How did the snake know about the tree of the knowledge of good fortune and misfortune?

[peter2]

This is the result of cultural inducements

Hello, Kutte, God bless you.
I think you're right when you say that love making provides good feelings, etc..( which yet is alas not always so)
What do you make yet of Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:7,10. It's true that in Genesis 3:7,10, it's no longer the word "shame", but "fear" of God, if my translation doesn't fail. Yet, their nudities is what they want to hide may be from each other, but above all from God. It looks like they feeled embarrassed.

 

[Hank77]

Hello, Kutte, God bless you.
I think you're right when you say that love making provides good feelings, etc..( which yet is alas not always so)
What do you make yet of Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:7,10. It's true that in Genesis 3:7,10, it's no longer the word "shame", but "fear" of God, if my translation doesn't fail. Yet, their nudities is what they want to hide may be from each other, but above all from God. It looks like they feeled embarrassed.

I tried to write what I have believed about this for a long time but I couldn't express it very well, so I went looking for help. I found my beliefs on this Jewish site.
Why did Adam and Eve become aware of their nakedness only after they sinned?

 

[Adstar]

Do you find it ironic that so much of what is said about the King of Tyre is also said about satan?
Could we say that the King of Tyre is being compared to satan because he has fallen into the same iniquity as the one influencing him, satan, namely pride and a thirst for power?
When Peter spoke against Jesus' pending death Jesus didn't rebuke Peter, but stopped talking to Peter and addressed the one influencing him, satan.

Ok let me put this idea into the Mix... The King of Tire was possessed by satan... So the message to the King of Tyre was both to the king and to the one who possessed him.. satan..

Anyone who reads the Message that was given about the king of Tyre and reads it in full cannot reasonably come to the conclusion that it was all about a mere man...

 

[peter2]

Hello, hank
I quite agree with this jewish explanation, exept for calling that an "evil" inclination. It's an inclination all right, an evil one is still uncertain for me, may be false.
Another way of interpreting it is to note that their common disobedience surely led them to feel guilty. This lack of obedience was may be like a kind of nudity: they were not reliable..

 

[peter2]

Hello, hank
I quite agree with this jewish explanation, exept for calling that an "evil" inclination. It's an inclination all right, an evil one is still uncertain for me, may be false.
Another way of interpreting it is to note that their common disobedience surely led them to feel guilty. This lack of obedience was may be like a kind of nudity: they were not reliable..

 

[peter2]

Hello, hank
I quite agree with this jewish explanation, exept for calling that an "evil" inclination. It's an inclination all right, an evil one is still uncertain for me, may be false.
Another way of interpreting it is to note that their common disobedience surely led them to feel guilty. This lack of obedience was may be like a kind of nudity: they were not reliable..

 

[Kutte]

Hello, Kutte, God bless you.
I think you're right when you say that love making provides good feelings, etc..( which yet is alas not always so)
What do you make yet of Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:7,10. It's true that in Genesis 3:7,10, it's no longer the word "shame", but "fear" of God, if my translation doesn't fail. Yet, their nudities is what they want to hide may be from each other, but above all from God. It looks like they feeled embarrassed.

Hi Peter,
I would have to agree that Adam and Eve felt embarrassed after becoming aware of good and bad. My Bible translation speaks of 'embarrassment', not fear. I might add that this is a natural thing to feel, although in today's world nakedness
is not something to feel embarrassed about by many.
I do not consider rape an act of love making.
God bless

 

[marineimaging]

The Word is sufficient. The word is simple. Salvation is simple. Why are you complicating it with rhetoric and man made misdirections? Satan, the fallen angel, was in the Garden of Eden. If he had approached Adam first then Adam would recognize what was going on so he chose to tempt Eve first knowing that together they could conquer Adam. It is that simple.

 

[peter2]

Hello Kutte

To be honest, it's my own translation from french to english. Then, as my bible is in french, It may be the word "peur" which generates ambiguity. "j'ai pris peur car j'étais nu" becomes" I felt embarrassed because I was naked" , or perhaps "I was afraid because I was naked" would do.
Sometimes, without rape speaking, love making fails to bring about fullness. That's what I was referring to.
I must admit my own idea about erection and Adam and Eve becoming aware is difficult for me to rule out. That seems to me as a proper hypothesis to explain the unfolding of the facts displayed in the scriptures. The next step in this hypothesis is to wonder whether it could or not have been the revelation of a lusting after for both of them. This hypothetical lust can be the first step in a looking for ownership of one's partner. And this mutual possessiveness could have led to shame.

God bless

 

[Kutte]

The Word is sufficient. The word is simple. Salvation is simple. Why are you complicating it with rhetoric and man made misdirections? Satan, the fallen angel, was in the Garden of Eden. If he had approached Adam first then Adam would recognize what was going on so he chose to tempt Eve first knowing that together they could conquer Adam. It is that simple.

Dear marineimaging,

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Adam would not have recognized what was going on because he lacked knowledge of good and bad.
God bless.

 

[Kutte]

Hello Kutte

To be honest, it's my own translation from french to english. Then, as my bible is in french, It may be the word "peur" which generates ambiguity. "j'ai pris peur car j'étais nu" becomes" I felt embarrassed because I was naked" , or perhaps "I was afraid because I was naked" would do.
Sometimes, without rape speaking, love making fails to bring about fullness. That's what I was referring to.
I must admit my own idea about erection and Adam and Eve becoming aware is difficult for me to rule out. That seems to me as a proper hypothesis to explain the unfolding of the facts displayed in the scriptures. The next step in this hypothesis is to wonder whether it could or not have been the revelation of a lusting after for both of them. This hypothetical lust can be the first step in a looking for ownership of one's partner. And this mutual possessiveness could have led to shame.

God bless

Hello Peter,
For what it's worth: It have a German Bible which does not even mention the word 'embarrassed'. It simply states, that their eyes were opened and they realized that they were naked and needed to cover you know what.
I think when speaking of 'lust' we are entering into our inborn desires unfolding. I would consider it quiet possible that only one side may feel this desire at times. Its only natural. I am hesitant of speaking of ownership of a partner because this reminds me of slavery.
God bless.

 

[peter2]

Hi, marineimaging

knowing that together they could conquer Adam

Sorry, I disagree too: Where did you read Eve and Satan were acting in connivance? It makes Eve one of his creatures.

Hi Kutte,

needed to cover you know what.

Sorry, it's not mentionned what they were covering. I'm not sure how far we can go in our estimation of that.
What's more, are you sure there are inborn desires or instincts but the suction reflex of the baby, which is linked to his appetite?
As for ownership of a partner, it' my translation which is not adequate, for I just wished to mean "covetousness", but according to my dictionnary this word refers to wealth, not to human beings.
How interesting is your link with slavery, as Jesus spoke of "slave of sin", and we are precisely speaking of the original sin

God bless you two

 

[SolomonVII]

So, who do you think it was --- a goodly person? All Scripture about Satan shows how he manifests self to man for deceit in many forms and ways. Are you supposing the voice was a godly Angel from God? See all commentaries by teachers on the subject of Satan!
Remember, too, that Satan was cast out of Heaven onto the earth, and is described much as the "deceiver".

First and foremost, the serpent was a beast. He was the most cunning, or wisest of beats. He was a beast who very possibly could walk, for it was only after he was cursed that he had to 'eat dust', crawling around on his belly like snakes now do. He could also talk, which is unlike any beast that we know of today, but apparently not unlike any beast that existed at the time of Adam and Eve.
Walking and talking and wise, the serpent then would have been very much like a man.
As in previous chapters when Adam was called to find a suitable mate from among the beasts, the difference between the serpent and man at this moment in time was the difference between man and a beast.

It is certainly open to interpretation that the serpent is Satan, but it is not necessary to believe this to be so, and to believe so is to go beyond the literal words of the verse.
Another significant factor as to who the beast was comes out from the Hebrew vocabulary where 'naked' and 'wise' sound the same. The serpent's form of deception is always in plain sight. It was never an out and out lie, but a suggestion, and an appeal to what Eve was feeling and desiring, that the serpent opened the door with. Your eyes will be opened; and there eyes were opened. You will not die, and they ate and were still alive. You will become like God, something that even God later stated.
If the serpent were truly a beast, then there is no sin in giving into his desires. No beast is under a command to curb their desires, after all.
Only man is under such a command. and therein lies the difference between man and beast, which Eve found out the hard way.

 

[peter2]

It is certainly open to interpretation that the serpent is Satan, but it is not necessary to believe this to be so, and to believe so is to go beyond the literal words of the verse.

Hello Salomon,

Alas, the issue has already been disputed as for the serpent is or not Satan. I didn't like the idea to mix a beast up with Satan, but I had to concede it when reading Revelation 12, which I find unambiguous
God bless

 

[SolomonVII]

Hello Salomon,

Alas, the issue has already been disputed as for the serpent is or not Satan. I didn't like the idea to mix a beast up with Satan, but I had to concede it when reading Revelation 12, which I find unambiguous
God bless

I believe that it was CrystalDragon here who insists that the serpent is not Satan. And, from the perspective of the original, literal meaning of the text, the serpent is not Satan, not demonic, and is deceptive only in his cunning openness. The plain text describes him first and foremost as the wisest of the beast.
I am certainly not a proponent of an Islamic conception of God as someone who can blot out today what was proclaimed as truth yesterday. I believe that CrystalDragon is quite correct in insisting on remaining true to the original framework of the text. To state unequivocally that the serpent is Satan ignores that original framework, and blots out today what had been revealed truth yesterday.
Yet one cannot ignore that the Bible itself has recorded a much more complex vision of the original text over the years. The New Testament especially, and Jesus specifically, has greatly expanded upon the character of Satan from what it had been in Old Testament scripts. Indeed Revelation does see the serpent as a demonic figure, and with Jesus, Satan is not just seen as a hyper-critical member of God's inner circle, but an evil overlord cast out of heaven.

With the Satan as seen by Jesus, we begin to see spiritual evil existing in its own right, and yes, that spiritual evil does connect directly to the story of Adam and Eve. The spirit of Satan in the NT is the spirit of rebellion, and it is that spirit of rebellion that the serpent foments in Adam and Eve, and in effect puts the two in awe of his own wisdom, rather than the wisdom of the Creator.
While God certainly ought not be seen as blotting out the truths of yesterday with the revelations of today, neither is it true that the truths of yesterday can blot out what is revealed as true later on in the Bible. Truth is multi-faceted, but more than this, Biblical truths are dynamic and engender real spiritual growth. The bible changes us over our lifetime and over the centuries. It is precisely that spiritual growth that brings us beyond the original meanings of the text to discover new meanings that were never imagined by the original authors.
Whether that original author be Moses, or JEPD, the inspiration of the Bible comes directly from the Holy Spirit, and the miracle of the Bible is that its meanings go beyond what any single author could have possibly envisioned.

 

[SolomonVII]

...

 

[Tina W]

Please, forgive my poor english speaking, for I'm french.
Indeed, is there any rivalry between the snake (Symbol of fertility) and God's plan for man?
That plain question stems from the strange knowledge of the snake, that neither man nor woman owns.Which also implies that the snake may have had a key role to play, considering its science, that it can hold from God only.
Or, should we assume that it personifies Satan, which can explain a lot, but fails to explain how he(Satan) can be personified by a living creature in the flesh like a snake whereas he presumably did not take that appearance when he spoke to Jesus in the desert.
Secondly, do you think Eve was first to hit perceptiveness, as she first ate the fruit, or did they simutaneously become aware of their nudities, when Adam did the same?

Thank you for reading

Satan possessed the snake and spoke through it. I think it was when Adam ate the fruit that they both became aware of their nakedness, because Eve did wrong, but sin didn't enter until Adam also ate the fruit because that made it unanimous. If Eve had eaten it but Adam didn't, the choice would not be unanimous and since Adam was the head of the union, his choice would be the deciding factor. Like signing a contract today that requires both signatures. If only one signs it, the contract is not valid. Eating the apple signified signing a contract. So they both became aware of their nakedness as soon as Adam also ate the fruit. That's when he added his signature of acceptance.

 

[Tina W]

Perhaps Adam had the first erection of a man in mankind, which brought about their simultaneous Shame only after hé ate the fruit.

LOL That's not possible. Their shame was not about sex.

Hi Adstar,
speaking of questions, here is another one: Let us consider Adam and Eve did not gain any awareness of good and bad, would they still be walking around in the Garden of Eden stark naked with no challenges to overcome?
God bless

No I don't think so. I think mankind would have eventually developed in technology as well as knowledge of God, just without any sin in the world. Adam & Eve might have had internet and today's technology way back in the biblical days without all of the hardships and death and suffering and wars and bad things going on to slow down development. Who knows where we would be today. Today we might be teleporting around the world and to other planets by now.

 

[peter2]

mankind would have eventually developed in technology as well as knowledge of God, just without any sin in the world

Hello, Tina W,
I' m not sure I'm not mixing up 2 ideas, but don't you think Jesus himself answered to Martha when telling her to stop worrying about 'service which technology and energy also provide), and adding there was but one thing worth worrying and listening to: Jesus's words. If we do believe in resurrection, miracles and everlasting life, what use is technology in our lives, whereas we 've got a Saviour, whom gives us fullness technology can't achieve

 

[peter2]

Truth is multi-faceted,

Hello Solomon,
I would be yet cautious in qualifying truth as multi-faceted, for Jesus said he was the truth. May be there's too much relativity in our thinking. Indeed, relativity puts things into perspective, but is our God relative or absolute. When we give credence to relativity, is it not at the expense of absolute?