You know what? I'm going to take this seriously and answer it, just not at this hour. I'll get back to it and go over the framework of the question, in my way, and answer everything I can think to answer. It almost certainly won't be in the order it was asked, and it will go on for a while, but it will be read-able. And I may need a few posts over a few days to cover everything, but that would allow me to cover something and post it, then get back to it.
The Judeo/Christian narrative is formed around the idea that God is a Creator, one whose intentions and will are expressed in His creation, of which we are a part. We're not the only part though. Genesis introduces an element into God's creation of the heavens/earth and mankind that is consistent throughout the entire Bible. It's not just us and God, there are other forces, other creation, involved in grander vision of all of God's work. In fact, it would seem to be obvious that the interaction between "Lucifer" and Adam and Eve amounted to yet another beat down for that fallen being and one that put him/it on a path to ultimate destruction in the future.
I'm certainly not an expert in Hebrew but this theory seems to offer an explanation of something that's not actually stated in the record. In other words, if taken on face value, the record doesn't offer this interpretation without some straining.
The Judeo/Christian narrative is formed around the idea that God is a Creator, one whose intentions and will are expressed in His creation, of which we are a part. We're not the only part though. Genesis introduces an element into God's creation of the heavens/earth and mankind that is consistent throughout the entire Bible. It's not just us and God, there are other forces, other creation, involved in grander vision of all of God's work. In fact, it would seem to be obvious that the interaction between "Lucifer" and Adam and Eve amounted to yet another beat down for that fallen being and one that put him/it on a path to ultimate destruction in the future.
I'm certainly not an expert in Hebrew but this theory seems to offer an explanation of something that's not actually stated in the record. In other words, if taken on face value, the record doesn't offer this interpretation without some straining.
Indeed. In terms of scholarship, this particular "theory," that Adam was the real serpent, completely misses the notion of that narrative actually being a creation story. I don't buy the original understanding as having literal aspects that could reasonably be parsed in a manner like the bastardization of biblical study into which we were indoctrinated by twi. It seems to me that in order to even approach taking seriously that Adam was the real serpent one has to buy into the idea that humanity was so freaking incompetent at recording it's creation myths/stories, that it would miss figuring out who Adam really was. That's extremely implausible.
My opening remarks are going to be fairly brief (for me), and address the general framework and mindset differences. For any of a number of reasons, the Book of Genesis was written to be clear and easy-to-be-understood by the people at the time it was penned. If the "creation account" and "the fall" of Genesis 1-3 were written for modern sensibilities, it would have been written (for the same number of reasons) with some highly technical details, it would have been far more exhaustive in detail, and would have proceeded in a far more linear fashion. One common mistake, IMHO, in reading Genesis is in refusing to approach it like it was "meant" to be read, that is, with a literary mindset that matches the text and not 21st century books. (The differences between early 20th century books and now can be dramatic- so the idea that, further back, there's GREATER differences, should not be particularly odd.
One additional problem, which this writer didn't make, is when people assume that we invented figures of speech or extended figures of speech. We have no difficulty understanding them when they're used in modern settings, but when it comes to old settings, some people seem to think they didn't exist.
Example 1: Christopher Lee sang "The Bloody Verdict of Verden." It dramatizes an incident from Charlemagne's life, where thousands of Saxons were killed at Charlemagne's order. Lee plays Charlemagne in the song. "I shed the Blood of the Saxon men! I shed it at Verden! I shed the Blood of the Saxon men! I shed the Blood of four thousand Saxon men!"
Nobody takes him to mean that Charlemagne himself stood there at Verden and slew all 4000 personally.
Example 2: We have no difficulty imagining the use of animals to METAPHORICALLY describe people now. "The old sidewinder", "that pig", "you cow", and so on. When we do so, we're comparing some attribute of the person (real or imagined) to the animal's attributes (real or imagined). We have no problem with an extended metaphor comparing one to the other, and understand we're not speaking, say, of a literal fox, or a literal wolf, or whatever.
Anyway, I haven't connected any of this to the topic yet, but I plan to, if anyone cares. Peace and love.
Indeed. In terms of scholarship, this particular "theory," that Adam was the real serpent, completely misses the notion of that narrative actually being a creation story. I don't buy the original understanding as having literal aspects that could reasonably be parsed in a manner like the bastardization of biblical study into which we were indoctrinated by twi. It seems to me that in order to even approach taking seriously that Adam was the real serpent one has to buy into the idea that humanity was so freaking incompetent at recording it's creation myths/stories, that it would miss figuring out who Adam really was. That's extremely implausible.
Exactly. If we go back to the question of what exactly is going on, it's creation, the formation of the universe that mankind is going to live in, as well as man's own creation into it. We learn throughout the ongoing history about it's own past, that mankind isn't alone or even all there is to the whole of God's own universe.
The Bible - appears - to be saying most clearly that 1. there's a God Who is at work and is above all and Whose intentions and will prevail in all parts of existence that I can be aware of....and 2. We are part of that God expressing HIS intentions and will and in so doing He has given us an existence where we can now also in turn express His intentions and will throughout our own. In fewer words - it's HIs game, His rules, not mine.
Part of that existence is the ability to choose, to exercise a "free will" of our own, within the restrictions and constraints we've been set in. I can choose between many things but I can't create a new choice if it's at odds with or contradicts something already established. So - I can say, choose to "disobey" God on a specific point if it contains more than one option, but I can't create new outcomes if they contradict the ones already given.
So - I can say, decide "I'm not going to die", and choose that. But in that case, it's not a choice I've been given and the outcome of thinking I can create a new choice will be - nothing, failure. It won't happen. Death is part of a physical life that is not completely energized by God's eternal life force, "pneuma hagion". This body will die and the mind that inhabits and has grown in it will no longer have a place. I am going to die physically without some altering intervention. I won't pretend to understand all the differences but clearly, this pneuma that the average man or woman has comes with an expiration date. God's pneuma doesn't. Two major differences.
It's a good example because death is rather final, from what I've seen. Yet - a choice has been given that will change that outcome and it fully relates to this life and who "I" am - faith in Jesus Christ and basically hitching my star to His wagon. 3 essential elements carry the day - grace, mercy and forgiveness. By simply recognizing that I can not fully fulfill the destiny set forth for me by my Creator without a full reliance on that creator I can come to accept a mediator, Jesus Christ who exemplifies that Creator, as "son" to his "father".
Thus "obedience" is reduced to it's essential ingredient - full recognition of God as The Creator and all encompassing reality. The concept of being a "father" fully forms that idea into something we can understand - children don't choose their father, nor control their birth, everything about our own birth and life is the product of someone else - its' provided by a parent. If that isn't full reliance and recognition in the Grand Order of Life, I don't know what is.
So - anyway - if the "serpent" is the "nakhash" or shiny, brilliant one as described in Genesis, we can already assume that it ISN'T Adam, because Adam isn't the "shining brilliant" one. I'm kind of befuddled how that person came up with this idea, and the fact that he doesn't really answer your questions. LIke this part
Q: Why would God speak to Adam twice, referring to him by two different titles (the serpent/Adam)?
A: For several reasons, why did Jesus call the first century apostate Jews “serpents” and tell them that they were of their father the slanderer” (etc)
They're not the same things. Genesis is a story about something that happened and in that story a character is introduced - a "serpent" - God doesn't suddenly decide to call Adam a serpent, it doesn't say "And then Adam, that serpent, saw Eve and said...." or anything like that. It doesn't say "Adam was very serpent like in his deceptive ways and when he spoke to the woman he said..." In fact Jesus says those snakey apostages were "of their father the slanderer", he doesn't say they were of their "father, Adam, that serpent who beguiled Eve".....or anything like that.
To add - about 20 + year ago (time flies!) I spent some time reading up on the history of Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, the Evil One, from the Bible as well as historical sources. That covered a lot of the idea that the evil in the nature of man has taken many faces and names throughout time. It started with the Egyptian history, and their god "Set" specifically, and it's modern expressions. and then I tried to get some perspective on the entire topic. And I eventually came back to what's in the Bible and decided whether metaphorical or specific or both, "the god of this age" referred to is clearly a force that is at odds with it's Creator. Disobedience and rebellion in it's most fundamental expression. It's worth looking into and of course as we see here, others mileage will vary.
The narrative of Genesis presents this "shining brilliant" and influential presence into Eve's path and the entire record devoted to what happened paints a picture of a larger universe than just the two of them. If we lose that we change the record. I don't think for a second that it was a "real" snake, but I get the comparison to that character in the record, based on what it says.
Edited by socks If I wanted someone to clean me up I'd find myself a maid
As a point of reference, I hope we can all agree that the text is relatively straightforward on who Eve's husband was.
(NASB unless otherwise specified)
Genesis 2: 21ff
21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.22 The Lord God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
===========================================
Genesis 3:20 Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.
===============================================
This seems pretty straightforward. Adam and Eve are man and woman, and husband and wife- at least concerning Genesis 2 and 3.
==============================================
3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”
============================================
We don't have much to go on here, but we can see who "the serpent" is NOT based on a clear reading of Genesis 3. He is NOT God Almighty, he is NOT Adam, and he is NOT Eve. We know he is NOT Eve because he argues with Eve and convinces her to disobey God. We know he is NOT God because he counsels her to do exactly the OPPOSITE that God counsels her to do. ("You SHALL surely die" vs "You shall NOT surely die" is pretty clearly an opposed direction.) We know he is NOT Adam because the blame for the incidents rolls downhill, and Adam, Eve AND serpent are each punished as a consequence of what DID happen.
===========================================
3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
==============================================
If it had been that Adam had been the one counseling her, things would have been different. He would have argued from their connection, and HE would have given HER to join HIM, using peer pressure to induce spousal conformity (by doing it, she was staying with him since he was doing it, and not going away from her husband.) Instead, we see her taking action, and then getting HIM to join HER.
There is no textual connection to suggest that Adam and serpent are one person. In fact, the only thing that can be used to suggest that is the thinness of detail concerning "the serpent." That is, we have questions as to who he is, what he is, why he is there, and what he is doing. So, someone who has a pet theory can discard what it DOES say and decide to read into what it says, and ignore what it DOES say to advance a pet theory. But, "the serpent" is treated as a separate being by God, when consequences are handed out, and there's nothing unclear about that. Adam is confronted, he blames Eve (and God for giving him Eve), and Eve blames "the serpent". (Interestingly, God never asks "the serpent" why he did what he did, which could be a different discussion.)
====================================
3:11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”14 T
===============================
Again, pretty clear. Everybody blamed someone else, and Adam said Eve talked him into it- and Eve said nothing about being talked into it by "her husband" or "the man" or "Adam" or anything that would clearly point to Adam as being the one who convinced her.
===============================
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
==============================
Looks like there were 3 beings held responsible, and 3 beings punished. "'The serpent" was punished, then Eve was punished, then Adam was punished. "The serpent" was made in enmity of "the woman", while Adam was still her husband as declared in Genesis 2. In fact, at the end of both Genesis 2 and 3, we get different perspectives on them being sent out together. I imagine someone can concoct a lengthy idea of spouses "hating" each other and being sentenced to stay married to each other, but let's be honest about how far one has to read into what's there for that.
Now, for those people wanting to discuss my exact wording and saying that I said that God punished all of them, I'd like to point out that the short read points in the same direction either way- 3 beings being punished, God outlining the punishments, and 3 punishments being levied. Whether or not God is administering them is really not the issue there- and the text supports either position there.
As for saying "the serpent" was UNQUESTIONABLY a literal animal, I'd say there was a lot to question that. We have a being that can carry on convincing arguments and outsmart a human in a debate. At the end of it, he's not robbed of his ability to do any of that. So, this was a being who could do that before, AND still do that after. If we want to speak LITERALLY- as a modern reader- we would say this was obviously NOT meant to be an animal, since he spoke as one smarter than them, and retained the ability to do so. Not a human, but not an animal. The first 3 chapters do NOT make it clear EXACTLY who he is, nor what he IS (we know what he is NOT.)
All right, why, then, do we get the references to things sounding like an actual snake? It's an extended metaphor. We do that nowadays with our figures of speech, and few people would argue this is not to be done.
("Senator Bedfellow, let me read you from our biography of you." "No, you're out to get me." "Senator, that's not true. The press is your friend." "Oh, all right then, read an excerpt to me over the phone." "Sure thing. 'Leaving a trail of slime whereve...' *phone disconnects as the Senator hangs up*" )
People liken someone to an animal in an unflattering way, then continue the figure when speaking of that person. We do that nowadays. (I do that here, in fact, but not in an unflattering way.) It's considered fine when we do it, and I've never been corrected when I've done it here. However, we suppose that they never did it a long, long time ago. They had language, so it should not be a shocker that they could have figurative speech.
We have a "serpent" who will be cursed beyond any cattle or domestic animal, forced to "go on his belly" (humiliated), and made to "eat dust" (eating dirt is humiliating). One who insists this is a literal serpent may ask why it says he will be forced to eat "dust" when ancient people knew what animals ate, so they knew that serpents didn't literally eat dust- they are carnivores. (They didn't need to learn that in school- they learned that through simple observation.) So, either they were told to believe something they knew was factually untrue, or a point was being made figuratively. Me, I think a point was being made figuratively.
Yes, I think it's possible to misunderstand that, but there is probably little in print that is not open to misunderstanding, especially for someone determined to read into it. Genesis 1-3 is not an exception to this.
Some other time, I'll get back to this "father means" business.
If Adam was Eve's "husband" (and Eve was Adam's "wife") who performed the wedding ceremony?
I pose that as a serious question.
To me, the Judeo-Christian creation story is just that, a story.
In my comment from July 4, maybe I was using the wrong words but I was trying to say that I believe the creation story is not something we can get "a more accurate" understanding of the dynamics involved (because it wasn't the creation science, it was a STORY) by studying the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic words.
It was a freakin' story for God's sake.
It was meant, not altogether unlike Greek or Roman or Norse mythology to convey concepts in terms humankind could understand. Wierwille was a con man, he wasn't a messenger from God.
Either way, we agree the point was "to convey concepts in terms humankind could understand." The disagreement on the table is what one of those concepts was. In this case, I think we have an example of someone who came up with an esoteric theory so that he could consider himself remarkably clever, as he came up with something the rest of us didn't find. ("They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Edison, they laughed at me..." "They also laughed at Bozo the Clown, Topo Gigio, and Señor Wences. Sit down, sparky.")
Someone with more time on their hands might compare that to "and your eyes shall be opened" and other quotes from Genesis 3. It's not without irony.
I think the Genesis record and the "serpent" is the classic religious train wreck where supporting an interpretation of an idea is more important than the idea of the record. Now - Gawd forbid that someone insert their own god warrantied brain into it but it would seem to me the record is an invitation to "selah". To consider what the Writer might be telling me using the most expressive language they can. I am perfectly willing to read it on face value, take it as is, and do that. Far be it from me to argue with God or his earliest scribes, my prayer is simply to get the message.
Put it into another highly opinionated and emotionally drive topic like politics. Say I call a politician, okay let's say Trump, I call Trump an ignorant swine. Or Nancy Pelosi - equal opp offender here - Pelosi is an ignorant swine.
And now let's go into that circle of swirling dipshit on facebook where these things are debated seriously and endlessly and break it down -
"ignorant" means "lacking education or knowledge."
"swine means" 1. Any of variousomnivorous,even-toedungulates of thefamilySuidae,having a stoutbodywiththickskin, a shortneck,and a movablesnout,especiallythedomesticatedpig. 2. A personregarded as contemptible or disgusting.
And now let's put together that group of people who are .... actually going to debate, discuss, dismantle and re ass emble multiple platforms and positions on what these words mean, how they're used historically and how they apply or don't apply to this current usage.....and let them go at it for awhile but stop it midway, say after about 5,478 comments, replies, smilies and laughing icons. Nowhere near done yet but for the sake of this discussion, under 10,000 important and insightful comments towards finally solving this important question of if this is right or not. Or what....
Now - I know that kind of discussion goes on. I see it, I try to steer clear most of the time and although I have relative opinions about the performance of both those people under discussion I'm not going to invest a lot of time or energy in whether they are now, ever were or could be at some time in the future, "ignorant swine" in the sense of the words being literally true to some definition of them being high-school drop out, even-toed pigs.
Why? Well, lots of reasons but mostly because I myself know that the word "swine" can be used to describe both pigs AND people I want to describe as contemptible or who for one reason or another I don't like or disagree with. And I already know that a human isn't a pig, even if they have seem to act like it. In fact, my image of their "swine-liness" is probably even an exaggeration of an actual swine, but in usage most everyone - most everyone but not all - kinda gets the point at first hearing and might be more inclined to debate the temerity on display in it's usage. Or something.
At this point I'm not even sure if this is an exact comparison, as the hebrew word translated "serpent" or "snake" in Genesis is "nachash/nakhash" and it's root definition seems to mean and include an intuitive skill or intelligence, where something can happen or be accomplished but where the effort or work done to accomplish it isn't immediately visible or obvious....thus, a sense of "magic" or wonder accompanies it. "Shining", "brilliant" are part of it. A snake is an animal whose very movement forward or back seems to be a marvel of engineering and to me the relationship makes sense. So - it was the "serpent". Which came first, the snake or someone going "oooooooh! look a dat thing!"......? Dunno, but I think I get the word and how it could be applied to different things, people, stuff.
But if that was Trump or Pelosi we wouldn't be debating if they were actual snakes or swine and only a very few people, like those who believe that Area 51 is really where the alien invaders developed the Ben and Jerry ice cream as part of a long term strategy to enslave the earth, are going to debate that reality.
Anyway, I'm not a Hebrew scholar or academic or theologian with an expert's grasp on the religious history involved in the record and it's many translations and interpretations. I do know however that any English version of the Bible that I use and read is a TRANSLATION and an INTERPRETATION of some earlier, more original version, be it written in Koine Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or any other dialect of any other "ancient" language. One thing I did learn in PFAL and since many times over is that someone some where has to interpret and translate, has to come up with an English language version that I can read, even letting it "speak for itself" when they produce the INTERPRETATION......... I can do some of that work myself, and it has appeared now lo these many years later that a reasonable approach is to sit down with my Bible and whatever other tools I can use and - prayerfully - read it and ask the God recorded in it to guide and help me, as He will.
Thus and so - if someone still has to have a snake, it really doesn't matter since I asked a snake myself at one point if it had heard the stories about it's ancestors and Eve and it just looked at me and slithered away, which would prove to many that YES of course it knows them, and it refuses to discuss and waddya-expect-from-a-snake! but to me just meant - hey that's a snake. I also don' think the serpent was really Adam because if it had been it would have .... said that. And it didn't.
Edited by socks Yes you did....No I didn't.....Yes you did....No I didn't.....Yes you did....No I didn't.....Yes you did....No I didn't.....Yes y-wait, sorry, wrong text number My bad!
Some people including the person that thinks Adam and the serpent are the same, simply do not understand spiritual and look at everything as physical and material. So was the God of this world who is a spiritual being or fallen angel according to one of the foundations of the bible appear as a literal serpent in the book of Genesis? Did the devil appear literally as a dragon in the book of Revelation 12:9?
Revelation 12:9
9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. NKJV
The devil or Satan only appeared as a serpent and a dragon if this spiritual fallen angel wanted to look ugly to Eve and ugly as read in the book of Revelation. Yes looking ugly would make deception more difficult and challenging for the spiritual deceptive being. However, perhaps serpents and dragons look sweet and beautiful. At least to crazy people or to blind people. And certainly to people that are both crazy and blind.
So was the God of this world who is a spiritual being or fallen angel according to one of the foundations of the bible appear as a literal serpent in the book of Genesis?
Some people including the person that thinks Adam and the serpent are the same, simply do not understand spiritual and look at everything as physical and material. So was the God of this world who is a spiritual being or fallen angel according to one of the foundations of the bible appear as a literal serpent in the book of Genesis? Did the devil appear literally as a dragon in the book of Revelation 12:9?
Revelation 12:9
9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. NKJV
The devil or Satan only appeared as a serpent and a dragon if this spiritual fallen angel wanted to look ugly to Eve and ugly as read in the book of Revelation. Yes looking ugly would make deception more difficult and challenging for the spiritual deceptive being. However, perhaps serpents and dragons look sweet and beautiful. At least to crazy people or to blind people. And certainly to people that are both crazy and blind.
Do you have any evidence that anyone in the 21st Century actually KNOWS whether the devil did appear literally as a dragon anywhere to anyone?
He asked if "the devil" literally appeared as a carnivorous, limbless reptile in The Garden.
Quote
Revelation 12:9
9 and the great dragon was cast forth — the old serpent, who is called 'Devil,' and 'the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world — he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him.
Young's Literal Translation
Quote
Revelation 12:9
9 The great dragon was hurled down — that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
New International Version
Biblical students and then teachers who are sometimes called scholars often see that the book of Revelation was symbolic and figurative and not literal. It was written through symbols, images and numbers that often represented spiritual. However, do biblical students and teachers see that the book of Genesis at least in part could have been also written with images and symbols to represent spiritual? Not as much as the book of Revelation, but at least in part.
0 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.22 As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
-Jabal was "the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock."
-Jubal was "the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe."
Let's be sensible. Was this TRYING to say "all nomadic herders everywhere are the direct descendants of Jabal"? Was this TRYING to say "all musicians everywhere are the direct descendants of Jubal?" If so, what about nomadic herders who play the pipe? We know THEY existed (and probably exist to this day.) This was saying that these men were the forerunners of those people, the pioneers of those people who did those things.
There's this tap-dance that was introduced to make Jesus' comments supposedly claim that Adam was "the serpent." The alleged reasoning went thusly:
"Speaking to the apostate Jews of His day, Jesus said, “Ye serpents…"
"Ye are of your father the devil"
and that there must have been some sort of genetic basis for saying he was their father. So, the "father" part had to be literally a genetic bloodline and could not be figurative nor symbolic, while the "serpent" part had to be figurative and symbolic and could not be literal.
============================
In both the early chapters of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible, "father" often is symbolic and not referring to a genetic sire. But this writer seems to have missed that- and without "father" being REQUIRED to be genetic, his entire basis for bringing in the Gospels falls down because it does not support his case (if anything, it undermined his case.)
This is not difficult to see, with a plain reading of the text. There is no need for an esoteric or a "mystery" version of the text.
There are a lot of ideas about Genesis, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, the Tree and trees, the garden and more. I've heard a few and don't and won't jump on any one idea as the one and only. I believe there is more than the traditional Christian ideas. Understandings can change, and not to negating the former but expanding in the present.
Anyway, Adam is the Serpent? To apply this with the standard black and white analytical story-line approach, then so is the second Adam. And I've heard that Jesus is the serpent as well. To say something "is" (or was) this or that is too final and limiting for me. Like Jesus is the Son of God, I think there is a lot more to see and understand.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
Sigh.
You know what? I'm going to take this seriously and answer it, just not at this hour. I'll get back to it and go over the framework of the question, in my way, and answer everything I can think to answer. It almost certainly won't be in the order it was asked, and it will go on for a while, but it will be read-able. And I may need a few posts over a few days to cover everything, but that would allow me to cover something and post it, then get back to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
So is the author saying Satan/Lucifer/Dragon/serpent is really Adam and not a fallen angel?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Don't see it.
The Judeo/Christian narrative is formed around the idea that God is a Creator, one whose intentions and will are expressed in His creation, of which we are a part. We're not the only part though. Genesis introduces an element into God's creation of the heavens/earth and mankind that is consistent throughout the entire Bible. It's not just us and God, there are other forces, other creation, involved in grander vision of all of God's work. In fact, it would seem to be obvious that the interaction between "Lucifer" and Adam and Eve amounted to yet another beat down for that fallen being and one that put him/it on a path to ultimate destruction in the future.
I'm certainly not an expert in Hebrew but this theory seems to offer an explanation of something that's not actually stated in the record. In other words, if taken on face value, the record doesn't offer this interpretation without some straining.
Edited by socksKnock knock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Indeed. In terms of scholarship, this particular "theory," that Adam was the real serpent, completely misses the notion of that narrative actually being a creation story. I don't buy the original understanding as having literal aspects that could reasonably be parsed in a manner like the bastardization of biblical study into which we were indoctrinated by twi. It seems to me that in order to even approach taking seriously that Adam was the real serpent one has to buy into the idea that humanity was so freaking incompetent at recording it's creation myths/stories, that it would miss figuring out who Adam really was. That's extremely implausible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
My opening remarks are going to be fairly brief (for me), and address the general framework and mindset differences. For any of a number of reasons, the Book of Genesis was written to be clear and easy-to-be-understood by the people at the time it was penned. If the "creation account" and "the fall" of Genesis 1-3 were written for modern sensibilities, it would have been written (for the same number of reasons) with some highly technical details, it would have been far more exhaustive in detail, and would have proceeded in a far more linear fashion. One common mistake, IMHO, in reading Genesis is in refusing to approach it like it was "meant" to be read, that is, with a literary mindset that matches the text and not 21st century books. (The differences between early 20th century books and now can be dramatic- so the idea that, further back, there's GREATER differences, should not be particularly odd.
One additional problem, which this writer didn't make, is when people assume that we invented figures of speech or extended figures of speech. We have no difficulty understanding them when they're used in modern settings, but when it comes to old settings, some people seem to think they didn't exist.
Example 1: Christopher Lee sang "The Bloody Verdict of Verden." It dramatizes an incident from Charlemagne's life, where thousands of Saxons were killed at Charlemagne's order. Lee plays Charlemagne in the song. "I shed the Blood of the Saxon men! I shed it at Verden! I shed the Blood of the Saxon men! I shed the Blood of four thousand Saxon men!"
Nobody takes him to mean that Charlemagne himself stood there at Verden and slew all 4000 personally.
Example 2: We have no difficulty imagining the use of animals to METAPHORICALLY describe people now. "The old sidewinder", "that pig", "you cow", and so on. When we do so, we're comparing some attribute of the person (real or imagined) to the animal's attributes (real or imagined). We have no problem with an extended metaphor comparing one to the other, and understand we're not speaking, say, of a literal fox, or a literal wolf, or whatever.
Anyway, I haven't connected any of this to the topic yet, but I plan to, if anyone cares. Peace and love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Exactly. If we go back to the question of what exactly is going on, it's creation, the formation of the universe that mankind is going to live in, as well as man's own creation into it. We learn throughout the ongoing history about it's own past, that mankind isn't alone or even all there is to the whole of God's own universe.
The Bible - appears - to be saying most clearly that 1. there's a God Who is at work and is above all and Whose intentions and will prevail in all parts of existence that I can be aware of....and 2. We are part of that God expressing HIS intentions and will and in so doing He has given us an existence where we can now also in turn express His intentions and will throughout our own. In fewer words - it's HIs game, His rules, not mine.
Part of that existence is the ability to choose, to exercise a "free will" of our own, within the restrictions and constraints we've been set in. I can choose between many things but I can't create a new choice if it's at odds with or contradicts something already established. So - I can say, choose to "disobey" God on a specific point if it contains more than one option, but I can't create new outcomes if they contradict the ones already given.
So - I can say, decide "I'm not going to die", and choose that. But in that case, it's not a choice I've been given and the outcome of thinking I can create a new choice will be - nothing, failure. It won't happen. Death is part of a physical life that is not completely energized by God's eternal life force, "pneuma hagion". This body will die and the mind that inhabits and has grown in it will no longer have a place. I am going to die physically without some altering intervention. I won't pretend to understand all the differences but clearly, this pneuma that the average man or woman has comes with an expiration date. God's pneuma doesn't. Two major differences.
It's a good example because death is rather final, from what I've seen. Yet - a choice has been given that will change that outcome and it fully relates to this life and who "I" am - faith in Jesus Christ and basically hitching my star to His wagon. 3 essential elements carry the day - grace, mercy and forgiveness. By simply recognizing that I can not fully fulfill the destiny set forth for me by my Creator without a full reliance on that creator I can come to accept a mediator, Jesus Christ who exemplifies that Creator, as "son" to his "father".
Thus "obedience" is reduced to it's essential ingredient - full recognition of God as The Creator and all encompassing reality. The concept of being a "father" fully forms that idea into something we can understand - children don't choose their father, nor control their birth, everything about our own birth and life is the product of someone else - its' provided by a parent. If that isn't full reliance and recognition in the Grand Order of Life, I don't know what is.
So - anyway - if the "serpent" is the "nakhash" or shiny, brilliant one as described in Genesis, we can already assume that it ISN'T Adam, because Adam isn't the "shining brilliant" one. I'm kind of befuddled how that person came up with this idea, and the fact that he doesn't really answer your questions. LIke this part
Q: Why would God speak to Adam twice, referring to him by two different titles (the serpent/Adam)?
A: For several reasons, why did Jesus call the first century apostate Jews “serpents” and tell them that they were of their father the slanderer” (etc)
They're not the same things. Genesis is a story about something that happened and in that story a character is introduced - a "serpent" - God doesn't suddenly decide to call Adam a serpent, it doesn't say "And then Adam, that serpent, saw Eve and said...." or anything like that. It doesn't say "Adam was very serpent like in his deceptive ways and when he spoke to the woman he said..." In fact Jesus says those snakey apostages were "of their father the slanderer", he doesn't say they were of their "father, Adam, that serpent who beguiled Eve".....or anything like that.
To add - about 20 + year ago (time flies!) I spent some time reading up on the history of Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, the Evil One, from the Bible as well as historical sources. That covered a lot of the idea that the evil in the nature of man has taken many faces and names throughout time. It started with the Egyptian history, and their god "Set" specifically, and it's modern expressions. and then I tried to get some perspective on the entire topic. And I eventually came back to what's in the Bible and decided whether metaphorical or specific or both, "the god of this age" referred to is clearly a force that is at odds with it's Creator. Disobedience and rebellion in it's most fundamental expression. It's worth looking into and of course as we see here, others mileage will vary.
The narrative of Genesis presents this "shining brilliant" and influential presence into Eve's path and the entire record devoted to what happened paints a picture of a larger universe than just the two of them. If we lose that we change the record. I don't think for a second that it was a "real" snake, but I get the comparison to that character in the record, based on what it says.
Edited by socksIf I wanted someone to clean me up I'd find myself a maid
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
As a point of reference, I hope we can all agree that the text is relatively straightforward on who Eve's husband was.
(NASB unless otherwise specified)
Genesis 2: 21ff
21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
===========================================
Genesis 3:20 Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.
===============================================
This seems pretty straightforward. Adam and Eve are man and woman, and husband and wife- at least concerning Genesis 2 and 3.
==============================================
3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”
============================================
We don't have much to go on here, but we can see who "the serpent" is NOT based on a clear reading of Genesis 3. He is NOT God Almighty, he is NOT Adam, and he is NOT Eve. We know he is NOT Eve because he argues with Eve and convinces her to disobey God. We know he is NOT God because he counsels her to do exactly the OPPOSITE that God counsels her to do. ("You SHALL surely die" vs "You shall NOT surely die" is pretty clearly an opposed direction.) We know he is NOT Adam because the blame for the incidents rolls downhill, and Adam, Eve AND serpent are each punished as a consequence of what DID happen.
===========================================
3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
==============================================
If it had been that Adam had been the one counseling her, things would have been different. He would have argued from their connection, and HE would have given HER to join HIM, using peer pressure to induce spousal conformity (by doing it, she was staying with him since he was doing it, and not going away from her husband.) Instead, we see her taking action, and then getting HIM to join HER.
There is no textual connection to suggest that Adam and serpent are one person. In fact, the only thing that can be used to suggest that is the thinness of detail concerning "the serpent." That is, we have questions as to who he is, what he is, why he is there, and what he is doing. So, someone who has a pet theory can discard what it DOES say and decide to read into what it says, and ignore what it DOES say to advance a pet theory. But, "the serpent" is treated as a separate being by God, when consequences are handed out, and there's nothing unclear about that. Adam is confronted, he blames Eve (and God for giving him Eve), and Eve blames "the serpent". (Interestingly, God never asks "the serpent" why he did what he did, which could be a different discussion.)
====================================
3:11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 T
===============================
Again, pretty clear. Everybody blamed someone else, and Adam said Eve talked him into it- and Eve said nothing about being talked into it by "her husband" or "the man" or "Adam" or anything that would clearly point to Adam as being the one who convinced her.
===============================
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
16 To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”
==============================
Looks like there were 3 beings held responsible, and 3 beings punished. "'The serpent" was punished, then Eve was punished, then Adam was punished. "The serpent" was made in enmity of "the woman", while Adam was still her husband as declared in Genesis 2. In fact, at the end of both Genesis 2 and 3, we get different perspectives on them being sent out together. I imagine someone can concoct a lengthy idea of spouses "hating" each other and being sentenced to stay married to each other, but let's be honest about how far one has to read into what's there for that.
Now, for those people wanting to discuss my exact wording and saying that I said that God punished all of them, I'd like to point out that the short read points in the same direction either way- 3 beings being punished, God outlining the punishments, and 3 punishments being levied. Whether or not God is administering them is really not the issue there- and the text supports either position there.
As for saying "the serpent" was UNQUESTIONABLY a literal animal, I'd say there was a lot to question that. We have a being that can carry on convincing arguments and outsmart a human in a debate. At the end of it, he's not robbed of his ability to do any of that. So, this was a being who could do that before, AND still do that after. If we want to speak LITERALLY- as a modern reader- we would say this was obviously NOT meant to be an animal, since he spoke as one smarter than them, and retained the ability to do so. Not a human, but not an animal. The first 3 chapters do NOT make it clear EXACTLY who he is, nor what he IS (we know what he is NOT.)
All right, why, then, do we get the references to things sounding like an actual snake? It's an extended metaphor. We do that nowadays with our figures of speech, and few people would argue this is not to be done.
("Senator Bedfellow, let me read you from our biography of you." "No, you're out to get me." "Senator, that's not true. The press is your friend." "Oh, all right then, read an excerpt to me over the phone." "Sure thing. 'Leaving a trail of slime whereve...' *phone disconnects as the Senator hangs up*" )
People liken someone to an animal in an unflattering way, then continue the figure when speaking of that person. We do that nowadays. (I do that here, in fact, but not in an unflattering way.) It's considered fine when we do it, and I've never been corrected when I've done it here. However, we suppose that they never did it a long, long time ago. They had language, so it should not be a shocker that they could have figurative speech.
We have a "serpent" who will be cursed beyond any cattle or domestic animal, forced to "go on his belly" (humiliated), and made to "eat dust" (eating dirt is humiliating). One who insists this is a literal serpent may ask why it says he will be forced to eat "dust" when ancient people knew what animals ate, so they knew that serpents didn't literally eat dust- they are carnivores. (They didn't need to learn that in school- they learned that through simple observation.) So, either they were told to believe something they knew was factually untrue, or a point was being made figuratively. Me, I think a point was being made figuratively.
Yes, I think it's possible to misunderstand that, but there is probably little in print that is not open to misunderstanding, especially for someone determined to read into it. Genesis 1-3 is not an exception to this.
Some other time, I'll get back to this "father means" business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
If Adam was Eve's "husband" (and Eve was Adam's "wife") who performed the wedding ceremony?
Edited by RockyI pose that as a serious question.
To me, the Judeo-Christian creation story is just that, a story.
In my comment from July 4, maybe I was using the wrong words but I was trying to say that I believe the creation story is not something we can get "a more accurate" understanding of the dynamics involved (because it wasn't the creation science, it was a STORY) by studying the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic words.
It was a freakin' story for God's sake.
It was meant, not altogether unlike Greek or Roman or Norse mythology to convey concepts in terms humankind could understand. Wierwille was a con man, he wasn't a messenger from God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Either way, we agree the point was "to convey concepts in terms humankind could understand." The disagreement on the table is what one of those concepts was. In this case, I think we have an example of someone who came up with an esoteric theory so that he could consider himself remarkably clever, as he came up with something the rest of us didn't find. ("They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Edison, they laughed at me..." "They also laughed at Bozo the Clown, Topo Gigio, and Señor Wences. Sit down, sparky.")
Someone with more time on their hands might compare that to "and your eyes shall be opened" and other quotes from Genesis 3. It's not without irony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Now, hold on there. If not for Señor Wences, how would we know everything is alright?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I think the Genesis record and the "serpent" is the classic religious train wreck where supporting an interpretation of an idea is more important than the idea of the record. Now - Gawd forbid that someone insert their own god warrantied brain into it but it would seem to me the record is an invitation to "selah". To consider what the Writer might be telling me using the most expressive language they can. I am perfectly willing to read it on face value, take it as is, and do that. Far be it from me to argue with God or his earliest scribes, my prayer is simply to get the message.
Put it into another highly opinionated and emotionally drive topic like politics. Say I call a politician, okay let's say Trump, I call Trump an ignorant swine. Or Nancy Pelosi - equal opp offender here - Pelosi is an ignorant swine.
And now let's go into that circle of swirling dipshit on facebook where these things are debated seriously and endlessly and break it down -
"ignorant" means "lacking education or knowledge."
"swine means"
1. Any of various omnivorous, even-toed ungulates of the family Suidae, having a stout body with thick skin, a short neck, and a movable snout, especially the domesticated pig.
2. A person regarded as contemptible or disgusting.
And now let's put together that group of people who are .... actually going to debate, discuss, dismantle and re ass emble multiple platforms and positions on what these words mean, how they're used historically and how they apply or don't apply to this current usage.....and let them go at it for awhile but stop it midway, say after about 5,478 comments, replies, smilies and laughing icons. Nowhere near done yet but for the sake of this discussion, under 10,000 important and insightful comments towards finally solving this important question of if this is right or not. Or what....
Now - I know that kind of discussion goes on. I see it, I try to steer clear most of the time and although I have relative opinions about the performance of both those people under discussion I'm not going to invest a lot of time or energy in whether they are now, ever were or could be at some time in the future, "ignorant swine" in the sense of the words being literally true to some definition of them being high-school drop out, even-toed pigs.
Why? Well, lots of reasons but mostly because I myself know that the word "swine" can be used to describe both pigs AND people I want to describe as contemptible or who for one reason or another I don't like or disagree with. And I already know that a human isn't a pig, even if they have seem to act like it. In fact, my image of their "swine-liness" is probably even an exaggeration of an actual swine, but in usage most everyone - most everyone but not all - kinda gets the point at first hearing and might be more inclined to debate the temerity on display in it's usage. Or something.
At this point I'm not even sure if this is an exact comparison, as the hebrew word translated "serpent" or "snake" in Genesis is "nachash/nakhash" and it's root definition seems to mean and include an intuitive skill or intelligence, where something can happen or be accomplished but where the effort or work done to accomplish it isn't immediately visible or obvious....thus, a sense of "magic" or wonder accompanies it. "Shining", "brilliant" are part of it. A snake is an animal whose very movement forward or back seems to be a marvel of engineering and to me the relationship makes sense. So - it was the "serpent". Which came first, the snake or someone going "oooooooh! look a dat thing!"......? Dunno, but I think I get the word and how it could be applied to different things, people, stuff.
But if that was Trump or Pelosi we wouldn't be debating if they were actual snakes or swine and only a very few people, like those who believe that Area 51 is really where the alien invaders developed the Ben and Jerry ice cream as part of a long term strategy to enslave the earth, are going to debate that reality.
Anyway, I'm not a Hebrew scholar or academic or theologian with an expert's grasp on the religious history involved in the record and it's many translations and interpretations. I do know however that any English version of the Bible that I use and read is a TRANSLATION and an INTERPRETATION of some earlier, more original version, be it written in Koine Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or any other dialect of any other "ancient" language. One thing I did learn in PFAL and since many times over is that someone some where has to interpret and translate, has to come up with an English language version that I can read, even letting it "speak for itself" when they produce the INTERPRETATION......... I can do some of that work myself, and it has appeared now lo these many years later that a reasonable approach is to sit down with my Bible and whatever other tools I can use and - prayerfully - read it and ask the God recorded in it to guide and help me, as He will.
Thus and so - if someone still has to have a snake, it really doesn't matter since I asked a snake myself at one point if it had heard the stories about it's ancestors and Eve and it just looked at me and slithered away, which would prove to many that YES of course it knows them, and it refuses to discuss and waddya-expect-from-a-snake! but to me just meant - hey that's a snake. I also don' think the serpent was really Adam because if it had been it would have .... said that. And it didn't.
Edited by socksYes you did....No I didn't.....Yes you did....No I didn't.....Yes you did....No I didn't.....Yes you did....No I didn't.....Yes y-wait, sorry, wrong text number My bad!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Some people including the person that thinks Adam and the serpent are the same, simply do not understand spiritual and look at everything as physical and material. So was the God of this world who is a spiritual being or fallen angel according to one of the foundations of the bible appear as a literal serpent in the book of Genesis? Did the devil appear literally as a dragon in the book of Revelation 12:9?
Revelation 12:9
9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. NKJV
The devil or Satan only appeared as a serpent and a dragon if this spiritual fallen angel wanted to look ugly to Eve and ugly as read in the book of Revelation. Yes looking ugly would make deception more difficult and challenging for the spiritual deceptive being. However, perhaps serpents and dragons look sweet and beautiful. At least to crazy people or to blind people. And certainly to people that are both crazy and blind.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Please clarify the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Do you have any evidence that anyone in the 21st Century actually KNOWS whether the devil did appear literally as a dragon anywhere to anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
He asked if "the devil" literally appeared as a carnivorous, limbless reptile in The Garden.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Oh, thanks WW. Hopefully Mark S will ratify (or not) your interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Biblical students and then teachers who are sometimes called scholars often see that the book of Revelation was symbolic and figurative and not literal. It was written through symbols, images and numbers that often represented spiritual. However, do biblical students and teachers see that the book of Genesis at least in part could have been also written with images and symbols to represent spiritual? Not as much as the book of Revelation, but at least in part.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Genesis 4:20-22 (NASB)
0 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
======================================================
-Jabal was "the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock."
-Jubal was "the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe."
Let's be sensible. Was this TRYING to say "all nomadic herders everywhere are the direct descendants of Jabal"? Was this TRYING to say "all musicians everywhere are the direct descendants of Jubal?" If so, what about nomadic herders who play the pipe? We know THEY existed (and probably exist to this day.) This was saying that these men were the forerunners of those people, the pioneers of those people who did those things.
======================================================
There's this tap-dance that was introduced to make Jesus' comments supposedly claim that Adam was "the serpent." The alleged reasoning went thusly:
"Speaking to the apostate Jews of His day, Jesus said, “Ye serpents…"
"Ye are of your father the devil"
and that there must have been some sort of genetic basis for saying he was their father. So, the "father" part had to be literally a genetic bloodline and could not be figurative nor symbolic, while the "serpent" part had to be figurative and symbolic and could not be literal.
============================
In both the early chapters of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible, "father" often is symbolic and not referring to a genetic sire. But this writer seems to have missed that- and without "father" being REQUIRED to be genetic, his entire basis for bringing in the Gospels falls down because it does not support his case (if anything, it undermined his case.)
This is not difficult to see, with a plain reading of the text. There is no need for an esoteric or a "mystery" version of the text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
There are a lot of ideas about Genesis, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, the Tree and trees, the garden and more. I've heard a few and don't and won't jump on any one idea as the one and only. I believe there is more than the traditional Christian ideas. Understandings can change, and not to negating the former but expanding in the present.
Anyway, Adam is the Serpent? To apply this with the standard black and white analytical story-line approach, then so is the second Adam. And I've heard that Jesus is the serpent as well. To say something "is" (or was) this or that is too final and limiting for me. Like Jesus is the Son of God, I think there is a lot more to see and understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Take your Sing Along The Way books and turn to #1673
--------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know about tomorrow
I just guess from day to day."
(Sing it with feeling.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.