The word of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter eo_chibears
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eo_chibears

Guest
Is the bible the word of God? If so, why do not all Christians take the bible literally? Did people really live to be 900 years old? Was there a talking snake in the garden? These are just two examples of things I have heard Christians say should not be taken literally. Where does the bible say these stories are not to be taken literally?
 
The same place it says to take them literally. :o

Also, one must give due respect to the literary forms of the various texts. The various books of Scripture were written by many authors. Even Paul interprets the Old Testament figuratively (e.g. Gal. 4:24) even though the original text instructs him to do no such thing. The point of interpreting any communication is to receive the speaker’s intent. So if I try to teach you a lesson about persistence and recite the story of the tortoise and the hare, you would be missing the point of my communication if you got hung up on the fact that the rabbit talks in my story. While many historical or scientific assertions in Scripture are true, they don’t necessarily have to be true in order for the true message to be delivered, such as in my tortoise-hare example.
 
"III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

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

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

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
Code: 
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. "
Read more at: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm
 
eo_chibears said:
Is the bible the word of God?
Click to expand...
According to the Christian viewpoint, the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
If so, why do not all Christians take the bible literally?
Click to expand...
We believe the Bible to be God’s INSPIRED Word. That does not necessarily mean it’s literally word-for-word true. By “inspired,” the Church means that God inspired the many authors of Scripture to convey His Word in a way for people to understand. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit prevented these secondary authors from writing down errors about God and the reality of the Christian faith.

That being said, there is absolutely no instance where the Bible tell us to take each and every word found within the pages of Scripture as literal, word-for-word truth. As MarcoPolo pointed out, there is an instance where Paul interprets the Old Testament figuratively. The Scriptures do not tell him to do so, and they do not tell him to interpret it with a literalist viewpoint.

My usual response to a literalist interpretation of the Bible is this: “Jesus Himself taught using metaphor, allegory, hyperbole, symbolism, etc. If God Himself did this, then why cannot there be others instances where the Bible does the same thing?”
Did people really live to be 900 years old?
Click to expand...
We simply have no way of knowing.
Was there a talking snake in the garden?
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of where the Bible should not be taking literally. The Catholic Church allows for a literal interpretation of Genesis. However, I believe her official stance is that Genesis is simply meant to be read as a symbolic/allegorical story which conveys deep religious truth about God. Namely that…

~God, through his infinite love, created the world from nothing.
~He created the human race, the peak of His creation.
~Through man’s pride, the human race has fallen into a imperfect, weakened, and diminished state.

(However, if this is not the “official” stance of the Church, then please correct me.)
These are just two examples of things I have heard Christians say should not be taken literally. Where does the bible say these stories are not to be taken literally?
Click to expand...
Where does the Bible tell us to read Scripture with a literalist viewpoint?

I believe the general rule of thumb is, besides the “senses” of Scripture which the Catechism informs us about, one should read Scripture literally unless logical reason and common sense tells us otherwise. I suggest looking into the Catechism entries on this (as someone has already posted in this thread); it does a better job at explaining this than me.

To me, this is exactly the case with Genesis. God did not want us to worship Him simply by blind faith; He wants us to learn about Him and understand why we should follow and worship Him. He has done this through many ways, science being one of them. Since God gave us science, scientific truths can never contradict religious truths. Therefore, if reading the Bible literally brings up a conflict between something supported by science, then we should reexamine the text to fully reveal what it is saying.
 
In a different thread, I discussed a particular example of interpretation.

It’s especially interesting to see how the Bible interprets itself.

The example is a command given in Exodus, that if someone is caught working on the Sabbath, they are to be put to death.

OK, is that CLEAR?

Apparently not. Moses was the one who is credited with the writing of the first five books of the Bible (which is questioned, but that is a different matter). So, things go along and what happens? In the book of Numbers, some people find a man collecting twigs or wood on the Sabbath. What to do?

The people took the man to Moses. Moses wasn’t trigger happy about anything. What he did (and what he is well-known for) is that he went to consult with the Lord. The verse doesn’t say who is supposed to put the man to death, for example.

So, as it is recorded in Numbers, So, Moses spoke with the Lord and got the direction to take the man outside the camp and the community had to stone him to death.

Then, was everything settled, at that point? Well, no. In much later times, the Jewish rabbis listed 39 types of work that were prohibited under that command. There were some types of work, like working on the wilderness temple, that were explicitly forbidden. Some of the 39 things were derived from or based on things that were explicitly forbidden
in the Torah (first five books).

To this day, the question is still being answered and expanded on, whether Jews can turn on a light switch (no) on the Sabbath. So, there are, at least among Jews, interpretations and “extensions” of the principle involved in the command.

So, you can’t say that even the Jews accepted a literal interpretation or compliance with the commands of scripture.

the answer is, you cannot or should not be overly literal about interpreting the Bible on all its points… If Moses wasn’t, then you shouldn’t either.

One of the things that the rabbis said was forbidden by this command was “reaping.”

Well, Jesus and his disciples one Sabbath were walking through a field and plucking corn or wheat to eat. In The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford U. Press) published just last November, the Jewish commentator concludes that Jesis did not interpret plucking and eating as reaping. that’s not the explanation that Jesus gives in the gospel of Matthew, but it serves to illustrate that just a blind literal interpretation is not justified. I’m not sure you can find a blind approach towards interpreting scripture.
 
Pheonix said:
According to the Christian viewpoint, the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

We believe the Bible to be God’s INSPIRED Word. That does not necessarily mean it’s literally word-for-word true. By “inspired,” the Church means that God inspired the many authors of Scripture to convey His Word in a way for people to understand. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit prevented these secondary authors from writing down errors about God and the reality of the Christian faith.

That being said, there is absolutely no instance where the Bible tell us to take each and every word found within the pages of Scripture as literal, word-for-word truth. As MarcoPolo pointed out, there is an instance where Paul interprets the Old Testament figuratively. The Scriptures do not tell him to do so, and they do not tell him to interpret it with a literalist viewpoint.

My usual response to a literalist interpretation of the Bible is this: “Jesus Himself taught using metaphor, allegory, hyperbole, symbolism, etc. If God Himself did this, then why cannot there be others instances where the Bible does the same thing?”

We simply have no way of knowing.

This is a perfect example of where the Bible should not be taking literally. The Catholic Church allows for a literal interpretation of Genesis. However, I believe her official stance is that Genesis is simply meant to be read as a symbolic/allegorical story which conveys deep religious truth about God. Namely that…

~God, through his infinite love, created the world from nothing.
~He created the human race, the peak of His creation.
~Through man’s pride, the human race has fallen into a imperfect, weakened, and diminished state.

(However, if this is not the “official” stance of the Church, then please correct me.)

Where does the Bible tell us to read Scripture with a literalist viewpoint?

I believe the general rule of thumb is, besides the “senses” of Scripture which the Catechism informs us about, one should read Scripture literally unless logical reason and common sense tells us otherwise. I suggest looking into the Catechism entries on this (as someone has already posted in this thread); it does a better job at explaining this than me.

To me, this is exactly the case with Genesis. God did not want us to worship Him simply by blind faith; He wants us to learn about Him and understand why we should follow and worship Him. He has done this through many ways, science being one of them. Since God gave us science, scientific truths can never contradict religious truths. Therefore, if reading the Bible literally brings up a conflict between something supported by science, then we should reexamine the text to fully reveal what it is saying.
Click to expand...
Know way of knowing if somebody managed to live to 900?? You can’t be serious, of course no one lived to be that old! It’s impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top