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

quote:

---

You using a metaphorical situation when saying all are descended from a God.

---

Actually wouldn't we all be descended from dirt? Adam was made from dirt, literally speaking.Of course if God is a personification of nature and dirt is part of nature, then one could say we are descended from God, metaphorically speaking of course.

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.

Is there anything written in the creation story to indicate that it shouldn't be taken literally? It seems that most of the Bible is written plainly, but for some reason Christians decide that certain parts aren't to be taken literally.

quote:

---

"Before the hills and the mountains" is poetic language which should include all other items in the physical world.

---

Literally it just means "before the hills and mountains."

Peg has answered these questions very well in Post # 50. I have little to add to her comments, other than to quote Gen 2:7 in its entirety: What differentiates man from all the other creatures God created is that man was created in God's image (Gen 1:26-27), and man became a living soul.If one becomes to hung up on the how of God's creation, or denying God's creation in it's entirety, one rarely finds or enters into the why of God's creation.

Purpledawn raised some questions in which I'm also interested in messages 35, 51, and 54.

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.

Indeed and the authors could just as well be referring to God as the forces of nature/laws of physics in that passage.

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.

Do you take the story literally, talking snake and all?

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?

As long as we're not taking the text literally, my metaphorical interpretations are as good as anyone's.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

A psalm is a song of faith. The song is written by man about man's feelings, etc. towards God. Mankind at that time has no clue when things began.In the thread concerning the word erets (Not The Planet), the literal interpretation of "the earth and the world" has a smaller implication than the planet.The verse doesn't preclude God from being a personification of nature. Compared to the size of the planet, this is a small group of people describing how they perceive their portion of the planet around them. The phrase "before the hills and the mountains" can also be a poetic way to say "a really long time ago". Essentially what they are saying in the verse is that God has always been and always will be. From their perspective that is true. The planet and nature have been around as long as man can remember. If the science guys have it right, the planet and nature were around before man took the stage.The laws of nature are God's creation since God is nature. The ancients personified nature as gods. As mankind became more knowledgeable about nature and the planet, God evolved to what we have today. God lives in the realm of the knowledge that we don't know, the supernatural.God is what sustains us, nature.

---

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