Shining Light

Aug 13 2016, 10:29 PM

Adam ate the apple too. And does anyone else find it funny that Adam is not considered to be tempted? Or that he didn't call out this "snake" or Eve on what they were doing? I'm very doubtful that the serpent is what most believe it to be.

Shining Light

Aug 13 2016, 11:02 PM

Actually I'm under the impression now that Adam is the serpent.

Son Goten

Aug 13 2016, 11:02 PM

Shining Light

Aug 13 2016, 11:02 PM

Actually I'm under the impression now that Adam is the serpent.

No offense, but that doesn't make sense.

Shining Light

Aug 13 2016, 11:10 PM

Son Goten

Aug 13 2016, 11:02 PM

Shining Light

Aug 13 2016, 11:02 PM

Actually I'm under the impression now that Adam is the serpent.

No offense, but that doesn't make sense.

I actually have reasoning for this belief. For me to explain it, I would need to do some bible digging. Just give me time and I'll get around to it.

But the first piece of evidence, which is easy to post, is that Jesus called the Pharisees a generation of vipers. I know that's not sufficient to sway any minds, but that'll have to do for the time being.

Lazuli

Aug 13 2016, 11:56 PM

The snake isn't Adam because Adam wasn't condemned to forever crawl around on his belly. That was the punishment of the snake, being a separate entity.

Shining Light

Aug 14 2016, 02:03 AM

First, I'll start with Genesis 3:6. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. As is seen, Adam was with Eve. Now, backtracking to 3:1. Now the serpent was more subtil 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 every tree of the garden?

Note: No mention of the serpent leaving, nor Adam showing up, is given. What do you suppose this means? Could it be that the serpent was a literal snake being controlled, and such minor details weren't put in? Maybe, but that's not what was given to us. Or could it be that the serpent waEven something as simple as, "the serpent left the presence of the two", or something along those lines, would suffice. But that's not mentioned at all. Instead, we're left with these facts; Adam was with Eve, and the serpent never left from the two. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but these seem rather important to be left out, to me at least. Moving on.

3:9. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Interesting. Eve was the first one tempted by the serpent, yet Adam gets called first by God. In case you think Eve just didn't know, 3:2-3. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. So then, why would God not call upon Eve first? Could it be that Adam tempted her?

Also, why would a snake be punished for being a host? Or was it Adam that was punished, and the part about crawling on it's belly wasn't literal?

Another thing. 3:14-15. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life, and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. But wait. Nowhere, not even in the bible, are snakes mentioned in any relation to women. Nor are demons, not to my knowledge. So then, how do these two verses have any coherent meaning? They can if Adam is the serpent.

That's all I have until your awaited response, Son Goten.

Son Goten

Aug 14 2016, 03:24 AM

Shining Light

Aug 14 2016, 02:03 AM

First, I'll start with Genesis 3:6. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. As is seen, Adam was with Eve. Now, backtracking to 3:1. Now the serpent was more subtil 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 every tree of the garden?

Note: No mention of the serpent leaving, nor Adam showing up, is given. What do you suppose this means? Could it be that the serpent was a literal snake being controlled, and such minor details weren't put in? Maybe, but that's not what was given to us. Or could it be that the serpent waEven something as simple as, "the serpent left the presence of the two", or something along those lines, would suffice. But that's not mentioned at all. Instead, we're left with these facts; Adam was with Eve, and the serpent never left from the two. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but these seem rather important to be left out, to me at least. Moving on.

3:9. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Interesting. Eve was the first one tempted by the serpent, yet Adam gets called first by God. In case you think Eve just didn't know, 3:2-3. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. So then, why would God not call upon Eve first? Could it be that Adam tempted her?

Also, why would a snake be punished for being a host? Or was it Adam that was punished, and the part about crawling on it's belly wasn't literal?

Another thing. 3:14-15. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life, and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. But wait. Nowhere, not even in the bible, are snakes mentioned in any relation to women. Nor are demons, not to my knowledge. So then, how do these two verses have any coherent meaning? They can if Adam is the serpent.

That's all I have until your awaited response, Son Goten.

First off I just want to say this is an interesting theory, if you don't mind me calling it that.

All right so here come my responses. Now Adam and the serpent both had their introductions. So that's the first reason why I don't think this is possible. Humans have never been known as serpents or been described as such. Specifically Adam is called the man, Eve is called the woman, and the serpent is called the serpent. There's no mistakes there in my opinion. Now the serpent is referred to as a wild animal. Not once are Adam and Eve referred to as wild animals or even animals. Later on when God states the punishments of them eating the fruit from the tree he actually speaks to all three of them individually. I'm going to sum it down a bit. First of course he tells the serpent that he will be cursed above all wild animals, second he tells the woman that her pains for child birth will greatly increase, and thirdly he tells Adam he will basically eat the rest of the life (that is really summing it down badly but these are long quotes). If Adam was the one being punished for what the serpent was said then why would God have two separate punishments away from each other, that doesn't make any sense. He punished the serpent, then Eve, and then Adam. There would be no point to separate those two.

All in all I think you're thinking a bit too much about it. I don't think God wanted us to interpret that way. The serpent was the one who was be deceiving, God would have said something about Adam being deceiving. There would be no point of God referring to Adam as Adam then as the serpent. It just doesn't add up that way.

If there was something in your post that I didn't respond to that you wanted me to respond to specifically, just let me know. I tried my best to answer most of it.

Son Goten

Aug 13 2016, 07:24 PM

OFG

Aug 13 2016, 06:24 PM

God did create Lucifer. While that isn't explicitly stated in the bible, we can infer that--because God created the universe and everything in it--he also created heaven and angels. Lucifer was originally an angel, but God cast him down to hell (which he, then, must have created as well). Therefore, God created everything evil and horrible in the world, which is something that believers should take issue with, I think.

According to the Bible God did not create evil. I realize that's pretty complicated, "he created everything but not evil?" But what I get out of that is that he created us with free will, so he merely created the potential for evil.

Shining Blight

 

Note: No mention of the serpent leaving, nor Adam showing up, is given. What do you suppose this means? Could it be that the serpent was a literal snake being controlled, and such minor details weren't put in? Maybe, but that's not what was given to us. Or could it be that the serpent waEven something as simple as, "the serpent left the presence of the two", or something along those lines, would suffice. But that's not mentioned at all. Instead, we're left with these facts; Adam was with Eve, and the serpent never left from the two. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but these seem rather important to be left out, to me at least. Moving on.

1:25/26

 

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

2:18/19

 

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Quote:

 

3:9. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Interesting. Eve was the first one tempted by the serpent, yet Adam gets called first by God. In case you think Eve just didn't know, 3:2-3. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. So then, why would God not call upon Eve first? Could it be that Adam tempted her?

Quote:

 

Another thing. 3:14-15. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life, and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. But wait. Nowhere, not even in the bible, are snakes mentioned in any relation to women. Nor are demons, not to my knowledge. So then, how do these two verses have any coherent meaning? They can if Adam is the serpent.

Buuberries

Aug 13 2016, 10:03 PM

it does fit, though. big foot might exist, the flying spaghetti monster might exist, and a god of some sort might exist. there's no evidence for them, so we can say they most likely dont exist, but we cant prove they 100% dont exist. luckily we dont have to prove they dont exist cuz clever ppl dont claim they dont exist, so they dont place the burden of proof on themselves.

Clank

Aug 14 2016, 04:06 PM

Buuberries

Aug 13 2016, 10:03 PM

it does fit, though. big foot might exist, the flying spaghetti monster might exist, and a god of some sort might exist. there's no evidence for them, so we can say they most likely dont exist, but we cant prove they 100% dont exist. luckily we dont have to prove they dont exist cuz clever ppl dont claim they dont exist, so they dont place the burden of proof on themselves.

basically this

p.s. when it comes to claims that are close to unfalsifiable (ie: x doesn't exist) you gotta take into account how difficult the existence would be to detect. consider things like atoms, neutrinos, etc; they for a long damn time it didnt like look like any of that existed or ever would

OFG

Aug 14 2016, 05:08 PM

Clank

Aug 14 2016, 04:06 PM

Buuberries

Aug 13 2016, 10:03 PM

it does fit, though. big foot might exist, the flying spaghetti monster might exist, and a god of some sort might exist. there's no evidence for them, so we can say they most likely dont exist, but we cant prove they 100% dont exist. luckily we dont have to prove they dont exist cuz clever ppl dont claim they dont exist, so they dont place the burden of proof on themselves.

basically this

p.s. when it comes to claims that are close to unfalsifiable (ie: x doesn't exist) you gotta take into account how difficult the existence would be to detect. consider things like atoms, neutrinos, etc; they for a long damn time it didnt like look like any of that existed or ever would

A big man in the sky is a bit different from atoms, neutrons, etc. Things like bigfoot, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and the like aren't very scientific, nor do they have any reason to exist at all.