Creationists: How certain are you of your interpretation of Genesis?

[busterdog]

That is a false dichotomy that you would do best to drop.

There are certain beliefs that require that people say such things. That's why we say such things. Not because we get our jollies out of challenging other beliefs.

 

[busterdog]

Isn't Leviathan aquatic? How does that fit with crawling on its belly and eating dust all the days of its life? That can't be literal.

Nonbeneficial mutation, obviously.

Actually, no one knows.

Psalm 74:13 You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters. 14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea. God's defeat of the Egyptian Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea was a partial fulfilment of the promise of Gen 3, crushing the head of the serpent. A greater defeat of the serpent was to come as Isaiah promised. But it only works if you take the snake in Genesis as a physical snake in the story, but the story is a metaphor for Satan temptation of mankind and our promised redemption.

Since Isaiah gives some equivalence between dragons and snakes, the nachash is probably something left a bit vague -- somewhere between the common garter snake and the reptilian alien gray that they autopsied at Roswell.

Jesus defeated Satan on the cross and fulfilled the promise of Genesis 3, but Satan does not eat dust or crawl on his belly. 1Pet 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Note: prowling not slithering and it is not dust he devours. Job 1:7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." Not slithering on his belly here either. Basically the snake is a real snake in the story the same way the birds of the air are real birds in the parable of the sower. But both are talking about Satan. In the story, it is a snake that the Redeemer steps on and has his heel bruised. It is actually about Jesus defeat of Satan through his death on Calvary.

Lets see, there is no suggestion Balaam's ass was possessed, and while the the possessed swine may have gone wee wee wee all the way down, they didn't say anything. Legion did their talking from a human host.

Then it was the Lord opening the ass's mouth, snakes are even more difficult, they don't have vocal cords, so you have to ascribe creative power to Satan in giving it the ability to speak.

Well, it could have been morse code, semaphore or charades in Gen. 3.

"Short Word, sounds like "cod.""

Oh really, it could have been anything. I don't know how donkeys speak either or why pigs go mad out of mere possession. I can think of any number of indwelt politicians, and they don't go charging down cliffs to drown.

we have God punishing the snake while real perpetrator goes unpunished,

And I had to go to work today and sweat in my garden to make it grow. Is it my fault the freakin ground is so rocky?

As for Leviathan, mine was a question.

One can believe in inerrant scripture without assuming that all translations are 100% as originally intended. Whatever it was in the garden, it was something scaly.

It really is possible to deal both in figurative language and in literal language within one book. You can't push the notion that using a metaphor once is like no longer being a virgin. "And by one metaphorical reading, death of all things literal entered....."

 

[shernren]

It really is possible to deal both in figurative language and in literal language within one book. You can't push the notion that using a metaphor once is like no longer being a virgin. "And by one metaphorical reading, death of all things literal entered....."

Really? You could try telling huldah that:

I don't think it matters whether you're a TE or YEC as long as you take Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. as literal, historical figures. When I assumed an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, I could no longer take the whole Bible (including the NT) seriously.

(emphasis added) It certainly sounds that to him, reading Genesis metaphorically forbade him from reading the rest of the good book literally.

We are certainly not dismissing the possibility of the literal reading. That's a strawman argument used to link moderate TEs with the ultraliberal end of the spectrum. (Indeed, there is a growing number of conservative exegetes who are showing that to them the literal reading is precisely one that discourages wooden YECist approaches. See for example C. John Collins' Genesis 1-4.)

What we are disputing is the primacy of the literal reading. We are not asking you to show us that it can be read literally. We are asking you to show us why it should be read literally. So much of the meaning of the text depends on the metaphor within it, that there is virtually nothing left that depends on a literal reading, nothing more to be gained by insisting that the snake was just a snake and that the first sin was really committed by an Adam and an Eve in a Mediterranean garden instead of, say, by a little African tribe out in the savannah named the !ExclamationMarkSomething who decided one day to start killing other people all for the kick of seeing what it felt like to disobey God.

I know people who read the Bible completely literally. For the most part they belong in a category I can call, for lack of a better word, atheists. They are the people who will criticize Scripture for saying in one place that God stands and in another that God sits, or in one place that God is light and in another that God wraps Himself in darkness. Who can have sympathy for them?

On the other hand even the most literal-minded YEC frequently glosses a metaphorical reading over the Genesis text every time he or she wants to know what it really means. For a simple example take the comparison that begins Genesis 3: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any other beast of the field ... " Of course this serpent is Satan and he is that old dragon in Revelations and the sea serpent Leviathan who is also the great scaly beast Leviathan in Job and who prowls around like a roaring lion but appears as an angel of light ... what do we get out of this, literally? Satan must be some smorgasbord of body parts glued together from diverse biological beings. But of course no YEC reads it this way, because when they want to know what it means they read it metaphorically. All those animals are metaphors for the one angelic being who obviously is neither snake nor dragon nor lion ...

And yet where did we get that from? From a literal reading of Genesis? Certainly not: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any other beast of the field" - how can this comparison make any sense, literally, unless the serpent is itself a beast of the field? I can only be the smartest, or the strongest, or the loudest, of a category of people that I myself belong to. On the contrary I cannot possibly be louder than any other American, for I myself am hardly American to begin with. (Not to mention that the Americans seem to be louder than any other people of the Earth ...)

The point is that the literal reading gives us so little, and the metaphorical reading so much, out of the text, that no Christian actually bothers to read Genesis literally. The YECs may think they do. But how many of them believe that Satan is actually a snake?

 

[USincognito]

... by a little African tribe out in the savannah named the !ExclamationMarkSomething...

!Kung? (or were you trying to not be specific?)

 

[Assyrian]

But if evolution is true, Genesis is not.

That is a false dichotomy that you would do best to drop.

There are certain beliefs that require that people say such things. That's why we say such things. Not because we get our jollies out of challenging other beliefs.

It is still a false dichotomy, because,

If evolution is true,
there are two options,
The YEC interpretation is wrong,
or
Genesis is wrong.

Of course if you add in your certain beliefs (certain beliefs in both sense of the term ) then you can get a logically consistent statement.

If evolution is true,
And the YEC interpretation of Genesis is right,
Then Genesis is not.

But in its original form, it is a false dichotomy.

Here's where we get to the really interesting part. Over in the Certain Origins thread Juv was arguing that literalism is a stronger faith. This discussion gets to the heart of that claim.

Creationists are faced with a choice if evolution is true. Either they stop believing their interpretation of Genesis is right, or they stop believing Genesis is the inspired word of God. We can see from this false dichotomy that their faith in their own ability to interpret scripture goes completely unquestioned. Even if they found evolution were true, they would still have complete faith in their interpretation. It is their faith in God and in his word that is shaken instead.

 

[Assyrian]

!Kung? (or were you trying to not be specific?)

Shernren was hardly blaming the San for the fall of the whole human race. That would not be fair.

Is it just me or does !Kung sound like a Catholic theologian expressing disapproval of the theologian Hans.

 

[Assyrian]

Nonbeneficial mutation, obviously.

You mean the snake evolved out of God's curse to eat dust every day of its life?

Actually, no one knows.

I think we can know that the literal description of leviathan does not fit the literal reading of God's curse on the snake. And if a literal sea monster had crawled out of the sea and slithered to Jerusalem, pushed his way through the ranks of Roman soldiers to fight Messiah and bite his heel before getting it head crushed outside the wall of Roman occupied Jerusalem, someone would have noticed.

Since Isaiah gives some equivalence between dragons and snakes, the nachash is probably something left a bit vague -- somewhere between the common garter snake and the reptilian alien gray that they autopsied at Roswell.

So either Messiah has to fight the spawn of an reptile-alien hybridization experiment, or the serpent and dragon are biblical metaphors for a fallen angel Satan. I will go with Revelation rather than Fox Mulder Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan.

Well, it could have been morse code, semaphore or charades in Gen. 3.

"Short Word, sounds like "cod.""

Oh really, it could have been anything. I don't know how donkeys speak either or why pigs go mad out of mere possession. I can think of any number of indwelt politicians, and they don't go charging down cliffs to drown.

Explains why God took the serpents hands, so he can't play charades anymore... And why Nephilim have so many fingers. First word, six syllables... You could be onto something here BD.

And I had to go to work today and sweat in my garden to make it grow. Is it my fault the freakin ground is so rocky?

Rom 5:12 and so death spread to all men because all sinned. The curse effects all of us because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

As for Leviathan, mine was a question.

But a good one. Leviathan is an image taken from the serpent in Eden, an OT metaphor for the ancient enemy of God, Satan.

One can believe in inerrant scripture without assuming that all translations are 100% as originally intended. Whatever it was in the garden, it was something scaly.

You can read about the scales in Ezek 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. 14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.

It really is possible to deal both in figurative language and in literal language within one book. You can't push the notion that using a metaphor once is like no longer being a virgin. "And by one metaphorical reading, death of all things literal entered....."

Sure, Jesus called Herod a fox, but the Pharisees Jesus was talking to were not metaphors.

But you also have narratives where the whole story is a metaphor. In the parable of the sower we are told the birds of the air are the devil. But it is not a literal farmer sowing seeds and the devil comes along steals the seeds so devil is described as a 'bird of the air' because he likes to steal literal seeds from a literal farmer. Nor did the devil possess the birds of the air to go and steal seeds from the farmer. The whole story, sower, seeds, ground and birds is parable.

But unlike Herod being called a fox, the serpent is not an isolated metaphor in a narrative where the real nature of the character is clear. We know lots about Herod in Luke's gospel and this debauched Roman client king did not have a bushy tail. On the other hand, in the account of the temptation and fall, the snake is a snake all the way through the narrative without the slightest hint in the story that it is being used as a metaphor for something else.
Instead of a single reference from a single person to the metaphor, the snake is addressed as a snake and described as a snake:
By the narrator, Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field...
By Eve Gen 3:13 The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
And even by God Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this... Well technically it is the narrator saying God said this to the snake, but close enough.
Then the punishment God gives is the punishment of a snake, Gen 3:14 on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
Even the promised redemption from the fall is given in terms of the Redeemer bruising the snake's head Gen 3:15 he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

The metaphor of snake spans the entire narrative of temptation fall and curse without the slightest hint of another literal meaning. To me that says the whole narrative is an extended metaphor, like the parable of the sower.

 

[marktheblake]

marktheblake, do you believe there is a necessary accordance between science and Scripture? If so, why so? If not, why not?

I beleive that God created everying in 6 days, is that what you want to know? otherwise I am not really getting the question or its relevance.

 

[marktheblake]

]So first you say it isn't a physical snake then you say it is a physical snake plus something else.

never said either, I am not sure how you can misinterpret this. Please quote me where i said 'it isnt a snake'

I will try to restate so that there is no confusion:

There isn't enough evidence to conclusively claim that the Serpent is a snake that talks. Therefore to attempt to discredit Genesis with the 'talking snakes is silly' routine has no solid ground.

As for the Judges 9 Trees, I am not familiar with this, but a little digging reveals to me that Matthew Henry considers this to be a parable, so I am happy with to stand on that.

 

[Assyrian]

never said either, I am not sure how you can misinterpret this. Please quote me where i said 'it isnt a snake'

I quoted what you said: its a false representation to claim that the serpent was a physical snake

What is the difference between saying
1) it is false to claim something is
and saying
2) something isn't

I will try to restate so that there is no confusion:

There isn't enough evidence to conclusively claim that the Serpent is a snake that talks.

It is the straightforward meaning of the text, there is nothing obscure in the name, or in the description of the snake sliding on its belly eating dust. Creationists sometimes claim that if you allow metaphorical meanings in the bible, then scripture loses all meaning and simply deteriorates into subjecting opinion. However the evidence I see is that it is literalists who lose the grip of meaning of scripture. If the snake in a simple narrative like Genesis 3 cannot be understood, how can you be sure of anything, even, (to take that favourite literalist tactic), the resurrection itself?

Therefore to attempt to discredit Genesis with the 'talking snakes is silly' routine has no solid ground.

Has anyone here tried to discredit Genesis saying 'talking snakes is silly'?

As for the Judges 9 Trees, I am not familiar with this, but a little digging reveals to me that Matthew Henry considers this to be a parable, so I am happy with to stand on that.

Exactly.

In the parable the trees were, well, trees. They were olive trees that produced olives and olive oil, vines that grew grapes. They could talk but, hey, it was a parable. In Genesis the snake is a snake, a really clever animal. He can talk too, but that is not a problem in parables as we have seen. While in the story the trees are trees, the parable uses them to represent people like Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem. Not a trees with Abimelech hiding in it, or Abimelech dressed as a tree. Abimelech does not turn into a tree when the moon is full. The trees are just trees, talking trees, but trees all the same. In the story. In Genesis 3 the snake is a snake, a very clever talking snake, but still a snake. But the meaning of the story, as we are told in Revelation, is the story is talking about Satan deceiving mankind.

 

[Iosias]

I beleive that God created everying in 6 days, is that what you want to know? otherwise I am not really getting the question or its relevance.

What form of literature is Genesis 1-3? Upon what do you base this?

 

[busterdog]

What form of literature is Genesis 1-3? Upon what do you base this?

narrative. clearly this is a viable argument. the literary arguments are indirect inferences at best. all other scriptural references to metaphors for creation telegraph their similes and take other subjects that those in this narrative. And Exod. 20 aint on poem.

 

[shernren]

(USIncognito: I'm making reference to the "out-of-Africa" model for human evolution. The first most distinctively African tribal name that came to mind was the !Kung, but obviously it would be very very silly to assume that they were the ones who did it. The exclamationmarksomething is meant to be a generic African tribe, which just happens to be identifiably African by virtue of the most African identifier this uninformed kid has at hand.)

 

[Iosias]

narrative. clearly this is a viable argument.

I agree that it is narrative, but now we need to determine the type of narrative that it is. A narrative simply tells a story but we would not argue that Psalm 78 is in the same genre as Gen. 1-3 would we?

There are a variety of different narratives; Myths, Folktales, Saga, History, Legend and Novelette. There is a variety of saga types; historical, ethnographic, etiological. There are then ethnological etiologies, etymological etiologies, cultic etiologies and geological etiologies.

Then it gets more complicated. All except Historical narratives are poetic narrative genres. These are then clearly distinguished and distinguishable from Poetry as a distinct genre in and of itself.

So, with this in mind, what form of narrative is Gen 1-3?

 

[busterdog]

I agree that it is narrative, but now we need to determine the type of narrative that it is. A narrative simply tells a story but we would not argue that Psalm 78 is in the same genre as Gen. 1-3 would we?

There are a variety of different narratives; Myths, Folktales, Saga, History, Legend and Novelette. There is a variety of saga types; historical, ethnographic, etiological. There are then ethnological etiologies, etymological etiologies, cultic etiologies and geological etiologies.

Then it gets more complicated. All except Historical narratives are poetic narrative genres. These are then clearly distinguished and distinguishable from Poetry as a distinct genre in and of itself.

So, with this in mind, what form of narrative is Gen 1-3?

Narrative is the relation of series of events. Yes, they can be fictional, but there is precious little fiction in the Bible. Parables are fictional, but explicitly so. Another example, Samuel tells David the story of the man with the little ewe lamb. There are no fictional gods or titans in the Bible. No fictional heroes. One must reject the literary form and voice of the Bible in order to reach those other conclusions.

As a literary man, no doubt you are familiar with the first chapter of Mimesis, by Auerbach. So, you know this is not sphincter talk. Many scholars support me in my claim about the evident intent of the narrative.

Most of the forms you reference aren't in the Bible. There are similes and metaphorical forms, such as comparing the earth to a drunken man staggering. That is not a narrative form, and those passages have other intentions generally.

Job 12:25 They grope in the dark without light, and he maketh them to stagger like [a] drunken [man].

Psa 107:27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits' end.
I went through an extensive defense of this position in another thread. The sum of the TE response was that my literary analysis wasn't really of any weight at all. The dialectic became unilectic.

As a literary form, Gen 1-2 has a surface text and an evident intent to narrate a series of actual events. There are three basic arguments against: 1. We have stories of Apsu, Tiamat, etc. and why shouldn't Biblical revelation be made equal to (if not the disfavored stepchild of) pagan confabulation; 2. Our telescopes and microscopes tell us that the earth was not created in six days, so the evident literary form intending to narrate fact is rejected and simply presumed to be the wrong form; 3. There was once a metaphor in Psalms, so we can make anything biblical into a metaphor if we like, regardless of the literary form actually used.

All of the foregoing represent a priori's that I don't accept. You can ask me to change my a priori, but the one I have chosen is defensible, and incompatible with these other forms of reasoning. I am not going to belabor that point, but I will continue to insist that the biblical, inerrant position is a well reasoned position. It is well supported by reasoning on the basis of what the Bible intends.

 

[Iosias]

As a literary form, Gen 1-2 has a surface text and an evident intent to narrate a series of actual events.

With respect, you did not answer my question: Is Gen. 1-2 a myth, folktale, saga, history, legend or novelette?

 

[busterdog]

With respect, you did not answer my question: Is Gen. 1-2 a myth, folktale, saga, history, legend or novelette?

hx

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5021948&highlight=mimesis

Originally Posted by shernren View Post

So, whenever a passage has any metaphorical element to it, then the whole passage must necessarily be metaphorical, instead of a scientific description of the world as we know it?

Well, that is precisely the only literary rule that is really on the table.

TE can add the rule as follows: if science allows it to be, it is not metaphor.

That is the alarming thing about TE hermeneutics: there is no basis for discrimination of intent based upon the text itself. You must use science since the text is incapable of telling us whether it means a real parting of the seas, literal days or real pillars under the earth. That is, it means whatever you want.

The YEC problem is trying to do something more than just say, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. Which arguably takes us back to the TE view, which is, its metaphor where it disagrees with common sense as established by science. YEC struggles in trying to do more than just say, well, its (our) common sense, which does not always do successfully. Even then we often simply come the familiar point of cleavage: do we self-validate teh Bible on its own terms or must everything be validated by science as court of last resort.

The pattern of Hebrew power is rhyme in meaning, or complemnetary meaning. "He trains my hands for war, and my fingers for fighting." The latter phrase and idiom must agree with the conditions in the first.

In psalm 75, that God can cause the earth to crumble is the proposition. That is the only parameter in view: God's ability. That he upholds the pillars thereof agrees. No scientific literalism is required in the subsidiary phrase. All it must do is agree.

To require of the phrase that its narrator be speaking literally of pillars is nonsense and sophistry.

In Gen. 1, the point of every verse is 1. power and 2. time. It does not have the same pattern of agreement in a primary and complementary idiom.

In Gen. 1. we have this stuff. light, planets, beasts, etc. Their existence is not in contention and Gen. does not attempt to make that point. This is all about who made it all and on what schedule. What other communication is conveyed? Authorship and control of the schedule are the only concepts. The Schedule is an independent assertion. It is not an echo of another point, such as God's position as creator.

 

[Iosias]

hx

Once agin you have not directly answered the question; Is Gen. 1-2 a myth, folktale, saga, history, legend or novelette?

 

[busterdog]

Once agin you have not directly answered the question; Is Gen. 1-2 a myth, folktale, saga, history, legend or novelette?

hx=history.

 

[Iosias]

hx=history.

So it is your contention that the literary genre of Gen. 1-2 is historical narrative. Ok, now can you prove that please?