• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

I have a theory!

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
But you think it is radiation of some sort.


It is pretty simple. We know what natural light and darkness are, just follow the way the bible uses them as metaphors. Do we love goodness and truth, are we willing for our actions to be seen and judged by God, do we listen to the Spirit of God when he convicts out hearts about what we have done. Do we want to learn the truth about ourselves and about God. Or do we prefer evil and selfishness, do we hide behind lies, deceiving others and deceiving ourselves, and shut our ears to the conviction of the Holy Spirit?

John 3:19 And this is the judgement: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God."


That is the problem with literalism, if you try to turn 'light' into some sort of radiation, you completely miss the point God is teaching through metaphor.

No. If God is light, then the light does not have to be a form of radiation (may still be). I said I do not know what it is, if light is not a form of radiation. (We still can "see" in Heaven without the EM light. That means the processes involve emitting, transmitting and receiving)

I completely agree with your metaphoric interpretations of light. But, I do think one significant meaning is missed if the meaning of light is only understood metaphorically. So, in addition to what you said, there is one more literal meaning:

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

You tell me how is this possible, literally or metaphorically.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Fair enough, though I would say that should make you question your view that everything can be taken literally if you just find the right dictionary definition.

I would thank you a lot if you could tell me what is wrong with that. In fact, it is my favorite way of Scripture interpretation. (I don't really care about various metaphorical understanding. They are very easy to make, and I have no problem to accept most of them)

It is not easy at all to find and to use a proper definition. In the case of creation "days", I know all its definitions. But I am still not sure how to interpret. But my uncertainty to its literal meaning does not mean any of the literal meaning must be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would thank you a lot if you could tell me what is wrong with that. In fact, it is my favorite way of Scripture interpretation. (I don't really care about various metaphorical understanding. They are very easy to make, and I have no problem to accept most of them)
So if a passage can be understood metaphorically, if the meaning is metaphorical, why so to such lengths to find ways to take the passage literally? Jesus said he was the vine. Now that obviously can't be literally true. He was a man not a small tree. But your approach says you look for meanings of Vine that can be taken literally, how about Vine was someone who wrote expository dictionaries. So the literal mean is that Jesus is some one who explains the bible to us. Unfortunately, if you do that, if you search for a literal meaning that can be taken literally, you lose the beautiful metaphor, the real meaning of what Jesus said, which depend on Jesus actually saying he was a tree.

It is not easy at all to find and to use a proper definition. In the case of creation "days", I know all its definitions. But I am still not sure how to interpret. But my uncertainty to its literal meaning does not mean any of the literal meaning must be wrong.
It is a pretty good indication.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So if a passage can be understood metaphorically, if the meaning is metaphorical, why so to such lengths to find ways to take the passage literally? Jesus said he was the vine. Now that obviously can't be literally true. He was a man not a small tree. But your approach says you look for meanings of Vine that can be taken literally, how about Vine was someone who wrote expository dictionaries. So the literal mean is that Jesus is some one who explains the bible to us. Unfortunately, if you do that, if you search for a literal meaning that can be taken literally, you lose the beautiful metaphor, the real meaning of what Jesus said, which depend on Jesus actually saying he was a tree.

Here is how to understand it literally.

Vine has a nature. Jesus has the same nature. Any other thread-like thing will not be a good illustration to this particular nature of Jesus.

This may not be literal enough for you. But it is certainly not as flexible as a metaphor. Use system A to describe system B is not a metaphoric description.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is how to understand it literally.

Vine has a nature. Jesus has the same nature. Any other thread-like thing will not be a good illustration to this particular nature of Jesus.

This may not be literal enough for you. But it is certainly not as flexible as a metaphor. Use system A to describe system B is not a metaphoric description.
Frankly it is too insipid for me :sorry: You have taken an amazing description of Jesus and emptied it of all meaning. Jesus spent three years with his disciples teaching them to understand metaphors and parables, why do you, a disciple of Jesus, hang back in fear? Mark 8:17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. If God is light, then the light does not have to be a form of radiation (may still be). I said I do not know what it is, if light is not a form of radiation. (We still can "see" in Heaven without the EM light. That means the processes involve emitting, transmitting and receiving)
Isn't this mistaking the eternal God, for the created radiation we know as light?

I completely agree with your metaphoric interpretations of light. But, I do think one significant meaning is missed if the meaning of light is only understood metaphorically.
Don't get me wrong, you start with the plain meaning of the text because the metaphors are painted with the plain meaning of the words. You need to know that Jesus really said he was a grape vine, it is from understanding what a grapevine and its branches are, that we understand the metaphor. The mistake is thinking he has to be speaking literally, or because the meaning is nonsensical to take literally, searching for a 'literal' meaning that isn't nonsense. Stick with the plain meaning of the text, Jesus saying he is a grape vine, even if it can't be taken literally, and go from that plain meaning to understand the metaphor.

So, in addition to what you said, there is one more literal meaning:

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

You tell me how is this possible, literally or metaphorically.
It is saying evil, both wicked men and the spiritual powers of darkness could not understand Jesus. There is a pun in that metaphor
John 1:5 The light shines in the darkness and the darkness could not really grasp it.
The darkness could neither understand Jesus, nor seize and control him.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
literally.png
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Frankly it is too insipid for me :sorry: You have taken an amazing description of Jesus and emptied it of all meaning. Jesus spent three years with his disciples teaching them to understand metaphors and parables, why do you, a disciple of Jesus, hang back in fear? Mark 8:17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?

Exactly. It took that much time and disciples still did not learn.

Parables are not metaphors. At best, they are special case of metaphors.
That is why I don't like metaphoric interpretation. To me, they are equivalent to arbitrary link.

You give me ANY two terms, I can link them together so one becomes a metaphor of the other. But you can not do this to a parable, which is designated to a special understanding.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It is saying evil, both wicked men and the spiritual powers of darkness could not understand Jesus. There is a pun in that metaphor
John 1:5 The light shines in the darkness and the darkness could not really grasp it.
The darkness could neither understand Jesus, nor seize and control him.

If God is light and He shines into darkness ...

Could the darkness still "exist" under the light? NO. So, how is possible that the darkness (evil) still exist and does not understand the light?

I completely understand your metaphoric explanation (easy!). But I am pushing you to explain it literally. The point is: if you do, you will see new information in the verse.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

I guess this confusion may not exist before the Tower of Babel? Does any animal "language" have a similar nature? :cool: (if we evolved from animal, when did we introduce this type of confusion? why did we even want to do that?)
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Exactly. It took that much time and disciples still did not learn.
So how long have you been a follower of Jesus?

Parables are not metaphors. At best, they are special case of metaphors. That is why I don't like metaphoric interpretation. To me, they are equivalent to arbitrary link.

You give me ANY two terms, I can link them together so one becomes a metaphor of the other. But you can not do this to a parable, which is designated to a special understanding.
Parables are still metaphors, even if they are extended ones. Not that we have the parables figured out fully, is the prodigal son the repentant sinner? the Gentiles? or Israel in exile? Is the parable of the vineyard about Christ's second coming? or a warning of impending judgement? And Jesus used shorter metaphors too, which still has the church disagreeing over its meaning. Try "this is my body". Even if you don't take it literally, what is the meaning of the breaking of bread? A picture of the cross? A symbol of the church in many parts being one body? A shared fellowship meal with Jesus? Or all of the above, and more? You long for the simplicity you think you can find in literalism, but as you have shown, literalists can come up with a bewildering array of 'literal' meanings. And Jesus has not given you that option, because he like metaphors. But it isn't as if metaphors can mean anything. They lead us into deep truth, but we are following the imagery of the living and active word of God, not simply taking a dictionary and running wild with every meaning to the words in a metaphor. The meaning of the metaphor has to make sense of the imagery. We are guided by his Spirit too, and with the wisdom of all we have learned from scripture.

If God is light and He shines into darkness ...

Could the darkness still "exist" under the light? NO. So, how is possible that the darkness (evil) still exist and does not understand the light?
Hiding under rocks?
I completely understand your metaphoric explanation (easy!). But I am pushing you to explain it literally. The point is: if you do, you will see new information in the verse.
If you think you have something there please share it :)
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I guess this confusion may not exist before the Tower of Babel? Does any animal "language" have a similar nature? :cool: (if we evolved from animal, when did we introduce this type of confusion? why did we even want to do that?)
Given there is a metaphor of the redeemer bruising a snake's head back in Genesis 3, I suspect metaphors go back a lot further.

Studying animal language, they found Vervet monkeys have distinct calls for snake, leopard and eagle. Apart from building a bigger vocabulary and learning more complex sentence structures, I would think a key development in language was when a hominid learned to take the word for snake and use it to refer to things that were not literal snakes, like the little beggar who had just run off with his bananas, taking literal meaning and using them metaphorically, taking the concrete and using it abstractly. Like taking the word for wind and using it to describe the Spirit of God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So how long have you been a follower of Jesus?

Parables are still metaphors, even if they are extended ones. Not that we have the parables figured out fully, is the prodigal son the repentant sinner? the Gentiles? or Israel in exile? Is the parable of the vineyard about Christ's second coming? or a warning of impending judgement? And Jesus used shorter metaphors too, which still has the church disagreeing over its meaning. Try "this is my body". Even if you don't take it literally, what is the meaning of the breaking of bread? A picture of the cross? A symbol of the church in many parts being one body? A shared fellowship meal with Jesus? Or all of the above, and more? You long for the simplicity you think you can find in literalism, but as you have shown, literalists can come up with a bewildering array of 'literal' meanings. And Jesus has not given you that option, because he like metaphors. But it isn't as if metaphors can mean anything. They lead us into deep truth, but we are following the imagery of the living and active word of God, not simply taking a dictionary and running wild with every meaning to the words in a metaphor. The meaning of the metaphor has to make sense of the imagery. We are guided by his Spirit too, and with the wisdom of all we have learned from scripture.


Hiding under rocks?
If you think you have something there please share it :)

Thanks for the elaboration.

Everyone said that darkness is "the lack of" light.
I, no, the Bible, suggests: darkness has its own identify. So, even light shines on darkness, the darkness still exist. This is literal. It could be scientifically true.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the elaboration.

Everyone said that darkness is "the lack of" light.
I, no, the Bible, suggests: darkness has its own identify. So, even light shines on darkness, the darkness still exist. This is literal. It could be scientifically true.
'Darkness' has its own identity because it is a metaphor for evil and the spiritual powers of evil, the rulers of the darkness of this age Eph 6:12. The metaphor is not like literal darkness which is simply an absence of light.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
'Darkness' has its own identity because it is a metaphor for evil and the spiritual powers of evil, the rulers of the darkness of this age Eph 6:12. The metaphor is not like literal darkness which is simply an absence of light.

Again, while I accept your metaphoric interpretation (everyone agreed), I am also telling you: It is also literal. It is scientifically (i.e. literally) possible. And, miraculously, this is what John 1:5 suggests in a literal way.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Juvi wrote:

Everyone said that darkness is "the lack of" light.
I, no, the Bible, suggests: darkness has its own identify. So, even light shines on darkness, the darkness still exist. This is literal. It could be scientifically true.

In support of Juvi, I'll post the Dark Sucker explaination of light:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Dark Sucker [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers. The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker. The dark which has been absorbed is then transmitted by pylons along to power plants where the machinery uses fossil fuel to destroy it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating candle. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is easily proven for lightbulbs too. When you compress a gas, it gets hot, right? So the light bulb gets hot because of all the dark being squished into the wires. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dark Suckers are only able to suck dark in a straight line. Dark, because of its mass, will not penetrate solid, opaque objects as it is being sucked by a Dark Sucker. When a Dark Sucker is operating, you will notice that dark that is behind a solid, opaque object does not flow through the object or around it to the Dark Sucker. Some of the dark will accumulate on the side of the object away from the Dark Sucker as the Dark Sucker attempts to pull it through the object. These residual patches of dark are often referred to as `shadows.' [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some surfaces are able to function as secondary Dark Suckers by sucking the dark from behind solid objects at an angle and then rerouting it to the primary Dark Sucker. These surfaces have a property we refer to as `reflective.' [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is not a light emitter but a Dark Sucker. [/FONT]

Silly? Of course it is. That's why it is a joke. (the whole thing is at light bulb jokes from Lightbulbjokes.com). Juvi, scientist have measured the different wavelengths of light, their energy, and so on. To seriously propose the Dark Sucker idea is silly. It won't hurt your credibility here though, because that reached absolute zero a long time ago. Or were you just joking anyway? If so, Sorry for any offense.

I guess this confusion may not exist before the Tower of Babel?

Come. On. A literally true tower of Babel? Next you'll be telling us about a woman who has literally real pomegranets on her chest. You are just making Genesis look as silly as a dark sucker.



Does any animal "language" have a similar nature?
cool.gif
(if we evolved from animal, when did we introduce this type of confusion? why did we even want to do that?)

Chimps have been taught symbolic language, but I don't know if they use metaphors. In addition to the good examples of language Assyrian gave, another is among some kinds of antelope, who have a call that means "danger, predator spotted". During the rut, males stake out territories, and mate with females who go though their territories. The females then leave, and end up in another male's territory, and he mates with her, etc. Research has shown that males will call out fake predator warnign calls when a female is leaving their territory. The female will stop so as to avoid the non existant "predator", and the male will get another mating with her before she leaves. While not confusion, it is deception.

Your question of when we started that kind of confusion is a good one. I'd guess around 1 to 1.5 million years ago, as symbolic communication got more complicated. As with the antelopes, I'm sure there are plenty of situations where deliberate confusion might be useful to some transitional ape-human.


Papias
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
some kinds of antelope, who have a call that means "danger, predator spotted". During the rut, males stake out territories, and mate with females who go though their territories. The females then leave, and end up in another male's territory, and he mates with her, etc. Research has shown that males will call out fake predator warnign calls when a female is leaving their territory. The female will stop so as to avoid the non existant "predator", and the male will get another mating with her before she leaves. While not confusion, it is deception.

How do you know the goat is not calling: "Com'n, I am ready!"
 
Upvote 0