Knowing the type of literature can also help us determine if the language being used is figurative or not. For example, the Psalms are poetry - and the vast majority of poetry is figurative language.
Hey brother, I don’t believe that Balaam’s donkey is figurative language! Sister Cates one challenged me in it when I said it was “personification”!
While we can say it’s neither a simile or a metaphor, the fact that it says “The Lord opened the mouth of the donkey” it shows God being the one to do the impossible thing!
If it said “then the donkey spoke to Balaam” I would take that as figurative language, because we’re not told how the donkey began to speak!
I may have sacrificed conveyance of my point on the alter of being straightforward.
I agree 100% that the language used to describe what is literally happening is, well, describing what is literally happening and is not figurative.
My point is that the language used to describe what was literally happening is personification because it is impossible for a donkey to speak. Personification has to be employed to describe what was happening. It is paradoxical in that it is impossible for a donkey to open its mouth and speak yet, a donkey had opened its mouth and spoke.
Since it is an impossibility for this to happen the language of personification makes me contextually critique the account and even if the text didn't tell me, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt a miracle was taking place.
Like I said, I may not have written that segment in a style adequately complex enough to convey my thoughts. I need to revisit it. That being said, you are correct, as was sister Cates, on its face, claiming that the donkey did not actually talk but that this is mere personification is wrong.
Knowing the type of literature can also help us determine if the language being used is figurative or not. For example, the Psalms are poetry - and the vast majority of poetry is figurative language.
I’ll be making an edit I do believe. I didn’t think of that one.
Hey brother, I don’t believe that Balaam’s donkey is figurative language! Sister Cates one challenged me in it when I said it was “personification”!
While we can say it’s neither a simile or a metaphor, the fact that it says “The Lord opened the mouth of the donkey” it shows God being the one to do the impossible thing!
If it said “then the donkey spoke to Balaam” I would take that as figurative language, because we’re not told how the donkey began to speak!
I may have sacrificed conveyance of my point on the alter of being straightforward.
I agree 100% that the language used to describe what is literally happening is, well, describing what is literally happening and is not figurative.
My point is that the language used to describe what was literally happening is personification because it is impossible for a donkey to speak. Personification has to be employed to describe what was happening. It is paradoxical in that it is impossible for a donkey to open its mouth and speak yet, a donkey had opened its mouth and spoke.
Since it is an impossibility for this to happen the language of personification makes me contextually critique the account and even if the text didn't tell me, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt a miracle was taking place.
Like I said, I may not have written that segment in a style adequately complex enough to convey my thoughts. I need to revisit it. That being said, you are correct, as was sister Cates, on its face, claiming that the donkey did not actually talk but that this is mere personification is wrong.