How to interprete Scriptures (Bible or Quran)

[InvestigateTruth]

This was talking about Lazarusoesn't Jesus tell them that no, he's not asleep, but dead? . ?

Asleep can mean, "being unaware". "Dead" can mean "Dead in Sin"

So, perhaps he was aware of Jesus, but was dead in sin? Still doesn't prove, the Scriptures means a literal asleep or dead.

 

[jtartar]

It is believed by most people that the Scriptures contain both literal and symbolic verses and stories.
How do you decide where to interprete a passage literally and where to inteprete it symbolically or Figuratively.
I am looking for a method that can be used to decide "consistantly" if a passage is symbolic or literal.

Investigate Truth;
Most of the Bible is literal. Many times you will be able to tell which it is by reading the surrounding text.
Consider Gen 40:8, where it says; do not interpretations belong to God? If you study and research the Bible, very seldom will you have a problem, especially about the way to salvation. This is the most important thing for all men right now.
One thing you must know, there are things written in the Hebrew Scriptures that are types, where in the Greek Scriptures you have antitypes. This is so with the fleshly Jews of the Israelites. That nation was a type for Christianity today. The Bible would be totally inaccurrate if you took all the things said about the Israelites as litersl forever as it is sometimes stated.
Since the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, God turtned His favor to the Christians. Notice Rom 2:28,29, where it speaks of the Jew being one on the inside, it is really talking about Christians, that are Spiritual Jews, Gal 6:16, Rom 9:6,7. The whole chapter of Rom 11 tells about the fall of the Jews away, the reason Paul is so sad. Only a remnant of the Jews will be included in the Congregation of God, Rom 11:5, 9:27.
The Holy Spirit was poured out on the small band of disciples that a little later came to be Christians, Acts 2:1-21. God gave them the powerful gifts of the Holy Spirit to show the Jews that He had turned His favor to the Christians. The Jews were under the Mosaic Law Covenant for over 1,500 years, so it would take something very unusual to make the Jews understand, that they had to become Christians, if they wanted to remain in His favor.

 

[gnostic]

let's forget religious text for the time being.
Do people normally talk in symbolic language sometimes.
For example if someone talks about someone else, saying: "He is shining like a star"

Is this symbolic or literal?
How do you decide this sentence is symbolic or literal?

Your example is clearly symbolic, for it uses the word "like" to describe a person, comparing them with adjective ("shining") and noun ("star").

The proper name for this usage of symbol is called SIMILE. Another name for simile, is "metaphor" or "figure of speech".

I know about similes in my dealing with mythology, and the ancient people, authors or writers, especially poets, make frequent use of similes.

Because similes often used the word "like" or "as" to describe a person or people with something (like sun, wind, water, lion, bird, dog, etc) that is unrelated to the person or people, simile is the most obvious use of metaphor.

Some uses of metaphors are far more subtle than similes, where you might not know which passages were meant to be symbolic.

Jesus often spoke or taught using parables, which clearly are symbolic.

I don't think there is no relation between religion and science. How do we know there is no relation between science and religion?

What I would say, is, Religion has its own role, and science its own role. That does not mean they have to contradict each other or there is no relation.
See, what many people assume, or believe, is that Religion is a Myth. Based on this assumption, they go and conclude, Religion is against Science. The reason they concluded religion is a Myth, is based on literal reading of the Book. Now consider, the Authors of these Books, had already said, they are also writing Metaphors and Parables. So, literal reading just contradicts with what these Authors meant, weather one reads literally to believe in Miracles, or believe it is a Myth Book.

You were the one who suggested using science to determine if the passages were symbolic or literal, why back in post 5:

Why not saying God created the world including its sciences of physics and chemistry...etc., AND He does not have to break His own rules. By Rules I mean all Rules, including the sciences. Thus, whenever the Scripture is saying something against science, it must be symbolic, and should not be taken literal. Is this meathod consistant?

I don't think your suggestion would be helpful at all. Like you've said, yourself, the Qur'an (or any other scriptures, for that matter) is not a science book:

Regarding your verses of Quran, I believe many of them are in poetry style. Quran is not meant to be a science Book, as God did not claim, He was giving a science Book.

I just thinking using science to determine what's literal or not, is unworkable, because you would be jumping back-and-forth, from literal to symbolic, and back again. And if god is truly the author of all these scriptures, then he (god) would be like Reverend Richard said, back in post 73, SCHIZOPHRENIC. :seesaw:

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't think your suggestion would be helpful at all. Like you've said, yourself, the Qur'an (or any other scriptures, for that matter) is not a science book:

What you may have missed is, I said, just because Scriptures are not science Book, it does not mean it contradicts with science.
This is the whole key.

By science, I mean, science of physics and the laws of physics and chemistry. by scinece I mean, "being physically possible"

It's like, I say, geography is not a physic or chemistry science Book. However, it does not contradict with these science, does it?
Geography Book has its role, physics and chemistry its role.
Now, offcourse, in some cases you would use chemistry or physics in order to understand Geography.
That is what I am saying.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Your example is clearly symbolic, for it uses the word "like" to describe a person, comparing them with adjective ("shining") and noun ("star").

No, it has nothing to do with the word "Like"
If I tell you, "this lamp is like a star shiny"

even though I am using the word "Like", I actually mean, this lamp "physically" looks like star light, and is actually having a "light" that is similar to a star.

Now if I tell you, "This girl is like a star, bright",
I don't mean physically she is having a light. I mean, she has such an excellent chracter, that makes her well-known among others.

So, you see. In both cases I am using the word "like"
How do we know which is metaphor, and which is literal?

Just, when physically something is possible, then it is literal, as the first case. But when it is not physically possible it is metaphor or symbolic.
Simple as that. Just Myth, then Religion makes sense, I would say, and let's not confuse ourselves.
If the Scriptures said, Jesus raised a dead person. Obviously this is not physically possible. Unless a person wants to get into "vain imaginations"
It can only mean, that person was like a dead person, who is usless, and has no feelings, or ethics. Then Jesus taught him how to be a usefull, ethical, and good person. He raised him from death to life. Is it too hard to see?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Asleep can mean, "being unaware". "Dead" can mean "Dead in Sin"

So, perhaps he was aware of Jesus, but was dead in sin? Still doesn't prove, the Scriptures means a literal asleep or dead.

In other words, how can one torture the words to render the scripture 'reasonable.' The approach is as pathetic as it is intellectually dishonest.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In other words, how can one torture the words to render the scripture 'reasonable.' The approach is as pathetic as it is intellectually dishonest.

I have to copy my post for you too:

Just, when physically something is possible, then it is literal But when it is not physically possible it is metaphor or symbolic.
Simple as that. Just forget Myth, then Religion makes sense...

If the Scriptures said, Jesus raised a dead person. Obviously this is not physically possible. Unless a person wants to get into "vain imaginations"
It can only mean, that person was like a dead person, who is usless, and has no feelings, or ethics. He was sinful. Then Jesus taught him how to be a usefull, ethical, and good person. He raised him from death to life. Is it too hard to see? Is that torturing the words?
Or when Hebrew Scriptures says, on the Day of Ressurection, the dead is raised to life. What does it mean? Physically? Obviously not. It can only mean a new guidance comes which can raise ignorant, sinful and dead people, to life, knowledge and righteousness. Is it too hard?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have to copy my post for you too:

Just, when physically something is possible, then it is literal But when it is not physically possible it is metaphor or symbolic

... or it reflects a gross ignorance of science and a belief in a broad array of preposterous entities and events. You are in denial - running fearfully from the conclusion that scripture was authored by man and necessarily reflects all of the limitations that such authorship implies. It's hard to detect in such behavior any semblance of intellectual integrity.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

... or it reflects a gross ignorance of science and a belief in a broad array of preposterous entities and events. You are in denial - running fearfully from the conclusion that scripture was authored by man and necessarily reflects all of the limitations that such authorship implies. It's hard to detect in such behavior any semblance of intellectual integrity.

And how is this related to our discussion, which is about how to interprete Scriptures?:soccer:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And how is this related to our discussion, which is about how to interprete Scriptures?:soccer:

Excellent question:

So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.​

One can approach this in one of two ways ...

1. We know from countless sources that our ancestors were wildly superstitious and that mythic places and magical creatures were at one time widely accepted as real. We know that "Sumerian mythology had a parallel to the Eden garden in Dilmun, the dwelling-place of the immortals where sickness and death were unknown" - [source] - much ar there are similar parallels to the flood narrative. It is therefore most reasonable to presume that the verse sought to convey a real occurrence. Or ...
2. We insist that Genesis 3:24 is the word of God handed down to us by Moses, and therefore it must be true. But, being somewhat less superstitious than our ancestors, we cannot accept a literal truth involving cherubim and flaming swords. Therefore, Genesis 3:24 must be allegory.

Fine. If it makes you feel better, fine. But don't pretend that it's anything more than feel-good justification necessitated by a commitment to the proposition that scripture is holy writ.

 

[CG Didymus]

If the Scriptures said, Jesus raised a dead person. Obviously this is not physically possible. Unless a person wants to get into "vain imaginations"
It can only mean, that person was like a dead person, who is usless, and has no feelings, or ethics. He was sinful. Then Jesus taught him how to be a usefull, ethical, and good person. He raised him from death to life. Is it too hard to see? Is that torturing the words?
Or when Hebrew Scriptures says, on the Day of Ressurection, the dead is raised to life. What does it mean? Physically? Obviously not. It can only mean a new guidance comes which can raise ignorant, sinful and dead people, to life, knowledge and righteousness. Is it too hard?

So God raised the "asleep" "dead" Jesus from his spiritually dead state and taught him to be a good person? Since raising the dead is scientifically impossible, what did happen to Jesus?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Great question.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So God raised the "asleep" "dead" Jesus from his spiritually dead state and taught him to be a good person? Since raising the dead is scientifically impossible, what did happen to Jesus?

Since it is not possible for a person who was killed to be raised again, this must be a symbolical, or alegory, which has another meaning.

Now, the point is to find out "what did the Authors of New Testament mean", by saying Jesus was raised in the 3rd day. For that we need to read the scriptures, to see what they meant by this symbolical story, that the Body of Christ rose.

The answer is in their own Writing:

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Cori. 12:27

So, what the Authors meant is, that Once Jesus was killed, after 3 days, His Desciples, who are "The Body of Christ" raised. They raised to teach the cause of Christ. So, that is the symbolc meaning, according to what these Authors wrote.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, what the Authors meant is, ...

And who were these authors? When did they write? How accurate were they? How do you know?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

We insist that Genesis 3:24 is the word of God handed down to us by Moses, and therefore it must be true. But, being somewhat less superstitious than our ancestors, we cannot accept a literal truth involving cherubim and flaming swords. Therefore, Genesis 3:24 must be allegory.

Yeah, now I can understand what you are saying. However, I am not sure how you concluded "being somewhat less superstitious than our ancestors"

I mean I can understand that in previous ages, and even in our time there is still superstitious. But I don't see, if scriptures are understood the way, the Authors meant, how would it be superstitious anymore. In fact, Religious superstitious has been due to "Unrealistic" beliefs. and all of these "unrealistic" beliefs has been due to literal readings. Don't you think so?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah, now I can understand what you are saying. However, I am not sure how you concluded "being somewhat less superstitious than our ancestors"

I mean I can understand that in previous ages, and even in our time there is still superstitious.

Please believe me: you have made that fact more than apparent.

 

[gnostic]

No, it has nothing to do with the word "Like"
If I tell you, "this lamp is like a star shiny"

even though I am using the word "Like", I actually mean, this lamp "physically" looks like star light, and is actually having a "light" that is similar to a star.

Now if I tell you, "This girl is like a star, bright",
I don't mean physically she is having a light. I mean, she has such an excellent chracter, that makes her well-known among others.

So, you see. In both cases I am using the word "like"
How do we know which is metaphor, and which is literal?

Just, when physically something is possible, then it is literal, as the first case. But when it is not physically possible it is metaphor or symbolic.

Sorry, but your previous example didn't give me lamp. Your example was "he" not a "lamp":

"He is shining like a star"

Clearly you were making a comparison of a person with a star, and that's what I meant by SIMILE or METAPHOR, which is the reason why authors, such as a poet would used the word "like" for comparison of person to an object.

What you may have missed is, I said, just because Scriptures are not science Book, it does not mean it contradicts with science.
This is the whole key.

By science, I mean, science of physics and the laws of physics and chemistry. by scinece I mean, "being physically possible"

That's BS.

Since you have provided me with 2 examples now, let's take a look at your lamp-star example.

"this lamp is like a star shiny"

Although, it is true that lamp will give light and heat, just as our nearest star - the Sun - also give us light and heat, the similarities are only very superficial.

But if we are truly speaking of lamp or star in term of strictly physics and chemistry, then the lamp and star are nothing alike, hence your example of comparison is still a simile or metaphor.

There are 2 different but common types of lamp, one that use electricity and the other used fire. But the sun or any other star doesn't use electricity to produce light or heat, so let's look deeper into the lamp by fire, as an example.

If I recall it correctly but somewhat vaguely, the Quran made the comparison of stars to lamps. But do correct me if I am wrong. But if my recollection is correct, then the Quran is incorrect or inaccurate...in term of science; this "physics" or "chemistry", you were talking about.

In term of both physics and chemistry, how light is produced from lamp is totally different to that off a star.

Fire from lamp is chemically produced, from a fuel mixing with oxygen, the chemical reaction is known as combustion. It result in couple of different chemical trade-off as well breaking down of, it produced off light, heat and smell of smoke (which is a byproduct gas).

It is a little more complicated than that, but I need to dumb down the chemistry and physics so anyone can understand as well make it short as possible. If you want to know more about fire or combustion than I would suggest that you look it up in science textbook or even look it up in Wikipedia.

The star, including our sun, have only trace elements of oxygen and carbon in the stars, so fire played no role in the star. Oxygen is needed for fire and there is no fire in star, therefore no combustion. Star is mostly comprising of hydrogen, and helium.

Like I said before, fire or combustion is chemical reaction that require breaking down of chemical compound. Star, on the other hand, required two hydrogen atoms to fuse into a one single helium atom.

It is called thermonuclear fusion.

Fusion produced far greater energy than the puny fire, but it is also cleaner energy. This is where light and heat come from - from the fusion 2 smaller atoms into a single atom.

Again, I have dumb it down, in order to make it easier to understand and short enough for you to read. If you want more, than I would suggest that you either look it up in textbook or in Wikipedia about the mechanism of how a star works.

But getting back to my point, if you down to the nitty-gritty of chemistry and physics, the comparison of lamp to a star is only superficial at best, but they are nothing alike in other areas.

Hence this, "this lamp is like a star shiny" is essentially a "simile" too. So a lamp is not a star.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hence this, "this lamp is like a star shiny" is essentially a "simile" too. So a lamp is not a star.

ok, but there is a difference between comparing their physical attributes, and a statement that is not comparing "physical" attributes.
there is a "physical" similarity between "the light" of star, and the light of lamp, and that is the intention. However, if a girl is like a star, there is no "physical" similarity between a girl and the light of star.


So, like I said, if "physically" is possible then it is literal, otherwise is not.

Let me give you an example directly from Bible:

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." Rom. 1:21

In the above verse, "hearts were darkend" does not use the word "like". How do we determine if this statement is "physicaly and literal" or it is a Metaphor?

another example:

"Let the dead bury their own dead" Luke 9:60

This verse also does not use the word "like". but is it literal and physical?

 

[gnostic]

Oh, here are the verses that compared either the stars or our sun to the lamps:

Quran 25:61, 41:12, 67:5, 71:16​

To me, I interpret these verses to be metaphors (symbolic), not literal because they are grossly inaccurate in term of "the laws of physics and chemistry", which you've repeatedly tried to remind us of...and yet, you fails to do the hard work of actually looking at physics or chemistry. You can seemed to look at anything deeper than just the reflective surfaces.

 

[CG Didymus]

Since it is not possible for a person who was killed to be raised again, this must be a symbolical, or alegory, which has another meaning.

Now, the point is to find out "what did the Authors of New Testament mean", by saying Jesus was raised in the 3rd day. For that we need to read the scriptures, to see what they meant by this symbolical story, that the Body of Christ rose.

The answer is in their own Writing:

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Cori. 12:27

So, what the Authors meant is, that Once Jesus was killed, after 3 days, His Desciples, who are "The Body of Christ" raised. They raised to teach the cause of Christ. So, that is the symbolc meaning, according to what these Authors wrote.

How did early Christians including Paul get fooled into thinking Jesus literally rose from the dead? Why all the "symbolism" about an empty tomb? Why did Paul say if he hasn't risen, we our without hope? The whole Christian thing seems to hinge on a real resurrected Christ. How did they miss the point? And, what was the point?