Literal Interpretation

Actually I do have a bit of an understanding of the "differential" between hyperbole (that is related to the conic section hyperbola) and allegory, but I was simply attempting to participate in the spirit of the thread. My college English professor rather honestly told me that all papers I submitted sounded rather like lab reports.

 

Eccl 2:4-10 (HCSB) 4 I increased my achievements. I built houses and planted vineyards for myself. 5 I made gardens and parks for myself and planted every kind of fruit tree in them. 6 I constructed reservoirs of water for myself from which to irrigate a grove of flourishing trees. 7 I acquired male and female servants and had slaves who were born in my house. I also owned many herds of cattle and flocks, more than all who were before me in Jerusalem. 8 I also amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I gathered male and female singers for myself, and many concubines, the delights of men. 9 Thus, I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem; my wisdom also remained with me. 10 All that my eyes desired, I did not deny them. I did not refuse myself any pleasure, for I took pleasure in all my struggles. This was my reward for all my struggles.

Whoo-Hoo! :wavey:

 

Mandy, by this do you mean that we should in fact be removing our offending eyes?

 

Figured you did. Even mathematicians can do well at English. :thumbsup:

 

Nice to have backup here. Thanks folks.

So we have Christ using various figures of speech and obvious (high school English, college bonehead English) figurative language without causing any problems at all to the literalist view: metaphor, parable (extended metaphor), similes, hyperbole, idiom (actually a whole category in itself, but I'll include it here for simplicity).

If my wife comes in and says, "There's a fire and the whole town is out to see it," do I immediately assume that the whole 320,000 population of Asahikawa is watching the fire? And I have to do that to be a consistent literalist? "It is to laugh," as some old time comedian used to say.

 

my wife and I appreciate this, Calculus puts a different spin on things
(we are a science geek and math geek)

 

A happy function is a differentiable funtion on an open interval.

 

To truly be "literal" one must consider the genre and respond accordingly. If poetic, then realize that poetry is not always completely prescriptive, but rather, often, descriptive. If historical narrative, then realize that an event is being detailed, but we should look for the "bigger picture" in the event, and not the details of the event to guide us, i.e., why was the event shared and what can we learn from the episode. If evangelistic tract, then we can understand that the underlying reason for the text is to share the gospel. If apocalyptic in nature, then we ought to realize that the text is speaking of some prophetic event, and may not be strictly seen in a "do it now" literalism. If allegorical, then realize that a bigger point is being made. If hyperbole, understand that some exaggeration is attempted to make a point -- we ought to figure out what is the point, not what is the exaggeration. If the literature is a parable, then we can know that it is a divine illustration of a point, but that the details are made up in order to create a teaching moment.

Understanding what we read and knowing when it is descriptive or prescriptive, plus knowing to whom the passage is spoken, for what reason, by whom, and what the main point was to the one hearing it for the first time all help us to draw inferences and prescriptions from the text that apply to our own situations, needs, and yes, God's direction for all people in all times and at all places.

 

No, and you have just in fact proven my point.

 

Think that those oppossed to "literal" interpreting of the Bible usually mak up the 'straw man" of saying that we use 'wooden" literalism, not taking into account the genres and types of figures of speech being used...

Always interprete the bible in its plain and literal meaning way, unless there is a valid reason not to, as based upon the style of parable, simile, hyperbole etc!

 

So glad that I could be an object lesson.

 

Of course anytime you talk about "literal" vs "allegorical" or such approaches to interpretation there will be a lot of different views. In the historical interpretation of the Bible there have been valid uses of the various kinds of interpretation of Scripture at different points.

Some passages are seen as literal, actually describing events or concepts. Others are typological, some could be allegorical, some numerical. There are a wealth of interpretative options when it comes to passages in the Bible. To simply say "we must be literalists" is a misnomer and wrongheaded. No credible scholar throughout history approaches biblical hermeneutics in that fashion.

Of course everyone has their view and exceptions. Some classical dispensationalists will urge a "literal reading" of the Creation stories in Genesis 1-2 yet call for a figurative interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. Other examples abound. (The funny thing is that it is a lot of this sounds like the "gender neutral" debate where those who spurn that approach end up using translations that are gender neutral at points.)

The interpretative school of Gamaliel which Paul grew up in used a plethora of hermeneutical approaches. Guided primarily by the teachings of Hillel and his rules of midrash, this school deeply informs the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. For instance look at 1 Corinthians 9:9 where Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and applies a figurative point to his use of the passage.

Often when I talk about reading the Bible "literally" (I rarely use the word literally) I mean reading the Bible authentically as the text dictates. We should anticipate the Bible is being accurate and factual where it intends to be and allegorical where it intends to be. Yet the various grammatical devices and use of varied genres within Scripture (and specifically where Scripture uses Scripture) show us a "literal" reading of passages isn't the model of the writers of Scripture at all points.

 

OK, someone may be showing some ignorance, just as another someone on the BB may be showing some arrogance, as described in the article:

“The conviction of a superior, literalistic approach to Bible interpretation can lead to a spiritual arrogance leading to a feeling of infallibility.”

You say the article was 'quite vague'. The writer was 'quite clear' in making a distinction between these two:

“Traditionally a literal hermeneutic referred to the grammatical-historical method, that is, interpreting the Bible as it presents itself. Nowadays, the use of the world "literal" by dispensationalists tends to mean the opposite of "figurative."”

Perhaps, if you haven't done so already, you should take a long look and see what dispensationalism, with it's grammatical-historical method of interpretation, has largely morphed into “nowadays”; a form of Christian Zionism which is hardly distinguishable from Jewish Zionism. Here in The States (don't know about Japan), this Christian Zionism (formerly premillennial dispensationalism) largely believes that “what Israel wants God wants, and every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised”. The tendency is to believe that harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel is crucial to America's survival, i.e. in order to be blessed and not cursed [Gen 12:3], in other words, anything short of blind, unconditional support of physical Israel is against the will of God. The Church of Christ is temporary, a “mere parenthesis”, and the nation of Israel tends to take front stage in their theology and their politics.

In short, dispensationalism, with it's grammatical-historical method of interpretation, has evolved to the point where the line between politics and religion has, to put it lightly, blurred.

Well did Sylvester Hassell warn, “the idea of a pre-millennial advent is Jewish in its origin, and Judaizing or materializing in its tendency; that it disparages the present, the dispensation of the Holy Ghost...”.

No thank you. I left sensationalism a long time ago. If I'm going to read commentators it'll be those like were mentioned in the article:

“ Whereas certain literalists have claimed that O.T. prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were all fulfilled literally, others have demonstrated this assertion to be false. Only 35% of such prophecies were literally fulfilled, the rest were typical or analogical fulfillments. Other inconsistencies are too numerous to mention, but have been abundantly documented by Allis, Berkhof, Bahnsen and Gentry, Cox, Crenshaw and Gunn, Fuller, Gentry, Gerstner, Grenz, Hoekema, Hughes, LaRondelle, and others.”

 

Oh no! What happened?

[edit]...oh, wait a minute, are you speaking literally, hyperbolically, allegorically, parabolically, metaphorically, typically, figuratively, or what?

 

Hahahahahahahahahahaha....:thumbsup::laugh::laugh:

 

For your consideration: go the the bookstore or library and get a book on English grammar and literary style. Show the world you consider the Bible to be a serious literary work.

When we were in grade school, diagraming sentences was a chore. But as adults, it is fun to discover the truth of the Word of God. When the Jehovahs Witness knocks on your door, you ask him/her to show you their version of the Bible, you do a fifth grade diagram of their translation of John 3:16 and let the diagram itself simply show them that their theology is either is wrong or their Bible teaches polytheism. No further arguement needed.

Do yourself a favor and teach yourself how to identify common literary devices and then react accordingly. Then when you run into statements like some of what we see in this thread, you will enjoy the humor and get back to more serious discussion.

Thomas

 

Just ignore him J.D., it's what I do. This sort of condenscending nastiness has become to be expected of his posts, and merit no acknowledgement on your part, in my opinion.