Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't want to get into this discussion too much myself, but I have a little twist that needs to be considered. I read David Snoke's defense of Old Earth Creation, and he presented a case that got me thinking...

“Many people may find it easy to believe that thousands of non-Christian scientists are involved in a conspiracy to fabricate geological data, but one thing acts as a strong check to prevent them from doing that: self-interest. Geology underlies the oil industry, and the oil industry is interested in finding oil with pinpoint accuracy, not in creating a vast religious deception. Some Christians fault the old-earthers for violating the scientific method because they deal with things that lie in the past, and therefore beyond the realm of falsifiable predictions. This is incorrect. The theory of an old earth and continental drift is a highly successful, predictive theory, used by thousands of people who put millions of dollars at risk in order to find oil and coal. Just as capitalism tends to make selfish people work toward productive goals out of self interest, so it also tends to keep them honest, since a person who consistently denies reality, making false predictions of where to drill for oil, at a cost of millions of dollars, will not last long in the business. If young-earth science made better predictions than old-earth science of where to find oil, I am convinced that the industry would embrace it in an instant.”

One may question Snoke's apologetic, but I want to bring this into the practical realm. Whether or not we should let science dictate our interpretation of Scripture isn't really the point here. My question is this. What is a Christian to do if he is employed as an oil driller for Exxon? Should he…

1.) …abandon his old earth geology at the expense of finding oil (and losing his position)?

2.) …accept old earth geology six days a week, long enough to get his job done, and then revert to young earth creation on Sunday?

3.) ...accept the possibility that the Bible allows for an old earth?

4.) …find a new job?

Other alternatives?
 
[...] but as 'an expression of a miserable condition'

Perhaps, but if this is right, you're no longer reading the text literally. If the words don't literally mean "eating dust", then where do we stop?

Mr. Foord, I believe they do mean literally eating or licking dust as the literal activity of a literal serpent as cited by the verse in Micah; but that this literalness has a spiritual significance that would not make sense unless we literally assume that the devil is present in the snake as the rest of scripture takes this up and applies it spiritually as well. Again I'm probably expressing this badly but it is the distinction Mr. Winzer drew between taking something literally and naturalistically, as if the literal ruled out the supernatural and spiritual: that is to draw a false distinction, a distinction modern science fundamentally adopts -- & they never find God anywhere in spite of His being everywhere revealed -- but that I reject. I appreciate much that your concern is not for science but for the text, but I don't believe the distinction is in the text and my point was more that the rest of Scripture's usage of these concepts as both physical and spiritual supports that it isn't: that you have the spiritual significance hidden or revealed, certainly not divorced from, the physical and both together form the 'literal' reading.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to get into this discussion too much myself, but I have a little twist that needs to be considered. I read David Snoke's defense of Old Earth Creation, and he presented a case that got me thinking...

“Many people may find it easy to believe that thousands of non-Christian scientists are involved in a conspiracy to fabricate geological data, but one thing acts as a strong check to prevent them from doing that: self-interest. Geology underlies the oil industry, and the oil industry is interested in finding oil with pinpoint accuracy, not in creating a vast religious deception. Some Christians fault the old-earthers for violating the scientific method because they deal with things that lie in the past, and therefore beyond the realm of falsifiable predictions. This is incorrect. The theory of an old earth and continental drift is a highly successful, predictive theory, used by thousands of people who put millions of dollars at risk in order to find oil and coal. Just as capitalism tends to make selfish people work toward productive goals out of self interest, so it also tends to keep them honest, since a person who consistently denies reality, making false predictions of where to drill for oil, at a cost of millions of dollars, will not last long in the business. If young-earth science made better predictions than old-earth science of where to find oil, I am convinced that the industry would embrace it in an instant.”

One may question Snoke's apologetic, but I want to bring this into the practical realm. Whether or not we should let science dictate our interpretation of Scripture isn't really the point here. My question is this. What is a Christian to do if he is employed as an oil driller for Exxon? Should he…

1.) …abandon his old earth geology at the expense of finding oil (and losing his position)?

2.) …accept old earth geology six days a week, long enough to get his job done, and then revert to young earth creation on Sunday?

3.) ...accept the possibility that the Bible allows for an old earth?

4.) …find a new job?

Other alternatives?

well, I am no expert on geology, but - are they finding oil based on the "facts" of an old earth, or are they utilizing the lessons learned from previous oil finds to develop better and better methods of discovery? I tend to believe that folk align their presuppositions to the evidence...does the YE group have an workable interpretation of the evidence?
 
PD, yes, the YE's have workable models just as the OE's do. It's never a straightforward matter of 'this is what the facts tell me' with regard to origins etc. One makes a model to account for 'evidence' and these models are based not only on observable evidence but on one's presuppositions; new evidence is constantly coming to light and changing the models; the models themselves have no real way of being tested, etc. It's a changing and very biased standard again: to speak of the 'facts' of things beyond our observation without an authoritative framework is naiveté on our part.
 
That's really the issue. Plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are based on Old Earth Geology. One can deny these theories, but when these theories give accurate predictions of where to find coal and oil, they need to be taken seriously, lest we push ourselves into sort of a Christianized nihilism. As of now, young earth geology has no working model to help find oil.

Note: I'm not necessarily defending the Old Earth view, but just stirring the pot a little. Not sure I want to use the H-word for a old earther quite yet.
 
That's really the issue. Plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are based on Old Earth Geology. One can deny these theories, but when these theories give accurate predictions of where to find coal and oil, they need to be taken seriously, lest we push ourselves into sort of a Christianized nihilism. As of now, young earth geology has no working model to help find oil.

Note: I'm not necessarily defending the Old Earth view, but just stirring the pot a little. Not sure I want to use the H-word for a old earther quite yet.

The real issue is this: Is it okay to hold a position that the science of the day, finds reprehensible. Or is it only okay to hold to a position such as YEC as long as you have a working model as comprehensive as the other positions?

Let's for example say that I agree that YECers dont have a working model for finding oil, but let us imagine that in 50 years one is worked out. Is it irrational to hold to YEC until 50 years from now?

Now let us imagine that the YEC working model at that point is better than the OEC one. Do the OECers have to then (and only then) capitulate and come over?

Or can we look at scripture and say, if science does not currently bear out YEC (or OEC) as the case may be, then it just shows that more work needs to be done?

CT
 
Hi Scott, yes, one can deny those theories on the basis of an unchanging and eternal authority: indeed it is much more coherent to deny them where they oppose that authority than to qualify that authority by them when they are dealing with things that cannot be proven, when they have been outdated numerous times in the past etc. Again the concern for how to read Genesis should be textual not scientific. It is the height of our -I don't know, presumption, ignorance- to trust science to qualify the Scripturally coherent and plain reading of the Word of God. The arguments from science will not muster any more authority with six day Creationists than they can possibly have as a changing human tool, which is why such arguments are irrelevant in this kind of discussion about the reading of a text.
 
To be more specific.

According to what we know scientifically (fully realizing that it can change tomorrow), the accurate finding of coal and oil requires the assumption of an old earth (of course, like all science, this faces the problem of induction). Nevertheless, can one temporarily adopt "old earth geology" in order to get his job done, at least until a time comes when young earth geology may give a better alternative? What if his job and knowledge of geology influenced his view of creation, giving him an old earth perspective? Would he be heretical in doing so?
 
That's really the issue. Plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are based on Old Earth Geology. One can deny these theories, but when these theories give accurate predictions of where to find coal and oil, they need to be taken seriously, lest we push ourselves into sort of a Christianized nihilism. As of now, young earth geology has no working model to help find oil.

Note: I'm not necessarily defending the Old Earth view, but just stirring the pot a little. Not sure I want to use the H-word for a old earth quite yet.

I question that plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are key variables used to predict the location of oil. Rather the opposite is true - the location of oil is used as 'evidence' of plate tectonics and continental drift. I have never heard any geologist say "if continental drift, then we should find oil at location X". I seriously doubt that old earth theories are critical to oil exploration.

Also, do young earth theorist necessarily deny plate tectonics??
 
Also, Scott, if your concern is over the 'h' word (smiley) then certainly I don't think anyone here would say the man is departing from the Christian faith over this issue -- indeed people like Warfield, C. S. Lewis, are held in very high esteem by most of us; I understood the original question to be more whether our church officers should ideally be required to hold to this position. It isn't a matter even of separation from people but of whether those who are in a special position of defending the church from error should be required to be confessional on this point: in that sense, I do believe this is worth 'fighting for' because I think the errors logically -- though not in every personal case-- lead to others. But no, I don't think this issue alone constitutes someone a heretic or that the thread is geared towards that kind of anathema.
 
Continental Drift is crucial in the accurate discovery of oil, gas, and coal deposits.

Access : : Nature

I do know of one particular geologist who is an adamant young earth creationist. Yet he does his job under the pretense that the earth is old, because it appears old. He admits that everything he knows about the earth suggests that it is billions of years old. Nonetheless, he holds that it is young, because Scripture says so.

But most believing scientists I know are old-earthers.
 
Continental Drift is crucial in the accurate discovery of oil, gas, and coal deposits.

Access : : Nature

Thanks for the link but I can't read the article. The summary does not make it clear.
The necessary physiographic location of deltaic sources deposited during the past 200 million years requires that continental movements be taken into account.

The quote seems to say that the explanation of the location of "deltaic source" must include an explanation (account) of continental movement. In other words, the location of the deposits is evidence for continental drift. And this all presumes an old earth viewpoint.
 
This conversation seems to link literal/non-literal days with earth age. I don't hold to literal days but do not see that as having a bearing on one's opinion of earth age. If pressed I would guess that the creation could have been instantaneous rather than over 6 days. Am I wrong to suggest that whether the days were literal or not need not have bearing on opinion of the earths age?
 
Oops. The link is for members only.

Continental Drift, however, is the main method for locating these deposits.
How?

P.S. Never mind. I don't want to sidetrack the thread. You can PM me or post another link if you want, but I withdraw my "how". :)
 
That's really the issue. Plate tectonics and the theory of continental drift are based on Old Earth Geology. One can deny these theories, but when these theories give accurate predictions of where to find coal and oil, they need to be taken seriously, lest we push ourselves into sort of a Christianized nihilism. As of now, young earth geology has no working model to help find oil.

Note: I'm not necessarily defending the Old Earth view, but just stirring the pot a little. Not sure I want to use the H-word for a old earther quite yet.

Actually, Scott, that observation is a little out of date. One of the leading experts in the world on plate tectonics happens to be a young earther. His statistical analysis and computer generated model have been hailed as offering the highest degree of predictive specificity. Yet, he argues that flood catastrophism, using his computer model, adequately explains the continental separations to a very fine point indeed. In fact, I heard him lecture, using a computer generated 3-D animation of his model. It was quite impressive.

Here is an abstract of Dr. John Baumgardner's work:

Any comprehensive model for earth history consistent with the data from the Scriptures must account for the massive tectonic changes associated with the Genesis Flood. These tectonic changes include significant vertical motions of the continental surfaces to allow for the deposition of up to many thousands of meters of fossil-bearing sediments, lateral displacements of the continental blocks themselves by thousands of kilometers, formation of all of the present day ocean floor basement rocks by igneous processes, and isostatic adjustments after the catastrophe that produced today's Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, and Andes. This paper uses 3-D numerical modeling in spherical geometry of the earth's mantle and lithosphere to demonstrate that rapid plate tectonics driven by runaway subduction of the pre-Flood ocean floor is able to account for this unique pattern of large-scale tectonic change and to do so within the Biblical time frame.

Whether runaway subduction ultimately proves to be the mechanism of plate tectonics or not remains to be seen. However, the model was designed by competent geologists and has been peer reviewed. Obviously, those with a dog in the fight defending uniformitarian assumptions will scoff. However, my point is that the "facts" of nature do not require uniformitarian assumptions and that there are impressive theological reasons for rejecting such materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions.

I appreciate the immense learnedness of our professor, Marty, from down under. His comments are always gracious, fair, and patient with those of us hoi polloi. However, chasing after the definition of what "is" is regarding "literal interpretation" or chasing down the figurative elements in the creation account with questions about talking snakes misses the point I have attempted to make. A reading sensitive to the genre, recognizing the subtext of the near eastern mythologies Moses may be dealing with (e.g., a contradiction of the Babylonian worldview in particular), and aware of our cultural distance from the original composition, still seems perfectly compatible with a normal reading of the narrative with relatively young earth implications.

Indeed, I would aver that the straightforward reading is not only the intended one by the divine (and the human) author, but also sets us up for most of the major theological themes in the rest of the Bible. It is not for nothing that the apologetics ministry, Answers in Genesis, selected that name. Genesis 1-11 contains the seedbed for the major doctrinal themes to be developed in the rest of the canonical scriptures. While I would never question someone's salvation (or orthodoxy) for believing otherwise, my honest consideration of the data has convinced me that the normal reading here is the best one.
 
Last edited:
Theistic Evolution is Deism

I believe that six-day creation is worth the battle, however, as a fourth year student in applied physics, I can understand how many faithful Christians have sought to adopt an old-earth creation view. They have preferred to become inconsistent Christians rather than inconsistent scientists. The scientific community has gone so far with the theory of evolution, whether big bang, molecular, macro or micro evolution, that it would require a miracle for them to come back and reject their 'theory.' Any six-day creationist in most fields of science is bound to be made fun of, simply because within the university level, evolution is accepted almost as a fact. For every Christian website that seeks to defend 6-day creation there may be a hundred that attempt to refute it.

However, both non-theistic evolutionists and 6-day creationists agree that theistic evolution is inconsistent with the Bible. If you have theistic evolution, you must have death before sin, and if you have death before sin, you have no sin, and if you have no sin you are a Deist. Theistic evolution simply leads to Deism, which in turn leads to Atheism. Some scientist-theologians have constructed some complex theories for reconciling some form of evolutionary biology with the Bible, but to me they are all theological constructs.

Arguments run that God had to explain to Moses the origin of life in a simple way so the Jews could understand it. But again, this is to argue from an evolutionary perspective that men in those days were dumber than we are today. If evolutionary science is true and the Bible is also inherant, I would expect some clearer evidence from Genesis 1 that God created the universe over long periods of time. Besides, Moses is the only prophet in Scriptures who is said to have spoken face to face with God. If he were not sure of the original record, he could have just gone to the horse's mouth. Also, if evolutionary science is true, man was not made in God's image from the beginning. God had to somehow impart His image to him at some point in time. You can see how this just gets ridiculous. Evolutionary science and Genesis are mutually exclusive.
 
DMcFadden,

Young Earth Creation really cannot account for Continental drift in any accurate manner, but that will require a more indepth discussion than what I'm prepared to offer at this point. (Besides, that is only one of many issues. There are many more, such as the 1992 Cosmic Background Explorer, etc.)

In any case, I'm not necessarily defending their view, just pushing for a little understanding for those who hold to an old earth view. Many are true believers who hold to a high view of Scripture.

Neogillist,

Just to clarify, theistic evolution is a heresy. Old earth creation does not necessarily imply evolution.
 
re: theistic evolution being a heresy: C. S. Lewis is supposed to have been a 'theistic evolutionist'? I don't regard him as a heretic. Again I don't think the battle here has been framed in terms of heresy.

Please understand that though YEC's recognize and understand the tremendous pressure their brothers in Christ are under and the confusion that exists about the authority of science, we're not going to stop fighting against the kind of abuse and compromise of God's authority that goes on in the attempt to make the text subservient to scientific models, as here: http://www.answersincreation.org/lewis.htm (please read the 'invitation' section at the end) and that is inherent in any attempt to qualify the meaning of Scripture with science.
 
DMcFadden,

Young Earth Creation really cannot account for Continental drift in any accurate manner, but that will require a more indepth discussion than what I'm prepared to offer at this point. (Besides, that is only one of many issues. There are many more, such as the 1992 Cosmic Background Explorer, etc.)

In any case, I'm not necessarily defending their view, just pushing for a little understanding for those who hold to an old earth view. Many are true believers who hold to a high view of Scripture.

Neogillist,

Just to clarify, theistic evolution is a heresy. Old earth creation does not necessarily imply evolution.

I make no prretense to being a scientist. However, I produced purported evidence that the YEC position can handle continental drift in an "accurate matter." I would appreciate more interaction with Baumgardner's work than a simple dismissal.

I am not competent to evaluate your claim regarding the 1992 findings. However, it is my understanding that once one removes the motion of our galaxy, scientists have found (buried in the background) at sufficiently small angular resolutions, small intrinsic variations of the order of 1 part in 105, actually ≤ 70 µK.4,10. Don't cosmologists say that one would need variations greater than 1 part in 104 to account for the the formation of galaxies and clusters within the timeframe available to gravity??? The so-called evidence for inflation (needed to solve the horizon and flatness problems) is extremely model dependent. I am not so sure that it will hold up.

Actually, when the steady-state model could not handle the observations of cosmic microwave backgrounds (CMB), scientists turned to tweaking the Big Bang model liberally in order to make the observations fit.

I am no enemy of science ("all truth is God's truth" and all of that). However, it will take more than "science says so" to convince me that we should abandon Genesis, particularly when the worldview animating the billions of years is far afield from that of believing scientists who, operating from Christian premises, developed modern science.

Incidentally, I agree that OEC does not imply evolution. It does, however, generally imply that there were millions of years of death prior to the fall. That is a problem for me.
 
Mr. Foord,

You've taken me too literally! :D When I spoke of Gen. 1-3 it wasn't in the context of discussing the structure of Genesis it was merely a passing comment designed to make reference to creation and the fall.

When it comes to the toledoth you're making much rest on the meaning of one word, i.e. that it has to refer to literal history. The way we determine how to understand the early chapters of Genesis is not by the meaning of one marker word (toledoth) but attendance to all the words, and what they mean in context.

Actually, I can see where my "structural lesson" about Genesis could have appeared condescending, and I apologize. I had no doubt that you were aware of the structure. I was only bringing the structure up because I believe it to have an important bearing on the interpretation of Genesis 2:4-4:26. That being the case, I'm not wanting the weight of my argument to rest on the lexical meaning of toledoth. Rather, I'm wanting the weight of the argument to rest on the actual use of the toledoth's in the book of Genesis.

I think that is a distinction worth making. All of the toledoth's, without exception, set forth actual, unquestioned history. And we would all agree that Genesis 4 deals with history. So it seems as if your position would fissure the first toledoth right down the middle. In other words, all of the toledoth's record history; a third of the first toledoth in question records history; and the remainder of the toledoth (which you do not see as history) is nevertheless recording the creation, words, and actions, of two people that the Scriptures (and you) elsewhere sets forth as real people.

I would argue that the context more than merits, and probably even demands, the taking of the first toledoth as inspired, reliable history.

I didn't say that Gen. 1-3 is analogical language. I hold to a Scotist view of theological language, but that's another matter for another time. If language was analogical per se (a la Aquinas) we'd be left in complete ignorance.

That is true, and I should have been more careful in my speaking. Is there a short article or something that treats Scotist's view to which you could refer me?

Either way, I think it is very easy to get lost in terminology. That's not a plea for simplicity as such. But I do think that scholarly works and terminology tend to obscure the debate. When discussing Genesis one hears "myth, saga, epic, allegory, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, etc." thrown about, and its hard (at least for me) to draw clear cut distinctions between the lot.

So setting aside that question for the moment, and dealing specifically with what you are saying about a serpent "literally" eating dust.

It seems as if you are saying that the presence of figures of speech, colloquialisms, symbolism, what have you, in a given passage, are in and of themselves warrants for taking the whole text in such a manner. For instance, if I were to say that the serpent "eating dust" was symbolic of humiliation and defeat, a la Micah 7:17 ("They [the nations] shall lick the dust like a serpent; they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee."), I don't think that would mean that the whole passage was therefore "symbol" and no longer real history.

It seems as if that arrow could be used to shoot down the historicity of any passage in the New Testament. Does God crushing Satan under the feet of the church refer to the saints literal feet? If not, does that "de-historicize" the personal greetings in Romans? Does Christ calling Herod "that fox" have to be taken literally? If not, is the historicity of that gospel account to be taken into question?

Those are probably two very poor examples, but they are the only ones that come to mind off-hand. But I trust you get my point. Why would one metaphorical or symbolic language in a text relegate the whole text to symbolism or "something other than history".

If I were reading a three page except on Alexander the Great in a history textbook that mentioned him "fighting as a lion", or even referring to him as a "lion of war" (avoiding the simile), I wouldn't therefore take the whole passage as a-historical. I would recognize the flexibility of human language, and the necessity of colorful language, and common figures of speech, without therefore "scrapping" the rest as something other than history.

Lastly, there are different ways (off the top of my head) to think about the serpent eating dust:

1) Humiliation, a la Micah 7:17.

2) A reference to the enmity between the serpent and humankind, since Adam was taken from dust, and would return to dust. This seems to be a common theme in Genesis, or at least a present theme, since Abraham told the LORD that he was only "dust and ashes." So if "dust" is clearly symbolic of humankind in Genesis, why could it not be here? Surely that has some textual support.

3) Phenomenological language. Anyone who has ever seen a snake sees it flicking its tongue out as it writhes upon the ground. To overly stress the literal idea of "eating" dust seems to be the same technique used by scientists who criticize the Bible for its three-tiered earth, or for geocentricity (granted that two respected men in this thread hold to such), to discredit the Bible. For those of us who are not geocentrists, the language could be easily phenomenological.

4) Surely the context presupposes or at least infers that the serpent was "other than it is now" prior to the curse and punishment. That view might even be more common (I would assume) among some liberal commentators because it seems to make the Biblical position even more ludicrous, e.g., that snakes had wings, or were somewhat different than they now are. However, seeing as that comes from the text itself, it would seem to lend support to seeing the "eating the dust" and "upon thy belly" as humiliation, since this once lofty creature has been humbled.

5) I see this as perhaps a bit pedantic (but I think the question invokes such an answer) there's this, taken from an article by Carl Wieland from Answers in Genesis:

Once again we have the situation where, as more information has come to light, the Bible has been shown to be not only accurate, but accurate in minute detail. Snakes do deliberately and purposely eat and lick dust.

There is an organ in the roof of a snake’s mouth called ‘Jacobson’s organ’. This helps the snake to smell in addition to its nose. Its darting, forked tongue samples bits of dust by picking them up on the points of the fork, which it then presents to its matching pair of sensory organs inside its mouth. Once it has ‘smelt’ them in this way, the tongue must be cleaned so the process can be repeated immediately.

Therefore serpents really do lick dust and eat it.

From: Snakes do eat dust!

Anyway, just some thoughts. Perhaps it would help me (and presumably others) to understand your position further if you would give a positive explanation of your view, the interrelation of the toledoth's, Adam and Eve, whether she was really formed from his rib, the nature of theological language, etc.

Every blessing brother! Take your time in responding; no rush.
 
Last edited:
So therefore, did God curse a snake or the devil, or both? If he cursed the devil, why is only a snake addressed as a snake? If he cursed the devil, why does a snake, which isn't personal (in your opinion) and thus is a non-moral agent, suffer? Why do we read nothing about curses on the devil himself?

On the temporal level the serpent is cursed, and on the eschatological level "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan" is cursed. One might choose to ignore the eschatological aspect, but such ignorance only veils the eyes of the OT reader.

Dear brother, this sort of statement adds little to the discussion except of ad hominem value. Please interact with my points rather than wheel in baggage-laden words (which distract).

The Bavinck quote unfortunately, I find, hardly does justice to the history of interpretation concerning Gen. 1-3. A literalistic reading of Gen. 1-3 presents all sort of deadlocks that theologians have noticed ever since the patristic period. Just go back and read the many hexamera of the Fathers who wrote them (from Basil to Grosseteste). You'll get a wide variety of views.

The view of Gen. 1-3 I'm presenting (which many many conservative inerrants adhere to) is neither myth, saga, nor poetry. Read my past posts carefully.

Marty, whatever your own personal view may be, on this thread you have presented arguments against the literal historical approach to the text of Gen. 1-3. You haven't merely made a case that some langauge is figurative -- such should be easy to establish on the basis of literal markers within the text; but you have clearly said you believe the text should be read as one would read a parable of our Lord. Now that is a radical approach. Conservatism and radicalism are not determined by reference to "self," but by reference to schools of thought.

The Bavinck statement is true to life. Christian theology has always accepted Genesis 1-3 as historical. The early fathers' belief in the seven days as typifying seven eras of church history depends on the historicity of Gen. 1. When I read Basil's Hexameron a number of years ago I did not receive any other impression but that he was approaching the text as literally historical. Certainly the schoolmen and reformers understood the text to be relating real events which took place on the time-space continuum; and I don't think anyone would doubt that the Protestant scholastics and those who followed them read the text literally. Bavinck's appraisal is clearly correct.

Well, you're free to have your opinion, but to me it's obvious they're not. There's a few 1000 years separating their authoring; one written in an ANE culture (with similarities to genres of the time), the other written in 1st century Graeco-Roman culture (and was a unique genre). Identical genres? I don't buy it.

First, concerning macro-genre, it is generally accepted that writings might be separated by thousands of years and alien cultures and still be essentially the same type of writing. A treaty is a treaty, a law code is a law code, and a history is a history. They had them in the ANE and they have them now. No doubt there are micro-elements which differ, but that doesn't change the fact that the writing is still essentially the same.

Secondly, as has already been noted, the NT itself presents its allusions to Gen. 1-3 from the perspective that these things happened. Not merely that they are written, but that the events recorded are historical realities. The only way these historical allusions could be explained away is on the supposition that the writers of the NT accommodated themselves to the false beliefs of the people to whom they were writing; but this is a radical approach to the text which was adopted by liberal interpreters and has always been rejected by conservatives.

Well, this bypasses the point I made. Matt.10:16 hardly deals with the argument. Words have their meanings in their context (basic rule of semantics). When 'arum is placed in it's immediate context it's obvious it refers to a personal character, given precisely that the "snake" then deceives by talking to the women! No mention of the demonic possessing the snake. Such an idea must be read into the text. And again the women in 3:13 admits that the "serpent deceived me" and I ate. And the key word again is: context.

The "wise as serpents" statement shows clearly there are characteristics in animal behaviour which bear an analogy to human behaviour. The listener does not suppose that serpents are or can be wise in the same sense as men are wise; nor should the "craftiness" of the Edenic serpent.

The woman undoubtedly says the serpent deceived her; and Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve. This merely begs the question as to what kind of influence was operating on the serpent to enable it to talk. The whole event, when the narrative is taken as relating literal history, beckons the reader to see something out of the ordinary at work here.

At this point in reading the text we might forbear coming to any conclusion as to what made it an unusual occurrence; I would be inclined to accept Vos' interpretation as a "canonical" view of the text; but we wouldn't be at liberty to write it off as non-historical simply because serpents do not ordinarily talk. The Christian's supernaturalistic worldview overcomes such rash conclusions.

Blessings!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top