YECs, please explain Gen 3:15 to me.

[philadiddle]

Since TEs are said to be ignorant of understanding the bible and how obviously historical the creation account is, I was wondering if a YEC could enlighten me as to the meaning, in context of Genesis 3:15.

Thanks!!

 

[rcorlew]

Since TEs are said to be ignorant of understanding the bible and how obviously historical the creation account is, I was wondering if a YEC could enlighten me as to the meaning, in context of Genesis 3:15.

Thanks!!

Well Genesis 3:15 has nothing to do with age or times or years, it is the first prophecy of Jesus (the seed of woman) facing off against the children of the evil one (all those who are not for God). This verse goes to show that the battle raging today is not between peoples or nations or even about ideologies, it is God versus Satan and God won 2000 years ago on the cross at Calvary (somebody should tell Satan that he lost, and if he would only read the Bible for a minute he would see the doom ahead for himself).

 

[philadiddle]

Well Genesis 3:15 has nothing to do with age or times or years, it is the first prophecy of Jesus (the seed of woman) facing off against the children of the evil one (all those who are not for God). This verse goes to show that the battle raging today is not between peoples or nations or even about ideologies, it is God versus Satan and God won 2000 years ago on the cross at Calvary (somebody should tell Satan that he lost, and if he would only read the Bible for a minute he would see the doom ahead for himself).

So you believe that it isn't about an actual serpent bruising our heels, but rather it is a figurative way of telling a more important truth?

 

[rcorlew]

So you believe that it isn't about an actual serpent bruising our heels, but rather it is a figurative way of telling a more important truth?

Well it is both literal and symbolic, Satan at that point and time was in the form of a serpent, and a serpent is very easy to smash; symbolic in that the best Satan could do is a physical assault on the eternal Christ.

I still do not know where you are going with this but I will wait and see.

 

[philadiddle]

Well it is both literal and symbolic, Satan at that point and time was in the form of a serpent, and a serpent is very easy to smash; symbolic in that the best Satan could do is a physical assault on the eternal Christ.

I still do not know where you are going with this but I will wait and see.

It seems that you want to believe it is literal history, but in order to make it meaningful to us you need to intepret it figuratively. Would your interpretation change if it wasn't an actual event, or would it still have the same meaning?

 

[rcorlew]

It seems that you want to believe it is literal history, but in order to make it meaningful to us you need to intepret it figuratively. Would your interpretation change if it wasn't an actual event, or would it still have the same meaning?

The actual event is required otherwise interpretation would have no meaning, much more a fable than history. It would similar to reading any fiction book, it may contain truth and history and facts, but that does not make the book true. This single event is referred to many times as actually happening, so if it is not literal then you must impose allegory tags on much of Pauline doctrine as well as Jesus' teachings.

 

[Siyha]

The actual event is required otherwise interpretation would have no meaning, much more a fable than history. It would similar to reading any fiction book, it may contain truth and history and facts, but that does not make the book true. This single event is referred to many times as actually happening, so if it is not literal then you must impose allegory tags on much of Pauline doctrine as well as Jesus' teachings.

Lets pretend I have a son who lies a lot. To steer him in the right direction, I tell him the story of the boy who cried wolf, the idea being if he lies, people won't believe him when he's telling the truth. Does the actual story I tell need to be true for the message to have any truth? I could tell him a true story about my own life, one that would be confusing and in the "world of adults", but instead I have chosen to use a tool that speaks directly to the child, rather than something that speaks to myself or another adult. Does that negate the truth claim I am making?

When you put the beginning of Genesis in the context of the ancient world, it draws a much deeper significance and theological message about God and humanity. But you only get these things if you approach it as though its function is to teach us about God and humanity. If you approach it as its primary function being an historical document, you end up with a grossly minimized message that is barely a hint of its author's original intent. You start thinking Leviathan was either a crocodile or a dinosaur, and you miss the point that is being made.


Side question 1: If the Bible is true in all historical data, what did God make first. Plants, animals, or people?
Side question 2: Can you show me a Pauline doctrine that depends on Adam being an historical figure in order for it to be true?

 

[rcorlew]

Lets pretend I have a son who lies a lot. To steer him in the right direction, I tell him the story of the boy who cried wolf, the idea being if he lies, people won't believe him when he's telling the truth. Does the actual story I tell need to be true for the message to have any truth? I could tell him a true story about my own life, one that would be confusing and in the "world of adults", but instead I have chosen to use a tool that speaks directly to the child, rather than something that speaks to myself or another adult. Does that negate the truth claim I am making?

When you put the beginning of Genesis in the context of the ancient world, it draws a much deeper significance and theological message about God and humanity. But you only get these things if you approach it as though its function is to teach us about God and humanity. If you approach it as its primary function being an historical document, you end up with a grossly minimized message that is barely a hint of its author's original intent. You start thinking Leviathan was either a crocodile or a dinosaur, and you miss the point that is being made.


Side question 1: If the Bible is true in all historical data, what did God make first. Plants, animals, or people?
Side question 2: Can you show me a Pauline doctrine that depends on Adam being an historical figure in order for it to be true?

Well, the Bible states that sin entered through Adam in this one event:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

And again

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Is there any possible way to square anything other than Adam being the only vessel by which sin and death entered man?

But wait, there is more

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. . . . The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.”

 

[Siyha]

Well, the Bible states that sin entered through Adam in this one event:


And again



Is there any possible way to square anything other than Adam being the only vessel by which sin and death entered man?

But wait, there is more

Nothing Paul is trying to teach here is dependant on Adam actually being historical.

If you survey Paul's use of the Old Testament, most of it is used as illustrations or explanations of themes he's already built on and are independant of his quote.

Its entirely possible, and quite probable, that Paul thought Adam was a real person, but Paul's beliefs aren't divinly inspired: however his teachings are. What he is teaching in those passages are NOT anything to do with Adam, but with Christ.

This is why you'll never see in any system of theology an explanation of atonement as, "Well it had to just be one guy, cause it was just one guy who started everything."

A great example of Paul using the Old Testament in a way that is independant from historical fact is Galatians, where he actually uses the word "allegory" when trying to interpret Sarah and Haggar - yet even most contemporary Christian scholars believe that was a real historic account.

You see verses like those as demanding an historical Adam because you are looking for verses that demand an historical Adam. But put them in context of what Paul is trying to teach.

If you see the rest of my post you'll understand how truth can be taught through stories that didn't necessarily happen.
There is also a wealth on resources on how ancient literature works. V. Philips Long's, "The Art of Biblical History" gives a great open illutration and another good one in chapter 3 on ancient history.

I ask again, if the creation accounts are literal, what did God make first? Plants, humans, or animals?


Another great book for contextualizing the Old Testament to help discern history from epic is John Walton's Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testmant.

If you would like a detailed interpretation and theology derived from Genesis 1-3 that sees them as non-literal history rather than literal-history, I would be happy to find one to provide you with.

 

[philadiddle]

If you would like a detailed interpretation and theology derived from Genesis 1-3 that sees them as non-literal history rather than literal-history, I would be happy to find one to provide you with.

I don't think you understand. YECs aren't interested in learning about theology, they are only interested in defending what they already believe about theology. Trying to learn about theology might reveal flaws in their current beliefs and they may end up in a position where evolution is no longer a contradiction to scripture, and we can't have that now can we?

 

[Papias]

rcorlew wrote:

Well it [Gen 3:15] is both literal and symbolic, Satan at that point and time was in the form of a serpent

So Satan actually had his cranium crushed? When did that happen? Could you please cite the verse? Was Satan then resurrected?

Papias

 

[Voice in the Desert]

I don't think you understand. YECs aren't interested in learning about theology, they are only interested in defending what they already believe about theology. Trying to learn about theology might reveal flaws in their current beliefs and they may end up in a position where evolution is no longer a contradiction to scripture, and we can't have that now can we?

Are you trying to go anywhere with all these posts? Because I read things like this and all I see is trolling and flame bait.

 

[philadiddle]

Are you trying to go anywhere with all these posts? Because I read things like this and all I see is trolling and flame bait.

As I already said, people want to interpret these verses as literal history. Yet when we try to give them meaning to our lives, we interpret them figuratively. That is all I hope to demontrate in this particular thread.

 

[Siyha]

Are you trying to go anywhere with all these posts? Because I read things like this and all I see is trolling and flame bait.

He's not baiting them for flaming or trolling. He is asking questions that he hopes, when a YEC thinks about it, shows that Genesis 1 cannot be literal history. He made another thread asking if there was really water above the sun moon and stars. I'm sure he has a dozen more questions like this as well. He is not trolling, but trying to show that everyone takes liberties with the text in order to make sense of it.

 

[gluadys]

The actual event is required otherwise interpretation would have no meaning, much more a fable than history. It would similar to reading any fiction book, it may contain truth and history and facts, but that does not make the book true. This single event is referred to many times as actually happening, so if it is not literal then you must impose allegory tags on much of Pauline doctrine as well as Jesus' teachings.

Would that be a problem? Why?

 

[rcorlew]

rcorlew wrote:



So Satan actually had his cranium crushed? When did that happen? Could you please cite the verse? Was Satan then resurrected?

Papias

No, the verse says "and He will crush your head", the operative phrase is will future tense, it does not say: has, is, or right now, nothing that leads to immediate action. The crushing of the head of Satan occurs after the final judgment.

For the record, I am not a YEC'er, but that is a whole different story all together.

And yes Paul states that Adam was certainly an actual man, the comparative phrase "just as in Adam" actually requires an equality on the opposite end of the comparison "so as in Christ". If Christ lived and died, the phrase requires an actual person who lived and died, other wise there would be a modifier such as the word "like".

 

[Hotpepper]

Okay, I've learned that this passage is prophesy. Knowing that Satan likes to mimic God and appear as good himself, you have to look at God and how He is defined. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son (Christ is the head of the church which is the body of Christ) Now Satan is also three in his deception to the world in Revelation. The dragon, the son of perdition and the beast. The power will be given to the false prophet. He will become the "head" of the body of Satan's church.

Therefore this prophesy is stating He (Christ) will crush your head, he is talking about the false prophet (the son of perdition) and he (Satan) will bruise (Christ's) heel. Jesus received this when He was nailed to the cross. So, by this saying it foretells Satan that He will be defeated by what Christ will do on the cross and that his head will be crushed in the end.

Oh and obviously the woman is the church.... Christ's bride in Revelation..... which is us. Satan's offspring are unbelievers or those that are blinded by him. There is and has been enmity between us for a long time.

I hope that answers your question. God bless.

 

[Siyha]

No, the verse says "and He will crush your head", the operative phrase is will future tense, it does not say: has, is, or right now, nothing that leads to immediate action. The crushing of the head of Satan occurs after the final judgment.

For the record, I am not a YEC'er, but that is a whole different story all together.

And yes Paul states that Adam was certainly an actual man, the comparative phrase "just as in Adam" actually requires an equality on the opposite end of the comparison "so as in Christ". If Christ lived and died, the phrase requires an actual person who lived and died, other wise there would be a modifier such as the word "like".

Like and as pretty much serve the same function.

A simile is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things, often introduced with the words "like", "as", or "than".[1] Even though similes and metaphors are both forms of comparison, similes allow the two ideas to remain distinct in spite of their similarities.

But perhaps comparing ancient writings to modern literature is what gets us into this discussion to begin with.
I'll come back later with a more indepth post on Romans chapter 5 for you when I have a few minutes.

In the mean time, you figured out yet which God made first? Plants, animals, or people?

 

[juvenissun]

Since TEs are said to be ignorant of understanding the bible and how obviously historical the creation account is, I was wondering if a YEC could enlighten me as to the meaning, in context of Genesis 3:15.

Thanks!!

It is literally correct. Isn't it?

 

[rcorlew]

Like and as pretty much serve the same function.

A simile is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things, often introduced with the words "like", "as", or "than".[1] Even though similes and metaphors are both forms of comparison, similes allow the two ideas to remain distinct in spite of their similarities.

But perhaps comparing ancient writings to modern literature is what gets us into this discussion to begin with.
I'll come back later with a more indepth post on Romans chapter 5 for you when I have a few minutes.

In the mean time, you figured out yet which God made first? Plants, animals, or people?

That is simple. plants.

You appear very Clintonesque with your splitting of hairs on the contextual meaning of the word "as". You miss the very important modifier just before the word which is the word "just". The phrase "just as" means exactly the same, it becomes a simile when used this way "you are as red as an apple". Now you can see the differences in function for the word "as".

Reading the OT as allegory requires the reader to later allegorize many parts of the NT. The OT is mostly historical, with only metaphorical descriptors, not metaphorical events. The fact that many people come at reading any book, especially the Bible, with many beliefs already, they carry those into their new learning, these are called suppositions. When one reads the OT and comes across something that goes against their suppositions they must then square the two, which one is right, are they both right, am I wrong, those are all questions that must be asked whenever one encounters materials contrary to their own beliefs.