The Old Testament - is it for REAL?

[Terraius]

This is EXACTLY what I thought!

Thank you. It’s a relief to know that I don’t have to believe that a man was actually swallowed by a whale and lived in her stomach bile for a week, haha.

Despite the fact that it is more probable that the story of Jonah was a figurative story… why wouldnt you believe it?

Is God bound by mortal and physical law? (Edited)

The fact of the matter, is not WHETHER the story is a definitive one or figurative.

If God can snap his fingers and create the universe from nothing, then who says he cant keep a man safeguarded in the stomach of a whale?

 

[Debora123]

I love the Old Testament. It is an absolutely amazing book!

Do you think all the main people in the OT were all real people who actually existed? Or do you think some of those stories are strictly parables with completely made up characters?

 

[TMC]

How much of the Old Testament are you supposed to believe in, word per word?

Are we supposed to believe that Noah built an ark and crammed each gender of every animal in the world into that ark while the world flooded?

Are we supposed to believe that Jonah was in a whale’s mouth for days and then got spit back out alive?

Are we supposed to believe in the tower of babel, the ten plagues, the pillar of salt… etc etc?

And if these things didn’t actually happen, did the people involved even exist?

You are free to believe that these were literal, historical events, but the Church does not require that belief. Each expresses an important truth, but as Catholics we do not confuse the truth of these Scriptures with whether or not they were literal historical events.

The Church’s teaching on reading Scripture can be found here:

Dei Verbum

A shorter version is contained within the Catechism, beginning at paragraph 101. I would suggest tht the key answer to your question is found in paragrapsh 109 and 110:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

Here is a link to that section of the catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_PQ.HTM

 

[Debora123]

Despite the fact that it is more probable that the story of Jonah was a figurative story… why wouldnt you believe it?

Is God bound by mortal and physical law? (Edited)

(Edited)

The fact of the matter, is not WHETHER the story is a definitive one or figurative.

If God can snap his fingers and create the universe from nothing, then who says he cant keep a man safeguarded in the stomach of a whale?

I’m sure He could if He wanted to, but I didn’t start this thread because I was questioning my faith in God. I asked out of curiosity because I knew the story of Adam and Eve was symbolic. I was just looking to come to a further understanding of the OT, that’s all.

 

[Little_One0307]

Yeah, it is hard to believe. It is physically impossible.

Yet, nothing is impossible with God.

God bless.

 

[Debora123]

You are free to believe that these were literal, historical events, but the Church does not require that belief. Each expresses an important truth, but as Catholics we do not confuse the truth of these Scriptures with whether or not they were literal historical events.

The Church’s teaching on reading Scripture can be found here:

Dei Verbum

A shorter version is contained within the Catechism, beginning at paragraph 101. I would suggest tht the key answer to your question is found in paragrapsh 109 and 110:

Here is a link to that section of the catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_PQ.HTM

Thank you for this!

 

[Terraius]

The rules you speak of was the Law God imposed on the Hebrews, because God demanded the Hebrews be perfect as he was, ‘The LORD you God is holy, and so shall you, my chosen people be HOLY, for the LORD your GOD is holy.’

As for Slavery, Slavery in Hebrew times is not as it was in 19th century America. Slaves were apart of the family and after several years of service they were given 10-15% of the property or something like that.

But anyways. The reason why the Old Testament is so harsh is because God, as supreme being, sin, imperfection, and such, is alien to him. He expected his creations to be perfect like him.

However, it was obvious that we humans were not. So God sent his Son to live and experience human temptation, and to die so that we may have mercy, because are imperfect and we are allotted a degree of amnesty so long as we recognize we are imperfect and strive to become perfect to our best ability.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Do you think all the main people in the OT were all real people who actually existed? Or do you think some of those stories are strictly parables with completely made up characters?

I think they were very old stories, passed down from generation to generation in the oral tradition. So perhaps at one time they were real people, but the stories became more symbolic. The OT was not written down until around 580 BC, when the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. In any case, it is a history of the Jewish people, maybe not historically accurate, but through the spiritual eyes of the scribes. It is the history of the Jewish people and their relationship to their one God, our God.

 

[Little_One0307]

This is EXACTLY what I thought!

Thank you. It’s a relief to know that I don’t have to believe that a man was actually swallowed by a whale and lived in her stomach bile for a week, haha.

Debora123,

Just so that I know things are straightened out. I never stated in my posts that one has to believe in the OT as being literal. As to there being truth in the OT yes, we are required to believe in it. I believe in things literally because I guess it’s easier for me to do this due to my Protestant background before converting to Catholicism as well as I know that God is Almighty and transcends his creation and can do anything.

I should have fleshed out my responses a bit better.

God bless.

 

[Debora123]

Debora123,

Just so that I know things are straightened out. I never stated in my posts that one has to believe in the OT as being literal. As to there being truth in the OT yes, we are required to believe in it. I believe in things literally because I guess it’s easier for me to do this due to my Protestant background before converting to Catholicism as well as I know that God is Almighty and transcends his creation and can do anything.

I should have fleshed out my responses a bit better.

God bless.

No problem, thanks!

 

[George_Stegmeir]

For what its worth, since 1949, there has been more archaeological research, using modern techniques and methods in Isreal and the Middle East, than ever before. Little by little these scientists are finding evidence prooving that many of the biblical stories are true. Cases in point: the destruction of Sodom and Gemorah, Part of the story of the exodus has been found in ancient Egyptian records, and many other events have been found to be factual: There is geological evidence of the great flood occured in what is now the Black Sea in Turkey. In the past several years, satellite photography has even located the courses of the rivers cited near Eden in Genesis. Based on these findings Eden is now under the sea in the Persian Gulf, south of the port of Basra. As for the Tower of Babel, its ruins exist an have been known to scientists for over 100 years.
So, don’t be fooled by pseudo-intellectuals or historical revisionists! So much of what they espouse is satans work.

 

[Rahn]

I think what people are missing here is the interaction between the Old Testament and the new. There are over 300 prophisies in the Old Testament that pertain directly to the coming of the Messiah. The geniologies of Christ in the gospels of Matthew and Luke mention a lot of the characters that you read of in the Old Testament (Luke’s traces Jesus all the way back to Adam).

I think you are highly dangerous ground if you try to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament are literal and which are figurative. And, you certainly cannot say that the New Testament is the literal Word of God and the Old Testament is not, as the Old speaks of the New.

 

[Dwyer]

Here are four answers to similar questions I found on EWTN 's Catholic Q & A Section that I thought were most relevant:

Abram - Abraham: not a real event?

Question from on 05-27-2002:

Dear Q&A,

A priest has recently told us that we can have no assurance that God actually, in reality, changed Abram’s name to Abraham i.e. that we do not know if it is an actual event. He says that ‘Abram’ and ‘Abraham’ are simply two words for the one name in different Hebrew dialects, and then when all the stories of Abraham came to the ‘editor’s desk’ later on, they pieced them together for a specific theological purpose i.e. to symbolise Abraham’s fathership.

He also told us that Genesis should not be taken by Catholics as history because it was an apologetic treatise against Hebrews who were following Babylonian practices. Therefore, we have to see the 6 days of creation as a rebuttal of Babylonian theology, precluding any literal or historical reading of Genesis.

Is this a correct view? Are all our interpretations bound to this kind of historicalism? Are Catholics allowed to believe that God actually and historically changed Abram’s name to Abraham?

Thank you in advance for your attention.

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 05-30-2002:

This is modernist nonsense with no biblical or historical basis. I cannot imagine that your pastor came to such a conclusion through careful personal study, but he was duped by the view of some modern scholars who approach the Bible as radical skeptics, who often assume that the texts are unreliable and not historical.

The Church does not take such a view of the historical works of the Old Testament, **making only a possible exception with regards to the first eleven chapters of Genesis. **

The account of Abraham does not fall within this exception. Too bad that pastors feel the need to spread the seeds of doubt, but many think that they will not be credible unless they subscribe to the current popular view.

Trust the Bible, which is itself evidence enough. Modernists, on the other hand, rarely have any substantive evidence to the contrary.

Thanks, Thomas

Father Echert

I know we are taught, regardless of the forms of the accounts, that God is Creator of all things, Adam & Eve did exist as persons and our original parents, and that for some reason they disobeyed God and fell from grace.

Other than that, are we free to believe what actually happened or must we take the Genesis account literally.

Thank you - May God richly bless you Fr. Echert for your service to this forum.

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 05-21-2002:

I am open to possibilities, so long as they are compatible with the Faith, as known in the fullness of revelation.

In practice, however, I find that it is much preferable to read the Bible was it was written and intended to be read, and not as our sophisticated modern minds would often prefer.

This is clearly the approach of the Lord Himself and the New Testament writers, as apparent in their comments upon Old Testament figures and events as presented, and not with all sorts of qualifications as to some other manner of interpretation. And in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, who is to say that the literal view is not the literal truth, after all.

Thanks, Melvin

Father Echert

Old Testament and New Testament Myth
Question from on 02-27-2002:

I am currently in a bible study at my parish which is teaching that Moses is the foundational myth of the Old Testament and Jesus’s death and resurrection is the foundational myth of the New Testament.

I am reading books by Fr. Albert Joseph Mary Shamon, “Genesis The Book of Orgins” and “Exodus Road to Freedom”. What is the magisterums teaching regarding Moses the foundational Myth of the Old Testament and Jesus’s death and resurrection the foundational myth of the New Testament?

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 02-27-2002:

Cathy:

I would get out of that study IMMEDIATELY!

The Church affirms the historicity of the Gospels, and reliability of the historical works of the Old Testament, and the Resurrection is so foundational to our profession of Faith that is not up for negotiation. I would flee from that study faster than Lot ran from Sodom and Gomorrah.

Father Echert

Biblical myths

Question from on 02-13-2002:

I heard Father Pacwa refer to Greek and Roman myths as not real. Why then does the church refer to stories in the OT as myths?

Answer by Richard Geraghty on 02-18-2002:

Dear Betty,

The Church does not refer to all the stories in the Old Testament as myths.

There are mythic elements in some of the stories along with elements that are literally true.

For instance it is a mythic element that a pair called Adam and Eve walked with God, listened to a serpent, and ate forbidden fruit.

It is the literal truth that a pair called Adam and Eve are the first parents of the whole human race, that this pair committed a serious sin which made the human race enemies of God, and that death came into the world as a result of sin.

Dr. Geraghty

 

[jsaldar]

This is very true. I have to agree with an earlier post that said that the Jewish people used oral tradition to tell their history; nothing was written down until later on. This is why today we are finding so many exciting discoveries that are verifying a lot of the things that we have learned through the Old Testament. We can take some parts of the Old Testament as literal, and others as parables to explain the truth.

Even Jesus Christ taught us using parables to get the point across our thick heads. Also, did anybody notice that Jesus never even wrote anything down? He only used his Words to give us the truth then these were written down years after His events had passed.

I have to believe in the story of Adam and Eve, because it is through this story that we see the fall of humans. If this were not true then it would shake the foundation of our belief in Jesus Christ being our Savior and giving us back life through His resurrection; a life that we lost through our own fall.

Perhaps the story is “spiced up a little” with some symbolism here and there. This was perhaps done only to allow our ancestors (who didn’t have our scientific knowledge or education) to understand and easily remember the stories and be able to pass them down from generation to generation until now. There has to be a point in which God appeared to men and a point where we disobeyed Him, hence losing the Beatific Vision (Sin and imperfection cannot be in the presence of God) this is the very basis for our belief in salvation.

 

[jsaldar]

For what its worth, since 1949, there has been more archaeological research, using modern techniques and methods in Isreal and the Middle East, than ever before. Little by little these scientists are finding evidence prooving that many of the biblical stories are true. Cases in point: the destruction of Sodom and Gemorah, Part of the story of the exodus has been found in ancient Egyptian records, and many other events have been found to be factual: There is geological evidence of the great flood occured in what is now the Black Sea in Turkey. In the past several years, satellite photography has even located the courses of the rivers cited near Eden in Genesis. Based on these findings Eden is now under the sea in the Persian Gulf, south of the port of Basra. As for the Tower of Babel, its ruins exist an have been known to scientists for over 100 years.
So, don’t be fooled by pseudo-intellectuals or historical revisionists! So much of what they espouse is satans work.

This is very true. I have to agree with an earlier post that said that the Jewish people used oral tradition to tell their history; nothing was written down until later on. This is why today we are finding so many exciting discoveries that are verifying a lot of the things that we have learned through the Old Testament. We can take some parts of the Old Testament as literal, and others as parables to explain the truth.

Even Jesus Christ taught us using parables to get the point across our thick heads. Also, did anybody notice that Jesus never even wrote anything down? He only used his Words to give us the truth then these were written down years after His events had passed.

I have to believe in the story of Adam and Eve, because it is through this story that we see the fall of humans. If this were not true then it would shake the foundation of our belief in Jesus Christ being our Savior and giving us back life through His resurrection; a life that we lost through our own fall.

Perhaps the story is “spiced up a little” with some symbolism here and there. This was perhaps done only to allow our ancestors (who didn’t have our scientific knowledge or education) to understand and easily remember the stories and be able to pass them down from generation to generation until now. There has to be a point in which God appeared to men and a point where we disobeyed Him, hence losing the Beatific Vision (Sin and imperfection cannot be in the presence of God) this is the very basis for our belief in salvation.

 

[razredge]

How much of the Old Testament are you supposed to believe in, word per word?

Are we supposed to believe that Noah built an ark and crammed each gender of every animal in the world into that ark while the world flooded?

Are we supposed to believe that Jonah was in a whale’s mouth for days and then got spit back out alive?

Are we supposed to believe in the tower of babel, the ten plagues, the pillar of salt… etc etc?

And if these things didn’t actually happen, did the people involved even exist?

Depends, the OT is not just one book but a collection of books with different authors, literary styles and purposes. So something like the Genesis creation account should not be taken literally while say Maccabbees generally should be.

You need to see how the particular part of the OT compares to history,science,archaeology and the findings of textual criticism

 

[Dwyer]

Found this answer by CA Founder and President Karl Keating, specifically about Jonah and the whale:

Q:“ Is the story of Jonah and the whale a myth?”

A: Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or as didactic fiction.

In ‘Catholicism and Fundamentalism’, Karl Keating writes:

"The Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, readers being allowed to accept one of several understandings. Take, as an example, Jonah’s escapade at sea, which readers often find disturbing.

Ronald Knox (February 17, 1888 - August 24, 1957] English Catholic convert, Catholic priest, theologian, and translator of the the St. Jerome Latin Vulgate Bible into English

) said that ‘no defender of the sense of Scripture ever pretended, surely, that this was a natural event. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle; and not to my mind a more startling miracle than the raising of Lazarus, in which I take it Catholics are certainly bound to believe. Surely what puts one off the story of Jonah is the element of the grotesque that is present in it’ (Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, Difficulties, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 109).

"The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a ‘great fish’ is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point. Catholics are perfectly free to take this or a more literal view. . . .

"Strictly literal interpretations of what happened to Jonah actually come in two forms. One relies on the fact that people apparently have been swallowed by whales and lived to talk about it. In 1891 a seaman, James Bartley, from a ship named the Star of the East, was found missing after an eighty-foot sperm whale had been caught. He was presumed drowned. The next day, when the crew cut up the whale, Bartley was discovered alive inside. If Jonah’s three days in the whale were counted like Christ’s three days in the tomb, after the Semitic fashion—that is, parts of three distinct days, but perhaps only slightly more than twenty-four hours total—then it is possible that Jonah could have been coughed up by that great fish just as his story says. This would be a purely natural explanation of the episode.

“The other literal interpretation is that Jonah indeed underwent what the story, read as straight history, says he did but survived only because of a positive miracle, and several different sorts of miracles have been suggested, such as suspended animation on Jonah’s part or a fish with a remarkably large air supply and decidedly mild gastric juices” (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius Press, 129–30).

Source: This Rock magazine, Vol. 16, No. 3, March 2005:

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Old%20Testament/page3

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Is this a De Fide doctrine? Where are you drawing this conclusion, from what Magisterial Teaching, because I am quite unaware of any teaching that would teach that “NONE of the Old Testament is historical.”

God bless.

The questions is not easy to answer.
If you are interested, Wikipedia has got plenty of material to read. It is a fascinating World. I would start here:

Bible
Pentateuch
Deuteronomy
Exodus
Prophets
Book of Kings

and then go on exploring the hyperlink. It is fascinating. Is is the Story of God and His people.

God Bless you

 

[Little_One0307]

The questions is not easy to answer.
If you are interested, Wikipedia has got plenty of material to read. It is a fascinating World. I would start here:

Bible
Pentateuch
Deuteronomy
Exodus
Prophets
Book of Kings

and then go on exploring the hyperlink. It is fascinating. Is is the Story of God and His people.

God Bless you

Pfaffenhoffen,

These certainly are not from the Magisterial Teaching of the Catholic Church. I know the question is hard to answer, because well the way I framed it, one is very hard pressed to find this premise that is supported in the Magisterial Teaching of the Church.

If it is ever declared to be a De Fide doctrine that is solemnly promulgated by the Catholic Church that “None of the Old Testament is historical” may I have the grace to believe it. Until that happens, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Again respectfully, in keeping with the question’s orginal intent, can you point me to Magisterial Teaching that would support your premise?

God bless.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This is very true. I have to agree with an earlier post that said that the Jewish people used oral tradition to tell their history; nothing was written down until later on. This is why today we are finding so many exciting discoveries that are verifying a lot of the things that we have learned through the Old Testament. We can take some parts of the Old Testament as literal, and others as parables to explain the truth.

Even Jesus Christ taught us using parables to get the point across our thick heads. Also, did anybody notice that Jesus never even wrote anything down? He only used his Words to give us the truth then these were written down years after His events had passed.

I have to believe in the story of Adam and Eve, because it is through this story that we see the fall of humans. If this were not true then it would shake the foundation of our belief in Jesus Christ being our Savior and giving us back life through His resurrection; a life that we lost through our own fall.

Perhaps the story is “spiced up a little” with some symbolism here and there. This was perhaps done only to allow our ancestors (who didn’t have our scientific knowledge or education) to understand and easily remember the stories and be able to pass them down from generation to generation until now. There has to be a point in which God appeared to men and a point where we disobeyed Him, hence losing the Beatific Vision (Sin and imperfection cannot be in the presence of God) this is the very basis for our belief in salvation.

I totally agree with what you wrote.