to bill moyers:

if you seek evidence that at least some of the bible isn't meant literally, you need look no further than jesus' parables.

he even interpreted the imagery in one, at apostles' request. what clearer message could there be that parables are figurative?

and if they're not literal, why not other passages too?

the first chapter of genesis almost looks as if the writer meant to give us a clue by putting creation of the sun, moon, and stars on day four: how did evening and morning come before the sun existed? how did plants grow on day three?

speaking of which, the next chapter contradicts the first. plants grow on the third day and man gets made on the sixth, but in chapter 2 man is made before plants.

but my favorite nonliteral bible story is chapter 3, the "fall" due to disobeying god by eating the forbidden non-apple.

what is that fruit, anyway?

my guess: ever notice that most trees are named for their fruit? apple tree, orange tree, lemon, peach, cherry, walnut, chestnut.... sure, there are exceptions, but it's usually true.

if the general rule applies to a knowledge of good and evil tree—not just "tree of knowledge"—then the fruit is knowledge of good and evil!

when man and woman eat knowledge of good and evil, it becomes inner knowledge of good and evil: the definition of conscience.

so it's really a story on how we acquired conscience, not a fall at all. god fools us into it and playacts rage when he's actually overjoyed at the success of his scheme, the old trickster!

but perhaps i spoke too soon when i called it "nonliteral." isn't getting meaning from the name of the fruit just another kind of literalness?