The importance of a literal interpretation

Again, did you read packers statement on the literal interpretation?

 

Rule of thumb: Let context determine whether literal or non-literal.

 

My what extremely thin skin you seem to have!
What I gave can no wise be considered an insult. He nor anyone else is bound to answer any question posed them by other BB member. You demand an answer that he is not bound to give if he so chooses. And if he was a Catholic pretending to be 'Baptist' then Pm one of the moderators and or an Admin. and give them whatever evidence you have that proves you accertion. If you know that he is not Catholic there is only one reason you try to equate him as one is for the express purpose of bringing an insult yourself.

Anone who thinks that literal interpretation means to take everything in a literal manner regardless of the context, is shows their lack of understanding of the concept.

 

Amen, TcGreek - that'll preach :smilewinkgrin:

 

Isn't that at odds with the title of the OP: The importance of a literal interpretation?

And I agree with TCGreek.

 

They know this, they just need a reason to question what they otherwise cannot refute.

 

Do you know what Charles C. Ryrie means when he says: "Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value."

Charles C. Ryrie, page 90, Dispensationalism.

 

Same thing he means on p. 80 when he talks about the normal interpretation. It is letting the Scripture say what it says. It is refusing to put spiritual or figurative meanings on passages that aren't spiritual or figurative, and it is putting spiritual or figurative meanings on passages that are spiritual or figurative.

In this thread, we see the raising of a long since dead issue ... that of literal vs. literalistic. To intepret literally is not to interpret literalistically. Literal interpretation is to interpret according to the normal rules of communication. So figures of speech are not ruled out in literal interpretation. No one claims they are unless they don't know what they are talking about. The saying, "I am so hungry I could eat a horse" literally means the person is very hungry. It does not literally mean that the person can eat a horse.

And for whoever asked, John 6:53 has nothing to do with communion (the Eucharist).

 

On another thread -

First, let me offer that I do find OldRegular to be fully competent in his or her spelling abilities.

I agree with the response of Allan, here, FTR.

(This was posted in response to a reply from Revmitchell.)

However, speaking of arrogance ...

Ed

 

I also thought it was arrogant of Mitchell to say

I had made no attack on literal understanding of Scripture only asked a simple question regarding the OP.

 

Two Views on Interpretation of Scripture {For Whiners Only}..

Dispensationalist, John F. Macarthur

John F MacArthur, [Charismatic Chaos, page 91], defines literal interpretation as follows [Emphasis mine]:

===============================================

When we speak of interpreting Scripture literally, we are not talking about a slavish, rigid literalism. Literal interpretation means we understand Scripture in its normal sense, including figures of speech like parables, hyperbole, simile, metaphor, and symbolism.

Scripture is to be read naturally. In years past theologians spoke of the “usus loquendi”, meaning that the words of Scripture are to be interpreted the same way words are understood in ordinary daily use. God has communicated his Word to us through human language, and there is every reason to assume he has done it in the most obvious and simple fashion possible. His words are to be understood just as we would interpret the language of normal discourse. Although there is occasional figurative language and symbolism in Scripture, those things are quite evident in the places they are employed. The first thing the careful interpreter looks for is the literal meaning, not some mystical, deeper, hidden, secret, or spiritualized interpretation.

==============================================

John F. MacArthur in his book Charismatic Chaos [page 94] writes on the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture as follows [emphasis mine.]:

The Reformers used the expression scriptura scripturam interpretatur, or ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ By this they meant that obscure passages in Scripture must be understood in light of clearer ones. If the Bible is God's Word, it must be consistent with itself. No part of the Bible can contradict any other part. One divine Author, the Holy Spirit, inspired the whole Bible, so it has one marvelous, supernatural unity. The synthesis principle puts Scripture together with Scripture to arrive at a clear, consistent meaning. If we hold to an interpretation of one passage that does not square with something in another passage, one of the passages is being interpreted incorrectly, or possibly both of them. The Holy Spirit does not disagree with himself. And the passages with obvious meanings should interpret the more arcane [obscure] ones. One should never build a doctrine on a single obscure or unclear text. When I teach a passage of Scripture, I often guide the congregation to different parts of the Bible to show how the passage under study fits into the total context of Scripture. In his fine book God Has Spoken, J. I. Packer said:

‘The Bible appears like a symphony orchestra, with the Holy Ghost as its Toscanini; each instrumentalist has been brought willingly, spontaneously, creatively, to play his notes just as the great conductor desired, though none of them could ever hear the music as a whole.... The point of each part only becomes fully clear when seen in relation to all the rest.’

===============================================

Covenant Theologian, R. C. Sproul

R. C. Sproul writes [Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, page 25], as follows [emphasis mine]:

In addition, properly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all the forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history. Parables as parables, hyperbole as hyperbole, and so on. In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. In some ways the Bible is unlike any other book ever written. However, in terms of its interpretation, it is to be treated as any other book.

===============================================

R. C. Sproul writes in Essential Truths of the Christian Faith [page 25], as follows [emphasis mine]:

Any written document must be interpreted if it is to be understood. The United States of America has nine highly skilled individuals whose daily task is to interpret the Constitution. They comprise the Supreme Court of the land. To interpret the Bible is a far more solemn task than to interpret the U.S. Constitution. It requires great care and diligence. The Bible itself is its own Supreme Court. The chief rule of biblical interpretation is "sacred Scripture is its own interpreter." This principle means that the Bible is to be interpreted by the Bible. What is obscure in one part of Scripture may be made clear in another. To interpret Scripture by Scripture means that we must not set one passage of Scripture against another passage. Each text must be understood not only in light of its immediate context but also in light of the context of the whole of Scripture.

===============================================

Obviously though both Macarthur and Sproul claim to interpret Scripture literally and let Scripture interpret Scripture they come up with significantly different answers.

 

If you are familiar with Ryrie, which you should be since you cite him a lot, you will remember that he points out that the issue is the consistent use of literal hermeneutics. The hallmark of dispensationalism is the consistent use of the hermeneutic, rather than inconsistent use which marks the alternatives.

 

But even this needs qualifying.

 

That is the reason it is a poor choice of words.

 

If you read the whole chapter, you will see that he qualifies it and explains it very well.

 

"I wish never to learn the art of tearing God's meaning out of His own words. If there be anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage — a meaning not to be spirited or spiritualised away — must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israel are to be restored to their own land, and that a king is to rule over them." ---Charles Spurgeon, on Ezekiel 37

 

I am a Ryrie fan so that everyone knows where I am coming from in this discussion.

How often have we heard from many camps that "we interpret the Bible literally"? Many

One of the flies in the ointment is personal conviction within an existing model or within our own model of belief, theology.

We can say we accept the scripture in a literal way, but do we hold true to that consistently. Ryrie is making a case of consistency.

Because "literal" has been miss under stood and abused the new term is "normal literal" and its definition would be accordingly: Understand a writing according to is genre, poetry as poetry, history as history, prophecies as prophecy, parables as parables - I think everyone gets the picture.

If you take some statements "wooden literal" in Scripture we would have a mess, wouldn't we? Taking Scripture in a normal literal way allows color, form, or as some call it genre and does not violate true "literalism" which is correctly called "normal literal" to avoid the miss use of "literal" as we are seeing even here is this discussion.

Here are Ryrie's exact words, "To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not thesole possession or practice of dispensationalist, but the consistent use of it is all areas of biblical interpretaion is. This does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apoclypses, and other genres within the basicframework of literal interpretation."

Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, revised and expanded, page 47 at the bottom of the page.

Benefactor

 

Isn't that essentially what Sproul says in the following quote:[See my post #32]

R. C. Sproul writes [Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, page 25], as follows [emphasis mine]:

In addition, properly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all the forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history. Parables as parables, hyperbole as hyperbole, and so on. In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. In some ways the Bible is unlike any other book ever written. However, in terms of its interpretation, it is to be treated as any other book.

Yet Sproul is a Covenant Theologian and Ryrie is a dispensational theologian. Dispensationalists insist that they alone are consistent in their interpretation. It is impossible for them to admit the possibility of error in their doctrine even to the point that some question the veracity of God if He doesn't interpret His Word as they do. Unreal!

 

That may be true in your circles but, IME, when the Spirit teaches it often goes far deeper than the letter of the matter.

It’s ‘literally’ impossible to interpret the book of Revelation ‘literally‘.

In the very first verse of the book it says ”…..;and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;” The message of the book is contained in signs and symbols that are at all times connected to the rest of scripture, old and new. Revelation is the capstone of the bible; it’s a treasure trove of truths and there is great reward in delving into it.