Why does the Old Testament sometimes seem unreasonable?

[catholic1seeks]

We all like things to be reasonable and easy to understand. So, why is it that the Old Testament stories are hard to understand? We have evolution to say that Genesis didn’t happen exactly 100% like it says it did. Noah’s Ark seems unreasonable: even as a second grader, I remember thinking about all of the animals fitting in the ark. Then there’s the Exodus, Jonah and the whale, etc.

I’m not saying all of these are myth in the strictest sense, but I’ve heard on these forums and from other places reasons that make the Old Testament “unreasonable.” We’ve all seen questions on here asking why God seems to act different in the Old Testament than the New Testament. I’m thinking about these instances.

Why do you think that is? What is it that makes the Old Testament hard for some to read? There’s plenty of good arguments for Christianity and Jesus and miracles. But I wish I could wiggle my way out of this one.

**What I’m asking may not be perfectly clear, but comments and replies to any part of this are welcome.

 

[Luke65]

“I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3-4)

Have the faith of a little child in the Word of God, and it will all make perfect sense. The Lord has done this, and it is wonderful in our eyes!

 

[Crumpy]

the previous post suggests that you read the Bible with faith. It is perphaps trite to say that the OT, especially the creation account in Genesis, is neither science nor history.

My spare time reading has been about the creation account and it’s very structured. The Church teaches that we should consider the purpose of the writer and the audience to whom the writing is directed.

I happen to have Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish commentaries that I am reading. The Jewish commentary points out (which would answer a lot of questions in these forums) that the final version of Genesis is just a small fraction of the verbal tradition of the Jews.

From the Jewish commenetary: 1) when you read about Cain and Abel, in one verse they are being born, and in the next couple verses they are already fairly mature people, enough so to have different occupations, and to be offering sacrifices to God. So, a lot of time and a lot of the story has been left out, what is remaining is what was retained for the teaching purposes of the writers.

1. notice that Cain and Abel are offering sacrifices and it doesn’t say that they accompanied the sacrifices with prayer. In fact, the separation of prayer and sacrifice is something the Jewish commentator is rather proud of, because it is in marked contrast to the magic rituals of the surrounding pagans.
2. Otherwise, about the creation account of Gen 1:1 to about 2:3, what is remarkable about that is the demythologizing of the pagan beliefs in their deities of nature, for example, plants, animals, and stars.

Of these three commentaries that I have, I like the Jewish one, because it doesn’t drag the reader through every possible source of skepticism about the texts, the authorship by Moses, etc. While acknowledging the results of modern historical, scientific, literary, etc. types of criticism of the Bible, it doesn’t get hung up on them. It reads Genesis, for example, from the standpoint of the Jewish faith.

There are many insights available in the text, there’s much to learn and feel good about, without dragging the reader, as it were, over the broken glass of criticism.

The Jewish commentary spends a lot of time on the Hebrew text, to help clarify its meaning and message. For example, the term “elohim” used for God in Gen 1:1 to 2:3 is a general term and it is plural. Well, the Protestant text jumps on that plural word to say the Trinity is really being referred to here. The Catholic viewpoint is generally in that direction, not on the literal level, but on the symbolic, spiritual level. Anyway, the Hebrew word brings out the aspect of God as being Almighty, and this is the word which indicates that God is a Judge.

Not only is the word used that suggests God as a Judge, but we see God “judging” creation after He creates it (except day two). So, the Jewish commentary takes us a little farther than the simple insight that God is the Creator. There is more there than that. The verses make more sense when we learn that, too.

Fr. Corapi of EWTN talks about the Bible all the time, and he had a six-hour program on Dei Verbum (scripture and revelation, The Word of God). It may be some consolation to you to hear his words, that a thousand “problems” with the text of scripture does not add up to even one doubt about faith.

This is also why the Protestant *sola scriptura *(Bible alone) assertion is blatantly false. We need competent Church teaching and interpretation of scripture to bring out its meaning and its relevance. There’s much more to say, but I’ll cut off this post here.

 

[anon5216]

The simple answer, from the perspective of anyone who doesn’t already accept it as divinely inspired, is that the Old Testament is unreasonable.

That it is not divinely inspired, but likely a Jewish political propaganda document cloaked in the language of myth and used for nation building.

 

[Esquire0130]

“Divinely inspired” does not mean “divinely inspired history book.”

 

[llblarosa]

Why do you want to believe the miracles of the NT and not the miracles of the OT?

Does it not boggle the mind to believe that a man with leprosy washes in water and “poof” the leprosy is gone.

Can you raise someone from the dead?

Can you make the blind see or the lame walk?

In the absence of eye witnesses, can we say categorically that Jonah did not stay in the belly of whale (or large fish, if you prefer) for three days?

Just approach this question from a logical perspective?

Thanks,

Lisa

 

[catholic1seeks]

the previous post suggests that you read the Bible with faith. It is perphaps trite to say that the OT, especially the creation account in Genesis, is neither science nor history.

My spare time reading has been about the creation account and it’s very structured. The Church teaches that we should consider the purpose of the writer and the audience to whom the writing is directed.

I happen to have Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish commentaries that I am reading. The Jewish commentary points out (which would answer a lot of questions in these forums) that the final version of Genesis is just a small fraction of the verbal tradition of the Jews.

From the Jewish commenetary: 1) when you read about Cain and Abel, in one verse they are being born, and in the next couple verses they are already fairly mature people, enough so to have different occupations, and to be offering sacrifices to God. So, a lot of time and a lot of the story has been left out, what is remaining is what was retained for the teaching purposes of the writers.

1. notice that Cain and Abel are offering sacrifices and it doesn’t say that they accompanied the sacrifices with prayer. In fact, the separation of prayer and sacrifice is something the Jewish commentator is rather proud of, because it is in marked contrast to the magic rituals of the surrounding pagans.
2. Otherwise, about the creation account of Gen 1:1 to about 2:3, what is remarkable about that is the demythologizing of the pagan beliefs in their deities of nature, for example, plants, animals, and stars.

Of these three commentaries that I have, I like the Jewish one, because it doesn’t drag the reader through every possible source of skepticism about the texts, the authorship by Moses, etc. While acknowledging the results of modern historical, scientific, literary, etc. types of criticism of the Bible, it doesn’t get hung up on them. It reads Genesis, for example, from the standpoint of the Jewish faith.

There are many insights available in the text, there’s much to learn and feel good about, without dragging the reader, as it were, over the broken glass of criticism.

The Jewish commentary spends a lot of time on the Hebrew text, to help clarify its meaning and message. For example, the term “elohim” used for God in Gen 1:1 to 2:3 is a general term and it is plural. Well, the Protestant text jumps on that plural word to say the Trinity is really being referred to here. The Catholic viewpoint is generally in that direction, not on the literal level, but on the symbolic, spiritual level. Anyway, the Hebrew word brings out the aspect of God as being Almighty, and this is the word which indicates that God is a Judge.

Not only is the word used that suggests God as a Judge, but we see God “judging” creation after He creates it (except day two). So, the Jewish commentary takes us a little farther than the simple insight that God is the Creator. There is more there than that. The verses make more sense when we learn that, too.

Fr. Corapi of EWTN talks about the Bible all the time, and he had a six-hour program on Dei Verbum (scripture and revelation, The Word of God). It may be some consolation to you to hear his words, that a thousand “problems” with the text of scripture does not add up to even one doubt about faith.

This is also why the Protestant *sola scriptura *(Bible alone) assertion is blatantly false. We need competent Church teaching and interpretation of scripture to bring out its meaning and its relevance. There’s much more to say, but I’ll cut off this post here.

Thanks!

 

[Crumpy]

Thanks!

You are welcome!

There are lots of verses that grab us, hold us, and won’t let us go. And, it is well that is so!

Here’s John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

I’ve heard priests cite this verse and use it rather literally. It parallel my previous post, where I said that there are obvious gaps in Genesis. So, here, John’s gospel is saying that would couldn’t imagine all the things that Jesus has done.

What hit me about this verse is how literally true it would be. If what Jesus has done for me in my life and you in your life and many people in each of their lives was written down, there would be books and books, for sure.

Is that what John meant? We can discuss that for a long time. But, if you accept what I said, it has some practical advantages. When couples are courting and things are moving along towards whether they might be married, should they not think about what Jesus has done in their fiance’s life? What would that book look like? If you look at that prospective spouse from that point of view, are you well suited for a life of marriage? A lot of people would probably say this is baloney. But, I say, consider the gospel and take it to heart.

So, that verse starts out as sounding like hyperbole (exaggeration) but maybe it really isn’t. What has Jesus done in your life?

 

[chosen_people]

We all like things to be reasonable and easy to understand. So, why is it that the Old Testament stories are hard to understand? We have evolution to say that Genesis didn’t happen exactly 100% like it says it did. Noah’s Ark seems unreasonable: even as a second grader, I remember thinking about all of the animals fitting in the ark. Then there’s the Exodus, Jonah and the whale, etc.

I’m not saying all of these are myth in the strictest sense, but I’ve heard on these forums and from other places reasons that make the Old Testament “unreasonable.” We’ve all seen questions on here asking why God seems to act different in the Old Testament than the New Testament. I’m thinking about these instances.

Why do you think that is? What is it that makes the Old Testament hard for some to read? There’s plenty of good arguments for Christianity and Jesus and miracles. But I wish I could wiggle my way out of this one.

**What I’m asking may not be perfectly clear, but comments and replies to any part of this are welcome.

You’re interpreting the Tanach, the holy scriptures for a highly intellectual religion, in a simplistic, literal, and dogmatic way and then find that it is “unreasonable”. Here’s a discussion comparing the story of creation (parashat bereishit) with the story of Noah (parashat Noach). Read what’s written there ( I randomly chose one discussion in english by a single Rabbi who teaches at a single Yeshiva in Israel). Now reread the story of creation and the story of Noah and tell me whether you are starting to see things in a different light.

hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/9910/991027_j.html

 

[choosechrist]

We all like things to be reasonable and easy to understand. So, why is it that the Old Testament stories are hard to understand?

The OT is hard to read because it is meant to be read in a community context. I have read and heard a lot of tapes on scripture and come to understand the OT. Let me share with you what I have learned.

If you recall, in the NT, there is a eunuch reading the book of the prophet Isaiah and Philip one of the apostles asks him whether he understood what he read. The eunuch replied “how can I unless someone explains it to me.” Philip then explained it to him and the eunuch was baptized. Therefore, you require someone to explain the Word to you, reading it on your own will not help, but might mislead and frustrate you.

Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins have wonderful study programs that you can watch on EWTN, I recommend the Adventure and Bible TImeline series to get a deeper understanding of the Bible.

If you want a short explanation of how the Bible functions here goes:
The Bible contains the family story of Adam and his descendants, all the geneologies that you come across in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Kings will lead you to the bloodline of the family of Adam, through whom the promised Redeemer is to come. To follow the historical story of this bloodline and get an overview of the narrative you have to read just 14 books of the Bible, once you have done this you need to read the other 59 books in the context of these 14 books, because the other books are commentaries or written during a certain period corresponding to one of the 14 historical (narrative books).

The 14 narrative books that you need to read to understand the Story of the Bible are as follows:

1. 
   *]Genesis
   *]Exodus
   *]Numbers
   *]1 Samuel
   *]2 Samuel
   *]1 Kings
   *]2 Kings
   *]Joshua
   *]Judges
   *]Ezra
   *]Nehemiah
   *]1 Maccabees
   *]Luke
   *]Acts
   
   The Bible also contains types that are signs of the promise to come, therefore, Adam is the first man, the second Adam is Christ.
   
   Noah was a son of Adam – this is all Early world time, so stick with me, you can see the genealogies in the Bible to find out the family tree of these men and how they are children of Adam.
   
   Shem is the son of Noah through whom the bloodline continues, (the word Shemite, Semite comes from the same root word as Shem).
   
   Then we have Abraham a son of Adam, his sacrifice of Issac was interrupted by God, but God the Father would sacrifice his son for the salvation of souls. See Abraham says to his son, God will provide a lamb, but the OT speaks of a ram being caught in the bush, the true Lamb was the Lamb of God, Christ.
   
   through Issac we have Jacob being born, whose name is changed to Israel, then the 12 sons of Israel give rise to the 12 tribes. Then there is Joseph, son of Rachel and Israel. the 12 tribes of Israel go into exile.
   
   After the exile we have only the tribe of Judah, returning to their homeland, Moses is from the tribe of Judah. He leads the people out of Egypt. The books of Leviticus, is the book of law for the priests and fits in there, along with the second copy of the law - Deuteronomy.
   
   I’m fast forwarding here, but you need to go into the detail to see the links. The line continues and we have King David and his son Solomon who continue the blood line, during this period we have the book of psalms and the prophets – this is where the books of psalms, prophets fit in.
   
   Then we move on to the time of Jesus, and the beginning of the Church covered in the books of Luke and Acts. Jesus geneology is taken from his foster father, St. Joseph. His blood line is given in Luke and Matthew, both geneologies are not comprehensive, but used to show that the seed of the woman promised in Genesis can be traced back to Adam.
   
   Thus the story from Adam through David through Jesus is covered in the bible.
   
   People like Melchizedek, priest king, in Genesis is a figure of Christ, offering bread and wine as a sacrifice.
   Noah saves his family through humble obedience, there was no rain before Noah, but yet he believed and built an ark. Noah stands for Christ, the waters of the flood for baptism, the ark for the Church.
   Moses was like Christ, his birth stories are parallel to Christ, he lead the people out of slavery through the waters (again symbolizing baptism), he gave them the law of God, the Decalogue, Jesus gave the Beatitudes on a mount. Moses led people to the promised land, Jesus leads us to the true promised land - Heaven. Moses interceded for the people, Jesus intercedes for us.
   
   David is a Christ figure killing the giant Goliath, with five stones, Jesus defeated satan with the blood of the cross and his five wounds.
   Solomon is a Christ like figure, he constructs the temple, Jesus is the living temple of God.
   Jonah is like Christ, as he spends 3 days in the belly of the whale, Christ was in the bosom of the earth for 3 days, before the resurrection.
   Elijah was like John the Baptist, when he is taken to heaven he hands over the baton to Elisha, who has a double portion of the spirit, he can raise the dead, this Elisha is a Christ like figure. Who raises the dead and is mightier than John.
   
   So I hope you see the Bible is a united whole, trying to read it out of context will confuse you, but if you pray and look for understanding through the Church, you will see the connections and the Bible will strike real awe in your heart.
   
   Pax Christi.

 

[juliamajor]

the previous post suggests that you read the Bible with faith. It is perphaps trite to say that the OT, especially the creation account in Genesis, is neither science nor history.

My spare time reading has been about the creation account and it’s very structured. The Church teaches that we should consider the purpose of the writer and the audience to whom the writing is directed.

I happen to have Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish commentaries that I am reading. The Jewish commentary points out (which would answer a lot of questions in these forums) that the final version of Genesis is just a small fraction of the verbal tradition of the Jews.

From the Jewish commenetary: 1) when you read about Cain and Abel, in one verse they are being born, and in the next couple verses they are already fairly mature people, enough so to have different occupations, and to be offering sacrifices to God. So, a lot of time and a lot of the story has been left out, what is remaining is what was retained for the teaching purposes of the writers.

1. notice that Cain and Abel are offering sacrifices and it doesn’t say that they accompanied the sacrifices with prayer. In fact, the separation of prayer and sacrifice is something the Jewish commentator is rather proud of, because it is in marked contrast to the magic rituals of the surrounding pagans.
2. Otherwise, about the creation account of Gen 1:1 to about 2:3, what is remarkable about that is the demythologizing of the pagan beliefs in their deities of nature, for example, plants, animals, and stars.

Of these three commentaries that I have, I like the Jewish one, because it doesn’t drag the reader through every possible source of skepticism about the texts, the authorship by Moses, etc. While acknowledging the results of modern historical, scientific, literary, etc. types of criticism of the Bible, it doesn’t get hung up on them. It reads Genesis, for example, from the standpoint of the Jewish faith.

There are many insights available in the text, there’s much to learn and feel good about, without dragging the reader, as it were, over the broken glass of criticism.

The Jewish commentary spends a lot of time on the Hebrew text, to help clarify its meaning and message. For example, the term “elohim” used for God in Gen 1:1 to 2:3 is a general term and it is plural. Well, the Protestant text jumps on that plural word to say the Trinity is really being referred to here. The Catholic viewpoint is generally in that direction, not on the literal level, but on the symbolic, spiritual level. Anyway, the Hebrew word brings out the aspect of God as being Almighty, and this is the word which indicates that God is a Judge.

Not only is the word used that suggests God as a Judge, but we see God “judging” creation after He creates it (except day two). So, the Jewish commentary takes us a little farther than the simple insight that God is the Creator. There is more there than that. The verses make more sense when we learn that, too.

Fr. Corapi of EWTN talks about the Bible all the time, and he had a six-hour program on Dei Verbum (scripture and revelation, The Word of God). It may be some consolation to you to hear his words, that a thousand “problems” with the text of scripture does not add up to even one doubt about faith.

This is also why the Protestant *sola scriptura *(Bible alone) assertion is blatantly false. We need competent Church teaching and interpretation of scripture to bring out its meaning and its relevance. There’s much more to say, but I’ll cut off this post here.

Crumpy-I’m interested in the commentaries you use- I use Jerome Biblical Commentary, Harper Collins Bible commentary, JPS Study Bible and for Genesis I use a commentary by Jewish Biblical scholar Nahum Sarna- who does a great commentary on Exodus also. Good Reading Crumpy!

 

[anon5216]

The OT is hard to read because it is meant to be read in a community context.
…
Pax Christi.

What you describe is a mythology used initially to create and establish a new nation (Israel), and then abstracted even more to establish the Catholic Church community.

It is very symbolic language and symbols can be interpreted many ways - especially through time. The symbols would, of course, not make much sense taken literally and even be highly contradictory in some respects.

 

[juliamajor]

You’re interpreting the Tanach, the holy scriptures for a highly intellectual religion, in a simplistic, literal, and dogmatic way and then find that it is “unreasonable”. Here’s a discussion comparing the story of creation (parashat bereishit) with the story of Noah (parashat Noach). Read what’s written there ( I randomly chose one discussion in english by a single Rabbi who teaches at a single Yeshiva in Israel). Now reread the story of creation and the story of Noah and tell me whether you are starting to see things in a different light.

hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/9910/991027_j.html

Thanks for the link. It reinforces what I was taught and what I teach. I always loved the fact the Noah had an Ark and so did Moses!. Again, Thanks.

 

[choosechrist]

What you describe is a mythology used initially to create and establish a new nation (Israel), and then abstracted even more to establish the Catholic Church community.

It is very symbolic language and symbols can be interpreted many ways - especially through time. The symbols would, of course, not make much sense taken literally and even be highly contradictory in some respects.

Hi,

Please don’t make the mistake of dismissing any part of the Word of God as mythology. Everything that the Bible contains is Truth and teaches us about God. The Catholic Church is not out there to create meaning to validate itself, that would imply deception, which the Church cannot do because she has the mind of Christ.

The interpretation of symbols in the Bible is done by considering the Jewish context - the Church is the new Israel, therefore, she considers the Jewish interpretation of rabbis for teaching and interpreting scripture.

Obviously, if you take a symbol out of its context it would have no meaning whatsoever and then anyone would interpret a wrong meaning to it.

If you are a Catholic, I would encourage you to then read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about interpretation of scripture, only the Church through Christ with the power of the Holy Spirit has the authority to interpret scripture.

 

[choosechrist]

Thanks for the link. It reinforces what I was taught and what I teach. I always loved the fact the Noah had an Ark and so did Moses!. Again, Thanks.

Useful link, it is one of the things taught by the Church regarding the repetition of themes and types. To understand the NT, one has to look to the OT and vice versa. The NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is fulfilled in the NT.

While the OT is full of symbols, it points to the NT where these symbols become a reality. To state a few important ones.

The Temple — Jesus as the New Temple
Israel — The Church as the New Israel
The Bread and Wine of Melchizedek, The Bread of the Presence, the Pesach/Passover — the Holy Eucharist
The Kingdom of Israel — the Kingdom of God
The 12 tribes of Israel — the 12 Apostles
The Ark of the Covenant — Mary as the New Ark
The Covenants with the Patriarch — The Sacrifice on Calvary as the everlasting Covenant

 

[anon5216]

Hi,

Please don’t make the mistake of dismissing any part of the Word of God as mythology. Everything that the Bible contains is Truth and teaches us about God. The Catholic Church is not out there to create meaning to validate itself, that would imply deception, which the Church cannot do because she has the mind of Christ.

The interpretation of symbols in the Bible is done by considering the Jewish context - the Church is the new Israel, therefore, she considers the Jewish interpretation of rabbis for teaching and interpreting scripture.

Obviously, if you take a symbol out of its context it would have no meaning whatsoever and then anyone would interpret a wrong meaning to it.

If you are a Catholic, I would encourage you to then read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about interpretation of scripture, only the Church through Christ with the power of the Holy Spirit has the authority to interpret scripture.

Mythology: a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation,
esp. when exaggerated or fictitious.

The bible is certainly a set of stories and beliefs - and modern archeology is finding more and more proof of exaggerations and fictitious elements in it.

Truthfully, the only thing we can say is that Church leaders have claimed the Bible is the Word of God, that everything in it is Truth (inerrancy), that Church teaching is infallible (when explicitly claimed), and that the Church is the only group with the authority to interpret these writings.
It’s all circular logic and therefore nothing more than a claim.

While raised Catholic, I never really considered it more than a family/social custom.
That said, I do believe that it is possible to make great spiritual strides within the context of the Catholic Church, as saints like Padre Pio clearly demonstrate.

However, I also believe that some of the biggest mistakes the early Church leaders made, were to declare their own defined collection of writings now called the Bible as inerrant; to include ancient Jewish political/religious nation-building propaganda; and to declare themselves as infallible (in matters of faith and morals). This has resulted in the Church getting ever more caught up in convoluted explanations regarding explanations about yet prior explanations, painting themselves into tighter and tighter corners. Eventually the stories will collapse, and there is the real risk of the world throwing away the seeds of Truth with all the weeds that have grown up along side.

 

[choosechrist]

The Catholic Church was built by Christ, therefore, she has the guarantee of Christ to teach the Truth, she had not made this up. However, Please don’t let me stop you from believing in what you want to believe.

But for the benefit of anyone seeking the Truth and reading this thread, I would like to speak for the Church.

I quote St. Paul, “I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)

The Church is the pillar of Truth because she is the Body of Christ. St. Paul speaks of all Christians as members of Christ, so that with Him, they form one Mystical Body. But one Body has to be one and not splinters, therefore the sign of the true Church is unity - which is the Catholic Church, united in diversity.

The Church is also apostolic, the Jewish custom of laying of hands to pass on anointing, is what continues in the Church today, when bishops lay their hands in imitation of what the apostles did.

Jesus breathed on his apostles to give them the Holy Spirit. Jn 20:22 He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.” The Apostles followed the example of Jesus and carried out his teaching. The apostles laid their hands on others to be set apart for special ministry or mission in the church.Acts 6:6 They presented these men (the seven deacons) to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.

The Church has the authority of Christ, what she binds, Jesus will ratify in Heaven and what she loses, Jesus will ratify in Heaven.

I could quote scripture and give you a hundred proofs, but if you are not willing to accept the church as Truth then nothing will be of use to you.

If on the other hand you are sincere in searching for the Truth then just ask our Lord, He will guide you.

I’ll pray for you that you will not judge something as false before first searching its depths. Because Jesus says, every sin will be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Spirit. Accusing the Church of lying or manipulating people is a sign of disbelief in the power of the Holy Spirit guiding her. Therefore, be careful what you chose, you will have eternity to live with your decision.

Pax Christ Tecum

Hope you find the Truth. And I hope you are not simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[rotlex]

the previous post suggests that you read the Bible with faith. It is perphaps trite to say that the OT, especially the creation account in Genesis, is neither science nor history.

My spare time reading has been about the creation account and it’s very structured. The Church teaches that we should consider the purpose of the writer and the audience to whom the writing is directed.

I happen to have Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish commentaries that I am reading. The Jewish commentary points out (which would answer a lot of questions in these forums) that the final version of Genesis is just a small fraction of the verbal tradition of the Jews.

From the Jewish commenetary: 1) when you read about Cain and Abel, in one verse they are being born, and in the next couple verses they are already fairly mature people, enough so to have different occupations, and to be offering sacrifices to God. So, a lot of time and a lot of the story has been left out, what is remaining is what was retained for the teaching purposes of the writers.

1. notice that Cain and Abel are offering sacrifices and it doesn’t say that they accompanied the sacrifices with prayer. In fact, the separation of prayer and sacrifice is something the Jewish commentator is rather proud of, because it is in marked contrast to the magic rituals of the surrounding pagans.
2. Otherwise, about the creation account of Gen 1:1 to about 2:3, what is remarkable about that is the demythologizing of the pagan beliefs in their deities of nature, for example, plants, animals, and stars.

Of these three commentaries that I have, I like the Jewish one, because it doesn’t drag the reader through every possible source of skepticism about the texts, the authorship by Moses, etc. While acknowledging the results of modern historical, scientific, literary, etc. types of criticism of the Bible, it doesn’t get hung up on them. It reads Genesis, for example, from the standpoint of the Jewish faith.

There are many insights available in the text, there’s much to learn and feel good about, without dragging the reader, as it were, over the broken glass of criticism.

The Jewish commentary spends a lot of time on the Hebrew text, to help clarify its meaning and message. For example, the term “elohim” used for God in Gen 1:1 to 2:3 is a general term and it is plural. Well, the Protestant text jumps on that plural word to say the Trinity is really being referred to here. The Catholic viewpoint is generally in that direction, not on the literal level, but on the symbolic, spiritual level. Anyway, the Hebrew word brings out the aspect of God as being Almighty, and this is the word which indicates that God is a Judge.

Not only is the word used that suggests God as a Judge, but we see God “judging” creation after He creates it (except day two). So, the Jewish commentary takes us a little farther than the simple insight that God is the Creator. There is more there than that. The verses make more sense when we learn that, too.

Fr. Corapi of EWTN talks about the Bible all the time, and he had a six-hour program on Dei Verbum (scripture and revelation, The Word of God). It may be some consolation to you to hear his words, that a thousand “problems” with the text of scripture does not add up to even one doubt about faith.

This is also why the Protestant *sola scriptura *(Bible alone) assertion is blatantly false. We need competent Church teaching and interpretation of scripture to bring out its meaning and its relevance. There’s much more to say, but I’ll cut off this post here.

That was excellent. Thank you.

 

[Esquire0130]

We all like things to be reasonable and easy to understand. So, why is it that the Old Testament stories are hard to understand? We have evolution to say that Genesis didn’t happen exactly 100% like it says it did. Noah’s Ark seems unreasonable: even as a second grader, I remember thinking about all of the animals fitting in the ark. Then there’s the Exodus, Jonah and the whale, etc.

I’m not saying all of these are myth in the strictest sense, but I’ve heard on these forums and from other places reasons that make the Old Testament “unreasonable.” We’ve all seen questions on here asking why God seems to act different in the Old Testament than the New Testament. I’m thinking about these instances.

Why do you think that is? What is it that makes the Old Testament hard for some to read? There’s plenty of good arguments for Christianity and Jesus and miracles. But I wish I could wiggle my way out of this one.

**What I’m asking may not be perfectly clear, but comments and replies to any part of this are welcome.

This really is non-problematic.

“Divinely-inspired” =/= “non-fiction.”

That the second is the equivalent of the first is simply a wrong assumption.

 

[DavidCatechumen]

The bible is certainly a set of stories and beliefs - and modern archeology is finding more and more proof of exaggerations and fictitious elements in it.

If you are going to make such incendiary comments, the least you can do is back them up with evidence or academic sources of “modern archaelology.” Otherwise, you are just single-mindedly promoting your agenda, which is prohibited on these forums.

Truthfully, the only thing we can say is that Church leaders have claimed the Bible is the Word of God, that everything in it is Truth (inerrancy), that Church teaching is infallible (when explicitly claimed), and that the Church is the only group with the authority to interpret these writings.
It’s all circular logic and therefore nothing more than a claim.

You have made this argument elsewhere on CAF, with adverse results for you. (Scroll down to see anon5216 in action.)

However, I also believe that some of the biggest mistakes the early Church leaders made, were to declare their own defined collection of writings now called the Bible as inerrant; to include ancient Jewish political/religious nation-building propaganda; and to declare themselves as infallible (in matters of faith and morals).

The Christian Bible (which you claim to include racist propaganda) was written for, and preaches salvation for, all humanity. So you have no argument, only an agenda. Based on your post history, I suspect that agenda is to hijack posts and turn them into vehicles for antisemitism.

Please stop.