Posted on 07/17/2012 12:35:09 PM PDT by Thermopylae
Genesis 3:1-15 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, 'Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?' The woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'' 'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and that you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'....So the Lord God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, 'Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.'"
I would be interested to hear anyones opinion of the nature of the serpent. Was the serpent an actual animal or was the serpent simply a disguise for the devil? I have been told growing up that the serpent was really the devil. If that was true, then why does God punsh the serpent (the animal) and not the devil in verse 14 and 15? We are told in Numbers 22:28-30 that the Lord opened the mouth of Balaam's donkey. Is it possible that before the fall, Adam and Eve could speak to animals freely and understand what the animals were saying back to them?
Both, God gave, Moses wrote. God gave through Moses.
That statement is not ‘mutually-exclusive”.
You may try again.
"Both, God gave, Moses wrote. God gave through Moses. That statement is not ‘mutually-exclusive”.
?
Matt 19:9, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
But what about the plain wording of Genesis 3? Isn‘t the chapter crystal clear that the thing talking to Eve was a snake? Actually, the vocabulary is clear, but the meaning that traditional interpretation has given it is not, and has in fact produced the ―snake‖ problem noted above. The Hebrew word translated ―serpent‖ or ―snake‖ in Genesis 3 is nachash (pronounced, nakash). More specifically, the word is ha-nachash. The prefixed ―ha‖ is the way Hebrew denotes a definite article (the word for ―the‖). So ha-nachash may be said to mean ―the nachash.‖
The word nachash is a very elastic term in Hebrew. It can function as a noun, a verb, or even as an adjective. When nachash functions as a noun it means ―snake,‖ and so the traditional translation is possible—but it yields the contradiction with Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 noted above.39 When nachash serves as a verb it means ―to practice divination.‖40 That meaning could also be possible in Genesis 3 due to the deception or going on—Lucifer claiming to have the ―real‖ word from God. When a verb receives an article attached to it, the action of the verb
is then transformed into a person doing the action. Hence the word ha-nachash would then best be translated ―the diviner.‖
The third option—the adjectival meaning of nachash—is the solution to the contradiction problem. When nachash serves as an adjective, it‘s meaning is ―shining bronze‖ or ―polished‖ (as in ―shiny‖). By adding the definite article to the word, ha-nachash would then quite easily mean ―the shining one.‖ Angelic or divine beings are elsewhere described in the Bible as ―shining‖ or luminous, at times with this very word, nachash.41 We often don‘t think about how common this vocabulary of ―shining brilliance‖ is for angels and other divine beings. The Bible abounds with descriptions of such beings as ―flashing‖ or ―as lightning,‖ or uses the brilliance of jewels to describe the blazing appearance of such beings. This has important ramifications for solving the ―snake‖ problem.
What‘s so significant about translating ha-nachash as ―shining one‖ and not ―snake‖ in Genesis 3? Very simply, ―shining one‖ is the literal meaning of ―Lucifer.‖ The name ―Lucifer‖ is actually Latin and comes from the Latin Vulgate translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. In Isaiah 14:12, the Hebrew name of primeval conspirator against God is ―Helel ben-Shachar‖—―Shining One, son of the Dawn.‖
Translating ha-nachash as ―Shining One‖ removes the contradiction of seeing a snake vs. a supernatural being in Eden since it provides an explicit parallel between the two passages.
We have words like this in English if you think about it. The very same noun / verb / adjective interplay is evident here:
(Noun): ―The cleanup is going to take a long time.‖ (Verb): ―We must clean up this oil spill.‖ (Adjective): ―The cleanup procedures need to be followed.‖
What results from this approach is that Eve was confronted by a member of the divine council ―on the way to work,‖ so to speak. She wasn‘t surprised, because she saw these beings come and go with regularity. We get the flavor of this context in Genesis 3:22. Following Adam and Eve‘s sin God laments that now the two ―have become as one of us‖—the same plural language as in Genesis 1:26. Eden was the place where council was held. It just happened that on this day, one of them had a score to settle.
Personally, I think it quite possible that the choice of the word nachash in Genesis 3 was designed as a double entendre. The enemy of God was a shining divine being that also had a serpentine appearance. No, I‘m not contradicting what I said above. Saying that Eve was speaking to a divine being of serpentine appearance is different than saying she was dealing with a snake from the animal kingdom. Ezekiel 28 supports this notion.
Personally, I think it quite possible that the choice of the word nachash in Genesis 3 was designed as a double entendre. The enemy of God was a shining divine being that also had a serpentine appearance.
A shining divine being with a serpentine character.
Thanks for your reply! I agree.
To be clear here I am NOT ‘judging’ Adam or Eve, that is God's business. Their flesh lives were to end but nowhere is it Written that either of them have been judged to eternal death of their souls. They very well could have overcome as Peter describes Christ's mission while in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights, as was Jonah in the belly of the ‘whale’.
So what is your point spunkets? Sounds to me like you reinforced my statement. That scripture is Jesus speaking, who is the Son of God, part of the Trinity. So, there ya go. God spoke it, Moses wrote it. Both are written of.
Is the ‘tree of life’ in Genesis and Proverbs and Revelation all the same ‘tree’? AND curious that the ‘tree of life’ and that ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ already existed before Genesis 1:3, else we would have been told of their ‘creation’. God said up to then end of Genesis chapter 1 that what he created was GOOD, however after the end of Genesis 1 we do not see those words attributed to what follows.
God said He did not tell Moses to permit divorce. Matt 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Permits and papers notwithstanding...
Yes.
"AND curious that the ‘tree of life’ and that ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ already existed before Genesis 1:3, else we would have been told of their ‘creation’.
Both knowledge and understanding and wisdom existed before the world. Otherwise, God, who provides the Image for man, would have known nothing and not understood that, or known why.
" God said up to then end of Genesis chapter 1 that what he created was GOOD, however after the end of Genesis 1 we do not see those words attributed to what follows.
Once good always good, else it would have been recinded and God would have called His creation bad. He never did that. God never condemned the world either. He loved it. John 3:16,17, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
And yet this has nothing to do with your claim that Genesis is a parable.
Marriage IS to be forever. And sinful man even messes that up.
That does not eliminate the truth of Genesis.
Absolutely correct that few people seem to understand. It certainly wasn't a "trial" or "test" because God gives us trials to teach us something (James 1:2-3). That is why we count trials as joy. It certainly wasn't man's "free will" because God would never set up a condition where He knowingly would make us stumble. What a horrible perception of God. There were times Adam could have deliberately disobey God. For example Adam could have said that he wasn't going to take care of the garden or he wasn't going to give a particular animal a name. But he was obedient.
The only time Adam disobeyed God was when God told him NOT to do one thing...don't eat of the fruit. The only reason for God to have planted the tree, gave the command and then walked away was to simply show Adam that he was by nature rebellious. And Adam (not Eve) shows us we are rebellious because Eve was deceived, whereas Adam willfully took the fruit. God created the circumstance to show Adam his true rebel side. Both sinned but Adam shows us our true nature.
I heard a person teach once that the tree didn't actually contain knowledge...
I would love to meet him because rarely have I found someone who seems to understand this. There wasn't anything that happened in Adam or magical change in his nature. Adam's eyes "were opened" that he was fully capable of rebellion against God. And this knowledge unleased has caused his descendants to constantly rebel ever since and justifying ourselves for our actions.
Gen 4:24 If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold."
Knowledge of what? What was this knowledge of 'good and evil' the second symbolic 'tree' knew? And why IF everything in Genesis 1 except for one verse, Genesis 1:2 is described as being good would there be a knowledge of good and evil? This 'knowledge' originated with someone at a particular point in time after Genesis 1:1.
The devil was most certainly created 'good' and most beautiful as accounted for in Ezekiel 28, and it says that the king of Tyre was in the Garden of God, Eden. When did the devil develop his narcissistic tendencies. According to what is Written it was sure before the formation of the flesh bodies of the Adam and 'that' woman.
Trees are used continuously throughout the Bible to help the student in the knowledge of horticulture to have a multidimensional comprehension, limited as it might be for us to comprehend the 'mind' of history and what to yet expect until all the wheat is separated from the chaff.
Animals/reptiles serve the same purposes in their base God given instincts.
The serpent appears in Genesis with Eve and in Revelation with the Woman clothed with the sun.
So the serpent is ever-present in our lives, just as in the lives of those who wrote the books of the Bible.
Seeing how Paul compares Adam to Christ, one would have to conclude both were a myth.
Gen 1:2 is no exception. Here's Gen 1:2, "Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters." The Earth was something He made. Gen 1:31 "And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." Good in this case means success, as in good job, it's working just fine, as intended and those sentient rational creations created in the image of their creator, or less were free. The later good refers to a moral code and is the subject of the trees.
"Knowledge of what? What was this knowledge of 'good and evil' the second symbolic 'tree' knew?
Knowledge in this case refers to knowledge of the effects one's decisions and actions have. That requires some understanding, but not wisdom. The second tree was true wisdom, which requires more than understanding. That understanding is that the qualities of good and evil are determined based on referring to a moral code. That moral code is a set of rules which are engineered to protect rights. Rights are those things which inherently define and protect the existence of the essence of a sentient rational beings life.
"The devil was most certainly created 'good' and most beautiful as accounted for in Ezekiel 28, and it says that the king of Tyre was in the Garden of God, Eden. "
Ezekiel 28 refers to satan. Genesis is parable and just as Adam is a player in that parable, so too is satan. Every individual provides for and handles their own temptations according to their own decisions regarding values. Satan's "wisdom" is not wisdom, but the simple understanding(of the first tree) and a moral ocde that considers only one's own rights as worthy of protection, or some special group's rights, but not any others.
"This 'knowledge' originated with someone at a particular point in time after Genesis 1:1.
No. God had already determined what was good, evil, neutral and understood why actions had those qualities.
"When did the devil develop his narcissistic tendencies."
Probably started in childhood and became fully decided and ingrained as a teenager.
No. Comparing a fictional character to a real person does not imply the real person is fictional. Also, parable is not myth.
As for Paul, Paul never considered Adam to be a "fictional" character.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.