Yes, I’m sure it is. But since the Bible is not self-interpreting, what authority does that church have? If, for example, the people claim that John 6 is all figurative, and that the Eucharist is symbolic only, not really Christ’s Body and Blood (which is what most if not all ND churches teach), how can they claim to have the authority to state that the text where Jesus literally uses the word ‘gnaw’ in reference to eating His flesh is 'just symbolic?" (Remember, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the Church --Western and Eastern–NEVER taught such a thing. From the beginning, the Eucharist was taught to be the Real Presence, real Flesh and Blood.) There is absolutely nowhere in the text that says, “What Jesus says here is symbolic” and, in fact, the text remarks that the saying is so hard and unbelievable that most of His disciples left Him. Why would they do such a thing if this was just Jesus being 'symbolic"? If He was truly using this as a metaphor, and being God, knew that the people were misunderstanding, why didn’t He say, “Hey, I was just being figurative?” And why is this text even included in Scripture, if after His resurrection when He taught the apostles, He made it clear to them, "Well, I was just testing THOSE guys, but y’all know I was only symbolic, so when you talk about that, tell the people who are going to be reading the King James version in about 1600 years very clearly, “this whole speech about eating flesh is only symbolic, otherwise people will be very confused and we’ll NEVER get the Catholics to be real Christians!”