Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Tomes' paper says allegorizing is "redundant," and page 6 says, "Hence scholars assert that allegory’s “role, hermeneutically speaking, is parasitic,” it extracts its significance from the rest of the Bible, yet contributes nothing in return. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this assertion. Certain points in scripture are stressed redundantly for emphasis, using plain words, types, pictures, prophecies, etc. Allegorizing, thus, enhances the message in richer terms. I should think that the strictest of literalism would preclude the church from even the singing of songs and writing of commentaries.
|
I agree with this.
I think common sense tells us to emphasize the literal and let allegory take a secondary role of support and perhaps enhancement.
Lee seemed to almost think allegory was more important than the literal. Much of the strangeness of the LRC swings on these "hidden" teachings. (e.g. Noah and his sons, Miriam, Saul being the anointed, plastering leper's houses, one trumpet, fine flour "mingled" with oil, and on and on.)
Lee seemed to think there was a "hidden" message in the Bible which was for a few select "faithful" ones to understand. Of course, his movement was right in the middle of that select company.