Having been mostly a bystander I agree that Mr. McFadden's points about the verbal patterns have been overlooked: I had also understood the specific points raised about the serpent etc. to be dealt with in the more general replies which is probably why they haven't been individually mentioned. For instance, if one doesn't have a problem accepting a natural reading of a literal day theory of creation regardless of science, why should they have a problem accepting a talking snake? (The 'personality' objection seems rather arbitrary? -but I suppose if it's a real difficulty it's simple enough to point out that we aren't told Balaam's donkey was inhabited by an angelic or demonic being.) If I accept a literal reading of other portions of the Old Testament, for instance where God appears to Abraham, why should I have a problem with God appearing in some way to Adam? If I accept that men approach scripture with presuppositions in the present age, why should it be especially problematic that they had (albeit different ones) to deal with in a former? I don't honestly see that such objections pose real problems for interpreting the text as narrative if one really isn't referencing the meaning of the words to a post enlightenment and largely unexamined approach to science, and what it on its own autonomous authority (which doesn't amount to much) tells us is and isn't possible?

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.