Most correct, and it can be easily seen. The Romanists rely on this for their power over insidious ignorance.
As you here note, there are mainly only two ways to institute the use of Scripture quotations, which devolves on figures of speech and methods of interpretation.
The false interpretation employs an allegorical mode of implementation. Quoting from the scholar who discipled me:
From HERE'S HOW! The Bible Can Make Sense to You Todau" (click here):The citatons from tired&retied that were in your Post #77 are just filled to the brim with such drivel that one cannot argue with, because they have no reference to solid thinking or provable events with consequences one can measure. Leaving this, in contrast, this guidebook for understanding the Bible goes on to discuss normal, verifiable truth of a Scripture passage. Of such a segment, there is:Figurative and/or allegorical interpretation is not normal.
It takes both literal and figurative language and lays out a meaning (metaphorical, symbolical, or figurative) upon what is said or written. It is not normal to read into a (written communication) any other meaning than what it says. So it is with the Bible. The normal interpretation is a plain literal or obvious interpretation.
Problems arise when something other than what is written is read into it or when there is a departure from plain literal language. < impossible.
The Bible is a love letter from God to man. He wants His children to understand what He means.
Only One Primary Interpretation (not two, or a half-dozen, or a hundred)Now, daniel1212,let me say that literal interpretation contains both plain-literal language and figurative-literal language,
Scripture has but one meaning. There is only one primary interpretation to which all context lends itself. It applies directly to those addressed, at ome specific time indicated, ans must have a specific meaning for them.
in the light of this it can be applied to us under similar conditions which exist relative to those conditions prevailing in the context.
There may be several secondary applications but there is only one interpretation -- one specific, intended meaning (Ex. 15:26).One Single Sense
Every statement of Scripture has only one sense (compare Isa. 55 with 1 Pet. 2:24)."When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense" (Dr. David L. Cooper).
"The grammatical sense in (Karl A. G.) Keil's understanding, is the simple, direct, plain, ordinary,and literal sense of the phrases, clauses, and sentence" (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.).
"Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereuntoif thou ceave thou canst never err nor go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way" (Tyndale).
But the meaning of Bible Scriptures throughout are expressed in terms that make a literal, verbal, grammatical, contextual, cultural, historical, interpretation necessary.
Of particular note, there is another mode which writers can use, and that is reliance on allegorical illustations of a concept or principle. From Wikipedia:
As a literary device or artistic form, an allegory is a narrative or visual representation in which a character, place, or event can be interpreted to represent a meaning with moral or political significance. Authors have used allegory throughout history in all forms of art to illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners.This kind of representation is one which the Spirit-inspired Scriptures rarely use; but when it does, the allegory is clearly explained, and has but one meaning( Gal. 4:22-26). Sadly, the roots of the Gentile Roman Catholic theology arising from the Platonic allegorical style of interpretation entered the schools at Alexandria, and corrupted the way of interpreting or applying Scripture passages. When they really did not understand the meaning of Scriptures whose meaning was novel and elusive to a Gentile, to cover their tracks and appear wise they resorted to the flexible scheme of using allegory to create an uninspired interpretation rather than to honestly just say,"I don't know." Doing this permited innumerable ways of explaining the meaning of the Bible stories, which ways are undebatable, because they are figments of one's imagination. To endorse any of them and fix then as dogma of their popes and their "Catechism," not the Scriptures as the sole authority of their religion, makes agreement through debates on Scriptures alone impossible and unattainable.
However, as you pointed out to Jamestown1630, where therules of a literal hermeneutic are agreed upon and followed, the one way commanded by Christ, the non- or anti-Catholic spiritual elders come into a pretty universal common understanding of how to surely find the well-defined and profusely taught mental state (Rom. 4:20-21; John 3:16) way for one to obtain forgiveness of sins, be imputed the righteousness of God's Own Son, and enter the unceasing, never-ending life that stays OSAS on the path to Glory.
One of the common results of this present situation is to find blatherers like tired&retired whose false insubstantial ungodly speculationds are from the moment they are voiced are blown away as the chaff was (Ps. 1:4, a metaphor), an expression presented to the reader in literally interpreted figurative-literal language that cannot be misinterpreted.
There is no reason for me to read past the first samples of his musings, so I say to myself and to you, "No more, and no profitless argumentation about them." Apparently people trapped in their own glue can'tfigure our how to escape, they justspew out some more when provoked. No point in getting involved after the fiest couple of warnings, eh? (Titus 3:9-11 AV):
9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.So be it. Selah.
10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
An interesting subject itself. The scope and depth of human communication is one more aspect (besides a basic sense and worship of the invisible God) of humans which sets them apart from animals. Although the latter can have superior smell, eyesight, etc. as well as chemical communication. they are not known to engage in all the literary genres of mankind (including poetry, science fiction, etc.), and forms of speech, including euphemism, circumlocution, metaphor, allegory, allusion, hyperbole, understatement, idiom, sarcasm, personification, pun, simile, synecdoche, etc. Yet while human communication abounds with this we typically parse communication rather effortlessly within the culture that we live, and within the context (is king) in which such communication takes place.
And the use of figurative speech itself does not necessarily mean that it is not referring to something literal, for the use of allegorical forms are typically or often used in describing literal events, but which are understood in the light of their immediate as well as broader context. If a person from the 1600's could read a sports page of th modern world such as states "Patriots bury Bears," , then he could be perplexed, as would be the case with the use of the myriad of idioms and metaphors which are often used on speech to describe things outside sports in the West today ("big hit," "threw a curveball," "kicked off the event," "pitched an idea" etc.).
And within the Bible, the immediate and broader context - the latter of which includes examining what is taught on a subject elsewhere, and principles behind precepts) then what is ignored by those who are not seeking to know and obey its Truth wherever it may lead. . Consider some of the alleged contradictions set forth by AmericanAtheists.org, such as which thinks that Genesis 32:30 contradicts John 1:18, as if there is only one sense of "seeing God," and that the command to be circumcise (Genesis 17:10) contradicts the statement of Galatians 5:2, which ignores covenantal distinctions.
Likewise, when we read such Johannine statements such as "Behold the Lamb of God," (John 1:29) "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work" (Jn. 4:24) whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst" (John 4:14) "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63) then in the light of the immediate and broader context of Scripture we understand that Jesus was both a literal person, who literally spoke word of Truth, but that He represents the prophesied sacrificial atonement, and that water represents spiritual life, and that receiving/believing/ingesting His words, the gospel, provides spiritual life, and which man therefore is to live by, (Jn. 6:53, 57) these being his "bread." And that "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and is also Light (1Jo_1:5) and His spirit is Truth (1 John 5:6). refers to God as a literal being being described according to what He consists of, Love,and Truth, Him being the definition of Love and Truth. All of which is contextually consistent with the use of metaphor by John as well as in Scripture (including that of food).
Then you also have the example of ignoring/neglecting context, of the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture, by the commentators of the official RC New American Bible (now surpassed with the slightly revised NABRE) and esp. its St. Jospeph study version, which for decades taught such things as that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson. And that the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson. TradCaths themselves understandably are critical of such.
All of which overall impugns the literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture (context), we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed “the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if such an account as that of Jonah and the whale is rejected as literally true, then so can the resurrection which the Lord likened to the story of Jonah: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40) And Israel's history is always and inclusively treated as literal.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. (James 3:17)
In contrast to seeking to honestly, objectively understand Scripture in order to best obey God, are those who make Scripture their servant in order to support their source of security (man or church) or their own chosen elitist delusions, whether esoterical and via or corrupt argumentation.
And when you see such statements as "The Bible is very accurate. Just not understood as people worship Jesus rather than following His teachings, which the esoteric guru teaches as meaning that, "God is consciousness," "I define God as any level of consciousness that exists above the level I am currently at,"
and that "The Holy Spirit is Higher Consciousness,"
and defines being “born again” as meaning "raising your consciousness frequency through prayer and meditation to levels where you perceive directly with your consciousness beyond your physical body..."
with "expansion of consciousness, way beyond the human physical body. It begins with “Transcendence” which is what Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and all religions are teaching,"
and the author's own experience in his own development process of awakening being why Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna taught what they did,"
and with the “lifted or raised up” that Jesus spoke of meaning raising your brain wave frequency above 40 Hz,
and "My Father and I are One” being defined as "Your soul actually expands to where the entire earth exists within you,"
and that the different religions "are all correct from a different perspectives," and "My Father’s Mansion has many rooms, each existing at a different frequency of consciousness," and the Holy Spirit cleansing a women's soul for 3 weeks before she was pure enough to be in the Light of Heaven -
then anyone should be able to see that the professor of this is dishonestly employing the word of God in order to provide some validation for his occultic experiences, and that spirit behind this is not of God, nor where the actual miracles of the Egyptian magicians, nor will those be by when "there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. "(Matthew 24:24)
The deceiving spirit of the professor at issue has been tried by Scripture, which quite obviously manifests that it is not of God.