Bible stories literal or symbolic?

[Jac3510]

Byblos,

I agree almost entirely with what you are saying. I just want to clarify the terminology I was using. I have no problem saying the snake was both literal and a symbol, because a literal thing can be a symbol. That the literal snake was a symbol for Satan has been my consistent argument throughout this thread.

When I talked about the snake being a literary device, though, I meant it was a "symbol" in the way Gman has been using the term. If something is only a literary device, then it is not literal at all. So if the snake is only a literary device to paint a vivid picture of Satan, as Gman suggests, then there was no literal snake in the garden at all. And if that is his hermeneutic, then by that standard, the entire Bible, as you point out, becomes a series of symbols that can mean absolutely anything the interpreter wants it to mean. If anyone disagrees with that claim, I have two exercises for you. First, go read Origen's exegesis of just about any passage of Scripture. He takes Gman's ideas to its logical conclusions, and I believe that it was THAT method that resulted in the dark ages. Second, go ask ten Christians what a given passage means. Then, when you get ten different answers, tell them what the literal interpretation is, and watch all ten of them say, "Well, that's just YOUR interpretation."

Gman's hermeneutic is just good old, modern-day post-modernism at its best. Take the miraculous and render it symbolic. And if you can do that in one part of historical narrative, then you can logically do that in ANY part of historical narrative, up to and including the Resurrection.

After all . . . if snakes can't talk, then how can we possibly believe dead people come back to life!??!?!? Neither has the physical capacity for it!

[Gman]

Yes, it does have to do with the Cross. And the parting of the Red Sea. And turning water into wine, and every other miraculous event in the whole of Scripture.

No it doesn't. First off those events are dealing with the power of God. The talking snake has nothing to do with the powers of God but the powers of Satan. If we are talking about Satan, then Satan did NOT have power over God's creation until AFTER Adam's sin or fall. And actually, it can even be argued that Satan has “zero” power over God's creation.

Second, as for miraculous events of God, how are you defining what a miraculous event of God is? Cannot God use natural events from nature to part the red sea or does it always have to be a supernatural experience that has to appear right before our eyes to be considered of God? I believe this idea is putting God in a box, because I believe miraculous events are happening right now. Miraculous events do not need “fireworks” to be considered of God. In doing so, this belief is putting the power's of God beyond of reach of his people thus turning it to fables. However, I would also argue that God could turn water into wine or heal a blind person with the snap of his fingers. The only problem with this is that if this is the only way we believe God works, which you seem to be implying, then actually we are LIMITING His powers only to the supernatural “poof magic” before our eyes belief or mentality. I believe this is very dangerous stance which stifles the actions of God and turns it into fables….

Given this information do we really think that the that valleys will be raised and mountains brought low were literal in Isaiah 40:3-4 or does Luke 3:4-6 say something different about it?

I wanted to address this now because it seems from this conversation and earlier ones that you hold very dearly to YEC interpretations. Even though I use to believe YEC, I believe it now to be very damaging to the body of Christ… Not to mention Noah's “global” flood which puts the powers of God beyond that of the miraculous and into unbelievable fables.. I would simply argue that God manipulates the physical realm form the spiritual world. And if he does, then that evidence can sometimes be examined and verified.

1. Miraculous/abnormal events in historical narratives should be taken as literary devices,
2. A talking snake is a miraculous/abnormal event,
3. Therefore, the talking snake is a literary device.

I believe you are trying to express a disjunctive syllogism.

Argument = Miraculous/abnormal events in the Bible can either be interpreted as literal or symbolic.

P = Miraculous/abnormal events in the Bible can be literal.
Q = Miraculous/abnormal events in the Bible can be symbolic.
~P = It's not the case that the snake in the Bible is literal.
:. Q = Therefore Miraculous/abnormal events in the Bible are symbolic.

PVQ ~P :. Q

Again, I do NOT believe that the talking snake was a miraculous event. That is what you believe. Unlike the parting of the red sea, I believe that the snake was simply another expression for the devil which is clearly revealed in Revelation 12:9. A sound argument can only be given if your premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. So far you have given no clear premises for your argument therefore your conclusion cannot be true.

We aren't talking about a snake. We are talking about identifying your hermeneutic and applying that consistently to the whole of Scripture.

No we are talking about a talking snake. You even included it into your argument.

As far as how a snake could talk, the answer is pretty simple: either (1) a demon/Satan possessed it, giving it the ability to speak (as when the donkey spoke), or (2) it could naturally talk before the Fall (could other animals? I don't know), yet part of its curse was that it lost that ability.

I'm sorry this doesn't make any sense. If animals could talk before the fall and lost their ability after the curse, then Balaam's Donkey couldn't talk due to the curse. This brings up other issues as well. If you are saying that Satan could possess a snake, then God's creation was NOT created “good” as was stated in Genesis 1:31.

The latter is more likely, but the former is possible as well. If we believe in a God who can create an entire universe, form man out of dust, part the Red Sea, and give a Shumanite woman a flask of oil that never ends, God is perfectly capable of modifying a snake's vocal chord structure.

That is something that you are simply “reading” into the text to back up your argument. Nowhere in scripture did it ever imply that. We also have to remember that not only was this a talking snake but also a “walking” snake as well. And if it can walk and talk or have a higher intelligence than let's say a cat or dog that can remember and take commands, then we are probably dealing with something a bit different from your average ordinary snake.

[Jac3510]

1. You misunderstood what I meant by the term "miraculous." Notice I put the word "abnormal" after it. I was using it in a popular sense, that is, not the way things work today. I did not mean it in terms of "an event occurring by the supernatural powers of God." Reread the syllogisms. Your hermeneutic falls exactly to them.

2. Whether or not I hold to interpretations of certain passages that YECs do has no bearing on the validity of that interpretation. To assume it does is to commit the genetic fallacy.

3. I have no problem with the snake having legs before the Fall. I've already said I take it as such. I take the Bible in its plain meaning here. Before the Fall, snakes had legs, and this one could talk. As a result of the incident, snakes lost their legs. We've not seen a talking snake sense then. So, whether or not the loss of voice was a result of the Fall, or whether or not a demon spoke through the snake, I don't know, nor do I care. The Bible doesn't say.

What the Bible does say is that the snake spoke, so I believe it. As to your objection that Satan doesn't have the power to perform miracles, I'll simply point you to Rev. 13:15, "He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed." Hey! Idols can't speak! I don't even have to have a picture of a statues "vocal chords" to prove that. But, amazingly, Satan can make the statue talk. Hmm . . .

4. I have to wonder if throughout this entire conversation, you've grasped what I am arguing. You keep saying we are talking about a snake. I've told you repeatedly that is not my objection. My objection is that your method of interpretation--the method that allows you to get a non-literal snake--also also must allow for every other non-typical event related via historical narrative to also be non-literal.

You can say all day long this doesn't go to the Cross, and I'm telling you it does. Gman, listen carefully: your argument--your hermeneutic--is that of John Domanic Crossan, the co-founder of the Jesus Seminar. He uses the very hermeneutical principles you are employing to argue that Jesus was never buried in a tomb and that the resurrection was never meant to be taken literally. YOUR hermeneutic, Gman.

I am not talking about a snake. I am talking about hermeneutics. You have to employ your hermeneutic consistently, and consistently employed, your hermeneutic makes the Resurrection a myth. I don't see what is so hard about just taking the text literally. Just believe God. It's not that hard.

[Gman]

On the other hand, there is a lot more historical evidence for the cross and the resurrection than there is for possessed snake in the garden of Eden. How damaging would it be to the cross to think of the snake in terms of a symbolic story rather than an actual event in history? My guess would be minimal but still not consistent.

John, that is the extreme that Jac is trying to pull the argument into. The cross, to me anyways, is an undeniable true event. Including the resurrection. In some cases, my belief is that it actually empowers the truth of the Bible and God if we can turn around what we think are fables and understand them as actual true events. Just like what we are doing between YEC and OEC. Of course I don't think we can't do that every time, nor do I think in some cases we will ever know the reason(s) behind it.

[jenna]

Gman, I noticed you did not put the option of both. My take on this; is that the bible contains many literal stories, and many symbolic ones also. for instance, I believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place. But then I also believe that the beast in Revelation was symbolic.

Yes, I already addressed that. First page.

Ok, sorry for not looking through all pages first. I will shut up now and not bother you again.

[Gman]

1. You misunderstood what I meant by the term "miraculous." Notice I put the word "abnormal" after it. I was using it in a popular sense, that is, not the way things work today. I did not mean it in terms of "an event occurring by the supernatural powers of God." Reread the syllogisms. Your hermeneutic falls exactly to them.

No.... In light of scripture I do not believe that this was a miraculous nor an abnormal event. Again, that is what YOU believe. In light of scripture, Satan has always tempted certain people throughout the entire Bible. There is absolutely nothing miraculous nor abnormal about it if we read and understand the Bible. Period.

2. Whether or not I hold to interpretations of certain passages that YECs do has no bearing on the validity of that interpretation. To assume it does is to commit the genetic fallacy.

Yes it does. If we are arguing that God created the earth in 6 literal days instead of over a period of six generations that makes a HUGE difference on how we interpret the Bible. To say that God created the earth in 6 literal days (as some people think it may say) puts what we know beyond our observational science. Just like our walking talking snake. If we date a rock, we know for a FACT that isn't 6 thousand years old. So not only is it bending science to say that it isn't, but it is also turning the Bible into a fable to say otherwise. Beyond the scope of God, beyond the scope of our observations, a tall tale hoax.

3. I have no problem with the snake having legs before the Fall. I've already said I take it as such. I take the Bible in its plain meaning here. Before the Fall, snakes had legs, and this one could talk. As a result of the incident, snakes lost their legs. We've not seen a talking snake sense then. So, whether or not the loss of voice was a result of the Fall, or whether or not a demon spoke through the snake, I don't know, nor do I care. The Bible doesn't say.

Then that is your belief, not mine.... You CANNOT ridicule or nor push your interpretations upon others to prove your point. It is not plain in the Bible either that snakes had legs nor could talk nor had an intelligence. You are simply adding to Bible to which you see fit. That is the point I'm trying to make with you....

What the Bible does say is that the snake spoke, so I believe it. As to your objection that Satan doesn't have the power to perform miracles, I'll simply point you to Rev. 13:15, "He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed." Hey! Idols can't speak! I don't even have to have a picture of a statues "vocal chords" to prove that. But, amazingly, Satan can make the statue talk. Hmm . . .

That's interesting, because most people understand that the book of Revelation to be symbolic in most cases. But that's not really the point... Again, everything in the garden was "good." If you are saying that Satan had power over God's creation before the fall, then it wasn't good. It was infiltrated with evil where Satan could do whatever he pleased.

4. I have to wonder if throughout this entire conversation, you've grasped what I am arguing. You keep saying we are talking about a snake. I've told you repeatedly that is not my objection. My objection is that your method of interpretation--the method that allows you to get a non-literal snake--also also must allow for every other non-typical event related via historical narrative to also be non-literal.

It's NOT a miraculous or abnormal event! It has no bearing on the cross whatsoever... And I want to understand your method of interpretation. What else do you believe to be literal or true? If someone said that "the sky was falling" is that taken to be literal or true? Or do you literally think that the that valleys were raised and mountains were really brought low in Isaiah 40:3-4 in light of Luke 3:4-6?

You can say all day long this doesn't go to the Cross, and I'm telling you it does. Gman, listen carefully: your argument--your hermeneutic--is that of John Domanic Crossan, the co-founder of the Jesus Seminar. He uses the very hermeneutical principles you are employing to argue that Jesus was never buried in a tomb and that the resurrection was never meant to be taken literally. YOUR hermeneutic, Gman.

You can't box me into your way of thinking or compare me to this John Domanic Crossan guy. You need to re-examine your own beliefs. Perhaps I can say that your own hermeneutic compares to that of Ken Ham of AIG. Jac, do you know how much damage he has done to the body of Christ? He has literally turned millions of people away from Christ and has turned it into unbelievable laughable fable or fairy tale...

I am not talking about a snake. I am talking about hermeneutics. You have to employ your hermeneutic consistently, and consistently employed, your hermeneutic makes the Resurrection a myth. I don't see what is so hard about just taking the text literally. Just believe God. It's not that hard.

I do believe in God... In light of scripture I have clearly shown you that the snake was the devil. The only thing you can do to back up your claim is to add verses into the Bible, thus distorting the meaning of the Bible, thus turning it into a fable. Please be more careful....

[Gman]

Ok, sorry for not looking through all pages first. I will shut up now and not bother you again.

Well don't take it that harsh...

[Jac3510]

No.... In light of scripture I do not believe that this was a miraculous nor an abnormal event. Again, that is what YOU believe. In light of scripture, Satan has always tempted certain people throughout the entire Bible. There is absolutely nothing miraculous nor abnormal about it if we read and understand the Bible. Period.

Wrong. THE REASON you take the snake to be symbolic is because, IF TAKEN LITERALLY, it would be abnormal. Thus, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ABNORMAL, you take it to be symbolic. By THAT hermeneutic, the Resurrection didn't really happen.

Yes it does. If we are arguing that God created the earth in 6 literal days over over a period of six generations that makes a HUGE difference on how we interpret the Bible. To say that God created the earth in 6 literal days (as some people think it may say) puts what we know beyond our observational science. Just like our walking talking snake. If we date a rock, we know for a FACT that isn't 6 thousand years old. So not only is it bending science to say that it isn't, but it is also turning the Bible into a fable to say otherwise. Beyond the scope of God, beyond the scope of our observations, a tall tale hoax.

Genetic fallacy, thus, illogical/irrational.

Then that is your belief, not mine.... You CANNOT ridicule or nor push your interpretations upon others to prove your point. It is not plain in the Bible either that snakes had legs nor could talk nor had an intelligence. You are simply adding to Bible to which you see fit. That is the point I'm trying to make with you....

The only thing I'm pushing is proper hermeneutics.

The Bible says a snake talked. You tell me what that presupposes. The Bible says that the snake would be CURSED to move along on its belly. You tell me what that presupposes. What I am NOT going to do is deny what the Bible plainly says is true.

That's interesting, because most people understand that the book of Revelation to be symbolic in most cases. But that's not really the point... Again, everything in the garden was "good." If you are saying that Satan had power over God's creation before the fall, then it wasn't good. It was infiltrated with evil where Satan could do whatever he pleased.

Ah, so you don't think that the image of the beast will actually talk, hmm? Maybe the beast isn't real. Maybe the image isn't real. Maybe none of its real! Maybe its a giant allegory of how Satan sort of works in this world, hmm?

I notice you didn't deal with the point. If Satan can make a statue talk, he can make a snake talk. Regarding "good," the word "good" there should be taken to refer to functional goodness, not moral goodness. I hope you don't take it that light is morally good. Or the Sun, moon, stars, or any other inanimate object in creation? Why, then, if "goodness" has no moral connotation there should it suddenly have a moral connotation when dealing with Adam. And might I add that Adam himself is nowhere said to be good. You are adding that to the text. God saw that His creation, collectively, was good. This says NOTHING of moral goodness, not that of Adam, and not that of a snake, still much less what Satan could or couldn't do with reference to this supposed moral goodness.

It's NOT a miraculous or abnormal event! It has no bearing on the cross whatsoever... And I want to understand your method of interpretation. What else do you believe to be literal or true? If someone said that "the sky was falling" is that taken to be literal or true? Or do you literally think that the that valleys were raised and mountains were really brought low in Isaiah 40:3-4 in light of Luke 3:4-6?

See first point.

As far as my method of intepretation goes, it is the standard historical-grammatical-contextual method of interpretation. Figures of speech are taken as such. Allegories are taken as such. "The sky is falling" is a commonly known idiom, so we literally take it as such. The word "snake" is no figure of speech. This is what we got into the first few pages. There is nothing to indicate that the WORD "snake" is a figure of speech. NOTHING.

You can't box me into your way of thinking or compare me to this John Domanic Crossan guy. You need to re-examine your own beliefs. Perhaps I can say that your own hermeneutic compares to that of Ken Ham of AIG. Jac, do you know how much damage he has done to the body of Christ? He has literally turned millions of people away from Christ and has turned it into unbelievable laughable fable or fairy tale...

Let's just say I plead guilty as charge to the absurd AiG comparison. Fine. For the sake of argument, fine. So which is better? To deny the resurrection, or to insist on a 6,000 year old earth?

Now, for the record, I don't believe Ham et al has it right. But, frankly, I could not care one tiny bit how much "damage" has been done. Do you think Hugh Ross has made it any better? A theistic evolutionist could come in here and say, "Gman! Do you not know how much damage you have done to the body of Christ by rejecting evolution!?!?!"

That's garbage. I do NOT interpret Scripture in light of science. I interpet science in light of Scripture. YOU can choose which you think is more authoritative, but riddle me this: which does more damage to the body of Christ: Christians putting Scripture under the authority of science, or non-believers ridiculing Christians for holding to the authority of Scripture?

Now, the POINT to the Crossan comparison was this: YOU keep saying that your hermeneutic doesn't speak to the Cross. I am saying that it does, and that it HAS. This isn't theoretical. This is actually happening and has been for ten years. I'm not talking about what your hermeneutic COULD lead to. I am telling you what it HAS ALREADY lead to.

I do believe in God... In light of scripture I have clearly shown you that the snake was the devil. The only thing you can do to back up your claim is to add verses into the Bible, thus distorting the meaning of the Bible, thus turning it into a fable. Please be more careful....

No, it doesn't "clearly show" that the snake was the devil.

Tell me, Gman--without appealing to any passage other than Genesis 3, where do you see Satan? IN THE CONTEXT OF GENESIS 3, where do you get the idea of Satan?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what it breaks down to:

1. You don't see the snake as literal, not because Scripture tells you the snake isn't literal, but because your experience (and modern science) doesn't see literal snakes talking.
2. Therefore, you take the snake as symbolic.
3. By that logic, you have never seen (and science denies) that a dead man can come back to life and ascend to heaven.
4. Thus, we should also take that as symbolic.

I'm just being consistent with YOUR hermeneutic, Gman. It is YOUR hermeneutic that has done far, far, far greater damage to the body of Christ. And for the record, you are starting to sound just like the YEC extremists you hate so much. They say that if you don't read the Bible their way, then you are destroying Scripture and compromsing the faith and doing damage to the Body, and here you are saying the same thing about them. Very gracious.

I say that about your hermeneutic, but only because of what it says about the Resurrection. You are denying objectivity, Gman. You have to decide if you are going to believe the plain words of Scripture or if you are going to twist them to mean something that you can buy into.

[Gman]

Wrong. THE REASON you take the snake to be symbolic is because, IF TAKEN LITERALLY, it would be abnormal. Thus, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ABNORMAL, you take it to be symbolic. By THAT hermeneutic, the Resurrection didn't really happen.

WRONG!! Again there is nothing abnormal about it. ABNORMAL IS NOT SYMBOLIC! They are completely different meanings according to the dictionary..

The definition of symbolic is the following:

1. serving as a symbol of something (often fol. by of).
2. of, pertaining to, or expressed by a symbol.
3. characterized by or involving the use of symbols: a highly symbolic poem.
4. (in semantics, esp. formerly) pertaining to a class of words that express only relations. Compare notional (def. 7).
5. Computers. expressed in characters, usually nonnumeric, that require translation before they can be used (opposed to absolute).

Genetic fallacy, thus, illogical/irrational.

Your argument or mine?

The only thing I'm pushing is proper hermeneutics.

The only thing I'm pushing is proper interpretation...

The Bible says a snake talked. You tell me what that presupposes. The Bible says that the snake would be CURSED to move along on its belly. You tell me what that presupposes. What I am NOT going to do is deny what the Bible plainly says is true.

What do you think Jesus proposed when he called the Pharisee's snakes in Matthew 23:33? Or Jesus being called the Bread of Life in John 6:35?

Ah, so you don't think that the image of the beast will actually talk, hmm? Maybe the beast isn't real. Maybe the image isn't real. Maybe none of its real! Maybe its a giant allegory of how Satan sort of works in this world, hmm?

Maybe you can't answer my questions then... Maybe you are calling God's creation bad. Hmmm..

As far as my method of intepretation goes, it is the standard historical-grammatical-contextual method of interpretation. Figures of speech are taken as such. Allegories are taken as such. "The sky is falling" is a commonly known idiom, so we literally take it as such. The word "snake" is no figure of speech. This is what we got into the first few pages. There is nothing to indicate that the WORD "snake" is a figure of speech. NOTHING.

Ok, well if you want to go that route there is NOTHING that says that it was the devil either. You can't have it both ways. You say that the snake is not a figure of speech for the devil, and yet you say that the snake was also the devil. Which is it? From scripture we can clearly find out what this "so called" snake was in Revelation 12:9. The devil is "called" the snake, it wasn't an actual real snake.

Let's just say I plead guilty as charge to the absurd AiG comparison. Fine. For the sake of argument, fine. So which is better? To deny the resurrection, or to insist on a 6,000 year old earth?

No one is denying the resurrection here, and yet you accuse me of denying the cross. Are you questioning my Christianity Jac?

Now, for the record, I don't believe Ham et al has it right. But, frankly, I could not care one tiny bit how much "damage" has been done.

I know you don't care. That is why I'm pointing it out to you...

Do you think Hugh Ross has made it any better? A theistic evolutionist could come in here and say, "Gman! Do you not know how much damage you have done to the body of Christ by rejecting evolution!?!?!"

We don't know how God created it all, therefore I don't totally reject theistic evolution... For many with a scientific mind it is very important topic!

That's garbage. I do NOT interpret Scripture in light of science. I interpet science in light of Scripture. YOU can choose which you think is more authoritative, but riddle me this: which does more damage to the body of Christ: Christians putting Scripture under the authority of science, or non-believers ridiculing Christians for holding to the authority of Scripture?

Are you claiming that you are holding to the authority of Scripture? You add in what you think is there, deny others, and then call that authoritative? On what grounds?

Now, the POINT to the Crossan comparison was this: YOU keep saying that your hermeneutic doesn't speak to the Cross. I am saying that it does, and that it HAS. This isn't theoretical. This is actually happening and has been for ten years. I'm not talking about what your hermeneutic COULD lead to. I am telling you what it HAS ALREADY lead to.

It DOES NOT point to the cross... You are simply putting that into this as a scare tactic. Ok, then what I'm saying is that your hermeneutic seems to be turning the Bible into a fable thus is probably turning the cross into a fable as well.

No, it doesn't "clearly show" that the snake was the devil.

Let's see, according to Revelation 12:9 the snake was "CALLED" the devil, meaning that the devil wasn't an actual snake.

Revelation 12:9

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.

Here's what it breaks down to:

1. You don't see the snake as literal, not because Scripture tells you the snake isn't literal, but because your experience (and modern science) doesn't see literal snakes talking.

Nope, in light of scripture we can clearly see that the snake was "CALLED" the devil.

2. Therefore, you take the snake as symbolic.

Hmmm, maybe we could even look at the word "snake" in the hebrew to see if it really means a literal snake as well..

3. By that logic, you have never seen (and science denies) that a dead man can come back to life and ascend to heaven.

By your logic it seems that animals could talk even though scripture does not imply that.

4. Thus, we should also take that as symbolic.

I'm just being consistent with YOUR hermeneutic, Gman. It is YOUR hermeneutic that has done far, far, far greater damage to the body of Christ. And for the record, you are starting to sound just like the YEC extremists you hate so much. They say that if you don't read the Bible their way, then you are destroying Scripture and compromsing the faith and doing damage to the Body, and here you are saying the same thing about them. Very gracious.

Who said I hate YEC extremists? I said I use to believe in YEC... You accuse me of being a follower of John Domanic Crossan, denying the cross, then attack my Christianity? I would suggest you cool off Jac or this is going to get ugly.

I say that about your hermeneutic, but only because of what it says about the Resurrection. You are denying objectivity, Gman. You have to decide if you are going to believe the plain words of Scripture or if you are going to twist them to mean something that you can buy into.

My hermeneutic does NOT deny the cross nor the resurrection. You it seems are twisting or adding scripture to make it fit into your own hermeneutic. And I would add here the "possibility" of turning God's word into a fable.

[Jac3510]

I don't totally reject theistic evolution

That says it all.

edit: I'm going to take one last shot at this. I am convinced that I'm not explaining myself correctly, because you are not even addressing my point. Let me just do this Q/A style:

Q. Briefly, what causes you to consider the snake in Genesis 3 to be non-literal?

[Byblos]

I don't totally reject theistic evolution

That says it all.

I have a Q&A of my own too Jac, what exactly does it all say?

[Jac3510]

It says that his method for interpreting Scripture (his hermeneutic, what I have been talking about throughout this entire thread) allows for evolution as a valid option. The ramifications of that are enormous. Any method that opens that possibility is to be rejected out of hand, not only for what it allows out of Genesis 1-2, but how that same method, consistently applied, affects how one reads the whole of Scripture.

[Byblos]

It says that his method for interpreting Scripture (his hermeneutic, what I have been talking about throughout this entire thread) allows for evolution as a valid option. The ramifications of that are enormous. Any method that opens that possibility is to be rejected out of hand, not only for what it allows out of Genesis 1-2, but how that same method, consistently applied, affects how one reads the whole of Scripture.

I see no inconsistency espousing old earth creationism and a literal reading of Genesis or scripture in general. Heck, this is what this site was founded upon, that very principal (I think you know that). Furthermore, OEC is not inconsistent with either progressive creationism or theistic evolutionism either, though most (including myself) favor the former over the latter. To reject such out of hand, however, is to reject the plain reading of both scripture and God's very creation. Scripture and science are not contradictory but to say you interpret science through scripture is to say scripture is scientifically complete. It is not, and there's a far greater inherent danger in assuming so than anything else you've posited.

[Jac3510]

OEC is not inconsistent with Scripture. Theistic evolution is.

[Byblos]

OEC is not inconsistent with Scripture. Theistic evolution is.

Now that we've established that, the last point can be debated in a separate thread. Please carry on.