Metaphor as meaning

[Popeyesays]

Does anyone have troubloe seeing metaphor as meaning in this poem:
The Parable of the Old Man and the Young
Wilfred Own
So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and strops,
And builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretched forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.

But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

If not why does anyone have problem seeing the metaphor of the scripture concerning Abraham?

Does anyone have trouble seeing metaphor as meaning in this poem:

By William Blake

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?


In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

So why is it difficult to see the Creation in Gensis as meaningful metaphor?

Regards,
Scott

 

[tomspug]

I think it's very interesting to use Biblical narrative as a metaphor. Are there people opposed to this?

 

[Popeyesays]

I think it's very interesting to use Biblical narrative as a metaphor. Are there people opposed to this?

Literalists are a big problem, but really not much less of demonstrated thick-headedness than thos who proclaim atheism and bemoan the lack of straight talk in scripture.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Ratiocinative]

Are you suggesting that the Biblical narratives are just metaphors?

 

[Popeyesays]

Are you suggesting that the Biblical narratives are just metaphors?

I think some is narrative and some is metaphorical, and most is both at the same time.

To include the metaphor in one's understanding one ADDS meaning.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Ratiocinative]

I think some is narrative and some is metaphorical, and most is both at the same time.

To include the metaphor in one's understanding one ADDS meaning.

Regards,
Scott

Well yes, most all of the ceremonial things God told the Israelites to do were to foreshadowing the coming of the savior. Blood being treated as sacred, sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, the High Priest's role, the blood on the door posts when the Israelites were in Egypt, the battle against the Amalekites where God told Moses to hold his hands out like a cross. But the narratives in the Bible are accurate historical accounts also, as it has been proven through archeology.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well yes, most all of the ceremonial things God told the Israelites to do were to foreshadowing the coming of the savior. Blood being treated as sacred, sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, the High Priest's role, the blood on the door posts when the Israelites were in Egypt, the battle against the Amalekites where God told Moses to hold his hands out like a cross. But the narratives in the Bible are accurate historical accounts also, as it has been proven through archeology.

There is no archeological evidence of the Exodus, for inswtance. None for Joshua and the conquest of the promised land.

From Wikipedia:
Although the academic community today has largely rejected the approach of Albright[18], saying that the Bible's histories are politically-motivated stories without historical basis, many claim the current scholarship itself has political biases, largely aimed at discrediting Zionism. [19][20]This school claims the current scholarship is heavily reliant on speculations that the Bible's history is largely "politically motivated fables", and that this hypothesis is unsupported by any evidence.[21]
Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Neil Silberman, in their 2001 book "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" and their 2006 "David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition", on the basis of the lack of pottery and evidence of contemporary construction on the Jerusalem site, have posited that Jerusalem at the time of David and Solomon was nothing more than a small village. In 2005, Dr. Eilat Mazar (under the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; with the Ir David ("City of David", the original Jebusitic Jerusalem) Foundation, the Israel National Parks Authority, and the Israel Antiquities authority), in excavating Ir David, claimed to have found what they believe to be the remains of King David's massive palace; it dates to the proper era, is found in the proper location, and is distinctively Phoenician in architecture (the palace, according to II Samuel 5:11, was built by King Hiram of Tyre). If accepted, this would undermine the theory that the kingship of David was but a myth, and even more so the theory that Jerusalem was only a village at the time.[22][23]
Debate still rages about the degree to which Jerusalem was the capital of a united Davidic Empire. For example, the Hebrew University’s Amnon Ben-Tor and Amihai Mazar, the University of Pennsylvania's Baruch Halpern, and Dr. Eilat Mazar. [24], have argued that evidence exists, but is difficult to interpret beneath modern Jerusalem. Furthermore, the new theories, in asserting the political or ideological nature of the Biblical history (especially its political history), have been accused themselves of relying on speculation of political context, which traditionalists claim is unsupported by any archaeological or literary evidence. [25]
Biblical archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards,
Scott

 

[Ratiocinative]

There is no archeological evidence of the Exodus, for inswtance. None for Joshua and the conquest of the promised land.

From Wikipedia:
Although the academic community today has largely rejected the approach of Albright[18], saying that the Bible's histories are politically-motivated stories without historical basis, many claim the current scholarship itself has political biases, largely aimed at discrediting Zionism. [19][20]This school claims the current scholarship is heavily reliant on speculations that the Bible's history is largely "politically motivated fables", and that this hypothesis is unsupported by any evidence.[21]
Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Neil Silberman, in their 2001 book "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" and their 2006 "David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition", on the basis of the lack of pottery and evidence of contemporary construction on the Jerusalem site, have posited that Jerusalem at the time of David and Solomon was nothing more than a small village. In 2005, Dr. Eilat Mazar (under the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; with the Ir David ("City of David", the original Jebusitic Jerusalem) Foundation, the Israel National Parks Authority, and the Israel Antiquities authority), in excavating Ir David, claimed to have found what they believe to be the remains of King David's massive palace; it dates to the proper era, is found in the proper location, and is distinctively Phoenician in architecture (the palace, according to II Samuel 5:11, was built by King Hiram of Tyre). If accepted, this would undermine the theory that the kingship of David was but a myth, and even more so the theory that Jerusalem was only a village at the time.[22][23]
Debate still rages about the degree to which Jerusalem was the capital of a united Davidic Empire. For example, the Hebrew University’s Amnon Ben-Tor and Amihai Mazar, the University of Pennsylvania's Baruch Halpern, and Dr. Eilat Mazar. [24], have argued that evidence exists, but is difficult to interpret beneath modern Jerusalem. Furthermore, the new theories, in asserting the political or ideological nature of the Biblical history (especially its political history), have been accused themselves of relying on speculation of political context, which traditionalists claim is unsupported by any archaeological or literary evidence. [25]
Biblical archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards,
Scott

Well, right off the bat you seem to forget that Jesus mentioned the Exodus in the middle of John 6 when he mentioned the Jew's ancestors eating manna in the wilderness. Secondly, there also isn't really any evidence to disprove the Exodus account either, mostly because it is just so long ago. So until more evidence is available we'll just have to go with what Jesus said.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well, right off the bat you seem to forget that Jesus mentioned the Exodus in the middle of John 6 when he mentioned the Jew's ancestors eating manna in the wilderness. Secondly, there also isn't really any evidence to disprove the Exodus account either, mostly because it is just so long ago. So until more evidence is available we'll just have to go with what Jesus said.

nts

The Qur'an and the baha`i Texts also confirm the role of Moses and the Exodus.


However, I would point out that you were touting archeological evidence just a few posts back and now you pooh-pooh such arguments. Are you by chance in your middle teens?

Regards,
Scott

 

[tomspug]

You don't have to NOT be a literalist to use Biblical narrative as metaphor. I'm an artist. I believe that metaphors have the ability to enhance our comprehension of what we do not understand.

That being said... no archaeological evidence for Exodus??? Are you mad? How do you THINK the Israelites got from Egypt (historical) to being a great nation (historical)? Did they come from space? Did the Pharaoh say, "hey, why not? Let them go form a country. We could use more enemies!"?

 

[Popeyesays]

You don't have to NOT be a literalist to use Biblical narrative as metaphor. I'm an artist. I believe that metaphors have the ability to enhance our comprehension of what we do not understand.

That being said... no archaeological evidence for Exodus??? Are you mad? How do you THINK the Israelites got from Egypt (historical) to being a great nation (historical)? Did they come from space? Did the Pharaoh say, "hey, why not? Let them go form a country. We could use more enemies!"?

And there is no archeological evidence at all. We cannot even figure out which pharaoh it might have been. Point out a stelae marking the event, a ruin or a panel of hieroglyphs, even a potsherd that can be attributed to it.

archaeological record SYNONYM: archeological record
CATEGORY: term
DEFINITION: The surviving physical remains of past human activities, which are sought, recovered, analyzed, preserved, and described by archaeologists in an attempt to reconstruct the past.

Regards, Scott

 

[Ratiocinative]

nts

The Qur'an and the baha`i Texts also confirm the role of Moses and the Exodus.


However, I would point out that you were touting archeological evidence just a few posts back and now you pooh-pooh such arguments. Are you by chance in your middle teens?

Regards,
Scott

No, I was saying that since the Bible is the most historically accurate pre-archeology document of all time it doesn't make sense to throw it all out the window because of a few things that cannot be verified. Jesus mentions that the Israelites did indeed wander in the wilderness in John 3, in addition to John 6 which I mentioned before. Also, stating that there is no evidence for the Exodus is a very bold statement. Just take a look at this video, for example: Exodus Decoded

 

[Sunstone]

You don't have to NOT be a literalist to use Biblical narrative as metaphor. I'm an artist. I believe that metaphors have the ability to enhance our comprehension of what we do not understand.

That being said... no archaeological evidence for Exodus??? Are you mad? How do you THINK the Israelites got from Egypt (historical) to being a great nation (historical)? Did they come from space? Did the Pharaoh say, "hey, why not? Let them go form a country. We could use more enemies!"?

Is there any evidence outside of the Bible for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt?

 

[kai]

the problem comes when the educated give their interpretation of the metaphor to the slightly less educated who tend to speak in plain language . i suggest that the average man in say Galilee 2000 years ago would talk fairly plainly and not understand a word about metaphors. we tend to call it all a bit "arty farty" such as.

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; — (William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7) This well-known quotation is a good example of a metaphor. In this example, "the world" is compared to a stage, the aim being to describe the world by taking well-known attributes from the stage. In this case, the world is the tenor and the stage is the vehicle. "Men and women" are a secondary tenor and "players" is the vehicle for this secondary tenor.

it is all very good but what does it actually mean to a coal miner or a docker? nothing to an artist or poet its wonderful.

the second problem is when religious people find that taking the bible literally does not link up with science they say oh its metaphoric or its allegorical.
i also think there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus , Hebrews in Egypt is very debatable ,the great nation of Israel is extremely debatable with scant evidence for David or Solomon

 

[kai]

Does anyone have troubloe seeing metaphor as meaning in this poem:
The Parable of the Old Man and the Young
Wilfred Own
So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and strops,
And builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretched forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.

But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

If not why does anyone have problem seeing the metaphor of the scripture concerning Abraham?

Does anyone have trouble seeing metaphor as meaning in this poem:

By William Blake

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?


In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

So why is it difficult to see the Creation in Gensis as meaningful metaphor?

Regards,
Scott

i find it difficult where is the metaphor in this
"In the beginning God] created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." God creates light; the "firmament" separating "the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;" dry land and seas and plants and trees which grew fruit with seed; the sun, moon and stars in the firmament; air-breathing sea creatures and birds; and on the sixth day, "the beasts of the earth according to their kinds." "Then God said, Let us make man in our image ... in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." On the seventh day God rests from the task of completing the heavens and the earth: "So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation

 

[Popeyesays]

And to me it is impossible to read it with belief if one insist upon a literal description.

Abdu'l Baha is speaking directly to the story of Adam and Eve in this statement, but it applies equally to the seven day creation story in the first part of Genesis:
If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the Divinity--that Divinity Who has organized this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength and perfection.
4We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.
--------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of Genesis and the Creation story, one must be aware there are two Creation myths in Genesis and they don't agree completely if one looks at it literally.

Regards,
Scott

 

[logician]

. Jesus mentions that the Israelites did indeed wander in the wilderness in John 3, : Exodus Decoded

I'd prefer the word of a contemporary historian over a god myth.

 

[Somkid]

No, I don't have a problem with with either one because I studied the Bible in theological school and I studied Blake in British literature-poetry class. I would not consider Blake any kind of source for proof of creation it would be irrelevant. And I'm not sure how you are trying to compare the 2 they have nothing to do with each other the only similarity is they both mention a lamb (possibly Jesus). You can easliy do a web search for "The Tyger" and find many different meanings for it but if anything I have always as did my literature professor found it to be bewilderment about god and the purpose of creating such a creature, it can also be said that this poem would suggest that god pits one creature against another no matter how unfair the match is, it also puts gods integrity on the block and asks why is one innocent and one evil since they came from the same forge.

 

[Popeyesays]

Somkid,

They were examples of metaphoric meaning in poetry. I chose two very different poems from very different times to show that metaphor in general holds meaning in poetry6 and therefore can hold meaning in scripture.

The "lamb" thing is just coincidence.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Somkid]

Somkid,

They were examples of metaphoric meaning in poetry. I chose two very different poems from very different times to show that metaphor in general holds meaning in poetry6 and therefore can hold meaning in scripture.

The "lamb" thing is just coincidence.

Regards,
Scott

I see what you are saying but I fail to see what you are trying to express, maybe I'm looking too deep?