It’s pretty widely recognised by historians and scholars that oral history from OT times is not literal.
Please define “literal”. While you’re at it, please distinguish ancient norms for “literal history” from contemporary norms. More to the point, include in your discussion the distinctions we’d raise between the “literal sense of Scripture”, in terms of the writer’s intent and God’s, and the impact of these notions with our own notions of historical accounts, bringing to bear the recognition that modern-era historians, while attempting to offer accurate accounts, nevertheless (intentionally or unintentionally) color their work with their own personal perspectives.
Take your time. I’ll wait for ya.
Do you really think Tobias fought a demon? That Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt? These are all symbolic occurrences within a story. They are truths, but not the literal truth.
Maybe, and maybe not. Please don’t follow Thomas Jefferson in claiming that all improbable and/or miraculous events should be excluded from consideration, simply based on their improbability.
I’m just trying to illustrate that a literal reading of the bible is simplistic and inaccurate.
I’d agree that a reading of the Bible that was
completely and
entirely literalistic would be “simplistic and inaccurate”. However, when you point to particular passages, the assertion gets rather muddy.
If you disagree, take it up with Trent Horn, Pope Benedict and others who I’ve learned these points of view from
I might gently suggest that whatever you’ve learned from them, I’m not certain you’ve learned it accurately and well.
I never for one second suggested that you could throw out the literal sense.
OK. Fair enough. But, by pointing to a section of the CCC that dealt with the “allegorical sense”, you’ve clearly demonstrated that you’re still working on understanding the distinction between the “allegorical sense of Scripture” and “a literal sense of Scripture that proceeds from an allegorical narrative”.
