects. You see seeker of God how it LOOKS like it meets the requirements, but when you actually begin to question it in detail the whole thing falls apart. Now given that Original Sin IS the DOGMA upon which the WHOLE Catholic faith is founded, one can see that there is no longer any real TRUTH in Catholic theology.
You cannot keep your cake and eat it as well. If the dogma of Original Sin is to be kept pure and without theological and philosophical flaw then evolutionism must be held as false science. If you want to believe that life generated from inanimate matter and evolved then the theological dogma on original sin is seriously flawed. There is no mish-mash truth. So seeker, stay with your inspired thinking, be happy with the literal reading of the Fathers. Alas, hold it to yourself as there are WOLVES out there, ready to try to destroy your faith by offering all sorts of scientific tricks and theological references devised by those ‘brilliant’ compromisers.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

The Bible is the inspired word of God and is inerrant in whatever it proposes to teach - history, geography, or anything else. People who don’t believe that God, who created the whole universe out of nothing, could make a donkey talk have no faith at all.

It is interesting that the “Bible as myth” people in this thread have apparently received a formal Church education, while the “Bible as inspired and inerrant word of God” people are faithful laypeople who have not had a formal Church education.

What does that tell you about what’s been going on for the last 30 years with Catholic education?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

As to theories being novel - why bother with Christ ? The Chosen People got on perfectly well without Him for 1000 years. That something has been got on without for a long time, does not make it illegitimate or evil. By your reasoning, we can do very well without the definitions that came after 1800 or so. Why have Christological definitions after all of 300 years: because they are useful ? So is Biblical criticism, very useful.

There is so much wrong here. First of all, Christ is not a theory or an idea. Christ is the Son of God, who became man and walked the earth 2,000 years ago. He was crucified, died and was buried. Those are historical FACTS - not theories.

Secondly, you say the Chosen People got on perfectly well without Him for 1000 years. Have you read the Old Testament? Hardly the story of a people getting on perfectly well. Enslavement, exile, famine, war, - by the time of Jesus they were a fragmented, occupied people ruled by a foreign power and lived in abject poverty. They repeatedly violated God’s covenant with them and, according to the prophets, this is what caused their many difficulties.

Christ did not come into a good situation just as a novelty, a new theory. He came into a Fallen world as the Saviour of Mankind. In your analogy, comparing modern scholarship to the Messiah, modern scholarship would have to be the light that leads us out of the darkness that we were formerly in. That is to say, everything that came before modern scholarship was benighted, no good - and modernism has rescued us.

Many people see it in just the opposite way.

 

[juliamajor]

seeker of God, your thinking has the logic of a true Catholic. Alas, we are up against the ‘heresy of all heresies’ as St Pius X called it - Modernism. What this means is that sice 1820, when Churchmen finally conceded to placing their faith in ‘scientists’ and not in the Church’s tradition and decrees, there emerged a NEW theology, especially designed to take into account the THEORIES of men. This meant that when the evolution of man became fashionable among intellectuals in the Church, they had to REVISE how the doctrine of Original Sin could be explained in an evolutionary scenario. From Cardinal Newman’s time, this mixing began. Soon these ‘theologians’ were given the status of ‘brilliant’ etc.
What the flock were left with was a kind of evolutionary original sin, that is, that man became prone to sin with its effects. You see seeker of God how it LOOKS like it meets the requirements, but when you actually begin to question it in detail the whole thing falls apart. Now given that Original Sin IS the DOGMA upon which the WHOLE Catholic faith is founded, one can see that there is no longer any real TRUTH in Catholic theology.
You cannot keep your cake and eat it as well. If the dogma of Original Sin is to be kept pure and without theological and philosophical flaw then evolutionism must be held as false science. If you want to believe that life generated from inanimate matter and evolved then the theological dogma on original sin is seriously flawed. There is no mish-mash truth. So seeker, stay with your inspired thinking, be happy with the literal reading of the Fathers. Alas, hold it to yourself as there are WOLVES out there, ready to try to destroy your faith by offering all sorts of scientific tricks and theological references devised by those ‘brilliant’ compromisers.

You still haven’t answered my question- instead of polemics against what you view to be ‘error’.What about my #49 post- doesn’t it make sense?Or do you live in and for the "good old Days… Worship anything , modernism, traditionalism outside of God is sinful.Leaning on them instead of God is wrong. Have you ever read the entirety of Divino Spiritu Afflante? Or because it was it was written in the 20th century it is unacceptable.? You keep writing the same thing endlessly. You keep denigrating anyone who doesn’t think like you.You quote church documents , that suit your purpose, but ignore others.How entirely Pharisical you are!- how you judge so easily. God sees the heart - you do not. and when you judge- remember God will measure you by the measure you use on others- it’s going to be strict .And unkind. D you think that the Church is a building and a series of decrees! Or is it more then that- does it have a heart and mind! I believe it does! The Pope has said that you can be a believer and believe in evolution. So why don’t you use the Popes standards instead of your own.

 

[juliamajor]

There is so much wrong here. First of all, Christ is not a theory or an idea. Christ is the Son of God, who became man and walked the earth 2,000 years ago. He was crucified, died and was buried. Those are historical FACTS - not theories.

Secondly, you say the Chosen People got on perfectly well without Him for 1000 years. Have you read the Old Testament? Hardly the story of a people getting on perfectly well. Enslavement, exile, famine, war, - by the time of Jesus they were a fragmented, occupied people ruled by a foreign power and lived in abject poverty. They repeatedly violated God’s covenant with them and, according to the prophets, this is what caused their many difficulties.

Christ did not come into a good situation just as a novelty, a new theory. He came into a Fallen world as the Saviour of Mankind. In your analogy, comparing modern scholarship to the Messiah, modern scholarship would have to be the light that leads us out of the darkness that we were formerly in. That is to say, everything that came before modern scholarship was benighted, no good - and modernism has rescued us.

Many people see it in just the opposite way.

Gottle hasn’t said any such thing- you read into and interpret the way you want it to be.If you read more of Gottle’s posts then you’d know what a good Catholic he is.But you won’t and can’t. .you are so stuck on your personal view of God and His Church .Wicked people have taken over! Your world would be shattered if the anything in Genesis was found to be untrue. That is to live in a house of cards. If your faith depends on ever jot ,every word ,syntax - then how do you deal with doublets, glosses ,copyists errors and texts that contradict each other?
It is untrue that modern scholarship views what the ECF as unimportant and “benighted”. simply untrue. it is foundation of modern scholarship-Each generation depends on the scholarship that came before it…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Bible is the inspired word of God and is inerrant in whatever it proposes to teach - history, geography, or anything else. People who don’t believe that God, who created the whole universe out of nothing, could make a donkey talk have no faith at all.

It is interesting that the “Bible as myth” people in this thread have apparently received a formal Church education, while the “Bible as inspired and inerrant word of God” people are faithful laypeople who have not had a formal Church education.

What does that tell you about what’s been going on for the last 30 years with Catholic education?

I rather suspect that what it tells you is very different from what it would tell many of the rest of us. It is ironic that in America we have such a distrust of intelligence and learning. Yet we are the innovators of civilization. Anti-intellectualism is a product of a sect of American society which neither understands it, nor feels comfortable with it. But we have just finished eight years of life in anti-intellectual America. What might that tell you?

 

[cassini]

I’m sorry juliamajor, I have read your post no 49 and for the life of me I cannot find the question you insist I answer. What I do believe in is what God taught all Catholics in the Scriptures ‘Even if an angel of light were to appear before you with a doctrine different that that I give you, do not believe him.’ Pope Pius XII was the pope who was infatuated with the Big Bang theory. Indeed he went so far as to pin point it as the moment of creation 15 billion years ago. He did this in an address in 1941 to the Pontifical academy of science. He thus married the theology of creation to the speculations of man. The Big Bang is of course the mother and father of all evolutionary thought. Now I and many millions of others consider the Big Bang and resulting evolution of all life as the biggest load of nonsense man could invent no matter what Pope Pius XII and his successors think and say. What I do know is that no pope could ever make an official definition on evolution or any of its inferrences. Instead of confusing the flock and letting evolutionism loose on the flock he should have been protecting the flock as ordered by the infallible Vatican I:

Vatican Council I of 1869-70:

‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ — (Denzinger - 1795-98.)

Now juliamajor, I make no apologies to you for being so outright with what I believe is asked of me as a Catholic. You may if you wish believe in fairies and you can argue that other Catholics can believe in fairies too, but you will not get me to believe in them even if a pope believed in fairies or if an encyclical says I can believe in fairies.

 

[juliamajor]

I’m sorry juliamajor, I have read your post no 49 and for the life of me I cannot find the question you insist I answer. What I do believe in is what God taught all Catholics in the Scriptures ‘Even if an angel of light were to appear before you with a doctrine different that that I give you, do not believe him.’ Pope Pius XII was the pope who was infatuated with the Big Bang theory. Indeed he went so far as to pin point it as the moment of creation 15 billion years ago. He did this in an address in 1941 to the Pontifical academy of science. He thus married the theology of creation to the speculations of man. The Big Bang is of course the mother and father of all evolutionary thought. Now I and many millions of others consider the Big Bang and resulting evolution of all life as the biggest load of nonsense man could invent no matter what Pope Pius XII and his successors think and say. What I do know is that no pope could ever make an official definition on evolution or any of its inferrences. Instead of confusing the flock and letting evolutionism loose on the flock he should have been protecting the flock as ordered by the infallible Vatican I:

Vatican Council I of 1869-70:

‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ — (Denzinger - 1795-98.)

Now juliamajor, I make no apologies to you for being so outright with what I believe is asked of me as a Catholic. You may if you wish believe in fairies and you can argue that other Catholics can believe in fairies too, but you will not get me to believe in them even if a pope believed in fairies or if an encyclical says I can believe in fairies.

Ah- just as I thought- ultra traditionalist. answers sooo much! Catholic you say!? You have much more in common with Luther -obey somethings-not obey others? Cafeteria catholic! Pius XII-suspect!!! How Protestant of you.I know you’ve deluded yourself into thinking you’re Catholic- but your not.Sorry!

 

[seeker_of_God]

So, juliamajor, since you seem so passionate and knowledgeable on this, could you answer my question? I’m not set in either belief, but am trying to understand both sides. Right now all I see is hurling insults back and forth, and it’s not helping at all.

I don’t even know which view is prominant in the Church, since it seems rather split here.

 

[santodomingo]

Marco: In answer to your opinion that geocentricism is not a matter of faith and morals I answer that your opinion differs to that of Cardinal Bellarmine who said that because the Scriptures reveal it then it is a matter of faith, just as the virgin birth is. This opinion was upheld by the Church in 1616, 1633 and 1664. The logic goes like this. The Bible states in many places that the sun moves. Thus it becomes a matter of revelation. It was defined and declared as such in 1616. Now if that is not true then the Bible contains errors or the Church cannot interpret the Bible correctly. A sort of catch 22 Marco.

The Catholic Church has God-given authority to make infallible claims regarding faith and morals, **not **science. When the Church strays from her mission, which is to guide men & women to salvation through Christ, and attempts to teach us physics, she brings upon herself ridicule, as in the case of Galileo.

Please be careful with making the Bible say things that it doesn´t necessarily. For example, we say the sun comes “up” in the morning and goes “down” in the evening. Does that mean the Earth is static and the sun is simply bobbing up and down as if on a string?

We also proclaim in the Creed that Christ “ascended” to Heaven. Does that mean that Heaven is above Earth in a physical sense? How far above Earth? 5 kilometres, 20, 100, 1000? That´s hardly serious!

 

[savedsinner]

The Bible conveys theological truths — not scientific or historical facts. I do know that.

The bible tells us why God created us, science can tell us how God created us.

I personally wouldn’t get caught up on what is true history and what is myth, I would focus on what the story is trying to tell us.

Archeology, as it finds new ruins and sites, has been proving the bible correct in some things that up until now were though to be myths.

 

[Melchior]

The Bible is the inspired word of God and is inerrant in whatever it proposes to teach - history, geography, or anything else. People who don’t believe that God, who created the whole universe out of nothing, could make a donkey talk have no faith at all.

It is interesting that the “Bible as myth” people in this thread have apparently received a formal Church education, while the “Bible as inspired and inerrant word of God” people are faithful laypeople who have not had a formal Church education.

What does that tell you about what’s been going on for the last 30 years with Catholic education?

This is so true. Of course the HUGE irony that these folks do not understand is that it has nothing to do with Catholicism. In the 20th century the church (or at least the scholarly class of the church) decided it would be a good idea to adopt a mainstream protestant outlook on such things. However, they do not realize that they are consistently about 20 years behind mainstream protestantism in adopting their philosophy. The idea that scripture is only accurate regarding things pertaining to salvation was just such a mainstream protestant rage about 20 years ago. To see where this is headed just take a look at what mainstream Protestants are now saying about scripture and you will see where this stripe of Catholic will be in 20 years.

Of course these are the same people who mock converts from conservative Protestantism, mislabel them all as fundamentalists, say they are infecting the church all the while they are just like the teens in the 80’s thinking they were onto something cutting edge by becoming hippies, by adopting mainstream protestant views of scripture and thinking it is the Catholic position just because many Catholics have capitulated to mainstream Protestantism. If anything it is the converts who will save the church from these folks who are out of step with church tradition, the apostles, the Fathers, and Jesus himself.

Of course I will now be called angry, hateful etc. This is what those of a liberal mindset resort to when someone disagrees with them.

Bottom line: Catholics who do the whole OT history is false history… er… “myth” (I wonder if the Wisdom literature is false wisdom?) are merely parroting already out of vogue mainstream protestant “theologians” from 2 decades ago.

We must read scriptures with faith, as the church teaches, btw, and with the fathers and the overwhelming majority of the Popes. Don’t let people turn the Bible upside down and strip it of it’s meaning simply because they don’t want to look un-intellectual to evolutionists. Modern scientific theories have nothing to do with proper exegesis. Indeed, being embarrassed by God’s word is not a proper midset to approach hermeneutics with.