Poor Satan, so misunderstood.

quote:

---

With the importance you place on the law (and I also believe it is important) why was it not mentioned as Adam's fundamental instructions?

---

Actually, I agree there is good merit in saying the laws were dispensed fast, suddenly and w/o much pre-experimentation. At least, this would apply to numerous laws. What seems analogous to the adam story, is the first two commandments, which are so strictly inclined with Monotheism and NO OTHER GODS. When one considers it well, the Israelites at this time were steeped in idols and dieties, being in ancient Egypt for centuries: they had to fail this one, and they did. Same with Adam and Eve.However, IMHO, the laws had to be given, and perhaps they are best viewed from a big picture long period view of humanity. The law is careful to include a host of saving graces, such as forebearence, kindness, mercy, forgiveness, etc.

quote:

---

Do you mean that there was no trangression with Adam?

​

Was he punished by expulsion from the garden because of transgression or not?

---

He was punished and he did transgress the law given him. However, the point is not only the failing here; this story shows more than that - namely that an overwhleming situation was given them [how long would anyone last if told not to eat a fruit lest it begets them everlasting life and transcendent Gd like knowledge?] - then overwhelming temptation with the serpent [the most cunning of all creatures]?Even with murder, if its accidental or not pre-med, there is no crime. IMHO, its too simplistic to read this story relating only to a failing by Adam. It appears more a reflection for humanity and how they will act and what will confront them in this realm. It is more akin to a parent testing a child - with full knowledge of the outcome.

quote:

---

Question for the zealots on this forum who are eager always to say "THERE'S NOOOOOO Satan in the Old Testament !!"

​

Okay, how did the serpent have this inside story about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Man was created to have dominion over all the creatures of the earth. How can man have dominion over the serpent if the serpent is smarter about what is going on than man?

​

Where did the serpent get this information that Adam would become like God knowing good and evil? It sounds like the serpent had some previous experience with these things.

​

What kind of snake is this? He has the "inside story" on such divine and eternal matters. Where did he get this knowledge?

---

Excellent question, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with any devil. There is no 'devel' mentioned in any of the five books. This is simply a display to indicate the sanctity of commands [laws], which was to be forthcoming unto humanity. Both this story in Genesis, and the opening words at Sinai, begin with a display of 'laws'.The fact that the serpent must have had some prior knowledge of good and evil is also correct, and is also an explanation of the plural 'US' - used in the texts before the advent of humans: 'LET *US* MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE'/Gen. Of note is the 'US' only relates to including the previously created spiritual beings in what God proposes to do next, while the following verse which tells of actually creating man is in the 'singular' verb.

quote:

---

In Genesis 1:26,27 we read:

​

And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ... So God created man in His own image ...

​

Could "Us" include the serpent ? In Deuteronmoy Moses warned the Israelites not to make an image of God that resembled any animal:

​

"So take careful heed to your souls for you did not see any form at all on the day when Jehovah spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire,
So that you do not spoil yourselves and make for yourselves an idol, a form of any image, a figure of male or female, a figure of any animal which is on the earth, a figure of any winged bird which flies in the sky, a figure of anything that crawls on the ground ... etc." (See Deuteronomy 4:14-19)

---

The command of images relates to the 'worship' of them only, and to humans on this physical realm. Note it says not to make a 'likeness' of anything in heaven or earth, listing all relevent examples. This does not include abstracts, such as a word or writing or an expressionism. The law was directed to humanity only.This law is akin to an advocation, although presented as a mandated law akin to THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. It is given for guidance to follow the best path for belief, as it says, [paraphrased]: FOR THEY SHALL FOLLOW MY STATUTES AND NOT GO ASTRAY, etc.

quote:

---

The flying, walking, or crawling serpent is OUT as far as being any way associated with the divine "Us" and "Our image".

​

But IamJoseph's thought still needs consideration. He says that the "Us" refers to spiritual beings. If that is the case then we have a spiritual being who has changed in likeness and image to become a serpent. Spiritually then, IamJoseph implies, some glorious and holy being is one of the divine "Us" in the past but is presently in the form of a serpent.

---

There was no humans at the point of that verse [pre-man creation]. That the serpent was punished with crawling on the ground, also says the serpent once walked. We know that spiritual beings [forces/angels?] can emulate humans while they enter this physical realm, from the 3 Angels who visited Abraham. This is specially so when there is a vision or relevation commanded [seeing with third eye/when the eyes are closed, etc/Bilham], or when a message is to be given, which is varied from the lesser omens, signs, dreams and thoughts of man.

quote:

---

This interpretation brings us closer to the serpent being the Devil rather than farther away.

---

No, this infers an adversary to God, which is a Non-OT; Non-Monotheist stance. All percieved bad/evil is Creator sanctioned else it could not occur, as with all things. Also, there is no loss of free will for humans in this regard. Further, angels cannot perform more than one designated task at one time [thus 3 angels were sent to Abraham, with 3 different messages], free will being exclusive to humans, and based exclusively on moral/ethical laws; there is no free will outside a moral/ethical decision. The OT clearly says of percieved evils, 'WHEN *I* SEND THE PLAGUE INTO YOUR CITITES'; 'WHO IS IT THAT MAKES ONE BLIND AND ANOTHER A MUTE?'; etc.There is no 'Lucifer' or Creator adversary syndrome in the OT, which describes evil and hated the Lord, as hating the laws of God only. This says the law is the only antidote to bad/evil. Eve would have not sinned and prevailed over the serpent but for disobaying a law; this was the serpent's designated role, also as seen in Job, to test one against a command. The same way, a spiritual force tempts one to gamble, rob or do some wrong on a constant basis while we live.

quote:

---

But there is another problem. Could there be ANY reference ANYWHERE in the rest of the Bible that angels, other gods, cherubims, etc. assisted God in the creating of anything? Remember that God said - "Let Us make make man ..." but verse 27 does not say "So They created man in Their own image". Rather it says "And God created man in His own image ..."

​

God makes a point of telling us that He alone is responsible for creation work:

​

I am Jehovah who makes all things, Who alone stretches out the heavens, Who spread out the earth (Who was with Me?) (Isa.44:24 RcV ).
I am the First and I am the Last, and apart from Me there is no God. (Isa. 44:6)

​

From these passages we see that God alone and no other gods are responsible for the heavens and the earth. But what about the creation of man? It does say in Genesis "Let Us make man in Our Image, according to Our likeness ..."

---

See the follow-up verse: when man is created - the word 'created' is in the singular term. The 'US' refers only to a dialogue which includes other spiritual beings created in Heaven, which preceded the physical realm.

quote:

---

I will leave off pondering this problem further until another post. But I would say this. In an attempt to remove and ancient powerful being who is Satan the Devil from Genesis, I think that IamJoseph has unwittingly brought us closer to such a concept.

​

It should be clear that any spiritual being who is part of the divine "Us" in some sense is:

​

1.) Changed in form or appearance
2.) In opposition against the plan of God
3.) In direct rebellion to the command of God
5.) Twisting the words of God
6.) Lying concerning the truth of God
7.) Judged by God
8.) Cursed by God
9.) Responsible for the trend of the human race away from God's Paradise
10.) Main instigator in the necesssity for God to have to judge man.

---

Only where this role is designated; in Job, the percieved adversary had to seek God's permission to test Job, and this was given in the opening preamble of that book. Belief in any independent anti-creator entity can conclude in paganism, polytheism, or the wrong path.

quote:

---

Again, Genesis did not say that the angel was more subtle or more crafty among all the creatures God made. But it says the serpent was. Now you have to deal with the questions:

​

Well if it was an angel member of this glorious "Us", how come he shows up now in the garden as a serpent? Why did it not record that a glorious angel came and spoke to Eve saying something like:

​

"Eve, I am a glorious being as you can see. I am a member of US team in whose image you were made. You won't die if you eat of the forbidden tree."

---

Consider this pivotal verse here.

quote:

---

2/15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

---

From where was the man taken? And to where? He was not taken to a garden - but to 'THE' garden, namely a particular garden like no other - where animals can walk, talk and debate; where a human is in its primal, original dual-gendered form [pre-seperation, and still in the previous chapter's state of 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM']; and where entry is guarded by 'angels'. This is hardly a garden variety ordinary garden.Later, the human is cast out of this garden: to where? - and why cast out/down if this is just a generic garden not different from any place on earth? - and why bar entry with angels with firey swords?Obviously, this is not on physical earth, or it is a metaphor, and quite excellently writ. It is obviously not an error in writing so it is not coherent - we see a coherence of writing every where in the OT, irrespective how one feels about its content. The opening chapters of genesis, being creational, are also, IMO, the most complex and hedy. It is a description of a transit zone, between essential creation in conjunction with all created entities [ch.1], and then an historical account of a 'human' [adam] becoming a particular man's name [pronoun]; because the adam of ch.1 was an essential human [in his essence of creation], not a historical person on earth; ch 1 is not about the creation of humans, but the creation of all things simultainiously - all elements and all life forms, including physicality itself. There is a transit twilight zone here, which acts as a bridge, thus it's metaphoric premise.We find also, that the technical word for 'create' is used in ch. 1 for essence of man, and the word 'formed' used outside of ch.1., when Eve was seperated from adam:

quote:

---

3/1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman: 'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'

---

This non-physical garden is 'away from' and 'different' than the place where four rivers are listed. Here, the phrase 'took man from' - refers to took man from this physical earth wherein is the historical rivers listed - namely 'away' from physicality. Thus in the garden, all the created life forms addressed in ch 1., which includes the animals, are likewise not in this physical realm, but still in their essence prior to their physical representation. All are in the transit zone.The relevent question now becomes, where then does this meta-physical realm and, and the historical, physical one begin? IMHO, it is at the following point, which introduces the first exclusive human trait, one which no other life form displays, and one which signifies nothing else than 'physicality' and more significantly, the exclusive human reaction to it: shame and embarrassment of being naked - which is the factor seperating humans from all other life forms. The opening clause here is also an eye opener:

quote:

---

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles.

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Once again. It is not the knowledge of good and evil which is the poison. It is the INDEPENDENT BEING who withdrew from God's authority and kingdom which is the poison.

---

How does this account for the serpent also being punished, if only man sinned? This also shows that the animals were in the same place [the serpent].

quote:

---

The poison was delivered in a deceptive and good sounding name - the knowledge of good and evil.

---

But this would account for a non-truth, which is not permissable, because this description ['knowledge of good and evil'] was ascribed as being given by God.

I concur here. The term satan is Non-OT and an addition.The tree of knowledge was good, and only a precious status accorded it, later seen as irresistably desirous.Also, there is no rebellian in the sense of being able to withstand God's Will as a counter force, but more a failing, akin to one failing to adhere to a NO SMOKING sign. All were judged; non were a counter force; the latter notion contradicts the OT in a fundamental mode.

quote:

---

God could not say that He created them male and female until after the woman was taken from the man.

---

Not so. Both were created in dual-gender mode in ch.1., in their originally created essence, and here adam represents a generic human, not a male name:

quote:

---

1/27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

---

quote:

---

I agree that the garden was special. But it was on the earth.
I don't see the garden as being in heaven. I don't see it as being in some abstract zone or state. It was east of somewhere called Eden. And the land of Cush and Assyria were mentioned as being directionally related to it.

​

The garden of Eden in Genesis was on the planet.

​

There are however, deep significances in the mentioning of the rivers

---

That the garden was special, means it can be special here on earth as well, varied from the norm reality. The point here is this garden was non-physical/different by virtue of the factors it contains. The historical milestones such as river tigirs, etc - is the place this garden was seperate from, and where adam was taken and placed therein, then cast back to physical, historical earth. Earth and physicality do not apply here. East is also mentioned in Exodus, representing a factor transcending nature, namely a strong easterly wind split the sea of reeds.The rest of your post references are NT perspectives, which have fundamental core differences with the OT conclusions, contradicting all of the laws and statutes of the Mosaic - from the POV of pre-NT, OT commentary and provisions. It is just a different view and premise, and ends cyclical or contradictory when both premises are used. Obviously, if one followed the OT view for 2000 years b4 the NT emerged, he would not uphold the same views. The variance must be seen from a big picture view, not in a path which requires the OT to allign with an end point conclusion of the NT.Here, my preference goes to the OT conclusion - else all other factors in the OT become changeable; equally, we cannot determine the NT from an OT view. There is no adversary or devil in the text, only humans and a serpent being placed in situations and acting like all humans do in natural circumstances: they fail, fall and get up again: the message of this story of things to come.

To be fair, this is perhaps the most enigmatic writings I have ever encountered. It seems to infer something different, more or additional than what is read in it, even from numerous deliberations. The most poignant factor in it is that it appears to be intentional, because it cannot be conclusively faulted as an error, no matter which path is taken. Equally, all conclusions appear deficient and unsatisfactory.One must remember the hedy nature of the topic, and what mysterious issues would apply. In this sense, all my own views are conjurings only.

This applies only to Genesis' creation chapters. No conjurings about the origin of science, medicine, herbology, fullfilled prophesies, the name Palestinian or the Pope's racism towards Israel. These were shown to this reluctant forum with adequate vindication. I know not what your post refers to specifically.

quote:

---

Do you think that God told Adam to multiply and replenish the earth BEFORE the woman was taken from him or AFTER?

​

I think the command to Adam to multiply as in bear children had to have been given to the couple after there was a man and a woman to be married and come together to have offspring.

---

Yes, the text says so: the dual-gendered human is in opening ch 1., and the command to multiply is after ch.1., namely after their seperation, in ch.2:

quote:

---

2/ 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'

---

Are you also saying that Adam was not male before the woman was taken out of him ?Correct - he was a dual-gendered ['male and female created he them']human originally. The text says so. Also, the first comman, TO MULTIPLY, is after they are deemed seperated and married:

quote:

---

1/27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 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,

---

quote:

---

This Forum is called BIBLE STUDY, in case you didn't notice. If you want to go to the Moderators and suggest that they have a Room Called TORAH ONLY STUDY then go ahead. And maybe then I'll honor you desire to keep the New Testament out of the discussions.
What DO you mean by Christian Dogma anyway?

---

While the bible is referred to the OT & NT, it is also a fact there are core differences in beliefs, interpretation and conclusion between these two scriptures. The muslims again interpret both books differently.If ONE examine this situation correctly and honestly, the OT has a non-negotiable mandated law:NOTHING CAN BE ADDED OR SUBTRACTED FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS.This is not a superfluous law, but one with 100% equal validity as "Thou shalt not murder". Its proof is the seperation of christianity from its mother religion, and unending wars between Islam, the Hellenests and with Rome - it is certainly not understood by the bulk of christians today, who use it as a charge Jews were rejecters; the reverse is the truth.This not to add or subtract means there can be no follow-up to what is God's law, making the NT a voluntarilly imposed addition from Europe, and not accepted by Jews and muslims. Its proof of veracity is only the OT view, as given by the Jewish prophets and sages, becomes vindicated by history, geography, science, maths, coherence and what the world's institutions follow. Its other proof of veracity is christianity would never have succeeded by itself - as seen with Greece who proposed what Paul did 200 years previously, and what Islam proposed 600 years after christianity emerged: it was rejected, solely because the flaunting of the OT commands.

quote:

---

one wonders what jesus meant when he said "love your enemy"

---

Better, 'LOVE THE STRANGER'. OT rules. Consider how Jesus' followers behaved for 2000 years in medevial europe - even failing to the lesser advocation of 'LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR'?

No such thing as satan/sataan. These came later, via christianity and islam. Even the metaphoric bad guy, the serpent, is listed only as 'the most cunning creature', and by reason of violating a command/law. Equally, no such thing as a good guy who does not follow the laws. A differing view borders on, and can incline with a non-belief in Monotheism and Oniscience.