Why did God punish snakes for something Satan did? Snakes never did anything. Why were they punished? They were creatures like all of the other earthly things that God created. Satan possessed a snake... Satan was the entity which actually tempted Adam and Eve, and God punished snakes as though it were their fault. Satan itself wasn't punished for this act.
Things that were punished:
Humans
Snakes
The ground
Most vegetation
Things that were rewarded:
Thorns and thistles (granted increased real estate, from what I deduce)
Things that were not punished:
Satan
Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Why did God punish all snakes?
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:15 am
Great question. First of all, in the entire Old Testament, there is no correlation of the snake with Satan. They didn't understand the text that way.
Secondly, it may not have been a literal snake. The Hebrew word for serpent is *nahash*, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, *nahash* is the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze". We see that the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals.
Back to Genesis now. So what if this "thing" (the nahash) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom", and yet was deceiving her—all of these can be expressed by the word for snake? Just a little bit of research could change the whole picture. Bible scholars are still working on this text. New archaeological data, as I have just explained, are motivating them to rethink what we thought we knew.
That the serpent is portrayed as real and not just mythological or figurative seems beyond doubt. What he looked like is open to speculation. Since snakes were very much a part of ancient cult, representing wisdom (good) and evil, life and death, it's quite possible that this being had serpent-like qualities in and amidst his spiritual qualities. (In the ancient world, cherubim were composite creatures—mixtures of lions, eagles, etc. Creatures of Chaos were also often portrayed as composite creatures, with a combination of appearances and attributes, both "divine" and "natural". It's impossible for us to know what this "serpent" even looked like.)
As far as legs, Some Egyptian spells enjoin the serpent to crawl on its belly (keep its face on the path). This is in contrast to raising its head up to strike. The serpent on its belly is nonthreatening while the one reared up is protecting or attacking. Treading on a serpent is used in these texts as a means of overcoming or defeating it. This suggests we should not think of the serpent as having previously walked on legs. Instead, the curse combats its aggressive nature. The crawling is symbolic (see also Isa. 65.25), just as in Gen. 9.13 a new significance, not new existence, is decreed for the rainbow.
Again, back to Genesis. It could be this was not a snake at all (though logically that is the word used by their culture). Maybe it was a deceiviant (my own coined word. You like it?) upright spiritual being. That may have been why Adam & Eve didn't think it was weird to converse with it. After all, who would talk to a snake? The *nahash* distorted God's words, deceived them both, and was cursed by God for what he did. And, by the way, *nahashim* are often the object of curses in the ancient world, and the curse of Genesis 3.14 follows somewhat predictable patterns, conforming to the culture's expressions and forms. The word curse (*'aror*) also means "banned," so what was happening was that this spiritual being was being thrown out of the garden, so to speak, removed from God's presence (banned), and that was his curse.
And as I said, the "crawling on one's belly" was a position of defeat. It is no longer able to strike. "Belly" and eating dust were a mark of degradation. The punishment fit the crime. It had exalted itself above man, therefore upon its belly and eat dust was its judgment.
We should not think of the curse of eating dust as a description of diet. The description of dust or dirt for food is typical of descriptions of the netherworld in ancient literature. They are used in descriptions of the grave. Thus this part of the curse is a curse of death.
Given that reality, some of what was going on here was spiritual, and some "natural" (but that's a weird word to use). Part of curse pertains to spiritual changes, and part to natural evidences of that. Some of the indications about livestock and all the wild animals can pertain to the fact that all creation was cursed in the Fall, and that the whole animal kingdom was affected (Jer. 12.4; Rom. 8.20). The serpent, however, was cursed above all those. In the same sense, but in another sense completely, the spiritual serpent was restrained by spiritual limitations now, and the physical snake on its belly was an emblem of its new non-threatening posture. In that sense the physical things reflect spiritual truths.
So the text is a combination of figurative language and spiritual language. There's a lot going on here, but it's not a simple child's story. The words have depth and figures, and understanding the ancient world makes a huge difference. It's not a literal snake that used to stand upright and is now a reptile. That's the stuff of fairy tales. Instead, a spirit being has overreached himself, deceived the humans, and is banned from God's presence.
Secondly, it may not have been a literal snake. The Hebrew word for serpent is *nahash*, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, *nahash* is the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze". We see that the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals.
Back to Genesis now. So what if this "thing" (the nahash) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom", and yet was deceiving her—all of these can be expressed by the word for snake? Just a little bit of research could change the whole picture. Bible scholars are still working on this text. New archaeological data, as I have just explained, are motivating them to rethink what we thought we knew.
That the serpent is portrayed as real and not just mythological or figurative seems beyond doubt. What he looked like is open to speculation. Since snakes were very much a part of ancient cult, representing wisdom (good) and evil, life and death, it's quite possible that this being had serpent-like qualities in and amidst his spiritual qualities. (In the ancient world, cherubim were composite creatures—mixtures of lions, eagles, etc. Creatures of Chaos were also often portrayed as composite creatures, with a combination of appearances and attributes, both "divine" and "natural". It's impossible for us to know what this "serpent" even looked like.)
As far as legs, Some Egyptian spells enjoin the serpent to crawl on its belly (keep its face on the path). This is in contrast to raising its head up to strike. The serpent on its belly is nonthreatening while the one reared up is protecting or attacking. Treading on a serpent is used in these texts as a means of overcoming or defeating it. This suggests we should not think of the serpent as having previously walked on legs. Instead, the curse combats its aggressive nature. The crawling is symbolic (see also Isa. 65.25), just as in Gen. 9.13 a new significance, not new existence, is decreed for the rainbow.
Again, back to Genesis. It could be this was not a snake at all (though logically that is the word used by their culture). Maybe it was a deceiviant (my own coined word. You like it?) upright spiritual being. That may have been why Adam & Eve didn't think it was weird to converse with it. After all, who would talk to a snake? The *nahash* distorted God's words, deceived them both, and was cursed by God for what he did. And, by the way, *nahashim* are often the object of curses in the ancient world, and the curse of Genesis 3.14 follows somewhat predictable patterns, conforming to the culture's expressions and forms. The word curse (*'aror*) also means "banned," so what was happening was that this spiritual being was being thrown out of the garden, so to speak, removed from God's presence (banned), and that was his curse.
And as I said, the "crawling on one's belly" was a position of defeat. It is no longer able to strike. "Belly" and eating dust were a mark of degradation. The punishment fit the crime. It had exalted itself above man, therefore upon its belly and eat dust was its judgment.
We should not think of the curse of eating dust as a description of diet. The description of dust or dirt for food is typical of descriptions of the netherworld in ancient literature. They are used in descriptions of the grave. Thus this part of the curse is a curse of death.
Given that reality, some of what was going on here was spiritual, and some "natural" (but that's a weird word to use). Part of curse pertains to spiritual changes, and part to natural evidences of that. Some of the indications about livestock and all the wild animals can pertain to the fact that all creation was cursed in the Fall, and that the whole animal kingdom was affected (Jer. 12.4; Rom. 8.20). The serpent, however, was cursed above all those. In the same sense, but in another sense completely, the spiritual serpent was restrained by spiritual limitations now, and the physical snake on its belly was an emblem of its new non-threatening posture. In that sense the physical things reflect spiritual truths.
So the text is a combination of figurative language and spiritual language. There's a lot going on here, but it's not a simple child's story. The words have depth and figures, and understanding the ancient world makes a huge difference. It's not a literal snake that used to stand upright and is now a reptile. That's the stuff of fairy tales. Instead, a spirit being has overreached himself, deceived the humans, and is banned from God's presence.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why did God punish all snakes?
by Supremacist » Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:45 pm
That was actually all very interesting. I've never heard that perspective.
- Supremacist
Re: Why did God punish all snakes?
by Gloved Man » Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:40 am
> The nahash distorted God's words, deceived them both
That's a very interesting reading, thank you, but I don't agree with this part. The "snake" may give Adam and Eve information God didn't want them to have, but it doesn't deceive them, it tells them the truth. A truth God has withheld but a truth none the less.
The "snake's" motives may well be at best dubious and at worse deliberately malicious, but it doesn't deceive, certainly no more than God had.
That's a very interesting reading, thank you, but I don't agree with this part. The "snake" may give Adam and Eve information God didn't want them to have, but it doesn't deceive them, it tells them the truth. A truth God has withheld but a truth none the less.
The "snake's" motives may well be at best dubious and at worse deliberately malicious, but it doesn't deceive, certainly no more than God had.
- Gloved Man
Re: Why did God punish all snakes?
by jimwalton » Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:49 am
The woman immediately claims that she had been deceived (Gen. 3.13), so that's the way she perceived it at the point of the event. Also, look at what the serpent said in verse 2: "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" Now, this is not what God said, so it's distorted and deceptive. God had said "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..." (Gn. 2.16-17). The text specifically tells us that the serpent was crafty (3.1). According to Proverbs 12.16 and 23, someone who is crafty conceals what they feel and what they know (therefore, deceptive). The serpent didn't tell the truth; he was deliberately distorting a fact, exaggerating the prohibition. His words created distrust and doubt in her mind. He changes God's positive invitation to a negative prohibition, and that was deceptive, not truthful.
> certainly no more than God had
God hadn't deceived at all. There is no biblical warrant for asserting this.
> certainly no more than God had
God hadn't deceived at all. There is no biblical warrant for asserting this.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why did God punish all snakes?
by Gloved Man » Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:13 pm
Gen 2:9 "2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:16-17 " And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God said, "Eat of the tree of knowledge and you will truly die." An unambiguous statement of what would appear to be fact. Do it - you'll die.
Gen 3:3-5 "3:3 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. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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 and evil."
The serpent tells Eve, no, you won't die.
They eat the fruit and God's punishment is not death but pain in childbirth and the need to work
Gen 3:16-17 "3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"
They were already going to die someday unless they ate of the tree of life which would make them immortal.
Gen 3:22-24 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
God lied and the serpent told the truth. The punishment for eating of the tree of knowledge was not death, they were already going to die unless they ate of the tree of life which God prevents by removing them from the garden.
Gen 2:16-17 " And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God said, "Eat of the tree of knowledge and you will truly die." An unambiguous statement of what would appear to be fact. Do it - you'll die.
Gen 3:3-5 "3:3 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. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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 and evil."
The serpent tells Eve, no, you won't die.
They eat the fruit and God's punishment is not death but pain in childbirth and the need to work
Gen 3:16-17 "3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"
They were already going to die someday unless they ate of the tree of life which would make them immortal.
Gen 3:22-24 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
God lied and the serpent told the truth. The punishment for eating of the tree of knowledge was not death, they were already going to die unless they ate of the tree of life which God prevents by removing them from the garden.
- Gloved Man
Re: Why did God punish all snakes?
by jimwalton » Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:14 pm
> They were already going to die someday unless they ate of the tree of life which would make them immortal.
Humans started out mortal. That's the meaning of the symbolism of the dust in Gn. 2.7 Dust was a symbol of death and mortality (Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14; 1 Cor. 15.47). Humankind was created with mortal bodies. The tree of life would be otherwise unnecessary, as you have suggested and probably properly understood.
> Eat of the tree of knowledge and you will truly die. An unambiguous statement of what would appear to be fact.
"You will surely die." The Hebrew word is תָּמוּת, literally "dying you shall die." We've already established that humans were mortal and subject to death, even if they didn't eat from that particular tree, so this means something more than that. But it must refer to physical death, because spiritual death is not a concept in the OT. It doesn't, however, insist that death will be immediate. Rather, the wording indicates they will be doomed to die: it will now be their inevitable destiny—a destiny that is sealed when they are banned from the Garden and prevented from eating from the tree of life.
You should also know that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil isn't because Adam and Eve didn't know anything about right and wrong. Wisdom literature was an important part of ancient cultures, and the gods were the source of wisdom. The tree symbolizes that God is the center of order (and wisdom is the ability to discern order). Relationship with God is the beginning of wisdom (Job 28.28; Prov. 1.7). The challenge of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is whether or not they are going to align with God or choose their own self-interest.
Now, what the serpent says in Gn. 3.2 is not what God said, meant, or implied. What he says in 3.3-4 is in direct contradiction to what God had said: "Dying you shall not die." Meaning, "It is not so, what God has said, this, 'Dying you shall die.' " He contradicts God's words, but with deceptive ambiguity: "It is not proper death that you will undergo. Don't think death will be such an immediate threat." Dare to experience the change. God has been selfish, oppressive, and repressive. Don't listen to him.
Genesis 3.5: "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." The eye was an ancient symbol of spiritual illumination (see much Egyptian theology). Being like the gods was achieving wisdom—wanting to be God.
We know the woman understood this, because verse 6 says so.
Humans started out mortal. That's the meaning of the symbolism of the dust in Gn. 2.7 Dust was a symbol of death and mortality (Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14; 1 Cor. 15.47). Humankind was created with mortal bodies. The tree of life would be otherwise unnecessary, as you have suggested and probably properly understood.
> Eat of the tree of knowledge and you will truly die. An unambiguous statement of what would appear to be fact.
"You will surely die." The Hebrew word is תָּמוּת, literally "dying you shall die." We've already established that humans were mortal and subject to death, even if they didn't eat from that particular tree, so this means something more than that. But it must refer to physical death, because spiritual death is not a concept in the OT. It doesn't, however, insist that death will be immediate. Rather, the wording indicates they will be doomed to die: it will now be their inevitable destiny—a destiny that is sealed when they are banned from the Garden and prevented from eating from the tree of life.
You should also know that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil isn't because Adam and Eve didn't know anything about right and wrong. Wisdom literature was an important part of ancient cultures, and the gods were the source of wisdom. The tree symbolizes that God is the center of order (and wisdom is the ability to discern order). Relationship with God is the beginning of wisdom (Job 28.28; Prov. 1.7). The challenge of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is whether or not they are going to align with God or choose their own self-interest.
Now, what the serpent says in Gn. 3.2 is not what God said, meant, or implied. What he says in 3.3-4 is in direct contradiction to what God had said: "Dying you shall not die." Meaning, "It is not so, what God has said, this, 'Dying you shall die.' " He contradicts God's words, but with deceptive ambiguity: "It is not proper death that you will undergo. Don't think death will be such an immediate threat." Dare to experience the change. God has been selfish, oppressive, and repressive. Don't listen to him.
Genesis 3.5: "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." The eye was an ancient symbol of spiritual illumination (see much Egyptian theology). Being like the gods was achieving wisdom—wanting to be God.
We know the woman understood this, because verse 6 says so.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why did God punish all snakes?
by Gloved Man » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:13 pm
> Humans started out mortal. That's the meaning of the symbolism of the dust in Gn. 2.7 Dust was a symbol of death and mortality (Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14; 1 Cor. 15.47). Humankind was created with mortal bodies. The tree of life would be otherwise unnecessary, as you have suggested and probably properly understood.
So the punishment for eating of the tree of knowledge was not, "you shall surely die". That was already a given if they didn't eat of the tree of life.
> It doesn't, however, insist that death will be immediate. Rather, the wording indicates they will be doomed to die: it will now be their inevitable destiny—a destiny that is sealed when they are banned from the Garden and prevented from eating from the tree of life.
So God would have been happy enough for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life, which would have granted them immortality if they hadn't first eaten of the tree of knowledge? That's the only scenario that makes God not a liar. He could have mentioned that, don't you think? That's a pretty big caveat to leave out. That's a trickster God's idea of fun. God still doesn't come out your theorised scenario very well. He, at best doesn't give Adam and Eve all the information they need and at worst condemns the whole of humanity to death because He didn't forsee the actions of the creature who, in Gen 3:1 is described as, " more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made."
So either malevolence or incompetence which He then blames the entire human race for.
So the punishment for eating of the tree of knowledge was not, "you shall surely die". That was already a given if they didn't eat of the tree of life.
> It doesn't, however, insist that death will be immediate. Rather, the wording indicates they will be doomed to die: it will now be their inevitable destiny—a destiny that is sealed when they are banned from the Garden and prevented from eating from the tree of life.
So God would have been happy enough for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life, which would have granted them immortality if they hadn't first eaten of the tree of knowledge? That's the only scenario that makes God not a liar. He could have mentioned that, don't you think? That's a pretty big caveat to leave out. That's a trickster God's idea of fun. God still doesn't come out your theorised scenario very well. He, at best doesn't give Adam and Eve all the information they need and at worst condemns the whole of humanity to death because He didn't forsee the actions of the creature who, in Gen 3:1 is described as, " more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made."
So either malevolence or incompetence which He then blames the entire human race for.
- Gloved Man
Re: Why did God punish all snakes?
by jimwalton » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:27 pm
> So the punishment for eating of the tree of knowledge was not, "you shall surely die"
As I explained, "You shall surely die" is an English translation that makes an attempt to convey what the Hebrew says. More literally it means "dying you shall die," but that's not very clear in the English either, so translators have decisions to make that are all compromising decisions. It's an absolute infinitive couples with the finite verb of the same root, an emphatic construction. Speiser says, "The resulting phrase is a flexible utterance capable of conveying various shades of meaning. 'You shall surely die;' 'You shall be doomed to death.' The phrase need not be translated 'you shall surely die,' as it invariably is. Death did not result in this instance. The point of the narrative is man's ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death." So the meaning is deeper than mere physical death, which is what they were subject to already as mortals.
> So God would have been happy enough for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life, which would have granted them immortality if they hadn't first eaten of the tree of knowledge?
Yes, that is correct. YAY, somebody gets it.
> He could have mentioned that, don't you think?
We can be quite confident that all of God's words are not recorded for us. Secondly, Hebrew didn't exist as a language during this time of history (Hebrew didn't evolve as a distinct language until about 1100-1000 BC). Even the words that we have are translations from other languages and other cultures.
> God still doesn't come out your theorised scenario very well.
Don't just jump to conclusions and hasty assumptions. There's a whole lot more going on than I bet you realize.
> He, at best doesn't give Adam and Eve all the information they need
Again, we can be confident we don't have all of the words that passed between God and humanity. The author is being selective (as all authors are) to make his point: God intended the best, God wanted them to succeed, God had to give them a choice (or it's not free will and it's not love), God warned them of the consequences of a wrong choice, and God is not responsible for the course they decided to pursue.
> condemns the whole of humanity to death because He didn't forsee the actions of the creature who, in Gen 3:1 is described as, " more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made."
He did foresee it. Ephesians 1.4 mentions that this plan was in place since before the creation of the world. God knew the serpent would deceive humanity, and he initiated a plan to redeem humanity from their sin.
> So either malevolence or incompetence which He then blames the entire human race for.
Wrong in every aspect. God acted only out of love and goodness. Humans have to make their own choices (dynamic creation is far superior to static creation, and the only way we can function as humans). God is neither malevolent or incompetent. The gold medal for both of those belongs to humanity.
As I explained, "You shall surely die" is an English translation that makes an attempt to convey what the Hebrew says. More literally it means "dying you shall die," but that's not very clear in the English either, so translators have decisions to make that are all compromising decisions. It's an absolute infinitive couples with the finite verb of the same root, an emphatic construction. Speiser says, "The resulting phrase is a flexible utterance capable of conveying various shades of meaning. 'You shall surely die;' 'You shall be doomed to death.' The phrase need not be translated 'you shall surely die,' as it invariably is. Death did not result in this instance. The point of the narrative is man's ultimate punishment rather than instantaneous death." So the meaning is deeper than mere physical death, which is what they were subject to already as mortals.
> So God would have been happy enough for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life, which would have granted them immortality if they hadn't first eaten of the tree of knowledge?
Yes, that is correct. YAY, somebody gets it.
> He could have mentioned that, don't you think?
We can be quite confident that all of God's words are not recorded for us. Secondly, Hebrew didn't exist as a language during this time of history (Hebrew didn't evolve as a distinct language until about 1100-1000 BC). Even the words that we have are translations from other languages and other cultures.
> God still doesn't come out your theorised scenario very well.
Don't just jump to conclusions and hasty assumptions. There's a whole lot more going on than I bet you realize.
> He, at best doesn't give Adam and Eve all the information they need
Again, we can be confident we don't have all of the words that passed between God and humanity. The author is being selective (as all authors are) to make his point: God intended the best, God wanted them to succeed, God had to give them a choice (or it's not free will and it's not love), God warned them of the consequences of a wrong choice, and God is not responsible for the course they decided to pursue.
> condemns the whole of humanity to death because He didn't forsee the actions of the creature who, in Gen 3:1 is described as, " more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made."
He did foresee it. Ephesians 1.4 mentions that this plan was in place since before the creation of the world. God knew the serpent would deceive humanity, and he initiated a plan to redeem humanity from their sin.
> So either malevolence or incompetence which He then blames the entire human race for.
Wrong in every aspect. God acted only out of love and goodness. Humans have to make their own choices (dynamic creation is far superior to static creation, and the only way we can function as humans). God is neither malevolent or incompetent. The gold medal for both of those belongs to humanity.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:27 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest