The snake in the garden of eden

[_consiglieri]

I'm pretty sure neither ha-Satan nor Satan are animals.

First, I want you to know I understand the point of your OP that Satan is nowhere mentioned (or even intimated) in the Eden story.

But the presence of a serpent is interesting on a number of levels, as Just Me has pointed out.

We are likely to read the story incorrectly if we see the serpent as a symbol of evil, a symbolism it likely did not have to the author of Genesis.

Rather, the serpent is a symbol of eternal life and resurrection, probably because of the manner in which it sloughs its skin and emerges new and shiny from the old discarded body.

Also, the serpent has long been a symbol of wisdom. The KJV translates this as "crafty" which gives the wisdom a negative impression to modern readers. The KJV does a better job when it has Jesus tell his followers to be "wise as serpents."

But when we understand not only that the serpent is a symbol of eternal life/resurrection, but also of wisdom, we can read the story with new eyes when the serpent advises Adam and Eve to eat so that they may gain wisdom (also), and assures them they will not die.

I mean, if you can't believe a serpent on either of these issues, who can you trust?

In this way, the serpent is a natural symbol of Jesus, or in this case, perhaps of somebody imitating the attributes of Jesus in order to deceive. If this is so, the serpent in Eden could be viewed as the first "anti-Christ" mentioned in the Bible, the word "anti" meaning not just one who is opposed, but one who rivals by imitation.

Of course, I grant you this is only possible by viewing the Old Testament through Christian eyes.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

On top of that, when they eat the fruit they DON'T die. This effectively makes the God in the story a liar.

Yes it does, and the Gnostics took advantage of this part of the story to argue that the Old Testament God was an inferior, ignorant and rebellious "demi-urge," not the true God at all.

I find it interesting this wrinkle appears to have been noticed by Lehi who, almost parenthetically in his 2 Nephi 2 sermon, states that after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, their days were lengthened in order to give them a probationary state in which to repent. I can't help but think Lehi was trying to find a way out of this particular problem while leaving the Old Testament God the true God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Hoops]

Do you know what the word in the original text meant?

I think it means "shining one" or "one that is illuminated" or something along there. Which, of course, is a reasonable precursor to a snake, given what a snake might look like, but I'm not sure it has to limited to a snake. Still, the text does not read snake, nor does require specifically snake within the understanding of serpent.

Of course I know you know that Lucifer is the "bright shinging star" so the jump to Satan being/inhabiting the serpent is an easy one.

Also, given that Satan is called "serpent" in other places, it's not even sure that this was an animal at all. Just some thoughts to ponder.

[_Buffalo]

Do you know what the word in the original text meant?

I think it means "shining one" or "one that is illuminated" or something along there. Which, of course, is a reasonable precursor to a snake, given what a snake might look like, but I'm not sure it has to limited to a snake. Still, the text does not read snake, nor does require specifically snake within the understanding of serpent.

Of course I know you know that Lucifer is the "bright shinging star" so the jump to Satan being/inhabiting the serpent is an easy one.

Also, given that Satan is called "serpent" in other places, it's not even sure that this was an animal at all. Just some thoughts to ponder.

Lucifer isn't Satan either, Hoops. Just sayin.

And yes, it was an animal:

Genesis 3

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

[_Hoops]

On top of that, when they eat the fruit they DON'T die. This effectively makes the God in the story a liar.

I missed this the first time Just_Me. I disagree.

Why do A&E have to die immedately? They do, of course, die eventually. Is there some time limit on when a curse need be carried out?But some other things to consider:

There's no reason to assume that A&E have any concept of death when given this prohibition. Perhaps they did, perhaps not. Yet, when they ate from the tree, what did they do first? Kill animals to make coverings for themselves. Death was introduced, as was sacrifice. They were ashamed, probably another new concept with which to wrestle.

Additionaly, since there had been no death, one must wonder what time was like. One might say that their clock started ticking when they killed the first animal. Given that they could have been in the garden for quite a long time, the 900 (or so) years that Adam lived may be quite short in comparison - or uncomparable. (should this be "in"?)

[_Hoops]

Lucifer isn't Satan either, Hoops. Just sayin.

And yes, it was an animal:

Genesis 3

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

Oh I agree. I'm just sayin' to.

[_consiglieri]

Why do A&E have to die immedately? They do, of course, die eventually. Is there some time limit on when a curse need be carried out?

In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.

[_just me]

On top of that, when they eat the fruit they DON'T die. This effectively makes the God in the story a liar.

I missed this the first time Just_Me. I disagree.

Why do A&E have to die immedately? They do, of course, die eventually. Is there some time limit on when a curse need be carried out?But some other things to consider:

There's no reason to assume that A&E have any concept of death when given this prohibition. Perhaps they did, perhaps not. Yet, when they ate from the tree, what did they do first? Kill animals to make coverings for themselves. Death was introduced, as was sacrifice. They were ashamed, probably another new concept with which to wrestle.

Additionaly, since there had been no death, one must wonder what time was like. One might say that their clock started ticking when they killed the first animal. Given that they could have been in the garden for quite a long time, the 900 (or so) years that Adam lived may be quite short in comparison - or uncomparable. (should this be "in"?)

So you do not read that passage literally. How did you decide not to? How can we trust the words in the Bible if they rarely mean what they actually say?

How come you believe that there was no death before the fall? Maybe that was not literal, either.

Can dying of old age and natural causes really be considered a curse?

[_Hoops]

So you do not read that passage literally. How did you decide not to? How can we trust the words in the Bible if they rarely mean what they actually say?

How come you believe that there was no death before the fall? Maybe that was not literal, either.

Can dying of old age and natural causes really be considered a curse?

How am I not reading it literally? I'm assuming your referencing "...on that DAY you will surely die." Fair enough. I believe a better rendering of the phrase (by the hebrew) would be "...on that day you will begin to die." so, yes, a literal reading of it works quite nicely.

And dying of old age, since before the curse there was no age, surely would be a curse.

[_just me]

So you do not read that passage literally. How did you decide not to? How can we trust the words in the Bible if they rarely mean what they actually say?

How come you believe that there was no death before the fall? Maybe that was not literal, either.

Can dying of old age and natural causes really be considered a curse?

How am I not reading it literally? I'm assuming your referencing "...on that DAY you will surely die." Fair enough. I believe a better rendering of the phrase (by the hebrew) would be "...on that day you will begin to die." so, yes, a literal reading of it works quite nicely.

And dying of old age, since before the curse there was no age, surely would be a curse.

Surely die and begin to die are very different. Do you have any references for your interpretation/translation?