RE: Literal and Not Literal
August 28, 2019 at 10:37 am
(This post was last modified: August 28, 2019 at 10:51 am by Acrobat.)
(August 28, 2019 at 10:19 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(August 28, 2019 at 10:05 am)Acrobat Wrote: Yes, the stakes are high. But you mistake the condition, as one that could be resolved by clarity in writing, less ambiguity in what’s said, when it can’t be. It’s not about you hearing or reading it clearly but seeing it clearly.
Then there's no point in reading the so-called 'holy' texts, is there?
Boru
If someone asked what is red, I can say it's the color of rubies, of blood, and strawberries, and he can understand what red means. But this understanding isn't transferable to a blind man, whose never seen rubies, or blood, or strawberries, or colors.
The ancient Hebrews saw a single thing, that defies any attempt at definition, like the dwellers of Plato's cave, seeing a hint of light from the sun. And that perception grows throughout their history, until it's fully realized in the person of Christ. Like the slow peeling of a blindfold, over thousands of years. There's a kernel that grows from one end to the next. But one has to see this seed in order to recognize it. No words, no matter how clearly said to you, can do that. Just like the redness of rubies can't be conveyed to the blind.