Allegory?

[Ark Guy]

This is a question for the Christians that believe that the book of Genesis, especially the creation story is allegorical, or a parable.

What is GEN 1:3, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light, allegorical to?

What is GEN 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day, allegorical to?

What is GEN 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, allegorical to?

What is GEN 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array, allegorical to?

What is GEN 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground, allegorical to?

What is GEN 2:10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; allegorical to?

What is GEN 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man, allegorical to?

Could you please provide the allegorical meaning to the above verses along with suupport scripture from various portions of the bible to support the allegory.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

This is a question for the Christians that believe that the book of Genesis, especially the creation story is allegorical, or a parable.

What is GEN 1:3, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light, allegorical to?

What is GEN 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day, allegorical to?

What is GEN 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, allegorical to?

What is GEN 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array, allegorical to?

What is GEN 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground, allegorical to?

What is GEN 2:10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; allegorical to?

What is GEN 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man, allegorical to?

Could you please provide the allegorical meaning to the above verses along with suupport scripture from various portions of the bible to support the allegory.

It's not allegory. It's a non-literal mythological vehicle for spiritual truth. The individual elements do not match up one-to-one to a physical reality.

 

[Ark Guy]

I find it rather odd how all of the Theo-evos tell us Genesis is an allegory...then run when asked to explain it.

 

[troodon]

I find it rather odd how all of the Theo-evos tell us Genesis is an allegory...then run when asked to explain it.

I'm sorry Ark Guy, but with all those falsifications of a global flood/young earth that I posted in the "How?" thread I thought you too were in the habit of ignoring threads. Oh, of course! You've been writting detailed explanations as to why each falsification is not in fact a falsification this whole time; and you're planning on posting them all at the same time! Boy, that'll be soooooo cool when you destroy the scientific community.

I can't wait.

Regardless; Karl - Liberal Backslider answered the question perfectly. There's no need for me to comment further.

 

[Vance]

Actually, I don't believe any of those verses must be read allegorically.

I think they can be read literally and still not contradict an old earth or the use by God of evolution as a means by which He created.

It is possible, however, that it is to be read allegorically. The style of the language alone is exactly the type that is used for allegorical tales at the time. This style is very different than the one used later beginning with Abram.

Another possibility is that it is not allegorical, but a tale of the actual events using some symbolic language and descriptions, which was also a common writing style among the ancients.

And, while I lean toward a literal reading of these verses, I am not sure why those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1 are not equally appalled by those many, many Christians who read Song of Solomon as an allegory of Christ and His Church rather than a celebration of erotic love.

After all, the same arguments apply to them. There is no specific reference that SOS should be read allegorically. A belief in this Scripture being allegorical can lead to reading other Scripture allegorical, slippery slope, etc, etc. Why are those Christians not treated as if they are "perverting" the text by reading allegory when there is no explicit need to?

So far, almost no "literalist" will touch this one when I bring it up.

 

[pudmuddle]

And, while I lean toward a literal reading of these verses, I am not sure why those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1 are not equally appalled by those many, many Christians who read Song of Solomon as an allegory of Christ and His Church rather than a celebration of erotic love.

After all, the same arguments apply to them. There is no specific reference that SOS should be read allegorically. A belief in this Scripture being allegorical can lead to reading other Scripture allegorical, slippery slope, etc, etc. Why are those Christians not treated as if they are "perverting" the text by reading allegory when there is no explicit need to?

So far, almost no "literalist" will touch this one when I bring it up.

I am not at all appalled by reading the Song of Solomon as a celebration of "erotic" love-in fact I have seen it refered to as something marryed couples should read together, and I think it has a lot of value. Some people have this weird idea that sex is a taboo subject. Obviously, they have to skip over parts of the Bible to hold this view. I'm not so sure it is part of the Bible because of it's allegorical value, tho' it does work that way, too.
Hmm...It's been awhile since I read SOS-I'll have to suggest it as a couple's devotional to my wife-thanks, Vance!

 

[lucaspa]

First, we never claimed that both creation stories were strict allegory. I have claimed that Genesis 2-3 is allegorical. That is, we have Dirt and Hearth standing for all of us.

Genesis 1 is different. It is a monograph for monotheism in which the theological truths are set in the best "science" of the day -- the Babylonian. It's purpose is not allegory but rather to destroy the Babylonian gods.

Don't you pay attention to the replies?

What is GEN 1:3, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light, allegorical to?

It's not literal truth, but a previous creative act to any done by the Babylonian gods. It establishes Yahweh as already existing and creating before the first two Babylonian gods, Apsu and Tiamet, even make their appearance.

What is GEN 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day, allegorical to?

All of Gensis 1 is structured to have God work for 6 days and rest on the 7th. The intent of the authors is obvious -- provide a link between the command to keep the Sabbath and creation. Evening and morning must be included here because the sun hasn't been created. Therefore the traditional day is missing, so the authors inserted this to give a traditional day. Note that they also do so for days 1 and 2 for the same reason, and to keep the meter of the poem.

What is GEN 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, allegorical to?

What's a kind? Creation Scientists can't ever seem to define one. This creation event eliminates all the spirits in animals and animal gods. Can't have a god of horses, for example, if horses are created by Yahweh.

What is GEN 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array, allegorical to?

Yes, so that there can be a day of rest. Is Creation actually completed? NO!

What is GEN 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground, allegorical to?

That is allegorical. Notice that Genesis 1:26-27 has humans not formed of the dust of the ground, but spoken into existence. The authors here new that humans were material beings, and thus chose a material to have them created from. A very humble material -- not gold or silver or gems but ordinary dust.

What is GEN 2:10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; allegorical to?

Not literal. Look at Genesis 2:5. You don't have any plants because there is no rain. So Eden needs a water source; that's the river.

What is GEN 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man, allegorical to?

Very much so. It symbolizes the connectedness of men and women despite the obvious differences. It's certainly not literal since men have the same number of ribs as women. By this account, men should have one less.

Do you even read the Bible?

 

[Vance]

I am not at all appalled by reading the Song of Solomon as a celebration of "erotic" love-in fact I have seen it refered to as something marryed couples should read together, and I think it has a lot of value. Some people have this weird idea that sex is a taboo subject. Obviously, they have to skip over parts of the Bible to hold this view. I'm not so sure it is part of the Bible because of it's allegorical value, tho' it does work that way, too.
Hmm...It's been awhile since I read SOS-I'll have to suggest it as a couple's devotional to my wife-thanks, Vance!

First of all, I would recommend the Message translation for SOS! (While I have some issues with the Message translation overall, the SOS reads very nicely). Since it is divided between the male and female speaking parts, it makes for a good "read out loud" dialogue.

But my question was not whether you would be appalled by someone reading it as a celebration of erotic love (the literal reading), but why you would not be appalled by someone reading it allegorically (which a LOT of Christian groups do). If you oppose the allegorical reading of some Scripture (like parts of Genesis), finding such allegorical readings dangerous (in a slippery slope kind of way), would you not equally oppose the allegorical reading of SOS as well?

 

[pudmuddle]

Many portians of the Bible can be both literal and used symolicaly to make a point. Pastors do it all the time, I don't have a problem with it. It's only when you say it should not be read as literal that we have a problem.

 

[Vance]

Many portians of the Bible can be both literal and used symolicaly to make a point. Pastors do it all the time, I don't have a problem with it. It's only when you say it should not be read as literal that we have a problem.

Oh, I agree that some can use literal Scripture to make non-literal points, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about those who insist that the SOS was *written* allegorically and was *intended to be read* allegorically rather than literally. They are not just taking a literal Scripture and extrapolating an additional allegorical "application" lesson for us today. As I have said, a LOT of Christians hold this view about SOS. They think that SOS is allegorical and not literal.

Would you agree that if a group said SOS should be read allegorically and not literally, this would be the same thing you object to regarding Genesis?

 

[lucaspa]

Many portians of the Bible can be both literal and used symolicaly to make a point. Pastors do it all the time, I don't have a problem with it. It's only when you say it should not be read as literal that we have a problem.

Any examples of the literal and the symbolic usage? Are you sure the symbolism is valid?

You don't read Luke 2:1 as literal. You said you used "common sense" to know it wasn't literal. But since there's nothing in the text to tell you its not literal, your "common sense" must be extrabiblical knowledge.

So, since you acknowledge the priniciple of using extrabiblical knowledge to know when not to read literally, why do you have a problem when we say "it should not be read as literal"?

Sounds a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

 

[pudmuddle]

Oh, I agree that some can use literal Scripture to make non-literal points, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about those who insist that the SOS was *written* allegorically and was *intended to be read* allegorically rather than literally. They are not just taking a literal Scripture and extrapolating an additional allegorical "application" lesson for us today. As I have said, a LOT of Christians hold this view about SOS. They think that SOS is allegorical and not literal.

Would you agree that if a group said SOS should be read allegorically and not literally, this would be the same thing you object to regarding Genesis?

Yes and no
First off, SOS is quite obviously poetry. While Gen 1 may have a poetic style, we are dealing here with some serious issues. Look at it this way-if SOS is non-literal what is the consequenses? We are talking about the creation of everything vs a theme of "how to woe your lover" Not that woeing is unimportant-but I think you can see why Genesis is taken a bit more seriously.
Having said all that-I have to say it's a real stretch for me to see SOS as an allegory only.
The real issue here may be that a lot of Christainshave poor love lives.

 

[Vance]

I think you may be right in that last comment. Sad, but true!

 

[pudmuddle]

Any examples of the literal and the symbolic usage? Are you sure the symbolism is valid?

You don't read Luke 2:1 as literal. You said you used "common sense" to know it wasn't literal. But since there's nothing in the text to tell you its not literal, your "common sense" must be extrabiblical knowledge.

So, since you acknowledge the priniciple of using extrabiblical knowledge to know when not to read literally, why do you have a problem when we say "it should not be read as literal"?

Sounds a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

Hypocritcal how? Reading Luke 2:1 as literal or as the "known world" makes no difference whatsoever to the text. Using Song of Solomon as a symbol of Jesus' love for the church takes nothing away from the text. I think you can see that what I am opposing is your wholesale picking and choosing of what you see as literal. In another thread, you go through Genesis and basicly say, "this part is literal. This part isn't." I read it all as literal unless it is indicated that it is a parable or otherwise sybolic. We could go into Revelation, where parts of the book are John's visons and parts are letters to the churches, for one example.

 

[Ark Guy]

It appears that ALL of the evos don't have any allegorical meaning for Genesis.

The next time they claim it's not literal, but instead is allegorical I'll have to remember to bring up this discussion.


You see, if you can't back up your claims my evo friends...then why make them?

 

[Doctrine1st]

It appears that ALL of the evos don't have any allegorical meaning for Genesis.

The next time they claim it's not literal, but instead is allegorical I'll have to remember to bring up this discussion.


You see, if you can't back up your claims my evo friends...then why make them?

Genesis is a mythical cosmos creation account which most forward cultures had in those days. In this case myth is used to explain the unexplainable, more specifically, this is how the earth came into being. Although there are some aspects of the Adam, Eve, the tree, the snake, the one forbidden thing, that are metaphoric, all that are not historcal accurate doesn't mean it is allegorical.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It appears that ALL of the evos don't have any allegorical meaning for Genesis.

The next time they claim it's not literal, but instead is allegorical I'll have to remember to bring up this discussion.


You see, if you can't back up your claims my evo friends...then why make them?

I never claimed it was allegory. How is it a failing not to defend what one never claimed.

Actually listen to what people are arguing, rather than making your own version up.

 

[Ark Guy]

Ah, doctrine1st...metophoric for what?

Seems like all you evos like to do is make the claims but NEVER explain them.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ah, doctrine1st...metophoric for what?

Seems like all you evos like to do is make the claims but NEVER explain them.

Oh, you want an explanation of what the meaning of Genesis is?

Why didn't you say?

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm

 

[lucaspa]

Hypocritcal how? Reading Luke 2:1 as literal or as the "known world" makes no difference whatsoever to the text.

But how do you decide it means "known world" and not the "whole world" as stated?

Reading Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 as non-literal makes no difference to the theological messages.

Using Song of Solomon as a symbol of Jesus' love for the church takes nothing away from the text.

Yes, it does. It takes away all the admiration for the human body and paean to sexuality that is the Song. That one does take everything away from teh text.

I think you can see that what I am opposing is your wholesale picking and choosing of what you see as literal. In another thread, you go through Genesis and basicly say, "this part is literal. This part isn't."

And I use the same criteria you use for Luke 2:1. If the extrabiblical evidence is against a literal reading, then the literal reading is wrong. The difference is that you refuse to accept the extrabiblical knowledge in this case, but do take it for Luke 2:1. Hypocritical.