The book of Job - real or allegorical?

[aspen]

I can't see for the life of me ,why people "want" or need it to be an allegory...!! How does that make things easier for them?

( Personally , where the two trees in Eden are concerned...I believe once again its not either or, but both.
I believe the account of Genesis..but I also believe God speaks in pictures too..for our tiny brains to comprehend.
I find much if not all of the bible is literal as well spiritually understood.
But whoops, that is going off topic)

Speaking for myself, I do not need the Bible to be exclusively allegory; I simply care more about the allegory. Looking for the historical evidence was important at one time, but I no longer need it because I believe the message. Caring whether or not an event in the Bible was recorded exactly as it is presented, is like trying to tell time by focusing on the mechanics of the watch - it is only important for people who question the accuracy of the watch. If I were to run a marathon, the mechanics of my shoes only become relevant if they fail to get me to the finish line - they certainly will not win the race for me.

 

[Stranger]

Speaking for myself, I do not need the Bible to be exclusively allegory; I simply care more about the allegory. Looking for the historical evidence was important at one time, but I no longer need it because I believe the message. Caring whether or not an event in the Bible was recorded exactly as it is presented, is like trying to tell time by focusing on the mechanics of the watch - it is only important for people who question the accuracy of the watch. If I were to run a marathon, the mechanics of my shoes only become relevant if they fail to get me to the finish line - they certainly will not win the race for me.

The Bible is not an allegory. It is true and real and historical. Again, just because you care for allegory doesn't make the Bible an allegory.

If you don't believe the historicity of the Bible, then you don't believe its message. I don't look for historical 'evidence'. It is not necessary. The Bible is true in what it says. And historical.

If the Bible is an allegory then it will not get you to any finish line. For if Jesus didn't die, then you are in your sins. If Jesus didn't rise, then you will not rise either.

Stranger

 

[aspen]

Allegory is a method of interpretation - it does not discount other methods of interpretation.

 

[ScottA]

Doesn't that give modern science a valid motive to disprove God's omniscience, considering that God's explanation of natural phenomena from the Book of Job contradicts the scientific discoveries of our times?

What natural phenomena?

 

[Stranger]

Allegory is a method of interpretation - it does not discount other methods of interpretation.

If you're going to interpret the Bible allegorically, then you view the Bible as an allegory.

What is that supposed to mean when you say that you or allegorical interpretation does not discount other methods? Does that mean you don't know what to believe? You don't know what is true and what isn't? What a stupid statement.

The Bible is to be taken literally unless language indicates otherwise. The Bible is not an allegory. It is not to be interpreted allegorically. I don't think you know what you believe.

Stranger

 

[aspen]

If you're going to interpret the Bible allegorically, then you view the Bible as an allegory.

What is that supposed to mean when you say that you or allegorical interpretation does not discount other methods? Does that mean you don't know what to believe? You don't know what is true and what isn't? What a stupid statement.

The Bible is to be taken literally unless language indicates otherwise. The Bible is not an allegory. It is not to be interpreted allegorically. I don't think you know what you believe.

Stranger

That's like saying Pauls letters are either only written for the churches they are addressed to OR they are written for everyone. It's a false dichotomy.

 

[Stranger]

That's like saying Pauls letters are either only written for the churches they are addressed to OR they are written for everyone. It's a false dichotomy.

No it's not. Paul's letters and the whole Bible are written for all believers, in all times. Just like Job, Paul's letters are to a real people and real churches that really did exist. They are not allegorical. They may contain an allegory. But that doesn't make them allegorical.

Your comparison is false.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Speaking for myself, I do not need the Bible to be exclusively allegory; I simply care more about the allegory. Looking for the historical evidence was important at one time, but I no longer need it because I believe the message. Caring whether or not an event in the Bible was recorded exactly as it is presented, is like trying to tell time by focusing on the mechanics of the watch - it is only important for people who question the accuracy of the watch. If I were to run a marathon, the mechanics of my shoes only become relevant if they fail to get me to the finish line - they certainly will not win the race for me.

nice. we are told to judge by the fruit, and this seems a good way to practice that. We are commanded to find the allegory in Scripture imo, unless Jesus actually hacked off an arm at the Last Supper. The inference is abundantly clear there.

 

[michaelvpardo]

ok, i get what you are saying, but note how pretty much everyone does this same thing? We all put ourselves in the place of Job lol, because we read "righteous man;" and no one gets the part of the story where Job was sinning, and repented. Twice (for a Witness)

Some people don't consider self righteousness sin and it's always hard to recognize in yourself, but God...

 

[aspen]

No it's not. Paul's letters and the whole Bible are written for all believers, in all times. Just like Job, Paul's letters are to a real people and real churches that really did exist. They are not allegorical. They may contain an allegory. But that doesn't make them allegorical.

Your comparison is false.

Stranger

Then why did Paul address the letters to specific churches?

 

[Stranger]

Then why did Paul address the letters to specific churches?

Because specific churches was who he was addressing?

Stranger

 

[aspen]

Because specific churches was who he was addressing?

Stranger

Yes. My point.

 

[Stranger]

Yes. My point.

So?

Stranger

 

[aspen]

Paul was writing to specific churches AND a greater audience finds meaning in the words. His writings serve both purposes, but Paul was not considering anyone but the churches he was writing to - it was God who used him for a greater work. It is an example of a false dichotomy to insert an 'or' because the letters serve both purposes, even though they were written by Paul for a specific purpose.

Also, when you stated 'there my may be allegory in it', I agree, but it contradicts your previous statement that the Bible is either real or allegorical.

My entire point, from the beginning of this sideways discussion is that I am more interested in the allegorical meaning of the Bible rather than the concrete interpretation. You rejected my post using a false dichotomy - specifically, the Bible is either real or allegorical.

 

[Stranger]

Paul was writing to specific churches AND a greater audience finds meaning in the words. His writings serve both purposes, but Paul was not considering anyone but the churches he was writing to - it was God who used him for a greater work. It is an example of a false dichotomy to insert an 'or' because the letters serve both purposes, even though they were written by Paul for a specific purpose.

Also, when you stated 'there my may be allegory in it', I agree, but it contradicts your previous statement that the Bible is either real or allegorical.

My entire point, from the beginning of this sideways discussion is that I am more interested in the allegorical meaning of the Bible rather than the concrete interpretation. You rejected my post using a false dichotomy - specifically, the Bible is either real or allegorical.

No, Paul was writing to specific churches, but the Holy Spirit was writing to all believers at all times. See how that works. Thus Paul's writings and that of the whole Bible, are for the believer at all times in history.

And my point is I don't care that you are only interested in allegorical interpretation. That doesn't make the Bible an allegory. And if the Bible is not an allegory and you want to make everything it says an allegory, then you are coming to a false conclusion. Then you and everyone else can make the Bible say anything.

That the Bible may contain an allegory does not contradict anything I have said. I have always said that. That just doesn't mean the Bible is an allegory and is to be interpreted allegorically. See?


Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Then you and everyone else can make the Bible say anything.

i keep hearing this as a rebuttal, but i don't think it is true. One could not just change the accepted symbology of Scripture unscathed imo; or at least they would be all alone, a skyangel or whatever.

Plus you now have a lot of literal fields being sown with literal seed, etc, two men literally in a bed, and on and on. The spiritual is translated to the physical in Scripture, how else might this be done other than allegory? How might you describe the "spirit" in a gathering or room without such phrases as "sucked all of the air out of the room," or "the room suddenly got real chilly," etc?

imo one should almost insist upon an allegorical interpretation, if they expect to learn a spiritual lesson, at least.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

bbyrd009, I wouldn't say you and I agree on everything, but I am sorry I didn't listen when you kept hinting that maybe I was missing the spiritual within the words. If we read God's word literally, only, then, I wonder how anyone explains away a multitude of passages: for instances: (Judges 9: 8-15) or (1 Chronicles 16:33) and too many others to list. God uses imagery of the physical to give insight into the spiritual. (Genesis 41: 16-32) and tells what will come to pass, as Revelation. You can not understand Song of Songs without God's imagery. Otherwise you receive comments about how erotic and worldly Song of Solomon is; without the beauty of the meaning of the love letter.

In 1 kings 4: 33-34 it is said of Solomon: And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

Why did all kings of the earth hear of the wisdom of Solomon? Was it to really his discussion of the nature of "beasts" "fowls" "fishes" and .... "the cedar tree that is in Lebanon".... and "the hyssop that springeth out of the wall"????

A good measuring ruler for if the Spirit is really revealing a matter that has been concealed...there is ALWAYS a proverb that verifies the thread as truth from God, rather than mans foolish imagination.

 

[Stranger]

Literal is not an antonym of spiritual. I believe every word of the Bible is spiritual. (John 6:63) "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

And, as I have said before, even in the Biblical allegory as seen in (Gal.4:22-26), all parts of it were literally real. In other words the allegory did not make what it was based on not real.

And you do have symbols, metaphors, etc. used many times in Scripture. But, in most cases that symbol will be identified elsewhere in Scripture. So, that we are not left to our own interpretation.

The spirtualizing or allegorical method of interpretation is what I abhor. This says Job is not real but is just a story to give us spiritual truths. So, why does the story of Job have to be not real? Can't you glean some spiritual truths from Job with the story being real. Yes, you can. But, then, you will be governed by the correct understanding of the book of Job.

What spiritual truths are there in the book of Job that the literalness or realness of Job would disqualify?

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

What spiritual truths are there in the book of Job that the literalness or realness of Job would disqualify?

just guessing, but literally killing Job's "children" strikes me as pretty capricious

 

[Stranger]

just guessing, but literally killing Job's "children" strikes me as pretty capricious

What spiritual truth does that disqualify?

I understand that you don't like the idea of God allowing Job's children to be killed and for that reason you want to make Job an allegory. But how does that disqualify any spiritual truth?

Stranger