ok here's some questions i hav after reading the genesis in the OT. In the copy of holy bible i read there's only one version about creation.

1. a christian i know says that the snake in the story represents the devil...so my question is this...if the snake itself did not really tempt eve into eating the apple(like this christian said, the devil made himself appear as the snake), so it's not the "snake's" fault but the devil's...so why did god punish the whole species of the snakes by taking away their limbs???(ok i might be wrong about this...forgot the exact punishment god gave...but god made it so that the snake will hav to lie with their stomachs on the ground forever or somthing like that)

2. adam and eve...the ancestors of mankind..gave birth to cain and abel....then cain had a wife...Q: where did his wife come from?? (after cain and abel, adam and eve gave birth to another male, and that was after cain had his wife)

I suggest you get yourself a Bible Commentary. It will explain all. If you don't want to buy one there are plenty of ones on the web. Just look up Bible Commentaries in any search engine or go here

If you actually read the passage (the present continuous verb implies a recent perusal of them) how did you forget the snake's punishment so quickly?

If you are interested in these problems, see the magazine Biblical Errancy at:

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

Michael

from genesis 3:14........
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life


ok this is the verse i was talking about i just wasn't sure if i was totally correct because i read it once only. I guess nobody is going to answer my 2 questions but.....is my first question at least a good example to show the falsity of the bible? if u dont think so then please explain to me why its not

[This message has been edited by iamgod (edited April 23, 2001).]

RW: How many versions were you anticipating?

rw: Good question. Here's what the bible says about the serpent, (which might not even be a snake as we understand snakes):Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

It's clear that the serpent was a beast of the field and not satan literally. Even though there is no reference to him being or becoming the figure of satan, he is depicted as a type of diabolical temptation, sort of an allegorical reference such that he or it wasn't acting alone but under satanic influence.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


According to this text Adam actually named the serpent after God brought it to him,(in the garden). I know the text doesn't actually say "in the garden" but that is where Adam had been placed by God so there's no reason to suspect Adam was not in the garden when the serpent was brought to be named. This is critical in understanding how the serpent became a pawn in an attack against God's plans for Adam. The garden was obviously a most beautiful and desirable place to be. Even the fruit of the moral tree was depicted as desirable and pleasant to look upon. So there's reason to suspect the serpent, being subtle, would want to gain control or access into the garden. I say this because one of God's first instructions to Adam, after having placed him in the garden, was to tend and to "keep" it.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

The "keep it" aspect of this text refers to protecting and guarding it. So there is a good possibility that there may have been competition for its control, a competition in which the serpent may have played a role.

The "serpent" was no stranger to Adam and had actually been in the garden but, apparently, was now kept outside its perimeter. As we can see from the text below Eve and the serpent were somewhere on the edge of the garden when their conversation ensued.

Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

There is a definite boundary implied in this that the serpent was not allowed access to. Now let’s look at this:


Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman,

We know that some snakes display an amazing ability to "charm" their prey into remaining complacent while they approach within striking distance. We also know there's never been, to my knowledge, a reptile capable of human speech. In addition, Eve appears not to be alarmed by this creature's capacity to communicate complex concepts of which even she seemed to have no prior knowledge. So we have a creature capable of a subtle approach to Eve, utilizing very complex traits of speech and inside information to plant thoughts into her mind...doubts about God and His motives for keeping her from something she had already displayed an urge to indulge in, so much so, that a second commandment had been issued that she and Adam were not "to even touch the fruit of that tree".

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

So it seems the initial command not to eat this fruit had been expanded, somewhere along the way, to include touching. It is also evident that Eve was familiar with the tree and knew its location further supporting a conclusion that the initial command had to be expanded to include touching..

What we have here is a creature, naturally spell binding, apparently in collusion with satan, engaging in activities that could be labeled paranormal, at least, with a definite purpose behind it. It begins by challenging her knowledge of God’s instructions.

“And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

In other words, didn’t God tell you not to eat any fruit from any tree in the garden?”

The serpent wastes no time dancing around the issue but goes strait for the jugular and refers her attention to “eating” rather than just looking or touching. The concept of “eating”, of taking into oneself for digestion and sustenance, the fruit of the moral tree. Since all activities that involve a moral choice PRODUCE consequences or “fruit” there is a correlation to this and what happens when we attempt to sustain our selves by tampering with right and wrong, i.e. by attempting to make wrong right and right wrong. We call this “ rationalizing”.

Since all morality is contained in KNOWLEDGE of what is right or wrong, this tree of the “KNOWLEDGE of good and evil represents the concept of morality. As I said earlier any situation that involves a moral choice produces FRUIT or, more specifically, consequences. So we can see that God’s command not to EAT the FRUIT of this tree was designed to prevent us from tampering with the consequences of morality. A good example would be a nation making murder legal under specific circumstances such as when a person doesn’t wish to be hampered with the responsibility of a baby. Murder, under any circumstance is WRONG. The consequences are devastating to both the victim and the perpetrator, both emotionally and spiritually. But when folks tamper with the consequences, rationalizing it to be GOOD or o’kay, they are breaking this commandment and dire consequences are forthcoming as a matter of reality.

Now to your conclusion that God was unjust in cursing the serpent for his role in Eve’s temptation, what we have here is a serpent being made into an example of the consequences of giving oneself over completely to evil. What this is, this serpent who could move about in some fashion other than on it’s belly; who could reason and communicate with humans, with this curse upon it, is equivalent to strong biblical evidence for negative evolution. If you know anything at all about evolution you know that it doesn’t always lead to positive results but can also lead to aberrations as well. Although the serpent is one of the oldest living reptiles and thus has managed to survive where others have become extinct, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it has progressed in any evolutionary advance of its species. There is, and should be, more to life than just survival of the species. But the serpent hasn’t lost its subtility.


rw: That Adam was the first man on earth is not supported by these text. In fact, there’s more reason to suspect that Adam represents a new species of man, a special intervention of God, to create a type of man “in His image” and, progressively, “after His likeness”.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name Adam, in the day when they were created.

If I was going to answer your question the first thing I would do would be to find a couple of Christian Bible Commentaries. I would look up the verses and read the Commentaries about them and then answer your question.
But I'm sure you're capable of reading a Commenatary for yourself, so if you see my above post there is a link to some.
If you consult multiple Christian Commentaries (the atheist ones doen't count) and still feel your questions are not answered then ask then again and say why they weren't answered to your satisfaction, and I'll give you my answer.