I disagree… We don't even know who the author is (although it is “presumed” to be Moses) and we don't know how the information was relayed to the prophet either. The texts do NOT say either way… Therefore you have to create your own personal hermeneutic. Ultimately we don't know.. Just because some verses say that they are visionary you can't say that the others are not. You CANNOT say that you ultimately know.Jac wrote:Yes, we only take accounts to be visions if the text tells it is a vision.
How else could the narrative be explained to the prophet? Again he was NOT there witnessing the actual event… God could be conveying the message anyway he wants. It there a law against that? Show me where there is a law from the scriptures that the use of visions are contrary to the word of God.Jac wrote: I cannot stress this enough: Genesis 1-11 bears the marks of HISTORICAL NARRATIVE[/b]. As such, we interpret it as historical narrative. As far as how Moses knew about all of it, it could have been several things, or a combination. It could have been oral tradition passed down from generation to generation. There could have been written records Moses appealed to and worked with (the word "generations" in the text implies as much). God could have sat him down on the mountain and just told him the story. All kinds of things. But there is simply NO reason to say that this was a vision.
Ok, then that preceding information we get from Genesis 1:27 or 2:7 states that God made man in His image, not snakes... And that is the proceeding insight or information that carries on throughout the rest of scripture.Jac wrote: Preceding, not proceeding. To precede means to come before; to proceed means to continue, to come from, to go forth. Regardless, man being made in God's image certainly gives us insight into the curse on several levels, but it gives no indication that the snake in Genesis 3 was anything less than an actual snake.
Jac wrote: Here's your problem, Gman. You are asserting that the snake in Genesis 3 was not a real snake. You have to the burden of proof to demonstrate, from Scripture, why you are right.
I already have many times… Please read my other posts...
Jac wrote: I assert it was a literal snake based on a face-value reading of the text. So tell me, on what is your hermeneutic--your interpretational basis--for saying the snake is symbolic, and how does that same hermeneutic not allow someone to say that Jesus was symbolic, too?
I would say... whenever and wherever it is possible, the words of Scripture are to be understood literally. However when a statement appears to be contrary to our experience, or to known fact, or revealed truth, or seems to be at variance with the general teaching of the Scriptures, then we may reasonably expect that some figure is employed. It's that simple...
Jesus, however is not symbolic. We have mountains of evidence from scripture and outside sources that he was a literal person INCLUDING his resurrection.
Jac wrote: You simply misread me. I never thought no implied as much. Just the opposite, the snake spoke BEFORE the curse. Therefore, the vocal chords could not be a RESULT of the curse. And I was specifically addressing legs. You may have missed it, and I may not have been clear, but that is exactly what I was talking about. So, if you'd like to address that point, I'm still waiting to hear your response to it.
You certainly weren't clear about it…. As for as addressing legs in Genesis 3, the Bible DOES NOT state that the snake had legs BEFORE the curse. You are simply applying your own interpretation of that into the text. You are simply "reading" what you think should be in the text...
Jac wrote: There doesn't have to be. The text says that they did, and that's enough. I have my doubts that they were "freaked out." Why would they be? They lived in a perfect world--there was no danger to them. There would have been nothing to be afraid of. And you don't know that they couldn't talk. It's a huge--and dangerous--assumption on your part to look at the way the world behaves now, in its fallen state, and project that back into how the world worked then, in its unfallen state.
They probably would have freaked out as they would today. Your belief is what I would call a YEC belief… They did NOT live in a “perfect” world. I quote Rich on that…
“It should be noted that the Bible never says that original creation was "perfect." It is described as being good and very good, but never "perfect." How does one determine what God's perfect creation would look like? It turns out that young earth creationists have assumed that God would not have been able to create any world less than "perfect" - based upon biblical descriptions of the millennial kingdom and the new creation. Unfortunately, the Bible never indicates that either the millennial kingdom or the new creation represent the state of the original creation. In fact, the Bible indicates that this creation was not created to be perfect, but is only a partial representation of that which is to come,4 which will be perfect. The new creation will be the perfect tabernacle - the city "whose architect and builder is God",5 which will not be of this creation.6 Old earth creationists agree that the creation was perfect for the purpose for which it was created. However, the Bible indicates that the purpose of creation is not what has been claimed by young earth creationists.”
Jac wrote:It's not pulling extremes. In logic, it is called a reductio ad absurdum. It means to show the logical consequences of an idea, thus:
If A necessarily ->B, and if B necessarily ->C , then A necessarily ->C. If, then, C is false, A must also be false.
Your hermeneutic is A. If it says that unmarked people/events may be taken as symbolic on the basis of the miraculous, then, by definition, I can take the resurrection as symbolic as it is both miraculous and unmarked. If you reject that I can do that, then you likewise must reject that you can do it with the snake, unless, of course, you simply wish to be irrational--that is, logically inconsistent. Or, the alternative is that you can provide a consistent hermeneutic that allows me to take the snake as non-literal while, by the same principles, allowing me to take the resurrection as literal. And that is what I have been asking you for from the beginning. I still am.
Asking me what? I am pointing out that your own hermeneutic is also inconsistent… If you want to use logic (reductio ad absurdum), then explain to me how an actual live snake can talk. Again…. They DO NOT have the vocal chord capacity to produce human-like sounds. Even if you want to possess them… You could barely get a chirp out of them let alone a squeak even if you stepped on it. Their sounds are much like when you get a flat on the tire of your bike… A hissing sound. Has your bike tire ever talked back to you when it went flat? I hope not… This idea alone is turning God's word into a laughable fable. Also you have not addressed how animals can sin against God. NOWHERE in scripture has an animal been called moral or accused of sinning against God and then being cursed (punished) for it. And that is what I have been asking you for from the beginning too. I still am…
Jac wrote:Crossan is one of the co-founders of the Jesus Seminar. He doesn't believe Jesus was raised from the dead, and is the premier scholar who advocates that position. It is really scary. If you read his arguments, they sound exactly like the ones you are using here. I'll provide quotes when I get to work today. I have two of his works, Who Killed Jesus and N.T. Wright and J. D. Crossan in Dialog.
Ok, I remember that guy. Yes, here is one thing we can agree on, I do not support his view at all. If you are comparing me to him then I'm taking that as an offensive remark by you....
Jac wrote:Anyway, yes, meaning is important, but so is reference. Remember the distinction between the mention/use and sense/reference. Likewise, there is another general category along these lines we call meaning/mode, which ROUGHLY corresponds to the idea of concrete/abstract. You are taking the snake as abstract, not concrete. You are exalting meaning and ignoring mode. You are insisting on mention without use, sense without reference. Gman, these are things you are simply not allowed to do and be logically consistent. If you take your path, then the logical result is that we can't take Jesus' resurrection to be an actual event. Crossan has championed this position. It has, indeed, become the premier argument against His resurrection in modern times.
How about being logical about a literal talking snake?
Jac wrote:Not on the basis of Gen 3, I am not. I happen to believe that the snake was in some unspecified way related to the devil, but that is completely and 100% based on the reality of the snake in the Garden. Take away the snake, you take away the relationship; take away the relationship, you have no devil in the garden. Thus, take away the literal snake, and you have no devil in the garden of any kind. At least, none that had anything to do with Genesis 3.
Like you said, you need your “progressive revelation” to get the true picture, right?
Jac wrote:"Pig" is a known figure of speech for police officers. It is simply a derogatory term. If I were to hear your sentence in day to do life, I would expect there to be other word pictures or descriptions to go along with it. I would expect something like this:
"Joe talked a pig today. He was on his way to work and the idiot pulled him over, saying he was going too fast. Personally, I think he was just racist."
I don't get it… You don't think that Jesus was using a derogatory term when he called the Pharisees “snakes” in Matthew 23:33?
Jac wrote:"On the other had, tell me what YOU would think about a sentence like this:
Joe talked to a pig today. Pigs . . . I don't really like them. Their fat and smell funny and make noises. They're always in the mud making a mess. Little twisty tales . . . some people think they're cute. I don't. Did you know they don't even sweat?!?"
First of all, the text in Genesis 3 goes nowhere near the description you give of this pig…. This is an exaggeration at best..
Jac wrote:"Now, what does THIS sound like I'm talking about. Pretty clearly, it is a real pig. How can you tell? It's obvious, because there are no markers indicating that "pig" is being taken as a figure of speech. You would take this as "historical narrative."
Second, I could still say it was a police officer… Why? Because some are fat and smelly (sorry), make noises (sirens), make a mess in the mud (ghetto), have twisty tales (their walkie talkies), some people think they are cute (some really do), and don't even sweat (when they are not under any pressure). A real “historical” narrative…