Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20670 | ||
Personal Note ................................. Dear Lionstrong, You could be entirely correct, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't the only possible interpretation. I am curious though, why you brought this up. Do you glean something from this passage based on the idea that the serpent changed classes? If so, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. |
||||||
2 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | NazMan | 22382 | ||
Do you glean something? Absolutely! The N.T. describes the serpent as Satan, the devil. Most Christians thus read this as the devil appearing in the form of a serpent to mess with Adam and Eve. However, we must remember that when this was written, them folks didn't have the N.T. The serpent is quite deliberately described here as one of the beasts of the field, which brings to mind Genesis 2:19 - the beasts were formed by God and placed in the garden, and man was placed in authority over them (he named them). The serpent was just one of these creatures, under man's authority. Here's the point: Nowhere in this text is the serpent in any way associated to or equated with the devil. There is no invasion of evil into the garden. Thus, sin is solely the responsibility of man, both Adam and Eve. The devil did not make him do it. I am not saying that the N.T. is wrong in identifying the serpent as Satan. I am saying that there is a reason that the author of Genesis 2 and 3 went out of his way to describe this serpent as just another animal. The reason, sin and the subsequent curse resulted in man's conscious choice, and the responsibility for evil lies only with him/us. This flies in the face of much modern Christianity, where all sin is an attack of Satan and his demons, the solution to which is rebuking them Jeeezus naame. And if it wasn't for those rascally demons, we wouldn't sin at all. No mention of repentence. Not to belabor the issue, but we do not need any help to sin. What we need is Jesus. |
||||||
3 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | casiv | 22451 | ||
Hello, The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. The Nachash, or serpent that beguiled( wholly seduced ) Eve(2 Cor 11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light" in verse 14. Have we not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge(Eze 28:12), and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated by one, apparently " an angel of light"(i.e. a glorious angel(also see Eze 28:12, perfect in beauty), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge. If a serpent was afterward called a nacash, it was because it was more shining than any other creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled Eve" (2Cor 11:3,14). It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that satan should be able to accomplish so great a miracle. It only shows power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple": the former based on a wrong interpretation, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture. Never was satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured universal acceptance of this traditional belief: for it has suceeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, and thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centered in the sin of believing satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth. The temptation of "the first man Adam" began with the question "Hath God said?" The temptation of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar question "If Thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved Son". All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said. The Word of God being questioned, led Eve in her reply,(1) to omit the word "freely"(Gen 3:2, cp. Gen 2:16); then (2) to add the words "neither shalt thou touch it"(3:3, cp. 2:17); and finally (3) to alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die"(2:17) into "LEST ye die"(3:3). It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold reference to the written Word of God(John 17:8,14,17). The former temptation suceeded because the Word of God was three times misrepresented; the latter temptation was sucessfully defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated. The history of Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the fact that satan's sphere of activities is in the religious sphere; and not the spheres of crime or immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart. We are not to look for satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professors' chairs. Wherever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of that "old serpent,which is the devil, and satan". This is why anything in favour of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being "controversial". This is why satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen.3, as he himself accepted the letter of Ps.91:11. He himself could say "It is written"(Matt 4:6) so long as the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied. This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the oppostion of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith. I hope you understand this! In the love of Jesus and the Father, Peace. |
||||||
4 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | NazMan | 22524 | ||
You asked: "Have we not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge(Eze 28:12), and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order?" - No, because it is deliberately described as a beast of the field You said: "possessing superior and supernatural knowledge" - what knowledge are you referring to? The serpent simply repeated and distorted what God had said. I don't disagree with your conclusions, but one word can not bear the weight of an entire theological construct. The fact remains that the serpent is described as a beast of the field. Allow the text in question, Gen 2-3 to speak for itself before using other scripture to add to its interpretation. We know from the N.T. that the serpent is satan, the deceiver. But in the context of Gen 2-3, the serpent is in the garden, even if its a shining one; only by using outside texts can you even associate the shining one with satan. Satan is not mentioned specifically in Genesis 2-3. |
||||||
5 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | casiv | 23379 | ||
Hello, You said,"No, because it is deliberately described as a beast of the field." Nowhere does it describe the serpent as a beast of the field. It is written," Now the serpent was more subtil(wise) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.(Gen 3:1; which is the first mention of the "serpent"). It is speculation to say the serpent was of the field without scriptural documentation. We must allow scripture to define scripture! If we only read Gen 2and3 and not the rest of the Bible we are certain to be deceived. Jesus proved this when being tempted of satan in Matt 4:4 Jesus says "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." This I believe is the whole letter of the Bible, all books together, written to understand the Fathers will and His Son and how the enemy operates. The Bible flows from the beggining to the middle to the end and does this because the Father is perfect and so is His Word. In regards to "Possessing superior knowledge and supernatural knowledge", the serpent did not simply repeat scripture, in "Gen 3:5 - For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good from evil.", God did not say this, the serpent did and it is my belief that these words may have been interpreted by Eve to think that the serpent had some sort of superior knowledge and supernatural knowledge, we can "be as gods". What do you think? I do humbly disagree with your conclusions, I do not see the other books of the Bible as "outside texts", I see the Bible as one Authorship with men as writers and suggest you consider the same. The Bible does say the serpent was the devil and I am not sure I understand the point you are making? The way of studying you are presenting here may lead to confusion. You have omitted the text and are trying to understand with only a portion of the Word, which is exactly what the serpent wants and how he beguiled Adam and Eve in the garden. When satan is spoken of as a "serpent" , it is the figure Hypocatastasis or Implication; it no more means a snake than it does when Dan is so called in Gen 49:17 or an animal when Nero is called a "lion"(2Tim4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox"(Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lions whelp". It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matt 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is intended. If a Figure of speech is thus employed, it is for the purpose of expressing the truth more impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the letter of the word. I hope this helps! Peace in Faith and Hope, Casiv |
||||||
6 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | NazMan | 23557 | ||
"You have omitted the text and are trying to understand with only a portion of the Word, which is exactly what the serpent wants and how he beguiled Adam and Eve in the garden." Firstly, I do not appreciate being equated with the serpent/satan. In Gen. 3:1, why would the serpent be compared to the beasts of the field if it was not a beast of the field? I believe this verse equates the serpent to a beast of the field. It would be ludicrous to equate a angel/demon/satan to an animal. I understand your point of scripture interpreting scripture and I agree. But I believe we begin our interpretation of any passage in its immediate context, then move to other scripture. What I meant by outside text (which was probably a poor choice of words) is that the first readers of Genesis did not have the whole Bible as we do. I am asking the question, how did Moses and his readers/hearers understand this piece of scripture? As for the serpent's knowledge, I just do not see that knowledge as supernatural. The serpent distorted to God's words and added to what God had told Adam. I will concede that point as a matter of interpretation. You asked, "The Bible does say the serpent was the devil and I am not sure I understand the point you are making?" -- The point I am making is this: Yes the Bible says the Serpent is Satan, but it does not say it specifically in Genesis 3, not because it is trying to fool us, but so that we understand man's sin/our sin as our responsibility and guilt, and not try to shift blame as Adam did. I do not deny that the serpent is satan. I think it is significant that the serpent is not specifically named as satan in Gen. 3. |
||||||
7 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | casiv | 23578 | ||
Hi there, Sorry if you felt I was equating you with the serpent, this was not my intentions. But to say that the serpent is a beast of the field is your interpretation and not what is said in Gen 3:1. In Gen 3:1 it says he is more wise than any beast of the field, not that he is a beast of the field. I truly feel blessed that I have been born when the Bible is complete and it appears so do you, so that we can read the whole Book anad know how the story unfolds and ends. One can only wander what Moses and everyone else before Jesus felt?. I do humbly disagree with you regarding man being totally responsible for "man's sin/our sin", because of Romans 11 where it says God hath given the gentiles the spirit of slumber. But I do believe that we are to make a choice of right or wrong on a daily basis. I appreciate you thinking that it is significant that the serpent is not specifically named as satan in Gen 3, and I agree it is, but not entireley as you see it. Peace, Casiv |
||||||
8 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | LisaMarie | 23581 | ||
Wise? What version are you reading? NIV says "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made." DR says "Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the LORD God had made." NASB says "was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." NLT says "was the shrewdest of all the creatures the LORD God had made." KJV says "was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." YLT says "hath been subtile above every beast of the field which Jehovah God hath made," I can't find a version that says 'wisest.' If he's not a beast of the field then what kind of critter is he? Not human... curiouser and curiouser, Lisa |
||||||
9 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | casiv | 23620 | ||
Hi Lisa, I read many Bibles but the one I read the most is the KJV or AV as it is also called. I like to study into the original language for the true word meanings. I use the Massorah in the Old Testament. The word "subtil" equals wise in the Massorah. In Hebrew it is arum, a Homonym. Same as Gen 2:25(Naked); here it equals wise (as Job 5:12; 15:5, Prov 12:16,23; 13:16; 14:8,15,18; 22:3; 27:12). Compare Eze 28:12,13,17. If the Ellipsis be supplied from the preceding context, 3:1 will then read on from 2:25, thus: " they were both naked(arum), the man and his wife, and (knowing only good, 2:17) were not ashamed (before God). But the Nachash(Heb. for serpent meaning shining one) was more wise(arum) than any living being of the field which Jehovah Elohim had made, and (knowing evil, and not ashamed (2:25) to question the truth of God's word) he said unto the woman," I believe the "critter" was a shining one perhaps a type of fallen angel(satan) not of the field(the field explained as the world in Matt 13). I hope this helps! Peace in Faith and Hope, Casiv |
||||||