16 July 2006

Biblical Imagry

The Bible is stuffed full of imagry, but have you ever wondered if this new and wonderful book of Biblical interpretation is...well...neo orthodox or heterodoxical nonsense? I have to admit that I kind of like reading material which shows the secrets behind biblical numerology, the use of the sun in scripture or what exactly is meant by an obscure verse that my pastor choked on last time he came across it. I'm just wired that way. And because of this I can be led astray rather quickly. I need to keep some basic things in mind.

1. The Bible never uses a symbol if a literal statement will do. If scripture recounts Moses combing his hair, well, that's pretty much what it means. It has nothing to do with foretelling the parting of the Red Sea or women wearing headcoverings. It means that a few moments later Moses probably looked better than he did when he started...

2. Biblical Symbolism is not isolated. If the the symbolic meaning of the stars means one thing in Genesis, it also means the same thing in Revelation. If you want to know what future prophetic symbols meant, look at the prophetic symbolism of already fulfilled prophecy. If a grasshopper isn't a helicopter in Genesis, it' probably ain't one in Revelation.

3. All Symbolism must be interpreted from the Bible and not just other ancient literature. Whatever the literary conventions of Gilgamesh were, they are only slightly helpful with regard to Biblical interpretation.

4. Solid historical teachings should not be flippantly tossed aside. This one really gets me. Dispensationalists claim they have the truth and what has been taught for over a thousand years is rubbish. While they may have the truth (I doubt it), coming to those conclusions without looking at the works of people who spent much more time than I did studying in the past is foolish. See Ephesians 4:8-12

5. Biblical philosophy is useful, but not complete, when studying Biblical Symbolism. Extra biblical philosophy is not useful at all. Philosophy changes, the meaning of scripture does not. It's not whether this symbol or that can be viewed within an Existential Framework, it's whether Existentialism is consistent with the Bible. Taking this to the logical conclusion, you don't put an existential meaning to a symbol in scripture unless you can find proof from Scripture itself that this is a legit thing to do.

Now why were there only two of some animals and seven of others on the ark?

Thus scratched Lady Raven at 8:37 PM 0 Other Squawking(s)

Post a Comment

-------------------------~oO0Oo~-------------------------

© raven shadowwinds

For more feathers from the nest, please stop by often. Birds molt fairly regularly.