|
|
Post by Alejandro on Mar 17, 2005 18:34:17 GMT -5
When is it appropriate to take something that is prophesy symbolically and when to take it literally?
Thanks!
Blessings!,
Alejandro
|
|
|
|
Post by fairbank on Mar 18, 2005 23:41:17 GMT -5
Welcome to you my brother! This may sound like an over simplification (it is), but it all comes down to the intent of the author. This is why study in context is so important. If the writer intended to communicate via symbol, we should of course interpret symbolically. If his intention was literal, we should understand literally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alejandro on Mar 18, 2005 23:54:06 GMT -5
Something like Revelations for example.
It was given by dream, and has some, I think, very symbolic things in it. But some take it very literally.
But then things like, Isiah, or Zechariah can be taken literally.
Be blessed,
Alejandro
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Mar 19, 2005 14:54:35 GMT -5
Something like Revelations for example. It was given by dream, and has some, I think, very symbolic things in it. But some take it very literally. But then things like, Isiah, or Zechariah can be taken literally. It is virtually impossible to interpret the Book of Revelation adequately without a solid grasp of the Old Testament. Allusions to patterns of worship laid out in the Old Testament, as well as imagery derived from Daniel, make the Hal Lindsey approach less than tenable. While I am avowedly "historical premillennial", I think the classic dispensational approach has violence to the text in removing it from its context. And often our failure to look at how the early fathers approached this challenging book of the New Testament often proves our undoing. All this is to say, I agree with fairbank (although in cases of apocalyptic literature, one might say that even the author may not have been fully aware of the intent of the revelation). God bless you, Matthew (soulfyre)  |
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on May 2, 2005 19:10:24 GMT -5
I would say nobody takes Revelation literally. Those that do are merely butchering the term "literal"... Those that say they are reading it literally turn grasshoppers into apache helicopters for crying out loud. How is that any more "literal" than saying the grasshopper represents something else? Luther's "literal sense(sensus literalus)" and the "analogy of faith". It also runs into serious problems in Ezekial with the return to sacrifices for sins discussed there. Bottom line is that it's a long, complicated issue.
Yours In Christ,
Ron
|
|
