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.
