Hyperbole used by God?

[OnlyaSinner]

If John used any form of hyperbole (outlandishness, puffery, exaggeration, overstatement, ...) then what prevents large portions of Johns account of the future to be taken at the reader’s will in such manner? (snipped from Agedman's #106)

The straight face test.
One useful if simple principle of Bible interpretation is this: If the plain sense of the Bible makes common sense, seek no other sense. A necessary corollary is that when the plain sense doesn't make common sense, one looks to figurative and/or symbolic language for explanation. For the intended audience of John's Gospel (humanity), those verses in John 21 clearly do not make common sense. However, the vast proportion of scripture can be interpreted using the first rule, above, and though there are passages that can seem ambiguous to us sinful pea-brained humans, it's almost always clear when the corollary should be applied.

The virgin birth: If Isaiah 7:14 were the only mention of this phenomenon, folks would undoubtedly look to figurative/symbolic interpretation. However, Matthew and Luke make it abundantly clear that what's written in Isaiah is totally factual. Except for those who deny biblical inerrancy, none of whom seem to be posting in this thread, there should arise no confusion over these accounts, or the verses in John 21.

Rabbit trail on John 21 by an arithmetic lover piqued by JoJ's grad student: My wide-margin Bible is about 10" by 8". Simple arithmetic shows that it would take 50 million (give or take a few thousand) to cover one square mile with a single layer. Assuming 4,000 miles as the radius of the Earth (it's close, but neither exact nor uniform), the planet's surface area comes to just over 200 million square miles - more, actually, due to topography but 200 mm is the KISS number. Therefore, a single layer of that size book would use 50 quadrillion (50,000 trillion), and my home and office both exhibit extreme stacking. If John was referring to Jesus' acts during His 33-year incarnation, as I think he was, it's clearly hyperbolic. If, however, John was thinking of all that Jesus did starting in eternity past - including all the facets of creation in full detail - John's statement would be factual.

 

[Revmitchell]

If the “entire premise ... is wrong” then you would have no problem presenting quotes used by God.

Your logical fallacy not withstanding, you appear to have missed my point.

 

[agedman]

Your logical fallacy not withstanding, you appear to have missed my point.

Amazing how you would ascribe my presentation as faulty, when by participation you then must be engaging in that which you accredit to me.

If the thread is a faulty presentation and wasted time better spent on more physical activities, does not your participation present to your own presence that same rebuke of that which you would place upon others?

 

[agedman]

Back to the thread.

There have been some very good attempts at showing how both God and Christ perhaps used hyperbole in their direct communication with humankind.

However, (there always seems to be a however) not all the available Scriptures have been pursued.

Is there another (one not yet posted) communication directly from God given to humankind in which one might show hyperbole used (more specific to the OP the use of exaggeration).

 

[Revmitchell]

Amazing how you would ascribe my presentation as faulty, when by participation you then must be engaging in that which you accredit to me.

If the thread is a faulty presentation and wasted time better spent on more physical activities, does not your participation present to your own presence that same rebuke of that which you would place upon others?

You have a habit of the same logical fallacy. In this case you have engaged in two of them which would be "tu quoque" and "casual fallacy".

 

[agedman]

You have a habit of the same logical fallacy. In this case you have engaged in two of them which would be "tu quoque" and "casual fallacy".

I will bow to your expertise on the use and understanding of fallacy.

 

[agedman]

“I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”


This is possibly one of the most endearing and enduring promises Christ made to the Apostles and by extension to all believers.

An OT prophet proclaimed:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.​

Pertaining to the thread were the statement hyperbole possibly considered hyperbole at the time given?

If so, what changed?

If not, why?

How does that impact the thinking of other statements some present as hyperbole spoken by God and Christ?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

AM, you completely failed to address the point, so let me spell it out for you. Jesus did not literally mean for all of his followers to hate their mothers and fathers, etc. It is as you said a matter of degree of love, as shown in his straight forward statement of the same principle in another passage. Disciples must love Jesus more. The hyperbole is in using the term “hate.” If you teach that all disciples should literally hate their parents, spouses, children, or siblings, then you are in serious error.

But another problem, and it is a very serious one indeed, is the unilateral attempt to redefine the well-established and clearly understood meaning of hyperbole, and its use. It is dishonest to so mangle and misuse language in a serious discussion. Surely you can do better.

 

[Reformed1689]

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

No it isn't. Good grief, even when presented with definitions and examples you still think a simile can be hyperbole. It isnt

 

[John of Japan]

As my long dead professor of psychology and counseling would point out, this post is a display of avoidance.

Sorry, but I have not the slightest ounce of care about what your psychology prof would think of my post.

Do you hold that The Apostle John was also a forth-teller like unto the OT prophets, but more in that he was physically carried into that place and shown exactly what to write and not to write?

How is this relevant to your OP? But I'll answer it, since I teach eschatology (not psychology; thank you Lord). John was both a forth teller and foreteller (both are needed for a definition of OT prophecy), and in this way like the OT prophets, but he was a NT prophet.

Do you hold that John’s writing reflects accurately with out hyperbole all God gave him to write?

Are you kidding me? Have you paid no attention at all to what I have written? John used hyperbole in John 21:25 and no, it wasn't lying. It was a figure of speech.

Seriously, a beloved prof of mine is showing signs of short term memory loss. And my father had Alzheimer's. It goes with being an "aged man." I am being serious and compassionate, not picking on you, when I say maybe you should get checked out.

If not, then at what point does one determine the outlandish, the exaggeration, the overstatement, the puffery... does not include the very foundations of the fundamentals?

Here we go again. Way back in Post #9 I gave this definition of hyperbole: "In rhetoric, a figure of speech representing an obvious exaggeration" (Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 94). Yet here you are asking again.

Hyperbole is obvious, so it is not lying. Lying is purposeful deceit. Hyperbole is not deceit and not lying.

 

[agedman]

AM, you completely failed to address the point, so let me spell it out for you. Jesus did not literally mean for all of his followers to hate their mothers and fathers, etc. It is as you said a matter of degree of love, as shown in his straight forward statement of the same principle in another passage. Disciples must love Jesus more. The hyperbole is in using the term “hate.” If you teach that all disciples should literally hate their parents, spouses, children, or siblings, then you are in serious error.

But another problem, and it is a very serious one indeed, is the unilateral attempt to redefine the well-established and clearly understood meaning of hyperbole, and its use. It is dishonest to so mangle and misuse language in a serious discussion. Surely you can do better.

First, all uses of the word “hate” in the Scripture that I have research is not presented as an opposite to love, but that which is not best or not of love. These are my own terms but the idea of the English use of opposites is not truly the presentation. The most common is found in God’s statement concerning Esau. But that is totally for another thread.

Second, I in no manner am “redefining” hyperbole. Frankly, if one wants to consider common definitions, it doesn’t change the premise of this thread.

 

[Van]

No it isn't. Good grief, even when presented with definitions and examples you still think a simile can be hyperbole. It isnt

My simile presenting hyperbole demonstrates your capricious definition is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

 

[Reformed1689]

My simile presenting hyperbole demonstrates your capricious definition is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

All it presents is that you don't know what a hyperbole is and what it is not.

 

[Reformed1689]

Since @Van needs a little education:

Enhance Your Writing With These 6 Types of Figurative Language

What is a metaphor, simile, hyperbole, irony, alliteration, and imagery? | Socratic

From this second link:

A hyperbole is extreme exaggeration.

*Not to be confused with similes and metaphors because hyperbole's do not make comparisons, they just create an overstatement that cannot be taken seriously

 

[Van]

All it presents is that you don't know what a hyperbole is and what it is not.

Did anyone say hyperbole is a simile? Nope, but a simile can present hyperbole. They ran like greased lightning.

 

[Reformed1689]

Did anyone say hyperbole is a simile? Nope, but a simile can present hyperbole. They ran like greased lightning.

Yes that is your way of saying a simile can be hyperbole. It can't. It doesn't present hyperbole either. There is no such thing. Something is either hyperbole or it isn't.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

First, all uses of the word “hate” in the Scripture that I have research is not presented as an opposite to love, but that which is not best or not of love. These are my own terms but the idea of the English use of opposites is not truly the presentation. The most common is found in God’s statement concerning Esau. But that is totally for another thread.

Second, I in no manner am “redefining” hyperbole. Frankly, if one wants to consider common definitions, it doesn’t change the premise of this thread.

From your own links:

Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis. In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.

Hyperbole--exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.​

No one here would suggest that God uses language to lie or deceive, no matter what rhetorical devices he employs. So, we could agree that God does not use “agedman hyperbole.”

Some people have a harder time than others with non-literal rhetorical devices. They may need special teachers whom they feel they can trust to help them, just as unfamiliar idioms can require explanation in general. I sense you are such a person, but I’m not such a teacher.

 

[agedman]

Sorry, but I have not the slightest ounce of care about what your psychology prof would think of my post.

.

Didn't really think you would, but thought I would bring it up anyway.

How is this relevant to your OP? But I'll answer it, since I teach eschatology (not psychology; thank you Lord). John was both a forth teller and foreteller (both are needed for a definition of OT prophecy), and in this way like the OT prophets, but he was a NT prophet.

This we are in agreement. Unlike the other Apostles, John was given to both experience and record.

Are you kidding me? Have you paid no attention at all to what I have written? John used hyperbole in John 21:25 and no, it wasn't lying. It was a figure of speech.

If you want to cling to John using hyperbole, then you can find yourself in good company, but that does not oblige me to conform. I do not hold that as factual, but opinion. However, it is evident that you do not grant me that privilege even though I have shown in multiple posts some of why I have opinion.

To be more specific, you point to the improbability of the statement to be factual, even when your own student and others have shown that it is in deed a matter that could have been accomplished. I pointed out that the probability was similar to other statements in particular to the virgin birth. To the human such was impossible, but with God it was not. So, did John use hyperbole, or has the printing of the Bible become so prolific as to actually cover the world? I don't know, but your view is no more supportable than mine, other than by opinion of others.

Seriously, a beloved prof of mine is showing signs of short term memory loss. And my father had Alzheimer's. It goes with being an "aged man." I am being serious and compassionate, not picking on you, when I say maybe you should get checked out.

Well, it isn't to that point, but my short term memory is very poor. I do so appreciate your insight. There is little to say on the subject, but God is always good. One reason I consistently call for peer review of any translation work I present on the BB is I no longer trust my memory. Threads like this one are helpful because the extended engagement helps to retread the memory traces of recall. John, your sweet concern is tenderly received.

Not to probe to hurt, and if the question is not appropriate leave it or respond privately, did your dad remain temperamentally the same, or did he become obstinate, combative, overly sensitive, moody, depressive, and a number of other difficulties family face with Alzheimer's?

Here we go again. Way back in Post #9 I gave this definition of hyperbole: "In rhetoric, a figure of speech representing an obvious exaggeration" (Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 94). Yet here you are asking again.

Hyperbole is obvious, so it is not lying. Lying is purposeful deceit. Hyperbole is not deceit and not lying.

I tend to be more defiant and obstinate when it comes to things and thinking, so when I see exaggeration, overstatement, ... even in comedic performance and literature when it is not to be taken seriously, I still consider it a lie. The world claiming it as a figure of speech, not to be taken seriously, is compounding the excusing of what is wrong.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" didn't get an exclusion clause, "except in the case of figures of speech."

We used to call them "white lies" or "storying" perhaps speaking "evangelistically." It was publicly polite to overlook such and smile in agreement. To read such in literature was approved and educators smoothed over the sting by discrediting anyone holding to a lie being a lie as just ignorant and fools. One would laugh at foolishness, and call such lies not really lies, and that such is really good.

Others made ruinous by excusing as hyperbole anything that didn't seem obviously factual rather than obviously fanciful. Doing so, they often would soon call into question the miracles, the virgin birth, even the crucifixion and resurrection, much more the statements concerning the eschatology. No standard for hyperbole was in the eye of the reader, the professors of truth turned everything to myth, and all because lies were excused.

So, certainly, I do not extend the excuse of hyperbole being not a lie but that which is good. Such is basically dishonest with truth.

It is a lie, it is obviously a lie in which the public want to give a pass, and call it using a "figure of speech."

This thread, as the OP stated the parameters, seeks to find passages in which God and Christ used such a "figure of speech." It has taken the side that no such passage can be found.

It matters very little if folks don't like that I or anyone else considers or not that a lie is a lie (intended or not), it matters that God does, and if God and Christ use such in direct communication with humankind such a figure of speech then God excuses liars (intended or not).

Was Christ using hyperbole in John 8:44?

 

[John of Japan]

.
To be more specific, you point to the improbability of the statement to be factual, even when your own student and others have shown that it is in deed a matter that could have been accomplished. I pointed out that the probability was similar to other statements in particular to the virgin birth. To the human such was impossible, but with God it was not. So, did John use hyperbole, or has the printing of the Bible become so prolific as to actually cover the world? I don't know, but your view is no more supportable than mine, other than by opinion of others.

No, my student did not show that John 21:25 was "a matter that could have been accomplished. He showed that it was hyperbole, humanly impossible, because that is exactly what he and I were talking about. If it would take 5 quadrillion books to only make one layer, and the world could not contain the books that were written, and Jesus only lived 33 years on the earth, then to write down every single second of His human life would not begin to fill the earth.

Not to probe to hurt, and if the question is not appropriate leave it or respond privately, did your dad remain temperamentally the same, or did he become obstinate, combative, overly sensitive, moody, depressive, and a number of other difficulties family face with Alzheimer's?

Dad stayed pretty sweet, and never forgot his faith in Jesus or his call to preach. In his final hospitalization, when Mom checked him in and asked what she should put down for religion, he said, "I don't have a religion, I have a Savior!" Then, he led singing for some old folk, which they liked, then tried to preach to them. When some started to walk out he said to my Mom, "Don't let them leave, I want to preach to them!"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" didn't get an exclusion clause, "except in the case of figures of speech."

This is one of the most misquoted verses in the Bible. "False witness" is not the same as simply lying. False witness can destroy your neighbor's entire life, putting him in jail until he dies or wrecking his reputation, but lying, wrong though it is, is not the same. False witness is the most serious kind of lying.

We used to call them "white lies" or "storying" perhaps speaking "evangelistically." It was publicly polite to overlook such and smile in agreement. To read such in literature was approved and educators smoothed over the sting by discrediting anyone holding to a lie being a lie as just ignorant and fools. One would laugh at foolishness, and call such lies not really lies, and that such is really good.

My mother used hyperbole all the time: "If I told you once I told you a 1000 times...." She was not lying and she was not a liar. Once again, hyperbole is not lying. I'm tired of saying that--are you going to call my mother a liar because she had not actually told me something 1000 times? You're view that hyperbole is lying is calling a lot of good godly people "liar."

Was Christ using hyperbole in John 8:44?

No.

 

[agedman]

From your own links:

Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis. In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.

Hyperbole--exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.​

No one here would suggest that God uses language to lie or deceive, no matter what rhetorical devices he employs. So, we could agree that God does not use “agedman hyperbole.”

Some people have a harder time than others with non-literal rhetorical devices. They may need special teachers whom they feel they can trust to help them, just as unfamiliar idioms can require explanation in general. I sense you are such a person, but I’m not such a teacher.

So, you consider sometimes it is good to lie just because it isn't "to be taken literally" and therefore is excused.

So, let's put this "figure of speech" thinking to a test in your own life experience.

Do you actually trust folks who are known to exaggerate, be outlandish, use overstatements?

How do you view folks known for exaggeration, overstatement, outlandish claims? Folks such as used car salesman, preachers, evangelists, missionaries, politicians, funeral directors, ... who are known to "stretch the truth," make outlandish claims, overstate results, exaggerate effects, use puffery to schmooze, ...

Do you view them as liars? Christ did. See John 8:44

What do you call such as use hyperbole? Liars, or do you trust their statements completely without any reservation and give all you possess into their keeping?

If Christ regularly, occasionally or even rarely used hyperbole, would that present His character as credible and reliable?

Just because it is written down (literature) doesn't make the use any less a lie, except that by adopting the worldly standard of what is right believers then can make excuse for their own exuberant expressiveness.

This thread sought to find whether God and Christ used overstatement, exaggeration, outlandish statements, puffery, ... but so far it seems that more folks are wanting to argue with me over what constitutes a lie.

Is it not true, that the enemy of believers is the Father of all lies and liars? What place has such in the mouth and witness of believers? That some actually excuse as if it were some literary contrivance mocks the very decalogue.

Yet, perhaps God and Christ do.

That was what this thread hoped to discover.

I took a strong specific stand.

It seems to have offended.

Wow, at first I was taken back, now I puzzle, why folks have such standard.