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

Certain plain teachings forbid this understanding.For example :1.) "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being which has come into being." (John 1:3)I would have to conclude then that the very forces of nature came into being through the Divine Creator Who is apart from them.2.) "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were and were created." (Rev. 4:11)I have to conclude that all things, including the forces of nature, were created by God. And preceeding their creation God had a will and a plan. All things were created because of His will.3.) " ... upholding and bearing all things by the word of His power ..." (Heb. 1:3)I conclude that all things, including the forces of nature, are upheld and borne up by the word of God's power. So He cannot be those things Himself.4.) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1)I have to understand that the forces of nature were preceeded by a creating God. He is not those forces. They may however, reflect characteristics of His being.5.) Even with what may be metaphorical language the Creator is distinct from His creation and preceeds it with an act of will to bring them into existence:"By the word of Jehovah the heavens were made, and all their hosts by the breath of His mouth ... For He spoke, and it was; He commanded , and it stood." (Psalm 33:6,9)He could not be the forces of nature but rather spoke those forces into existence.The prophet Elijah had to learn a lesson that God was not in the earthquake, or the firestorm, or the mighty wind. But He was in the still small voice of the human conscience more so then in the forces of nature. In this episode in the disappointed prophet's career God had to show Elijah that He was not in the forces of nature. Elijah was a prophet who unleased great and spectacular acts of God's power over nature. But he needed to learn that these forces were not God Himself nor where they by any means the only way God could work.In the still quiet voice of human conscience God could intimately manifest Himself in conviction, moral reproof and spiritual guidance.In the Bible's progressive revelation of God we see that we move closer to His essence in the voice of our conscience than in the forces of nature.In Exodus God manifested Himself on the top of Mount Sanai for 80 days. There was smoke and fire and a great display of the forces of nature. It didn't stop the Israelites from eventually growing impatient and making themselves a golden calf to return them to Egypt.So it is hard to mistake that the Bible is metaphorically portraying God as natural forces.

I think the whole question of "Should the Bible be taken literaly?" can be a misleading generalization.It has always seemed obvious to me that in many places the Bible specifically tells the reader that something is sign or a parable. In other words in this instance literal reading is not called for but symbolism."The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to Him ... and He made it known by signs ..." (Rev. 1:1)I am told up front there that something is being made known by signs with symbolic meanings.I have my reasons for thinking that this instance is symbolic and that instance is probably not. Then there is the occurence of historical things which have symbolic names or symbolic significances.So first there are the passages which we are told are not to be taken literally. Not the others are many, and with patience and practice one learns when something is to be taken liturally and something less so.Fortunately, most of the major truths that I can think of are expressed in many ways and not only once.Then there are the left over occasions to which good teachers may have disagreement. You pray and follow what seems most plausible. With the Bible one can be livingly wrong and on can be dead right.To the question of God being the forces of nature. I don't think a strictly Pantheist approach to the God in the Bible will hold up well. God obviously transcends nature and its forces in Scripture.We could discuss some arguable occasions where Pantheism might be construed. But I think they are vastly outnumbered clearly theistic ones.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

When you read somethng like Psalm 90: Doesn't it seem clear that nature and its laws are God's creation ?"Before the hills and the mountains" is poetic language which should include all other items in the physical world. God was there before they came into existence, is what Psalm 90 is teaching. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Maybe so. But that would mean before they came into existence, would it not ?Anyway, there is not much problem understanding the other phrase "from eternity to eternity"Clearly, unlike the mountains and hills, God always was.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think the flow of history from the creation story is so seemless that it indicates actual history is being told.But one has to be careful a to what is actually being said. What is said and what is not said, is important to me. For I believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture.I mean that I think what word or words the prophet wrote to communicate something, were directed by God, even beyond that writers consciousness sometimes. The Spirit directed this word to be written, and not some other word.So I pay attention to verbal inspiration of which word was used to say something. And here there is room for good scholars to disagree.Mostly, this book is a book to convey spiritual life into the reader. It should nourish and feed something spiritually hungry inside a person.I eventually took Genesis very seriously because I noticed that Jesus in the New Testament took Genesis seriously. And I think the integrity of Jesus is beyond questioning. So it was through reading about Jesus in the NT that I gradually opened up to the earlier books of the Bible.That is how it happened to me, to believe Genesis. But I do have questions here and there. The general picture seems clear to me. The unverse has its source in the creation of God. And there was a FIRST man and a FIRST woman. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I haven't seen your rational in those passages for saying that.How would you explain miracles done by God then?How would you explain the suspension of the forces of nature or its laws in the instances when God performed a miracle?

I was hoping that you would explain your position a little with the words of Scripture. Even if you are not taking them literally, I'd like to see your logic of how God is the forces of nature.

Sure, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" could mean "Sam and Bob went catfishing. Afterwards Sam took a nap but Bob went to the amusment park".Words don't have to mean anything. You just change it to say whatever you want it to say.You don't like "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" just change it to say whatever it is you want to read.I do remember very well that the idea of God being a force of nature or a vibration or force was very much more appealing to me at one time. It placed "God" on a lower order of existence than myself.I mean I found it appealing to think of God as a force which I in my personhood transcended. I could look down on such a God the same way I could kind of look down upon gravity or electricity or magnetism or light. No disreepect was intended. But it just seemed more "comfortable" to see any potential God as a lower order of being than my ego.So I think I have been there. God as "the force". This is very popular.Latter I discovered that God was a SomeOne from whom I could receive and very much needed - love, forgiveness, mercy, empowerment, communion and fellowship.I think I graduated from God as the Force to God as the Savior Jesus. It was a humbling step. But it was worth it. And it rendered the Bible far more sensible.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

So if you can't beat em, join em? Is that your solution?"Because of Chrisians then, I render every word of the Bible meaningless. Its their fault you see? " Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

May I ask you what you do as a profession CarlinKnew?

Choose a chapter of the Bible and I'll see if I can give you a demonstration of my rational.

What did you read in it?Did you read the whole Bible?Did you notice some poetry, some parables, some visions, some symbolism, some songs, some things told to be taken as history ?Did you notice different styles of writing throughout the Bible?

Does CalinKnew agree that I should use this portion of the Bible ?

The first thing I might point out about Genesis 1 through 3 is that there is no need to make a dichotomy between metaphor and physical things. Something can be both physical and yet have metaphorical and spiritual significance assigned to it.Aaron's rod I take as a physical object. Yet it had great spiritual significance. The ark of the covenant has its precise measurements given to us in detail. It is understood as a physical object. Yet when it was touched in the wrong way the toucher died. And only the Levitical priests dare care for it.It was a actual physical object with metaphorical and spiritual significance.In the same way I have no problem with an actual tree of the knowledge of good and evil or a tree of life. Though the properties of such trees are a mystery to me the account reads as if they were physical objects. Yet they also had tremendous spiritual significance related to them just as the physical ark of the covenant or the physical rod of Aaron.The geneologies of Chronicles and the Gospel of Luke regard Adam as the first man. So I take Adam and Eve as literal first human beings. I would not agree with some kind of gradual slide of animals into human such that a very FIRST human being - Adam could not be historical.When Genesis says that Cain dwelt "in the land of Nod, east of Eden" (Gen. 4:16) I understand Eden to be a geographic location. It is hard to move "east" of a purely metaphorical place. I don't see some existential clock stop and we transcend into a symbolic and abstract world. Cain lived east of Eden in the same way someone could live "east of Trenton New Jersey". Though Eden is mentioned more metaphorically/poetically elsewhere in the Old Testament.The speaking serpent doesn't bother me too much (by God's mercy I suppose). Jesus, refering to Genesis, indicates the Devil as a murderer was active there. I am certain that these words of Jesus refer back to Genesis which He obviously took as history. The murder the devil refers to the devil's instigation of the murder of Abel through Cain. The lying speaks of the lying serpent. The beginning refers to the beginning of man in Genesis. The devil being the "father" of lies must refer to the original lie from the serpent.Not only Jesus takes Genesis as history then, but the apostle John also does saying: John also says that the devil sinned from the beginning, which beginning must mean the beginning of man's history in Genesis. Paul regards the story of Adam and Eve as history. And the Christ is the second man and the last Adam. So the principle of Adam's disobedience which influenced all his descendents is mirrored in Jesus whose obedience influences all those who are related to Him in faith.Adam and Christ as historical are fundamental to Paul's theology. But before this I took Adam and Eve as historical because Jesus took them so. And I regard the wisdom and integrity of Jesus of Nazareth to be beyond questioning.Here Jesus refered to Genesis' account of Adam and his wife as history: Jesus is refering to the events of Genesis 2:18-25.These are some of the reasons which help me to decide what and how much I should regard as historical writing in Genesis. Once again, I do not see an absolute dichotomy, that either the account has to be literal or it has to be allegorical. It can be both sometimes.No clock stops and the reader transcends into a timeless abtract realm following Genesis 3 and 4. The flow of history and of the important geneologies run virtually seamlessly. We are given the years of Adam and his immediate descendents of importance.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn, this difficulty could be because you have little experience of what he talks about.The problem is not with Paul's hard to understand writing completely. Though there are some profound matters that even the Apostle Peter said were hard to understand.The problem is, I think, more that you have no experience to confirm that "I have experienced that. I know what the man is talking about there."Some of us do have experience and know that what he is writing corresponds quite well with our experience.When Paul writes "Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom." (2 Cor. 3:17) it takes more than a nimble intellect to grasp that truth.Have you experienced the Spirit of the resurrected Christ ? Don't be annoyed at me asking this. Bible Study reveals that the New Testament is teaching us to experience the Lord Jesus IS the Holy Spirit who can indwell us.It was no accident that God chose this man Paul to author 13 of the 27 New Testament books. And I would hope you would not be deceived by the "Paul Messed It All Up" crowd out there.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.