The Persuasive Power of Religious Metaphor in Selected Qur’anic and Biblical Verses: Ontological, Structural and Orientational

The issue of identifying metaphors is not clear-cut in most religious texts (Charteris-Black, 2005). For metaphors that are dealt with by religious texts such as human life as a journey or as a game, a prayer as a flowing river, the living martyrs (the living dead), a taste of death, the journey of the dead and “die, yet shall he live” are mostly spiritual matters for which academic appraisal is essential (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Gibbs, 2008). That is, the quality of the explanations that are presented by such metaphors need an intensive investigation, because these are the key function of metaphor in religious texts. Moreover, metaphors in sacred texts may be misjudged due to: the absence of the image in the target language and the different symbolic meanings of metaphor in the source text. Therefore, we aim to tackle such a problem via analysing the different forms and functions of metaphors in selected Qur‟anic and Biblical verses. To operate such metaphorical analysis, a two-dimensional model is adapted from two different discourse analysts: aI-Sakaaki (2000) and Lakoff & Johnson (1980). The study reveals how the persuasive power of metaphor in the Qur‟anic and Biblical verses related are regulated around the diversity of ontological, structural and orientational forms, and how every correlation between two domains of metaphors can shape its functions.


12
of words. Rather, it is pervasive in everyday life, in our thoughts and actions and in our ordinary conceptual system (p.3).
The above definitions show a vital mark as having explanations for the used metaphorical expression particularly: identifying metaphors is not clear enough in rhetoric, poetics or even language used by ordinary people. For most arisen metaphors caused by relations in regard to meaning which are represented as a shift in the use of any selected word from one context to another (Charles-Black, 2005). To illustrate, the common example of metaphor is "God is the Father" which is considered as something principle for Christians but the question is that does this metaphorical expression mean literally that God is the father of people or the relation between God and people is compared to this between a father and a child? Metaphorical analysis may require that the word "God" should take the prototypical traits of a father such as providing the physical and spiritual needs for his children and saving his children from danger. Similarly, the explanation may depend on the system of belief for the metaphor receivers. Thus, those who believe and those who are not may be different according to the extent that is seen by them for such a metaphor. For the believers in God, their tension will be greater regarding relations of semantic aspects than those who are not considered as believers who believe in literal interpretation. Soskice (1985) assumes that the metaphorical reference is figured out due to the contextual utterances represented by the speaker"s intention.
For example, assuming that a religious metaphor about a sower is meant through the context of everyday life, there is a literal meaning; however, when an interpretation into the religious context is occurred, the metaphorical meaning will be clearly shown. Another thing is that the metaphor recipient who recognizes the existed tension between language form and its meaning will determine the right interpretation. So, Recognition of such tension will be different according to the individuals. In such away, the topic of identifying metaphor is not probable to be resolved since it depends on metaphor interpretation and this is a problematic issue for divergence represented by personal spiritual experience. Gibbs, 2001). Suggests that understanding religious metaphor in in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is more complicated process than understanding literal sentences. For instance, life is a 'journey' or 'a pastime' or 'a game' is a common metaphor in both religious books since 'life' is compared to the concept of 'journey' or 'a pastime' or 'a game'; however, life is not considered literally a journey or a game in reality. This use of metaphor entails that in real life, there will always be 13 some people living good and bad times or facing ups and downs in their life Searle (1979), as a first step, focuses on the priority of literal meaning. He adds that the need for non-literal meaning needs to be taken into consideration, if the literal one does not make sense in the context. Newmark (1988) deems that to apprehend metaphors is to consider their meaning against their linguistic and cultural ones. Knowles and Moon (2006, p.75) state that 'context-based' and 'textbased' methods can provide better help in appreciating the meanings of metaphors. For example, when Jesus tells Martha that "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he dies, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die" (John 11.25). If we need to explain the paradox found in "though he dies, yet shall he live", it will not be possible without making a reference to the 'context-based' method to grasp the metaphorical use of the text. The word "die" here has two meanings: literal and metaphorical as it depends on the context of making a spiritual issue looks like a physical one (Charteris -Black, 2005).
Notwithstanding, it seems that It is not so vital to recognize what is literal and metaphorical since the task becomes more difficult when a researcher needs to recognize what is intended beyond the metaphorical meaning itself. Hence, these words which are attributed to Jesus Christ validate that understanding metaphors requires going beyond the literal which is vital to religious thought and its spiritual ideas.
Therefore, building on Johnson's (1980) andal-Sakaaki's (2000) theories, this study is in regard to applying both cognitive and linguistic views of metaphor theory to the selected Qur'anic and Biblical verses. Nonetheless, we hope that the application of such an approach can deliver cherished views. Thus, the overall aim of this paper is to provide the rhetorical and linguistic creativity of the Bible and the Qur'an via applying the cognitive theory of metaphor. These metaphors are identified in the selected Qur'anic and biblical verses as persuasive tools for both Muslims and Christians. They are used to persuade both sides to have trust, relief and faith in God and, concurrently, to strengthen their faith in God. This paper is mainly concerned with applying a cognitive and linguistic view of metaphor theory as conceived by Johnson (1980) andal-Sakkaki (2000) to the Bible and the Qur'an with reference to the diversity of ontological, structural and orientational forms. The study grounds itself on the need to identify and interpret the metaphorical functions and meanings of the Bible and the Qur'an verses in depth. Besides, the requirement for studying metaphors in religious texts has been determined according to the need to infer religious principles and commandments from the sources on a comprehensive basis (El-Sharif, 2011). Thus, the paper outlines the metaphorical functions by which one can consider the two famous religious books of Qur'an and Bible not only as religious books of moral teachings, but also as a rhetorical marvel for Christians and Muslims. Therefore, metaphorical language establishes an indispensable cognitive tool in religious discourse.
a. Theoretical Views on Metaphor Analysis in English Language There are two common types of meanings in English language which factual or objective meaning and figurative or associative meaning "al-majaaz". Whereas the first type denotes can determine the accurate and objective meanings, al-majaaz indicates the associative meanings of a figurative expression which has to do with individual mental understandings of the speaker's words. Within the context of associative meanings, metaphorical language has been valued in Arabic religious discourse (the Qur'an) regularly for its rhetorical significance, although early Arab philologists did not perceive it as a crucial form of language (El-Sharif, 2011). In such a way, the Islamic religious discourse regarded metaphorical language as a supportive ornamental feature for centuries. This is particularly if the aim of metaphors is to involve debates and arguments which focus on attracting the discourse recipient's consideration. AI-Sakaaki (2000, pp. 481-498) states that metaphor in Arabic language can be mainly divided into explicit metaphor (teshriheyah) "thou mayest bring forth mankind from the shadows to the light by the leave of their Lord (14:1)" and implicit metaphor (mekaniyah) as in "and lower to them the wing of humbleness out of mercy (17:24). However, he proposes that these two types can be classified further into eight types: explicit and definite metaphor such as the sarcastic metaphor; imaginative and definite metaphor such as the claws of death; explicit and probable metaphor for reality and imagination as in "God let it (unthankful city) taste the garment of hunger and of fear (16:112)"; metaphor by way of substitution, metonymy and allusion as in take the reins of your life in your hands or as in "God's hand is over their hands (48:10)"; the original metaphor as in her love is clean white or she died with a clear conscience; the derived metaphor as in "Shuaib, does thy prayer command thee that we should leave that our fathers served, or to do as we will with our goods? Thou art the clement one, the rightminded (11:87)"; "tejridiay" metaphor or topical metaphor as in I talked to a sea (a man) whose (knowledge) of sciences is so intense and "tershihiya" metaphor as in we all live by such a full sea whose waves are still crashing. -Jurjani (2001, pp.31-33) divides the metaphor into what is useful and useless or significant and insignificant. What he means by insignificant metaphor is the one intended by the speaker to fulfil a desire or to express and expand the semantic qualities or sense relations only. That is such a metaphor does not convey or add a new understanding for it counts on the synonymy of a pair of words, the borrowed and the borrowed for. For instance, the word 'al-meshafar' (camel's lip) indicates the same referent as in the word 'al-shefeh' (the lip), but the one and only difference between the two is that the first refers to an animal's lip, and the second refers to human lip. As for the significant metaphor, the purpose is analogous to its many aspects. For example, we say that 'we saw a lion', but we mean a 'courageous man" which is an exaggeration in describing the meaning of courage. The same person who hears this metaphor conjures up the suggestive image of the lion in his blood, his feet, his bones, and his strength and the other meaning is inherent in nature, which leads to boldness and courage. Al-Rumani (1976, p.85) discussed the metaphor as a trope that has a close relation to simile. Metaphor in his view is a combination of two things via a shared meaning between them that can interpret each of the two in ways of a certain form of comparison or simile. Al-Ramani states that every metaphor has a truth defining the metaphor as an act of explaining or showing it by using the phrase or the clause in a manner other than that which is laid out in the original language. He holds that, in Arabic language, there are three components that constitute a metaphor like: the borrowed which is the borrowed lexical item taken from the borrowed -form and given to the borrowed-to, the borrowed-from which is identical to the likened element in simile and the borrowed-to this which is equivalent to the likened-to sin a simile (p. 86). For instance, in "my head is all aflame with hoariness" (Q 19:4), the borrowed will be the fire, the borrowed-from is the verb form of fire and the borrowed-to is the head.

AI
However, aI-Jurjani"s and al-Rumani's works do not differ from al-Sakaaki's visions. Their theories are regarded to be built on the fusion of both the 'topic' and the 'vehicle'. Both believe that a metaphor can be concluded in case one of the two elements of similarity enters the level of the vehicle so that it becomes a member of that category. AI-Zemkhshari (1986) finds out that the purpose of the metaphor is to explain the meaning of the word, to express it, to confirm it, to exaggerate it, or to refer to it. It is an essential rhetorical device in the language of the Qur'an which comprises almost all wordplay. For instance, the Quran uses certain tropes to clarify specific terms such as 'al-jannah' or paradise, 'al naar" or hell, 'al-Sai'ah' or the Day of Judgment and 'al-kursi' or God's Throne. Some of these terms are beyond the powers of the human thoughts. For behind these terms lies a power that cannot be totally comprehended by the human thoughts. For this reason, such terms have been clarified via using specific expressions in which the human mind can realize such as ontological metaphors in form of abstract notions.
In the light of the former studies and views, there has been little contribution about Arabic Qur'anic metaphors in relation to the Biblical Ones. Despite many studies have been carried out in this field, it can be said that most of these contributions have been inspired by the classical theories of metaphors introduced by Lakoff & Johnson (1980), Lakoff & Tuner (1989), Lakoff (1988) and Lakoff (2008). However, the cognitive approach to metaphor is being used here not only because cognitive metaphors are present in the Qur'an and the Bible but also because of the use of creative imagination for these conceptual metaphors. The application of the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor will reveal how such metaphors are used creatively, as it is built on dichotomy or contrast of life and death, good and bad and how they are widely used to cover a broader aspect of human life, i.e., life after physical death (the afterlife/hereafter).

b. Functions of Metaphor
The functions of metaphor have been consistently studied and analyzed within the structure of rhetoric and linguistics, but major functions have been more related to studies on figurative language. For metaphors have a consequential influence on the poetic oddity of a literary work. This is due to literary works depend on the imaginative use inferred to metaphor by its narrators. Searle (1979) focuses on the literal meaning as a first step to understand metaphor functions. He assures that the non-literal meaning will be in need whenever the literal meaning does not make sense in the context. This is because of the pragmatic function adopted by Searle that metaphor has a pragmatic function since it tackles what is intended by the speaker rather than the semantic reference of the words told by the speaker. The same view was followed by Levinson (1983) as he mentions that metaphor has a function that cannot be derived by analytical norms of semantic interpretation, but by pragmatics which provides a reasonable metaphorical interpretation. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) believe that metaphors are "not used to structure part of our normal conceptual system but as a new way of thinking about something". An example for such function is the metaphorical expression "a grief ago" used by Dylan Thomas to express the passing of time in terms of an emotional state. This notion was developed in their later works such as Lakoff & Tuner (1989), Lakoff (1988Lakoff ( , 1993 and Lakoff (2008). For example, Lakoff and Turner (1989, p. xi), present a special cognitive function by asserting that using metaphor is more like an element of daily experience or everyday life than it is purely a matter of language. For them, metaphor is a tool that human beings use so ordinary and they often operate it unconsciously and automatically. They find out that metaphor is matchless since it allows people to understand themselves and their world in ways that no other cognitive modes of thoughts can.
On the other hand, Sadock (1993) and other linguists criticize the cognitive semantics as he finds it an inadequate approach to provide an accurate account of metaphor analysis. For he argues that metaphor is beyond the scope of semantics as "it relies on conflict between what is said and what is intended" (p. ll0). With much focus on pragmatics, Charteris-Black (2004) concludes that the main function for a metaphor is "meaning transfer". He considers it a tool via which challenging rhetorical "meanings are transferred" (2004, p.l9). Using metaphor as a "medium of transfer" aids him to develop a rhetorically based approach to analyse political speeches and religious rhetoric metaphor known as Critical Metaphor Analysis. Knowles and Moon (2006:75) believe that "context-based" and "text-based" methods can be used to differentiate between literal and metaphorical meanings. These methods examine how data in the context specifies that language is either metaphorical or literal and what kind of meaning speakers/readers give in regard to metaphor. Thus, to differentiate between literal and metaphorical meaning, Knowles and Moon (ibid) think that the context is used as a tool to help one recognize the intended meaning. For instance, with the expression "Peter is a lion", the context makes it clear whether the debate associates to a person or an animal.
Alternatively, Murray & Moon (2006) consider metaphor to be a sort of artistic enhancement that is isolated from everyday language. Methodologically, the authors move against the background of the conceptual metaphor theory of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) which is one of the most influential theories of metaphor. For them, metaphor is considered as the use of language to point to something other than what it originally claimed on, or literally means, for the purpose of suggesting some comparability or to connect between the two things.
To summarize the functions of metaphor, Saeed (2007) states that there are two traditional views relating to the study of the metaphor: the classical view and the romantic view. First, the classical view holds metaphor to be "decorative and does not relate the metaphor to thought". Secondly, the romantic view of the metaphor considers the metaphor as a central part to thought and as a way of experiencing the world.
Recently, the classic model of conceptual metaphor analysis for Lakoff and Johnson (1980) was expanded over Musolff (2016). Musolff uses metaphor analysis to critically examine the variation, historicity, pragmatic exploitation and interpretation of metaphors in political speeches and media. As a central new analytical function, the idea of "metaphor scenario" is proposed and tested against various political dataset. It allows him to link hypothesized conceptual metaphors to narrative and argumentative patterns in actual discourse.

Methodology
In this paper, we take a cognitive approach to the identification of metaphor types and functions in different religious texts (Arabic and English). This means that we investigate the multidimensional meanings of the metaphors in the religious texts of the Qur'an and the Bible. Adopting such a multidimensional approach by using al-Sakaaki"s (2000) and Lakoff & Johnson's (1980) theories has several consequences for the way in which we operationalize our metaphor analysis. First of all, it implies that a cognitive discourse approach can identify cases of persuasive metaphor in two complicated religious texts and in different contexts. Secondly, the multidimensional framework can identify cases of potentially literal and non-literal or deliberate and non-deliberate metaphors. Thirdly, since the study is assigned to shows how the cognitive theory of metaphor helps greatly reveal the rhetorical creativity of the Qur'an and the Bible, such a cognitive approach is utilized as a critical awareness of particular metaphors within different languages and cultures.
This paper is wholly dedicated to the metaphor analysis for selected verses taken from the Qur'an (such as The Cow) and the Bible (Job and Psalms in the Old Testament and Matthew and John in the New Testament).All examples of the Qur'an are cited from the English translation done in http://corpus.quran.com by different official translators such as Arthur John Arberry and Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Ali's and Arberry's translations are perhaps considered the most popular translation that stand as major achievements in this field.With reference to the verses from the Bible, the researcher is using the standard English translation used for academic study is the NRSV, the New Revised Standard Version in particular the Oxford annotated Bible which is widely used in major universities. It has the great advantage of being translated by people with a wide variety of theological viewpoints, rather than sectarian translations and of being 19 modem and thus based on an up-to-date set of manuscript traditions. We have decided to choose religious verses of equal lengths from the Bible (Old and the New Testaments) and the Qur'an. That is why, the Book of Job and the first verses of the Book of Psalms for the Old Testament and the gospels of Matthew and John for the New Testament are chosen. The reason behind choosing these books was because an initial dose reading revealed extensive evidence of metaphor and also that it was central to the meaning.

Theoretical Framework
The researcher has chosen al- Sakaaki's (2000) and Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) cognitive theories as they were among the first Arabic and English theorists to justify that the metaphorical language maintains a critical position in any language, culture and religion. For example, al-Sakaaki (2000) believes that metaphorical language forms a vital linguistic tool in the religious discourse of the Qur'an. Similarly, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) maintain that metaphors can be taken as an echo of the linguistic and social manners of religious culture. Another thing is that the cultural background of the religious discourse addressees is considered as an important aspect in which metaphor is based on.

Figure 1 Theoretical Framework Adapted from al-Sakaaki (2000) and Lakoff & Johnson (1980)
As in the figure above, it is vital to note that Lakoff and Johnson (1980) consider every metaphor to employ two domains. The source domain and the target domain. Source domain denotes the equivalent 20 figurative meaning or the concept that one draws upon in order to create the metaphorical construction. As for the target domain, it is the topic or concept that one wants to describe via the metaphor.
Their key view is that there are three types of metaphor from the cognitive perspective: structural, orientational, and ontological (p.5). Structural conceptual metaphors are considered by them as the group with the highest number. In this kind of conceptual metaphor, complicated and abstract experiences are conceptualized based on the experience of simple and specific experiences. In orientational conceptual metaphor, a system of ideas is organized in the relation and interaction in space like up-down, inside-out, front-behind, shallow-deep, etc. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) called this group the orientational metaphor because they are related to the orientation in space.
Thirdly, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) believed that the conceptualization of our experience under the conceptual domain of material or tangible things helps us extract abstract experiences and ideas out and see it as objects or concrete substances.
Using different terminology, al-Sakaaki's (2000) adapts two elements which interact with each other during the metaphorical process, "tenor" and "vehicle." Tenor is the original element that is compared to another object from a different domain. While "vehicle" is the borrowed entity in terms of which tenor is presented. In other words, "vehicle" is the word that is used non-literally "metaphorically" and "tenor" is the surrounding literal meanings.

Research Procedure
The present study adopts three procedures to achieve data analysis. First, a qualitative analysis that involved reading two good translations of the Bible and the Qur'an keeping notes on the more noticeable uses of metaphors in the two books. The second procedure was a quantitative one in which the metaphoric and literal uses of the words are compared and shown in order to show a tendency to be used metaphorically in the first stage. In the third procedure, the use of metaphors in the Qur'an with that of metaphors in the Bible are compared.
This was because the qualitative reading approach appeared that some metaphors found in the Qur'an are similar to those found in the Bible, while in other cases metaphors that commonly occur in the Bible were rarely used in the Qur'an. Two searchable electronic versions of the Qur'an and the Bible in which both qualitative and quantitative analysis were used. Finally, the analysis of metaphor was to identify the cognitive justification of metaphors and to examine their persuasive power role in the religious discourse.

Analyzing Data 6.1 Ontological Metaphors
The first type is the ontological metaphor which is a matter of seeing an abstract concept in terms of a physical entity, a concrete in terms of an abstract metaphor, concrete to concrete metaphor and abstract in terms of an abstract entity. Lakoff & Johnson (1980, p. 27) explain that such abstract or concrete entities are ideas, feelings and events. For example, life, inflation agony, hatred are not humans, but when they are given qualities of human beings such as cheating, catching up eating, catching up and dying, they become ontological metaphors. Ontological metaphors like these are necessary for the religious texts when attempting to deal rationally with human experiences.
a. Abstract to Concrete Metaphor AI-Sakaaki (2000) often uses similar related cognitive potentials when defining whether a metaphorical expression is taken to be a concrete or an abstract expression. To this end, the Quranic texts use adjective-noun word pairs which are often presented visually in two conditions: (1) concrete, easy to experience with the senses; and (2) abstract, difficult to experience with the senses.

b. Concrete to Abstract Metaphor
This class is the opposite of the former one. For this, metaphor arises when a comparison between a borrowed concrete object with an abstract one is made. For example, in "Nay, but We hurl the truth against falsehood and it prevails over it, and behold, falsehood vanishes away y. Then woe to you for that you describe!", the word hurl implies the force with which the right goes down on falsehood. It indicates that abstract battle which erupts between the truth and the falsehood until truth hits the head and smashes falsehood to death. Secondly, a similar combat is well considered in the struggle between the powers of darkness and light which intend to refer to disbelief and faith in God as in "A Book We have sent down to thee that thou mayest bring forth mankind from the shadows to the light by the leave of their Lord, to the path of the All-mighty". The metaphorical meaning of from the shadows to the light is borrowed to give the meaning of a continuous war.

c. Concrete to Concrete Metaphor
This kind of metaphor is often performing the function of borrowing a concrete object compared with another concrete object as in the following Qur'anic verse: "And also in Ad, when We lost against them the withering wind". The metaphorical meaning: Ad people are the great-grandson of Sam ibn Noah were hit by a withering or a devastating wind. It can be noticed here that the word 'wind', which is often used to denote the meaning of bringing rain or 22 providing a water or promoting the growth of plants, is performing the function of borrowing a concrete object. For the wind which is sent to (Ad people) without gain, but to ruin them. As such, the word 'wind' is borrowed to compare a term with a withering or a sterile person that is 'the borrowed-from' expression. Both 'wind' and 'sterile person' are concrete objects.

d. Abstract to Abstract Metaphor
This type of metaphor is the opposite form of the former type. The 'borrowed-from' and 'the borrowed-to' are abstract objects. For instance, the metaphorical meaning in "Alas for us! Who roused us out" of our sleeping place?" is carried out by the abstract word or expression of 'sleeping' which is the 'borrowed-from' word and the word or expression 'death' is giving the 'borrowed-to' quality. Both notions are abstract. Lakoff & Johnson (1980, p.5) explain that structural metaphors are cases "where one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another". The concept that needs explanation is understood via the corresponding source domain. They explain that an ordinary activity like argument can be understood in terms of war. They affirm that this metaphor can be found in a lot of grammatical structures. They state that if one engages in an argument, one does not use any kind of structure, but special ones.

a. Metaphor via Personification
The difference between metaphor and personification should not be confused here. For metaphor can be performed via personification only where the writer makes an object sounds like it is-or is acting like-a person/animal. Metaphorically, the Qur'anic verses use some personified images as they may arise in a number of positions in the Quran. For instance, the metaphorical meaning in "by the dawn sighing" is built via personification for the dawn is described as it breathes away the darkness. The word or expression "dawn" is regarded as a human being who can breathe. Therefore, this kind of metaphor is associated with a personified figure of speech.

b. Metaphors via the Use of Antonyms or Antithesis
Antonyms or Antithesis are words that have contrasting or opposite meanings. Like so much of the English language, "antonym" is rooted in the Qur'anic verses. For the Qur'anic verses use some figures of speech metaphorically either as a proposition that contrasts with or reverses some previously mentioned proposition, or to show two opposite cases as in "the blind and "the seeing", "strengthen and "break or violate", " hidden hatred" and "love", 'to hide" and "to make evident" and so forth. For instance, "Say: Are the blind and the seeing man equal, or are the shadows and the light equal? Or have they ascribed to God associates who created as He created, so that creation is all alike to them?" Literally, neither the blind nor the seeing persons are alike and neither the shadows nor the light are equal. Metaphorically, the image which is identified as 'blind people' refers to the 'disbelievers'. For they do not follow the right path of those 'seeing persons' who are the 'believers. The same thing may occur with the metaphorical meanings of darkness and light as these are related to darkness as 'misguidance' and 'light' as 'faith'.

Orientational Metaphors
The third conceptual type of metaphor is the orientational metaphor which has a certain approach on a concept. Lakoff & Johnson (1980, p.14) define this type of metaphor as it "gives a concept a spatial orientation". The source domain saturates the target domain with certain direction.
In other words, people draw the pictures that metaphors shape in their minds as new orientation. Lakoff and Johnson (1980, p.14) state that orientational metaphor emerges from bodily experience to physical things. They explain that the physical basis is the comer stone of such metaphors.

a. Body Parts Metaphors
These are common metaphors in English language such as "rule of thumb", "the heart of the matter", "broken heart", "broke my heart", "butterflies in the stomach", "one foot in the grave" etc. which can indicate deeper meanings than conveying a surface level implication. Lakoff & Johnson agree that human body parts are designed for suitable metaphors in language to validate and show the prominent systems of thinking, filling the gaps of distance in meaning and taking the meanings from the human self or body. Likewise, the Qur'anic verses comprise metaphors via the use of the expressions of different body parts such as "othan' or ear, 'Khad' or cheek, 'yed' or hand and 'aunq" or 'neck. The following table will show such use for the body parts in the Qur'an. Hand 23 For example, God says "Turn not thy cheek away from men in scorn, and walk not in the earth exultantly ". Literally, the meaning could be do not tum your cheek away from your people. However, the 24 meaning of metaphorical expressions is that one that should not walk proudly or turn his/her face away from people in disdain. Lakoff & Johnson (1980) believe that animal metaphors are powerful tools for framing our relationship with the environment and that they can be understood in the contexts of some humans as animals or similar to animals as in as blind as a bat (weak eyesight), as busy as a bee (industry) and shed crocodile tears (insincerity).

b. Animal Metaphors
However, the Qur'anic verses use metaphors to explore the human relationship with nature and animals. For instance, the common metaphor of animals is that "The likeness of those who have taken to them protectors, apart from God, is as the likeness of the spider that takes to itself a house; and surely the frailest of houses is the house of the spider". The metaphorical meaning is that those who take protectors other than Allah is that of the spider building a house (to itself). In other places, the Qur'anic verses metaphorically use words or expressions that refer to animal features. For instance, "lower to them the wing of humbleness out of mercy". The expression or word 'al-janah' or a 'wing' is employed metaphorically to confirm the importance of great humility and modesty via treating the parents.

c. Metaphor Using Colours
Our analysis here consists of colour lexical items where the colour contributes to the meaning in the metaphor. For the Qur'anic verses metaphorically use images or words or expressions that refer to colour features. For instance, in "the day when some faces are blackened, and some faces whitened", the metaphorical meaning depends on colours for white faces denote to those who are considered as believers while black faces refer to the disbelievers.

d. Other forms of Metaphor
Though the above forms of metaphor are the most common metaphors in the Qur"an there should be a firm grasp of the other different forms of metaphors. For example, life as a journey, the weather representing the wind/ whirlwind, rain, flood, fire, light and plants showing seeds or trees or fruits are also present metaphors in the Qur'an. The following table can summarize these other forms and their frequency of occurrence.

Metaphors and Christian Religious Discourse (the Bible)
Like the Qur'an, the Bible (Old and New Testaments) uses metaphors extensively as a way of illustrating issues for persuading the public of its teachings. It creates many images which suggest similarities between many different ideas or notions, without implying that they are identical such as the lamb of god, the word of god, the bread of life, the living water, the good shepherd, the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the prince of peace, the tree of life, king of kings and lord of lords. Additionally, we have found that major metaphors in the Old and New Testaments can be classified as in the following table. Still, "The Lord is my shepherd" is one of the most famous of deification metaphors that we have found in the Bible and it is a foundation of Christianity. God is here compared to a shepherd tending to and protecting his flock comparable to the sower of the seeds in Qur'anic verses. From the table, it can be noticed that metaphors have been employed in the Bible to achieve distinct communicative targets. For instance, they are used to transfer wisdom, to denote a caution, to cite examples for people, to portray images for the vitality of their faith. In overall, Biblical metaphors are used to prove a point an indisputable view. They aim to convince the addressees that what is said is guaranteed to be true via referring to animals, plants, light and fire, building and shelter, foods and drinks, body parts, fishing and hunting, journeys and weather. Further examples are given below: 6.5 Ontological Metaphor Lakoff & Johnson (1980, pp. 25-34) state that the nature of ontological metaphors is to make a non-entity into an entity. They may involve reifications (treating happiness, fear, or evil as a material thing), personification and deification with God (treating a person like a god). Such metaphors often take the ways or forms of viewing activities or ideas as physical beings and substances. Also, they argue that "the conceptual systems of cultures and religions are metaphorical in nature" (p.40). In their theory, they further argue that metaphorical mappings are deeply rooted in people's bodily experiences.
For these experiences give rise to the so-called conceptual image schemas. Those schemas are mapped onto the more abstract conceptual or ontological domains in the metaphorical process (Johnson, 1987, p.126). Our analysis opens here with the ontological metaphor of sin in the Bible since it constitutes an important aspect of the Christian faith and Christian teaching as it clearly states that all need salvation and that salvation is obtained by all via Christ, which means freeing them from their sins. In the examples collected from the Bible, sin is personified and described as a being that, like humans, is boom, grows, and then gives birth to death.
For instance, in James (1: 15), it is mentioned that "when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death". In other cases, it functions a subject that requires a human agent. Consequently, its sin is said to have come into the world via man as in Romans (5: 12): "sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned". Second ontological metaphor is built via deification which is framed by the metaphor of adoption.
That is, Christ is treated as being an adopted "son of God" and hence being a "god".

Structural Metaphors
In such metaphors, one concept is often structured in terms of another. Indeed, there is a whole system of intenerated concepts as Lakoff and Johnson states (1980, p.14). For example, death is metaphorically described as a sleep, while resurrection is pictured as a waking up. Still, death is directly related to in the New Testament contexts with the eschatological resurrection of Jesus. Our Analysis of the relevant verses from the Bible demonstrates that the core of structural metaphors is represented by certain f01ms of the verbs such as stand, raise, die, live and wake up. Most structural metaphors are associated with the idea of rising up or waking or standing. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) explained that structural metaphor is understood through a specific conceptual domain of "argument" between to contrastive sides such as good and evil or light and drunkenness. In line with this, the structural metaphors used in our sample of the Bible come with a conceptual domain of "debate". This is the basic characteristics of the structural conceptual metaphor. Besides, in this group of structural metaphors, the hard debate of the Bible is that people who reject God and harm other people will eventually receive punishment for them. That's also the same debate of the Qur'an in the teaching behind heaven and hell. That is to say the divine fierceness of the Qur'an and the Bible is part of God's battle against evils. And this debate or battle or argument between good and evil develops as time goes on.

Orientational Metaphors
A large part of its persuasive power, the language expressions in the Bible are motivated by orientational metaphors. These metaphors start with Christian bodily experience that include foods, drinks, plants, animals, fishing, building and making journeys as these shapes the meanings of many idioms and expressions in the Bible. From the examples given below, it can be shown that the explicit conceptual metaphors that motivate persuasive meanings not only lead to better religious teaching but also makes language expressions more interesting to learn.
Food and Drink Metaphors as in "My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?" (Psalm 42.2) Plant Metaphors as in "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon." (Psalm 92.12).
Building Metaphor as in "I am the door: by me if any man enters in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." (John 10.9).
Animal metaphors as in "Each evening they come back, howling like dogs and prowling about the city. They roam about for food, and growl if they do not get their fill." (Psalms 59.15).
According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), metaphor is a cognitive device capable of dealing with truth and not just style. Therefore, each of the above activate a cognitive metaphor of spiritual life and suggests a steady and successful progress towards the goal of spiritual fulfilment. For the physical basis for personal survive such as plants, drinks and food as well as the basis for his/her well-being such as happiness, health and life are expressed as a palm tree or a food or a door.
Moreover, according to Lakoff (1996, p.250), such metaphors construct the system of a divine morality which is structured metaphorically on the basis of bodily experiences, and it has its source in the promotion of a moral well-being. That is, all of aforementioned metaphors correspond to a different type of ethics. For example, life as a journey is a common metaphor that makes sense that we human beings are journeying people. We should make sense of our life by understanding it as a journey, as the unfolding story of who we are and what we do in the world must travel with a deep consciousness of God.

Conclusions
The present paper has tackled the functions and major types of metaphor in the Qur'an and in the Bible within the theoretical framework put forward by Johnson (1980) andal-Sakaaki (2000). It grounds itself in the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. For the two Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Islam utilize a conceptual apparatus and a language that describe the divine. This language can be regarded as a cognitive metaphorical system in which ontological, structural and orientational metaphors of the divine reality is expressed via vocabulary taken from everyday human bodily experience such as drinks, foods, animals, plants, body parts, journeys, etc. This means that the religious conceptual system of both books is largely metaphorical.
The three types of conceptual metaphors discussed (ontological, orientational and structural) show that mental images grounded deeply in expressions that can be activated by making Christians and Muslims understand the underlying conceptual metaphors and trace back their grounds.
We have noted that the meanings of many metaphors, especially those of concrete to abstract or abstract to abstract or abstract to concrete and so on persuade effectively. For both books did not ask Christians and Muslims to learn by heart. Instead, they encourage them to act. Thus, the major persuasive functions for religious metaphor is relate to moral thoughts and to do decorative and rhetorical functions for searching divine reality. Subsequently, we regard the metaphor as an integral part to religious thoughts and as a way of experiencing the religious world. Moreover, metaphor is the means of transferring abstract cultural and religious meanings to the public.
Thirdly, the researchers have noticed that that there is some kind of similarity found in the classification of metaphor in both the Bible and the Qur'an which runs as follows: the main metaphor types in both books are building metaphor, conflict metaphor, fire metaphor, journey metaphor, plant metaphor, animal metaphor and weather metaphor. However, there are great differences between the two with reference to sin metaphors, deification metaphor and the socalled ontological metaphors, in which the abstract reality of sin, resurrections, redemption and human deification are conceptualized as an entity or substance or nature phenomena. It is worth noting here that the Quran and the Bible offer their readers a remarkable number of ontological, structural and orientational metaphors. Richness of all and the cultural motivations behind each conceptual metaphor in this case has contributed to the ways people from Christian and the Islamic culture understand their religion. Definitely, each of the metaphors identified in Qur'an and the Bible highlights different aspects of its complex reality, which, thanks to the variety of the cultural experiences used in the metaphorical mappings, can, at least partially, be understood and described.
Initially, the reader of the Qur'an has the impression of a text that is less heavily dependent on metaphor than is the Bible. The content of many of the verses is not metaphoric at all in that they provide guidance in codes of behaviour that are deemed acceptable and those that are deemed unacceptable. In this respect, the Qur'an offers a clear set of instructions for social practice. It would be useful to continue the research into the metaphorical mapping in both religious books. For this study does not claim that human cognition is framed by metaphor only or that metaphors in the Qur'an and the Bible are understood in exactly the same way, but was conducted to study the persuasive power of major types and functions of conceptual metaphors in selected verses from both books.