The whale scene must be taken figuratively?

[Ruthie]

Jonah is a short book with a lot of content. It may be historically true; it may be some kind of parable.

God called Jonah to prophesy in Ninevah. That’s the “capitol” of Assyria, they dedicated enemy of the Israelites. Jonah was terrified to go there, so he ran away in the opposite direction.

His refusal of God’s calling put everyone on the boat in danger. That’s not just a trick of plot; it’s an important point that we should remember! Again, he runs away; he goes into the inner part of the ship, as far as he could get from the water, and sleeps. (Most folks would not be able to sleep in the middle of a ship being thrown about in a tempest!)

Then he finally admits that he’s the one God is mad at, and tells them to throw him in the sea. Note that the sailors still try to save him - and, at that point they cried to the Lord instead of to their pagan gods.

And don’t forget what happens after they throw him overboard and the sea calms: they “feared the LORD exceedingly, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows.” And Jonah was swallowed by a great fish.

In chapter 2, Jonah calls to the Lord, admitting his error, and promising (in v. 9) to do what the Lord wanted, and the whale burps Jonah out. God said, “go to Ninevah,” and Jonah did, and foretold its destruction.

It is such a human story! When the Ninevites believed, repented, and turned from evil, the Lord forgave them. That got Jonah all in a tizzy, because he (like any Jew at that time) wanted Ninevah to be destroyed!

So he goes off into the desert in a snit. The Lord makes an allegory for Jonah with the shady plant:

And the LORD said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night, and perished in a night. 11 And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” Jonah 4:10-11 (RSV)

Interestingly enough, we are not told whether Jonah got over his snit. Later, of course, Ninevah forgot the mercy she had received from God, and conquered the northern kingdom.

Er hem, er hem, don’t be all impressed with my knowledge! I’m in the 3rd year of the Denver Catholic Biblical School, and we covered Jonah this week, so it’s fresh in my memory.

Ruthie

 

[lak611]

Jonah is a short book with a lot of content. It may be historically true; it may be some kind of parable.

God called Jonah to prophesy in Ninevah. That’s the “capitol” of Assyria, they dedicated enemy of the Israelites. Jonah was terrified to go there, so he ran away in the opposite direction.

His refusal of God’s calling put everyone on the boat in danger. That’s not just a trick of plot; it’s an important point that we should remember! Again, he runs away; he goes into the inner part of the ship, as far as he could get from the water, and sleeps. (Most folks would not be able to sleep in the middle of a ship being thrown about in a tempest!)

Then he finally admits that he’s the one God is mad at, and tells them to throw him in the sea. Note that the sailors still try to save him - and, at that point they cried to the Lord instead of to their pagan gods.

And don’t forget what happens after they throw him overboard and the sea calms: they “feared the LORD exceedingly, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows.” And Jonah was swallowed by a great fish.

In chapter 2, Jonah calls to the Lord, admitting his error, and promising (in v. 9) to do what the Lord wanted, and the whale burps Jonah out. God said, “go to Ninevah,” and Jonah did, and foretold its destruction.

It is such a human story! When the Ninevites believed, repented, and turned from evil, the Lord forgave them. That got Jonah all in a tizzy, because he (like any Jew at that time) wanted Ninevah to be destroyed!

So he goes off into the desert in a snit. The Lord makes an allegory for Jonah with the shady plant:

And the LORD said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night, and perished in a night. 11 And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” Jonah 4:10-11 (RSV)

Interestingly enough, we are not told whether Jonah got over his snit. Later, of course, Ninevah forgot the mercy she had received from God, and conquered the northern kingdom.

Er hem, er hem, don’t be all impressed with my knowledge! I’m in the 3rd year of the Denver Catholic Biblical School, and we covered Jonah this week, so it’s fresh in my memory.

Ruthie

Ruthie, that is an excellent summary of the book of Jonah!

 

[scottm]

Those are natural things that happen relatively frequently. A man being swallowed by a fish or whale and surviving for 3 days to be rescued is not a common occurrence. Thus, one should expect scepticism when that claim is made.

Why? Haven’t we gotten over that already?

The virgin birth of Jesus – absolutely impossible from a naturalistic point of view. Ergo, it’s false, right? Just a made-up story of faith without one ounce of historic fact behind it, right?

The resurrection of Jesus – impossible yet again from a naturalistic point of view. Ergo, false. Fiction. Made up. Not a true event. Right?

Assumption of Jesus and of Mary, separately both – ditto, ditto, 100 times ditto. If Jesus and Mary went up into the sky the astronauts and astronomers would have reported seeing their thrones by now. Thus, both of these stories are false myths. Right?

Actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist – puh-leeze! Totally false from a naturalistic point of view. Therefore, this too is just a fairytale myth we tell our children. Right?

Shall I continue?

 

[patg]

he virgin birth of Jesus – absolutely impossible from a naturalistic point of view.

True.

Ergo, it’s false, right?

No, its a matter of faith.

Just a made-up story of faith…

Made up?..maybe - we have no way of knowing. Story of faith?— yes, that’s exactly correct.

without one ounce of historic fact behind it, right?

Absolutely true - there is not the slightest historical basis for it.

The resurrection of Jesus – impossible yet again from a naturalistic point of view.

Yes

Ergo, false.

No, a matter of faith.

Fiction. Made up. Not a true event. Right?

No, its a matter of faith. And again, there is no historical evidence for this either.

Assumption of Jesus and of Mary, separately both – ditto, ditto, 100 times ditto. If Jesus and Mary went up into the sky the astronauts and astronomers would have reported seeing their thrones by now. Thus, both of these stories are false myths. Right?

Ditto also - these are matters of faith. There is not a shred of historical evidence for these events either.

Actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist – puh-leeze! Totally false from a naturalistic point of view.

True

Therefore, this too is just a fairytale myth we tell our children. Right?

No, its a matter of faith. There is not a shred of evidence that it is true.

Shall I continue?

Only if we need to discuss the difference between believing things through faith versus having a historical and non-supernatural reason for believing them.

 

[Orogeny]

Why? Haven’t we gotten over that already?

Over what? Asking for sources of claimes? The person who asked for a source never indicated that they denied anything in scriptures. In fact, all that was asked for was a source for the claim that a fisherman was swallowed by a fish and survived for several days. Nothing in that request for a source even touches on scripture.

The virgin birth of Jesus – absolutely impossible from a naturalistic point of view. Ergo, it’s false, right? Just a made-up story of faith without one ounce of historic fact behind it, right?

The resurrection of Jesus – impossible yet again from a naturalistic point of view. Ergo, false. Fiction. Made up. Not a true event. Right?

Assumption of Jesus and of Mary, separately both – ditto, ditto, 100 times ditto. If Jesus and Mary went up into the sky the astronauts and astronomers would have reported seeing their thrones by now. Thus, both of these stories are false myths. Right?

Actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist – puh-leeze! Totally false from a naturalistic point of view. Therefore, this too is just a fairytale myth we tell our children. Right?

Shall I continue?

Feel better now? Back to the point and away from assigning motives when you don’t really know what you are talking about. If there is a recent example of a person swallowed by either a fish or a whale and surviving for several days, I would like to see it.

Now, go ahead and make an assumption (and you know what happens when you assume) about my motives for asking for a source to that claim.

Peace

Tim

 

[juliamajor]

Why? Haven’t we gotten over that already?

The virgin birth of Jesus – absolutely impossible from a naturalistic point of view. Ergo, it’s false, right? Just a made-up story of faith without one ounce of historic fact behind it, right?

The resurrection of Jesus – impossible yet again from a naturalistic point of view. Ergo, false. Fiction. Made up. Not a true event. Right?

Assumption of Jesus and of Mary, separately both – ditto, ditto, 100 times ditto. If Jesus and Mary went up into the sky the astronauts and astronomers would have reported seeing their thrones by now. Thus, both of these stories are false myths. Right?

Actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist – puh-leeze! Totally false from a naturalistic point of view. Therefore, this too is just a fairytale myth we tell our children. Right?

Shall I continue?

Jeez get a grip!!You jumped down Orogeny’s throat for nothing.Just because he doesn’t believe in the Great Fish story doesn’t make him an atheist or Bible burner- calm down take a deeeep breath.

 

[scottm]

You all missed the point –

patg:

Absolutely true - there is not the slightest historical basis for it.

First, that is false. The entire NT record both canonical and non-canonical is our historical basis. Second, this and every other thing in the list, plus more like it, is a DOGMA of the Catholic church. Denial of the dogma means that you’re not a Catholic.

That’s fine if you don’t want to be a Catholic. Most of the world is not Catholic. But think about the consequences of what you’re doing both when you deny dogma and when you close your eyes to historical records.

Everyone, think about all the times in the OT when geneaolgies are listed – real people. They’re in there because real people lived real lives and experienced a real God in those real lives. The family trees make the OT a personal history, not a fictional story. Think of all the times when a pillar of rocks was stacked up in the OT so that the next generation would ask, “Why are these rocks here?” The parents would then say, “A real God came down and did real things in real people’s lives right here on this real spot of dirt.” THAT is what the OT is based on. The entire Jewish religion which Jesus happened to endorse is built upon an historical event: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. [and continue with the other 9 Commandments]” History. Actual event. Then the NT has real people, real kings, real priests, doing real things in real cities/towns, all in explicit fulfillment of the OT. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 is a history lesson: “These things happened and you are witnesses of it,” he says. Paul in 1 Cor 15 says explicitely that he was preaching only that which actually happened in their lives “according to the scriptures.” He was a witness and they were witnesses and the other apostles were witnesses of an actual God coming into actual lives in actual history.

Think about that before saying faith is distinct from and divorced from historical events. You might actually be saying that Jesus did not actually die and rise again. You might actually be saying that the resurrection is not a matter of historical record but is a mere myth of faith. And if you do that then you’re not a Christian, which might be what you want but probably is not what you want.

 

[paradoxy]

Check this out:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/n/newjonah.htm



I actually tend to believe that many Bible ‘myths’ are literal - you have to get the initial image from somewhere, right? But I don’t need them to be corroborated by pseudohistorical or pseudoscientific legends…

 

[juliamajor]

Check this out:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/n/newjonah.htm



I actually tend to believe that many Bible ‘myths’ are literal - you have to get the initial image from somewhere, right? But I don’t need them to be corroborated by pseudohistorical or pseudoscientific legends…

It doesn’t say whale -it says “fish” Whales being air breathers could provide air for a victim -Fish wouldn’t

 

[rpp]

It doesn’t say whale -it says “fish” Whales being air breathers could provide air for a victim -Fish wouldn’t

Only if the victim is inhaled (via the blow-hole). If they are swallowed, they would be in the stomach. Think about your own anatomy in this area. It is not so different than that of a whale.

Whether the story of Jonah and the big fish is allegorical or literal I will leave to scholars. For my part, I believe in miracles.

 

[patg]

The entire NT record both canonical and non-canonical is our historical basis.

Yes, this is historically the basis of the Church’s teachings but that doesn’t mean that the Church (or anyone else) can provide historical proof.

Second, this and every other thing in the list, plus more like it, is a DOGMA of the Catholic church. Denial of the dogma means that you’re not a Catholic.

I didn’t deny the dogma - I deny that you can verify ANY of it as a matter of history. The dogma is based on faith.

That’s fine if you don’t want to be a Catholic. Most of the world is not Catholic. But think about the consequences of what you’re doing both when you deny dogma and when you close your eyes to historical records.

Like I said above, our beliefs and dogma are faith-based. No one on this earth can prove the nature of the Eucharist, the virgin birth, or the resurrection.

…The entire Jewish religion which Jesus happened to endorse is built upon an historical event: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. [and continue with the other 9 Commandments]” History.

No, it is not - show us the history textbook which describes that as a historical event.

Actual event.

You may believe it to be through your faith but it is no where close to academic history.

Think about that before saying faith is distinct from and divorced from historical events.

If you had historical proof, you wouldn’t need faith so yes, I guess that is what I am saying.

You might actually be saying that Jesus did not actually die and rise again.

No one can produce historical evidence for the resurrection and even some of the followers who were there had doubts - what else is there but faith?

You might actually be saying that the resurrection is not a matter of historical record

I am definitely saying that. Show me a history book written by a historian that states that a man rose from the dead in or about 33 AD. There is no record outside the contradictory religious documents of the N.T.

but is a mere myth of faith.

It appears you think faith is “mere myth” and unimportant.

And if you do that then you’re not a Christian, which might be what you want but probably is not what you want.

Faith is the essence of Christianity.

 

[juliamajor]

You all missed the point –

First, that is false. The entire NT record both canonical and non-canonical is our historical basis. Second, this and every other thing in the list, plus more like it, is a DOGMA of the Catholic church. Denial of the dogma means that you’re not a Catholic.

That’s fine if you don’t want to be a Catholic. Most of the world is not Catholic. But think about the consequences of what you’re doing both when you deny dogma and when you close your eyes to historical records.

Everyone, think about all the times in the OT when geneaolgies are listed – real people. They’re in there because real people lived real lives and experienced a real God in those real lives. The family trees make the OT a personal history, not a fictional story. Think of all the times when a pillar of rocks was stacked up in the OT so that the next generation would ask, “Why are these rocks here?” The parents would then say, “A real God came down and did real things in real people’s lives right here on this real spot of dirt.” THAT is what the OT is based on. The entire Jewish religion which Jesus happened to endorse is built upon an historical event: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. [and continue with the other 9 Commandments]” History. Actual event. Then the NT has real people, real kings, real priests, doing real things in real cities/towns, all in explicit fulfillment of the OT. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 is a history lesson: “These things happened and you are witnesses of it,” he says. Paul in 1 Cor 15 says explicitely that he was preaching only that which actually happened in their lives “according to the scriptures.” He was a witness and they were witnesses and the other apostles were witnesses of an actual God coming into actual lives in actual history.

Think about that before saying faith is distinct from and divorced from historical events. You might actually be saying that Jesus did not actually die and rise again. You might actually be saying that the resurrection is not a matter of historical record but is a mere myth of faith. And if you do that then you’re not a Christian, which might be what you want but probably is not what you want.

Faith should not be dependent on history-it is great if we have historical confirmation but it should not rely on it . Salvation history is different than secular history- Salvation history is just that -an account of our ancestors in
faith working toward the redemption of the world thru Christ- it certainly is not a history lesson

 

[scottm]

"patg:

You may believe it to be through your faith but it is no where close to academic history.

Salvation history is just that -an account of our ancestors in faith working toward the redemption of the world thru Christ- it certainly is not a history lesson

Okay. I’ll tell my daughter that Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead. I’ll tell her it’s just something that some people thought up while they were struggling with their own lives, but it didnt’ actually happen in history. Easter not actually a true event.

Thanks for the lesson.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1991/PSCF12-91Davis.html

Seriously, for a God who created the universe, how hard would it be for him to have a whale or other unknown sea animal shallow a man whole, keep him alive and spew him up on shore?

 

[Orogeny]

Thank you for the links, Paradoxy and Daniel.

Just for the record (and for Scott), I have no problem accepting the story as true. I have no evidence that it didn’t occur. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t, but from my standpoint, I have no reason to think that it didn’t.

Peace

Tim

 

[patg]

Okay. I’ll tell my daughter that Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead. I’ll tell her it’s just something that some people thought up while they were struggling with their own lives, but it didnt’ actually happen in history. Easter not actually a true event.
Thanks for the lesson.

Actually, I don’t think you understand the lesson. Not that I’m trying to teach you anything but if your daughter asks you why such “historical” events aren’t in a single history book, you will need an answer.

Saying that something is historically unprovable and outside the realm of the human study of history is not the same as saying the event did not occur.

The simplistic approach says that if you believe something happened, then to you it is part of history. The academic science of the true historian, however, requires far more evidence and, even with a tremendous amount of evidence, the historian only assigns a level of probability to the conclusions as to what happened. Historians require multiple sources and witnesses, sources that are independent of the event and as objective as possible. We have none of that for the events you and others have mentioned. Surely something like the resucitation of a 3 day old body is the biggest event in the history of the world and something no historian would *ever *omit. However, the lack of any mention of it anywhere by anyone except those few who already believed clearly shows that it can only be taken on faith. And if you read Matthew, you see that even some of the followers who were there doubted what happened.

The solitary story about the miracle of a man in a whale is the same thing. Even the church makes no statement as to the historicity of the event and we are free to believe as we want.

The realm of the supernatural is outside the realm of the human historian - the historian’s tools and analysis do not apply there. If you want to continue this more general history/faith discussion, we really should start a more appropriate thread of our own.

 

[papaspicy]

It doesn’t say whale -it says “fish” Whales being air breathers could provide air for a victim -Fish wouldn’t

To an ancient Israelite, whales were fish. The modern classification and understanding that whales are mammals is rather modern.

A student of mine said they saw something on the Discovery or History Channel about a diver who was swimming with humpback whales and was sucked into one of the whale’s mouth (but not swallowed). The whale dived down and then came back up only a minute later; the diver fell out of the whale’s mouth when it opened it to eat, but when the man came out he was dead. He had been killed by the pressure changes. I don’t have any source for this event, as I said this came from another person, but it seems like a likely outcome.

Just something to think about.

And of course, a miracle is just that – a miracle. So this story has no real effect on Jonah.

Pax

 

[Kitty_Chan]

I am reading a book on this, the “prepared” fish was Jonah’s only way of salvation.

God went to a lot of bother to save one man, Jonah, who was very rebellioous but had not been to a point of really needing God.

When Jonah entered this God-planned way of salvation, as he was swallowed by the great fish, it seemed to the onlookers to be the end of him. So also think the friends of this world when they witness one of their companions entering into the life of salvation.
We do not know how many years the fish was in the preparationory stage before it was called upon to perform this mission. It is enough for us to know that this act of God revealed His infinte love for a disobedient man. God is indeed longsuffering.
God so loved Jonah that He prepared a great fish; but God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son … (John 3; 16)

Paul’s companions became so irritated at him when he became a Christian that they even made plans to kill him.

As Noah prepared a great boat i believe God prepared a great fish so I think it can be a literally true story.

Here is a review;
The end of chapter one closes with God creating a great fish to save Jonah, God’s love
Chapter 2 closes by again reveling the Lord’s love when Jonah was delivered from the fish upon dry land
Chap 3 closes by revealing the Lord’s love when He spared the people of Nineveh
Chap 4 closes the book with a further revelation of the Lord’s infinite love when He spared Nineveh for the sake of the helpless children and cattle.
If we were to characteize the Lord from our study of Him in this book, we could well do so in the words of I John 4; 8 “God is love.”
Dessert

Was thinking about what Jill Briscoe wrote about Jonah. (I will put out the drift here, in my words)

After he was spit out of the fish one would have thought he would have learned what to do. He was then to go to Niveveh and preach. He does and the people respond. So Jonah goes to sit on the edge of the city to see what happens. But he still is pretty grumpy about the whole thing.

Then a plant comes into the picture.

It grows up and over Jonah to provide shade for him and hes happy.

Then a worm enters.

Jonah watches as the little guy wiggles out and starts to devour his plant of shade. Verse 7 said “God prepared a worm” Imagine first a plant growing overnight, then a worm is called to eat it. Think of it from the worms view, yea its God asking, but to eat what!!! .

Jill mentions perhaps when Jonah watched the worm do something it couldnt do, maybe Jonah realized the worm was inspiration and the lowest form of life being a inspiration.

So, we have a;

Fish - Plant - Worm all doing what they wouldnt do, only did so because they were Prepared by God and He asked them. to show Jonah what he needed to learn.

Why wouldnt anyone think that Jesus who can calm a storm and walk on water, would it be hard to prepare a fish to swallow Jonah?

Why wouldnt anyone believe Him who can raise the dead, cannot ask a worm to eat a catus?

 

[juliamajor]

Okay. I’ll tell my daughter that Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead. I’ll tell her it’s just something that some people thought up while they were struggling with their own lives, but it didnt’ actually happen in history. Easter not actually a true event.

Thanks for the lesson./QUOTE
oh please- stop getting hysterical and stop jumping to conclusions and don’t be so determined to insult me with your snide remarks. You Jump from fish to resurrection- how did that come about/ I’m not Funk or Crossan And you know it’s okay to see the jonah story in a light other then literalistically (is that even a word? ) so chill dude

 

[rpp]

scottm;2765108:

Okay. I’ll tell my daughter that Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead. I’ll tell her it’s just something that some people thought up while they were struggling with their own lives, but it didnt’ actually

happen in history. Easter not actually a true event.

Thanks for the lesson.
oh please- stop getting hysterical and stop jumping to conclusions and don’t be so determined to insult me with your snide remarks. You Jump from fish to resurrection- how did that come about/ I’m not Funk or Crossan And you know it’s okay to see the jonah story in a light other then literalistically (is that even a word? ) so chill dude

Considering what you and PatG wrote, his conclusion is reasonable. You demonstrate why the historical-critical method of scripture study is bankrupt.