Evidence for God from Science

Literal or allegorical are somewhat misleading and too simple.

The key, as I understand it is:

1. Intent of the author, recognizing both the inspiration by God and the use of the human instrument's personality, vocabulary and message.

2. Understanding of the original targeted audience.

3. Recognition of any literary devices used within the context of above.

Far too often what is argued as a "literal" interpretation, is a plea for reading the original text (or worse, a translation) for it's plain literal meaning with no deference given to the historical context, the cultural context, the genre, the symbolism etc and instead people just rip it out and then tell us what it means to them in the context of their culture, their history and their point of reference and then God help "pun intended" any who disagree with them because then those who disagree are attacking the plain literal meaning of the text and thus attacking the Word of God itself.

Been there. Done that. Know it when I see it. Not gonna do it any more.

Wouldn't be prudent.

Canuckster,

I do recognize that when most people use the word "literal" they are thinking something along the lines that you've described. However, that is NOT the meaning of the word, and certainly not the approach of the method, as used by expositors. Michelson, Tan, Pentecost, Gordon, Fee, Metzger, Moo, Carson, Archer, Mathewson . . . the vast majority of scholars understand the "literal" method to be synonomous with the "plan, normal reading" of the text. It is closely tied to authorial intent. Thus, figures of speech, word plays, and other literary devices are taken into account.

What the literal method rejects is the spiritualization or allegorization of a passage. Consider the following examples to demonstrate the point:

1. It is improper to interpret an allegory literally, if we define "literal" as the words meaning exactly what they mean.

2. It is proper and desirable to interpret an allegory literally if we define "literal" as "the plain meaning of the text." We are saying, "What the author was trying to convey was this . . ."

3. It is improper to interpret a plain text allegorically in all circumstances.

You see, there is a difference, then, in allegorizing a text versus interpreting an allegory.

I finished up that research paper this week. I just have to stitch it together. I'll do that either tomorrow or Sunday.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Canuckster,

I do recognize that when most people use the word "literal" they are thinking something along the lines that you've described. However, that is NOT the meaning of the word, and certainly not the approach of the method, as used by expositors. Michelson, Tan, Pentecost, Gordon, Fee, Metzger, Moo, Carson, Archer, Mathewson . . . the vast majority of scholars understand the "literal" method to be synonomous with the "plan, normal reading" of the text. It is closely tied to authorial intent. Thus, figures of speech, word plays, and other literary devices are taken into account.

What the literal method rejects is the spiritualization or allegorization of a passage. Consider the following examples to demonstrate the point:

1. It is improper to interpret an allegory literally, if we define "literal" as the words meaning exactly what they mean.

2. It is proper and desirable to interpret an allegory literally if we define "literal" as "the plain meaning of the text." We are saying, "What the author was trying to convey was this . . ."

3. It is improper to interpret a plain text allegorically in all circumstances.

You see, there is a difference, then, in allegorizing a text versus interpreting an allegory.

I finished up that research paper this week. I just have to stitch it together. I'll do that either tomorrow or Sunday.

God bless

Understood and agreed with. The problem of course, is where to draw the line. Prophesy, certainly is a difficult medium in which to make the call often times.

I do agree that using allegory to by-pass difficulty is never a good alternative.

Prophecy is difficult. I agree. I'll be interested in your comments on the paper when I submit it the first part of next week.