Yes it does do that most of the time, but not always. At least not according to this guy who seems to know more about waw than anyone else i have heard of.
That's a big article. Which argument of McCabe's, specifically, are you citing? If you're just going to appeal to McCabe's authority as an OT historian (a logical fallacy), I could just as easily cite several theologians that agree with me (Kline, Seeley, Lamoureux, etc.). Let's discuss the details.
or by someone enforcing a humanistic world view on the account.
In what way are you implying that I am forcing my "humanistic" worldview on the account? I've provided my very Bible-based evidence for why I think what I do. Please support your accusation.
So its a serpent now, you originally claimed it was a snake. In any case it does say much more. my bible doesn't say 'a serpent' it says "the Serpent, and described him as being a very special being. This makes him much more than 'a serpent and nothing more'
We are never told that the serpent was a snake.
Yes thats what i am saying, you have no evidence to claim that it was a snake and nothing more.
Genesis 3 describes "the serpent" as being "crafty". And it tells us that the serpent speaks. So when you say that it is "a false representation to claim that the serpent was a physical snake", what exactly do you believe concerning the serpent? If it's simply that you don't think the serpent was a snake before it lost its legs (semantics), then I'm with you. But I get the impression that you think the snake was something more -- something supernatural -- beyond what the text literally says. I would love to hear just what it is you believe about the serpent.
Hey, gluadys! Do you want in on this conversation?
No Sir you are being dogmatic.
The dictionary definition of dogmatism is "a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises".
In what way, specifically, am I being dogmatic? You're very quick to label others, I've noticed.
what exactly did I espouse again?
Scientific concordism. The belief that Scripture must speak accurately about science and history, lest its spiritual authority be called into question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're coming across as though you subscribe to this hermeneutic.
There you go again, are you deliberately misinterpreting what I say, so you can accuse me of a contradiction. I never said we cant tell either way.
1. You cited the example of Jesus referring to the Torah as evidence that the understood it as an historical document (including the Genesis creation account).
2. I pointed out that just because Jesus cited the Torah, doesn't mean he ascribed to its historicity.
3. You then backpedaled and said, "It doesnt mean he didnt either, so you cant rule out the possibility".
So yes, you are saying we can't tell either way if we can't rule out the possibility one way or the other. I'm not misinterpreting you. You're just being squirmy.
Well if you cant tell the difference based on literary style you really have no point arguing about Hebrew grammer. [sic]
Sigh... I love it when people who can't spell "grammar" accuse me of being literally inept.
Look. We both admit to not being experts on Hebrew grammar, so you can't hold that above my head. Yes, I can tell the difference between literary styles. My point is that simply saying the differences between the Proverbs/Psalms and Genesis are obvious (as you did here:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48359151&postcount=25) is not an argument since I can just as easily assert my position as the obvious or "reasonable" one. Take the time to explain and support your position, since you've done very little of that so far, resorting instead to accusing me of dogmatism, deliberate misrepresentation, implying I subscribe to humanism, etc. Talk is cheap! Where's the beef?
Telling me what you beleive is not evidence, and that wasn't your original question, if you want some sort of answer I suggest you rephrase it according to something I said or claimed instead of imposing your own paradigm on me.
Again, you're being squirmy and avoiding the question. Not only did I tell you what I believed, but I told you why I believed it using examples from the Bible to explain that accommodationism is most in-line with God's nature. You, on the other hand, appear to subscribe to the idea that God superceded the knowledge of the Hebrew people by giving them an historically/scientifically accurate account of origins that they could never have known for themselves. What is your reason for thinking so?
