Literal interpretations

[robycop3]

The Bible is largely-literal, & what symbolism there is always represents something or someone literal. For example Rev. 17 is symbolic, but the angel who was John's "tour guide" for the vision explains its meanings & adds a few things not in the vision. And where Scripture says the wall of Jericho fell, archaeology has shown that event was literal.

As for Revelation, it goes into coming literal events, such as the plagues of the great trib as the seals are opened, the trumpets are sounded, & the bowls of wrath emptied. And, of course, Jesus' return will be literal and physical.

We must study Scripture carefully and prayerfully to ascertain what's literal and what's figurative/symbolic.

 

[Mark51]

The Bible is filled with metaphors, similes, symbolism, illustrations, and so forth; and, some are literal. Try to relate to what the intellectual intelligence of the people may have been during the times and events that the writings reference to. For example: Jesus taught with illustrations and metaphors so the common people could understand the message. A practical example: "Wait for me until the cows come home." Most likely, a non farmers would not understand this. However, farmers would certainly understand the meaning: Wait for me until the morning.

Many times God makes references about himself using term of the human body. He does not have bodily parts like humans, but it helps the reader/hearer of his words to get a mental picture of what is written for our understanding. See Genesis 6:9; Zechariah 2:8; 1 Peter 5:6

I trust that this very short summary will help you get a sense of the style of writing used in the Bible.

 

[DamianWarS]

To clarify my question is more about what criteria do people employ to make the distinction, between God ‘hovering over the waters’ and Eve being fashioned from a rib, or interpretations of ideas like that of God ‘resting’ and what that is taken to mean in a literal translation of the passage.

there are no criteria and that's the problem. even literalist employ wide use of reconciling the texts to fit a particular view (often ignorant of it too). Gen 1 is a good example as here we have 6 days where things like light is created before the sun and stars. I've heard all sorts of reasons why this could be but all require to insert stuff in the text to reconcile it a particular way the immediate text cannot support then they will piggyback scripture like to God a 1000 years is a day... thinking it is some sort of mic drop but ignoring the irony they are manipulating the text. But this is not a problem for a literalist so long as the framework is cemented in they seem to be free to invent whatever they need to in between the lines to make the accounts more fit. it reminds me of this sort of stuff basically refusing to admit the tension and coming up with something to force it to work.

we can be smart about how we do this and consistent without compromising scripture. As you have pointed out there are expressions and language used that are important to understand to know how they are being used in context so we can be wise about how we read the context and study the passages to understand what is an expression and what is not. The timeline I think is also important. Per-Abrahamic accounts are pre-history so accounts are going to be less of a historical narrative (because it is pre-history and no one wrote it down) and take more of a story feature to them that is less restrictive than an account witnessed and verifiable by many (like the time of Jesus). It paints a picture of new accounts with wider witnesses are more historically accurate and older accounts with fewer witnesses (or none at all) may take more story notes to them and drop the historical narrative to stress points.

For example, no one questions the literal accuracy of Levitical law. because clearly they are written down and verifiable so why question if such laws existed or not or if there are allegory that meant something else. But with Noah, these are not intimately Hebrew and we know other cultures also have a flood account, so although it is somewhat broadly verifiable there are competing accounts so which is right? could we say that their purpose is not about being literal and about a greater goal in mind? What would cause us to say that? Well, Noah to Moses (who wrote Genesis) is about 1000 years. So now we have a really ancient account being penned 1000 years after it happens with different versions from different cultures. These characteristics start to tell a different story and this is why they prehistory accounts may need to be interpreted differently. Not in the sense we just ignore them but we look at their details as not being historical fact so we can just get that out of the way, then begin to look at them as truth and deep insight then see what they are actually trying to tell us.