Its called cherry picking. Yes some parts of the bible, perhaps a much as 20% were writen eventually ( we don't know about originally ) as poetic metaphors, but you can not use a part to justify the whole.

@Fernapple Yes.
It's also been said that one of the biggest advantages of performing live is that you get to polish your act by learning what works and what doesn't.

They tweaked their show for hundreds of years and what we see today is what survived. They had lots of time to polish their words(tu-ds? Lol).

The bible, when it's not spouting magic, is actually a folklore history of early civilisations.
Note the word - "folklore"

@Petter I have been using the term myth but folklore is better!

And... the thing that’s so odd, is that so many (most, if this site is any indication) atheists take them literally too, the only difference being that they reject them, where the theists accept them. The net result being that the metaphorical truths are lost to just about everyone.

Yet, elsewhere in the Goat-herders Guide to the Galaxy (bible) it clearly states that women are of lesser importance than men, it is quite okay to cause rape and pillage on other cultures/peoples BUT not your own, Slavery and the selling of Slaves is permitted by God, Genocide against Non-Hebrew peoples is quite permissable and completely condoned, OH, and let us NOT forget that Poligamy IS, was until it was outlawed by the American Government, encouraged by the Mormon ( Moron ) Leaders.

@Triphid The Mormons wanted statehood, but the price for Utah's acceptance was a 'new revelation' that polygamy was passé.

@p-nullifidian Hence polygamy was made illegal then.
Though it is STILL practised by a few isolated sects of Mormonism.

@Triphid What you are referring to was standard Bronze/Iron Age practice. It is not bible specific.

@Geoffrey51 No, well explain to everyone why the Mormons has polygamy as a mainstay of their belief system from the times of Joseph Smith, etc, then.

@Triphid That a LDS dictat. They can do what they like so long as it is consensus and legal. It has nothing to do or with Bronze Age history

@Geoffrey51 As far as historical records show, polygamy was practised by those who could well afford it, i.e. the Elite of the social orders.
Monogamy was more a thing practised by lower classes of the Social Order,though the Romans, until Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian ( later to be known as Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus) enacted, tried to enact I should say, his MORAL Codes for ALL Romans in an effort to put a stop the Elites and their practises of having 1 wife and numerous 'lovers,' having sexual intercourse with slaves of any gender, etc, etc.
I know quite well of the LDS dictat re-Polygamy btw.

Jonah and the Wale discovered paradise in Southern Africa!

I agree

"Secondly. Since it is possible to Cherry pick anything you want from a mess like the bible, to support any view you like, even if taken literally, it becomes truly meaningless if taken metaphorically. Yet that does not stop people using it as a higher authority to support their own inventions, which is the main problem with 'holy' books. The metaphorical view, is, to use a metaphor, 'Gods gift' , to the fundamentalists, and the corner stone of their anti-humanism."
my argument here would be that an interpretation that is in error at one passage will obviously contradict other passages, and generally speaking the orig interpreter will display denial at that point, to reinforce their lack of vision maybe? And fwiw imo the Bible is written like that on purpose perhaps, that hypocrites may be revealed?

"Thirdly. Many of the more honest metaphorical interpretations are truly evil, even more so than the literal. Ruth for example which metaphorically says, that women are only happy and successful if they are subservient."
not sure why you deem that "truly evil," even nature seems to have placed women in a physically subservient role? Doesnt mean that they have no sway whatever, does it? Nor that many women might even prefer that setup?

"Fourth. It make a nonsense of the bible as literature, and the understanding of it as such. Since it was written by many different authors over a long period and for many different reasons, it therefore almost certainly includes a lot of different genre, some of which should not be taken metaphorically. At least, some metaphor, (Genesis ) political propaganda, ( eg. Kings, Exodus, Chronicles) some imaginative fiction, ( eg. Ruth, Job ) some attempts at genuine law writing, ( eg. leviticus ), Religious propaganda, (eg. Isaiah ) some forgeries and attempts at deliberate deception, ( I would say all the NT, or at least Paul ), poetry ( Psalms, ) etc. etc. The metaphorical view is as narrow and fundamentalist as the totally literal."
might be best to hold on to the one and not let go of the other, perhaps; and after all we are painly told that Paul is easy to misunderstand, they read Paul to their destruction
also wisdom is hidden from the wise, which i suspect means that literal readers are deceived

I think many religious these days take Jesus out of his historical setting. By ‘historical’, I mean history as written in the Bible. Maybe I should say he is taken out of the narrative in the OT that is supposed to lead up to him. Leaving a kind of Gnostic Jesus. The archetype of archetypes, being all principle with no history. The Genesis story is then a millstone around their necks because the thrust of scripture is that the sinful state of man arising from the Fall is solved by a Redeemer:

For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ – Romans 5:17.

I think the religious would like to have it both ways – that Christ is a Redeemer but we are the product of evolution and Genesis is an allegory, leaving me to smile at the idea of Christ dying for an ape.

@brentan Many people find it hard to understand the Bible and books like it from the past , because the teaching of history today is generally so bad that very few people have any apreciation of historical context. The many people who have the idea that book copists in the past had a modern view of acedemic accuracy, and that they copied faithfully. Where in fact giving it a new spin, to fit your sponsors views was seen as the highest of skills, and new interpritations were seen as inspired. While plagiarization was not a crime but also a much admired skill.

@Fernapple That's very true. I came across it first with Shakespeare, where people were complaining that he was a plagiarist. There's a word for the craft of re-creating existing works but I can't remember what it is.

I agree but would go a bit further. I think the NT writers created the fiction of the life of Jesus to fit the OT stories.

@brentan I agree with you completely. Although I do believe he existed as a northern Israel rabbi, his true message was nearly completely lost through misinterpretation by later church leaders. Its pretty clear that he mainly opposed both the leadership at the temple, of which he was probably a distant cousin, and the pharisee belief in the oral "Wisdom of the Elders" which later became the Talmud. After that, who knows what he actually taught.

@Seminarian Sorry but there could NEVER have a "northern Israeli Rabbi" anywhere prior to 1946-1948 because Israel was 100% non-existent until then.

Eli, Eli... contemplated in the context of No Son of Man may die for another's sins seems to take on a different meaning, imo. Is it possible the whole concept of a sacrifice is being trashed by that question? I will never leave you nor forsake you

@brentan "Jesus of Nazareth" seems to equal "John Doe, from Nowhere" in rabbi-speak, as supported elsewhere, possibly

@Triphid not all who are born Israel are of Israel
may i suggest that Israel, Incorporated has nothing whatsoever to do with the Israel of the Bible
besides tricking the gullible i mean

@bbyrd009 In ancient times the Hebrews were regarded, derogatorily, by every other nation/culture as being Ishraeli or Ishraelae, as well preserved Egyptian Stelae and Papyri show ever so often, PLUS numerous records from Assyrian, Hitite, Greek and other cultures as well.
The name 'Ishraei/Ishraelae literally means ' the ones who cannot be trusted, the thieves who come in the night, those who seek succor but never give succor, they who will not work in return for succor and many, many more besides including 'Sand Vipers, Sand Scorpions and even the 2 legged Hyenas.'

@Triphid hey, the NT is, after all, a record of the implosion of a Theocracy? And imo your perspective there is plainly recorded in the story of Esau, and other stories. "Baptizing ppl in the Jordan" is sedition in a theocracy, right?

@bbyrd009 Perhaps Son of Man and John Doe are the same idea?

All this insistence the Buy Bull should be read "metaphorically" to me reaks of trying to pretend the magic sky daddy is real after all.

so who's insisting?
@Normanbites

@bbyrd009 The author of the article for one and several comments seem to agree. You couldn't figure that out on your own?

@Triphid The north was known as Israel and the south was Judah The dominant tribe of Israel was Ephraim and Judah was Judah

@Seminarian Sorry but there was ONLY ever Judae and Galilee in the time when the mythical Messiah was assumed to have been born, the rest was known as Canaan, Moab, etc, etc, since we ARE speaking of the times from the supposed and very mythical Exodus, which never happened btew as Archaeological records have clearly shown, and Egypt ruled from the Nile Valley through to Kadesh on the border with the REAL Hitite Empire, NOT the biblical Hitites btw, during that period as well.

@bbyrd009 To whose 'Theocracy' are you referring, the Hebrew or the Roman.
The Roman rule over Judaea and Galilee was not a Theocracy, perse, but an Imperial Rule under the Emperors of the Roman Empire AFTER Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus ( previously known as Octavian) became the first Emperor of Rome.

@Triphid Well Moab was an area south of Jerusalem and it is true that most of the area was known as Canaan at one point. Its also true that the Northern Kingdom was never homogeneous which is why Canaanites are still mentioned in the bible. However, ask any bible scholar (including Christie Hayes of Harvard and Bart Ehrman et.al.) and they will tell you that Israel was the name of the Northern Kingdom which fell to the Babylonians decades before Judah or Judea,. further the Galilee was merely the Easternmost region of the Northern Kingdom which is, of course, where the Sea of Galilee derives its name from. Your Egyptian/ Hittite info is correct but is a of a slightly earlier period. The Hebrew Dan tribe of Israel was nowhere near the Galilee and archeologists have excavated that area extensively, just as an example.

@Seminarian You ARE attempting to "preach to the Choir" here since I do have a Doctorate Degree in Theology AND comparative Modern Religions, a ThD to be exact hence my 'screen name here being 'Triphid ), plus a Degree in Ancient History specializing in the Mediterranean and Eastern Mediterranean regions as well.
Ancient Egypt ruled over the lands from the Nile Valley through to Kadesh right up until the time of Tutankhamun and the failed invasion of Egypt by the Matanni Kingdom and still ruled the lands, though a little less 'imperially' when Alexander the Great came along.
The downfall of Egypt came later into reign of the Ptolemy Dynasty and their involvement with Rome.
The 'city' of Jerusalem was not established, nor an actual city, until prior to the assumed reign of King David btw.
So-called 'biblical' Archaeologists are world renowned for putting a bent on findings to suit their religiously based needs, ergo their 'findings' can be 'taken with a grain of salt' by the true and REAL Archaeologists.

@Triphid so then the hebrew one eh

@bbyrd009 I don't pay any attention to Biblical archeologists. I do know the traditional biblical timeline is off, this could be the source of our confusion. I don't think we are in disagreement. I think your Theological back ground may have caused you to make assumptions about mine though. However I believe the area we are discussing was known a Samuria during the period of the Hittite and Egyptian dominance of the area. This was pre- biblical times according to modern archaeologists. Also Jerusalem was established before King Davids time although it was far from a great city. Your views do seem to match up pretty well with Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University but his views are controversial at this point.. I am sorry to have to your contradict your theory about Egypt ruling the area, (unless you mean that the unified northern and southern kingdoms were a client state of Egypt, I could go along with that I guess) up until the time of Alexander. You've forgotten about the Babylonian and Persian Empires that immediately proceeded Alexander. i am sure that was merely an oversight on your part.

@Seminarian Sumaria was an entirely different region to what is now called Israel and Palestine.
Ancient Egypt had an accord with Babylon, Persia and Assyria, then later there was a Peace treaty drawn up between Egypt and the hitite Empire when Ramses the Great was on the Egyptian throne ( check REAL historical records IF you don't believe me).
I do NOT make assumptions and never made assumptions whilst studying for any of the Degrees I have earned.
I was taught from a very young age to learn with an open mind, listen carefully, ask questions and expect answers in return, researching EVERYTHING and anything for and by myself, weighing up the Pros and the Cons, sorting Facts from Fallacies and then making my own decisions based on the evidence before me.

@Triphid Yes you are correct. The Sumer empire of which I was referring was earlier that the Hittites and it covered the entire region. It existed around 6000 years ago..Well before the time period we are discussing. . The Hittite empire maps all refer to the area as Canaan. I am familiar with the accords you are referring to.

@Triphid "since we ARE speaking of the times from the supposed and very mythical Exodus, which never happened btew as Archaeological records have clearly shown"
fwiw i suggest that the exodus myth was a stylized story about the invention of vowels, YHWH, or AEOU in english, which made reading and writing available to all. One must still "cross the sea of reeds" which is imo a different concept, but the "exodus" was likely from the egyptian wisdom school?

@bbyrd009 Have you read 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed by Eric H. Cline ? Pretty convincing explanation of why the tribe known as the Habaru, as well as other tribes, migrated out of Egypt, Not like the Biblical story though. The migration occurred much later and in much smaller numbers, and over a greater period of time as well. He also tells the story of the earlier invasion of Egypt by those same tribes. He's a good writer and supports his theories with archaeological evidence.

@Seminarian "Dates for the beginning of the Bronze Age Collapse range from 1250 to 1186 to 1177 BCE" hmm tks ill read it
and i suspect that the Bible mythology @ "exodus" is actually a pretty accurate synopsis of one of the (at least) secondary reasons for the BAC--only in code--that being that the elites lost their grip on their information technology with the invention of vowels, YHWH (Which is actually a bad transliteration i guess, for us it should read AEOU) thanks for the tip!

cross the Sea of Reeds, etc (not "Red Sea" i guess)

@bbyrd009 Since egyptians often spoke of a 'sea of reeds' situated between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea as a crossing point from Egypt to the Middle East, approx. where the Suez Canal meets the Mediterranean Sea near Port Said, then yes that bit is quite factual, BUT, the biblical 'Exodus' myth is just that, a myth, fairy story and nothing more or less.
And, the only 'departures of Hebrews' from Egypt actually recorded are the very regular ones of them leaving AFTER they'd availed themselves of the bounties provided by Egyptian agriculture during times of drought and famine in the Middle East and the Expulsion of one Hebrew Mercenary, named Mosheh, and 600 Hebrrew men, women and children from Goshen where they paid by the King of Egypt, Ramses the Great, to guard and protect the Goshen township and entry point to Egypt BUT they instead decided to resort to their ages old methods of Extortion, Slave Trading, Arson, Caravan Robbing, Raping and Pillaging and under Egyptian Law, them being foriegners they could NOT be executed BUT could be Expelled and Exiled permanently.
As they exited Egypt via the REED Sea and crossed the lands into the Middle East they not only continued on with their criminal activities BUT also plundered and destroyed the caches of water and food supplies that the Egyptians had placed at regularly daily intervals as reserve supplies for Caravans and the like, caches known in Egyptian as " Mannuha
Raa" and translated by the Hebrews into the words "Manna from Heaven."

So, what you're trying to tell us is that,

1. a talking wolf decides he want a pork dinner, goes after 3 pigs, huffs and puffs and blows down 2 of their 3 houses, or,
2. A wolf decides to eat an elderly lady, dress in her bed-clothes, waiting until her Grandaughter visits and then tries to eat her as well,
3. and let's get into Greek mythology here for a change shall we, a child is born as a demigod to a human woman, the ONLY way this demigod can be killed is by cutting or shooting an arrow through his Achilles tendon,
4. we can get 'biblical' here, a man is stronger than any other man BUT he must NEVER cut his and should his long hair be cut he becomes as weak as a kitten,
5. and still on the 'biblical theme here, a woman and her family are fleeing from the 'destruction' of a city brought about by God, she turns to look back and, VOILA, she becomes a Pillar of Salt,
   Geez Louise, @starwatcher, I could cite countless myths and legends here BUT none of them have a grain of truth and fact within them.

@TheMiddleWay You got it. Altho I remember talking dogs on the Carson tonight show, so a wolf?

@starwatcher-al Yeah I had a Blue Heeler that would 'talk' to me but he always used a kind of canine language though, never any language ever spoken by humans.

@Triphid But you sometimes could understand what he wanted, right? So he was communicating and hoping that you'd get it.

@starwatcher-al Yeah but mostly in his actions, e.g. when everytime HE thought it was time to take a break from what ever I was doing, make a coffee, etc, so he could have his own coffee to drink while I had mine.
But as for comprehending his canine language I'd have to say not.

@starwatcher-al, @TheMiddleWay It seems to me that, as is your usual style of responding imo, you select ONLY a point that suits your purpose BUT skirt around everything else.
Why is that?
Could it be, perhaps, that you harbour so innate phobia that if you step off of the white centre line of the road you travel you may actually discover things that prove your conceptions to be wrong?
So what exactly are your takes on my comments 3), 4) and 5) ?

@TheMiddleWay Sir, I was by no means " making a personal dig, a little adHominum."
Neither was I "making it personal" as you imply.
But, imo, you seem to want ONLY to see the one side/aspect of any subject and only that aspect that suits your ideology/ideologies best.
Logic will tell anyone that "to discuss/debate a matter/subject then it must, ultimately, be discussed/debated from ALL angles, Ideologies/aspects equally, evenly and from all sides together."

@TheMiddleWay Oh, my friend, may one most humbly suggest that you "try climbing down from your 'cross' for a while," after all, someone somewhere may just need the firewood.

Not quite. They had at least 3 sons. A good idea can by gained by looking up Noah, the tenth patriarch, on Wikipedia and then scrolling down to his family tree.
The BIG question then emerges. How did humankind reproduce after the great flood?
I tell you, a Swiss cheese is thick and solid in comparison!

Here's a couple of verses to clarify the situation. And no, I don't take it literally!

Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth. 
And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood - Genesis 7:6,7. 
.... who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ark was being built. In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water - 1 Peter 3:20.

@Petter Lets get reel. Who in history has been recorded at 600 years of age let alone was able to construct an Ark with the dimensions and find the lumber, cut and fit accordingly. Listen to me 'The Titanic sunk to the bottom' All the way non stop. The New Testament was written 300 years after B.C by four crude ignorant illiterate fisherman. That fact is historically documented.
Your turn.

@Nevermind345 Didn't you read the final sentence of my post? I shall re-quote it.
"I tell you, a Swiss cheese is thick and solid in comparison."
Emmenthal, the most famous of Switzerland's cheeses, is riddled with holes!

Good we can begin our debate again, this is the coment I placed at the top.
Yes a lot of the Bible should be read metaphorically.
There are however several problems with reading it all that way.

Firstly, Any book can be read metaphorically, and a lot of them, like Winnie The Pooh, are far better.

Secondly. Since it is possible to Cherry pick anything you want from a mess like the bible, to support any view you like, even if taken literally, it becomes truly meaningless if taken metaphorically. Yet that does not stop people using it as a higher authority to support their own inventions, which is the main problem with 'holy' books. The metaphorical view, is, to use a metaphor, 'Gods gift' , to the fundamentalists, and the corner stone of their anti-humanism.

Thirdly. Many of the more honest metaphorical interpretations are truly evil, even more so than the literal. Ruth for example which metaphorically says, that women are only happy and successful if they are subservient.

Fourth. It make a nonsense of the bible as literature, and the understanding of it as such. Since it was written by many different authors over a long period and for many different reasons, it therefore almost certainly includes a lot of different genre, some of which should not be taken metaphorically. At least, some metaphor, (Genesis ) political propaganda, ( eg. Kings, Exodus, Chronicles) some imaginative fiction, ( eg. Ruth, Job ) some attempts at genuine law writing, ( eg. leviticus ), Religious propaganda, (eg. Isaiah ) some forgeries and attempts at deliberate deception, ( I would say all the NT, or at least Paul ), poetry ( Psalms, ) etc. etc. The metaphorical view is as narrow and fundamentalist as the totally literal.

Fifth. It has been rewritten mistranslated so many times, that any original metaphors are lost , yet that does not stop people making the mistake of thinking they can possess the original metaphors, or concluding that they can prove certain metaphorical views, and that that metaphor was the intention of the originators. Typical of this is that the author Bridget Spain , presents the usual fall from grace, original sin, Christian view of the creation myth, which was created to justify the blood sacrifice of Christ, but is without a doubt completely at odds with the original Hebrew reading of it.

@Fernapple
You should probably stay away from it. It might steal your soul.