Eusebius of Emesa in one of his discourses has quite a long passage about allegorizing. He allows that it cannot altogether be rejected but he is very cautious about its use. It tends to read meanings into the text which are good in themselves but are simply not present in the text. It can be an illegitimate short cut. A man who is bound or who is in prison is anxious to be free by any means, but not all means are right. Had all ancient interpreters of the Bible followed this advice, subsequent generations would have been saved the necessity of reading a great deal of nonsense. (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 829, emphases added)
The history of hermeneutics alone demonstrates that this is not the best possible world. 🙂
Related posts:
podcast 232 - Trinity Club Orientation
Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates - 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 - Part 4
answering Bowman's questions about identity, being the same F
podcast 125 - Dr. Robert M. Bowman's "What about This View?"
Parsing Plantinga: is there such a person as God?
podcast 368 - Dr. Dustin Smith on the Plural of Majesty in the Hebrew Bible
a reply to Robert Bowman on biblical monotheism, the Trinity, and the Shema
podcast 374 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 3
podcast 170 – Athanasius’s On the Nicene Council – Part 2
podcast 17 - Lewis vs. Rogers 1 - opening statements