The figures of speech in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation22:21 are God's markings in The Word as to that which He wants emphasized.
A figure of speech is not something to be guessed about. Figures of speech are legitimate grammatical usages which depart from literal language to call attention to themselves. etc., etc., etc.
---when a word or words fail to be true to fact, they are figures of speech. Figures of speech have a God-designed emphasis which must be grasped and understood in order to fully obtain the impact of The Word. etc., etc., etc.
There are 212 figures of speech used in the Bible. As far as I can calculate, throughout history there must have been approximately 220 different figures of speech. Two hundred twelve of these are used in the Bibl; sometimes there are as many as 40 variations of one figure. etc., etc., etc.
Yes, "condesensio", the figure that has God, a spirit, taking on human qualities, was one of the examples VPW used in the class. (Ex. God "breathed".)
For those not familiar with this concept, I offer another simple example----"syndeton", the use of connectors.
According to Wierwille, a list of items with a connector between each item, signified that each item was of equal importance. In contrast, he said, a list of items that lacked connectors signified that each item was of less importance that the point of the list in its entirety. (Ex. The fruit of the spirit----love, joy, peace etc.----against such there is no law.)
Wierwille goes on to say-----in the Word of God, figures of speech are used with divine design. Each and every one of them may be accurately catalogued and analyzed with precision. Except for figures of speech and Oriental customs and mannerisms, The Word is literal.
(In my opinion, a "fundamentalist/innerancy" mindset is prerequisite to accepting this premise.)
More often than not, when I'm reading Bullinger I feel like I'm getting more of a lesson on Greek, Hebrew, linguistics or numerology than a lesson on the bible itself.
I've said this before: as intelligent and knowledgeable as Bullinger is, I can't place a lot of credibility in someone who squeezes out "six denials" and "four crucified."
Also, I find it hard to believe that God would not have foreseen that most humans are unwilling or incapable of approaching scripture as if it were some ancient puzzle. No, I think God made the stories simple enough so that the common man would be able to understand the message.
Incidentally (and this concerns the reason you started this thread), it's becoming aparent to me that many priests, ministers and rabbis do not read the creation story literally. Which is kind of a load off my chest because, reading other, more conservative bible forums, I was getting the impression that I was headed for the lake of fire if I didn't believe that Noah saved every species of animal on earth.
Also, I find it hard to believe that God would not have foreseen that most humans are unwilling or incapable of approaching scripture as if it were some ancient puzzle.
I guess the point I'm getting at is that, in The Way, we were so conditioned to exalt the so-called importance of figures of speech, we became easy targets for manipulation.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery? Oh, that's a figure of speech. It's really talking about spiritual adultery. Of course, when you reach a higher level of spiritual maturity, you will understand that."
"Thou shalt not commit adultery? Oh, that's a figure of speech. It's really talking about spiritual adultery. Of course, when you reach a higher level of spiritual maturity, you will understand that."
It probably would be funny if it was an exaggeration-----but it's not. :(
Well, adultery isn't something that my friend either learned or internalized at TWI. In fact she was against it. If she had a more liberal attitude towards adultery than she does -- well, let's just say I'd be a happier guy right now. (More sinful and bound for gravedom, perhaps but yeah, happier.)
I've taken this a bit off track. I used adultery as an example because it demonstrates how so many things in The Way had more than one meaning and the "deeper" ones were reserved for "the more spiritual." Just to be clear on this, accepting that adultery had another, deeper meaning did not necessarily mean that one endorsed the more carnal version with which we are familiar. That, apparently, was reserved for the more fully initiated.
Returning to the topic of figures of speech, I find myself wondering if the fascination with the subject wasn't simply imposed hyperbole. Yes, there are figures of speech in the Bible. But all sorts of literature contains figures of speech. Do "f.o.s." really inject some sort of mystic, multi-layered meaning into the scriptures? Bullinger seemed to think so. But, remember, Bullinger was wrong about lots of things, not the least of which were the "4 crucified" and "6 denials" concepts. Fast forward. Some 60 or 70 years later, Wierwille absconded Bullinger's work and claimed God taught it to him. This claim, also, has suffered greatly in regard to credibility. So here we have basically taken the word of two dubious proponents that figures of speech were built into the Bible by Divine design and that they greatly intensify and diversify the face value of the text.
Jesus spoke in parables. Lots of people speak in parables. According to Wierwille, Jesus spoke in parables because the people of that time were not born-again and thus could not understand spiritual matters. But, we, being born again, could now use our holy spirit to understand the deeper spiritual meanings of the parables.
Looking for hidden meanings, thinking we were special because we could decipher the deeper spiritual nuances, feeling smug because we knew the REAL truth of what The Word was saying.
Even a counterfeit has to contain at least "some truth".......... oooooohhhhhhhh, eeewwwwww, aaaahhhhhhhh!
Well,...
Some figures are meant to draw attention, and mark out what is important, Like Asterisms,.... Behold! the Glory of the Lord! where the word "Behold" is meant to draw attention to the importance of the thing said. That one's rather obvious....
But do I think that Human nature can creep in and begin to make people think they can play games with all this,...
According to both Bullinger and Wierwille, this figure is used to indicate that several listed items carry equal levels of importance. (This and that and those and the other thing)
Asyndeton: Omittance of connectors
Supposedly, this one is used to indicate that the individual items of a list are less important than the conclusion or point they lead to.
These are valid figures of speech. No question about it.
Why does that, in and of itself, prove that God deliberately inserted them into the scriptures like some sort of Davinci Code? If the men who penned the scriptures used figures in their everyday vocabulary, wouldn't it stand to reason they would make use of them in their writings?
Recommended Posts
year2027
God first
thanks waysider
yes figure of Speech
did you known God is the biggest figure of Speech
God being human form makes the biggest figure of Speech and to the point figure of Speech in all the books about God
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The figures of speech in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation22:21 are God's markings in The Word as to that which He wants emphasized.
A figure of speech is not something to be guessed about. Figures of speech are legitimate grammatical usages which depart from literal language to call attention to themselves. etc., etc., etc.
---when a word or words fail to be true to fact, they are figures of speech. Figures of speech have a God-designed emphasis which must be grasped and understood in order to fully obtain the impact of The Word. etc., etc., etc.
There are 212 figures of speech used in the Bible. As far as I can calculate, throughout history there must have been approximately 220 different figures of speech. Two hundred twelve of these are used in the Bibl; sometimes there are as many as 40 variations of one figure. etc., etc., etc.
Source: PFAL ("Orange Book"), pages 70, 71. .......V.P. Wierwille
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thanks, Roy.
Yes, "condesensio", the figure that has God, a spirit, taking on human qualities, was one of the examples VPW used in the class. (Ex. God "breathed".)
For those not familiar with this concept, I offer another simple example----"syndeton", the use of connectors.
According to Wierwille, a list of items with a connector between each item, signified that each item was of equal importance. In contrast, he said, a list of items that lacked connectors signified that each item was of less importance that the point of the list in its entirety. (Ex. The fruit of the spirit----love, joy, peace etc.----against such there is no law.)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille goes on to say-----in the Word of God, figures of speech are used with divine design. Each and every one of them may be accurately catalogued and analyzed with precision. Except for figures of speech and Oriental customs and mannerisms, The Word is literal.
(In my opinion, a "fundamentalist/innerancy" mindset is prerequisite to accepting this premise.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
I want to add something a lot might want to hear
There are context of words and contexts of the whole written word and context of what is not wrote down
there where something is wrote and where not wrote and face value of something
like saying the wheel was round and saying the wheel was not round and like saying the wheel seem round
figure of Speech is only one way God sets things in the open to be seem, read, feel, smell, or tasted
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
More often than not, when I'm reading Bullinger I feel like I'm getting more of a lesson on Greek, Hebrew, linguistics or numerology than a lesson on the bible itself.
I've said this before: as intelligent and knowledgeable as Bullinger is, I can't place a lot of credibility in someone who squeezes out "six denials" and "four crucified."
Also, I find it hard to believe that God would not have foreseen that most humans are unwilling or incapable of approaching scripture as if it were some ancient puzzle. No, I think God made the stories simple enough so that the common man would be able to understand the message.
Incidentally (and this concerns the reason you started this thread), it's becoming aparent to me that many priests, ministers and rabbis do not read the creation story literally. Which is kind of a load off my chest because, reading other, more conservative bible forums, I was getting the impression that I was headed for the lake of fire if I didn't believe that Noah saved every species of animal on earth.
:)
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Also, I find it hard to believe that God would not have foreseen that most humans are unwilling or incapable of approaching scripture as if it were some ancient puzzle.
Exactly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Ancient and Present, many are still puzzled.
So it has to be simple right?
I believe so.
A simple puzzle or riddle even.
See anything appear?
Not by your work but by it being shown to you.
By people? No, tried that.
Though some people's words stir entirely new thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I guess the point I'm getting at is that, in The Way, we were so conditioned to exalt the so-called importance of figures of speech, we became easy targets for manipulation.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery? Oh, that's a figure of speech. It's really talking about spiritual adultery. Of course, when you reach a higher level of spiritual maturity, you will understand that."
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Ha ha! That's a good one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It probably would be funny if it was an exaggeration-----but it's not. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Well, adultery isn't something that my friend either learned or internalized at TWI. In fact she was against it. If she had a more liberal attitude towards adultery than she does -- well, let's just say I'd be a happier guy right now. (More sinful and bound for gravedom, perhaps but yeah, happier.)
edited for clarity
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I've taken this a bit off track. I used adultery as an example because it demonstrates how so many things in The Way had more than one meaning and the "deeper" ones were reserved for "the more spiritual." Just to be clear on this, accepting that adultery had another, deeper meaning did not necessarily mean that one endorsed the more carnal version with which we are familiar. That, apparently, was reserved for the more fully initiated.
Returning to the topic of figures of speech, I find myself wondering if the fascination with the subject wasn't simply imposed hyperbole. Yes, there are figures of speech in the Bible. But all sorts of literature contains figures of speech. Do "f.o.s." really inject some sort of mystic, multi-layered meaning into the scriptures? Bullinger seemed to think so. But, remember, Bullinger was wrong about lots of things, not the least of which were the "4 crucified" and "6 denials" concepts. Fast forward. Some 60 or 70 years later, Wierwille absconded Bullinger's work and claimed God taught it to him. This claim, also, has suffered greatly in regard to credibility. So here we have basically taken the word of two dubious proponents that figures of speech were built into the Bible by Divine design and that they greatly intensify and diversify the face value of the text.
Jesus spoke in parables. Lots of people speak in parables. According to Wierwille, Jesus spoke in parables because the people of that time were not born-again and thus could not understand spiritual matters. But, we, being born again, could now use our holy spirit to understand the deeper spiritual meanings of the parables.
Looking for hidden meanings, thinking we were special because we could decipher the deeper spiritual nuances, feeling smug because we knew the REAL truth of what The Word was saying.
In my opinion, it was hype.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Come now, Waysider.......
Even a counterfeit has to contain at least "some truth".......... oooooohhhhhhhh, eeewwwwww, aaaahhhhhhhh!
Well,...
Some figures are meant to draw attention, and mark out what is important, Like Asterisms,.... Behold! the Glory of the Lord! where the word "Behold" is meant to draw attention to the importance of the thing said. That one's rather obvious....
But do I think that Human nature can creep in and begin to make people think they can play games with all this,...
Oh yes, you betcha I do!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Let's take this one, for example:
Syndeton: (The uses of connectors)
Polysyndeton (Use of multiple connectors)
According to both Bullinger and Wierwille, this figure is used to indicate that several listed items carry equal levels of importance. (This and that and those and the other thing)
Asyndeton: Omittance of connectors
Supposedly, this one is used to indicate that the individual items of a list are less important than the conclusion or point they lead to.
These are valid figures of speech. No question about it.
Why does that, in and of itself, prove that God deliberately inserted them into the scriptures like some sort of Davinci Code? If the men who penned the scriptures used figures in their everyday vocabulary, wouldn't it stand to reason they would make use of them in their writings?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Yeah,.... So if you use a few, many or no connectors it's a figure of speech, well kiddies,... that just about covers any verse!
Yeah it's silly, but there's a point in that statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
why does everything has to have an point?
To hear from the inside out is Manifestation of sound
To smell from the inside out is Manifestation of odors
To taste from the inside out is Manifestation of flavors
To touch from the inside out is Manifestation of feeling
To see from the inside out is Manifestation of sight
To think from the inside out is Manifestation of thought
To image from the inside out is Manifestation of ideals
there are endless senses ways we receive something
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.