My response to you was also a general response to the article....so, I did not assume that it was your theory. I was actually unsure as to what you were exactly saying...that’s why I asked the questions...you answered and now it is clearer to me where you stand...
And in your response to me, it seems that we agree on most everything...I do not think that the “murder” issue is one subject to much interpretation either...as a matter of fact the only thing I think subject to interpretation is prophesy and perhaps some of the history...
Prophesy is given in symbolism for a reason...and the Lord knew people would be trying to “figure it out”...and thus coming up with their own interpretations...even if they were wrong. As time goes on and more of the endtime is revealed in our current events, the more correct we can be in our interpretations.
I do not think that sin nor salvation are up for interpretation... it is what it is....
I have enjoyed what you’ve said...and like I said, I agree...
and the Bible says that even Paul went to the synagogue every Sabbath to “reason” with the Jews and the Greeks...nothing wrong w/Christians “reasoning” together... I do not see it as strife at all...if I am ever in error concerning the word of God I want to know...that’s why I enjoy discussing it...I learn so much....
Very interesting observation, DrewsMum! Yes, prophecy is given to us in symbols; also the parables of Jesus.
In both cases, God chose to use symbols rather than "plain" narrative language to communicate His Truth. We can wonder why.
My spiritual leading in this matter FWIW: These truths are so vast and "radical" (because truly universal and eternal, referring to a Kingdom of which no human being had ever had any direct experience before whatsoever) that they cannot be articulated in ordinary denotative speech.
By denotative speech I mean a one-to-one correspondence between a noun and (in most cases) a single "external referrent" in the world of direct human observation and experience. Of such are definitions made.
English is relentlessly denotative in this sense as compared, say, to ancient Greek, German, or French. These languages are based on words that have, more than a simple definition, cultural and historical associations that the speakers of these languages know; i.e., they are not strictly denotative, but also carry, e.g., historical allusions, cultural and moral understandings, and the like.
I understand that translating German literature into English can be a daunting task, due to the non-denotative to denotative conversion involved.
An example of a non-denotative word in this sense is the Greek word logos, which carried multiple meanings — e.g., word, story, truth. There is no single definition. But a Greek immersed in his own cultural heritage and history would know which meaning was called for in the given context.
In modern English, interpreting a text is far, far easier. Words tend to have only one meaning ("definition"). For instance, WRT the word "logos": in modern English, "logos" is the plural of the noun denoting "a graphic mark or emblem commonly used by commercial enterprises."
Obviously, the Holy Bible would need to protect its truths from this sort of "misappropriation," even corruption, of the meaning of words over time. So it employs symbolic language.
The further benefit of symbolic language would be, because it is not strictly denotative, it requires an act of the human mind and spirit for its understanding. Human subjectivity is drawn into play, in an encounter with the Word of God.
In a certain sense, this may be the entire point of the exercise: God seeks relation with His human children, and they are drawn to Him in the measure of the light and grace they have received from Him.
It seems to me this "process" can only be facilitated by the use of symbolic language. Since the emphasis is really on the relationship aspect, one wonders (at least I do) whether "wrong" interpretations are even possible — on my belief that the eternal human soul is a work-in-progress in the hands of an eternally just, loving, and merciful Father, I AM THAT AM....
In that case, I'd be reluctant to be the judge of the alleged "wrongness" of anybody's interpretation of prophecy and Jesus' parables.
Though I wouldn't mind pointing out to any non-Christian engaging in "biblical criticism" (read: atheist) why HIS interpretation is "wrong."
In the end, there is only One Truth — God's Truth. It is the eternal foundation and order of heaven and earth — first, last, and of everything in-between.
To God be the glory!!!
I probably haven't explained these ideas very well, DrewsMum. I struggle to find the language....
Thank you for your kind attention, and oh so very much for your excellent essay/post!
p.s.: This might seem a little off-track; but — In human history, symbolic language has also been used to conceal and protect "divine truths" from those unworthy to receive them.
There's been a recent illustration of this, which I find rather funny. The rock diva Madonna decided to embrace Kaballah, an "esoteric" Jewish speculation of great antiquity and dignity regarding the fundamental roots of divine reality.
Evidently her interest caused great unease and heartburn among well-recognized and esteemed Kaballah scholars, for fear that she might misappropriate the great symbols of Kaballah for her own purposes. Which evidently she quickly did, taking the symbol Shekinah and converting it into something akin to Gaia — the mother goddess.
I am not a student of Kaballah; but somehow I suspect that to regard the symbol Shekinah as the mother goddess probably signifies an attempt to corrupt the symbol, wittingly or unwittingly....
Whatever. Though Madonna may possibly have misread the symbol, and has been promoting her "interpretation" far and wide, the truths of Kaballah are still safe in the symbols for the person who can approach them in the spirit of truth.