Eve and the Snake....

[Mike McKee]

I have watched a movie recently called Religulous with Bill Maher.
It is a "documentary" which pretty much ridicules Christianity. But one thing that he keeps saying is stuff about the "talking snake"..
He keeps saying it is extremely silly, and people shouldn't believe in talking snakes. And compares it to fairy tales. I would like to hear somebody respond because this tactic is hard to respond to. Was it really just a talking Snake?

[Char]

Aaron you appear to fail to understand that in the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Word is the arbiter, not the man receiving it. I note that you did not say the Word is the arbiter, but excused picking and choosing by saying everyone else does it already. So this means it is okay for you to do this also? If all your friends jumped off a bridge...well you know. And it isn't just the case that those people have not caught up to the Word in understanding but still should strive for this? They don't strive to hear him?

Illuminating.

[Lisa Robinson]

Aaron, are you saying that Augustine thought Adam and Eve to be mythological rather than historical?

[Kyler]

Hey, do we get to count these posts as part of the Inerrancy thread? ;-)

In serious response to the OP, I would reply to Maher and his ilk in one or more of the following ways:

First, probably not at all. My hunch is that he's not interested in a cogent discussion of genre, ANE literary conventions, or really taking Scripture the slightest bit seriously. He's really only interested in scoring rhetorical points. So I'd refuse to play the game on his terms.

Second, if I thought a discussion would be productive either for my interlocutor or my audience, I'd point out that there are plenty of Christians who view this story as something other than literal. While there can be debates about the precise bounds of Orthodoxy, it cannot be debated that many sincere, devout Christians don't view this as a historical record of a talking snake.

Third, I'd point out that the whole talking snake thing is small potatoes. We believe someone came back from the dead, for God's sake! If that didn't happen, then there's no point in worrying about anything else that's between the Genesis and Revelation (or at least anything between Matthew to Revelation). Conversely, if one's worldview isn't one of philosophical naturalism, then one ought to be open to the possibility of the supernatural. Then we can debate relative probabilities, documentary or other historical evidence for the claims of Christianity (me, I'd start with the martyrdom of the eyewitnesses to the Resurrection), and so on. But the "miracle" of the talking snake would be about #637 on my list of important discussion topics related to Christian faith.

[Rey Reynoso]

Indeed.

[Marv]

Speaking of parabolic:

Notice on one side we have Aaron=errin' Wrath Burn and also Damian.

On the side of the angels, Seraphim!!

Parabolically speaking, who ya gonna trust.

On the other hand, what do we do with Char??

(The foregoing has been a slight and poor attempt at levity...we now return to your regularly scheduled debate.)

[Kevin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5YzI7b92L8

[Damian]

Alright now that was a low blow! I got two saints on my side! One is a martyr and the other a Doctor of the Church!

1.) St. Damian: Doctor of the Church, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, at Ravenna 1007 AD.

2.) St Damian: Early Christian physicians and martyrs whose feast is celebrated on 27 September.

:-)

Damian

[Marv]

Sure, sure. Just lean over and let me take a look at your forehead.

Alright now that was a low blow! I got two saints on my side! One is a martyr and the other a Doctor of the Church!

1.) St. Damian: Doctor of the Church, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, at Ravenna 1007 AD.

2.) St Damian: Early Christian physicians and martyrs whose feast is celebrated on 27 September.

:-)

Damian

[joanne guarnieri]

Thanks Aaron, am glad we found some common ground, which is heartening when you consider that I pretty much go with inerrancy. And we both believe in Christ's (physical and complete) death on the cross and His (physical) resurrection, Who is even now fully alive, fully man, fully God. It's an excellent common ground to find.

Thank you Kyler, I totally agree. That Genesis records a serpent talking is peanuts next to the resurrection. Why wrangle over it? However, working backwards from the resurrection, by the time one gets to the serpent talking it hardly seems likely to be myth compared to all the stupendous miracles that are recorded between it and the resurrection. As far as one may go, maybe, is to agree that our current perception of what that must have been like in real life is perhaps not adequate, or accurate.

Am not sure what the point is of trying to say these things are not historical, however fanciful or dreamy the writing may come across? Is there some underlying agenda? Are we trying to be more sophisticated, more educated? Authentic question, I am genuinely puzzled

[Kyler]

Joanne, for me at least, the question of the historicity of the Talking Snake or other Biblical stories is one of Truth, which is achieved at least in part by examining the nature of the message intended by the author and received by the audience. I daresay that everyone here who thinks this particular story is not literal history does not hold that belief because they think that miracles are preposterous. Though I can't speak for everyone, all the commenters to this thread that I am aware of would say that the evidence, including evidence from Scripture, has led them to hold a non-literal view.

If you want to call that a "more educated" stance, so be it; whether or not that appellation is intended in a pejorative sense is perhaps a more relevant question.

[Aaron Rathburn]

(As a preface, some people here on Theologica are really, really not irenic, LOL. Thank God for Marv's interjection ;-).)

Seraphim--
"By fiction I mean not fact. False."

This is a problem. Fiction isn't interested in categories of "fact" or "not fact," that's the whole point of fiction. If you want "fact" or "not fact," you go and read non-fiction. Fiction is concerned with teaching TRUTH.

When you read a good novel (usually a mainstream, character-driven one; not a genre-based plot-driven one), the point is to communicate truth. In Flaubert's novel "Madame Bovary", it is a fictional piece to communicate this central truth: that illicit love leads to death. This is the purpose of fiction, parable, and myth.

"then how can you believe in the Incarnation? in the Gospels? where we have Geneology of a Real Jesus going all the way back to these characters."

I can believe in the truthfulness of the Canterbury Tales, and I also can believe in the truthfulness of the Gospels and the Incarnation. I believe in the truthfulness of the Canterbury Tales according to their literary genre--parables. And I believe in the Gospels and Incarnation according to their literary genre--historical fact.

As Damian has already said, the scriptures in the New Testament that reference Adam in Eden do not purport Adam to be historical.

Char---
Yes, the Bible is our ultimate authority for teaching, doctrine, etc. But the Bible requires exegesis. And exegesis involves humans. And humans are messed up.

We cannot read the Bible "objectively," and the teachings of scripture are not cut-and-dry. The reason we have amillennialists, premillennialists, and postmillennialists is because all three of them are exegetical interpretations of scripture. And all three of them are viable understandings within the umbrella of orthodoxy.

Yes, the Bible is the final authority. But it requires interpretation. I'm not saying "everyone is doing it already, so we can do it to." I am saying that because the Bible is a written document in a particular culture at a particular time in a particular place, it must be "interpreted" by necessity of its creation. The only hypothetical Bible that could possibly exist that wouldn't require interpretations is if it were a book of propositional teachings and doctrines, similar to large chunks of the Qu'ran.

Lisa--
I am saying that Augustine in today's modern world would have no problem calling Adam and Eve parabolic rather than historical. Augustine made very clear that it is important to interpret scripture in alignment with other contributing factors.

Joanne--
The reason we are trying to understand these texts is because it helps us know who God is even better.

We aren't questioning the historicity of the Genesis account because a serpent happens to talk. There are things in the Bible that are far more miraculous. This is a misunderstanding of our position.

We are saying that on literary grounds (not miraculous ones), that the Genesis account has far more in common with parables than it does with history.

[Lisa Robinson]

Aaron, I am not sure we can assign that level of confidence to Augustine's view of Scripture, especially considering his focus on sin and depravity. In fact, I would contend that he would have drawn the opposite conclusion and seen them as historic figures. I do not know enough of His view on Scripture to make a qualitative judgment but given the reading I've done on his doctrine of original sin, I can't imagine he would consider our sin condition a result of parabolic literature.

The main problem that I am having with your hermeneutics thesis, is that it confuses language compatibility with literary genre. So since ancient near east literature spoke in parabolic and mythological terms, and OT Scripture was written concurrent with ancient near east literature, then the ancient accounts must necessarily be parabolic and mythological and historicity is therefore discounted. Since God is communicating in the language of that day, it would have to be so. I think this is a false, and I dare say, a dangerous conclusion. If you think that does not mess with inspiration, I would strongly have to disagree.