Bible Question: What was the First Sin?

Eve touching the apple from the tree of knowledge (of good and evil)?

Do I still have two lives left?Hopefully, I do.How about. . .Eve touching the apple from the tree in the middle of the garden?(I know it's very similar, but I'm going off of your "so close" and "thought you had it there."

This is a bit of a stretch, but I'm guessing that the actual answer is going to be. . . .Eve was formed after God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Also, God said nothing of touching the apple (only eating it).When Eve was talking to the serpent, she said, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"One could interpret this as "giving false testimony," which IS a sin (although it's not necessarily against "a neighbor").Chances are I'm wrong again, but it was worth a shot.

I don't know how much a tenner is worth, but I'm hoping it's more than the plane ticket I just bought to fly to Scotland to collect it.And just because I got the answer right does not mean that I agree with it. While God does not say anything to Adam about touching the apple, you cannot tell me that there isn't a good chance that he reiterated (rephrased or elaborated upon might be better here) his original command.Anyways, nice job on the topic. It adds a little fun. Everyone, whether they believe the creation story was true or not, could answer the question without having to compromise their beliefs.

No, the sin would be being ashamed of their nakedness, which came after the tree incident.

Revelation 12:9. . . ."The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the world astray. . . "I know it's the New Testament, but I thought it was worth adding.Also, I always learned that the book of Job was one of the oldest (if not the oldest) books in the Bible. Job refers to Satan numerous times (all of chapter 1 involves Satan), so I don't think you can safely say, "Judaism had no concept of the devil."

I do not necessarily agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, but that is another matter. The original reason I posted the verse from Revelation was to show that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible, and it is understandable that Pringlesguy would think that. And, no, I do not think any time "serpent" is used it is referring to Satan. Also, whether Revelations is referring to a dragon or not is meaningless; it stills calls Satan a "serpent." You base this on what? If you type "oldest book in the Bible" into a search engine, almost all the sites indicate Job. This is the closest thing I can find that supports your argument that Genesis is the oldest book in the Bible:

quote:

---

Many scholars agree that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, written by an unknown Israelite about 1500 B.C. Others hold that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) are the oldest books in the Bible, written between 1446 and 1406 B.C.

---

My point about Job had nothing to do with Satan being a serpent. I was simply pointing out that if Job is the oldest book in the Bible, then obviously the Jews had SOME concept of the devil. Again, proof? Anyway, without a description of how the early Jewish Satan differs from the modern-day Christian Satan, this makes no difference. Cool. Any more useless information? I am willing to bet that most people who have read the Bible would consider Satan to be an adversary to God. No, certainly not. If I was, then why would I argue that Job was the oldest book in the Bible? Unless you are speaking of the Hebrew version, I see no indication of this. The fourth word in Genesis is "God" in all its singular glory. (Here comes the "Elohim" is a plural noun argument.)Finally, Once again I do not see any indication of this. If you could provide some proof or at least something supporting this idea, I would greatly appreciate. Also, if I come across a bit harsh, I apologize, but I tend to get that way when someone makes wild assumptions and insults my intelligence (or at least that how I took it).

I don't really think I have any directions backwards. To clarify a bit: in no way am I arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan (this doesn't mean I believe he isn't, just that it is certainly debatable). Furthermore, I am not even so much arguing that every serpent is Satan, or even that Satan is a serpent. I was simply presenting a passage where Satan IS referred to as a serpent, whether it be a dragon, snake, or whatever. You seemed to insult Pringlesguy for thinking that the Genesis serpent was Satan, and I was just trying to give a reason why he might have thought that. Once again, I'm not arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. To say, though, that the serpent "is not regarded in any way as supernatural" is slightly off. The serpent DOES speak, if you recall, and seems to be intelligent enough to deceive Eve. I never claimed this. And I agree completely that Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan. Pretty basic stuff. I understand that your analyses of the texts may have led you to believe that Job was written somewhere around the fifth century B.C. Obviously, though, whoever it is that originally determined that Job was written around 1500 B.C. did some analysis, too. So why should I believe you before I believe him? (Not that I put complete faith in this man's date of 1500, just that I am more inclined to accept it than I am to your proposed date.) Again, I am not claiming this. And even if I did believe the serpent in Genesis is Satan, I would not think you are wrong for believing it isn't. I am claiming, however, that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible (Revelations)--nothing more than that. I really wish I could read/speak Hebrew, but as it stands, I cannot. For this reason, I am referring to the several English translations I have right next to me. If you could elaborate on your point that Genesis starts out mentioning many gods and slowly evolves into monotheism, I would appreciate it.This post was a little more civil. If I ever get too harsh or out-of-line, please address me. I do not intend to infuriate anyone/make enemies over an internet message board. Thank you.

Rrhain: your original comment to Pringlesguy was:

quote:

---

Satan does not go about on his belly.

---

With my original post, I was simply suggesting that maybe Satan DOES "go about on his belly." The verse from Revelations seems to support this idea. The "serpent" it speaks of may be a dragon, but this is beside the point--Satan is still referred to as a serpent, and if you want to get REAL technical, even dragons "go about on their bellies," for the most part.

quote:

---

So every serpent, even the pet snake a friend of mine from college had, is an incarnation of the devil?

---

I never claimed this. In fact, I never even implied this. I do not know where you get this idea, but you seem to be stuck on it. Never once did I claim that ANY snake was Satan, and I only said that there is a POSSIBILITY that Satan may be able to take the shape of a snake.

quote:

---

Well, which is it? Did you bring up Revelation to argue that the devil is a serpent or are you arguing that the devil is not a serpent?

---

I brought up Revelation to argue that Satan is referred to as a serpent, and it was understandable for Pringlesguy to think so. You may believe that Judaism had no concept of the devil at that time, but obviously he didn't know that and/or doesn't subscribe to that idea.

quote:

---

Oh, I understand why he thinks that: He was told to think that.

---

That may be so, and there are people who try to impose their beliefs on others, but that's another topic.

quote:

---

Insult? Please. You'll know when I've insulted you.

---

That's great. Does it really matter, though? Maybe I should have said that you replied in "an insulting manner"? It is only a matter of semantics.

quote:

---

So? How does that make the snake supernatural? He is not treated so in any way. Just because you have never seen an animal speak doesn't mean it never happens. Have you considered the possibility that they just don't have anything to say to you?

---

This is silly. Most anyone would agree that an animal that speaks should be treated as supernatural. No, I have never seen an animal speak, so it is possible that it happens, but have you ever encountered a supernatural animal? So why, then, are you the judge of what characteristics of supernatural beings are?

quote:

---

So if Job was written after Genesis, then that makes Job younger than Genesis.

---

But if Job was written before Genesis, then that makes Job older than Genesis.

quote:

---

Might it be because you want it to be that way?

---

No. I really could care less whether Job was written in the 5th century B.C. or the 15th, beyond this argument. I always thought, though, that Job was older and because of this, I saw your statement ("Judaism had no concept of the devil at the time Genesis was written") as incorrect.

quote:

---

Even so, do you not agree that the books of Judaism must necessarily be understood within the context of Judaism? That they must be studied in the historical context of the Jews who were present at the time of its writing? That it was written by Jews for Jews and attempts by Christians to re-write its meaning are ill-conceived?

---

I agree with all three points.

quote:

---

That's fine. But what is the context for which they were translated? Were they done in order to preserve Christian theology (such as the NIV) or were they done in order to preserve Jewish theology?

---

The three versions of the Bible I have next to me are: NIV, KJV, and the English Translation (Good News Bible?). I also have a copy of the Revised Standard Version somewhere, I think. You tell me, though--which English translation sticks most closely to the original context of both the Old Testament and the New Testament? I will be sure to purchase it if I do not already have it.

quote:

---

Just take a look. From the very first chapter. "Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26). This is followed by god looking to the other gods and panicking over Adam and Eve's becoming as gods knowing good and evil, "Man is become as one of us" (Gen 3:22). And then the Tower of Babylon, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen 11:7).

---

This is another debate, but has it ever occurred to you that this may be speaking of the Trinity? I am not saying you are wrong for thinking it isn't, but you should at least take this idea into account.Thank you.

Rrhain,I know this topic is a little dead, but I don't want you or anyone to think that I am "fleeing" the discussion. Feel free to respond, but if you don't, that is perfectly fine. I'll ignore the smaller points and focus on just a few things. I am not really claiming any direction. My position is that Satan is referred to as a serpent, so it is understandable for someone to think that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. You do not, however. Our disagreement arises because of our different views of the Bible, I believe. The Bible to me is the word of God through man. Therefore, I see the Bible as God's message to us, and so the period in history that each book was written is a little less important. The Bible to me is ONE work of art, whereas many view it as a "compilation" of books discussing God. My point is that I believe Revelations DOES have something to do with Genesis. I tried to ignore this belief for the sake of the argument, but I didn't do that too well, coming across as hypocritical. I apologize.Anyways, all serpents are not Satan, and Satan may not be a serpent. I believe there is enough evidence present, though, to at least provide a reasonable argument that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. Of course one exists. I asked which English translation sticks MOST CLOSELY to the texts. They all may be horrible, but one has to be better than the rest. "That's logic."Finally, regarding the Job-Genesis debate:It does not really matter to me which book is older. It has no effect on my beliefs, whatsoever. You know far more than I do about the history of both books. I still just wonder why I am supposed to take your word (Genesis 1st, Job 2nd) over whoever it was that determined that Job was written before Genesis, though. So saying, "As it isn't, it ain't," is misleading. The date of the book of Job is obviously debatable, so please do not present your date (which may be correct) as fact.Thanks.

Essentially, it IS a compilation of books. I was just trying to stress the fact that I think it is more than that. If God really spoke through men (as I believe) to give us the Bible, then who's to say He didn't make sure everything He intended to be canonized actually was? In other words, if He went as far as to speak to us through prophets and disciples and such, why wouldn't wouldn't He make sure it all ended up being canonized. And so, you have the Bible to me--the complete word of God.