It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: windword
Strangely enough, your theory seems to me to have been awkwardly shoe horned to fit your contrived theory...
Historically when people do not like what a document says or they want to make it fit their philosophical bent they allegorize that document. This is what Philo did with the Jewish Bible in Alexandria, Egypt and, early on, some Christians picked up this habit from him and imported it into the church.
If you don't believe the Bible....fine...don't believe it. But don't suggest that one part should be taken allegory when another part of the Bible CLEARLY indicates that it isn't. I'm guessing you don't do that with other forms of literature, do you?
If you have a history book on George Washington, do you decide to read chapter 3 as an allegory, but the rest of it as fact simply because you don't want to believe the events of chapter 3 took place? If chapter 14 is believed to be historical---and it refers to the events of chapter 3 as historical....why would you believe chapter 3 to be allegory?
Is The Bible Literal Or Allegorical?
When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.
The Golden Rule of Interpretation
Those holding to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible point to a variety of scriptures and use them as proof-texts for the claim that God intended for His Word to be interpreted allegorically, and as we shall see, many of these verses have been taken out of context or redefined so as to give the appearance of supporting the false allegorical mode of interpretation. www.scribd.com...
originally posted by: BO XIAN
In many dozens, hundreds of cases, THE LITERALISTS WERE ALWAYS PROVEN CORRECT as archeology uncovered more and more confirmation that the Bible was literally true in detail after detail. Some things are literal AND symbolic, both/and. I don't think a great number of things in the Bible are primarily or only symbolic.
Sounds to me like you are doing exactly what you just accused the OP of doing.
Allegorical interpretation is exactly what you just described above.
originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
no, freedom of choice will always breed a few rotten apples. No matter what the bible says. I am happy with freedom of choice
I like the idea that Sin is actually, like you said an unalignement with God, a Sinus wave.
In tragedy, hamartia is commonly understood to refer to the protagonist’s error or flaw that leads to a chain of plot actions culminating in a reversal from their good fortune to bad. What qualifies as the error or flaw can include an error resulting from ignorance, an error of judgement, a flaw in character, or sin.
originally posted by: windword
But the whole wave pattern is part of "God's" creation, right? I mean, that's like saying that the poles of our earthly globe our out of alignment with "God's" will because they represent extremes, and only the equator represents the "straight and narrow" of "God's" will.
Either the whole of creation is "God's" will or non of the created universe is.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Cinrad
If you check my "Atonement" thread (and the whole second page of this thread), you will see that I don't think the blood sacrifice objectively took away sins. The effect was symbolic. (That's not just my view. It's the explanation found in the epistle to the Hebrews).
If the effect is symbolic, then one symbol is as good as another.
In another part of the laws, the scapegoat ceremony. In the case of Isaiah, hot coals.