Reply to Half Truth

by

Hill Roberts

(Word version: www.lordibelieve.org/genesis/ReplytoHalfTruth.doc )

Herein I reply to every reference Harry Osborne made concerning my beliefs and lessons on Genesis 1-3 in his article “Half Right on the Serpent.” My Genesis 1-3 lessons are available in entirety at (www.lordibelieve.org/genesis ). I entertain no hope of changing Harry’s opinions, but this is intended to help anyone who wants to know what my lessons really present, and if the lessons actually teach what Harry says they do. They do not. I believe the lessons will stand on their own merit when taken as a complete study. Of course the lessons were developed by a fallible man and should be taken as such. Hopefully the lessons can be of some assistance in someone’s pursuit of a deeper study of Genesis 1-3 which forms the basis for understanding the entire Bible.

HO: “When Shane Scott and Hill Roberts affirmed a non-literal interpretation of the creation account, Ferrell Jenkins said we could not be sure whether the "days" of Genesis 1 were literal days or ages.”

HR Reply: I believe Genesis 1-3 is primarily literal rather than figurative. I also believe many of the literal elements have rich symbolic meanings. I believe the days were very literal. For a detailed explanation of the literal days of Genesis from an ancient earth view of creation, see my article “The Days of Genesis” at www.LordiBelieve.org/Days.html

HO: “Where was Marty in helping to refute the error taught by Hill Roberts and Shane Scott regarding non-literal interpretations of the creation account?”

HR Reply: I believe Genesis 1-3 is primarily literal rather than figurative. I also believe many of the literal elements have rich symbolic meanings. In particular, I believe the days were very literal. For a detailed explanation of the literal days of Genesis from an ancient earth view of creation, see my article “The Days of Genesis” at www.LordiBelieve.org/Days.html

HO: “After the Florida College lecture where Hill Roberts handed out a CD calling the "Big Bang Theory" the "Bible believer's friend," Marty defended Hill in conversation with this writer despite efforts to get brother Pickup to see the destructive effects of such error.”

HR Reply: The data which indicates a singular, hot, dense, beginning of the universe is clearly more supportive of theistic cosmology (e.g., “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”) than any of the competing secular cosmologies such as the steady-state universe, or a many worlds parallel multiverse. Both of these are attempts by philosophical naturalists to avoid the theological implications of a universe with a beginning. The astronomical support for Genesis 1:1 is so striking that astronomer Robert Jastrow concluded his book God and the Astronomers with this often quoted statement:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Sounds pretty “friendly” doesn’t it? What is Jastrow speaking of? He is talking about how the expansion data affirms the same explicit cosmological truth as expressed in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Just how destructive can it be for believers to know that science, in this case concerning the reality of a caused beginning, has come over to a view consistent with the most astonishing statement in the Bible there in Genesis 1:1. The only thing Big Bang cosmology threatens is belief in a recent creation, but it does not threaten creation itself. The Big Bang assumes creation from nothing and points directly to it at the beginning of space and time. It does not replace creation by God at all. (The Big Bang does not necessarily even threaten recent creation views for anyone who is willing to appeal to appearance of age explanations for any physical evidences of antiquity.)

Perhaps Marty was better informed about the theological implications of current cosmology than Harry was when Harry unsuccessfully attempted to persuade Marty of the “destructive effects of such error.”

HO: The above questions take on added seriousness given brother Hill Roberts' teaching that the temptation account of Genesis 3 is to be interpreted predominately as figurative, not literal.

HR Reply: I believe Genesis 1-3 is primarily literal rather than figurative. I also believe the literal elements have symbolic meanings. In particular, I believe the days were very literal. I believe Adam and Eve were real people, and that the temptation by Satan the Snake was very real. For a detailed explanation of creation from an ancient earth view, see my article “The Days of Genesis” at www.LordiBelieve.org/Days.html

HO: In a series of 19 lessons on Genesis 1 through 3 (posted at www.lordibelieve.org), brother Hill Roberts also appealed to the concepts of paganism to reach conclusions about the exegesis of this passage. He noted,

Serpent – shows up “out of the blue” – Who is this Serpent? Remember, this story is being given by God through Moses to the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai. They descended from the paganism of Mesopotamia, they were raised in the paganism of Egypt. Save for a few individuals, as a people, they were pagans! Throughout the rest of the OT, their paganism is their downfall. In paganism of the time, the Serpent was a well known character. Needed no introduction. The Serpent (nahas) was a common phallic representation of pagan practices. He was the magician (nasa’), the sensual beguiler, the master of deception (Lesson #16).

HR Reply: Follows is the full context of the section of the lesson 16 surrounding Harry’s exercise in selective excerpting from said lesson.

Characters of this first sin:

Adam – we’ve already met him, seen him in action, heard his response to gift of Eve.

Eve – still largely an unknown as far as her person at this point

Serpent – shows up “out of the blue” Who is this Serpent?

Remember, this story is being given by God through Moses to the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai. They descended from the paganism of Mesopotamia, they were raised in the paganism of Egypt. Save for a few individuals, as a people, they were pagans! Throughout the rest of the OT, their paganism is their downfall. In paganism of the time, the Serpent was a well known character. Needed no introduction. The Serpent (nahas) was a common phallic representation of pagan practices. He was the magician (nasa’), the sensual beguiler, the master of deception. Recall when Pharaoh wanted to counter Moses’ magic, he called his magicians to duplicate the staff-turned-to-snake trick. (Of course they had to buy new staffs afterwards.)

In the rest of scripture it becomes clear, the Serpent is not just a snake,

The Serpent is Satan.

Rev 20:2, 12:9

Luke 10:18ff

John 8:44

As you can easily see, nothing here says anything about the Serpent being non-literal. It does show that the Hebrews would have readily understood the evil significance of Satan appearing in the form of a serpent, simply from their experience in pagan Egypt. Conveying such a symbolic meaning would be similar to my childhood experience of watching Saturday cowboys and knowing that the bad guys were always the ones in the black hats. Real, bad cowboys were no less “real” because symbolism identified them to me as the bad guys in a medium readily understandable to a ten year old. Real Satan was really a snake in the real garden who really talked with real Eve, and he was a really bad apple.

HO: After setting up his point about the identity of the serpent in Genesis 3, brother Roberts concluded, "Remember this is Satan The Snake, not snakes in general" (Lesson #17). What brother Pickup leaves as a "possibility," brother Roberts is ready to openly affirm.

HR Reply: Harry says I’m openly affirming Marty’s “possibility.” But what did Marty say was possible? That the serpent might have symbolic elements, or be symbolic in some respects. Without debating that point, please notice that the quote excerpted by Harry to prove that I believe the serpent was not a real snake actually says exactly the opposite. I said, “Remember, this is Satan the Snake, not snakes in general.” Satan, in the form of a snake, was cursed, not all snakes. For example, Christ crushes Satan’s head, not snake heads. The serpent was Satan the Snake, not snakes in general.

HO: Regarding the two trees specifically mentioned in Genesis 3, Hill said the following:

Do you suppose that there was (or is) some literal “magic” fruit which, if Adam could just get his hands on it to eat it once, would inoculate him against God’s sovereign will concerning justice for his sins? Point: by the time we get to the end of chapter 3, the trees seem more symbolic than literal. What is more important: 1) to understand the exact physical appearance of these two trees as experienced by Adam and Eve, or 2) to understand what the trees meant to them, to the Israelites, and to us? (Lesson #14).

The tree image is highly apocalyptic: they show up not only here, but also in Ezekiel and Revelation. That something is symbolic does not mean it isn’t real. Symbols are often based on reality. The trees were and are very real. They may not always be made of literal cellulose and chlorophyll, but the objective imagery clearly conveys their reality (Lesson #14).

Again, do you suppose there is literally some “magic” fruit one can eat that will transform a human into God? It must be understood symbolically (Lesson #14).

The symbolical "possibility," defended by Marty, has been changed to a symbolical "must" by Hill.

HR Reply: I have changed this ending statement in the lesson to make it more difficult to be misunderstood, as Harry has misunderstood. It now reads:

Again, do you suppose there is literally some “magic” fruit one can eat that will transform a human into God? This aspect is best understood symbolically. But what does it mean ???

The lesson then goes on at considerable length to answer this question of meaning. The following is the conclusion reached about the meaning.

The likely meaning (of the tree of KG&E) in Genesis 2-3 now becomes clearer: to have the power, authority and right to determine what is good and evil, by which others shall then be judged. Not just to recognize distinctions, but rather to set the distinction itself. That is solely the role of God. God’s nature determines what is good and evil. This right was denied to Adam and Eve from the beginning, first by covenant to be obeyed, then by denial of access to communion with God when the commanded limit was transgressed. No human has ever been able to gain true access to this “tree”. (Unlike the tree of life.) We search for the fruit of this tree in vain, and in so doing eat it right down. …

Any attempt to eat of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is an attempt to usurp God’s sovereignty, to become like God knowing good and evil. Which is just exactly what the Serpent used to temp Eve, Genesis 3:1-5. We seek to dethrone God and enthrone self. (Notice, this is the exact sin of King of Tyre in Ezk 28:1-10 as the reason why the judgment of Eden is passed on him in Ezk 28: 11-19.) We deny our inherent subjection of creature to the Creator, we do not want to be dependent upon God, we do not want to be just the caretaker, we want to be the master gardener.

I suspect that when the entire lesson is considered (instead of the few selective excerpts chosen for rhetorical purposes counter to the purpose of the lesson, i.e., proof-texting), one will find it considerably harder to believe that the lesson author is denying the reality of the trees or the Serpent. In fact one might find something useful here and there.

HO: Neither does brother Roberts stop with trees that are not there. In the second lesson of brother Roberts' series, he quotes from J.M. Houston to set forth his basic presumption that much of the creation and temptation accounts are not literal, but must be interpreted as a symbolic "polemical against the false cosmogonies and cosmologies of the ancient world" (The New International Bible Commentary with the New International Version, ed. F.F. Bruce, 50).

HR Reply: Notice that Harry inserts the word “symbolic” before he quotes my citation from the NIBC. He misunderstands my position that literal elements have deeper meanings in their symbolism, than in their literality. The deeper meaning was to provide correctives for false cosmogonies and cosmologies of the ancient world, as suggested by the NIBC.

HO: This basic premise leads to this claim:

At times, the mention of mythical sea-monsters suggest deliberate denial of their existence as deities, but more usually they are mentioned allegorically as being no more than God’s creatures (Lesson #2).

Dear brother or sister, does it alarm you to see Hill Roberts set forth teaching which says a creature was "mythical" despite the Bible's presentation of it as literally existent?

HR Reply: Notice that this excerpt from Lesson 2 (which is another attributed paraphrase from the NIBC) has nothing to do with the Serpent. The Serpent is not discussed until Lesson 14. The NIBC provides standard commentary background material on the Egyptian culture relevant to the Hebrews enslaved there. It illuminates the fact that the Egyptian culture deified creatures (real, as well as mythical inflations of real animals) which were merely creatures of God. Often such creatures were given allegorical meaning in the scriptures. For example, consider Isaiah 40:31. I doubt anyone actually expects God’s young men to grow eagle wings and fly around. But the idols of Egypt and other pagan cultures indicate that such ideas were completely plausible to people who did not know Jehovah as the One God.

HO: Brother Pickup has posted his reply on brother Ferrell Jenkins' web site which has also been repeatedly used to defend and commend the work of Hill Roberts.

HR Reply: To my knowledge Ferrell Jenkins has never defended or commended any of my “work” on his website. If he has, my thanks. He does offer a link to my site, as well many other sites which offer some potential utility to his visitors. Even his comment at the link is factual and appropriately neutral, certainly not an endorsement. He has allowed discussions concerning the creation controversy to be posted on his site, just as have sites such as Watchmanmag.com for which Harry is a regular contributor.

HO: It should alarm faithful brethren to see the growing willingness to label literal Bible truths as "figurative," "metaphorical," "symbolical," "allegorical," or even, as Hill Roberts admits, "mythical."

HR Reply: One more time Harry says I “admit” something which I do not, and which I have told him directly is incorrect. I do not claim anything in the Genesis account is mythical. Harry has produced no evidence to the contrary. Nor can he, since I do not believe Genesis 1-3 is mythical.

It is a fact there were many pagan myths in the Egyptian culture in which the Hebrews were enslaved. However, Genesis isn’t one of those myths. It is real history of real people, real places and real events. Genesis provides a true theological cosmogony as a corrective for the common mythological cosmogonies prevalent in the millenniums prior to Christ.