The serpent was clearly a literally serpent. The context of the text says so. However, where Mr ProfMTH messes up is the character of it. By only giving bad traits of a serpent he has not properly interpreted the scriptures. Noticed what Jesus said
" be ye therefore wise as serpents, " and yet some wicked leaders "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers," and thus any animal can be used to show a spiritual truth. So the first part is simple. It was a literal snake to show a spiritual truth.
Not true, you can have proof and still be a skeptic on how reliable is the evidence. Courts use witness testimony as a strong staple in proving a case regardless of evidence. As far as Biology and Cosmology, I understand they are different studies but I believe you can't have biology without cosmology which is why I believe Darwin included it as the beginning. Id rather be "superstitious" of God than put my faith in a 'free thinking' society with no absolutes. Scientific theories have been wrong
I believe in the bible and this is an account that I have to believe happened. Since I wasn't there to witness and I don't know all the details, I believe Moses (the author). Kinda like those who believe in the Big Bang, no one was there to witness, they have to believe Darwin (the author) both seem far fetch to natural order but at least the Bible answers the "why" where evolution answers the "what" happened. I prefer to know why.
I'm not a bible believer but... I would point out that there's no reason to believe serpent means the modern biological definition or classification of one, since there were no biologists nor was there modern science. the only message I saw from the book was that you're supposed to "do the right thing." there's no mention of churches, 10% of your income, fiery burning hells, or praying a sinners prayer. Therefore I say whether or not you're a "christian" is irrelevant. Religions dont matter.
I would have sworn that somewhere in the NT it explicitly stated that the serpent was Satan, but I can't find a reference for that now. Revelation does refer to Satan as "that serpent of old," but that is not explicit enough to be watertight. Personally, I believe a plain reading of Genesis gives no indication that the snake was Lucifer--quite the contrary, actually, as all of serpent's progeny was cursed. (This of course ignores the whole "prophesy" of "she will crush your head."
There was no Satan in the Old Testament. There was no trinity, no christ, no redemption, no hell. Stop looking for ANY of these things, they are unaddressed.
Too bad supposed literallists only attempt their literalism from a translation instead of the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word in question means "whisperer" and has a range of meanings from "reptile" to any human one would describe today as "a real snake", especially those a type of adviser of whom Grima Wormtongue is the archetype. That's pretty much true for all Hebrew nouns: almost all are actually participles which are pure abstractions and which get their concrete sense from context.
am i the only one that thinks it sounds like a worm with the texts saying "you will eat the dust of the earth" after all not all snakes live on the ground or even on land ?
I have another question on this passage for literalists. The deity pronounces his judgment on the serpent: dust shall you eat all the days of your life. I am unaware of ANY snake which consumes dust or even dirt (which one could argue that, say, earthworms do). Disobedience by the serpents? A change of mind by the deity?
Isn't it odd that the beastly manifestation of evil incarnate in every apocalyptic religion is usually a reptile?
Mammals have a strong aversion to reptiles. It's part of the mate recognition software. Since humans very rarely have negative (scientifically, meaning diminished) behavioral responses without either training or damage/illness, the natural human positive (scientifically, again, meaning additional) behavioral response to an aversion is hatred or fear.
@SnarkLicker Interesting. Couldn't the aversion have more to do with survival? Many reptiles are poisonous. A generalized fear of all reptiles would be highly selected under that pressure. All members of a population who shy away from reptiles avoid poisonous bites. Those members who are curious or ambivalent about reptiles are often bitten and/or die before reproducing. That sort of thing.
One, it was a serpent not a snake. Two it went on its belly AFTER the curse. You might want to check your science on that. Just as God used a dumb ass in the book of Numbers so the serpent could have been used also.
@RepresentingTruth One, the original Hebrew is nahash. That is the Hebrew word for snake. Perhaps you think there is some difference between serpents and snakes. To the authors of Genesis, there is none.
Two, check YOUR science on snakes eating dirt. If you know where I can find one, please let me know. I've always wanted a snake as a pet and the cost of rodents can add up.
@t3tsuyaguy1 The reason why I said that is the serpent was cursed and then had to go on its belly. Maybe I was not as clear there. My bad. For if the serpent was cursed to go on its belly then at one time it didn't BTW in the KJV we never have that word translated snake. I found that interesting. As far a pet how about calling it sly or smooth?
The story of Eden was an attempt (I think) to show how 'sin' came into the world (as Paul would say). However, I would say the background is missing. The story has a lot in common with Job and the temptation of Jesus (in my opinion). The serpent was not there by mistake, God put it there just like He put the tree of knowledge there. If Jesus was 'slain' before the world began, then Adam (poor guy) was meant to fall. The one who planned this had to have been God by necessity.
Look you atheists, even money talks to you, as the expression goes, "money talks". Keep in mind I am personifying money, just like the serpent personified sin and the devil, Satan, the fallen Lucifer.
And check the symbol used for money. It is a snake coiled around a pole ( Or a snake coiled around an apple tree ? ) $ $ $ $ The letter S is a snake, it sounds like a snake SSsssssss... So. Money talks $
So what? Of course money talks, particularly if you put it before everything else. What's that got to do with the story?
To me, it's a story made up by early man to explain man's struggle with his animal nature, which they called sin bcuz they didn't understand it. If they had know about Evolution, they'd have likely told a much different story. They simply relied on superstition to blame man (Eve actually) for sin, instead of blaming the manufacturer, as they should have.
Money is represented in America (New Babylon) as $ . The $ sign is a snake coiled around a pole (or an apple tree) - image search the word CADECEUS. To further prove my point, you should notice that the S is a symbol of a snake. S makes the same sound a snake makes. Ssssss.... Money talks - $ - talking snake.
This is just a synchronicity, though. It is spiritual proof of the talking serpent -- although it`s not necessarily scientific proof. You should PRIVATE MESSAGE me, we talk more.
hey there-I was taught that perhaps the serpent was different than a snake- not only did it talk (which is pretty incredible in and of itself ) but that he had arms and legs, which he lost after God found out that the serpent tempted Eve. I still have trouble believing that a God who can create anything just by thinking of it, would have to "find out" anything, through angels, or humans......
Every time I see a Chick tract say something to the effect of "It was Satan" I always wanna bitch slap the people who made it for never reading the book they demand we read and believe word for self contradicting words, never questioning any of it.
Especially if a particular denomination (theirs I would guess) demands we look into particular sections then conviently ignore others... it's kind of a pain to deal with isn't it?
@ profmth christians will not be able to answer your questions accurately because the bible is full of contradictions as you had been pointing out, as far as im concerned the bible was written by twisted men who fake characters and history with their end result being "control the masses". the biggest weapon being FEAR.
I can't believe this thread has been going on for three years.
God creates a paradise and creates Adam out of dust and his own breath. God walks with Adam in the cool of the evening and brings all the animals to be named by Adam. God creates Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. God then forbids the couple from eating the fruit of one particular tree.
Considering the fantastic setting and scenario, why should it be so difficult to accept also a real, honest to goodness, crafty, talking snake?
@EvenGodsSuffer oh the story looks like harry potter to me.. magic... evolution is false but female created from a rib bone is true fantastic. i wonder why females are not made up of bones but made up of flesh. lol. why not god create female out of a chocolate cake?
Some pundit pointed out that, whereas human males sustain their erections by hydraulic means, most mammals have a bone (baculum) for quick copulation.
Since Yahweh's Plan A to hook up Adam with one of the other animals fell through (watch?v=waV91LS0Atw), Plan B had Yahweh creating Eve out of Adam's now unnecessary baculum.
Considering that Abraham and many of his progeny were herders, the apt symbolism would not have been lost on the myth's original creators and later audiences.
I love how if your video has religious tags, you get ads like "ChristianLifestyle" dot com, etc. on my facebook profile, i had my info to "interested in: men" and "atheist" and i had a similar ad snafu "do you want a christian girlfriend?" was the question :)
I believe that the snake was Lucifer. Yes I believe that it was an actual snake, but Lucifer in the form of a snake. I just want to ask you, why cant you believe in this? I am just wondering.
@ItsSolaFide "I just want to ask you, why cant you believe in this?"
There is a variety of reasons I don't believe it. With respect to the text itself, the story doesn't say it was "Lucifer in the form of a snake." Rather, it says it was a snake and that snakes were "more crafty than any beast of the field which Yahweh Elohim had made" (Genesis 3:1). When Yahweh punishes the snake, it is as a snake. The claim that this was "Lucifer in the form of a snake" is a claim the text never makes.
Well Prof than I guess I do not take it "word for word", meaning that I actually try to put some logic behind my beliefs. I mean come on, we know that a regular old snake cant talk nor devise a plan to cause the human race to stumble. For that matter why would a regular unconscious snake even want to do that. So I guess I do not believe in a word for word description. I do believe that Isaiah talks about this though and it gives reason for us to believe that it was Lucifer.
@ItsSolaFide "Well Prof than I guess I do not take it "word for word", meaning that I actually try to put some logic behind my beliefs. I mean come on, we know that a regular old snake cant talk nor devise a plan to cause the human race to stumble."
Well, if "put[ting] some logic behind" and applying what "we know" to the Bible's claims are the measure, you're going to have be a very busy person indeed. E.g., "we know" a "regular old" donkey can't talk, but Numbers 22:28 has one talkin'. ...
(con't) @ItsSolaFide "We know" that there is no light in our solar system without the Sun, but in Genesis 1:3, 14-19 there were three whole "days" of light without the Sun. "We know" dead people don't come back to life when other people lay on top of them, but there it is in 1 King 17:17-22. "We know" the sun doesn't move, but then look at Joshua 10:13. Logic and what "we know" tell us that people don't rise from the dead and then go flying off into the sky. But what to do with Jesus, then?
@ProfMTH Yeah but the donkey was "possessed" by an angel. I think the serpent was "satan" because Jesus or one of the epistles (I forget which one) said it was satan in the garden. Putting the pieces together, satan must have "possessed" the serpent.
@ItsSolaFide So, like most Christians, you actually just make up whatever you like and adjust the Bible to fit your opinion. The text says the serpent was a beast, but you substitute something more "spiritual." The text doesn't say anything about "Lucifer", but you insert Lucifer. I'm not putting you down, but I am pointing out that this sort of "belief in the bible" is no such thing. Personal imagination is probably the largest source of Christian doctrine, even today, after the Bible is done.
The Bible is done? No I dont think so Christianity is growing faster than it ever has, look at China. No you do not know the Bible, look into Isiah and you will see where it was Lucifer. No imagination is in my doctrine my friend I believe strictly what Hebrew text says. I am a bit of a legalist to tell the truth.
@ItsSolaFide "I believe strictly what Hebrew text says." Evidently this is not true. If it were, you would not change the text to suit your denominational opinions. Your guesses about my knowledge are uninformed, incorrect, and totally irrelevant. If Isaiah (note the spelling) says the serpent in the garden was Lucifer, I'm sure you will show us the passage in question. Please show us. You may indeed be a legalist, but your Biblical claims are unsupported.
I cant recall exactly in Isaiah(excuse me for leaving out the "a", you people amaze me), but I do remember two in Revelation, 12:9 and 20:2. I learned that it was growing faster than ever from my Religion teacher last semester, especially in China and parts of Asia. Your "reason" is your imagination my friend, your own little fairy tale that you can only hope to be true. Good luck.
@ItsSolaFide I rarely mention spelling errors, but when people are pompously presenting themselves as experts they should watch those details. Of course Xianity is growing in Asia. I already addressed that, but you prefer to pretend I did not. YOU said "look into Isiah and you will see where it was Lucifer." I asked you to show us the passage in question. Now you are weaselling around that, vaguely pointing to John's "Revelation." It is YOU who don't know the Bible. Try reading it.
@ItsSolaFide i gotta ask, wasn't the story of genesis before the fall of Saint Lucifer? and yes, i referred to him as Saint because according to the Catholic churches history of demons and angels, he is still considered a saint because of his actions before he rebelled.
The heavens did already exist, actually read it, dont do it to support your claim. You are right about angles not being around for eternity, yet they have been around since the begging of time. Probably after the Heavens and before earth. This is exactly the reason I believe in a long term creation. Lucifer had already disobeyed God in Heaven before the Earth was created. Now, does that mean that God made Satan the way he did? No, angles do the desire of their hearts.
@ItsSolaFide first, i have read the bible. second, i always thought that angels didn't have free will, maybe that is just from sunday school or something?
Well, Im pretty sure that there is no scripture that says one way or another that angles have free will or not. However, since Lucifer fell and other angles went with him, we can say that angles have free will. You can see in Psalms 103 what angles were made for, but there is no verse that says that angles HAVE to do this...
@ItsSolaFide okay...well like i said, i thought i may have been from the very few times i have been to sunday school, or from a preacher and not the bible, i could not remember. it must have been something i was taught...
@ItsSolaFide "Lucifer fell" Isn't Lucifer the King of Tyre? Lucifer was a mortal man? There were several "satans"? Satan = accuser/judge/opponent? The war in heaven is part of the book of revelation, and takes place in the future?
I'm just saying, I'm pretty sure the whole fallen angel thing is a popular, yet unsupported reading, like citing Isaiah as a prophecy about Jesus.
No, Lucifer was an angle. There will never be a war in Heaven, it want even be a war it will be demolition on satan I think. Tyre wasnt a nation in the time of Lucifer, I am not sure where you are getting this history from. I am a History major in a very secular college and I have never heard this one.
@ItsSolaFide I originally got it from a catholic priest, when I tried to do a project on "the devil" and I wanted help from someone more familiar with holy texts than I.
Never in the new testament are any of the enemies of god referred to as Lucifer. Lucifer is the morning star. It rises just before dawn, is very bright, then fades with the rising of the sun.
I was used as a metaphor for the King of Babylon in Isaiah, and the King of Tyre in Ezekial.
@ItsSolaFide Both kings tried to "rise" to take the place of Gods, but failed. There is a Christian cultural tradition of claiming that God has a single adversary, who is the fallen form of his most beautiful creation. The morning star and the stories tied to it, lend themselves well to this.
Nothing about "The Devil" is biblical though. There are many biblical satans and antichrists, but nothing in the text suggests they are all the same being. Certainly there are no fallen angels.
@ItsSolaFide Reading your comments, you seem to confuse the widespread cultural traditions of Christians for the Bible itself. In several comments you make claims about what's in the bible that aren't accurate. I really don't care if you accept that or not, but I hope you go read the Bible from cover to cover. You might be a little surprised at how little of it supports the Christian religion.
What claim have I made that isnt true? I have read the Bible, I just didnt read it with the same bias that you had obviously. Let me ask you this question, if you were to die and you found out that my God was in fact real, what do you expect would happen to you? Im not going to make any judgements against you I am just curious.
Also, what do you mean by this: you seem to confuse the widespread cultural traditions of Christians for the Bible itself".
According to scripture, god made the angels perfect. That's the 1st problem with satan supposedly rebelling. The 1nd problem is that sin is not supposed to exist in god's presence, yet satan just thinking and planning to rebel was a sin! Also, when satan rebelled & tried to usurp god's power, why didn't god destroy him? Instead, he sends him to Earth to plague mankind.
I hope you see where I'm going with this. It's a man made story, and not well thought out at all.
No where in the Bible does it say angles are perfect! Infact they are a lot more like us than God, they act on will, they are not omniscient, omnipresent, and have limited power, this is how they are able to fall. Satan would have been thrown out of Heaven the Instant he thought about overthrowing God. I cant answer the last question truthfully, but I can sled light on it. What brings God more glory? Shooting Satan in the head with a pistol? Or allowing people to choose?
@Ivysilverleaf The point of the text isnt to show God punishing snakes, that should not even be a question in my mind. The whole point of the story of Adam and Eve was to show the fall of man. Whether or not the snake was Lucifer doesnt matter, what matters is God is gracious in saving a depraved people. He shows that He will defeat sin, the passage shows that God is planning to send a messiah, namely, Jesus.
@ItsSolaFide "Whether or not the snake was Lucifer doesnt matter...."
Well, yeah, it kinda *does* matter since many Christians say the snake was Satan but the story doesn't say that. But this is territory you and I have covered already.
@ItsSolaFide "The point of the text isnt to show God punishing snakes..."
It seems like you're directing people's attention away from the problematic areas of the Bible. The video asks a question. You're suggesting that we ignore it and focus on what you say is important. Critical analysis of any document making the kind of claims the Bible does is necessary.
Was the snake Satan? Then God is unjust for punishing snakes. Was it just a snake? Then obviously it's all a fairy tale.
@ItsSolaFide Actually all that it really shows is someone deciding to punish someone despite them having been lied to and misled, possibly by that very same someone. Doesn't mention anything about redemption or anything really.
@ItsSolaFide "...God is gracious..."? Excuse me, but God was the one that placed the snake in the garden to begin with. Lest we forget, he also put "The Tree" in there as well. Seems kinda silly if you don't want people eating from the tree, why put it there in the first place?
He had to know what was going to happen, cause God knows everything, right?
Sounds like a set up to me.
Aesop's fables made more sense as a mortality tales, than this does.
@AthenaSchroedinger Exactly! Dude. Another way of relating to why God is responsible is like this. If you were to throw a hand gun in a crib with a toddler would you be responsible? I mean the ramifications of the action could potentially be detrimental. I am sure you would be held accountable in a court. Yet you did not know what was actually going to happen. God knew full well what was going to happen by placing the tree and the snake in there. Premeditated sin creation.
Sin in the fictional story was created by god......sin happened in heaven...when satan [created by god in the first place] was then sent to earth so sin could continue...heaven is corrupt as god created satan knowing full well in advance what would happen in heaven ....then sends satan to earth ....then creates man/woman with satan in the garden......nothing of mans doing what so ever
@devante11 Yeah well in the start God was responsible for everything. It was a true monotheism. Satan did not come around until later to alleviate the issue of an all loving god doing such evil things.
Neither of the characters you mention actually exist...just primitive man trying to explain why they thought things happen.....the real answer is ...we dont know
Though we do know man is helps man as no god exists
@devante11 I think we are getting a lot closer to knowing. I mean the more we know.... the less we need any god of any sort. Its too bad that in this time so many people still cling onto barbaric traditions and superstitions.
Futhermore, who created the snake crafty?...god did ......again nothing to do with man
god creates a dangerous tree, doesnt protect the tree..then creates a crafty character...then god wanders away....and doesnt protect his beloved creation.......bad parenting in the finest...creates dangerous objects and characters...wanders away......then says its all mans fault....and he calls himself all love...I wonder what would happen if parents acted like this today?..jailtime
It's like a parent dropping a razor in a baby's crib, walking out of the room, then coming back later to find the baby covered in blood, and saying "You little brat! How dare you touch that razor I put in your crib!".
Yep basically.....thing is the baby has no knowledge what razor blade is...and nor did adam and eve know what right or wrong was ...they were innocent in the fictional story
Your god created sin..sin happened in heaven not on earth.....the fall happened in heaven ...then sin was sent to earth...nothing of man falling.....more like your god failed and fell...as he has no foresight as he is imaginary LOL
That does not have anything to do with what we were talking about? But, God didnt create sin, sin didnt happen in heaven, the fall of what happened in heaven? Man did fall, on earth. My God didnt fell, He came to earth and accomplished what we never could. That is success. Also, you are assuming that God isnt real, you can not back that up.
"God didnt create sin, sin didnt happen in heaven, the fall of what happened in heaven? Man did fall, on earth. My God didnt fell,"
In the fictional story....sin was created in heaven, when your god created satan..without the creation of satan no sin can exist...Thus your god created sin, thats why heaven is corrupt as that is where sin orginated from. Your god even KNEW sin would be created by creating him...and still created
Furthermore, he sent satan to earth....was in a garden...because your god sent him to earth/garden..rather than somewhere else. Your god then creates man/woman [already knowing satan was in garden].... for sin to continue as sin was SENT to earth...and thus earth is corrupt..and then blames man for?????...not of man doing but from the source [your god]
Oh goodness, my dear Christian friends. Please, do not even try to answer this with a natural explanation. If you believe that there has to be a natural phenomena with this subject than you have already bought into the lie. Im sorry Prof I do like your videos very much, they challenge me, but this one I can only answer with supernatural. I know that it seems like a cop-out answer, but when it comes to a talking snake, I mean lets get real. I have faith when it comes to that.
I personally would like it answered why the snake was punished with crawling on its belly....doesnt seem like much of a punishment for a snake...and few of them seem to eat dust too. Perhaps they really are crafty, cos they seem to have got off with that 1 scott free lol
Sadly it isn't, but it should be obvious to all by now that the vast majority of the people who were originally being told this now irrefutably outdated nonsense were extremely ignorant and extremely superstitious people who's level of gullibility would be difficult if not impossible for us to now comprehend.
Go ahead, and try to imagine what it may have been like to live in the bronze age, illiterate and almost completely ignorant of the natural world.
Not only the snake was talking but it kept vertical position so maybe it was some kind of mutation ,reptalian ,alien .O.k it's simply some Sumerian -Babilonian myth used by the Bible writers .I found a seal somewhere in the net a seal with the tree,Gods ,a men and a womanand the STANDING SNAKE.
As a former Christian, I have to admit, the snake never seemed particularly crafty to me. If it were crafty it would have had some sort of eventual goal, and would also have gone about it in such a way so as to avoid any and all blame.
As it is, the snake just comes across as rather naive and shortsighted.
(If I were the snake, I might have, say, knocked one of the fruits to the ground whilst Adam and Eve were sleeping, maybe try to feed some to them without their knowing)
I find that fundies just say they take the bible literally true, because when pushed on specifics, they always back peddle. When they say the bible is literal and perfect they are really just spouting propaganda and they know it. They are willing to lie to support their beliefs just as the Nazis were willing to stuff people into ovens to support theirs.
? its a given in the story that the original serpent was not the snake of today.his dna was changed after his deception.satan didnt possess anyone as the devil was neevr an archangel that fell from heaven before creation to begin with. i have so much to type here i cant explain it.the account of lucifer being in heaven rebellng comes from dantes inferno and paradise lost in the midages.not the bible.only war in heaven ever mentioned is revelations future tense. research
So bottom-line it for me, please, Darth. Is it your belief that before this DNA change that the snake had the power of speech -- not to mention the ability to cook up and execute a plan to foil a couple of human beings -- and that he lost this after "the Fall"?
why would an "all mighty God" allow war in his big white heavenly house with all the pretty little white angels with their tiny harps playing pretty songs like "God Your The Best" and "God, You Rule" as they escort all the new dead righteous folk through the big golden gates?
@darthbeavis64 Obviously 'twas a very special snake then, in the know and mysteriously motivated to f things up, armed and loosed in the grass with convenient information about the Tree of Good and Evil that the Almighty God (who would NEVER stack the deck for Original Sin) didn't see fit to share with dominion-wielding Humans. Why is this loss of speech via DNA not mentioned in the cursing, at least in some shrouded Conservapedia-like biblical code for science?
Whatever the snake was, it was something that "The LORD God had made", and somehow it got past the guard and messed everything up. On to plan B.......
the idea that people, intelligent (supposedly) people, will do back flips trying to explain this shit, is amazing. Clearly a fable. OBVIOUSLY, staring you in the face, any small child could tell you it's not true - It's a FABLE.
I was raised by a Biblical literallist, and even I ALWAYs knew (secretly) that this was not a true story...
It could not have been an actual snake and much of Genesis is euphemistic.
Few examples of what I mean:
1. If the serpent is really a SNAKE and is the same as Lucifer described in Isaiah 7:16 which calls him a "MAN". This clearly is a contradiction of Genesis calling him a SNAKE.
2. If Ezekiel 28 is a metaphor for Lucifer and the serpent is the same as Lucifer then clearly Genesis cannot "fully" be taken literal.
If one reads Isaiah 14 the serpent is called a "MAN".
I agree and understand your point. It appears to me that you have yet another Bible Blunder. Most Christians make statements that Isaiah 7:16 and Ezekiel 28 is speaking about the serpent in Genesis 3. Which I highly agree with you doesn't.
I misunderstood your point. Thanks for the additional message. It seems my apologetic bullshit trip wire is a bit too sensitive at the moment. lol Thanks.
That is okay! The Bible causes everyone to get a little angry due to its lack of specificness. But anyway, You should defiantly do a Bible Blunder on the Christian apologist belief that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is a reference of the serpent of Genesis. Many and most Christians believe it is.
I really wonder why God gave craftiness to the snake while the whole world was innocent? like who would need that craftiness? what tool was that in the INNOCENT world???
In answer to the QUESTION you actually asked: I don't think the serpent was a literal snake. In fact, I don't think a serpent and snake are even the same thing. I've tried to discover exactly what a serpent is and can't seem to find the answer. I don't see any talking snakes crawling around; do you?
taurgemKa: I wonder why you haven't been able to discover what a serpent is. Every dictionary defines it as a snake: Oxford, Longman's, American Heritage, Webster, Collings, Random House...just to name a few. The word comes from the Latin word 'serpentus' which means snake.
I accept the possibility that it very well may be a fable. I don't think the story is an outright "LIE". We make stories up all the time to get points across because they capture the imagination and make the getting to the point more interesting.
I don't see the connection to him thinking the story was a fable. It looks like he is just comparing ppls minds turned from "Christ" that same way Eve was "decieved" by the serpent.
The hebrew word is actually "chuwg" the defintion is "circuit, circle, compass, and second is "vault", in the lexicon it notes both "circle and sphere"
In otherwords its not square, look under the definition of the word too sometimes you find synonomous words which are used in various versions :)
I believe this deserves a followup. If the literalists like to throw Satan in the mix here, they should necessarily inquire as to why God is so angry with the snake, which is verified by God's decree that the snake should crawl and eat dirt for all time. Why do that to all snakes if it were Satan, not a talking snake?
Further, the concept of 'the adversary' is an ever evolving concept from the old testament to revelations. That should be explored as well. Obviously it should be more difficult for you, as you prefer to let the text speak for itself and avoid the overwhelming cultural impact of Zoroastrianism on Judaism in the intertestamental period, but it can still be made interesting.
It does say in revelation that "that ol' serpent which IS the devil and satan"
Though the serpent is considered a "beast" ironically not a "creeping thing" and if he moved along his belly from the start then why was he cursed to go on his belly would be a better question. Seems first Adam named him the serpent and Christ (considered the last Adam) named the Pharisees the same thing.
Was God angry because He contradicted what God said perhaps? Thats a thought
Wait, what? "Called them by name" doesn't mean "Hey, Elephant! Over here!" It means he made names for the animals - all part of the whole "stewardship" schick.
What a surprisingly large number of people, including Christians, don't realise is that there are two, mutually contradictory accounts of Creation with very different writing styles and portrayals of God. I don't know if ProfMTH has made a video on this, but it's quite an interesting issue.
A bigger question for Christians about Genesis is which of the TWO creation myths do they believe? In one Adam is created first, then animals; in the other the animals are created first, and finally Adam.
At most, only one of those two myths can be true. And yet these people say the Babble is inerrant. But that's because most of them have never read it, only heard small portions of it quoted.
Verses elsewhere in the Babble say that you can see "all the kingdoms of the earth" from the top of a mountain and yet elsewhere say you can see "all the kingdoms of the earth" from the top of a tree. This is only possible if the earth is FLAT.
Kind of like when Moses was leaving Egypt and "God" had the chariot of the chasing Egyptians stuck in the ground. ie It just so happened to rain and the ground became muddy after Moses and his people passed.
Rivers were called serpents at one time. Literally. Forbidden (hybridized) fruit is literal, because technology became a sin. Tree of knowledge was literal, because with the realization of hybridization, they understood that everything in nature had technological potential. Yep, it started with a single tree, it had to. Garden, aka farmland, is also literal. Adam and Eve? Well, the story literally tells us they were the inventors of hybridization, hence why they were blamed.
You're misusing the word literal. You mean symbolic. If you call something "forbidden fruit," then it is only LITERAL if it is an actual piece of fruit that you are forbidden from eating, not the general technology of blending crops.
No, I don't mean "symbolic" at all, because it ISN"T symbolic. Read what I wrote again. If a hybridized fruit is considered a sin, then it is literally a forbidden fruit.
Nonetheless, it wouldn't be a literal reading of Genesis unless the hybridized fruit was solely responsible for man knowing good from evil. Also, the story in Genesis makes no mention of hybridization, literally or otherwise. Also, there is no evidence that hybridization of fruit was regarded as a sin by those people.
You need to understand what the story means. Technology/knowledge (tree of knowledge) became a sin, that is why we know nothing about the Great Pyramid. Knowledge and technology was abandoned. That is what started religion. Hybridization was the original technology. Put another way, the original sin was agriculture. That is why Adam and Eve were blamed for the woes of mankind. In other words, you were okay if you were a hunter/gatherer, but sinful if you "manipulated" nature.
It is what the story means. That is why the egyptians/mesopotamians abandoned technology. This is why there are so many mysteries involving ancient civilization. We have all heard the legends of ancient advanced civilizations. Agriculture is the first technology. Technology is the sin that men loved so much that caused the floods. The floods changed all that, and religions began.
HUH? The ice age caused the floods. All that ice that melted had to go somewhere.
"Do you have any non-scriptural (read: non-fictional) basis for this belief?"
Yep, one just has to connect the dots. Realize that religious people don't get this stuff. They take things at face value. It is real simple. Humans in the middle east hit the technological age. The floods occurred. They thought that technology is what caused the floods, so technology became a sin. Then came sun worshipping.
The serpent was clearly a literally serpent. The context of the text says so. However, where Mr ProfMTH messes up is the character of it. By only giving bad traits of a serpent he has not properly interpreted the scriptures. Noticed what Jesus said
" be ye therefore wise as serpents, " and yet some wicked leaders "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers," and thus any animal can be used to show a spiritual truth. So the first part is simple. It was a literal snake to show a spiritual truth.
myquestionis123 1 week ago
Not true, you can have proof and still be a skeptic on how reliable is the evidence. Courts use witness testimony as a strong staple in proving a case regardless of evidence. As far as Biology and Cosmology, I understand they are different studies but I believe you can't have biology without cosmology which is why I believe Darwin included it as the beginning. Id rather be "superstitious" of God than put my faith in a 'free thinking' society with no absolutes. Scientific theories have been wrong
marriedachocletbunny 2 months ago
I believe in the bible and this is an account that I have to believe happened. Since I wasn't there to witness and I don't know all the details, I believe Moses (the author). Kinda like those who believe in the Big Bang, no one was there to witness, they have to believe Darwin (the author) both seem far fetch to natural order but at least the Bible answers the "why" where evolution answers the "what" happened. I prefer to know why.
marriedachocletbunny 2 months ago
@marriedachocletbunny
[ I wasn't there to witness and I don't know all the details ]
Imagine if courts did this. Not being there and having no evidence is grounds for skepticism, not unquestioned acceptance.
[ Big Bang ... Darwin (the author) ]
Darwin has nothing to do with the big bang. Biology and Cosmology are two distinct scientific disciplines.
[I prefer to know why]
Deluding yourself with superstition isn't the same as knowing. Scientific theories are the why.
Dream0Asylum 2 months ago
2:57 Nice picture. The Angel looks like he's going to smask the hell out of Eve. :D
Amashkitotamoes 2 months ago
I'm not a bible believer but... I would point out that there's no reason to believe serpent means the modern biological definition or classification of one, since there were no biologists nor was there modern science. the only message I saw from the book was that you're supposed to "do the right thing." there's no mention of churches, 10% of your income, fiery burning hells, or praying a sinners prayer. Therefore I say whether or not you're a "christian" is irrelevant. Religions dont matter.
shitthrowingmonkey1 2 months ago
I would have sworn that somewhere in the NT it explicitly stated that the serpent was Satan, but I can't find a reference for that now. Revelation does refer to Satan as "that serpent of old," but that is not explicit enough to be watertight. Personally, I believe a plain reading of Genesis gives no indication that the snake was Lucifer--quite the contrary, actually, as all of serpent's progeny was cursed. (This of course ignores the whole "prophesy" of "she will crush your head."
GlorifiedTruth 2 months ago
@GlorifiedTruth
"I believe a plain reading of Genesis gives no indication that the snake was Lucifer"
Then who was it?
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11 It was just some random, douchey snake.
60dl355 2 months ago
@60dl355
Wasnt even that......just a made up story
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11 - Again, going by a plain reading of the text, it was a SERPENT.
GlorifiedTruth 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GlorifiedTruth
"Again, going by a plain reading of the text, it was a SERPENT"
So just a snake then
Who made the snake crafty ....your god
Are snakes crafty ...no ...their just snakes
devante11 2 months ago
You know, I used to be a crafty talking snake like you ... then I took a forbidden fruit to my 12th vertebra.
Dream0Asylum 2 months ago
@fdasherv Satan is in the book of Job.
frabjous79 2 months ago
There was no Satan in the Old Testament. There was no trinity, no christ, no redemption, no hell. Stop looking for ANY of these things, they are unaddressed.
fdasherv 2 months ago
Too bad supposed literallists only attempt their literalism from a translation instead of the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word in question means "whisperer" and has a range of meanings from "reptile" to any human one would describe today as "a real snake", especially those a type of adviser of whom Grima Wormtongue is the archetype. That's pretty much true for all Hebrew nouns: almost all are actually participles which are pure abstractions and which get their concrete sense from context.
nothingmemorable 2 months ago
A lot of the things that are written in the bible are fairy tales. They make up for good bedtime stories. Yet christians don't seem to get it!
tmat04 4 months ago
am i the only one that thinks it sounds like a worm with the texts saying "you will eat the dust of the earth" after all not all snakes live on the ground or even on land ?
333derick333 6 months ago
I have another question on this passage for literalists. The deity pronounces his judgment on the serpent: dust shall you eat all the days of your life. I am unaware of ANY snake which consumes dust or even dirt (which one could argue that, say, earthworms do). Disobedience by the serpents? A change of mind by the deity?
djdatteddys 10 months ago
Isn't it odd that the beastly manifestation of evil incarnate in every apocalyptic religion is usually a reptile?
Mammals have a strong aversion to reptiles. It's part of the mate recognition software. Since humans very rarely have negative (scientifically, meaning diminished) behavioral responses without either training or damage/illness, the natural human positive (scientifically, again, meaning additional) behavioral response to an aversion is hatred or fear.
SnarkLicker 11 months ago
@SnarkLicker Interesting. Couldn't the aversion have more to do with survival? Many reptiles are poisonous. A generalized fear of all reptiles would be highly selected under that pressure. All members of a population who shy away from reptiles avoid poisonous bites. Those members who are curious or ambivalent about reptiles are often bitten and/or die before reproducing. That sort of thing.
t3tsuyaguy1 11 months ago
One, it was a serpent not a snake. Two it went on its belly AFTER the curse. You might want to check your science on that. Just as God used a dumb ass in the book of Numbers so the serpent could have been used also.
RepresentingTruth 11 months ago
@RepresentingTruth One, the original Hebrew is nahash. That is the Hebrew word for snake. Perhaps you think there is some difference between serpents and snakes. To the authors of Genesis, there is none.
Two, check YOUR science on snakes eating dirt. If you know where I can find one, please let me know. I've always wanted a snake as a pet and the cost of rodents can add up.
t3tsuyaguy1 11 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 The reason why I said that is the serpent was cursed and then had to go on its belly. Maybe I was not as clear there. My bad. For if the serpent was cursed to go on its belly then at one time it didn't BTW in the KJV we never have that word translated snake. I found that interesting. As far a pet how about calling it sly or smooth?
RepresentingTruth 11 months ago
The story of Eden was an attempt (I think) to show how 'sin' came into the world (as Paul would say). However, I would say the background is missing. The story has a lot in common with Job and the temptation of Jesus (in my opinion). The serpent was not there by mistake, God put it there just like He put the tree of knowledge there. If Jesus was 'slain' before the world began, then Adam (poor guy) was meant to fall. The one who planned this had to have been God by necessity.
This is my opinion.
obviouslyso 1 year ago
Look you atheists, even money talks to you, as the expression goes, "money talks". Keep in mind I am personifying money, just like the serpent personified sin and the devil, Satan, the fallen Lucifer.
And check the symbol used for money. It is a snake coiled around a pole ( Or a snake coiled around an apple tree ? ) $ $ $ $ The letter S is a snake, it sounds like a snake SSsssssss... So. Money talks $
TrunkMonkey3000 1 year ago
TrunkMonkey3000
So what? Of course money talks, particularly if you put it before everything else. What's that got to do with the story?
To me, it's a story made up by early man to explain man's struggle with his animal nature, which they called sin bcuz they didn't understand it. If they had know about Evolution, they'd have likely told a much different story. They simply relied on superstition to blame man (Eve actually) for sin, instead of blaming the manufacturer, as they should have.
Cootabux 1 year ago
Money is represented in America (New Babylon) as $ . The $ sign is a snake coiled around a pole (or an apple tree) - image search the word CADECEUS. To further prove my point, you should notice that the S is a symbol of a snake. S makes the same sound a snake makes. Ssssss.... Money talks - $ - talking snake.
This is just a synchronicity, though. It is spiritual proof of the talking serpent -- although it`s not necessarily scientific proof. You should PRIVATE MESSAGE me, we talk more.
TrunkMonkey3000 1 year ago
And if you do believe he was literally a snake, do you also believe he actually eats dust?
baigandine 1 year ago
@baigandine
I would imagine that a snake, with it's head so close to the ground, would ingest some amount of dust.
sinebass808 1 year ago
And check out the punishment the crafty serpent received. Crawling on his belly, kind of like he was doing before? :/
FortheLuIz 1 year ago
@FortheLuIz Fly, of course! lol
AthenaSchroedinger 2 months ago
hey there-I was taught that perhaps the serpent was different than a snake- not only did it talk (which is pretty incredible in and of itself ) but that he had arms and legs, which he lost after God found out that the serpent tempted Eve. I still have trouble believing that a God who can create anything just by thinking of it, would have to "find out" anything, through angels, or humans......
djackou812 1 year ago
Every time I see a Chick tract say something to the effect of "It was Satan" I always wanna bitch slap the people who made it for never reading the book they demand we read and believe word for self contradicting words, never questioning any of it.
Especially if a particular denomination (theirs I would guess) demands we look into particular sections then conviently ignore others... it's kind of a pain to deal with isn't it?
sonic8005 1 year ago
@ profmth christians will not be able to answer your questions accurately because the bible is full of contradictions as you had been pointing out, as far as im concerned the bible was written by twisted men who fake characters and history with their end result being "control the masses". the biggest weapon being FEAR.
alwaysup77 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
I can't believe this thread has been going on for three years.
God creates a paradise and creates Adam out of dust and his own breath. God walks with Adam in the cool of the evening and brings all the animals to be named by Adam. God creates Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. God then forbids the couple from eating the fruit of one particular tree.
Considering the fantastic setting and scenario, why should it be so difficult to accept also a real, honest to goodness, crafty, talking snake?
EvenGodsSuffer 1 year ago
@EvenGodsSuffer Indeed!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
2:30
I hate that song.
It reminds me of the Disney movie "Tangled".
SinnFein4ever 2 months ago
@EvenGodsSuffer oh the story looks like harry potter to me.. magic... evolution is false but female created from a rib bone is true fantastic. i wonder why females are not made up of bones but made up of flesh. lol. why not god create female out of a chocolate cake?
princerexor 6 months ago
@princerexor
Some pundit pointed out that, whereas human males sustain their erections by hydraulic means, most mammals have a bone (baculum) for quick copulation.
Since Yahweh's Plan A to hook up Adam with one of the other animals fell through (watch?v=waV91LS0Atw), Plan B had Yahweh creating Eve out of Adam's now unnecessary baculum.
Considering that Abraham and many of his progeny were herders, the apt symbolism would not have been lost on the myth's original creators and later audiences.
EvenGodsSuffer 5 months ago
I love how if your video has religious tags, you get ads like "ChristianLifestyle" dot com, etc. on my facebook profile, i had my info to "interested in: men" and "atheist" and i had a similar ad snafu "do you want a christian girlfriend?" was the question :)
Neeboopsh 1 year ago
I believe that the snake was Lucifer. Yes I believe that it was an actual snake, but Lucifer in the form of a snake. I just want to ask you, why cant you believe in this? I am just wondering.
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@ItsSolaFide "I just want to ask you, why cant you believe in this?"
There is a variety of reasons I don't believe it. With respect to the text itself, the story doesn't say it was "Lucifer in the form of a snake." Rather, it says it was a snake and that snakes were "more crafty than any beast of the field which Yahweh Elohim had made" (Genesis 3:1). When Yahweh punishes the snake, it is as a snake. The claim that this was "Lucifer in the form of a snake" is a claim the text never makes.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Well Prof than I guess I do not take it "word for word", meaning that I actually try to put some logic behind my beliefs. I mean come on, we know that a regular old snake cant talk nor devise a plan to cause the human race to stumble. For that matter why would a regular unconscious snake even want to do that. So I guess I do not believe in a word for word description. I do believe that Isaiah talks about this though and it gives reason for us to believe that it was Lucifer.
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@ItsSolaFide "Well Prof than I guess I do not take it "word for word", meaning that I actually try to put some logic behind my beliefs. I mean come on, we know that a regular old snake cant talk nor devise a plan to cause the human race to stumble."
Well, if "put[ting] some logic behind" and applying what "we know" to the Bible's claims are the measure, you're going to have be a very busy person indeed. E.g., "we know" a "regular old" donkey can't talk, but Numbers 22:28 has one talkin'. ...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @ItsSolaFide "We know" that there is no light in our solar system without the Sun, but in Genesis 1:3, 14-19 there were three whole "days" of light without the Sun. "We know" dead people don't come back to life when other people lay on top of them, but there it is in 1 King 17:17-22. "We know" the sun doesn't move, but then look at Joshua 10:13. Logic and what "we know" tell us that people don't rise from the dead and then go flying off into the sky. But what to do with Jesus, then?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Yeah but the donkey was "possessed" by an angel. I think the serpent was "satan" because Jesus or one of the epistles (I forget which one) said it was satan in the garden. Putting the pieces together, satan must have "possessed" the serpent.
TheGoogler77 3 months ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69
The Bible is done? No I dont think so Christianity is growing faster than it ever has, look at China. No you do not know the Bible, look into Isiah and you will see where it was Lucifer. No imagination is in my doctrine my friend I believe strictly what Hebrew text says. I am a bit of a legalist to tell the truth.
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@ItsSolaFide
"Christianity is growing faster than it ever has"
If that were true
you would be able to show us the evidence.
Please do.
China, of course, is emulating the USA.
As soon as the Chinese educational level
approaches that of the US
I am sure they will do what most educated people do-
set aside fairy tales in favour of reason and reality.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69
I cant recall exactly in Isaiah(excuse me for leaving out the "a", you people amaze me), but I do remember two in Revelation, 12:9 and 20:2. I learned that it was growing faster than ever from my Religion teacher last semester, especially in China and parts of Asia. Your "reason" is your imagination my friend, your own little fairy tale that you can only hope to be true. Good luck.
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@ItsSolaFide i gotta ask, wasn't the story of genesis before the fall of Saint Lucifer? and yes, i referred to him as Saint because according to the Catholic churches history of demons and angels, he is still considered a saint because of his actions before he rebelled.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
@MobileThinker
No.
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@ItsSolaFide i thought it was, cause wouldn't the heavens have to exist before Saint Lucifer could fall?
MobileThinker 1 year ago
@MobileThinker
The heavens did already exist, actually read it, dont do it to support your claim. You are right about angles not being around for eternity, yet they have been around since the begging of time. Probably after the Heavens and before earth. This is exactly the reason I believe in a long term creation. Lucifer had already disobeyed God in Heaven before the Earth was created. Now, does that mean that God made Satan the way he did? No, angles do the desire of their hearts.
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@ItsSolaFide first, i have read the bible. second, i always thought that angels didn't have free will, maybe that is just from sunday school or something?
MobileThinker 1 year ago
@MobileThinker
Well, Im pretty sure that there is no scripture that says one way or another that angles have free will or not. However, since Lucifer fell and other angles went with him, we can say that angles have free will. You can see in Psalms 103 what angles were made for, but there is no verse that says that angles HAVE to do this...
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@ItsSolaFide okay...well like i said, i thought i may have been from the very few times i have been to sunday school, or from a preacher and not the bible, i could not remember. it must have been something i was taught...
MobileThinker 1 year ago
@MobileThinker
Its cool, I was just letting you know. Hope that helped
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@ItsSolaFide "Lucifer fell" Isn't Lucifer the King of Tyre? Lucifer was a mortal man? There were several "satans"? Satan = accuser/judge/opponent? The war in heaven is part of the book of revelation, and takes place in the future?
I'm just saying, I'm pretty sure the whole fallen angel thing is a popular, yet unsupported reading, like citing Isaiah as a prophecy about Jesus.
t3tsuyaguy1 11 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1
No, Lucifer was an angle. There will never be a war in Heaven, it want even be a war it will be demolition on satan I think. Tyre wasnt a nation in the time of Lucifer, I am not sure where you are getting this history from. I am a History major in a very secular college and I have never heard this one.
ItsSolaFide 11 months ago
@ItsSolaFide I originally got it from a catholic priest, when I tried to do a project on "the devil" and I wanted help from someone more familiar with holy texts than I.
Never in the new testament are any of the enemies of god referred to as Lucifer. Lucifer is the morning star. It rises just before dawn, is very bright, then fades with the rising of the sun.
I was used as a metaphor for the King of Babylon in Isaiah, and the King of Tyre in Ezekial.
Continued....
t3tsuyaguy1 11 months ago
@ItsSolaFide Both kings tried to "rise" to take the place of Gods, but failed. There is a Christian cultural tradition of claiming that God has a single adversary, who is the fallen form of his most beautiful creation. The morning star and the stories tied to it, lend themselves well to this.
Nothing about "The Devil" is biblical though. There are many biblical satans and antichrists, but nothing in the text suggests they are all the same being. Certainly there are no fallen angels.
t3tsuyaguy1 11 months ago
@ItsSolaFide Reading your comments, you seem to confuse the widespread cultural traditions of Christians for the Bible itself. In several comments you make claims about what's in the bible that aren't accurate. I really don't care if you accept that or not, but I hope you go read the Bible from cover to cover. You might be a little surprised at how little of it supports the Christian religion.
t3tsuyaguy1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@t3tsuyaguy1
What claim have I made that isnt true? I have read the Bible, I just didnt read it with the same bias that you had obviously. Let me ask you this question, if you were to die and you found out that my God was in fact real, what do you expect would happen to you? Im not going to make any judgements against you I am just curious.
Also, what do you mean by this: you seem to confuse the widespread cultural traditions of Christians for the Bible itself".
ItsSolaFide 11 months ago
@ItsSolaFide
What angle was Lucifer? An acute angle, or 90 degree? Lol.
tmat04 4 months ago
@ItsSolaFide
According to scripture, god made the angels perfect. That's the 1st problem with satan supposedly rebelling. The 1nd problem is that sin is not supposed to exist in god's presence, yet satan just thinking and planning to rebel was a sin! Also, when satan rebelled & tried to usurp god's power, why didn't god destroy him? Instead, he sends him to Earth to plague mankind.
I hope you see where I'm going with this. It's a man made story, and not well thought out at all.
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux
No where in the Bible does it say angles are perfect! Infact they are a lot more like us than God, they act on will, they are not omniscient, omnipresent, and have limited power, this is how they are able to fall. Satan would have been thrown out of Heaven the Instant he thought about overthrowing God. I cant answer the last question truthfully, but I can sled light on it. What brings God more glory? Shooting Satan in the head with a pistol? Or allowing people to choose?
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
@ItsSolaFide If the snake was Lucifer then why did god punish snakes for the transgressions of Lucifer? Did he not know it was Lucifer?
Ivysilverleaf 2 months ago
@Ivysilverleaf The point of the text isnt to show God punishing snakes, that should not even be a question in my mind. The whole point of the story of Adam and Eve was to show the fall of man. Whether or not the snake was Lucifer doesnt matter, what matters is God is gracious in saving a depraved people. He shows that He will defeat sin, the passage shows that God is planning to send a messiah, namely, Jesus.
ItsSolaFide 2 months ago
@ItsSolaFide "Whether or not the snake was Lucifer doesnt matter...."
Well, yeah, it kinda *does* matter since many Christians say the snake was Satan but the story doesn't say that. But this is territory you and I have covered already.
ProfMTH 2 months ago
@ItsSolaFide "The point of the text isnt to show God punishing snakes..."
It seems like you're directing people's attention away from the problematic areas of the Bible. The video asks a question. You're suggesting that we ignore it and focus on what you say is important. Critical analysis of any document making the kind of claims the Bible does is necessary.
Was the snake Satan? Then God is unjust for punishing snakes. Was it just a snake? Then obviously it's all a fairy tale.
FactsBeforeFaith 2 months ago
@ItsSolaFide Actually all that it really shows is someone deciding to punish someone despite them having been lied to and misled, possibly by that very same someone. Doesn't mention anything about redemption or anything really.
evilmiera 2 months ago
@ItsSolaFide "...God is gracious..."? Excuse me, but God was the one that placed the snake in the garden to begin with. Lest we forget, he also put "The Tree" in there as well. Seems kinda silly if you don't want people eating from the tree, why put it there in the first place?
He had to know what was going to happen, cause God knows everything, right?
Sounds like a set up to me.
Aesop's fables made more sense as a mortality tales, than this does.
AthenaSchroedinger 2 months ago
@AthenaSchroedinger Exactly! Dude. Another way of relating to why God is responsible is like this. If you were to throw a hand gun in a crib with a toddler would you be responsible? I mean the ramifications of the action could potentially be detrimental. I am sure you would be held accountable in a court. Yet you did not know what was actually going to happen. God knew full well what was going to happen by placing the tree and the snake in there. Premeditated sin creation.
CtheWolfe 2 months ago
@CtheWolfe
Sin in the fictional story was created by god......sin happened in heaven...when satan [created by god in the first place] was then sent to earth so sin could continue...heaven is corrupt as god created satan knowing full well in advance what would happen in heaven ....then sends satan to earth ....then creates man/woman with satan in the garden......nothing of mans doing what so ever
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11 Yeah well in the start God was responsible for everything. It was a true monotheism. Satan did not come around until later to alleviate the issue of an all loving god doing such evil things.
CtheWolfe 2 months ago
@CtheWolfe
Neither of the characters you mention actually exist...just primitive man trying to explain why they thought things happen.....the real answer is ...we dont know
Though we do know man is helps man as no god exists
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11 I think we are getting a lot closer to knowing. I mean the more we know.... the less we need any god of any sort. Its too bad that in this time so many people still cling onto barbaric traditions and superstitions.
CtheWolfe 2 months ago
@CtheWolfe
I agree we know more than we ever have..and will continue to do so generation after generation
On your point of knowing though.......Hmmm i would have to say no
Knowing is actually being there to witness a event.......no uncaused cause has ever been observed....
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11
You weren't watching when your parents concieved you, so does that mean that you don't know who your parents are?
SinnFein4ever 2 months ago
@SinnFein4ever
No you dont....not until you trust ...what they are saying to you is true.....
For example...some people are told this is your father.....and it ends up it wasnt really their real father
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11
I was refferring to you, personally.
SinnFein4ever 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SinnFein4ever
"I was refferring to you, personally"
Havent got a clue what you are on about
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11 You do not need direct observation to know what happened.
CtheWolfe 2 months ago
@CtheWolfe
You do ....otherwise it is a belief ..not a known
e.g. if a person looks totally different from father...also a DNA test can confirm this
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11
Or an RNA test.
SinnFein4ever 2 months ago
@devante11 I know China exists. Yet I have never seen it. Evidence allows me to know this without direct observation.
CtheWolfe 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CtheWolfe
"I know China exists. Yet I have never seen it. Evidence allows me to know this without direct observation"
What evidence?
devante11 2 months ago
@CtheWolfe
Futhermore, who created the snake crafty?...god did ......again nothing to do with man
god creates a dangerous tree, doesnt protect the tree..then creates a crafty character...then god wanders away....and doesnt protect his beloved creation.......bad parenting in the finest...creates dangerous objects and characters...wanders away......then says its all mans fault....and he calls himself all love...I wonder what would happen if parents acted like this today?..jailtime
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11
(nods)
It's like a parent dropping a razor in a baby's crib, walking out of the room, then coming back later to find the baby covered in blood, and saying "You little brat! How dare you touch that razor I put in your crib!".
SinnFein4ever 2 months ago
@SinnFein4ever
Yep basically.....thing is the baby has no knowledge what razor blade is...and nor did adam and eve know what right or wrong was ...they were innocent in the fictional story
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11
Exactly!
SinnFein4ever 2 months ago
@ItsSolaFide
Your god created sin..sin happened in heaven not on earth.....the fall happened in heaven ...then sin was sent to earth...nothing of man falling.....more like your god failed and fell...as he has no foresight as he is imaginary LOL
devante11 2 months ago
@devante11
That does not have anything to do with what we were talking about? But, God didnt create sin, sin didnt happen in heaven, the fall of what happened in heaven? Man did fall, on earth. My God didnt fell, He came to earth and accomplished what we never could. That is success. Also, you are assuming that God isnt real, you can not back that up.
ItsSolaFide 2 months ago
@ItsSolaFide
"God didnt create sin, sin didnt happen in heaven, the fall of what happened in heaven? Man did fall, on earth. My God didnt fell,"
In the fictional story....sin was created in heaven, when your god created satan..without the creation of satan no sin can exist...Thus your god created sin, thats why heaven is corrupt as that is where sin orginated from. Your god even KNEW sin would be created by creating him...and still created
[cont]
devante11 2 months ago
@ItsSolaFide
Furthermore, he sent satan to earth....was in a garden...because your god sent him to earth/garden..rather than somewhere else. Your god then creates man/woman [already knowing satan was in garden].... for sin to continue as sin was SENT to earth...and thus earth is corrupt..and then blames man for?????...not of man doing but from the source [your god]
devante11 2 months ago
@ItsSolaFide
"Also, you are assuming that God isnt real, you can not back that up."
No uncaused cause has been observed, thus no god is real, thats why if you look, thats why their are so many gods...all man made
devante11 2 months ago
Oh goodness, my dear Christian friends. Please, do not even try to answer this with a natural explanation. If you believe that there has to be a natural phenomena with this subject than you have already bought into the lie. Im sorry Prof I do like your videos very much, they challenge me, but this one I can only answer with supernatural. I know that it seems like a cop-out answer, but when it comes to a talking snake, I mean lets get real. I have faith when it comes to that.
ItsSolaFide 1 year ago
Oh forgt all this rubbish and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. This stuff is just a smokescreen. Isaiah described the earth as circular. 1100 b.c.
sparwood8 1 year ago
I personally would like it answered why the snake was punished with crawling on its belly....doesnt seem like much of a punishment for a snake...and few of them seem to eat dust too. Perhaps they really are crafty, cos they seem to have got off with that 1 scott free lol
acynicalphilosopher 1 year ago
Sadly it isn't, but it should be obvious to all by now that the vast majority of the people who were originally being told this now irrefutably outdated nonsense were extremely ignorant and extremely superstitious people who's level of gullibility would be difficult if not impossible for us to now comprehend.
Go ahead, and try to imagine what it may have been like to live in the bronze age, illiterate and almost completely ignorant of the natural world.
[Play roll of thunder]
Scary, isn't it?
MrPoopybum 2 years ago
I think a creature that travels on its belly and eats dirt sounds more like an earthworm than a serpent...snake..whatever. Just my 2 cents.
Roseybaby63 2 years ago
@Rosebaby63
Sanctified copulation!! You're right! I never thought of that.
LordSlag 2 years ago
Not only the snake was talking but it kept vertical position so maybe it was some kind of mutation ,reptalian ,alien .O.k it's simply some Sumerian -Babilonian myth used by the Bible writers .I found a seal somewhere in the net a seal with the tree,Gods ,a men and a womanand the STANDING SNAKE.
sekulaadam 2 years ago
As a former Christian, I have to admit, the snake never seemed particularly crafty to me. If it were crafty it would have had some sort of eventual goal, and would also have gone about it in such a way so as to avoid any and all blame.
As it is, the snake just comes across as rather naive and shortsighted.
(If I were the snake, I might have, say, knocked one of the fruits to the ground whilst Adam and Eve were sleeping, maybe try to feed some to them without their knowing)
Crafty? Nah.
Afterthoughtbtw 2 years ago
I find that fundies just say they take the bible literally true, because when pushed on specifics, they always back peddle. When they say the bible is literal and perfect they are really just spouting propaganda and they know it. They are willing to lie to support their beliefs just as the Nazis were willing to stuff people into ovens to support theirs.
ndyt 2 years ago
The Genesis story suffers from a basic problem:
if the snake was possessed by Satan, then wouldn't that make the snake itself innocent? So why were its descendants cursed?
If the snake was acting of its own will, why was it so much smarter than any other snake that has ever been known?
tifforo1 2 years ago
? its a given in the story that the original serpent was not the snake of today.his dna was changed after his deception.satan didnt possess anyone as the devil was neevr an archangel that fell from heaven before creation to begin with. i have so much to type here i cant explain it.the account of lucifer being in heaven rebellng comes from dantes inferno and paradise lost in the midages.not the bible.only war in heaven ever mentioned is revelations future tense. research
darthbeavis64 2 years ago
So bottom-line it for me, please, Darth. Is it your belief that before this DNA change that the snake had the power of speech -- not to mention the ability to cook up and execute a plan to foil a couple of human beings -- and that he lost this after "the Fall"?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
why would an "all mighty God" allow war in his big white heavenly house with all the pretty little white angels with their tiny harps playing pretty songs like "God Your The Best" and "God, You Rule" as they escort all the new dead righteous folk through the big golden gates?
daisytg1 2 years ago
@darthbeavis64 Obviously 'twas a very special snake then, in the know and mysteriously motivated to f things up, armed and loosed in the grass with convenient information about the Tree of Good and Evil that the Almighty God (who would NEVER stack the deck for Original Sin) didn't see fit to share with dominion-wielding Humans. Why is this loss of speech via DNA not mentioned in the cursing, at least in some shrouded Conservapedia-like biblical code for science?
badpetunia 1 year ago
Whatever the snake was, it was something that "The LORD God had made", and somehow it got past the guard and messed everything up. On to plan B.......
averagebear1 2 years ago
the idea that people, intelligent (supposedly) people, will do back flips trying to explain this shit, is amazing. Clearly a fable. OBVIOUSLY, staring you in the face, any small child could tell you it's not true - It's a FABLE.
I was raised by a Biblical literallist, and even I ALWAYs knew (secretly) that this was not a true story...
buzzardbeatniks 2 years ago
Why would Satan need to possess any animal? Didn't he have the ability to speak on his own?
I used to be a biblical literalist. I'm feeling much better now.
Orion8472 2 years ago
It could not have been an actual snake and much of Genesis is euphemistic.
Few examples of what I mean:
1. If the serpent is really a SNAKE and is the same as Lucifer described in Isaiah 7:16 which calls him a "MAN". This clearly is a contradiction of Genesis calling him a SNAKE.
2. If Ezekiel 28 is a metaphor for Lucifer and the serpent is the same as Lucifer then clearly Genesis cannot "fully" be taken literal.
If one reads Isaiah 14 the serpent is called a "MAN".
SiriusLordoflisan7 2 years ago
"...Genesis calling him a SNAKE."
Genesis never calls Lucifer a snake. Not once.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I agree and understand your point. It appears to me that you have yet another Bible Blunder. Most Christians make statements that Isaiah 7:16 and Ezekiel 28 is speaking about the serpent in Genesis 3. Which I highly agree with you doesn't.
SiriusLordoflisan7 2 years ago
I misunderstood your point. Thanks for the additional message. It seems my apologetic bullshit trip wire is a bit too sensitive at the moment. lol Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
That is okay! The Bible causes everyone to get a little angry due to its lack of specificness. But anyway, You should defiantly do a Bible Blunder on the Christian apologist belief that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is a reference of the serpent of Genesis. Many and most Christians believe it is.
SiriusLordoflisan7 2 years ago
I really wonder why God gave craftiness to the snake while the whole world was innocent? like who would need that craftiness? what tool was that in the INNOCENT world???
Gigsixstring 2 years ago
Excellent question.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Maybe he meant for the snake to be adept at pasta sculptures and egg carton caterpillars.
jamminjago 2 years ago
In answer to the QUESTION you actually asked: I don't think the serpent was a literal snake. In fact, I don't think a serpent and snake are even the same thing. I've tried to discover exactly what a serpent is and can't seem to find the answer. I don't see any talking snakes crawling around; do you?
taurgemKa 2 years ago
taurgemKa: I wonder why you haven't been able to discover what a serpent is. Every dictionary defines it as a snake: Oxford, Longman's, American Heritage, Webster, Collings, Random House...just to name a few. The word comes from the Latin word 'serpentus' which means snake.
ledrox 2 years ago
I'm trying to determine the origin of it. Snake is assumed is it not? The bible never said the serpent would lose it's speech. Snakes don't talk.
taurgemKa 2 years ago
TaurgemKa, might that not just lead you to conclude that the story is a fable?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I accept the possibility that it very well may be a fable. I don't think the story is an outright "LIE". We make stories up all the time to get points across because they capture the imagination and make the getting to the point more interesting.
taurgemKa 2 years ago
TaurgemKa, do you suspect that Jesus and the early Christians (e.g., Paul) regarded the story as a fable?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
No. I have no way of knowing if they did, though, or rather I've never seen it in the scriptures.
taurgemKa 2 years ago
2 Corinthians 11:3 is just one example.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I don't see the connection to him thinking the story was a fable. It looks like he is just comparing ppls minds turned from "Christ" that same way Eve was "decieved" by the serpent.
taurgemKa 2 years ago
The flat earth doesnt originate in the scriptures, "The earth is a SPHERE that hangeth upon nothing" :D
Where did the flat earth originate from you know?
KARStarla 2 years ago
It says "circle", not "sphere".
roohif 2 years ago
The hebrew word is actually "chuwg" the defintion is "circuit, circle, compass, and second is "vault", in the lexicon it notes both "circle and sphere"
In otherwords its not square, look under the definition of the word too sometimes you find synonomous words which are used in various versions :)
KARStarla 2 years ago
Ha, awesome. I was just praising you last week for shredding Geerup, but you already tackled this nearly two years ago.
Well done then, and well done now.
DansLookingGlass 2 years ago
My first video. Seems like a hundred years ago. lol
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I believe this deserves a followup. If the literalists like to throw Satan in the mix here, they should necessarily inquire as to why God is so angry with the snake, which is verified by God's decree that the snake should crawl and eat dirt for all time. Why do that to all snakes if it were Satan, not a talking snake?
VulcanForge 2 years ago
Further, the concept of 'the adversary' is an ever evolving concept from the old testament to revelations. That should be explored as well. Obviously it should be more difficult for you, as you prefer to let the text speak for itself and avoid the overwhelming cultural impact of Zoroastrianism on Judaism in the intertestamental period, but it can still be made interesting.
VulcanForge 2 years ago
It does say in revelation that "that ol' serpent which IS the devil and satan"
Though the serpent is considered a "beast" ironically not a "creeping thing" and if he moved along his belly from the start then why was he cursed to go on his belly would be a better question. Seems first Adam named him the serpent and Christ (considered the last Adam) named the Pharisees the same thing.
Was God angry because He contradicted what God said perhaps? Thats a thought
KARStarla 2 years ago
It seems pretty obvious that all the animals in the Garden could talk, not just the serpent. After all, Adam called them by name.
Lohitaksha 3 years ago
Wait, what? "Called them by name" doesn't mean "Hey, Elephant! Over here!" It means he made names for the animals - all part of the whole "stewardship" schick.
What a surprisingly large number of people, including Christians, don't realise is that there are two, mutually contradictory accounts of Creation with very different writing styles and portrayals of God. I don't know if ProfMTH has made a video on this, but it's quite an interesting issue.
YTrann 3 years ago
A bigger question for Christians about Genesis is which of the TWO creation myths do they believe? In one Adam is created first, then animals; in the other the animals are created first, and finally Adam.
At most, only one of those two myths can be true. And yet these people say the Babble is inerrant. But that's because most of them have never read it, only heard small portions of it quoted.
bdf2718 3 years ago
Well obviously, the parts that look good on a bumper sticker are true! The rest was clearly forged.
uberjim83 3 years ago
Hot diggetty-shit!!! You all have figured out how the Babble works!!!
bdf2718 3 years ago
I don't remember Genesis saying the world was flat. Plus, they don't say there were dinosaurs; if Genesis is true, there never were any dinosaurs.
uberjim83 3 years ago
Genesis talks of the "four corners" of the Earth.
Verses elsewhere in the Babble say that you can see "all the kingdoms of the earth" from the top of a mountain and yet elsewhere say you can see "all the kingdoms of the earth" from the top of a tree. This is only possible if the earth is FLAT.
bdf2718 3 years ago
Thanks! :)
uberjim83 3 years ago
When one realizes that the Serpent is a river, and that the story is about agriculture, the story starts making sense.
When one realizes they started seeing agriculture as a sin because it was the birth of technology, it starts making even more sense.
When one realizes that they thought that technology brought about the floods in the middle east, then it makes even more sense than before.
They thought that had they remained hunters and gatherers, the floods would not have occurred.
ScottJanssen 3 years ago
HOLY SHI-
YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND.
CypherDxvz 3 years ago
Kind of like when Moses was leaving Egypt and "God" had the chariot of the chasing Egyptians stuck in the ground. ie It just so happened to rain and the ground became muddy after Moses and his people passed.
brutus149 3 years ago
he says literal no fecking metaphors
stitch626123 3 years ago
Rivers were called serpents at one time. Literally. Forbidden (hybridized) fruit is literal, because technology became a sin. Tree of knowledge was literal, because with the realization of hybridization, they understood that everything in nature had technological potential. Yep, it started with a single tree, it had to. Garden, aka farmland, is also literal. Adam and Eve? Well, the story literally tells us they were the inventors of hybridization, hence why they were blamed.
ScottJanssen 3 years ago
You're misusing the word literal. You mean symbolic. If you call something "forbidden fruit," then it is only LITERAL if it is an actual piece of fruit that you are forbidden from eating, not the general technology of blending crops.
uberjim83 3 years ago
No, I don't mean "symbolic" at all, because it ISN"T symbolic. Read what I wrote again. If a hybridized fruit is considered a sin, then it is literally a forbidden fruit.
ScottJanssen 3 years ago
Nonetheless, it wouldn't be a literal reading of Genesis unless the hybridized fruit was solely responsible for man knowing good from evil. Also, the story in Genesis makes no mention of hybridization, literally or otherwise. Also, there is no evidence that hybridization of fruit was regarded as a sin by those people.
uberjim83 3 years ago
You need to understand what the story means. Technology/knowledge (tree of knowledge) became a sin, that is why we know nothing about the Great Pyramid. Knowledge and technology was abandoned. That is what started religion. Hybridization was the original technology. Put another way, the original sin was agriculture. That is why Adam and Eve were blamed for the woes of mankind. In other words, you were okay if you were a hunter/gatherer, but sinful if you "manipulated" nature.
ScottJanssen 3 years ago
Ok, I understand that, but that would make the story a metaphor, not literal.
Do you have any evidence that these people considered agriculture a sin, other than your interpretation of this myth?
uberjim83 3 years ago
It is what the story means. That is why the egyptians/mesopotamians abandoned technology. This is why there are so many mysteries involving ancient civilization. We have all heard the legends of ancient advanced civilizations. Agriculture is the first technology. Technology is the sin that men loved so much that caused the floods. The floods changed all that, and religions began.
ScottJanssen 3 years ago
Irrigation wouldn't cause floods, though. Do you have any non-scriptural (read: non-fictional) basis for this belief?
uberjim83 3 years ago
HUH? The ice age caused the floods. All that ice that melted had to go somewhere.
"Do you have any non-scriptural (read: non-fictional) basis for this belief?"
Yep, one just has to connect the dots. Realize that religious people don't get this stuff. They take things at face value. It is real simple. Humans in the middle east hit the technological age. The floods occurred. They thought that technology is what caused the floods, so technology became a sin. Then came sun worshipping.
ScottJanssen 3 years ago
Sorry, I thought you were implying that irrigation was what caused t