This quote by SWOSU in another thread caught my eye.

quote:

---

Would it have made more sense if I rephrased it "Much of the Old Testament is allegorical"?

---

...which brought this question to mind: Would the value of the Hebrew Bible be diminished, in your opinion, if it were allegorical?

Discuss among yourselves.

no.......

d.

Not in the least would the Bible (either OT or NT) be diminished if major portions were allegorical (which they are).

Name the allegorical portions of the OT if you will...

The entire book of Job.

Noah's account of the flood.

Six day creation.

The parting of the "Red" Sea during the exodus of those who would become the Isrealites from Egypt.

Just four examples ... many many more but I really doubt you want to go into them.

Yeah, I know you believe differently than I do. But allegorical or literal isn't relevant. It makes no difference to how I feel I need to live to express following Christ.

I've stated many times before that the Bible isn't a science textbook. No where does it say HOW God created. The important thing is that He DID create.

when you six day creation is allegorical, why exactly do you believe that? Is it beyond God to do that?

It does say how God created, he spoke.

You don't believe Noah's or Moses' account... I'm sure you don't.

AgGermany ... do you believe that Moses actually wrote the first five books (the pentatech) of the OT himself?

Moses as guided by the Holy Spirit to reveal what God would tell us.

In that case, how do you explain the final chapter of the pentateuch which describes Moses' death? Did he write THAT himself post-mortem?

Deut 31:24+ It came about, when Moses finished writing the words of this law in a book until they were complete,
25that Moses commanded the Levites (AN)who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
26"Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you.

Perhaps Moses wrote of his own death as it was revealed how it would happen??? It seems to me perhaps the scribe finshed the story of Moses actual life as a narration of the events.

Perhaps Moses wrote down the narration of his death and then went out and walked through what he just wrote down. Jesus told the Apostles how he would die and went and did it.

What is your point but a legalistic one re: time of death of Moses and the final words?



[This message has been edited by AgGermany (edited 7/2/2005 3:42p).]

So you admit that Moses DIDN'T write all of the pentateuch. So where do you draw the line of authorship of the rest of the OT? Apparently you admit that not all of it was written by those popularly attributed to. So where is YOUR line of literalness?

Most scholars would agree that Paul wrote only 7 of the 13 letters attributed to him. Does it matter?

Allegory is found throughout the didactic portions of the scriptures, but in the Historic narrative portions? It would be the only piece of literature that I have ever see like that.

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 7/2/2005 7:31p).]

SWOSU, I admitted nothing of the sort, you are playing a little gotcha legalistic game. I said Moses could have written of this death and then went out and died just like he just wrote! I am not sure... Who wrote Hebrews? toss that out, maybe it wasn't inspired at all.

Perhpas Joshua wrote the last Chapter of the 5th book? Did Joshua write Joshua?

You try to link this to what YOU think is allegory? Noah didn't build and Ark then... wow The red sea wasn't parted like it was written!

Maybe Jesus didn't really die, but the story is emotional enough to believe.

Psalm 22:21: Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns..

I would say that in the KJV of the Bible, the use of the word "unicorn" is allegorical....

Most current scholarship states that the sea that was parted when Moses was leading the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt was the "Reed Sea", rather than what was depicted in the Charlton Heston version.

If you're comfortable with your own literal interpretation of everything in the Bible, so be it and more grace to you. But if you're willing to condemn those who believe differently, you're just perpetuating the view of CoC adherents as even more narrow-minded than other posters on this board.

SWOSU, can you show me the condemnation I posted?

What about the scholors that say most of the NT is not what really happened?

If the Bible said Moses parted the Atlantic Ocean and that is what was written I'd believe that.

So was it just an allegory or a mistake or a lie written about the Red Sea (sea of reeds)?

So what was the purpose of the allegory?, that they really just crossed a little river and not a big one? Or the whole thing didn't happen, and it's just a nice story to spice up Jewish history and teach us something spiritual?

I don't take everything literally, that is just your accusation.

Maybe you don't know what an allegory is... it is not an historical account, that of Moses is. Red sea or sea of reeds. They passed thru by miracle...

Heb 11:29 NASB
By faith the people passed through the Red Sea [ That is, Sea of Reeds] as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.

[This message has been edited by AgGermany (edited 7/3/2005 3:54p).]

quote "when you six day creation is allegorical, why exactly do you believe that? Is it beyond God to do that?"

Because I doubt God keeps time by the amount of time it takes for the earth to revolve on it's axis. Kind of egocentric of us humans to believe that of all the planets of the universe he chose this one as his timepiece, don't you think?

The problem, as I see it, is that it is both literal and allegorical, but many insist on interpreting it as only one or the other.

Bracy, you hit the nail on the head. I don't understand the mentality of either of those sides.

quote:

---

PaRDeS: The Four Levels of Understanding the Scriptures

The Hebrew/Aramaic word PARDES is spelled in Hebrew and Aramaic without vowels as PRDS. PaRDeS refers to a park or garden, esp. the Garden of Eden. The word appears three times in the Aramaic New Testament (Lk. 23:43; 2Cor. 12:4 & Rev. 2:7).

The word PRDS is also an acronym (called in Judaism "notarikon") for:

[P]ashat (Heb. "simple" )
[R]emez (Heb. "hint" )
[D]rash (Heb. "search" )
[S]od (Heb. "hidden" )


These are the four levels of understanding the scriptures. Each layer is deeper and more intense than the last, like the layers of an onion.

PASHAT

The first level of understanding is PASHAT (simple). The Pashat is the literal meaning. It is similar to what Protestant hermeneutics calls "Grammatical Historical Exogesis" and also similar to what Protestant Hermeneutics calls "The Literal Principle."

The PASHAT is the plain, simple meaning of the text; understanding scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the words being used, in accordance with the primary exegetical rule in the Talmud that no passage loses its PASHAT (b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a). While there is figurative language (like Ps. 36:7) symbolism (like Rom. 5:14); allegory (like Gal. 4:19-31) and hidden meanings (like Rev. 13:18; see also 1Cor. 2:7) in the Scriptures, the first thing to look for is the literal meaning or PASHAT.

The following rules of thumb can be used to determine if a passage is figurative and therefore figurative even in its PASHAT:

When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is figurative.
(Example: Prov. 18:10)

When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is figurative.
(Example: same example Prov. 18:10)

When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement is figurative.
(Example: Ps. 17:8)

The PASHAT is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the PASHAT we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding. We are left with a no-holds-barred game of pure imagination in which we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exogesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis) (see 2Pt. 1:20-21; 1Tim. 4:3-4). Thus the Talmud twice warns us: "No passage loses its PASHAT" (b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a).

REMEZ

The next level of understanding is called in Hebrew REMEZ (hint). This is the implied meaning of the text. Peculiarities in the text are regarded as hinting at a deeper truth than that conveyed by its PASHAT.

An example of implied "REMEZ" meaning may be found in Ex. 21:26-26-27 where we are told of our liability regarding eyes and teeth. By the "REMEZ" understanding we know that this liability also applies to other body parts.

DRASH

Another level of understanding the Scriptures is called in Hebrew "drash" meaning "search", this is the allegorical, typological or homiletical application of the text. Creativity is used to search the text in relation to the rest of the Scriptures, other literature, or life itself in order to develop an allegorical, typological or homiletical application of the text. This process involves eisogesis (reading of the text) of the text.

Three important rules of thumb in utilizing the drash level of understanding a scripture are:


[1] A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its PASHAT meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict any PASHAT meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states "No passage loses its PASHAT." (b. Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a)

[2] Let scripture interpret scripture. Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory. For example use Mt. 12:18-23 to understand Mt. 13:3-9; Rev. 1:20 to understand Rev. 1:12-16; Rev. 17:7-18
to understand Rev. 17:2-8 ect..

[3] The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text.

EXAMPLES OF DRASH UNDERSTANDINGS:

Mt. 2:15 on Hosea 11:1
Mt. 3:11 on Is. 40:3
Rom. 5:14 (14-21) on Gen. 3:1-24
I Cor. 4:6
Gal. 4:24(21-31) on Gen. 17-22
Col 2:17
Heb. 8:5 on priesthood
Heb. 9:9, 24 on the Tabernacle
Heb. 10:1 on the Torah
Heb. 11:19 on Gen. 22:1f
1Pt. 3:21 on Gen. 6-9

SOD

The final level of understanding the Scriptures is called in Hebrew "SOD" meaning "hidden". This understanding is the hidden, secret or mystic meaning of a text. (See I Cor. 2:7-16 esp. 2:7). This process often involves returning the letters of a word to their prime-material state and giving them new form in order to reveal a hidden meaning. An example may be found in Rev. 13:18 where the identity of the Beast is expressed by its numeric value 666.

---

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 7/6/2005 4:24p).]

Haven't seen anybody appear on this thread yet that's in favor of the ALL allegorical side ... only the ALL literal side.

So then, the real miracle is that the entire Egyptian army drowned in a "sea of reeds", is that it?

The issue of who held the pen is inconsequential - as it was all written by the same author.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0877847339/ref=dp_image_0/104-2648974-3619110?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=507846&s=books

[This message has been edited by stubb (edited 7/6/2005 4:57p).]

SWOSU --

I did understand what you said about much of the OT is allegorical.

What I asked you was: When God told Noah he was going to destroy everyone but his family and some animals, you don't believe what the Bible says?

If you believe God meant I am going to wipe out everyone in your general vicinity and it will seem to you that everyone is wiped, then you do not believe what God said.

By your logic when Jesus says,"I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me", what he actually meant was, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one in your general vicinity comes to the Father except through me."

So does that pretty much sum up your view???

quote:

---

(1) There is the allegorical method of interpretation. The allegorical method of interpretation views the literal meaning of the text as elementary and secondary to the “spiritual” interpretation. Those who are immature or uninitiated into the “deeper things” are able to grasp only the literal meaning. The primary problem with the allegorical method is that the “spiritual” interpretation is highly subjective, and often has little correspondence to the text being interpreted.

---

quote:

---

I believe that the allegorical method of interpretation is invalid, and that it is never employed by the biblical writers. There are several reasons for coming to this conclusion. First, allegorical interpretation is totally subjective and has no controls which keep interpretation clear of the bias of the interpreter. Second, if the method of allegorical interpretation is subjective, the motive is even more questionable. In each of the cases mentioned above where the allegorical method of interpretation was employed, it was used in order to accommodate religious dogma or “revelation” to other systems of truth which were considered more accurate and authoritative. The allegorical method is employed when the literal method is unacceptable. The Scriptures would only need to be interpreted allegorically if (a) the scholar could not discern the literal meaning or, (b) the scholar could not accept the literal meaning. Neither reason is biblically valid.

---

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1353



aggiez

[This message has been edited by aggiez03 (edited 7/7/2005 8:36a).]

I think the parables that Jesus told about the prodigal son and others were allegorical. The Historical books of the Bible were definitely literal, but the non-historical books could have been allegorical...The point is that even if they were allegorical, the theological truths they teach are still valid.