Debate on Interpretation

[CSLewis]

The story of the

fall of man - God always refers to the serpent as snake and not Satan. If as you say the

snake is Satan then why does the author convey him as a snake ? The clues are in the text itself

"now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast that the Lord God had made" genesis 3:1

we see first in this story the snake is crafty and is a creation of God. In judgement God curses the snake by making it crawl on it's belly and eat dust (we can look at symbolism and meaning behind dust also) and put enmity between it and man. Nowhere in the text does God judge Satan for he never speaks to Satan only to the serpent. If Satan as some sort of shape shifter had taken on the form of a snake certainly God would know it and cursesatan and not the snake -

[Guest shiloh357]

The story of the

fall of man - God always refers to the serpent as snake and not Satan. If as you say the

snake is Satan then why does the author convey him as a snake ? The clues are in the text itself

"now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast that the Lord God had made" genesis 3:1

we see first in this story the snake is crafty and is a creation of God. In judgement God curses the snake by making it crawl on it's belly and eat dust (we can look at symbolism and meaning behind dust also) and put enmity between it and man. Nowhere in the text does God judge Satan for he never speaks to Satan only to the serpent. If Satan as some sort of shape shifter had taken on the form of a snake certainly God would know it and cursesatan and not the snake -

Again, that is not "symbolism."

[CSLewis]

Yes it is Shiloh. You have provided no evidence from the text were God refers to the

serpent as Satan. The text provides evidence of the symbolism- anthropromorphism, Attributed with characteristics of craftiness. We can see through archaeology and pagan literature the

snake is used as a symbol of nature and beauty.

If Satan was the snake then the text would say so but nowhere in the fall story does God refer to the serpent as Satan. The

curse affected the snake and not Satan. Only by interpretting the curse as figurative does the true meaning of the text emerge. The prophetic foreshadowing.

Now that being said the audience at the time would not

have interpretted it as such. Only by understanding Christ and in light of the NT does this interpretation become apparent.

The audience at the time would have had a different understanding of the

text. The snake, worshipped by some pagan cultures, is cursed above all cattle. (cattle was worshipped as well in many cultures).

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes it is Shiloh. You have provided no evidence from the text were God refers to the

serpent as Satan.

The text provides evidence of the symbolism- anthropromorphism, Attributed with characteristics of craftiness

I should clarify and point out that Satan spoke through the serpent. Satan was not biologically a serpent, but rather he used serpent to to speak to Eve. Again, it does not qualify as "symbolism."

Anthropromorphism is not symbolism and any competetent exegete can tell the difference. We are at at an impasse because you are simply not skilled enough in literary analysis to understand the difference between a symbol and assigning human characteristics to a nonhuman object/entity.

The snake does not symbolize satan at all. It is common knowledge among Christian scholarship that the serpent in the garden was satan. The Bible refer to satan as the ancient serpent (Rev. 12:9 and Rev. 20:2)

Only by interpretting the curse as figurative does the true meaning of the text emerge. The prophetic foreshadowing.

Wrong. There is no such thing a "figurative interpretation" no matter how hard you kick against the goads. Prophetic foreshadowing is not figurative in nature and cannot be found through treating a text "figuratively." The literal meaning the of text is that Satan tempted Eve to eat the fruit. It is more or less than that.

[CSLewis]

"I should clarify and point out that Satan spoke through the serpent. Satan was not biologically a serpent, but rather he used serpent to to speak to Eve. Again, it does not qualify as "symbolism.""

Where is your textual evidence of this?

"Anthropromorphism is not symbolism and any competetent exegete can tell the difference. We are at at an impasse because you are simply not skilled enough in literary analysis to understand the difference between a symbol and assigning human characteristics to a nonhuman object/entity."

I said using anthropromorphism is indicative of allegory, myth and symbolism - when you challenged me to provide symbol indicators. I did not say they were the same thing I said it was evidence of symbolism.

[Guest shiloh357]

"I should clarify and point out that Satan spoke through the serpent. Satan was not biologically a serpent, but rather he used serpent to to speak to Eve. Again, it does not qualify as "symbolism.""

Where is your textual evidence of this?

Do serpents (snakes) talk??? A little commonsense goes a long way.

Common knowledge among Christian scholarship? This is your evidence provided?

It holds more weight than your make believe symbolism.

And the text in revelation is further evidence of symbolism- being part of a dream doesn't help your case any.

Not everything in Reveleation is symbolic. Liberals like to just brush the entirety of Revelation off as "sybmolic" which is poor handling of the text of Revelation.

Was it Satan or was it the serpent? The text says it was the serpent.

Except that the Bible is a system of progressive revelation and for that reason, we know it was satan speaking through the serpent.

In order to attempt to interpret this curse as being a prophecy you have to treat it as figurative.

No, you don't. You have to treat it as literal.

I am here not to convince you of anything but to maybe explain another way of looking at the text and provide evidence for my claims

If what you were providing was within the boundaries of genuine, scholarly literary analysis, that would be one thing. Your "evidence" is based on made up concepts and subjective presuppositions about interpretation that have no basis in what is the universally accepted rules of interpretation.

[CSLewis]

"Do serpents (snakes) talk??? A little commonsense goes a long way."

In this story one does. Does God breathe? In this story He does. Does God walk? In this story He does. Does eating a magical piece of fruit make us more like God? In this story it does.

[Guest shiloh357]

"Do serpents (snakes) talk??? A little commonsense goes a long way."

In this story one does. Does God breathe? In this story He does. Does God walk? In this story He does. Does eating a magical piece of fruit make us more like God? In this story it does.

If you were applying commonsense you would realize this story is not a historical narrative.

Commonsense would know the difference between Satan speaking through a serpent and anthroprorphims applied to God. Competent interpretation would not relegate the forbidden fruit to being "magical." That only shows your lack of any meaningful grasp of the t

If you were applying commonsense you would realize this story is not a historical narrative.

If it didn't really happen, then man doesn't need a savior. The rest of Scripture treats it as a historical narrative. That is the problem. If it didn't really happen, then man didn't really fall, and salvation is a hoax. You cannot deny the literal, historical nature of the text, while trying to affirm the Christian faith. The events in Genesis set the stage for the plan of redemption. If the events depicted in Genesis are simply metaporical and thus nonhistorical, there can be no literal redemption of man.

"

It holds more weight than your make believe symbolism."

I have provided textual evidence for symbolism, whilst you have provided none that Satan is the serpent.

You have provided NOTHING to prove symbolism except what exists in your imagination.

"Except that the Bible is a system of progressive revelation and for that reason, we know it was satan speaking through the serpent."

System of progressive revelation? Now who sounds like a liberal.

You do. Competent exegetes understand that the Bible is constructed in such a way that no one single verse or passage contains all of the truth on a given subject. The fact is that no one not even most liberals challenge the identity of the serpent. Satan is the tempter. The Messianic prophecy of Gen. 3:15 is not leveled at all serpents, but is speaking one particular serpent, namely Satan it is prophecy of Satan's defeat by Christ.

"Not everything in Reveleation is symbolic. Liberals like to just brush the entirety of Revelation off as "sybmolic" which is poor handling of the text of Revelation."

Dragons or snakes and serpents are used as a symbol of evil and Satan, you cannot try to tie this description in of Satan to the fall story in Genesis, that is poor handling of the text.

No it isn't. It is consistent with how the Bible portrays satan.

And even if it is how can you say that is how you know that Satan is speaking through serpent?

The first step in understanding the Bible is believing it. That is where you need to start. The fact is that the Bible is very clear about Satan who he is and what he did in Scripture. He first shows up in Gen. 3.

Your "universally accepted rules of interpretation" are not universally accepted. Your definition of literal meaning the authors intent is not a universal definition. Your idea that there is only one interpretation of a text is universally not accepted.

Wrong. I am sure there are some pockets of liberalism that choose to remain in a state of denial but facts are facts.

There would be NO point to writing anything at all if everyone was free to just ignore your ideas and assign their own values to your statements and force your writings to represent ideas, virtues, concepts and ideals that you dont' hold to.

And your idea that your interpretation of the text is that of true genuine Christian scholarship and any other interpretation is erroneous sets yourself up to be god of your own world.

No it doesnt. Because I don't lay claim to anything called "my interpretation." I only refer to "interpretation" and the only form genuine interpretation takes is "literal."

You are brainwashed in the liberal notion of "my interpretation" vs. "your interpretation." Equally as fallacious is the rather backwards notion of "figurative interpretation." That creature does not exist except in liberal imaginings.

Universally accepted means - people who agree with me.

No, it means that there are universally recognized, standardized rules for literary analysis and you are not free to just make up the rules.

[Guest shiloh357]

What if I just decided that it was up to me to decide what YOU mean and I will just completely ignore what YOU intended to communicate and I will decide for myself what you mean??? Is that okay??? i am free to just make up your ideas for you??? Or would you like me to actually read and try to understand you???

I view the text as "literal " (by your definition of the word) and so do you.

No, you don't. Certainly not by how I define it.

You rely on "Christian scholarship" (which are those scholars who agree with your view) as do I.

No, I rely on genuine literary analysis.

[CSLewis]

"If it didn't really happen, then man doesn't need a savior. The rest of Scripture treats it as a historical narrative. That is the problem. If it didn't really happen, then man didn't really fall, and salvation is a hoax. You cannot deny the literal, historical nature of the text, while trying to affirm the Christian faith. The events in Genesis set the stage for the plan of redemption. If the events depicted in Genesis are simply metaporical and thus nonhistorical, there can be no literal redemption of man."

Just because the events are nonhistorical does not mean they are not true. These are physical symbols that represent spiritual nontangible ideas. Adam and Eve represent the first humans the fruit represents the sin of humanity. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the consciousness of right and wrong the conscience. The conscience creates in man the ability to do evil. Death enters the world as a result. Not a physical death but a spiritual death. Herein is why we need atonement. It wasn't a literal apple or a literal snake or a literal garden these are symbols used by the author - it was a story of the fall - humanity's first sin and devolopment of consciousness. We need redemption not because someone ate an apple a long time ago because a snake told her too. We need redemption because humanity sins. We sin. The author of Genesis used symbols to express these complex ideas that would have been understood by the audience that it was written too and human characteristics to God that can be understood. Genesis is a book of instruction and these stories give a glimpse of God and the relationship he seeks to have with man. The truth of the texts lies in the lesson and not in the accuracy of literal events.