Speaker Label, labeled wrong in Genesis 3:3

Page 2 of 2 (33 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 32 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 188
Kevin Taylor | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 1:57 PM

Thanks Annie for chiming in on this.  I can see the logic Logos used to apply both tags to God here based on the verbs being in the 2nd person.  However this highlights one of the cautions of these tags for the user.  It seems that this feature will mainly be used by users without much experience in using the language tools where intermediate and advanced users are already looking at grammar and syntax to work these issues out.  The issues remain for the user that is in the first boat as they are not as prone to be able to work around these issues.  

I like MJ's suggestion that notes be able to be applied to help circumvent this, else there will be regular discussions over these vocative tags and why they are applied the way they are.

At the end of the day perhaps the positive here is that it will compel folks to dig a bit deeper into the text and perhaps give a reason to sharpen exegetical skills as a regular part of study.  This would be a great thing.

Logos 5, Windows & Android perfect together....

Posts 18
Matt Ediger | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 2:06 PM
David Paul, If what you said is true, there is zero possibility that this is an embellishment, then, according to you, God did say, "Do not touch the fruit." (assuming the pronoun 'it' is referring to the fruit of the tree as opposed to the tree itself...) Thus, in verse 6, when the woman touched the fruit she sinned because she directly violated a command of God. Perhaps, you can help me by defining what you mean by, "an utterly innocent person (such as she) the question can only be innocent query..." I am having trouble, according to your explanation, as to seeing what changed for the woman and when it changed for her. In other words, are you saying the woman was utterly innocent, in that she didn't have the capacity to sin? Or at the very least, the capacity to be deceived? If you answer is yes, when did this come about and how does that square with 1 Timothy 2:14? Thanks for your time.
Posts 18
Matt Ediger | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 2:09 PM

Kevin, 

I agree... it would be nice to have some sort of system stave off endless discussions. Plus those notes might highlight further area's of study...

 

Haha! I didn't realize this morning when I posted that it would be such a big deal. It has been fun to interact with other Logos users and examine Scripture to see if these things are so! 

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 2:11 PM

David Paul:
I've heard the "Eve's embellishment/sin starts here" on a number of occasions, both from the pulpit and in writings. Frankly, I find the idea both shocking and pathetic. This is one of the most common cases of eisegesis in Biblical interpretation. There is zero chance that she is embellishing here--ZERO. If she were, then she sinned without being tempted or deceived. In other words, this interpretation (rather, imaginative infusion) renders the serpent superfluous and extraneous to the narrative.

Sorry, David. My interpretation is based on the text, not on a predetermined decision about what is the actual sin (as your interpretation seems to be), and that embellishment is itself sin, rather than merely one step on the path to sin. As you present your counter-argument, it seems to me to be equally liable to the charge of eisegesis. The fact is, the phrase "do not touch it" does not occur in the text prior to the woman saying it. The simplest conclusion, based on the literary nature of the story, the care and economy of words with which it is told, and the likely didactic purpose of these chapters in the context of the deliverance of the law of Moses, is that this phrase stands out on purpose and we are supposed to notice it. And we do.

I really don't want to debate the exegetical decision here, or to debate what is/isn't good exegesis. These forums aren't the place for that (in the above presentation, my motive was to request inclusion of the ambiguity of interpretation, not establish one position as definitive). But I do object to your caricature of this interpretation as "imaginative infusion," and "shocking and pathetic" eisegesis. That's both unwarranted and ungracious.

I do not want to discuss this particular text further on these forums. I made my point with Sean, et al., that was my only goal.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 18
Matt Ediger | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 2:23 PM

Richard,

I would also be interested in labels that indicate ambiguity. I suppose that means a lot more work for those guys with their nose buried in the Book! It would also mean a lot of labels! Thanks for you response to my post earlier this morning.

Posts 11190
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 2:27 PM

Well as usual, you guys are 'adding to the text'. There's no hint she's embellishing, ignorant etc. And since God didn't talk to her and Adam did, and she certainly sounds confident prior to the talking-snake's participation, that pretty much points (another) strong finger at the son of man (I'm reading a book on aramaic).

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 18
Matt Ediger | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 2:31 PM

Annie,

Forget my question! I see what you are saying now. Thanks again for the pictorial!

Posts 838
Dewayne Davis | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 2:35 PM

Since the entire Word is from God himself, and is His Word of Salvation to man written through men by the Holy Spirit, then obviously the entire volume of the Word should be Red Letter and all speaker labels should be all three of the Godhead. Wink

“... every day in which I do not penetrate more deeply into the knowledge of God’s Word in Holy Scripture is a lost day for me. I can only move forward with certainty upon the firm ground of the Word of God.”

Posts 4960
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 7:05 PM

Matt Ediger:
David Paul, If what you said is true, there is zero possibility that this is an embellishment, then, according to you, God did say, "Do not touch the fruit." (assuming the pronoun 'it' is referring to the fruit of the tree as opposed to the tree itself...) Thus, in verse 6, when the woman touched the fruit she sinned because she directly violated a command of God. Perhaps, you can help me by defining what you mean by, "an utterly innocent person (such as she) the question can only be innocent query..." I am having trouble, according to your explanation, as to seeing what changed for the woman and when it changed for her. In other words, are you saying the woman was utterly innocent, in that she didn't have the capacity to sin? Or at the very least, the capacity to be deceived? If you answer is yes, when did this come about and how does that square with 1 Timothy 2:14? Thanks for your time.

Matt...I will try to wrangle an answer for you, though I am still not exactly sure what you are wanting/asking.

Yes, when she touched the fruit, it was sin.

Assuming that we accept that the woman and the man were innocent prior to the serpent's intrusion, we must acknowledge that the man and woman had zero "street-smarts" and zero experience with sin. The story pretty much asserts that without the serpent's intrusion, they would have continued without transgression. If sin is introduced by the serpent (and sin is described incessantly as a communicable disease in Scripture), then until the infection takes place, the woman was innocent and clean--far more so than even a pre-toddler. Again, a toddler has far more street-smarts than the woman did. As such, she would have had zero capacity to identify a "confidence game", and would be conceptually and experientially unfamiliar with the term "lie". The universal Christian notion that she should have realized what was happening to her is a bogus and hateful mischaracterization. I'm not saying she had no capacity to sin--I'm saying she had no capacity to avoid being fooled and deceived.

Capacity to sin? Yes...as evidenced by her sin. Would she have sinned without the intrusion of the serpent? The entire point of the story is that the serpent caused something that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. Obviously, the questions we feel impelled to ask that begin, "what if...?" are pointless, because the plan was carried out as planned. YHWH could have kept the serpent out of the garden but didn't because what took place in Genesis 3 was the plan.

The typical, faulty Christian interpretation--the woman embellished her reply--requires her to sin before she was ever deceived. In such a scenario the serpent merely shows up to view the fall, he isn't the instigator of it. The reason this concept is nonsense is straightforward: the deception isn't in his initial question, it is in his reply to the woman's response. Any failure on the woman's part prior to his second comment is not his fault--it is hers...her own self-initiated sin. Though the reasons are intricate, the events of Yohm Hakippuriym assert unequivocally that such as scenario can't be true. The serpent did deceive the woman...she didn't choose sin--she was infected by it.

Posts 7505
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 8:14 PM

Matt Ediger:

In the ESV there are two speaker labels for Genesis 3:3, both of which have God as the one speaking. The first is in reference to when God said not eat of the tree (correct). The second label attributes the phrase, "...neither shall you touch it...", to God. (wrong) Ironic?! I believe Eve is the one who is speaking at this point, which would make sense considering the second speaker label.

 

I believe is correct the way it is.  Eve is just quoting God, that's all.  You could argue that Eve is the speaker on both instances, but then again, remember she's just quoting what God said.

Blessings!

DAL

Posts 838
Dewayne Davis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 5 2012 2:24 PM

Or perhaps, the fact that she stated "not even touch" was a hint that man was already headed in the direction of "choosing knowledge" over "choosing Life". The sin wasn't so much the act, but the choice, and the disconnect that followed. We all tend toward "figuring this out" and "making sure we are right". But the point of this whole passage is that mankind chose knowledge over life. Let's not do that here.

“... every day in which I do not penetrate more deeply into the knowledge of God’s Word in Holy Scripture is a lost day for me. I can only move forward with certainty upon the firm ground of the Word of God.”

Posts 4960
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 19 2012 12:42 AM

Dewayne Davis:

But the point of this whole passage is that mankind chose knowledge over life. Let's not do that here.

An utterly false dichotomy. They are the same thing.

Posts 687
Douglas | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 19 2012 6:12 AM

MJ. Smith:

... Someday, Logos may provide us with a prebuilt note file of their tough editorial decisions.

 

Yes

 

Page 2 of 2 (33 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS