₦airaland Forum

2012.

I was highly anticipating this flick for 2 reasons: I love John Cusack and I have an unhealthy obsession with doomsday movies.

I was sorely disappointed with the movie. Story was weak, very weak. What's worse than a bunch of rich, overfed elitist snobs being the only ones who survive? It is a much inferior version of "Deep Impact" where instead people were selected by lottery and top scientists/biologists/physicians etc were chosen to go along. And while many thought the CGI was good, I disagree. I thought the CGI was overkill, to the point the disaster scenes did not seem believable. Chiwetel was good though, I think he was the only bright star in all of it. Danny Glover as president was most notably bland and uninspiring. Several other characters were equally weak.

I rate[b] 5 out of 10.[/b]

vescucci:
I don't even know what you guys are talking about anymore.

Lol . . . well its been bouncing back n forth between 'Up in the Air", Vera Farmiga, Surrogates - and whether they need to be sued for plagiarism, JK's wife abi ex-wife, Albino Craig etc . . .

though I'm lost at Max's last entry perhaps a response to "White out" the movie I mentioned earlier?

ttalks:
Anyone who's been following this thread ought to know who this is . . . . .

www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6 I know I know! LOL 

justkunmi:
You.would.choose.Avatar.over.Titanic?.
Well. .I.won't. . Cos.I.thnk.Titanic.satisfies.all.movies.aspects. And.it.outclasses.Avatar.by.miles. .
My.two.cents.though. . .

Awww the Titanic . . . here's a classic review of the movie everyone must listen to: [flash=600,400]http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/ZUAJPKRYeNk[/flash]
ROTFLOL, I musta watched this vid least 15 times *Kool and the gang woulda been packing up* LOL

---

As for Avatar, I don't even need to toss in my review. The movie was the ish in every category, will go down as one of the best ever. I rate 9.5 out of 10.

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=380443.msg5317439#msg5317439 date=1263501270]Much of what I was going to say has already been said.

Its only because[b] Jesus did not get married. If He did and some of his 'toasting' was recorded, SOS would be childsplay.[/b][/quote] Lol

TrueSeeker:
Though I appreciate the comments of above named persons, I will like to include my comment bellow for the sake of clarification.

“THE whole world was not worthy of the day in which this sublime Song was given to Israel.” Thus the Jewish “rabbi” Akiba, who lived in the first century of the Common Era, expressed his appreciation for The Song of Solomon. The book’s title is a contraction of the opening words, “The superlative song, which is Solomon’s.” According to the Hebrew word-for-word text, it is the “Song of the songs,” denoting superlative excellence, similar to the expression “heavens of the heavens,” for the highest heavens. (Deut. 10:14) It is not a collection of songs but one song, “a song of the utmost perfection, one of the best that existed, or had ever been penned.”

King Solomon of Jerusalem was the writer of this song, as is borne out by its introduction. He was highly qualified to write this supremely beautiful example of Hebrew poetry. (1 Ki. 4:32) It is an idyllic poem loaded with meaning and most colorful in its description of beauty. The reader who can visualize the Oriental setting will appreciate this still more. (Song of Sol. 4:11, 13; 5:11; 7:4) The occasion for its writing was a unique one. The great king Solomon, glorious in wisdom, mighty in power, and dazzling in the luster of his material wealth, which evoked the admiration even of the queen of Sheba, could not impress a simple country girl with whom he fell in love. Because of the constancy of her love for a shepherd boy, the king lost out. The book, therefore, could rightly be called The Song of Solomon’s Frustrated Love. Jehovah God inspired him to compose this song for the benefit of Bible readers of the ages to follow. By the time he wrote the song, Solomon had “sixty queens and eighty concubines,” compared with “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” at the end of his reign.—Song of Sol. 6:8; 1 Ki. 11:3.

WHY BENEFICIAL

What lessons are taught in this song of love that the man of God might find beneficial today? Faithfulness, loyalty, and integrity to godly principles are clearly shown. The song teaches the beauty of virtue and innocence in a true lover. It teaches that genuine love remains unconquerable, inextinguishable, unpurchasable. Young Christian men and women as well as husbands and wives can benefit from this fitting example of integrity when temptations arise and allurements present themselves.

But this inspired song is also most beneficial for the Christian congregation as a whole. It was recognized as part of the inspired Scriptures by the Christians of the first century, one of whom wrote: “All the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Rom. 15:4) This same inspired writer, Paul, could well have had in mind the Shulammite girl’s exclusive love for her shepherd when he wrote to the Christian congregation: “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ.” Paul also wrote of the love of Christ for the congregation as that of a husband for a wife. (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23-27) Not only is Jesus Christ the Fine Shepherd for them but he is also their King who holds out to his anointed followers the indescribable joy of “marriage” with him in the heavens.—Rev. 19:9; John 10:11.

Certainly these anointed followers of Christ Jesus can benefit much from the example of the Shulammite girl. They also must be loyal in their love, unenticed by the materialistic glitter of the world, keeping balance in their integrity clear through to the attainment of the reward. They have their minds set on the things above and ‘seek first the Kingdom.’ They welcome the loving endearments of their Shepherd, Jesus Christ. They are overjoyed in knowing that this dear one, though unseen, is close beside them, calling on them to take courage and conquer the world. Having that unquenchable love, as strong as “the flame of Jah,” for their Shepherd King, they will indeed overcome and be united with him as fellow heirs in the glorious Kingdom of the heavens. Thus will Jah’s name be sanctified!—Matt. 6:33; John 16:33.

This was a very very good read! thanks Seeker.


And No2A, I def caught your entries too and you're right on the money when you say a lot of the problem arises because of the degenerate state of our minds when we read that book.

netotse:
would someone please show me. . .how solomon is trying to toast another man's woman, the beloved is the shunamite right? then who is loved? solomon or the sheperd boy? and where is the 3rd person?

Hey Netotse!

  Check this out:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song%20of%20Solomon%201&version=ESV   Its SOS in the ESVersion and it gives titles/descriptions of the different poems so you know who's talking at what point. Godbless and happy reading .

^^lol. Okay Barrister H202. Na that one I like . If Artest is the #2 scoring option then wahala dey. I watched about 5mins of the game yesterday, long enough to see Fisher get schooled on the D end by Parker and then return the favor with a 6-foot air ball

ps. why are Artest's shorts so tight? those things are an eyesore. Perhaps his blood circulation is restricted and he cannot focus on his shot?

MyJoe:
Want to know what I think of the title? That you are an advertising genius! Actually there is nothing wrong with it. Coming from a Christian, it ought to be obvious that the words are used metaphorically, but I know some people will not see that. Happens all the time.

. . . yeah that's what I was going for lol but it appears more people than I anticipated did not get it. Thanks!

netotse:
@my joe
thanks a mil for the above. i've never actually given thought to the storyline behind the book

i'm going to read SOS tonight again

@JeSoul
thanks

If this is the last and only reply on this thread, it has already been more than worth it for the sake of Netotse here . Joe thanks again for throwing light on subject, people (myself included) are seeing! lol

Maven, girl don't get worked up, I'm certain the fellas while probably mischievous in their entries, truly meant no ill 

MyJoe:
A beautiful girl is betrothed to a shepherd boy. A shepherd boy. A powerful king catches sight of her and make love overtures to her. She replies that she is already in love with a shepherd boy. Not used to being turned down, the randy king would have none of it. But he does not deploy policemen. He deploys poetry! This is the setting behind the Superlative Song, which is Solomon’s.

Lol, I like that! Poetry was indeed his weapon of choice.

In the Song, we read the love-related exchanges between King Solomon and a young virgin, the Shulamite girl, and between the Shulamite and her inamorato, a shepherd boy. We also read the encouragement given to the girl by her brothers, who ask to know if they can bank on her chastity. She replies that she is chaste, and her brothers offer her a reward:

“If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if she be a door, we will inclose her with boards of cedar.” 8:9

Infact the very first sermon I ever heard from SOS was on this very verse. I thought it was simply captivating.

Early in the Song, we learn that relationship moves from courtship to consummation:

“As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.” 2:3

The Shulamite girl’s commitment to her shepherd boy is exemplary. She is not ashamed of the shepherd and lets the whole world in on it. When he delays in returning from his field she goes all out to find him, asking the women of Jerusalem to join her search. She sees wealth and glamour all around Solomon. But in her eyes, not even the most beautiful of flowers under the morning dew can compare in beauty to her beau. Hear her description of him:

“My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven.
His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set.
His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh.
His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires.
His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.
His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”
[/i]5:10-16

And does he return her affections. He does, and he is not to be outdone in poetry:

[i]“Thou art beautiful, O my love, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners.”
Turn away thine eyes from me, for they have overcome me: thy hair is as a flock of goats that appear from Gilead.
Thy teeth are as a flock of sheep which go up from the washing, whereof every one beareth twins, and there is not one barren among them.
As a piece of a pomegranate are thy temples within thy locks.
There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.
Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?
I went down into the garden of nuts to see the fruits of the valley, and to see whether the vine flourished and the pomegranates budded.
Or ever I was aware, my soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib.”
6:4-12

This has got the be one of the simplest and best descriptions of what is happening in SOS I have seen. Great job Joe!

Here is the verse I first came across in the Song as a teenager and have thought about ever since:

“Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame.” 8:6

This Song is full symbolisms: humility, friendship, loyalty, contentment, love over material things, and many others. It has been described by Christians as the relationship between Christ and his church or between God and man; by Jews, as the relationship between God and Israel. A lot of inferences can be drawn from the Song of Songs which is Solomon’s, but there is not a doubt that it was written by men who practised poetry in love and love in poetry long before Valentine’s day was invented.

Incredibly worthy of being highlighted. There is so much in SOS, and I am glad several people on this thread are pointing to lessons and pulling them out very well. Thanks for this!

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=380443.msg5305418#msg5305418 date=1263379220]We read the book of Esther, a book in which the name "God" was never mentioned yet it illustrates the ominpotent attributes of God in influencing people's mind to favour another.Scholars say the book was written for the purpose of festivity thus calendric yet we read and draw inspirations daily.

I think the same applies to the book SOS, Yeah the book was not authored with the intentions of showing one's affections with God but with a woman, but then God speaks thru' just about anything.[/quote]True true.

Jesoul, did u say unholy, hmmm beginning to make me feel like love & se.x are unholy things.

Tonye dearest, I did not mean that literally, but was trying to highlight the fact many people shy away from it because of its contents. Get it?

TV01:
The scriptures He says "speak of Me". He is always there! And to my mind and experince should always be pre-eminent in any revelation. Like I said there will always be other applications and the wooing, courtship and union thing is one I fully intend to apply!

Lol correct boy.

I feel the insight afforded by the brides and the "wannabe brides" in SOS are instructive for our times and are prophecy unfloding. But I won't derail if the convo doesn't go there.

Please, do go there. I would like as much practical, theoretical and spiritual knowledge and wisdom be gleaned from SOS on this thread. I'd like christians to look beyond the surface and find out how much they can really learn.

---

Yes 0! Beantown early 80's a young intern over from London. Loved it! The whole collegiate feel, the heightened corporate fellowship experience in the US - especially in lieu of any proximate family of my own. Took me a few months to really settle in, but I was back the following year and visited frequently afterwards.

A real personal growth time for me and all round ball. Filenes basement, the "T", the Sox at Fenway - the wave lol! - the Celtrics at the garden, Fanueil hall, lovely balmy summers.

I lived in a place called "Mission Hill" if I recall rightly just near Roxbury Crossing on the green line. Work folk thought it was edgy to say the least, but I was fine. Saw the occassional body map tho' and lived through some big incidents and historic times.

Best
TV

Oh wow. You're a proper Boston cat for real lol. I'm pretty much a westside dweller. When I worked in Watertown for 2 yrs I considered moving permanently to the city but it was going to cost an arm and a foot to live in a decent area. I'm back to Worcester now and frequent downtown mostly for concerts and above all to see the Celtics play at tha garden! lol. Beantown is just as vibrant, some major upgrades were done about the Seaport hotel (I forget the name of the street now) and it is so downright gorgeous it should be a crime. I have some pictures if you'd like to see . . .

Mavenb0x:
JeSoul, in case you are alarmed at some responses, don't be. Get set for more: SOS is delicate & controversial enough and your thread title is to be "blamed" & will wreak more. . .

I know oh my sister, I unwittingly injected levity into the thread with that title. I have learned my lesson lol.

Okay, my opinion. SOS is pure romantic poetry, and as was common before the repressive Victorian age, is highly eroti.c (or at least it was, in its hey day) in nature. God designed us that way, and it pleased him to wire us up to also be able to control ourselves when necessary. Se.x is a great thing! But as with all other things in nature, like gravity, it must be kept in check, properly moderated, or you fly into the sun. I never force the topic down people's throats but I believe God never intended us to indulge in carefree, temporary-commitment &irresponsible se.x like some animals. He wanted us to enjoy it in a sweet & controlled, defined atmosphere of a marital union.

hehe I expected nuthin less from the prolific Maven  . Highly e-rotic is exactly the right word description to use, which is why I don't think it appropriate for younger audiences. You're right on God designed us that way . . . why would He include such a book along with the rest? Maybe its cos he doesn't want us to shy away from it but face it head on and put it in its proper place as you correctly noted.

If any, there are few lines pointing to a spiritual relationship with God. That was not the author's intent, IMO, so if any its a coincidence.

I see what you mean . . . but so much of scripture have parallels and can be applied in multiple views. So I dunno if calling it mere coincidence is accurate, perhaps it was a divine set-up? 

I think the book is there to show the virtues of chastit.y in the Shunammite woman, who was espoused to King Solomon. The romanti.c praise of the Wise King for the distinguished wise virgin is the theme in SOS and there are volumes to learn there if you dont have a "heart attack" at every eroti.c word!

Lol . . . and therein lies the problem, many christians do not touch that book (and understandably so I guess), it scares them away.

MyJoe:
This is a serious question. Honestly, I think we may only end up making assumptions based, of course, on our deep seated biases, but I will try to be objective. The Akan of Ghana have a proverb that you do not teach a child about God. That is, the child will sense God himself. But we cannot say that is what actually happens among the Akan since, like other African kids, they are fed, along with their Cerelac, Jesus or Allah, or, before the foreign religions came, the gods. This indoctrination usually happens before the child reaches the age of memory or reason and he has no memory of his first exposure. I have read interviews with atheists (non-African) who say they don't recall ever believing in God. A particular atheist says he first came across the word in a book at age four and asked him mother what it meant. After listening to her explanation he told her he thought it was like the stories in children story books and asked if anyone really believed all that. Note that this kid was not raised an atheist. His parents simply did not talk about the subject. [s](Maybe we should all adopt his parents' attitude and leave the subject of God till our kids are old enough to process it. I think religion will die and what a boring world we will have!)[/s] Still there are psychologists who say that illogical belief in the magical and supernatural is wired into our brains, selected during evolution to help humans form close-knit societies and further the course of survival. Napoleon Bonaparte may have been making a similar point when he said religion is useful as a means of social control.

Consider this: a Moslem cleric in Saudi Arabia told a European that every child is born a Muslim. Every other religion, including atheism, he said, is learned because Islam is the true religion and every child born has it programmed into its brain.

American Evangelical Christians have often made similar claims. You are born a Christian.

There are two things I know. (1) It is not the case that all men are programmed to naturally believe in the Supreme God. (Some may be born with high intuitive or clairvoyant abilities and they are a different matter and would be a tiny minority.) (2) The human mind is highly receptive to the idea of the supernatural. This is understandable considering that there is so much around us we cannot make sense of. This is what is exploited by the environment you are born into to make you to revere rats, worship the sun, make sacrifices to Sango, believe in Allah and the prophet from Arabia, or call Jesus. It is possible, however, that we are programmed to naturally believe in the supernatural, a realm higher than us, the concept of God. Of this, I cannot be certain. Ultimately, belief in God is, like many other important beliefs, an act of faith - faith that should be rooted in personal experience.

Joe thank you for this detailed response. You are right in that we would probably end up with answers influenced by our biases - the reason 10 people can be looking at the same object yet give 10 different descriptions. I do like the very last statement you made . . . it all comes down faith.

TV01:
Hi JeSoul & discussants,

This poster sits on neither side. Application wise, instuction wise and in other ways, I concur with both. But revelationally, I see Christ and His bride. And more sinisterly, those that could easily be mistaken for her, outnumber her and war against her.

Hi TV and thanks, its good to have your delightful presence in here brotha. The above is very good.

I hold there are certain portions of SOS that can indeed be used to describe Christ and the church. We must not limit ourselves to looking at issues from only one angle but as the spirit reveals and draws parallels may we follow. However as a whole, I daresay you would agree for the most part it speaks of love between a man and woman?

How's Beantown? I have fond memories.

Ah! I knew not you were a beantown alumni lol. All is well here, gearing up for a historic election next week to select Kennedy's replacement in the senate. Needless to say, the robots are up and about lol. Whereabouts did you stay?

SeanT, please note the "unholy & ungodly" phrasing was merely a play and meant to reflect the hands-off attitude most christians have to the SOS, not necessarily that I think it to be so .

---

In regards to your entry on the topic. Quick story. Last year I stumbled into a retro record store with every oldie cd imaginable. Needless to say I was like a kid in a candy store. I picked up an old cd from an rnb group from the 90s called SWV (you may know them?). I loved these girls at the time couldn't wait to spin the cd. I got home and as I played it, for the first time really I was paying attention to the lyrics, to the overall message and found that it was not me. This music was no longer something that I could enjoy or relate to. I was the past the stage where this particular music was no longer suited for me.

My point is perhaps SOS does not mean much to you now and you may not get anything from it when you read it. But I am almost certain a time will come when its messages and stories will mean a lot to you and you'll be able to benefit from them. Thanks for passing thru girl!

Alhaji & No2, ogas while the friendly banter is most wonderful, ejo, please lets stick to the topic eh, thank you!

Alhaji, it is always good to hear from you and to know you are well in good ol' NYC. No2, you are hereby ordered to read your emails.

Okay I know I started out joking a bit, but I'm honestly seeking genuine replies on the subject matter. Thanks.

---

No2Atheism:
Off course now . . .

- Imagine asking someone like me to preach from it . . . . . . na to have complete mental breakdown be that . . . I do not really know that part of the bible yet i am already messed up mentally. . . . imagine if i now know the details.

- This is a nice topic . . . I would not mind for you to handle . . . cus i sincerely do not trust myself to handle such a topic . . .

--------------------------------------------------
@offtopic

I still never get the confidence to ready your email replies . . . am still in some kind of shock, guilt and disappointment with myself.

No qualms bro. I understand. Did you check out the sermon?

Nah girl issok. I really do need to think more on it for a while anyways. We'll polish up any loose ends offsite sometime in the future. Deal?

bawomolo:
sheds tears of joy as a bears fan.

Lol . . . some people are seriously troubled. seriously.

H2O2:
I anticipate the Celtics falling like the Patriots did.

False prophet we shall overcome.

This is Romo's year to shine . . . until further notice I am rooting firmly for the boys to deliver justice to the diva.

Mavenb0x:
@JeSoul: True, that word was for the King of Tyrus. But not the entire prophecy, for it is obvious that he is not an anointed chereub that covers, and was created, and iniquity was found in him. This is a strongly typed prophecy, and Ezek 28:1-10 begins by telling what the MAN: king of Tyrus did, and then the next few verses tied him in with his "father": Lucifer, to show that he was repeating an archetype of what Lucifer did in Eden. So, indeed the verse spoke about King of Tyrus, but the highlighted parts were definitely not about the king of Tyrus, since we both know that Adam or Eve were not the king of Tyrus and they were the only men in Eden

My point about Pharaoh was that if the Bible used symbolism to describe the trees of Eden here, how certain are we that the ones in Genesis were herbacious perenial greens? Do you get my point?

As I said earlier, I never said Eden never existed as a physical place. Do you understand me? What I said was that it was strongly and allegorically typed. I can, for instance, write a parable about something in Russia. The fact that it is a parable or allegory does not mean Russia must not exist. What I was trying to say is that WHAT EXACTLY happened in Eden is not clearly defined. Or maybe it was actually a certain fruit that Adam ate by biting into it, in actuality? Maybe so. But there is no clear indication in that direction either, as there are no references elsewhere showing that it was a real fruit from a woody tree that Adam and Eve bit into.

Please lets agree to disagree. I would not like to pursue the matter further. I love you!

Why now? this is just getting interesting and you're giving myself and other invisible readers something to think about.

Okay lets let it sleep for now, I'll harass you some other time I need to even ponder and reflect some more on a bunch of what you've already said. Issall good G!

H2O2:
I don't want Bosh. He's skilled, but I would rather have a hard body in the lineup. Gasol's soft. Bynum's a big body . . . hopefully he can work on weight training to harden his body even more.

Someone to bang downlow with the Shaqs and Dwights.

Gasoft .

As for Bynum, he's softer than my detergent. You cannot teach toughness down in the middle. Once a softie, always a softie. Bynum is not destined for the shaq-like greatness.

r231:
pls tell me u r joking
d bulls of what yr (JORDAN) lol

LOL . . . it was a typo, right Bawo?  

r231:
hey H2
I keep hearing dis rumor bout Bynum for Bosh what do you think

God forbid bad thing. Both sides would win. Raptors get something for Bosh before he hits the road back south and lakers get a serious upgrade in the middle. Like I said, God forbid this bad thing.

H2O2:
He's living in the past.
god Kobe's got our backs. You're welcome darlin' .
Don't call me your brother o we're not related. I will not allow you to friend box me.
WOMEN!!!!!

Lol, wahala  . This boy is sharp oh . . . I will remember not use rent-a-psychology tactics on you in the future. Okay from today on you're no more my brotha, what title do you approve I use?

Most preachers do not even preach from it, I guess they are scared of something lol. Personally, I think its a fascinating book with incredibly great poetry.

  Some christians choose to view it as symbolism, God's love to man, others (myself included) as love between a man and woman. I'm curious as to which side of the isle NL christians sit on. Please have your say . . .

---

Edit: Oh dear. It appears the thread so far has gone in a direction I was not seeking. Ejo, subsequent posters please address the topic. Gracias!

EDIT#2: Please note: In regards to the title, of course I do not personally think SOS is "unholy and ungodly", it was simply a play on words to reflect how people in general shy away from the book. It seems this obvious fact is not that obvious to many.

^^lol wahala Maven, oya answer

Mavenb0x:
LOL! Nuclearboy + Ancel! I sincerely apologize, I will resume the topic after this post. I hope more questions and answers won't cause further derailment.

@viaro: I hope my last post made sense. I just read it again and it seemed I was equivocating. Peace be unto you, brother.

@JeSoul: Yes dear, we can gist about that later I appreciate your concern on historical vs. allegorical, darling sister.
The understanding I have of the matters H. vs A. are as follows:
1. The Bible is made up entirely of truth
2. The truth is almost entirely historical, but some few instances are heavily typed in allegory, parables, prophecies and visions.
3. The allegories are as true as the historical accounts, they are not to be dismissed because the Bible is not only a book of history, it is a book of instruction and guidance.
4. The difference between the historical pieces and the allegorical pieces is simple:
(a) the characters in the allegorical pieces are either fictional, or are symbolic in nature, describing real-life characters; while the historical accounts have entirely real-to-life characters.
(b) therefore even if a piece is suspected to be allegorical, the mention of the characters in other scripture, as real-to-life characters; and/or the events experienced, as real-to-life events, will clearly show that it indeed occurred, and is not an allegorical piece.
(c) while taking note of the caveat: some scripture may be falsely considered allegorical just because there is no other reference to the characters or events. This is not necessarily so, because every single character in the scriptures may not be mentioned in other scripture.
(d) and lastly: if at least one character in an event, or an event in itself can be shown to be allegorical, i assume it can follow that the other characters in that event as well are allegorical.

By virtue of the above, I will say that Noah's flood was a historical account, he is mentioned as a man who existed, and the floods were mentioned as existent as well (Heb 11:7, 1 Pe 3:20, 2 Pe 2:5).

The crossing of the Red Sea was historical, although the Egyptians wiped it from their own history books as they often did whenever they faced such a defeat. It's historical because it is mentioned in Acts 7:36, Heb 11:29 as a real event in which God operated.

Jonah's story at first may appear allegorical, and Jesus employed it in a parable, saying that the only sign they would get would be the sign of the prophet Jonah: that just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days, he would be in the earth for three days and nights too (Matt 12:40). This instance is not enough evidence that Jonah actually existed, and I would have said it may have been allegorical but that would be hasty. See the next verse.
Mat 12:41  The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Here, real human beings are promised to be condemned by the people of Nineveh who had repented at Jonah's preaching. By clause 4b of mine above, it shows that Jonah's story is not allegorical but pure history.

You may recall also the story of Lazarus and the rich man? It was employed by Jesus in a teaching but it's not certain if it was historical or allegorical.

This is good. I understand a whole lot better where you coming from now. Lets proceed, as I think my brain is cooperating now . . .

Now to Eden. I'm sure you agree with me that Lucifer is not a limbless scaly elongate reptile, commonly called "snake". It was thus an allegorical type.

Not a soul on earth would disagree  .

  but my sister I got mucho problemos with the next bit:

This is the description God gives about him:
Eze 28:13  You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the carnelian, topaz, jasper, chrysolite, beryl, onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and your settings and your sockets and engravings were wrought in gold. On the day that you were created they were prepared. [Gen. 3:14, 15; Isa. 14:12-15; Matt. 16:23.]
Eze 28:14  You were the anointed cherub that covers with overshadowing [wings], and I set you so. You were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire [like the paved work of gleaming sapphire stone upon which the God of Israel walked on Mount Sinai]. [Exod. 24:10.]

Correct me, this is the description God gives about the King of Tyre? no? And saying that "he was in Eden" is merely symbolism? implying that he lived in splendour and opulence like as was in the garden of Eden?

How does this verse speak to lucifer/the devil?

Also, talking about Pharaoh, a real human being, God said
Eze 31:9  I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
which would indicate to me that the trees in Eden envying Pharaoh's splendour (or the spendour of whoever Pharaoh is a prophetic archetype of) were not herbacious green woody perennials either.

Another case of mistaken identity symbolism? 

In the New testament, the SIGNIFICANCE of Eden was what was discussed, with relation to God's plans for man, and not the exact details. The snake is shown to have been lucifer. The location of the garden is not discussed, neither is the nature of Adam's role in Eden expatiated. The essence of the story is what is related for our purposes, and it is not once drawn as a historical reference, IMO.

. . . perhaps it may not have been refered to historically, but what do you make of and how do you fit in or out, the geographical references to its location in Gen 2?
"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

nuclearboy:
Seconded! I thought it was only la la and the other members of the turbaned warfare brigade that had a patent on thread derailing. Please O, we, the young minds, are waiting for the thread to revert to its title.

Lol, young mind for where? abeg oga kpatata, senor, sire, sage, white wizard, sensei stop using false lables for yourself and ancel.

^^ see how these smart, rational fellas are stripping us of our "Giant of Africa" fantasy, a dearly beloved and long held delusion with which we use to caress our egos and massage our failures. You fellas should be reprimanded immediately! we cannot have this kind of truth being shamelessly told.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=379852.msg5302023#msg5302023 date=1263324679]Mark my word, this episode will come in future to mock Blacks. Obama said Reid was praising him. Not only that. . .Reid, with this statement has vindicated the conspiracy theorists who all along had maintained that the mainstream was allowing in Obama what they would not allow in Sharpton or Jackson because he Obama had no[b] legacy right to demand any political reimbursement from America because he did not rise out of that slave legacy[/b]. Blacks generally in the nation are now awakening to that truth but not comfortable admitting it.[/quote]Offtopic, but Negro, say it ain't so, surely you're not hoping for 40 acres and a mule for AA's are you? not expecting reparations check to be handed out soon?

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=379852.msg5302023#msg5302023 date=1263324679]lazy,

. . .doesn that then constitute a double standard, a selective tolerance to racial infractions? If that's the case, then its not Reid who is in the wrong. . .its the collective Black voices who are shielding him from censure.[/quote]I think that is infact what he is arguing . . . right Lazy?

MyJoe:
Brilliant analysis, JeSoul. I, too, have been waiting for the outrage!

Thank you Joe! we will wait in vain for Sharpton and Jackson . . . if only it'd be a rep, the fireworks woulda been flying by now lol.

oh by the way, ya'll hear Blago retracting his racial statement . . . dude said "I'm blacker than Obama" that guys needs a reality show lol.