Biblical meaning - literal, allegory, or...?

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was intrigued by this post in another thread (re-posted here with permission).

...I read the Bible for meaning and over the decades I have found that meaning to be far less literal than most Christians are prepared to understand. That's OK, it is a slow process and one that some never come to.

What are we to do with "literal" biblical interpretation? Does one's perception of what is "literal" change over time (e.g. reading scripture as allegory, or along a continuum instead) when studying biblical text; or does the distinction between literal and allegory become more clear with study? How doe we discern what is "far less" (or "far more") literal?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was intrigued by this post in another thread (re-posted here with permission).



What are we to do with "literal" biblical interpretation? Does one's perception of what is "literal" change over time (e.g. reading scripture as allegory, or along a continuum instead) when studying biblical text; or does the distinction between literal and allegory become more clear with study? How doe we discern what is "far less" (or "far more") literal?

If you read it literally you read a story and some letters and whatever theology they may contain. If you read it allegorically you notice the types and shadows of the old covenant being unveiled in Christ under the new covenant. If you read it tropologically you listen to the moral teaching present in the holy scriptures and taught by both the literal and the allegorical senses and if you read it anagogically you look for the message about eternity and the heavenly realities that the holy scriptures point to in Christ.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Different parts of the bible are meant to be read in different ways because of the way they're written at times both literal and figurative.

Luther has this to say: “The sacred teachers have this method of interpretation that they allow the clear passages to bring light upon the more obscure. This is also the order of the Holy Spirit: to dissipate darkness with light. But the sectarians do the opposite. They choose an uncertain sentence which fits their own conclusions, disregard the context, make a plain passage obscure, and then teach that all this is the unadulterated truth” (Erl. 30, 113).
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think we have to read the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament and the words of Jesus. Sometimes Jesus makes specific mention of a passage in the Old Testament and sheds light on it. Sometimes even though it may have literally happened in some way that there is a deeper meaning to what happened. An example may be when Moses raised up the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:9. That was very likely a real event, but it had a deeper meaning
John 3:14-15 14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I think we have to read the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament and the words of Jesus. Sometimes Jesus makes specific mention of a passage in the Old Testament and sheds light on it. Sometimes even though it may have literally happened in some way that there is a deeper meaning to what happened. An example may be when Moses raised up the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:9. That was very likely a real event, but it had a deeper meaning
John 3:14-15 14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."
All scripture has meanings, multiple, it is up to the Holy Spirit to show us. There is the physical meaning and then there is the spiritual meaning and the Old Testament is needed to understand the New, if you truly want comprehension
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Great responses, and I agree that "plain" meaning can bring us to deeper spiritual truths as we grow and study. Our understanding will grow and we will be enlightened by passages that, maybe, seemed "beyond" us at a certain time. Primarily, if I'm ever stuck on a passage, I can get clarification from a pastor, or from word studies, etc. - and understand a bit more.

The objection raised by the post in the OP (linked to the other thread for clarification/context) was (I think) that the "clear passages" really aren't that clear, but are more obscure than we think. If so, are we falling into the error that Lämm alluded to with her quote from Luther [url="http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5673-Biblical-meaning-literal-allegory-or&p=138886#post138886]HERE[/url]?
 

RichWh1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
709
Age
77
Location
Tarpon Springs FL
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
If you take the entirety of Scripture allegorically and not read it literally you can make it say whatever you want it to say. That is the danger of allegorizing the Word of God.
Allegory means creation is not really creation and the Son is not really God just allegory.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

JRT

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
780
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I was intrigued by this post in another thread (re-posted here with permission).

What are we to do with "literal" biblical interpretation? Does one's perception of what is "literal" change over time (e.g. reading scripture as allegory, or along a continuum instead) when studying biblical text; or does the distinction between literal and allegory become more clear with study? How doe we discern what is "far less" (or "far more") literal?

One must rely heavily on "context" but by that I mean far more than just a few verses before or after the passage in question.

I want you to sit down and imagine a society far different from ours. How different? Perhaps more different than most of us can even imagine.

It is a society without mass media. There is no radio, no television, no telephones, no cell phones, no telegraph, not even a printing press. Even if the printing press existed, it would be of little worth since the great majority of people were illiterate. Only the rulers, court officials, military officers, the rich, the merchants and the priests but very very few of the common people could read or write. Most news or information had to be transmitted orally person to person.

To send a message over a distance a scribe might be employed to write it and another to read it upon arrival. It would have had to be carried by a person on foot, or horseback, or camelback or by ship at sea. All of these were by no means certain. A message from Jerusalem to Rome might take weeks even months to arrive if at all.

What about the people themselves? As mentioned earlier, most were illiterate. This is not surprising for a society in which most lived a hand to mouth existence. Mere survival was of utmost importance. Few people traveled any more than a few dozen kilometers from their native town. Few people were ever exposed to thoughts from anyone more distant than that.

Is it possible to even translate these conditions into the present day? Imagine, if you will, trying to describe an event that happened in the 1960's, say, the assassination of President Kennedy. There are no videotapes to view, no audio tapes, and not even any photographs. There might be written accounts but 95% of the population are illiterate. The story is passed down orally from person to person. Even in a society where oral transmission is valued and respected, the chance of getting the story straight is almost nil. This is the situation the author of the Gospel of Mark (whoever he was) was in. Remember we are only looking at 40 years. Add another 20 to 30 years and we have the situation of the author of the Gospel of John (whoever he was).

Can we trust these accounts? As literal history? No! As an embellished, allegorical, midrashic accounts? Yes! But we must always remind ourselves that they are embellished, allegorical and midrashic and deal with them as such. To grant these accounts more credence than that is to ignore the entire context of the times in which they were written. I mentioned haggadic midrash but very few Christians even know what that is or how important it is to an understanding of scripture.

Am I trashing scripture? By no means! I am respecting scripture by being realistic about it. Our Judeo-Christian scriptures were a very human endeavor in a certain context of history. When we lose sight of that context, then we also lose sight of the meaning and value of those scriptures. At this point, I have not even yet addressed the many other contexts of scripture ---- historical, scientific, economic, military, religious, literary and more! All of these contexts affect the interpretation of scripture. We ignore them at our peril.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
One must rely heavily on "context" but by that I mean far more than just a few verses before or after the passage in question.

I want you to sit down and imagine a society far different from ours. How different? Perhaps more different than most of us can even imagine.

It is a society without mass media. There is no radio, no television, no telephones, no cell phones, no telegraph, not even a printing press. Even if the printing press existed, it would be of little worth since the great majority of people were illiterate. Only the rulers, court officials, military officers, the rich, the merchants and the priests but very very few of the common people could read or write. Most news or information had to be transmitted orally person to person.

To send a message over a distance a scribe might be employed to write it and another to read it upon arrival. It would have had to be carried by a person on foot, or horseback, or camelback or by ship at sea. All of these were by no means certain. A message from Jerusalem to Rome might take weeks even months to arrive if at all.

What about the people themselves? As mentioned earlier, most were illiterate. This is not surprising for a society in which most lived a hand to mouth existence. Mere survival was of utmost importance. Few people traveled any more than a few dozen kilometers from their native town. Few people were ever exposed to thoughts from anyone more distant than that.

Is it possible to even translate these conditions into the present day? Imagine, if you will, trying to describe an event that happened in the 1960's, say, the assassination of President Kennedy. There are no videotapes to view, no audio tapes, and not even any photographs. There might be written accounts but 95% of the population are illiterate. The story is passed down orally from person to person. Even in a society where oral transmission is valued and respected, the chance of getting the story straight is almost nil. This is the situation the author of the Gospel of Mark (whoever he was) was in. Remember we are only looking at 40 years. Add another 20 to 30 years and we have the situation of the author of the Gospel of John (whoever he was).

Can we trust these accounts? As literal history? No! As an embellished, allegorical, midrashic accounts? Yes! But we must always remind ourselves that they are embellished, allegorical and midrashic and deal with them as such. To grant these accounts more credence than that is to ignore the entire context of the times in which they were written. I mentioned haggadic midrash but very few Christians even know what that is or how important it is to an understanding of scripture.

Am I trashing scripture? By no means! I am respecting scripture by being realistic about it. Our Judeo-Christian scriptures were a very human endeavor in a certain context of history. When we lose sight of that context, then we also lose sight of the meaning and value of those scriptures. At this point, I have not even yet addressed the many other contexts of scripture ---- historical, scientific, economic, military, religious, literary and more! All of these contexts affect the interpretation of scripture. We ignore them at our peril.

What influence do you personally believe then that God had in the forming of the scriptures?
 

JRT

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
780
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
What influence do you personally believe then that God had in the forming of the scriptures?

I am not convinced that God had anything to do with the forming of scripture. I reply in all honesty.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What influence do you personally believe then that God had in the forming of the scriptures?

BY forming do you mean "writing" or do you mean "canonisation" or both or neither?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I was intrigued by this post in another thread (re-posted here with permission).



What are we to do with "literal" biblical interpretation? Does one's perception of what is "literal" change over time (e.g. reading scripture as allegory, or along a continuum instead) when studying biblical text; or does the distinction between literal and allegory become more clear with study? How doe we discern what is "far less" (or "far more") literal?
The rules of language still apply. When the author is writing historic and narrative language, take it for what he means.
When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.
The style of writing will indicate if it is poetic and is meant as imagery. Prophetic language may be mixed with historic narrative and imagery.
The only place where there is certain use of allegory in scripture is found in Galatians where Paul specifically tells us that he is making an allegory between Hagar and Sarah. Otherwise the vast amount of allegory presented by many scholars is just persons looking for some application outside of the text. Even folks like Luther and Calvin came up with some head shakingly bad allegorical interpretations. They were a product of their culture.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I am not convinced that God had anything to do with the forming of scripture. I reply in all honesty.
Is 2 Timothy 3:16 a lie?
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."
 

RichWh1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
709
Age
77
Location
Tarpon Springs FL
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I am not convinced that God had anything to do with the forming of scripture. I reply in all honesty.

Then explain to all of us prophecies and their fulfillment ! If this is not an act of God then there is no God!
However we know that God exists and Jesus is the revelation of God! No allegory here!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RichWh1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
709
Age
77
Location
Tarpon Springs FL
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
BY forming do you mean "writing" or do you mean "canonisation" or both or neither?

Inspiring the Scriptures not “writing “ them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Inspiring the Scriptures not “writing “ them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not too sure that there's a difference. Did you know, and this is a serious question, that the only thing(s) that is (are) inspired is the holy scriptures and "scriptures" means "writings".
 

RichWh1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
709
Age
77
Location
Tarpon Springs FL
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I'm not too sure that there's a difference. Did you know, and this is a serious question, that the only thing(s) that is (are) inspired is the holy scriptures and "scriptures" means "writings".

There is a difference. Inspiring others to write is not writing it is inspiring to write.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There is a difference. Inspiring others to write is not writing it is inspiring to write.

In common spoken English "inspired" has a lot of meanings ranging from something God inspires to a clever idea that may even be wholly profane.
 

RichWh1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
709
Age
77
Location
Tarpon Springs FL
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
In common spoken English "inspired" has a lot of meanings ranging from something God inspires to a clever idea that may even be wholly profane.

The word used in Scripture for inspired is theopneusto or God breathed. Nothing profane here. I hope
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The word used in Scripture for inspired is theopneusto or God breathed. Nothing profane here. I hope

You're right. Nothing profane in it. It is used only once in the holy scriptures. It isn't used outside of the holy scriptures as far as I've been able to discover. It's possible that saint Paul invented the word.
 
Top Bottom