Hyperbole used by God?

[agedman]

...


It is God's Word just as much as the Ten Commandments were, written by the hand of God (an anthropomorphism) on stone. It is not some lesser Word of God.

So, the only way you can say that God never says hyperbole is if what John wrote in John 21:27 is somehow not the Word of God, or somehow less the Word of God than the Ten Commandments.

@agedman: Are you prepared to say that John 21:27 is somehow less of a statement from God than the Ten Commandments?

All that I cut from your post is agreeable, that is good.

Do not exercise too much over this matter of lesser.

Lesser, as I would use it in this thread, would not indicate a diminished capacity rather that of relationship of less or more specific to the author of Scriptures.

For example, John was inspired by God to include his thoughts (just as Paul as mentioned in the earlier post) however John was not the Christ. What he wrote was not lesser, nor does it have diminished authority, but the person quoted was not the author, but the recorder, the secretary, the scribe.

Now, in consider of John 21.

Although there is also no reason (as shared in another post) for the statement by John to be considered not factual in results seen throughout the age, yet the words “I suppose” make the statement to John’s consideration, and therefore, shouldn’t be taken as accomplished but a wondering.

However, in my opinion, I don’t see John making an outlandish statement or an exaggeration about the work of Christ. He is certainly not magnifying, embroidering, or embellishing the work of Christ. Is he using overkill, puffery, excess, exuberance, in some manner? No, so this does not conform the statement to hyperbole.

So, though one might off hand suggest hyperbole, I am not persuaded.

Rather, John is merely giving an opinion as he probably considered what all he had written, and what could be written, and is perhaps in awe, as the disciple who Jesus loved most certainly held precious memories, that so very, very much has been left untold.

Did not God seal up (as recorded in Scripture) and purposefully not give all details to the recorders?

Who then can say, “John used hyperbole?” For it could actually have been factual.

 

[agedman]

OK, how about addressing this? It has already been brought up. Twice. See posts #55 & #60.

Thought I had, but looking back didn’t, but I will.

 

[Jerome]

Hyperbole can be presented with a simile

This is false. A hyperbole is NOT a comparison and therefore cannot also be a simile.

Sigh.

Merriam-Webster • Rhetoric

"Many people claim that hyperbole, simile, and metaphor can’t possibly overlap, but that’s not true....'You’re as big as a whale' is both hyperbole and simile (and rude)."

From Kregel's Giving the Sense: Understanding Old Testament Texts :

"one notes the hyperbolic simile describing Solomon's wisdom in I Kings 4:29, where it is said to have been 'like the sand that is on the seashore'."

 

[John of Japan]

All that I cut from your post is agreeable, that is good.

Do not exercise too much over this matter of lesser.

Lesser, as I would use it in this thread, would not indicate a diminished capacity rather that of relationship of less or more specific to the author of Scriptures.

For example, John was inspired by God to include his thoughts (just as Paul as mentioned in the earlier post) however John was not the Christ. What he wrote was not lesser, nor does it have diminished authority, but the person quoted was not the author, but the recorder, the secretary, the scribe.

This explanation is not verbal inspiration. It is a doctrine called "thought inspiration," or as described by Lewis Sperry Chafer, "concept inspiration." So with this explanation you distance yourself from basic evangelical/fundamental doctrine.

Chafer wrote, "This hypothesis attempts to conceive of thoughts apart from words, the theory being that God imparted ideas but left the human author free to express them in his own language. Quite apart from the fact that ideas are not transferable by any other medium than words, this scheme ignores the immeasurable importance of words in any message" (Systematic theology, 1, 69).

Now, in consider of John 21.

Although there is also no reason (as shared in another post) for the statement by John to be considered not factual in results seen throughout the age, yet the words “I suppose” make the statement to John’s consideration, and therefore, shouldn’t be taken as accomplished but a wondering.

However, in my opinion, I don’t see John making an outlandish statement or an exaggeration about the work of Christ. He is certainly not magnifying, embroidering, or embellishing the work of Christ. Is he using overkill, puffery, excess, exuberance, in some manner? No, so this does not conform the statement to hyperbole.

So, though one might off hand suggest hyperbole, I am not persuaded.

Rather, John is merely giving an opinion as he probably considered what all he had written, and what could be written, and is perhaps in awe, as the disciple who Jesus loved most certainly held precious memories, that so very, very much has been left untold.

Did not God seal up (as recorded in Scripture) and purposefully not give all details to the recorders?

Obviously we can't even agree on the basic definition of "hyperbole," then. I've nothing left to say except that, if a Biblical hyperbole hit you in the face you would claim it was a flying fish.

Who then can say, “John used hyperbole?” For it could actually have been factual.

I can. "John used hyperbole." There you have it.

 

[Van]

This is a comparison, not an exaggeration. Therefore, not hyperbole.

More distinction without a difference nonsense. The hail stones hit the car like a ton of bricks. An example of a simile presenting hyperbole.

 

[Reformed1689]

More distinction without a difference nonsense. The hail stones hit the car like a ton of bricks. An example of a simile presenting hyperbole.

Except that is not a hyperbole.

 

[Reformed1689]

More distinction without a difference nonsense. The hail stones hit the car like a ton of bricks. An example of a simile presenting hyperbole.

Not a Hyperbole. A Hyperbole would be: "A ton of bricks hit my car during that hail storm."

 

[agedman]

@John of Japan

Can you prove John used hyperbole and was not factual in His presentation?

Or is it that you conjured up an excuse not to take John’s final statement in the account as other than exuberant exaggeration?

What do you actually use to separate fact and fiction, what you can get of your own intellect perceive, or is there some intellectual exercise, perhaps indigestion?

Seriously, @John of Japan, how and what method do you use.

Chafer was a theologian of note, but He was wrong on this area.

So, as a linguist, and theologian what determination did you use to arrive at your conclusion?

What makes it more valid then my own?

Perhaps you can persuade me.

 

[Van]

Liberals redefine words. An obvious exaggeration is hyperbole.

Many examples of hyperbole can be found in scripture. The use of hyperbole is not a lie.

 

[agedman]

Liberals redefine words. An obvious exaggeration is hyperbole.

And someone is arguing that statement?

 

[Van]

And someone is arguing that statement?

A certain poster claims hyperbole cannot be in the form of a simile or metaphor.

 

[agedman]

A certain poster claims hyperbole cannot be in the form of a simile or metaphor.

But, I don’t see your response as reliably rebutting.

But, it remains between you two. Not me.

 

[Van]

They ran like greased lightning.

A simile presenting hyperbole.

 

[Reformed1689]

They ran like greased lightning.

A simile presenting hyperbole.

Who ran like greased lightning? Last I checked, you didn't respond to my last post. A simile is not hyperbole by definition. They are not synonyms.

 

[Reformed1689]

They ran like greased lightning.

A simile presenting hyperbole.

Grammar school...

Simile, Metaphor, & Hyperbole Lesson & Worksheet - My Schoolhouse - Online Learning

Simile vs Hyperbole - ProTeacher Community

 

[agedman]

For the readers:

@John of Japan brought up “thought inspiration” and some of you may not be aware of this thinking.

Chafer lived from the late 1800’s to the 1950’s. A quiet man who lived the life of dedication and character in such a manner that others were remarkably impacted. He was expressly opposed to covenant eschatology.

Though highly regarded, not all he wrote is above critical analysis, and some took his writing and departed - especially in the sixties.

During the “Sixties” some scholars took Chafer’s thinking to the point of drawing serious credibility upon the veracity of Scriptures. I personally do not find anything agreeable with what some ran into the mire citing Chafer for their support.

I reacted quite strongly to the accusations presented because even a casual reader of my posts should be able to find no such support.

One of the great men of the Scriptures who recently passed gives a systematic review of the major views on inspiration, here.
Contemporary Problems in Biblical Interpretation—Part I: Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God? | Walvoord.com

I offer it to the readers as a “cliff note” review.

For the record;
I hold to “the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, in which ever word recorded was given by God (dictated) yet was not divorced from the Scribe’s style, person, ....
I do not hold to the strictest “dictation” view which removes the writing from presenting the personality of the Scribe, for such disembodied dictation cannot be supported by the Scriptures.

Btw, relying on previous posts made by @John of Japan, He also holds to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture. That he, too, is not strictest “dictation” view.

He and I would agree that the books of the Bible are written in stylistic manners in which the authorship character are also somewhat distinguishable.

Few if any serious scholars hold to the strict dictation view(s) anymore because the Scriptures don’t really grant support for such a manner in the writing analysis.

 

[agedman]

The premise of this thread is that neither God nor Christ directly communicate to humankind using exaggeration.

That every word from God and from Christ is accurate and is not embellished by overstatements, outlandishness, exaggeration, or any other form of hyperbole.

Though all other figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, personification ... may be used, forms of hyperbole are not.

Others statements recorded in Scriptures by other characters of Scriptures (such as David, Isaiah, ...) may certainly use hyperbole, but not direct quotes made by God (the Father) nor the Son (Christ).

 

[agedman]

Perhaps the clearest, most poignant case of biblical hyperbole is Luke 14:26: “'If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple,'" –Jesus (NIV).

"'If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple,'" –Jesus (KJV).

Beyond doubt this is hyperbole, because in the parallel passage in Matthew 10:37 Jesus says, “'Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me,'" –Jesus (NIV).

"'He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me,'" –Jesus (KJV).

Why not show at what point the Lord spoke in terms of hyperbole in any of the rendering of the same verse recorded in both Luke and Matthew?

Can't be done, because as Matthew verse points out this is not hyperbole but a matter of comparison of amount necessary.

The statement do not present wat is obviously outlandish, puffed, exaggerated, or any of the other forms of hyperbole.

Rather, it is the comparison of what devotion a believer must have to that of what the world expects.

For these verses to be hyperbole, they would need to be showing that the love of God or the love of relatives must be an exaggerated love, an outlandish love, a puffed up love...

They do not, therefore, hyperbole is not used.

I am very surprised that @John of Japan agrees with your analysis. He should perhaps reconsider his approval.

 

[Van]

Who ran like greased lightning? Last I checked, you didn't respond to my last post. A simile is not hyperbole by definition. They are not synonyms.

A simile can present hyperbole by definition. No one said they were synonyms.
They ran like greased lightning is a simile presenting hyperbole.

 

[agedman]

Well let's try this one God speaking of the Chaldean army,

They shall cut down her forest, saith the LORD, though it cannot be searched; because they are more than the grasshoppers, and are innumerable.
Jer 46:23

One dictionary definition even states the word many times is used in a hyperbolic way.

Or is your position rather that the Chaldean army that God is speaking about literally cannot be counted?

Perhaps you can show were the number of grasshoppers could not be numbered?

Again, just because in grasshoppers swarm and may appear innumerable to humans doesn't mean they cannot be counted, rather the truth is no account is given by God that the Chaldean army was not numbered by Him (not that God did not know the number of either grasshoppers or military people) therefore to humankind innumerable.

God is not stating something exaggerated, outlandish, overstated, puffed..., but factual. The people could not innumerate the Chaldean army anymore than they could count the number of grasshoppers in a swarm.

Because it does not meet the standard of that which is obviously overstated, exaggerated, presented as outlandish, puffed up, ... it is not hyperbole.