What Good Is Literal Understanding?

[Jon Goode]

This seems to be a bit confused. You quote theories I quote history. The Jewish Encyclopedia and Talmud are written by Jewish scholars documenting their history not theories. The ECF I quoted are recording their history not theories. On the other you quoted 19th and 20th centuries 'scholars" stating their theories.

I never quoted anybody. Everything I posted here is based on my own reasoning and fruit of my own relationship with God and interpretation of his word.
Also, nowhere, not even in your lexicons or even the jewish encyclopedia does it say that the words Gehenna or Sheol/Hades directly translate to 'hell'.
I read through the Gehenna entry in the jewish encyclopedia and even there it's stated that: Opinions on the nature of Gehenna varied.
As I've said before, you cannot take a few sentences out of their context to support your statement.

[Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the bias of Christian translators.]

You're not getting your facts right. The jewish encyclopedia was written at the end of the 19th century and published in the beginning of the 20th. It wasn't written by ancient Jews that clearly stated that the word Gehenna had taken the literal meaning of hell long before Jesus was born.

 

[Jon Goode]

The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem ( Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14 ). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and " Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a); [Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the bias of Christian translators.]

It's also written in the jewish encyclopedia that:
It [Gehenna] had three gates, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem ('Er. 19a). The gate lies between two palm-trees in the valley of Hinnom, from which smoke is continually rising (ib.). The mouth is narrow, impeding the smoke, but below Gehenna extends indefinitely (Men. 99b). According to one opinion, it is above the firmament, and according to another, behind the dark mountains (Ta'an. 32b). An Arabian pointed out to a scholar the spot in the wilderness where the earth swallowed the sons of Korah (Num. xvi. 31-32), who descended into Gehenna (Sanh. 110b). It is situated deep down in the earth, and is immeasurably large. "The earth is one-sixtieth of the garden, the garden one-sixtieth of Eden [paradise], Eden one-sixtieth of Gehenna; hence the whole world is like a lid for Gehenna. Some say that Gehenna can not be measured" (Pes. 94a). It is divided into seven compartments (Soṭah 10b); a similar view was held by the Babylonians (Jeremias, "Hölle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern," pp. 16 et seq., Leipsic, 1901; Guthe, "Kurzes Bibel-wörterb." p. 272, Tübingen and Leipsic, 1903). Because of the extent of Gehenna the sun, on setting in the evening, passes by it, and receives from it its own fire (evening glow; B. B. 84a).

Do you also take these to be absolute truths, because well, it's written in the jewish encyclopedia?

 

[Der Alte]

I never quoted anybody. Everything I posted here is based on my own reasoning and fruit of my own relationship with God and interpretation of his word.
Also, nowhere, not even in your lexicons or even the jewish encyclopedia does it say that the words Gehenna or Sheol/Hades directly translate to 'hell'.
I read through the Gehenna entry in the jewish encyclopedia and even there it's stated that: Opinions on the nature of Gehenna varied.
As I've said before, you cannot take a few sentences out of their context to support your statement.

Does anything you quoted here refute anything I posted? Was there or was there not, as I stated, a Jewish belief in a place of unbending fiery punishment? Of course there were varied beliefs, there were at least 3 major sects in Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. One sect Sadducees did not believe in angels or the resurrection that does not negate the fact that others did.

You're not getting your facts right. The jewish encyclopedia was written at the end of the 19th century and published in the beginning of the 20th. It wasn't written by ancient Jews that clearly stated that the word Gehenna had taken the literal meaning of hell long before Jesus was born.

You are not getting your facts straight. Encylopedias are not fiction! The 50+ rabbis and scholars who compiled the Jewish Encyclopedia did not make up all the information in the encyclopedia they were documenting their history, check the sources cited in the article itself and the bibliography at bottom of the article. Before you challenge me I suggest you get your facts straight. I deliberately provide links to my sources for the sole purpose of preventing accusations such as this.

 

[Der Alte]

It's also written in the jewish encyclopedia that:

It [Gehenna] had three gates, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem ('Er. 19a). The gate lies between two palm-trees in the valley of Hinnom, from which smoke is continually rising (ib.). The mouth is narrow, impeding the smoke, but below Gehenna extends

indefinitely (Men. 99b). According to one opinion, it is above the firmament, and according to another, behind the dark mountains (Ta'an. 32b). An Arabian pointed out to a scholar the spot in the wilderness where the earth swallowed the sons of Korah (Num. xvi. 31-32),

who descended into Gehenna (Sanh. 110b). It is situated deep down in the earth, and is immeasurably large. "The earth is one-sixtieth of the garden, the garden one-sixtieth of Eden [paradise], Eden one-sixtieth of Gehenna; hence the whole world is like a lid for

Gehenna. Some say that Gehenna can not be measured" (Pes. 94a). It is divided into seven compartments (Soṭah 10b); a similar view was held by the Babylonians (Jeremias, "Hölle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern," pp. 16 et seq., Leipsic, 1901; Guthe,

"Kurzes Bibel-wörterb." p. 272, Tübingen and Leipsic, 1903). Because of the extent of Gehenna the sun, on setting in the evening, passes by it, and receives from it its own fire (evening glow; B. B. 84a).

Do you also take these to be absolute truths, because well, it's written in the jewish encyclopedia?

As I have already stated there were varied beliefs, nothing you quoted here negates anything I posted before. Notice one of the views quoted is identified as "according to one opinion." For your edification I highlighted, in blue, the sources referenced in this article. FYI my argument is in rebuttal to those misguided folk who claim that the Christian belief in hell comes for pagan sources.

 

[Jon Goode]

@Der Alter
You're not addressing the crucial points in my argument. You say that because (some) Jews believed that hell existed, and Jesus didn't directly point out that this belief was wrong, there must be a hell. I'm saying that (some) Jews also believed in all those crazy things I quoted. Jesus didn't directly point out that those beliefs were wrong. So according to your reasoning method, this must also be true.

 

[victorinus]

But I'm asking, what good is the literal understanding?

the literal interpretation always trumps any other type
-
only when the literal interpretation doesn't make sense do we turn to other types

 

[thesunisout]

All of the scripture can be understood figuratively, and would all have figurative meaning; but only some of it can be understood literally*. My question is, what good does the literal side of the coin do? What good is literal understanding of the scripture? Also, what parts of the scripture do you believe MUST be understood literally, or else the reader is not of Christ?

Briefly, to understand what I mean by figurative: take the Exodus from Egypt in the Old Testament. This can be understood literally, and can also be understood as figuratively pointing toward Christ, and the figurative exodus from figurative bondage in figurative Egypt of the figurative children of figurative Israel. I presume most people reading this understand this; and so in all things, there is a figurative understanding; and in some things also a literal understanding.

But I'm asking, what good is the literal understanding? Also, how will we be sure our literal understanding is the correct literal understanding? Meaning, how do we know which literal understanding of Genesis 1 is correct? How do we know which literal understanding of Genesis 6 is correct? How do we know which, and if we cannot know which is correct; the question of 'what good is literal understanding' becomes emphatic.

*I suppose one could also understand all of the scripture literally, but that would make for some incredible understandings; I'm confident no one reading this would argue all of the bible can be understood literally, in the spirit of the idea.

Read the words of Jesus Christ. He believed in a literal Genesis 1, a literal flood, a literal Sodom and Gomorrah, a literal Jonah, a literal Exodus etc.

Where you're going astray is that I think you believe that just because a text has a figurative meaning, it doesn't also have a literal meaning. That is the amazing thing about the word of God, which is that it is multilayered. Almost all of the text that is literal also has a figurative, or spiritual meaning. Paul gives a classic example in Galatians 4 about Hagar and Sarah, who Paul believed were real people, but that through their lives and actions God was also speaking a spiritual message to us today.

Another example would be the prophecies of Jesus Christ, which He literally fulfilled. Here is one in particular:

Zechariah 9:9

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

It would be easy for us to say, if we lived in the time before Jesus, that this scripture indicated the great humility of the Messiah. That He wouldn't literally be riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, yet that is exactly what He did. The thing is, this verse *does* indicate His great humility, but it doesn't cancel out the literal meaning. See how rich the scripture is!

I think what you're needing is the faith to believe Gods word, as it is. To get that you need to pray and ask for it. When I struggled with believing the bible, God led me to this verse:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and lean not on your own understanding.

I gave up my concerns to Him and decided to believe His word, and ever since then, God has opened up His word to me and helped me to believe and understand it. He will literally do the same for you my friend. God bless

 

[giftofGod2]

Yeah,....fiction.

Not necesarilly...supernatural things are not necessarily always fiction...and they say also that truth is stranger than fiction.

Case in point...the resurrection. If you don't believe in it you are still in your sins. 1 Corinthaians 15:17. If it is not a reality you are still in your sins.

Nevertheless if it were not a historical fact, and if we were not now living in 2016 A.D. (in the year of our Lord), it would be considered to be more far-fetched than anyone being able to understand the language of animals.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

But what parts of the Bible do you think should be understood literally? And, what good does it do you to understand these parts literally? Is there any part of the Bible you think must be understood literally, or else the person understanding purely figuratively is "not in Christ"?

I believe the creation story needs to be taken literally... it shows the power of God. The flood account needs to be taken literally... it shows the judgement of God. The virgin birth of Christ needs to be understood literally... it shows the love of God. And the resurrection account needs to be taken literally... it shows the mercy of God.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I believe the creation story needs to be taken literally... it shows the power of God. The flood account needs to be taken literally... it shows the judgement of God. The virgin brth of Christ needs to be understood literally... it shows the love of God. And the resurrection account needs to be taken literally... it shows the mercy of God.

Yeah, well according to Paul these things are supposed to be evident from the world around us.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Yeah, well according to Paul these things are supposed to be evident from the world around us.

And yet people deny them every day...

 

[Der Alte]

@Der Alter
You're not addressing the crucial points in my argument. You say that because (some) Jews believed that hell existed, and Jesus didn't directly point out that this belief was wrong, there must be a hell. I'm saying that (some) Jews also believed in all those crazy things I quoted. Jesus didn't directly point out that those beliefs were wrong. So according to your reasoning method, this must also be true.

I'm addressing what I think needs to be addressed. If there is something specific you would like me to address, let me know and I will do my best.
.....When Jesus said "no man comes unto the Father, but by me." does that or does it not exclude any other possible way of coming to the Father, whether He specifically mentioned it or not?
.....With very few exceptions when Jesus preached or taught His audience was primarily Jews. Jesus taught about "eternal punishment,""hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die,""furnace of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth" and a fate worse than death, which mirrored the views held by some Jews. Would those Jews change their beliefs based on Jesus' teaching or continue to believe as they did? If the Jewish belief in hell was wrong would Jesus teach/preach in a way which supported, those views, as He did? Or would Jesus preach/teach a way which condemned, those views as He did with other teachings of the Jews?

 

[John Hyperspace]

the literal interpretation always trumps any other type
-
only when the literal interpretation doesn't make sense do we turn to other types

I'm not asking, what trumps what, I'm asking, what good is the literal interpretation? What does it do to help people in any meaningful way?

Also, who determines when something "makes sense"? If Christians can't agree on their literal understanding, maybe none of it makes literal sense in such a regard? The scripture says to be crucified with Christ. It makes sense literally. Are you ready to be crucified with Christ? Are you sure the literal trumps all other types as long as it "makes sense"?

 

[Jon Goode]

I'm not asking, what trumps what, I'm asking, what good is the literal interpretation? What does it do to help people in any meaningful way?

Hey John, I adressed this in a previous post. I don't know if you saw it or not, but you didn't comment, which makes me think you didn't.
I'll just quote it here.

I think there are 2 reasons (that I can think of at the moment) why you shouldn't disregard the literal meaning:

1. If you hyperbolize this idea, than you could go on and say that when Moses wrote genesis, he was talking of a figurative God, who figuratively created a figurative world, etc. This would make everything written in the bible a super elaborate imagination.

2. The literal meaning is important, because it gives us insight into the characteristics of God. I know I've said this before, but I want to elaborate. You used the example of Jesus curing the blind man, so I'm going to use it again. If Jesus hadn't actually cured the blind man, the passage wouldn't show us his compassion, and this characteristic of Jesus would be lost. If he had figuratively cured the figurative blindness, this passage's only use would be to show us that Jesus has the ability to cure the figurative blindness of the figuratively blind if he so wishes. Furthermore, since you're not reading the passage literally, he may not even have done it.
Another example would be Matthew 21:12-13 : We know that there actually were people selling inside the temple because there are records of it outside of the bible. So if the temples were being turned into marketplaces, but Jesus hadn't actually cleansed the temple, what would that teach us about his personality?
I believe that he did enter the temple and drive off the vendors, because he couldn't stand the hypocrisy.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Read the words of Jesus Christ. He believed in a literal Genesis 1, a literal flood, a literal Sodom and Gomorrah, a literal Jonah, a literal Exodus etc.

How do you know this? If you believe Genesis 1 is figurative, you are still going to believe it, and quote it. Quoting a thing doesn't mean you believe it is literal. I can quote the parables of Jesus; it doesn't mean I understand them literally.

Where you're going astray is that I think you believe that just because a text has a figurative meaning, it doesn't also have a literal meaning.

No, not at all; I said that much of the scripture can be understood literally. All of the scripture can be understood figuratively(spiritually), some of it can also be understood literally. Any time you can understand scripture literally, it also has a figurative understanding. Both. But, my question, what good does the literal side of the equation actually do? As far as I can tell, all it does is cause division for no real reason other than, people interpreting the literal differently. It seems to have no real meaning; but the real meaning comes through the figurative(spiritual) understanding.

So if you ask me, "Can Genesis be understood literally?" I would say "It can be understood both literally and figuratively"; you may ask "What does it literally mean?" and I would reply "No one knows for certain; many have their interpretations, but it is not possible to know with certainty how to understand it literally; therefore, the literal understanding has no profit, and does nothing anyway"

That is the amazing thing about the word of God, which is that it is multilayered. Almost all of the text that is literal also has a figurative, or spiritual meaning. Paul gives a classic example in Galatians 4 about Hagar and Sarah, who Paul believed were real people, but that through their lives and actions God was also speaking a spiritual message to us today.

Exactly. The literal is only good in conveying a spiritual message to us today. As a literal narrative it has no profit to us today. People are getting stuck on literal understanding instead of perceiving the spiritual message behind it for us today. When we look at Genesis 1 literal, I say "What good is this literal interpretation (which we can not be sure of) to us today? Let's go above, and let's understand the spiritual message to us today." Do you hear what I'm saying?

Another example would be the prophecies of Jesus Christ, which He literally fulfilled. Here is one in particular:

Zechariah 9:9

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

It would be easy for us to say, if we lived in the time before Jesus, that this scripture indicated the great humility of the Messiah. That He wouldn't literally be riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, yet that is exactly what He did. The thing is, this verse *does* indicate His great humility, but it doesn't cancel out the literal meaning. See how rich the scripture is!

But it doesn't matter if Jesus literally did this: what matters is the spiritual message of humility in sonship of the King: that is the thing Jesus is teaching. This is the spiritual message to us today.

I think what you're needing is the faith to believe Gods word, as it is.

I believe the spiritual message for us today. If you ask me, "Did Jesus literally ride on a donkey?" I would say "I believe He did" but that literal belief doesn't matter, all that matters is that I "hear" or "see" and understand the spiritual message for us today.

To get that you need to pray and ask for it. When I struggled with believing the bible, God led me to this verse:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and lean not on your own understanding.

I gave up my concerns to Him and decided to believe His word, and ever since then, God has opened up His word to me and helped me to believe and understand it. He will literally do the same for you my friend. God bless

He will not literally open my eyes to understanding, He opens the figurative eyes to understanding. This is the crux of the thread: open the spiritual eyes of understanding in all of the scripture: the literal has no profit to us today. The only reason these things were ever literally done by those in the distant past, was to communicate a spiritual message for us today so that all of the scripture would always have meaning to those who are reading it today.

 

[John Hyperspace]

@John Hyperspace

Apologies, I did miss this post; I only see in my alerts when people quote me. It was becoming too much to be alerted to every instance of someone replying to a watched thread.

I think there are 2 reasons (that I can think of at the moment) why you shouldn't disregard the literal meaning:

1. If you hyperbolize this idea, than you could go on and say that when Moses wrote genesis, he was talking of a figurative God, who figuratively created a figurative world, etc. This would make everything written in the bible a super elaborate imagination.

Instead of the word "figurative" it can be replaced with "spiritual" or "abstract" and Moses would be talking of a spiritual God, spiritually creating a spiritual world. I disagree that it makes the bible a "super-elaborate imagination" but it makes the literal understanding into spiritual. The spiritual (or, abstract) is just as real as the literal: even more real. One can really literally open the eyes of the literally blind; and one can also really spiritually/figuratively/abstractly open the figurative eyes of the figurative blind. The latter is by far and away more usefully real than the former.

2. The literal meaning is important, because it gives us insight into the characteristics of God. I know I've said this before, but I want to elaborate. You used the example of Jesus curing the blind man, so I'm going to use it again. If Jesus hadn't actually cured the blind man, the passage wouldn't show us his compassion, and this characteristic of Jesus would be lost.

I believe we can understand the compassion of one who heals figurative blindness with His teachings. It is a greater display of compassion to teach others, than to merely perform a literal sign. The scripture shows unbelievers working signs - and even says that the 'son of perdition' comes with 'all signs': this does not show compassion, it shows power, but not compassion. Compassion is shown in the teachings.

If he had figuratively cured the figurative blindness, this passage's only use would be to show us that Jesus has the ability to cure the figurative blindness of the figuratively blind if he so wishes. Furthermore, since you're not reading the passage literally, he may not even have done it.

It wouldn't matter if it was never literally done. You and I have never seen any of the literal events of the scripture with our own eyes. All that we know is the Word of God. It is the teachings in the scripture that have power to transform the heart and mind; it is the spirit, the figurative, the abstract understanding that is tranforming the world, not the literal understanding. You and I "have not seen" as Jesus said to Thomas: "because you have seen" but "blessed are they that have not seen": have not, literally seen. But they spiritually see.

Another example would be Matthew 21:12-13 : We know that there actually were people selling inside the temple because there are records of it outside of the bible. So if the temples were being turned into marketplaces, but Jesus hadn't actually cleansed the temple, what would that teach us about his personality?
I believe that he did enter the temple and drive off the vendors, because he couldn't stand the hypocrisy.

The literal understanding doesn't preclude the spiritual, or, figurative. If we look at this story figuratively (as, a parable: not saying it never literally happened, but if we understand it figuratively) we still see and understand the zeal of the Son of God in the figurative understanding. I understand those who "buy and sell" as figurative of the men in the church who feign their faith, and make profit off of them entering the temple of God in unfeigned faith. The temple of God is figurative of the church; and here we are seeing the zeal of the Son of God in cleansing the church of hypocrisy by those of unfeigned faith who "buy and sell" in the temple of God: making merchandise of believers: John 2:16, 2 Peter 2:3.

The literal only has purpose in the spiritual. It has no value of its own. The parable of the good samaritan is not literally understood, it is figuratively understood: but we still understand the compassion of the Samaritan, we still understand the spiritual understanding of, showing love to one's national/cultural enemy. This is the true understanding; the spiritual/figurative/abstract. The only purpose anything was ever literally done was to send a spiritual message to those reading the spiritual Word of God. A message that was profitable for them today.

 

[Jon Goode]

Apologies, I did miss this post; I only see in my alerts when people quote me. It was becoming too much to be alerted to every instance of someone replying to a watched thread.

Instead of the word "figurative" it can be replaced with "spiritual" or "abstract" and Moses would be talking of a spiritual God, spiritually creating a spiritual world. I disagree that it makes the bible a "super-elaborate imagination" but it makes the literal understanding into spiritual. The spiritual (or, abstract) is just as real as the literal: even more real. One can really literally open the eyes of the literally blind; and one can also really spiritually/figuratively/abstractly open the figurative eyes of the figurative blind. The latter is by far and away more usefully real than the former.

I believe we can understand the compassion of one who heals figurative blindness with His teachings. It is a greater display of compassion to teach others, than to merely perform a literal sign. The scripture shows unbelievers working signs - and even says that the 'son of perdition' comes with 'all signs': this does not show compassion, it shows power, but not compassion. Compassion is shown in the teachings.

It wouldn't matter if it was never literally done. You and I have never seen any of the literal events of the scripture with our own eyes. All that we know is the Word of God. It is the teachings in the scripture that have power to transform the heart and mind; it is the spirit, the figurative, the abstract understanding that is tranforming the world, not the literal understanding. You and I "have not seen" as Jesus said to Thomas: "because you have seen" but "blessed are they that have not seen": have not, literally seen. But they spiritually see.

The literal understanding doesn't preclude the spiritual, or, figurative. If we look at this story figuratively (as, a parable: not saying it never literally happened, but if we understand it figuratively) we still see and understand the zeal of the Son of God in the figurative understanding. I understand those who "buy and sell" as figurative of the men in the church who feign their faith, and make profit off of them entering the temple of God in unfeigned faith. The temple of God is figurative of the church; and here we are seeing the zeal of the Son of God in cleansing the church of hypocrisy by those of unfeigned faith who "buy and sell" in the temple of God: making merchandise of believers: John 2:16, 2 Peter 2:3.

The literal only has purpose in the spiritual. It has no value of its own. The parable of the good samaritan is not literally understood, it is figuratively understood: but we still understand the compassion of the Samaritan, we still understand the spiritual understanding of, showing love to one's national/cultural enemy. This is the true understanding; the spiritual/figurative/abstract. The only purpose anything was ever literally done was to send a spiritual message to those reading the spiritual Word of God. A message that was profitable for them today.

I understand what you mean, you're not saying that it didn't happen, you're saying that to a reader of the bible nowadays it doesn't matter if it actually happened or not, because it contains a powerful spiritual message either way. My human reason tells me that you're right. However, I still get the feeling I'm missing something.

Another thing that bothers me is this: If those things never happened, then the disciples would have had to imagine all the things they wrote. How do see this?

 

[John Hyperspace]

I understand what you mean, you're not saying that it didn't happen, you're saying that to a reader of the bible nowadays it doesn't matter if it actually happened or not, because it contains a powerful spiritual message either way.

Exactly. But again bear in mind I'm not saying "It didn't literally happen": what I'm saying is, for one: it's impossible to know how it literally happened. There are too many unknowns, too many variables. People can draw lines in the sand and say "My literal interpretation is how it must have happened" but these people are only deceiving themselves. There is just no way to be sure. Was the flood global? Local? Both sides have the reasons for their literal understanding, but no side can be sure of it. And what does it matter, anyway?

If a man had a dream of an ark, and said "God spoke to me"; then later someone writes down "And God spoke to him, and said 'Build an ark'" the story is still true. I use the phrase "God says to me..." all of the time, and it is true; but not meaning that I'm hearing an audible voice. Then again, if a man hears an audible voice, and writes it down, that's also true. Then you have the parable. The parable of the sower is true even though, not literal. Is the story of Job literally true? If there was no literal Job, and a man was guided by the Spirit to write the story as a parable: does that make it false? No, it is still true; just as any parable is true, but not literal.

But the crux of the thread is that, the literal has no real function except in creating the analogue of the spiritual truth being conveyed through the allegory. When I ask "What good is the literal understanding?" it is a question of, why does the literal even matter to anyone? It does nothing at all, but create a spiritual allegory which is the true intent of the Word of God. The true Word of God is spiritual in understanding, not literal.

All that the literal understanding does (when taken as the only understanding) is, cause division in the churches and accusations of 'heresy' against each other, cause division in the world by demanding people believe the literal understanding when they have no means whatsoever of actually experiencing or verifying the myriad conflicting literal understandings, causes rifts between thinking persons who cannot believe in literal talking snakes and global floods, and, most insidiously, it robs people of the spiritual understanding, the real truth of worth.

Another thing that bothers me is this: If those things never happened, then the disciples would have had to imagine all the things they wrote. How do see this?

I'm not saying they never happened, but that it's not possible to know through these writings, how it literally happened. It could be that none of it happened, and it would make no difference to the spiritual understanding that is the important thing. It is the spiritual understanding, it is the very information transmitted off of the pages of the scripture and into the mind and heart that is causing the spiritual transformation of the reader. That information is true regardless of whether or not, literally happened. It is the very Word of God that matters, and that transforms; it is not belief in literal events of the past that no one can truly know, that transforms; it is the very spirit of the Word that is doing the transforming. Romans 10:6-8

Again, I'm not in any way saying "These things did not literally happen"; I am saying, how these things happened have no positive profit or function except as understood by way of parable. A story containing truth. The scripture says that Jesus never spoke to the masses except by way of parable. That Christ is the Word of God. Thus the Word of God speaks to the masses by way of parable. And just as it says Christ would give understanding to His disciples in private; the Holy Spirit gives understanding to the sincere seeker, in private. While the rest of the masses turn the bible sideways, peering and wondering "How does this man give us His flesh to eat?" This is the difference between the natural man and the spiritual man: 1 Corinthians 2:14. The former comprehends the spiritual Word literally, falling short of the spiritual understanding.

But the Word of God is spirit: John 6:63: and I propose that when the mind of the world begins to comprehend the Word of God purely in the Spirit, we will have this: Revelation 19:11-13, Revelation 19:15-16 because that sharp sword is what divides asunder soul and spirit: Hebrews 4:12: that is, dividing the literal from the spiritual; which is what it means to "rightly divide the Word of God": 2 Timothy 2:15: to divide the carnal mind of understanding, from the spiritual mind of understanding; and cast away the literal understanding as profitless, and be "immersed in the Spirit"

 

[thesunisout]

How do you know this? If you believe Genesis 1 is figurative, you are still going to believe it, and quote it. Quoting a thing doesn't mean you believe it is literal. I can quote the parables of Jesus; it doesn't mean I understand them literally.

Jesus didn't just quote the scripture, He spoke about it as being a historical reality, and based some of His teaching on that fact.

No, not at all; I said that much of the scripture can be understood literally. All of the scripture can be understood figuratively(spiritually), some of it can also be understood literally. Any time you can understand scripture literally, it also has a figurative understanding. Both. But, my question, what good does the literal side of the equation actually do? As far as I can tell, all it does is cause division for no real reason other than, people interpreting the literal differently. It seems to have no real meaning; but the real meaning comes through the figurative(spiritual) understanding.

So if you ask me, "Can Genesis be understood literally?" I would say "It can be understood both literally and figuratively"; you may ask "What does it literally mean?" and I would reply "No one knows for certain; many have their interpretations, but it is not possible to know with certainty how to understand it literally; therefore, the literal understanding has no profit, and does nothing anyway"

That people argue about the literal meaning of the scripture doesn't make the literal understanding unprofitable. People also argue about the spiritual meaning of the scripture, does that make it unprofitable as well? That is not sound reasoning.

It is also not necessarily true that all of the scripture has a spiritual meaning. There are many passages which are just descriptions of events that don't have any apparent spiritual meaning.

What is the profit of the literal meaing of the text? It is indeed profitable to me when I believe the literal events that happened in scripture, such as Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection. It is my faith and trust in these events as being a reality that are the cornerstone of my faith. I couldn't have a relationship with God or have my sins forgiven if I didn't understand that as being literally true.

Another example would be the literal things that Jesus did and said. It is profitable for me to believe Jesus literally said all of His sayings, because they are the words of life. It is profitable for me to literally believe that Jesus experienced what He did as a man, because it helps me to relate to Him as my Lord and Savior.

Exactly. The literal is only good in conveying a spiritual message to us today. As a literal narrative it has no profit to us today. People are getting stuck on literal understanding instead of perceiving the spiritual message behind it for us today. When we look at Genesis 1 literal, I say "What good is this literal interpretation (which we can not be sure of) to us today? Let's go above, and let's understand the spiritual message to us today." Do you hear what I'm saying?

The literal doesn't just convey the message, it is in itself the spiritual message. If we don't understand the literal nature of the event then we won't understand the message, because the nature and reality of the event is the message. God in His sovereignty orchastrated it like that.

But it doesn't matter if Jesus literally did this: what matters is the spiritual message of humility in sonship of the King: that is the thing Jesus is teaching. This is the spiritual message to us today.

It does matter because it is the fulfillment of prophecy. God said in His word that the reason He tells us what happens in advance is that when those things happen, we'll know that He is God. In other words, knowing that prophecy was literally fulfilled gives us faith to believe He is God. I'd say that is pretty important.

 

[victorinus]

The scripture says to be crucified with Christ. It makes sense literally.

no it doesn't -
you cannot literally be crucified with Christ