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

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
The Bible conveys theological truths — not scientific or historical facts. I do know that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How are we to know what is historical and what is not? What are we to take literally? What really happened in the Bible?

I’m beginning to believe the story of Noah is largely “copied” from earlier myths of great floods and gods, so I do not consider the story of Noah to be very accurate. But then again, he must have existed. 🤷
I understand that the authors (of Genesis) convey certain truths about the one, true God. The changes of the story oppose the polytheism that the earlier stories of MYTHS (from Babylon) contained.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It frustrates me when I see people regard such things as the story of the nativity as myths.

And when we go to the Exodus, we ask “How could God kill a child” (the first born). Many people consider the plagues to be additions to the real facts.

So, how are we suppose to know what is true and what is not?
 
catholic1seeks said:
The Bible conveys theological truths — not scientific or historical facts. I do know that.
Click to expand...
I actually believe the story of Noah’s ark - and believe the similarity to myths/stories of a flood in other cultures is, in fact, because of the truth of the historical event. As to this particular story - Jesus mentioned it specifically in a context strongly suggestive of his belief in the story.

As to which stories are “literal” and which are not - we will find out, God willing, together in heaven. My theology and beliefs would not be rocked if I found out that were lessens rather than historical fact - but I believe all things are possible with God and in my heart believe he did empower Moses, for example, to part the Red Sea. They certainly all convey spiritual truths whether literal and historical or not.

I will say that for those who ascribe all the stories to myth or symbols alone, that is a slippery slope which has led many to the heresey of professing a spiritual, rather than literal resurrection, or even some to deny the divinity of Christ, etc.

Blessings,

Brian
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
II Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

II Pet 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit.

How could such verses allow for any of it to be myth? It’s all history.
It fits with history and science just fine. In fact there’s a lot in the bible that took science a long time to catch up on. I think the reason why lots of cultures have a flood story is because it happened but the story was made up or got jumbled and they didn’t have the scriptures to get the story right.
 
These are my own personal ideas that help me.
I do not know if they are correct.
If they are wrong, I will change them to the correct teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Also, I am not sure how they apply to Noah.
I believe that the account of the flood is real.
**I do not know if the account is in its literal form. **

Literal- when words are used to signify those things for which they were invented. Dog (canine) of the family pet, tree for the olive tree in our yard, fire for cooking food and heating our home, water for drinking, snake for that which crawls in the forest, and heart for pumping of our blood.
Figurative- the very things which we signify by the literal word are applied to some other thing. Dog is for evil person, olive tree for a group of people, fire for God, water for God’s grace, snake for the devil (Book of Revelation), and heart for our soul.
These figurative words are divinely chosen and inspired symbols. These symbols must be interpreted to their literal meaning. These symbols are explained in other passages of the Bible.
Stars are the divinely chosen and inspired symbol for angel (cf. Matt. 2: 2 star; Luke 2: 9 angel; Matt. Magi, Luke shepherds). (I will not repeat that formula in each sentence.)
Beginning is the divinely chosen and inspired symbol for the Word.
Thorn is a symbol for worldly anxiety.
Shepherd is a symbol for church leader.
Good shepherd is the symbol for Jesus Christ.
**Lampstands are the symbol for churches. **
Fine linen is the symbol for the righteousness of saints.
Water is the symbol for peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues.
Deep or abyss is a symbol for God’s wisdom.
Wind is a symbol for God’s Spirit.
Light is a symbol for God’s grace and direction in our soul. Jesus is the light of the world. Light: day. Darkness: light.
Firmament is His power.
Sun is a symbol for Jesus’ righteousness.
Seed is the Word of God.
Birds or vultures are devils.
Dragon, old serpent and Satan is the symbol for devil.
Bride of Lamb is the great city, the Holy Jerusalem. Lamb is a symbol for Jesus the Christ!
Woman was the great city.
Canine (dog, wolf, fox) is the symbol for evil people.
**Olive trees are the symbol of Jews and gentiles. **
**Fire is the symbol for God. Our God is a consuming fire. Fire is the symbol for love and wrath of God. Love is what the good experience. Fire is what the wicked experience. **
Water is for God’s grace.
Heart is the symbol for our soul.
Food, meat, or beard is the symbol for doing God’s will. Milk is God’s food for beginners.
The seven sacraments.
 
Xenos8 said:
II Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

II Pet 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit.

How could such verses allow for any of it to be myth? It’s all history.
It fits with history and science just fine. In fact there’s a lot in the bible that took science a long time to catch up on. I think the reason why lots of cultures have a flood story is because it happened but the story was made up or got jumbled and they didn’t have the scriptures to get the story right.
Click to expand...

“It’s all history” ? So let’s see: you’ve just committed yourself to the historicality of​

  • talking animals
  • seven-headed dragons
  • God’s fight with a sea serpent
  • God’s fight with the monster Rahab
  • skipping hills
  • the fall of satan from Heaven in about 29 AD
  • the creation of the sun after 72 hours had elapsed
  • monsters from the sea
    & so on 🙂 It’s all in the Bible - the composers of the Biblical texts did not have our obsession with history, so why must we ? They were quite happy to use a great variety of types of literature, including parable & myth: if they were, why cannot we be too ? Historical truth is only one kind of truth - & it’s not even the most important: there’s not much history in Heaven.
 
OK, sorry, let me clarify. When I said it’s all history I meant the obvious history stuff is history. For example, the flood is history. Events in the bible are history. What’s wrong with the historicity of creation? There are parables in the bible, but no myth.
 
The catholic church teaches the bible is not infalliable when it comes to History or science?

Is there any documentation that shows that?

So the church only believes its infalliable when it comes to theological and moral truths?

I d really like some clairty on this issue…
 
Catholic1 began his thread with the following ‘The Bible conveys theological truths — not scientific or historical facts. I do know that.’

Here lies the problem. Exactly where did this dogma come from? I know. It came from a cardinal who had more faith in astronomers and philosophers than he had in the Church’s divine guidance.

The Church is 2000 years in existence. Do you actually think modern thought knows better than the Church of the seventeenth century?

unfortunately there IS NO biblical scholarship left in the Catholic Church today. So if you want the truth about the Bible, then you must learn what the scholastics had to say about its contents.
 
SoulRebel777 said:
The catholic church teaches the bible is not infalliable when it comes to History or science?

Is there any documentation that shows that?

So the church only believes its infalliable when it comes to theological and moral truths?

I d really like some clairty on this issue…
Click to expand...
Dei Verbum ( the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) states:

*Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. *

Not the items in bold - the books of scripture teach the truths related to our salvation, not related to math, science, biology, etc. Also note that this is Catholic Dogma, regardless of the fact that it was published in “modern” times (which some seem to assume makes it automatically suspect).

This same document also teaches that the truth is not always historic truth and is not restricted to non-fiction:

For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

You can also read the *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (and Paul VI) and learn that the gospels are not restricted at all to literal historical accuracy.

Both documents are available online.
 
If the Holy spirit inspired the Bible how can anything in the bible including History and science not be true?
 
SoulRebel777 said:
If the Holy spirit inspired the Bible how can anything in the bible including History and science not be true?
Click to expand...
Truth is not dependent on the literary form of the story - total fiction can convey deep and profound truths. Saying that something is a myth, legend, poem, etc does not define the truth of the teaching at all.

As Dei Verbum states: For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. There is no reason to limit God’s inspiration to producing only literalistic non-fiction. Even Jesus taught truth using fictional stories - was He lying?
 
Of course Christ wasnt lying.

My point is how can these so called bishops , say the accuracy of the historcial date of the bible is flawed when it was inspired by the Holy spirit???

I understand your point about conveying truths in stories etc but it still doesnt answer my question abovd
 
SoulRebel777 said:
If the Holy spirit inspired the Bible how can anything in the bible including History and science not be true?
Click to expand...
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.

Of course scripture is not a science text but when people try this baloney about the historical narratives in the Bible being “true myths” 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. 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 you cannot progress if you deviate from the new orthodoxy.

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

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. And really why would God not tell us what really happened and instead give us a myth instead? 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.
 
patg said:
Truth is not dependent on the literary form of the story - total fiction can convey deep and profound truths. Saying that something is a myth, legend, poem, etc does not define the truth of the teaching at all.

As Dei Verbum states: For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. There is no reason to limit God’s inspiration to producing only literalistic non-fiction. Even Jesus taught truth using fictional stories - was He lying?
Click to expand...
Well, it seems Jesus and the Apostles read Genesis 1-11 as historical narrative. So we should too. Otherwise I agree with you about genres. The trouble is when people try to squeeze Genesis into a different genre to make it jibe with modern scientific theories. That is no way to determine the intent of ancient literature.
 
It has been pragmatically argued since Churchmen adopted the heretical Copernican or cabbalistic interpretation of Scripture in 1741 and 1820 that the Bible is not intended to teach us the ways of nature, but the way to eternal salvation. This is a perversion spawned by the hermetically inclined Cardinal Caesar Baronius, who not only claimed in his Annales Ecclesiastici of around 1610 that Hermēs Trismegistus was one of the pagan prophets heralding the birth of Christ, but in the wake of the Galileo affair gave posterity the now famous often used quip ‘the Bible is not intended to teach us how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.’ Now whereas this could be so, the hard fact is that throughout the holy Books there are many cases where facts of nature are mentioned or stated, both implicitly and explicitly. Indeed there are occasions where the Scriptures disclose laws and facts of nature some thousands of years prior to man’s own discovery of them. What really matters of course is that whatever the Bible says and truly means is the truth of it, whether the matter is of natural things or of divine things. We know this because this is what the Church has always taught. The most recent and accurate reiteration on this very point is to be found in Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical on Scripture: Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920, where he declares:

‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase –and indeed every word of Scripture– yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration –namely, absolute truth and immunity from error- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest –things concerning “profane knowledge”, the garments in which the Divine truth is presented- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science.’

So patg, did you post a Dei Verbum ( the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) statement that contradicted this. I believe you did, which does show modern thought is dangerous.

Very good. We see then that much of the rhetoric spoken on the subject of nature or science in the Bible must be discarded with the Holy Father’s clear and unambiguous teaching. And if we know the Bible we should know that Jesus Himself, by regularly quoting the Old Testament, even on matters of a physical nature such as the universal flood of Noah, showed this teaching to be the truth of it. Following this we can now note what the Lateran Council V of 1512-17 had to say:

‘And since truth never contradicts truth, we declare every assertion contrary to the truth of illuminated faith to be altogether false; and, that it may not be permitted to dogmatise otherwise, we strictly forbid it, and we decree that all who adhere to errors of this kind are to be shunned and to be punished as detestable and abominable infidels who disseminate most damnable heresies and who weaken the Catholic faith.’ —(Denzinger - 738)

So, in 1616 the Catholic Church defined and declared the Scriptures depict the earth lies at the material and spiritual centre of the universe and that the sun moves. In 1741 and 1820 the popes and Holy Office did a U-turn on this biblical reading. Now when popes start contradicting one another as to what is in the Bible they consigned Catholic biblical exegesis and hermeneutics to Protestantism, i.e., read it as it suits the current paradigm.
 
Melchior said:
Well, it seems Jesus and the Apostles read Genesis 1-11 as historical narrative.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that their using quotes from Genesis say anything about their assumption of it being a historical narrative. God inspired the author to write about the concept that God created everything. The author wrote the myth of creation to explain this inspiration in a way that made sense to him, based on contemporary knowledge.
 
SoulRebel777 said:
Of course Christ wasnt lying.

My point is how can these so called bishops , say the accuracy of the historcial date of the bible is flawed when it was inspired by the Holy spirit???

I understand your point about conveying truths in stories etc but it still doesnt answer my question abovd
Click to expand...
There are so few historical dates in the bible that this is pretty insignificant, especially since none are relevant to our salvation. The only one I frequently hear argued concerns the general time of Jesus’ birth, which is a bit muddled. History didn’t mean what it does to us. There were no records that a child was born at 7:59 AM on 12/25/0000 and weighed 8 lbs 3 ounces… The authors made stabs at things based on what they thought was close and it didn’t really bother anyone.

We also need to be aware that the term “inspiration” is very loosely used by the church. The church only says that the scriptures contain the inspired truth which God wanted to relate for out salvation. It does not say which documents are the inspired ones - the originals (which we don’t even have)?, which translation into which language? form which source material (of which there is a tremendous variety)? Because of this the church has been very careful to only declare a dogmatic interpretation of a very small handful of scripture passages.

You should also know that none of the ideas I have presented are just my personal opinion - they all come from recognized catholic scholars writing the approval of the imprimatur and nihil obstat. One inexpensive booklet that discusses many such subjects is *Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know *by Ronald Witherup SS.
 
Pat the Bible is fully and totally the inspired Word of God. If I wanted to I could research and provide you numerous qoutes from previous Popes that make this declaration.

You have bought into Modernism , which is a complete undermining of Our Faith.

Which Pope was it that said The Smoke of Satan has Entered?? I have no doubt he was including these Post Modernistic Teachings.
 
Scripture is scripture and history is history. One has nothing to do with the other. History and salvation history are clearly not the same.History as we know it is relatively new. If you want history with factiods coming out of your nose- then don’t choose the bible.What is more important to God our relationship to Him or how big the Ark was?Is it our journey in faith with Him or Nimrod true or false?This questions really border on the absurd. Where is the importance in the first 11 books of Genesis? What is it trying to say.History comes and goes and so does science. But our God is eternal, as His truth. The Ancient Hebrews would not have understood all the fuss and bother about “historic” truth in the Western, modern way. such thinking did not exist.Their concern, their most important and consuming concern was with Salvation history.Israel’s relationship with God, God’s relationship to His people and the world. That’s the history that counts. faith and morals-stand and will stand forever.To judge one’s catholicity by his interpretation of the first 11 books of genesis is just plain wrong.History was and never is the point of scripture- nor is it true of encyclicals or catechism…2/3 of the Book of Genesis dwell on the relationship of God to His people via the Patriarchs.The creation stories are part of prehistory- before writing.when we get to Abraham,we were on surer path of history-even though it is not as important as the story of the Patriarchs and their Faith in YHWH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top