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

[psalms 91]

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

Yes, unless they are from the bible and God inspired I would as well

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

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

Being the inspired (to some) word of God, might change that perspective. So you'd see these accounts as allegory, or literary license?

 

[Pedrito]

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

Post #28:

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.

That is another good example.

If a person is aware of a few considerations that need bearing in mind when looking at the Inspired Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), some puzzling things can become clear. Those considerations include (for our purposes here):
- The Hebrew language, as God caused it to be structured, lends itself readily to plays on words;
- God places great store on types (pictures, models), and the Old Testament (in particular) contains a significant number of them;
--- To view an important New Testament type, refer to Ephesians 5:22-32;
- The Hebrew word yom can mean the period of daylight, the 24-hour period starting at sundown, a period of indeterminate length;
--- It can mean other things as well, depending on the context.

In Chapter 1 of Genesis, the word yom (day) is sensibly understood to mean an age (the actual length of which is known only to God). That agrees with modern scientific observations. The same applies to the seventh yom (day) which marked (and still marks) the end of God’s creative work. God chose to implement a reminder to humans that He was and is the creator of all things, especially of humankind – the life-form with whom He established a special relationship. God set aside a special day as a remembrance – a type if you like – of the completion of that wonderful creative work – a 24-hour yom (day). Thus a play on words is used to define an important type.

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

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Yet another good example of allegory or reality.

The Atacama desert in Chile is a splendid example of this process in our day. The average rainfall there is less than 0.1mm per annum. Some regions see no precipitation for years on end. Yet people live there in the coastal region, have gardens, and have enough water to survive and even run a brewery. A coastal fog forms above the ocean and moves inland on a daily basis, condensing on the land. It is known as the camanchaca.

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

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.

The early chapters of Genesis contain statements of achievement, not explanations of mechanism. Mankind is shown to have been created as a physical being. (Genesis 3:19) Anyone who takes the time to review the modern sciences might see exactly the mechanism God used to bring the first humans (Adam and Eve) into existence. That person may also find that Genesis 2:22 contains information that can be understood only by modern Man. That person could also take on the challenge of determining whether or not Adam was speaking absolute literal truth in Genesis 2:23.

I’ll leave it to others who are willing to put in some effort in order to gain understanding, to follow that up. (Proverbs 25:2-3 – who are the kings?)

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

 

[MoreCoffee]

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

Are you thinking that the story of the donkey that talked to Baalam is like a fable?

 

[Pedrito]

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

Post #37:
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..."

Post #39:
Talking animals are present in some forms of Greek literature --- we call them fables.

Post #44:
Are you thinking that the story of the donkey that talked to Baalam is like a fable?

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

Animals and very young children find it hard to communicate in adult human language. The thought patterns they wish to express may not be the same as those of adult humans, either. Often it is primarily feelings. But try to express their intent, they do.

I remember a situation around my second birthday. Something traumatic had just happened to me that my parents who were walking ahead of me and dragging me along were unaware of. I couldn’t find the words to express what I wanted to tell them. I ended up yelling one particular word. That got their attention, and gave them understanding of what was going on.

We have two charming pets. They are of the feline variety. They express themselves very differently from each other, but they have no problem expressing their wishes to us via sounds and actions. They also understand basic commands, questions and explanations.

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

Balaam’s donkey, also referred to as an ass, features in Numbers 22:21-33. Balaam beats his ass on three occasions in quick succession, because the ass reacts to the presence of an angel that Balaam cannot see.

I can just imagine the reaction of one of our cats were I to be deliberately mean to it. It wouldn’t have the words, but boy! would it make it’s feelings known – both by sound and action. There would be no doubt at all that I was in the doghouse.

In Balaam’s case, the donkey had apparently been patient and inexpressive. Finally, God prompts the donkey to open its mouth and express itself. The donkey gives vent to its frustrations. God translates the intention of the donkey’s braying in Balaam’s mind. The donkey understands Balaam’s mood when he is threatened in return, and expresses the internal feelings triggered by Balaam’s threat. God translates those, too.

Then God makes the angel visible to Balaam, and the donkey’s actions and expressed inner feelings suddenly make sense.


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

 

[Pedrito]

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

Post #4:
I think we have to read the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament and the words of Jesus.

Actually, the New Testament often needs to be read in the light of the Old. The Old Testament can sometimes provide penetrating clarity regarding the true scripturality of conflicting NT interpretations and the doctrines founded on them. (As noted in Post #5.)

Post #10:
I am not convinced that God had anything to do with the forming of scripture. I reply in all honesty.
I float the thought once again, that the 66-book Bible, when read honestly without the filters of denominationalism and preconceived beliefs, forms an amazingly integrated whole. That integrated wholeness, spanning the 66 books written by around 40 authors over an extended period of history, betrays an overall guiding authorship that is difficult to discount.

Post #13:
Is 2 Timothy 3:16 a lie?
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

We should never forget or discount the fact that Paul was referring specifically to the Inspired Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament”) when he wrote that.

Post #31:
Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. That is followed by the results of analyses of vocabulary, grammar and thought themes in the Pauline epistles and Hebrews. Doubt is thrown on the authorship of some, especially Hebrews.

May I offer some thoughts regarding those results and others like them. I am writing a book. It is a book of fiction embracing real observations of society and people over the years. I’m not saying it’s a prizeworthy book, but I am trying to make it entertaining while conveying serious considerations. I deliberately alter my style at various stages and in various chapters, for effect, as the fictional situations allow. I alter the vocabulary to suit. I have added new elements of expression over time, as well. I don’t think the Reader will find it surprising that the styles in the book differ from those I use when writing to friends and to organisations. The few dissertations I was forced to write while studying, were written differently yet again. More like the book of Hebrews.

Bearing in mind that I also have read other authors who employ internal style variations in their books, and from book to book, I suspect that the variations documented with respect to supposed non-Pauline authorship, may not be as significant as the proponents of that non-Pauline authorship would have us believe.

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

 

[Josiah]

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?

Not always easy....

We can look to solid, ECUMENICAL, historic consensus on the correct interrpretation ("Tradition" in the Protestant sense rather than the RCC sense)...

Context... context.... context....

I tend to lean toward the literal; I fear an overly "spiritual" spin that seems to disregard the specific words the Holy Spirit chose....

I'd rather have Jesus say to me in Heaven: "Silly Josiah, didn't you realize I was kidding?" Than: "Josiah, why did you deny what I said?"





.

 

[Arsenios]

In the EOC, we take our Biblical interpretation from those who are recognized Saints, and in some 2000 years now of commentary, there is a pretty extensive and consistent Patristic Commentary... And this is because we who are still enmired in the battles of the purification of the heart are not yet spiritual enough to speak authoritatively about Biblical passages... Indeed, Paul made the principle fairly clear:

1Cor 2:13-15
Which things also we speak,
not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the soulish man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
for they are foolishness unto him:
neither is he able to know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,
yet he himself is judged of no man.

Now spiritual discernment is not an intellectual exercise of fallen human intellection,
but is instead a function of purity of heart and maturity in the Faith of Christ...
"Be ye perfected, as your Father in Heaven is perfect..."
So that it is men who have become holy men of God that we look to...

These are the men who wrote the Bible at God's behest...
And these are as well the ones who are able to interpret it...
So we learn from these, the Holy Fathers of the Faith of Christ...
And we find a remarkable consistency of interpretation in their commentary...

Another matter is the fact of progressive revelation we all experience in the reading and the re-reading across the years of Scripture. We personally discern more and more meanings in the things we have read again and again... You see, Scripture is written to do just that, to continually keep opening as we continue to grow in the Spirit, and while what we knew before is still there to be seen, additional meanings come into focus as we mature in the Faith... Which is another reason for patristic, rather than individual, interpretation of Holy Writ...

Salvation, the path to Sainthood, in the EOC begins with purification of the heart, repentance, and moves through to the illumination of the nous [mind], Baptism into the Mystery of the Faith, and through the keeping of the purity given at Baptism into Christ, emerges into maturity, perfecting, which is the final stage on earth of union with God. And it is from this perspective that Bible interpretation comes to clarity, and those of the Holy Fathers who have written the great commentaries, are very perfected in the Faith... So that we who are not so perfected yet, receive the guidance of their efforts in our behalf...

iow - The idea that a person not perfected in the Faith should take it upon himself or herself to interpret Holy Writ aprt from the patristic understanding of the Church Fathers is for us a silly idea... And indeed, when I first started reading Scripture in my mid-50s, one of the first things I could plainly see was that I was in the same boat as the Ethopian who asked Andrew: "How can I understand Scripture without someone to explain it to me?" I was smart enough, but that availed nothing, because there are things there that simply defy intellectual apprehension.

And the reason for this is that the writings are empirically descriptive of Spiritual phenomena, and those phenomena have to first be known, and they can only be known by revelation in experience, and not by "figuring things out logically"... That dog don't hunt...


Arsenios