Has Literalism Become a Corruption?

[Dave-W]

In Romans 3.2 Paul says the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

All the arguments for this method or that method of intrepretation are all based on western greek logic; which is NOT the logic system of the bible. It is way too linear and abstract. Hebraic logic is more relational and fluid.

Since the Jews are the ONLY ONES who still truly understand that logic system, it would make sense that God entrusted the scriptures and their intrepretation to them.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

You are in fact playing a game. As you said opinions are a waste of e-space. You expressed an unsupported opinion, now when challenged the burden is on you to support that opinion.

Either you did not read the op or don’t understand what support for an assertion is. Assuming you are referring to the red text as my alleged “unsupported opinion”...
"Sterile grammatical-historical interpretive methodology is wholly incapable of determining the underlying meaning of metaphor."
...I draw this conclusion from the writings of adherents of the grammatical-historical method themsevles:

The problems of the allegorical method:
1. Imports meaning into the text.
2. It forces a hidden meaning behind every text.
3. It put forth fanciful and far-fetched interpretations.
4. It does not allow words and sentences to bear their obvious, normal meanings.
5. It allowed human subjectivity (the interpreter) to dominate the plain message of the original author.
6. There are no controls on interpretation, no way to evaluate an interpretation.
Biblical Interpretation Seminar Notebook, THE HISTORICAL-GRAMMATICAL OR LITERAL METHOD

No special, secret, arcane, esoteric meaning is poured into a text simply because it’s divinely inspired. Nor is there any such mystical ability we call “Holy Ghost Greek.” No, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the ordinary rules of language.
R.C. Sproul

If God be the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought. [Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 81.]

"We use the word 'literal' in its dictionary sense: '...the natural or usual construction and implication of a writing or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words; not allegorical or metaphorical' (Webster's New International Dictionary)" [Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), 119.]

Accepting what the words literally mean is a vital part of this first rule. Unless the passage says otherwise, or is clearly using metaphorical languate give Scripture a literal meaning. It is a well stated rule, "If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense."

Principles of Literal Bible Interpretation
Champions of the grammical-historical interpretive method repeatedly steer us to a plain, literal, everyday sense and use of language in the Bible and teach that figurative meaning only exists where it is clearly identified in the Bible as such: it follows that Sterile grammatical-historical interpretive methodology is wholly incapable of determining the underlying meaning of metaphor because it essentially instructs us that we need not look for deeper meanings because they don’t exist.

Considering the context is part of "grammatical-historical exegesis" so in the example given I can't ignore vv. 21-22. Still waiting for an actual argument supporting the assertion in the previous post, quoted above.

Having posted here before I anticipated that you would jump into the thread and defend literalism. It was because of this I noted in the op that I wanted intellectually honest dialog. Here’s what you posted of yourself in a thread we dialoged in here some months ago:

I do indeed post with a high degree of intellectual honesty.

Verses 21-22 are not needed for context of the passage in question—they are needed by literalists who claim the only valid figurative language is that identified as such in the Bible. In other words, the truth is the harsh literalist cannot interpret Jesus’ words in the passage in question because his rules tell him someone in the passage itself must validate it for him. Thus, once again it’s shown that literalism is incapable of determining whether or not a possible deeper meaning exists in the great majority of Bible passages. You now have a growing body of work in my posts explaining the red-letter assertion for future reference.

Trying to ascertain which of the religious groups who reject "literal grammatical-historical exegesis" is correct is on topic.

No, it’s not. The topic is literalism’s inadequacy to interpret possible hidden meaning in the Bible.

Rubbish blatant misrepresentation of what I have been saying."There is no hidden meaning in the Bible, therefore I cannot see any hidden meaning in the Bible." This section is self contradictory, red vs. blue.

You would do us both a favor if you would read my posts more carefully before blustering like this. I did not claim you said anything. Reread the post. The red was simply a tongue-in-cheek example of literalist circularity; this circularity springs naturally from the assertion in blue. It was about literalists in general, not about you. Red is an example of blue.

Any so-called "truthful meaning hidden within the Bible by God" which substantially varies from the written text without any credible, verifiable evidence I consider to be wrong.

This is where we need to press pause on everything else and concentrate. I'll save till next post due to time constraints....

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Any so-called "truthful meaning hidden within the Bible by God" which substantially varies from the written text without any credible, verifiable evidence I consider to be wrong.

Questions:

1. What in your view constitutes “substantial variance” from the written text…i.e., do you mean variance from the ordinary rules of language? If so, what kind(s) of meaning would qualify as varying substantially from these ordinary rules and be acceptable to you?

On the subject of “credible, verifiable evidence” (Please be as specific as possible):

2. What do you accept as “credible” evidence? What in your view constitutes “credible” in matters of Bible interpretation? What makes evidence “credible”?

3. What in your estimation is “verifiable” evidence? What types of evidence would you consider “verifiable”?

 

[Butch5]

I don't think it's "a literal interpretation" itself that doesn't allow for figurative language. It's an intellectual construct (evangelical scholarship) of men who design and impose rules that we cannot go beyond the single meaning the author intended unless Scripture itself identifies meaning as symbolic that don't allow meaning to be derived beyond the "rules".

Well, let me ask you, how could you derive meaning beyond the rules? If one goes beyond the rules couldn't we say it means anything we want it to mean?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Well, let me ask you, how could you derive meaning beyond the rules? If one goes beyond the rules couldn't we say it means anything we want it to mean?

You seem to assume the rules are good, correct and their end is the pursuit of truth. The "rules" in question are, as I stated early on, fine. They're essentially rules by which we determine the meaning of any written human communication. No problem, the Bible was written by men and rules to determine what they meant on a base level is good and proper.

The problem is that I--and many others--believe God purposefully orchestrated meanings that go deeper than the base interpretive rules are able to distinguish and that He can and does speak to us via figurative and symbolic 'messaging' from the Bible's pages. Where literal has developed problems is in the insistence by scholars who claim it's wrong to seek any meaning beyond the base or literal. That's all there is folks, they tell us. If you look for any deeper meanings you're just letting your imagination run wild. God speaks to us through these base literal interpretive rules; that's all there is.

I guess some of us didn't get the email and feel we should still be searching in the same direction God designed the book in....symbolic, metaphoric, allegoric fashion, just where we're told by literalists we're not allowed to go.

As to the Bible saying anything we want it to say if we step outside the rules, you're parroting the Rulemakers, Butch.

Deeper, spiritual meaning can be [A] subjective: God speaks to us via metaphor from Scripture one on one; or [B] objective: God has orchestrated one or more allegoric structures which have universal truth intended for everyone. There is no objective test for "A". There is for "B", but literalist scholars seem to be wholly unaware of it. I believe they're unaware of validity tests for allegoric structure precisely because they've established a doctrine that there can't be more meaning beyond the rules. This is called circular thinking. "You spiritualizers are injecting your own imagination into reading the Bible because there can't be any more meaning beyond the meaning we tell you there is!" Because they're convinced there's no further meaning in the Bible (almost certainly because they can't see it themselves), to even grant consideration to anyone who claims they see deeper things is absurd and a waste of time. Closed book. Turn out the lights and go home, we won't be bothered listening to something we know isn't there.

One of two possibilities here:
1) they're right and are spiritual giants toeing the line and holding all the crazies at bay, operating as Jesus' champions, or,
2) their minds are closed like steel traps, refusing to let any light shine in where it could ruin their construct and the benefits it offers them in the here and now.

BTW, allegoric structure should be subject to and able to pass the same well-established truth criteria as any interpretive method. Instead of proper criteria, however, competing methods are instead judged by--you guessed it, THE RULES! (Remember, only the results obtained by the rules are legitimate, so all other interpretations--because they aren't arrived at by the rules--are automatically false.)

Do these guys have a sweet racket or what?

 

[Der Alte]

The bible is like all semetic literature - there are several levels of meaning - only one of which is "literal;" with all levels being true. (and don't get going on about the Greek text. It was written by Semites as well.) Islam insists the koran has 7 different levels of meaning in the Arabic. That is why there is no authorized translation into any other language.

Traditional Jews state there are 4 levels in the (OT) bible; and I would take that as carrying over to the NT as well. Those levels are:

Pashat...."simple" This is the plain literal meaning
Remez....."hint" This is alluded to by the plain meaning
Drash......"search" This is a level of teaching
Sod........"hidden" This is a mystical meaning based on letters, sounds, or numerical values of the letters and words.

For more information:

pardes: the four levels of jewish interpretation of their scriptures
PARDES levels of Biblical interpretation

The Jewish Midrash method resulted in at least three major divisions in Judaism at the time of Jesus; Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. That doesn't do much for recommending this method of interpretation. While the NT was primarily written by Semites, Luke being the exception, it was written for non-Jewish audiences who knew nothing about Midrash.

 

[Der Alte]

Either you did not read the op or don’t understand what support for an assertion is. Assuming you are referring to the red text as my alleged “unsupported opinion”...
"Sterile grammatical-historical interpretive methodology is wholly incapable of determining the underlying meaning of metaphor."
...I draw this conclusion from the writings of adherents of the grammatical-historical method themsevles:[sic][...ommited...]

Which should have been stated before the questioned assertion, especially when one criticizes another for "unsupported opinions."

Champions of the grammical-historical interpretive method repeatedly steer us to a plain, literal, everyday sense and use of language in the Bible and teach that figurative meaning only exists where it is clearly identified in the Bible as such: it follows that Sterile grammatical-historical interpretive methodology is wholly incapable of determining the underlying meaning of metaphor because it essentially instructs us that we need not look for deeper meanings because they don’t exist.

All of which makes a HUGE assumption that there are, in fact, "underlying meaning of metaphor" and "deeper meaning" in the text.

Having posted here before I anticipated that you would jump into the thread and defend literalism. It was because of this I noted in the op that I wanted intellectually honest dialog. Here’s what you posted of yourself in a thread we dialoged in here some months ago:

Are you saying that my dialog is not intellectually honest?

Verses 21-22 are not needed for context of the passage in question—they are needed by literalists who claim the only valid figurative language is that identified as such in the Bible. In other words, the truth is the harsh literalist cannot interpret Jesus’ words in the passage in question because his rules tell him someone in the passage itself must validate it for him. Thus, once again it’s shown that literalism is incapable of determining whether or not a possible deeper meaning exists in the great majority of Bible passages. You now have a growing body of work in my posts explaining the red-letter assertion for future reference.

I'd be very interested in how one finds valid "underlying meaning of metaphor" and "deeper meaning" in isolated words, phrases and sentences

No, it’s not. The topic is literalism’s inadequacy to interpret possible hidden meaning in the Bible.

If one is going to argue that literalism is inadequate then they should be prepared to defend one particular type of non-literal interpretation. I don't think someone would advocate arbitrarily choosing one, the only requirement being it must be nonliteral.

You would do us both a favor if you would read my posts more carefully before blustering like this. I did not claim you said anything. Reread the post. The red was simply a tongue-in-cheek example of literalist circularity; this circularity springs naturally from the assertion in blue. It was about literalists in general, not about you. Red is an example of blue.

I read it carefully. "Your lack of ability to find evidence is a natural upshot of literalism: There is no hidden meaning in the Bible, therefore I cannot see any hidden meaning in the Bible. Literalism is self-defeating and circular." Since your post was addressed to me, the "your" makes the entire sentence refer to me. To change the referent there should be a qualifying word or phrase, e.g. as "which states" between "literalism" and "There is . . ."

 

[Der Alte]

Questions:

1. What in your view constitutes “substantial variance” from the written text…i.e., do you mean variance from the ordinary rules of language? If so, what kind(s) of meaning would qualify as varying substantially from these ordinary rules and be acceptable to you?

Variance from the lexical definitions and/or recognized figurative uses.

On the subject of “credible, verifiable evidence” (Please be as specific as possible):

2. What do you accept as “credible” evidence? What in your view constitutes “credible” in matters of Bible interpretation? What makes evidence “credible”?

Lexical, scriptural and historical evidence.

3. What in your estimation is “verifiable” evidence? What types of evidence would you consider “verifiable”?

Evidence which is subject to verification by independent experts i.e. there must be documentary evidences which are capable of verification. Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Which should have been stated before the questioned assertion, especially when one criticizes another for "unsupported opinions."
Or you should have taken time to actually read the op.

All of which makes a HUGE assumption that there are, in fact, "underlying meaning of metaphor" and "deeper meaning" in the text.

I support what I believe with Scriptural evidence. Do you remember what you stated last time I posted a fairly significant portion of my writings laying out various areas of support for what I believe? Something along the lines of I have no intentions of reading those tomes. Had you read what I posted and tried to understand it, you would have seen that my belief system is not based on assumptions. You appear to have no interest in actually try to understand another's position when it is not the same as yours.

Are you saying that my dialog is not intellectually honest?

A man's words themselves either extol or condemn him to the degree they defy or unite with Truth. Each reader can draw his or her own conclusions about the intellectual integrity of anyone who posts.

I'd be very interested in how one finds valid "underlying meaning of metaphor" and "deeper meaning" in isolated words, phrases and sentences

This is also an area of interest to me. Of course you're talking about subjective spiritual communication from God in which the Spirit speaks to whom He wishes by the impression of certain symbolic meanings in Scripture's text upon the intellect. This is distinct from an objective allegorical system which is logically and harmoniously structured, embellishes the "milk" or base literal meaning of Scripture while painting a broader picture of meaning that--unlike subjective experience--is universally applicable.

If one is going to argue that literalism is inadequate then they should be prepared to defend one particular type of non-literal interpretation. I don't think someone would advocate arbitrarily choosing one, the only requirement being it must be nonliteral.

There are any number of concepts available for discussion. In this thread the focus is to determine by the teachings of the modern proponents of literalism whether these doctrines are able to properly stand as truthful teachings.

I could use proof texts to make points, but this is certainly not a requirement for discussion on this topic. As it is I see no current need to cite passages as I don't feel discussion in this direction with you would be fruitful. If my perception of this changes before our discussion is through, I'll include a passage or two.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Variance from the lexical definitions and/or recognized figurative uses.

Lexical, scriptural and historical evidence.

Evidence which is subject to verification by independent experts i.e. there must be documentary evidences which are capable of verification. Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.

Okay, thanks.

Back to my original question, using the interpretive method derived from lexical definitions, Scriptural and historical evidence* and without the assistance of vv. 21-22, would you be able to determine whether or not Jesus was speaking metaphorically in Jn 2:18-20?

* I purposefully left out 'verification by independent experts' because any verification of this sort would be by folks who have already factored in Jn 2:21-22 as part of their conclusion. The purpose here is to see if literal methodology is able, in and of its own tenets and rules, to determine whether a passage of Scripture (or a saying of Jesus) is literal or symbolic.

(Before answering, consider the meaning of Jn 3:19)

 

[Der Alte]

Okay, thanks.

Back to my original question, using the interpretive method derived from lexical definitions, Scriptural and historical evidence* and without the assistance of vv. 21-22, would you be able to determine whether or not Jesus was speaking metaphorically in Jn 2:18-20?

* I purposefully left out 'verification by independent experts' because any verification of this sort would be by folks who have already factored in Jn 2:21-22 as part of their conclusion. The purpose here is to see if literal methodology is able, in and of its own tenets and rules, to determine whether a passage of Scripture (or a saying of Jesus) is literal or symbolic.

(Before answering, consider the meaning of Jn 3:19)

Why should I even think about interpreting John 2:18-20 and ignore vss. 21-22? That's about like asking me to interpret Matt 6:10 and ignore vss. 9 and 11. You want me to interpret Jn 2:18-20 and ignore the next to vss. but you want me to consider a completely unrelated vs. Jn 3;19. I think in all this you are forgetting 2 Tim 5:15.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Why should I even think about interpreting John 2:18-20 and ignore vss. 21-22? That's about like asking me to interpret Matt 6:10 and ignore vss. 9 and 11.

No, it's not at all like asking you to interpret Mat 6:10 and ignore vv. 9 & 11. Jn 2:18-20 constitute a complete idea or concept. They express a complete thought. We know from reading to this point that Jesus made a lash, overturned the moneychangers' tables and chided them for making His Father's house a den of thieves. From this, vv. 18-20 present the next whole concept which can be interpreted in light of the verses which preceded it without the need of vv. 21-22.

What you did is pick out a single sentence in the middle of a concept which doesn't express a complete thought, which no one would understand. Actually, you don't need both 9 and 11 to understand 10, we need only 9....9-10 expresses a complete concept or thought because a new concept [new paragraph] begins with v. 9. Your comparison is false.

Forget Jn 3:19 for now, its relevance to the discussion wasn't intended as part of the interpretive process.

In light of our discussion to this point, will you concede that the grammatical-historical [literal] method of interpretation is incapable of making a distinction of whether a verse is symbolic or literal?

 

[Der Alte]

No, it's not at all like asking you to interpret Mat 6:10 and ignore vv. 9 & 11. Jn 2:18-20 constitute a complete idea or concept. They express a complete thought. We know from reading to this point that Jesus made a lash, overturned the moneychangers' tables and chided them for making His Father's house a den of thieves. From this, vv. 18-20 present the next whole concept which can be interpreted in light of the verses which preceded it without the need of vv. 21-22.

What you did is pick out a single sentence in the middle of a concept which doesn't express a complete thought, which no one would understand. Actually, you don't need both 9 and 11 to understand 10, we need only 9....9-10 expresses a complete concept or thought because a new concept [new paragraph] begins with v. 9. Your comparison is false.

Forget Jn 3:19 for now, its relevance to the discussion wasn't intended as part of the interpretive process.

In light of our discussion to this point, will you concede that the grammatical-historical [literal] method of interpretation is incapable of making a distinction of whether a verse is symbolic or literal?

Why should I make such a concession? You have not proved your argument. Actually Matt 6:10 is two complete thoughts.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Why should I make such a concession? You have not proved your argument.

What argument are you referring to? In the op I gave some background first then asked a question. I'm still asking the question.

 

[Der Alte]

What argument are you referring to? In the op I gave some background first then asked a question. I'm still asking the question.

OK! Once again you have not provided anything convincing to make the concession you asked me to make.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Once again you have not provided anything convincing to make the concession you asked me to make.

Again. I'm simply asking if you would not agree that using the grammatical-historical interpretive method and without the assistance of vv. 21-22, you would not be able to determine whether or not Jesus was speaking metaphorically in Jn 2:18-20?

Why are you making this so difficult? There's no need for me to provide "anything convincing". I'm not making an argument, I'm merely asking you to confirm or deny the question, a simple yes or no. Either the literal method is able to discern by its own rules whether Jesus is speaking metaphorically in verse 19 or not. Which is it?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

In Romans 3.2 Paul says the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

All the arguments for this method or that method of intrepretation are all based on western greek logic; which is NOT the logic system of the bible. It is way too linear and abstract. Hebraic logic is more relational and fluid. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431589214337-2'); });
Since the Jews are the ONLY ONES who still truly understand that logic system, it would make sense that God entrusted the scriptures and their intrepretation to them.

I'm not familiar with what you suppose to be "the logic system of the bible" so have no opinion on the matter. But to God entrusting the interpretation of the Scriptures to the Jews, I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical given the lion's share of Jesus' dialog with the experts of His day and their understanding of the Tanakh.

Maybe you're talking about more recent developments? At any rate I see no reason to dismiss Greek influence on western thinking--have always assumed God moved the Greeks to begin formulating the moral/ethical groundwork western thinkers picked up on to expand on and refine.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm not familiar with what you suppose to be "the logic system of the bible" so have no opinion on the matter.

I Suggest you do a web search on "Hebraic Block Logic" and "Adductive Logic."

Here are a few links to get you started:

http://www.thelogician.net/3_judaic_logic/3_chapter_02.htm
http://www.hoshanarabbah.org/pdfs/heb_grk.pdf
http://www.godward.org/Hebrew Roots/hebrew_mind_vs__the_western_mind.htm

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I Suggest you do a web search on "Hebraic Block Logic" and "Adductive Logic."

Good morning Dave,

Did a little reading over coffee this morning, interesting stuff. Just a comment or two on the little I've read so far...

"Logic has no in principle objection to mysticism. It has no prejudice with regard to the eventual content of the world. What concerns logic is the morphology and aetiology of our knowledge, the forms and processes which gave rise to it. With regard to mysticism (the "Qabalah"), it would seem to constitute an attempt to conceive scenarios - which are speculations, at first sight, as far as logic is concerned - to explain certain phenomena or texts. Since the questions posed concern domains inaccessible to scientific investigation, the answers are, ultimately, inherently unverifiable, although some degree of confirmation, doubt, improvement or rejection may be possible.

In other words, there are propositions which are not likely to ever be proved right, or wrong, which may even be impossible to evaluate convincingly. They concern Gd, the Beginning of things, the End of days, and so on. They are beyond Man's mind, because they are out of his mental reach or outside of his universe. Anything said about them, positive or negative, is purely speculative, from a normal human point of view. Even what is claimed Divinely inspired, though it may well indeed be so in reality, is viewed by logic as speculative; since we, ordinary people, when we hear such claims, are forced to consider the possibility that the speaker may not have been inspired, for instance. It is a stand-off."

The above is taken from the first link. (Well written article, btw....wish I could get ideas across that succinctly.)
I see one issue right off the bat that the application of adductive logic seems to share with any other logic form imo...the assumption that its use and application rests on a more or less static, anchored and undiversified pursuit of knowledge. This is a huge topic and I don't have the time (nor is message board the place) to get too far into it, but my understanding relies on the notion that truth itself is at one and the same time the greatest path to, stumbling block against and primary motivational power for the formation of prescriptive beliefs. This would include everything from the formation of one's personal theology to philosophical or (especially) metaphysical study to Bible interpretation to the application of logic, etc. I.e., most expect that careful study takes place from a more or less unbiased point of view...or at least that this is the goal and attempt by scholars who formulate our grand ideas. I've come to believe that while this holds more or less true in descriptive matters (where falsity imposes only a mild tension in opposition to truth in the intellect), it very often does not in prescriptive disciplines where a much stronger resistance to truth is encountered.

Upshot of this is that many look to logic as starting point to discover truth. I see logic of any sort to be merely a means of testing the degree one has a grasp on truthful beliefs. No sort of logic would be superior to another because logic (any form) in intellectual operation is simply a structured intention of the mind toward truth in somewhat the same way clouds are natural, structured constructs from moist air. We can retreat into somewhat less emotional state by the use of logic to test we form from more emotional or value-oriented intellectual operation. Case in point, ever noticed that humans tend to hold religious beliefs (including atheists) very often to the exclusion of evidence? Imo this is because truth itself (more accurately forces in apprehension of knowledge in the mind created by truth's natural opposition and enmity to falsity) is the primary motivator of religious belief. This would include interpretations of the Bible. Truth draws, falsity causes dissonance. Logic is our attempt to back off from our naturally falsified state to test how far we've come to gaining prescriptive truth.

Any mystic interpretation of the Bible derived primarily from a form of logic must inevitably arrive at the conclusion in the second quoted paragraph. Case in point, the discussion of rules literalism forces on interpretation. When falsity is sufficiently removed from intellectual operation in the pursuit of the pure prescriptive truth of Scripture, intuition can operate on a higher (more accurate) level, truth in metaphor established and allegorical structure (from multiple metaphors) conceived. Logic can't find this but it can be used to test it.

I'll read more when time permits. Interesting stuff.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Okay, Der Alter, let's change gears a bit and move to a new venue.

On the subject of Satan there are two primary passages that Christians consider to be descriptions of Satan, in Ezek 28 and Isa 14. There are generally three views of the meaning of these passages in Christianity:


1) Commentaries in the OLB suggest that some scholars find in these passages the historical meaning pertaining to the kingdoms and principals mentioned and the moral message attached to their conduct and demeanor toward God.


2) Others see in these passages a metaphoric representation of the properties and features of Satan as a literal, spiritual being, the chief fallen angel.


3) Still others take the metaphor further and agree that the original metaphor of Satan is true, but that the individual Satan is itself only a deeper metaphor for the fallen human condition in everyone.


Since in a previous post you appear to be in significant agreement with the literalism identified in the op, I’m assuming you would insist that meaning in the aforementioned passages be limited to the #1 position. Is this correct or no? If no, why not?