Metaphor vs. Literal

no, but posting the whole book is a bit overkill. see above. i wasn't trying to trick anyone, just find examples that are comparable to the books of genesis and kings, in my opinion.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-01-2005 11:13 PM

---

אָרַח

Detail is a totally acceptable standard. That kind of detail does not appear in fiction.

ok. fiction or history?

quote:

---

A notorious trapper came face-to-face with him opposite the watering hole.
A first, a second, and a third day
he came face-to-face with him opposite the watering hole.
On seeing him the trapper's face went stark with fear,
and he and his animals drew back home.
He was rigid with fear; though stock-still
his heart pounded and his face drained of color.
He was miserable to the core,
and his face looked like one who had made a long journey.

---

history or fiction?

quote:

---

WENT he forth to find at fall of night
that haughty house, and heed wherever
the Ring-Danes, outrevelled, to rest had gone.
Found within it the atheling band
asleep after feasting and fearless of sorrow,
of human hardship. Unhallowed wight,
grim and greedy, he grasped betimes,
wrathful, reckless, from resting-places,
thirty of the thanes, and thence he rushed
fain of his fell spoil, faring homeward,
laden with slaughter, his lair to seek.

---

i believe the level of detail to be comparable to genesis.

---

אָרַח

Neither Gilgamesh nor Beowulf is history though there may be some history in them, and both these examples FEEL like fiction. These strings of adjectives in your examples, especially describing inner states, are typical of fiction.The KIND of detail in these is not the KIND of detail in Genesis which matter-of-factly reports on the sending out of the raven, and the dove and so on, and the exact amounts of time that elapsed before this or that occurrence. The Bible does not embellish for effect. Its details are the details of fact.At least this is giving me the opportunity to discover some criteria.

having read pretty extended portions of both, they feel about like genesis to me.

quote:

---

Gen 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

​

Gen 37:11 And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying.

---

i suppose envy and dreams are not inner states? this is what we call an "oops."

quote:

---

"For one day and then a second day, Mount Nisir held the ship fast.
A third day and a fourth -- still the ship couldn't move.
A fifth day and a sixth passed by with no motion.

​

"On the seventh day I set a dove free in the air.
The dove flew away but then came back.
She couldn't see a perch, so she turned around.
Then I set a swallow free in the air.
The swallow flew away but then came back.
She couldn't see a perch, so she turned around.
Next I set a raven free in the air.
The raven flew away and saw that the waters were going down.
He ate, he circled, he cawed, but he never returned to me.

---

that's the epic of gilgamesh, btw. not genesis. it rather matter-of-factly reports on the sending of the raven and the dove and so on, and the exact amounts of time before this or that occurance. oh, yes it does.

quote:

---

Gen 17:16 And I will bless her,
and give thee a son also of her:
yea, I will bless her,
and she shall be [a mother] of nations;
kings of people shall be of her.

---

anytime you see repetition, parallelisms, that's the hebrew version of embelishment.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-02-2005 03:33 AM

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

but the traditional church reads it straight, as history.

---

The "traditional Church?"You mean Roman Catholics?They certainly haven't read Genesis as history for several centuries.

So, I am confused.You are saying that a literal reading of Genesis is "traditional", yet by far the oldest continual Christian sect, the Roman Catholics, hasn't taken Genesis as literal truth for centuries.I would think that the oldest version of Christianity should be referred to as the most "traditional", don't you?I mean, the Protestants are very recent upstarts in comparison.

quote:

---

No, I'm reading it as one should read simple English, taking it as written and believing it simply as written, imposing nothing on it. A believer is somebody who believes it as written.

---

In plain, simple English, taking it as written, and imposing nothing on it, the following passage looks very much to me as though all believers in Jesus should be able to speak many languages, pick up poisonouus snakes without harm, be able to drink any deadly poison and not be injured by it at all, and should be able to heal people of ilness by touching them with their hands.

For the first few hundred years they should and they did so the prophecy came true and you read it correctly. Such signs also continue in places where the gospel is preached to people who have never heard it before. It appears to have to do with ratifying the gospel when it is new to people.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 09:29 AM

The Roman Catholics are not the oldest church, they are simply what the mainstream church became in the Middle Ages, but there were true believers who refused to be part of it even during that period. The oldest church belongs to all Christendom, and one of my links shows that some of the church fathers from that period read Genesis literally.

Well, there's that subjective element I said defeats all discussion of this topic. I simply do not read the different examples as you do. To me Genesis has a completely different tone, its details have no fat on them but details in the others do, etc.

quote:

---

For the first few hundred years they should and they did so the prophecy came true and you read it correctly.

---

How do you know this? How has it been verified? Any forensic evidence?

quote:

---

Such signs also continue in places where the gospel is preached to people who have never heard it before.

---

How do you know this? How has it been verified? Any forensic evidence?

quote:

---

It appears to have to do with ratifying the gospel when it is new to people.

---

That's not what the bible says.The Bible says only "believers", and those who preach.That means, at the very least, all people who preach the Word should be able to do these things.My reading is totally straightforward, and does not add to the text.Your interpretation includes the extra-biblical justification of "It appears to have to do with ratifying the gospel when it is new to people."I repeat, the bible mentions nothing about this qualification.It only says "believers".You are explaining away reality (we don't ever see preachers drinking poison without harm, etc.) by adding to the information in the Bible.

So, what is "the oldest church", and was their complete scripture?If you are using a Bible that is different from what "the oldest church" used, then aren't you using a "modernized", non-traditional text?

Signs DID follow those who believe, Schraf. That fulfills the passage. Some of the evidence is in the Bible itself, in Acts where it is reported that Paul picked up a venomous snake and wasn't harmed by it, reports on the healing powers of Paul and the other apostles, and other evidence is in the writings of the early church which I think got touched on in earlier discussions of this topic. We've been over this before, Schraf, and it's off topic for this thread, not being about the criteria for literal versus metaphorical reading, so I think I'll leave it here for now.

Some of my reply was OT, but the following part isn't.

quote:

---

It appears to have to do with ratifying the gospel when it is new to people.

---

That's not what the bible says.The Bible says only "believers", and those who preach.That means, at the very least, all people who preach the Word should be able to do these things.My reading is totally straightforward, and does not add to the text.Your interpretation includes the extra-biblical justification of "It appears to have to do with ratifying the gospel when it is new to people."I repeat, the bible mentions nothing about this qualification.It only says "believers".You are explaining away reality (we don't ever see preachers drinking poison without harm, etc.) by adding to the information in the Bible.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-02-2005 10:29 AM