Hyperbole used by God?

[Rockson]

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

What? I don't get your reasoning. I'm the one advocating that God at times uses hyperbole at times and there's nothing deceptive about it when it's a given that those who hear KNOW it's just meant as an expression.

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.

So you're swinging this direction that's it's actually true....even Israel couldn't give an actual count of the army. But even with that that's not something you could prove.

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

Well OK but I can't say that I agree with you. It is hyperbole plain and simple.

 

[John of Japan]

@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?

Actually, one of my students did so recently. He calculated the number of books it would take to cover the entire earth with just one layer of books (not the amount John stated), and it was an incredible number of trillions and trillions times trillions of trillions. It was such a huge number that Christ would have had to be incarnated trillions of times to have enough books written about His 33 years on the earth to cover even one layer on the earth.

If you want to go ahead telling yourself that John was factual in 21:26, and did not use hyperbole, no skin off my nose!

 

[John of Japan]

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.

I'm glad to read this. Your post that I commented on saying you took the position of thought inspiration was very misleading to me. I apologize if I have offended, but there was ample reason in your post for me to believe you took that position.

 

[Jerome]

The premise I work from is that, 1) because God cannot lie, and by extension, Christ could not lie, and 2) because hyperbole is in fact "stretching the truth" (a lie), then it remains that neither God the Father, nor the Son would ever nor could they use hyperbole..

Sigh.

Ligonier • Basic Literary Forms

"hyperbole is an intentional exaggeration used to make a point. It is not the same as a lie or a distortion because the speaker expects his audience to understand that he is exaggerating the truth in order to make a point — not that he is giving a specific statement of fact. One clear example of the use of hyperbole in Scripture is Jesus’ parable about the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32). In this parable, He says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all the seeds. It is well known, however, that there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed. Thus, if we do not understand the use of hyperbole we might think that Jesus is teaching error. The use of hyperbole, however, demonstrates that Jesus’ primary point in this parable is not to give a precise, horticultural fact."

 

[Revmitchell]

Hyperbole is not a lie and it is absurd to suggest that it is in any form. Some people have too much time on their hands. God mow the lawn or plant some flowers, anything.

 

[agedman]

Actually, one of my students did so recently. He calculated the number of books it would take to cover the entire earth with just one layer of books (not the amount John stated), and it was an incredible number of trillions and trillions times trillions of trillions. It was such a huge number that Christ would have had to be incarnated trillions of times to have enough books written about His 33 years on the earth to cover even one layer on the earth.

If you want to go ahead telling yourself that John was factual in 21:26, and did not use hyperbole, no skin off my nose!

Ok, so the number can be calculated. Not certain what dimensions the student used for a “book,” but taking your view of a hyperbole used by John actually does not disprove the basic premise of the OP.

Look at the following to see why we may have difference.

John was also as an Old Testament prophet a forth-teller.

That is unlike any other writers included in the NT, John wrote extensively that which He was told to write concerning the future.

However, unlike the OT prophets, John shares how he experienced the future and wrote of his own reactions as well as the surroundings. A most wonderful and precise account unlike any other writer. But so it is in his letters and his account of the life of Christ. Always precise, always comparing and contrasting. The single hyperbole of all John’s writing comes from accurately recording the statement of the high priest, not John and not Christ. John 3 used no hyperbole nor any other direct statement by Christ or John.

So, the problem then comes, if taking your view as accurate, at what point was John not completely factual?

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?

The understand that the validity of the whole is discredited if hyperbole is found in one part? If the dissertation contains hyperbole by the author, it discredits the whole work. The author may certainly quote others that use hyperbole, but for the author to be taken seriously, they cannot include hyperbole in their statements. Can you trust the authoritative writing one who exaggerates, is outlandish, uses puffery and overstatements ... even if such is obvious?

John did not just see the future but he was involved, he was there when the action took place. Far more than any OT prophet, John physically experienced the whole. In awe, he was commanded what to write and what not to write. He was precise.

The standard for this thread is that The Father nor Son ever use hyperbole (especially exaggeration) in direct statements to humankind. To do so would call into question the validity and precision of any statement made and in particular about both redemption and future.

How might claiming God used hyperbole effect the whole communication from Him?

The messenger of God came to Mary. Was that message hyperbole?

Consider, the validity of the virgin birth, and then reflect upon the thinking of hyperbole as it relates to John’s statement (for John was a future teller prophet). If one removes the validity of precision from a single statement from God, the precision of all statements then are able to be called into question. And Luke wasn’t a prophet as John, yet you would take Luke more factual then John?

That confuses me. Do virgins ever conceive? Does water ever turn to wine? Do dead ever rise? Does water ever cover the whole earth? Could all written about Christ cover the whole earth?

If not one fact, all facts come into question.

And John used the qualifier “I suppose” which further lends credence to his precision and not the use of obvious exaggeration.

 

[agedman]

Sigh.

Ligonier • Basic Literary Forms

"hyperbole is an intentional exaggeration used to make a point. It is not the same as a lie or a distortion because the speaker expects his audience to understand that he is exaggerating the truth in order to make a point — not that he is giving a specific statement of fact. One clear example of the use of hyperbole in Scripture is Jesus’ parable about the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32). In this parable, He says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all the seeds. It is well known, however, that there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed. Thus, if we do not understand the use of hyperbole we might think that Jesus is teaching error. The use of hyperbole, however, demonstrates that Jesus’ primary point in this parable is not to give a precise, horticultural fact."

You are adopting the thinking of Charles Lyell who clung to Darwin.

Currently, there are seeds (particular to orchids) smaller, but these were after the time of Christ and were not contemporary with the people Christ spoke. “Specialization” seeds of today do not count.

So no, He did not use hyperbole.

 

[John of Japan]

Ok, so the number can be calculated. Not certain what dimensions the student used for a “book,” but taking your view of a hyperbole used by John actually does not disprove the basic premise of the OP.

Actually it does.

Look at the following to see why we may have difference.

John was also as an Old Testament prophet a forth-teller.

That is unlike any other writers included in the NT, John wrote extensively that which He was told to write concerning the future.

Sounds like you are mixing up the Apostle John (apostles are strictly NT) with John the Baptist. Otherwise, there is no way to call the Apostle John an OT prophet, since the books he wrote are all NT.

 

[agedman]

Hyperbole is not a lie and it is absurd to suggest that it is in any form. Some people have too much time on their hands. God mow the lawn or plant some flowers, anything.

It is an obvious lie of exaggeration, outlandishness, overstatement, puffery... that so obvious it is unbelievable.

But never the less a lie.

Of course preachers used to call such “evangelically speaking.”

 

[agedman]

Actually it does.


Sounds like you are mixing up the Apostle John (apostles are strictly NT) with John the Baptist. Otherwise, there is no way to call the Apostle John an OT prophet, since the books he wrote are all NT.

So, John was not the writer of the Revelation?

I did not state John was an OT prophet, but was as an Old Testament prophet.

 

[Jerome]

The premise I work from is that, 1) because God cannot lie, and by extension, Christ could not lie, and 2) because hyperbole is in fact "stretching the truth" (a lie), then it remains that neither God the Father, nor the Son would ever nor could they use hyperbole

Sigh.

Please learn from Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture...

[In Tropologia, one of Benjamin Keach’s most famous works, he provides a helpful guide to the various figures of speech used in Scripture, noting that the main scope of his work is “to offer some assistance towards the explaining and finding out the true sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures.” First explaining and distinguishing various elements used—such as type, simile, metaphor, synecdoche, hyperbole, and parable—Keach aids readers in identifying these important literary devices, and understanding them in interpretation of the Bible.]

Keach explains hyperbole:

"Hyperbole....This kind of speech is calculated more to make expressions efficacious and powerful, than with any purpose to deceive, for that would be utterly inconsistent with the goodness and truth of the most blessed God."

and notes that Christ indeed used hyperbole:

"Matth. 5.29. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it out from thee, ver. 30. If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; &c. Christ would not have a man maim his body, but by this hyperbolical precept, intimates, the great heinousness, and extreme danger of scandal or offence, and that we are by any means to avoid it, and part from all occasions of giving it."

 

[agedman]

What? I don't get your reasoning. I'm the one advocating that God at times uses hyperbole at times and there's nothing deceptive about it when it's a given that those who hear KNOW it's just meant as an expression.



So you're swinging this direction that's it's actually true....even Israel couldn't give an actual count of the army. But even with that that's not something you could prove.



Well OK but I can't say that I agree with you. It is hyperbole plain and simple.

The problem is not that God could not number or know the amount, but that the people were not given the capacity.

God did not use hyperbole, He was factual.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is an obvious lie of exaggeration, outlandishness, overstatement, puffery... that so obvious it is unbelievable.

But never the less a lie.

Of course preachers used to call such “evangelically speaking.”

You either do not know what a lie is at all or you have an odd definition of a lie or you do not understand the use of hyperbole. You having started this thread has exposed your ignorance on this matter. If you continue to push it you only work to further embarrass yourself. Do you have a lawn mower?

 

[agedman]

Sigh.

Reproof from none other than Benjamin Keach, in Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture...

[In Tropologia, one of Benjamin Keach’s most famous works, he provides a helpful guide to the various figures of speech used in Scripture, noting that the main scope of his work is “to offer some assistance towards the explaining and finding out the true sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures.” First explaining and distinguishing various elements used—such as type, simile, metaphor, synecdoche, hyperbole, and parable—Keach aids readers in identifying these important literary devices, and understanding them in interpretation of the Bible.]

"Hyperbole....This kind of speech is calculated more to make expressions efficacious and powerful, than with any purpose to deceive, for that would be utterly inconsistent with the goodness and truth of the most blessed God."

and Keach notes that Christ indeed used hyperbole:

"Matth. 5.29. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it out from thee, ver. 30. If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; &c. Christ would not have a man maim his body, but by this hyperbolical precept, intimates, the great heinousness, and extreme danger of scandal or offence, and that we are by any means to avoid it, and part from all occasions of giving it."

Because I don’t rely on Keach for my answers, I have no difficulty recognizing comparison and contrast may or may not use hyperbole but in these verses there is no hyperbole used.

The surgeon removed the offending organ. Was he hyperbolic?

The ancients often used the very states the Lord used as fact, not as hyperbolically.

That modern readers don’t seem to take maters into account, they are left only with a figure of speech rather than the Lord stating what was factual and actually done.

Ever heard of eye for an eye? Was that fact or fiction?

 

[agedman]

You either do not know what a lie is at all or you have an odd definition of a lie or you do not understand the use of hyperbole. You having started this thread has exposed your ignorance on this matter. If you continue to push it you only work to further embarrass yourself. Do you have a lawn mower?

How puffed up you are to make such determinations.

I have accurately responded to each passage of Scriptures offered, showing the truthfulness.

That you may reject the responses does not present evidence of my own lacking, but may certainly display a profound problem in other folks own comprehension and discernment ability.

 

[John of Japan]

So, John was not the writer of the Revelation?

Completely irrelevant to what I wrote.

I did not state John was an OT prophet, but was as an Old Testament prophet.

What's the difference? And relevance to the discussion?

 

[agedman]

Perhaps some of the remarkable discovery’s on this thread is how folks rely upon others.

There is the definition of Hyperbole. Which really isn’t a thread problem other than most would desire that the word “obvious” excuses the exaggeration, the outlandish, ... the lie. It really is not that a lie in the form of a figure of speech is excused as not even being a lie, it is assigning the very creator in the use. Which brings a second discovery.

That second discovery is the lack of understanding concerning history. The mustard seed isn’t the smallest now, but it was in the time of Christ. Did Christ state hyperbole, or fact? The human ability to count must mean God used a hyperbole rather than admitting human lack and God as factual. The awe reflected in the words “I suppose” makes a hyperbole rather than a fact.

The third discovery is the length some go to quickly discredit the valid factual aspect presented in Scripture by escaping into other theologians who they would find support. That isn’t a problem if that which the theologian held were still factually based on the recent research. The theologians of the past could only rely on what they had and that which was available to them. Why wouldn’t current readers consider, if more was given to those past great theologians as we have available currently, would not those mighty theologians modify their statements? Yes they would.

There are more discoveries but this post is just a bit of reflection.

 

[Revmitchell]

How puffed up you are to make such determinations.

I have accurately responded to each passage of Scriptures offered, showing the truthfulness.

That you may reject the responses does not present evidence of my own lacking, but may certainly display a profound problem in other folks own comprehension and discernment ability.

"Puffed up" good grief, well you have not made the case. The entire premise of this thread is wrong and there is no definition of hyperbole in scripture. That said you over think this entire thing. This is an excersize in "I have nothing else to do".

 

[agedman]

Completely irrelevant to what I wrote.

What's the difference? And relevance to the discussion?

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

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?

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

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?

 

[agedman]

"Puffed up" good grief, well you have not made the case. The entire premise of this thread is wrong and there is no definition of hyperbole in scripture. That said you over think this entire thing. This is an excersize in "I have nothing else to do".

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

So far, all quotes presented have been shown as not hyperbole, but actually factual when consideration of historical, intellectual, and physical factors are applied.

But, look to your own posting! If this thread is really such a wasteful use of your time, why do you post? Do you have a lawnmower?