Understanding Literary Devices in the Bible

[SavedByGrace]

I am re-opening this thread - but
NO MORE personal insults!

You might didagree with an individual but
We don't need to be telling someone they are ignorant -
rather - just say you don't agree with their interpretation.

there are other examples - lets not get personal on these things.

So, lets get back to the OP - and discuss that -AND lets do it in a mature manner.

To give you a quick reqcap - - here is the first paragraph that Dr. Bob wrote:

Synecdoche is figure of speech in which a PART of something is used to signify the WHOLE (or vice-versa). In fact, it’s derived from the Greek word synekdoche: “simultaneous meaning.” As a literary device, synecdoche allows for a smaller component of something to stand in for the larger whole, in a rhetorical manner.

I trust we will act like mature Christians.

then YOU must lead by example, and quit posting silly comments as you have done in #33!

 

[Salty]

then YOU must lead by example, and quit posting silly comments as you have done in #33!

I trust you realize that my post was facetious! I was trying to make a point.
If you were not able to comprehend that - well not much I can say then.

Just because a person has an alphabet behind their name - does not mean they are perfect.
But normally, I will give that individual a good amount of credibility.

And FTR - I stand by my post I made in # 33.
and it is interesting the response given me!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I trust you realize that my post was facetious! I was trying to make a point.
If you were not able to comprehend that - well not much I can say then.

Just because a person has an alphabet behind their name - does not mean they are perfect.
But normally, I will give that individual a good amount of credibility.

And FTR - I stand by my post I made in # 33.
and it is interesting the response given me!

So why would you give a person who has a degree a good amount of credibility? They could be the highest educated and many letters after their name and be WRONG!

You need to read James when he talks about the well dressed and lowly who attended the same meal. You could learn something, but there again you may not.

Judge according to what you you read on here. If you have reason to question my abilities in languages then feel free to post these on here.

 

[Reformed1689]

So why would you give a person who has a degree a good amount of credibility? They could be the highest educated and many letters after their name and be WRONG!

You need to read James when he talks about the well dressed and lowly who attended the same meal. You could learn something, but there again you may not.

Judge according to what you you read on here. If you have reason to question my abilities in languages then feel free to post these on here.

And with no formal training, why should we assume you are correct OVER the Greek scholars? See how that works? You could be wrong too.

 

[SavedByGrace]

And with no formal training, why should we assume you are correct OVER the Greek scholars? See how that works? You could be wrong too.

Of course I could be wrong as I am not infallible.

My point is that scholarship should not be the yardstick in determination of if a person is right. As I have said before I have Greek books by the Greek scholars A T Robertson and G Winer, and even in their are wrong on some points of grammar. This has also been pointed out by John of Japan on Dr Bob being in error in the OP. but I don't read anything about this by you and others who are blinded by a person's position or education!

 

[Reformed1689]

This has also been pointed out by John of Japan on Dr Bob being in error in the OP. but I don't read anything about this by you and others who are blinded by a person's position or education!

I haven't spoken to his education. John called out specific examples and I agree with him. That being said, the point I believe the point trying to be made, based on the other thread that spawned this one, is that you oversimplify the blood of Christ.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I haven't spoken to his education. John called out specific examples and I agree with him. That being said, the point I believe the point trying to be made, based on the other thread that spawned this one, is that you oversimplify the blood of Christ.

My point being that Atonement for sins is only in the Blood of Jesus Christ. Though He had to die. JMs choice of words is wrong. Probably trying to be too clever

 

[Reformed1689]

My point being that Atonement for sins is only in the Blood of Jesus Christ. Though He had to die. JMs choice of words is wrong. Probably trying to be too clever

No, he is correct. It is the blood of his cross, not just his blood. His blood shed in a very specific way.

 

[SavedByGrace]

No, he is correct. It is the blood of his cross, not just his blood. His blood shed in a very specific way.

I have posted many times already, where JM says himself, that the bleeding of Jesus Christ does not save. How can this be right, when the Bible teaches that it does?

 

[SavedByGrace]

It is 23.00 here in England and I am off to bed. Tomorrow is a very busy and long day. I will try to respond.

 

[Iconoclast]

It is 23.00 here in England and I am off to bed. Tomorrow is a very busy and long day. I will try to respond.

No rush....

 

[Iconoclast]

I know there are several different types of speech used in the bible,
But I find they often blur and mix together In my mind.
Sometimes I am trying to get through a large portion of scripture and do not pause long enough to figure it out.
Sometimes you lose some clarity on a passage by doing that.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Another thought on literary devices (since I'm accused of pedantry) and share on how these devices are part and parcel of the Hebrew, Greek and English (receptor) language that will help us properly interpreting God's Word.

Baptists always say WE interpret the Bible "literally" (word for word) while other denominations look at it allegorically, mystically, church traditionally, figuratively, etc. The thing that is missed by some Baptists is that WITH "literal" meaning it must include . . .

1) HISTORICAL Interpretation - the Author had One Thought in Mind
Veracity of God demands only one meaning God's purpose is clear communication. Each word/verse/passage has only one correct interpretation, but that truth may have many applications.

2) CONTEXTUAL Interpretation - Words Have a Variety of Possible Meaning
Words must be understood as they were when written 2000 years ago. The same original word might be translated by a number of English "synonyms" while different Greek or Hebrew words might be translated by the same English word, losing the nuances and shades of meaning
Words must be studied within the context in which they are found - immediate context, close context, multipurpose context, general context, and overall context: how the Book fits into Biblical revelation

3) GRAMMATICAL Interpretation - Grammar (interpreted literally) contains hundreds of elements of language such as
Metaphor - comparison of items
Simile - use "like" or "as"
Personification - attributing a personal nature to inanimate objects or abstract notions
Synecdoche - substituting a part for the whole
Hyperbole - obvious exaggeration for effect
Idiom/Colloquialism - sayings or phrase from a region or literature with meanings other than a common definition
Euphemism - substitution of mild or vague expression for a harsher
Fable - story to teach moral truth obviously not based on fact
Allegory - figurative treatment of spiritual subjects by physical or concrete forms
Parable - earthly story to serve as a 'window' thrown alongside to encase a deeper spiritual overtone
and scores more. And many figures of speech can be classified in 2, 3 or 4 ways, so that much be understood, too.

 

[Salty]

then YOU must lead by example, and quit posting silly comments as you have done in #33!

In post 33, I stated that my doctor has never been to medical school.

Let me get this straight - you told me that my post 33 was silly - yet you made the following statement in post # 35 - So which is it - its silly to go to a doctor who never went to med school - or some know more who never went to Med School.

and there are MANY in real life who are self-taught, and know MORE than those to went to med school!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have heard many a excellent sermon is Churches that I have visited on the years, that were preached by men who have never been to Bible college, and they are far better Biblically, than those who did go! The Holy Spirit is the BEST Teacher, as He alone leads us into His Truth.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Another thought on literary devices (since I'm accused of pedantry) and share on how these devices are part and parcel of the Hebrew, Greek and English (receptor) language that will help us properly interpreting God's Word.

Baptists always say WE interpret the Bible "literally" (word for word) while other denominations look at it allegorically, mystically, church traditionally, figuratively, etc. The thing that is missed by some Baptists is that WITH "literal" meaning it must include . . .

1) HISTORICAL Interpretation - the Author had One Thought in Mind
Veracity of God demands only one meaning God's purpose is clear communication. Each word/verse/passage has only one correct interpretation, but that truth may have many applications.

2) CONTEXTUAL Interpretation - Words Have a Variety of Possible Meaning
Words must be understood as they were when written 2000 years ago. The same original word might be translated by a number of English "synonyms" while different Greek or Hebrew words might be translated by the same English word, losing the nuances and shades of meaning
Words must be studied within the context in which they are found - immediate context, close context, multipurpose context, general context, and overall context: how the Book fits into Biblical revelation

3) GRAMMATICAL Interpretation - Grammar (interpreted literally) contains hundreds of elements of language such as
Metaphor - comparison of items
Simile - use "like" or "as"
Personification - attributing a personal nature to inanimate objects or abstract notions
Synecdoche - substituting a part for the whole
Hyperbole - obvious exaggeration for effect
Idiom/Colloquialism - sayings or phrase from a region or literature with meanings other than a common definition
Euphemism - substitution of mild or vague expression for a harsher
Fable - story to teach moral truth obviously not based on fact
Allegory - figurative treatment of spiritual subjects by physical or concrete forms
Parable - earthly story to serve as a 'window' thrown alongside to encase a deeper spiritual overtone
and scores more. And many figures of speech can be classified in 2, 3 or 4 ways, so that much be understood, too.

There are three main classes of Bible translations.

The "word for word", sometimes called "literal translations", like the KJV, YLT, NASB, ESV, etc, which try to give the literal rendering of the Hebrew and Greek, with the best English equivalent words.

Then we have the "thought for thought" , also known as "dynamic equivalent" translations, like the NIV, NAB, NRSV, etc, where the translators attempt to distinguish the meaning of a text from its form and then translate the meaning, as they judge best.

Then there are the "paraphrases", like LB, GNT, CEV, etc, where the translators use words or phrases that try to "explain" what the text says, with their own meanings to the passages.

 

[Reformed1689]

I have posted many times already, where JM says himself, that the bleeding of Jesus Christ does not save. How can this be right, when the Bible teaches that it does?

You have posted many times an out of context statement. JM talks about it is the blood of his cross.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You have posted many times an out of context statement. JM talks about it is the blood of his cross.

Man! You keep on saying out of context and yet I have merely transcribed JMs actual words from the video

 

[Reformed1689]

Man! You keep on saying out of context and yet I have merely transcribed JMs actual words from the video

Yeah 3 seconds of a 4 minute video

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yeah 3 seconds of a 4 minute video

Why does time matter to you and not content?