I try to see everything in both terms. I am not always successful at this, but it is what I try to do. Beyond that, I try to see everything from the perspective of what can I learn from this, what is the lesson, what does it tell me about life.
Oak, depends on whether you use Bullinger's Greek and Latin terminology, or Lamsa and Errico's Aramaic/mid-eastern terminology for Figures of Speech. The 2 did not always correspond with similarity. Not counting Pillai with his Hindi culture.
I read something funny in Bible Explorer's Guide by John Phillips, in a chapter on Figures of Speech in Scripture, pages 42, 43: "The importance of recognizing metaphor is illustrated in a well-known historical incident. Martin Luther, confronted by one of his dissenting colleagues, entered into a heated debate over an issue of Bible Doctrine. The subject under discussion was the real presence of the Lord in the "host," the communion bread. Roman Catholics claim that the moment the priest consecrates the bread it ceases to be bread and becomes the body, soul, and divinity of the Lord Jesus.
Martin Luther did not wholly free himself from that dogma and, like the Catholics, he supported his view with the verse, "This is My body." Luther's opponent, Zwingli, said, "He stubbornly insisted on taking this literally and at face value: 'If it says, "This is My body," then that is what it means, "This…is…My…body."' The bread becomes His body." After arguing with Luther in vain and pointing out that this was purely and simply a metaphor, Zwingli said at last, "very well, Martin, and what do you propose to do with the text, 'I am the door'?"
End of Excerpt
I do find Bullinger's Figures of Speech used in the Bible useful. What I think is sobering about the above incident is how we are all susceptible to making mistakes. I think Zwingli had it right – it was a metaphor. I'll have to agree with Abigail – I'm not always successful at recognizing it - or for that matter understanding what the figure means when I do spot one!
So - plain and simple - here's my approach. I'm not saying it's perfect or it's the right way or the only way. I read the Bible as I would any other book...with one little difference...my viewpoint...I believe it's God's Word and He's NOT trying to hide His message in there somewhere...
...I like the way John Stott said it in Understanding the Bible – read it for the natural sense. I may look into a Greek or Hebrew word later or check out what I think may be a figure of speech….There's some tough passages in there - stuff at the beginning of Genesis, strange things happening and weird beings in Ezekiel and Revelation...May never figure out what some of a lot of that stuff is talking about!!!!!! :blink:
I believe most people decide which is which in a subjective way. For example, Bullinger wrote about the figure hendiadys, but did not apply it to the "My Lord and my God" verse, because he was a trinitarian, while Wierwille did.
I agree with you Oakspear. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing though. What makes it bad is our often refusal to allow people to find their own path with God.
My own spiritual path is one of personal experience. I don't think it's reasonable that everybody's spirituality can be contained in a book, and that there can be only one "true" understanding of the divine.
I believe you the stories were happen it was God teaching his children Literally but you we read these stories it becomes Figurative teaching to us in ways
while it taught them in fleshly things that happen to the children living at the time it was live stories lessons
but when these same things are taught to us its a spiritual vission in our head
Recommended Posts
Abigail
I try to see everything in both terms. I am not always successful at this, but it is what I try to do. Beyond that, I try to see everything from the perspective of what can I learn from this, what is the lesson, what does it tell me about life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Oak, depends on whether you use Bullinger's Greek and Latin terminology, or Lamsa and Errico's Aramaic/mid-eastern terminology for Figures of Speech. The 2 did not always correspond with similarity. Not counting Pillai with his Hindi culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I read something funny in Bible Explorer's Guide by John Phillips, in a chapter on Figures of Speech in Scripture, pages 42, 43: "The importance of recognizing metaphor is illustrated in a well-known historical incident. Martin Luther, confronted by one of his dissenting colleagues, entered into a heated debate over an issue of Bible Doctrine. The subject under discussion was the real presence of the Lord in the "host," the communion bread. Roman Catholics claim that the moment the priest consecrates the bread it ceases to be bread and becomes the body, soul, and divinity of the Lord Jesus.
Martin Luther did not wholly free himself from that dogma and, like the Catholics, he supported his view with the verse, "This is My body." Luther's opponent, Zwingli, said, "He stubbornly insisted on taking this literally and at face value: 'If it says, "This is My body," then that is what it means, "This…is…My…body."' The bread becomes His body." After arguing with Luther in vain and pointing out that this was purely and simply a metaphor, Zwingli said at last, "very well, Martin, and what do you propose to do with the text, 'I am the door'?"
End of Excerpt
I do find Bullinger's Figures of Speech used in the Bible useful. What I think is sobering about the above incident is how we are all susceptible to making mistakes. I think Zwingli had it right – it was a metaphor. I'll have to agree with Abigail – I'm not always successful at recognizing it - or for that matter understanding what the figure means when I do spot one!
So - plain and simple - here's my approach. I'm not saying it's perfect or it's the right way or the only way. I read the Bible as I would any other book...with one little difference...my viewpoint...I believe it's God's Word and He's NOT trying to hide His message in there somewhere...
...I like the way John Stott said it in Understanding the Bible – read it for the natural sense. I may look into a Greek or Hebrew word later or check out what I think may be a figure of speech….There's some tough passages in there - stuff at the beginning of Genesis, strange things happening and weird beings in Ezekiel and Revelation...May never figure out what some of a lot of that stuff is talking about!!!!!! :blink:
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I believe most people decide which is which in a subjective way. For example, Bullinger wrote about the figure hendiadys, but did not apply it to the "My Lord and my God" verse, because he was a trinitarian, while Wierwille did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I agree with you Oakspear. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing though. What makes it bad is our often refusal to allow people to find their own path with God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Indeed.
My own spiritual path is one of personal experience. I don't think it's reasonable that everybody's spirituality can be contained in a book, and that there can be only one "true" understanding of the divine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Oakspear
God loves you my dear friend
I believe you the stories were happen it was God teaching his children Literally but you we read these stories it becomes Figurative teaching to us in ways
while it taught them in fleshly things that happen to the children living at the time it was live stories lessons
but when these same things are taught to us its a spiritual vission in our head
but who am I
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.