Big bag figurative interpretation

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay I didn't know what to title this thread, but I just read this in the Christian Research Journal 27/02 page 51 in an article by Leland Rykan:

First all texts require interpretative decisons, and the more literary and more ancient the text, the more interpretative decisons are required. Second, all interpretative decisons involve an element of subjectivity. To decide that a statement in the Bible is figurative is no more subjective than to decide that it is literal. This element of subjectivity, moreover, does not mean that all interpretative decisions are entirely subjective. With practice we can learn what kind of literature we are reading and let that influence our interpretation.

[George Murphy]

Okay I didn't know what to title this thread, but I just read this in the Christian Research Journal 27/02 page 51 in an article by Leland Rykan:

First all texts require interpretative decisons, and the more literary and more ancient the text, the more interpretative decisons are required. Second, all interpretative decisons involve an element of subjectivity. To decide that a statement in the Bible is figurative is no more subjective than to decide that it is literal. This element of subjectivity, moreover, does not mean that all interpretative decisions are entirely subjective. With practice we can learn what kind of literature we are reading and let that influence our interpretation.

I'll go along with that.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

Okay I didn't know what to title this thread, but I just read this in the Christian Research Journal 27/02 page 51 in an article by Leland Rykan:

First all texts require interpretative decisons, and the more literary and more ancient the text, the more interpretative decisons are required. Second, all interpretative decisons involve an element of subjectivity. To decide that a statement in the Bible is figurative is no more subjective than to decide that it is literal. This element of subjectivity, moreover, does not mean that all interpretative decisions are entirely subjective. With practice we can learn what kind of literature we are reading and let that influence our interpretation.

Okay so far...

As for me, I think I need to gain a better understanding of Ancient Near East cultures before I think I am informed enough to form an interpretation. I've had to take a step back and be open to the fact I may have totally missed it regarding early Genesis. I have no doubt that the theology message is affirmed in Christ, so I do not doubt the scripture's authority or inerrancy, I just don't want to load the text down with more (or less) than for what is was originally intended. I need to do more research, Dee Dee.

~Charleen

[kofh2u]

The concept of interpretation in regard to the bible is not quite so simple as to decide how we are to take what is written, be it literal, metaphorical, exacting fact, or maybe Epic or mythological.

We must first decide on the gendre. If one of our options fot consideration is that the bible is sort of "encoded," if its gendre is Mystery, a written statement of what other mystery societies of antiquity passed on only verbally, then perhaps there are two interpretations intentionally, one for the profane and the other for the initiate.

Rev. 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, (who is the spirit of a sociological drive towards Social Harmony), when he shall begin to sound (in an Age of Great Technology), the mystery of God, (the entire concept), should be finished: (Man is evolving into total consciousness!) as he hath (informed) his servants the prophets.

[Bib Lit Major]

Well, as far as double entedre, or intended double meaning, I think this is rarely the case. While certain books may be "encoded," they are encoded with only one meaning, which is veiled to those who do not know how to interpret the code. In the case of Revelation, the code are symbols, which could be interpreted by those unaware of the code one way, but that is not a second intended meaning, but the result of a good code, which obscures the meaning from those who do not know the code. The key to understanding any book is to know what the author intended. Not to be rough with your intepretation of Rev 10:7, but I think it is very unlikely that John had any of the sort in mind when he wrote it.

Also, the Bible should not be considered one genre. It contains many different genres. It is better to consider what genre such and such specific passage is.

[George Murphy]

Well, as far as double entedre, or intended double meaning, I think this is rarely the case.

The 4th Gospel is full of double meanings & a good deal of its dialogue involves people misunderstanding Jesus by interpreting his words in one way while he means them in another. E.g., when Jesus speaks of being borne again, Nicodemus says, "Duh - how can someone get back inside his mother & be reborn?" When Jesus talks about giving living water, the Samaritan woman asks, "How can you do that without a bucket." &c.

Also, the Bible should not be considered one genre. It contains many different genres. It is better to consider what genre such and such specific passage is.

Certainly. Saying that some parts are not historical narrative doesn't mean that there are no historical narratives in scripture.

Shalom,
George

[Bib Lit Major]

The 4th Gospel is full of double meanings & a good deal of its dialogue involves people misunderstanding Jesus by interpreting his words in one way while he means them in another. E.g., when Jesus speaks of being borne again, Nicodemus says, "Duh - how can someone get back inside his mother & be reborn?" When Jesus talks about giving living water, the Samaritan woman asks, "How can you do that without a bucket." &c.

While I am aware of the double meaning frequent in John, it is not the case much outside of John, and even in John, the misunderstanding is often not due to intended double meaning but, as you said, from misunderstanding Jesus. The case with Nicodemus is a case where both double intention ("born again" or "born from above" and "The Spirit (or "wind") blows where it wishes") and misunderstanding develops. However, most of the time it is because Jesus says things which only He and we, the readers, are clued into (i.e. a code). There is not a doubly intended meaning, but rather an intended meaning and a misapprehension of that meaning by the hearers in most cases. Now many of the times, in John, that there is a misapprehension, it ironically does become true. In John 7:34, Jesus refers to his departure from this world. The Jews think the following:

Scripture Verse:

John 7:35 (NIV) The Jews said to one another, "Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?

We, with the original readers, know that the effects of Jesus' ministry do go out and teach the scattered Jews and the Gentiles. However, as ironic as this misunderstanding is, it is not the intended meaning when Jesus says what he says. He was refering to his own departure from this world, not a mission to the Gentiles, which he himself would embark on during his life. Thus, there are not two intended meanings, but one intended meaning and one meaning derived from insufficent reasoning which ironically also comes true.