Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Packs a Whallop]

I read what you said about the talking snake. You've invented a new religion!

[jimwalton]

> You've invented a new religion.

Nope. Just reasonable scholarship. The Bible is filled with symbols, archetypes, and parables, and we are wise to not just read the surface words, but do what we can to discern their cultural context to understand what the author meant by that. If I were giving you a traffic report from the Chicago area, and I said, "It'll be a 38-minute trip from the cave to the junction, and it's presently congested from the slip to the Nagle curve," you wouldn't have a clue what I said unless you knew the Chicago area and understood the context. The words are foolishness until you dig a little deeper into the context. For a Chicagoan, the report makes perfect sense. To a Philadelphian, it's sheer nonsense. Same thing here. The words sound foolish to us (thousands of years later and of a different culture), but to them, it had meaning. It's up to us not to just read the words, but to determine the meaning.

[William Hendershot]

> and yet was deceiving her

But the serpent in the story did not deceive Eve. The serpent told her the truth.

[jimwalton]

Gn. 3.1: "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

*'ap ki* ("did God really say") is not an interrogative, but a strong affirmation. It expresses surprise, and could even be interpreted as jeering or scoffing. "So, God has really said this to you?" It implies the unreasonableness of God's command, and is designed to cast doubt. Secondly, it's not true. God DIDN'T say they were not to eat from any tree in the Garden. Actually what he had said was that they could eat from EVERY tree except one (Gn. 2.16-17). So the serpent, from the outset, didn't tell her the truth.

The woman responds with the truth ("We're allowed to eat from the trees!"), but then adds her own edit: ...but we're not allowed to eat from this one tree OR TOUCH IT." It seems she was tapping off of the serpent's lead and magnifying God's strictness, and possibly his unreasonableness. The serpent has her where he wants her, and he's playing her.

Gn. 3.4: "You will not surely die." This is a lie. God had said in 2.17, "In the day you eat of it you will surely die." He changes the grammar from 2.17 a little, so that he's not precisely denying the penalty as God has worded it. He is subtly denying God's version, but explicitly contradicting the woman's version. What he says can be paraphrased something like, "Don't think that death is such a immediate threat." While he's not explicitly contradicting God, he is suggesting that there is nothing for the woman to worry about. It's a lie, clear and simple, on several levels.

Gn. 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.”

Kidner says, "The climax is a lie big enough to reinterpret life and dynamic enough to redirect the flow of affection and ambition. To be like God, and to achieve it by outwitting him, is an intoxicating program." Now, it is true that their eyes will be opened. "You will be like God" is a misrepresentation. Walton says, "Such behavior is not at all characteristic of the God of the Bible. He is possessed of qualities and characteristics that he wants people to emulate or acquire. If (1) the tree is not prohibited because what it grants is bad, and if (2) it is not prohibited because of divine repression, then one can logically conclude that the prohibition concerned timing. It is a probationary period, as a test. But it is also more than that. It is more in keeping with God’s character to understand that the tree would have use in the future. When the time was right, the first couple would be able to eat from it. One can compare this to the temptation of Christ, when Satan offered him the kingdoms of this world. There was nothing wrong with Christ’s ruling all the kingdoms—it was his destiny. The temptation involved bypassing appropriate process and timing, seizing them through deviant means."

"Knowing good and evil." He is making several false impressions (Davis says):

- That the knowledge of good and evil was what made God, God.
- That man and woman were capable of knowing good and evil as perfectly and completely as God knew them and thus could be like God.
- That God was jealous of his knowledge of good and evil and of his unique place in the universe.

So, actually, I would conclude that the serpent was not telling her the truth.

[The King]

> So what if this "thing" (the nhs) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom", and yet was deceiving her—and the word for "snake" would be used for all of that?

And why were literal snakes punished for the behavior of "a spiritual power"?

[jimwalton]

They weren't. The curse is archetypal and symbolic. Serpents as symbols were often the object of curses in the ancient world, and the wording of Gn. 3.14 follows somewhat predictable patterns when compared to other ancients cultures. The statement about crawling on its belly is a statement of being limited in its ability to strike (a serpent with its head on the path is unable to strike as is one that raises up its head). The serpent on its belly it non-threatening. "Belly" and "eating dust" were marks of degradation. "Eating dust" is obviously figurative, letting us know that literal snakes weren't being punished, as snakes don't literally digest dust. "Dust" often symbolized morality, so God is letting the being know that it is being cursed with death. Also, the depiction of dust or dirt for food in ancient literature was typical of descriptions of the netherworld.

[You are a maggot]

> The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (though literal)

Are you saying there was an actual Tree, with actual forbidden fruit that when eaten caused the fallout seen in the Bible? What are you saying is literal if not that? Thank you for your reply.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, there was an actual tree, but there was nothing magical about the fruit. Since Adam and Even were literal, historical personages, it makes sense that the tree was literal as well. But it wasn't magical; it was symbolic. Sort of an "if you step across this line, it means..." There's nothing magical or powerful about the line in the sand, but it's a symbol of self-assertion in defiance against the authority at hand. The fallout was because of the rebellion, not because of any magical spell. That's fairy-tale-ish kind of stuff, not the stuff of the Bible.

[by George]

> And let's suppose, for the sake of the analogy, that I can create a perfect work. That doesn't mean it isn't capable of being dropped and broken.

Except in the current context the work cannot drop and break itself. It cannot choose to break or not to break. So not a good analogy.

> When that being chose (with the reasoning ability and free will that was a mark of its creator) to exercise it's decision-making ability contrary to its Creator, and chose to be broken, they deserved punishment for a willful choice of rebellion, not because their Creator was at fault in the way he made them.

Again, no. You say humanity chooses to sin. Yet Christianity says there is no human incapable of NOT sinning. So it is not a choice it is a necessity. Then we get punished for doing what we must do, or we get punished for not doing what we cannot do. Not just that but you say they deserved punishment for their act of rebellion, fine and ok but since because of that we today cannot not sin why do we deserve punishment for not doing something we are incapable of doing. Do you have the right to punish a child for not being able to drive? Or not being able to life a ton? Do you have the right to punish your pet for not coming when you call it even though there is a locked door between you and it? That is the same thing. People get punished for not doing what they cannot do. Like punishing people for being tall.

If part of perfection is the ability to not sin, then you cannot say humans are perfect since there is no human capable of that.

[jimwalton]

> Except in the current context the work cannot drop and break itself. It cannot choose to break or not to break. So not a good analogy.

All analogies break down when pushed. They're only valid for the point being made, not for the extremities of every possible implication. The point of the analogy is that something could be perfect but still vulnerable. That's as far as anything I meant by the analogy. A work of cut glass, obviously, is not organic or living, so you can't push the analogy into that field.

> Then we get punished for doing what we must do, or we get punished for not doing what we cannot do.

The point is this: while no human is capable of NOT sinning, God has provided a way of escape so there is no judgment. No one gets punished for doing what we must do, or for not doing what we cannot do. But all of us are capable of choosing the redemption provided. That much is very clear in the Bible. It shows up right away in the Cain and Abel story in Gn. 4: Abel was able to choose the path of redemption, right from the very beginning. It shows up again in Gn. 4.26, in Gn. 6.9, Gn. 12.1-3 and on through time.

> Do you have the right to punish a child for not being able to drive?

Of course not, but there's something wrong with a child who fights and bites, or steals the keys, (whatever), insisting on driving when there is an adult in the driver's seat.

> People get punished for not doing what they cannot do.

Not at all. Suppose a volcano is erupting, and a helicopter comes to rescue you. You scream, "I'm not able to save myself!" The pilot says, "Get in. I'll fly you to safety." You yell, "But I'm incapable of getting away from the lava." He says, "Get in. I'll fly you to safety." You say, "This isn't fair that I have to die when I can't run faster than the flow!" He says, "Get in. I'll fly you to safety." You know what? If you die that day, you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is the story of the Bible. You are unable to save yourself, and so God has provided a way. You don't have to earn or deserve it. You don't have to be capable of anything, except to accept the free gift of the rescue. The plan was told to Adam & Eve immediately in Gn. 3.15, and repeated in Gn. 9, Gn. 12, and on and on. While you are incapable of not sinning, everyone has the capacity to make a choice to accept a free gift. It takes no special skill, intellect, ethnic heritage, religious bearing, gender, social status, economic privilege, or class. It's a simple matter of choosing to love God and accepting the redemption provided free of charge to you.