It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
Even the most literal interpretation of Genesis makes that true only about humans. Nobody ever suggests that animal life in general was descended from them.
There were other snakes because animals were created in multiples, and were told to "be fruitful and multiply".
Originally posted by DISRAELI
I thought it was obvious enough. Snakes bruise the heels of men by biting them. Men bruise the heads of snakes by treading on them. That is what happens, yes? That is what the comment is talking about.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
In one of my replies to the OP, I suggested "splitting" the interpretation, making the "serpent tempted Eve" metaphorical, and the bruising business literal. The "bruising" comment is an "origin" story, explaining something that is observed in real life.
originally posted by: Joecroft
Yeah, but literal animal snakes produce other snakes.
But why make one metaphorical and the other literal…?
If the snake can literally bruise, then surely it can literally tempt Eve as well…
How are you drawing the line between making one literal, and the other metaphorical…?
Isaiah 14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Revelation 22
16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
John 12
46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
originally posted by: DeathSlayer
originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: SLO31B
Eve loved learning and she heard a new term, from the "snake".
Now if you were a lover of learning and you just figured something out that could expand your mind for miles would YOU just say "no thank you, im in bliss right now and do not need to know more, bye"
She HAD to do it, she ate the apple, or had sex with the snake, or whatever she did.
Im glad she did it too bc i wouldnt want a perfect blissful world where everyone was the same. That is my evil talking, we all have a little.
Because of the statements you made above I will tell you this about me:
I surrender and give up my own free will. Period. I do not need it nor do I want it. Why?
Doing the will of God is him taking care of you and all your needs so who needs free will when everything you need can and will be provided to you...guaranteed.
I often hear many say they do not want to live forever....hmmm.... I always found that to be weird because I always want to live forever.... never boring.... going from planet to planet, colonizing worlds....etc.... never a boring day. becoming masters in all of the arts, sciences, various hundreds of PhD and doctor titles.... alone the education and being able to master all that is known ....how long would that take? Then maybe ....just maybe .... I might get bored...
Wouldn't you probably go home and tell your partner, right? "Hey honey, I bumped into this snake and it started talking to me and it convinced me to take a bite out of the forbidden fruit, here you take a bite too."
originally posted by: mersaultdies
The snake was probably an early sex toy that Adam caught Eve using and got cross. He thought he was the big man.
Then they wrote a book and said, 'Only idiots will believe this junk'.
Then history happened and Adam and Eve looked down at humanity, looked across at God sheepishly and said, 'Woops'.
But God didn't chide them, because then he would prove he exists, which he would rather never do for some reason.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
originally posted by: Joecroft
Yeah, but literal animal snakes produce other snakes.
Yes, that's what I was talking about.
But why make one metaphorical and the other literal…?
If the snake can literally bruise, then surely it can literally tempt Eve as well…
How are you drawing the line between making one literal, and the other metaphorical…?
I am drawing the line by looking for the interpretation that makes the most sense, and leaves the whole thing least tangled.
The basic story of the temptation is an aetiological, or "origin", story, explaining the origin of death and everything else that is wrong with the world. A metaphorical snake is introduced for the purpose. Once there's a "snake" element in the story, the writer takes the opportunity of attaching to it an observation about literal snakes in their relationship with men and including that in the explanations.