How to Read the Bible as a Catholic [How? Don't take indv. verses as "literally true", says Pope]

National Catholic Register ^ | 05/05/2011 | Cindy Wooden

[Alex Murphy]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.

“It is possible to perceive the sacred Scriptures as the word of God” only by looking at the Bible as a whole, “a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding,” the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

“It is not possible to apply the criterion of inspiration or of absolute truth in a mechanical way, extrapolating a single phrase or expression,” the Pope wrote in the message released May 5 at the Vatican.

The commission of biblical scholars, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met at the Vatican May 2-6 to continue discussions about “Inspiration and Truth in the Bible.”

In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature, while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true.

Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Does that mean that the cattle on the 1001th hill do not belong to God? No but the point was not how many cattle on how many hills God owns but that God is sovereign that all life is under His authority.

The Bible is meant to be read as one Book. Every truth in the Bible is meant to point us towards our salvation. That salvation is Jesus Christ.

Why don't you and the Pope just come out and say that the first eleven chapters of Genesis describe events that never really happened? You're going to an awful lot of trouble to avoid admitting that.

[cothrige]

So, how is "the totality of scripture as a whole" inspired without "all scripture" being inspired?

Who argued that? I don't think inspiration was in question, but rather literal truth. It seems to me that it is entirely possible for certain discrete statements in the Bible to not be "literally true" and yet for the Bible to still be inspired and true. Consider this example.

And both sides set their armies in array one against the other seven days, and on the seventh day the battle was fought: and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians a hundred thousand footmen in one day. And they that remained fled to Aphec, into the city: and the wall fell upon seven and twenty thousand men, that were left. And Benadad fleeing went into the city, into a chamber that was within a chamber. 3 Kings 20.29-30

Now, is all of this "literally true?" I don't know. Did Israel slay exactly 100,000 footmen in one day? It couldn't have been 98,158? That isn't what the bible literally says though, and if every statement is literally true we have to believe that exactly 100,000 Syrian footmen died that day, and not one more or less.

Personally, I consider the entire Bible inspired, but I don't know if that inspiration means that every number in every instance is identical exactly to the literal truth. I can tell you that it would be strange indeed if reality always happened in neat rounded numbers. That doesn't reflect my experience of literal truth. Therefore, my understanding of inerrant and inspired would likely be somewhat different than yours.

[Zionist Conspirator]

An explanation whereby the process of writing some sections was inspired by God and others ‘not quite so inspired’ - as well as the divine inspiration inherent among those making the determination - would be interesting.

Perhaps not too convincing; but certainly interesting.

Even more interesting would be an explanation of how the mainstream beliefs of orthodox Catholics today is diametrically opposed to dogmatic statements of earlier times (such as Leo XIII or Pius X) while the Catholic Church still remains "absolutely unchanged." Now that would be an interesting thing to read.

[lastchance]

Whereever did you get the idea I believed that? I wrote of one verse that if we were to limit it to its literal interpretation would mean just that and no more. I for one certainly believe God is sovereign over all life and we sure as heck can not put a number to what He owns. I believe 1000 was often used to denote perfection and completeness not necessarily to show us how many there were of something.

[allmendream]

Well some people let actual knowledge and information inform their worldview - others are not so burdened.

Maybe you would be happier if they still insisted the Earth was the unmoving center - and the Sun orbited around it?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Who argued that? I don't think inspiration was in question, but rather literal truth.

Yes, but Fundamentalists accept hyperbole and "literary genres" (ie, the Psalms, the Song of Solomon) and Catholics know this. All this hoo-haw about "mechanical inspiration" is a tirade against the historical facticity of Genesis 1-11. Everyone on this thread knows that's what this is actually about, however much Catholics split hairs about "the cattle on a thousand hills."

Why are Catholic FReepers reluctant to admit this? They usually celebrate their evolutionism/higher crticism.

Personally, I consider the entire Bible inspired, but I don't know if that inspiration means that every number in every instance is identical exactly to the literal truth. I can tell you that it would be strange indeed if reality always happened in neat rounded numbers. That doesn't reflect my experience of literal truth. Therefore, my understanding of inerrant and inspired would likely be somewhat different than yours.

Why does a Catholic even have a "personal opinion" on this issue? Aren't you supposed to agree to Catholic dogma?

My "experience" is that an omnipotent being by definition is quite capable of creating a fully functional world in a few days a few thousand years ago, and that G-d does not lie. I will be glad to listen to whatever "experience" of yours goes contrary to this.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Whereever did you get the idea I believed that? I wrote of one verse that if we were to limit it to its literal interpretation would mean just that and no more. I for one certainly believe God is sovereign over all life and we sure as heck can not put a number to what He owns. I believe 1000 was often used to denote perfection and completeness not necessarily to show us how many there were of something.

So you're admitting that you believe Genesis 1-11 is mythology?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Well some people let actual knowledge and information inform their worldview - others are not so burdened.

Then I guess Catholicism isn't so "absolutely unchanging" after all, is it?

I wonder what else the Popes were wrong about? The resurrection of J*sus, maybe?

Maybe you would be happier if they still insisted the Earth was the unmoving center - and the Sun orbited around it?

I'd be happier if people who believe G-d continually interferes with the universe--sending his "mother" to bounce the sun around, zapping bread and wine into "body and blood" every single day, liquifying St. Januarius' blood once a year, raising dead people, bilocating people, etc.--didn't stick their noses in the air and hypocritically say "G-d would never interfere with the universe as it was forming!"

Kosta doesn't share my beliefs, but I'm pinging him to this post solely because the guy is actually consistent. Unlike some people.

[lastchance]

Again I never wrote anything to indicate I believed that. Please define what you mean by myth.

[allmendream]

Yes, they at least allowed reason to penetrate dogma and they no longer insist that the Sun circles the Earth or other overt irrationalities.

Some would prefer that dogma be absolute and immune from any physical evidence - and think being “absolutely unchanging” while being in error is preferable to modifying a worldview in light of evidence and reason.

These people haven’t contributed much of anything to human knowledge.

[lastchance]

I believe that God willed the universe into existence. That there is no separation from God’s will and what He wills coming into existence. Heck I even believe angels move the planets. Do I think days must mean 24 hour days? No but neither do I believe that it can not mean 24 hour days.

Every act of creation was at the hands of God. I don’t worry about the details too much except that knowing any theory that says it just happened randomly is bokum.

[cothrige]

All this hoo-haw about "mechanical inspiration" is a tirade against the historical facticity of Genesis 1-11. Everyone on this thread knows that's what this is actually about, however much Catholics split hairs about "the cattle on a thousand hills."

Clearly you are more aware of what "everyone on this thread knows" than I am. What I have been reading is a lot of argumentation that the pope is telling people that the bible is false, or not to read it. You seem to be the only person talking about Genesis.

Why does a Catholic even have a "personal opinion" on this issue? Aren't you supposed to agree to Catholic dogma?

Are you arguing that there is a Catholic dogma on everything for which opinions might exist? What, pray tell, is the Catholic dogma on which is better, asparagus or broccoli?

My "experience" is that an omnipotent being by definition is quite capable of creating a fully functional world in a few days a few thousand years ago, and that G-d does not lie. I will be glad to listen to whatever "experience" of yours goes contrary to this.

Yes, and he is likewise able to dictate exact numbers if we are to accept them as literal and absolute truth. It seems highly unlikely that events throughout biblical history constantly happened in neatly rounded figures. Therefore, the question is not what God could do, but rather what he did do. So, we have to ask, did exactly 100,000 footmen die that day? Can we say, as a matter of faith, that we know without a doubt that it couldn't have been 99,999? Or 100,001? Either it is so, or it isn't.

[Rashputin]

And Virgin means Virgin.

And lamps means lamps.

So, if there every really is a Rapture there's going to a huge number of disappointed Protestants since only Virgins with lamps will meet the groom.

[Salvation]

On Prayer -- What the Pope actually said!

[SkyPilot]

The words you quoted have nothing at all to do with whether a Catholic can quote from the Bible.

Incredible. Really.

Please riddle me this: how does one quote from something that isn't 100% literally true in order to defend an institution that claims said document isn't 100% literally true? HOW DO YOU SPLIT THIS ATOM? The answer is: you can't! Once you cross that Rubicon, you're done, and so is the Catholic Church.

In the Apocalypse, which you refer to, Saint John explicitly admitted that he "fell down before his feet, to adore him." No Catholic does this to the pope....

Are you trying to say that "him" meant God and not the angel? If you are, that is more rubbish. If you are saying the angel didn't really correct John.....well, you know that isn't true because that isn't what the scripture says. Moreover, the very fact that this Pope, or any Pope, would allow any Catholic to call them "Holy Father" and not correct it on the spot, issue a statement saying to never do that again, brings down your whole argument. Let's put it this way - if the angels are in error throughout the bible when they refuse worship, but the Pope is correct to expect and permit it - then God owes Satan and the fallen angels a big apology at the Great White Throne Judgment. We know that isn't the case, so you argument is in tatters.

Right...I know....they aren't really prostrate down before the Pope. Right? What are they prostrate before?

He promotes and defends a proper Christian understanding of the bible which does not exaggerate one statement in such a manner to obliterate the meaning of the rest, and never suggests we are not to read it. Frankly, the dishonesty of this claim is astonishing.

Right. He tells you that scripture isn't all really true, and to let the church tell you what is what.

You know that is true, and that this is the crux of the whole argument. And frankly, your refusal to admit it isn't astonishing. If you did, the foundation that you believe keeps you in the good "IN" basket versus the bad "OUT" basket would be shattered.

You know what I never understood when I was a Catholic? The concept of Grace. I really thought the question of whether I got into heaven or not was dependent on some type of equation, where God would add up all my "good" and subtract all my "bads" and some how, some way, maybe, just maybe, I would be O.K. to the right of the equal sign. I was in terror, because I didn't know what the tally was, and truth be told, my heart knew I was headed for Hell itself. Not because I was terrible, but because I knew I fell short. Well, everyone falls short. Only Christ can bridge that chasm.

Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."

You know something? The Catholic church never, ever taught me that. I asked several priests: "How do I get to heaven, and know I am going there?" Do you know what their answer was?

"That's a great mystery."

Now, not every priest gives that answer, but a lot do. The truth is either that they don't know themselves, or they won't teach what the bible says about salvation.

There are a lot of sins, but that one sure is up there.

Something about mill stones and necks comes to mind.

[SkyPilot]

That does not say that all truth is literal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pDs1wlmshg

[Rashputin]

"What are they prostrate before?"

Where was the photo taken? I want to see whether there's just a cross or a Crucifix behind where the Pope is standing. Then I can tell you.

[Rashputin]

"Right...I know....they aren't really prostrate down before the Pope. Right? What are they prostrate before?"

As close as I can tell with a really quick search, every Catholic has an alter cross and has ever since about the thirteenth century. Given that the alter whereon the cross would sit has been cropped out of this photo, I want to know which Church it is since I've never seen a Catholic Church where there wasn't a cross or crucifix on the alter during any mass. Do you have a copy of the photo that hasn't been cropped or know which Church this is?

[dangus]

Really, wow, because that’s funny, I read where he explicitly denied that it was merely literature. But i guess when your sole purpose is to bash Catholicism, everything the pope says looks like a nail, huh?

[Rashputin]

"Please riddle me this: how does one quote from something that isn't 100% literally true in order to defend an institution that claims said document isn't 100% literally true?"

Can't happen, doesn't happen, never has happened, never will happen, and anyone saying it happens is cherry picking the way Protestants always do since the all apply the [Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation].

For those not predisposed to hate the Catholic Church that Christ Himself ordained and started, it is very easy to find out how the Church interprets everything in light of context as well as related Scripture rather than by making up their own version of His Word by selectively applying verses any way the like whether they relate to the topic under discussion or not.