I think God made a mistake or he's insane

[DannyM]

Man.. Has this topic turned.. Now snakes..

We've done our best to answer that question here..

Literal snake in the Garden of Eden?

"Upon your belly you shall go". So was the 'serpent' initially standing upright?

Yeah I know.. It's more of a figure of speech...

You will find the answer for it in that link...

Interesting: I'll take a good look at that link and the 'previous discussion' alluded to in your opening post very soon.

[DannyM]

There.. I moved this theology topic to it's rightful place...

Now that's what I call magic...

Cool huh?

I call it admin power...

Since I haven't the first clue as to how you did that (I'm still getting used to light-switches ) I'll call it magic ...

It IS magic..

Actually I would have kept it in the science section if this guy or kid would have asked me politely.. But he didn't, so now I have to play enforcer.. Too bad..

I think it's funny when the admin get accused of 'totalitarianism,' because the accusers get ample time and opportunity to vent their spleen...

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo, and what might that be, this sufficient reason, for God to allow evil into the world.

Refinement of character for one.

let me guess , for his own pleasure?

Oh, you're not actually interested in a proper response. For his own pleasure? Nice one...

or so that we will appreciate who God is and what he has done for us by delivering us from evil, or how else would we know what he has done, without deliverance from evil. none of witch is scriptural.

At least you have great reasoning power there.

Oh do suprise me Kurieuo!

You guys make these grand claims with no biblical evidence to support it.

Grand claims?

For God never said that he allowed Sin into the world so that free will or choice can be manifested, or that it abounds so for his own pleasure or so that we will appreciate who he is and what he has done for us.

Damn, where's that strawman smiley.

But what he did say was "if you will not praise me I will make the rocks praise me"

[DannyM]

Man.. Has this topic turned.. Now snakes..

We've done our best to answer that question here..

Literal snake in the Garden of Eden?

"Upon your belly you shall go". So was the 'serpent' initially standing upright?

Yeah I know.. It's more of a figure of speech...

You will find the answer for it in that link...

Just read that link and the more extensive link alluded to in the OP...What a ding-dong you and Jac had: great debate! I'm sad to have missed it, but fear I wouldn't have been able to contribute much more to what was an excellent debate. I ultimately fall down with you on the serpent not being a literal snake.

[coldblood]

dayage » I pointed out only that Genesis says it was a serpent. If the serpent had been Satan in disguise, or whatever, it would have been easy enough for the author to have said as much. The Book of Job, probably written around the same time as the Book of Genesis, mentions Satan by name more than any other OT Book, and it also tells of God using Satan as a tempter. So if these were accepted beliefs about Satan around the time of the writing of Genesis, it is curious that the Genesis author would choose to leave out any mention of Satan. The author points out that the serpent was clever, which would have made the serpent an ideal apparition for Satan to utilize. That it was Satan would have been an extremely important and fundamental part of the story. Yet, the author opts for omission.

BTW in Job, Satan hardly seems cursed; rather he is described as one of the members of the court of heaven, a heavenly prosecutor if you like, whom God entices to tempt Job. Actually, the concept of Satan as the profoundly evil devil, arch enemy of God who is totally dedicated to the destruction of everyone's lives, apparently did not enter the Jewish religion until somewhere around 300-200 BC.

BTW, too, Satan is not mentioned in Ezekiel. Assuming the mockery of the king of Tyre to be about Satan would be an example of using one assumption to prove another.

But I get your drift. The serpent wasn't literally a serpent, but it was somehow Satan; the curse wasn't literally a curse, Satan doesn't truly crawl on his stomach; and enmity between species doesn't literally refer to human descendants stepping on vipers, but to the cosmic battle between good and evil. I get it.

I recognize there are elaborate and complex, explanations and stretches offered in various efforts to make the claim that the passage in Genesis does not really mean what it says. I have no argument with anyone who wishes to do that. Over the centuries mainstream religious developments have evolved to the belief that it was, indeed, Satan tempting Eve in the guise of the serpent.

I am not disagreeing. As far as I know, all such arguments are correct. As far as I know, too, Eve could have been talking to a frog. And should anyone wish to construct a roundabout argument to show that it was indeed a frog, that would be fine with me. Everyone has the right to choose what they prefer to believe. I only pointed out what Genesis says.

[Kurieuo]

dayage » I pointed out only that Genesis says it was a serpent. If the serpent had been Satan in disguise, or whatever, it would have been easy enough for the author to have said as much. The Book of Job, probably written around the same time as the Book of Genesis, mentions Satan by name more than any other OT Book, and it also tells of God using Satan as a tempter. So if these were accepted beliefs about Satan around the time of the writing of Genesis, it is curious that the Genesis author would choose to leave out any mention of Satan. The author points out that the serpent was clever, which would have made the serpent an ideal apparition for Satan to utilize. That it was Satan would have been an extremely important and fundamental part of the story. Yet, the author opts for omission.

I find it hard to believe the serpent is anyone other than Satan personified. Adhering to a canonical hermeneutic which appeals to God's authorship of all Scripture will lead one to conclude this particularly from reading Revelation 12 (cf. Rev 12:9) which is a fulfilment of the prophecy in Genesis 3:15.

Of course, you can feel free to ignore what would otherwise appear to be a mysterious passage.

[dayage]

coldblood,

The idea that the people in Moses' day would not know that the serpent was a spiritual being and was an actual snake, is an assumption on your part. Genesis three flows directly into the genealogies in chapters 4 and 5.

God told Eve that there would be enmity between the serpent's (Satan's) seed and her seed. Satan was a liar (Gen. 3:4) and a murderer (spiritual, Gen. 3:7-10).

Genesis 4 and 5 should be seen as part of this opposition between the seeds. Cain became the seed of Satan (he murdered and lied Gen. 4:8-9). Seth became the new seed of the woman, replacing Abel (Gen. 4:25). These are the Godly and ungodly lines.

These genealogies (Gen. 4 & 5) are highly selective in order to bring out this theological point. So, in the second generation we find Cain set against Seth. In the fifth generation there is Mehujael (meaning - Smitten by God) set against Mahalalel (Praise of God). In the seventh generation we find Lamech (a polygamist and murderer) in opposition to Enoch (who walked with God).

Even the Lamechs in the two genealogies seem to be a comparison/contrast. In Genesis 4 Lamech is the only one who speaks, his offspring produce activities (work) and there are three sevens connected with judgments (Gen. 4:24). The Lamech of Genesis 5 is also the only one of his line to speak, but his offspring is to bring rest (Gen. 5:29) and the three sevens here are connected with life.

In Job the Hebrew transliterates into English as ha satan. This translates as The Adversary or The Opposer. He does not sound like the nice guy you refer to. Just because, in Genesis, he is not given that name means nothing. He has many titles: The serpent (of old), the devil, satan (the adversary), the great dragon, the accuser, the evil one, etc.

Also, in Job, God points to Job as a righteous man, but it is satan's idea to do him harm, not just tempt him.

For the serpent to be an actual snake you would have to prove that the Bible teaches that animals are moral agents.

You would also have to show that an animal can speak to humans without supernatural intervention (Numbers 22:28). Since the serpent speaks, heads the line of the wicked, has moral agency and is identified as the devil, in later scriptures, then you have no case for it being an animal. In my opinion.

Ezekiel 28 uses inaugurated eschatology, linking the near and the distant (also see Is. 14:12-14 and Daniel 11:29-35). Verse 14 references the "anointed cherub" and verse 16 the "covering cherub." Cherub are angels, not men (Genesis 3:24; etc.). This cherubs heart was lifted up because of pride (Ezek. 28:15-17; Is. 14:12-14; the devil's pride is warned against in 1 Timothy 3:6).

[Proinsias]

What?
Pros, I don't mean this to be insulting, but you have one of the most convoluted grasps of analogies I've ever seen.
Do you understand the basics of analogies and their use in the English language?

Just because someone uses the refining of metals as an analogy to explain the human condition, does not mean that these two things have all things in common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

I'm glad to see someone finally made the point that evil is not required for free choice. Great points by Bart, BW and Danny.

No probs, you're certainly not insulting me.

It just doesn't make much sense to me. If one can be insane and make some mistakes when refining precious metals I don't see how this supports the notion that the creator of the human condition was perfectly sane and didn't make any mistakes.

I do understand that analogies are not meant to be perfectly similar, as they would no longer be analogies. I didn't find the analogy B.W used to be of much use to me though, it's not the first time I've mulled over it as I've been doing quite a bit chatting with B.W as you know and recently read his book - which, incidentally is quite a read!. Even if I do find an analogy to be of great use I often find that examining the differences is as useful as running with the similarities. An analogy which one finds unhelpful can become helpful when one attempts to covey why it is unhelpful - you'll probably come up with a few analogies whilst doing so.

[DannyM]

I've been doing quite a bit chatting with B.W as you know and recently read his book - which, incidentally is quite a read!

I hope B.W. does not mind me asking you, Pro, what book is this?

[coldblood]

dayage »

The idea that the people in Moses' day would not know that the serpent was a spiritual being and was an actual snake, is an assumption on your part. Genesis three flows directly into the genealogies in chapters 4 and 5.

That is not my idea, but you do make a point for it being a serpent. That is, they knew the serpent was a supernatural being, but for a curious reasoning known only to them they chose not to say so.

God told Eve that there would be enmity between the serpent's (Satan's) seed and her seed. Satan was a liar (Gen. 3:4) and a murderer (spiritual, Gen. 3:7-10).

The serpent actually was a liar. The serpent said they would not die; yet, perhaps 900 or so years later, they just up and died. Now, God had told them that they would die the very day they ate of the tree. And, of course, God spoke the truth.

Also, I have not checked this out, but I do not recall where Satan killed anyone. God smote a few, and he ordered the Israelites to carry out a few holy atrocities; but did Satan kill anyone directly? Just asking.

I can accept that Satan tempted people to murder, but I always thought that it was God's defective creation, i.e., humankind, who chose by free will to carry out Satan's bidding.

Genesis 4 and 5 should be seen as part of this opposition between the seeds. Cain became the seed of Satan (he murdered and lied Gen. 4:8-9). Seth became the new seed of the woman . . . ” etc.

“Seed” refers to the genetic line and I doubt Satan became, genetically speaking, a part of either the human line or the serpent line.

Well, maybe. I think there is some thought given to interbreeding with the Nephilim or whatever, but I think Cain is still considered to be 100% the genetic son of Adam and Eve. Anyway, Cain comes later; the only two species involved at the time of the curse were those of the humans and that of the serpent.

God did not say, “Eve, I will place an enmity between your sons and an enmity between the descendants of your sons"; although it would have been easy enough for him to say exactly that, had that been what he meant.

In Job the Hebrew transliterates into English as ha satan. This translates as The Adversary or The Opposer. He does not sound like the nice guy you refer to. Just because, in Genesis, he is not given that name means nothing. He has many titles: The serpent (of old), the devil, satan (the adversary), the great dragon, the accuser, the evil one, etc.
Also, in Job, God points to Job as a righteous man, but it is satan's idea to do him harm, not just tempt him.

I never thought Satan was a nice guy. From the beginning Satan was doubting and cynical of innocent Job; and, worse, he was willing to carry out any horrific torture against Job that he could get God to sanction.

Actually, the Book of Job does not portray God, himself, in the most flattering light. For example, God allows Job's children to be killed. Although God does give Job some replacement children, I am not sure this would be satisfactory to many people. For some insightful questions about God's nature raised by the Book of Job, you may enjoy reading something like: “Answer to Job,” by Carl Jung.

For the serpent to be an actual snake you would have to prove that the Bible teaches that animals are moral agents.

You would also have to show that an animal can speak to humans without supernatural intervention . . .

No, I wouldn't. That is about as silly as saying for Genesis to be true you must prove that serpents can speak. It makes no difference whether it is with or without supernatural intervention; all you need to do is show, here and now, that serpents can speak.

Actually, were I allowed to use 21st century technology; I probably could create an electro/mechanical animation capable of passing as a talking snake to the people of ancient times. And there would be nothing supernatural or natural about that.

For you to show anything supernatural exists, all you need to do is prove it exists. However, proving that or any part of Genesis, other than it being futile, is far beyond the scope and intent of my original post. I only meant to say that, although the author of Genesis may have known of Satan, he never mentions Satan. Instead, he says it was a serpent.

[coldblood]

Kurieuo »

Of course, you can feel free to ignore what would otherwise appear to be a mysterious passage.

It is no more mysterious than the opening passage -- or many, many other passages.

I find it hard to believe the serpent is anyone other than Satan personified. Adhering to a canonical hermeneutic which appeals to God's authorship of all Scripture will lead one to conclude this particularly from reading Revelation 12 (cf. Rev 12:9) which is a fulfilment of the prophecy in Genesis 3:15.

Of course. By the first century the idea of Satan as the ultimate boogeyman was firmly entrenched in the Jewish religion. Had it been so at the writing of Genesis, the author may clearly have stated that Satan created the illusion of a snake. However, it wasn't and the author didn't.

Adhering to a canonical hermeneutic . . .

Is that why you believe the Bible? Because “man” has declared it to be true?

[dayage]

coldblood,

That is not my idea, but you do make a point for it being a serpent. That is, they knew the serpent was a supernatural being, but for a curious reasoning known only to them they chose not to say so.

So are you agreeing with me, or do you think that it was a physical animal?

Now, God had told them that they would die the very day they ate of the tree. And, of course, God spoke the truth.

Your right, God did tell the truth. They died spiritually that day. They only died physically because God removed them from the Tree of Life, so that Jesus could one day die in their place.

Also, I have not checked this out, but I do not recall where Satan killed anyone.

He murdered them spiritually (caused them to sin) and therefore he separated them from God. But, then again maybe your right and scripture is wrong (John 8:44).

“Seed” refers to the genetic line and I doubt Satan became, genetically speaking, a part of either the human line or of the serpent line.

Why do you not study before making these types of comments. I gave a whole list of scriptures that show Satan's fatherhood and it was not genetic.

God did not say, “Eve, I will an enmity between your sons and grandchildren; although it would have been easy enough for him to say exactly that, had that been what he meant.

Seed zera means descendants. It is not limited to the next generstion. Or maybe you know of children that Abraham had that the rest of us don't (Genesis 22:16-18).

And by the way, the Hebrew word for son, garandson/grandchildren, etc is the word ben. I've shown before that people 14 generations apart are still considered father and son.

For some insightful questions about God's nature raised by the Book of Job, you may enjoy reading something like: “Answer to Job,” by Carl Jung.

I didn't realize that he was a theologian.

That makes about as silly as saying for Genesis to be true you must prove that serpents can speak. It makes no difference whether it is with or without supernatural intervention; all you need to do is show, here and now, that serpents can speak.

No, you are putting forth an interpretation. You must demonstrate that there is a Biblical baisis for believing that interpretation. The Bible does not support animals being moral agents or being able to speak without supernatural intervention.

Actually, were I allowed to use 21st century technology; I probably could create an apparition capable of passing as a talking snake to people of ancient times. And there would be nothing supernatural or natural about that.

You would have to be able to make a living snake that could speak, not a robot or a hologram.

I only meant to say that, although the author of Genesis may have known of Satan, he never mentions Satan. Instead, he says it was a serpent.

The Old Testament does not use the term Devil. That does not mean that the Devil and Satan are not the same being. THE SERPENT (ha satan) is just another title for the same being.

[coldblood]

dayage »

So are you agreeing with me, or do you think that it was a physical animal?

I complement you on some good answers and thank you for the dialog. If you are asking what “I think,” that is an entirely different topic from what I intended to post. I can say first that I do not know. There are Babylonian creation stories, which parallel the Biblical creation stories in many aspects; which probably means they were drawn from the same source or that one was adapted from the other. There is disagreement about which came first, but the point is in the Babylonian tale there is also a snake, and the Babylonian snake is entirely a metaphor for the supernatural. So here is some extracurricular roundabout support for your position that the snake was merely symbolic. Also, as you have shown, you can draw from “later” Biblical texts to support this position.

Your right, God did tell the truth. They died spiritually that day. They only died physically because God removed them from the Tree of Life, so that Jesus could one day die in their place.

Now wait. God did not say they would die "spiritually" that day, and neither is that the concept Eve seemed to have. The Bible is good enough if you will think about it, but you do not need to insert into it little words and reaches to force it to conform to what you prefer to believe. You could equally insert double entendre to make the serpent's words true. But, you wouldn't accept that, would you? So you should play it fair. And do not feel threatened for it is my belief that, if you do, in the end the Bible will support you.

He murdered them spiritually (caused them to sin) and therefore he separated them from God. But, then again maybe your right and scripture is wrong (John 8:44).
Why do you not study before making these types of comments. I gave a whole list of scriptures that show Satan's fatherhood and it was not genetic.

You were mixing apples and oranges, genetics with spiritual idealism. I wanted to separate them. Genesis (as in cursing your descendants) reads genetic. John 8:42-44 (as in God's children) reads spiritual. I just wanted to keep your semantics consistent.

God did not say, “Eve, I will place an enmity between your sons and an enmity between the descendants of your sons"; although it would have been easy enough for him to say exactly that, had that been what he meant.

Seed zera means descendants. It is not limited to the next generstion. Or maybe you know of children that Abraham had that the rest of us don't (Genesis 22:16-18).

Sorry. That was worded badly. See my correction above.

And by the way, the Hebrew word for son, garandson/grandchildren, etc is the word ben. I've shown before that people 14 generations apart are still considered father and son.

Interesting, and I did not know that. Thank you.

I didn't realize that he [Carl Jung} was a theologian.

And, too, you may be very uncomfortable considering questions that were not packaged in a just-so manner to suit your preferences. If your faith is not all that strong, you will probably be better off sticking to theologians. Carl Jung was a psychiatrist and a thinker; and that is not exactly everyone's cup of tea.

The Bible does not support animals being moral agents or being able to speak without supernatural intervention.

Remember, I referred only to Genesis and the literal reading of Genesis. And within those parameters, the Bible DOES mention a serpent who speaks and beguiles.

You would have to be able to make a living snake that could speak, not a robot or a hologram.

I do not think so. I think some of today's gadgets could appear “alive” to a completely naive person of antiquity.

The Old Testament does not use the term Devil. That does not mean that the Devil and Satan are not the same being. THE SERPENT (ha satan) is just another title for the same being.

This is true. The idea of Satan, as the Totally Evil Rascal that he is, evolved over the centuries and appears to have entered Judaism from the Zoroastrian religion somewhere around 300 BC; and, eventually, from there into Christianity and Islam.

[Kurieuo]

Adhering to a canonical hermeneutic . . .

Is that why you believe the Bible? Because “man” has declared it to be true?

No "man" made the Bible canonical. Please enlighten us with who if you think otherwise.

As for my beliefs with reading Scripture, I see no issue with taking each book and trying to understand the original meaning as the authors intended. Christian belief need not be built upon the presupposition that all Scripture is true, but rather a open examination of Christ and claims surrounding Him.

[dayage]

coldblood,

There are Babylonian creation stories, which parallel the Biblical creation stories in many aspects; which probably means they were drawn from the same source or that one was adapted from the other. There is disagreement about which came first, but the point is in the Babylonian tale there is also a snake, and the Babylonian snake is entirely a metaphor for the supernatural. So here is some extracurricular roundabout support for your position that the snake was merely symbolic. Also, as you have shown, you can draw from “later” Biblical texts to support this position.

I reread the Babylonian Myth, since it had been a while. It is called the Enuma Elish. It is very unlike the Genesis account. There is no one snake in the story:

Made in addition weapons invincible; she spawned monster-serpents,
Sharp of tooth, and merciless of fang;
With poison, instead of blood, she filled their bodies.
Fierce monster-vipers she clothed with terror,
With splendor she decked them, she made them of lofty stature.
Whoever beheld them, terror overcame him,
Their bodies reared up and none could withstand their attack.
She set up vipers and dragons, and the monster Lahamu,
And hurricanes, and raging hounds, and scorpion-men,
And mighty tempests, and fish-men, and rams;

This is nothing like the serpent in Genesis.

Now wait. God did not say they would die "spiritually" that day, and neither is that the concept Eve seemed to have.

The Bible speaks of many different kinds of death, but does not list them as physical, spiritual, etc. The context determines which one it is. They became separated from God as soon as Adam ate. They felt shame, hid from God and denied responsibility for their sin. This is spiritual death. Paul makes this distinction in Romans 5 he talks about the spiritual death that came through Adam and in 1 Cor. 15:20-22 he talks about the physical death which came through Adam. The spiritual death he connects with Adam's sinning, but the physical death he does not.

You were mixing apples and oranges, genetics with spiritual idealism. I wanted to separate them. Genesis (as in cursing your descendants) reads genetic. John 8:42-44 (as in God's children) reads spiritual.

I used John as added support for my position. The writer of Genesis showed the spiritual nature of the two seeds by following it up with the contrasting genealogies of Genesis 4 and 5. Why contrast these two lines (see my earlier post) if that was not the point. Also notice that it is not strictly genetic, even in the genealogies. Genesis 4:20-21you have men fathering technologies and by extention the people who practice these technologies.

God did not say, “Eve, I will place an enmity between your sons and an enmity between the descendants of your sons"; although it would have been easy enough for him to say exactly that, had that been what he meant.

Genesis 3:20: "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living."

I already knew who Jung was. I was being rhetorical.

Remember, I referred only to Genesis and the literal reading of Genesis. And within those parameters, the Bible DOES mention a serpent who speaks and beguiles.

Literal, means the point that the author was trying to make. This is determined by context, among other things. That is why I do not believe the serpent could be an animal and must be a personal being.

I do not think so. I think some of today's gadgets could appear “alive” to a completely naive person of antiquity.

Either your leaning towards it being a supernatural being, or your hinting at UFO's/alien technologies. Biblically, it either has to be an animal or a supernatural being. It could be an animal possessed by a supernatural being, but I believe it to be a supernatural being in disguise.

This is true. The idea of Satan, as the Totally Evil Rascal that he is, evolved over the centuries and appears to have entered Judaism from the Zoroastrian religion somewhere around 300 BC; and, eventually, from there into Christianity and Islam

Can you show me some ancient Jewish sources to back that up.