The Literal Fall of Man

[SeventyOne]

Near the beginning at the time of the fall of man, there is speculation by some the account isn’t literal, but rather figurative. There are many points made for the figurative point of view, but at least two of them haven’t had any satisfactory responses that I’ve ever seen. Both of them pertain to the 2-fold curse placed upon the serpent.


Curse Part 1: “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” Gen 3:14

This pertains directly to the animal nature of the serpent, a direct comparison to other animals, a change in their body, and a reference to their eating dust all their days.

If this passage were figurative, then it would not be observable now and we would not be told it extends into the new world. Isaiah 65:17 starts with the creation (not evolution) of new heavens and a new earth, and then continues on until the nature of the literal animals is given. Verse 25, “The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food.”

The animals are restored to their original state, but the curse on the serpent remains, literally. If the curse of the serpent was just a story, it would not still be observable and in literal effect in the new world.


Curse Part 2: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Gen 3:15

Did the serpent actually talk? The second part of the serpent’s curse indicated there was a spiritual force behind the creature, causing it to speak to say what it did. But can supernatural beings cause animals to talk? It seems so. In Numbers 22, we see the mouth of the donkey of Balaam was opened by supernatural means and it spoke as well.

So, I see these as two big problems when people attempt to justify the fall of man as figurative when the curse is literal and not figurative, and the idea of animals talking is not absurd when supernatural forces are involved.

 

[brinny]

Near the beginning at the time of the fall of man, there is speculation by some the account isn’t literal, but rather figurative. There are many points made for the figurative point of view, but at least two of them haven’t had any satisfactory responses that I’ve ever seen. Both of them pertain to the 2-fold curse placed upon the serpent.


Curse Part 1: “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” Gen 3:14

This pertains directly to the animal nature of the serpent, a direct comparison to other animals, a change in their body, and a reference to their eating dust all their days.

If this passage were figurative, then it would not be observable now and we would not be told it extends into the new world. Isaiah 65:17 starts with the creation (not evolution) of new heavens and a new earth, and then continues on until the nature of the literal animals is given. Verse 25, “The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food.”

The animals are restored to their original state, but the curse on the serpent remains, literally. If the curse of the serpent was just a story, it would not still be observable and in literal effect in the new world.


Curse Part 2: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Gen 3:15

Did the serpent actually talk? The second part of the serpent’s curse indicated there was a spiritual force behind the creature, causing it to speak to say what it did. But can supernatural beings cause animals to talk? It seems so. In Numbers 22, we see the mouth of the donkey of Balaam was opened by supernatural means and it spoke as well.

So, I see these as two big problems when people attempt to justify the fall of man as figurative when the curse is literal and not figurative, and the idea of animals talking is not absurd when supernatural forces are involved.

Interesting thread and post.

What keeps coming to mind for me, however, is how in the world man's "fall" can be "figurative"......

And what most stands out in this line of thinking is.....

the fact that man is a rather evil creature....some more obviously and blatantly evil and twisted than others...

and secondarily, well...

we die.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Interesting thread and post.

What keeps coming to mind for me, however, is how in the world man's "fall" can be "figurative"......

And what most stands out in this line of thinking is.....

the fact that man is a rather evil creature....some more obviously and blatantly evil and twisted than others...

and secondarily, well...

we die.

People do not accept original sin imho because they believe man is basically good. While that is the original state of man, he became defiled at the fall. So, a lot of people cannot accept that man is basically sinful and in need of cleansing. Most do not accept that we die because of sin. The biggest thing imho is that pride forbids man to think of himself as evil. The enemy has blinded their eyes to the truth.

Romans 11:6
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

This is why so many resist Lord Jesus.

 

[expos4ever]

Curse Part 1: “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” Gen 3:14

This pertains directly to the animal nature of the serpent, a direct comparison to other animals, a change in their body, and a reference to their eating dust all their days.

If this passage were figurative, then it would not be observable now and we would not be told it extends into the new world. Isaiah 65:17 starts with the creation (not evolution) of new heavens and a new earth, and then continues on until the nature of the literal animals is given. Verse 25, “The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food.”

The animals are restored to their original state, but the curse on the serpent remains, literally. If the curse of the serpent was just a story, it would not still be observable and in literal effect in the new world.

Can you please spell out your argument a little more formally and rigorously - I am having difficulty following your reasoning.

 

[CrystalDragon]

People do not accept original sin imho because they believe man is basically good. While that is the original stat of man, he became defiled at the fall. So, a lot of people cannot accept that man is basically sinful and in need of cleansing. Most do not accept that we die because of sin. The biggest thing imho is that pride forbids man to think of himself as evil. The enemy has blinded their eyes to the truth.

Romans 11:6
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

This is why so many resist Lord Jesus.

Well it's also (I think actually more of the fact) that even the animals are punished with death for what one man did, and every human since is punished just for what Adam and Eve did.

 

[brinny]

Well it's also that even the animals are punished with death for what one man did, and every human since is punished just for what Adam and Eve did.

That gets me to thinkin' why Jesus died.

We all needed a Savior.

I mean we were gone-ers and the open grave awaited us, as we would, just as it is written, return to the dust from whence we came.

Not a pretty or encouraging picture....

rather horroresque-like, as a matter of fact...

here one minute, and gone the next.

We needed HOPE, where there was none.

And Jesus is the epitome of that HOPE.

Isn't He?

 

[SeventyOne]

Can you please spell out your argument a little more formally and rigorously - I am having difficulty following your reasoning.

In a nutshell, how is the curse on the serpent considered figurative when the observation is literal, and why are we told it will continue in a literal sense into the new world if it were just a story?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Near the beginning at the time of the fall of man, there is speculation by some the account isn’t literal, but rather figurative. There are many points made for the figurative point of view, but at least two of them haven’t had any satisfactory responses that I’ve ever seen. Both of them pertain to the 2-fold curse placed upon the serpent.


Curse Part 1: “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” Gen 3:14

This pertains directly to the animal nature of the serpent, a direct comparison to other animals, a change in their body, and a reference to their eating dust all their days.

If this passage were figurative, then it would not be observable now and we would not be told it extends into the new world. Isaiah 65:17 starts with the creation (not evolution) of new heavens and a new earth, and then continues on until the nature of the literal animals is given. Verse 25, “The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food.”

The animals are restored to their original state, but the curse on the serpent remains, literally. If the curse of the serpent was just a story, it would not still be observable and in literal effect in the new world.

If a serpent is being employed figuratively, then it's being employed precisely because it is observable. So I propose you may be misunderstanding the purpose of such a figurative use. If "swine" is being employed figuratively, it's precisely because you can observe a literal swine wallowing in the mud and make the desired connection to the abstract//figurative use of the word. That's the point of figurative use of such things. Am I understand you correctly?

Curse Part 2: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Gen 3:15

Did the serpent actually talk? The second part of the serpent’s curse indicated there was a spiritual force behind the creature, causing it to speak to say what it did. But can supernatural beings cause animals to talk? It seems so. In Numbers 22, we see the mouth of the donkey of Balaam was opened by supernatural means and it spoke as well.

See, are you intending to say you believe the woman's literal seed would literally bruise the literal head of a literal serpent? Surely not, so you're understanding it, figuratively? Literally? Bit of both?

Also, if a literal serpent was just being used as a mouthpiece, why would the literal serpent be cursed when it was just a mouthpiece? Why not curse the thing that was doing the manipulating? Why does God say to the serpent "You have done this"? If the serpent was just a tool, it didn't literally do anything.

 

[CrystalDragon]

That gets me to thinkin' why Jesus died.

We all needed a Savior.

I mean we were gone-ers and the open grave awaited us, as we would, just as it is written, return to the dust from whence we came.

Not a pretty or encouraging picture....

rather horroresque-like, as a matter of fact...

here one minute, and gone the next.

We needed HOPE, where there was none.

And Jesus is the epitome of that HOPE.

Isn't He?

This is why did it need to be like that? Why do we need Jesus to save us in the first place? Jesus supposedly saves us from hell, but hell wouldn't be there in the first place if God didn't create it. You wouldn't call it love if a human dad threw his child into a burning pit of fire right? You'd call it evil. Why do we say that God is Love when 1. he is willing to do that, and 2. he doesn't even fit the definition of love as the Bible defines it?

 

[brinny]

If a serpent is being employed figuratively, then it's being employed precisely because it is observable. So I propose you may be misunderstanding the purpose of such a figurative use. If "swine" is being employed figuratively, it's precisely because you can observe a literal swine and wallowing in the mud. That's the point of figurative use of such things. Am I understand you correctly?



See, are you intending to say you believe the woman's literal seed would literally bruise the literal head of a literal serpent? Surely not, so you're understanding it, figuratively? Literally? Bit of both?

Also, if a literal serpent was just being used as a mouthpiece, why would the literal serpent be cursed when it was just a mouthpiece? Why not curse the thing that was doing the manipulating? Why does God say to the serpent "You have done this"? If the serpent was just a tool, it didn't literally do anything.

The seed of the woman spoken of back in Genesis is of course, Jesus the Christ. He gave the death blow to Satan and the curse of sin and death that the fall brought with it.

The cross, and the shedding of Jesus Christ's blood and His death, served a death blow to Satan. In essence, it crushed Satan's head.

And how does one deal a death blow to a serpent?

Why one crushes that serpent's head, of course.

Yes?

 

[brinny]

This is why did it need to be like that? Why do we need Jesus to save us in the first place? Jesus supposedly saves us from hell, but hell wouldn't be there in the first place if God didn't create it. You wouldn't call it love if a human dad threw his child into a burning pit of fire right? You'd call it evil. Why do we say that God is Love when 1. he is willing to do that, and 2. he doesn't even fit the definition of love as the Bible defines it?

First, can we go back to the question you raised?

Why did God create hell?

 

[John Hyperspace]

why are we told it will continue in a literal sense into the new world if it were just a story?

To convey the idea that all opposition to truth will be permanently abased, hence the concept of universal peace (employed by figurative use of natural enemies "lying down" with one another):

Psalms 72:7-9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.

 

[John Hyperspace]

The seed of the woman spoken of back in Genesis is of course, Jesus the Christ. He gave the death blow to Satan and the curse of sin and death that the fall brought with it.

The cross, and the shedding of Jesus Christ's blood and His death, served a death blow to Satan. In essence, it crushed Satan's head.

And how does one deal a death blow to a serpent?

Why one crushes that serpent's head, of course.

Yes?

Okay, and so, all of "serpent" and "bruise" and "head" all figurative in your reply, yes?

 

[CrystalDragon]

First, can we go back to the question you raised?

Why did God create hell?

As punishment. But burning fire for eternity is a punishment that's beyond cruel for any sentient being.

 

[brinny]

Okay, and so, all of "serpent" and "bruise" and "head" all figurative in your reply, yes?

It's a prophesy, brother.

It spoke of WHO was to be born from the woman's seed, did it not?

Please elaborate on what you mean by asking if all of what you posted above is "figurative"?

 

[SeventyOne]

If a serpent is being employed figuratively, then it's being employed precisely because it is observable. So I propose you may be misunderstanding the purpose of such a figurative use. If "swine" is being employed figuratively, it's precisely because you can observe a literal swine wallowing in the mud and make the desired connection to the abstract//figurative use of the word. That's the point of figurative use of such things. Am I understand you correctly?

Well, if we were told the swine had been cursed to wallow in the mud and will continue to wallow in the mud as part of their punishment in the new world, then one can conclude their behavior was different prior to the punishment.

Of course, it would be observable because it was literal. We would not see it if it had been a figurative punishment.

See, are you intending to say you believe the woman's literal seed would literally bruise the literal head of a literal serpent? Surely not, so you're understanding it, figuratively? Literally? Bit of both?

Also, if a literal serpent was just being used as a mouthpiece, why would the literal serpent be cursed when it was just a mouthpiece? Why not curse the thing that was doing the manipulating? Why does God say to the serpent "You have done this"? If the serpent was just a tool, it didn't literally do anything.

Because when it speaks of the serpent being more crafty than the beasts of the field, it was a reference to the animal nature. One can draw from the example of the donkey here. When the donkey spoke, he said his own words, guided by its own experience and observations. In other words, it wasn't forced to speak but did so of its own will when it had been granted the ability. In that sense, one can take that back to the serpent and conclude it wasn't forced to speak such things, but rather permitted it when given the ability to speak. Therefore, it also holds some guilt in its role in the fall, and likewise punished for the same actions.

 

[brinny]

As punishment. But burning fire for eternity is a punishment that's beyond cruel for any sentient being.

It was created for "whom"?

 

[CrystalDragon]

It was created for "whom"?

I know at one point it says "the devil and his angels", but I think at other points it implies that those who are bad/don't believe/etc. will go there too.

 

[brinny]

I know at one point it says "the devil and his angels", but I think at other points it implies that those who are bad/don't believe/etc. will go there too.

Yes, that unbelievers "join" the devil and all his angels there.

It does say that.

Yet the bottom line is, that hell was created for the devil and all his angels.

Why would anyone wanna join them there?

Can you think of any reason why they would?

 

[CrystalDragon]

Yes, that unbelievers "join" the devil and all his angels there.

It does say that.

Yet the bottom line is, that hell was created for the devil and all his angels.

Why would anyone wanna join them there?

Can you think of any reason why they would?

No, but couldn't God just send bad people to a Purgatory place instead. No one, not even the devil (I think) would want to be tortured for eternity (unless the devil and his angels are sadomasochistic, which they actually might be, come to think of it).