Genesis is Metaphorical for goodness sakes!

[InvestigateTruth]

No God did not anounce 'here is a Metaphor' but this the way God speaks, God hides his deep word from the earthy man which we all are and opens it to those with eyes eyes to see. Take the word naked and give it to the world and what do you get.

George Hawton a deep man of God wrote this about naked:

Adam and Eve were both…NAKED! Among all the creatures which God made, man stands out unique…stark naked…which means devoid of true wisdom and knowledge, with his inner nature revealed, opened up, exhibited, and made bare.

Oh, that God may give us understanding to see that to be naked means to have THE FLESH UNCOVERED AND EXPOSED!

In the typology of scripture "the flesh" is the name by which the Holy Spirit designates our outer life of soul and body, our earthly and carnal human nature, literally speaking of that nature which is earthly minded, with its lusts and self-centeredness, its ego and I-will which are in rebellion to the spirit.

Thus, the flesh is not the outward, visible man of meat, muscle, and bones, but the nature of the soulical and bodily man.

This nature was in man from the beginning, else Eve (who was of the man) could not have been tempted, nor could they have sinned!

This nature could be seen to be in them from the time God lowered them out of their pure spirit existence, in the image and likeness of God, investing them with a body of earth so that man became a living soul. But as long as man was caught up in God he was not aware of it — for he was naked and was not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). Have we not all experienced the same thing?

Yes, these interpretations are possible. Have you noticed in some Bible passages 'woman' is symbol of body?

 

[Benoni]

Yes, these interpretations are possible. Have you noticed in some Bible passages 'woman' is symbol of body?

I see women as the soul realm; example would be the Church, the bride of Christ; or in a negative sense Baby-lon the great whore.

Spirit is always masculine, God is always referred to as a man except one example I know of

Manchild…..God is not a sexiest; men and women are all equal in His site. But when God speaks though His Word he uses men as a certain type or pattern and women for another pattern or type.

A man is spiritual speaking is someone who is mature. A good example of this would be in. Rev. 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne

A man is someone mature; a child is someone who has childlike hearing and trust

God is always spoken of as a male, with one exception I know of because God is spirit

 

[Muffled]

I believe there is no evidence that eatiing fruit from a tree brought eternal life and no evidence that it does not. I beleive there is definitely no evidence that the person was speaking metaphorically.

 

[Benoni]

I believe there is no evidence that eatiing fruit from a tree brought eternal life and no evidence that it does not. I beleive there is definitely no evidence that the person was speaking metaphorically.

So refute all of these post with your so called evidence we have been posting with evidence?

 

[Muffled]

The first 11 chapters are probably poetries mixed with bits and pieces of different poetic creation stories that were floating around among tribes of humans. Then organized and copied by priests and writers to read to the people around campfires while looking up at the night sky because the didn't have Jay Leno to watch on TV.

I believe you are probably a blue scaled reptile but I suspect the probablity is very low. I also believe that the probability that these are poetic stories is very low.

I am sad about losing Jay Leno but maybe it is more appropriate that I am watching the History channel shows about ancient aliens.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I see women as the soul realm; example would be the Church, the bride of Christ; or in a negative sense Baby-lon the great whore.

Spirit is always masculine, God is always referred to as a man except one example I know of

Manchild…..God is not a sexiest; men and women are all equal in His site. But when God speaks though His Word he uses men as a certain type or pattern and women for another pattern or type.

A man is spiritual speaking is someone who is mature. A good example of this would be in. Rev. 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne

A man is someone mature; a child is someone who has childlike hearing and trust

God is always spoken of as a male, with one exception I know of because God is spirit

Yes these are good interpretations. One interpretation of Genesis in my view is, Adam is Symbol of Spirit and Eve the natural body. The natural body always tempts to go against the heavenly teachings ( Tree of Life) and causes man to Sin (Tree of good and evil)

 

[Benoni]

Yes these are good interpretations. One interpretation of Genesis in my view is, Adam is Symbol of Spirit and Eve the natural body. The natural body always tempts to go against the heavenly teachings ( Tree of Life) and causes man to Sin (Tree of good and evil)

I see a big connection to the soul and the physical body for Adam and Eve were formed from the "dust of the earth and made a living soul" on the seventh day.

On the other hand God created man and women on the 6th day from His image and likeness. So what is God's image and likeness? Spirit

 

[outhouse]

I see a big connection to the soul and the physical body for Adam and Eve were formed from the "dust of the earth and made a living soul" on the seventh day.

On the other hand God created man and women on the 6th day from His image and likeness. So what is God's image and likeness? Spirit

You misread on purpose?


Does it not say in "OUR" image

 

[Ouroboros]

Some basis (some I found, some I heard from others) used to show Genesis is metaphorical:

It's easy to realize that the "day" concept in Genesis isn't a literal day, but rather a poetic description of a time passed.

Think of time zones. We have day and night, dawn and dusk, 24 hours around the clock on this spherical planet. Which time zone did God create the world in? Greenwich? The whole universe was created in one spot on our planet? Day doesn't make sense. Day must mean "some time". But then again, it went dark. So something is poetic here rather than literal.

 

[outhouse]

It's easy to realize that the "day" concept in Genesis isn't a literal day, but rather a poetic description of a time passed.

Think of time zones. We have day and night, dawn and dusk, 24 hours around the clock on this spherical planet. Which time zone did God create the world in? Greenwich? The whole universe was created in one spot on our planet? Day doesn't make sense. Day must mean "some time". But then again, it went dark. So something is poetic here rather than literal.

The time period was literal. Its why dark and light and day was mentioned. If god is so powerful he could do anything they wanted him too including creation the world in a week and resting on the 7th day.

These people knew nothing of thenatural woprld around them and they literally lived mythology because it was all they knew.

Just like now,not everyone payed attention or took it literally, but many did.


What you need to understand is they were not trying to be accurate in their description, because they didnt know how to be accurate, so they used mythology to explain what they didnt know.

 

[Ouroboros]

The time period was literal. Its why dark and light and day was mentioned. If god is so powerful he could do anything they wanted him too including creation the world in a week and resting on the 7th day.

These people knew nothing of thenatural woprld around them and they literally lived mythology because it was all they knew.

Just like now,not everyone payed attention or took it literally, but many did.


What you need to understand is they were not trying to be accurate in their description, because they didnt know how to be accurate, so they used mythology to explain what they didnt know.

That's true. The authors probably was thinking of days in a literal way. They were very local and didn't know about the spherical Earth. But for a Christian literalist, he can't use that as an explanation since that means the story was written by an author's subjective position, and not a revelation from God. If that part is to be used literal by a literalist, he must explain how God created the universe in a small spot on our planet.

 

[Boyd]

I see death not as physical death but spiritual death. Adam lived to be 930 years old but lost his ability to hear, see, touch God. I am sure there was a glory of God in these years because Adam knew God from his past experence, but he entered the realm of spiritual deatht the moment of the sin

This is a nice personal interpretation; however, it does not fit with a more thorough reading of the text. The story is not meant to be read literally. Interpretations of the text, from early on, have shown this to be true. Even the Christian church, with figures such as Augustine, accepted that the story was not actually literal. This would mean that Adam did not live 930 years, and that he may in fact just be a fictional creation in order to create a story with a message.

The death that is explained here is not a spiritual death. The context makes it clear that what is being talked about is a physical death. To suggest a spiritual death would require adding to the actual text.

Spirit is always masculine, God is always referred to as a man except one example I know of

This is not necessarily true. Spirit, in Hebrew, is feminine.

God is always spoken of as a male, with one exception I know of because God is spirit

Divine Wisdom, which is a personification of G-d, is a woman.

 

[outhouse]

That's true. The authors probably was thinking of days in a literal way. They were very local and didn't know about the spherical Earth. But for a Christian literalist, he can't use that as an explanation since that means the story was written by an author's subjective position, and not a revelation from God. If that part is to be used literal by a literalist, he must explain how God created the universe in a small spot on our planet.

Literalist will pervert Moby Dick

 

[Ouroboros]

Literalist will pervert Moby Dick

Lol!

I fear that in 100 years we'll have a Game of Thrones religion. Some will follow the seven. Some the old gods. Some the one god of fire. Melisandre is real, isn't she?

 

[outhouse]

What if ancient people looked at god as that glow you get inside when thinking happy positive things, yet a powerful entity that would crush your enemies, all because they didnt even know what consciousness was or is, and believed wind was a substance, and thought little people literally ran around inside you.

That is some of the cultural anthropology modern people do not understand about all these ancient writers.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But the Bible does not anounce 'here is a Metaphor'. It has many metaphors but we can find out by analyzing the stories. Jesus also did not say which parts of bible is metaphores. He also said 'I spoke in Figurative language.

St. Augustine in his final confession wrote that Genesis is Figurative and Prophetic. I showed the references in another thread.

That is a thoughtful remark. I like how you said it.

To those who profess to be Christians, I believe Jesus should be appealed to as authority. The Bible presents the accounts of Genesis as historical facts, not metaphors or allegories. The parables or illustrations Jesus used in his teaching does not mean he did not consider Adam and Eve as historical persons. Jesus accepted and taught the Genesis account as historical fact. And he said he existed before Abraham, making him an eyewitness to the events. (John 8:58) as to your reference to the Passover, I don't understand the relevance.

For me the biggest evidence that it isn't literal comes from the corrupt ministers who preach that it is.

Passover is a festival, the most important one. In it is defined a story that parents must tell to their children, verbatim; that they (the parents) were literally slaves in a foreign land and were brought out. Taken literally it is a lie. If they tell the children anything else, then they are breaking the law; so they are telling the children a lie that is only true metaphorically. That makes it a prime example that when Jesus said 'I spoke to them in figures' he meant it. The fact that Jesus mentions Adam and Eve at all is evidence that the story is a metaphor and not literal.

 

[Benoni]

This is a nice personal interpretation; however, it does not fit with a more thorough reading of the text. The story is not meant to be read literally. Interpretations of the text, from early on, have shown this to be true. Even the Christian church, with figures such as Augustine, accepted that the story was not actually literal. This would mean that Adam did not live 930 years, and that he may in fact just be a fictional creation in order to create a story with a message.

The death that is explained here is not a spiritual death. The context makes it clear that what is being talked about is a physical death. To suggest a spiritual death would require adding to the actual text.
This is not necessarily true. Spirit, in Hebrew, is feminine.
Divine Wisdom, which is a personification of G-d, is a woman.

I disagree with what you are saying. Where does it say the story is meant to be read literally; I read very little in the Bible as literal, God is a spirit and His Word is spiritual not literal.

I do not see this as a personal interpretation, there are many agree with me.

I could care less how Augustine accepted that the story for he is just another man and saw the Bible in the Light he was in If you see this as fictional story I also disagree, the whole story is full of deep spiritual symbolism starting with Genesis and ending in Revelation.

I do believe Adam lived to be literally to 930 years, he was created in God’s image and likeness and walked with God in the cool of the day and I am sure God’s glory was upon him far more then you and I because he was so close to God.

Why not spiritual death? Where does the content show us it was physical death??? There were two deaths here in context, the death because of sin; later the death of physical death, if that is not context then what is?

Yes there is scripture to add to the text about death but it is the New Testament which I am sure you are not interested in.

Yes are you speaking of El Shaddai"; I mentioned there was one exception if you read my post. But please enlighten us??
" El ", often translated "God", primarily means "might" or "power." David speaks His Name: "It is El that girdeth me with strength." The revelation of the name "Shaddai" is different. It also expresses power, but it is not the power of violence, but of all-bountifulness.

" Shaddai" means "Breasted", a word formed from the Hebrew word "Shad" meaning "the breast", more specifically, "a woman’s breast". Thus "Shaddai"means "The Pourer or Shedder forth" of blessings both natural and spiritual. This third name shows us His nature as One whose self-sacrificing love gives and pours itself out for others.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe there is no evidence that eatiing fruit from a tree brought eternal life and no evidence that it does not. I beleive there is definitely no evidence that the person was speaking metaphorically.

Thanks for your reply. I don't have anything else, but I think that what "Investigate Truth" said is relevant. The Bible doesn't tell is when things are literal or not, and it clearly has parables and metaphors.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The time period was literal. Its why dark and light and day was mentioned. If god is so powerful he could do anything they wanted him too including creation the world in a week and resting on the 7th day.

These people knew nothing of thenatural woprld around them and they literally lived mythology because it was all they knew.

Just like now,not everyone payed attention or took it literally, but many did.

So you think we should have the courage to accept that the people who found these stories to be important and included them were probably superstitious and backward.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not fully certain as to whether or not Adam and Eve ate the fruit. However, it should be noticed that they never were forbidden to eat that fruit. So it is a possibility that they may have eaten the fruit. Not that it really matters, as the story suggests that they were created as eternal beings.

Death was not in the equation to begin with. Adam, and later Eve, were created as being immortal. It was only later, after they were ejected from the garden, that death entered into the equation. It was being banned from the garden itself that was death.
I agree.
Eating the fruit definitely would have opened their eyes. But it was not in regards to the Law. Whether it is accepted or not that this portion was written before or after the Law itself really is not important in this case. The reason is because the Torah is set out, this story is meant to have occurred before the story of Moses, in which the Law is received. The framework tells us that these events are meant to have happened before the Law was given.

Thanks for your reply. That helps clarify what you meant. So I will take that into consideration. Rather than limit the fruit to being 'The law' I could just let it be fruit that means something. Forcing it to be chronologically before the law is difficult. Partly this is difficult, because for many of the christian views time is flexible. Origin argues that Genesis is time independent. It gets complicated to keep track of the various facets and views that a person can have.