[xzins]

The principles detailed above are fairly standard within a literal methodology. Some of the author's comments, explanations, and illustrations are unique to him.

The issue is the effort to establish a consistent methodology for literal bible interpretation. It is necessary to remember that "literal bible interpretation" is the name for a PROCESS that properly places symbols, allegories, figures, types, metaphors, etc., in their proper context.

It is not a way to say that the "symbolic" does not exist in the Bible.

As near as I can tell, the closest synonym to "literal methodology" is what scholars mean when they say "exegesis."

[SoothingDave]

Unless the passage says otherwise, or is clearly using metaphorical languate give Scripture a literal meaning. .....

. Often the Bible does use figurative speech. The art or skill of an interpreter, using the proper rules of interpretation combined with good sense can easily understand the meaning.....

It should be understood that this does not mean we are to take metaphorical language literally.

Of course, all this hand waving is to obscure that a major source of differences in interpretations is in identifying which passages are literal and which are metaphorical.

Likewise, it is fairly naive to state that we can "easily undestand" the meaning of figurative passages. Exactly what these passages mean, what message is being conveyed is another source of differences.

GRANT ONE INTERPRETATION TO EACH PASSAGE.
When the words of Scripture were penned they had only one meaning. We should search for that one meaning. To accept multiple interpretations for one scripture passage causes confusion. Scripture itself does not allow for multiple interpretations of a verse.

Right. So the story of Abraham and Isaac, or of Noah, or of the Exodus, only has one, literal, meaning. We are not to read these as foreshadows of things to come?

SD

[american colleen]

"If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense."

Then the Jews started arguing with one another: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" they said. Jesus replied: "I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him."

Makes perfect literal sense to me!

[Wrigley]

How did you read this? Kind of a long article.

[sola gracia]

The correct interpretation of the passage is that Christ will literally reign for one thousand years on earth!

This man is an idiot. He doesn't even follow his own rules of interpretation. Someone please show me where the word earth appears in Revelation 20: 1 - 6. It doesn't. There is no mention where the "reigning" takes place. No literal word earth in that passage.

I am very hesitant to read someone who doesn't follow his own rules. What a dispensational joke this it.

[Irisshlass]

<>II Timothy 3:16-17, clearly states that God gave us the Bible. The verses tell us that the Bible is " . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." <>

<>Accepting what the words literally mean is a vital part of this first rule.<>


that the man of God may...may..may help make the man of God complete and equipped.....not that scripture in itself is complete and equipped...man of God is also clergy not a layperson..

[theAmbassador]

NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

Hey, didn't you crucify Woody for pointing out this very thing with the 1000 years mentioned only in Rev 20 on another thread?

Of course, I might point out that you Premillennialists don't even follow your own rules, but that might be too much fun and I doubt I have the time.

BTW, xzins, are you going to apologize to us Amillennialists for bearing false witness against us or just run and start another thread when the heat get to be too much for you?

[onedoug]

Ethical Monotheism

I also like what Prager has said about the Commandment not to "Take the Lord's name in vain," as an admonition for religious people to refrain from doing bad things.

[wai-ming]

It is apparent from all the contradictory teachings of the many denominations and cults of Christendom, that they all cannot be right.

Okay, so which one is right?