Plan B Forum

So I had occasion to be considering Genesis 3 over the weekend:

1 Now the serpent was more astute than any beast of the field which YHWH Elohim had made. And he said to the woman, "Did Elohim say that you shall not eat of any tree of the garden?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, Elohim said do not eat from it and do not touch it, lest you should die."
4 And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die;
5 in fact, Elohim knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be as Elohim, knowing good and evil."
6 And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable for gaining understanding, and she took from its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her man who was with her, and he ate.
7 And the eyes of both were opened, and they understood they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves, and made for themselves girdles.
8 And they heard the voice of YHWH Elohim walking in the garden during the breezy part of the day; and the man and his woman hid themselves from before YHWH Elohim among the trees of the garden.
9 And YHWH Elohim called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 And he said, "I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you are naked? From the tree from which I have commanded you not to eat, did you eat?"
12 And the man said, "The woman that you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate."
13 And YHWH Elohim said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent tricked me, and I ate."
14 And YHWH Elohim said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, accursed are you among all animals, and among all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go and dust you shall eat all the days of your life."

Okay, so the man and the woman both knew they weren't supposed to eat the fruit, and to emphasize the prohibition YHWH Elohim had actually lied to them about the consequences. The serpent only told the truth about the tree and its fruit. The man and the woman exercised their own judgment about whether to violate YHWH Elohim's rule, and then each promptly pointed a finger at someone else. Although all the characters in this story are objectively terrible, it seems to me the least terrible is the serpent. Is there a lesson we are supposed to take from this story, or is it simply the folklore that explains the "fallen" state of the world we live in?

This is just the sort of post I would expect from a lawyer.  One snake protecting another.

-"BB"-

It's fascinating story and I enjoy reflecting on it as well. My understanding though is that God did not "lie". Adam (and then Eve) were created to an immortal life in the Garden east of Eden. The warning, "thou shalt surely die" refers to the loss of immortality and the Fall (not the autumn thing although that's a nice image of aging and death). It describes the separation of man from God, symbolized by removal from the Garden. The serpent did indeed lie by placing doubt of God's truth in mankind's mind.

My belief is that Genesis 5:3 makes it clear. Man was originally created in the image and likeness of God. That is now shunted aside (though not lost) because Adam created Seth "in his own image and likeness". That is, we descendants of Adam are mortal and separated from the Creator.

I also have a (heretical) thought about this: Gen 3:14 The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go..."

Ancient sources use the word serpent to describe dragons. Wyrm is applied to dragons and to snakes also. We see it in the English legless lizard "slowworm" which is neither a worm nor a snake. And Wiki she say: The word for dragon in Germanic mythology and its descendants is worm (Old English: wyrm, Old High German: wurm, Old Norse: ormr), meaning snake or serpent. The Hebrew word tanniyn (not anyone's cup of tea) is variously rendered as serpent, dragon or sea monster e.g. Gen 1:21 often translated as "whale".

I believe that the "serpent" of the Genesis garden was not a legless creature but rather a dragon or lizard. God's condemnation removes its legs and it is destined from that moment to go on its belly. Sometimes tradition reflects something even older.

So I agree the serpent lied but not as "a snake".

God asked Adam (not Eve or the serpent) what had happened. Adam blamed Eve but even more tellingly, he blamed God. It was the fault of the "woman you gave me" he says. Eve blamed the serpent. Il Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri) pictured it nicely (except for the legs):



Is that an Italian shrug he's got there, or what?

"Now the serpent was more astute than any beast of the field which YHWH Elohim had made."

See, even the creation story is anti-elitist.

snailgate

So I agree the serpent lied but not as "a snake".

I'm not sure that is the case; eating of the tree did allow Adam to realize he was naked--something god immediately realized must have come from eating the fruit. His eyes were opened, and he apparently did begin to understand good and evil (after all, he hid because he realized he and eve did wrong). Now as for dying/not dying, does it come down to semantics? Or, in a world where death (at least for humans) was unknown, did they even know what god was talking about?

about the picture--it is interesting that both god and the cherubs wear clothes, but Adam and Even wore only fig leaves. And yet they didn't realize they were naked. Maybe the fruit of the tree was an antidote to the soma that kept them blind to their world and happy?

MajGenl.Meade wrote:It's fascinating story and I enjoy reflecting on it as well. My understanding though is that God did not "lie". Adam (and then Eve) were created to an immortal life in the Garden east of Eden. The warning, "thou shalt surely die" refers to the loss of immortality and the Fall (not the autumn thing although that's a nice image of aging and death). It describes the separation of man from God, symbolized by removal from the Garden. The serpent did indeed lie by placing doubt of God's truth in mankind's mind.

My belief is that Genesis 5:3 makes it clear. Man was originally created in the image and likeness of God. That is now shunted aside (though not lost) because Adam created Seth "in his own image and likeness". That is, we descendants of Adam are mortal and separated from the Creator.

I don't think the text bears you out on this, since it goes on to indicate that humans were never immortal: "And YHWH Elohim said 'Look, the man is now as one from among us, with knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he put out his hand and also take from the tree of life, and eat and live forever." (Gen. 3:22)

Also, the text does not support your heretical theory, as charming as it is; here's the major flaw:

MajGenl.Meade wrote:The Hebrew word tanniyn (not anyone's cup of tea) is variously rendered as serpent, dragon or sea monster e.g. Gen 1:21 often translated as "whale".

In the Genesis 3, the Hebrew word used is "nachash" (נחשׁ), which is still the word for "snake" today.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:God asked Adam (not Eve or the serpent) what had happened. Adam blamed Eve but even more tellingly, he blamed God. It was the fault of the "woman you gave me" he says.

Yeah, that was kind of funny, too. Like I said, all the characters are just terrible.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Is that an Italian shrug he's got there, or what?

Hahaha, that pic is hilarious!

But really, what do you think the moral of the story is? Don't talk to snakes? Don't listen to your wife? Or is there any lesson here at all apart from an origin myth?

That the knowledge of good and evil is a bad thing? Or maybe that we just can't help ourselves and remain dumb and happy?

Burning Petard wrote:"Now the serpent was more astute than any beast of the field which YHWH Elohim had made."

See, even the creation story is anti-elitist.

snailgate

A word about my translation: Here, I used "astute" as an alternative translation for "arum" (ערום), which is also variously translated as "subtle," "crafty," "shrewd," "cunning" and "deceitful," but also "prudent" and "sensible," depending on context. I chose to avoid a pejorative description in favor of something more neutral. Significantly, the word is also the word for "naked" (and in modern Hebrew is most often used that way). So a not-wrong translation might read, "Now the serpent was (the most) naked from among all the beasts of the field." (There's a lot of word-play like that throughout the Bible, which is kind of fun in the story-telling and often a source of commentary.)

Big RR wrote:That the knowledge of good and evil is a bad thing? Or maybe that we just can't help ourselves and remain dumb and happy?

I think you're onto something there. Maybe it's that seeking to obtain god-like powers leads to ruin. But really, what would we be without seeking knowledge of good and evil?

Sue. On immortality, they were never forbidden to eat from that tree of eternal life and the assumption is and should be that they would do so anyway, even by accident. Perhaps? Perhaps not. It can be regarded that Elohim was quite content that they should do so, but not after they ate from the forbidden tree, knowing good and evil. Immortality in innocence would have been one thing; knowledge + immortality something else. (I should have written "to be immortal" not actually so, maybe).

Odd, I can't find that "tanniyn" at all now in Genesis 3; what was I looking at? ........ Indeed, I see your nahash in my e-Sword quite clearly:
wə·han·nā·ḥāš — 1 Occurrence
Genesis 3:1
HEB: וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ הָיָ֣ה עָר֔וּם
NAS: Now the serpent

However, it doesn't entirely demolish the theory (just my language argument!!!). "Snake" is an English word as is "serpent". Naturally, a person speaking Hebrew would point to a serpent and say "nahash" just as we say "snake". Neither of us would say "dragon". Sure I realise Hebrew had a different word for dragon. But then of course so do we and yet we (in ancient times) referred to dragons as serpent, snake, wyrm, worm and so on. What the Hebrew doesn't explain is how the serpent is cursed to crawl on its belly - didn't it do that already? That is my theory, it is mine and belongs to me, and I own it and what it is, too.

Interesting about naked. Is it possible to equate the word with innocence at all (though not with the dragon/serpent)? Adam and Eve certainly didn't realize they were "naked", just knew that they "were". Perhaps it indicates a 'natural' state in both man and beast? And we can't ignore Jesus using the "be as wise as serpents" (Matt 10:16).

From the a Christian perspective, I believe that the main point is the responsibility of mankind in choosing to reject God which is separation. Creation myth or simplification of a more complex event (and I'm not bound to either), it is the Hebraic explanation for the existence of good and evil which is a problem for all beliefs, even atheistic ones. All must offer an explanation and all do. The lesson is listen to God - not to anyone or anything else, including your own desires.

That picture: one of my favourites since I saw it in Chatsworth House while strolling through Darcy's art. Take a look at the lamb and the lion? (feline predator anyway). What is the predator thinking - it's not looking at the lamb at all (to my eye)? It looks to me like the dawning of a new realization!

What the Hebrew doesn't explain is how the serpent is cursed to crawl on its belly - didn't it do that already?

Unless it stuck its tail in its mouth and rolled like a wheel?

I thought the OT had been binned?

Okay, so according to Eve, God said don't touch or eat fruit from a particular tree or it will kill you. Then the snake told her that the fruit won't kill you. He goes on to say that what the fruit will do is give you is the ability to know good from bad.

So Eve takes the fruit and shares it with Adam and then they both suddenly realized they aren't wearing any pants, which they knew was bad, so they made pants out of fig leaves, which they knew was good. Then God comes wandering back and A&E are hiding from Him.

God called out to Adam and asked him where he is hiding. Adam comes out and says he was hiding because he just realized he wasn't wearing pants. God asked Adam if he ate from the tree (knowing that he did). Adam said yes he did and that Eve talked him into it. God asked Eve what she had done and Eve replied that the serpent had talked her into eating the fruit. Then God got mad at the serpent and told him he's going to have to crawl for the rest of his life for talking A&E into disobeying Him.

The lesson I get from this is that God lied to Adam, a snake should mind its own business and that eating that forbidden fruit will make you realize that you look better in pants.

eating that forbidden fruit will make you realize that you look better in pants.

Except if you're a snake.

Big RR wrote:

What the Hebrew doesn't explain is how the serpent is cursed to crawl on its belly - didn't it do that already?

Unless it stuck its tail in its mouth and rolled like a wheel?

The wyrm and the wymon

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Interesting about naked. Is it possible to equate the word with innocence at all (though not with the dragon/serpent)? Adam and Eve certainly didn't realize they were "naked", just knew that they "were". Perhaps it indicates a 'natural' state in both man and beast?

I sometimes like to think of it in reference to the serpent as synonymous with "frank" or even "guileless," because of the way it alters understanding of the story Which may or may not fit in with your "wise as serpents" quote, but I really don't know much about the New Testament (and I can't read Greek).

MajGenl.Meade wrote:From the a Christian perspective, I believe that the main point is the responsibility of mankind in choosing to reject God which is separation. Creation myth or simplification of a more complex event (and I'm not bound to either), it is the Hebraic explanation for the existence of good and evil which is a problem for all beliefs, even atheistic ones.

Well, I don't get that from the text. Good and evil obviously existed before man and woman knew the difference, and neither of them "reject[ed] God" -- they just exercised the free will that God had given them. And after all, they brought up their kids to be believers, too, and look where that got them!

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Take a look at the lamb and the lion? (feline predator anyway). What is the predator thinking - it's not looking at the lamb at all (to my eye)? It looks to me like the dawning of a new realization!

I think you're right!

Also, what is this "e-Sword"?

e-Sword is one of the free downloads of the Bible in various languages and versions plus commentaries, Strongs and so on. There are others.

That's an interesting take on free will except that a) the knowledge of good and evil was separate from the experience of mankind/womankind. Yes b) they pre-existed but God gave one command only - and in rejecting that command they chose (and this was God's gift too - choice) to reject the command which I equate with rejecting God. But free will has consequences.

Yes being believers is often more (or less) than a zero-sum thing

Sue U wrote:So I had occasion to be considering Genesis 3 over the weekend:
...
Okay, so the man and the woman both knew they weren't supposed to eat the fruit, and to emphasize the prohibition YHWH Elohim had actually lied to them about the consequences. The serpent only told the truth about the tree and its fruit. The man and the woman exercised their own judgment about whether to violate YHWH Elohim's rule, and then each promptly pointed a finger at someone else. Although all the characters in this story are objectively terrible, it seems to me the least terrible is the serpent. Is there a lesson we are supposed to take from this story, or is it simply the folklore that explains the "fallen" state of the world we live in?

YHWH Elohim told the truth. They ate the fruit and they died. Not that minute, but that was not the threat. If they never eat the fruit they can live in the garden forever. The serpent lied.

They were driven from the garden and denied access to the tree of life and they died as a result.

Now if AGD were here he would say that it was all god's doing because he set up the situation knowing how it was going to come out in the end. Undeniably true.


I don't think the characters are 'objectively horrible'. Adam and Eve are the very definition of naive before they eat the fruit. God has set up a condition where there is only ONE thing they can do which is 'wrong' and it is only 'wrong' because he prohibits it. Not because it is objectively immoral, they have no conception of 'objectively immoral' how can they? But the loss of innocence like the direction of time in physics, has only one direction. It is the one bell which can never be un-rung. And instead of educating them about the nature of the loss of innocence, that it cannot be undone, he just threatens them with a threat whose dimensions they don't really understand. Do they have a conception of death? Finality? And god understands the nature of good and evil and that fact by itself does not reduce his goodness (or so the story goes). AND he knew the snake was going to tempt Eve and he didn't even bother to warn her. Something like NUMERO UNO "No eating the fruit". NUMERO DOS: "the snake is a damned liar don't listen to him." That would be more fruitful than threatening them with outcomes they don't have any experience of.

But god NEEDED them to screw up. They HAD to screw up. Otherwise the rest of the story doesn't happen. So he set it up so they would.

But having said that I think the story of the fall is amazingly beautiful if you look at the underlying logic and necessity of each part of it.


yrs,
rubato

Wow. That was posted by rubato?

I'm impressed.

Sorry to disappoint you CP, but I hacked into rube's account and posted that...