Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Infoabsorption

Adam was the Serpent?

Recommended Posts

There is a commentator who believes that Adam himself was the serpent in the garden of Eden. This is one theory I've never heard or read or even contemplated. Below I've copied and pasted a question & answer from an email blog I receive. I didn't read the original essay but the question & answer explains the theory in detail. I'm not espousing this theory but I simply think some here would like to read about something different and possibly make for an interesting discussion.

 

When the serpent addresses Eve, he asks, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

 

“Ye” is plural; hence the serpent is asking, “Has God said that you-all shall not eat . . . ?” Why would the serpent (Adam) address Eve in the plural? If the serpent was Adam, and he was including himself in the question, wouldn’t he have said, “. . . we shall not eat . . . ,” first person plural rather than second person plural? In fact, this is how Eve responded; “We may eat . . . .”

 

When God metes out the punishment for disobedience, He speaks to 1) the serpent, 2) the woman, and 3) Adam. Why would God speak to Adam twice, referring to him by two different titles (the serpent/Adam)?

 

Furthermore, when God speaks to Adam He doesn’t say that Adam’s sin was slandering God, but rather listening to Eve: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree,

 

If Adam was the one talking Eve into eating the fruit, after which she gave some to him and he ate, how is Adam “hearkening unto the voice” of Eve?

 

Those are my initial thoughts. From my perspective, seeing Adam as the serpent doesn’t flow naturally from the text.

 

Here is the reply:

 

Thanks for the response.  I trust that your questions and comment herein do not mean that you are going to ignore the balance of my article.

 

While it may be true that “ye” is plural, I think that a better way to phrase Eve’s question would be “Yea, hath God said that we-all shall not eat…”  The reason that I would think this is the fact that Eve was not yet in existence  when God told Adam “…that you shall not eat…  Thus, the only way that Eve could have heard about the Tree of G & E was from Adam and she knew that she and Adam were the only two people in the garden so she would have said ‘we-all not “you-all. 

 

Adam also knew that he and Eve were the only two people in the garden.  Thus, causing Eve to question what he had told her about God and the Tree of G & E;  Adam/serpent said to the woman “has God said we-all shall not eat…”  And Eve, quoting what Adam had told her, properly responded “we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but, of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, we-all shall not eat of it,” and then Eve went egregiously off script by adding “neither shall we-all touch it, lest we-all die.

 

Now let us take a look the passage were “God metes out the punishment for disobedience.”  As we can readily see, God first spoke to the serpent/Adam:

“And the YHWH God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Ge 3:14-15 AV)

Questions about the text.

If the serpent was simply a beast of the field as so many think (because that is what they have been taught to think) Why was he cursed “above all cattle and above every beast of the field”  Simply because he was Adam who was “above/more subtil” than “any beast of the field.”  In other words, he was not simply another beast of the field. He was the ‘man’ to whom God gave dominion (Gen 1:26 & 28) over all of the beasts of the field.

 

The statement by God about Eve and her seed and the serpent and his seed also reveals in a clever way that Adam was the serpent, unless you really wish to believe that a talking snake actually had literal talking snakes that literally became enemies of the seed of the woman. In his writings, Paul very clearly explains that the seed of the woman referenced in Genesis 3:15 is Jesus and if we read carefully and with understanding, Jesus also clearly explains the who/what of the serpent seed that bruised His heel.  Speaking to the apostate Jews of His day, Jesus said, “Ye serpents…Thus, the original serpent of the garden begets the little serpents that killed Jesus because: “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father (these little serpents come from the original serpent). They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father (these little serpents come from the original serpent). Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil (slandering serpent), and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.” (Joh 8:37-45 AV)”

 

Other texts from the New Testament taken in conjunction with their counterparts in the OT also reveal this truth:

 

“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” (Heb 11:4 AV)

 

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” (1Jo 3:12 AV)

 

“Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.” (Jude 1:11 AV)

 

For those with the proper understanding, these NT texts are of course referring to Genesis 4:

 

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…” (Ge 4:1-2 AV) “And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” (Ge 4:8 AV)

 

“And she again bare his brother Abel… (Ge 4:2 AV)

 

According to the selected portions of these five texts shown above, Cain the unrighteous seed killed the righteous seed Abel just exactly as the NT demonstrates that the unrighteous seed/serpents of Adam killed Jesus, the righteous seed of the woman.

 

Next God spoke to Eve:

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Ge 3:16 AV)

 

And then God spoke to Adam/serpent:

“And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Ge 3:17-19 AV)

 

 

Now note:  God specifically stated that He “cursed” the serpent and the ground.  God did not state that He cursed the man nor the woman, punishment but no curse.  In Genesis God explains why He did not curse he man and the woman:

 

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” (Ge 3:21 AV)

 

If Genesis 3:15 is the “Protoevangelium” of the what of the "first good news" or "gospel"  of man’s redemption in Scripture, then Genesis 3:21 must go right along with it as the first how of that Redemption through the blood of our Savior and Lord Jesus.  God had previously told Adam that the day that he ate of the Tree he would die.  The statement that God “clothed/covered” Adam and Eve with garments made from the skins of animals comes with a clear implication that God killed and skinned some animals to provide a “bloody covering” for their sin. This idea is further amplified in the Biblical account of Abraham’s sacrifice of his only son Isaac in Genesis 22:

 

“And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.” (Ge 22:6-13 AV)

 

In this account, God provided a “ram” to become a blood sacrifice in Isaac’s stead just as the death of the animals in Genesis 3:21, that provided the skins for Adam and Eve’s new coverings, were substitutes for the death that should have come upon Adam and Eve because they ate of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. Thus, the bloody death of the “animals” that were substitutes for the death of Adam and Eve and the bloody death of the Ram in Isaac’s stead all were pointing toward the ultimate death of our Lord Jesus.

 

Under the Mosaic Law the priest’s sacrificed animals to provide a bloody covering for the sins of the people.  All of these events, of course, pointing to the ultimate bloody sacrifice of our Lord Jesus that would actually provide, not just a covering, but forgiveness for the sins of the people as is all carefully and thoroughly explained in Hebrew 9:1-10:4, 11-14.

 

 

Now for your other questions:

Why would God speak to Adam twice, referring to him by two different titles (the serpent/Adam)?  For several reasons, why did Jesus call the first century apostate Jews “serpents” and tell them that they were of their father the slanderer” “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil/slander, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.” (Joh 8:43-45 AV)

 

Furthermore, when God speaks to Adam He doesn’t say that Adam’s sin was slandering God, but rather listening to Eve: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, God is judging Adam by his own words, “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” (Ge 3:12 AV)  Adam’s lame excuse was that his wife had given him some of the fruit so he ate it.  It was not necessary for God to say that Adam slandered God for ““It is the glory of God to conceal that thing;” however, it is our responsibility as kings to search out that matter.” (Pr 25:2)”. 

 

If Adam was the one talking Eve into eating the fruit, after which she gave some to him and he ate, how is Adam “hearkening unto the voice” of Eve?  Adam did not talk Eve into eating the fruit.  Adam’s sin was causing Eve to doubt God’s word, which Adam had previously conveyed to her, by saying “hath God said…”  In other words Adam was causing her to doubt what he had previously told her about the tree, thus to doubt that it was actually God’s word that they should not eat of the tree.

Eve ate of the fruit because of the deception about God’s word.  If God had not really said that they should not eat of the fruit of that tree then it should be okay to eat that fruit. So then hearing, believing and accepting the serpent/Adam’s words ““And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (Ge 3:4-5 AV)” Eve looked with longing at the fruit of that tree, ““And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Ge 3:6 AV)”

 

This statement by the serpent/Adam, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil,”  was the ultimate deception and it also cleverly reveals that Adam really was the serpent.  An actual ”beast of the field” would have no concern what-so-ever that the man could have his “eyes…opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil”  This statement reveals the true nature of the man as he was greatly lusting to be like God and have the knowledge of good and evil. Read James 1:14-16 again:

But every man (must include Adam, unless you are willing to say that Adam was not a man) is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.” (Jas 1:14-16 AV)

 

According to the New Testament, that is a perfect description of the progression of Adam’s lust, that brought forth his sin which brought death to him and all of us!

 

 

Brian wrote:  “Those are my initial thoughts. From my perspective, seeing Adam as the serpent doesn’t flow naturally from the text.”  How does bringing in a serpent that can talk “flow naturally from the text”?  Or even worse, how does bringing in a spirit being, with no previous reference,  to inhabit the snake and cause him to talk “flow naturally from the text”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the author saying Satan/Lucifer/Dragon/serpent is really Adam and not a fallen angel?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 socks
Knock knock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, socks said:

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. 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 6:30 PM, Rocky said:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by Rocky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WordWolf said:

They also laughed at Bozo the Clown, Topo Gigio, and Señor Wences.

Now, hold on there. If not for Señor Wences, how would we know everything is alright?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...