You write:
"Even so, there is nothing within the text of the Bible that shows it to be the case, much less within the relevant Genesis story."
If an unbeliever asserts that Genesis 3 refers to a "talking snake", with the modern definition of "snake" in mind, then the burden of proof is on his shoulders. If the text is inconclusive, or if it implies that the creature was something other than a modern snake when it spoke, then the unbeliever's argument can't be sustained.
You write:
"As for the plants, I am assuming that rintintin was referring to Jesus' cursing of the fig tree (and imputing to a tree anthropomorphic powers), but I could be mistaken."
Aside from the fact that "plant" isn't the most natural way of referring to a tree in the English language, the fig tree in the passage you're referring to doesn't speak. Why should we conclude that there are "talking plants" in the Bible on the basis of that passage?
You write:
"Gen 3 does refer to a talking snake. The story purportedly explains why snakes slither on their bellies. Hence the snake in the Genesis story is best understood as being the ancestor of all living snakes."
Its similarity to modern snakes was a result of the fall, so you can't assume that it was comparable to a modern snake before the fall, when the speaking occurred.
You write:
"If there is a difference of testimony between modern observers and Bronze Age observers, then the best course to take it to believe the course of events that is most likely, given what we can observe about natural laws. In that case, the chances that the author in Genesis was repeating a myth is much more likely than the chances that snakes actually were able to speak in the past."
There are a lot of factors involved other than the ones you're referring to. We have evidence for the Divine inspiration of the Bible, including Genesis, evidence that we've discussed in many places on this blog and elsewhere. We have much more than the general reliability of "Bronze Age observers" to go by. And the observations of "modern observers" could only tell us what normally occurs with modern snakes. They can't tell us that the modern snake is the same as the pre-fall creature in Genesis 3, nor can they tell us whether a supernatural agent spoke through such a creature in the past. Nothing in Genesis 3 suggests that modern snakes have a natural ability to speak human language. The fact that you raised this objection to begin with is bad enough. The fact that you keep repeating it and trying to defend it, after being corrected repeatedly, is even worse.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Talking Snakes, Talking Plants, And Biblically Illiterate Skeptics
Since so many unthoughtful unbelievers keep objecting to "talking snakes and plants" in the Bible, I want to repost some of my comments on the subject from another thread. These comments were written in response to Lyosha07:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"If an unbeliever asserts that Genesis 3 refers to a "talking snake", with the modern definition of "snake" in mind, then the burden of proof is on his shoulders. If the text is inconclusive, or if it implies that the creature was something other than a modern snake when it spoke, then the unbeliever's argument can't be sustained."
ReplyDeleteThe "modern definition of a snake" would be alien to such an author, simply because he would not have had access to modern biological research. The ancients did not understand the mechanism of snakes' generation, they thought that snakes ate dust (a myth found in Genesis), and they frequently imputed malevolent or demonic capabilities to the snake. Unless snakes underwent a dramatic transformation between the time of the writing of the Torah and today, then there is no reason to assume that they are different. A couple thousand years is not nearly enough time for such a process of evolution to occur and to wipe out all traces of the modern snake's ancestors. It is puzzling therefore why you insist that the burden of proof is on the "unbeliever" to prove why the snake (nachash) of the Old Testament is the same as the serpents of today. Wouldn't that be the natural assumption?
"Aside from the fact that "plant" isn't the most natural way of referring to a tree in the English language, the fig tree in the passage you're referring to doesn't speak. Why should we conclude that there are "talking plants" in the Bible on the basis of that passage?"
That's why I said I could be mistaken.
You wrote:
"Its similarity to modern snakes was a result of the fall, so you can't assume that it was comparable to a modern snake before the fall, when the speaking occurred...
We have much more than the general reliability of "Bronze Age observers" to go by. And the observations of "modern observers" could only tell us what normally occurs with modern snakes. They can't tell us that the modern snake is the same as the pre-fall creature in Genesis 3, nor can they tell us whether a supernatural agent spoke through such a creature in the past. Nothing in Genesis 3 suggests that modern snakes have a natural ability to speak human language. The fact that you raised this objection to begin with is bad enough. The fact that you keep repeating it and trying to defend it, after being corrected repeatedly, is even worse."
What are you basing all of this speculation off of? How do you know that the snake underwent a radical transformation after the fall? You insinutated that I was a "Biblically Illiterate Skeptic" in the title of this post, and Steve was telling Rintintin that he had not properly "exegeted" the text of Genesis 3 (curiously, he did the same thing when he made a reference to Noah's flood, for no good reason). Yet there is nothing in the Bible to show that you are right that the serpent was different pre-fall from post-fall, that they were not essentially the same being. The same word for serpent in Genesis 3 is used throughout the Bible to refer to snakes. You do believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, don't you? I assume such an ad hoc interpretation is made to make the Biblical account seem more plausible and less ridiculous; after all, it is difficult for a story about a snake that talks, doesn't crawl on its belly, and is sentenced to eat duest, to be taken seriously nowadays. But in that case, it isn't exegesis, it reading information into the text that isn't there for the purpose of apologetics. The complete laceration of language Steve does when he insists that such a methodology is "exegesis" is something so absurd that it can only be accomplished by a mind that is beholden to unthinking dogma. If we cannot know that the snake of Genesis 3 is, in fact, a snake, then how are we to know that the tree of life was really much more like an orchid of life (the transition from orchids to trees occuring post-fall)? And finally, if this theory is in fact true, then why does the Bible use the everyday, common Hebrew word for snake? Couldn't God have invented another word, or at least given some form of indication that the pre-fall snake was different from the post-fall one? Your theory is ad-hoc and is almost as stupid as your groundless belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible, your "evidence" for which I am just dying to see.
Lyosha07 wrote:
ReplyDelete"The 'modern definition of a snake' would be alien to such an author, simply because he would not have had access to modern biological research."
I wasn't addressing "such an author". I was addressing modern skeptics who assume that a modern snake is in view. Since Genesis 3:14 refers to a change that occurred through the fall, it doesn't make sense to assume that there's no difference between the pre-fall creature and the post-fall creature.
You write:
"It is puzzling therefore why you insist that the burden of proof is on the 'unbeliever' to prove why the snake (nachash) of the Old Testament is the same as the serpents of today. Wouldn't that be the natural assumption?"
No, it wouldn't be "the natural assumption", for reasons that have been explained to you repeatedly. Genesis 3:14 refers to the creature's similarity to modern snakes as something that resulted from the fall. Since the snake's act of speaking is what's being criticized, and that speaking occurred prior to the fall, the change that occurred as a result of the fall is relevant.
You write:
"How do you know that the snake underwent a radical transformation after the fall?"
The transformation wouldn't need to be "radical" in order for a change to have occurred. And Genesis 3:14 suggests that there was a change.
You write:
"I assume such an ad hoc interpretation is made to make the Biblical account seem more plausible and less ridiculous; after all, it is difficult for a story about a snake that talks, doesn't crawl on its belly, and is sentenced to eat duest, to be taken seriously nowadays."
Since you're now acknowledging that the creature previously "didn't crawl on its belly" and is "sentenced" as a result of the fall, you're acknowledging that a transformation occurred. And you have no way of knowing that the pre-fall creature wouldn't be able to speak. All of your references to what the word "snake" means, as if it can only have one definition in all contexts, are therefore irrelevant.
You write:
"If we cannot know that the snake of Genesis 3 is, in fact, a snake"
You've acknowledged that a transformation occurred, so you've acknowledged that we're correct in distinguishing between the pre-fall creature and the post-fall creature. Why would you continue to criticize us for making that distinction, then?
You write:
"If we cannot know that the snake of Genesis 3 is, in fact, a snake, then how are we to know that the tree of life was really much more like an orchid of life (the transition from orchids to trees occuring post-fall)?"
These things shouldn't have to be explained to you. The reason why we assume that the creature in Genesis 3 was transformed is because the text suggests a transformation. We wouldn't conclude that there was such a transformation of other entities unless there was such a reason for reaching that conclusion.
You write:
"And finally, if this theory is in fact true, then why does the Bible use the everyday, common Hebrew word for snake?"
Because there's some continuity between the two creatures, despite the differences, and because the text explains that a transformation occurred. Since the text explains that a transformation occurred, the reader shouldn't conclude that the creatures are identical just because of the terminology. The honest, intelligent reader will take the context into account rather than isolating the text from the context. But you haven't been approaching Genesis 3 honestly and intelligently.
You write:
"Couldn't God have invented another word, or at least given some form of indication that the pre-fall snake was different from the post-fall one?"
There is "some form of indication" in Genesis 3:14. You've acknowledged that a transformation occurred. Why, then, are you now acting as if the passage doesn't suggest any transformation? You don't seem to be giving your arguments much thought before you post them.
Even aside from Genesis 3:14, the fact that the snake speaks is itself an indication that a different creature is in view or that something supernatural is involved. The fact that snakes don't normally speak human language isn't a discovery of modern times.
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue, on the one hand, that Genesis 3 is unbelievable because the snake acts differently than modern snakes (it speaks), then argue, on the other hand, that the text gives no indication that the creature is different from modern snakes.
You write:
"Your theory is ad-hoc and is almost as stupid as your groundless belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible, your 'evidence' for which I am just dying to see."
If you're "dying to see" the evidence, then why don't you search the archives, and why have you ignored the large majority of the posts we've written on the subject?
By the way, Lyosha will need to document, not just assert, his claim that "they thought that snakes ate dust (a myth found in Genesis)". The concept of eating dust was commonly used to refer to humiliation, regardless of whether dust was consumed as part of a creature's diet. See, for example, Micah 7:17. And:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tektonics.org/qt/snakedirt.html
When to kick the dust from our shoes, and throw the dust from our cloaks is something we need to discern from time to time as disciples of Jesus Christ. Not that we literally do such a thing of course.
ReplyDelete