The Parable of the Raven and the Dove

[Guest Zayit]

Male and female of every nation under heaven.

[tsth]

What an interesting line of thought.  I have never heard the story of Moses in that light.  Say Eric lets not dismiss this too quickly, atleast for me this is new.  And as far as inspiration, I see no problem with God inspiring one writer to use the symbolism of a dove and years later inspiring a different writer to use the same symbolism.  Heck, maybe the later writers understood the verse of Moses and that is where they got the symbolism from. 

Thanks suzanne, I love this stuff

Kansas Dad

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahhh Kansas,

You just don't want me going "invisible" again!

Thanks!

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Guest Zayit]

Some interesting insights about the RAven/crow http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/legend01/raven.htm

[EricH]

What an interesting line of thought.  I have never heard the story of Moses in that light.  Say Eric lets not dismiss this too quickly, atleast for me this is new.  And as far as inspiration, I see no problem with God inspiring one writer to use the symbolism of a dove and years later inspiring a different writer to use the same symbolism.  Heck, maybe the later writers understood the verse of Moses and that is where they got the symbolism from. 

Thanks suzanne, I love this stuff

Kansas Dad

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually what is being proposed here is the reverse. It is assuming that Moses was using symbolism that was not revealed until much later in the NT. It assumes that every time a word is used in the Bible, it carries all of the meanings of every occurrence of the word, and that as exegetes we are free to read meanings back on words (even across languages) because God was after all the author. I have no problem with God inspring the same meaning as well, but that has to be indicated from the context of the passage. We would have to see something in the text that indicated that God had in mind the idea of reading the Holy Spirit onto the word dove.

This type of fallacy is called 'semantic anachronism'. It occurs when the late use of a word is read back over an earlier use. This is especially dangerous when you are talking about 2 different languages as you are here (greek and hebrew).

The assumption is than since God inspired the writers, all rules of grammar, linguistics and context can be suspended. The intepreter is now free simply to find the occurence of a word in the Bible and read its meaning over any other occurence of the same word, regardless if the context allows it or not, or if the author intended it or not. The logic is that since God inspired the whole thing, He would have been aware of the meanings over time, so now we are free to interpret words any way we like, as long as we can find a place in the bible where it means what we want it to mean.

This view of inspiration is known as "mechanical inspiration". It maintains that God suspended the intellects of the authors and they became robots as they wrote. So it is no longer important to ask what Paul for example intended, because he was not in control of what he wrote and as TSTH said of Moses, had no purpose.

The orthodox (by orthodox I mean most commonly understood) understanding of inspiration is that God used the intellects, cultures, and language of the human authors to convey His message. That means we are still bound by the rules of grammar and linguistics, because God chose to use human language and authors to accomlish His task. Thus it is still valid and important to attempt to understand what Paul, Moses, John or any author of the scriptures intended, because God used their wills to write. And the way that we have of getting at authorial intent is the use of grammar, linguistics, context, setting etc.

One logical problem with reading meanings of different occurences onto words, it how you decide which meaning you are going to accept in a given context. If we do not use linguistic rules of context and grammar, we will simply choose which meaning we want to read.

I would add that if God had chosen not to use human authors, but rather handed down an intact set of manuscripts we would be more free to apporach the text from this (the mechanical) perspective, since it would have been written at one time, by one author, in one specific setting.

[EricH]

That is why Moshe spent so much time up on the mountain, he didn't even know this language, he was raised as a n Egyptian and only knew hyroglyphic writing and the more daily form perhaps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is really a presuppostion that cannot be proved.

[tsth]

Dear Eric,

I guess I am pretty surprised that you find it hard to relate the dove to the Holy Spirit? I don't see this as a stretch AT ALL??? Many people read the Scriptures in the manner that they receive them, not in regard to how they may have been taught in seminary. Just because someone has not gone to seminary, does not mean that they are outside the realm of being able to understand Scripture. Sometimes, they are "less" hindered.

In His Love,

Suzanne