Bible Question:
Dear Forum Members, An interesting question has arisen on the forum recently in multiple posts, which I would like to address directly. We would all agree that it is possible to interpret one part of scripture figuratively and another literally. The question is, "What are the criteria that can be consistently applied to tell the difference?" This is something that creeps into many different threads. It impacts how we interpret the creation story in Genesis, and the end of the world in Revelation. It even affects whether we believe that there was a certain number of soldiers, years, etc, or whether those numbers are figurative to mean something else. |
Bible Answer: "The basic principle of interpretation is to interpret plainly. The word *literal* is avoided here because it creates connotations which have to be corrected. Plain, straight-foward interpretation includes at least the following concepts: (...) "(2) Plain interpretation does not exclude the use of figures of speech. Indeed, a figure of speech may communicate more clearly, but what it communicates is plain. In other words, behind every figure of speech is a plain meaning, and that is what the interpreter seeks. (...) "(5) Expect the Bible to use what is technically called phenomenal language. This simply means that it often describes things as they appear to be rather than in precise scientific terms. Speaking of the sun rising or setting (neither of which it does) is an example of this (Matt 5:45; Mark 1:32), but this is a plain and normal way to communicate" (From "A Survey of Bible Doctrine, by Charles C. Ryrie." Quoted in the Ryrie Study Bible, pp. 1959-1960, Moody, 1976, 1978) |