One of the princples of hermeneutics is use of the allegorical method of interpretation of Scripture is one of last resort. The reason for this is that there are aboslutely no rules and there's no uniform standard to apply to Scripture. With the allegorical method, the literary becomes unimportant; the focus being entirely on the spiritual. Allegorists tend to spiritualize Scripture rather than principalize it. The authority to interpret ends up in the mind of the interpreter, rather than exegeting meaning out of Scripture, allowing Scripture to be its own interpreter (to convey the meaning of the author). With the allegorical method all objectivity is lost, interpretation becomes entirely subjective and ulitmately wholly existential, i.e., it means whatever it means to you at the time it means that to you. With the allegorical method, there is no means to test one's interpretation.
It is far better to use the literal historical grammatical method, whereby the author's intended meaning is discovered by the study of the actual language, taken in its most natural significance, the open and obvious teaching, within the context it is intended, in light of the times it was written. Ezra read the book and then translated it. Rabbis used the literal method, almost to the point of wooden literalism, and the Apostles used this method most certainly.
According to the principle of literal interpretation, every word is attributed the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking. It allows for figurative, metaphoric, idiomatic speech having the following forms: metonymy, personfication, apostraphe, fable, hyperbole, irony, mataphor, simile and euphamism. It is based on grammer, synthesis, and syntax (having subject, predicate, mumber, gender, mood, tense (past, present, future, past perfect, present perfect, future perfect).
Problems can arise with respect to designation. That is, if a word always referred to the same thing, there'd be no problem. However, this is not always the case. For example, "chair" could be a noun, or it could be a verb. In Danial 2:37, "kingdom" is earthly, in Col 1:13 it is spiritual, in Mt 13:33 it applies to the sphere of profession. "Spirit" is used of the human body in I Cor 2:11, of the Holy Spirt (and human) in Rom 16, in Jn 3:8 it refers to the wind, and in I Pt 3:4 dispositition.
The key to literal interpretation is to find the common sense meaning within the context of the passage being interpreted. Interpretation must presever Scriptural integrity. One reference can not be intrepreted at the expense of another. That the Scriptures were produced over 1600 years, by 40 different authors in 60 differnt books with a unified message requires caution of proof text method of theology construction. It insists upon comparative Bible study as both logical and necessary.
Empahsis is placed upon literal interpretation because language was created by God to comunicate truth. The Bible supports literal interpretation, and prophecies were fulfilled literally. To be told to "straighten up" could mean one of two things. "Pick up the floor" usually can only mean one thing logically, as the other meaning most likely is absurd. The general principle of hermeneutics is to use the literal interpretation method unless the context clearly shows otherwise. It is context within which all determination is made respecting speaking or writing to decide meaning. The Bible is no exception to this.
I challenge you to adduce your assertion that the passages in question pertain exclusively to spiritual death (and not merely eisegetic philosophy). In all frankness, against normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), your position is overwhelmingly untenable.
You use a lot of words to basically say that because the words have a literal meaning, you must therefore be prohibited from thinking about them on a non-literal level.
I don't share your principle.
SD