So now we have it...having lost your case on Genesis, you now start to grasp at obvious poetic descriptions of real things elsewhere in the bible. The land of milk and honey was a great place for living. You know, when the spies brought those delicious grapes back to the desert along with the descriptions of abundances seen there, it was wonderful for the folks who had been decades in the wilderness. ot sure if you doubt the pastures were good, or that one could get honey produced there?
So God is a metaphorical God who metaphorically planted a metaphorical garden for a woman metaphorically taken from a metaphorical bone in a metaphorical man that had metaphorical fruit on it that was for metaphorically eating, that would result in a metaphorical death penalty and bring metaphorical curses into the world, all for which Jesus really came and really died to save us from!? Basically you don't believe a word in the bible it seems.
The name suggests nothing of the unbelieving foolish sort to me actually. Eve had no tribe or nation! She was deceived by that old serpent.
No more than is seems likely Jesus died and rose three days, rather than three billions years later.
I do not recall the topic of salvation even being raise once here? But I do believe we are literally saved. Or do you think that is metaphorical also!!?
Hey, I'd head for the hills too if I got literally defeated so ignominiously also perhaps. No problem. You provided a great example of a case for worshiping demon science so devoutly, that one disrespects and disbelieves the bible wholesale and at the same time pays lip service to some supposed belief in God's word.
To summarize then, I take it that you side with science on where the first woman came from, which is the birth canal, rather than Scripture which says it was from an operation of God on a man?
Cheers
having lost your case on Genesis, you now start to grasp at obvious poetic descriptions of real things elsewhere in the bible.
So now you admit that there is
metaphor in the Bible. That's a start at least. This single phrase "A land
flowing with milk and honey", appears no less than 21 times in the KJV bible translation. Every time it is
obviously metaphorical, yet the words literally say this: There
is a land "
Flowing, with milk and honey". Even a literalist like yourself can appreciate that this phrase was deliberately intended by its author to convey something DIFFERENT than it actually literally SAYS. You even admit that the author of this metaphor in at least 15 of those cases is one and the same author of the Genesis account you claim cannot possibly have any metaphorical interpretation.
It seems, that the case for Genesis having possible metaphorical interpretations is far from being lost. In fact The Hebrews and the early church have considered the metaphorical implications in the text ever since they started studying it. As with other biblical texts it is perfectly possible that there is a mythic historical basis for the text, in addition to the metaphorical interpretations of its construction. (mythic here meaning that the actual historical events are clouded by the mists of time and are interpretive and visionary, rather than a written eye witness account of the actual events, as would be expected in a modern court of law.)
I wonder if you actually understand the way in which 'mythic' and 'metaphor' are being used here. You seem to crudely think that
'metaphor' when applied to Genesis ch. 1-5 means it cannot possibly be
'true', yet at the same time
'metaphor' when applied to the same author's work elsewhere in the bible must
not be read 'historically' but only the 'metaphorical' interpretation is allowable, which then
enables it to be 'true'.
Ex.3:8,
Ex.3:17,
Ex.13:5,
Ex.33:3,
Lev.20:24,
Num.13:27,
Num.14:8,
Num.16:13,
Num.16:14,
Deut.6:3,
Deut.11:9,
Deut.26:9,
Deut.26:15,
Deut.27:3,
Deut.31:20,
Josh.5:6. That is wanting to keep your cake after you have eaten it.
Of course there are passages of scripture which are not primarily metaphorical, which should be understood literally, and it is a mistake to 'metaphoricalize' text which the author did not intend originally to be understood metaphorically. There is no absolute guarantee however, given the clues in the narrative itself that Gen. Chs.1-5 are any less capable of being 'metaphorical' in nature than any of the actually metaphorical references by the supposed same author, to "A land
flowing with milk and honey".
.
