The Old Testament - is it for REAL?

[ddarko]

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.

Ok TMC, the reason was because you accuse me of trying to promote my view in your very first post to me.

I was merely making a justified statement on Church position which wasn’t even mine. So in that sense I thought perhaps you honestly did not understand the conversation due to a language barrier.

And yes, I asked you to get a grip because it seemed like you just replied to me out of the blue without much thought. You could have asked instead what I meant but no. You made an emphatic statement that I was out to get people to agree with me. See what I mean?

Then you noticed my condescension but you forgot about yours.

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?

Dei Verbum IS church teaching. But it also speaks of interpreting Scripture and Tradition as a whole and the authority of the Church.

My point is that somethings are not open for debate like the case of Jonah. The matter is settled and regarded as historical truth. The opposite idea has been condemned. So to use Dei Verbum to justify ones idea that it may be legend contradicts what Dei Verbum states about Church authority.

See what I am saying?

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

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.

Ha?

First off, I don’t give a cent if you disagree. Please get that in to your head. I am not here to sell you my position. I am stating church position.

Secondly, while there is allegory in Scripture and multiple levels of interpretation to Scripture, SOMETHINGS ARE ALSO FACT-narrative.

The view that has been promoted by you, Pfaffenhoffen and Edwin (no blame to him because he is not a Catholic) on this thread is that just because Dei Verbum points out that somethings are Allegory, metaphor etc I can believe what ever parts I want as metaphor, allegory and legend. That is NOT what Dei Verbum says. Dei Verbum does not GIVE AUTHORITY to you to decide on that. It merely states a fact about certain Scripture verses. It doesn’t even go on to say WHICH verses are Allegory and which are not.

So the point you are missing as a Catholic is that the Church HAS DECIDED and TAUGHT that certain parts are NOT legendary accounts. So that matter has been settled.

I have no clue why you and Pfaffenhoffen keep bringing up Dei Verbum in to this. Dei Verbum states a fact about the nature of Scripture. It does NOT state which parts are legend and which parts are not. Neither does it give authority to the faithful to DECIDE which parts are allegory and which parts are not. That is DECIDED by the CHURCH & Tradition.

God Bless

 

[TMC]

Ok TMC, the reason was because you accuse me of trying to promote my view in your very first post to me.

I was merely making a justified statement on Church position which wasn’t even mine. So in that sense I thought perhaps you honestly did not understand the conversation due to a language barrier.

And yes, I asked you to get a grip because it seemed like you just replied to me out of the blue without much thought. You could have asked instead what I meant but no. You made an emphatic statement that I was out to get people to agree with me. See what I mean?

Then you noticed my condescension but you forgot about yours.

Dei Verbum IS church teaching. But it also speaks of interpreting Scripture and Tradition as a whole and the authority of the Church.

My point is that somethings are not open for debate like the case of Jonah. The matter is settled and regarded as historical truth. The opposite idea has been condemned. So to use Dei Verbum to justify ones idea that it may be legend contradicts what Dei Verbum states about Church authority.

See what I am saying?

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

Ha?

First off, I don’t give a cent if you disagree. Please get that in to your head. I am not here to sell you my position. I am stating church position.

Secondly, while there is allegory in Scripture and multiple levels of interpretation to Scripture, SOMETHINGS ARE ALSO FACT-narrative.

The view that has been promoted by you, Pfaffenhoffen and Edwin (no blame to him because he is not a Catholic) on this thread is that just because Dei Verbum points out that somethings are Allegory, metaphor etc I can believe what ever parts I want as metaphor, allegory and legend. That is NOT what Dei Verbum says. Dei Verbum does not GIVE AUTHORITY to you to decide on that. It merely states a fact about certain Scripture verses. It doesn’t even go on to say WHICH verses are Allegory and which are not.

So the point you are missing as a Catholic is that the Church HAS DECIDED and TAUGHT that certain parts are NOT legendary accounts. So that matter has been settled.

I have no clue why you and Pfaffenhoffen keep bringing up Dei Verbum in to this. Dei Verbum states a fact about the nature of Scripture. It does NOT state which parts are legend and which parts are not. Neither does it give authority to the faithful to DECIDE which parts are allegory and which parts are not. That is DECIDED by the CHURCH & Tradition.

God Bless

You are not stating the Church’s position, I am not sure how anyone could read Dei Verbum the way you apparently do. Can you tell me where the Church has definitively declared the story of Jonah and the Whale to be historically accurate?

 

[ddarko]

You are not stating the Church’s position, I am not sure how anyone could read Dei Verbum the way you apparently do. Can you tell me where the Church has definitively declared the story of Jonah and the Whale to be historically accurate?

Sigh. You are reading something in to Dei Verbum that is not there.

What Dei Verbum states is that Bible uses allegory and metaphor etc. IT DOES NOT STATE THAT SPECIFIC STORY or THIS SPECIFIC STORY is allegory/mere symbolic/metaphorical etc. Do you understand that?

To give you an analogy, If I say that people on earth have blue eyes, it does not mean ALL people have blue eyes.

Same with Scripture. Just because some events are legendary, doesn’t mean ALL OF it is fiction. The plumb line to separate fiction from non-fiction is ALSO not a matter of supernatural events vs. naturally possible events.

If I remember, Dei Verbum itself clearly states that one cannot judge events as metaphors/mere symbols just because they sound impossible.

So the CHURCH, in it’s infallibility has decided on the matter. It’s OVER. The story of Jonah is REAL.

Now you can act like a dissident Catholic. That is up to you. I can’t stop you. But the Orthodox Catholic position regarding the matter is clear. Jonah’s story is a FACT-narrative. The opposite view has been condemned as well.

As an aside, to try and justify your position against Church teaching using Dei Verbum which is ALSO a church document is a rather illogical methodology btw. You have to read teaching as a whole. Not one apart from the other.

God Bless

 

[MorningSong51]

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

First thought: Every human being is created -in the image of God -

An answer was given about slaves who were set free after six years (eved ivri - a Hebrew slave, The term eved Ivri is reserved for, and identified with, a thief unable to make restitution who is sold for his theft or a pauper who sold himself into bondage (Kid. 14b; Yad, Avadim 1:1 - see article) also note, that 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 article) - so there were degrees of slavery/slaves,whether Israelite/Jewish or Non Jewish) you mention, as well as others --Jewish slaves, so in a sense it is a generalize of the word “slaves” - this seems like a broad term, slave - as we can be slaves to many things in life and waiting our redemption from them. Also Steven John wanted a citation on slaves who were given property. Which in the article listed, there is another notation, "A slave may also be released if his master bequeaths him all his property (Pe’ah 3:8; Git. 8b–9a; Yad, Avadim 7:9; YD 267:57)

Jonfawkes, look at today’s world - the uprising and the collapse of the economic system - this is a good subject to read up on. Pope Benedict, last night - EWTN, made a speech, a very good one! I love the Pope for his boldness on speaking out about this…

Peace and many blessing, whoever brought this subject and also contributed to the subject, many many blessing to you - and also to those on the thread. If your on line - watch ETWN, the message (during the station of the cross)is how many people who have been stripped of their trust and dignity.

Mary

 

[Debora123]

I have gotten my answer, not just from one person (as someone here seems to think), but from a group of several people all saying pretty much the same thing.

Again, thanks guys - Pfaffenhoffen, Morning Song, Christine77, Mary Gail, TMC, jsaldar, razredge, Contarini… I’m sure there are others I am missing.

This thread may now be closed.

 

[ddarko]

I have gotten my answer, not just from one person (as someone here seems to think), but from a group of several people all saying pretty much the same thing.

Again, thanks guys - Pfaffenhoffen, Morning Song, Christine77, Mary Gail, TMC, jsaldar, razredge, Contarini… I’m sure there are others I am missing.

This thread may now be closed.

No need to reference me as “someone”. You can state my name and I won’t be offended

I am merely telling you what the Church has taught and what we are to believe.

Btw, some of the above people you listed AREN’T EVEN CATHOLIC and even said they are merely speculating on their answer. So I am not sure why you are so quick to accept them. What about the countless others who opposed their view?

amber_lux, Little_one0307, TimothyH, Rahn, Dwyer, jsaldar, George Stegmeir, ChrisB103

Some of the above posters actually provided you with EWTN answers from Catholic Apologist and experts. Not something you could say about the others.

So whats the deal here? Usually people are happy and embrace the answer when an Apologist has answered it on EWTN. You on the other hand want to embrace speculation.

The OT has allegory, metaphor and legendary accounts. BUT, the ones you mentioned are not legendary accounts.

Noah, Moses, Jonah, Abraham are all considered to be historical figures throughout Tradition and Church teaching. There have been documents issued condemning the idea that some of these stories are fiction (I cited Providentissimus Deus before to TMC).

I also noticed you were disputing Adam and Eve in a post as well. That too is not open for interpretation. Adam and Eve are two real people and the church has condemned the opposite view in Humani Generis.

So my sincere advice to you is, when you are seeking the truth, leave your baggage behind. Seek it with an open mind that has given full assent to the Church.

God Bless

 

[ChrisB103]

I have gotten my answer, not just from one person (as someone here seems to think), but from a group of several people all saying pretty much the same thing.

Again, thanks guys - Pfaffenhoffen, Morning Song, Christine77, Mary Gail, TMC, jsaldar, razredge, Contarini… I’m sure there are others I am missing.

This thread may now be closed.

I respect that you may not want to discuss this any further. If that is the case, then feel free to not respond to this post. I agree that you have gotten the answer you were looking for from more than just one person. However, the number of people that subscribe to a particular belief has absolutely no bearing on wether or not that belief is true. It is your choice to believe this if you wish, but it has no place in Catholic theology. The choice is yours: the teaching of the Church, or the teaching of those who present ideas that are contrary to it.

If you’re interested in what the Church teaches on this topic, check out the article “Adam, Eve, and Evolution” that I already posted a link to or the talk “Catholics and the Bible” here. This talk is given by John Martignoni, who you likely will recognize as a regular on EWTN.

May God bless you and your walk with the Lord,

Chris

 

[Little_One0307]

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.

Hats off to you Amber_lux. I noticed in your religion you are not Catholic, but even you know what the Catholic Church teaches and can articulate it very succintly and nicely.

Kudos.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by amber_lux
I’d suggest you read that story again, for the first time.

Actually, I think what she wrote is rather rude, demeaning, and prideful.

…Telling me I should renounce my faith as a Catholic because I think the part of Jonah’s story about being literally swallowed by a whale was symbolic.

I’m getting really really sick of the personal attacks I keep getting on this “Christian” forum simply because I believe something different than the person who attacked me. (Even though what I believe is NOT contrary to Catholic faith, no matter how much some of you want to say it is) Really guys, knock it off. You’re not winning souls for Christ that way, you’re just making people mad and forcing them farther away from anything you have to say.

And also, LittleOne, I thought you had already apologized for telling me that we must take every word of the OT literally.

Whatever. I’m done with this thread and will ask a mod to close it.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Keep the personal remarks to yourselves people and stay on the topic.

 

[Church_Militant]

Didn’t anyone even bother to see if Catholic Answers has addressed this issue?

I did a search and here’s what the staff apologists have stated.

Jonah and the whale…is it a myth?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Pfaffenhoffen,

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church which Blessed Pope John Paul II said 'It is a sure norm for teaching the Catholic faith."

250 - Council of Trent [1546]: DS 1511
251 - Cf. LG 2

Again: that is the only reading, the Pope, the Pope and the Pope? The Council, the Council and the Council?

9 - Genesis 10:5, cf 9:9-10, 16; 10:20-31

My sentiments exactly.

God bless

Now, what does the 1st doc mean by “symbolism”? Is the Pope saying that Adam lived 5000 years ago? Yes or no?

But instead, let’s look at “authority” of Popes and Councils. The Holy Office under Pope V condemned and excommunicated Galileo, Benedict XIV granted the Imprimatur (many years after) and John Paul the II rehabilitated him. How come? “Magisterial Doctrine” and so on?

We do not need the Holy Office anymore.

We need the interpret, to discover, to help the Church find a solution. We must not be just expecting what Popes and Councils say, passively.

Darwin, creation of Man, Original Sin, to harmonize this, it is no easy task. I have been to groups, where many reflections and doubts and anxieties are expressed about these “aporia”. Once you say that Adam lived 5000 years ago because the Pope said and Man lived here for 2 million years because the scientists say and you see no anxiety on it just are looking for the Popes, you are looking for the wrong place as Galileo did 400 years ago.

It is us who need to support the Pope with our reflections and debates and our prayer so that this “mystery” for a mystery it is be made more clear to our intelligence and to our Faith.

As up to now, I do not see a clear answer anywhere and I prefer to stick to this position than to fall into either black or white positions.

God Bless You and I hope you read more outside of the Box (no insult intended, just remember that the Pope is Infallible only when speaks “ex cathedra” and that He needs us).

 

[Little_One0307]

Now, what does the 1st doc mean by “symbolism”? Is the Pope saying that Adam lived 5000 years ago? Yes or no?

But instead, let’s look at “authority” of Popes and Councils. The Holy Office under Pope V condemned and excommunicated Galileo, Benedict XIV granted the Imprimatur (many years after) and John Paul the II rehabilitated him. How come? “Magisterial Doctrine” and so on?

We do not need the Holy Office anymore.

We need the interpret, to discover, to help the Church find a solution. We must not be just expecting what Popes and Councils say, passively.

Darwin, creation of Man, Original Sin, to harmonize this, it is no easy task. I have been to groups, where many reflections and doubts and anxieties are expressed about these “aporia”. Once you say that Adam lived 5000 years ago because the Pope said and Man lived here for 2 million years because the scientists say and you see no anxiety on it just are looking for the Popes, you are looking for the wrong place as Galileo did 400 years ago.

It is us who need to support the Pope with our reflections and debates and our prayer so that this “mystery” for a mystery it is be made more clear to our intelligence and to our Faith.

As up to now, I do not see a clear answer anywhere and I prefer to stick to this position than to fall into either black or white positions.

God Bless You and I hope you read more outside of the Box (no insult intended, just remember that the Pope is Infallible only when speaks “ex cathedra” and that He needs us).

I am sorry that is not how the Magisterium Teaching of the Church works. It is not a democracy. The Church is promised to be kept free from doctrinal error in areas of Faith and Morals.

Your sentence of “We do not need the Holy Office” anymore sounds like something a Protestant would write, not a Catholic who is in Communion with Rome.

So are you saying let’s chuch all Church teaching because the Holy Office is outdated, and we with our intelligence can say what is right teaching? If so, you are schismatic by which definition one is not in Communion with Rome, meaning the Pope and the Bishops in Union with Him. These are not my definitions, they are the Church’s.

There is plenty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you would care to look up Magisterium in it, as well as the section of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in Part I of the Creed.

I still hold to my position and it is only by the grace of God that I continue to stand with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

God bless.

 

[Debora123]

Didn’t anyone even bother to see if Catholic Answers has addressed this issue?

I did a search and here’s what the staff apologists have stated.

Jonah and the whale…is it a myth?

Thank you for clearing this up for others here by showing us the answer coming from an apologist:

Peggy Frye
Catholic Answers Apologist

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 states the following:

“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 said “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 off the story of Jonah is the element of the grotesque which is present in it.” (Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, Difficulties (London: Eyre& Spottiswoode, 1951), 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 seamen, James Bartley, from a ship named the Star of the East, was found missing after an eighty-foot sperm shale 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 th4e 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 remarkable large air supply and decidedly mild gastric juices.”
(Catholicism and Fundamentalism, chapter 9, pgs 129-130)

 

[Little_One0307]

Actually, I think what she wrote is rather rude, demeaning, and prideful.

…Telling me I should renounce my faith as a Catholic because I think the part of Jonah’s story about being literally swallowed by a whale was symbolic.

I’m getting really really sick of the personal attacks I keep getting on this “Christian” forum simply because I believe something different than the person who attacked me. (Even though what I believe is NOT contrary to Catholic faith, no matter how much some of you want to say it is) Really guys, knock it off. You’re not winning souls for Christ that way, you’re just making people mad and forcing them farther away from anything you have to say.

And also, LittleOne, I thought you had already apologized for telling me that we must take every word of the OT literally.

Whatever. I’m done with this thread and will ask a mod to close it.

First of all,

That comment was not meant as a personal attack against you. If I was going to challenge you directly I would have addressed my last post to you. I am sorry that you felt attacked by me, that was not my intention.

I saw some truth in what she wrote. If one questions whether God actually has the power to allow this to happen, one questions the very nature of God, the nature of His omnipotence, His reality that He is Unlimited. In no way did I compromise my position of saying you have to believe if it is literal or not. I have been quite careful in not saying that.

What I am saying, if you declare it to be physcially impossible and not possible for God, then you are rejecting the nature of God. And that basically is a renunciation of one’s faith. I have not insuinated that you did so, in fact I would not touch that with a 200 foot pole, that is not my call to make.

I agreed because of that basic truth. And once and for all, one does not have to believe every single word in the OT is literal. One should read the OT in light of Church Tradition and Magisterial Teaching.

For a personal aside, I do not believe everything in the OT is literal. I don’t think I have ever stated my view in this thread and thought that it might just interest you.

I am sorry that you took it as a personal attack that was not the intention of my thread.

God bless.

 

[Debora123]

First of all,

That comment was not meant as a personal attack against you. If I was going to challenge you directly I would have addressed my last post to you. I am sorry that you felt attacked by me, that was not my intention.

I saw some truth in what she wrote. If one questions whether God actually has the power to allow this to happen, one questions the very nature of God, the nature of His omnipotence, His reality that He is Unlimited. In no way did I compromise my position of saying you have to believe if it is literal or not. I have been quite careful in not saying that.

What I am saying, if you declare it to be physcially impossible and not possible for God, then you are rejecting the nature of God. And that basically is a renunciation of one’s faith. I have not insuinated that you did so, in fact I would not touch that with a 200 foot pole, that is not my call to make.

I agreed because of that basic truth. And once and for all, one does not have to believe every single word in the OT is literal. One should read the OT in light of Church Tradition and Magisterial Teaching.

For a personal aside, I do not believe everything in the OT is literal. I don’t think I have ever stated my view in this thread and thought that it might just interest you.

I am sorry that you took it as a personal attack that was not the intention of my thread.

God bless.

Post #24.

 

[Little_One0307]

Now, what does the 1st doc mean by “symbolism”? Is the Pope saying that Adam lived 5000 years ago? Yes or no?

But instead, let’s look at “authority” of Popes and Councils. The Holy Office under Pope V condemned and excommunicated Galileo, Benedict XIV granted the Imprimatur (many years after) and John Paul the II rehabilitated him. How come? “Magisterial Doctrine” and so on?

We do not need the Holy Office anymore.

We need the interpret, to discover, to help the Church find a solution. We must not be just expecting what Popes and Councils say, passively.

Darwin, creation of Man, Original Sin, to harmonize this, it is no easy task. I have been to groups, where many reflections and doubts and anxieties are expressed about these “aporia”. Once you say that Adam lived 5000 years ago because the Pope said and Man lived here for 2 million years because the scientists say and you see no anxiety on it just are looking for the Popes, you are looking for the wrong place as Galileo did 400 years ago.

It is us who need to support the Pope with our reflections and debates and our prayer so that this “mystery” for a mystery it is be made more clear to our intelligence and to our Faith.

As up to now, I do not see a clear answer anywhere and I prefer to stick to this position than to fall into either black or white positions.

God Bless You and I hope you read more outside of the Box (no insult intended, just remember that the Pope is Infallible only when speaks “ex cathedra” and that He needs us).

Hi,

Sorry I did not answer your question there. I had to look up some other information before getting to that.

To your first question, no the Pope does not say that Adam lived 5000 years ago. But this is a bit irrevalent.

With your coment on Gallilo I would recommend you look in A History of Christendom vol. 4, The Cleaving of Christendom, under the Index. It has a great Catholic perspective of what was going on, and is very fair to both parties involved. From reading it there was a lot more going on behind the scenes that need to be taken into account when approaching this topic.

I quote a bit from this book:

"In Feburary 1616 Pope Paul V decided that “a formal decision on the Copernican system” should be made by the Inquisition, though he was persuaded at the last moment by Cardinal Bellarmine not to make a statement himself on the issue. Cardinal Bellarmine had said it might eventually be proved true; probably the greatest Catholic apologist who ever lived, he surely had some understanding of how disastorus it would be for the Church to have the Pope condemn a scientific theory that later turned out to be true. But the total separation of scientific theories on the material nature of the universie from theological and philosophical teaching was not yet generally understood, and even less could most contemporaries grasp that despite being the guardian of ultimate truth, the Church as such has not authority or competence in science. So a commitee of eleven theologians and not one natural philosopher or mathematician was presented with the proposition that the earth revolves around the sun and unanimoulsy prounounced it false, absurd, and heretical. [NOTICE THAT THIS WAS A COMMITTEE, AND NOT THE POPE WITH THE BISHOPS IN UNION WITH HIM. This was not a Magisterial promulgation.]

Heretical it certainly was not, by any rational criterion, and the Inquisiont took out the word before publishing its decree again Galileo. But the condemnation of a scientific theory as “false and absurd” was one of the most grievous mistakes in the history of the Church. The Church was not empowered by it Founder to decide scientific questions. St. Augustine had said exactly that more than a thousand years before, but few seemed to remember it."

God bless.

 

[Debora123]

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.

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

See link below for some clarification:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=14313&highlight=jonah+whale

Originally Posted by Peggy Frye (Catholic Answers apologist)
Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history, or as didactic fiction.

Originally Posted by Peggy Frye (Catholic Answers apologist)
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…”

God Bless

 

[Contarini]

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

It isn’t necessarily, indeed, and this is a point I would make when arguing with those who hold to a more “minimalist” view.

However, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence–usually not conclusive evidence, but not insignificant.

If you tell me, “A giant was walking around in my garden yesterday,” and I find no giant footprints, that’s an absence of evidence that requires some explanation in order not to be accepted as 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.

The problem is that most Catholic scholars and theologians agree with me on this point and not with you. You may believe that they are not representing the “real” Catholic position. That’s between you and them.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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

I believe that my statement represents how most Catholic scholars and theologians (including Pope Benedict, as far as I can tell) interpret Dei Verbum. However, I’m aware that there are conservative Catholics (some of the most prominent ones happen to be former conservative Calvinists, and no doubt this plays some role in their interpretation, just as my long sojourn among “mainline” Protestants and my reaction against fundamentalism play a role in mine) who read Dei Verbum differently, as saying that everything asserted by the human writers is inspired by the Holy Spirit for the sake of our salvation in that sense and thus must be accepted as inerrant in that sense. So I wouldn’t claim that my position is simply a summary of DV. I think it’s the best interpretation, but it is an interpretation.

Edwin