I suppose we must think ancient people also knew snakes can talk, using that logic
3 Likes
All this talk of locating a literal Eden reminds me of the search for Noahâs Ark on Mt. Ararat in the '70s and '80s. If memory serves, they even made a documentary about finding it in some fuzzy photo on the âSoviet sideâ of the mountain.
2 Likes
Well, there is always the snail. And then there is the matter of why rabbits do not have wings⌠and chocolate is fattening.
All kidding asideâŚyes, the writer of that pericope could have wanted to discuss the devolution of snakes (not rabbits or snails), without knowing they (snakes, that is) had once actually HAD legs. And then the fact that, as you said and I have heard, the issue of âsnakes losing their legsâ could be the preservation of an ancient memory that gets inserted into various sources⌠like the whole Pandoraâs Box storyâŚ
I have, for that matter, read the writings of Native American activists who say their cultures have passed stories down that way â for millennia. Another subject entirely, but just saying that people look upon ancient stories in that way sometimes.
Some point to that aspect of the Eden story as âproofâ (in their minds) that God believes in evolution, and the biblical writer picked up on itâŚ
One idea seems equal to the others â and in the end it seems to be a matter of what someone chooses to believe. Or not
And jpmâŚthere is no scientific or anatomical indication that snakes could ever talk. If there were, then we might have some sort of parallel. That is a separate issue here altogether.
.
Well, Jay, ⌠I do not think are talking about âlocatingâ something here. Someone just noted that there actually is evidence of more than the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the regionâŚbut those old rivers dried up and were covered by sand long agoâŚJust an interesting thing to add to your Sunday afternoon.
1 Like
True, however, there is no indication in the Bible that snakes ever had legs that they lost, nor that ancient people knew that once they had legs, or at least their ancestors had legs, other that the oblique reference that they were cursed to crawl with their bellies in the dirt, implying that maybe they did, or maybe had wings or some other means of getting around, or maybe just lived in trees and now that banished out of the garden would have to grovel in the dirt. Or maybe not.
But it states without explanation or additional comment that the snake was cunning and talked, and Adam showed no surprise that the snake talked, so it must have been the usual state of affairs for it to do so.
My somewhat roundabout point is of course that neither snake having legs nor loquacious serpents are scientific statements made by either the human or heavenly author of Genesis. The inference that it makes an evolutionary statement is merely a coincidence and not an intention.
@bluebird It is not referring to a physical snake. Michael Heiser says in âThe Unseen Realmâ
You can find more here
https://discourse.biologos.org/t/michael-heiser-serpent-son-s-of-god-nephilim-watchers-and-genesis
And when did snakes lose the ability to speak? To think? To know what God had said?
Then you make the assumption that when the snake is cursed to âOn your belly you will goâ this means it originally had legs. But this is followed by âAnd dust you will eatâ. We know snakes âsmellâ by using their tongue so it certainly appears they are eating dust but we know that they are not. So the author got the vestigial legs right but the snakes diet wrong? Better solution is to realize that a real snake is not in view here.
But the river existed in âmid-fourth to third millennium BCâ which means it was have been known to the people writing Genesis. How is this surprising?
Are you talking about Dr Michael S Heiser???
Yes. Is there more than one? 
@jpm, I agree with your logic here.
But we are missing the point here, donât you think?
If Ezekiel saw a divine creature with 4 kinds of headsâŚlike so âŚ
We are inclined to think that something like this exists in the divine world.
The curse against snakes adds something to the Genesis sighting of the serpentâŚ
what is the connection between snakes and this divine talking entity?
Is it only a vision?
I know a Jewish researcher who is absolutely convinced the âtalking creatureâ
was a crocodile, because he has seen photos of wild crocodiles resting in lower
branches of a broad tree.
But he has no real explanation for the point of the curse against snakes⌠unless
we are supposed to interpret the curse to mean crocodiles will be known for being
killed by crushing their heads.
As you can conclude, this doesnât really sound apt; I would not be trying to step on a crocâs
head to kill it.
So⌠the curse is on âsnakesâ ⌠why?
I just looked him up and read some online reviews of his book Unseen Realm. VERY tempted to buy itâŚ!!! One reviewer does note the Serpent=Satan equation, but this is referencing other passages not the Garden of Eden event we have been discussing.
WellâŚthanks for the reference, at least
As for your comment âdesigned to alert readers to the presence of a divine being, not a literal snakeâ â well, that could be. Or just an animal âpossessedâ by this divine beingâŚat any rate, the book sounds most appealing.
Not my comment. It is from Dr. Heiser.
If you read the book you will see why he says this isnât an animal, possessed or otherwise.
I hope you liked my image for a cherub wtih 4 faces (as described by Ezekiel!).
I finally located comments about that dang snake by Dr. @Swamidass at this external link:
Thanks,âŚinteresting. I must say. I note that the authors of the WBC and NICOT commentaries on that part of Genesis use snake or serpent interchangeably. The author of the former commentary says âearly Jewish and Christian commentatorsâ equated the serpent-snake with the devil or Satan, but dismisses that idea âŚthe author of the latter commentary says the word ânahasâ {with accents" ) is âa common Hebrew word for a serpentâ and says the serpent was âan animal made by Godâ while exploring other ideas about âserpent synbolismâ mentionbs in Gilgamesh, Canaanite Baal ideas. etcâŚ
Well, enough of thisâŚbut interesting comments and ideas all around!
I understand this. It is a very valid point. But if we believe in any supernatural intervention by God, surely he could have (likely would have) given a later author a vision of what was a vitally important time in the history of his interaction with humankind. To be sure, the vision would be one in which that it could best be understood by the author in his cultural (unscientific) time. Also, there is the question of, would God have allowed whoever wrote the story for it to be a representation that has very little in common with the impression that Paul had (and Jesus seems to have had), as well as future more scientifically aware humans? I donât believe that it had to be totally literal, but it seems like the major theological points should match up with what was believed right though Jesusâ time on earth. Kathrynâs theory does address some of the issues (and explains the geneologies and the story about âcitiesâ), but the core issue of sin (and souls with eternal life) is ambiguous and would be very hard to match up with the way the Genesis story goes and is understood by people through Jesusâ time.
There are many instances where a vision of the future is recorded. I donât recall ever reading of a vision of the past. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would âbring to your remembrance all that I said to you.â He didnât say the Holy Spirit would be planting memory or telling them something that they hadnât heard already.
What the Holy Spirit would do is give the author the meaning that was desired. Historical details wouldnât matter.
The meaning doesnât change and Paul, Jesus, and us all should agree on the meaning. The details are a Western fixation on what history is supposed to be.
Itt is good to be skeptical, Christy, including of things like this. But this is probably partly our Western culture. You will, of course, probably have to argue with some Native American activists on this matter â esp when it comes to âtheirâ tales. They have their own controversies, to be sure!! But handing tales (or histories) down by oral tradition was part of many cultures â some of them (not necessarily the Native American ones I referred to) demanding âword for word accuracyâ in the re-telling of those oral traditions â on pain of death. I did read this â it was shocking to me at the time. Other groups relied on some form of memory of text â large bodies of text like the Hindu scriptures and/or the Koran (depending on your religion here, of course).
There is quite a bit of literature out there about oral traditions being passed down from generation to generation. I did look into all this long ago. The âmoral of the storyâ seemed to be that if people wanted to (as in, for example, under penalty of death if they got it wrong in front of the village eldersâŚor as in some important text) they could in fact pass things down wellâŚIf they did not â well, that is another story.
Wow. How does a post about Adam become a discussion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism and the âschismâ of 1054? Iâm just seeing random things as I scroll through all of this.
I think this article is a great example of how to deal with Adam when speaking with a non-Christian. Even IF Adam was not historical (I donât think he was), the gospel still stands. I like that that point was made. I desparately hope William Lane Craig will also comes to this conclusion. The historical Adam is his new subject of research! He usually offers alternatives as âviableâ even though he choses another option. I will be very dissapointed (but also scared, because heâs really smart!) if he comes to the conclusion that Adam HAS TO BE the proginetor of the human race.
AnywaysâŚ
Ms. Applegate, or anyone,
Does anyone know if Tremper Longman cites any examples of OTHER writers citing a non-historical figure or event to make a point about an indisputably historical figure or event? This looks to be an extremely fruitful area of research. I have always just assumed the worst case scenario- that Paul believed in a historical Adam- but if scholars can find any evidence to back up âPaul the figuralistâ proposal, that would be wonderful!!
-Mark
To clarify, I am not skeptical about the power of orality in preserving traditions. Itâs just that requires cohesive cultural bonds and generational continuity. You donât see cultures being maintained for hundreds of thousands of years.
2 Likes
Thanks for clarifying. I probably would go further and say that Biblical oral culture was not constant over time - finally settling at least part of the Old Testament after the Babylonian exile. Like this question:
Exodus 6:2-3 tells us that God says âI am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name [Yahweh] I did not make myself known to them.â
However, this appears to be⌠well not true.
Only one time did God present himself as El Shaddai to Abraham for example (in Genesis 17:1- Hebrew Concordance: ťad¡day -- 28 Occurrences). There are two other occurrences in Genesis where Isaac blesses Jacob with the blessings of God Almighty (Gen 28:3) and God introduces himself personally to Jacob as God Almighty (Gen 35:11)
But literallyâŚ
In Genesis 15:7 God says to Abraham directly âI am Yahwehâ (Genesis 15:7 Hebrew Text Analysis)
In Genesis 15:8 Abraham literally says back âLord Yahwehâ (Genesis 15:8 Hebrew Text Analysis)
Sarah knew Yahwehâs name too (Genesis 16:2, Genesis 16:2 Hebrew Text Analysis)
Genesis 18:4 also has God directly referring to himself as âYahwehâ (Genesis 18:14 Hebrew Text Analysis)
Genesis 22:14 records Abraham calling the place of Isaacâs Sacrifice âYahweh will provideâ (Genesis 22:14 Hebrew Text Analysis)
Jacob in his dream⌠literally God says Iâm Yahweh (Genesis 28:13 Hebrew Text Analysis)
Okay you get the point. So what gives? Am I misunderstanding something here? All over Genesis is the interaction with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob involved with calling God âYahwehâ many times directly.
This is just one example I think of hundreds of such multiple traditions preserved in the Old Testament.
@pevaquark, Iâm sure @Christy will have a fine answer.
But my own inclination is to interpret the differences as due to Exodus was written before Genesis!
In corroboration that books of the Bible could be written âout of sequenceâ with the timeline represented by the books, look at this quote in Exodus!
Exo 32:4-5
And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, these be âŚ
thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.
Now compare it to the book that was supposed to have been written after Exodus (King Rehoboam has taken the 10 tribes under him in the northern kingdom):
1Ki 12:28
Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold âŚ
thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Which seems more reasonable to you? That Exodus uses a plural text for a single calf, because the scribe wanted to focus attention on the future theme of Rehoboamâs golden calves?
Or that the Exodus text is the original (despite not making much sense), and that Rehoboam wanted to
draw attention to the heresy of the Exodus days and all the rebellious Hebrew who lost their lives doing so?