The Figurative Interpretation: Is it Legit? (Jesus, Eden, hell, Holy Spirit)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Merlin

There was certainly somebody. Probably an Essene. He certainly had a ministry and made an impact.

Not at all ...

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Binyamin

What makes you think I belive the Tower of Bable or the story of the Flood to be a mere story?

Science.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Actually, it's the idea that all of the bible is literally true that is the relatively recent belief, taking hold only at the beginning of the 20th century. The traditional view, as expressed by Dante, was that the bible was a book of such divine inspiration that it was to be read on several different levels.

The notion that the Bible must always be read as literally true is certainly one of the most absurd inventions of the 20th century. I've been taught that it partly originated in a reaction against scholars, especially German scholars, whose investigations into the Bible were not acceptable to some people.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

For all of Bible-believers who do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, how do you justify your reformed view?

My reaction to this is, given that I can show you early Church Fathers making figurative interpretations of certain parts of the Bible, it clearly can't be a reformed view. It's actually a pretty ancient one. On the other hand, seeing as complete Biblical literalism came in with sola scriptura during the Reformation, that clearly can be described as a reformed view. Your post appears to make the assumption that metaphorical and figurative interpretation is a newer phenomenon than strict Biblical literalist interpretation, but this is wrong. The truth is, in fact, the reverse.

James

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by MdmSzdWhtGuy

Pardon me, but these seem rather flippant answers to a serious question. What source is there for
beleiving some parts of the Bible, such as the Jesus' Resurrection is literal while other parts are merely figurative or illustrative to teach a lesson?

Are there extra-biblical teachings which leads one to this beleif? Or is it, as was Johnny says,
merely "common sense"? If it is your own common sense which leads you to believe that, then
how is your common sense any more accurate than mine, which tells me the whole thing is bogus?

Happy debating.

B.

I don't think its flippant.

God created us with rational faculties AND an understanding of language.

Language allows metaphor.

When a Biblical or Qur'anic quote requires you to set aside rationality to accept it literally what is one supposed to do?

One is supposed to examine the words for metaphoric truth.

As to the original post's example of the resurrection, well there were two resurrections that day.

One is the resurrection of Christ's body. How is one to take that? Was it the same body or a spiritual manifestation of Christ? Could be either or both.

The other resurrection is more empirical in nature. When Christ was executed the body of His followers was fragmented, scattered, disillusioned, depressed and without focus.

When the followers realized that Christ lived in Spirit and their purpose was to teach His cause, the religion was resurrected, conctrated, brought together, reanimated, encouraged and focused. This was the resurrection that could be measured and quantified.

Regards,
Scott

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by Deut. 10:19

Science.

Re-read what I said...
What makes you think I belive the Tower of Bable or the story of the Flood to be a mere story?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Binyamin

Re-read what I said...
What makes you think I belive the Tower of Bable or the story of the Flood to be a mere story?

You're correct. I misread you ...

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Merlin

Very little of any of it is literally true. Some is, but the majority of the stories are myths. It doesn't matter. They all have a purpose, you just have to find the hidden meaning. God didn't make it easy, but it is not impossible.

So, getting back to the opening post... If you believe any of it is literally true, there must be a reason why. How do you personally make the distinction, or do you just treat the whole thing as one big fable?