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

[MennoSota]

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.

Paul never intended it for "Puff the magic Dragon" and the other apocryphal books of Rome.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Paul never intended it for "Puff the magic Dragon" and the other apocryphal books of Rome.

What a stupid thing to write. That was definitely uninspired and uninspiring rubbish.

 

[MennoSota]

What a stupid thing to write. That was definitely uninspired and uninspiring rubbish.

I assume you enjoy "Puff the Magic Dragon" and other apocryphal tales. Are you and pops enjoying the Quran in your inspired allegorical version?

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Well, hasn't this thread been a definite hotbed of toing and froing and generally beating around the bush?

==============================================================================================

Why don’t we invite people to submit passages, the literalness of which seems open to question in their minds? (Submit them one at a time, that is.)

We can then discuss, and hopefully clarify, the allegoric nature (or otherwise) of each of those passages.

Could that go a ways towards helping us beat the bush itself, instead of just going in circles around it and kicking up dust?

==============================================================================================

 

[MennoSota]

Pick a passage.

Use the basic rule of interpretation: When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Have all the potentially allegorical passages suddenly disappeared?

==============================================================================================

We know that the Book of Revelation is a book of allegory, with much of the allegory relating to the Old Testament. So I’m requesting examples that we can discuss, from the rest of Scripture.

I think the rest of us in CH are up to the challenge.

We may even welcome it.


(Could it be that people who wish to allegorise, don’t want their personally important allegorisations to be investigated?)

==============================================================================================

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

==============================================================================================

We know that the Book of Revelation is a book of allegory, with much of the allegory relating to the Old Testament.

(Could it be that people who wish to allegorise, don’t want their personally important allegorisations to be investigated?)[/color]

==============================================================================================

Given these statements, what would you (Pedrito) make of the letters to the seven Churches that open the book of Revelation? Although there is some allegory contained there (e.g. "... or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place..." doesn't refer to a literal candlestick), how would you respond to the fact that the letters are direct revelation from Christ to the churches themselves?

 

[MoreCoffee]

==============================================================================================

Well, hasn't this thread been a definite hotbed of toing and froing and generally beating around the bush?

Yes, your observation is astute. Obvious and astute at the same time. Thank you for making it.

==============================================================================================

Why don’t we invite people to submit passages, the literalness of which seems open to question in their minds? (Submit them one at a time, that is.)

Here is one example that I think could be literal yet may not be.

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:1-7)​

We can then discuss, and hopefully clarify, the allegoric nature (or otherwise) of each of those passages.

Could that go a ways towards helping us beat the bush itself, instead of just going in circles around it and kicking up dust?

==============================================================================================

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #27:

Given these statements, what would you (Pedrito) make of the letters to the seven Churches that open the book of Revelation? Although there is some allegory contained there (e.g. "... or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place..." doesn't refer to a literal candlestick), how would you respond to the fact that the letters are direct revelation from Christ to the churches themselves?

That is a good question.

Let’s see if it can be done some justice.

==============================================================================================

First of all, each letter is addressed to “the angel (or messenger) of” the particular church. Those angelic or physical or allegoric beings are pictured as stars in Revelation 1:16 and Revelation 1:20. Also, only seven of the many churches in existence at the time, are written to. They are described as seven candlesticks, which is a reference to the menorah – the seven-branched candelabrum associated with God’s Holy meeting place with Israel. The actual completeness of the menorah can be seen to symbolise the completeness of the message for all churches.

In some, but not all, instances, reference is made to conditions associated with a church’s physical location, and used in an allegorical picture. There is also evidence that (as some people suggest) the letters represent progressive prophetic pictures of identifiable, then-future, church ages.

So, it would seem that the letters potentially operate on four levels simultaneously:
- They speak directly to individual churches then in existence;
- They speak directly to all churches, then and throughout future history (including our time);
- They employ allegorical pictures to enhance understanding;
- They open a window into future, unfolding church history.

==============================================================================================

With respect to unfolding church history, it is possible to cast doubt on the identification of Philadelphia with the Reformation (or at least the identification of its “angel” as Martin Luther). However, bearing in mind that Revelation makes constant reference to the Old Testament (directly and indirectly), could a historical anchor be established pertaining to the church of Thyatira? An allusion is made in that letter to a historical figure – Jezebel. Is there something that stands out about the original Jezebel? Well, among other things, she arranged for an innocent person to be accused of blasphemy and killed, so that his property could be confiscated.

The question is: Was there ever a time in history when the church of the day (the Roman Catholic Church) accused innocent, wealthy people of blasphemy, so that it could acquire their property? (And did it kill some of them, to boot?) If that period of history can be identified, we can work backward and forward from Thyatira through the list of churches, and determine the historic period associated with each.

==============================================================================================

Do we not thus see the wisdom of God revealed yet again? (This time in Revelation Chapters 2 &3.)

==============================================================================================

 

[psalms 91]

==============================================================================================

Post #27:


That is a good question.

Let’s see if it can be done some justice.

==============================================================================================

First of all, each letter is addressed to “the angel (or messenger) of” the particular church. Those angelic or physical or allegoric beings are pictured as stars in Revelation 1:16 and Revelation 1:20. Also, only seven of the many churches in existence at the time, are written to. They are described as seven candlesticks, which is a reference to the menorah – the seven-branched candelabrum associated with God’s Holy meeting place with Israel. The actual completeness of the menorah can be seen to symbolise the completeness of the message for all churches.

In some, but not all, instances, reference is made to conditions associated with a church’s physical location, and used in an allegorical picture. There is also evidence that (as some people suggest) the letters represent progressive prophetic pictures of identifiable, then-future, church ages.

So, it would seem that the letters potentially operate on four levels simultaneously:
- They speak directly to individual churches then in existence;
- They speak directly to all churches, then and throughout future history (including our time);
- They employ allegorical pictures to enhance understanding;
- They open a window into future, unfolding church history.

==============================================================================================

With respect to unfolding church history, it is possible to cast doubt on the identification of Philadelphia with the Reformation (or at least the identification of its “angel” as Martin Luther). However, bearing in mind that Revelation makes constant reference to the Old Testament (directly and indirectly), could a historical anchor be established pertaining to the church of Thyatira? An allusion is made in that letter to a historical figure – Jezebel. Is there something that stands out about the original Jezebel? Well, among other things, she arranged for an innocent person to be accused of blasphemy and killed, so that his property could be confiscated.

The question is: Was there ever a time in history when the church of the day (the Roman Catholic Church) accused innocent, wealthy people of blasphemy, so that it could acquire their property? (And did it kill some of them, to boot?) If that period of history can be identified, we can work backward and forward from Thyatira through the list of churches, and determine the historic period associated with each.

==============================================================================================

Do we not thus see the wisdom of God revealed yet again? (This time in Revelation Chapters 2 &3.)

==============================================================================================

As with all of the bible there are layers to it. Jesus in His teachings also showed layers so we know that this is an accurate portrayal of the bible

 

[JRT]

Is 2 Timothy 3:16 a lie?
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

We must be very careful about what is a lie and who is a liar. A lie obviously is an untruth but it must be known to be an untruth and is told anyway. With that in mind, I am unable to answer your question.

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person.

 

[MennoSota]

We must be very careful about what is a lie and who is a liar. A lie obviously is an untruth but it must be known to be an untruth and is told anyway. With that in mind, I am unable to answer your question.

Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person.

JRT, do you support the findings of the Jesus Seminar?
I ask this because it seems you have clung to the liberal scholars, many of whom are not Christian in the least and therefore their opinion gets muddied by the god whom they serve.

 

[hedrick]

JRT, do you support the findings of the Jesus Seminar?
I ask this because it seems you have clung to the liberal scholars, many of whom are not Christian in the least and therefore their opinion gets muddied by the god whom they serve.

This isn't just the Jesus Seminar.

 

[MennoSota]

This isn't just the Jesus Seminar.

I live in an area filled with liberal seminaries where many deny the deity of Christ. The amount of pagans attempting to call themselves Bible scholars is quite sad. Are you one of them?

 

[hedrick]

I live in an area filled with liberal seminaries where many deny the deity of Christ. The amount of pagans attempting to call themselves Bible scholars is quite sad. Are you one of them?

No. I'm afraid I don't quite trust your judgement about who is a pagan.

 

[SilkenBast]

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?

Usually internal context and use of obvious language devices bear this out. However when it comes to religious belief... caveat emptor, Eve believed the serpent and everyone acknowledges the deception as is necessary for the follow on theology, but of them there are few who believe snakes can talk outside of biblical literature. I'm sure it's an interesting internal dialogue most believers don't want to have.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Usually internal context and use of obvious language devices bear this out. However when it comes to religious belief... caveat emptor, Eve believed the serpent and everyone acknowledges the deception as is necessary for the follow on theology, but of them there are few who believe snakes can talk outside of biblical literature. I'm sure it's an interesting internal dialogue most believers don't want to have.

I'd agree. Much the same with Balaam's donkey questioning why it's receiving a beating and petitioning that it's faithfully served Balaam for many years. Yet the text attests that "...the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey..."

 

[psalms 91]

I'd agree. Much the same with Balaam's donkey questioning why it's receiving a beating and petitioning that it's faithfully served Balaam for many years. Yet the text attests that "...the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey..."

That is the point God can make anything cry out and speak. There is a verse that Jesus said if the people didnt praise Him the very rocks would cry out and I dont think of that as anything but literal. I am one who believes the bible and the limitless power of God to do anything

 

[JRT]

Talking animals are present in some forms of Greek literature --- we call them fables.

 

[MennoSota]

No. I'm afraid I don't quite trust your judgement about who is a pagan.

Of course you don't. You trust pagans.