It has often been purported here on the BB that various figures of speech, especially the metaphor, prove that it is okay to interpret "spiritually" (which is not necessarily spiritual) instead of literally. Scholars, even those who do think "spiritual" interpretation is valid for prophecy, disagree.
Note what the classic textbook by Bernard Ramm says: "The literal interpretation of Scripture readily admits the very large place which figurative language has in the Scriptures, and Feinberg is correct when he writes that 'It is not true that [the literalists] require every single passage to be interpreted literally without exception.' Literal interpretation does not mean painful, or wooden, or unbending literal rendition of every word and phrase. The literal meaning of the figurative expression is the proper or natural meaning as understood by students of language. Whenever a figure is used its literal meaning is precisely that meaning determined by grammatical studies of figures" (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 141). Note: This text was for many years the standard one for a college hermeneutics course, though there are other options now. So in the eyes of most, it is quite authoritative.
Note that Ramm's position was amil! So if you are insisting that figures of speech prove that "spiritualizing" the Scripture is valid, Ramm is not on your side, even though he sometimes spiritualizes himself!
Stay tuned while I define "figure of speech" and then give a (hopefully) fun quiz.
Note what the classic textbook by Bernard Ramm says: "The literal interpretation of Scripture readily admits the very large place which figurative language has in the Scriptures, and Feinberg is correct when he writes that 'It is not true that [the literalists] require every single passage to be interpreted literally without exception.' Literal interpretation does not mean painful, or wooden, or unbending literal rendition of every word and phrase. The literal meaning of the figurative expression is the proper or natural meaning as understood by students of language. Whenever a figure is used its literal meaning is precisely that meaning determined by grammatical studies of figures" (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 141). Note: This text was for many years the standard one for a college hermeneutics course, though there are other options now. So in the eyes of most, it is quite authoritative.
Note that Ramm's position was amil! So if you are insisting that figures of speech prove that "spiritualizing" the Scripture is valid, Ramm is not on your side, even though he sometimes spiritualizes himself!
Stay tuned while I define "figure of speech" and then give a (hopefully) fun quiz.
Last edited: