@BitaminaTek and @moveaxebx good to hear you both enjoy... the videos are aimed at everyone and I wish everyone was so restrained in their comments... But we all know that's not going to happen! :)
You're definately right in saying we aren't all in agreement but the difference is that if a theologian points out something new to us we have the power and tendency to investigate it as if it comes from our own minds.With stories,you never accept expert opinion simply because the opinion comes from an expert.It actually has to make sense to you.We are powerfully equipped to handle and process insights personally and thoroughly without experiencing them as burdens that need to be dealth with
From what I have deduced in my study of literary theory so far, it is agreed that language = metaphor. In other words, the 'literal' doesn't exist because we are always constrained by the 'world' created by the language we speak(hence the benefits of being multilingual - WordsoftheWorld illustrates this perfectly!) It is up to the reader to try and communicate with the 'text',& this is why the painting in this video is great, especially considering the detail of the door !
Symbols widen the scope of meaning of theirs objects. Things have (or may be assigned) qualities that escape from our perception if they're described literally. Metaphorical combinations like "your voice is rain" or "eyes of sea" summon or reveal hidden qualities present in "voice" and "eyes" that cannot be made understood as precisely through formal description. That precision and the final understanding, however, are inevitably subjective.
I think allegory and symbolism needs some context to frame it in. This picture for example, if I didn't know it was referring to the Bible, I would simply say "Oh, the lighting's painted well" and probably leave it at that. Whereas with the verse it's much more of a "Oh, a moral compass" *eyeroll*. That being said, I parse symbolism in writing much faster than I do visually and like a tip off so I can get the visual symbology that much quicker without waiting for the fridge logic to kick in.
I was a little surprised that nobody mentioned the sun as the subject of the New Testament, turning "light of the world" into a realistic description while making Jesus the allegory for it.
I think that the sense of the importance of allegory can still be seen in how movies made from books are received, those that don't try to tell an allegorical story, and rather try to translate literally tend to be terrible
Try to describe anything great and do it well, and you will find yourself using non-literal comparisons. For very simple things a literal explanation may suffice, but anything particularly meaningful or enjoyable in human experience requires greater expression than a simple recounting of facts will allow. A kiss, a fine wine, the experience of sailing, the experience of either beauty or horror in this world must make you feel some way that words can't quite describe, or else you have never felt.
@davidpwithun Yes, I studied them in seminary, in Greek as well as English. And please note, I said that Paul didn't write PURELY in symbolism. I didn't say that his letters were totally void of it. There are many passages where Paul provides very clear, black and white instructions. If you deny this, then you're just lying. And I can play that game too if you want. I can point to any text that exists in the world and call it symbolism. But that doesn't make it true, does it?
That's idealistic, it's an unattainable goal. Anything can be misunderstood. I agree that VAGUE and IMPERFECT symbols don't earn much merit, as they don't make up a firm base upon which sense can be conveyed; But I really admire authors who are able to construct a reality through PRECISE symbols, even if the final reading is subjective. That's much harder than writing supposedly unmisunderstandable literature, because, let's face it, even manuals and laws generate different interpretations.
@LuisDamianSanabria Please note, the claim in this video is that literal, straightforward instructions are non-existent in ancient texts. If God, through the author of John's gospel, wanted to convey a clear message to us, he certainly had the tools available to do so. Josephus also wrote very straightforward text. The fact that he's a historian is irrelevant. Literal writing existed. Christian apologists just want to write off all difficult passages as allegories. It's the easy way out.
Your reasoning is wrong. Romans 1:20, don't worship created things because they were created to display the Divine nature and power of God. The sun, part of creation, therefore speaks of the nature of God, in this case, light. The energy of the sun perpetuates life on earth, so to does God's power sustain the universe Hebrews 1:3. The light of the sun reflects off of the moon at night and we Christians, likewise, should reflect God's glory in the earth.
I disagree with the last point. We ARE sophisticated, only nowadays we are nt interpreting bible stories, we are interpreting films and TV shows and so forth
@duffry either you're dead right... or you (and me with my question) are great examples of the alleged change in the fashion for wanting things to be "as it says on the tin". Maybe in a couple of hundred years (when we're dead and the Bible isn't) we'll be seen as simpletons and allegory will be fashion again? Good points you make though - thumbs up! PS: Some scholars would argue the Bible's more nuanced and layered than an instruction manual and you don't do it justice, but I get your drift.
As an atheist, I've always had a problem with the question that you asked at 5:21. It was interesting to hear a scholar's response to that, and interesting to know things didn't start becoming literal until much later on. While I accept what he's saying about the fact that something gets lost when the allegory and metaphor are removed, if this is supposed to be a divinely inspired text, for me, God should have provided some sort of appendix to make things absolutely unambiguous...
Allegories are more efficient forms of truth.We remember it easier,we retell it more and it draws on our tendency to understand things as meaningful.If you are interested there's this site called cinemagogue.The guy is a movie boff that looks at the naratives involved in most stories.The more of his talks you watch the more you realise how elemental stories are.Even the most commercial movies contain strong allusions to God and the state of man and you'll soon realise how embedded in story weare
Without that, how do we know that the priest/scholar/theologian interpreted the allegory correctly? It also means anybody is free to interpret anything in any way they like and then claim that they're appealing to divine authority to justify any act they want to. We all know what that's led to... Anyway, this is a great channel, really interesting stuff! Cheers!
But don't you think the fact that everyone is able to possess a story and explore it(because it's open to them) is better than an objective text which needs highly studied experts to understand and even more studied experts to misunderstand?If you look at science as a kind of model for this hypothetical objective sacred text then you should also consider that there is no shortage of bickering in science on matters of objective knowledge nor's it free of knowledge misuse and abuse.
I don't have a problem with the use of an allegory to convey a message, so long as the meaning was explicitly provided. If, like you said, everybody is free and open to explore them in any way that they like, why do we need priests or theological scholars? The fact that they exist seems to suggest that the bible is just as difficult to understand...
My final question would have been "So, you're saying the Bible went out of date a couple hundred years ago?". People today still look for the meaning in stories, but they don't look for the allegory in instruction manuals. Vague text is vague and begging external meaning to be ascribed to it as literal meanings become falsified. Truth doesn't need allegory, cold reading does. It does show how powerful a message can be when smart and creative people portray it, no matter how false it may be.
Hmm, I still have a problem with the fact that there's ambiguity due to possible different interpretations. To me, the fact that the allegory is open to different interpretations isn't a virtue - there's just too much potential for abuse, which I think an omnipotent being would realise.
No offense, but you guys are dead wrong about important writings being conveyed only through allegory until recently. This is apologetic bullshit to account for the bible screwing up on so much stuff. Paul's epistles pre-date John's gospel, but Paul didn't feel the need to write purely in symbolism. If Paul can transmit clear, direct instructions to his congregations, why can't the author of John? I'm not saying symbolism isn't common in the bible; I'm saying it's one of various writing styles.
Your understanding of what god is has fallen into the trap of your literal way of thinking. God always starts as a concept, if you accept stories were taken allegorically, you have to see that there are no descriptions of god but rather allusions to his nature. You take the position of god being objectifiable, resulting in you trying to discuss a god that you yourself have defined. Sikhs for example think that all religions texts are valid, understand why and you will understand god better
I don't like the analogy of allegory in poems with allegory in the bible as poetry is not necessarily there to tell people how to live their lives. The bible's poetic nature, to me, may have helped it become a recognised piece of literature but it's inappropriate for the kind of book that it is so often professed to be. A book inspired by a being as powerful as a god, made so that the human race could understand (to some extent) and worship it, should be clear and unmistakable in its message.
@BitaminaTek and @moveaxebx good to hear you both enjoy... the videos are aimed at everyone and I wish everyone was so restrained in their comments...
But we all know that's not going to happen! :)
You're definately right in saying we aren't all in agreement but the difference is that if a theologian points out something new to us we have the power and tendency to investigate it as if it comes from our own minds.With stories,you never accept expert opinion simply because the opinion comes from an expert.It actually has to make sense to you.We are powerfully equipped to handle and process insights personally and thoroughly without experiencing them as burdens that need to be dealth with
From what I have deduced in my study of literary theory so far, it is agreed that language = metaphor. In other words, the 'literal' doesn't exist because we are always constrained by the 'world' created by the language we speak(hence the benefits of being multilingual - WordsoftheWorld illustrates this perfectly!)
It is up to the reader to try and communicate with the 'text',& this is why the painting in this video is great, especially considering the detail of the door !
@PBDPBD interesting contribution... many thanks!
Symbols widen the scope of meaning of theirs objects. Things have (or may be assigned) qualities that escape from our perception if they're described literally. Metaphorical combinations like "your voice is rain" or "eyes of sea" summon or reveal hidden qualities present in "voice" and "eyes" that cannot be made understood as precisely through formal description. That precision and the final understanding, however, are inevitably subjective.
Great video.
@bibledex An example of the "nuance" can be found at:
project-reason org/bibleContra_big pdf (missing dots)
I think allegory and symbolism needs some context to frame it in. This picture for example, if I didn't know it was referring to the Bible, I would simply say "Oh, the lighting's painted well" and probably leave it at that. Whereas with the verse it's much more of a "Oh, a moral compass" *eyeroll*.
That being said, I parse symbolism in writing much faster than I do visually and like a tip off so I can get the visual symbology that much quicker without waiting for the fridge logic to kick in.
Great video!
I was a little surprised that nobody mentioned the sun as the subject of the New Testament, turning "light of the world" into a realistic description while making Jesus the allegory for it.
I think that the sense of the importance of allegory can still be seen in how movies made from books are received, those that don't try to tell an allegorical story, and rather try to translate literally tend to be terrible
Try to describe anything great and do it well, and you will find yourself using non-literal comparisons. For very simple things a literal explanation may suffice, but anything particularly meaningful or enjoyable in human experience requires greater expression than a simple recounting of facts will allow. A kiss, a fine wine, the experience of sailing, the experience of either beauty or horror in this world must make you feel some way that words can't quite describe, or else you have never felt.
@davidpwithun
Yes, I studied them in seminary, in Greek as well as English. And please note, I said that Paul didn't write PURELY in symbolism. I didn't say that his letters were totally void of it. There are many passages where Paul provides very clear, black and white instructions. If you deny this, then you're just lying. And I can play that game too if you want. I can point to any text that exists in the world and call it symbolism. But that doesn't make it true, does it?
That's idealistic, it's an unattainable goal. Anything can be misunderstood. I agree that VAGUE and IMPERFECT symbols don't earn much merit, as they don't make up a firm base upon which sense can be conveyed; But I really admire authors who are able to construct a reality through PRECISE symbols, even if the final reading is subjective. That's much harder than writing supposedly unmisunderstandable literature, because, let's face it, even manuals and laws generate different interpretations.
@LuisDamianSanabria
Please note, the claim in this video is that literal, straightforward instructions are non-existent in ancient texts. If God, through the author of John's gospel, wanted to convey a clear message to us, he certainly had the tools available to do so. Josephus also wrote very straightforward text. The fact that he's a historian is irrelevant. Literal writing existed. Christian apologists just want to write off all difficult passages as allegories. It's the easy way out.
Your reasoning is wrong. Romans 1:20, don't worship created things because they were created to display the Divine nature and power of God. The sun, part of creation, therefore speaks of the nature of God, in this case, light. The energy of the sun perpetuates life on earth, so to does God's power sustain the universe Hebrews 1:3. The light of the sun reflects off of the moon at night and we Christians, likewise, should reflect God's glory in the earth.
I disagree with the last point. We ARE sophisticated, only nowadays we are nt interpreting bible stories, we are interpreting films and TV shows and so forth
@duffry either you're dead right... or you (and me with my question) are great examples of the alleged change in the fashion for wanting things to be "as it says on the tin".
Maybe in a couple of hundred years (when we're dead and the Bible isn't) we'll be seen as simpletons and allegory will be fashion again?
Good points you make though - thumbs up!
PS: Some scholars would argue the Bible's more nuanced and layered than an instruction manual and you don't do it justice, but I get your drift.
As an atheist, I've always had a problem with the question that you asked at 5:21. It was interesting to hear a scholar's response to that, and interesting to know things didn't start becoming literal until much later on. While I accept what he's saying about the fact that something gets lost when the allegory and metaphor are removed, if this is supposed to be a divinely inspired text, for me, God should have provided some sort of appendix to make things absolutely unambiguous...
Allegories are more efficient forms of truth.We remember it easier,we retell it more and it draws on our tendency to understand things as meaningful.If you are interested there's this site called cinemagogue.The guy is a movie boff that looks at the naratives involved in most stories.The more of his talks you watch the more you realise how elemental stories are.Even the most commercial movies contain strong allusions to God and the state of man and you'll soon realise how embedded in story weare
@dookdawg214 Citation Needed :-) Also please note that different authors write to different audiences so they need to adjust their style accordingly.
Without that, how do we know that the priest/scholar/theologian interpreted the allegory correctly? It also means anybody is free to interpret anything in any way they like and then claim that they're appealing to divine authority to justify any act they want to. We all know what that's led to... Anyway, this is a great channel, really interesting stuff! Cheers!
But don't you think the fact that everyone is able to possess a story and explore it(because it's open to them) is better than an objective text which needs highly studied experts to understand and even more studied experts to misunderstand?If you look at science as a kind of model for this hypothetical objective sacred text then you should also consider that there is no shortage of bickering in science on matters of objective knowledge nor's it free of knowledge misuse and abuse.
I don't have a problem with the use of an allegory to convey a message, so long as the meaning was explicitly provided. If, like you said, everybody is free and open to explore them in any way that they like, why do we need priests or theological scholars? The fact that they exist seems to suggest that the bible is just as difficult to understand...
My final question would have been "So, you're saying the Bible went out of date a couple hundred years ago?".
People today still look for the meaning in stories, but they don't look for the allegory in instruction manuals. Vague text is vague and begging external meaning to be ascribed to it as literal meanings become falsified.
Truth doesn't need allegory, cold reading does.
It does show how powerful a message can be when smart and creative people portray it, no matter how false it may be.
Also check out cracked dot com and enter the search terms "5 Ways You Don't Realize Movies Are Controlling Your Brain"
Hmm, I still have a problem with the fact that there's ambiguity due to possible different interpretations. To me, the fact that the allegory is open to different interpretations isn't a virtue - there's just too much potential for abuse, which I think an omnipotent being would realise.
No offense, but you guys are dead wrong about important writings being conveyed only through allegory until recently. This is apologetic bullshit to account for the bible screwing up on so much stuff. Paul's epistles pre-date John's gospel, but Paul didn't feel the need to write purely in symbolism. If Paul can transmit clear, direct instructions to his congregations, why can't the author of John? I'm not saying symbolism isn't common in the bible; I'm saying it's one of various writing styles.
Your understanding of what god is has fallen into the trap of your literal way of thinking. God always starts as a concept, if you accept stories were taken allegorically, you have to see that there are no descriptions of god but rather allusions to his nature. You take the position of god being objectifiable, resulting in you trying to discuss a god that you yourself have defined. Sikhs for example think that all religions texts are valid, understand why and you will understand god better
I don't like the analogy of allegory in poems with allegory in the bible as poetry is not necessarily there to tell people how to live their lives. The bible's poetic nature, to me, may have helped it become a recognised piece of literature but it's inappropriate for the kind of book that it is so often professed to be. A book inspired by a being as powerful as a god, made so that the human race could understand (to some extent) and worship it, should be clear and unmistakable in its message.
Honestly, I can't really understand the point that you're trying to make here.