Should the 'Bible' be taken literally?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Antonio_022
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Antonio_022

Guest
I had an argument with an atheist the other day and we came to the topic of creation. He said that it’s impossible for the world to be made in 6 days whereas I believe that these 6 days were meant to be something like 6 billion years or so but most Christians take this literally that I’m beginning to have doubts. Same thing with Noah’s Ark.

I have been a catholic all my life and have no intention of denying my faith.

So must the Bible be taken literally? Or is it supposed to be interpreted?
 
Where the intent of the writer was literal, yes. Where that intent was allegorical, no. Where that intent was poetic, no. And, so on. The sacred author’s intent is critical to properly understanding scripture.
 
I had an argument with an atheist the other day and we came to the topic of creation. He said that it’s impossible for the world to be made in 6 days whereas I believe that these 6 days were meant to be something like 6 billion years or so but most Christians take this literally that I’m beginning to have doubts. Same thing with Noah’s Ark.

I have been a catholic all my life and have no intention of denying my faith.

So must the Bible be taken literally? Or is it supposed to be interpreted?
Practically speaking (as in the means for obtaining joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision) one should literally concentrate on the doctrines of the Catholic Church, especially the reality of Jesus in the Eucharist. Bible source: Gospel of John, chapter six
 
I heard Genesis chapter 1 is actually a poem, which means it is highly figurative. Whether everything was created in six days is irrelevant to salvation, but considering the poetic nature of the creation story as recorded in the Bible, it is unlikely that God worked that quickly. Remember that a day for God is as 1000 years for us. Hope this helps! 😉
 
I heard Genesis chapter 1 is actually a poem, which means it is highly figurative. Whether everything was created in six days is irrelevant to salvation, but considering the poetic nature of the creation story as recorded in the Bible, it is unlikely that God worked that quickly. Remember that a day for God is as 1000 years for us. Hope this helps! 😉
Personally, I wonder why people stop with the “six days” when the summit of creation is Adam and Eve.
 
I heard Genesis chapter 1 is actually a poem, which means it is highly figurative. Whether everything was created in six days is irrelevant to salvation, but considering the poetic nature of the creation story as recorded in the Bible, it is unlikely that God worked that quickly. Remember that a day for God is as 1000 years for us. Hope this helps! 😉
Poem or not, according to the Catholic Church major Divine Revelation regarding living, breathing human beings is contained in the first chapter of Genesis through the third chapter of Genesis.
 
Yeah, whatever. I really don’t know. I’m no scholar. I just heard something like that. Anyway, the timing is irrelevant. God made it, yo, and that’s that. How long it took is irrelevant to an ex nihilo creation event.
 
I would not say that “most Christians” believe in a literal, six 24-hour day creation. I would be quite surprised if that were the case.

In the theologically technical sense of the world, the Bible should absolutely be taken literally. The Church speaks of the “senses” of Scripture and the various spiritual senses are always based on the literal sense.

But by “literal”, the Church means “the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation” (CCC 116). In other words, the literal sense of a passage is what the author wanted to convey. If the author wanted to use symbolic imagery to make a point, then the literal sense of that passage is that the images represent a larger religious truth.

To take a mundane example, if someone says “It’s raining cats and dogs”, they do not mean that felines and canines are literally falling from the sky in large quantities. They mean it is raining heavily. From a theological perspective, that it is raining heavily would be the “literal sense” of that phrase because that is the meaning the author wished to convey.

Problems arise very quickly when we treat every line of Scripture as though the author intended it to be literally descriptive.

Of course, we need to be careful about being too dismissive of those passages that really are historical. But Genesis 1-11 is not a straight history account in the modern American sense of the word “history.”
 
The Church teaches that the Bible is to be taken “literally”, by which is meant “according to the author’s intentions”, which requires understanding the text-type, the writing style of the time, context, etc. This is opposed to reading the text “literalistically”, by which is meant “exactly as the words say”.
 
Joe 5859; said:

). In other words, the literal sense of a passage is what the author wanted to convey. If the author wanted to use symbolic imagery to make a point, then the literal sense of that passage is that the images represent a larger religious truth.

To take a mundane example, if someone says “It’s raining cats and dogs”, they do not mean that felines and canines are literally falling from the sky in large quantities. They mean it is raining heavily. From a theological perspective, that it is raining heavily would be the “literal sense” of that phrase because that is the meaning the author wished to convey.

Problems arise very quickly when we treat every line of Scripture as though the author intended it to be literally descriptive.

Of course, we need to be careful about being too dismissive of those passages that really are historical. But Genesis 1-11 is not a straight history account in the modern American sense of the word “history.”

What you said, especifically your example of raining cats and dogs, is what I have been told numerous times by several priests and theologians. Also, we need to consider the level of knowledge a person in that specific time and space has. Atheist always love to say but where are the dinosours in the bible. There is no way a person who lived over 3000 years ago is going to know what a dinosour is, instead they are going to refer to them as “beasts” so many fail to take all that stuff into account. And another error is that many want to take the bible as a science book and the bible is not a science book and the intention of the authors was not to write a historical review or a scientific paper, their intention was to write about God so just point that out, you are not going to find hard science in the bible because is not a science book.

Also, I think the bible may be more accurate than what many think. I went to Egypt right after some archeological discovery of a new city was done. One argument made against the accuracy of the bible was that in the Moses story Egyptians had horses and it was argued that the pharaom in question didn’t have horses. Well they found horse Barnes in this new city and what happened was the pharaon they thought, was not the right pharaon and this pharaon who they had little.knowledge about, move the capital to a different place, he raised horses there and after his death the following pharaon move the capital back and remained as the previous ones so the bible was accurate, people just didn’t know. I wonder how many more stories like that are in the Genesis that are actually way accurate than what we think…it is just that we don’t know about it.
 
As Boromir would say: “One does not simply read the Bible the same way one would read the newspaper”.

Tell your atheist friend that there are a lot of things in the Bible in which genre, context, translation meaning, and writing style need to be taken in account. For example, one version of the King James uses the term “Unicorn”. I have seen atheists gleefully take this as irrefutable proof that the Bible is just mythology. However, to burst their bubble, the term “unicorn” in that translation means “any animal with one horn”, such as a rhino. The Bible was never meant to be a science textbook, and even says in John 21:25 that it is not the source of all knowledge (“but there are many things Jesus did that are not written in this book; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world could not contain the books that could be written”).

Finally, remind your friend that we as Catholics are not the backwater, flat-earther fundamentalists that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris make us out to be.
 
The word translated as “Day” in Genesis essentailly means “time period” and so was not 24 hours, as I am guessing that there were no clocks or calendars before htey wre created. It is man, in his limited understanding, that has imposed the notion of a 24 hour day upon this apportioning of creation.

An excellent book on the reading of scripture is Making Senses Out Of Scripture by Mark P. Shea.
 
=Antonio_022;10607004]I had an argument with an atheist the other day and we came to the topic of creation. He said that it’s impossible for the world to be made in 6 days whereas I believe that these 6 days were meant to be something like 6 billion years or so but most Christians take this literally that I’m beginning to have doubts. Same thing with Noah’s Ark.
I have been a catholic all my life and have no intention of denying my faith.
So must the Bible be taken literally? Or is it supposed to be interpreted?
MY FRIEND!

Some advice from a 68 year old Life long Catholic who has been VERY involved in our Church for MANY years.
  1. NEVER EVER let someone esle tell you what we believe [yes I know your not:)]
  2. Their are a GREAT many Literary forms used in the authorship pf of the bible.
Literary devices in the Bible

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/k-lee7/www/iccf/docs/blitdevice.htm

BUT; NOBODY was there right:D

God CAN Do ANY Good thing right?

God’s “CREATED” the Universe; he didn’t “build it”. He 'WILLED" it into existence; so it could have been:
6 seconds
6 Hours
6 days
6 weeks
6 months
6 years

or 6 zillion years???

Time does NOT exist for God; its a human ivention and necessity. For God everything is PRESENT now.

We simply don’t know. The Lesso is that GOS DID CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN TI; AND KEEPS IT IN EXISTENCE. That dear friend is what we are to know and learn about how the universe came into being.

as a FYL: Do you know WHY God Created [to make out of nothing] the Universe?

So that man could; if man used rightly used the gifts God has given to man exclusively: our minds, intellects and freewill which are permnately attached to our Souls, could know that God exist. Your atheist friend has missed the boat but maybe; God willing you can help him find it:shrug:

BTW: these gifts like God are Spiritual realities. How does your friend explain that?😃
 
This is almost off-topic, it’s so remote, but I’m going to say it anyway.

Granted that I need to study the Bible more, but if you look at a lot of it and if you also pay some attention to some of the notions physicists have lately come up with, it’s no stretch at all to take a good part of Genesis in a “literal but not technical” way.

Just for example, the idea of God, in Genesis, first creating light, then separating the dark from the light, is not far removed from some of the theories about the Big Bang, and perhaps even before it. We are told by some that before the Big Bang there was only an infinitesimally small, vibrating “string” of pure and immensely powerful energy (light?) located in absolute nothingness, not even in “space”. It exploded (or did something) and, among other things, we are told by some, energy as we know it to be, and dark energy, which few even pretend to understand, were among the results. We don’t quibble with the use of the term “Big Bang” even though it’s “literal but not technical”. It’s a way of expressing a chain of equations a mile long with terminology that has meaning to most and still tells the tale in a way that nevertheless has accuracy. There are other examples.

There are things of other sorts. Virtually every event and phenomenon in Exodus has a geologic, biologic or archaeological counterpart. Was the “pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night” the volcano Thera? Was the Nile “turning to blood” a red algal bloom that occasionally does happen in the Nile? We don’t know, but we sure can’t rule out the literalness of the Genesis events because there were events that could make them all literally true.

Personally, though I have no pretense at all to being a biblical scholar, I am more and more inclined to take it more literally than I did when I was younger and before a lot of modern discoveries and scholarship have emerged.
 
=Ridgerunner;10615055]This is almost off-topic, it’s so remote, but I’m going to say it anyway.
Granted that I need to study the Bible more, but if you look at a lot of it and if you also pay some attention to some of the notions physicists have lately come up with, it’s no stretch at all to take a good part of Genesis in a “literal but not technical” way.
Just for example, the idea of God, in Genesis, first creating light, then separating the dark from the light, is not far removed from some of the theories about the Big Bang, and perhaps even before it. We are told by some that before the Big Bang there was only an infinitesimally small, vibrating “string” of pure and immensely powerful energy (light?) located in absolute nothingness, not even in “space”. It exploded (or did something) and, among other things, we are told by some, energy as we know it to be, and dark energy, which few even pretend to understand, were among the results. We don’t quibble with the use of the term “Big Bang” even though it’s “literal but not technical”. It’s a way of expressing a chain of equations a mile long with terminology that has meaning to most and still tells the tale in a way that nevertheless has accuracy. There are other examples.
There are things of other sorts. Virtually every event and phenomenon in Exodus has a geologic, biologic or archaeological counterpart. Was the “pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night” the volcano Thera? Was the Nile “turning to blood” a red algal bloom that occasionally does happen in the Nile? We don’t know, but we sure can’t rule out the literalness of the Genesis events because there were events that could make them all literally true.
Personally, though I have no pretense at all to being a biblical scholar, I am more and more inclined to take it more literally than I did when I was younger and before a lot of modern discoveries and scholarship have emerged.
Two points my friend:
  1. The Big BAng had to have “someting to bang”😃 [The First cause]
  2. The CC does not disalow evolution; BUT rightly insist that it TOO IS a part of God’s unfolding plan. The “Big bang” IMO totally uniformed opinion however is a streach. The Order and the Natual Laws are far too complex to have just “happened”🤷
 
I had an argument with an atheist the other day and we came to the topic of creation. He said that it’s impossible for the world to be made in 6 days whereas I believe that these 6 days were meant to be something like 6 billion years or so but most Christians take this literally that I’m beginning to have doubts. Same thing with Noah’s Ark.

I have been a catholic all my life and have no intention of denying my faith.

So must the Bible be taken literally? Or is it supposed to be interpreted?
With the Book of Genesis, I try to keep it simple (not that I am a simple person);

** “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” **

It doesn’t get much harder than that! God created everything (including us, time, everything) the rest is commentary. 🙂
 
The non-theist position is that he wants scientific proof. And even if he got that proof, and became Catholic, could he believe that the little wafer called the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus? See, the questions and desire for “proof” would not end there.

I am greatly saddened that some only guess about Genesis when they can find out.

From Catholic Answers:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

From a Jewish source regarding the word “yom.”

judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10079/what-is-the-meaning-of-yowm-in-bereshit

From Catholic Answers:

"The Topical Reading

"This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

"The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was “formless and empty” (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

"On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

"But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”

The current year on the Hebrew calendar is 5773.

Peace,
Ed
 
We should first try to understand what the authors are trying to mean from their writing.Sometimes its symbolic and sometimes its literal.Every word written in the Bible are inspired by God as also been stated in the Bible.The fall(original sin) is the historical event .It has definitely taken place because of which we are sinful by very nature.If the sin has not taken place God is not good to create us sinful.However,God is good and created the first man and women pure.There was fall in the history ,i.e,in the beginning of the creation for which Jesus the son of God has to die on the cross for our redemption.
Now,wether God created the universe in 6 days or 1000 years it would still be a mystery(beyond human comprehension to understand fully).
 
The Church teaches that the Bible is to be taken “literally”, by which is meant “according to the author’s intentions”, which requires understanding the text-type, the writing style of the time, context, etc. This is opposed to reading the text “literalistically”, by which is meant “exactly as the words say”.
In the theologically technical sense of the world, the Bible should absolutely be taken literally. The Church speaks of the “senses” of Scripture and the various spiritual senses are always based on the literal sense.

But by “literal”, the Church means “the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation” (CCC 116). In other words, the literal sense of a passage is what the author wanted to convey. If the author wanted to use symbolic imagery to make a point, then the literal sense of that passage is that the images represent a larger religious truth.

To take a mundane example, if someone says “It’s raining cats and dogs”, they do not mean that felines and canines are literally falling from the sky in large quantities. They mean it is raining heavily. From a theological perspective, that it is raining heavily would be the “literal sense” of that phrase because that is the meaning the author wished to convey.

Problems arise very quickly when we treat every line of Scripture as though the author intended it to be literally descriptive.

Of course, we need to be careful about being too dismissive of those passages that really are historical. But Genesis 1-11 is not a straight history account in the modern American sense of the word “history.”
Great posts. 👍

A couple of relevant Church documents:

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (see especially #11-13)
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (see especially “F. Fundamentalist Interpretation”)
 
The Bible shouldn’t be taken too literally, especially in Genesis. It could have been six seconds, six minutes, six days, or six million years. The fruit could have been an apple, pear, prune, peach or something we’ve never seen before. Perhaps Adam and Eve didn’t exist. But the basis is that humanity sinned and fell away from God. The facts remain that the first disobedience happened, the first murder (Cain and Abel), the first great calamity (Noah’s Ark) the first sacrifice (Abraham and Isaac). It could be taken as figuratively, or even foreshadowing events to come. The true sacrifice of Christ, the obedience of Mary, the redemption of the world through Christ, e.t.c
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top