What is another non-literal word(s) for "spiritual" interpretation?

[Neogaia777]

What is another non-literal word(s) for "spiritual" interpretation?

"Spiritual" interpretation, leading to spiritual revelation, very rarely comes from literal interpretation, so, what is another word, or words, for this spiritual interpretation?

God Bless!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[[serious]]

Figurative interpretation?

 

[Neogaia777]

Figurative interpretation?

Does that interpretation open up spiritual revelation? What about metaphorical, symbolic, allegorical? Which would be closest to spiritual interpretation?

God Bless!

 

[[serious]]

Does that interpretation open up spiritual revelation? What about metaphorical, symbolic, allegorical? Which would be closest to spiritual interpretation?

God Bless!

Hmm... I'm trying to get at exactly what you are trying to convey. Are you speaking about a kind of quaker personal revelation of scripture?

 

[Neogaia777]

Hmm... I'm trying to get at exactly what you are trying to convey. Are you speaking about a kind of quaker personal revelation of scripture?

Paul said "we do not interpret these things carnally (or worldy, literally), but we interpret these things spiritually",

I'm just trying to figure out "how" to interpret things "spiritually" Can any of you out there help me, by providing an example of something in the Bible, that might be literal, and there might be a literal interpretation, but also has a spiritual aspect that is intended to be interpreted spiritually leading to a spiritual revelation about, say, a passage of scripture in the Bible, or one of Jesus parables...

God Bless!

 

[Gracchus]

"Spiritual interpretation"? In my experience, it means that if something of doctrine, dogma, or scripture doesn't make sense, just make something up.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm just trying to figure out "how" to interpret things "spiritually" Can any of you out there help me, by providing an example of something in the Bible, that might be literal, and there might be a literal interpretation, but also has a spiritual aspect that is intended to be interpreted spiritually leading to a spiritual revelation about, say, a passage of scripture in the Bible, or one of Jesus parables...

The Tabernacle in the Wilderness is a perfect example.

It is more than just a tabernacle ... it is a three-dimensional depiction of Jesus Christ and His ministry.

Two of my favorite examples follow:

1. The fence surrounding it was made of sixty fence posts, each capped with a block of silver, acquired when the children of Israel gave one-half shekel. Sixty one-half shekels of silver equate to thirty pieces of silver that Jesus was betrayed for.

2. The boards of the holy and most holy places were made of acacia wood, overlaid with gold. Acacia wood grows in the desert, and gold is symbolic of deity. Thus Jesus' dual nature of both man and God are portrayed here, as Jesus is portrayed as a "root out of dry ground" -- (Isaiah 53:2). The boards themselves were placed in silver sockets, symbolic of redemption.

 

[eclipsenow]

"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words."
This is less about interpretation and more about inspiration It's about the authority of the apostles as the eyewitnesses of the gospel. It's about the authority of what they say, and eventually (extrapolated out) the authority of the whole bible. How to read it and recognise whether it is metaphor or symbol or creative narrative or poem or biography or song is a matter of wisdom, literacy, and hermeneutics. Ultimately, hermeneutics is the word you are after, as it describes the science of accurate reading. Only when you have read something accurately in the first place can you implement the spiritual messages it may contain!

 

[lesliedellow]

There is no such thing as "spiritual interpretation" - only an answer to the question, "What was the writer trying to say?" And they weren't trying to answer the kind of scientific questions which probably didn't even occur to them, or, if they did occur to them, they probably would have dismissed as unanswerable.

What is more, if an attempt is made to turn the biblical authors into 10th century BC scientists, their real significance as tenth century BC theologians, divinely inspired by God, will stand a good chance of being missed.

 

[eclipsenow]

There is no such thing as "spiritual interpretation" - only an answer to the question, "What was the writer trying to say?" And they weren't trying to answer the kind of scientific questions which probably didn't even occur to them, or, if they did occur to them, they probably would have dismissed as unanswerable.
What is more, if an attempt is made to turn the biblical authors into 10th century BC scientists, their real significance as tenth century BC theologians, divinely inspired by God, will stand a good chance of being missed.

Exactly! Theologians are starting to pick up on this.

Problems With Creation Science I: Absence of a Theology of Creation

My encounter with this anti-Sydney Diocese blog has strengthened my concerns about Creation Science. As I’ve indicated, I don’t have a problem with the idea of a literal six day creation in the abstract. What does concern me is that, almost without exception in my experience, people who are into creation science seem to be disinterested in theology, and in understanding the world theologically.

I have lost count of the number of videos, magazine articles, internet articles, and teaching sessions I’ve been part of that have gone over Genesis 1, the Flood, and Behemoth from Job 40. And it is always the same. These passages are mined to show:

1. 1. That the world is 8 000 years old
   2. That if we had been there, we would have seen that Genesis 1 gives us a journalistic account of how creation came about. That is, it is pretty much what we would have seen with our own eyes.
   3. That there was a flood that covered the world with water, and so contemporary geological theories are fatally flawed.
   4. That there were dinosaurs still in existence at the time of Job.

These might be true or not, but none of them really touch on the core concerns of the Bible. These are the kind of questions that are of interest primarily to post-enlightenment empiricism. They are scientific questions about the world.
These might be true or not, but none of them really touch on the core concerns of the Bible. These are the kind of questions that are of interest primarily to post-enlightenment empiricism. They are scientific questions about the world.
What is always passed over (and so one presumes that it is considered uninteresting or unimportant) is the theological interpretation of the world. Some examples include:

The way in which creation comes about in the first three days by creating order through making divisions—light versus day, heaven versus earth, land versus sea. And then the second set of three days seems to return to these basic structures and fill them: sun, moon on day four; birds and sea creatures on day five, land creatures and humanity on day six. This suggests a basic understanding of creation as being structured through binary opposition and then filled. Thus, in Genesis 1 we get a move from the original state: formless (no structure) and void (empty) and finish with a structured universe in which entities exist. When one sees that making a separation between two things is fundamental to creation, then, for example, the holiness laws, with their separation into holy and profane, clean and unclean, make far more sense.
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-i.html​