Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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....."
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....."
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.
... by a little African tribe out in the savannah named the !ExclamationMarkSomething...
It is still a false dichotomy, because,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.That is a false dichotomy that you would do best to drop.But if evolution is true, Genesis is not.
Shernren was hardly blaming the San for the fall of the whole human race. That would not be fair.!Kung? (or were you trying to not be specific?)
You mean the snake evolved out of God's curse to eat dust every day of its life?Nonbeneficial mutation, obviously.
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.Actually, no one knows.
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 MulderSince 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.
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.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.
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.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?
But a good one. Leviathan is an image taken from the serpent in Eden, an OT metaphor for the ancient enemy of God, Satan.As for Leviathan, mine was a question.
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.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.
Sure, Jesus called Herod a fox, but the Pharisees Jesus was talking to were not metaphors.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....."
marktheblake, do you believe there is a necessary accordance between science and Scripture? If so, why so? If not, why not?
]So first you say it isn't a physical snake then you say it is a physical snake plus something else.
I quoted what you said: its a false representation to claim that the serpent was a physical snakenever said either, I am not sure how you can misinterpret this. Please quote me where i said 'it isnt a snake'
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?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.
Has anyone here tried to discredit Genesis saying 'talking snakes is silly'?Therefore to attempt to discredit Genesis with the 'talking snakes is silly' routine has no solid ground.
Exactly.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.
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.
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.What form of literature is Genesis 1-3? Upon what do you base this?
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?
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?
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.
hx=history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?