Amaleq13

Yes but it doesn't appear to be connected to the snake in any way by the author of the story of the Garden.

It is if you haven't established that A=B and you haven't.

No. Because there is nothing in the story of the Garden to connect the snake with Satan, it is not accurate to claim the connection exists in the story.

Amaleq13

How is that relevant? Satan is clearly identified in that story.

No, but there should be some rational justification for any metaphorical interpretation and, with regard to connecting Satan to the snake, none has been put forth.

The only thing I "require" is justification for a given interpretation when there is none apparent in the text. There is no apparent justification for assuming the snake is either Satan in disguise or a metaphor for Satan.

Solo

I don't agree that the the serpent stood for Satan was the original Genesis tradition. BUT, there were developments in Judaism prior to (and apart from) Christianity which associated Satan with the Garden tempter. In addition to this you might want to check 2 Enoch:

"And the devil understood how I wished to create another world, so that everything could be subjected to Adam on the earth, to rule and reign over it. The devil is of the lowest places. And he will become a demon, because he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was Satanail. In this way he became different from the angels. His nature did not change, (but) his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed. And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam. In such a form he entered paradise, and corrupted Eve. But Adam he did not contact. But on account of (her) nescience I cursed them. But those whom I had blessed previously, them I did not curse; (and those whom I had not blessed previously, even them I did not curse) - neither mankind I cursed, nor the earth, nor any other creature, but only mankind's evil fruit-bearing." - 2 Enoch 31:3-7

Jiri

sschlichter

Your allegation slid a little didn't it. You accused me of retrofitting the christian concept of Satan into the story at first. Now you are claiing that I said the connection exists in the story. Both are inaccurate.

What I said can be deduced only from the story is only that the Serpent is not just a snake. The chiasm that focuses the judgment on the serpent makes it apparent that the author felt this way or that the author feels that God really hates snakes and wants the offspring of Eve to crush the 'King of the snakes' in the future. This alternate reading seems odd to me. Instead, it makes more sense that it is an apparent account for the existence of evil

I did not say anything about metaphor vs. literal.

funinspace

The relevency is that many consider Job to be purely metaphorical/alegorical even though it is written like Job was a real person. I was talking generally about interpretation of a passage, not specifically snakes and satan.

I think sschlichter just put forth what I was getting at very well in #84. So do you think that the character "snake" in the tale is simply a snake as we know it today?

Amaleq13

Yes, thanks for the reference.

Amaleq13

No. You are confused.

Yes and this is obvious since there is no suggestion of the concept in the story.

No, I am observing that this is the only way you can escape being guilty of imposing the idea from outside.

We've already seen this is not true. The "pivotal" position of the snake in the alleged chiasm neither requires nor suggests that the snake is anything but a snake that could talk.

Surely you don't expect anyone to consider hypothetical mind reading to count as evidence? Even if you could show that the chiasm is an actual creation of the author, what evidence supports your speculation about the author's thinking?

Or it is not as central as you prefer or as the story reads and only serves as a sub-plot fable about the enmity between humans and snakes.

I suspect that is because you are not used to reading the story without your beliefs influencing the meaning.

Amaleq13

No, I think it is a character in an ancient fable.

firebug

I am sorry, my friend, but you couldn't possibly know what I think the story is about. I don't recall (correct me if I am wrong) making any statements which would allow to deduce what I think about it. Are you a mind reader? Or is this is a revelation (i.e. a text message you received directly from god)? *If* that is what you think, then your cell phone must be broken. Metaphorically speaking.

I don't think the story is about fruit and snakes. But, may I remind you, this thread was started with a question which has nothing to do with the story itself, but rather with the issue of divine irregularities. So let me make it clear for you what my position is.

I hope you'll agree that the story of Genesis 2:16-17 *may* be construed as the evidence of god's deception. So there are two possibilities:

1. God is indeed a liar. I don't even see why do you have a problem with that. Don't you believe that god is beyond time? So why couldn't he be beyond truth? What is truth in this context?

2. When god appears to be a liar, he really isn't, it's all because of lack of clarity in the book. And that makes god a shitty writer - doesn't quite add up for an omnipotent creature. I guess he must have worked harder to make his message unequivocal.

I think we should agree to disagree. I think god of the bible is not above deception, you may think he is always truthful. Believe me, there are many other reasons to doubt the book's divine origin.

sugarhitman

"For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." This does not mean a death in the same day. {It means the day you eat the fruit} you will die (i.e. the day you eat the fruit you will be cursed with death). Adam died much later but what do you think aging is? Aging is in fact a slow process leading to death. When Adam ate the fruit aging set in (ageing decomposing while yet alive) which lead to death. All living things are under this curse. Born to die. Ageing is one dying on his feet...ageing is the curse.


God did not lie the fact that Adam is long gone is proof of that.