how does one tell if any given text is symbolic or literal?

[vnct]

how does one tell if any given text is symbolic or literal?

for example, the book of revelation also refers to the 'tree of life' in a manner similar to the genesis account:

Revelation 22:2 (New International Version)
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:14 (New International Version)
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Revelation 22:19 (New International Version)
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

if we thus assume that the 'tree of life' is fictional, shall we then assume that the genesis creation account is also fictional, since it too depicts the 'tree of life'? is the genesis creation account also fictional?

-

how does one interpret the following scripture units? are these conscious souls in the afterlife? or are these references merely symbolic?

Isaiah 14
9 "Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.
10 "They will all respond and say to you, 'Even you have been made weak as we, You have become like us.
11 'Your pomp and the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you And worms are your covering.'
(NAS95)

1 Samuel 28
13 The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."
14 He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do."
(NAS95)

 

[JudaicChristian]

how does one tell if any given text is symbolic or literal?

for example, the book of revelation also refers to the 'tree of life' in a manner similar to the genesis account:

Revelation 22:2 (New International Version)
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:14 (New International Version)
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Revelation 22:19 (New International Version)
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

if we thus assume that the 'tree of life' is fictional, shall we then assume that the genesis creation account is also fictional, since it too depicts the 'tree of life'? is the genesis creation account also fictional?

-

how does one interpret the following scripture units? are these conscious souls in the afterlife? or are these references merely symbolic?

Isaiah 14
9 "Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.
10 "They will all respond and say to you, 'Even you have been made weak as we, You have become like us.
11 'Your pomp and the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you And worms are your covering.'
(NAS95)

1 Samuel 28
13 The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."
14 He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do."
(NAS95)

You are confusing the term "parable" with the term "fiction." There are places in scripture that tells what those parabolic words mean.

 

[squint]

Each and every time you HEAR The Word of God uttered from the lips of the O.T. prophets or from Jesus this is what THOSE WORDS ARE:

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit

This is going to be difficult to understand because HIS WORDS are SPIRIT. This 'fact' takes us immediately OFF an only literal understanding and INTO allegorical/parable/parabolic understandings for ALL of Gods Words.

In this understanding the term RIVER in your first example is, on the side of the equation of God, LIFE. The RIVER of LIFE. Trees and fruit are allegorical of MANKIND, Gods offspring, a PLANTING OF THE LORD.

I've used the TREE OF LIFE example to turn the understanding of literalists. How? Because THERE IS ONLY ONE LIFE GIVER and that is GOD. IF there is A TREE that GIVES ETERNAL LIFE without connecting that TREE to GOD allegorically you have PANTHEISM. dig?

Does this make the TREE non-existent? No. It is A LITERAL TREE in a LITERAL GARDEN that was given as AN EXTERNAL EXAMPLE of a SPIRITUAL REALITY. A literal tree pointing to the ALLEGORICAL/SPIRITUAL connection to God.

Allegory and parable are extremely tough categories to delve into. I've spent decades on these subjects. It is a deep and wide subject that connects from one end of the text to the other. But in essence Jesus gave us the CODE CRACKER for all parables in:

Mark 4:13
And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

Parabolic constructions are both amazingly complex, yet childishly simple once you have the code breaker 'revealed' to you. What you will find in the code breaker is a depiction of a resistance movement in this present earth that CANNOT BE VIEWED 'literally.' In other words Jesus is TRYING to DEPICT things to us that CANNOT BE SEEN LITERALLY. The ultimate dissection of those THINGS will fall along two very simple lines...and is the 'essence' of ALL SCRIPTURE...and that is:

The Working of The Spirit against the workings of the anti-Christ spirits. BOTH of these workings transpire WITHIN mankind where they cannot be SEEN.

enjoy yer new toy, allegorically speaking

squint

 

[vnct]

You are confusing the term "parable" with the term "fiction."

i've neither referenced the term 'parable' nor the word 'fiction'.

the question is: how does one tell if any given text is 'symbolic' or 'literal'?

There are places in scripture that tells what those parabolic words mean.

and? no references?

 

[vnct]

Each and every time you HEAR The Word of God uttered from the lips of the O.T. prophets or from Jesus this is what THOSE WORDS ARE:

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit

This is going to be difficult to understand because HIS WORDS are SPIRIT. This 'fact' takes us immediately OFF an only literal understanding and INTO allegorical/parable/parabolic understandings for ALL of Gods Words.

are you then suggesting that which is spiritual in not literal? or is the spiritual still literal also?

 

[Stryder06]

how does one tell if any given text is symbolic or literal?

for example, the book of revelation also refers to the 'tree of life' in a manner similar to the genesis account:

Revelation 22:2 (New International Version)
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 22:14 (New International Version)
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Revelation 22:19 (New International Version)
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

if we thus assume that the 'tree of life' is fictional, shall we then assume that the genesis creation account is also fictional, since it too depicts the 'tree of life'? is the genesis creation account also fictional?

-

how does one interpret the following scripture units? are these conscious souls in the afterlife? or are these references merely symbolic?

Isaiah 14
9 "Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.
10 "They will all respond and say to you, 'Even you have been made weak as we, You have become like us.
11 'Your pomp and the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you And worms are your covering.'
(NAS95)

1 Samuel 28
13 The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."
14 He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do."
(NAS95)

To understand these texts one must look at the context in which they are given. What other scriptures support or explain what it is we're reading. The tree of life is most assuredly real. It's just another one of those splendid things of God's creation.

The spirits of the dead as Isaiah speaks of is figurative speech. We can understand this because the bible teaches us already that the dead know nothing. As such Isaiah is stating that no matter how strong you are when you go to the grave you're just like everyone else that's there.

Saul seeing the spirit come up out of the earth shows us the dangers of Spiritualism. This is a demon taking on the form of Samuel. They have power to do such things and when someone gives themselves over to Satan they have placed themselves in a position to be deceived in a variety of horrible ways.

 

[JudaicChristian]

i've neither referenced the term 'parable' nor the word 'fiction'.

the question is: how does one tell if any given text is 'symbolic' or 'literal'?

and? no references?

As a basic rule, if it is not logical, then most likly it is a parable. It can get complicated the deeper you get into scripture. Another method is word association. Another question may be, is it correctly translated? Some times scripture is written in such a way, that it is both literal and parabolic. Here is one of the more simple examples of scripture explaining it's self: Revelation 17:15.
Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

how does one tell if any given text is symbolic or literal?

for example, the book of revelation also refers to the 'tree of life' in a manner similar to the genesis account:

if we thus assume that the 'tree of life' is fictional, shall we then assume that the genesis creation account is also fictional, since it too depicts the 'tree of life'? is the genesis creation account also fictional?

Interpretation of a term or passage depends on the context and type of literature (genre). Context includes immediate (verse), larger (passage/book), and canonical (entire Bible). Also factoring in the equation is one's approach to Scripture, which includes a number of presuppositions that a person holds. Presuppositions consist of concepts one has adopted through denominational heritage/background and one's theological perspective.

The tree of life in Revelation is set within the city of God or the new Jerusalem. Some view the city as a literal city descending from heaven, and therefore the particular details such as the tree of life are literal as well. If the city is symbolic, then the particulars in that Revelation passage within the city - the tree of life - are symbolic as well.

As for the Genesis account of the fall, the vast majority of evangelicals view it as a historical event. That is, Adam and Eve were real people, the garden of Eden was an actual place, and the two trees in the garden were real trees.

There is a difference between symbolic and fictional. The Bible often takes a real or historical event, person, or thing and symbolizes it. Fictional implies that the event or person never existed. So some evangelicals view the tree of life in Revelation as symbolic, but hold that the tree of life in Genesis was an actual tree.

how does one interpret the following scripture units? are these conscious souls in the afterlife? or are these references merely symbolic?

Isaiah 14
9 "Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.
10 "They will all respond and say to you, 'Even you have been made weak as we, You have become like us.
11 'Your pomp and the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you And worms are your covering.'
(NAS95)

This passage is set within a larger section (13:2 - 14:27), which is a chiastic oracle against Babylon. Isaiah 14:9-11 is also part of a smaller section, a taunt against the king of Babylon. In essence the passage communicates that the now dead leaders of the nations would mock the king of Babylon once he arrives in Sheol. The section is also poetic - see verse 8 where trees speak - and is most likely symbolic rather than a past or future literal/actual event.

1 Samuel 28
13 The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."
14 He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do."
(NAS95)

There are different interpretations on this passage, but I won't get into the details. One interpretation holds that the woman faked the whole proceeding. Obviously then Samuel didn't actually appear from the dead. Another interpretation holds that Samuel did appear from the dead. God allowed Samuel to appear before Saul to pronounce judgment upon him. In that case that would show that souls are conscious in the afterlife.


LDG

 

[squint]

are you then suggesting that which is spiritual in not literal? or is the spiritual still literal also?[/color]

I do not deny either literal or spiritual presentations. But in most if not EVERY case the LITERAL in text will be pointing us toward SPIRITUAL understandings because The Word is SPIRIT. The 'natural' or 'literal' understanding should bow to the 'Spiritual' understanding by order of priority.

 

[Yarddog]

how does one tell if any given text is symbolic or literal?

The Tree of Life is Jesus Christ.

The only way to truly understand scripture is for it to be revealed to you by God through the Holy Spirit. One may read a verse for years and not fully understand, but when God removes the veil, it becomes so clear and you wonder how you never saw it before. That being said, none of us fully understand all of the symbolism or allegories of the Bible. What we thought that may have been literal may also contain a symbol.

 

[MrPolo]

I don't think there's a magical formula. Some good rules of thumb are to examine when the ECFs have a consensus on a particular passage, indicating that interpretation is apostolic. For some of the ancient texts, it's difficult to discern what the author was attempting to convey through his words. Textual and historical criticism are in order, as well. The Church has not unlocked the meaning of every text of Scripture, for God's Word is dynamic in this way, unfolding itself through the guidance of the Holy Spirit over time.

 

[racer]

Here's a start from St. Augustine an Early Christian Father. You can find more info from him at www.ccel.org, Church Fathers, St. Augustine On Christian Docrtine, Book III

NPNF1-02. St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine



« PrevHow We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is…Next »
Chapter 10.—How We are to Discern Whether a Phrase is Figurative.
14. But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God 561 and one’s neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one’s neighbor. Every man, moreover, has hope in his own conscience, so far as he perceives that he has attained to the love and knowledge of God and his neighbor. Now all these matters have been spoken of in the first book.
15. But as men are prone to estimate sins, not by reference to their inherent sinfulness, but rather by reference to their own customs, it frequently happens that a man will think nothing blameable except what the men of his own country and time are accustomed to condemn, and nothing worthy of praise or approval except what is sanctioned by the custom of his companions; and thus it comes to pass, that if Scripture either enjoins what is opposed to the customs of the hearers, or condemns what is not so opposed, and if at the same time the authority of the word has a hold upon their minds, they think that the expression is figurative. Now Scripture enjoins nothing except charity, and condemns nothing except lust, and in that way fashions the lives of men. In the same way, if an erroneous opinion has taken possession of the mind, men think that whatever Scripture asserts contrary to this must be figurative. Now Scripture asserts nothing but the catholic faith, in regard to things past, future, and present. It is a narrative of the past, a prophecy of the future, and a description of the present. But all these tend to nourish and strengthen charity, and to overcome and root out lust.
16. I mean by charity that affection of the mind which aims at the enjoyment of God for His own sake, and the enjoyment of one’s self and one’s neighbor in subordination to God; by lust I mean that affection of the mind which aims at enjoying one’s self and one’s neighbor, and other corporeal things, without reference to God. Again, what lust, when unsubdued, does towards corrupting one’s own soul and body, is called vice;18591859 Flagitium. but what it does to injure another is called crime.18601860 Facinus. And these are the two classes into which all sins may be divided. But the vices come first; for when these have exhausted the soul, and reduced it to a kind of poverty, it easily slides into crimes, in order to remove hindrances to, or to find assistance in, its vices. In the same way, what charity does with a view to one’s own advantage is prudence; but what it does with a view to a neighbor’s advantage is called benevolence. And here prudence comes first; because no one can confer an advantage on another which he does not himself possess. Now in proportion as the dominion of lust is pulled down, in the same proportion is that of charity built up.

 

[RND]

I don't think there's a magical formula.

I agree. I mean how does one attempt to explain the symbolism behind something that was physically real? It could literal take a lifetime to study these things. The earthly tabernacle would come to mind. The feasts and festivals come to mind. The Ark of the Covenant comes to mind. All these things were real and yet symbolic pictures of heavenly or prophetic things or even both.

I was greatly pleased when I finally found out who "wisdom and her children" were and where the reference of them can be found.

Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Suffice to say it all revolves around Jesus.

 

[vnct]

To understand these texts one must look at the context in which they are given. What other scriptures support or explain what it is we're reading.

what if different people disagree regadring what the context is, and therefore end up with different interpretations?

 

[vnct]

As a basic rule, if it is not logical, then most likly it is a parable.

who determines if a text is logical or not? for example, the physical resurrection of Jesus is not logical to a friend of mine. he therefore asserts that the resurrection of Jesus is merely metaphorical.

 

[CalmRon]

who determines if a text is logical or not? for example, the physical resurrection of Jesus is not logical to a friend of mine. he therefore asserts that the resurrection of Jesus is merely metaphorical.

yes, that seems a fairly vague rule when looking at the bible.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

What Yarddog has said is correct.

As corollary, I will add that what is important is what is spiritually literal.

 

[Cross Reference]

how does one tell if any given text is symbolic or literal?

The book of Revelations notwithstanding, this is a good question when applied to the words of Jesus in the gospels, i.e., at times He spoke as God and other times as man who was intimately related to God. Most of the time I believe it was the latter with the result being, one cannot tell the difference. I further believe this relation is the way God intends for all mankind. Making the attempt to view in this light will cause your Bible to read differently. It will, however, require understanding by 'revelation' that goes by the term, "Discernment", a Pentecostal gift.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Stryder,


To understand these texts one must look at the context in which they are given.
This coming from someone who sucks "the law is holy" out of the argument in which it is couched at Rom 7 (argument which disannulls the law with regard to the Christian), in order to 'prove' his point, has no merit.





The tree of life is most assuredly real.
Ambiguous.
"Real" doesn't answer whether it is physically real, or a figure of what is spiritually real. It is in fact a reference to Christ. God doesn't make Gypsy tonic.





It's just another one of those splendid things of God's creation.
No, it is Christ, who was not created.






Saul seeing the spirit come up out of the earth shows us the dangers of Spiritualism. This is a demon taking on the form of Samuel.
No it was Samuel himself, just like it says. That is why Samuel refers to "The Lord", and why His counsel to Saul is righteous and accurate. And that is why the divining woman declared that Saul had deceived her, for in her seeing that it was in fact Samuel, she realised who Saul was under his disguise.

It is bizarre that someone like you, who recently asked "what is a spirit?", and declared that God had not given man a spirit, should presume to speak with authority on spirits. The mind boggles. And so once again an SDA "darkens counsel without knowledge".

 

[Cross Reference]

Re Understanding Paul when he refers to the law: Try this, every time you read the word substitute in the word, "flesh". Case in point the letter to the Galatians.