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

You're straying from the topic which deals with literal interpretation and metaphor.I've told you what d'rash means. See the link for more details.

---

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

Here is another good example of concerning literal interpretation or lack thereof.

quote:

---

In these 3 scriptures, John identifies the devil as the originator of sin. He was the one who made the snake appear to speak to Eve which is how he deceived her, and according to John the Devil is doing the same with the entire human race.

---

The plain text reading of just the sentences you provided does not support your conclusion. The authors do not say that the devil is the originator of sin. Remember, sin is not a thing. The authors aren't necessarily referring to the A&E story. The concept of Satan has changed quite a bit from the OT.Revelation 12:9 - The author has already told us that this is a vision and therefore symbolic in nature. The great dragon represents the Devil. The phrase "old serpent" is calling the Devil an artful malicious person. The author isn't saying the Dragon is actually a snake or any particular snake. When we call someone a snake or a weasel, we don't really mean they are that creature. We are referring to the characteristics we associate with those creatures. The serpent of Genesis is not the dragon of Revelation.We aren't the target audience for the author of Revelation. His audience understood the references.John 8:44 - You do understand insults don't you? That is what is happening here. It doesn't mean their father is actually the Devil. We take this one figuratively because otherwise one would have to believe that another god-like being was literally fathering children. So understanding the concept of insults and that the Jews of the time didn't cotton to the idea of god-like beings fathering children as much as the Greeks and Romans did, we understand that this is an insult and nothing more.1 John 3:8 - Same concept as 8:44. Classifying sinners with the Devil. He doesn't say from the beginning of what. It may be more of an exaggeration than a fact. For this author the concept of the Devil has been around all his life. It is part of his culture. It wasn't part of the culture of the Genesis storyteller.Again I only went by the sentences you provided because that is all you want to look at.

quote:

---

Logically, it was the Law placed upon the tree that represented Gods authority.

---

That is another way of looking at it, but a law isn't put on the tree. It was a command from God concerning the tree. We have laws concerning speeding. The laws aren't put on the road. We choose to follow the law or not. If not and we get caught, we suffer the consequences. The road doesn't represent the authority. The law does.

---

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

quote:

---

Just looking at Gen 7:2 and 7:9 and in vs2 Noah is quoting Gods words, but in vs9 he is writing his own words.
Is it such an unusual thing that a writer might say something differently to the way a person he is quoting might say it.

---

Good call! Way to think! The next step would have been to anticipate my next move, which is to show that in the Priestly writing when God spoke of the animals he used the same terms that the Priestly writer used in the narrative. We see that these are the same words the priestly writer used as shown in Message 104. So in the priestly writing when God speaks and in the narration the same words are used to describe male and female animals. When God speaks in the J writing different words are used to describe male and female animals.So you've shown me that I need to make sure I'm comparing apples with apples. Thanks for the help.

---

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

quote:

---

The Bible exposes Satan and makes him naked to the light of truth.

---

Yes, when we understand the literal interpretations, Satan is exposed for what he is. Dogma hides what Satan really is and doesn't allow people to face the reality. Just like a writer needs to know his audience, a warrior needs to know his enemy.Just as the snake misled Eve, you mislead people about the reality of Satan. You present an enemy they can't defeat without your special brand of help.I've exposed Satan for what he is so people can know who satan is and use the tools that God gave them to win the battle.

---

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

quote:

---

what is the conclusion being drawn regarding this point?

---

Keep up Peg.You said in Message 111: Its not uncommon for 1 writer to use different styles of writing, so why do critics us this as a basis for claiming that Moses was not the only writer of the books attributed to him?As Theodoric said in Message 119: Not usually in alternating passages or interspersed within one work. ...In your Message 114 you said: I have just done what Moses did in Gen 7:2 & 9... I quoted Bayley's use of the term 'lovebirds' but continued to use my own preferred term 'married couple' and I have proved that writers are not always consistent. Some writers are journalists where they write in a specific style, but they can also be poets and write in a completely different style. There are no rules that a writer must maintain a particular style.1. You didn't prove that writers are not always consistent. Even if you are claiming to be a writer.2. I agreed that a speaker in a writing could use different terminology than the narrator.3. I showed that even within God's speaking part the words are inconsistent when referring to the gender of the animals. As Theodoric pointed out in Message 119, writers don't usually change style in alternating passages or interspersed within one work.I can write a journalistic piece, a poetic piece, or a special interest piece. I can even write a technical manual or fiction. Each of these is a different style of writing and I have my own personal style of writing each of these styles, but within each piece I stay consistent. If I put a poem within the journalistic piece, I am consistent within the poem.4. Even Paul is consistent within his letters. That's how critics can tell when a letter was written in Paul's name, but not written by Paul himself.Artist's have a style to their creativity that can be used to authenticate paintings, sculptures, etc.Your own handwriting has a style to it unique to you.These differences in the writings of the Torah are significant and shed light on the creation of the first five books.Knowing that different sources make up the Torah doesn't detract from the message the writers or the redactor were trying to present to their audiences.

---

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

quote:

---

but you say they were 'both' deceived, im sorry, cant agree with that point.

​

Also they didn't openly admit their error... they hid in the garden to try and avoid being questioned, then when God caught them, rather then admitting their error when God questioned Adam he said...

---

This is interesting. You can't agree with Bailey that both A&E were deceived, which I agree the text doesn't say Adam was deceived; but then you turn around and make a statement that the plain text also does not support.The text does not say they hid in the garden to avoid being questioned. In verse 10 Adam clearly says: He said, I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself. They hid because they were naked, not that they were afraid to be questioned.Be consistent.

---

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

quote:

---

the plain text reading of this account shows that they had already made their own loin coverings before they hid from God. So why would they say they hid due to being naked, if they weren't naked?

---

An apron of fig leaves over the loin is still pretty naked! Aside from Mardi Gras day, a man or woman in the US today would probably get arrested for indecent exposure (depending on the area) if they were just wearing an apron.Remember, the storyteller stays within the norms of their culture. Per the writer, they still considered themselves naked and from what we know of the ancient Hebrews, they weren't prone to running around naked like some of the tribes around the equator.The plain text does not imply that they hid for any other reason. The narration didn't divulge any hidden agenda. That's the purpose of the narration.ABE: If we use the New World Translation, we can understand why they hid. A breeze and an apron do no make for good coverage. Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

---

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

Hon, you have got to provide verses and what translation your looking at so I know we're looking at the same thing.

---

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

quote:

---

My question is, if they made coverings to cover their 'nakedness', what exactly was the nakedness they were covering?

---

The text doesn't say they made coverings to cover their nakedness. It just says they realized they were naked and made something to cover their loins. IOW, underwear and just the bottom.An apron over the lions is still pretty naked as I said in Message 138 even by today's standards, let alone by the standards we see in the OT.Per the writer, they were still considered naked. In Gen 3:21, God makes them clothes. So underwear was not sufficient now that they knew they were naked.If you want to teach a lesson you can change the story any way you want, but the story we are presented with does not present an ultierior motive or that they lied about why they were hiding.

---

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

Is there any scriptures that talk about lambs taking away sin? Yes.

---

Scripture please! I don't find any verses that talk about lambs taking away sin.

quote:

---

Generally, verses should be understood that the writer meant to read them literally.

---

Why?

quote:

---

By any of these rules, the writers meant the resurrection of Jesus to be understood as a literal statement.

---

Writers and verses please.

---

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

Green's question was: Is there any scriptures that talk about lambs taking away sin? Yes.Nothing you provided speaks of lambs taking away sin. Lambs are sheep that are less than one year old.In Exodus the sheep's blood was a sign on the houses of the Hebrews so God knew which ones to pass over. The sheep's blood didn't take away sin. In Isaiah he said the servant was being brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering. Lambs still have nothing to do with taking away sin.In John 1:29, the statement "See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world", refers to Jesus obviously not lambs. Jesus wasn't really a lamb. The author of John seems to be the only NT writer to use the term "Lamb of God."The bulls, rams, lambs, doves, flour, etc. of the Hebrew sacrificial system were essentially fines. The same as when one pays a parking ticket. The fines didn't take away sin.

---

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

Hey Bailey,
I agree that the use of lamb in John 1:29 probably pointed towards innocence and purity given the late writing of John.In Message 203 Green made this statement: Is there any evidence that Jesus was a sheep? No. Is there any scriptures that talk about lambs taking away sin? Yes. This is a metaphor.He got the sheep part right and that the term wasn't meant to be taken literal, but scripture talking about lambs taking away sin; I think he overstepped. Even the passover lamb mentioned by Peg wasn't truly a lamb.

---

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