...continuing
Like I said there are limits to what can be dismissed as metaphor.
I asked you this before. Why the pejorative "dismissed" rather than a term like "expressed"? This is key to your dismissal of non-literal interpretation. You see it as a dismissal---a way to avoid, evade or deny the truth of scripture.
Yet, there is nothing about literary devices or recognizing their use in scripture which requires that the scripture be then dismissed. My experience is that many people engage more deeply with the truths of scripture when they are allowed to approach them as literature rather than as history. And since a lot of the textual evidence points in the direction of it really being literature, not history, this is hardly dismissive at all. It is rather a way to embrace scripture for what it is.
This is especially true with the Genesis account of creation. It is the Genesis account of creation that I had in mind when starting this thread. Again I assure you that I am anything but emotional about this, its as matter of fact as biology for me.
When it is being literal it should be accepted as a literal account or rejected as a farce (aka myth).
First, a reminder that all these terms (farce, myth, analogy. metaphor) are NOT synonyms all meaning the same thing. They don't even mean the same class of thing. "Myth" is a literary genre and a theological category. "metaphor" and "analogy" are comparisons. And "farce" is a type of theatrical presentation. Most myths are taken quite seriously and not as farce; though a satirical dramatist might choose to present a myth as a farce. (An action that would likely be considered blasphemous and get him into hot water.)
Second, I profoundly disagree with you. Accepting the literal as literal is what we ought to do, but there is no reason to reject the non-literal. It is your prior assumption that only what is literal is acceptable that fuels your need to see Job or Genesis as literal. Because your assumption is that the non-literal is to be rejected, you have a deep-seated need (an emotional need) to affirm that scripture is literal.
It also leads you to believe that liberals who reject a literal interpretation are rejecting the scripture itself. Because that is what you think ought to be done with non-literal accounts. But what we choose to do is to accept the non-literal, the mythical, the legendary, the poetic, the dramatic, even the farcical as legitimate scripture. Hence we have no reason to reject scripture on that basis.
(Is there farce in scripture? Maybe. Translations often hide the earthy humour of the original Hebrew. I once read an account of the humour in the biblical portrayal of Isaac. It may be that he was seen as a sort of schlemiel--a bit of comic relief in the history of the patriarchs.)
Your theology drives you to prove your conclusion: that stories like that of Job are necessarily literal accounts, for otherwise they would not be legitimate scripture.
Our theology allows us to apply standard textual criticism to biblical passages without a need to prove it is either literal or non-literal, since we are committed to it as legitimate scripture whatever the outcome. That, IMO, is the more objective approach, since there is no emotional attachment to one result over the other.
The dramatic effect only underscores the intensity with which it is being presented and when presenting God speaking from a whirlwind or Satan having a discussion concerning Job in the courts of heaven is either true or false.
True, but Job is more than a literal account dressed up with some dramatic effects. It is a drama, a work of literature, through and through.
The context is critical here and when describing something in the context of a parable a little hyperbole is fine.
But we are not describing a parable with a little hyperbole in it. We are describing a drama with a prologue, five acts and an epilogue. It is a complete package. And that package IS the context.
To describe things as actual events without this critical context is a farce, a fiction, a lie.
No, it is only a fiction, and since fiction can be based on history, fiction is not necessarily anti-factual. It is not a farce. It is most certainly not a lie.
If all we had was the discussions of Job and his friends then I could agree that these are just elaborate metaphors that can be attributed to natural disastors.
The dialogues are not metaphors; they are poems. From time to time they may contain metaphores, similes and other figures of speech, but extended poems such as these will not be composed only of figures of speech.
It is also possible that in its original form, the book of Job did contain only the three cycles of dialogues and the poetic speeches of YHWH. As you may have gleaned from Chesterton's comments, many intepreters see the prologue and epilogue as added by another hand. Some also see the speeches of Elihu as additional to the original.
However, we have a great deal more then this and we are not talking about a metaphor in Job's opening verse or the final chapters, we are looking at things being describe as literal events.
As is very common in fiction. Describing events realistically within the context of the story creates the illusion of reality which permits the reader to extend a willing suspension of disbelief and enjoy the story. Writers who are unskilled in this aspect of writing lose their readers quickly.
This is either a fact or a farce, the context demands it.
False dichotomy. These are not the only two choices.
It is not an emotional need my friend, its a theological one.
As explained above, it is your commitment to a particular theology that generates the emotional need.
Theology is as much a science as evolution.
Yes, in some ways it is. Theologies are to religion as theories are to science. However, it is more difficult to narrow the choices down to only one theology. So we have competing theologies, just as science may have competing theories. But while new evidence can resolve competing theories by showing one is incorrect, theology has no new evidence to bring forth. The unchanging body of scripture is the whole of its evidence. So the theological competition continues unresolved.
In both inquiries you must discern the facts from the analogies.
ok, as long as you are not implying that analogies are untrue. An apt analogy can be very helpful in getting at the truth. Bad analogies on the other hand can be very misleading. The truth or falsehood is not in being an analogy but in the quality of the analogy.
Suppose I suggest that facts of science are irrelevant to Darwin's 'Descent or Man' and 'Origin of Species' because his homology and morphology are just analogies? Are the factual details important then or irrelavent?
No you may not. Because in science the factual details are all-important and completely relevant. Darwin's homology and morphology are factual observations, not analogies.
TTFN--gluadys
we can and should be able to discern the difference.
