Bible stories literal or symbolic?

[Jac3510]

Oh really? Well if I'm off then why are you using my examples? You don't like the word “dusted?” I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that the snake was a figure of speech or "simile" of the devil. The devil is “like” a snake as he is “like” a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8) or dragon.

I didn't use all of your examples because I wasn't trying to argue with you line by line. "Dusted" in the post in which you used the word is a synecdoche. What I am saying is that you are confusing categories of speech. I have no problem with saying that the devil is like a snake or like a lion. I believe as much myself. What I have a problem with is your employment of these tools. More below.

A metaphor compares two dissimilar objects without using a word “like.” But according to your view the devil was literally a snake. So the Bible is entirely literal with absolutely no metaphors or metonymies or simile. Every single word means what it says and says what it means with no room for private interpretation. To do that would degrade the meaning of the Bible (in your book). Christ was also called a rock (1 cor. 10:4), therefore according to your interpretation Christ was literally a rock. I don't believe that… Ok?

As to the first part of this, a metaphor, being a figure of speech, means that the figure is not is the thing in reality; it's qualities are what we find in the reality. Thus, if you take "snake" as a metaphor for Satan, then I go back to my original point against your position here: that means there was no literal snake in the Garden.

With the second, I have nowhere said that there are not figures of speech in Scripture. I thoroughly believe them to be. And I discover them by the standard rules of speech. I recognize metaphor and hyperbole and the some eighty other figures I'm not going to take the time to type out along with how to identify each one. My point is this: it appears that you are using categories of speech like metaphor in a way that they are not usually used. So I want to know how, for instance, you know when something is a metaphor and when something is "literal". Regarding the general rule of thumb, we might formulate it as the following:

Subject-Predicate statements are to be taken as factual in historical narratives unless otherwise indicated. Unflagged identifications are to be taken as factual in historical narratives always unless previously stated. Subject-Predicate statements are to be taken as figurative if and only if: (1) they conform with the linguistic flags of that category of speech, and (2) the context, both immediately and literary, in which they are found imply the classification.

The onus is on YOU to argue on what possible grounds that the snake in Genesis 3 is figurative. Notice I did NOT say that the snake cannot be symbolic. I believe it is symbolic while at the same time completely literal. The story reads as if a literal snake was in the garden, and a literal snake deceived Eve and was subsequently cursed by God. That this snake points to or is symbolic of Satan is comes from both the context and broader theology, but neither context nor broader theology render this figurative.

Also you forgot about Synecdochic figures of speech. As an example, Bob has to go to the john [bathroom].

If we are going to sit here and show off our knowledge of language, I'll just correct you here. "Bob has to go to the John" is not a synecdoche. It's a euphemism. See, for example, 1 Ki 18:27.

Where did I ever say that the snake was a metaphor?

You've said you don't take the snake to be literal, but a figure of speech to refer to Satan. That's my point. If you believe that there was an actual snake doing the actual talking, just say so, because that's not how I've understood you. We can move on to some of your other examples.

Why can't crawling on the belly be a figure of speech for the devil? I think it fits his description perfectly… Can animals sin? Why would God curse a snake if it was the devil?

No, "crawling on the belly" can't be a "figure of speech" for the devil; not, at least, in the confines of Genesis 3. It takes a theological motivation to see Satan in that "figure of speech," which is the point. You seem to have a theologically driven hermeneutic.

And God cursed the snake because the snake was the animal in the garden that Satan used to trick Eve.

If you want to go that route then you would have to prove to me that snakes literally had legs before the fall and that the structures of their throat can produce human like sounds or words. Are you aware of the human vocal chords and their complexity to produce sounds?

No, I wouldn't have to prove that first. The curse implies it, so much so that you've picked it out yourself without me having to say it. Let's take another curse as an example. Eve was now to have great pains in childbirth. Thus, we can logically infer that Eve would have had little to no pains in childbirth prior to the Fall. Same with the snake.

And, yes, while I'm not a doctor, I am aware that human vocal chords are complex, along with the tongue and lips. But what that has to do with anything, you've lost me.

Yes, the word "snake" is just symbolic for Satan. You got it...

Yes, I've had it the whole time. You think the word "snake" is just symbolic of Satan. Thus, you don't think there was an actual snake doing the talking.

Thats right. Now it is your job to prove to us how snakes had "human like" vocal chords.

I suppose if I had a pre-Fallen snake we could make progress in that area, but otherwise I'm not going to deny the Bible because of a perceived miracle. Who knows? Maybe all animals could talk, and that ability was lost after the Fall? Maybe only snakes could talk. Maybe no animal could talk, but rather Satan possessed the animal to make it talk, and Eve didn't know better, or didn't know to be afraid (hey, pre-Fallen world! What is there to fear?). Maybe God opened the mouth of the snake like He opened the mouth of the donkey. The point is that any of these are possibilities. I'm sure there are others.

I'm not reversing my stance Jac. The onus is on you...

Fine, so you aren't reversing your stance. The comment there was directed to Canuckster with reference to his and my interpretation of your position.

Your position, as I understand it, is that you believe that there was no snake doing the talking. The word "snake" is used as some (as of yet unnamed) figure of speech that refers to Satan. You've provided absolutely no linguistic criteria by which you have made this judgment. So, I go back to my original challenge that you still have not answered.

If there is no criteria, but instead we simply take to be symbolic whatever we want to (that is, whatever we think is too fantastic to be believed), then on what do you take the Resurrection to be literal? How do you know it is not symbolic? What would you say to someone who says that it is? What about any miracle? The parting of the Red Sea? Jonah and the "Whale"? The raising of Lazarus? The woman and her never-ending bottle of oil?

I am asking an honest question, Gman. What would you say to the person who says, "The Resurrection of Christ is symbolic in precisely the same way that the snake of Eden is symbolic. Neither really happened; both point to another reality." How, Gman, do you distinguish the two? That's what I have been asking about since the beginning. I'm looking for the criteria on which you make these judgments.

How, Gman, do you come to your conclusions that these things are symbolic (that is, not "literal") within the contexts of historical narratives?

[Canuckster1127]

When it comes to certain words of the Bible I would heavily lean on the symbolic, although the people and places of the Bible should probably be taken literal. When it comes to the words like snakes, I too don't believe it was a literal snake but more of a figure of speech. An eastern term... It appears from scripture that the adversary can also be called a lion 1 Peter 5:8 or a dragon like in revelation. I guess it would be the same with the "tree of life". I don't believe it to be a literal tree with apples or something, perhaps it was something more spiritual. I believe even Christ stated that he was the vine and we are the branches. Who knows... Do things like snakes have to be taken literally for the point to get across?

Gman, I came back to here to try and understand better what you are saying.

I think I disagree with you to some degree. I guess the primary point to return to would be what you believe the first passages of Genesis to be in terms of the type of writing that is involved. I believe it is Historical Narrative. I come to this conclusion by the following considerations:

1. It is clearly a part of the entire 5 books of the Pentateuch and the vast majority of these books clearly represent Historical Narrative representing the History of Israel.

2. Genesis if it is written by Moses, which I believe it was, was part of the establishment of God through Moses to Israel of who they were as God's chosen people. Gen 1 - 11 sets the stage for Gen 12 -50.

3. Is it possible for there to be symbolism or metaphore within Historical Narrative itself? Yes, I think that is possible. I return many times to the idea in Genesis that most of this material is pre-history. It possible and even probable that Moses incorporated already familiar oral history into his writings. He was laying the foundation for what was to come later. Remember the original audience at the time were the Israelits, who had left Egypt after bondage of more than 400 years and part of what God was doing through Moses was reestablishing their identity as a people and a chosen nation. Eastern mindsets (there's that concept again) saw and identified symbolism readily.

4. If you peel off of that however and go to a purely symbolic or metaphoric treatment of one element in Genesis 1 -11 then you set the stage to do the same with most other elements as well. There's a difference, I think, in recognizing a different frame of reference and context for the original audience and factoring that into your reading and understanding and suspending that and going straight to symbolism. Where does that stop? When you get to the passages relating to Abram and the angels do you then change? What about the sacrificial trip up the mountain with Isaac? Symbolism?

I don't have a problem with entertaining the idea that Satan's appearance as a snake may have some element of symbolism for some of the same reasons you state. Speech doesn't appear to be a quality of animals. Satan's possessing or appearing as a snake solves that. There is, as Jac mentions, a direct tie to this event and God's curse upon the snake which ties to a continued understanding throughout much of Scripture. Christ ties into that same source as the Second Adam. It's a valid question to ask if Adam and Eve then too are metaphores and not literal people if you're going to be consistent.

I'm not interested in winning an argument on this so just take it as some input to consider. What do you think?

[Jac3510]

I'm not interested in winning an argument

I thought that was the point of an internet message board?

[Canuckster1127]

I'm not interested in winning an argument

I thought that was the point of an internet message board?

Let's start with the story of the man with a jacket and an argument between the sun and the wind as to who can make him take off the jacket first .....

[Gman]

I'm not interested in winning an argument

I thought that was the point of an internet message board?

That's the point, no one was there so much of what we are talking about is somewhat our own opinions. Clearer now?

[Gman]

Gman, I came back to here to try and understand better what you are saying.

I think I disagree with you to some degree. I guess the primary point to return to would be what you believe the first passages of Genesis to be in terms of the type of writing that is involved. I believe it is Historical Narrative. I come to this conclusion by the following considerations:

1. It is clearly a part of the entire 5 books of the Pentateuch and the vast majority of these books clearly represent Historical Narrative representing the History of Israel.

2. Genesis if it is written by Moses, which I believe it was, was part of the establishment of God through Moses to Israel of who they were as God's chosen people. Gen 1 - 11 sets the stage for Gen 12 -50.

Let me be clear, I'm not debating if Genesis was a Historical Narrative. I already believe it to be a true Historical Narrative.. However, Jac appears to be going to the extremes saying, well if you believe a snake to be symbolic then perhaps the Bible as a whole is symbolic. Again, as I've stated numerous times that I don't believe that... I don't know how I can explain this better to him.

3. Is it possible for there to be symbolism or metaphore within Historical Narrative itself? Yes, I think that is possible. I return many times to the idea in Genesis that most of this material is pre-history. It possible and even probable that Moses incorporated already familiar oral history into his writings. He was laying the foundation for what was to come later. Remember the original audience at the time were the Israelits, who had left Egypt after bondage of more than 400 years and part of what God was doing through Moses was reestablishing their identity as a people and a chosen nation. Eastern mindsets (there's that concept again) saw and identified symbolism readily.

Yes... I totally agree with this statement. I believe the Bible to be also loaded with symbolism, metaphor, figures of speech and the like. But then again, things can be taken to be literal as well...

4. If you peel off of that however and go to a purely symbolic or metaphoric treatment of one element in Genesis 1 -11 then you set the stage to do the same with most other elements as well. There's a difference, I think, in recognizing a different frame of reference and context for the original audience and factoring that into your reading and understanding and suspending that and going straight to symbolism. Where does that stop? When you get to the passages relating to Abram and the angels do you then change? What about the sacrificial trip up the mountain with Isaac? Symbolism?

Good question. I don't know the answer to that... What I'm arguing against is this dogmatic completely literal interpretation approach that puts the Bible out of realistic or scientific boundaries. We have witnessed how these literal YEC beliefs have thwarted many from turning to the Bible as a respectable source of info. It's almost like our "yom" battle again...

I would suspect if it sounded a little out of the ordinary that it is "possibly" a figure of speech. Notice I said the word "possibly.."

I don't have a problem with entertaining the idea that Satan's appearance as a snake may have some element of symbolism for some of the same reasons you state. Speech doesn't appear to be a quality of animals. Satan's possessing or appearing as a snake solves that. There is, as Jac mentions, a direct tie to this event and God's curse upon the snake which ties to a continued understanding throughout much of Scripture. Christ ties into that same source as the Second Adam. It's a valid question to ask if Adam and Eve then too are metaphores and not literal people if you're going to be consistent.

Yes Bart... As I've already explained many times to Jac, I believe Adam and Eve to be literal people... I believe I may have a problem however with a talking snakes handing out apples to customers. Again, I would lean on the word "snake" as being symbolic just as the devil can also be a lion (1 Peter 5:8) or a dragon.

I'm not interested in winning an argument on this so just take it as some input to consider. What do you think?

I agree, this is pretty much personal opinion in my book.

I'm against a dogmatic literal interpretation of the word "snake". No one was there to witness that event. That being said, I believe it could go either way too.. If someone was to tell me that the devil was a snake I would know exactly what they were taking about. For me, the snake doesn't have to be a literal snake to get the point across, but for others I guess it is a show stopper... To each their own I guess...

I'll address the other issues later....

[Gman]

I didn't use all of your examples because I wasn't trying to argue with you line by line. "Dusted" in the post in which you used the word is a synecdoche.

We haven't even talked about the word “dusted” yet and it's type. That was the pillar of salt argument. I said that the snake was a figure of speech or "simile" of the devil.

What I am saying is that you are confusing categories of speech. I have no problem with saying that the devil is like a snake or like a lion. I believe as much myself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you believe that the devil was “like” a snake. I believe that you think that the devil was a literal snake in the garden of eden.

As to the first part of this, a metaphor, being a figure of speech, means that the figure is not is the thing in reality; it's qualities are what we find in the reality. Thus, if you take "snake" as a metaphor for Satan, then I go back to my original point against your position here: that means there was no literal snake in the Garden.

I never said that the snake was a metaphor of the devil. I said that the snake was a "simile" of the devil. That is why I stated that a metaphor compares two dissimilar objects without using a word “like.” They are different in that sense.

With the second, I have nowhere said that there are not figures of speech in Scripture. I thoroughly believe them to be. And I discover them by the standard rules of speech. I recognize metaphor and hyperbole and the some eighty other figures I'm not going to take the time to type out along with how to identify each one. My point is this: it appears that you are using categories of speech like metaphor in a way that they are not usually used. So I want to know how, for instance, you know when something is a metaphor and when something is "literal". Regarding the general rule of thumb, we might formulate it as the following:

Subject-Predicate statements are to be taken as factual in historical narratives unless otherwise indicated. Unflagged identifications are to be taken as factual in historical narratives always unless previously stated. Subject-Predicate statements are to be taken as figurative if and only if: (1) they conform with the linguistic flags of that category of speech, and (2) the context, both immediately and literary, in which they are found imply the classification.

Ok, well let me ask you this question then. Let's look at Genesis 3:14 again, how are you distinguishing between a literal snake and a symbolic devil here? You seem to be advocating that the snake was literal AND symbolic in places of your own choosing. The verse says, “The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because YOU have done this, thou art cursed above all cattle.” How could the snake be at fault if it was the devil's doing? Can animals sin?

The onus is on YOU to argue on what possible grounds that the snake in Genesis 3 is figurative. Notice I did NOT say that the snake cannot be symbolic. I believe it is symbolic while at the same time completely literal. The story reads as if a literal snake was in the garden, and a literal snake deceived Eve and was subsequently cursed by God. That this snake points to or is symbolic of Satan is comes from both the context and broader theology, but neither context nor broader theology render this figurative.

I don't think you are making sense here.. How can you change the snake from being literal to symbolic in only one verse? What about Genesis 3:15? Did the woman's offspring literally crush the head of the snake? Where did Jesus do this? What about putting enmity between the snake's offspring and the woman's offspring? How can you go from a literal snake in 14 to a symbolic snake in 15? It seems like you are selectively reducing from literal to symbolic in one mode then denying that mode later on (unless you believe that snakes of today are literally of the devil).

If we are going to sit here and show off our knowledge of language, I'll just correct you here. "Bob has to go to the John" is not a synecdoche. It's a euphemism. See, for example, 1 Ki 18:27.

I don't think so… Look at some of the examples of Synecdochic figures here

You've said you don't take the snake to be literal, but a figure of speech to refer to Satan. That's my point. If you believe that there was an actual snake doing the actual talking, just say so, because that's not how I've understood you. We can move on to some of your other examples.

I don't believe it was an actual snake doing the talking…

No, "crawling on the belly" can't be a "figure of speech" for the devil; not, at least, in the confines of Genesis 3. It takes a theological motivation to see Satan in that "figure of speech," which is the point. You seem to have a theologically driven hermeneutic.

Why can't it? Satan is known to be roaming to and fro throughout the earth. (Job 2:2) If I can say someone was crawling on his belly, I would assume that person was perhaps slimy or a low lifer couldn't I? Also in Isaiah 56:9, God calls the wicked "all ye beasts of the field."

No, I wouldn't have to prove that first. The curse implies it, so much so that you've picked it out yourself without me having to say it. Let's take another curse as an example. Eve was now to have great pains in childbirth. Thus, we can logically infer that Eve would have had little to no pains in childbirth prior to the Fall. Same with the snake.

And, yes, while I'm not a doctor, I am aware that human vocal chords are complex, along with the tongue and lips. But what that has to do with anything, you've lost me.

How could a talking snake be the result of the curse? The snake WASN'T even cursed yet before Adam and Eve sinned. It's not a good analogy. Sorry...

I suppose if I had a pre-Fallen snake we could make progress in that area, but otherwise I'm not going to deny the Bible because of a perceived miracle. Who knows? Maybe all animals could talk, and that ability was lost after the Fall? Maybe only snakes could talk. Maybe no animal could talk, but rather Satan possessed the animal to make it talk, and Eve didn't know better, or didn't know to be afraid (hey, pre-Fallen world! What is there to fear?). Maybe God opened the mouth of the snake like He opened the mouth of the donkey. The point is that any of these are possibilities. I'm sure there are others.

Or they could be symbolic too…

Fine, so you aren't reversing your stance. The comment there was directed to Canuckster with reference to his and my interpretation of your position.

Your position, as I understand it, is that you believe that there was no snake doing the talking. The word "snake" is used as some (as of yet unnamed) figure of speech that refers to Satan. You've provided absolutely no linguistic criteria by which you have made this judgment. So, I go back to my original challenge that you still have not answered.

Jac, please read what I've written before. From scripture we can see that the devil can also be called a lion (1 Peter 5:8), a dragon (Rev. 12:9), and men can also be represented as serpents (Matthew 23:33).

If there is no criteria, but instead we simply take to be symbolic whatever we want to (that is, whatever we think is too fantastic to be believed), then on what do you take the Resurrection to be literal? How do you know it is not symbolic? What would you say to someone who says that it is? What about any miracle? The parting of the Red Sea? Jonah and the "Whale"? The raising of Lazarus? The woman and her never-ending bottle of oil?

Well you seem to be guilty of doing it too then…

How, Gman, do you come to your conclusions that these things are symbolic (that is, not "literal") within the contexts of historical narratives?

Are you saying that Historical Narratives are devoid of any symbolism? Are they today?

[Jac3510]

I said that the snake was a figure of speech or "simile" of the devil.

Whatever the word "snake" is, it is not, by definition, a simile. Unless you show me the word "like" in the narrative, then it cannot be. That's just a matter of pure definition.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you believe that the devil was “like” a snake. I believe that you think that the devil was a literal snake in the garden of eden.

No problem. Yes, the devil is "like" a snake. He is "like" a roaring lion. He is "like" a lot of things. But we aren't dealing with what the devil is "like" in Genesis 3. The text does not say anything about the devil being like anything whatsoever in the passage. To get that, you have to read it into the text.

As far as whether the devil took on the form of a snake, or if the devil possessed a snake, or if the devil just influenced the snake, I don't know. And the reason I don't know is simple: the text doesn't tell me. If it did, then I would have a definitive answer for you. What I do know is that an actual snake deceived Eve, and the rest of the Bible implies that Satan was, in some fashion, involved in that process.

I never said that the snake was a metaphor of the devil. I said that the snake was a "simile" of the devil. That is why I stated that a metaphor compares two dissimilar objects without using a word “like.” They are different in that sense

The snake isn't a simile. See my first statement.

Ok, well let me ask you this question then. Let's look at Genesis 3:14 again, how are you distinguishing between a literal snake and a symbolic devil? You seem to be advocating that the snake was literal AND symbolic in places of your own choosing. The verse says, “The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because YOU have done this, thou art cursed above all cattle.” How could the snake be at fault if it was the devil's doing?

I never said the devil was symbolic. Let me try it this way:

Every word has what we call a reference. In the philosophy of language, we refer to the "mention" and the "use." Thus, the word "snake" is the mention; the snake we are talking about is the use. This is closely related the the difference in "sense" and "reference." Consider the following: the planet Venus is called both "the morning star" and "the evening star." Thus, we can say, "The morning star = the evening star." The two phrases both refer to the same reality, Venus, and thus, Venus is the reference. The phrases themselves, we call the "sense."

With that in mind, the word "snake" is the mention/sense. The reference is the actual snake that was in the garden. I take the snake itself--that is, the reference--to be an actual snake. Thus, I say that the mention/sense "snake" refers to an actual snake. The reference, though--that is, the actual snake--can also be symbolic. But note: that is different from saying that the mention/sense "snake" is symbolic. I am NOT taking the mention/sense as a figure of speech.

This isn't at all complicated. We see this every day. Every day, you hand people dollar bills our coins. That money is real; it is actual. It is also symbolic. Now, back in the day, it was a symbol--a receipt, if you will--of a certain portion of the wealth in the US Treasury. Today it doesn't work quite like that, but the idea is still the same. It represents US wealth. There are symbols all around us, but just because something is a symbol, that doesn't mean it is not a real thing.

I take the snake to be a symbol of the devil, but what the exact connection is, I must plead ignorance. In any case, that is different from saying I take the word "snake" to be symbolic, and that its reference is actually the devil. What this means is that God cursed the symbol, and this fits well with broader theology. The reason, for instance, that God instituted the death penalty for any man or animal that killed a human was that it killed one in the image of God. In killing him, it was attacking the symbol, which is tantamount to attacking God Himself. The curse, then, on the snake--that is, the curse on the symbol--was tantamount to cursing the devil.

I don't think you are making sense here.. How can you change the snake from being literal to symbolic in only one verse? What about Genesis 3:15? Did the woman literally crush the head of the snake? What about putting enmity between the snake's offspring and the woman's offspring? How can you go from a literal snake in 14 to a symbolic snake in 15? It seems like you are selectively reducing from literal to symbolic in one mode then denying that mode later on (unless you believe that snakes of today are literally of the devil).

The above should explain what I mean. As far as the word "crush" goes, I have no idea why it is translated that way. The EXACT same word is used of both the snake striking the heal of the savior as it is the savior striking the head of the snake. Regardless, it's poetic, and uses a standard form of Hebrew poetry: parallelism. Here, the "head" and "foot" are contrasted, which conveys the idea that while the snake would wound the child, yet the child would kill him. Of course, this also is another example of a literal thing serving as a symbol; snakes do bite people on the heal, and in response, people step on their heads. The idea is presented quite graphically in the opening scene of The Passion.

I don't think so… Look at some of the examples of Synecdochic figures here

Nope, it's not. "Bob went to the John" is not a synecdoche. Synecdochies are actually forms of metonymies, in which one word is substituted with a related word; thus, "The White House called" is synechdochic; it refers to the whole as if a part. Or you can reverse it by using the part to refer to the whole, as in "all hands on deck," in which "hands" refers to the entire person. Euphemisms, on the other hand, substitute harsh words for more palatable words. So, "kick the bucket" is both an idiom and a euphemism. It's nicer than saying "died." Likewise, "lost my lunch" is a euphemism for "vomited."

Anyway, I don't think this really has anything to do with our conversation.

I don't believe it was an actual snake doing the talking…

Yes. I know this. I'm still waiting on a reason I shouldn't take it as a literal snake. There is absolutely NO grammatical or linguistic reason for taking this as anything other than historical narrative.

Why can't it? Satan is known to be roaming to and fro throughout the earth. (Job 2:2) If I can say someone was crawling on his belly, I would assume that person was perhaps slimy or a low lifer couldn't I? Also in Isaiah 56:9, God calls the wicked "all ye beasts of the field."

Yes, but it doesn't say that Satan would crawl on his belly. It says the snake will, and there is no reference to Satan anywhere in this passage. It reads like straight history, and given the fact that snakes DO crawl on their belly, there is absolutely no reason not to take this literally. You are just reading INTO the text a meaning that simply is not there.

If the text had said, "Like a snake, you shall crawl on your belly," then you would have a case, because then you would have a grammatical or linguistic marker to claim that it was a figure of speech. It would be a simile. As it stands, there are no such markers. We are then required to take this as straight history.

How could a talking snake be the result of the curse? The snake WASN'T even cursed yet before Adam and Eve sinned. It's not a good analogy. Sorry...

No, you have it backwards. Look at what I said again:

Curse on Eve = pain at childbirth->must not have been pain at childbirth.
Curse on Adam = death->must not have been death.
Curse on Snake = crawl on belly->must not have crawled on belly (i.e., must have had legs).

Or they could be symbolic too…

Sure, if you show me a grammatical or linguistic marker, I'd be happy to concede. On what basis do you take the snake as symbolic and Adam and Eve as literal?

That's not a rhetorical question. I want to know. If someone said, "I believe Adam is just symbolic of the first people in general," then what would you say?

Jac, please read what I've written before. From scripture we can see that the devil can also be called a lion (1 Peter 5:8), a dragon (Rev. 12:9), and men can also be represented as serpents (Matthew 23:33).

Yes, and in those places, the Scripture flat says that the devil is those things (or like those things). Those are metaphors and similes. We know this because they have the proper form; the include "like" or, if not, they are a simple Subject-Predicate statement.

"The devil is a lion" = metaphor
"The devil is like a lion" = simile
"The lion bit me" = shy of something in the context identifying the lion with something other than a lion, then this is not a figure of speech.

Well you seem to be guilty of doing it too then…

No, I've provided my criteria: the standard rules of speech. Here's a list of figures of speech and how to identify them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

That's my criteria. Now, yours?

Are you saying that Historical Narratives are devoid of any symbolism? Are they today?

No, I am not. Narratives can contain symbols, but symbols do not make the reference figurative. Secondly, narratives also include figures of speech, but when they do, those figures are clearly marked by the standard rules of speech. In any case, you are not allowed to take a particular noun and just declare it to be figurative because you don't like the picture it paints. On THAT basis, I could declare every single miracle in the Bible as figurative.

So, the TL;DR:

1. There is a difference in a figure of speech and a symbol.
2. Figures of speech are marked off by linguistic clues.
3. Real referents can be symbols of other realities; this does not compromise their reality.
4. If we can simply assert random nouns and phrases are figurative, then the Bible cannot be interpreted objectively, for EVERY noun/phrase can be interpreted figuratively, from Adam to Jesus, from the Creation to the Cross. Either, then, we interpret the Bible by the normal rules of language, or no objective meaning is possible.

[Gman]

No problem. Yes, the devil is "like" a snake. He is "like" a roaring lion. He is "like" a lot of things. But we aren't dealing with what the devil is "like" in Genesis 3. The text does not say anything about the devil being like anything whatsoever in the passage. To get that, you have to read it into the text.

While it may not say anything like that (a "simile"), can you please show me in Genesis 3 where it states that the snake was literally the devil too? If you want to go with a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 (devoid of other verses) where on earth does it ever say that the snake was the devil? You can't have it both ways with a literal interpretation. That is my premise...

As far as whether the devil took on the form of a snake, or if the devil possessed a snake, or if the devil just influenced the snake, I don't know. And the reason I don't know is simple: the text doesn't tell me. If it did, then I would have a definitive answer for you. What I do know is that an actual snake deceived Eve, and the rest of the Bible implies that Satan was, in some fashion, involved in that process.

For all we know it could be a vision too… If we believe that Moses was the writer of Genesis, he wasn't there either (in the garden). God perhaps was relaying the information to him in a storyline or vision in a way that he could easily comprehend it. The message of it being that the devil was elusive as a snake.

The snake isn't a simile.

But he can be in other parts of the Bible… (Matthew 23:33)

With that in mind, the word "snake" is the mention/sense. The reference is the actual snake that was in the garden. I take the snake itself--that is, the reference--to be an actual snake. Thus, I say that the mention/sense "snake" refers to an actual snake. The reference, though--that is, the actual snake--can also be symbolic. But note: that is different from saying that the mention/sense "snake" is symbolic. I am NOT taking the mention/sense as a figure of speech.

No… You can't. If you want to read the literal interpretation of the text, nowhere does it imply that the snake was symbolic of the devil.

This isn't at all complicated. We see this every day.

I hope not...

Every day, you hand people dollar bills our coins. That money is real; it is actual. It is also symbolic. Now, back in the day, it was a symbol--a receipt, if you will--of a certain portion of the wealth in the US Treasury. Today it doesn't work quite like that, but the idea is still the same. It represents US wealth. There are symbols all around us, but just because something is a symbol, that doesn't mean it is not a real thing.

I take the snake to be a symbol of the devil, but what the exact connection is, I must plead ignorance. In any case, that is different from saying I take the word "snake" to be symbolic, and that its reference is actually the devil. What this means is that God cursed the symbol, and this fits well with broader theology. The reason, for instance, that God instituted the death penalty for any man or animal that killed a human was that it killed one in the image of God. In killing him, it was attacking the symbol, which is tantamount to attacking God Himself. The curse, then, on the snake--that is, the curse on the symbol--was tantamount to cursing the devil.

The above should explain what I mean. As far as the word "crush" goes, I have no idea why it is translated that way. The EXACT same word is used of both the snake striking the heal of the savior as it is the savior striking the head of the snake. Regardless, it's poetic, and uses a standard form of Hebrew poetry: parallelism. Here, the "head" and "foot" are contrasted, which conveys the idea that while the snake would wound the child, yet the child would kill him.

If you had no prior knowledge of Christ or other things stated in the Bible you would have no idea what this verse (Genesis 3:15) was talking about, would you? Like you said, you have to read it in it's context. It was literally a snake biting at the heals of the woman's offspring as it was literally the woman's offspring crushing the head of the snake. There are no other symbols as you seem to be implying... If you want the full scope of the Bible then you will HAVE to incorporate other verses.

Of course, this also is another example of a literal thing serving as a symbol; snakes do bite people on the heal, and in response, people step on their heads. The idea is presented quite graphically in the opening scene of The Passion.

Yeah, and now many think that Christ was a snake hater for it. I knew what it symbolized, but someone fresh to the word may have a different interpretation of it.

Anyway, I don't think this really has anything to do with our conversation.

Not according to species (specific kind) which are used to refer to its genus, "Could you pass me a Kleenex [facial tissue], just like going to the "john."

Yes. I know this. I'm still waiting on a reason I shouldn't take it as a literal snake. There is absolutely NO grammatical or linguistic reason for taking this as anything other than historical narrative.

You are NOT saying that it was a literal snake. You are saying that the snake was symbolic AND literal. You stated, “I believe it is symbolic while at the same time completely literal.”

Yes, but it doesn't say that Satan would crawl on his belly. It says the snake will, and there is no reference to Satan anywhere in this passage. It reads like straight history, and given the fact that snakes DO crawl on their belly, there is absolutely no reason not to take this literally. You are just reading INTO the text a meaning that simply is not there.

Then why are you trying to explain to me figures of speech? Are you just reading INTO the text too?

If the text had said, "Like a snake, you shall crawl on your belly," then you would have a case, because then you would have a grammatical or linguistic marker to claim that it was a figure of speech. It would be a simile. As it stands, there are no such markers. We are then required to take this as straight history.

That's right, from the text then you cannot say that there was any symbolism then. There was no devil involved. It's just a literal snake…

No, you have it backwards. Look at what I said again:

Curse on Eve = pain at childbirth->must not have been pain at childbirth.
Curse on Adam = death->must not have been death.
Curse on Snake = crawl on belly->must not have crawled on belly (i.e., must have had legs).

No… YOU have it backwards… We were talking in the context of the snake having “human like” vocal chords, not crawling on his belly. In fact you stated, “while I'm not a doctor, I am aware that human vocal chords are complex, along with the tongue and lips.”

Sure, if you show me a grammatical or linguistic marker, I'd be happy to concede. On what basis do you take the snake as symbolic and Adam and Eve as literal?

That's not a rhetorical question. I want to know. If someone said, "I believe Adam is just symbolic of the first people in general," then what would you say?

The same response you take the snake to be literal AND symbolic…

Yes, and in those places, the Scripture flat says that the devil is those things (or like those things). Those are metaphors and similes. We know this because they have the proper form; the include "like" or, if not, they are a simple Subject-Predicate statement.

"The devil is a lion" = metaphor
"The devil is like a lion" = simile
"The lion bit me" = shy of something in the context identifying the lion with something other than a lion, then this is not a figure of speech.

Like I've said before.. You can't apply these figures of speech if you take your literal stance in Genesis.

No, I've provided my criteria: the standard rules of speech. Here's a list of figures of speech and how to identify them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

That's my criteria. Now, yours?

Oh, that's for girly men… If you really want figures of speech, try Bullinger.

http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/Groupin ... linger.htm

No, I am not. Narratives can contain symbols, but symbols do not make the reference figurative. Secondly, narratives also include figures of speech, but when they do, those figures are clearly marked by the standard rules of speech. In any case, you are not allowed to take a particular noun and just declare it to be figurative because you don't like the picture it paints. On THAT basis, I could declare every single miracle in the Bible as figurative.

And what about your picture? Where does it stop? I hope you understand today that snakes are not literally devils. I really think you don't.

[Jac3510]

While it may not say anything like that (a "simile"), can you please show me in Genesis 3 where it states that the snake was literally the devil too? If you want to go with a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 (devoid of other verses) where on earth does it ever say that the snake was the devil? You can't have it both ways with a literal interpretation. That is my premise...

The text of Genesis 3 doesn't say anything about it being a symbol for the devil. I get that from future revelation.

Example: The passover lamb was a symbol of Christ. It was a literal lamb that pointed towards Christ's death. Now, the Jews didn't know that until the thing the symbol pointed to was here, but it was a symbol, nonetheless. And as an aside, depending on how technical you want to get, we should really distinguish between a type and a symbol. Regardless, the point I'm making is that language can be symbolic (in which case, the words are figures of speech), or realities can be symbolic. I take it that the snake was a LITERAL snake, talking and all. That subsequent revelation tells me that the snake was a symbol for the devil doesn't alter that fact.

For all we know it could be a vision too… If we believe that Moses was the writer of Genesis, he wasn't there either (in the garden). God perhaps was relaying the information to him in a storyline or vision in a way that he could easily comprehend it. The message of it being that the devil was elusive as a snake.

If it was a vision, then the entire story must have been a vision, including the Trees, Adam, Eve, the Garden, and everything else.

But he can be in other parts of the Bible… (Matthew 23:33)

Good for Matthew 23, but that's not Genesis 3. The word "snake" in Genesis 3 is simply not a simile. It's not a figure of speech at all, at least, not by the regular rules of language.

No… You can't. If you want to read the literal interpretation of the text, nowhere does it imply that the snake was symbolic of the devil.

In the text itself, no, I can't. I get that from subsequent revelation. Had subsequent revelation not told me that the snake was a symbol of the devil, I never would have known. I simply would have taken it to be a snake and no more; in either case, I see a literal snake.

If you had no prior knowledge of Christ or other things stated in the Bible you would have no idea what this verse (Genesis 3:15) was talking about, would you? Like you said, you have to read it in it's context. It was literally a snake biting at the heals of the woman's offspring as it was literally the woman's offspring crushing the head of the snake. There are no other symbols as you seem to be implying... If you want the full scope of the Bible then you will HAVE to incorporate other verses.

No, I wouldn't know that the snake was a symbol of the devil. I would still know, though, that a literal snake deceived Eve. Regarding Gen. 3:15, that's the nature of the prophecy. It is necessarily in seed form. I take it you are familiar with the concept of progressive revelation, yes? No progress, though, ever NEGATES previous revelation. For instance, in John 3, Jesus reveals that the bronze snake was a type (or, more loosely, a symbol) of Christ. But that doesn't mean that the bronze snake never REALLY existed. To the contrary, it means that it HAD to have existed. Same here. If our broader theology is right and the snake does, in fact, point to the devil, then that's all the more reason to believe it was a historical snake.

Simple fact: you don't have Genesis 3 telling you that Satan tempted Eve. Sorry. It's just not in the story. Whether or not subsequent revelation tells us that the snake was symbol for Satan, Genesis 3 is still Genesis 3. If you take it as history, as I do, then we have to take it as it stands, talking snake and all.

Yeah, and now many think that Christ was a snake hater for it. I knew what it symbolized, but someone fresh to the word may have a different interpretation of it

So they would just interpret it wrong. Their loss.

Not according to species (specific kind) which are used to refer to its genus, "Could you pass me a Kleenex [facial tissue], just like going to the "john.

You still aren't getting this part. A Kleenex is in the category of facial tissues. A John is not in the category of toilets. This is just an example of a euphemism.

You are NOT saying that it was a literal snake. You are saying that the snake was symbolic AND literal. You stated, “I believe it is symbolic while at the same time completely literal

Yes, the snake is literal. Real objects can be symbols. Again, note the distinction above: words can be symbolic, or actual things can be symbolic. Progressive revelation has told me that the literal snake was a symbol. I would not have known that outside of that progressive revelation. I'm just fine with saying that, Gen. 3 alone, we have no idea that the snake is anything other than a snake, although we might be hinted as such given the prophetic language of 3:15.

Then why are you trying to explain to me figures of speech? Are you just reading INTO the text too?

Because you are taking the word "snake" to be a figure of speech, which it most definitely is not. And I would only be reading into the text if I said I got that the snake was a symbol for Satan from this text. I don't. I get that symbol from progressive revelation.

That's right, from the text then you cannot say that there was any symbolism then. There was no devil involved. It's just a literal snake…

Yes, you are right. From THIS text, that's all that it is. Subsequent revelation tells me what it points to, just like John 3 tells me that the bronze snake pointed to something else, also, and the passover lamb pointed to other things, etc.

No… YOU have it backwards… We were talking in the context of the snake having “human like” vocal chords, not crawling on his belly. In fact you stated, “while I'm not a doctor, I am aware that human vocal chords are complex, along with the tongue and lips.”

How could I have this backwards? The snake had legs and talked BEFORE the Fall--BEFORE the Curse. The consequences of the Curse mean that those consequences came WITH the Curse, and thus, they were not there before it came. If, then, one of the consequences was, say, the loss of the snakes legs, then we know that the snake had legs prior to the curse.

Oh, that's for girly men… If you really want figures of speech, try Bullinger

Take anything you want. Take any basic hermeneutics text book. But just apply the criteria. Don't take the word "snake" as a figure of speech when it clearly isn't one.

So, since you like Bullinger, show me where, according to his criteria, that the snake should be taken as a figure of speech. Which figure of speech would it be? How can you tell? Let's see Bullinger's criteria.

And what about your picture? Where does it stop? I hope you understand today that snakes are not literally devils. I really think you don't

It stops right where the text stops. If no progressive revelation tells me there was anything else to this event, then I go no further than the text. Against this, you still have the same problem. If you can arbitrarily declare anything you like to be a figure of speech regardless of the rules of language, then we are justified in declaring ANYTHING a figure of speech, because there is no objective standard by which this can be measured. Thus, if someone says that Jesus was figurative, you have no way of saying that they are wrong, because you have no objective criteria. If you do have such a criteria, then I would like to see you apply it so that you get the snake being a figure of speech.

[Kurieuo]

Let's see... Are snakes easy to find? Do they run or craw in the grass? And what about that hissing sound and those sharp teeth? I wonder if.. No, couldn't be.

So the snake is symbolic of a snake? Isn't that the same as saying that the snake is a literal snake?

Revelation 12:9
"The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

Maybe Satan is a literal snake/serpent?

[Gman]

The text of Genesis 3 doesn't say anything about it being a symbol for the devil. I get that from future revelation.

That was the point I was making... I stated that if you want the full scope of the Bible then you will HAVE to incorporate other verses. And perhaps your own hermeneutics too...

Example: The passover lamb was a symbol of Christ. It was a literal lamb that pointed towards Christ's death. Now, the Jews didn't know that until the thing the symbol pointed to was here, but it was a symbol, nonetheless. And as an aside, depending on how technical you want to get, we should really distinguish between a type and a symbol. Regardless, the point I'm making is that language can be symbolic (in which case, the words are figures of speech), or realities can be symbolic. I take it that the snake was a LITERAL snake, talking and all. That subsequent revelation tells me that the snake was a symbol for the devil doesn't alter that fact.

That should mean that we need to look ahead of Genesis 3… If you go back to Genesis 1:27 or 2:7 (even from the very beginning), it appears from these texts that God made man in his own image ABOVE the beasts of the field. God made man moral creatures in His image, not snakes.. There is no reason to punish a literal talking snake. They cannot sin, that is also the point we get from scripture. Can animals sin? I don't think so..

If it was a vision, then the entire story must have been a vision, including the Trees, Adam, Eve, the Garden, and everything else.

God spoke to the prophets on many occasions through visions Hosea 12:10. No one was there to witness the event of Genesis only God…. God could be relaying the message of Genesis in a comprehensible way to the prophet. Spiritual aspects like the devil could also be taken in symbolic terms like the snake.

As an example let's look at Daniel 8: 1-22

1 In the third year of King Belshazzar's reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. 2 In my vision I saw myself [literally] in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam;[a literal city] in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal.[a literal canal] 3 I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long.[a literal ram] One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. 4 I watched the ram as he charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against him, and none could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great.
5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat [a literal goat] with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

The Interpretation of the Vision

19 He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. [b20 The two-horned ram [symbolic] that you saw REPRESENTS the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat [symbolic] is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off REPRESENT four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

The next question here should probably be where in Genesis would it be a visionary or where should it be taken as literal. It could be perhaps that most of the first three chapters where given in a visionary form since it was dealing with the first parts of creation. Was Genesis revealed to the prophet in one single day or was it over a course of several weeks, months, or years? Were those encounters always in literal word for word verbatim, were they visionary, or was it possibly in symbolic terms at times? That's it, the text does NOT say... To be honest with you, I really don't know either since none of us was there. Do you? This is the point I'm trying to make with you…. We don't always know.

Good for Matthew 23, but that's not Genesis 3. The word "snake" in Genesis 3 is simply not a simile. It's not a figure of speech at all, at least, not by the regular rules of language.

Like you said.. We get that from future revelation… From scripture too.

In the text itself, no, I can't. I get that from subsequent revelation. Had subsequent revelation not told me that the snake was a symbol of the devil, I never would have known. I simply would have taken it to be a snake and no more; in either case, I see a literal snake.

That's right we need to look at subsequent revelation… I believe we also need to look at proceeding revelation as well. Just so that we don't get off track…

No, I wouldn't know that the snake was a symbol of the devil. I would still know, though, that a literal snake deceived Eve. Regarding Gen. 3:15, that's the nature of the prophecy. It is necessarily in seed form. I take it you are familiar with the concept of progressive revelation, yes?

While I have not studied it I believe I get the point…

No progress, though, ever NEGATES previous revelation. For instance, in John 3, Jesus reveals that the bronze snake was a type (or, more loosely, a symbol) of Christ. But that doesn't mean that the bronze snake never REALLY existed. To the contrary, it means that it HAD to have existed. Same here. If our broader theology is right and the snake does, in fact, point to the devil, then that's all the more reason to believe it was a historical snake.

Simple fact: you don't have Genesis 3 telling you that Satan tempted Eve. Sorry. It's just not in the story. Whether or not subsequent revelation tells us that the snake was symbol for Satan, Genesis 3 is still Genesis 3. If you take it as history, as I do, then we have to take it as it stands, talking snake and all.

Snakes can still be symbolic today of the devil without having them be literal snakes or having them lose their legs or having them to talk as proposed in Genesis 3 too…

So they would just interpret it wrong. Their loss.

Yeah, screw those guys… What do they know? Silly snake huggers…

You still aren't getting this part. A Kleenex is in the category of facial tissues. A John is not in the category of toilets. This is just an example of a euphemism.

Have it your way then…

How could I have this backwards? The snake had legs and talked BEFORE the Fall--BEFORE the Curse. The consequences of the Curse mean that those consequences came WITH the Curse, and thus, they were not there before it came. If, then, one of the consequences was, say, the loss of the snakes legs, then we know that the snake had legs prior to the curse.

No… You are not getting the point… We weren't talking about the legs. We were talking about VOCAL CHORDS before with the curse. You are on the wrong symbol.

Take anything you want. Take any basic hermeneutics text book. But just apply the criteria. Don't take the word "snake" as a figure of speech when it clearly isn't one.

So, since you like Bullinger, show me where, according to his criteria, that the snake should be taken as a figure of speech. Which figure of speech would it be? How can you tell? Let's see Bullinger's criteria.

edit:

From the Companion Bible, Bullinger classifies the snake as a metonymy the same as serpents in (Num. 21: 6,9). Hebrew for Nachash, a shining one. The old serpent (2 Cor. 11:3), an angel of light, a shining one (2 Cor. 11:14). He also gives an example of "nachash" used in Numbers 21:8. and as the figure of speech Hypocatastasis.

It stops right where the text stops. If no progressive revelation tells me there was anything else to this event, then I go no further than the text. Against this, you still have the same problem. If you can arbitrarily declare anything you like to be a figure of speech regardless of the rules of language, then we are justified in declaring ANYTHING a figure of speech, because there is no objective standard by which this can be measured. Thus, if someone says that Jesus was figurative, you have no way of saying that they are wrong, because you have no objective criteria. If you do have such a criteria, then I would like to see you apply it so that you get the snake being a figure of speech.

You are missing the point of this discussion… I'm not arguing that a snake (an actual live snake) can be taken as a literal or symbolic figure of the Bible. I understand what you are saying very clearly. It is a possibility… or like I stated possibly not too… Ultimately we just don't know. We were not there to witness the event. I might "believe" that I'm right, but I cannot say that I'm right either. That is why I proposed this discussion as a question... Again I have stated many times before, perhaps it is the “message” that is more important, not if it was a literal snake or not. This is what I believe we should be conveying to the unbelievers…

[Jac3510]

That was the point I was making... I stated that if you want the full scope of the Bible then you will HAVE to incorporate other verses. And perhaps your own hermeneutics too...

I never said you couldn't incorporate them. What I did say was that future verses can't come along and say, "Oh yeah, that thing back there that Moses said was literal . . . yeah . . . his mistake. It was just a symbol. Just read that as a figure of speech."

That should mean that we need to look ahead of Genesis 3… If you go back to Genesis 1:27 or 2:7 (even from the very beginning), it appears from these texts that God made man in his own image ABOVE the beasts of the field. God made man moral creatures in His image, not snakes.. There is no reason to punish a literal talking snake. They cannot sin, that is also the point we get from scripture. Can animals sin? I don't think so..

The animal deceived Eve, and thus he was cursed. That's as far as Gen 3 goes. Future revelation implies that the snake, being used by Satan, was cursed not only to curse it for its deception, but to curse Satan himself and point to his ultimate destruction.

God spoke to the prophets on many occasions through visions Hosea 12:10. No one was there to witness the event of Genesis only God…. God could be relaying the message of Genesis in a comprehensible way to the prophet. Spiritual aspects like the devil could also be taken in symbolic terms like the snake.

Visions are just that: visions. The text tells us when we are dealing with a vision. Gen. 1-11 gives no indications that it is a vision and, as Bart pointed out, has all the marks of historical narrative.

Like you said.. We get that from future revelation… From scripture too.

And future revelation does not negate previous revelation.

That's right we need to look at subsequent revelation… I believe we also need to look at proceeding revelation as well. Just so that we don't get off track

What? I take it by proceeding you meant preceding, which I agree with. But subsequent revelation can't negate previous revelation. See my first comment in this post on that.

Snakes can still be symbolic today of the devil without having them be literal snakes or having them lose their legs or having them to talk as proposed in Genesis 3 too…

Whether or not they are symbolic today has nothing to do with what the snake was or was not in Genesis 3. We are talking about the specific snake in that story, not outside in our day to day lives.

No… You are not getting the point… We weren't talking about the legs. We were talking about VOCAL CHORDS before with the curse. You are on the wrong symbol.

Vocal chords had nothing to do with the curse, unless you want to argue that losing the ability to speak was part of the curse. On that, we have no biblical evidence. So let me restate my point as I must not have been clear:

The snake was cursed by God, and that curse was that snakes were to now crawl on their bellies, something they had not done before. Further, they were to be permanent enemies of humanity; they may bite and hurt people, but people will kill them. The first part of this, which I am interested most in, implies that snakes had legs (or wings, or whatever) before the curse. If, though, you say that no talking snake ever existed, but that it was just Satan talking to Eve that Moses chose to represent in the story by picturing a snake, then you can't make sense out of the curse. The curse would have to be figurative, which would render Adam and Eve's curses to be figurative as well, if we want to be consistent. And, of course, there is simply NOTHING in the narrative that implies any of that that would be the case, anyway.

From the Companion Bible, Bullinger classifies the snake as a metonymy the same as serpents in (Num. 21: 6,9). Heb for Nachash, a shining one. The old serpent (2 Cor. 11:3), an angel of light, a shining one (2 Cor. 11:14).

2 Cor 11:3,4 are out immediately since we are dealing with Moses and not Paul. And I'd like to see his quote in which he is equating the snake of Gen 3 with the snakes of Num 21. Does he believe those snakes are just symbols, too? Perhaps that was all a reference to demons attacking the people?

You are missing the point of this discussion… I'm not arguing that a snake (an actual live snake) can be taken as a literal or symbolic figure of the Bible. I understand what you are saying very clearly. It is a possibility… or like I stated possibly not too… Ultimately we just don't know. We were not there to witness the event. I might "believe" that I'm right, but I cannot say that I'm right either. That is why I proposed this discussion as a question... Again I have stated many times before, perhaps it is the “message” that is more important, not if it was a literal snake or not. This is what I believe we should be conveying to the unbelievers…

No, I'm not missing the point of the conversation. I am pointing out that your hermeneutic is inconsistent. You say that the snake in Gen 3 is not a real snake, but instead just a figure of speech. Satan was the one who was really in the Garden tempting Eve. And my point is that you can't say that. It simply is not allowed by the text, and if you insist on that, then any hermeneutic that allows that will allow anyone else to argue that Jesus never existed.

It's not a matter, then, of "We just don't know." We do know, if we believe the Bible. The Bible tells us a snake deceived Eve. I believe that. Since the Bible is absolutely true, then I know it really happened. It's not enough to just talk about "the message" of the story, and dismiss the elements in the story as non-real and not-important. Are you aware that is EXACTLY what John Dominic Crossan does with the Resurrection of Jesus? He talks all about it being a metaphorical story. He says he doesn't care if Jesus did or did not raise from the dead, that he presonally thinks He didn't, but no big deal, because it is the MEANING that is so important. And the MEANING is that the Kingdom has come! Wehoo! Party on!

Sorry, I don't buy it. Here's the standard rule of interpretation: unless a story clearly marks something out as a figure of speech using the conventional rules of language, then we are not allowed to arbirarily treat it as such.

[Gman]

Visions are just that: visions. The text tells us when we are dealing with a vision. Gen. 1-11 gives no indications that it is a vision and, as Bart pointed out, has all the marks of historical narrative.

So in your view, visions in the Bible can ONLY be accepted as visions ONLY if they state they are visions? Again, how could we even understand anything in Genesis? No one but God was there to record the events there. God could be relaying the message to the prophet with real literal people in a storyline with a figurative snake. We just don't know... How would this view devoid it out of being a historical narrative?

Also I believe Bart stated that ultimately we don't know either, although he agreed to more of a literal snake.

What? I take it by proceeding you meant preceding, which I agree with. But subsequent revelation can't negate previous revelation. See my first comment in this post on that.

What I meant was the proceeding information in Genesis 1:27 or 2:7 where God made man in His image, not snakes...

Vocal chords had nothing to do with the curse, unless you want to argue that losing the ability to speak was part of the curse. On that, we have no biblical evidence. So let me restate my point as I must not have been clear:

Again.... You were implying before that vocal chords were the result of the curse... You were not specifically addressing legs in our previous conversation.

The snake was cursed by God, and that curse was that snakes were to now crawl on their bellies, something they had not done before. Further, they were to be permanent enemies of humanity; they may bite and hurt people, but people will kill them. The first part of this, which I am interested most in, implies that snakes had legs (or wings, or whatever) before the curse. If, though, you say that no talking snake ever existed, but that it was just Satan talking to Eve that Moses chose to represent in the story by picturing a snake, then you can't make sense out of the curse. The curse would have to be figurative, which would render Adam and Eve's curses to be figurative as well, if we want to be consistent. And, of course, there is simply NOTHING in the narrative that implies any of that that would be the case, anyway.

And there is nothing in the narrative that Adam and Eve were able to talk to other animals either... I think that they would probably be freaked out about it as anyone else would be today. Also, the devil was there in the Garden and the curse was real even though his attributes were snake-like.

No, I'm not missing the point of the conversation. I am pointing out that your hermeneutic is inconsistent. You say that the snake in Gen 3 is not a real snake, but instead just a figure of speech. Satan was the one who was really in the Garden tempting Eve. And my point is that you can't say that. It simply is not allowed by the text, and if you insist on that, then any hermeneutic that allows that will allow anyone else to argue that Jesus never existed.

Again, you are taking one point and pulling it to the extremes. We are not talking about Jesus here, we are talking about a snake.

It's not a matter, then, of "We just don't know." We do know, if we believe the Bible. The Bible tells us a snake deceived Eve. I believe that. Since the Bible is absolutely true, then I know it really happened. It's not enough to just talk about "the message" of the story, and dismiss the elements in the story as non-real and not-important. Are you aware that is EXACTLY what John Dominic Crossan does with the Resurrection of Jesus? He talks all about it being a metaphorical story. He says he doesn't care if Jesus did or did not raise from the dead, that he presonally thinks He didn't, but no big deal, because it is the MEANING that is so important. And the MEANING is that the Kingdom has come! Wehoo! Party on!

The meaning is important... Is it not? I have no clue who this John Dominic Crossan guy is... I believe in a LITERAL Jesus, I believe in the LITERAL resurrection. I also believe that Eve (a literal woman) was deceived by the Devil in the garden.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Here's the standard rule of interpretation: unless a story clearly marks something out as a figure of speech using the conventional rules of language, then we are not allowed to arbirarily treat it as such.

But you are saying that the snake was ALSO the devil....

I'm not asking you to buy it.. And how do we convey figures of speech today? If I told you that Joe (a literal guy named Joe) talked to a pig today would you believe that he actually did talk to a pig? After all I did say pig.... True or false? Or could it also be the police? By the way, don't say this term to an actual police officer..

I'll address the other issues later on....

[Jac3510]

So in your view, visions in the Bible can ONLY be accepted as visions ONLY if they state they are visions? Again, how could we even understand anything in Genesis? No one but God was there to record the events there. God could be relaying the message to the prophet with real literal people in a storyline with a figurative snake. We just don't know... How would this view devoid it out of being a historical narrative?

Also I believe Bart stated that ultimately we don't know either, although he agreed to more of a literal snake.

Yes, we only take accounts to be visions if the text tells it is a vision. I cannot stress this enough: Genesis 1-11 bears the marks of HISTORICAL NARRATIVE[/b]. As such, we interpret it as historical narrative. As far as how Moses knew about all of it, it could have been several things, or a combination. It could have been oral tradition passed down from generation to generation. There could have been written records Moses appealed to and worked with (the word "generations" in the text implies as much). God could have sat him down on the mountain and just told him the story. All kinds of things. But there is simply NO reason to say that this was a vision.

What I meant was the proceeding information in Genesis 1:27 or 2:7 where God made man in His image, not snakes...

Preceding, not proceeding. To precede means to come before; to proceed means to continue, to come from, to go forth. Regardless, man being made in God's image certainly gives us insight into the curse on several levels, but it gives no indication that the snake in Genesis 3 was anything less than an actual snake.

Here's your problem, Gman. You are asserting that the snake in Genesis 3 was not a real snake. You have to the burden of proof to demonstrate, from Scripture, why you are right. I assert it was a literal snake based on a face-value reading of the text. So tell me, on what is your hermeneutic--your interpretational basis--for saying the snake is symbolic, and how does that same hermeneutic not allow someone to say that Jesus was symbolic, too?

Again.... You were implying before that vocal chords were the result of the curse... You were not specifically addressing legs in our previous conversation

You simply misread me. I never thought no implied as much. Just the opposite, the snake spoke BEFORE the curse. Therefore, the vocal chords could not be a RESULT of the curse. And I was specifically addressing legs. You may have missed it, and I may not have been clear, but that is exactly what I was talking about. So, if you'd like to address that point, I'm still waiting to hear your response to it.

And there is nothing in the narrative that Adam and Eve were able to talk to other animals either... I think that they would probably be freaked out about it as anyone else would be today. Also, the devil was there in the Garden and the curse was real even though his attributes were snake-like.

There doesn't have to be. The text says that they did, and that's enough. I have my doubts that they were "freaked out." Why would they be? They lived in a perfect world--there was no danger to them. There would have been nothing to be afraid of. And you don't know that they couldn't talk. It's a huge--and dangerous--assumption on your part to look at the way the world behaves now, in its fallen state, and project that back into how the world worked then, in its unfallen state.

Again, you are taking one point and pulling it to the extremes. We are not talking about Jesus here, we are talking about a snake.

It's not pulling extremes. In logic, it is called a reductio ad absurdum. It means to show the logical consequences of an idea, thus:

If A necessarily ->B, and if B necessarily ->C , then A necessarily ->C. If, then, C is false, A must also be false.

Your hermeneutic is A. If it says that unmarked people/events may be taken as symbolic on the basis of the miraculous, then, by definition, I can take the resurrection as symbolic as it is both miraculous and unmarked. If you reject that I can do that, then you likewise must reject that you can do it with the snake, unless, of course, you simply wish to be irrational--that is, logically inconsistent. Or, the alternative is that you can provide a consistent hermeneutic that allows me to take the snake as non-literal while, by the same principles, allowing me to take the resurrection as literal. And that is what I have been asking you for from the beginning. I still am.

The meaning is important... Is it not? I have no clue who this John Dominic Crossan guy is... I believe in a LITERAL Jesus, I believe in the LITERAL resurrection. I also believe that Eve (a literal woman) was deceived by the Devil in the garden.

Crossan is one of the co-founders of the Jesus Seminar. He doesn't believe Jesus was raised from the dead, and is the premier scholar who advocates that position. It is really scary. If you read his arguments, they sound exactly like the ones you are using here. I'll provide quotes when I get to work today. I have two of his works, Who Killed Jesus and N.T. Wright and J. D. Crossan in Dialog.

Anyway, yes, meaning is important, but so is reference. Remember the distinction between the mention/use and sense/reference. Likewise, there is another general category along these lines we call meaning/mode, which ROUGHLY corresponds to the idea of concrete/abstract. You are taking the snake as abstract, not concrete. You are exalting meaning and ignoring mode. You are insisting on mention without use, sense without reference. Gman, these are things you are simply not allowed to do and be logically consistent. If you take your path, then the logical result is that we can't take Jesus' resurrection to be an actual event. Crossan has championed this position. It has, indeed, become the premier argument against His resurrection in modern times.

But you are saying that the snake was ALSO the devil....

Not on the basis of Gen 3, I am not. I happen to believe that the snake was in some unspecified way related to the devil, but that is completely and 100% based on the reality of the snake in the Garden. Take away the snake, you take away the relationship; take away the relationship, you have no devil in the garden. Thus, take away the literal snake, and you have no devil in the garden of any kind. At least, none that had anything to do with Genesis 3.

I'm not asking you to buy it.. And how do we convey figures of speech today? If I told you that Joe (a literal guy named Joe) talked to a pig today would you believe that he actually did talk to a pig? After all I did say pig.... True or false? Or could it also be the police? By the way, don't say this term to an actual police officer..

"Pig" is a known figure of speech for police officers. It is simply a derogatory term. If I were to hear your sentence in day to do life, I would expect there to be other word pictures or descriptions to go along with it. I would expect something like this:

"Joe talked a pig today. He was on his way to work and the idiot pulled him over, saying he was going too fast. Personally, I think he was just racist."

On the other had, tell me what YOU would think about a sentence like this:

"Joe talked to a pig today. Pigs . . . I don't really like them. Their fat and smell funny and make noises. They're always in the mud making a mess. Little twisty tales . . . some people think they're cute. I don't. Did you know they don't even sweat?!?"

Now, what does THIS sound like I'm talking about. Pretty clearly, it is a real pig. How can you tell? It's obvious, because there are no markers indicating that "pig" is being taken as a figure of speech. You would take this as "historical narrative."

Same thing with the snake. Please understand that I don't care whether or not you think the snake was real. I am concerned about the hermeneutic you employ to get a figurative snake, because if you employ it there, then you can take things like talking donkeys, angelic appearances, parting of seas, people walking on water, and people raising from the dead all as figurative, too.