Freethought & Rationalism Archive

R.J. · 11-08-2003, 05:08 PM

Does anybody have any comments on the following exchange about Gen. 3:16 in regard to an article which showed that Christianity came from mythology & paganism??:
-----------------------------------------------
Christian apologist:
Whoever wrote this article has the cart before the horse. Backwards thinking. The examples listed are all national offshoots of the religion started in Babylon, hundreds, and thousands of years before. Yet even 2000 years before that (Nimrod's Babylon), was the first prophecy of Jesus Christ in the garden of Eden. These religions are counterfeits of the religion of Jesus Christ. However, some examples such as Dec. 25th, are just evidence of Christian Apostasy, as these counterfeit pagan ways crept into a fallen church taking on "Christian" names. But the fact remains, the true religion of Jesus Christ predates the Babylonian Pagan religions by 2000 years.

Skeptic:
What's the Bible verse for "the first prophecy of Jesus Christ in the garden of Eden."??

Christian apologist:
Genesis 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.

Skeptic:
Why do you say that that verse prophetizes Jesus Christ??

Christian apologist:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity (Deep-seated, mutual hatred. Make enemies.) between thee (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between thy seed (children of Satan) and her seed (Jesus Christ); it shall bruise thy head, (Satan will be defeated. Bruise to the head, meaning it is fatal.) and thou (Satan) shalt bruise his (Jesus) heel. (but Satan shall bruise Jesus. Arresting, beating, and causing to be killed. Bruise to the heel is not fatal as would be a bruise to the head, as Jesus rose from the dead.)
en�mi�ty n. Deep-seated, often mutual hatred.
[Middle English enemite, from Old French enemistie, from Vulgar Latin *inim[]cit[]s, from Latin inim[]cus, enemy. See enemy.]
Synonyms: enmity, hostility, antagonism, animosity, rancor, antipathy, animus

Skeptic:
The only thing that you've done is to make unwarranted assumptions to fit your biases, because there's NO evidence that "her seed" refers to Jesus Christ!! ALSO, assuming that there's an all-powerful "God" who's always existed, why would "God" address the "serpent" instead of the "Devil"??

excreationist · 11-08-2003, 05:43 PM

About the larger context:

Quote:

Genesis 3:14-15
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.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

So the serpent person is an animal. Some translations call it a "snake". Apparently snakes literally do eat dust (AiG link). It seems that 3:15 is also literal - snakes and people don't get along very well, and snakes do attack people's heels while people crush their heads...

It seems that the intelligence of the snake was its own - it doesn't say anything about it being possessed by Satan.

Quote:

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'?"

Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 talks about the devil being an "ancient serpent" but that had a different author and doesn't prove that the other authors of the Bible thought that the snake in eden was possessed by Satan. Apparently Jewish people believe it was just a snake, not Satan. I think the Quran talks about Satan being in the garden, rather than a snake.

Note that Paul(?) didn't seem to think that Satan was involved in Eden:

Quote:

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

11-08-2003, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by R.J.

Genesis 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.

The emnity here is between two serpents and they are the negative stand and therefore the driving force in the rout of creation. One of these serpents presides over the subconscious mind and the other is in charge of the conscious mind. The first one is called "woman" and second one is called "Eve" and so the emnity is between "woman" and "Eve." Woman is later called Mary and Eve is Magdalene. This subjugation of authority is what the free will argument is based on and until the lesser serpent is raised into the tree of knowledge humans will be determined creatures.

Woman is from the tree of life and Eve is from the tree of knowledge and to gain power, wealth and beauty (as was foreseen by woman in Gen.3:6) the greater serpent strikes at the head of the lesser serpent lesser who in turn strikes at the heel of Adam [the hero] to search for gold, lapis lazuli and bdellium (here called food, beauty and wisdom).

Doctor X · 11-09-2003, 12:10 PM

The serpent is a trickster character. He is not Satan--certainly as a figure in Job or in Chronicles. He is at best a "satan"--stn--in that he is a stumbling block that trips up Eve.

--J.D.

11-09-2003, 12:37 PM

Serpent must always be she's to have offspring and this offspring can be masculine. Serpents are are like vacuums and must be impregnated to form ideas.

DrJim · 11-09-2003, 12:58 PM

R.J.
The apologist's quote you offered is rather odd. It is trying to turn the archaeological evidence that suggests Genesis is a hebrew version of a Mesopotamian myth upside down.
Teh skeptic should have asked for proof the Biblical text is as old as claimed (can't do it, no physical evidence, not even any evidence of Hebrew 2000 years before Genesis was written, ca. middle of 1st millenium bce).

Curiously, the 2nd century bce book of Jubilees, which rewrites the Genesis story, does not call the serpent in the garden "Satan". it is just a snake. Even though Jubilees frequently retells bible stories with Satan or "Mastema" taking the role of God! It is Mastema who entices Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, for instance. If there was a program to demonize history, then why leave the snake be a snake?

Moreover, Jubilees says ALL the animals in Eden could talk, and so Genesis' 'crafty' serpent has no special status vis-a-vis the other critters. Tehy all lost the ability to speak when they were thrown out of paradise with Adam and Eve. (Jubilees also refrains from climing humanity was made in the image of God, IIRC).

Now it seems that Christianity has only one of many ancient understandings of the Garden of Eden story. Christian claims are relative, not absolute.

Most curious is the apparent word play between the people being "naked" and the snake "Crafty" = )ARUM. (2:25 & 3:1)
As the crafty trickster snake may have intended, the "Naked" people eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge... hmmm. Seems to be a lot going on here, mythically speaking..

I think maybe we have something of a Prometheus myth: of humanity attaining knowledge we are not intended to have . Or since humanity was created "naked"/"crafty", perhaps it was a predestined theft...

I think the frequent revulsion people have for snakes is legitimized here as excreationist says. But one can perhaps see in this a symbol of the uneasy relationship people have with their own intelligence / wisdom. There is often an idealization of primal innocence: a childhood that cannot be maintained indefinitely.

Notice how the first city-builders, instrument makers, metalsmiths, in the Bible are the descendants of the first murderer, Cain, himself a farmer, and not pastoralist.

Intertestamental literature builds on this kind of theme, attributing human error to writing taught by fallen angels (ironic to write about that in a book, isn't it?)

If the apologist you've been talking too seems to abondon science, logic etc. then probably you are just seeing myth in motion...

JRL

Devilnaut · 11-09-2003, 01:59 PM

"Moreover, Jubilees says ALL the animals in Eden could talk, and so Genesis' 'crafty' serpent has no special status vis-a-vis the other critters. Tehy all lost the ability to speak when they were thrown out of paradise with Adam and Eve. "

I think the idea here is that in eden there is no impediment to communication between man and God, man and animals, or man and anything else. Man aquires knowledge and suddenly he can't understand animals or God because of the division it creates (knowledge requires binaries so it requires an overlapping 'consciousness' to filter experience). I think this is also the birth of 'representation' because if reality really is an undivided whole (where specific lines of distinction are technically arbitrary), then any division would cause the two halves to be "symbols" that only really refer to something real (and aren't "real" themselves). So this is the advent of tools, as in, conceptions of aspects of reality that can be consciously manipulated to improve upon a previous state of affairs (the ideas of "before" and "after" are also representations). So IMHO the serpent really embodies this conception, he is like a "shape" (another good synonym for symbol) that shows us potential.

I think Amos calls Eve's serpent "lesser" because although it is "form" (or shape, potential)... it is bounded (it is not ultimate potential, just 'certain' potential) and this is because it is tainted with representation (it is potential but also implicit is a preconception of that potential).

Doc X calls it a trickster and I think that is also important: if reality isn't divided then bounded potential is trickery.

The greater serpent is like the sea because it can be a vessel for anything and this is probably why we call women mysterious and why they are gifted with certain intuitions that aren't normally found in men.

"Notice how the first city-builders, instrument makers, metalsmiths, in the Bible are the descendants of the first murderer, Cain, himself a farmer, and not pastoralist."

That is interesting. I guess we could bring in the idea of competition here? It seems to me that reality is a 'cooperation' and knowledge requires a competition.

excreationist · 11-09-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrJim
R...Curiously, the 2nd century bce book of Jubilees, which rewrites the Genesis story, does not call the serpent in the garden "Satan". it is just a snake.

That's what Genesis says as well! (Some English translations say "snake" rather than "serpent")
But anyway, what such a recent book says seems irrelevant.... it would have little to do with the message the author(s) of Genesis were trying to convey.

Devilnaut · 11-09-2003, 05:14 PM

"But anyway, what such a recent book says seems irrelevant.... it would have little to do with the message the author(s) of Genesis were trying to convey."

Why?

excreationist · 11-09-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Devilnaut
"But anyway, what such a recent book says seems irrelevant.... it would have little to do with the message the author(s) of Genesis were trying to convey."

Why?

Well the author(s) of Genesis would have been around hundreds of years before the 2nd century bce book of Jubilees.... I guess some information that wasn't written down in Genesis could have been passed on... but I think there would be a good chance that this information could be changed or added to... And there is evidence of that... apparently Jubilees frequently retells bible stories with Satan or "Mastema" taking the role of God. That contradicts the Bible (it doesn't clarify it) since the Bible clearly says that God was involved.
The part about the serpent being a snake in Jubilees just confirms what I said about the author of Genesis intending the serpent/snake to be an ordinary non-possessed one.
The part about other animals talking is interesting but I don't think having that written in Jubilees necessarily proves that the author(s) of Genesis believed that too.

11-08-2003, 05:08 PM	#1
R.J. Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 42	Gen. 3:15 Does anybody have any comments on the following exchange about Gen. 3:16 in regard to an article which showed that Christianity came from mythology & paganism??: ----------------------------------------------- Christian apologist: Whoever wrote this article has the cart before the horse. Backwards thinking. The examples listed are all national offshoots of the religion started in Babylon, hundreds, and thousands of years before. Yet even 2000 years before that (Nimrod's Babylon), was the first prophecy of Jesus Christ in the garden of Eden. These religions are counterfeits of the religion of Jesus Christ. However, some examples such as Dec. 25th, are just evidence of Christian Apostasy, as these counterfeit pagan ways crept into a fallen church taking on "Christian" names. But the fact remains, the true religion of Jesus Christ predates the Babylonian Pagan religions by 2000 years. Skeptic: What's the Bible verse for "the first prophecy of Jesus Christ in the garden of Eden."?? Christian apologist: Genesis 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. Skeptic: Why do you say that that verse prophetizes Jesus Christ?? Christian apologist: Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity (Deep-seated, mutual hatred. Make enemies.) between thee (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between thy seed (children of Satan) and her seed (Jesus Christ); it shall bruise thy head, (Satan will be defeated. Bruise to the head, meaning it is fatal.) and thou (Satan) shalt bruise his (Jesus) heel. (but Satan shall bruise Jesus. Arresting, beating, and causing to be killed. Bruise to the heel is not fatal as would be a bruise to the head, as Jesus rose from the dead.) en�mi�ty n. Deep-seated, often mutual hatred. [Middle English enemite, from Old French enemistie, from Vulgar Latin *inim[]cit[]s, from Latin inim[]cus, enemy. See enemy.] Synonyms: enmity, hostility, antagonism, animosity, rancor, antipathy, animus Skeptic: The only thing that you've done is to make unwarranted assumptions to fit your biases, because there's NO evidence that "her seed" refers to Jesus Christ!! ALSO, assuming that there's an all-powerful "God" who's always existed, why would "God" address the "serpent" instead of the "Devil"??

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-09-2003, 12:10 PM	#4
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	The serpent is a trickster character. He is not Satan--certainly as a figure in Job or in Chronicles. He is at best a "satan"--stn--in that he is a stumbling block that trips up Eve. --J.D.

11-09-2003, 12:37 PM	#5
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Serpent must always be she's to have offspring and this offspring can be masculine. Serpents are are like vacuums and must be impregnated to form ideas.

11-09-2003, 12:58 PM	#6
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	R.J. The apologist's quote you offered is rather odd. It is trying to turn the archaeological evidence that suggests Genesis is a hebrew version of a Mesopotamian myth upside down. Teh skeptic should have asked for proof the Biblical text is as old as claimed (can't do it, no physical evidence, not even any evidence of Hebrew 2000 years before Genesis was written, ca. middle of 1st millenium bce). Curiously, the 2nd century bce book of Jubilees, which rewrites the Genesis story, does not call the serpent in the garden "Satan". it is just a snake. Even though Jubilees frequently retells bible stories with Satan or "Mastema" taking the role of God! It is Mastema who entices Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, for instance. If there was a program to demonize history, then why leave the snake be a snake? Moreover, Jubilees says ALL the animals in Eden could talk, and so Genesis' 'crafty' serpent has no special status vis-a-vis the other critters. Tehy all lost the ability to speak when they were thrown out of paradise with Adam and Eve. (Jubilees also refrains from climing humanity was made in the image of God, IIRC). Now it seems that Christianity has only one of many ancient understandings of the Garden of Eden story. Christian claims are relative, not absolute. Most curious is the apparent word play between the people being "naked" and the snake "Crafty" = )ARUM. (2:25 & 3:1) As the crafty trickster snake may have intended, the "Naked" people eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge... hmmm. Seems to be a lot going on here, mythically speaking.. I think maybe we have something of a Prometheus myth: of humanity attaining knowledge we are not intended to have . Or since humanity was created "naked"/"crafty", perhaps it was a predestined theft... I think the frequent revulsion people have for snakes is legitimized here as excreationist says. But one can perhaps see in this a symbol of the uneasy relationship people have with their own intelligence / wisdom. There is often an idealization of primal innocence: a childhood that cannot be maintained indefinitely. Notice how the first city-builders, instrument makers, metalsmiths, in the Bible are the descendants of the first murderer, Cain, himself a farmer, and not pastoralist. Intertestamental literature builds on this kind of theme, attributing human error to writing taught by fallen angels (ironic to write about that in a book, isn't it?) If the apologist you've been talking too seems to abondon science, logic etc. then probably you are just seeing myth in motion... JRL

11-09-2003, 01:59 PM	#7
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	"Moreover, Jubilees says ALL the animals in Eden could talk, and so Genesis' 'crafty' serpent has no special status vis-a-vis the other critters. Tehy all lost the ability to speak when they were thrown out of paradise with Adam and Eve. " I think the idea here is that in eden there is no impediment to communication between man and God, man and animals, or man and anything else. Man aquires knowledge and suddenly he can't understand animals or God because of the division it creates (knowledge requires binaries so it requires an overlapping 'consciousness' to filter experience). I think this is also the birth of 'representation' because if reality really is an undivided whole (where specific lines of distinction are technically arbitrary), then any division would cause the two halves to be "symbols" that only really refer to something real (and aren't "real" themselves). So this is the advent of tools, as in, conceptions of aspects of reality that can be consciously manipulated to improve upon a previous state of affairs (the ideas of "before" and "after" are also representations). So IMHO the serpent really embodies this conception, he is like a "shape" (another good synonym for symbol) that shows us potential. I think Amos calls Eve's serpent "lesser" because although it is "form" (or shape, potential)... it is bounded (it is not ultimate potential, just 'certain' potential) and this is because it is tainted with representation (it is potential but also implicit is a preconception of that potential). Doc X calls it a trickster and I think that is also important: if reality isn't divided then bounded potential is trickery. The greater serpent is like the sea because it can be a vessel for anything and this is probably why we call women mysterious and why they are gifted with certain intuitions that aren't normally found in men. "Notice how the first city-builders, instrument makers, metalsmiths, in the Bible are the descendants of the first murderer, Cain, himself a farmer, and not pastoralist." That is interesting. I guess we could bring in the idea of competition here? It seems to me that reality is a 'cooperation' and knowledge requires a competition.

11-09-2003, 05:14 PM	#9
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	"But anyway, what such a recent book says seems irrelevant.... it would have little to do with the message the author(s) of Genesis were trying to convey." Why?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.