Literal Interpretation

[J.D.]

[If you cannot understand satire, please don't post in this thread. Thank you.]

Since many pious BB'ers profess to interpret the Bible literally as opposed to us apostate "allegorists", I propose that we "allegorists" repent and start interpreting the Bible in the wooden, materialistic sense that our superiors do.

I'll get the ball rolling and my fellow allegorists can add examples of their own repentance:

For as long as I can remember, I have interpreted Matthew 18:22 to mean that there is no limit to how many times we are to forgive our brother that repents. However, I now repent of that allegorism, and shall never forgive a brother after his four hundred and ninetieth sin.

What other scriptures should we allegorists be taking literally?

 

[quantumfaith]

Matthew 5:29

If we were to read this more literally, there should be exponentially more one eyed and no eyed men.

 

[J.D.]

Matthew 5:29

OUCH! That's going to hurt.

 

[quantumfaith]

OUCH! That's going to hurt.

Yes, I am going to invest in walking stick manufacturers.

 

[psalms109:31]

Parable

Allegory is a parable both have a lesson right? That we should get rid of the sin in our life at extreme measure, it is better than losing a body part.

Self mutilation is not loving yourself, getting rid of sin in our life is.

I am blessed how many time my wife as forgiven me and I have forgiven my kids and her. Getting rid of things that weigh us down that forgiving people would give us so much relief, than holding things against people. To forgive is not to agree with what they did, but takes a a weight off of our shoulder.

I do praise God when there is no one to turn to He is there so you have.

 

[mandym]

[If you cannot understand satire, please don't post in this thread. Thank you.]

Since many pious BB'ers profess to interpret the Bible literally as opposed to us apostate "allegorists", I propose that we "allegorists" repent and start interpreting the Bible in the wooden, materialistic sense that our superiors do.

I'll get the ball rolling and my fellow allegorists can add examples of their own repentance:

For as long as I can remember, I have interpreted Matthew 18:22 to mean that there is no limit to how many times we are to forgive our brother that repents. However, I now repent of that allegorism, and shall never forgive a brother after his four hundred and ninetieth sin.

What other scriptures should we allegorists be taking literally?

I must admit I do not understand just what is satire here and what the over all point is meant to be. Can you help out those who are not on your scholarly level?

 

[John of Japan]

[If you cannot understand satire, please don't post in this thread. Thank you.]

Since many pious BB'ers profess to interpret the Bible literally as opposed to us apostate "allegorists", I propose that we "allegorists" repent and start interpreting the Bible in the wooden, materialistic sense that our superiors do.

I'll get the ball rolling and my fellow allegorists can add examples of their own repentance:

For as long as I can remember, I have interpreted Matthew 18:22 to mean that there is no limit to how many times we are to forgive our brother that repents. However, I now repent of that allegorism, and shall never forgive a brother after his four hundred and ninetieth sin.

What other scriptures should we allegorists be taking literally?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's not allegorical interpretation. Matt. 18:22 is hyperbole, a literary device that should be interpreted as such--literally.

Have fun with your satire, but try to get your literary devices right. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[John of Japan]

Matthew 5:29

If we were to read this more literally, there should be exponentially more one eyed and no eyed men.

More hyperbole. Jesus was good with it. Even us literalists know not to interpret hyperbole literally. :sleep:

 

[quantumfaith]

More hyperbole. Jesus was good with it. Even us literalists know not to interpret hyperbole literally. :sleep:

Thanks John for the grammar lesson. Grammar is almost always difficult for us math majors.

 

[kyredneck]

...What other scriptures should we allegorists be taking literally?

Heheh, I would really like to see a lawyer eat a camel:

Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel! Mt 23:24


..and while we're on the topic of lawyers on a satirical thread:

Q: Know why sharks don't eat lawyers?
A: Professional courtesy.

Q: Know what's brown and black and looks good on a lawyer?
A: A Rottweiler.

Q: Know what the difference is between a catfish and a lawyer?
A: The one is a bottom feeding, scum sucking creature, the other is an edible fish.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks John for the grammar lesson. Grammar is almost always difficult for us math majors.

You mean...you mean, not everyone likes grammar??

 

[kyredneck]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's not allegorical interpretation. Matt. 18:22 is hyperbole, a literary device that should be interpreted as such--literally.

Have fun with your satire, but try to get your literary devices right. :smilewinkgrin:

Methinks you are straining out the gnat. J.D. is going by the definition given in this article:

“Nowadays, the use of the world "literal" by dispensationalists tends to mean the opposite of "figurative." This tendency to deny figurative interpretations is pursued so aggressively that some say dispensational literalism is more properly described as hyperliteralism.”

 

[John of Japan]

Heheh, I would really like to see a lawyer eat a camel:

Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel! Mt 23:24

"Move along, folks, nothing but more hyperbole here."

..and while we're on the topic of lawyers on a satirical thread:

Q: Know why sharks don't eat lawyers?
A: Professional courtesy.

Q: Know what's brown and black and looks good on a lawyer?
A: A Rottweiler.

Q: Know what the difference is between a catfish and a lawyer?
A: The one is a bottom feeding, scum sucking creature, the other is an edible fish.

:smilewinkgrin:

But the jokes were funny. :laugh:

 

[mandym]

Me thinks those who fail to use the literal interpretation method has no idea what it means and usually misrepresents it.

 

[kyredneck]

"Move along, folks, nothing but more hyperbole here." ...

....and more straining out gnats here....

 

[John of Japan]

Methinks you are straining out the gnat. J.D. is going by the definition given in this article:

“Nowadays, the use of the world "literal" by dispensationalists tends to mean the opposite of "figurative." This tendency to deny figurative interpretations is pursued so aggressively that some say dispensational literalism is more properly described as hyperliteralism.”

Either the writer of the article (which was quite vague), or someone on the BB, is showing great ignorance of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, which allows for the correct (non-literal) interpretation of all normal figures of speech and idioms.

I mean come on, we all learned this stuff in high school English, and it's laughable to me for people holding to allegorical interpretation to accuse literalists of being inconsistent because they interpret figures of speech like they learned in high school English! As Jack Benny used to say, "Really!!"

figure of speech (fîg´yer ùv spêch) noun
plural figures of speech
An expression such as a metaphor or simile or a device such as personification or hyperbole in which words are used in a nonliteral way to achieve an effect beyond the range of ordinary language. (Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

I mean really, the standard grammatical-historical textbooks deal fully with this stuff. Read Chapter VI of Paul Lee Tan's The Interpretation of Prophecy. Or if you want a more recent seminary text, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard) deals with the subject in various places.

Here's a quote from another standard text: "The literal interpretation of Scripture readily admits the very large place which figurative language has in the Scriptures, and Feinberg is correct when he writes that 'It is not true that [the literalists] require every single passage to be interpreted literally without exception'" (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Bernard Ramm, p. 141, quoting from Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism?, p. 27).

 

[John of Japan]

....and more straining out gnats here....

So...you think hyperbole as used by Christ is small stuff? And correctly identifying it as hyperbole is being picky?

 

[preacher4truth]

So...you think hyperbole as used by Christ is small stuff? And correctly identifying it as hyperbole is being picky?

Well, you're right on track here brother.

Not only do I think our grammar should be correct, and I believe JOJ here to be the one holding the correct position, but may I perhaps suggest to some that the cynicism that is held to, and toward and against others, among the allegorists, is unfortunate?

There is a seeming pessimism stemming from some who hold to this view of interpretation.

There seems to be a more optimistic attitude coming from the so-called "literalists."

- Peace

 

[psalms109:31]

Thanks John of Japan with Hyperbole understanding

John 2:
Jesus Clears the Temple Courts
13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[Psalm 69:9]

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”



They would strain out of water to avoid eating a unclean gnat and do bigger things like this turning God's house into a market.

 

[humblethinker]

Either the writer of the article (which was quite vague), or someone on the BB, is showing great ignorance of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, which allows for the correct (non-literal) interpretation of all normal figures of speech and idioms.

JoJ,
:thumbsup:So, Jesus, in a literal sense, at times was speaking figuratively!?! I agree with you and appreciate your contribution to this thread. I think, for me at least, the frustration is found when I hear 'literalists' (which I believe I am one, in the same sense that I understand you to be one) who do not take the hyperboles that Jesus employed as hyperboles. Same idea with the parables He used. I've heard some 'literalists' say that every parable that Jesus used were necessarily and actually true stories, rather than taking them as 'stories' told to make a specific point.

It seems to me that THESE 'literalists' are giving proper literalists a bad name.

sidenote: grammar, being a form of logic, is important. In a way it is unfortunate that my respect for the idea of grammar far exceeds my skill to use it. :BangHead::type::BangHead: