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

[Ceridwen018]

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

I've never quite understood how it is that Noah and the Tower of Bable are mere "stories included to teach lessons, etc.", while the resurrection is considered fact, written in stone.

If one is fact, what makes you so sure that the others aren't as well? Inversely, if one is fictional, how can you be sure that the entire book doesn't follow suit?

[Aqualung]

You bring up a very good point. I tend to think most of it is truth, but truth written so people could undstand it. Like what nutshell and Jay were talking about earlier - Why did god guard the Garden of Eden with a flaming sword? Maybe because the people at that time wouldn't understand "forcefield."

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

If one is fact, what makes you so sure that the others aren't as well? Inversely, if one is fictional, how can you be sure that the entire book doesn't follow suit?

Short version= Holy Spirit

Long version= http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/...fm?recnum=1352

Happy reading.

[jonny]

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

Common sense.

[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.

[Aqualung]

well, as I said earlier:

Originally Posted by Aqualung

You bring up a very good point. I tend to think most of it is truth, but truth written so people could undstand it. Like what nutshell and Jay were talking about earlier - Why did god guard the Garden of Eden with a flaming sword? Maybe because the people at that time wouldn't understand "forcefield."

[Shaggy Flasko]

If someone chooses to take a figurative approach to certain portions of scripture, the only thing I request is evidence from the text itself that it should be interpreted in such a manner. I've never met anyone who takes the Bible 100% literally or figuratively. Therefore, to remain consistent and reasonable, they must establish criteria according to hermeneutical principles (audience relevance, for example).

If they can explain logically why they interpret a passage a certain way, then I can happily go from there. It's when people don't attempt to use logic in their interpretation that the discourse is destroyed, since discourse is based on reason and hitherto, logic.

God bless.
-Bill

[jonny]

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 believe that all truth is contained in the Bible. For example, I can be fairly certain that the earth was not created in seven days as we would define a day. I can say that God may have created the earth over the span of millions of years and that when the bible refers to a day that it is probably referring to some undefined period of time.

Christ commonly taught with parables. It seems reasonable to me that if he taught us in this way while he was on the earth that he might of taught us this way in other instances. This is where I feel that I have the right to take certain things literally and others figuratively. This pattern is common in religious teachings.

That is what I mean when I say "common sense."

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by jonny

Common sense.

Do not apply to large a dose of common sense to religion.

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by jonny

I don't believe that all truth is contained in the Bible. For example, I can be fairly certain that the earth was not created in seven days as we would define a day. I can say that God may have created the earth over the span of millions of years and that when the bible refers to a day that it is probably referring to some undefined period of time.

Christ commonly taught with parables. It seems reasonable to me that if he taught us in this way while he was on the earth that he might of taught us this way in other instances. This is where I feel that I have the right to take certain things literally and others figuratively. This pattern is common in religious teachings.

That is what I mean when I say "common sense."

This is what is so nice and convenient. It means we are all allowed to interpret many of the Scriptures teachings in our own way. That is why there are hundreds of denominations. All are sure they are right