Principles of Interpretation - Hermeneutics

[Marilyn C]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I have no problem with that at all.  But there is no symbolism relative to Satan there in Genesis 3. 

Might have to amend that - we see that the word `serpent` is a name for Satan, to describe some of his tactics - to delude. would you agree?

So to continue. What about the `tree of life,` the `flaming sword,` and being `cast out of the garden.` How do you read those?

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

Might have to amend that - we see that the word `serpent` is a name for Satan, to describe some of his tactics - to delude. would you agree?

There is nothing to amend as there is no symbolism. 

Quote

So to continue. What about the `tree of life,` the `flaming sword,` and being `cast out of the garden.` How do you read those?

As literal objects/events.

[Marilyn C]

31 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

There is nothing to amend as there is no symbolism. 

As literal objects/events.

So just clarifying here -

The names, `serpent of old,` `the Great Dragon,` I believe are figures of Satan. Do you agree?

Now as to `the tree of life,` the flaming sword,` & being `cast out of the garden of Eden,`......

Do you believe that you could go & see say the cherubim at the east gate, the flaming sword guarding the tree? If they are literal, where do you see they are?

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

So just clarifying here -

The names, `serpent of old,` `the Great Dragon,` I believe are figures of Satan. Do you agree?

In the book of Revelation, not Genesis 3.   Revelation is a different genre than Genesis 3.  Revelation is prophecy and it uses symbolism and figurative expressions heavily.     Revelation  is not a commentary on Genesis 3.  In the Garden it was literal serpent, and Satan was speaking through the serpent.   It's not unlike the talking donkey of Baalam in Numbers.
 

Quote

 

Now as to `the tree of life,` the flaming sword,` & being `cast out of the garden of Eden,`......

Do you believe that you could go & see say the cherubim at the east gate, the flaming sword guarding the tree? If they are literal, where do you see they are?

 

At that time, God literally set it up that way, for as long as the Tree of Life and the Garden of Eden existed.  The Bible doesn't present them as symbolic.   There is no reason to arbitrarily assign symbolism to them.

[Marilyn C]

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

In the book of Revelation, not Genesis 3.   Revelation is a different genre than Genesis 3.  Revelation is prophecy and it uses symbolism and figurative expressions heavily.     Revelation  is not a commentary on Genesis 3.  In the Garden it was literal serpent, and Satan was speaking through the serpent.   It's not unlike the talking donkey of Baalam in Numbers.
 

At that time, God literally set it up that way, for as long as the Tree of Life and the Garden of Eden existed.  The Bible doesn't present them as symbolic.   There is no reason to arbitrarily assign symbolism to them.

So Bro Shiloh,

are you saying that in Gen. 3, God means that -

- there is a snake that talks, a tree that gives life, a sword that flames continually, and there are cherubim standing at the east end of the garden....

and that is to be all taken `literally?`

Just clarifying here bro.

Marilyn. 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

So Bro Shiloh,

are you saying that in Gen. 3, God means that -

- there is a snake that talks, a tree that gives life, a sword that flames continually, and there are cherubim standing at the east end of the garden....

and that is to be all taken `literally?`

Just clarifying here bro.

Marilyn. 

 

Why would any of that be problematic in a supernatural environment?

I could ask the same of you in regarding a talking donkey and a man who got swallowed by a great fish and a sea that parts.

[Marilyn C]

Now Shiloh, if I read a story in a book (not the Bible) with - 

- a snake that talks, a tree that gives life, a sword that flames continually, and a cherubim standing at the east end of a garden,

I would class that story as a `fairy tale,` `mystical.`

Wouldn`t you?

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Marilyn C said:

Now Shiloh, if I read a story in a book (not the Bible) with - 

- a snake that talks, a tree that gives life, a sword that flames continually, and a cherubim standing at the east end of a garden,

I would class that story as a `fairy tale,` `mystical.`

Wouldn`t you?

Yes, if the genre is fantasy/fictional.

But the Bible doesn't do that.   It presents those things embedded in a 100% true, inerrant historical account.  

Skeptics make the same argument against Genesis that you do.  They reject Genesis as a literally true,inerrant historical account and their primary criticism is the talking snake the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. 

Fortunately for me, my views uphold the integrity of Scripture and no one can find any similarity between how I view the Bible and how atheists/skeptics view the Bible.

[Marilyn C]

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, if the genre is fantasy/fictional.

But the Bible doesn't do that.   It presents those things embedded in a 100% true, inerrant historical account.  

Skeptics make the same argument against Genesis that you do.  They reject Genesis as a literally true,inerrant historical account and their primary criticism is the talking snake the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. 

Fortunately for me, my views uphold the integrity of Scripture and no one can find any similarity between how I view the Bible and how atheists/skeptics view the Bible.

Hi Shiloh,

Note, dear bro, the little word I said `IF` & also,`NOT THE BIBLE….

`if I read a story in a book (not the Bible) with - 

- a snake that talks, a tree that gives life, a sword that flames continually, and a cherubim standing at the east end of a garden,

I would class that story as a `fairy tale,` `mystical.`

In your reply you accused me -

`Skeptics make the same argument against Genesis that you do`. 

 I was NOT making an argument, I was showing how it could look if you just applied principles for studying other literature. So please refrain from the accusing, bro.  

 

Now let`s try and look at Gen. 3 interpretation together. So we agree -

1. That Gen. 3 is NOT a fairy tale, or mystic.

2. We need other scriptures to interpret Gen. 3.

 

You have already given us two examples -

a)You said - `Genesis 3 is part of a greater demonstration in the first 11 chapters of the sinfulness of man and why a covenant was needed.  Rom. 5:12-21 is the NT explanation of Genesis 3 and how it relates to Jesus and His redemptive work on the cross.`

That information is also NOT in Gen.3 but in other parts of God`s word.

 

b) You said - `In the Garden it was literal serpent, and Satan was speaking through the serpent.`

That information is NOT in Gen. 3 but in other parts of God`s word. (Rev. 12: 9, & 20: 2)

 

How is that so far?

Marilyn.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Shiloh,

Note, dear bro, the little word I said `IF` & also,`NOT THE BIBLE….

`if I read a story in a book (not the Bible) with - 

- a snake that talks, a tree that gives life, a sword that flames continually, and a cherubim standing at the east end of a garden,

I would class that story as a `fairy tale,` `mystical.`

In your reply you accused me -

`Skeptics make the same argument against Genesis that you do`. 

 I was NOT making an argument, I was showing how it could look if you just applied principles for studying other literature. So please refrain from the accusing, bro.  

Well, you were making an argument.   The implication is was that if we read  a story in a secular book about a talking snake and a tree the gives life, etc., we would not take those things to be literal and so we should not take them literally when reading the Bible.   That was the argument you were making, even if only implied.

And what I said about skeptics is true because the argument they use is that Genesis cannot be true because of talking snakes and cherubim, and the fruit of the tree of knowledge and other supernatural elements in Genesis that the Bible embeds in an inerrant account of history.   The implication that these elements of the story cannot be taken literally feeds the skeptics' arguments, whether you accept that or not.

Furthermore, your comments failed to take into account the issue of genre.  In applying principles of studying other literature, I would not make the mistake of interpreting Genesis the same way I would interpret a book of fictional fantasy.   I would not use the same rules for Genesis that I would use for the Chronicles of Narnia, or The Lord of the Rings.

Quote

 

a)You said - `Genesis 3 is part of a greater demonstration in the first 11 chapters of the sinfulness of man and why a covenant was needed.  Rom. 5:12-21 is the NT explanation of Genesis 3 and how it relates to Jesus and His redemptive work on the cross.`

That information is also NOT in Gen.3 but in other parts of God`s word.

 

b) You said - `In the Garden it was literal serpent, and Satan was speaking through the serpent.`

That information is NOT in Gen. 3 but in other parts of God`s word. (Rev. 12: 9, & 20: 2)

 

Okay, but you are failing to take into account that in example "a"  Rom. 5:12-21 directly addresses the fall of man and treats it as literal history. It confirms my argument about how to interpret the genre of Genesis 3.  It doesn't treat any aspect of it to be anything other than real history.  And I can make a theological claim about Genesis 3 based on what Rom. 5 says about the events of Genesis 3. 

In example  "b"  Satan being  called a serpent in Rev. 12:9 an 20:2 doesn't somehow mean that we don't take Genesis 3 literally. tThere were was a talking serpent, which Satan, no doubt, was speaking through. 

Not only that, but you cannot mix genres.  Genesis is history and Revelation is prophecy.  The rules for interpreting prophecy are not the same as for interpreting a historical account.  Rev. 12:9 and 20:2 are not commentaries on, or explanations of Genesis 3.  There is nothing in either of those verses that tell us how we are to interpret Genesis 3, because they have nothing to do with Genesis 3.

In example "a"  I relate Genesis 3 to the rest of the Bible, theologically.  I can teach out of Genesis 3  because as it is a literal interpretation and ONLY a literal interpretation that allows me to highlight the biblical doctrines that have their point of origin in Genesis 3.   So my connection between Genesis 3 and Rom. 5:12-21 is legitimate and applies sound hermeneutics.

Just because two passages of Scripture use the same word or two, it doesn't mean that they are connected.   Paul and James use the word "justified" but use in two completely different ways.  Failing to take context into account can end up having James teaching salvation by works.   And so example "b" is a good example of poor hermeneutics.