Genesis 3

[Justin Adams]

Do a study about the Nacash.

[Frits]

On 12/6/2020 at 4:06 PM, BeyondET said:

They will not die

Yes, you're right because the Lord God had said, “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, ¹⁷ but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.” (Gen.2)

God bless you.

[HAZARD]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

I disagree. There is much that is incorrect both scripturally and rationally with this post. 

First, it was claimed Eve was never tempted by Satan. The Hebrew word for "deceived," in Genesis 3:13 is "hiššî’anî ," which means to beguile. It's root has to do with usury or becoming indebted (H5377). Since she had authority over all the creatures in the garden and the serpent/satan was a creature she had authority over him. 2 Corinthians 11:3 describes how this deceit occurs when the mind is led astray. Hard to fathom how someone can be beguiled or indebted without their collaboration in some way, shape, or form. Lastly, 2 Tim. 2:14 tells us she was a sinner as a consequence of being deceived. What does scripture tell us about sin and temptation? James 1 makes it quite clear we are tempt by our own desires and lusts that drag us away and entice us, giving birth to sin when acted upon. 

Next, it's been stated the serpent wasn't satan, but was in league with satan. Apparently two different creatures. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 are fairly direct in telling us the serpent and satan are on and the same. 

Next is is said, "The devil was too wise to begin with the very head of Gods creation on Earth, Adam," but scripture tells us one of the effects of sin is foolishness, and another is futile thinking. Another is a darkened heart and if satan's experience is in any way similar to the effects sin has on humans then God gave him over to his lusts and he isn't thinking wisely at all. Most importantly, the wages of sin is death, so satan lives dead in transgression. Again I point out there is no wisdom in this. Furthermore something not anywhere stated in the text is being read into the text - and what is being read is inconsistent with the whole of scripture. Satan is not wise. Cunning, not wise. 

Then it is said, "Satan is a fallen angel, not a beast of the field.." This is a false dichotomy. Satan can be both. The two passages in Revelation make identity statements, not comparisons. 

The statement, "The language of Gen. 3 is literal, not symbolical, as is Rev. 12:3-17, where the serpent is explained as a symbol of Satan," is another false dichotomy. The language can be both literal and symbolic. Satan can have been the serpent and that figure still be symbolic of his condition, influence, status, and more. You yourself are on record stating the serpent literally means snake. We know from elsewhere in the Bible satan can masquerade as an angel of light. If that's merely symbolic then we don't actually have to be wary and discern true angels for light because those words are only and merely symbolic. More consistent to understand satan can and does change his appearance. So the statement, "Not one Scripture anywhere in the entire Bible states or teaches that Satan, as an angel can turn himself into a literal serpent or any other beast," proves factually untrue. If satan can appear as an angel of light he can appear as a snake. 

In Your Opinion!

[HAZARD]

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Well, I did back up everything I posted with scripture. 

So did I!

[HAZARD]

17 minutes ago, Josheb said:

That is self-evidently untrue. My posted pointed out the liberties you took with the text and how things nowhere stated were added and how at least one fallacious argument from silence were asserted, and piles of contradictions with scripture were made. If that was missed then go back and re-read my post.

The serpent was cursed by God because he was the very first to yield to Satan and to cause the fall of man.

The serpent was cursed above all creatures and was to go upon his belly and eat dust all his days (Isa. 65:25).
He was by this curse deprived of walking upright and of his speech and became a poisonus, loathsome creature, despised by man whom he betrayed and decieved (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14).
Most people were taught and believe that Satan was the serpent, but the serpent was not the personal devil at all. He was a tool of the devil, a creature of the field which God had made which is proved by these following points and Scriptures.

[1] This is plainly stated in Genesis 3:1, "Now the serpent was more stubtle (impudent) than any BEAST OF THE FIELD which the Lord God had made."
Satan is a fallen angel, not a beast of the field. The devil does not crawl upon his belly as is true of the serpent.

[2] Not one Scripture anywhere in the entire Bible states or teaches that Satan, as an angel can turn himself into a literal serpent or any other beast.

[HAZARD]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

That is not what the scripture states. You are, once again, reading something into the text it does not state. That has happened a lot in this conversation. 

What the scripture does state as the cause of God cursing the serpent is his deceiving Eve.

Genesis 3:13-15
"Then the LORD God said to the woman, 'What is this you have done?' And the woman said, 'The serpent deceived me, and I ate.'  The LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life;  and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.'"

 

The cause is stated right there in the text and there's no reason to add to it. But that is what you do. You've claimed to couch your position in scripture but when scripture is actually examined that proves not to be the case. Instead, what proves to be the case is a highly interpretive reading of the texted based on additions nowhere stated. Nowhere does the text state, "The serpent was the first to yield to satan." Nowhere. That was added interpretively AND it was added in direct, explicit contradiction to what is stated in Revelation (twice!). 

Don't shoot the messenger. 

Adjust your thinking, doctrine, and practice to comply with God's word as written, plainly read and properly rendered first via other scripture. 

The Hebrew word for serpent is nachash, which means a literal snake. It is always used of a literal snake except in Isa. 27:1, where it is clear that no literal snake is refered to.
Following our principle of taking the Bible literally whenever possible, we can conclude that Gen. 3 refers to a literal snake just as it does in every other place except one. In both testaments when the literal meaning is not to be understood it is always clear or it is explained that a literal serpent is not meant (Isa.27:1; Rev.12:9; 20:2).

The language of Gen. 3 is literal, not symbolical, as is Rev. 12:3-17, where the serpent is explained as a symbol of Satan.

Suppose we substitute the word devil every place the word serpent is used in literal passages as Gen. 3; Exodus 4:3; 7:9-15 etc., and note the results. Thus there is no excuse for believing that the serpent of Gen. 3 was not the devil in person.

Eve was acquainted with the literal serpent in the garden, but she knew nothing of the devil; so if the devil, a stranger had appeared to her she would have been afraid to converse with him.
We can come to no other conclusion other than Eve was well aquainted with the serpent and must have talked with him on other occasions to have listened to him and converse with him in Gen 3.

Eve made two serious mistakes. One, she believed the serpent and not God. And two, she also told the first lie.

 

[Dennis1209]

48 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

The serpent was cursed by God because he was the very first to yield to Satan and to cause the fall of man.

The serpent was cursed above all creatures and was to go upon his belly and eat dust all his days (Isa. 65:25).
He was by this curse deprived of walking upright and of his speech and became a poisonus, loathsome creature, despised by man whom he betrayed and decieved (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14).
Most people were taught and believe that Satan was the serpent, but the serpent was not the personal devil at all. He was a tool of the devil, a creature of the field which God had made which is proved by these following points and Scriptures.

[1] This is plainly stated in Genesis 3:1, "Now the serpent was more stubtle (impudent) than any BEAST OF THE FIELD which the Lord God had made."
Satan is a fallen angel, not a beast of the field. The devil does not crawl upon his belly as is true of the serpent.

[2] Not one Scripture anywhere in the entire Bible states or teaches that Satan, as an angel can turn himself into a literal serpent or any other beast.

Yep, there's a lot under the hood to unpack. I think close along the same lines as you with minor other thoughts. The Garden of Eden was but a small place inside the geographical boundaries of Eden according to my understanding. I suspect the size and boundaries of Eden might be that of the geographical boundaries God later laid out for Israel possibly? 

Genesis 1:28 (KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The Garden of Eden was perfect, and evidently Adam & Eve only had to tend it? What was outside of the Garden of Eden that required them to "subdue" it? The word subdue is interesting:

Aramaic כְּבַשׁ, ܟܒܰܫ (kbaš) tread down, beat or make a path, subdue; Arabic كَبَسَ (kabasa) press, squeeze, knead (body or limb, as in the bath, massage), also attack, assault)—Qal Pf. 3 pl. וְכָֽבְשׁוּ consec. Zc 9:15; Impf. יִכְבּוֹשׁ Mi 7:19; וַיִּכְבְּשׁוּם Je 34:11 Qr (Kt Hiph), etc.; Imv. pl. sf. כִּבְשֻׁהָ Gn 1:28; Inf. כְּבוֹשׁ 2 Ch 28:10 Est 7:8; Pt. כֹּבְשִׁים Ne 5:5;—1. bring into bondage, sq. acc. + לַעֲבָדִים Je 34:11, 16 2 Ch 28:10 Ne 5:5. 2. (late) subdue, force, a woman Est 7:8 ( = earlier עִנָּה). 3. subdue, dominate, the earth Gn 1:28 (P), Zc 9:15 (of conquest); tread down, sq. אַבְנֵי־קֶלַע; fig. subdue, sq. עֲוֹנֹתֵינוּ Mi 7:19. Niph. Pf. 3 fs. נִכְבְּשָׁה Jos 18:1 + 3 times; Pt. fpl. נִכְבָּשׁוֹת Ne 5:5;—pass. of Qal 1, subj. בְּנוֹתֵינוּ Ne 5:5; of Qal 3, subj. הָאָרֶץ (of conquest) Nu 32:22, 29 Jos 18:1 (all P), 1 Ch 22:18. Pi. Pf. כִּבֵּשׁ subdued 2 S 8:11, obj. גּוֹיִם. Hiph. Impf. bring into bondage sq. acc. + לַעֲבָדִים Je 34:11 Kt (Qr Qal).

Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 461). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[HAZARD]

5 minutes ago, Josheb said:

(Josh shakes his head in incredulity) 

Brother, the verse you yourself just quoted itself-evidently states nothing it is claimed to say! First, the verse does not state, "All the serpents in the garden were more subtle than any beast of the field..." It specifies "the" serpent (singular). The verse most certainly does not state the serpent and the devil were two different creatures. It most certainly doesn't state satan wasn't a creature of the field. Genesis 3:1 does not state any of what you say it says. All of it is being added to the text in a highly interpretive manner. 

Yes, satan is a fallen angel and Jude tells us those "angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day." Those eternal bonds caused their fall from heaven, as Jesus tells us he recalls seeing himself. To where did they "fall"? Wherein were they "held"? 

Genesis 1:26-31
"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'  Then God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;  and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food'; and it was so.  God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

God gave Adam and Eve authority over every creature that moved upon the earth. 

That would include both the serpent and satan even if they were two separate creatures. 

I'm not reading that into the text; that's what the text actually states. Not my opinion as was  erroneously claimed. 

 

 

Once again, the scriptures do not actually state what you say they say. 

Adam had no authoriy over Satan. Satan was Licifer, a fallen angel who once ruled the earth and was cast out because he tried to invade heaven and dethrone God. God then restored the earth to a habitable state, created Adam and Eve, and had to test them to see if they remained true to Him before He allowed them eat of the tree of life.

 

[HAZARD]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Argumentum ex silentio. That statement commits the logical and eisegetic fallacy known as the "argument from silence." 

It's also not true. There is scripture that states satan can appear as an angel of light. 

2 Corinthians 11:12-15
"But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.  For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.  No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.  Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds." 

So how hard would it be for a former archangel who can still masquerade as an angel of light to masquerade as a serpent? If we're going to add things to scripture then let's do so based on what scripture actually states, and not what it is baselessly made to say. We know from Matthew 8 and Mark 5 demons can inhabit pigs. Why not a serpent? 

The fact is Revelation tells us, 

Revelation 20:1-3
"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.  And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;  and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time."

That text actually factually states the serpent of old is the devil and satan. 

So, once again, we see the scriptures do not actually anywhere state what you say they say. And we see what I posted isn't my opinion but is  instead firmly couched in what the scriptures actually state. 

 

 

One last note: Yes, both the Genesis creation account and Revelation are filled with figurative language and have allegorical significance but symbolism does not mean what is stated is not factual. Isaac, Moses, David, Jonah, and many other real life actual human beings are facts of history and theologically symbolic. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. You have also been arguing a false dichotomy. 

And I don't know where you got these ideas but those sources are teaching poorly. As a consequence their errors are being forwarded to others who may not know scripture as well as I and other, or be as mature spiritually enough to properly discern eisegesis when it occurs. Not all serpents in Eden were devils (maybe they were ),  but that one serpent, the serpent that lied to Eve and deceived her was satan. That's what Revelation states. 

Adjust thinking, doctrine, and most importantly practice accordingly .

 

 

.

You wrote,

"

It's also not true. There is scripture that states satan can appear as an angel of light."

 

 

Yes he can, he is our adversary and God's adversary, a lair and the father of lies, and yet he can, like most evil sinners appear to be a wonderful law abiding person.

[HAZARD]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Scripture says otherwise. I provided the scripture. You are free to accept it as written and believe it or not. 

 

 

You do understand there were two commands given in Eden, yes?
Do you understand the first one never would have been broken had the first one been obeyed?

quote]"God gave Adam and Eve authority over every creature that moved upon the earth. 

That would include both the serpent and satan even if they were two separate creatures."[/quote]

Lucifer never approached Adam or Eve, he had the serpent, who was a creature of the earth. Lucifer was never a creature of the earth. He was a fallen angel from Heaven. 

 

The angels who are not in chains were those who went into the daughters of men and gave birth to the giants.