How to interprete Scriptures (Bible or Quran)

[InvestigateTruth]

How did early Christians including Paul get fooled into thinking Jesus literally rose from the dead?

How do we know the early Christians including paul thought that Jesus was "Physicially" raised?
The verse 1 Cori. 12:27, indicates otherwise.

Why all the "symbolism" about an empty tomb?

Symbolism allows better expression of spiritual realities, than using a literal language.

Why did Paul say if he hasn't risen, we our without hope?

I think He meant, if the cause of Jesus was not raised in reality to progress in the World, then it would not be from God, and their Faith would be vain.
The point He is making, is the True Faith and Cause of God does not die, even when the Divine Prophet was killed.
Another example is given in NT, is like a Good Tree and Bad Tree. If Jesus was a False Prophet, His Tree, which is His Words, would have been casted into fire and could not live on. So, since that Tree was firm, He was a True Prophet.
Compare that with many other Messiah Claimants at the time of Jesus. They died out.

 

[gnostic]

However, if a girl is like a star, there is no "physical" similarity between a girl and the light of star.

You're stating the obvious. I know that comparing a girl to a star is metaphor or simile. I'll still maintain comparing a lamp to star to be also metaphor.

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.

Again, the physical attributes (of your lamp-star-scenario) are only superficial comparison at best.

I could just as well use a mirror in my example. A mirror can also reflect light from any strong light source, that it could be "shiny like a star" or "bright as a star". Both have this attribute of yours - light. But neither your example nor mine, make on of these as stars, hence they are both metaphor or simile, especially if you look at them both in term of the law of physics or chemistry.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You're stating the obvious. I know that comparing a girl to a star is metaphor or simile. I'll still maintain comparing a lamp to star to be also metaphor.

Actually what I meant, was that a Lamp that Looks like a star. Like a 5 edge star....
or a lamp that looks like a curves Moon and is bright. These are not Metaphors. It is describing the physical appearance.
Anyways, I wanted to give a simple example, which may not have been a perfect example for the perpose. But I think you know what I meant.

 

[gnostic]

Actually what I meant, was that a Lamp that Looks like a star. Like a 5 edge star....
or a lamp that looks like a curves Moon and is bright. These are not Metaphors. It is describing the physical appearance.
Anyways, I wanted to give a simple example, which may not have been a perfect example for the perpose. But I think you know what I meant.

Yes, I know what you meant.

But you kept reminding us to look at the science, the "law of physics" part, and not just the physical appearances. Science deal with more than mere physical appearances.

Now you want to move the proverbial goalpost.

Are you changing your tune?

Do you no longer want me to look at the "physics" side of thing?

If so, then your post 5, near the beginning of this thread, would no longer be relevant and we are no longer at science to determine what is literal and what is symbolic.

You don't need the physics or science to deal with appearances. A poet can deal with description of physical appearance as easily as a scientist.

So which will it be? Science? Or just for appearance-sake?

 

[Reverend Richard]

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.

Above was your OP. You posed a question on how to interpret scripture, and then said you were seeking a "method" for consistent interpretation. However, you continue to tell me why my interpretations are not correct, or in the example below, you make definitive statements about who is allowed to change scripture and who is not.

These seems like a bait-and-switch.

Breaking Scriptures by regular people is different from Changing Laws by Prophets of God.

Who are "regular people" and who are Prophets? Do you get to decide which people are which?

This is a warning for regular people, not for Prophets of God who are given Authority to bring Laws from God directly.

Again making a distinction between "regular people" versus the "Prophets", and you are the one who is deciding which is which, and you are lecturing me about my mistakes.

This is talking about "Prophecies" of the Book of Revelation. It is not saying God does not change His own Laws.

Well, if the book of Revelation is a book of Prophesies, are you saying the book of Revelation is incorrect and that the Prophesies are wrong? Above you implied that Prophets are the only ones allowed to change God's laws. Which is it?

See, I made my points by giving 'clear' and explicit examples how previous Prophets in Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament, clearly changed those Laws.

I gave clear and explicit examples, using scripture from the New Testatment, which says that God's laws do not change, but you conveniently interpret them differently to suit your point of view.

We could go on with this all day. Anyone can manufacture a consistent "method" of deciding whether to interpret scripture either symbolically or literally. Wasn't that your OP?

Summary: Regardless of what "method" you decide to use, you will consistently and methodically end up with flawed and error-prone interpretations for at least 3 reasons:

1. Scripture, all scripture, whether written by prophets (Prophets?) or lowly disciples, will contain errors because it was written by imperfect humans.
2. Scripture is then interpreted by imperfect humans.
3. Using imperfect (human) methods of interpretation.

Obviously, God Himslef can change His own command according to Scriptures.

Obviously? Show me where God Himself changed his Own commands. God has never written a single verse of scripture, that is unless you have priviledged knowledge that the rest of humanity has yet to see.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes, I know what you meant.

But you kept reminding us to look at the science, the "law of physics" part, and not just the physical appearances. Science deal with more than mere physical appearances.

Now you want to move the proverbial goalpost.

Are you changing your tune?

Do you no longer want me to look at the "physics" side of thing?

If so, then your post 5, near the beginning of this thread, would no longer be relevant and we are no longer at science to determine what is literal and what is symbolic.

You don't need the physics or science to deal with appearances. A poet can deal with description of physical appearance as easily as a scientist.

So which will it be? Science? Or just for appearance-sake?

The whole point I am trying to make is this: whenever there are stories and statements in Religion Texts that are NOT Realistic, then It must be interpreted symbolically.

How do we know if a story is Realistic or not?
I think, If it is in accordance with science then it is Realistic. If it is not in accordance with science then it is not Realistic, and thus it must be interpreted symboliclly.

Example: Creation story in Gen. 1.
If the story is taken literal It is against the science of evolution and big bang.
Thus it is symbolism. Simple as that. We don't need to go into too much details of science to know this.

Another example:

Jesus said: "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." John 8:12

Is it realistic to say Jesus meant, He was literally light?
Well, that would be obvious, that He was not literally light, but He meant He was guidance and knowledge. So this verse is obviously symbolic.

Now If we said "The Sun is the light of the world" then this is meant literally, because it is Realistic.

So, we don't need so much detail knowledge of science to know if a statement is agains science or not. I think it is very simple.

Now, if you give me ANY verse from Bible or Quran, using this method I can tell you if it is symbolic or literal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The whole point I am trying to make is this: whenever there are stories and statements in Religion Texts that are NOT Realistic, then It must be interpreted symbolically.

... solely because it's far less embarrassing that way. It is a naive and self serving methodology.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Above was your OP. You posed a question on how to interpret scripture, and then said you were seeking a "method" for consistent interpretation. However, you continue to tell me why my interpretations are not correct, or in the example below, you make definitive statements about who is allowed to change scripture and who is not.

These seems like a bait-and-switch.



Who are "regular people" and who are Prophets? Do you get to decide which people are which?



Again making a distinction between "regular people" versus the "Prophets", and you are the one who is deciding which is which, and you are lecturing me about my mistakes.



Well, if the book of Revelation is a book of Prophesies, are you saying the book of Revelation is incorrect and that the Prophesies are wrong? Above you implied that Prophets are the only ones allowed to change God's laws. Which is it?





I gave clear and explicit examples, using scripture from the New Testatment, which says that God's laws do not change, but you conveniently interpret them differently to suit your point of view.

We could go on with this all day. Anyone can manufacture a consistent "method" of deciding whether to interpret scripture either symbolically or literally. Wasn't that your OP?

.

Reverend Richard, I think as you also noticed, we got a little off topic here. I think it is better to keep the discussion about how to decide if scriptures are symbolic or literal.
So, I try to reply to this portion of your comment, as it might be somewhat related:

Summary: Regardless of what "method" you decide to use, you will consistently and methodically end up with flawed and error-prone interpretations for at least 3 reasons:

1. Scripture, all scripture, whether written by prophets (Prophets?) or lowly disciples, will contain errors because it was written by imperfect humans.
2. Scripture is then interpreted by imperfect humans.
3. Using imperfect (human) methods of interpretation.

My comment on your 3 points:

1. This is perhaps your belief and I respect it. But I am not sure how you conclude that All scriptures will contain errors.
I believe differently. The Prophets and chosen ones of God are infallible beings. God created them differently than regular human beings.
I believe there are different levels of creation. Prophets are physically have human body, but They are the embodiment of the Holy Spirit, and thus they can say Exactly what God reveals to them. So, Prophets are not just regular human beings who can make error.

2. and 3. I differ from your belief. In every Religion, God had appointed infallible succesors that knew the interpretations of the Book perfectly correct. However, the message throughout Ages was distorted by regular people. Thus God sent another DIvine Messenger to give the correct Message again in every Age.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

... solely because it's far less embarrassing that way. It is a naive and self serving methodology.

This is you opinion and I don't have any problem with it.

 

[gnostic]

There are better ways to determine if scriptures or passages within scriptures to be taken literally or metaphorically, which don't require the use of science.

If we were to science to answer your questions, then a large part of scriptures would be considered be metaphorically, especially when the scriptures concerned with miracles, just about anything that defied the law of physics, revelation or prophecies.

And there are a lot of texts that concern law, morality, ethic, proverbs and songs in other parts of scriptures, which science don't cover. So by using your logic or methodology, then all these would be considered as symbolics, because of you trying to measure these passages with science.

It is unworkable.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

There are better ways to determine if scriptures or passages within scriptures to be taken literally or metaphorically, which don't require the use of science.

If we were to science to answer your questions, then a large part of scriptures would be considered be metaphorically, especially when the scriptures concerned with miracles, just about anything that defied the law of physics, revelation or prophecies.

And there are a lot of texts that concern law, morality, ethic, proverbs and songs in other parts of scriptures, which science don't cover. So by using your logic or methodology, then all these would be considered as symbolics, because of you trying to measure these passages with science.

It is unworkable.

You need to make your point with an example from Scriptures. Remember, we are discussing from Scriptures.
So, show me an example, that the Authors of Scriptures has indeed meant a literal event, but by using science we are interpreting it simbolically.

Regarding MIracles, Jesus Himself said:
"Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it." Mark 8:12

So, He already had said, He would not do any literal and physical Miracles to that "Generation". Thus clearly, the Authors of New Testament did not believe performing Miracles was part of the mission of Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, the author of Mark writes that Jesus said this.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No, the author of Mark writes that Jesus said this.

And who was the Author of Mark?

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe the decision should be reasonable. For instance if Jesus is saying this is a parable then it is reasonable to believe that the parable is symbolic. Also if the word "like" is used it may be a simile or metaphor, for instance the Kingdom of God is like ...
It is reasonable to believe that propehcy contains symbology.
In addition there are the human references to God which must be metaphoric because God is a spirit and does not have human characteristics. (Unless He is in a body but that is different because He can be in any body He chooses to create.)

 

[Muffled]

And who was the Author of Mark?

More than likely John Mark who reputedly was a resident of the house with the upper room for the First Communion. As a member of the local congregation he would have been able to collect eyewitness accounts from the apostles if he didn't simply ghost write for Peter which is also possible.

 

[Muffled]

]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.[/COLOR]

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.

Your premise is incorrect. There is no direct proof that the dead can't be raised. That is an assumption based I suppose on the fact that it doesn't happen very often. I have never been to Paris. Will you assume that I will never go to Paris based on that fact? The Bible consistently reports incidents of raising the dead as fact.

I believe this is a misinterpetation based on a misconception.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Your premise is incorrect. There is no direct proof that the dead can't be raised. That is an assumption based I suppose on the fact that it doesn't happen very often. I have never been to Paris. Will you assume that I will never go to Paris based on that fact? The Bible consistently reports incidents of raising the dead as fact.

I believe this is a misinterpetation based on a misconception.

I believe in ALL instances when Bible is talking about raising dead to life, is meant in a spiritual sense.
The dead in sin, the spiritually dead is given life of Faith. In another word, when a person who was sinful, became a believer and followed the right Path, the Authors said: "The Dead was raised to life"
This can be seen, when for example Jesus said: "Let the Dead bury their dead"
So, what Jesus meant, was "Spiritually Dead", and therefore rising the Dead, is also meant, raising this "Spiritually Dead", who physically is alive.

There is another example in Bible, when an old man's son became a Good Person, then the Man said such Words: "My Son was dead, now he is alive" (Please refer to Bible for these examples)

- Peace

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe the decision should be reasonable. For instance if Jesus is saying this is a parable then it is reasonable to believe that the parable is symbolic. Also if the word "like" is used it may be a simile or metaphor, for instance the Kingdom of God is like ...
It is reasonable to believe that propehcy contains symbology.
In addition there are the human references to God which must be metaphoric because God is a spirit and does not have human characteristics. (Unless He is in a body but that is different because He can be in any body He chooses to create.)

Except Jesus is God and does have a body? Or, God is Spirit and is also The Holy Spirit, so God has two Spirits? Or, God is Spirit and the trinity is symbolic?

 

[CG Didymus]

You need to make your point with an example from Scriptures. Remember, we are discussing from Scriptures.
So, show me an example, that the Authors of Scriptures has indeed meant a literal event, but by using science we are interpreting it simbolically.

Regarding MIracles, Jesus Himself said:
"Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it." Mark 8:12

So, He already had said, He would not do any literal and physical Miracles to that "Generation". Thus clearly, the Authors of New Testament did not believe performing Miracles was part of the mission of Jesus.

Jesus had just fed several thousand people. Right after that he heals a blind man. He was doing signs and wonders all the time. Therefore, is Mark 8:12 symbolic?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Jesus had just fed several thousand people. Right after that he heals a blind man. He was doing signs and wonders all the time. Therefore, is Mark 8:12 symbolic?

Obviously it is symbolic, as it is gainst logic to say, several thousand people were fed with a few fish and bread.
And, in the story there are hints for that. At the end of story, Jesus explains, what He meant by food, was spiritual food, that is the word of God that He spread among people. In the bigining of story, Jesus asks one of His desciples, about feeding thousands with a few bread. Then the Author of Bibles, says, He asked this to Test him. Meaning, Jesus Tested one of His desciples, if He knows how it can be possible to feed thousands with a few bread. At the End Jesus gave the answer to the Puzzle. His answer was, the Word of God, can be spreard among thousands, and can feed Spiritually all of them, and still there will be left, and doesn't finish.