If the Bible is metaphorical then perhaps so is the God of the Bible

Thank you for the exchange purpledawn.
Hope things are well with you ... It appears as though the 'nakedness' the Newlyweds were covering was their stupidity, or rather, lack of knowledge.If I have approached this verse plainly, there are three things happening in Gen. 3:7 ...1) Eyes are being opened.
2) New realization(s) are forming/have formed
3) The Lovebirds form primitive coveringsIt appears safe to assume that the primitive coverings are a result of a realization that was made as the Lovebirds eyes were finally opened.So, one question is, what did the couple realize?Could it be that the serpent is mischievous?Let's dig deep. Now we see that, prior to this verse, Eve has made a note of three things:1) The fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is good for food.
2) The fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is pleasing to the eye.
3) The fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is of a Tree to be desired to make one wise.One of these notes is doin' its own thing, one of these notes isn't one of the same ...
One of these notes is doin' its own thing, and now it's time to say its name ...The first two of these distinctions that Eve has made are biblically confirmed (2:9), before Eve is even created (2:22), although this fact is only revealed to the reader and not unto the couple in the Garden.Neither the Father nor the serpent suggests to the young lady, who notes that this is naturally true on her own accord, that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is pleasing to the eye, which is exactly the case; instead, the serpent chooses to try and pawn off a desire unto Eve.Now, that ol' snake is pretty clever regarding how it goes about pawning it's wares, and so, it encourages Eve by suggesting that her Father is not spot on about that Tree and that the fruit from that ol' Tree is harmless; in fact, it's better than harmless, but if death is your primary concern then rest easy lil' lady, cuz that juicy fruit certainly won't kill ya (which I personally doubt we are supposed to think it believed, being that it is a slithery snake sellin' snake oil and all) ...This next point seems important, and often overlooked ...After the serpent informs the young lady of her Father's supposed blunder, she first begins to accept it's advice by convincing herself that the fruit from the Tree is good for food, as is the case coincidentally. Nevertheless, Eve's pretty eyes could not have told her that, and neither did her loving Father or that ol' serpent come right out and say it.This desire that is pawned off onto Eve, as we are told, is for a Tree whose fruit will make her wise, like her Father, in turn causing her to know good and evil. It should be evident that this is not a natural desire for Eve or her husband. The implication appears to be that, if one desires to be wise, Adam's wisdom is insufficient; at least, as far as usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion is concerned.After the naive young lady accepts the serpents seed of desire, she plants that seed, by taking from the Tree herself, and fertilizes that seed as well, by giving some of it to her husband ...And then their eyes are opened.Is it reasonable to suggest that eating the fruit didn't do $h!t, besides cause the Lovebirds to plant and fertilize a seed of desire being hustled by a serpent, and so, as the Lovebirds themselves began to realize that the serpent itself was, for the most part, full of $h!t - their eyes were open?Consider, when the young couple realizes that the snake oil they have been sold is indeed, seemingly worthless, snake oil and that the wondrous revelation and enlightenment the serpent pitched did not actually come into fruition the way the Lovebirds were expecting it to, their eyes are opened that they has been duped by the snake oil sellin' serpent.Perhaps their eyes have also perceived, for the first time, that the two creatures are not biological equivalents and obvious distinctions can be made between the body of a man and the body of a woman. Could this, in turn, have created an unique sense of loneliness and discomfort for each of them, and so they covered their bits in an attempt to maintain equality? Pure speculation in this instance, granted ...Thankfully, that seed of desire that the mischievous serpent has planted seemingly backfired on it's a$$, if getting its head stomped in is any indication, and now the couple has certainly become aware that, for example, there are indeed good Fathers and evil serpents. They have become more like God, knowing that there is 'good' (personal grace) and 'bad' (corporate half-truths) in their existence. Only speculation can assume that the cute couple has become enough like their Father to distinguish the two on a regular basis ...If one thing is certain though, it is that the Lovebirds are ashamed they did not listen to their Father, instead lending credence to the desires of usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion, and are convicted by their awakening - their eyes being opened - that they must undergo metanonia ...If this was not the case the two kids would not have 'fessed up to dabblin' in serpentry.In light of this, it may be worth considering that this event inspired the famous Hebrew tradition of donning a sackcloth, or a crude covering, while in the throes of repentance. I find this significant as well.The implication seems to be that whatever the Lovebirds were attempting to cover with their crude fig aprons, that being their private bits and lack of knowledge assumedly, they were indeed not meant to leave such things exposed as far as their Father is concerned.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

Isn't there a fallacy that describes this kind of behavior? I encounter it on a regular basis.

John10:10That website you are using defines any religion as a cult if they do not believe in the trinity.That is not the definition of a cult.Dictionary.com defines it this way:
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.3. the object of such devotion.4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.7. the members of such a religion or sect.8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.There is nothing about disbelieving in the trinity there. But these definitions makes ALL religions a cult.

I thought its time to bring this back on topic.Back to the original post as by Carlingknew

quote:

---

To those who only take certain parts of the Bible literally, how do you determine where the metaphors end and the facts begin?

---

this is determined by the context and the text in question.Because the bible does use many figures of speech, its important to recognize when a 'figure of speech' is being used...you only learn that through deeper study.the bible uses various figures of speech...
The most common is the 'Simile' This is when one thing is compared to another and the indication that it is a simile are by the words 'AS' or 'LIKE'Ps 1:3"the man of God will certainly become like a tree planted by streams of water"Metaphors are not as frequent, but they highlight a similarity between two very different things. EG. When Jesus told his disciples "You are the salt of the earth" he didnt mean they were literally 'salt'
It's an obvious metaphor that requires a deeper study to understand how the disciples are like salt.We know Salt enhances the flavor of food, but is also used as a preservative. Consider the words of Paul at 1 Tim 4:16 - "Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Stay by these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you."If the teaching of the Christ is able to 'save' those who listen, this explains why Jesus said his disciples were 'salt'. Their preaching work would be life saving/preserving to those who listened.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

The web site I used simply said this: If you cannot read and understand that what JW's believe and teach about Jesus defines them as a Christian cult, then there must be a reason why you are so supportive of what JW's believe and teach.

quote:

---

It's an obvious metaphor that requires a deeper study to understand how the disciples are like salt.

---

Actually we'd want to know the figurative uses of salt at the time of the author and understand what the author meant by the phrase, not how the disciples are like salt.Salt had figurative uses at that time, that we don't have today. Purity, wisdom, harmony. Besides flavor and preservative, salt was also used in fertilizer.The term used for salt in all three gospels is halas. All three gospels seem concerned with loss of saltiness. The interesting part is that the word for loss of savour in Matthew and Luke seems to have its own figurative use meaning foolish.I think all three could be referring to wisdom/prudence.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Thanks for the exchange purpledawn.
Hope all is well in your camp ... Interesting ...Understanding the original figurative contexts may quickly reveal what could cause somebody to take on the various characteristics given to salt within scripture. Also, it appears that identifying the distinct ways in which disciples may be considered like salt and implementing the various qualities (prudence, wisdom, harmony, etc.) that may actually cause one to take on the metaphoric roles presented in such characteristics (fertilizer, flavoring, preservative, etc.) may prove to be separate, although related, challenges.Personally, I assume the words of Yeshua, who is said to have spoken only what the Father commanded of Him, are what the 'salt' represents; and so I find myself in a sort of agreement with you regarding your favored concepts of wisdom/prudence. It is then, seemingly, the various interpretations which stem from the words which are spoken by Yeshua that potentially run the risk of 'losing' their 'saltiness', in turn being 'thrown out and trampled by men'.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange .
Some quick questions ... So, even after the Lovebirds have donned their freshly fashioned figs, the couple is still claiming that they feel naked - right ... or no?Is Adam saying that when he heard His Fathers voice he hid because he had realized his nakedness earlier; with the sentence not further implying that they still considered themselves naked after fashioning their frugal figs? Does a plain reading allow us to consider whether this event is describing the Newlyweds adaptation/evolution into a consciousness, or perhaps personal conscience, that they did not recognize prior to 'the eyes [of them both becoming] opened'; a basic departure from their previous animistic existence where a communication with animals was natural?Also, is there any significance to be found in the fact the plain text asserts that 'the day' Adam breaks his Father's commandment he will 'surely die', and yet, 'the day' the commandment is broken by his wife and him, nobody dies?After all, the story does not read, " ... the day you eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, your eyes will surely be opened causing you to recognize, and begin identifying with, a new sense of nakedness you don't have right now; a knowledge I possess called the Knowledge of Good and Evil ...And you will have to leave the Garden too, but I'll insure that nobody eats any of the fruit from the Tree, which I have set apart, that perpetuates continuous living while they feel naked knowing good and evil ... "Lastly, is there any insight to be found if one considers that what Adam and Eve identify as nudity and nakedness is considered by their Father to be the knowledge of ethical and moral reasoning?Can any correlation be made within the narrative between conscientiousness and morality/ethics?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

that website you use was created by an evangelical christian who has decided that if a christian religion does not believe in the trinity, then they are a cultbut in all honesty, that is not what a cult is defined as.If I created a website and said that christian religion who teaches the trinity is a cult, you would laugh at me because you'd know that, beleif in a particular doctrine, is not what constitutes a cult.A cult is a group who follow, not christ, but a living self proclaimed prophet or messiah, they are secretive and often have initiation rites, the leader uses various mind control techniques, in most instances the leader will require sex from everyone and the leaders word is infallible. Once a person has been initiated into a cult, it is very difficult to get out again because of the controlled nature of the group.Please dont honestly tell me that you believe that if the trinity is not taught, then a group is a cult.Perhaps we need a thread on this as its off topic here.

well thats the question isnt it.Thats why I asked 'what was the nakedness' that they covered with fig leaves. the KJV used the word 'apron' which is obviously below the waist and the other versions used the word 'loins'.The section of the body designated by the word "loins" contains the reproductive organs; therefore offspring are said to 'come out of the loins' . So the nakedness that they saw must have been their reproductive organs.Once they had covered them up with the fig leaves, why would they need to hide from God due to being naked? i dont think its reasonable to assume that an instant death would occur especially considering the hebrew word 'day' can mean any length of time. But im pretty sure that in the day they ate from the tree, they began to die. If they died instantly, Gods purpose to fill the earth would not have been realized. but the account doesnt say that their nakedness was evil. "God saw everything he had made and look, it was very good" Gen 1:31So what versus are you using to say that God said their nakedness was evil?

quote:

---

So, even after the Lovebirds have donned their freshly fashioned figs, the couple is still claiming that they feel naked - right ... or no?

​

Is Adam saying that when he heard His Fathers voice he hid because he had realized his nakedness earlier; with the sentence not further implying that they still considered themselves naked after fashioning their frugal figs?

---

That's what Adam says. Narration doesn't give us any ulterior motive for their hiding.

quote:

---

Also, is there any significance to be found in the fact the plain text asserts that 'the day' Adam breaks his Father's commandment he will 'surely die', and yet, 'the day' the commandment is broken by his wife and him, nobody dies?

---

The significance is that it sets up the listener for the climax of the story when Eve eats the fruit. Will she die or won't she?

quote:

---

Lastly, is there any insight to be found if one considers that what Adam and Eve identify as nudity and nakedness is considered by their Father to be the knowledge of ethical and moral reasoning?

---

The plain text provides a simple story. Man obtains the knowledge of good and bad, which would have been consistent with the knowledge of the culture of the audience.

quote:

---

Can any correlation be made within the narrative between conscientiousness and morality/ethics?

---

They gained knowledge of good and bad, which would be the audiences view of good and bad.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

You continue to evade the primary issue of what determines a Christian cult. A Christain cult is one who does not believe that the eternal Word of God became, was not created, flesh (John 1:14), died on a cross to redeem man from his sins, and now sits at the right hand of God the Father as Lord (Acts 2:33). This is God's revelation as revealed in the Bible, and manifested to us in the Person of Jesus who says "I and My Father are ONE (John 10:30). Again I say there must be a reason why you are so supportive of what JW's and other Christian cults believe and teach.

Thanks for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are good with ya ... Yes. I am interested in your opinion ... 1, 2, or 3?1) Do you feel as though Adam is stating that he still currently feels naked, even after sporting his figs?2) Do you feel as though Adam is referring to the earlier time (Gen. 3:7) when he first perceived himself as naked; thus, implying that he no longer views himself in this manner with his figs on and that it is, instead, the 'shame' which he also accrued in addition to his original realization of 'nakedness', that is actually causing him to hide?3) Do you feel that neither of the above statements accurately depicts what is taking place? Good question ...Do you think that the realization of 'nakedness' and the consequent perception of being 'afraid' may not be equivocal in the narrative, although they are introduced in a causal relationship? Is there any sort of dichotomy to be found in the Lovebird's first perception, that being 'not ashamed', and their latter consequent of becoming 'afraid'? Fair enough ... Yes, but isn't that the point of the Father teaching his children in the narrative?If they break this one commandment, they will die that day, and so, being dead and all, they will not be able to countinue to 'dress and keep' the Garden, much less 'be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth'.Yet, the Lovebirds are still able to do all of these things after their Father's teaching is ignored, with the exception of 'dress[ing] and keep[ing]' the Garden.This does not strike anybody as odd, considering they are supposed to be dead by sunset? The text says, ' ... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'The word day, yowm, is from an unused root meaning 'to be hot' and is given specifically as 'the warm hours' of the day.Back in the day, the word 'day' could mean various lengths of time in English too. lol - it's still often used to connotate a length of time other than the standard 24 hour period that usually applies. Like you say though, the Hebrew term can imply various definitions as well ...Do you feel it is more logical to extend a random figurative meaning to the word 'day' or should we allow the literal meaning to validate itself when interpreting the account?If you fancy the former method of interpretaion, what support do you use to justify the figurative usage of 'day' in this particular instance? I strongly disagree with this.Considering the text does not indicate, or even imply, that the couple was ever immortal, a plain reading of the text seems to imply that Adam began to die in verse 2:7 and Eve began to die in verse 2:22.What causes you to suggest that the couple was immortal at some point? I completely agree. Ummm ...This verse, attempting to support your proposition, refers to the events of the six day. It occurs a couple of chapters, and at least one 'yowm', before any realization of 'nakedness' is made. What does the 'goodness' of the sixth 'yowm' have to do with the events of the seventh 'yowm'? lol - can you, please, show me where I stated that the Father considered His children's nakedness as 'evil'?I mean, after all, you are the one who keeps suggesting that the Lovebirds acquired a knowledge of independence and rebellion (evil) from the fruit; yet, there has not even been one measly verse presented to support this bare assertion. I'm not trying to be rude, but c'mon Peg ...Show yourself approved, as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.I could understand if you thought Gen. 3:6 was an independent and rebellious act, but you have to accept that the decision to eat the magic fruit is made before the fruit is ingested. So, it could not have been the fruit that caused the independent and rebellious act.Perhaps this is why the reader is informed that Eve's offspring will have a mutual hatred with the serpent, rather than her future kin vandalising trees or taking up lumberjacking. One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

Thanks for the exchange purpledawwn.
Hope all is well ... Which one?OK, here's the same question that I asked Peg ...Which one is it that you feel Adam is implying ... 1, 2, or 3?1) Do you feel as though Adam is stating that he still currently feels naked, even after sporting his figs?2) Do you feel as though Adam is referring to the earlier time (Gen. 3:7) when he first perceived himself as naked; thus, implying that he no longer views himself in this manner with his figs on and that it is, instead, the 'shame' which he also accrued in addition to his original realization of 'nakedness', that is actually causing him to hide?3) Do you feel that neither of the above statements accurately depicts what is taking place? I mostly agree with you here.Can you find any significance in the fact that, before the birthday suit twins realized they were naked, they were not 'ashamed'; yet, after the realization is made, they become 'afraid'? Do you extend a figurative meaning to 'yowm' within the Garden narrative?If you do not, do you find significance in the fact that, by the time the Garden narrative finally climaxes, the Lovebirds do not die by the time the sun sets on the same day that the couple did not follow the teaching their Father gave them? I would say the dynamics change quite a bit if a figurative meaning is extended to the deadline of their consequences.You disagree? May it be safe to assume whether or not the original culture absorbing these teachings viewed clothing as an achievement of sorts that perhaps set them apart from other cultures surrounding them? So, would you agree that the story contains various implications that seem to suggest, with a certain amount of specificity, what may or may not have been perceived as 'good or bad knowledge' by the original audience? Again, can we gain any understanding of what the original audience considered good or bad by studying the narrative?Would you agree that the narrative attempts to explain an archaic fear or malcontent of reptiles, an awareness of the deceitful nature of life, etc.. What else can be easily gathered from the narrative ...Lastly, do you think that the original authors were too primitive to weave a wisdom tradition into the account and that the original audience would have been too primitive to understand such wisdom had it been injected by the author(s)?Granted, some of these are matters of opinion, but I highly value yours. One Love

quote:

---

1) Do you feel as though Adam is stating that he still currently feels naked, even after sporting his figs?

---

Yes

quote:

---

Can you find any significance in the fact that, before the birthday suit twins realized they were naked, they were not 'ashamed'; yet, after the realization is made, they become 'afraid'?

---

Adam and Eve now knew what the audience knew about what is acceptable and what isn't. So the implication is that for that culture running around in one's birthday suit or one's underwear is unacceptable. What the consequences were at that time, only the audience would know, but apparently it was something to be afraid of.

quote:

---

Do you extend a figurative meaning to 'yowm' within the Garden narrative?

​

If you do not, do you find significance in the fact that, by the time the Garden narrative finally climaxes, the Lovebirds do not die by the time the sun sets on the same day that the couple did not follow the teaching their Father gave them?

---

No, I feel the text is saying that God meant they would die the day they partook of the fruit.In the story itself it isn't an issue that they don't die. Parents make threats of disiplinary action that they don't always keep. One can place significance on it if they want, but it doesn't add to the basic story.

quote:

---

I would say the dynamics change quite a bit if a figurative meaning is extended to the deadline of their consequences.

​

You disagree?

---

Sometimes I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't know if I disagree or not.

quote:

---

So, would you agree that the story contains various implications that seem to suggest, with a certain amount of specificity, what may or may not have been perceived as 'good or bad knowledge' by the original audience? Again, can we gain any understanding of what the original audience considered good or bad by studying the narrative?

​

Would you agree that the narrative attempts to explain an archaic fear or malcontent of reptiles, an awareness of the deceitful nature of life, etc.. What else can be easily gathered from the narrative ...

---

I think we get a clue to some simple things such as the nudity, what they thought of snakes, how they saw birthing, procreation, etc.

quote:

---

Lastly, do you think that the original authors were too primitive to weave a wisdom tradition into the account and that the original audience would have been too primitive to understand such wisdom had it been injected by the author(s)?

---

I'm not sure what you calling a wisdom tradition. An author or storyteller speaks to his audience. Writing or including something they don't understand serves no purpose.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz