A question to those who would promote the idea that some of the bible is figurative and NOT literal

[Marathoner]

It occurs to me that I did an imperfect job of expressing what is a given to me, that the scriptures are real and testify of God's glory. Many passages are layered in such a manner that we'll never fully plumb the depths during our time on earth; without the instruction and guidance of God's Spirit even a glimmer is beyond us. Hence faith is the gift of God who is well-pleased to reveal Himself to those who love Him. 

The latter is yet another example of a layered statement for the Lord reveals Himself to His beloved in different ways. Do we see with these eyes of flesh and hear with ears of the same? No, for flesh cannot see nor hear the Lord. The flesh perishes but therein is the hope of our salvation, that we will exchange the corruptible for the incorruptible. The Lord will raise us up on the last day. 

We believe Him, therefore we believe His words and know each and every one to be true.  

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Episcopius said:

Water you can drink and never be thirsty again - that's figurative.

"A certain man from Jerusalem went down to Jericho, fell among some thieves who beat him" - it SOUNDS literal - but its figurative, its a parable - the certain man is not a REAL man that travelled, but a hypothetical man in Jesus' story.

The parable in Luke 16 about Beggar Lazarus and the rich man and Abraham - I have seen posters on boards that INSIST this is a true story - the rich man even has a name - Divas - a character in Jesus' parable has been given a name by someone else. We have LITERAL TRUTH about Hades divided between Torments and Abraham's Bosom - it's not like that anymore, but it used to be.

Did Samson pick up a donkey's jawbone and kill a THOUSAND Philistines with it before he put the jawbone down? a THOUSAND? Now come on - hyperbolic - like they sang Saul has slain his thousands and David has slain his TEN THOUSANDS - figurative, hyperbolic. The Bible is figurative often - God did not literally BARE HIS HOLY ARM IN THE SIGHT OF THE HEATHEN, or blast anything with THE BREATH OF HIS NOSTRILS, in fact - God does not literally have a RIGHT HAND - it is FIGURATIVE that Jesus is seated next to the right hand of God - "for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it" is figurative, for God does not literally have a mouth - God is Spirit.

Jesus is not literally a Sheepgate, He is not really a Door...

a sharp two-edged sword is not really sticking out of his mouth

 

where did this demonizing of the FIGURATIVE come from?

 

 

 

There is a great river flowing from under the throne in NJ so are we sure it's not literal carrying truth that extends to other situations?  Certainly 'not thirsting' in one context means 'satisfaction, peace, rest' but we don't know everything for sure.

God does have right arm. We are made in their image. We have a right arm. Jesus is God and Jesus has a mouth. So yes, God has a right arm and a mouth.

You cannot prove Samson did not slay one thousand in a literal sense. 

Jesus is a literal doorway to the Father. Not a door of wood mounted with hardware in a frame, but a door that opens the way to the Father and one that can be closed as well. 

So where do we draw the line? 

"11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and TRUE, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12<1161>

Real or figurative?

 

His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Flaming eyes? Clothes dipped in blood? Real or figurative?

 14And the armies [which were ] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 

Certainly real.

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: 

But then this cannot be real. 

 

and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

Treading a winepress of wrath can't be real but a name written on a thigh would be because we can wrap our understanding around that. Yes? No?

 

 

 

 

[Tristen]

Hi all,

I'm a bit late to the conversation - and only replying to the OP.

I would suggest that “literal” is the wrong word to describe how Christians take the Bible. The Bible clearly uses symbolic language - copiously. As with normal human communication, the symbolism is usually obvious to any sincere reader; given the grammatical context. For example, the Bible refers to Jesus as both a lamb, and in another place, a lion. Jesus is “literally” neither a lamb or lion.

A sincere Christian avoids giving themselves the right to read 'symbolism' into a passage – just because we are uncomfortable with the implications of the passage (according to the most obvious interpretation).

Sometimes people approach the text with an agenda to use the 'symbolism' cop-out to dismiss (either entirely, or the internal details of) what is actually written (as is common of the Genesis creation account). A symbolic device always points back to an antecedent (i.e. it is 'symbolic' of some deeper truth). We do not get to simply say something is 'symbolic' because we do not like the obvious meaning. If we are claiming 'symbolism', we are obligated to explain what the text is 'symbolic' of, and what grammatical evidence we have to justify the claim of 'symbolism'.

 

[Diaste]

On 2/21/2021 at 9:40 PM, Riverwalker said:

On what...if not the bible, do you base your conclusions on?

Everything in the bible is meant to be literal, even the parables and and "figurative" language that is used to convey a complex Idea is still literal as the Concept is meant to be literal.

So If God said how and when he created the world, what authority do you site, to dispute the literalness of it?

Would the same source hold the same validity if it told you there is no spiritual realm, that there is no life after death, that there is no God, There is no Salvation, there is no hope?

Only the bible interprets the bible.  If you can find a scripture that disputes creation and that Adam and Ever were in the Beginning with God, please quote it, for I find Jesus saying...

Mark 10: 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

Watch the voice you let whisper in your ear, for the enemy comes and sows tares about the wheat, hoping to destroy the crop

I have to agree. Similes, metaphor and analogy are devices used to convey truth. The truth behind the literary device is real and profound. It seems we get caught up in the words and fail at the concepts. 

Even the imagery in Revelation is truth and real. The images are conveying attributes of the one the image represents. That literal beast is not going to appear but one fitting the behaviors of that image will. But who knows, maybe locusts with faces and long hair are exactly what will be seen. 

When scripture says horns represent kings or kingdoms and heads are mountains and kings then it's obviously not literal. When scripture says, like horses with fire smoke and sulphur coming out of their mouths killing lots of people, and the horses tails are like snakes that can bite and there is no interpretation, then that's probably exactly what we are going to see. 

[Starise]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Hi all,

I'm a bit late to the conversation - and only replying to the OP.

I would suggest that “literal” is the wrong word to describe how Christians take the Bible. The Bible clearly uses symbolic language - copiously. As with normal human communication, the symbolism is usually obvious to any sincere reader; given the grammatical context. For example, the Bible refers to Jesus as both a lamb, and in another place, a lion. Jesus is “literally” neither a lamb or lion.

A sincere Christian avoids giving themselves the right to read 'symbolism' into a passage – just because we are uncomfortable with the implications of the passage (according to the most obvious interpretation).

Sometimes people approach the text with an agenda to use the 'symbolism' cop-out to dismiss (either entirely, or the internal details of) what is actually written (as is common of the Genesis creation account). A symbolic device always points back to an antecedent (i.e. it is 'symbolic' of some deeper truth). We do not get to simply say something is 'symbolic' because we do not like the obvious meaning. If we are claiming 'symbolism', we are obligated to explain what the text is 'symbolic' of, and what grammatical evidence we have to justify the claim of 'symbolism'.

 

Hi @Tristen I am commenting here based on your ideas and similar ideas of others, but not personally to you.

I think we need a certain set of "tools" in order to approach any scripture accurately. This was alluded to well by a few already. The spirits leading coupled with sound logical analysis enables us to understand the word more clearly. Everything in the word has a purpose. I see none of it as inert fluff.

I see the Bible as mainly a book of study which includes stories with deep spiritual significance. If we only read the bible as a novel we will miss out big time.

Many would take certain parts of scriptures and skew them to further a false agenda. Satan is expert at this. 

So what are these tools? I think in the above case of the Lord's table this should be common sense to most. At least it's pretty obvious to me the Lord's table is symbolic. One would need to try very hard to see it another way. 

 Let's take a deeper more disputed example and look at how different methods are used to come to a conclusion.

The story of Lazarus and the Rich man as found in John 11. Now I have been taught this is literal most of my life, yet there are a few questions one must ask to validate this, hence the tools we might apply.

Most of us know the story. The very first thing we try to do is make sense of the text which seems pretty straightforward. A 7th grader is unlikely to question the surface value of the text. Same as a 1st grader has no issue with talking snakes in Genesis.

1st tool- How does this scripture line up with all other scriptures in the Bible? 

2nd tool- What is the relevance of the text to the central message being taught?

3rd tool- Who was being taught and why? How does this apply to us?

4th tool- When the term hell is used here, what is the specific definition of the word through direct links to original translations? 

5th tool- What significance is wealth to the overall meaning of the text since we have both rich and poor men going to either glory or hell?

6th tool- Can we determine if these are real places mentioned and if so, were are they and do they exist today?

7th tool- We ask as many trivial questions as pertinent to the story as we need to ask such as, in the story there is a "gulf" that we know those in "hell" can see into the other side where God is keeping the redeemed. Is this gulf a reality today? In order to answer these questions we need SOLID biblical backup. Not hunches. Not guesses. SOLID data. 

Much of this study has to do with LOCATIONS. Do we have solid biblical reinforcement from multiple sources for such  locations? If not, we can safely say the story is a parable. If it is only a parable, then we can safely say the story has a deep spiritual meaning based on this story. Certainly the meaning of the story is serious and intended to be heeded. If the story is not a parable, then can we ascertain a dual set of teachings from it? Most certainly so. Still I think it is important to look at any text and be able to use these sorts of tools to validate teachings we hear from others.

On the emotional side of things there are those who would close their ears and yell "false teacher" to anyone who holds that the text in question is a parable without any study of the story on their own. Only liberal theologians would believe this sort of bunk.

Some critical thinkers would accuse those who think the story is literal of not doing enough homework.

What do YOU think and how did you arrive at a conclusion?

 

[Desopixi Seilynam]

On 2/22/2021 at 10:51 AM, LearningToLetGo said:

If the sun and moon weren't created until day 4, what metric did God use to define the first three days?

 Light divided, separated, from darkness. 

"God divided the light from the darkness"
"And God called the light Day and the darkness Night"

"God put the sun moon and stars inside the firmament"
"to divide the day from the night" and
"to give light upon the land", therefore we can conclude the land was in darkness.

---

He had light for Himself as He created (He was creating in darkness Gen 1:2) and He created lights that would give light from inside the firmament to control night and day inside of the firmament. Outside of the firmament there is more light, the firmament itself is cloaked, tinted, in darkness; Isaiah 50:3.

[Dennis1209]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

I have to agree. Similes, metaphor and analogy are devices used to convey truth. The truth behind the literary device is real and profound. It seems we get caught up in the words and fail at the concepts. 

Even the imagery in Revelation is truth and real. The images are conveying attributes of the one the image represents. That literal beast is not going to appear but one fitting the behaviors of that image will. But who knows, maybe locusts with faces and long hair are exactly what will be seen. 

When scripture says horns represent kings or kingdoms and heads are mountains and kings then it's obviously not literal. When scripture says, like horses with fire smoke and sulphur coming out of their mouths killing lots of people, and the horses tails are like snakes that can bite and there is no interpretation, then that's probably exactly what we are going to see. 

Well said and I totally agree. Another truth about analogies, and symbolism's are: The Bible was written to all people throughout all ages; to understand its concepts, characteristics and meanings. Those symbolism's have not gone extinct or faded with the passage of centuries. 

The wording and descriptions can be understood throughout millennia, using simple examples so everyone can understand and rationalize. I think of Ezekiel's description of something complex like God's Throne Transportation. 

Being a former helicopter gunship crewman, I would make descriptions like this: We were escorting two slicks to the demilitarized zone, when we glimpsed the trailing's of two SAM'S launched at us. We pulled about 4 G's to evade the incoming, with the main rotor blades and hub violently shaking. We climbed to 3,000' MSL and loosed our 7.62 mm mini guns and 14 air to surface missile. How would the ancient Jew and their vocabulary describe this? A Beast 

 

[Marathoner]

That is an excellent point and worth keeping in mind. As others have pointed out elsewhere, the symbolism and analogies inseminated in scripture were understood by those who read them long ago; and while ancient Hebrew poetry and idiom most assuredly poses a challenge to us in the present day, these are not beyond our capability to grasp. I look to the work of those called by the Lord to study ancient Hebrew (as well as Greek) manuscripts to shed light on such nuance. 

We should take care not to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. There are some who are called by God to be scholars, such as Dr. Heiser and his excellent body of work and my old friend who specializes in early Christian history (he's written a few books on the subject). 

I love posing questions about the New Testament letters to our brother for he is very learned where the epistles are concerned, but he draws the line where his knowledge ends. This is good and speaks highly of a man whom God called to such work. For example, he's not acquainted with Hebrew and defers to others, and says his knowledge of Revelation and prophecy isn't as robust as his understanding of Paul's letters. 

He said I understood more about prophecy than he does, which I found rather astonishing. Really? I'm an idiot! 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Marathoner

[Tristen]

14 hours ago, Starise said:

Hi @Tristen I am commenting here based on your ideas and similar ideas of others, but not personally to you.

I think we need a certain set of "tools" in order to approach any scripture accurately. This was alluded to well by a few already. The spirits leading coupled with sound logical analysis enables us to understand the word more clearly. Everything in the word has a purpose. I see none of it as inert fluff.

I see the Bible as mainly a book of study which includes stories with deep spiritual significance. If we only read the bible as a novel we will miss out big time.

Many would take certain parts of scriptures and skew them to further a false agenda. Satan is expert at this. 

So what are these tools? I think in the above case of the Lord's table this should be common sense to most. At least it's pretty obvious to me the Lord's table is symbolic. One would need to try very hard to see it another way. 

 Let's take a deeper more disputed example and look at how different methods are used to come to a conclusion.

The story of Lazarus and the Rich man as found in John 11. Now I have been taught this is literal most of my life, yet there are a few questions one must ask to validate this, hence the tools we might apply.

Most of us know the story. The very first thing we try to do is make sense of the text which seems pretty straightforward. A 7th grader is unlikely to question the surface value of the text. Same as a 1st grader has no issue with talking snakes in Genesis.

1st tool- How does this scripture line up with all other scriptures in the Bible? 

2nd tool- What is the relevance of the text to the central message being taught?

3rd tool- Who was being taught and why? How does this apply to us?

4th tool- When the term hell is used here, what is the specific definition of the word through direct links to original translations? 

5th tool- What significance is wealth to the overall meaning of the text since we have both rich and poor men going to either glory or hell?

6th tool- Can we determine if these are real places mentioned and if so, were are they and do they exist today?

7th tool- We ask as many trivial questions as pertinent to the story as we need to ask such as, in the story there is a "gulf" that we know those in "hell" can see into the other side where God is keeping the redeemed. Is this gulf a reality today? In order to answer these questions we need SOLID biblical backup. Not hunches. Not guesses. SOLID data. 

Much of this study has to do with LOCATIONS. Do we have solid biblical reinforcement from multiple sources for such  locations? If not, we can safely say the story is a parable. If it is only a parable, then we can safely say the story has a deep spiritual meaning based on this story. Certainly the meaning of the story is serious and intended to be heeded. If the story is not a parable, then can we ascertain a dual set of teachings from it? Most certainly so. Still I think it is important to look at any text and be able to use these sorts of tools to validate teachings we hear from others.

On the emotional side of things there are those who would close their ears and yell "false teacher" to anyone who holds that the text in question is a parable without any study of the story on their own. Only liberal theologians would believe this sort of bunk.

Some critical thinkers would accuse those who think the story is literal of not doing enough homework.

What do YOU think and how did you arrive at a conclusion?

 

Hello Starise,

I assume your main question pertains to whether I would consider the Luke 16 account of 'Lazarus and the Rich Man' to be parable or literal.

Firstly, I would suggest that this is a False Dichotomy. Given the context, the account is a continuation of Jesus' parables - teaching the importance of focussing on our heavenly reward rather than earthly treasures – briefly interrupted by the Pharisees (verse 14). However, it is also possible that Jesus used a real situation to generate the parable. I personally think this is indicated by the level of detail in the account (e.g. the poor man's name).

Second, I would suggest that our goal is to ascertain the meaning of Jesus' teaching. Whether or not the account is literal may be a matter of interest, but should not become a distraction. Sometimes there is a doctrinal significance to knowing whether something is literal or not – but I do not see that as Jesus' primary concern in this account.

 

As an aside, I would also note that the “gulf” mentioned is in “Hades” (verse 23), not “hell”. In Revelation 20:13-14, Hades gives up its dead to be judged - before being “cast into the lake of fire”.

 

[Buddy D. Mouse]

John 11's account of Lazarus of Bethany is being confused with Luke 16's account of a parable of Lazarus the Beggar.

They are not the same Lazarus - Lazarus of Bethany is wealthy enough to have his own tomb - he is no beggar