The Bible Taken Literally

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mary_Katharine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mary_Katharine

Guest
I don’t know if this was the proper place to post this question, but I was curious where the Catholic Church stands when it comes to how to accept stories of the Bible.
For example: I hear many people say that the Adam and Eve story was just an example of what creation was like and didn’t actually happen. Then, of course, there’s the other side of people who take it literally and believe it did happen just as it is written.

So, from a Catholic perspective, which side of this kind of thing is the correct teaching and why?
 
Depends on the passage in question.

The Church holds that there were 2 original human beings, Adam and Eve; it does not require otherwise that the entire Genesis account be literal.

ICXC NIKA
 
There is room to be Catholic and choose either understanding of Genesis. The only things that are required from a Catholic perspective is to believe (concerning creation):

  1. *]God created everything (plenty of latitude to accept or reject the Big Bang theory)
    *]All humanity is descended from two first parents who were the first physical creatures to receive spiritual (immortal) souls (plenty of latitude to accept or reject evolution)
 
I don’t know if this was the proper place to post this question, but I was curious where the Catholic Church stands when it comes to how to accept stories of the Bible.
For example: I hear many people say that the Adam and Eve story was just an example of what creation was like and didn’t actually happen. Then, of course, there’s the other side of people who take it literally and believe it did happen just as it is written.

So, from a Catholic perspective, which side of this kind of thing is the correct teaching and why?
See Papal Encyclical ‘DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU’ (1943), esp. para 17ff:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

This wonderful document gave scope for the talents of Catholic scholars as diverse as Raymond Brown and Brendan Byrne to produce some brilliant work on the Scriptures and the early church.
 
See Papal Encyclical ‘DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU’ (1943), esp. para 17ff:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

This wonderful document gave scope for the talents of Catholic scholars as diverse as Raymond Brown and Brendan Byrne to produce some brilliant work on the Scriptures and the early church.
Thanks so much for putting this link up, melbanglican! I’m starting studies for an MA Theology this month (Sacred Scripture concentration) and had put this document on my mental reading list a while back, but you just reminded me of it and yes, I think it is one of the more important papal documents to be issued in the last 100 years!
 
I’m glad this thread was started. I’ve just been thinking of the nature of Eden as an literal place, versus a place of the mind and spirit, i.e. a state of grace. If we take it more in the latter sense, does that detract from the power of the story? I know that Blessed John Paul II taught that Heaven and Hell were not actual geographic locations, but states of consciousness or places of the spirit. Eden seems like a version of heaven to me, a state of communion with God that can be achieved here on earth, in this mortal life.

I don’t find that my faith is undermined when I take some of the stories in the Bible as metaphorical or allegorical; I actually find my faith strengthened if I focus on the heart of the message rather than the narrative details surrounding it. After all, Jesus used allegory all the time, in his parables, and explained to his disciples that this made the message easier for the multitudes to understand. He expected his disciples, however, to be sharp enough to understand the message directly, without needing it wrapped in parable form. (cf. Matthew 13: 10-17),
 
Thank God they weren’t homosexual:p
What’s with the obsession with this topic!?

It’s like satan is trying to keep everyone occupied in talking about his topics instead of God’s topics.

-Tim-
 
What’s with the obsession with this topic!?

It’s like satan is trying to keep everyone occupied in talking about his topics instead of God’s topics.

-Tim-
I took it that chris62 is making a statement about the lack of procreative potential between same sex couples, and how this defies God’s will and purpose in originally creating creatures with two genders. It is a bit of a non-sequitur here, however.
 
It was an attempt at humour, referring to both the pre-occupation of posts on the subject and that mankind wouldn’t exist, if that was the case.

Apologies.
 
My advice is to not get hung up on Genesis as literal history.

There are a lot of threads on this subject, and I’ve exhausted myself months ago, expounding on this subject.

Don’t get hung up by staking out a strong bias in your mind against the idea of a literal interpretation.

The literary analyses of Genesis offer helpful insights into what kind of document Genesis is, namely, that it is not intended as a historical document as it is a spiritual explanation of the foundations of the faith. That’s not a copout. But, it is saying, loosen up about what kinds of questions you pose about Genesis.

It takes a lot of study to “soar” into the meanings contained there. For example, In the EWTN series of several years ago titled “Our Father’s Plan” Scott Hahn point out that the first creation account describes the universe as God’s temple. And, when we go into Gen 2, with the second creation account, the Garden of Eden is described in the same words that are used related to the Holy of Holies, in Exodus.

A Jewish commentary points out some things that are not obvious in English, namely, that the verses of creation for each day have either seven Jewish words each, or a multiple of seven words. So, “seven” is an important literary feature of Genesis 1, not just in the obvious account of a seven-day creation.

Hahn points out that the first creation account has “God said” ten times – which is an allusion and a parallel to the ten “sayings” in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments).

So, there’s many interesting things there, that you will find if you give yourself up to a lifelong study of scripture.
 
Thanks so much for putting this link up, melbanglican! I’m starting studies for an MA Theology this month (Sacred Scripture concentration) and had put this document on my mental reading list a while back, but you just reminded me of it and yes, I think it is one of the more important papal documents to be issued in the last 100 years!
My pleasure!

This encyclical is published in the latest edition of the Douay-Rheims (Baronius Press), which is one of the many reasons I purchased this particular Bible.

BTW, where are you enrolled for your MA?
 
What’s with the obsession with this topic!?

It’s like satan is trying to keep everyone occupied in talking about his topics instead of God’s topics.

-Tim-
I recognized the humor in the comment. But it’s not like it’s not applicable. Read Blessed Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body, and you can find a whole catechesis on life and love and sacramental theology throughout scripture, from Creation to Revelation. It’s totally applicable here.
 
=Mary Katharine;8202327]I don’t know if this was the proper place to post this question, but I was curious where the Catholic Church stands when it comes to how to accept stories of the Bible.
For example: I hear many people say that the Adam and Eve story was just an example of what creation was like and didn’t actually happen. Then, of course, there’s the other side of people who take it literally and believe it did happen just as it is written.
So, from a Catholic perspective, which side of this kind of thing is the correct teaching and why?
GREAT QUESTION:

Rom.10: 17 “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ”

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.*** First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”***

Matt.13:9-12 “He who has ears, let him hear." Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. “

**Eph.3: 9 to 12 ** “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him. “

One needs to be trained and educated in HOW to understand the Bible. While everything in the Bible is TRUE; NOT Everyting is LITTERAL or for that matter, even factual.

Often stories with Moral messages are shared to make a MORAL point clear. [Parabels], some things are not litteral: “If your eye is your problem; TEAR it out”. Sometimes the message is “coded” “Binding and loosing” in Mt. 16:19 for example.

In Old Testamnet times, printing materals were scarce and expensive AND most folks could not read anyway. So the message was handed on by word of mouth.

Adam and Eve are a TEACHING of the CC because it is THROUGH them that Original Sin came into being; which is a Defined Doctrine of our Faith. Sodom and Gammorah on the other hand, MIGHT be litteral, and may not be litteral [turned into pillars of salt] Gen. 19:26. There is a MORAL to the account, which is to be accepted; but the FACT that Lots wife was turned into a “pillar of salt” is not critial to our faith.

That then becomes the TEST: IS this event, this story CRITICAL to Catholic Faith belief?

The answer to THAT question is HOW one knows, 🙂

God Bles you,
Pat
 
Another point about interpreting the texts of the Bible is that when the Church limits how a text may be understood or used, it is just that: a limit. As long as you don’t interpret or use the text in a forbidden way, you can understand it in whatever way you want–there is still broad freedom. So, in this case, the Church has not (as far as I know) established that we must understand one Adam and one Eve, created on the spot–nor that we must understand the first human beings as being born from some sort of pre-hominids.
 
I agree with those who say that the heart of the message is more important than the literal meaning.

After all, God’s language is silence. He doesn’t need human-designed words to convey his messages, and nearly any human designed messages are subject to interpretation and context. Not to mention, I heard a sermon once (though I’m not claiming it is absolute truth because I haven’t researched it myself) that in ancient languages there were no spaces between words. The priest gave the example GODISNOWHERE. That can mean opposite things, depending on how you parse the words. Plus, language is a funny thing. It changes with the culture and the same words mean different things to different people, even though they may be interpreting it literally.

As far as Genesis, I spent a great deal of time and effort discussing this with literalists who claim that the 7-day creation actually meant 24 hour periods, and even though they claimed to be staunch Catholics, said we MUST interpret it that way even though the Church doesn’t say that afa I know. When I asked them why the two accounts of creation had elements of the creation reversed compared to each other, they came up with a bunch of intellectual sounding gobbledigook. When I asked them why the two accounts of Noah and the ark had conflicting stories about how many pairs of each animal Noah was to take into the ark, again it didn’t make a dent. I asked them, if we are taking Genesis literally, how can one pair (or two pairs) mean the same thing as seven pairs? No reasonable answer.

My personal opinion is that people can believe whatever they want about Genesis, but when they start trying to tell me I am wrong or worse because I don’t believe it is literal, then I have a problem with that. For the life of me, and after many posts, I couldn’t get inside their heads at all, to see where they were coming from. The arguments made no sense to me, and I was really trying to hear them out.

Finally, my children went to a conservative Catholic high school, where they were taught in religion classes that neither Genesis nor Revelation is intended to be interpreted literally.

Alan
 
I agree with those who say that the heart of the message is more important than the literal meaning.

After all, God’s language is silence. He doesn’t need human-designed words to convey his messages, and nearly any human designed messages are subject to interpretation and context. Not to mention, I heard a sermon once (though I’m not claiming it is absolute truth because I haven’t researched it myself) that in ancient languages there were no spaces between words. The priest gave the example GODISNOWHERE. That can mean opposite things, depending on how you parse the words. Plus, language is a funny thing. It changes with the culture and the same words mean different things to different people, even though they may be interpreting it literally.

As far as Genesis, I spent a great deal of time and effort discussing this with literalists who claim that the 7-day creation actually meant 24 hour periods, and even though they claimed to be staunch Catholics, said we MUST interpret it that way even though the Church doesn’t say that afa I know. When I asked them why the two accounts of creation had elements of the creation reversed compared to each other, they came up with a bunch of intellectual sounding gobbledigook. When I asked them why the two accounts of Noah and the ark had conflicting stories about how many pairs of each animal Noah was to take into the ark, again it didn’t make a dent. I asked them, if we are taking Genesis literally, how can one pair (or two pairs) mean the same thing as seven pairs? No reasonable answer.

My personal opinion is that people can believe whatever they want about Genesis, but when they start trying to tell me I am wrong or worse because I don’t believe it is literal, then I have a problem with that. For the life of me, and after many posts, I couldn’t get inside their heads at all, to see where they were coming from. The arguments made no sense to me, and I was really trying to hear them out.

Finally, my children went to a conservative Catholic high school, where they were taught in religion classes that neither Genesis nor Revelation is intended to be interpreted literally.

Alan
Hi Alan,
Stick to your guns (for want of a better term)! I really thought that this literalist stuff was the province of neurotic, fundamentalist Protestants. Have their attitudes infected parts the RCC?

It’s slightly distressing to see that the Church which produces scholars of the quality of Daniel Harrington, Raymond Brown and Brendan Byrne (to name but three at random) can also house people who think in such ways.🤷
 
Hi Alan,
Stick to your guns (for want of a better term)! I really thought that this literalist stuff was the province of neurotic, fundamentalist Protestants. Have their attitudes infected parts the RCC?
Sure have, and right here on CAF even. A few months ago, in March and April, I spent a great deal of time debating with literalist/absolutists, geocentrists, and the like. Good thing I was a bit manic at the time, or I would have given up and/or it would have driven me bonkers. 😛

One example is this thread on Old Testament where we find some twisted logic, from posters whose religion is labeled “Catholic.” It does kind of remind me of a Fundie politician with whom I once had the privilege of discussing evolution. Neither logic nor facts matter in these kinds of arguments; even among Catholics, neither CA apologists nor the CCC matter. These people say the apologist is in error, and try to explain what the CCC says with what amounts to word games.

Thank you for your support and encouragement. 🙂

References:
YouTube video of CA apologist Tim Staples discussing literalist interpretation of Genesis.

CCC 337:
God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. 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. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”

Note the word “symbolically.” Some professed faithful Catholics explain that away with illogic that is beyond my comprehension.

Alan
 
=bmonk;8234562]Another point about interpreting the texts of the Bible is that when the Church limits how a text may be understood or used, it is just that: a limit. As long as you don’t interpret or use the text in a forbidden way, you can understand it in whatever way you want–there is still broad freedom. So, in this case, the Church has not (as far as I know) established that we must understand one Adam and one Eve, created on the spot–nor that we must understand the first human beings as being born from some sort of pre-hominids.
***My dear friend, this is a “touchy” area. WHY?

Because without Adam and Eve [you can call them sam and Sarrah], there would be No Original sin.

Withour Original Sin there would be No redemption

Without redemption there would be No need for salvation:o

Here is what the Catholic Catechism Teaches***

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

**417 **Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

766 The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.

2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.

God Bless, Pat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top