Evidence Genesis is just a fable

[Fencerguy]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the entirety of Genesis be interpreted completely figuratively. I doubt if it can be easily deconstructed into a single genre. But even if the entirety of Genesis was figurative, how does it follow that the rest of the Bible is also figurative? This strikes me as a non-sequitur.

If nothing in the first few chapters of Genesis actually happened (i.e. they are stories made up to metaphorically explain how God might have created the earth) then we actually know nothing at all about how God created the earth, or for that matter that He did at all.....If we can't know for sure how the world came into existence based on the Bible, how then can we know anything about our faith for sure based on the Bible?
Perhaps it might be more fitting to say that Jesus only rose from the dead figuratively.....Because we all know how impossible it would be scientifically for someone who went through the process of scourging and crucifixion to die, and then somehow return to life. Perhaps Jesus' resurrection was meant to be understood in a figurative manner, that in His death He secured our salvation, but his bodily resurrection was meant to serve as the lesson that we are saved from our sins, not really that Jesus literally rose again.......
One thing can lead to another, and that is how apostasy begins....

 

[Mallon]

If nothing in the first few chapters of Genesis actually happened (i.e. they are stories made up to metaphorically explain how God might have created the earth) then we actually know nothing at all about how God created the earth, or for that matter that He did at all.....

The primary message of the Genesis creation accounts is THAT God created with a purpose. It stands as a polemic against the polytheistic creation accounts of the surrounding ANE cultures. But none of that hinges on the details of a six day creation anymore than the theological messages of Jesus' parables hinge on their historicity. This is missing the forest for the trees.

Genesis tells us virtually nothing about HOW God created the earth anyway.

If we can't know for sure how the world came into existence based on the Bible, how then can we know anything about our faith for sure based on the Bible?
Perhaps it might be more fitting to say that Jesus only rose from the dead figuratively.....Because we all know how impossible it would be scientifically for someone who went through the process of scourging and crucifixion to die, and then somehow return to life. Perhaps Jesus' resurrection was meant to be understood in a figurative manner, that in His death He secured our salvation, but his bodily resurrection was meant to serve as the lesson that we are saved from our sins, not really that Jesus literally rose again.......
One thing can lead to another, and that is how apostasy begins....

That entire argument is one big non sequitur. It does not follow that if Genesis 1 (or the entirety of Genesis or the entirety of the Old Testament) is allegorical, the rest of the Bible must be also. The Bible is a collection of 66 books, written in many different literary genres and styles by many different people. It would be absolutely irresponsible to apply the same blanket hermeneutic to all of them.

 

[Fencerguy]

The primary message of the Genesis creation accounts is THAT God created with a purpose. It stands as a polemic against the polytheistic creation accounts of the surrounding ANE cultures. But none of that hinges on the details of a six day creation anymore than the theological messages of Jesus' parables hinge on their historicity. This is missing the forest for the trees.

Genesis tells us virtually nothing about HOW God created the earth anyway.

Genesis also doesn't tell us that the creation account is explicitly a documentation to disprove polytheistic creationism.....Genesis does say 6 days of creation, it does say "kinds" of animals, it does say that Man was created in the image of God...
The rest is up to our discernment to look at the scientific data that is there and what the Bible says

That entire argument is one big non sequitur. It does not follow that if Genesis 1 (or the entirety of Genesis or the entirety of the Old Testament) is allegorical, the rest of the Bible must be also. The Bible is a collection of 66 books, written in many different literary genres and styles by many different people. It would be absolutely irresponsible to apply the same blanket hermeneutic to all of them.

I'm not arguing a blanket hermeneutic (at least I dont think I am), but I don't find any reason to assume that Genesis 1-12 are to be interpreted figuratively in light of the rest of Scripture or in scientific knowledge... I have been able to find things both in science and in the Bible that complement each other just fine...

 

[Assyrian]

Here is a discussion on hermeneutics that I have found quite helpful; its from catholicapologetics.org
"
Literal Sense


The first sense then for understanding the Bible is the literal sense.
Definition: the literal sense of Scripture is the meaning which the human author directly intended and the author's words convey.
Criteria to understand the literal sense:

• • The literary form that the author used is the first aid in determining what the author meant. If the author wrote poetry instead of history, then the literary form of poetry assists in determining the meaning intended by the author. Some other literary forms of the Bible include history, law, songs, love stories, stories (parables), etc.
  • The literary history of the biblical book or of the section of the Bible that contains the book also aids in determining the meaning intended by the author. Literary history of a book includes what is known about the author, his background, his historical period of Israel's history, etc.

An example of the Church using the literal sense of a scripture passage in order to understand what meaning we should get from it is the 6th chapter of the Gospel according to John. Literary Form of John 6:25-69:


Most scripture scholars today affirm that John's gospel is historical in nature. Hence we believe that John strove to preserve both the words and actions of Jesus. Unlike the Synoptics, John wrote through the eyes of the faith of the late Apostolic Church in light of the way that faith translated into practice and worship.
Where John is clearly biographical, the literal meaning is emphasized by linguistic psychology: multiple repetition of the message in different words. Where literalness is intended, intended meaning is reinforced by recording the reaction to literal meaning by the hearers without the speaker's correction. Literary History of John 6:25-69:


The apostle John was an eyewitness to the life and teachings of Jesus. He was one of the Twelve. He was also the last of the Apostles to write and to die. He refers to himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Interpretation of John 6:25-69:


Following the details of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes--biographical, Jesus walking on the sea--biographical, Jesus reacts to the crowds' need for signs. Jesus takes them from manna, bread from heaven, to "true bread from heaven (v. 32)" ... "I am the bread (v. 35)." "I am the bread that came down from heaven (v. 41)." This is God saying this: "I am the bread that came down from heaven." If He was not really the bread that came down from heaven, His omnipotent and creative Word would then have made it so.
Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended. Jn 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. Jn 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." Jn 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. Jn 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Jn 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law. Jn 6:60,66 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus, knowing their thoughts and their error, would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk. Fuller Sense


But the Bible has God, a divine author, besides the human author. The Church teaches that there exists a more-than-literal meaning for understanding the Bible: a fuller sense.
Definition: The fuller sense is the deeper meaning intended by God as divine author. The fuller sense of Scripture, since it is the meaning intended by God, may not have been clearly known and intended by the human author.
Criteria to establish the fuller sense:

• • Because the Catholic Church holds that there are two revealing authorities of Divine Revelation, the Bible and the Holy Spirit, the fuller sense of the Bible can be found in the authoritative interpretation of those revealing authorities. Some of these authorities are the New Testament itself, the Fathers of the Church, the Church in Council (cf. Acts 15 model), the "faithful people" faithful to what was handed down to them, etc. The Spirit of Truth is entrusted to faithful people as an authority in the Church.
  • The fuller sense of any Scripture text has to be in agreement with the literal sense of the words. This fuller sense must be a consequential development of what the human author of the text intended to say.

An example of the fuller sense in the interpretation of Scripture is found by looking at the New Testament.
In the Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 1, verse 23, Matthew says that the conception of Jesus by Mary was a virginal conception and took place so that the words of the prophet Isaiah (7:14) might be fulfilled.
Isaiah gives no evidence that the prophet had Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary in mind. Isaiah does not speak of a virgin in the strict sense--merely an unmarried woman. Isaiah is not clear that he is even speaking to a distant future conception. The whole meaning of Isaiah's chapter appears to imply that the birth he prophesies will take place about 735 B.C. during the reign of King Ahaz the father of the future King Hezekiah. The words of Isaiah may have literally meant the conception of the future King Hezekiah. At the time of Isaiah's words in chapter 7, the mother of the future King Hezekiah would have been unmarried.
Matthew, on the other hand, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, creates an interpretation of Isaiah which is definitely not literal. Matthew clearly interprets Isaiah in a fuller sense: the unmarried woman is the virgin Mary, and God-with-us is Jesus. Typical Sense


Following the lead of Paul himself (cf. Rom 5:14) there is another way for creating meaning in the Bible: the typical sense.
Definition: The typical sense of Bible texts is the deeper meaning that some elements (persons, places, things and events) of the Bible have because God, the divine author of the Bible, intended that these elements foreshadow/shadow further things.
Criteria to understanding the typical sense:

• • The typical sense of the Bible is created by continuing revelation or growth in the understanding the Word of God. Extra-biblical growth in understanding the Word of God is evidenced in the growth and development of the understanding of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. Types--the typical sense--are discovered in the New Testament, or in the agreement among "faithful people" faithful to what was handed down to them--the Fathers of the Church, in worship-- the liturgy--and its development through the ages, in the documents of the Church, etc. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is a revealing authority in the Church and reveals Himself to "faithful people" in all ages.
  • The other criterion for discovering the typical meaning of Scripture is understanding that any type found in the text of the Bible has to be related to the anti-type (e.g., Christ to Adam). This confirms that God planned the relationship of the type to the anti-type.

An example of the typical meaning in the Bible is in Paul's writings. Paul appears to delight in establishing types between the New Testament and the Old Testament. In 1 Cor 10:6 Paul typifies those events which occurred to the Israelites in the desert of Sinai throughout the Exodus to those things that happen to Christians. Another example of a type--the typical meaning in the Bible--is the bronze serpent raised by Moses in the desert. The evangelist John presents raising the bronze serpent as a type of Christ crucified (3:14).

I would agree with most of that, but what we need to distinguish, is between the literal sense, what the author meant including understanding metaphors metaphorically, and literalism, which tries to take everything literally, including the metaphors. I think the article falls from the literal sense into literalism when it discusses John 6, because when Jesus said "eat my flesh and drink my blood" he was actually speaking in metaphor, it is his words that are spirit and life to us John 6:63, not eating his flesh or even eating bread miraculously transformed into his flesh.

 

[Assyrian]

So by teaching a lesson about the sabbath, it automatically means that Moses did not view the 6 days of creation literally?
All we know about this passage is that Moses used the 6 days of creation as a lesson for the Sabbath observance; there isn't any description of Moses's feelings about whether or not they were literal at all.....so for anyone to assume he did not see them literally is something that they have brought into their interpretation, not something they have derived from it...

No it doesn't mean Moses didn't interpret the day literally. It but does tell us a few pretty important things. It is looking at one of the main creationist arguments for literal days, that Moses interpreted the days of Genesis literally in the ten commandments, and showing this is not the case. Perhaps Moses did take the day literally, but if he did there is no evidence for it here, (or anywhere else). It also shows that there were other reasons for the days of Genesis, other ways to interpret them apart from as a literal history lesson. But I think most significantly when we combine this with the other references in the bible to the days of Genesis and see that they all go for a non literal interpretation, you have to ask if literalists have missed the point.

Well, the Exodus wasn't metaphorical, God's actions in the Exodus were spoken of metaphorically......It would be the same as Moses saying "in 6 days God created the world by his strong outstretched arm, and then on the seventh He rested"....

The Exodus wasn't metaphorical, neither was the creation, God really has created everything there is. The question isn't whether the exodus or creation are metaphorical but whether the descriptions of them are, and in Deuteronomy Moses uses a metaphorical description of the Exodus to explain the Sabbath command. Now you shouldn't think this argument says any more that it does, all it is doing is showing how a metaphorical description can be used to illustrate the Sabbath commandment. It dosn't mean the day of creation are metaphorical, just that they don't need to be literal in Exodus 20, and if Moses is using a metaphorical description, it isn't the only time he did.

I mean, do we think God actually rested on the seventh day? Or was God's rest metaphorical as well?

Oh I think God's rest is real, I just don't think it was a day off God took six thousand years ago. God's rest is the rest we enter into through the gospel where we stop relying on our own works of righteousness and instead put our faith in Christ and all he accomplished on the cross (Hebrews 3&4). What we see in the seventh day in Genesis is a figurative prophecy of this rest, a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17. It is amazing the number of pictures prophesying the cross in the Genesis creation accounts, the tree of life, the seed bruising the serpent's head, even Adam and Eve being clothed by God in animal skins.

Indeed, you just have to read Genesis. Lets simplify this. When you quote this can you highlight in blue all of day three?

Gen 1:8 ESV And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

What time of day does the third day end?

I would assume at evening; like it says......

You assume it is the evening, but in the section you have highlighted, evening isn't the end of the day, it is followed by morning before we get to the end.

Sure why not? Is that a problem?

Because if you take it literally it is simply a dubious lesson in about labour relations and you miss the point Jesus was making in the parable.

Yep, and there's about 2,000 years of church teachings that affirm that idea....

Ah so you are a Catholic, you don't say so in your faith icon.

So comparing talking trees to "evening and morning" is your way of saying that the 6 days of creation weren't literal?

No, what it tells us is that the repetition in Genesis does not mean it is literal.

Repetition is a way to stress something's importance.......it follows that God felt it important enough to say that they actually were days.....If it were not important, why would it say that "there was evening and there was morning"?

Then they really were talking trees in Judges 9?

Repetition may simply be part of the poetic structure, or it could be telling God operates one his own time schedule, which as Psalm 90 tells us is vastly different from ours, or it could be emphasising the working week as an illustration of the sabbath law.

What are some of your reasons that the creation accounts figuratively?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7559500-4/#post57463948

 

[Mallon]

Genesis also doesn't tell us that the creation account is explicitly a documentation to disprove polytheistic creationism.....

Right. We gather this from the knowledge we have of surrounding cultures at the time. Is it wrong to interpret the Bible in light of its cultural context? You advocate below that we allow extra-biblical data to influence our interpretation -- what about archaeological data?

Genesis does say 6 days of creation, it does say "kinds" of animals, it does say that Man was created in the image of God...

Right. But just repeating the mantra "the Bible says this" doesn't address the issue of how it's meant. Job says the earth is shaped like a flat piece of clay. Revelation says the sky will roll up like a scroll. Ecclesiastes says the sun orbits the earth. Do you believe these descriptions to be accurate, too? After all, the Bible says...

The rest is up to our discernment to look at the scientific data that is there and what the Bible says

Well then what about the overwhelming scientific data there is from God's creation that attests to the evolution of life and the old age of the earth? What do you do with that? Most YEC organizations suggest we just ignore it if it doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not arguing a blanket hermeneutic (at least I dont think I am)

Then you have no reason to fear the slippery slope that if parts of Genesis are interpreted allegorically, the rest of the Bible must be also.

 

[Hupomone10]

Are you going to address GratiaCorpusChristi's post? I'd be interested in seeing your response.

Which post #?

 

[Hupomone10]

You're not allowed repetition in a metaphor?

"So, is it right for you to continue beating your wife?"

It is not a metaphor, therefore your question is invalid. You are assuming it is a metaphor, and then preceding to argue for repetition in your assumed metaphor. Therefore, since it is not a metaphor the question is moot just as my question above. It is simply assumed to be a metaphor or figurative by people who are trying to harmonize God's Word with man's spin.

Onward. The following is a follow-up to the quotes on literalness in interpretation, and sets forth standard principles of interpretation:

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION ​

WHEN TO INTERPRET LITERALLY, WHEN FIGURATIVELY
1. “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” 6

2. “It should be observed at the very outset that the purpose of figurative language is to impart some literal truth, which may more clearly be conveyed by the use of figures than in any other way.” 3

3. “The literal meaning of words must be retained, more in the historical books of Scripture than in those which are poetical.” 1

4. “The literal meaning of words is to be given up, if it be either improper, or involve an impossibility, or where words, properly taken, contain anything contrary to the doctrinal or moral precepts delivered in other parts of Scripture.” 1

5. “If the literal meaning makes good sense in its connections, it is literal; but if the literal meaning does not make good sense, it is figurative.” 5

6. “Since the literal is the most usual signification of a word, and therefore occurs much more frequently than the figurative, any term will be regarded as literal until there is good reason for a different understanding.” 5
7. “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity.” 7
-------------------------------------------------

INTERPRETATION OF WORDS
1. In any passage the most simple sense – that which most readily suggests itself to an intelligent reader with competent knowledge – is usually the genuine sense or meaning.1

2. Determine what the word(s) meant to the persons who used the language or now use it, in the context of the subject under discussion in the context. 1

3. This meaning should be retained unless there is a clear reason for abandoning it. 1

4. When a word has several meanings, use the one that best suits the passage and that best suits the author, given his character, sentiments, situation, and circumstances. 1

5. General terms are used sometimes in their whole extent, & sometimes in a restricted sense. If the word is a general term, determine which way it is used by examining the scope, subject matter, context, and parallel passages. 1

6. An interpretation should not affirm nor deny more than the inspired penman affirmed or denied at the time they wrote. Don’t read into it more than what is there.1

7. Words of scripture must be taken in their common meaning, unless shown to be inconsistent with other words in the sentence, with the argument or context, or with other parts of Scripture. 2

8. When words have more than one meaning, the one which was more obvious to the comprehension of the original readers is preferred, allowing for modes of thought prevalent in their own day, and for figurative expressions familiar to them. 2

9. The true meaning of any passage is not every sense which the words will bear, but that which is intended by the inspired writers, or by the Holy Spirit even though imperfectly understood by the writers themselves.2

10. Summary: words must be interpreted in the usual, natural, literal sense. 3

-- continued --

 

[Hupomone10]

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTEXT
1. Careful consideration of the preceding and subsequent parts will enable determination of whether it is literal or figurative. 1

2. A passage must not be connected with a remote passage unless the remote passage agrees better with it than a nearer passage. 1

3. Determine whether the writer is continuing the topic after the passage in question rather than assuming he is transitioning to another topic. He may be explaining the topic further. 1

4. No explanation must be admitted, but that which suits the context.

5. Where there is no connection with the preceding and subsequent part of a book, none should be sought. 1

INTERPRETATION OF HISTORICAL SETTING
1. The Word of God originated in a historical way, and therefore, can be understood only in the light of history.

2. A word is never fully understood until it is understood as it originated in the soul of the author.

3. It is impossible to interpret the author’s words correctly unless seen against the proper historical background.

4. The writings are naturally colored by
a) the place and time,
b) the circumstances, and
c) the prevailing view of the world and of life in general.

5. Get to know the author: his parentage, character, temperament, intellect, religious characteristics, and circumstances of his life, his purpose in writing, special circumstances surrounding the writing

6. Study the environment in which the writing originated.

7. Put yourself mentally into the 1st Century environment in which the author wrote, guarding against transferring the author into present day and making him speak present day language.

INTERPRETATION OF THE GRAMMAR
1. The authors of scripture used the current language of the country and time period. Their writings would not have otherwise been intelligible. 4

2. This part of interpretation cannot be done without knowledge of the original language. 3

3. The interpreter can assume that no sensible author will be knowingly inconsistent with himself, or seek to bewilder and mislead his readers. 4

REFERENCES
1 Thomas Hartwell Horne, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.
2 Joseph Angus & Samuel G. Green, The Bible Hand-Book, p.180.
3 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 36.
4 Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics.
5Clinton Lockhart, Principles of Interpretation
6 David L. Cooper, The God of Israel
7 Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics
8 Charles Fritsch, “Biblical Typology,” Bibliotheca Sacra.
9 Charles L. Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism
10 F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation

Genesis, like any other book of the Bible, should be translated and interpreted in light of these principles, not treated differently just because a certain philosophy of man doesn't agree with it. I will come back later and deal with Genesis in general, in light of these principles.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Mallon]

You are assuming it is a metaphor, and then preceding to argue for repetition in your assumed metaphor.

That's not fair to say. Assyrian wrote an extensive post in reply to you earlier in which he provided 26 textual reasons why he believes the Genesis creation accounts are best interpreted as metaphor. He isn't merely making an assumption.

 

[Hupomone10]

That's not fair to say. Assyrian wrote an extensive post in reply to you earlier in which he provided 26 textual reasons why he believes the Genesis creation accounts are best interpreted as metaphor. He isn't merely making an assumption.

Please be patient, and maybe review the principles of interpretation rather than just defending Assyrian's long post. The rules are rather long also; and they establish time-honored principles not only for interpreting Genesis, but also interpreting any genre of literature in the Bible and any passage or book there.

I will show why by the rules of interpretation that it is an assumption and that we do not have adequate grounds to do that with Genesis.

 

[Hupomone10]

Have another read. Literally the snake is the temptor. What you have done to see the devil in that position is read the passage metaphorically.

You would not win that argument were you to try to tell someone who had a friend or loved one in a third world country possessed by a demon that they were just speaking metaphorically when they said the demon spoke through her. If a demonic creature can possess a person, he can possess an animal, since man is an animal. It was not a metaphor that the serpent spoke to Eve. Satan possessed the serpent and spoke, or else took the form of a serpent and spoke. I'm quite sure that Eve wasn't looking at a metaphor and talking with a metaphor when she was tempted. Try that one with your wife if you ever fall in adultery; tell her it wasn't a real woman, but a metaphor of sensuality, and you didn't really have sex with her because she was a metaphor.

The geometry teacher sayeth: "Circles are flat".

When viewing the horizon, it appears as a circle.

Slippery slope fallacy. It is not that the creation account just happens to be symbolic. It's that every single piece of evidence we have tells us it must symbolic.

Please refer to the Principles of Interpretation posts made and you can see all by yourself without any commentary from me that the evidence that matters points to Genesis in general being literal not figurative.

Circles are two dimensional objects. The earth is a sphere, not a circle.

When viewing the horizon, it appears as a circle.

 

[Hupomone10]

Not according to most Bible scholars, who subscribe to the documentary hypothesis. It would have been pretty hard for Moses to write about his own death.

Leviticus 1:1 (which directly follows Exodus)
"Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting"

Moses wasn't yet dead when the book of Exodus came to an end.

"Throughout the Bible, the Torah, i.e. the Law (Genesis - Deuteronomy) is viewed as a unit authored by Moses."
- notes at beginning of Exodus, "The Believer's Study Bible"

Pleas cite the scholars you are referring to that say Moses wasn't the author. I do not waste much time on liberal scholars, since they typically don't accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, and therefore have a vested interest in discounting it; but I will accept any reputable conservative scholar, and even some liberal ones if they are reputable.

Please cite your references. I will try to do so also.

 

[Mallon]

Satan possessed the serpent and spoke, or else took the form of a serpent and spoke.

Where does the text of Genesis literally say that? There's no mention of Satan in the Garden story.

I'm beginning to think that you're not following your own rules of interpretation.

 

[Mallon]

Pleas cite the scholars you are referring to that say Moses wasn't the author.

Nearly all reputable biblical scholars since Wellhausen (1883) have accepted his documentary hypothesis.

I do not waste much time on liberal scholars, since they typically don't accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, and therefore have a vested interest in discounting it; but I will accept any reputable conservative scholar, and even some liberal ones if they are reputable.

Peter Enns is a good person to wrestle with, then. He details the history of thought concerning Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch here:

http://biologos.org/uploads/resources/enns_scholarly_essay3.pdf

 

[Hupomone10]

Where does the text of Genesis literally say that?

Where in the text of Genesis literally say it is a metaphor?

There's no mention of Satan in the Garden story.

Revelation 12:9
"And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world"

I offered two possibilities, both of which mean it doesn't have to be a metaphor. The problems with it being a metaphor are several, which will be covered later. Gotta cook supper.

I'm beginning to think that you're not following your own rules of interpretation.

I'll try my best to do that. I'm offering an explanation as to why the serpent doesn't have to be a metaphor. You did catch that, didn't you? I'm not saying infallibly that it was a possession, merely that this is as plausible an explanation as it being a metaphor.

 

[Hupomone10]

Nearly all reputable biblical scholars since Wellhausen (1883) have accepted his documentary hypothesis.

Another assertion. Please document with something substantial other than a write-up in Wikipedia about these reputable scholars. For what you say is simply not true. Even if it were, Moses could be one of those previous authors to which the Documentary Hypothesis refers.



Peter Enns is a good person to wrestle with, then. He details the history of thought concerning Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch here:

http://biologos.org/uploads/resources/enns_scholarly_essay3.pdf[/quote]
I will look this up soon, but I do know Peter Enns is involved in controversy due to one of his latest books,

There are scholars who believe Genesis 1-11 is figurative; but they are neither the only reputable ones nor necessarily the majority. More on this later...

 

[Assyrian]

Where in the text of Genesis literally say it is a metaphor?

That's not answering Mallon's question.

 

[Assyrian]

You're not allowed repetition in a metaphor?

"So, is it right for you to continue beating your wife?"

It is not a metaphor, therefore your question is invalid. You are assuming it is a metaphor, and then preceding to argue for repetition in your assumed metaphor. Therefore, since it is not a metaphor the question is moot just as my question above. It is simply assumed to be a metaphor or figurative by people who are trying to harmonize God's Word with man's spin.

Except I wasn't assuming anything of the sort. You though the repetition of the days meant the Holy spirit was confirming they were literal days, but this would only hold if you cannot have repetition in a metaphor. Which of course you can.

Onward. The following is a follow-up to the quotes on literalness in interpretation, and sets forth standard principles of interpretation:

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION ​

WHEN TO INTERPRET LITERALLY, WHEN FIGURATIVELY
1. “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” 6

2. “It should be observed at the very outset that the purpose of figurative language is to impart some literal truth, which may more clearly be conveyed by the use of figures than in any other way.” 3

3. “The literal meaning of words must be retained, more in the historical books of Scripture than in those which are poetical.” 1

...etc.

Is that Dwight Pentecost again? I though I showed you he wasn't reliable on the subject. Anyway, a collection of quotations from literalists saying we should interpret the bible literally is hardly an argument. You need to support these rules of literalism from scripture, not because your favourite literalists tell you to take it literally.

 

[Mallon]

Where in the text of Genesis literally say it is a metaphor?

It doesn't. The Bible doesn't typically preface its metaphors with a label. Regardless, you're avoiding the question. The fact is that Genesis never tells us that the serpent is Satan. You're reading the text non-literally if you believe otherwise, thereby breaking your own rules.

Revelation 12:9
"And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world"

This article by Douglas Kennard goes into some detail explaining why the serpent referred to in Genesis 3 cannot be Satan:

http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=Jc49bd5wM17ql271HbheENOQXPntmfybcf7AN+3Xujs=

From the abstract:

"This article seeks to defend that the serpent in the Genesis 3:15 fall of humanity is a snake on the basis of: (1) the near Jewish
contextual analysis, (2) Mosaic theological analysis within Biblical theology, (3) unanimity of Rabbinic texts side with this view, (4)
the strength of peer interpretation among critical scholarship sides with this view, (5) the presence of this view among the Patristics, (6)
no N.T. text clearly teaches otherwise, and (7) the Satan view is suspect as depending upon Zoroastrianism as it syncretised with some
forms of second Temple Judaism."

Another assertion. Please document with something substantial other than a write-up in Wikipedia about these reputable scholars. For what you say is simply not true.

With all due respect, it's a pretty insensible thing to say that Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis does not dominate contemporary biblical scholarship. You might not want me citing Wikipedia, but I'll do it anyway:

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article cites its primary sources if you really want to dig deeper. Also see the Enns article I cited earlier.

Looking forward to your deconstruction of Peter Enns. I hope you have an excellent supper.