# The serpent in the Garden of Eden



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

Do you believe that it was merely a snake acting alone who beguiled Eve and convinced her to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, or do you believe that Satan took the form of a snake?  (Or possibly Lilith took the form of a snake?)

If it was actually Satan and not just a snake, then why do you think God cursed the snake to go on its belly and eat dust and have its head bruised by man for all the days of its life, if it wasn't the snake's fault?


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe that it was merely a snake acting alone who beguiled Eve and convinced her to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, or do you believe that Satan took the form of a snake?  (Or possibly Lilith took the form of a snake?)
> 
> If it was actually Satan and not just a snake, then why do you think God cursed the snake to go on its belly and eat dust and have its head bruised by man for all the days of its life, if it wasn't the snake's fault?



To set the record straight that "Satan made me do it" will not fly with God...


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> To set the record straight that "Satan made me do it" will not fly with God...



So, are you saying that you believe that it was a snake acting on its own and had nothing to do with Satan?  In other words, Satan is not responsible for the "fall of man",  it was a snake.


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> So, are you saying that you believe that it was a snake acting on its own and had nothing to do with Satan?  In other words, Satan is not responsible for the "fall of man",  it was a snake.



Adam and Eve are responsible for the fall of man. Like I said, "Satan made me do it" doesn't fly with God.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Adam and Eve are responsible for the fall of man. Like I said, "Satan made me do it" doesn't fly with God.



I'm not talking about human's punishment, I'm talking about the snake's punishment.


----------



## fishinbub (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm not talking about human's punishment, I'm talking about the snake's punishment.



You asked if it was Satan or the snake that caused the fall of man. It was neither.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> You asked if it was Satan or the snake that caused the fall of man. It was neither.



The snake was punished for something.

What do you believe the snake did specifically to deserve the punishment?


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 4, 2011)

The snake was a ribboned, right-wing, hard line, hog faced, shovel in the face, ideolog. ( Check the political forum.) 

The punishment was simply how she and her spawn would from then on train their armies.

"on its belly and eat dust and have its head bruised by man for all the days of its life"

Gives a whole new spin to Esprit de Corps...I think.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> The snake was a ribboned, right-wing, hard line, hog faced, shovel in the face, ideolog.
> 
> The punishment was simply how she and her spawn would from then on train their armies.
> 
> ...



Do you believe that Satan played any part in the "forbidden fruit" scenerio, or was it solely the snake?


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 4, 2011)

It is my view, that the snake in this case is a litterary and spiritual device, just as Satan is a spiritual device. They are not unlike the reality of phenomena as expressed by numbers, equations and formulas. The snake takes on a more general negative aspect to the old but more recent and definitely much more  negative ( to us) Accuser.

A&E had free choice as we all do.

So in this case it is the snake who is the bad guy...Satan being a Johny -Come -Lately.

 Some of the folk who seriously study ancient religions claim that the snake is a symbol of what was a primitive jungle religion with many Gods as opposed to the religion of the Garden of Eden with one God only. So in other words Eve wanted to return to here  spiritual roots-where she was from. She tricked Adam with spiritual mumbo jumbo...like  some partners in some relationships do... Eve just did not like the new neigbourhood.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> It is my view, that the snake in this case is a litterary and spiritual device, just as Satan is a spiritual device. They are not unlike the reality of phenomena as expressed by numbers, equations and formulas. The snake takes on a more general negative aspect to the old but more recent and definitely much more  negative ( to us) Accuser.
> 
> A&E had free choice as we all do.
> 
> ...



If the story wasn't meant to be taken literally, then why do you think the story teller included the part about the curse of the snake.  I seems to be offered as proof of the truth of the story, such as, "Why else would snakes have no legs and be instinctually hated by man?".


----------



## BRIAN1 (Feb 4, 2011)

You must read Genesis, satan never comes as himself. He will take the form of something/someone else... in this case a serpent. His temptation to Eve was everything evil. Like the guy said before, you have a free will to choose what path you want to take. Unfortunatley, by disobeying God's commands, sin/evil was allowed unto people. Hope this helps you.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> If the story wasn't meant to be taken literally, then why do you think the story teller included the part about the curse of the snake.  I seems to be offered as proof of the truth of the story, such as, "Why else would snakes have no legs and be instinctually hated by man?".



All reptiles are a bit unerving, especially that some pack venom or a good bite or a good suffucation and they are stealthy. However they are not hated by all. I suggest that the author of genesis' creation stories wrote them eons after actual creation and was familiar with snakes. Hitting them on the head was just good common sense.

If you study creation stories, there are two in the Old Testament, and those of other spiritual traditions you will see that these are seldom literal tellings and belong to a what we classify as myths. Note that myths don't mean that the story they reveal is false. Myths are a type of story telling in the same way as  the apocaliptic form or the essay forms of writing are.

Now some will not agree with this and claim that only a literal reading is proper. This is ok, since both readings inform similarly, on a spiritual level, in my view.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

BRIAN1 said:


> You must read Genesis, satan never comes as himself. He will take the form of something/someone else... in this case a serpent. His temptation to Eve was everything evil. Like the guy said before, you have a free will to choose what path you want to take. Unfortunatley, by disobeying God's commands, sin/evil was allowed unto people. Hope this helps you.



Well, that brings me back to the original post.  If it was Satan taking the form of a snake, then why did God punish all snakes for the rest of time if it wasn't their fault?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Well, that brings me back to the original post.  If it was Satan taking the form of a snake, then why did God punish all snakes for the rest of time if it wasn't their fault?



Do you find the notion of Greek mythology ridiculous?


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Well, that brings me back to the original post. If it was Satan taking the form of a snake, then why did God punish all snakes for the rest of time if it wasn't their fault?


 
The curse of sin came upon man, and all creation, because of the fall, snakes included.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 4, 2011)

Snakes don't have much of a free will, but a penchant to be deceptive. With no feet or hands their chances of sinning are significantly decreased.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 4, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> The curse of sin came upon man, and all creation, because of the fall, snakes included.



Well put.


oh...and for the record...we don't all have free will like adam & eve did.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

So, snakes can sin?


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 4, 2011)

Along the lines of sinning snakes bounce, I just thought of these 
verses in Romans, perhaps part of the discussion???

<SUP></SUP> 
<SUP>Romans 8:21-23</SUP>

 <SUP class=versenum id=en-KJV-28138>21</SUP>Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 
 <SUP class=versenum id=en-KJV-28139>22</SUP>For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.  <SUP class=versenum id=en-KJV-28140>23</SUP>And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 
Romans 8:21-23 (in Context) Romans 8


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 4, 2011)

The Hebrew Word in The Genesis translated Serpent or snake is not an animal as most Churches teach,

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one.  Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining.  Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4. 

In the same way Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Saraphs. 

But with the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and , in obeying this command, we read in v. 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass".  Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph. 

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)? 

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Gen. 3 (on p. 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Gen. 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion).  The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is not spoken of as "an angel of light" in v. 14.  Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order?  Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" (*1) it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from vv. 11-19).  His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (v. 17). 
So We see it is Satan in His form as a shiny serpent which appears to Eve.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

Lowjack said:


> The Hebrew Word in The Genesis translated Serpent or snake is not an animal as most Churches teach,
> 
> The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one.  Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining.  Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.
> 
> ...



Which brings me back to my question of "If it was Satan who beguiled Eve instead of a snake, then why did God punish snakes if it wasn't their fault?"


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Which brings me back to my question of "If it was Satan who beguiled Eve instead of a snake, then why did God punish snakes if it wasn't their fault?"



God Punished the Nacash and Seraphin to be condemned for eternity in the depths of the earth and eat dirt.
If Genesis would have being talking about a regular snake it would have being "tsepha".


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

Lowjack said:


> God Punished the Nacash and Seraphin to be condemned for eternity in the depths of the earth and eat dirt.
> If Genesis would have being talking about a regular snake it would have being "tsepha".



It sounds more like a regular snake in the context of being 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 emnity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Which brings me back to my question of "If it was Satan who beguiled Eve instead of a snake, then why did God punish snakes if it wasn't their fault?"



Why do kids get punished for the sins of their fathers?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Why do kids get punished for the sins of their fathers?



I'm probably misunderstaning you here, but are you saying that snakes are the children of Satan?


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Which brings me back to my question of "If it was Satan who beguiled Eve instead of a snake, then why did God punish snakes if it wasn't their fault?"



My opinion, God didn't punish snakes.  It's a metaphor.  I think Lowjack gave us a little insight into problems with stories in the Bible.  Vocabulary and version change over time.  Misinterpretation.  Lost in translation.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm probably misunderstaning you here, but are you saying that snakes are the children of Satan?



Nope....what I am saying is that it happens all the time in society.  People/animals/objects pay for the sins of others all the time.

Why did David & Bathsheeba's first son die?  Did he do something wrong?

I point this out to say I think it is foolish to try and question God on some things.  Sometimes, you just have to take it literally and move on.  The snake crawling on its belly.

As far as being bruised on the head, that is prophecy of Christ...not of a person stepping on the head of a snake.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

drippin' rock said:


> My opinion, God didn't punish snakes.  It's a metaphor.  I think Lowjack gave us a little insight into problems with stories in the Bible.  Vocabulary and version change over time.  Misinterpretation.  Lost in translation.



I guess the reason I'm hung up on the curse upon snakes is that it was offered (in my opinion) as actual evidence that we can see.  It might have been presented in ancient times like "Just look at the snake and you can see that it used to be a regular reptile like a lizard or alligator until God cursed it and took away its legs, and how else can you explain the enmity that seems natural between us and snakes".

It seems like a waste of a good, real in the flesh, example to call it a metaphor.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 4, 2011)

Rj,
The way its written makes it a stretch to say its referring to Christ and Satan. 



HawgJawl said:


> It sounds more like a regular snake in the context of being 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 emnity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.


----------



## thedeacon (Feb 4, 2011)

The word says; saten came in the form of a serpant. It does not expound at all.

It says the serpant would be cursed. 

We don't need to read things in the word that is just not there. 

God said it
I believe it
That settles it


----------



## creation's_cause (Feb 4, 2011)

thedeacon said:


> The word says; saten came in the form of a serpant. It does not expound at all.
> 
> It says the serpant would be cursed.
> 
> ...



I should get off my kyster and look for myself, but do you have a reference for "satan came in the form of a serpant".  From my recollection, Gen doesn't read like that, but could be wrong.

Discussing the possibilities on this forum is far from reading things into the Word...the Word is the Word.  I think this a fair question, and a great place to discuss what/who the serpant was or represented.  I believe the entire Word literally, unless the text is obviously describing something as a similee....just for the record here.


----------



## creation's_cause (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> It sounds more like a regular snake in the context of being 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 emnity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.



I agree.  A reptile that first embodied some form of evil, or rebellion against God's plan.  I believe this could have occurred from a Satanic Spirit/Form that fell with Satan, possibly the "Nephilum", some of which mixed with humans and could have entered animals (possibly reptiles) as well.  I think this form of reptiles is one explanation for the dinosaurs.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe that it was merely a snake acting alone who beguiled Eve and convinced her to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, or do you believe that Satan took the form of a snake?  (Or possibly Lilith took the form of a snake?)
> 
> If it was actually Satan and not just a snake, then why do you think God cursed the snake to go on its belly and eat dust and have its head bruised by man for all the days of its life, if it wasn't the snake's fault?



Based on all the questions and their flavor, I assume I don't have to ask you which church you attend?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 4, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe that it was merely a snake acting alone who beguiled Eve and convinced her to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, or do you believe that Satan took the form of a snake?  (Or possibly Lilith took the form of a snake?)
> 
> If it was actually Satan and not just a snake, then why do you think God cursed the snake to go on its belly and eat dust and have its head bruised by man for all the days of its life, if it wasn't the snake's fault?




WOW!
You sure had a lot of fun here today.
It only took me about 90 seconds to figure out your flimflam tactics.
So I made a check over in the local Atheist forum and there you are.  I'll have to start checking in over there more often to stay up to date on all the new folks there.

I'm amazed at your great success today.  You pulled a lot of people in today with your guise.
I bet it won't happen this easily in the future.

One interesting fact about snakes that might interest you...  The snake in the garden is the only snake to have ever talked.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 5, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> WOW!
> You sure had a lot of fun here today.
> It only took me about 90 seconds to figure out your flimflam tactics.
> So I made a check over in the local Atheist forum and there you are.  I'll have to start checking in over there more often to stay up to date on all the new folks there.
> ...




LOL....thats funny right there....LOL I must admit...I had fun in the exchanges.

I guess I always hope that even thought the line of questioning is disingenuous some flint spark of the Holy Spirit from my musings and sincere answers will catch to the questioner's hair--especially through their wholesale laughting at me. God knows their mocking is old school... as these men can be as dumb as fish. There is something in me that calls me to fishing...LOL


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Feb 5, 2011)

Interesting, but it distracts from the real issue presented in the text, ...that of good vs. evil. To be more specific, whether to obey the true and living God, or to surrender to "self will". There isn't one among us who hasn't been guilty at some pont in time of the same offense. Thank God the story does not end here. John 3:16, the old familiar verse many of us memorized as small children, paints a beautiful picture of a loving God who made a way of escape for his wayward creation. It's the degree of love God had for his creation that escapes my ability to comprehend it. I admit to not being able to understand why the Almighty loved me so when I was so unlovable. I'm also thankful I can accept his love, and the forgiveness of my sins by being redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ shed on Calvary's cross. Thank the Lord he wrote my name in his Book of Life. I do believe when I see his face what I lack understanding of, won't matter.
Proverbs 29:1


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 5, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> WOW!
> You sure had a lot of fun here today.
> It only took me about 90 seconds to figure out your flimflam tactics.
> So I made a check over in the local Atheist forum and there you are.  I'll have to start checking in over there more often to stay up to date on all the new folks there.
> ...



I'm not sure how I tricked or misled anyone.  Where have I presented myself to be something that you believe I'm not?  I was raised Southern Baptist and by the time I was 18, I seriously believed that I was being called to the ministry.  Although I have many questions now and through my life experiences have dismissed a good portion of the things I was told to believe solely on faith, Christianity is something that was engraved into me and is a major part of who I am today.  I couldn't seperate the part of me that Christianity molded even if I wanted to.

I have serious questions and was hoping to gain a few serious answers.  Please look back over all my posts on any thread and see if I have mocked or dismissed any serious response as delusion.  You will see that all opinions offered to me that are logical, are accepted and respected.

I post mainly on the AAA (not Athiest) forum because I am seeking logical answers.  I've had a lifetime of my questions being answered with either scripture quoting or being told to apply a little faith and move on.  I was hoping for something more, here.

I'm sorry that my presence here offends some.

What I don't understand is that you're response to me indicates that you would have given a different answer for my question if you had known of my "devious trickery".  I would love to believe that there is one (1) answer to questions like these, no matter who is asking the question.  A truth should stand on its own and apply to all.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 5, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm not sure how I tricked or misled anyone.  Where have I presented myself to be something that you believe I'm not?  I was raised Southern Baptist and by the time I was 18, I seriously believed that I was being called to the ministry.  Although I have many questions now and through my life experiences have dismissed a good portion of the things I was told to believe solely on faith, Christianity is something that was engraved into me and is a major part of who I am today.  I couldn't seperate the part of me that Christianity molded even if I wanted to.
> 
> I have serious questions and was hoping to gain a few serious answers.  Please look back over all my posts on any thread and see if I have mocked or dismissed any serious response as delusion.  You will see that all opinions offered to me that are logical, are accepted and respected.
> 
> ...



The truth is that for even the most brilliant apologist, when concerning the fantastic claims of the Bible, the end of the road will be "You just have to believe."    With your background you know as well as anyone that the Bible will not not make sense if you use your intellect.  It even says so in the Bible so it must be true.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 5, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> LOL....thats funny right there....LOL I must admit...I had fun in the exchanges.
> 
> I guess I always hope that even thought the line of questioning is disingenuous some flint spark of the Holy Spirit from my musings and sincere answers will catch to the questioner's hair--especially through their wholesale laughting at me. God knows their mocking is old school... as these men can be as dumb as fish. There is something in me that calls me to fishing...LOL



If you will look at my posts in the AAA (not Athiest) forum, you will see that more than once I was told that the AAA forum might not be the best place to ask the question.  So, is there a forum where it is permissible to ask questions if you aren't already certain of what you believe?

Consider the possibility that a person exists who doesn't fit into either of these two catagories:

A.  I firmly believe that every single word in the Bible came straight from the mouth of God.

B.  I firmly believe that there is NO God.

If such a person did in fact exist, is there a forum where this person would be welcome to ask questions that have stood as stumbling blocks to this person for many years?  If this person waits until he has it all figured out and knows exactly which forum he belongs in, then he probably won't have any questions left to ask.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 5, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> If you will look at my posts in the AAA (not Athiest) forum, you will see that more than once I was told that the AAA forum might not be the best place to ask the question.  So, is there a forum where it is permissible to ask questions if you aren't already certain of what you believe?
> 
> Consider the possibility that a person exists who doesn't fit into either of these two catagories:
> 
> ...



My friend, I have answered you as I would have answered someone who might be a christian some day, but also someone that was very intelligent. As to which forum you might be the apple of their eye...I don't know. I do not design their purpose.

I suggest that you need to talk to a someone face to face regards the  seemingly large gap in your frustrations. Or PM me and I will reply and suggest pastors on here who are as mild as lambs and as wild as lions when it comes to helping people on spiritual issues and who would not worry you for not being or chosing not to be a christian.  I suspect that the gap in your questioning is perhaps not a wide gulf as it seems to you--if you are sincere.

 My instinct which might be incorrect is that the scripture for you is a child's picture book ( you possibly see it as a child would) and for your intelect as a mature and vital adult it does not match in such a way to make sense to you. The stories in the bible are no more to you than the story of Jack And The Bean Stock are to a child, despite that you were destined to the ministry.

Adults find all kinds of meaning in the story of Jack And the Bean Stock compared to the at face value reading when they were children. If this does not apply so be it, but if it does please consider my offer.

Peace.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> The truth is that for even the most brilliant apologist, when concerning the fantastic claims of the Bible, the end of the road will be "You just have to believe."    With your background you know as well as anyone that the Bible will not not make sense if you use your intellect.  It even says so in the Bible so it must be true.


Where does it say that?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 5, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm not sure how I tricked or misled anyone.  Where have I presented myself to be something that you believe I'm not?  I was raised Southern Baptist and by the time I was 18, I seriously believed that I was being called to the ministry.  Although I have many questions now and through my life experiences have dismissed a good portion of the things I was told to believe solely on faith, Christianity is something that was engraved into me and is a major part of who I am today.  I couldn't seperate the part of me that Christianity molded even if I wanted to.
> 
> I have serious questions and was hoping to gain a few serious answers.  Please look back over all my posts on any thread and see if I have mocked or dismissed any serious response as delusion.
> 
> ...



There are millions of questions concerning the things of the garden.  I have few answers.  And the only answers I do have will have to come from the scripture.  There's no place else to look.


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 5, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> It sounds more like a regular snake in the context of being 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 emnity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.



The "Serpent"Was More cunning that any of the Beasts of the field, That Yah Created.
That doesn't mean the serpent was an earthly Creation But Rather the serpent or Cherub was more cunning than any of the creatures God created anywhere.
The Fact that the enmity was between it and Christ as you quoted can only be Satan himself and not just a common earthly Snake.

Things have to be understood in the Idiosyncrasy it was meant to say.

When I was a child in Hebrew school we learn this Chapter 1 to read "and the shinning one was more cunning....", never the serpent which is the English Translation.


----------



## chicken cow (Feb 6, 2011)

Ge 3:15 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. 
I think a lot a people are saying this is all people. But this was clearly talking about the coming of Christ.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Feb 6, 2011)

I ran across a book titled The Talking Snake Theory: Creation Science & History For Christian Children.  Neat little brief on it from this book peddler:



> The Talking Snake Theory is a fact-based historical Creation Science book for Christian youngsters. Readers journey back 6,000 years ago in time to the actual date when God created the first two humans from a pile of dirt and a spare rib. It is a time and place that, despite the first hand accounts from eyewitnesses in the Bible, most ignorant secular scholars and scientists refuse to believe existed. For True Christians®, Jews, and Muslims,* our entire belief systems hinge on a few words from a talking snake* who appeared around this same time. By using fun characters and cartoons based on factual accounts from the Holy Bible book of Genesis (one of the few history books that all three major religions in the world agree on), youngsters are taken on an educational journey they will remember for the rest of their lives.  Children will learn the truth about how snakes used to have legs until one of them opened up his mouth and gave Eve (the first woman) some bad dieting advice.



Do Christians agree that your belief system depends almost entirely on a talking snake?


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 6, 2011)

No ! Our Belief Depends on a The Word of God made Flesh.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 6, 2011)

**k9** said:


> King of the mountian was a game we played as children.
> 
> However, who will be God has already been decided and The King that sits on God's Holy mountain has already been decided by God, it has been playing out through out the ages for man to see.
> 
> ...




All true.
Someone asked me this morning what the purpose of the book of Revelation was?
I replied:   "JESUS WINS".


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Feb 6, 2011)

**k9** said:


> No, but you may be on to something there for your disbelief and not being a Christian.



Got no idea what you mean there.  Please, no scripture in your response.  Normal fonts, all black, default size if you don't mind.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 7, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Please, no scripture in your response.



This forum is called Spiritual discussions and study.  If you want to quote "Voltaire" for ex., and someone wants to quote bible, so be it.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Feb 7, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> This forum is called Spiritual discussions and study.  If you want to quote "Voltaire" for ex., and someone wants to quote bible, so be it.



I'm not trying to handicap the guy in his answer.  I'm asking him for a straight answer instead of a pageful of scripture in varying fonts, sizes, and colors.  Take a look at pretty much every one of his posts and you'll see why I made such a request.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2011)

Lowjack said:


> The "Serpent"Was More cunning that any of the Beasts of the field, That Yah Created.
> That doesn't mean the serpent was an earthly Creation But Rather the serpent or Cherub was more cunning than any of the creatures God created anywhere.
> The Fact that the enmity was between it and Christ as you quoted can only be Satan himself and not just a common earthly Snake.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your response, and thanks for not attacking me.

In the wording of this text, who exactly is Satan?  Is Satan the serpent or the serpent's seed?  If Satan is the serpent, then who is Satan's seed?  And is Christ the woman or the woman's seed? 

And if Eve is Christ, at what point in the Genesis story did the word "Eve" stop referring to the first woman?


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 7, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I'm not trying to handicap the guy in his answer.  I'm asking him for a straight answer



Well then I'll take a shot and say yes.   Scripture necessary.
The serpent event (or snake if you like) was also quoted later in the NT.  

*2 Corinthians 11:3*
But I fear, lest by any means, as the *serpent* beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

*Revelation 12:9*
And the great dragon was cast out, that old *serpent*, called the  Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into  the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

*Revelation 20:2*
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old *serpent*, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,


6, if you can't swallow scripture, fine, but the 1Cor verse backs up the event, and Rev talks about the serpent directly, only by the time he makes his latter move on the earth he may look like something else.

What a shame the description(s) trips you up over why sin started and it's _consequences_...  now, I'd do a serious look at _that_.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 7, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> Well then I'll take a shot and say yes.   Scripture necessary.
> The serpent event (or snake if you like) was also quoted later in the NT.
> 
> *2 Corinthians 11:3*
> ...



The scripture you've provided give a clearer understanding of the serpent than all the other comments that have been made here.

The issues in the garden that we're able to grab hold of and absorb is the relationship between God and the two that He created for the garden.  
It's message is about their willingness to disobey their creator.
More was written about the serpent after Jesus' death than during all the centuries before.


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Thanks for your response, and thanks for not attacking me.
> 
> In the wording of this text, who exactly is Satan?  Is Satan the serpent or the serpent's seed?  If Satan is the serpent, then who is Satan's seed?  And is Christ the woman or the woman's seed?
> 
> And if Eve is Christ, at what point in the Genesis story did the word "Eve" stop referring to the first woman?



Why should I attack you ???

The Word says the shiny one spoke with Eve or (Eisha) The woman, Now we know that Serafins are describe as serpents of fire or shiny ones, so Satan Himself tempted her.


----------



## formula1 (Feb 7, 2011)

*Re:*

Maybe a serpent, maybe a snake, but definately Satan. And remember this was before the fall, so I wonder if really can comprehend  the 'forms' of the tempter.

We can comprehend his method though. he is always saying  "Did God actually say?" or ""You will not surely die", twisting the truth of God into a lie.

Has he lied to you lately? What lies are you still believing that keep you from Christ?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2011)

Lowjack said:


> Why should I attack you ???
> 
> The Word says the shiny one spoke with Eve or (Eisha) The woman, Now we know that Serafins are describe as serpents of fire or shiny ones, so Satan Himself tempted her.



Satan tempted Eve.  Satan did not talk a snake into doing it or "possess" a snake.  

God cursed Satan.  None of this involves the animal we now call a snake.

God put enmity between woman (mankind) and Satan.

None of this has to do with humans not liking snakes or snakes losing their legs.

Am I anywhere near the ballpark?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2011)

formula1 said:


> Has he lied to you lately? What lies are you still believing that keep you from Christ?



For the first twenty years of my life I believed that every word in the Bible came directly from God.  Something like "In the beginning there was the Word" and the Word meant the Bible, so in the beginning there was the Bible.  I was raised in a small community in the mountains in a Southern Baptist church, the kind of church where you take everything on faith and ask no questions.

Since then I have researched the origin of the modern KJV Bible enough to understand that it was written by man.

I have also studied many of the principles and concepts that are commonly believed by Christians but have either no basis in scripture or are based upon a few words taken out of context and "interpreted" in the most favorable light supporting the concept. 

I have not dismissed Christianity as a whole.  I am simply trying to gain enough understanding to know which parts should be attributed to man and which parts came from God.


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 7, 2011)

I agree here, the form isn't necessary to know, but we would do well to be wary of the devil's devices...



formula1 said:


> Maybe a serpent, maybe a snake, but definately Satan. And remember this was before the fall, so I wonder if really can comprehend the 'forms' of the tempter.
> 
> We can comprehend his method though. he is always saying "Did God actually say?" or ""You will not surely die", twisting the truth of God into a lie.
> 
> Has he lied to you lately? What lies are you still believing that keep you from Christ?


 
The question above can also be asked of believers; "What lies are you still believing that keep you from fulfilling His purpose in your life?"

Maybe for another thread!


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2011)

**k9** said:


> How quickly some fall for the same thing Eve fell for.
> 
> I am hearing the echos of the serpent here, "And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said....?
> Also, Eve misquoted God, which I see often too.
> ...



I was trying to summarize what I thought Lojack was saying, just to make sure I wasn't still misunderstanding him.  It sounds like you and Lojack have completely different opinions of the meaning of this scripture, but I'm not trying to cause arguments between ya'll, as some have accused.  

Am I correct in assuming that you believe the story to be entirely literal with no metaphors whatsoever?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> For the first twenty years of my life I believed that every word in the Bible came directly from God.  Something like "In the beginning there was the Word" and the Word meant the Bible, so in the beginning there was the Bible.  I was raised in a small community in the mountains in a Southern Baptist church, the kind of church where you take everything on faith and ask no questions.
> 
> Since then I have researched the origin of the modern KJV Bible enough to understand that it was written by man.
> 
> ...



The problem in "trying to understand" some of the things of God's word is that on the one hand I have what God, thru inspiration, left for me to know, and then I have what a lot of other people 'think' it all might mean.
Then I begin to insert what "I think" about it that might differ from the other people.
That's when my search for understanding quiet often leads me to the foggy side of the mountain.

So I don't have nearly as many questions as I once did.
Like you said, there's a lot of different answers out there, so I'll just read and accept.  And I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The problem in "trying to understand" some of the things of God's word is that on the one hand I have what God, thru inspiration, left for me to know, and then I have what a lot of other people 'think' it all might mean.
> Then I begin to insert what "I think" about it that might differ from the other people.
> That's when my search for understanding quiet often leads me to the foggy side of the mountain.
> 
> ...



I really struggled for many years in an attempt to reconcile contradictory principles in the Bible.  I'm not refering to comparing one scripture, word for word, to another scripture, but entire principles that either contradict each other or seem to cancel each other out in a way that they can't co-exist.  Calling something a parable instead of a literal story doesn't help because both are intended to illustrate a moral lesson.  

But then I discovered the most liberating concept.  It removes the need to try to interpret scripture in some weird way or to just take it on faith and try to move on.  I discovered that when a scripture is written in a way that does not "fit" into the overall theme of the Bible and seems to be limited by the customs and beliefs of the society in which it was written, the most appropriate response is to file that one in the category of "written by man".  If you can just bring yourself to do that, it makes it much easier to focus on all that is left.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2011)

**k9** said:


> I will deal briefly with one statement of your post.
> 
> First let me say that you are a GENIUS for figuring out that man wrote the scriptures.
> 
> ...



There are many parts of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, that I believe were "authored" by man and God had nothing to do with it.  

An example would be a law that man makes and in order to give credibility to the law and make it easily enforced, man declares that it is God's Law.  

A law that is truly God's law would not change as time goes by to stay consistent with man's view of the world around him.  God's law would not change to be more "civilized" as society becomes more civilized.  God's law would not change 180 dgrees from one day requiring an act to the next day forbidding the exact same act.  God's law would not demonstrate a total lack of value for certain members of society and then change to value everyone equally.


----------



## formula1 (Feb 7, 2011)

*Re:*



StriperAddict said:


> I agree here, the form isn't necessary to know, but we would do well to be wary of the devil's devices...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



StriperAddict:

Indeed, perhaps a topic for another day! And you are so right this is a question for believers and nonbelievers alike, though lies will be a little different for each.

Satan, BTW, is far more successful in his deception if you don't know he is behind it.  That is where he succeeds the most. I'll bet (if I were a betting man) that you are well aware of this too.

Thanks for your thoughts on this!


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I really struggled for many years in an attempt to reconcile contradictory principles in the Bible.  I'm not refering to comparing one scripture, word for word, to another scripture, but entire principles that either contradict each other or seem to cancel each other out in a way that they can't co-exist.  Calling something a parable instead of a literal story doesn't help because both are intended to illustrate a moral lesson.
> 
> But then I discovered the most liberating concept.  It removes the need to try to interpret scripture in some weird way or to just take it on faith and try to move on.  I discovered that when a scripture is written in a way that does not "fit" into the overall theme of the Bible and seems to be limited by the customs and beliefs of the society in which it was written, the most appropriate response is to file that one in the category of "written by man".  If you can just bring yourself to do that, it makes it much easier to focus on all that is left.



I can't recall ever having to assume that a teaching of the Bible could have been a "mistake" and been man's will rather than God.
Although, I don't believe every word spoken in the Bible concerning God is true.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Feb 7, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> Well then I'll take a shot and say yes.   Scripture necessary.
> The serpent event (or snake if you like) was also quoted later in the NT.
> 
> *2 Corinthians 11:3*
> ...



I merely asked k9 to clarify what he meant in that one response to me.  You're barking up the wrong tree.  Frankly, there is no tree up which you can bark for that matter.


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> For the first twenty years of my life I believed that every word in the Bible came directly from God.  Something like "In the beginning there was the Word" and the Word meant the Bible, so in the beginning there was the Bible.  I was raised in a small community in the mountains in a Southern Baptist church, the kind of church where you take everything on faith and ask no questions.
> 
> Since then I have researched the origin of the modern KJV Bible enough to understand that it was written by man.
> 
> ...



You got it !, before you had some bad English Transliteration, LOL


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> There are many parts of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, that I believe were "authored" by man and God had nothing to do with it.
> 
> An example would be a law that man makes and in order to give credibility to the law and make it easily enforced, man declares that it is God's Law.
> 
> A law that is truly God's law would not change as time goes by to stay consistent with man's view of the world around him.  God's law would not change to be more "civilized" as society becomes more civilized.  God's law would not change 180 dgrees from one day requiring an act to the next day forbidding the exact same act.  God's law would not demonstrate a total lack of value for certain members of society and then change to value everyone equally.



Can you give me an example of such a law added to the law of God ?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 8, 2011)

Lowjack said:


> Can you give me an example of such a law added to the law of God ?



In my post about man's laws, I was referring to some of God's laws given to Moses.  The numerous laws given in addition to the Ten Commandments.  Laws dealing with slaves and witches and burnt offerings and war.  

The requirement to offer two 1-year old lambs as a burnt offering every single day forever.  The covenant states in several places that these are permanent laws for the people and their descendants for all time.  The covenant doesn't say to abide by these laws until the Messiah comes to fullfill the law, it says forever.  This is an example of a law that requires something and then forbids it later. 

The laws dealing with fornication were consistent with the civilization's views of women at the time.  There is no concept of rape expressed in these laws.  If a man fornicates with a woman (who is not betrothed) then he must marry her.  Rape?  Doesn't matter.  She has no say in the matter.  If her father won't permit the marriage, the man (rapist) must pay the father the dowry of virgins.  The woman is viewed as property.  A man rapes you and the result is that you have to marry the rapist?  If this was really God's view of women, then are we to believe that God has changed his mind about women?

The laws dealing with war also seem suspect to me.  They don't seem to be coming from a grand overall view of the world as should be the case with God.  When going to war with far-away cities, you can do pretty much anything you want, but if it's a nearby city, you must completely destroy the entire nation of people.  If you don't completely obliterate the nation, then any survivors of the other nation might teach you their detestable customs in the worship of their gods which would cause you to sin.  So, you must kill everyone including the children because they could teach you their detestable customs.  One exception is made though.  Any young, good-looking, virgin women you find, you can keep them for yourselves.  For some unstated reason, I guess virgins can't teach you their detestable customs.  This sounds to me like a law that a leader would make to keep his army happy and working for him.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 8, 2011)

**k9** said:


> When you say modern KJV, are you speaking of the 1611 Authorized King James Holy Bible? If not, King James did not authorized any modern KJV.
> 
> I have researched and studied the Authorized King James Holy Bible probably more times before you were born than you have after you were born, just a guess.
> 
> ...




When I said "modern" version, I WAS referring to the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible, but not the 1611 version.

If you have an actual 1611 version of the KJV Bible, then its probably worth a whole lot of money.  It should contain 80 books, unlike the "modern" versions with only 66 books.  I wasn't until the late 1800's that the 14 books of the Apocrypha were officially removed from the KJV Bible.  Also, since the original printing of the 1611 version, there have been over 300 corrections/revisions made to the Authorized King James Version Bible.  

If you believe that the original team of Bible translaters were in deed the most worthy, Godly, and skilled scholars to translate the Bible, then you should stick with your original 80-book, 1611 version Bible because the over 300 corrections made since then were no doubt "unauthorized" by King James.


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> In my post about man's laws, I was referring to some of God's laws given to Moses.  The numerous laws given in addition to the Ten Commandments.  Laws dealing with slaves and witches and burnt offerings and war.
> 
> The requirement to offer two 1-year old lambs as a burnt offering every single day forever.  The covenant states in several places that these are permanent laws for the people and their descendants for all time.  The covenant doesn't say to abide by these laws until the Messiah comes to fullfill the law, it says forever.  This is an example of a law that requires something and then forbids it later.
> 
> ...



Those were Laws given exclusively to Israel to govern themselves by as a Holy nation unto God,not any gentile Nation, so why would you be concern with them???


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 8, 2011)

Lowjack said:


> Those were Laws given exclusively to Israel to govern themselves by as a Holy nation unto God,not any gentile Nation, so why would you be concern with them???



I understand that those were for Isreal.  I was just answering your question in regard to providing an example of something that is stated to have come directly from God but I believe came more from man.

Please don't think that I'm trying to insinuate that if any one part of the Bible is not directly from God then the whole thing is false.  As I've stated before, I'm only trying to determine which parts are tainted by man's biases or personal agendas or simple misunderstanding.  I don't view this as all or nothing.  I see no problem in believing that part of the Bible came from God and part from man and part is a mixture of both.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 9, 2011)

K9,
You made the incorrect assumption that I do not prefer the Authorized King James Version Holy Bible.  I have many other types of Bibles that I sometimes use along with the KJV in study, but the KJV is what I was raised with and what I prefer.  Since the KJV Bible is the one I'm most familiar with, I use it when discussing parts of the Bible that I believe were "authored" more by man than by God.

Like I stated to Lojack, I am in no way insinuating that just because one part of the Bible is from man, that discredits the whole thing.  I'm just trying to separate the biases, personal agendas, and misunderstandings of man from the scriptures.  This is not an attack directly on the KJV Bible.  These biases, personal agendas, and misunderstandings occurred way before 1611.

As far as the KJV Bible (or any other Bible for that matter) is concerned, have you given any consideration to the criteria utilized in the evaluation of potential writings for inclusion or exclusion?  

At the Laodocia Council in 363 AD, the New Testament was assembled from numerous potential texts that were screened by certain criteria.  The most important criteria were that the text must have been written by an Apostle or at least closely associated with an Apostle, they must be widely accepted and have widespread usage, and they must support true doctrine.

There are two obvious problems here.  Widely accepted with widespread usage is another way of saying "popular".  Popular opinion of man was one of the criteria for determining God's will.

The second, and worse problem is that "it must support true doctrine".  Today, Christians evalute whether their church's doctrine is "true" by referring to the Bible.  We hold the Bible as the governing authority over the church.  But here, the church decided what was "true doctrine" and edited the Bible to ensure that nothing would be included in the Bible that might conflict with their own opinion of what was "true" at the time.  The Bible was edited to support the current beliefs of the church.  Writings such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Letter of Clement, and the Didache were excluded by the Laodocia Council.

Just think for a moment about the power to edit the rule book to support your current position.


----------

