Genesis 3:15

[seanHayden]

The Companion Bible
Authorized Version of 1611
Notes and appendixes by E. W. Bullinger
Gen. 3:15
" And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed: It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise HIs heel."

Notes by Bullinger,
"..They denote the temporary sufferings of the Seed,
and the complete destruction of satan and his works ( Heb 214, 1 John 3, 8)

Serpent-hebrew, Nachash, a shining one

??

Is the question whether or not seed means descendents? Is this what you propose? That seed has a special meaning outside of descendents e.g. that seed either means something else altogether or something more than?

The reason I posted the verse from the Torah is because it probably renders the Hebrew in better form then many other English translations. I am not sure of your reason for posting yet another version which uses the word seed, unless you propose to say seed means something other then descedents!?

 

[seanHayden]

I also want to add that there is ( no ) original Hebrew. We have only copies, or copies of copies, usually the later.

Also, it is not prudent to look up the definition of a word using only a concordance. It is much less prudent to frame an exegesis of a passage using such a method.

 

[sojournerI]

??

Is the question whether or not seed means descendents? Is this what you propose? That seed has a special meaning outside of descendents e.g. that seed either means something else altogether or something more than?

The reason I posted the verse from the Torah is because it probably renders the Hebrew in better form then many other English translations. I am not sure of your reason for posting yet another version which uses the word seed, unless you propose to say seed means something other then descedents!?

First of all, aside from our beloved brethren, the Messianic Jews, most Jewish people do not accept
that THE SEED in 3:15 Genesis is Christ Jesus. Without
the belief that satan is destroyed by the works of Christ, what do we have? A snake with the power to talk ( again, snakes do not have any vocal cords ).
So the phrase you quoted makes no sense and I would hazzard a guess that it has, at best, been translated wrong.
Second, no translation I have seen says snake and I don't care if you like that or not. It says serpent and
serpent in hebrew means shining one and it does not mean a ordinary snake.
Genesis 3:15 was a dressing down of satan. Couldn't you tell that God was very angry ? If you can't-- reread
Eve and then Adam's punishment.
He was, in today's English, calling satan lower then pond scum.

 

[sojournerI]

??

Is the question whether or not seed means descendents? Is this what you propose? That seed has a special meaning outside of descendents e.g. that seed either means something else altogether or something more than?

The reason I posted the verse from the Torah is because it probably renders the Hebrew in better form then many other English translations. I am not sure of your reason for posting yet another version which uses the word seed, unless you propose to say seed means something other then descedents!?

I also want to add that there is ( no ) original Hebrew. We have only copies, or copies of copies, usually the later.

Also, it is not prudent to look up the definition of a word using only a concordance. It is much less prudent to frame an exegesis of a passage using such a method.

I don't use a concordance to look up random words,
I have several excellent resources available to me and I utilize them. But all my resources are from a Christian origin and/or perspective. And that's the way I like it.

 

[seanHayden]

Ok, fair enough, and I apologize if I came across as rude.

Now then, I want you to explain why seed can't mean descendents?

Why do you think these people have mistranslated the text?

In my opinion, to say descendents in no way detracts from the work of Christ, and further it seems to make sense in the given passage.

 

[mystery4]

...
Genesis 3:15 was a dressing down of satan. Couldn't you tell that God was very angry ? If you can't-- reread
Eve and then Adam's punishment.
He was, in today's English, calling satan lower then pond scum.

If God was angry, why did he make Adam and Eve clothing? That shows he was still looking out for their needs even though they had rebelled against him. I actually think God was being very gracious when he handed out the punishment of Adam and Eve. According to what they had done, they deserved death! But God was giving them a second chance, only away from the presence of God.

 

[sojournerI]

Ok, fair enough, and I apologize if I came across as rude.

Now then, I want you to explain why seed can't mean descendents?

Why do you think these people have mistranslated the text?

In my opinion, to say descendents in no way detracts from the work of Christ, and further it seems to make sense in the given passage.

THY SEED- one seed; Christ Jesus.
Eve is mother of all living-the only one that is alive is Christ Jesus until we are in Christ.
Unless one is in Christ, one is a dead person walking.
Dead person walking= the judgement of God is awaiting
him/her. ( unsaved= one heartbeat away from judgement )
God was angry in the garden but God also loves us.
We are made in his image; we get angry at loved ones, so doesn't God.
satan is son of perdition-already judged.
Adam and Eve, you are correct, their punishment could have been a lot worse and they were only asked of God not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And God is very very loving, absolutely.
Life is short.
I read inspired works if I can.

 

[seanHayden]

I'm sorry, but this is a confusing exegesis of the passage.

First, seed in no way denotes ( one ).

Here is the definition of the Hebrew word that was translated into seed in the KJV.

Definition:

1. seed, sowing, offspring
a. a sowing
b. seed
c. sperm virile
d. offspring, descendants, posterity, children
e. of moral quality
1. a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
f. sowing time (by meton)

Now then, how do we know that ( d ) is the correct reading here?

By looking in the OT for other text that translate the same word used in Gen 3:15 into seed.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 4:25[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 9:9[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 12:7[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 13:15[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 13:16[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 15:3
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 15:13

All of these verses--and many more--use the same word as that used in Gen 3:15 and all these--and many more--denote the meaning descendent(s).

Jesus is a descendent of Eve, He is both Human and Divine. So then, it in no way takes away from His work on the cross to rightly translate seed as descendents.

I would like for you to present the sources of your information. I am curious to know who claims that seed doesn't refer to descendents, and further, why they think such a distinction is important. As has already been pointed out, Jesus is a descendent of Eve being wholy man and wholy God--no pun intended.


[/FONT]

 

[sojournerI]

I'm sorry, but this is a confusing exegesis of the passage.

First, seed in no way denotes ( one ).

Here is the definition of the Hebrew word that was translated into seed in the KJV.

Definition:

1. seed, sowing, offspring
a. a sowing
b. seed
c. sperm virile
d. offspring, descendants, posterity, children
e. of moral quality
1. a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
f. sowing time (by meton)

Now then, how do we know that ( d ) is the correct reading here?

By looking in the OT for other text that translate the same word used in Gen 3:15 into seed.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 4:25[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 9:9[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 12:7[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 13:15[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 13:16[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 15:3[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Ge 15:13[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]All of these verses--and many more--use the same word as that used in Gen 3:15 and all these--and many more--denote the meaning descendent(s).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Jesus is a descendent of Eve, He is both Human and Divine. So then, it in no way takes away from His work on the cross to rightly translate seed as descendents. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]I would like for you to present the sources of your information. I am curious to know who claims that seed doesn't refer to descendents, and further, why they think such a distinction is important. As has already been pointed out, Jesus is a descendent of Eve being wholy man and wholy God--no pun intended. [/FONT]

Gen.3:15
Seed: THY SEED-i.e. Christ singular
Reference: footnotes in the Bible on same page
Your references don't prove anything except that
they also say "seed" singular

What does it matter?

Christ is the first born of all living.
to say "seed" means many descendents takes away
from Christ's sacrifice and the reason he came to earth
and was born of a virgin female.
We are alive IN CHRIST
There could be a billion descendents of Eve and who cares unless we have Christ-it doesn't matter.

This forum is great for flaming others who beleive slightly different yet beleive the truth. I'm not about to spend much time here.
This should answer your question;open a good Bible and read. If the Bible is too hard to understand ask God to lead you to understanding.

 

[seanHayden]

Gen.3:15
Seed: THY SEED-i.e. Christ singular
Reference: footnotes in the Bible on same page
Your references don't prove anything except that
they also say "seed" singular

What does it matter?

Christ is the first born of all living.
to say "seed" means many descendents takes away
from Christ's sacrifice and the reason he came to earth
and was born of a virgin female.
We are alive IN CHRIST
There could be a billion descendents of Eve and who cares unless we have Christ-it doesn't matter.

This forum is great for flaming others who beleive slightly different yet beleive the truth. I'm not about to spend much time here.
This should answer your question;open a good Bible and read. If the Bible is too hard to understand ask God to lead you to understanding.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

 

[japhy]

Genesis: 3:15; And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise HIs heel."

First of all, you may hear from people who agree with you, but you'll also hear from people who disagree with you. Please get used to this, since it happens a lot in life. You have come to a conclusion based on Scripture and you are seeking other people or references that verifies your conclusion as accurate. Does this mean you are going to discount any evidence to the contrary? That is not a very meaningful dialogue, then.

There shall be enmity between the serpent and the woman, as well as between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Her seed shall strike at the head, while the serpent's seed shall strike at the heel. The previous verse (Genesis 3:14) describes the first part of the curse upon the serpent: "On your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life". Let us look at the various messages found here, from the mythical to the spiritual.

Mythical
As the first chapters of Genesis explain the creation of the universe, it is expected there are parts that answered the ancient Hebrews' questions of "why is such-and-such the way it is?" So, why is it that snakes, which look very similar to reptiles with feet, have no feet and slither upon the ground as they do? Well, because the first serpent was a wicked creature that tempted the first humans to disobey God's command.

Physical
Snakes which crawl on their bellies bite at the heels of people, whereas people can step on the heads of snakes. Rather plain and simple, really.

Word Meaning
In another post you said the Hebrew word nachash translated as "serpent" also means "shining one". This makes sense to me, since the skin of many snakes is shimmery. Call to mind also 2 Corinthians 11:14, where Paul writes that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. An angel of light, a shining being, a shimmering being, not unlike the Hebrew name for a serpent.

Spiritual
If the serpent is seen to be the catalyst for sin -- Satan, the adversary of God, who pits human wills against God's will -- then we must examine what is said in a different way. The serpent's offspring bites at our heel, which can disable us but does not necessarily kill us. The woman's offspring, however, strikes at the head of the snake, killing it. Sin has the power to disable us, but we can overcome sin altogether, through a very specific offspring of the woman: Jesus Christ.
​

So then, we can see that, physically, Genesis 3:15 is stating that humans strike at the heads of serpents, whereas serpents for their part generally strike at our heels. But Genesis 3:15 also foreshadows the coming of Christ who will crush the serpent (Satan, the advocate of sin) under his foot, even as Satan strikes at Christ's heel!

 

[sojournerI]

Thanks, I'll look into it.

Try this:
Companion Bible
Appendixes: The Serpent of Genesis 3
If you read that it'll shed some light

 

[sojournerI]

First of all, you may hear from people who agree with you, but you'll also hear from people who disagree with you. Please get used to this, since it happens a lot in life. You have come to a conclusion based on Scripture and you are seeking other people or references that verifies your conclusion as accurate. Does this mean you are going to discount any evidence to the contrary? That is not a very meaningful dialogue, then.



There shall be enmity between the serpent and the woman, as well as between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Her seed shall strike at the head, while the serpent's seed shall strike at the heel. The previous verse (Genesis 3:14) describes the first part of the curse upon the serpent: "On your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life". Let us look at the various messages found here, from the mythical to the spiritual.

Mythical​

As the first chapters of Genesis explain the creation of the universe, it is expected there are parts that answered the ancient Hebrews' questions of "why is such-and-such the way it is?" So, why is it that snakes, which look very similar to reptiles with feet, have no feet and slither upon the ground as they do? Well, because the first serpent was a wicked creature that tempted the first humans to disobey God's command.​

Physical​

Snakes which crawl on their bellies bite at the heels of people, whereas people can step on the heads of snakes. Rather plain and simple, really.​

Word Meaning​

In another post you said the Hebrew word nachash translated as "serpent" also means "shining one". This makes sense to me, since the skin of many snakes is shimmery. Call to mind also 2 Corinthians 11:14, where Paul writes that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. An angel of light, a shining being, a shimmering being, not unlike the Hebrew name for a serpent.​

Spiritual​

If the serpent is seen to be the catalyst for sin -- Satan, the adversary of God, who pits human wills against God's will -- then we must examine what is said in a different way. The serpent's offspring bites at our heel, which can disable us but does not necessarily kill us. The woman's offspring, however, strikes at the head of the snake, killing it. Sin has the power to disable us, but we can overcome sin altogether, through a very specific offspring of the woman: Jesus Christ.​

So then, we can see that, physically, Genesis 3:15 is stating that humans strike at the heads of serpents, whereas serpents for their part generally strike at our heels. But Genesis 3:15 also foreshadows the coming of Christ who will crush the serpent (Satan, the advocate of sin) under his foot, even as Satan strikes at Christ's heel!

Mythical? You look on Genesis as mythical?
It is figurative and literal but not mythical.
Yeah, it's plain and simple snakes bite peoples' feet.
However, Genesis is not about a literal snake but
a living creature that acts like a snake.
Ever heard the expression, " he is like a snake
in the grass?

Word meaning-serpent: the hebrew word rendered serpent is Nachash from the root Nachash; to shine and means a shining one. In Chaldee it means brass or copper because of its shining.
So that's a bit different then a snake.
Spiritual-I agree except it is refering to Christ not us.

 

[japhy]

Mythical? You look on Genesis as mythical? It is figurative and literal but not mythical. Yeah, it's plain and simple snakes bite peoples' feet. However, Genesis is not about a literal snake but a living creature that acts like a snake.

Is there something wrong with the idea of Christian (or Hebrew) myth? Would you prefer if I referred to it as a parable instead? I don't only look on Genesis as mythical, as my post states.

And as for what the creature is, Genesis 3:1 states that the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made (NAB). If I refer to the KJV, it's even more clear: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. There the Hebrew states it was a chay sadeh, which the KJV translates as "beast of the field". I don't deny Satan was operating in the serpent -- we see that demons possess animals elsewhere in Scripture -- but I don't see compelling evidence to accept that the creature was not a serpent.

Word meaning-serpent: the hebrew word rendered serpent is Nachash from the root Nachash; to shine and means a shining one. In Chaldee it means brass or copper because of its shining. So that's a bit different then a snake. And does Satan crawl on his belly? And eat dust?

So then, what's the Hebrew word for snake? If it's not [SIZE=-1]nachash, what is it? Hebrew word origin is full of descriptiveness and word-play: adam (man) vs. adama (ground), ishsha (woman) vs. ishah (her man, her husband), hawwa (Eve) vs. hay (living), qayin (Cain) vs. qaniti (I have produced), shet (Seth) vs. sh.at (has granted). So why is it hard to fathom that Hebrews would call snakes, whose skin is shiny, nachash?

Coincidentally, in Numbers 21:6-9, the Israelites are plagued by seraph (fiery, in the KJV) serpents. God commands Moses to fashion a serpent on a pole. Moses makes a brass serpent, a nachash nchosheth. Doesn't that seem redundant? Ah, but that was another peculiarity of Hebrew: redundancy or repetition for specific effect. The "Holy of Holies" is qodesh qodesh.
[/SIZE]

Spiritual-I agree except it is refering to Christ not us.

Sigh. This is what I was talking about in the first sentences of my response. You are not looking for dialog, you are looking for agreement with your conclusion -- mere parroting. Can you not see multiple meanings behind the imagery of Genesis 3:15? Yes, the seed of Eve means Christ, insofaras it is Christ alone who truly crushed the head of serpent, Satan. But we are all the seed of Eve, the mother of all the living, and as Paul wrote in Romans 16:20, the God of peace shall crush Satan beneath our feet.

 

[sojournerI]

Is there something wrong with the idea of Christian (or Hebrew) myth? Would you prefer if I referred to it as a parable instead? I don't only look on Genesis as mythical, as my post states.

And as for what the creature is, Genesis 3:1 states that the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made (NAB). If I refer to the KJV, it's even more clear: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. There the Hebrew states it was a chay sadeh, which the KJV translates as "beast of the field". I don't deny Satan was operating in the serpent -- we see that demons possess animals elsewhere in Scripture -- but I don't see compelling evidence to accept that the creature was not a serpent.

So then, what's the Hebrew word for snake? If it's not [SIZE=-1]nachash, what is it? Hebrew word origin is full of descriptiveness and word-play: adam (man) vs. adama (ground), ishsha (woman) vs. ishah (her man, her husband), hawwa (Eve) vs. hay (living), qayin (Cain) vs. qaniti (I have produced), shet (Seth) vs. sh.at (has granted). So why is it hard to fathom that Hebrews would call snakes, whose skin is shiny, nachash?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Coincidentally, in Numbers 21:6-9, the Israelites are plagued by seraph (fiery, in the KJV) serpents. God commands Moses to fashion a serpent on a pole. Moses makes a brass serpent, a nachash nchosheth. Doesn't that seem redundant? Ah, but that was another peculiarity of Hebrew: redundancy or repetition for specific effect. The "Holy of Holies" is qodesh qodesh.[/SIZE]

Sigh. This is what I was talking about in the first sentences of my response. You are not looking for dialog, you are looking for agreement with your conclusion -- mere parroting. Can you not see multiple meanings behind the imagery of Genesis 3:15? Yes, the seed of Eve means Christ, insofaras it is Christ alone who truly crushed the head of serpent, Satan. But we are all the seed of Eve, the mother of all the living, and as Paul wrote in Romans 16:20, the God of peace shall crush Satan beneath our feet.

First of all, you may hear from people who agree with you, but you'll also hear from people who disagree with you. Please get used to this, since it happens a lot in life. You have come to a conclusion based on Scripture and you are seeking other people or references that verifies your conclusion as accurate. Does this mean you are going to discount any evidence to the contrary? That is not a very meaningful dialogue, then.



There shall be enmity between the serpent and the woman, as well as between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Her seed shall strike at the head, while the serpent's seed shall strike at the heel. The previous verse (Genesis 3:14) describes the first part of the curse upon the serpent: "On your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life". Let us look at the various messages found here, from the mythical to the spiritual.

Mythical​

As the first chapters of Genesis explain the creation of the universe, it is expected there are parts that answered the ancient Hebrews' questions of "why is such-and-such the way it is?" So, why is it that snakes, which look very similar to reptiles with feet, have no feet and slither upon the ground as they do? Well, because the first serpent was a wicked creature that tempted the first humans to disobey God's command.​

Physical​

Snakes which crawl on their bellies bite at the heels of people, whereas people can step on the heads of snakes. Rather plain and simple, really.​

Word Meaning​

In another post you said the Hebrew word nachash translated as "serpent" also means "shining one". This makes sense to me, since the skin of many snakes is shimmery. Call to mind also 2 Corinthians 11:14, where Paul writes that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. An angel of light, a shining being, a shimmering being, not unlike the Hebrew name for a serpent.​

Spiritual​

If the serpent is seen to be the catalyst for sin -- Satan, the adversary of God, who pits human wills against God's will -- then we must examine what is said in a different way. The serpent's offspring bites at our heel, which can disable us but does not necessarily kill us. The woman's offspring, however, strikes at the head of the snake, killing it. Sin has the power to disable us, but we can overcome sin altogether, through a very specific offspring of the woman: Jesus Christ.​

So then, we can see that, physically, Genesis 3:15 is stating that humans strike at the heads of serpents, whereas serpents for their part generally strike at our heels. But Genesis 3:15 also foreshadows the coming of Christ who will crush the serpent (Satan, the advocate of sin) under his foot, even as Satan strikes at Christ's heel!

Yes, I'm afraid self righteous know-it-all ,you did say Genesis was mythical.
And speaking of argrumentive-that describes your posts not mine.
Hey, let's agree to disagree and move on.

 

[seanHayden]

Lets stop throwing unfounded accusations.

Stone sharpens stone, and the body of Christ works together for good, this includes open debate between members. The way we debate should reflect what we believe. Not only is the end important, but our means to every end should reflect our willingness to put on the nature of Christ.