The rule of literal interpretation is indeed an assertion but it asserts that the literal interpretation is often best inn biblical matters.
literal interpretation, in
hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning”
conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context.
This assertion is held to be the correct way to interpret scriptures in the Bible. They teach you that in Bible Hermeneutics in college. BTW, I don't agree with Jerome's interpretation just like I don't agree with yours. You are committing a logical fallacy when you use the argument to authority. The argument to authority is when a debater refers to a well known authority to prove his point. The person he refers to may well indeed be an authority on the Biible but it doesn't logically follow that he is correct on the certain point of contnetion.
Nope.
The one who holds to the literal interpretation does not have the burden of proof. The New Testament doesn't address Isaiah 66 so your claim that the New Testament uses OT prophecies (ALL OF THEM?) to be spiritual? Are ALL OT prophecies in the New Testament? If not, are they invalid? Why do you believe if an OT prophecy is not mentioned in the NT then it is not a literal propehcy? Isaiah 66 is not part of the New Testament and it is not even addressed by the New Testament. Isaiah 66 is in literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. the Hebrew Scriptures and not in the Greek scriptures, so the burden of proof that Isaiah 66 is figurative is on you.
No, the New Testament does not say new moons and sabbaths were just shadows of what came in Christ. The New Testament says they ARE a shadow (present tense). If the new moons and sabbaths ARE a shadow then they still exist. There was the Old Testament Laws in the books written by Moses and these Laws were still in existence at the the time of Christ for Jews. A person in first century Palestine had four options. One, they could choose to keep the Laws of Moses, and therefore be judged by the Law, Two, they could accept Christ as their personal Savior and they would be freed from any obligation to obey the Law of Moses. The third option is to be a worshipper of any of the many pagan Gods in existence during that time period. The fourth was to declare yourself an atheist and have nothing to do with any god.
Colossians 2:16
Therefore no one is to [
a]act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath [
b]day— 17 things which are a
mere shadow of what is to come; but the [
c]substance [
d]belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep [
e]defrauding you of your prize by delighting in [
f]self-abasement and the worship of the angels, [
g]taking his stand on
visions he has seen, [
h]inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
It is not obvious at all that it has figurative. So, if you claim it is figurative meanings. If it were, I would hold to the figurative meaning, Here, here is the meaning of "obvious"
What is the full meaning of obvious?
easy to see or understand; evident
obvious. / (ˈɒbvɪəs) / adjective.
easy to see or understand; evident. exhibiting motives, feelings, intentions, etc, clearly or without subtlety.
Read those definitions very carefully and take them to heart. You are arguing for a figurative meaning and that means it is not obvious. The plain literal meaning of the text is what the definition of "obvious" means. You are claiming it is easy to see and evident that the text is figurative. If it is figurative and not literal then you saying that the text it is not evident, but figurative.
Definition of evident:
easily seen or understood; obvious: It quickly became evident that someone had broken in.
It is not obvious that Isaiah 66 is figurative.
Obvious Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
And this on a figurative interpretation:
What is a figurative interpretation in literature?
Figurative language is
a literary device that uses words or phrases for effect, humorous, or exaggeration purposes, instead of their literal translation. It is commonly used to create an emotional reaction, especially in fiction, and to make reading more enjoyable.
Compare literal vs. figurative language and understand the differences. Explore both literal and figurative language examples and see how they are...
study.com
In this lesson, we have learned that
literal language is language that means exactly and only what it says. Figurative language, on the other hand, is language that uses metaphor, simile, personification, or hyperbole in order to mean more than the mere dictionary definition of the words.
What is the difference between literal and non-literal translation?
Literal language is the actual meaning of a word or phrase, based on the dictionary meaning of the word. Non-literal language is also called figurative language because it is often silly or unrealistic. It goes beyond the dictionary meaning of the words or phrase and often has a different meaning altogether.