No, the first and foremost proof is using the definition of the figure. The fact is that the figure isn't commonly understood to begin with.
To suppose that God would point out in Scripture that He "hates" individual persons and "loves" others--and this not be a teaching metaphor--requires an intellectual posture that lies outside the boundaries of reason,
No, it lies outside the boundaries of the definition of the figure.
especially in light of the fact that huge chunks of the Old Testament are recognized to be figurative,
Sure, and those who legitimately recognize those figures can easily identify and prove which figures are being utilized by comparing them with the definitions.
that the enlightening experience of every OT prophet consistently led them to prophesy in metaphoric language,
In point of fact, they didn't all use figurative language exclusively. More to the point, it isn't accurate to use 'metaphoric' as synonymous with figurative language. It is common, but nonetheless it isn't accurate and the fact is that if you can't prove which figure is being used, then you probably don't understand what the author is actually saying.
and that Jesus is uncontroversially understood to have spoken almost exclusively in symbolic language.
No, you don't seem to understand that symbolic language is once again, only one of many figures Jesus utilized. If Jesus used a symbol, it necessarily didn't convey the same meaning as a metaphor, or erotesis, or hypokatastasis, or simile, or analogy, etc.
From these facts, religious scholars have developed secular methods of interpretation designed specifically to stifle the possibility of uncovering what God actually says in His word.
One of the best is to claim that what is written is figurative, and have no clue which figure is being utilized or employed.
I posted a link in another thread for you to a conversation which explains the basics of an allegorical structure that can be found in the Bible.
Sorry, missed it. I'm not sure it would be of much use given that you are already using figures incorrectly.
The structure primarily uncovers the doctrine of salvation, but its organization produces just those kinds of interpretive conventions and contexts which lead to and support the assertions made in this thread. Your responses in that thread as well as this one indicates you either didn't read from that link or you read but didn't understand. This is normal. I came to understand years ago that less than 5% of those who post on message boards actually read to gain an objective understanding of their correspondent's position, but to find reasons to dismiss it, in deference to supporting their own dogma.
When someone posts misleading, vague and easily proven false information, it isn't likely that they're on the right track. I'll check out the link if I can find it again.
Your comments suggest you fall well within the 95% on these boards cheerfully willing to discuss the same tired doctrinal positions ad nauseum, ad infinitum as a closed book:
There is nothing to indicate the author was using the figure Symbol anywhere in the passage
There are tell tale signs that this figure exhibits. None of which I see anywhere in these passages.
My comments are based entirely on the definitions of the figures you referred to. I am simply asking you to back up your claims, which you've failed to address.
If one wanted to control what the Bible is allowed to say, one would produce a manmade system of interpretation with built-in defenses that preclude competing interpretive systems.
When one sees an author utilizing commonly understood figures of speech which clearly emphasize what he's saying, one doesn't need to control what the texts themselves are saying. When those same figures are lost to future generations, then it is quite easy for people to come to false conclusions.
this error becomes the false standard of interpretation that the literalist demands from others.
I'm not a literalist. I just happen to recognize the figures of speech being used by the authors. I can find numerous examples of Jesus using the figure Metaphor, but the examples given by you don't correspond to any of the commonly held definitions. The sad fact is that scripture itself doesn't allow for private interpretation.
"Show me where in the passage the author indicates that this is metaphor!"[/i]
It's a legitimate request. If you don't think so, then I'm sure you should have no problem when your own words are interpreted according to my understanding rather than yours. See how that works? There needn't be any double standard when it comes to anyone else's writings. Let's just implement this right now, shall we? What you're really saying is that it doesn't matter what your interpretation is. It can mean what I want it to mean. That's what you're effectively saying, right? You can disagree, but ultimately it doesn't matter because what really matters is what I get out of it. Your intent is irrelevant.
I post this for your benefit, shnarkle, and for that of those who might read in this thread. Sometimes it takes a gentle slap to wake one from his slumber. Maybe some day you and the legion of dogmatists will get tired of parroting the corrupt teachings of men and develop a hunger for truth.
finis
Thanks for pointing out that my posts are irrefutable. I always appreciate it when someone points out they have no defense for their position.
