Should we take the Bible Literal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter laforec
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

laforec

Guest
I have run into some friends who say that we should not take the Bible literal. They have said that some stories in the Bible are not true, i.e. Creation story, Noah, and Wall of Jerrico. I always believed these stories to be true. I have read that the Bible is the infallible, inspired and inerrant word of God… so if this is true, how could some stories not be true? Are they a lie? Isn’t our God the God of the possible? How does one decide what is true and what isn’t??? This is very confusing…

I can’t seem to find a clear church teaching on this issue. Can anyone please help me out???

Thank you,

Chris…
 
My take:

If the Bible is fallible of it’s spiritual content and not God-inspired, to me that renders the entire Bible suspect. Once the Bible (the word of God) becomes suspect, I have no reason to believe any of it to be Truth. This would render Christianity no less a potential fairy tale then Greek mythology. I need to believe the Bible or all is lost.

Yes we should take the Bible literally and there is ample evidence to do so with reason.
 
I’m afraid that the previous post is a bit simplistic.

This from the Catechism (1994 edition):

115-“According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal, and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church”.

There are different ways of conveying and understanding truth: literal interpretation is only one way. Even those who insist on literal interpretation (some Fundamentalist sects) suddenly forget their own rule when it comes to John 6.

You wrote: “I need to believe the Bible or all is lost.”
What do you suppose Christians did for the centuries before the Bible was compiled? Let me quote St. Augustine: “But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.” Personally, I think I’d feel like “all is lost” if the Church were to disappear. Since Christ promised us that this would never happen (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it), I’m not worried.

Also, “fallible” and “infallible” are not the best terms to employ when speaking of an object incapable of action—in this case, a book. I think Karl Keating explained this very well in a previous e-letter, so I’m going to copy here the relevant parts:

" “Fallible” means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. “Infallible” means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error.
"When we use these words, we use them regarding an active agent–that is, we use them about someone making a decision that either may or may not be erroneous (in which case that someone is fallible) or that definitely cannot be erroneous (in which case that someone is infallible).
"Put another way, the active agent is alive and capable of making decisions. A human being is an active agent. Normally human beings are fallible. In a few instances (the pope when speaking ex cathedra, the bishops united with the pope when speaking through an ecumenical council) human beings may act infallibly.
"But a rock never is infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision–or the wrong decision; in fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.
"The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision. Thus it would be wrong to say that the Bible is infallible or fallible–such terms shouldn’t be used about it or about any other book.
"The proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is “inerrant.” The Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error.
 
Sherlock said:
115-“According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal, and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church”.
Click to expand...

BUT “all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” (CCC 116)
 
John Henry,

But note the previous words to that sentence in CCC 116: "The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of of sound interpretation: ‘All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.’ " (the interior quote is Aquinas)

Literal sense, then, is the meaning conveyed.
 
"But a rock never is infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision–or the wrong decision; in fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.
Click to expand...
Have you ever driven by a sunflower field? Some of them do not turn their heads with the sun. In time these sunflowers will die or will not bear good seeds. These sunflowers have made the wrong decision. Now one might argue that the sunflower does not have consciousness. Well this might be the case depending on how you define consciousness.

A sunflower does have awareness, it is aware of the sun, as displayed by its ability to turn towards it. Some sunflowers either do not have this awareness, or do have an awareness but for some reason do not react properly to the stimulus. Humans are little different, there are those that can read the Bible and not see it’s meaning, and there are those that read the Bible and understand it’s meaning and still do not react as one should.

There is an interaction that occurs between human’s and a stimulus that is necessary. A human cannot come to a concussion on something in a void. Inanimate objects have the power of conveyance. A “rock” as stated in the earlier argument can convey information also. If one sees a bloody rock with long blond hair stuck to it a person can assume that it hit another on the head. This conclusion could not have occurred without the rock or the blood and hair.

So with written material it is the conveyance that is being talked about that is “infallible.” A Bible in itself cannot convey a fallacious thing, it is infallible…. Now again we as humans still can react erroneously to this conveyance do to our inability or agenda.

People will claim that the Bible is “inerrant”, yes but look at the definition of “inerrant.”

**American Heritage Dictionary ** (the dictionary most used by the American Court Systems)
in·er·rant
Adj - 1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors.

in·fal·li·ble
  1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
 
Shibboleth,

Are you suggesting, then, that those sunflowers that did not turn towards the sun did so because they weighed the options and made a rational choice?

Sunflowers, as entities, don’t “choose” to turn towards the sun. Cells within the plant’s structure respond to stimuli, in this case, sunlight. The cells react; they do not “choose” to react. The reason a sunflower does not turn to the sun has to do with a number of possible factors: insect damage to cells, for example.

Sorry, Shibboleth, but your statement, “These sunflowers have made the wrong decision” is ludicrous.
 
Shibboleth,

Also, regarding your dictionary definition of “inerrant”—the second definition is the one appropriate in reference to Scripture.

The first definition of infallible given by the dictionary, “Incapable of erring”, contains the important word “incapable”. Again, No book, not even the Bible, is “capable” or “incapable” of making a decision.

I think that common sense applies here: the dictionary is defining these words in their broadest use; the Church is more specific. Logic needs to be used when applying these words to different entities.
 
You should read the book
“The Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat”
by Oliver Sacks

Oliver Sacks is the doctor that Robin Williams portrayed in the movie “Awakenings” which is based off another book by Oliver Sacks. The the first book that I mentioned he goes into case studies of people that have had various aphasias and the consequences of various brain damage.

One of the things that it points out is that we can make decisions without conscious thought.

Have you ever driven somewhere and realized that you have no idea how you got there? You body reacted to the stimulus but it never made it into your consciousness.

When we sit in one position for too long our body adjusts, this is not a conscious action but a decision of our body.

Not all decisions that we make are based off of “rational choice.” An epiphenomenalist and most behavioral psychologist would say that choice is more or less and illusion.
 
Shibboleth,

You wrote, regarding the book “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat” : “One of the things that it points out is that we can make decisions without conscious thought.”

I don’t see what this has to do with the topic at hand, but I would say that yes, there are actions we take that are not the result of conscious thought—if I touch a red-hot pan, I don’t have to process, “this is hot, I will now take my hand away from this object before serious cell damage occurs”, before I jerk my hand away.

I didn’t need to read a book to figure that one out.
 
40.png
laforec:
I have run into some friends who say that we should not take the Bible literal. They have said that some stories in the Bible are not true, i.e. Creation story, Noah, and Wall of Jerrico. I always believed these stories to be true. I have read that the Bible is the infallible, inspired and inerrant word of God… so if this is true, how could some stories not be true? Are they a lie? Isn’t our God the God of the possible? How does one decide what is true and what isn’t??? This is very confusing…

I can’t seem to find a clear church teaching on this issue. Can anyone please help me out???

Thank you,

Chris…
Click to expand...
The Bible is comopsed of 73 different books, each with a style and a message. Some are history, some are prophecy, some teach religious truths.
Genesis starts out with teaching stories: the important facts about God and mankind.
Are they pure history? No.No one was around to take notes.
Are they true? Yes.
Genesis tells us God created everything out of nothing and it was good. We had an original set of parents and they turned away from God, with consequences for every generation since.That God would send eventually send someone born of a woman to redeem us and set things right. The story continues with manking getting worse and worse, until God sends a flood to clean up the place.
History as we would know it starts with Abram leaving Ur to follow God’s call.
 
The Catechism # 115-119::

The senses of Scripture

According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

83 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 1, 10, ad I.
84 Cf. 1 Cor 10:2.
85 1 Cor 10:11; cf. Heb 3:1-4:11.
86 Cf. Rev 21:1-22:5.
87 Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia; Augustine of Dacia, Rotulus pugillaris, I: ed. A. Walz: Angelicum 6 (1929) 256.
88 DV 12 § 3.
89 St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei, 5,6:PL 42,176.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#III
 
40.png
laforec:
I have run into some friends who say that we should not take the Bible literal. They have said that some stories in the Bible are not true, i.e. Creation story, Noah, and Wall of Jerrico. I always believed these stories to be true. I have read that the Bible is the infallible, inspired and inerrant word of God… so if this is true, how could some stories not be true? Are they a lie? Isn’t our God the God of the possible? How does one decide what is true and what isn’t??? This is very confusing…

I can’t seem to find a clear church teaching on this issue. Can anyone please help me out???

Thank you,

If stories in the Bible aren’t true 😉 that means that we are all following a lie:whistle:

Chris…
Click to expand...
 
If the stories in th Bible aren’t true, then that means we are all following lies :whistle:
 
Should we take the Bible literally? If the Church takes it literally (e.g., John 6, 1 Cor 10 and 11), yes. If the Church does not take it literally (like plucking out your eye if it causes you to sin), no. The New Testament is not an instruction book in Christianity. It was written by the teaching Church, to the teaching Church, and reflects what the Church was teaching at the time she wrote it. To know what it means, ask the Catholic Church.

If we were to take all of it literally, we’d be one-eyed, one-handed, strychnine-drinking, snake handlers.

Protestants vary in which Scriptures they take literally. Catholics don’t need to worry – the Church teaches what the Apostles taught. We read Scripture to apply it to our own lives, not to invent new doctrine.

No Protestant takes all of it literally and they’re very selective about the texts they to apply to themselves. 😃

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic.
 
Great post, Katholikos—and welcome home.

Also ecstatic to be Catholic,

Sherlock
 
40.png
Katholikos:
To know what it means, ask the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Aha! That’s the kicker.

One need only turn to an literary theorist to understand that there isn’t much that’s really literal out there. As Katholikos hints at, if there really was such a thing as the “literal translation” of the Book of John, most Protestants would acknowledge the True Presence.

Since the Bible was gathered as a reflection of Tradition, we must in turn use Tradition in order to understand the Bible. No man can do it alone, and that’s why we have a Church to foster debate and produce a firm magisterium to guard Truth as it relates to sacred texts.
 
Well done, Katholikos!

To take the Bible literally can cause problems, because, as Katholikos alludes to, you gotta take it all literally if you take the literalist approach. If you do that, you’re immediately into problems. For instance, read the two - yes TWO - accounts of creation in Genesis. They don’t agree absolutely step for step in the order of things. If we take it literally, we have to believe one is lying or the other.

Look at the accounts of the Beatitudes, or the Sermon on the Mount in the NT. The account in Matthew says Jesus went up on top of a mountain. The Lucan account says Jesus and his followers went DOWN and Jesus was on a level place. Guess what? They both cannot be literally true! BUT - they EXPRESS THE TRUTH!

This requires at least a minimum understanding of the mindset of the way in which things were passed along among peoples of the Semitic mindset. To those who wrote in that style - which includes OT and NT writers, if a story EXPRESSES THE TRUTH, whether it is historically or literally factual or not, it IS true. That is all that is required of truth for them - that what is said EXPRESSES the truth. It does NOT have to be factual truth. That is the way they wrote and thought. That is not the way we westerners do. We cannot interpret their literature with out analytical mindset and expect to understand what they were saying, or to believe it as truth. Literalism is a sure and certain hindrance to the proper understanding of scripture.

As has already been said, there was not a stenographer from on high sitting about taking dictation. The stories, in both OT and NT, were remembered and maintained by oral tradition first. Only later were they written down. The EARLIEST Gospel, for instance, Mark, was probably only written about 65AD - well after Christ’s departure for the heavenly realms. Paul’s writings were the earliest actually scribed. The first stories of the Gospels were the Passion/Resurrection narratives. They were transmitted orally.

Something in the Bible being LITERALLY true is NOT necessary for us to believe and accept its message as true.

Charis kai eirene!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top