Which biblical stories can a Catholic not accept as literal?

[Samuel1991]

Which stories/things/events/decisions in the Bible can a Catholic not accept as literal?
I hope that you have understood this question i m not extremely good at English

 

[Della]

Which stories/things/events/decisions in the Bible can a Catholic not accept as literal?
I hope that you have understood this question i m not extremely good at English

It’s not as simple as that. Bible stories/events can be interpreted many ways, not just literally. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:’

The four ways of interpreting Scripture: #s 115-119.

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
   118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
   The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
   The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

The Church has interpreted only a few incidents in the literal sense. Most are open to being interpreted in any or all of the ways cited above from the CCC.

We Catholics are not Fundamentalists who have to interpret everything literalistically, although the literal interpretation, as described in the CCC, is often used before any others.

 

[Samuel1991]

Thank you. Look i dont accept that God really sent two bears to kill 42 persons because of mocking a bald person(Elisha and bears) for example.

 

[Della]

Thank you. Look i dont accept that God really sent two bears to kill 42 persons because of mocking a bald person(Elisha and bears) for example.

In any such story, we need to look at it historically and within the context of what the story is meant to tell us. It’s not just about a group of people being killed by a bear for mocking a man with a bald head. It’s about who that man was, why he called judgment down on them, etc. He was a prophet, not just some bald guy. By mocking a prophet of God, essentially saying that he wasn’t worth listening to, the people were mocking God, for the prophet represented God. They were rejecting God’s message and God’s messenger. Others had died for committing such sacrilege before this group of people.

In OT times judgment was immediate and final. We are living in the Age of Grace, in which God has poured out his mercy on all mankind. We will be held accountable for our sins too, but usually our judgment will come after our death, not immediately. Immediate judgment showed the people of Israel that God meant business, that he would not be mocked, and that what he said, through his prophets, was true. So, you see, it isn’t merely a story about a bald man being mocked and bear killing the mockers. It tells us so much more than that.

 

[Samuel1991]

In other words, did God really send these two bears ?

 

[Della]

In other words, did God really send these two bears ?

Yes. That may shock modern sensibilities, but it was a judgment against people who knew better than to mock him by mocking one of his prophets. I sometimes think we need a few bears in our own time to wake up some people to the reality that God is still the judge of man, and not some kindly old grandfather who can be mocked and set aside as irrelevant.

 

[Samuel1991]

No, that story does not really say that God sent these 2 bears, it says only that Elisha cursed in the name of the Lord the persons that were mocking Elisha and then two bears pop up and killed these persons without harming Elisha. l think that is a fable or a real story without involving God.

 

[ColdComfort]

It’s not as simple as that. Bible stories/events can be interpreted many ways, not just literally. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:’

The Church has interpreted only a few incidents in the literal sense. Most are open to being interpreted in any or all of the ways cited above from the CCC.

We Catholics are not Fundamentalists who have to interpret everything literalistically, although the literal interpretation, as described in the CCC, is often used before any others.

I don’t think Catholics are taught not to take scripture literally. It’s the word literally that’s taken differently. A simple example: the Psalms are poetry or lyrics to music. The controversies between fundamentalists and others comes down to whether everything in Scripture was written as historically true. That often requires scholarship and sometimes he teaching authority of the Church. I see no reason why God would not inspire the sacred writers to speak in myths especially in the earliest parts of the OT given the cultural condition of the Jewish people. Truths are imparted, of course, such as God created everything and it was good. Or we are all descendants of one original human couple whose rebellion corrupted human nature.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

No, that story does not really say that God sent these 2 bears, it says only that Elisha cursed in the name of the Lord the persons that were mocking Elisha and then two bears pop up and killed these persons without harming Elisha. l think that is a fable or a real story without involving God.

As a Catholic, the way I would approach that story is to try to understand the moral and spiritual lesson it is trying to teach, rather than getting all concerned with whether 2 bears literally killed 42 people (or was it 1 bear, or 35 people not 42, etc.)

Taking everything written in the Bible literally, especially the Old Testament that does not involve the actions of Jesus Christ, is more the practice of certain Protestant Fundamentalist groups.

The point of this story is that people mocked a prophet of God, which was very serious, and they were severely punished for doing so.

There are good Bible commentaries out there that give some historical perspective to particular Bible stories, such as whether they fall into common categories of “mythic” stories or whether they are based perhaps on a real historical event. I like to read those to get more perspective on the story, but in the end I am more concerned with the spiritual dimensions of the writer’s main point than I am about exact literal details.

 

[undead_rat]

Thank you. Look I dont accept that God really sent two bears to kill 42 persons because of mocking a bald person(Elisha and bears) for example.

Sorry that you are having a difficult tine with the bear, but it’s trivial compared to this:

"Here," Isaiah replied, “is the sign from YHWH that He will do what He has said; would you like the shadow [of the sun] to go forward ten steps, or to go back ten steps?”
“It is easy for the shadow to lengthen ten steps,” Hezekiah answered, “no, I would rather the shadow go back ten steps on the steps of Ahaz.”
The prophet Isaiah then called on YHWH who made the shadow go back ten steps on the steps of Ahaz. --2 Kings 20 :10

I have never been able to find a commentary, either Protestant or Catholic, that accepted this story as literal truth. They tend to say things such as, “Hezekiah experienced a personal time anomaly or was hypnotized.”
No one wants to come out and say that our Creator did the astronomically impossible feat of setting the whole world back in time.

My personal view is that the story is true. The shadow did retreat which means that the sun retreated, which in turn means that the whole universe jumped back in time by several hours.
As the saying goes, “Is the arm of YHWH so short?”

 

[TK421]

I think if 2 she-bears killing a bunch of people is meant to be taken figuratively, then it is a really, really badly presented figure of speech. It’s a borderline nonsensical / moronic one, compared to so many others ways that the lesson could be taught, unless of course if it were a historical event. Who would make up such a weird story to teach a lesson? And if the arm of God taking life is allegedly off-limits, then even as a parable/figure of speech, the story is unacceptable.

Hundreds of people died in the time it took me to write this post. Not all of them went to Heaven.

 

[Della]

No, that story does not really say that God sent these 2 bears, it says only that Elisha cursed in the name of the Lord the persons that were mocking Elisha and then two bears pop up and killed these persons without harming Elisha.

Elisha spoke for God, hence it was God’s command.

l think that is a fable or a real story without involving God.

If you think that, then you are interpreting the story according to your own understanding only, and not within its proper context and meaning.

The Bible isn’t the kind of book you can just pick up and read, like a modern novel or news story. It’s a library of writings spanning thousands of years, written by several people under varying circumstances and ages of the world. It’s not easy to understand, which is why we need the Church to help us sort things out, and give it meaning, especially in the difficult passages. Taking it upon ourselves to interpret Scripture means that we are limiting it to our own ideas instead of truly understanding it.

 

[peter26]

The Bible is true in its entirety. However, clearly there are different genres of literature and some passages are clearly identifiable as poetry (likely to use grand imagery as in many of the Psalms), parables (not intended to be literally true since they are stories but true in the message they are making) or prophecy (using many cryptic imagery, as in for instance the later part of Daniel). Identify the type of writings and you can tell if it is meant to be taken literally. If it is written as a historical account, then yes it is literally true.

 

[edwest2]

That is a very broad question that requires research and specific examples. To say that God did not actually/literally do certain things in the Old Testament is to deny the actual power of God to affect His creation. So, this question is too open-ended.

Ed

 

[Samuel1991]

Being killed by a bear or two bears is very painful. How could our loving God kill persons with bears?

 

[Della]

Being killed by a bear or two bears is very painful. How could our loving God kill persons with bears?

Or by forest fires or earthquakes or tsunamis or plagues, etc.? Bears still kill people, as do lions, and elephants, and tigers, and even family dogs. Cancer kills people over long periods of time and is very painful. An 18 wheeler hits your car, you’re a goner. We live in a dangerous world. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. Still, all of reality is a part of God’s creation, and therefore is good.

 

[Samuel1991]

Well these are horrible events that happen in this world however they are not caused or ordered by God. Take rape for example. Many women suffer from this however
they are products from the will of evil rapists but God would NEVER order or cause rape. So I do not believe that our loving God killed 42 persons with two bears because it is a very painful death and I do not believe that God could kill painfully 42 persons because of mocking a bald
person. I am not even sure if there were bears in The Middle Eastern Levant.

 

[PNEUMA]

Which stories/things/events/decisions in the Bible can a Catholic not accept as literal?
I hope that you have understood this question i m not extremely good at English

To me, the creation of the first paradise seems figurative or metaphorical as also does the new paradise.

Genesis 3:22 “Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life”

Revelation 22:1 “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’m interested in how one should determine which passages are to be taken literally and which ones should not. A year and a half ago I wrote a long post about questions to consider when doing so. Here’s the gist:

A. Show why the passage should be interpreted in a non-literal sense and not a literal one.

B. State whether non-literal passages can intersperse with literal passages, and if so how and when we can tell which is which.

C. Determine whether a quote from God can be non-literal.

D. If a passage is non-literal in nature see if it shows God in an unfavorable light.

E. Determine which non-literal interpretation (of which there could be many) is to be used and why.

 

[grannymh]

To me, the creation of the first paradise seems figurative or metaphorical as also does the new paradise.

Genesis 3:22 “Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life”

The Creator God is literal.
The original human person is literal.
Difference between the divine and human is literal.
Rejection of a divine God is literal.
Heaven, following literal death is literal.