YECs, please explain Gen 3:15 to me.

[juvenissun]

you are being vague. Could you provide an example of someones heel being bruised by a serpent who in turn bruised (or crushed) the serpents head?

It is a literal description, and the best description on how would a snake attack people and how would a bitten person, or simply a person, kill the snake.

You are welcome to provide an alternative description. I bet it will be worse and less precise than the verse.

 

[philadiddle]

It is a literal description, and the best description on how would a snake attack people and how would a bitten person, or simply a person, kill the snake.

You are welcome to provide an alternative description. I bet it will be worse and less precise than the verse.

So that's all it's about? Snakes bite us and we step on their heads? You have just proven my point, putting the passage into it's cultural context gives it more personal meaning to us than reading it literally.

 

[Siyha]

It is a literal description, and the best description on how would a snake attack people and how would a bitten person, or simply a person, kill the snake.

You are welcome to provide an alternative description. I bet it will be worse and less precise than the verse.

Are you serious? Its hard to tell, but I will take the bait and assume you are.

For starters, it uses the same verb for what the man does to the snake as to what the snake does to the man. Do people fight snakes the same way snakes fight men?

Snakes don't bruise anything, they bite or strangle.

Additionally, if this is literally talking about people hitting snakes, and snakes biting people, what a completely anti-climactic build up. After this big story of the fall, the result is, "Snakes and people won't like each other."

What about all the other animals that humans fight with? Why don't they get a story?

Additionally, if this is the devil merely in the form of a snake, now God is punishing snakes because the devil happened to chose their form.

It also means that all snakes are descendants of Satan.

Yet what we have, as pointed out by another creationist in this thread, is a theme being created of two seeds: those who seek righteousness and those who seek evil, which will continue throughout Genesis.

And in regard to your last line:
"... and you will bite him on the heel." Is more accurate.
Unless of course you are talking about snakes that choke. I guess choke marks leave bruises. Come to think of it, I did see a national geographic on snakes that choke people's heels. Looks like bruise is more accurate.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

So that's all it's about? Snakes bite us and we step on their heads? You have just proven my point, putting the passage into it's cultural context gives it more personal meaning to us than reading it literally.

Would you say that a non-literal reading would enchance God's truthfulness and increase His glory? Whereas a literal reading just isn't as rich?

If thats the case, you may have a point.

 

[philadiddle]

Would you say that a non-literal reading would enchance God's truthfulness and increase His glory? Whereas a literal reading just isn't as rich?

If thats the case, you may have a point.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

 

[philadiddle]

What does your passage have to do with this thread?

 

[Siyha]

What does your passage have to do with this thread?

If you read his last post to you and your implied agreement with the hug you sent back to him, his post makes sense.

 

[philadiddle]

If you read his last post to you and your implied agreement with the hug you sent back to him, his post makes sense.

No it doesn't, because I am not doing evil, hence my question to him.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

No it doesn't, because I am not doing evil, hence my question to him.

My point is that just because something makes God look better, or more appealing, or "richer", doesn't make it true or right.

If I came up with a method of interpretation that showed the text to have even MORE meaning, whether or not it was true, would it be better than yours?

 

[Hentenza]

I don't understand this discussion. The bible contains several literary devices but all of them have to be read literally to ascertain what they are. One doesn't begin reading allegorically to arrive at literal.

So tell me guys, if you start reading Genesis 1 literally, which verse would be the first verse that you would consider not literal?

 

[Siyha]

I don't understand this discussion. The bible contains several literary devices but all of them have to be read literally to ascertain what they are. One doesn't begin reading allegorically to arrive at literal.

So tell me guys, if you start reading Genesis 1 literally, which verse would be the first verse that you would consider not literal?

Verse 2.

This is a result of looking at the Ancient Near Eastern creation accounts that the Bible is speaking against. Genesis 1 is written as an historical account, but is not historical in its function. Its function is to convey a message about Yahweh and compare him to the Ancient Near Eastern gods to establish a powerful identity of the one who will make His covenant with Abraham.

Its truth claims are independant of the historical value of the text, unlike a story such as Abram which must be true for its theological claims to have value.

How God made the world in Genesis 1 is not the point. Its the contrast between Yahweh and Baal, Marduk, El, Melqart, etc. etc.

Its not that things are symbolic in the sense that Augustine saw the waters being separated as God separating physical and spiritual things. Everything in the story is literal in the understanding of the world that the author would have had in his ancient world view. But that does not mean it happened this way. It could not have happened this way. It isn't so much a question of whether or not God was powerful enough to do it this way, or as simple as denying it because it defies the laws of nature - if we believe God made nature and stands outside it, of course he can defy whatever laws he wants during creation or any other time.

But I deny its historical truth because a) it is not a description of the world that is, but the world as the ancient world saw it, and b) that there is two separate accounts of creation, one in Genesis 1, and one in Genesis 2. They both have man, plants, and animals being created in different orders. This is not a matter of defying the laws of nature, but rather contradictory to each other, and for both to claim to be accurate is not possible.

Its not a question of literal or allegorical, its a question of function. As history, Genesis 1 does not serve its function.

 

[juvenissun]

So that's all it's about? Snakes bite us and we step on their heads? You have just proven my point, putting the passage into it's cultural context gives it more personal meaning to us than reading it literally.

As far as the argument of the literal truth of the Bible, this is it for this particular verse. Of course, it also contains deep theological meanings. But that has nothing to do with the argument of literalism, which is what you aimed at in the OP.

 

[Siyha]

As far as the argument of the literal truth of the Bible, this is it for this particular verse. Of course, it also contains deep theological meanings. But that has nothing to do with the argument of literalism, which is what you aimed at in the OP.

Is the deep theological meaning dependent on its literal value?

 

[philadiddle]

As far as the argument of the literal truth of the Bible, this is it for this particular verse. Of course, it also contains deep theological meanings. But that has nothing to do with the argument of literalism, which is what you aimed at in the OP.

What is it's deeper theological meaning and how did you determine what that meaning is?

 

[juvenissun]

Is the deep theological meaning dependent on its literal value?

I think it would depend on how is it described literally.
That is why we say that the writing in the Scripture is beautiful.

 

[juvenissun]

What is it's deeper theological meaning and how did you determine what that meaning is?

That would depends on how does the Spirit guide a person to understand (interpret) the verse.

For example, the serpent (literal) "represents" satan. So we do not use any other animal for that purpose. How would the serpent image satan? Well, your understanding may be slightly different from mine. But that does not matter.

 

[Siyha]

I think it would depend on how is it described literally.
That is why we say that the writing in the Scripture is beautiful.

I think this is side stepping the question. Does the prophecy of 3:15 need to be literally true for its symbolic side to also be true?

That would depends on how does the Spirit guide a person to understand (interpret) the verse.

For example, the serpent (literal) "represents" satan. So we do not use any other animal for that purpose. How would the serpent image satan? Well, your understanding may be slightly different from mine. But that does not matter.

The Spirit does not give interpretations without reasons. A "personal" interpretation should also be tested in the corporate church.

What if Adam (literal) "represents" man (coincidently, the exact meaning of his name)? If the author wanted to express the state of mankind, would this not accomplish that purpose? The literal historic value of the account is then irrelevant. But the account becomes history for all people. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

 

[rcorlew]

I think this is side stepping the question. Does the prophecy of 3:15 need to be literally true for its symbolic side to also be true?



The Spirit does not give interpretations without reasons. A "personal" interpretation should also be tested in the corporate church.

What if Adam (literal) "represents" man (coincidently, the exact meaning of his name)? If the author wanted to express the state of mankind, would this not accomplish that purpose? The literal historic value of the account is then irrelevant. But the account becomes history for all people. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

One of the things that continues to strike me about your arguments is definitely not a lack of intelligence as you are very well versed, but is the failure to see the use of foreshadowings contained throughout the Bible. Each foreshadowing is comprised of an actual event to give light to a later more profound event. This too plagued the Israelites all throughout history, they looked for David to come back to be their king, they had no idea that David was a mere glimpse of the Heavenly King who would rule all of Earth.

God does not use metaphors to describe the spiritual, He uses nature and history as clear indicators to be clearly understood so as no one would have an excuse. The Old Testament is God using actual events to foreshadow the redemption to come.

In Romans, we get a picture of humanity as a whole, yet in 1 Corinthians we get a more in depth explanation of how God used Adam in history. The word man and Adam are used independent of each other, they are not being used interchangeably, so there is a great deal of significance placed on how they would be read. The significance becomes profound if one understands that the passage is saying that because sin had a beginning by a specific act, and even that single act of disobedience was planned for by God.

The passage in Genesis (3:15) clearly shows that while Adam had sinned, we learn in Romans that we are all Adam, it is not the other way around and that Adam is all of us. Since the first Adam sinned and the last Adam died, so it is with all Christians, we have all sinned, and like Christ we must pick up our own cross and die on it so Christ may live.

There are so many events in the Old Testament which are parts of the ultimate reality unveiled in Revelation, that is the final revealing of Christ in all his glory. One that I find very intriguing is the book of Ruth and the Kinsman Redeemer, but again this is another example of God using a foreshadowing so that we will have clear understanding as to what Jesus was doing on that cross.

The ultimate purpose of the Bible is salvation, God meeting every requirement to reconcile us to Him in a vassal sezarian treaty with us.

 

[philadiddle]

I think it would depend on how is it described literally.
That is why we say that the writing in the Scripture is beautiful.

If there is more than one way to describe it literally then how can anyone say they are interpreting it literally? You're grasping at straws. As a former YEC I can assure you that accepting the creation account as an argument against its contemporaries will help your relationship with God grow. Why are you fighting it?