Literal or allegory?

[sandy whitelinger]

From the poll tick all the ones in the bible that are allegory.

I think your thread is an allegory so it must be one................right?

 

[Popeyesays]

It is broadly literal and deeply allegorical

Regards,

Scott

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is broadly literal and deeply allegorical

That is broadly meaningless and deeply superficial.

There is an obvious need by some to cherry-pick Biblical stories and classify them as allegory based on absolutely nothing other than a discomfort with the story itself. It is a simple and self-serving tactic allowing each person to personalize his or her Bible with a cheap and faith-sustaining bag of bandaids and asterisks.

For many, the approach is also thoughtlessly arrogant and irresponsible.

• Zero effort is invested in studying the early commentary, presumably on the grounds that those who spent their lifetime seeking to understand scripture are not worth considering before forming an opinion.
• Zero effort is invested in studying the relevant scholarship, presumably on the grounds that scholarship is irrelevant and all opinions are of equal worth.

"allegory"

band-aids of faith

​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... on the other hand, it could be (and has been) suggested that the metaphorical/allegorical carrying capacity of a narrative plays a role in sustaining it, particularly across generations of oral transmission. So I think it important to distinguish between two different questions:

1. Was the story intended as allegory?
2. Can the story be meaningfully interpreted as allegory?

And, in fact, the Tanakh is rich in allegory and word-play.

 

[gnostic]

It is broadly literal and deeply allegorical

If you read the Genesis, it is done so historical-narrative-way. But I can understand that there is some symbolic meanings hidden under these narrative.

If you take narratives of the 3 patriarchs (Abraham, Issac and Jacob) literally as history, then shouldn't you take the Creation, Fall of Man, and Noah's story literally?

It doesn't make sense to say one can be taken literally and one as metaphorically or as allegory. I supposed that where Jay's "cherry-picking" comes in.

I see allegory as sharing same form or nature of myth. Allegory is a narrative that has some symbolic meaning. Myth is trying to explain the unexplained, which usually involve the supernaturals. Of course, allegory don't always involve the supernaturals or the divine interventions. There may be some truths (or wisdom) in the narrative, but essentially it doesn't exist, thus it is fiction.

So if you see the story of Adam and Eve or that of Noah and the Flood as allegory, then these people don't really exist (historically), except through these stories. And if you see the earlier stories of the Genesis, then Abraham and others within the Genesis should not be seen as historical characters, but as mythical or fictional ones.

 

[gnostic]

I still haven't voted in my own poll, because I am still undecided on how to treat them.

 

[Popeyesays]

The Creation story is to inform people who had little understanding of God or the universe. We are not those people today. Now we recognize the allegorical intent.

The same holds true with the stories of the Prophets, the Gospels, etc.

Literalism is a segt of chains, that's sad, but how sad is it to put those chains on voluntarily?

Regards,

Scott