http://www.theoblogian.org/Quality theological discussion.60 http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=68#Comment_144<P>Wow! Great quotes! If only I could preach like that today! </P> <P>I agree with Sam that it is largely about presupossitions. Did the authors intend for us to understand only the normal meaning? Or did they intend there to be a larger, deeper meaning? I think that Galatians 4 is not relevenat, becaue allegory of itself is not anti-histor.-gram. hermeneutics. When the author intends something to be understood allegorically (as in Gal 4), then it is the normal meaning of the text to understand it allegorically. In Gal 4, the allegory is marked. So the sticky point is other texts where allegory is not explicitly marked. Should we understand allegory as only those places where it is marked, or are there other cases where it appears as well? </P> <P>&nbsp;</P> <P>Another thought is that our hermeneutics seems to be associated with a desire for certainty. We want to know what the text says absolutely, so we find out. There is little room for not being sure. Our hermeneutic fits well with modernism. </P>Charlie12/29/2005 10:13:00 PM http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=68#Comment_143<DIV>It seems that an allegorical approach sees the Bible as something that is "deep, rich, and always has a new thing to say to each different person," whereas we believe that Scripture always says the same thing to everyone (though the details of personal application may vary based on culture, etc.).</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>It seems that its all about assumptions...and who is to say that our assumption is right?&nbsp; Would Origen and friends rightly declare support for their approach from Paul in Galatians 4?</DIV>Sam12/29/2005 5:30:00 PM