GuySmiley
Well-known member
My standing response to questions like this is pretty much what ghost just wrote. I say: Take it literally unless the text demands otherwise.
So in eloyhim's example, for instance, the text demands that the harlot, etc., be representative of something else, because the text demands (by defining) it. But I will say that sometimes it's not quite so easy. In 2,000 years, if someone reads one of our writings and sees the phrase, "I'm gonna hit the hay", they may be confused. But then they may find out that it means "gonna go to bed". And even then, they may think we slept on hay. So when we're dealing with figures of speech, it can be hard sometimes.
I've mostly found that scripture defines scripture, even with idioms like that. But there are some times when I read a figure of speech and maybe I don't know it's a figure of speech. And I'm okay with that; I'd rather be wrong in taking an obscure figure of speech too literally, than be wrong by taking something that's supposed to be literal and relegating it to "figure of speech" status.
My 2 cents...
Randy
:up: Believe God until He gives us a reason to do otherwise.
Psalm 91:4
"He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."
I'd rather look like a naive child in heaven, having believed that God has feathers by which He protects and comforts me, than being cast from His presence because I appeared smart on earth teaching others that the rocks reveal a multi-million year old earth or dispute a global flood.
That's what I was going to say :thumb: (I wish)