Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Your insights would be appreciated.
1 posted on 07/17/2012 12:35:14 PM PDT by Thermopylae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last
To: Thermopylae
Gill's Exposition of the Bible gives a good explanation for this: http://gill.biblecommenter.com/genesis/3.htm
62 posted on 07/17/2012 8:03:25 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Thermopylae
I like Michael S. Heiser's take: NACHASH = "shining one"... long, taken from http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible

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.

83 posted on 07/18/2012 2:27:36 PM PDT by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Thermopylae

I believe Satan entered the serpent because it was a manlike creature and then afterwards was cursed to become a snake. This was the way Satan injected himself and his sinful nature into the human race. So all have sin and fall short of the glory of God. But Jesus Christ our savior was born sinless and perfect because he was born by a virgin.


102 posted on 08/23/2013 8:46:05 PM PDT by PerhapsSo..
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson