OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[MaxBuck]

Allegory has nothing to do with it. I gave you an example of figurative language and literal language used in the same paragraph. I also described how someone in another culture would go about understanding it. This is exactly how Bible translators and commentators approach the scriptures.

You are differentiating between allegory and "figurative language;" the distinction is not very clear to me. In fact, they seem pretty much synonymous.

 

[lvbuckeye]

GB89, when I stated that one need not accept Creationist dogma in order to believe in the fundamental truth of the Bible, you came back with this:

I see a clear implication of parallelism here, and if you deny it I suggest you read your statement again with fresh eyes.

As regards your own straw man regarding "the views of the majority of scientists," we have a fundamental apples-and-oranges situation. My belief in the redemption by Christ of sinful humans requires my belief in the deity of Jesus, and it requires my acceptance of the position that Jesus died on the cross in order to secure my salvation. But there is no comparable requirement of my faith that I believe in the creation fable; God has told us this fable in order that we understand some basic things about human nature and our relationship with the natural world. Salvation does not require a belief that this fable is literally true.

where do you draw the line that differentiates fable from truth? if you believe that the Genesis account is a fable, then is David and Goliath a fable? is Jonah and the whale a fable? is the battle of Jericho a fable? is Gideon and the Mideonites a fable? is Jesus Christ a fable? which is which, Max?

 

[lvbuckeye]

You are differentiating between allegory and "figurative language;" the distinction is not very clear to me. In fact, they seem pretty much synonymous.

allegory is Pilgrim's Progress. figurative language is using metaphors and similes.

 

[MaxBuck]

where do you draw the line that differentiates fable from truth? if you believe that the Genesis account is a fable, then is David and Goliath a fable? is Jonah and the whale a fable? is the battle of Jericho a fable? is Gideon and the Mideonites a fable? is Jesus Christ a fable? which is which, Max?

First, Jonah never encountered a whale; he spent time in the belly of a great fish, not a whale.

Second, of all the things you cite, the presence on earth of Jesus Christ is the only one that is fundamental to the Christian faith. So I do not spend time thinking about whether the other stories are intended to be read as literal or as parables. Who cares? The lessons they teach are valid regardless.

 

[MaxBuck]

allegory is Pilgrim's Progress. figurative language is using metaphors and similes.

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
allegory [([SIZE=+0]al[/SIZE]-uh-gawr-ee)]

A story that has a deeper or more general meaning in addition to its surface meaning. Allegories are composed of several symbols or metaphors. For example, in The Pilgrim's Progress, by John Bunyan, the character named Christian struggles to escape from a bog or swamp. The story of his difficulty is a symbol of the difficulty of leading a good life in the ?bog? of this world. The ?bog? is a metaphor or symbol of life's hardships and distractions. Similarly, when Christian loses a heavy pack that he has been carrying on his back, this symbolizes his freedom from the weight of sin that he has been carrying.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
met?a?phor

/ˈmɛt

əˌfɔr, -fər/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[met-uh-fawr, -fer]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation?noun 1.a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in ?A mighty fortress is our God.? Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1). 2.something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

With all due respect, lv and GB89, the connotative differences between "allegory" and "metaphor" are pretty subtle, and I'm not sure how arguing about the differences advances the broader discussion. The fact is, both metaphorical (allegorical/figurative/representational/parabolic) language and literal language are used in the Bible, and there is no clear roadmap as to which is necessarily which.

 

[GoBucks89]

Condensention?

No, I said condescension.

You've made baseless accusations against the scientific community, insinuationg that they are merely following a "politically correct" dictated course of thought and that they suppress dissension and then you make claims of condensention? You don't have the moral high ground here.

Are you saying that men of science who challenge evolutionary orthodoxy are not subject to attacks from their peers? Your own comments about ID theorists are a good example, and you're just echoing what many scientific commentators have already said. As for suppression, I never said anything about that. I said only that scientists who challenge evolution are labeled as "non-scientists", and that is true. Are you denying that? But while we're on the subject of suppressing dissent, what do you think about denying tenure to a distinguished professor because he happens to be an ID theorist? Is that a good thing or a bad thing to do in a setting that is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas?

As for my statements about political motives, are you suggesting that the field of science, alone among all human endeavors, is immune to political considerations? I hope not. I was born in Columbus but it wasn't yesterday. And that was nice of you to throw in that word "dictated", since I never used it and did not imply it. Political correctness does not dictate, but it does punish and shame those who defy it, no matter the setting. And there is nothing more politically correct in the scientific academy then not allowing a "divine foot in the door".

I have no more of an axe to grind than I do against anyone who resorts to attacking an entire group in the absence of a substantive argument. Again you should look to your own blade being held to the stone.

Attacking? Hardly. I have never said that scientists are bad people. Speaking out against non-conformist scientists is not illegal or unethical. Nor is making assumptions in order to do what you think is right. I am certain that the scientists in question believe they are doing the right thing for all parties involved. Furthermore, I gain absolutely nothing from this exchange, and so there is no "blade" in my hands. Whether things change in the academy or continue as they are will not affect my career, my family, my faith, or my life. The reason I asked if you had some stake in this is because of your extremely defensive response, which is quite different from the way I've seen you post in the past.

Pointing out that you've made insulting and groundless claims is in no way ridiculing your faith.

As I have demonstrated, my claims are not groundless. Your own words help confirm them. What I meant by ridiculing is your comparison of my beliefs to "magic" and "Fungi from Yoggoth". I'll give you a B+ for humor but a D- for class.

...and I'll happily shuffle out of the thread.

Shalom.

 

[lvbuckeye]

i refuse to play this stupid semantics game. gangster rappers use figurative language with metaphors and similes in every single song and no one ever mistakes them for writing allegories. if you can't see the difference, i'm not going to explain it to you.

let me ask you this: what was the reason for Jesus Christ coming to earth?

 

[GoBucks89]

I see a clear implication of parallelism here, and if you deny it I suggest you read your statement again with fresh eyes.

You have stated that the reason you don't accept a literal interpretation of Genesis is because you believe the scientific evidence supports evolution and therefore Genesis must be interpreted in a non-literal fashion (use allegory or figurative language or metaphor, whichever you like). Since this was your stated reason, I thought I would apply that same logic to another miraculous event that might hit your faith a little closer to home. In this case, you don't seem to care what scientists say about it. You believe in the resurrection of Christ on faith even though it is (seemingly) impossible. Can you not apply this same logic to the creation account? That is what I have done. I understand that you don't consider this to be important. But I would say the doctrine of original sin hangs on it rather tenuously. From a logical perspective, Romans 5:12 refutes evolution completely, since there can be no death before Adam. Do we need to interpret this passage as a metaphor/allegory/figure-of-speech as well?

Incidentally, I want to make sure you know that I'm not making any kind of statement about you or your beliefs either good or bad. As far as I'm concerned, every person is entitled to their own beliefs. You and I don't agree on them, but I can live with that. I'm only asking these questions in order to get a better understanding.

As regards your own straw man regarding "the views of the majority of scientists,"

It was a question, not an assumption regarding your views. I prefer to ask you if that is what you believe rather than run with an assumption that may not be true.

we have a fundamental apples-and-oranges situation. My belief in the redemption by Christ of sinful humans requires my belief in the deity of Jesus, and it requires my acceptance of the position that Jesus died on the cross in order to secure my salvation.

I'm with you so far.

But there is no comparable requirement of my faith that I believe in the creation fable; God has told us this fable in order that we understand some basic things about human nature and our relationship with the natural world.

What verse is that? Sounds like you're just making an assumption here.

Salvation does not require a belief that this fable is literally true.

It does not militate against it either. And the fact that Jesus consistently quoted the old testament prophets without ever questioning the literal truth of what they said is evidence enough for me.

You are differentiating between allegory and "figurative language;" the distinction is not very clear to me. In fact, they seem pretty much synonymous.

Looks like you've covered this in a subsequent post. I'm quite familiar with the allegorical form, having read Pilgrim's Progress twice and having seen every episode of The Prisoner.

Figurative language is used frequently in the scriptures, and does not necessarily indicate the presence of allegory. My previous example of Pittman running through ND "like a hot knife through butter" is figurative language, but the story certainly was not an allegory. I don't believe there are any allegories in the Bible, although some theologians regard Song of Songs as allegorical (with "Lover" as Christ and "Beloved" as the church, or God and Israel). To be sure, it uses lots of figurative language but to me it just looks like a conversation between two lovers.

 

[Bleed S & G]

let me ask you this: what was the reason for Jesus Christ coming to earth?

good luck answering that and maintaing the Old Testament is not "fundamental to christianity" They are not "fables"

 

[Gatorubet]

where do you draw the line that differentiates fable from truth? if you believe that the Genesis account is a fable, then is David and Goliath a fable? is Jonah and the whale a fable? is the battle of Jericho a fable? is Gideon and the Mideonites a fable? is Jesus Christ a fable? which is which, Max?

Eye! There's the rub IV! What it is, I guess, is everyone's task to determine the legitimacy of the Bible as fact versus fable. And, to some, whether Bible as part fable is anathema to Bible as part fact. I walk the line in my own way. I see no need for literal truth of the whole as a prerequisite for truth of the part. I see where Christ used parables frequently.

I feel that nomadic Semitic peoples received that which they were capable of receiving, and that as we grew as people we were able to receive even more knowledge about our world. I cannot envision a world created by happenstance. I also cannot envision a world created 6,000 year ago and populated by ark animals. It is unfortunate that I am so contemptuous of that theory. I'm sure that my attitude leaks out. I do not mean to be offensive, but there it is. As my faith is not linked to a literal Bible, I often have a problem seeing the big deal. Since it is faith and religion, it is a volatile subject.

 

[MaxBuck]

i refuse to play this stupid semantics game. gangster rappers use figurative language with metaphors and similes in every single song and no one ever mistakes them for writing allegories. if you can't see the difference, i'm not going to explain it to you.

let me ask you this: what was the reason for Jesus Christ coming to earth?

1. I didn't start this "stupid semantics game." If you'd like to stop now, that would be good by me.
2. I haven't asked you to explain the difference between allegory and metaphor.
3. Where have I evidenced any confusion as to the reason for Christ's life on earth and death on the cross? It was to bring the Good News to mankind, that eternal life and forgiveness of sins are available through faith in God and in our Savior.

 

[MaxBuck]

You have stated that the reason you don't accept a literal interpretation of Genesis is because you believe the scientific evidence supports evolution and therefore Genesis must be interpreted in a non-literal fashion (use allegory or figurative language or metaphor, whichever you like). "Non-literal" is good enough for me; I don't think it much matters whether you call it allegory, metaphor, or something else. Since this was your stated reason, I thought I would apply that same logic to another miraculous event that might hit your faith a little closer to home. In this case, you don't seem to care what scientists say about it. You believe in the resurrection of Christ on faith even though it is (seemingly) impossible. Can you not apply this same logic to the creation account? I suppose one could, but why? The singular miracle of Jesus's resurrection and ascension is the focal point of our faith. I have no doubt that God could make this happen. I similarly have no doubt that God could have created the heavens and earth in seven literal calendar days, with elapsed time being as measured by a modern atomic clock. All scientific evidence is that He did not do so, though, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on my faith.

I understand that you don't consider this to be important. Actually, I do believe it's important that Christians should use the brains that God gave us to understand the Creation as science reveals it to us, bit by bit. But I would say the doctrine of original sin hangs on it rather tenuously. From a logical perspective, Romans 5:12 refutes evolution completely, since there can be no death before Adam. It seems clear to me that Paul was speaking to, and about, human beings rather than carrots, insects, and rodents. I therefore believe this discussion needs to focus on human life. Do we need to interpret this passage as a metaphor/allegory/figure-of-speech as well? No, because as I say the whole issue of life, death and redemption applies only to human beings.

... the fact that Jesus consistently quoted the old testament prophets without ever questioning the literal truth of what they said is evidence enough for me. He never questioned the literal fact content of the old testament because it was not germane to His message. Jesus, it is clear, did not waste his time on unimportant trivia. He never questioned the essential truth of the old testament because its truth is not dependent upon its being factual.

Looks like you've covered this in a subsequent post. I'm quite familiar with the allegorical form, having read Pilgrim's Progress twice and having seen every episode of The Prisoner. Sometime maybe you can explain The Prisoner to us. That is far more difficult to interpret than the Bible IMO.:tongue2:

Figurative language is used frequently in the scriptures, and does not necessarily indicate the presence of allegory. But surely you agree that Jesus taught primarily through parables, most of which do not represent factual human experiences but rather representations. It seems to me that parable and allegory are pretty closely allied critters (oops; shouldn't have opened that door again ). My previous example of Pittman running through ND "like a hot knife through butter" is figurative language, but the story certainly was not an allegory. I don't believe there are any allegories in the Bible, although some theologians regard Song of Songs as allegorical (with "Lover" as Christ and "Beloved" as the church, or God and Israel). To be sure, it uses lots of figurative language but to me it just looks like a conversation between two lovers.

Once again, I say that when God walked the earth as Jesus Christ, He taught by the vehicle of parables, knowing that fables can be much more "true" than factual re-telling of events. Why is it not evident that the Genesis story is essentially a parable, especially in light of the scientific evidence against its factual basis?

 

[lvbuckeye]

1) what was the "Good News," and how does it relate to the Old Testament?

2) there was a reason that Jesus spoke in parables, but it wasn't what you think. it was not to help illustrate his point with figurative language, which is evidenced by the fact that his disciples repeatedly asked him to explain what the parables meant.

Matthew 13:10-14: And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias (that's Isaiah to you and i), which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

the correlating passage in Isaiah occurs in chapter 6, verse 9: And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

or Mark 4:10-12: And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

or Luke 8:9-10: And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

all three books are dealing with the same group of parables of the Sower. if you listen to the words of Christ, the underlying reason for Jesus use of parables was to confound the Pharisees and Sadducees who were attempting to entrap Him with His words. He didn't use parables in order for everyone to understand. He used them in order that those who were not meant to understand would not. His use pr parables was a cloaking device, not a illustrative tool.

 

[MaxBuck]

1) what was the "Good News," and how does it relate to the Old Testament? I already said what the Good News was. Reread my post if you missed it.

2) there was a reason that Jesus spoke in parables, but it wasn't what you think. it was not to help illustrate his point with figurative language, which is evidenced by the fact that his disciples repeatedly asked him to explain what the parables meant. And when Jesus elaborated on his parables' meaning, he frequently used more parables. And your comment that these were used only "to confound the Pharisees and Sadducees" is disingenuous; this was certainly one reason, but surely not the only one.

Matthew 13:10-14: And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias (that's Isaiah to you and i), which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

the correlating passage in Isaiah occurs in chapter 6, verse 9: And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

or Mark 4:10-12: And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

or Luke 8:9-10: And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

all three books are dealing with the same group of parables of the Sower. if you listen to the words of Christ, the underlying reason for Jesus use of parables was to confound the Pharisees and Sadducees who were attempting to entrap Him with His words. He didn't use parables in order for everyone to understand. He used them in order that those who were not meant to understand would not. His use pr parables was a cloaking device, not a illustrative tool.

I agree that "cloaking" was one reason for Jesus's use of parables, but it wasn't the only one.

 

[lvbuckeye]

i read your post, which is why i asked the question. if we evolved from apes, then Romans 5:12 is WRONG, because Romans 5:12-15 states that: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

if we evolved from apes, then DEATH WAS IN THE WORLD BEFORE ADAM, which means that sin and death did NOT enter the world by one man. it means that Paul is wrong in Romans 6:23 when he states that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

the very word "sin" that we use comes from an Old English archery term for missing the mark, therefore your position, whether you admit it or not, becomes one of nature its self sinning before man ever arrived on the scene. can nature sin? is nature cognizant? is it sentient? is nature the guiding force? was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ God's way of apologizing for a nature that took so much death and millions of years of mutations and struggling to survive?

how could sin enter the world through the missing of the mark by ONE MAN, when it took millions and billions of years of nature missing the mark, yet struggling to reach it before man was ever on the scene?

if your position is that sin and death really DID enter the world through the actions of one man, then that would mean that EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM from the very first cell the coalesced in the mud, through every evolutionary step all the way up to man WAS STILL ALIVE when Adam finally got around... that means all those 'unfit' iterations too... that's believing a bigger 'fairy tale' than believing the Bible.