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

[Cross Reference]

Woh! I didn't say I do not believe in the physical resurrection - I do.

What I am saying is that very often when people do not it is not that they do not believe in a literal resurrection but that the literal resurrection they believe in is non-physical. Physical vs non-physical refers to the nature of the event itself. Literal vs non-literal refers to the texts talking about the event. They are not interchangable sets of terms, and we should be precise about which we use. You can have a non-literal reference to a physical event, or a literal reference to a non-physical event, or any other combination.

OK, but to what end? If one studies from the heart as well as the head, is not God faithful that we ascertain truth in the matter? Why do we study if not for the perfection of a personal relationship with Him? What is Jesus Christ all about if not for that reason?

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

If the literal sense makes sense then seek no other sense.

 

[ebia]

OK, but to what end? If one studies from the heart as well as the head, is not God faithful that we ascertain truth in the matter? Why do we study if not for the perfection of a personal relationship with Him? What is Jesus Christ all about if not for that reason?

What to what end?

All I'm doing is pointing out that people are often using the categories "literal" vs "non-literal" when what they actually mean is something else.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

God does the revealing to the individual....that is what makes the Bible such a legendary book.

God decides the level of understanding of each person....what an awesome God indeed....

But can others judge the level of others understanding of God and the Bible? I am quite happy with my understanding of the Bible, but I myself can't judge whether I understand all of it or not
Too bad God doesn't give out "report cards"

Revelation 1:3 Happy the one reading and the ones hearing the Words of this the Prophecy and keepings in it having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the Time NIGH/egguV <1451>. [Luke 21:22?]

 

[vnct]

So what is it you really want to know?

please refer to the original OP for the original question.

Are you asking because you're not sure (yourself) how to determine scriptural interpretation?

correct.

Or are you testing others to see if they have a clue?

i've already answered this question. i believe that 9 out of 10 people have no clue, whereas 1 in 10 likely have some sound basis for scriptural interpretation.

 

[vnct]

Jesus does indeed mention the flood in His discourse of Matt 24 and the Olivet discourse. Pretty fascinating. Thoughts?

Genesis 6:13 And Elohiym is saying to Noah "end of All Flesh come before Me, that is full the land of wrong/violence from presences of them.
And behold Me! ruining/07843 shachath them the land".

Matthew 24:38 "For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

did Jesus interpret the old testament texts literally?

 

[vnct]

Anyway, the resurrection is literal.

what do i tell someone who interprets the text metaphorically?

 

[vnct]

The answer usually involves a lot of hard work, discernment, opinion, looking at connected texts and genres, etc.

so interpretation is ultimately left up to the individual?

 

[ebia]

so interpretation is ultimately left up to the individual?

Yes and no. Ultimately, no-one can make meaning for someone else - one has to do that oneself. But in interacting with what others have to say we can all benefit and bring far more thought and data to bear than any of us can do individually. But neither the yes, nor the no, nor your question has anything to do with my comment.

If what you meant to ask is something like "so there cannot be a systematic objective system of interpretation we can all apply and get the same (correct) meaning" - then no. Such a system cannot exist for anything except the most trivial text (if that). Language doesn't work like that.

 

[vnct]

Yes and no. Ultimately, no-one can make meaning for someone else - one has to do that oneself. But in interacting with what others have to say we can all benefit and bring far more thought and data to bear than any of us can do individually. But neither the yes, nor the no, nor your question has anything to do with my comment.

If what you meant to ask is something like "so there cannot be a systematic objective system of interpretation we can all apply and get the same (correct) meaning" - then no. Such a system cannot exist for anything except the most trivial text (if that). Language doesn't work like that.

thank you.