The Old Testament - is it for REAL?

[ChrisB103]

There is a lot of evidence out there that we evolved from primates - there are skeletons of creatures that are somewhere between a human and a monkey, and those skeletons progress to looking more and more human like the younger they are.

Of course, I believe that at one point we became “human enough” and got souls. But I don’t believe that we all came from Adam and Eve, and I don’t think the Church requires us to believe that either.

Also, it is physically and mathematically impossible for there to be this many human beings on Earth if we all came from only 2 people 6,000 years ago, as Genesis says. So yes, there is plenty of evidence out there that trumps Genesis’ version of how the world came to be.

With that being said, I DO believe the message that the story is getting across - that God is the creator of all things, that God singled us out as the “masters” amongst all other creatures on Earth and gave us souls, and that humanity was given the choice to disobey God by sinning, which we did/do.

…I think that’s what Genesis is trying to get across. Not some story of a first man and a first women who saw a snake and ate an apple.

I’m pretty sure that the Church does require its believers to accept Adam and Eve as actual historical individuals, but not the chronology or method of creation described in Genesis. In fact, our doctrine of Original Sin depends upon us all descending from Adam.

Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37)

Check out the following article: Adam, Eve, and Evolution

I believe that theistic evolution is the best way to describe the current diversity of life on the earth, and I reject that the earth is only 6,000 (or 10,000) years old. I accept the scientific data that suggests the earth is roughly around 13.7 billion years old and that we have common ancestors with chimpanzees. All of these beliefs are acceptable in the Church, but we must believe in Adam and Eve.

God bless,
Chris

 

[ChrisB103]

Sorry, I meant the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old and the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

 

[MorningSong51]

Thats very interesting could you please share your source so I can read more i never knew slaves were given any ownership of their masters property unless there was no child (either natural or begotten by choice) to inherit? I also understood the entire estate was passed on including the responsibility for the house, other slaves included.

Bless you pray well and stay well

Hebrew slaves serve six years only and must be freed in the seventh (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12). “And when thou lettest him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go empty; thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing floor, and out of thy wine-press; of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee” (Deut. 15:13–14; and see *Ha’anakah). This short period of bondage conditioned the price of slaves: there is some indication of their market value in the provision that if an ox killed a slave, the owner of the ox must pay 30 shekels of silver to the master of the slave (Ex. 21:32). Whatever the master may have paid for the slave, “It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou lettest him go free from thee; for to the double of the hire of a hireling hath he served thee six years” (Deut. 15:18). If the slave refuses to go free and wishes to stay on in his master’s service, then the master pierces his ear with an awl and in this way the slave is bonded to him forever (Ex. 21:5–6; Deut. 15:16–17). If a Hebrew slave has been sold to an alien, he must be redeemed at once; he then enters into the redeemer’s service, which terminates with the jubilee year (Lev. 25:47–54).[ LINK - Slavery (The following classes of 'avadim are to be distinguished)

The Hebrew term for slave, 'eved (pl. 'avadim), is a direct derivation from the verb ʿbd, “to work”; thus, the “slave” is only a worker or servant. The eved differs from the hired worker (sakhir) in three respects: he receives no wages for his work; he is a member of his master’s household (cf. Gen. 24:2; Lev. 22:11; and see below); and his master exercises patria potestas over him; for example, the master may choose a wife for the slave and retains ownership of her (Ex. 21:4) and he has proprietary rights in him (see below).

](http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0018_0_18703.html)

 

[MorningSong51]

Thats very interesting could you please share your source so I can read more i never knew slaves were given any ownership of their masters property unless there was no child (either natural or begotten by choice) to inherit? I also understood the entire estate was passed on including the responsibility for the house, other slaves included.

Bless you pray well and stay well

The interesting thing about this is another passage: (see previous post: Slavery/'avadim)

The seventh year, during which the fields were to be left fallow (Leviticus 25:1-7) and debts released (Deuteronomy 15:1-11) [is called in] Hebrew Shemitah (“Release”). The seven years are counted in the cycle of fifty culminating in the Jubilee [see below] and are known by tradition.

Jubilee - LINK

[Jubilee is] the institution described in the book of Leviticus (25:8-24) where it is stated that a series of forty-nine years [was] to be counted (there is considerable uncertainty as to the date from when the counting is to begin, but traditionally it is from the creation of the world) and every fiftieth year declared a special year during which there was to be no agricultural work; all landed property was to revert to its original owner; and slaves were to be set free. The name Jubilee is from the Hebrew word yovel, “ram’s horn,” the year being so called because a ram’s horn was sounded when it was proclaimed (Leviticus 25:9). Since this verse says: “[Proclaim liberty] throughout the land for all its inhabitants,” the Talmudic view is that the Jubilee was not observed during the Second Temple period because the majority of Jews no longer lived in the land of Israel.

 

[Steven_John]

MorningSong51bless you bunch and some more.
I thank G-d for His through you on the mark for me help.
Pray well and stay well

 

[jonfawkes]

The interesting thing about this is another passage: (see previous post: Slavery/'avadim)

The seventh year, during which the fields were to be left fallow (Leviticus 25:1-7) and debts released (Deuteronomy 15:1-11) [is called in] Hebrew Shemitah (“Release”). The seven years are counted in the cycle of fifty culminating in the Jubilee [see below] and are known by tradition.

Jubilee - LINK

[Jubilee is] the institution described in the book of Leviticus (25:8-24) where it is stated that a series of forty-nine years [was] to be counted (there is considerable uncertainty as to the date from when the counting is to begin, but traditionally it is from the creation of the world) and every fiftieth year declared a special year during which there was to be no agricultural work; all landed property was to revert to its original owner; and slaves were to be set free. The name Jubilee is from the Hebrew word yovel, “ram’s horn,” the year being so called because a ram’s horn was sounded when it was proclaimed (Leviticus 25:9). Since this verse says: “[Proclaim liberty] throughout the land for all its inhabitants,” the Talmudic view is that the Jubilee was not observed during the Second Temple period because the majority of Jews no longer lived in the land of Israel.

This only applied to slaves that were Jewish not to foreign born ones. Slaves that were not Jewish were not set free.

 

[Contarini]

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

I’m not even sure what that “word for word” phrase is supposed to mean. Everyone agrees that there are metaphors and parables in the Bible, OT and NT. The question is twofold:

1. How do we determine genre in texts coming from a culture so far removed from ours, and to what extent should our faith require us to assume historicity in doubtful cases; and
2. Are we required to believe that all the texts in the OT are true in precisely the way intended by the original human author?

I think that the difficulties raised by question 1 are insuperable, and for that and other reasons I would answer “no” to question 2.

Rather, I would argue that what we Christians believe about the OT should be governed by our Tradition, that is, by our understanding of the Bible as sacred history centered on the Incarnation. That doesn’t allow us simply to dismiss the OT as non-historical, but it also doesn’t require us to believe that all narratives not labeled as clearly non-literal are historical, nor does it require us to believe that the meaning intended by the original authors is inerrant. Rather, Scripture is inerrant in that sense which bears on our salvation. Sometimes that is historical, sometimes it is purely theological; sometimes it coincides with what the author intended, sometimes it doesn’t.

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?

No. This is one of those passages where I think it’s hard to ascertain just what the scribe(s) who wrote the story down thought about whether it actually happened or not. Probably they did think that it actually happened–but at the same time, we can’t remotely call this history in our sense. It’s clearly a kind of myth, and what it has to say to us has nothing to do with the question of whether it actually happened, as far as I can see. (It probably does derive from memories of catastrophic floods in very ancient times–there may well have been one flood in particular that had a devastating effect on early Mesopotamia; but I do not believe that it literally covered the entire globe.)

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

This is one where I think there’s a fairly strong case that the original author may have intended to write fiction, using the name of a prophet who had lived some centuries earlier. But again, it’s hard to be sure. Assyria did have what historians generally consider a period of weakness and disarray during the time in which 2 Kings places Jonah. It’s possible that this “weakness” was actually a time of repentance in response to Jonah’s preaching.

The “big fish” part of the story does sound like a folk tale. It’s not impossible–even apart from the fact that God can work miracles, there are stories of sailors being swallowed by whales and surviving (and less often by large fish–bear in mind that a whale would certainly be considered a fish by ancient people, and no one has to believe in the infallibility of Linnaeus). The bigger problem is that there’s no way a sea creature could get anywhere near Nineveh, especially in three days’ journey. One could argue that it just spat him out on the eastern Mediterranean shore and the Biblical story omits the lengthy land journey that followed.

But more to the point, the message of Jonah seems completely disconnected from its historicity. In fact, it has far more power if we see it as an “alternate history.” If Assyria did repent, this was of short duration–a few decades later they were back, scarier than ever. But if this is a story about what God would have done if Nineveh* had* repented, then it gains rather than losing effectiveness.

Are we supposed to believe in the tower of babel

Again, I think that the significance of this story is mythical rather than historical. But in fact I think it may well reflect (in mythical form) a historical event from the early years of empire-building in Babylonia.

the ten plagues

All the plagues are the sorts of things that could have happened in ancient Egypt (well, except for a plague hitting only firstborn sons, which would be clearly miraculous). We have no Egyptian record of them all happening together in such magnitude, and I don’t cling to their historicity as a matter of faith. I do believe that the Exodus happened in some form, but the book of Exodus clearly records the events as they were remembered centuries later with plenty of legendary elements. Again, I think that the theological claims about God’s power over pagan empires and the gods who supported those empires, and the historical claim about Israelite descent (at least in part) from escaped slaves, are the key elements here. God acted sovereignly to choose an unlikely people for Himself, and He delivered them from the power of a great empire and brought them out on a pilgrimage to a fuller knowledge of His nature. That’s the role the Exodus story plays in salvation history, it seems to me.

the pillar of salt

Again, I would see this story as legendary, though the basic story that cities near the Dead Sea were destroyed probably has a historical basis.

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

It depends. There’s no reason to doubt that Jonah existed. I believe that there was a historical Moses, though this is an unpopular view among scholars these days (plenty of them doubt the historicity of David, let alone Moses and the patriarchs). Lot I’m not so sure about.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

Actually, the dominant trend in archaeology in the past few decades was the other way round. In the 50s and 60s, the case you make was more credible (though you are going much farther than folks like William Allbright ever did).

At this point, many archeologists question the historicity even of David and Solomon, because they haven’t been able to find any of the evidence they’d expect if these guys really ruled a small empire and engaged in great building projects.

Now I’m quite willing to consider the possibility that much of this is due to bias–for instance, it was thought for a while that Solomon’s chariot cities had been found, and then the archeologists announced that the ruins were really from a later period. Maybe the original view was the correct one–I’m not a Biblical archeologist and have trouble evaluating the evidence, and there certainly seems to me to be a “minimalist” bias in the field these days.

But you need to be careful making sweeping claims about what archeology as a discipline is revealing, when the vast majority of contemporary archeologists say the exact opposite.

Part of the story of the exodus has been found in ancient Egyptian records.

You make a lot of claims and give no specifics on how you know them. I’ll focus on this one, but you’re welcome to support the others as well. What are these records and what do they show?

And I’ll note in passing that it seems odd to speak of evidence for a global flood being found in a specific spot near the place where the ancestors of the ancient Hebrews would have lived. If you’re arguing for a literal world-wide flood, what you need is evidence from, say, Alaska or Australia. If you’re just arguing that there was a local flood which is treated in a mythical/legendary manner in Genesis, you aren’t saying anything very controversial.

Edwin

 

[ddarko]

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

Hence why Jesus in the NT refers to it as the “Sign of Prophet Jonah”.

38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, ‘Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.’ 39But he answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For just as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. 41The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!

(Matthew 12:38 - 41)​

So Jesus, too died on the cross and rose after 3 days.

Now out of curiosity, do you think Jesus didn’t die and rise from the dead because it is impossible too?

God Bless

 

[Debora123]

I’m not even sure what that “word for word” phrase is supposed to mean. Everyone agrees that there are metaphors and parables in the Bible, OT and NT. The question is twofold:

1. How do we determine genre in texts coming from a culture so far removed from ours, and to what extent should our faith require us to assume historicity in doubtful cases; and
2. Are we required to believe that all the texts in the OT are true in precisely the way intended by the original human author?

I think that the difficulties raised by question 1 are insuperable, and for that and other reasons I would answer “no” to question 2.

Rather, I would argue that what we Christians believe about the OT should be governed by our Tradition, that is, by our understanding of the Bible as sacred history centered on the Incarnation. That doesn’t allow us simply to dismiss the OT as non-historical, but it also doesn’t require us to believe that all narratives not labeled as clearly non-literal are historical, nor does it require us to believe that the meaning intended by the original authors is inerrant. Rather, Scripture is inerrant in that sense which bears on our salvation. Sometimes that is historical, sometimes it is purely theological; sometimes it coincides with what the author intended, sometimes it doesn’t.

No. This is one of those passages where I think it’s hard to ascertain just what the scribe(s) who wrote the story down thought about whether it actually happened or not. Probably they did think that it actually happened–but at the same time, we can’t remotely call this history in our sense. It’s clearly a kind of myth, and what it has to say to us has nothing to do with the question of whether it actually happened, as far as I can see. (It probably does derive from memories of catastrophic floods in very ancient times–there may well have been one flood in particular that had a devastating effect on early Mesopotamia; but I do not believe that it literally covered the entire globe.)

This is one where I think there’s a fairly strong case that the original author may have intended to write fiction, using the name of a prophet who had lived some centuries earlier. But again, it’s hard to be sure. Assyria did have what historians generally consider a period of weakness and disarray during the time in which 2 Kings places Jonah. It’s possible that this “weakness” was actually a time of repentance in response to Jonah’s preaching.

The “big fish” part of the story does sound like a folk tale. It’s not impossible–even apart from the fact that God can work miracles, there are stories of sailors being swallowed by whales and surviving (and less often by large fish–bear in mind that a whale would certainly be considered a fish by ancient people, and no one has to believe in the infallibility of Linnaeus). The bigger problem is that there’s no way a sea creature could get anywhere near Nineveh, especially in three days’ journey. One could argue that it just spat him out on the eastern Mediterranean shore and the Biblical story omits the lengthy land journey that followed.

But more to the point, the message of Jonah seems completely disconnected from its historicity. In fact, it has far more power if we see it as an “alternate history.” If Assyria did repent, this was of short duration–a few decades later they were back, scarier than ever. But if this is a story about what God would have done if Nineveh* had* repented, then it gains rather than losing effectiveness.

Again, I think that the significance of this story is mythical rather than historical. But in fact I think it may well reflect (in mythical form) a historical event from the early years of empire-building in Babylonia.

All the plagues are the sorts of things that could have happened in ancient Egypt (well, except for a plague hitting only firstborn sons, which would be clearly miraculous). We have no Egyptian record of them all happening together in such magnitude, and I don’t cling to their historicity as a matter of faith. I do believe that the Exodus happened in some form, but the book of Exodus clearly records the events as they were remembered centuries later with plenty of legendary elements. Again, I think that the theological claims about God’s power over pagan empires and the gods who supported those empires, and the historical claim about Israelite descent (at least in part) from escaped slaves, are the key elements here. God acted sovereignly to choose an unlikely people for Himself, and He delivered them from the power of a great empire and brought them out on a pilgrimage to a fuller knowledge of His nature. That’s the role the Exodus story plays in salvation history, it seems to me.

Again, I would see this story as legendary, though the basic story that cities near the Dead Sea were destroyed probably has a historical basis.
It depends. There’s no reason to doubt that Jonah existed. I believe that there was a historical Moses, though this is an unpopular view among scholars these days (plenty of them doubt the historicity of David, let alone Moses and the patriarchs). Lot I’m not so sure about.

Edwin

My thoughts exactly.

Thanks everyone, I’ve got my answers now, and it is just as I thought.

God Bless!

 

[ddarko]

I’m not even sure what that “word for word” phrase is supposed to mean. Everyone agrees that there are metaphors and parables in the Bible, OT and NT. The question is twofold:

1. How do we determine genre in texts coming from a culture so far removed from ours, and to what extent should our faith require us to assume historicity in doubtful cases; and
2. Are we required to believe that all the texts in the OT are true in precisely the way intended by the original human author?

I think that the difficulties raised by question 1 are insuperable, and for that and other reasons I would answer “no” to question 2.

Rather, I would argue that what we Christians believe about the OT should be governed by our Tradition, that is, by our understanding of the Bible as sacred history centered on the Incarnation. That doesn’t allow us simply to dismiss the OT as non-historical, but it also doesn’t require us to believe that all narratives not labeled as clearly non-literal are historical, nor does it require us to believe that the meaning intended by the original authors is inerrant. Rather, Scripture is inerrant in that sense which bears on our salvation. Sometimes that is historical, sometimes it is purely theological; sometimes it coincides with what the author intended, sometimes it doesn’t.

No. This is one of those passages where I think it’s hard to ascertain just what the scribe(s) who wrote the story down thought about whether it actually happened or not. Probably they did think that it actually happened–but at the same time, we can’t remotely call this history in our sense. It’s clearly a kind of myth, and what it has to say to us has nothing to do with the question of whether it actually happened, as far as I can see. (It probably does derive from memories of catastrophic floods in very ancient times–there may well have been one flood in particular that had a devastating effect on early Mesopotamia; but I do not believe that it literally covered the entire globe.)

This is one where I think there’s a fairly strong case that the original author may have intended to write fiction, using the name of a prophet who had lived some centuries earlier. But again, it’s hard to be sure. Assyria did have what historians generally consider a period of weakness and disarray during the time in which 2 Kings places Jonah. It’s possible that this “weakness” was actually a time of repentance in response to Jonah’s preaching.

The “big fish” part of the story does sound like a folk tale. It’s not impossible–even apart from the fact that God can work miracles, there are stories of sailors being swallowed by whales and surviving (and less often by large fish–bear in mind that a whale would certainly be considered a fish by ancient people, and no one has to believe in the infallibility of Linnaeus). The bigger problem is that there’s no way a sea creature could get anywhere near Nineveh, especially in three days’ journey. One could argue that it just spat him out on the eastern Mediterranean shore and the Biblical story omits the lengthy land journey that followed.

But more to the point, the message of Jonah seems completely disconnected from its historicity. In fact, it has far more power if we see it as an “alternate history.” If Assyria did repent, this was of short duration–a few decades later they were back, scarier than ever. But if this is a story about what God would have done if Nineveh* had* repented, then it gains rather than losing effectiveness.

Again, I think that the significance of this story is mythical rather than historical. But in fact I think it may well reflect (in mythical form) a historical event from the early years of empire-building in Babylonia.

All the plagues are the sorts of things that could have happened in ancient Egypt (well, except for a plague hitting only firstborn sons, which would be clearly miraculous). We have no Egyptian record of them all happening together in such magnitude, and I don’t cling to their historicity as a matter of faith. I do believe that the Exodus happened in some form, but the book of Exodus clearly records the events as they were remembered centuries later with plenty of legendary elements. Again, I think that the theological claims about God’s power over pagan empires and the gods who supported those empires, and the historical claim about Israelite descent (at least in part) from escaped slaves, are the key elements here. God acted sovereignly to choose an unlikely people for Himself, and He delivered them from the power of a great empire and brought them out on a pilgrimage to a fuller knowledge of His nature. That’s the role the Exodus story plays in salvation history, it seems to me.

Again, I would see this story as legendary, though the basic story that cities near the Dead Sea were destroyed probably has a historical basis.
It depends. There’s no reason to doubt that Jonah existed. I believe that there was a historical Moses, though this is an unpopular view among scholars these days (plenty of them doubt the historicity of David, let alone Moses and the patriarchs). Lot I’m not so sure about.

Edwin

Shouldn’t we keep in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

I am not here to bash you, but I thought I should make the Catholic position clear for the Catholics on this thread.

From Tradition, we believe that almost all of the above to be FACT-narratives. In other words, they are not legends.

So the above position presented by Edwin is not tenable for a Catholic.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

My thoughts exactly.

Thanks everyone, I’ve got my answers now, and it is just as I thought.

God Bless!

I don’t mean to attack you but this is a bit humorous.

It seems that you post threads so that you can get someone to agree with you. So the answer you want is the answer you already expect. As soon as you get it, you bounce out.

You are free to do as you like, but I want to point out that it doesn’t help anyone to approach matters that way. Its always be good to seek the TRUTH even when it leads us to discomfort.

Again, I don’t mean to attack. Just stating what I see.

God Bless

 

[TMC]

I don’t mean to attack you but this is a bit humorous.

It seems that you post threads so that you can get someone to agree with you. So the answer you want is the answer you already expect. As soon as you get it, you bounce out.

You are free to do as you like, but I want to point out that it doesn’t help anyone to approach matters that way. Its always be good to seek the TRUTH even when it leads us to discomfort.

Again, I don’t mean to attack. Just stating what I see.

God Bless

I think it is you that is searching for people to agree with you. I think this thread has been a nice balanced discussion of the issue, with plenty of links to Church teaching and other resources. The fact that the OP did not come around to your viewpoint does not suggest she is avoiding some uncomfortable “TRUTH”.

 

[ddarko]

I think it is you that is searching for people to agree with you. I think this thread has been a nice balanced discussion of the issue, with plenty of links to Church teaching and other resources. The fact that the OP did not come around to your viewpoint does not suggest she is avoiding some uncomfortable “TRUTH”.

Oh hi there,

Thanks for your reply.

So let me point out to Post #68 again.

Now read the reply by Edwin. And then read the reply the OP states. She says “My thoughts exactly”. Now I am not sure if your first language is English but that means, that is what she thought was the right answer and she agrees with him.

Therefore, with all due respect, learn to read what is written. The OP in every single one of her posts on this thread has disagreed with Church teaching on the matter.

The OP asked what the Church position was on what to believe in the OT. So its not a matter of whether SHE AGREES or NOT. Church position is CHURCH POSITION. I stated the Church position and conveyed that she has DISAGREED with the church position by agreeing with Edwin’s position. Hence she is in error.

So I am not looking for her to AGREE with my view. I am just stating the Catholic position and making sure some one doesn’t make it look ambiguous and lead the faithful astray.

I welcome your criticism, but MAKE SURE YOU GET A PROPER GRIP before posting.

God Bless

 

[TMC]

Oh hi there,

Thanks for your reply.

So let me point out to Post #68 again.

Now read the reply by Edwin. And then read the reply the OP states. She says “My thoughts exactly”. Now I am not sure if your first language is English but that means, that is what she thought was the right answer and she agrees with him.

Therefore, with all due respect, learn to read what is written. The OP in every single one of her posts on this thread has disagreed with Church teaching on the matter.

The OP asked what the Church position was on what to believe in the OT. So its not a matter of whether SHE AGREES or NOT. Church position is CHURCH POSITION. I stated the Church position and conveyed that she has DISAGREED with the church position by agreeing with Edwin’s position. Hence she is in error.

So I am not looking for her to AGREE with my view. I am just stating the Catholic position and making sure some one doesn’t make it look ambiguous and lead the faithful astray.

I welcome your criticism, but MAKE SURE YOU GET A PROPER GRIP before posting.

God Bless

The condescension and ad hominen attacks are not helpful to your argument or my disposition.

I see nothing in post 68 that goes against Church teaching.

 

[ddarko]

The condescension and ad hominen attacks are not helpful to your argument or my disposition.

Actually I was merely stating the truth. You posted without checking, I pointed out your mistake.

I see nothing in post 68 that goes against Church teaching.

Ok maybe you don’t understand how conversations take place?

The reply quoted (posted by Edwin) says that most of the things considered to be FACT-narratives by Catholics are possibly Legendary accounts.

The OP then agrees happily with that. Throughout the thread she has also tried to rebuke the church teaching on fact-narrative.

Does that clarify for you?

God Bless

 

[TMC]

Actually I was merely stating the truth. You posted without checking, I pointed out your mistake.

Ok maybe you don’t understand how conversations take place?

The reply quoted (posted by Edwin) says that most of the things considered to be FACT-narratives by Catholics are possibly Legendary accounts.

The OP then agrees happily with that. Throughout the thread she has also tried to rebuke the church teaching on fact-narrative.

Does that clarify for you?

God Bless

The continued cutsey condesencion is really off-putting. I do understand how conversations take place, and if you want to have one you will knock it off.

Can you point to something specific in post 68 that goes against Church teaching? His basic premise is:

Rather, I would argue that what we Christians believe about the OT should be governed by our Tradition, that is, by our understanding of the Bible as sacred history centered on the Incarnation. That doesn’t allow us simply to dismiss the OT as non-historical, but it also doesn’t require us to believe that all narratives not labeled as clearly non-literal are historical, nor does it require us to believe that the meaning intended by the original authors is inerrant. Rather, Scripture is inerrant in that sense which bears on our salvation. Sometimes that is historical, sometimes it is purely theological; sometimes it coincides with what the author intended, sometimes it doesn’t.

That is essentially a summary of Dei Verbum, is it not? If not, what is wrong with it?

 

[ddarko]

The continued cutsey condesencion is really off-putting. I do understand how conversations take place, and if you want to have one you will knock it off.

Ok listen. First, I never said anything to you. I merely pointed out an observation of the OP and her views with respect to the Church.

You barged in and said I was the one trying to get people to agree with me. So that was out of the blue on your part considering I am not even stating “my position” but the “church position”.

Can you point to something specific in post 68 that goes against Church teaching? His basic premise is:

That is essentially a summary of Dei Verbum, is it not? If not, what is wrong with it?

Dei Verbum is a document that also talks about Tradition and Authority of the Church. Somehow, these finer points have been missed by many.

So somethings have been decided by the Church and held by the church through Tradition to BE FACT-narratives i.e. REALLY HAPPENED. So its not acceptable for a Catholic to say its legend with just an important message.

But Edwin claims them to be ok to be interpreted as legend. That is not what Dei Verbum says and that is not what the Church states. One needs to not forget Dei Verbum sections on Tradition and Authority of the Church. Also, one needs to remember that there are other actual doctrines and dogma other than Dei Verbum.

The story of Jonah for an example is a fact-narrative for Catholics. In-fact, the idea that it is fiction has been condemned in Providentissimus Deus.

So while the view is acceptable for Edwin, since he is not Catholic, it is not acceptable for a Catholic.

God Bless

 

[amber_lux]

It is physically impossible.

I’d suggest you read that story again, for the first time.

Then spend several days studying it. If, after studying it, you still declare it physically impossible, then renounce your Catholic faith, for you have rejected your source of faith in Catholicism.

 

[TMC]

Ok listen. First, I never said anything to you. I merely pointed out an observation of the OP and her views with respect to the Church.

You barged in and said I was the one trying to get people to agree with me. So that was out of the blue on your part considering I am not even stating “my position” but the “church position”.

I have been involved in this thread since the beginning, although it is true that I replied to something you said to someone else. My complaint about your language is that you insist on tossing about insults rather than discuss the topic - you have questioned whether I speak English, whether I understand what a conversation is, suggested I need to GET A GRIP (whatever that means), etc.

Dei Verbum is a document that also talks about Tradition and Authority of the Church. Somehow, these finer points have been missed by many.

So somethings have been decided by the Church and held by the church through Tradition to BE FACT-narratives i.e. REALLY HAPPENED. So its not acceptable for a Catholic to say its legend with just an important message.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I know what Dei Verbum is and where it comes from. I also know what it says. Are you saying it is not really the teaching of the Church?

But Edwin claims them to be ok to be interpreted as legend. That is not what Dei Verbum says and that is not what the Church states. One needs to not forget Dei Verbum sections on Tradition and Authority of the Church. Also, one needs to remember that there are other actual doctrines and dogma other than Dei Verbum.

I disagree. Dei Verbum makes clear that parts of Scripture are allegorical, not historical.

The story of Jonah for an example is a fact-narrative for Catholics. In-fact, the idea that it is fiction has been condemned in Providentissimus Deus.

So while the view is acceptable for Edwin, since he is not Catholic, it is not acceptable for a Catholic.

God Bless

Again, I disagree with your interpretation of Dei Verbum, and it relationship with Providentissimus Deus. Do you deny that Dei Verbum, the catechism and other Church teaching says that Scripture uses a variety of literary styles, including allegory? Are you suggesting that Catholics are required to view everything in Scripture as literal, historical truth? That is not what the Church teaches.