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

As you can see by jaywill's post, he uses doctrine to determine what is to be taken literally, spiritually, or metaphorically. Notice his first sentence sets the tone for interpreting the writing any way one wants. From the rest of the post we can see that jaywill is a non-literalist.When we read the actual story of Adam and Eve, we need to keep in mind the target audience, which was probably around 848-722BCE. No New Testament was written yet. The priestly writing of Genesis 1 hadn't been written yet.The people gathered round to listen to a tale about how their people came to be. Why they are different than the animals. Why they know right and wrong. Why men and women come together and why women have pain in childbirth. They also find out why snakes have no legs and why man works the fields, etc.The people knew that snakes didn't talk and trees weren't magic. I also think they knew people weren't made of dirt. They would have understood the story the same way we understand the "Just So Stories" by Rudyard Kipling.Talking snakes and magic trees also shows us that the story is not a literal historical event. The story was pertinent to the people of the time. The muddy details we quibble over were irrelevant to the story.You probably won't get the answer you think you're looking for. People don't always know why they do what they do, or why they view things the way they do.When they drag in other author's to explain, they probably aren't reading the simple meaning of the text or a literal translation.Remember, a literal translation doesn't mean that a tree of knowledge literally existed. A literal translation means that the author does mean that the fruit from the tree of knowledge in his story does give Adam and Eve knowledge when they eat the fruit.

---

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

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'???

What he means is that the source material for the "Priestly" source of Genesis (as opposed to the Deuteronomy, Elohim and Jehova sources) was of a later date then 848-722BCE.

---

I hunt for the truth

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

CarlinKnew,Richard Elliott Freidman wrote a book entitled "Who Wrote the Bible?". It deals with the Documentary Hypothesis, which is the idea that the Torah is not written by one person and was not written at the time of Moses.You might find it an interesting book.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

It has nothing to do with what I consider literal. You saw the definitions. I didn't create those.Remember the excerpt I provided:

quote:

---

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.

---

When you apply symbolism, but the text doesn't indicate that the subject is a symbol, then you are forcing your ideas and meanings on the story. Which means, if you feel the Bible is God's word, what you are forcing on the text is not God's word.IOW, you aren't taking God at his word.

quote:

---

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.

---

The author of Hebrews makes it clear that he is applying symbolism to subjects within his text. We also have to remember that Paul and the later authors are a different style of writing than the A&E story. They are in the style of sermons. They are using verses from the OT to support the point they want to make. IOW, D'rash.So when Paul, or one of those claiming to be Paul, makes a conclusion based on OT verses; I go to the source and read the plain text to see if the conclusion is valid or if the author is pulling several verses together to make a completely different point that isn't supported by the plain text reading.As I told CalinKnew, don't confuse P'shat with D'rash.

---

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

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.

quote:

---

huntard writes:

​

What he means is that the source material for the "Priestly" source of Genesis (as opposed to the Deuteronomy, Elohim and Jehova sources) was of a later date then 848-722BCE.

​

Peg writes:

​

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

---

Anything to back this up or just another bare assertion?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Is it reasonable to apply all these apparent 'literary' rules to a writer?

---

Yes it is called literary criticism. It is actually a quite respected field of study.

quote:

---

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?

---

Google it. Lots of people have done it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

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.

---

I would agree that Christianity today grew from teachings based on Paul's writings, not the actual disciples or followers of Jesus.

quote:

---

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.

---

I accept Paul's letters and the writings of the NT for what they were and in light of the audience they were written for.

quote:

---

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.

---

Please provide verses. When did Paul identify the devil as the original serpent? The verse you shared (2 Corinthians 11:3) does not identify the serpent as the devil. The plain text reading of that text and the surrounding text shows that Paul is referring to a situation within a story that people could identify with. His audience understood how the serpent misled Eve. Paul didn't want them to be skillfully misled away from his teachings.

quote:

---

This is the teaching of the Apostles of Christ, not my own ideas.

---

Unfortunately what you present most of the time is a mishmash of the apostles, doctrine, and your own perceptions.

quote:

---

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."

---

God gave a command to Adam. That is the command that was disobeyed. The tree represented knowledge and that we get from the name of the tree. Paul does not refer to the tree. In the A&E story God represented God's authority.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sermons are fine, they just shouldn't take away or change the plain reading of a text. The plain reading of the text should have priority.Paul is a difficult read and he doesn't rely on oneliners. He builds to a point. Remember, Paul's style of writing and arguing is Jewish, not necessarily the style we have today. If you want to discuss Paul's teachings open a thread. He's a bit too complicated for this thread.

---

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

Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Hope all is well ... We are plainly informed within the Garden narrative that, after partaking of their first piece of magic fruit, the Lovebirds became more like the Almighty.Considering this, it seems here that you are vicariously suggesting that the Father of Yeshua HaMashiach is rebellious and independent ... I do not follow that vein of reason.What is your evidence that the couple in the Garden inherited a spirit of rebellion and independence which made them more like the Almighty Father of Yeshua HaMashiach?One Love

One trait of a writer is to remain consistent within their own writing. The flood story doesn't do that. The Priestly writer refers to the deity as God and the J writer refers to the deity as YHWH.We also have a difference in referring to the gender of the animals. In the English Bible the words are translated as male and female, but the Hebrew words are different.In Genesis 7:2 the words translated male and female carries the meaning of man and his wife. (J) In Genesis 7:9 the words refer to gender of humans or animals. (P) Each writer is consistent within their own style.Knowing that different sources make up the Torah doesn't detract from the message the writers or the redactor were trying to present to their audiences.It might be a threat to doctrine, but not to God. He already knows what they did.

---

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

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.