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

quote:

---

Gens 3:1 "Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: "Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?" 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3 But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’" 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: YOU positively will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad."

---

The New World Translation? I wouldn't have thought that was a translation you looked favourably upon: what with Jesus not being crucified in it and other such things.

I gave you the link, why didn't you just look it up and you'd see what I was talking about? You do know where the crucifiction accounts are, I assume. Do I have to spoon feed you? This is just a side note - curiousity can be satiated by looking the crucifiction passages in the translation in question. To spoon feed you Matthew 27: 31-32

quote:

---

Finally, when they had made fun of him, they took the cloak off and put his outer garments upon him and led him off for impaling.

​

As they were going out they found a native of Cyrene named Simon. This man they impressed into service to lift up his torture stake

---

He dies, obviously even the greatest interpreter in the world would find it hard to avoid that conclusion, and in a manner similar to crucifiction - perhaps one might call it crucifiction. The cross however is very carefully excised and 'crucified' is studiously replaced with 'impaled'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Now that you have stopped playing dumb, I'll return to the original and rather simple question I hoped would take a single post to resolve, am I to take this a broad acceptance of the New World Translation - with its easily looked up controversial deviations from traditional translations?