Why do some Protestants

[Anna_Scott]

I dont take all scripture literaly… Its would depend on how it compares to other scriptures.

Do the interpretations of the early church fathers or those of the Protestant reformers influence your interpretations in any way?

Anna

 

[SteveVH]

I guess I am trying to say, I really don’t understand the rules, when it comes to allegory and literalism. What are the rules, and who decides? It seems like people make them up as they go along.

Anna:

I have been taught that we should look at all of scripture from four different senses, the literal (what do the words say), the allegorical (how does it relate to Christ), the moral (what does it mean to my life, personally) and anagogical (its eternal significance). This is the basic formula involved in interpretation from a Catholic perspective.

From the Catechism (par 117):

“The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of of sound interpretation: ‘All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.’”

“The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism”

“The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written ‘for our instruction.’”

“The anagogical sense. (Greek: anagoge, “leading”) We can view realitites and events in terms of their significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.” (CCC p. 33, par. 117)

Hope this helps. It has really helped me in studying scripture.

God bless.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna:

I have been taught that we should look at all of scripture from four different senses, the literal (what do the words say), the allegorical (how does it relate to Christ), the moral (what does it mean to my life, personally) and anagogical (its eternal significance). This is the basic formula involved in interpretation from a Catholic perspective.

From the Catechism (par 117):

“The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of of sound interpretation: ‘All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.’”

“The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism”

“The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written ‘for our instruction.’”

“The anagogical sense. (Greek: anagoge, “leading”) We can view realitites and events in terms of their significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.” (CCC p. 33, par. 117)

Hope this helps. It has really helped me in studying scripture.

God bless.

SteveVH,

I really appreciate your taking the time to explain the Catholic viewpoint.

I wish a Protestant would give me a similar concrete response regarding literalism and allegory.

I grew up in Baptist churches. After a while, it just seemed like people were making up the rules of interpretation as they went along.

I still do not understand the insistence, by some Protestants, that the Genesis creation account is literal, when so many other passages are reduced to allegory.

The quotes from Catechism do actually make sense to me.

Any Protestants who will define the rules of literalism and allegory?

Thanks,
Anna

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Do the interpretations of the early church fathers or those of the Protestant reformers influence your interpretations in any way?

Anna

Im sure that the reformers have had influence, but I was prepared to go wherever the Bible lead me

 

[Padrej]

SteveVH,

I really appreciate your taking the time to explain the Catholic viewpoint.

I wish a Protestant would give me a similar concrete response regarding literalism and allegory.

I grew up in Baptist churches. After a while, it just seemed like people were making up the rules of interpretation as they went along.

I still do not understand the insistence, by some Protestants, that the Genesis creation account is literal, when so many other passages are reduced to allegory.

The quotes from Catechism do actually make sense to me.

Any Protestants who will define the rules of literalism and allegory?

Thanks,
Anna

Let me attempt to give you a response to you on your question of Literal-V-Allegory when it comes to Revelation or any other book of the Bible for that matter.

When I teach my students I tell them that there are parts of the bible that are meant to be allegory. For example when Jesus made his comment over Jerusalem that he would have loved to take them under his wings as a mother hen that does not mean that God is a big Chicken; hence you cannot take passages like that in a literal sense.

Now in Revelation there is a great deal of allegory and you must pay attention to the wording surrounding what is there. The words “like” “as” “as if” “as of” “like a” appear around some verse you know that that verse can only be taken as allegory. To give an example, Revelation speaks of giant grasshoppers/locusts that spit fire and destruction down on the earth. Because John uses the words “LIKE locusts” so you know this can only be taken allegorically. What was he seeing? Probably a future event and could only describe it in a way that he could understand. Now look at an Apache helicopter, head on it looks like a giant locust in flight, let it fire a missile and you would have it “breathing fire on the earth.” Was John seeing a future war? Probably so. To look at it another way, Pull George Washington up to our time and ask him to describe a plasma TV; he would probably say something like this, “it is like a painting that talks and it picture continually moves at the person’s whims.” You see he could only describe it in terms he would know, the same as John could only describe things and events he saw in terms that he knew.

I hope this puts the argument in some simplistic terms.

 

[FrJohnB]

Let me attempt to give you a response to you on your question of Literal-V-Allegory when it comes to Revelation or any other book of the Bible for that matter.

When I teach my students I tell them that there are parts of the bible that are meant to be allegory. For example when Jesus made his comment over Jerusalem that he would have loved to take them under his wings as a mother hen that does not mean that God is a big Chicken; hence you cannot take passages like that in a literal sense.

Now in Revelation there is a great deal of allegory and you must pay attention to the wording surrounding what is there. The words “like” “as” “as if” “as of” “like a” appear around some verse you know that that verse can only be taken as allegory. To give an example, Revelation speaks of giant grasshoppers/locusts that spit fire and destruction down on the earth. Because John uses the words “LIKE locusts” so you know this can only be taken allegorically. What was he seeing? Probably a future event and could only describe it in a way that he could understand. Now look at an Apache helicopter, head on it looks like a giant locust in flight, let it fire a missile and you would have it “breathing fire on the earth.” Was John seeing a future war? Probably so. To look at it another way, Pull George Washington up to our time and ask him to describe a plasma TV; he would probably say something like this, “it is like a painting that talks and it picture continually moves at the person’s whims.” You see he could only describe it in terms he would know, the same as John could only describe things and events he saw in terms that he knew.

I hope this puts the argument in some simplistic terms.

Excellent points on the literal versus allegorical translation in very simple terms. well done!!!