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

whats your interpretation of Metaphor???

what do you mean by 'which parts of the bible are true'?i still dont get where you are coming from or what you are trying to understand??all of the bible is true. The writings have different authors and purposes. there are historical writings and prophetic writings, there are laws and there is poetry/songs which tell stories.All the writings are true in that they have been written to instruct or teach or relay information...the way that information is relayed is not always to be taken literally though. Often metaphores are used as a teaching aid, but that doesnt make the writing 'untrue'.

Not all christians view the creation account to be a metaphore.
The account does not present as such. It is a brief account of creation and of Mankinds fall from perfection. I, and many others, view it as a literal account.the same goes for the flood account. Noah is listed in Jesus genealogy presented by Mathew and Luke, as is Adam... so if they were metaphorical people, do you think they would be listed in a real persons genealogy? This shows the two accounts are to be taken literally.

Neither Adam nor Noah were gods, no point comparing apples with oranges.

Short answer- no.
The hebrew word Yohm (day) can mean any length of time. It is used interchangeably throughout the scriptures and in some places it is used in the context of a long period of time.eg. In Noahs 'day' (Yohm)
In the 'day'(Yohm) in which God created the heavens and earth
In the 'day' of the harvest
He called the light 'day' (Yohm) and the darkness he called night.From this understanding, the genesis account should NOT be read to mean a literal 24 hours. They are extended periods of time. Short answer - Yes.When we die, we return to dust/soil. All of the elements found in the earth are also found in us. Exactly how God did it is unknown. short answer - Yes.Again we dont know the process or details of how he did it. He did not make her separate and distinct from the man by forming her from the dust. He took a rib from Adam’s side, and from it built a perfect counterpart.

here we go againi believe the account of Adam and Eve and the serpent to be real people/snake. Adam and Eve were our first human parents. I beleive the garden of Eden was a real physical place where they lived with God.
Yes, we differ on the detail of exactly what the tree was/represented, but I still view the tree as a REAL tree with leaves and fruit.
No, it wasnt 'magic', it did not impart knowledge to them...it represented Gods authority and rulership and when they disobeyed and ate from it, they became rebels and alienated themselves from Gods rulership and authority. That is evident from the conversation that Eve had with the Serpent (the devil in disguise).

No, you would not need to believe that the trees in the middle of the garden were magic just as you would not need to believe that the 'creative days' were not a literal 24 hours in length. like I said, our interpretations of them are different. I believe they literally existed.
In the instance of the snake, it was the devil making it speak. Rev 12:9 identifies the 'original serpent' as Satan the Devil. So the scriptures are in harmony with this idea. This is one of those things where the whole bible needs to be taken into consideration before drawing any conclusions. If we look at Revelation, we have to agree that Paul says the original serpent is Satan the Devil. So if we ignore Pauls words about who the original serpent is, we might have to conclude that it WAS a magic talking snake and nothing more...but that is not logical. But thankfully the Apostles were inspired to write exactly what we needed to know to have an accurate understanding of Gods word.In the case of the tree, we know it had fruit, we know the fruit was good just like all the other fruit trees with the exception that Adam was not permitted to eat from it. So if the 'tree of the knowledge of good and bad' was not a literal tree, then there would be no reason to conclude that any other tree was a literal either. But of course we know they were. There was only difference with the tree of knowledge.God placed a restriction on it which made eating from it bad. Therefore it was a symbol of Gods right to determine or set the standards of good and bad, which he did by forbidding Adam to eat from it. Disobedience on Adams part would have signified a rebellion against Gods own sovereignty.This is the same idea that comes from the Jerusalem bible in a footnote that says "The first sin was an attack on God's sovereignty"So its not that I dont take the accounts literally, its just that I hold to a different interpretation then you do.

in that case we are all descended from a Goddoes that make all of us mythical people?

finally i see what you are saying now.And I understand that from what you consider literal, there is no room for symbolism to be applied... eg, the tree was a literal tree and therefore was also magic because it could impart knowledge.whereas I say, the tree was a literal tree which represented Gods authority and right to place rules on his creations. It imparted no knowledge of God but did give them knowledge of rebellion and independence.Well im not sure where that puts me really.But to explain why symbolism can rightly be applied to such devices, we need only to look at the system of Isreals worship and what the Christian teaching was with regard to its representation.Paul indicated that Isreals worship was a physical representation of things to come. For example in Hebrews 9, paul talks about the Tabernacle where the sacrifices were offered.

quote:

---

Hebrews 9:6 the priests enter the first tent [compartment] at all times to perform the sacred services; 7but into the second [compartment] the high priest alone enters once a year...9This very [tent] is an illustration for the appointed time that is now here, ...They were legal requirements pertaining to the flesh and were imposed until the appointed time to set things straight.

​

11However, when Christ came as a high priest...12he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us]

---

Here Paul teaches that the High Priest who offered the sacrifices were a foregleam of God’s purposes to be fulfilled through the messiah, the one who would provide an everlasting sacrifice for sins.Another example is that of the Golden Lampstands that lit up the inner compartment of the Tabernacle and later the Temple. But they had a greater signifigance them mere illumination devices.
The apostle John was given a vision in which he saw "seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man." Rev 1:12-13 & vs 20.
It is explained to John that the lampstands represented congregations. So symbolism is applied to literal devices in the bible. This particular one about the lampstands is in harmony with what Jesus told his apostles... "You are the light of the world." Just as the Lampstands shone light on the Temple, so do the congregations of Gods people shine light on the word of God.

What do you mean the 'priestly writing of Genesis 1 hadnt been written yet'???

Wellhausen! I cant believe his theories are still around let alone accepted.

before you study the work of higher critics, its good to understand how they come to their teachings...and the basis for them.They generally start from the premis that their is no God who inpsired the writing of the bible. So before they even begin to examine it they have already written it off.They also claim to be able to divide the text of the early books of the Bible into a number of different documents. They assume that any Bible verse using the Hebrew word for God Elohim on its own was written by one writer, if a verse refers to God by his name, Jehovah, it must have been written by another writer.
They take it as proof of more than one writer if an event is recorded more than once in a book and likewise if the style of writing changes, it also means a change of writer.Is it reasonable to apply all these apparent 'literary' rules to a writer?
Would you read the books of someone like John Milton who wrote in various styles (poetry-political) and assume that because the style varies so much, he must not have been the only writer?And finally, look into the many charges they made against the bible that was later proved inaccurate by the field of Archeology...its quite an eye opener.

or IOW that is exactly what Christianity is...its the understanding of God in the context of the Christ as taught through those chosen by Christ to teach.If you dont accept the word of the Apostles of Christ, then you are not accepting the word of the Christ and in turn not accepting the word of God.What did the apostles teach with regard to the Serpent in Eden?
Paul identifies the Devil as 'the original serpent.' It was Satan who spoke through the serpent and as he said in his letter to the corinthians "I fear that as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning YOUR minds might be corrupted"
According to Paul, the serpent seduced eve and corrupted her mind away from God.This is the teaching of the Apostles of Christ, not my own ideas.Also what is it I am saying about the tree? Where do i get the idea that the tree represented Gods authority?
Its from the Apostle Paul who says at Romans 5:19 "For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous."According to Paul the result of 'disobedience' was sin and death, just as Genesis says.
The christians didnt stray from known scripture. It was the basis of their teaching and, unlike the Jewish religious teachers, they understood it.

Exactly.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?

Im sorry, its the Apostle Johns writings that identify Satan with the original serpent
______________________________________
Revelation 12:9"So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth"John 8:44 "44YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began"1John 3:8 "He who carries on sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from [the] beginning."
____________________________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. If Gods authority was represented by himself alone, then why would the eating of the tree have been constituted an act of 'disobedience'.Logically, it was the Law placed upon the tree that represented Gods authority. This is why Paul said that thru the 1 act of 'disobedience' all were constituted sinners. The consequences were legally applied to Adam when he disobeyed "you will eat bread all the days until you return to the ground, from dust you are and to dust you will return.."