Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DramaQ · 06-07-2005, 11:35 AM

This is for the literalists out there. I’m sure there’s an apologetic for this already, I just haven’t come across it:

If literal is literal is literal, how do you explain Luke 13:32, where Jesus refers to Herod as a “fox�??

Quote:

32And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Unless, of course, Herod literally was a furry little red animal…

And I was even sure to use the KJV, just in case...

dq

Toto · 06-07-2005, 12:09 PM

Or when Jesus referred to a generation of vipers, was he talking about snakes?

Irenaeus on animal imagery:

Quote:

For as, among men, those sons who disobey their fathers, being disinherited, are still their sons in the course of nature, but by law are disinherited, for they do not become the heirs of their natural parents; so in the same way is it with God,-those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons. Wherefore they cannot receive His inheritance: as David says, "Sinners are alienated from the womb; their anger is after the likeness of a serpent."643 And therefore did the Lord term those whom He knew to be the offspring of men "a generation of vipers; "644 because after the manner of these animals they go about in subtilty, and injure others. For He said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."645 Speaking of Herod, too, He says, "Go ye and tell that fox,"646 aiming at his wicked cunning and deceit. Wherefore the prophet David says, "Man, being placed in honour, is made like unto cattle."647 And again Jeremiah says, "They are become like horses, furious about females; each one neighed after his neighbour's wife."648 And Isaiah, when preaching in Judea, and reasoning with Israel, termed them "rulers of Sodom" and "people of Gomorrah; "649 intimating that they were like the Sodomites in wickedness, and that the same description of sins was rife among them, calling them by the same name, because of the similarity of their conduct.

commentary from Blue Letter Bible

Quote:

In calling him a fox, he gives him his true character; for he was subtle as a fox, noted for his craft, and treachery, and baseness, and preying (as they say of a fox) furthest from his own den.

DramaQ · 06-07-2005, 01:54 PM

Thanks Toto,

You ARE the master of the google.

Are these views consistent with fundamentalist literalists?

By allowing for Jesus to comment on “true�? character by reference, or “terms�? it opens a bit of a Pandora’s box, IMHO.

For instance, going back to Luke 13:32

Quote:

32And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

If we allow that ANY term MIGHT be a reference to character, how do we know, for example, that “devils�? doesn’t refer to ordinary people who behave in “devilish�? ways?

Who decides what’s metaphor? And how?

dq

disgracian · 06-08-2005, 02:04 AM

i would think that most people adopt as literal a believe as they can muster, but each follower has a different measure. i, for instance, don't take it very literally at all.

there isn't likely to be a single person on earth who thinks jesus was referring to an actual fox, obviously that's just an exaggerated example. to select a more debated example, take the six "day" creation myth. people apply various degrees of literalism to it. some assume six 24-hour spans, others assume something in the vicinity of 6000 years because to the lord, "a day is like a thousand years" (2 peter 3:8), and others like me are quite happy to accept a very old earth according to modern dating methods.

disgracian · 06-08-2005, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DramaQ

If we allow that ANY term MIGHT be a reference to character, how do we know, for example, that “devils�? doesn’t refer to ordinary people who behave in “devilish�? ways?

Who decides what’s metaphor? And how?

this is entirely true, once a person opens up the door to non-literal interpretations it is very hard to know when and where to stop. for a lot of people, literalism gives them a sense of security and thus is the basis of its appeal in my opinion.

these are the people who, in my opinion, lack the better judgement required to sort through the bible and separate the wheat from the chaff. the irony is that in their attempts to preserve its meaning, they end up robbing it of much more by relegating the best teachings to the same mundane status as everything else.

ah well, such is life.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2005, 02:04 AM	#4
disgracian Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: happyland Posts: 583	i would think that most people adopt as literal a believe as they can muster, but each follower has a different measure. i, for instance, don't take it very literally at all. there isn't likely to be a single person on earth who thinks jesus was referring to an actual fox, obviously that's just an exaggerated example. to select a more debated example, take the six "day" creation myth. people apply various degrees of literalism to it. some assume six 24-hour spans, others assume something in the vicinity of 6000 years because to the lord, "a day is like a thousand years" (2 peter 3:8), and others like me are quite happy to accept a very old earth according to modern dating methods.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.