# What we "see" when we read Scripture.



## etexas (Nov 17, 2007)

I almost derailed a thread on this topic so I thought I would behave and do my own. It it about how sometimes in reading Scripture, "pictures" appear usually unbidden I find this happens a lot in reading narratives, for example: God tells Abraham to look into the sky and number them since his offspring would be numerous. When I read tht I picture a wizened Abraham looking into a cloudless and pollution free Middle-Eastern night sky and the vast expanse and canopy of stars he saw. Bruce made a VERY good point, I do not think I am to "try" to visualise Christ in my fallen mind and pray to that "construct". But back to my point, we are visual people. If there is a description of the tabernacle and it talks of a blue covering over a thing, I think of the color blue. Am I a sinner in that the Scripture evokes colors, textures and yes, individuals (who has never had a somewhat homurous mental picture of David trying on Sauls overlarge armor?)...I guess what it comes down to is how could such a thing be avoided. Someone told me that he has talked to a few people whoy say they just "see" ink on paper. Frankly I don't buy it. I am not really getting into right or wrong...but really in reading ,we see things. PB Brethren...take it away...


----------



## Ivan (Nov 17, 2007)

I don't see who one can avoid having images of what we are reading when a physical thing is being described. Of course, we can run into problems with that in some areas. 

God has given us a marvelous mind. I say use it.


----------



## etexas (Nov 17, 2007)

Ivan said:


> I don't see who one can avoid having images of what we are reading when a physical thing is being described. Of course, we can run into problems with that in some areas.
> 
> God has given us a marvelous mind. I say use it.


I always like it when Ivan, with his wisdom and Pastoral experience wades in!....Yes, an "abuse" could occur, but to be frank, I think Scripture (Heaven forgive me) would be far les interesting if I "could not" think about Abraham sitting in his tent door, when the three visitors arrived.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 17, 2007)

etexas said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see who one can avoid having images of what we are reading when a physical thing is being described. Of course, we can run into problems with that in some areas.
> ...



Absolutely! 

Frankly, I haven't heard anyone say that we shouldn't use the visual power of our minds when reading. Actually the same can be said about preaching. Using the visual powers of our congregations we are able to better get our message across to them. Again, we need to be careful, yet it is a powerful tool.


----------



## etexas (Nov 17, 2007)

Ivan said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...


...I think such a thing is only sinful if one tries to "Visualize" God with our fallen minds and prays to a vain image!


----------



## etexas (Nov 17, 2007)

~Taking an "alloted bump" in that I requested Bruce's wisdom and insight on this thread, and I truly wish for a "feel"of what is happening when we read Holy Scripture~ Grace and Peace.


----------



## k.seymore (Nov 18, 2007)

Yeah, I can't see how words couldn't give images myself. But I don't think images scripture itself gives are idolatry. We know that in times past God put images into people minds apart from scripture, and those were not idolatry. So it would seem like images God gives through scripture into one's mind wouldn't be idolatry (although images we come up with on our own would be). Notice how careful Calvin is in Isaiah 6 to explain how the images that Isaiah saw were not idolatry since God both gave the images and was present with them:

Calvin said, "I saw the Lord It is asked, How could Isaiah see God who is a Spirit, and, therefore, cannot be seen with bodily eyes? Nay, more, since the understandings of men cannot rise to his boundless height, how can he be seen in a visible shape? But we ought to be aware that, when God exhibited himself to the view of the Fathers, he never appeared such as he actually is, but such as the capacity of men could receive. Though men may be said to creep on the ground, or at least dwell far below the heavens, there is no absurdity in supposing that God comes down to them in such a manner as to cause some kind of mirror to reflect the rays of his glory. There was, therefore, exhibited to Isaiah such a form as enabled him, according to his capacity, to perceive the inconceivable majesty of God; and thus he attributes to God a throne, a robe, and a bodily appearance.
Hence we learn a profitable doctrine, that whenever God grants any token of his presence, he is undoubtedly present with us, for he does not amuse us by unmeaning shapes, as men wickedly disfigure him by their contrivances. since, therefore, that exhibition was no deceitful representation of the presence of God, Isaiah justly declares that he saw him. In like manner, when it is said that John saw the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove,
the name of the Holy Spirit is applied to the outward sign, because in the representation there was no deception; and yet he did not see the essence of the Spirit, but had a clear and undoubted proof, so that he could not doubt that the Spirit of God rested on Christ.
Secondly, it is asked, Who was that Lord? John tells us that it was Christ, (John 12:41,) and justly, for God never revealed himself to the Fathers but in his eternal Word and only begotten Son. Yet it is wrong, I think, to limit this, as some do, to the person of Christ; for it is indefinitely, on the contrary, that the Prophet calls him God. Nor do their views derive any support from the word אדוני, (adonai,) which seems particularly to apply to Christ; for it is often applied to God in an absolute and unrestricted manner. In this passage, therefore, God is mentioned indefinitely, and yet it is correctly said that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, for at that very time he was the image of the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15.)
Sitting upon a throne. He could not have given a better description of God, in regard to place, than in the person of a Judge, that his majesty might strike greater terror into the Jews; for we shall afterwards see the dreadful judgment which the Lord pronounced from his judgment-seat. But lest we should suppose that the Prophet contrived the manner in which he would paint God, we ought to know that he faithfully describes the very form in which God was represented and exhibited to him."

I definitely have thought of the Holy Spirit as a dove while anointing Jesus, but having read Calvin on the subject I don't feel guilty about it.


----------



## etexas (Nov 18, 2007)

k.seymore said:


> Yeah, I can't see how words couldn't give images myself. But I don't think images scripture itself gives are idolatry. We know that in times past God put images into people minds apart from scripture, and those were not idolatry. So it would seem like images God gives through scripture into one's mind wouldn't be idolatry (although images we come up with on our own would be). Notice how careful Calvin is in Isaiah 6 to explain how the images that Isaiah saw were not idolatry since God both gave the images and was present with them:
> 
> Calvin said, "I saw the Lord It is asked, How could Isaiah see God who is a Spirit, and, therefore, cannot be seen with bodily eyes? Nay, more, since the understandings of men cannot rise to his boundless height, how can he be seen in a visible shape? But we ought to be aware that, when God exhibited himself to the view of the Fathers, he never appeared such as he actually is, but such as the capacity of men could receive. Though men may be said to creep on the ground, or at least dwell far below the heavens, there is no absurdity in supposing that God comes down to them in such a manner as to cause some kind of mirror to reflect the rays of his glory. There was, therefore, exhibited to Isaiah such a form as enabled him, according to his capacity, to perceive the inconceivable majesty of God; and thus he attributes to God a throne, a robe, and a bodily appearance.
> Hence we learn a profitable doctrine, that whenever God grants any token of his presence, he is undoubtedly present with us, for he does not amuse us by unmeaning shapes, as men wickedly disfigure him by their contrivances. since, therefore, that exhibition was no deceitful representation of the presence of God, Isaiah justly declares that he saw him. In like manner, when it is said that John saw the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove,
> ...


Thank you for your observations. Great qoute!


----------



## etexas (Nov 18, 2007)

I keep thinking obout this....Remember how we learned to read? CAT C-A-T CAT....always a kity picture to give us a "peg" the word is not meaningless...right....DOG D-O-G DOG.....always a picture of a little doggie in our first "readers". My thing in this reflection is that most words are "attached" to a thing. Check it....PURPLE....you "saw" something in that word either the color or as I typed it...a grape cluster popped into my head. I think it is to a large degree impossible to seperate words and images whether in Holy-Writ or ones favourite novel.


----------

