WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?

[awelight]

Of course, you are correct in the part that translators chose out the English words that we use read in our Bibles. However, they did not choose the contexts in which those words are placed nor how God intended to use those words, God did. This is what I meant by my comment about using a dictionary to define a word. I believe I used the word "draw" from John 6:44 as my example and listed several dictionary definitions which provided various possible meanings for this particular Greek word, which basically left the reader in the position to determine which correct meaning goes where.

When in fact, we have to let the Bible (based on how God uses that Greek or Hebrew word in the Bible) define the meaning of a word. This Greek word "draw" for example is never used to mean "compel" as given in certain Christian dictionaries, but the fact that it becomes an option for translation, which allows those who trust in these dictionaries to apply it to John 6:44, thus creating a false understanding of the word.

I acknowledge that Christian dictionaries don't get it wrong all the time, but in the end, they cannot be our authority in understanding of any word in the scriptures. Only the scriptures can do that.

This is what I meant by letting the Bible define its own words.

I am not sure what you meant by - "... John 6:44, thus creating a false understanding of the word." You also said earlier,: "This Greek word "draw" for example is never used to mean "compel" as given in certain Christian dictionaries, "

The only true way to determine what a particular Greek word means, is looking at it's use throughout the Scriptures and it's use within a given context. The Greek word for "draw" (KJV, NASB, RSV, and NGT), is the Greek word: ἑλκύσῃ (It is a 3rd.Person.Singular - Aorist. Active. Subjunctive - Verb). Meaning - "Draw, drag or pull" Aorist tense - Is point action in the past. Active voice - Shows action, in the 3RD. person, because of the trailing Pronoun and the source of the action goes back to "...the Father..." Subjunctive mood - means the mood of possibility. Being in the "subjunctive" mood and with "past" tense action, the better translation, should have read: No man is able to come to me, except the Father that sent me may have drawn him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

This particular verb is used six times in the New Testament. This being the case, we should be able to determine a clear meaning for the Greek word. Let's look at these verses:

Twice it means: "drawing" a net: John 21:6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. AND John 21:11 Simon Peter therefore went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, the net was not rent.

Once, to drawing a sword: John 18:10 Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus.

Once in the form of physical dragging or tugging persons: Acts 16:19 But when her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they laid hold on Paul and Silas, and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers,

Twice, in the form of being drawn too something: John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Therefore, we can see the English words used to translate this Greek verb, are good choices. The problem left to us, is that of meaning. In the first four examples, they are all physical action upon a person or thing. However, the last two, are dealing with a form of motivational drawing. It cannot mean a physical drawing, since this would never fit into an overall understanding of Scripture teaching. God does not drag one "kicking and screaming" to Christ.

So, this must be understood as, the Father doing "something" to an individual. This makes Jesus Christ greatly desirable within that person. In this way, the individual is drawn to Christ. This particular "something", would be the New Birth of John 3:8. This "Regenerative" action, by the Holy Spirit, enables the "dead" spirit in a person to live again. Having been renewed, this person has a desire for God rather than sin and can now discern the Gospel and be guided towards Christ, both, by the Gospel message understood and the enlightening assistance of the Holy Spirit. We have an example, of what the Father does for a person, in these verses:
Mat 16:15-17 He says to them, But who do you say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Additionally, one must not forget, the part of John 6:44 that came before, mainly: "No man can come to me..." or better: "No one is able to come to me..." Christ speaks here, of mans inherited "inability", because, in the "Fall", everyone became "dead" in trespasses and sins. To deny this fundamental point, is an attempt to undermine the whole Gospel message. In particular, the need for reconciliation.

In conclusion, there is a "compelling" action to the word "draw". When one is "born again", that one is now "compelled" by a Hungering and Thirsting after Jesus Christ and the entire revelation of God.

 

[awelight]

Hebrews has tons of typology.

Ruth has alegorical dynamics galore.

And a parable is beyond doubt allegory ( a story within a story)

In regards to the issue of Allegories - I will answer by quoting another because I like his answer. After this, I have better things to do with my time, than to continue this discussion. But I did want to give response, you deserved that.

In regards to parables, they are technically a form of illustration, not allegories. That is why they are called "parables" in the Scriptures and not "allegories.

The quote from Henry Morris Ph.D.
“Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar” (Galatians 4:24).

This verse is often used as a justifying proof text for allegorizing Biblical narratives. Here Paul is saying that the ancient conflict between Abraham’s wives, Hagar and Sarah (the mothers of Ishmael and Isaac, respectively) was a spiritual allegory, depicting the conflict between law and grace.

Many of the early church fathers indulged in such an allegorical approach to Scripture, attempting to harmonize Christianity with Greek philosophy. Modern theological liberals often do the same thing whenever modern scientific philosophy seems to conflict with a Biblical narrative. The most important example is the story of creation in the very first chapter of the Bible. The allegorical interpretation of this record denies its historicity, but tries to retain its supposed “spiritual” message by finding a devotional application in its narratives. Similarly, the record of the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 is explained away as an allegory of the yielding of “every man” to temptation.

However, the only narrative actually called an allegory in Scripture is the one mentioned in our text. In fact, this is the only time the word for “allegory” (Greek, allegoreo) is used in the Bible at all. It is significant that Paul’s use of the word does not suggest in any way that the story of Hagar and Sarah was not real history. There are numerous other references to Abraham, and at least three to Sarah, in the New Testament, and all clearly treat them as real persons.

This Biblical example, therefore, tells us that, if we draw allegorical applications from its historical records, it can only be on the basis that the events themselves really happened. HMM