Was "Re: Interpreting the Bible: literally or metaphorically?"

[James]

George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
Re: Was "Re: Interpreting the Bible: literally or metaphorically?"

Re: Interpreting the Bible: literally or metaphorically?

Similarly, was the story of Jonah a parable? And Noah?

On what Scriptural basis would one declare them parables?

In the case of Jonah, because the style of the book is totally different
from all the other prophetic writings.
In the case of Noah, because it is plain that, as a historical event, it
did not happen exactly as described, so one must ask how and why it came
to be written. And the existence of the earlier Sumerian story is
obviously relevant there. The interest in ths story is not so much in is
historical accuracy as with the slant that was put on it - which is
essentially the principal feature of parables.

Hello,
Yet the Son of God, Jesus, believed in the literal story about Noah
and the great flood. Mt 24:36-39,

The flood was back then when the earth was a circle, the heavens had
windows out of which water could flow, the sun moved over the earth
from east to west, stars were smaller than they are today and not
billions of miles away and a serpent and a Jenny asses could talk. My
how things have changed.

Hello,

Yes, miracles in the Bible did occur, such as that talking donkey. But
if you read the Bible carefully, it didn't say that ALL donkeys spoke
back then, just miraculously that one on that special occasion.

Concerning the earth, were you aware of what the Bible says about it?
For instance around 2000 years before the time of Columbus, and when
there were all kinds of mythological descriptions concerning the
earth, such as the ancient Hindu writings of the Ramayana which says
that it rested on the back of a giant turtle supported by 8 elephants,
etc, a Hebrew prophet wrote in Isaiah 40:22,

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." (NIV)

The Hebrew word used here for "circle" is "hhug" which according to
some Hebrew scholars also has the meaning of "sphere". (for example
see: "A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures by B.
Davidson")

Some other Bible translations therefore say, "the globe of the
earth" (Douay Version) and, "the round earth." (Moffatt).

Also, out of the Book of Job comes the statement at Job 26:7,

"He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon
nothing." (RSV)

So the Bible in its poetic style, describes the earth as a circular
sphere 'hanging' upon "nothing" (floating) in a "void" (space). Since
orbital flight was not around back then, how could they have known
such things?

Even many of hundreds of years later from the writing of the book of
Job, the wise man Aristotle still believed things in the heavens were
attached to supports, not just floating there. Yet the Bible said the
earth "hangs...upon nothing." Pretty good 'guess' about such things,
if the Bible is only a fabrication of men, is it not?


Sincerely, James

If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I do
not follow all conversations in ng threads


***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses Questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

[l***@hotmail.com]

Over the years much has been written and posted on this subject. I
know because I have personally been responsible for overly lengthy
posts seeking to establish the historical/grammatic hermeneutic.
However, I have found a discussion on iTunes which discusses this
rather well from a totally sectarian view.

Go to Apple's website and then to iTunes. Search the iPod episode:
The Tolkien Professor. The first podcast in the series is titled: How
to Read Tolkien and Why. In that podcast, Corey Olson gives a very
interesting literary lecture on the various methods of interpretation
such as analysis of source material, biographic, allegory, etc. I
highly recommend the readers to listen to this particular lecture.
There are other lectures in the series which also correspond to the
topic of this thread.

Strictly speaking, the thread title is by definition miss written.
One does not interpret metaphorically. One uses metaphors, a method
of comparison, to relate a truth. It would have been more appropriate
to title it: Interpreting the Bible: literally or allegorically. And
it is quite simple to reasonably answer this question with two
questions: What is the purpose scripture and to who was it written.

Q. #1 The purpose of scripture is to reveal God and His will.
Q. #2 The audience of scripture is not scholastic pinheads but every
day people.

Both of these questions and answers automatically rules out the
allegorical methodology. This can be simply and undeniably
illustrated by Christ's disclosed purpose of instituting parabolic
teaching. The allegorical hermeneutic does no less. And if that
isn't enough, all one has to do is perform a survey of allegorical
interpretations of a particular passage. What is the percentage of
consistent agreement? What are the fundamental proofs that one
allegorical interpretation is The correct teaching while another is
not? Unlike what is commonly termed, literalism, the historic/
grammatic methodology has strict literary rules and guidelines.

Another question that could be posed is this simple test: how many of
us use regularly the allegorical methodology in everyday life? You
tell your child to clean up there room. Do you expect to be taken
literally or allegorically? An airline stewardess barks instructions
during a dramatic episode. Do you think she expects to be taken
literally or allegorically? The sign reads, STOP. Do you interpret
it literally or allegorically? If the latter, do you expect the judge
to interpret your defense literally or allegorically? Immediately the
question is raised, how far does one take allegorical interpretation?
After all it is pragmatically much like looking in a mirror directly
across from another mirror. Where does it end?

We give praise to God on literal terms. He doesn't call us to praise
HIm on subjectivism. This is a major issue concerning charismatics or
emotionalist.

To end this, I would only say that for someone who places him/herself
under the umbrella title of being Jehovah's Witnesses, immediately
places themselves under the severe judgment of God as expressed in
James 3:1 or even Rom 2:17-29. This title is very akin to the Pope's
title of Servant of Servants. A glorious title but history
illustrates the vanity of both of these self ascribed titles. Both
will have to give God an answer and scripture tells me that every
mouth will be stopped.