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

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?

truth and accuracy are more important then tradition.Yes, the churchs have traditionally used the cross as the tool that Christ died upon, but the writers of the NT did not. The cross was introduced by the roman catholic church in the 3rd century, but not before.The apostles used a Greek Stauros when speaking about christs death and in both the classical Greek and Koine it carries no thought of a 'cross' made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake or pole.So why use the word 'Cross' if the NT writers did not use a word that meant a 'cross'? It seems silly to cling to a man made tradition that is not based on scripture.Personally, i feel more confident knowing that the NWT is a translation that sticks to the original meaning of the writers rather then continue with false beliefs. Interestingly, the WT society used the King James version as their only bible text. but it was for this very reason that they undertook the task of making a translation of their own. The corrected a lot of the erroneous religious traditions. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

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

Moses made a distinction between them being completely naked, and then sewing fig leaves to cover their 'nakedness'.What is the nakedness?

I said evidence not hearsay.Edited by bluescat48, : misplaced [qs]Edited by bluescat48, : missing /

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

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

Jehovah Witnesses are considered by Christians to be a cult. As such, they do not believe many truths that are necessary for true salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is why they undertook the task of making a translation of their own.http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/jw.htm

Thank you for the exchange Peg. Yes I can and no I won't.But, I'll tell what you can do: You go and get yourself a snazzy Red Letter Bible, if ya haven't got one handy, and then grab yourself a brand new black Sharpie with the biggest, blackest tip on it. Now, all you need to do is open up that snazzy Red Letter Bible you got your lil' paws on and then you set out on a quest to find yourself every single letter, in that whole book, that the printers printed black ...Once you find them, take the cap off of that big ol' black Sharpie you grabbed and just start a draggin' it 'cross all of them lil' black letters in that book, letter by letter, line by line, page by page, until all that remains are those bright Red Letters, and then study just them beautiful Red Letters, all by themselves, over and over and over again, until your eyes wear them bright, beautiful Red Letters right off them pages, and then it may, or may not, become more apparent why religion is here and what it implies exactly. Peg, many 'Christian' teachings are not in accord with one another.
Let's leave religious dogma alone for now and, instead, be honest.I will first admit that, after the Wedding passage of Gen 2:24, I often consider the Lovebirds as 'one flesh'.The fact that the Couple is faulted and accountable does not appear to be a matter of private interpretation. That is fine, as the point is not needed to strengthen the case.Anyway, we both agree Eve was deceived and I disagree with you that Adam should have abandoned His wife.You are supposed to be scripturally confirming your assertions that:1) The Lovebirds themselves acquired independence and rebellion from the Tree of the Knowledge.2) The knowledge of independence and rebellion made the couple in the Garden more like God.Within the verses of 1st Timmy that you have brought to light, the author indicates that women should circumcise their clothing habits, if they desire to display reverence towards the Father, by not wearing braids, jewelery or expensive duds.In addition, we are informed by the author that women should learn of spiritual matters quitely and submissively and that because Eve was deceived - as opposed to Adam - Paul does not allow women to instruct men regarding spiritual matters.I am not sure how this helps your case. You are correct in pointing out that the Lovebirds experienced a big ol' heap of fear & tremblin'; when one (or more) is reverent, such behavior is often the signature of guilt and shame.So we see, straight away after disobeying their Father, the Lovebirds are convicted to hide - like lil' children often do - as an obvious sense of guilt and shame chases after them. You do appear correct in pointing out that the Lovebirds are no longer displaying naivety, as I suggested earlier, and that the couple, at this point in the narrative, are certainly becoming more aware that usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion is indeed mischievous.However, as odd as it may or may not seem, you have decided that 'rather then admitting wrong, they each tried to put the blame on the other'; yet, in making such a statement, you have begun to modify the story, as well as the question the Lovebird's were asked by their Father. Eve never attempts to put the blame on Adam in any way ... lolNevertheless, you see, within the narrative their Father does not ask, 'Who is wrong?' or 'Who will admit they are wrong?'.Now, the thing is, the Father did ask those Lovebirds a couple of basic questions:1) Who told you that you were naked?2) Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?Now we know that nobody told the Lovebirds that they were naked and their Father - already having the Knowledge of Good and Evil - even suggests that the knowledge they had acquired from that ol' Tree helped the children figure that one out.That leaves us with the other question ... didjoo eat from that Tree that I told you not to?Let's take a look at what their responses were, while keeping in mind that a simple 'yes' or equally basic confession should suffice for admitting fault ... I don't know Peg, we may need a third opinion ...Looks, to me, like both of the Lovebirds decided to confess their sin by saying 'so I ate', in addition to being open and honest about the additional events that lead up to their questioning. Explaining the course of events that transpired in their entirety does not somehow equate to dodging blame.It becomes difficult for me to imagine you could reasonably disagree with this ...That is, of course, unless you disagree that the serpent deceived Eve and/or that Eve gave some fruit to Adam from the Tree. Upon a close inspection of their behavior, I would say yes.I am also noting that you agree that the Father of Yeshua HaMashiach does not lie ... I can only assume that you are suggesting the Lovebirds shoplifted fruit from the Garden.Well before the Tree of the Knowledge became an issue for the young married couple, after his Father gave him his beautiful - albeit naive - bride, the reader is told Adam must 'leave his father and his mother, and ... cleave unto his wife: and ... be one flesh.'Shortly thereafter Eve was deceived, but Adam was committed to his wife from the beginning to the end - much in the same way that the Father is committed to all of His children from the beginning to the end. This is true. Yet, we see that their Father is the judge who considers how the law was transgressed ...First and foremost, the Father's just discernment immediately pursues the serpent, as can be evidenced by the Father's clause toward the serpent, '... because you have done this ...' (Gen 3:14). The serpent gets it real bad, but why should it not, considering 'the serpent has done this' and the Lovebirds are victims. That ol' serpent gets all the cursin' it deserves and, to top it off, after that ol' snake in the grass gets done eatin' dust while crawling on it's belly in the freshly prickered landscape all the days of it's life, the Lovebird's Father is going to make sure that ol' deceiver finally gets its head stomped in by one of Eve's kids.However, the Father does not employ a reprimanding clause for Eve, as she was deceived, but instead foretells her of an increased pain she will consequently undergo as a result of the serpent's shenanigans. The Father also states that His daughter Eve's desire will be for her husband, who is to be the head of their household.Similarly, we see the Father decides Adam should evade harsh punishment as well, by his Father's decision to deflect the curse, perhaps intended for him, to the ground where that ol' snake slithers 'roun. Just to make sure the pricker's don't interfere with workin' the fields too much, their Father gives them each a more durable pair of leather slacks.The Father protects His children from the consequences, which must unfold, of a serpent's lame shenanigans.If it is not yet evident that the Father faults the serpent, much more so than His children, then go study them Red Letters some more, and then return to Genesis and try again ... Incorrect. Adam was honest and told his Father what transpired. You make it sound as if they already knew theology before they began acquiring the Knowledge of Good & Evil.lol - you gotta stop trashin' your ancestors; I bet all they do is pray for us ... A better question.Can you, and if so - will you, provide scriptural evidence to support the popular, yet seemingly false, assumption that the Lovebirds acquired independence and rebellion.Perhaps you could flesh things out by quoting where, after Gen 3:6, the Lovebirds 'continually' act rebellious and idependently, as you say? Say 6 or 7 examples ...Even 4 or 5 ...Or 2 or 3 ...1? I wasn't makin' that up ya know - lol This is important.The Lovebird's Father did not reveal that the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge would cause them to become more like Him; yet, it did, as the Bible plainly shares.As you have stated, the Father tells the children that they will 'surely die' the day they eat from the Tree of the Knowledge; yet, they do not, as the Bible plainly shares.Seems as though either the Father may be the lyin' rebel some accuse Him of being or that the serpent thought it had some positive intel ... lol - you thought the serpent was being honest?You must remember that usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion never, ever, tells the Truth, being the Father of Lies and all, and so, it should follow that when that serpent said, 'Nah, you won't die - you'll be like God', it really thought, 'Soon as I get them kids to climb that Tree they ain't supposed to climb, I will finally have this fine lil' Garden all to my lonesome'. Yes He did - the same day He made that serpents worst nightmare come true ...Perhaps usurper/serpent/HaSaTaN/religion was trying to get those children killed, thinking that it had a plan, but it did not fully realize that the Father of Yeshua HaMashiach Loves the Children and Grace more than He cares for the law and serpents.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Hope all is well with you ... Wasn't Yermiyah a jew? He'll tell you straight up that the Levite scribes employed a lying pen and much, much more.
(not that we should believe him or any of the Prophets though, right?)As those within the radical prophetic tradition recognized, and as later history demonstrates again and again, the role of religious propaganda was to bring people into subjection to political authorities. Chances are, there has never been a better method of stirring up war fever or social intolerance in the service of a theocracy or democracy - or any state for that matter - than to claim that a Decree was called for and endorsed by, the one and only, God. Form follows function, according to form criticism, and in many cases the form (religious and political war propaganda) was certainly dictated by the obvious functions such writings were intended to serve.Hoshea actually opens his own book with an unequivocal attack on the Bible, which he cleverly arranges through metaphor. Through his writings, we are presented with the interesting case of a prophet fulfilling the apparent role of one of the world's first recorded practitioners of biblical source and redaction criticism. He was likely a critical thinker, being an early biblical critic who condemned the book of Judges, amongst others, and appears to have been far from convinced of the questioned doctrine of the inerrancy of the bible. It is all but clear that neither Yermiyah or Hoshea, likely in cahoots with various others within the prophetic tradition, believed that everything recorded in the bible was the infallible Word of God.It is a fact, too little known, that those within the radical Jewish prophetic traditions were relentless critics of the Bible and in particular the Torah. Yet, in order for such beliefs as that of 'inerrant scripture' to be kept in force, the lost message of the prophets must remain lost and nullified forever and ever.It is the only way ...Otherwise, entire manuscripts would require reinterpretation and others would have their inclusion into the canon questioned, for it was Prophets who first attacked the canon of scripture (ironically becoming part of scripture in the process, and sadly, becoming nullified scripture in actual practice, despite the doctrine of 'sola scriptura').One Love Edited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : title

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

wooops sorry, i have a bad habit of doing that .Gen 3:7-8 . "Then the eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked. Hence they sewed fig leaves together and made loin-coverings for themselves. 8 Later they heard the voice of Jehovah... " NWTGen 3:7 "And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked' and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God..." KJVGen 3:7 - 8 "Then the eyes of both them were opened, and they realized they were naked so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God" NIVMy question is, if they made coverings to cover their 'nakedness', what exactly was the nakedness they were covering?

i thought cults were groups who follow a human messiah and who lock themselves away from society???

JWs do not lock themselves away from society, but they do follow a created messiah. A created messiah can never redeem man from his sins or give the gift of eternal life (John 6:27, 10:28).

cheers for that John,I know the whole trinity thing is an issue regarding the JW's. But im sure you can understand why its an issue. The bible does in fact use the name Jehovah for the Almighty, its seen thousands of times in the OT in the Septuagint in the form of the tetragrammaton. But then we also see Jesus name (yeshua) too which makes things very confusing as they are supposed to be the same God.The Baptist Encyclopdia 1883 says:
"[Jesus] is...the eternal Jehovah...The Holy Spirit is Jehovah... The Son and Spirit are placed on an exact equality with the Father. If he is Jehovah so are they." pages 1168-9.But I dont see how this makes them a cult or how it implies that they created their own Messiah. How do you define cult and what practices do they have which makes them such?Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

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

Read the entire article given in post 142, and many others that explain what JWs believe and practice.What is a Christian cult? Also read Walter Martin's "The Kingdom of the Cults."Edited by John 10:10, : added paragraph