What is the Song of Solomon?

This is a slightly less common thread than those I usually see, but I think this is the right place for it.Bible fundamentalists are usually anxious to tell us that the bible is an inerrant document - the word of God passed down to Man. As such, Man must obey its instructions and believe its history as a matter of faith. It is the divine direction for a good life.I can see that a book of history and law is internally consistent with this belief. But what is an erotic love poem doing in the document?Usually fundamentalists say that this must be understood allegorically. But if this is the case, why can't we read Genesis allegorically? And if we must read it literally, what does it mean, and why is it so important?

I just read it again.It is clearly a narrative of an interaction between a man and a woman. It is also very clear that it is left open as to who they are!But Christians recognize it as propheic of Chrsit and his bride, the church, whether or not Solomon experienced these things in real life himself.If you choose to make an analogy of Song to the accounts of creation or the flood in Genesis then you must have an awful lot of trouble watching TV. "When is it real, when is it a story? I can't tell!" We can - easily, as can agnostic Bible scholars.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-03-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I just read it again.It is clearly a narrative of an interaction between a man and a woman. [/quote][/b]Yes - I think that comes over rather well! [QUOTE][B]
It is also very clear that it is left open as to who they are!But Christians recognize it as propheic of Chrsit and his bride, the church, whether or not Solomon experienced these things in real life himself. [/quote][/b]And I heard that Christians recognised it more recently as prophetic of the love of God for Mary. Cite below:http://www.wsu.edu:8080/...love-in-the-arts/songofsongs.htmlBut given there is no indication of any of this in the text you have to pedal very hard to come to this conclusion. For an inerrant bible there seems to be a lot of human interpretation going on here.Is it just a rule that you have to look at it this way? I, of course, simply see it as a series of erotic and sensual love poems.

quote:

---

If you choose to make an analogy of Song to the accounts of creation or the flood in Genesis then you must have an awful lot of trouble watching TV. "When is it real, when is it a story? I can't tell!" We can - easily, as can agnostic Bible scholars.

---

Hang on a second - this sounds confusing! What do you mean by 'make an analogy of Song to the accounts of creation..'? I am just saying that if I read Song and look at the internal evidence of the document I get an erotic love poem, describing a relationship between a man and woman which is, frankly, very believable, resonates with effective imagery, and has no trouble being interpreted by any 18 year old in love a few thousand years later. You tell me that really it is a prophetic allegory.Then I read an account of the creation of the world, which was not believable a thousand years after it was written, let alone now, and has a lot in common with the story-type we call myth. You tell me that this one is literally true. The problem I have is that you are contradicting the internal evidence of the writing, presumably on the basis of external pressure to make it conform to some pre-set ideals.Why? I can see no difficulty with the bible containing the word of God and also containing myth. I have no trouble with myth being the word of God - remember Lewis saying that 'sometimes a fairy-tale is the best way of putting over something you want to say' (I paraphrase). If you want to compress multiple and complex meanings into a sentence you are often better off to use myth or similar circumlocutions, like the Delphic oracle. Creationist interpretation looks like a vain attempt to lock understanding of this document down to narrow cultural limits, which will fail to transcend a period of a few hundred years.Incidentally, though I watch little television, I have little difficulty determining its accuracy. It is a 'story' most of the time, particularly when a politician is speaking! Anyone who thinks there is much reality on television needs to improve their critical faculties.

^ Solomon was probably describing a real event that was also prophetic. Just as the Pharaoh of Moses' killing all new borns was real and yet also prophetic of (i) Herod going after new borns at the time of Christ's birth and (ii) Satan going after the 'manchild' born of the woman (= church) in Rev 12/13.Creation and the flood on he other hand are:On the first day I created X, on the second day I created Y etc and then in other parts of Scipture it states that 'God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th'. Same with the flood. Details of days, years, cubits, gopher wood, pitch, animals, food, 8 saved, retreat of waters below highest mountains etc.Genesis is simply not comparable to the generic poetic imagery of Song or Revelation.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Solomon was probably describing a real event that was also prophetic. Just as the Pharaoh of Moses' killing all new borns was real and yet also prophetic of (i) Herod going after new borns at the time of Christ's birth and (ii) Satan going after the 'manchild' born of the woman (= church) in Rev 12/13.

​

Creation and the flood on he other hand are:

​

On the first day I created X, on the second day I created Y etc and then in other parts of Scipture it states that 'God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th'. Same with the flood. Details of days, years, cubits, gopher wood, pitch, animals, food, 8 saved, retreat of waters below highest mountains etc.

​

Genesis is simply not comparable to the generic poetic imagery of Song or Revelation.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-03-2002]

---

Your key point seems to be that rich, poetic imagery should be interpreted as prophesy, while direct factual statement should be interpreted as literal truth. Then you claim that direct factual statement - the new-born story - can also be prophetic, while even the poetic imagery is 'probably real'.Where is the consistency in this position? Anything now can be real or a vision, or both. Why can't I interpret the Genesis story as a prophesy of a world flood to come when we have polluted our planet and started global warming?And the prophesy is not up to much either. Someone or something is going to love someone or something. Why must it be Christ and the Church? Which Church? I presume each sect believes it refers to them - they cannot all be right. Does this make the prophesy wrong? It certainly makes it useless. Why can't it refer to man's love for the truth, or a child's love for sweets? How can this be an accurate and inerrant word of god? It could mean anything.You appear to be applying interpretations to the Song which are not supported by any internal evidence, but purely for your own convenience. The precise details of the Genesis story read exactly like the use of detail, sometimes called 'spurious precision' after the statistical problem, applied to enhance storytelling. Sometimes the numbers have mystic significance, like 40, 7 or 3. A retelling of many folk tales will illustrate this. That is the way it seems to me. Yet to you they are real, and not prophetic.An often-used argument by creationists is that when they read Genesis it immediately strikes them as obviously true - the obvious first interpretation is that creation took place in a week and there was a flood. Why can we not apply the same argument to the Song? Do you really immediately see it as a depiction of Christ's love for the church? Why, then, is there all this sensual and erotic language, not the kind of thing I usually associate with love of an institution? Why can't it be a collection of love songs, and nothing else?

I would suggest you read the book from a different perspective now, though this is an advanced undertaking meant for students of the Bible already well tutored in theology. Below is an interesting presentation with notes that should help you see the spiritual side of it. Song of Solomon is unquestionably canon quality, undispued among Bible scholars of the generations. But, until a person experiences God personally, like Kings David and Solomon did, and Christians do today, it will be difficult to refrain from taking its message in the earthy, sensual mode. {Long URL(s) "hidden". - Adminnemooseus}The PDF version is at http://www.heraldmag.org/...ibrary/Treatis/FREY/canticle.pdfThe book is quite neglected by most lovers of the Bible who just don't mature enough to handle it. I certainly don't recommend it to beginners. The depth of spirituality is great, fitting for the more discerning of readers already familiar with the grace and love of the Lord God.No spaces in there! That url must be continuous. I got there through a google search "(christ and his bride) Macilravy"I wish I could excerpt enough of a very old book I have, "Christ and his Bride" (554 pages ) by Cora Harris MacIlravy, published by The Elbethel Publishing House, Chicago, IL. Long ago out of print, precious, beautifully worded.If a person approaches the book correctly, as we say, guided by the Spirit to read it with his help, one need not take the book alegorically, but learn spiritual principles of the Bible from the direct story content. It isn't known whether Solomon actually meant for that book to be taken the way men did when they canonized the Scriptures, but it is known he was used of God, inspired to write it the way God wanted it. It is God who is responsible for that book, not Solomon or his level of understanding, though his was great indeed.[This message has been edited by Wordswordsman, 10-05-2002]Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Hide" one (or more?) long URL's, which were causing the page to be overwide. Use "peek" if you feel you need to see them.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your key point seems to be that rich, poetic imagery should be interpreted as prophesy, while direct factual statement should be interpreted as literal truth. Then you claim that direct factual statement - the new-born story - can also be prophetic, while even the poetic imagery is 'probably real'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: The poetry of the Bible is both rich with reality (literal meaning for the "present" audience spoken to, and sometimes prophetic in that many of the prophecies in the Bible are after the "law of double reference". That principle is often used throughout the Bible, whether poetically or not. Casual reading of the Scriptures doesn't lend towards proper understanding of all the literary implications embedded in those words. There is an understanding process that matures as underlying principles are learned within any discipline. One doesn't master quantum mechanics with a high school physics 101 course under the belt.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the consistency in this position? Anything now can be real or a vision, or both. Why can't I interpret the Genesis story as a prophesy of a world flood to come when we have polluted our planet and started global warming?
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: Visions in the Bible are literal visions of things past, sometimes things present, and of course things to come. If one announces a vision, the message of the vision becomes prophecy. A false vision generates a false prophecy.The world flood was announced by God to Noah at least a thousand years after the creation. Until then there was no need of such a prophecy while God allowed man to develop under the Adamic Covenant. It would be poor interpretation of the Genesis account being but a prophecy of a yet future flood due to the fact many dozens of Bible references to the PAST flood are present, verified by Jesus Christ.On a side note, it has not been supported that global warming has been caused by pollution by man. It's evident that is part of a long term cycle, demonstrated by the ending of the Ice Age long before pollution was a factor. While local pollution cetainly exxagerates the natural local effects of global warming, the cumulative pollution by man from a millennia of activity can't equal the pollution of one volcanic eruption.The next treatment prescribed by God is renovation of earth by fire.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the prophesy is not up to much either. Someone or something is going to love someone or something. Why must it be Christ and the Church? Which Church? I presume each sect believes it refers to them - they cannot all be right. Does this make the prophesy wrong? It certainly makes it useless. Why can't it refer to man's love for the truth, or a child's love for sweets? How can this be an accurate and inerrant word of god? It could mean anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: There is only one Church, one body of Christ. All sects of Christianity that adhere to just a few commonly held essential biblical beliefs are members of that world-wide body of believers, regardless their pecularities of worship styles. Each member body basically enters by its individual members meeting the conditions of being "born again", accepting the "believe, repent, be baptized" command. All the other elements are part of developing a new lifestyle centered around spiritual instruction, pleasing God.That book could of course be taken for the meanings you describe, but those meanings wouldn't be consistent with the purposes of King Solomon or God, who asked for and obtained the wisdom no other human had possessed or would possess. He knew God. God spoke through him, not to glorify carnal fleshly love, but through a deep understanding of that relationship between a man and woman reveal the relationship between God and his people. It is a very intimate, personal relationship in the spirit, no less than that possible between humans. There is a relationship with God that is practically impossible to directly describe and capture all the nuances of it. Poetry is one way to better express inward thinking, and so is a love story.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An often-used argument by creationists is that when they read Genesis it immediately strikes them as obviously true - the obvious first interpretation is that creation took place in a week and there was a flood. Why can we not apply the same argument to the Song? Do you really immediately see it as a depiction of Christ's love for the church? Why, then, is there all this sensual and erotic language, not the kind of thing I usually associate with love of an institution? Why can't it be a collection of love songs, and nothing else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: I doubt many Christians initially read Genesis. Most come to the faith through the Book of John or other New Testament readings. There the reader finds Christ endorsed the Genesis account, dispelling the presumptions of many (even some Christians) that the Old Testament is not useful to them. One can then read the account with confidence there is a literal truth to be realized, as well as imbedded prophecy.There is no biblical statement linking the Song to the Genesis account. Song of Solomon stands alone, yet completely harmonious with all the other revelations of the desired relationship between God and man. No reader of it will likely make the connection of Christ's love for His Church, His body, of which He is the head. Rather, men come to such knowledge burdened with inappropriate concepts about sex. God invented sex and erotic behavior, which men pervert. He meant all that to be healthy and normal between A man and A woman, limited to individual couples. A healthy, God-endorsed marriage will be full of sexual intimacy.

1) The obssession with "breast, navel, joint of the thigh, my hole" should convince anyone that it is pornography.2) It is also apocryphal.
Eshter and Song of Solomon contain none of the names of God.
F.F. Bruce, "Canon," wrote that many, both Jews and Christians, believed these two books were apocryphal.3) John 21.23-25 is also Atheism. Jesus said that he (John) would remain until I come, vs 22. Then vss 23-25 explained that Jesus lied.sl33w

Going to move to "Bible Study" forum.Adminnemooseus

Thread copied to the What is the Song of Solomon? thread in the Bible Study forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.