This second understanding of nahash is brought out by one of its Hebrew synonyms: leviathan. Levi athan has come to be associated with all manner of massive sea monsters in mythologies from around the world:. The Book of Job, too, has quite a lot to say about Nahash-Leviathan. This part about the covenant is very interesting. Remember the Huffington Post theory above that Satan was shoe-horned into the Genesis narrative thousands of years after it was written?
Worse than that, in breaking their covenant with God, they formed a covenant with the Leviathan-serpent, i. I wonder what we will eat to remake our covenant with God?
John The covenant between Adam, Eve, and the Leviathan-serpent is referenced in this line from Job. Not just Adam and Eve, though. Humans cannot make covenant with a mere animal. The Leviathan-Serpent in the Bible is not, therefore, a mere animal. He is the One who Christ must defeat to break the power of sin: Satan. The Leviathan — Nahash -Serpent, therefore, is Satan. Also, Satan is consistently portrayed as Leviathan — Nahash throughout Scripture.
The earliest date for the writing of the Book of Job is still several hundred years before these Satan add-ins were supposed to have occurred. What kind of creature is Leviathan-Nahash really? Smoke rises from his nostrils and flames shoot from his mouth? What is being described here? Still not sure? Tolkien could have written these himself to describe the beast that lived in the Lonely Mountain.
Does that remind you of something back in Genesis? Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go , and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
A serpent already crawls on its belly. Therefore, prior to this curse, the serpent was NOT crawling on its belly. This means the serpent had arms and legs. I think Eve not running away reveals to us something about mankind before the Fall: we did not know fear.
Similarly, we did not know shame and didn't hide our bodies. This also shows us what kind of knowledge the Tree of Knowledge contained. This helps us see why God forbid us to eat of this tree. What do you think of this answer? There are a lot of variables we just don't know. Here's one possibility: Eve's dragon and its seed were the only ones affected by the curse.
The other dragons and sea monsters in existence, if any, were unaffected by God's curse. The dragon depicted in Revelation 12 is outside of time or depicted from the perspective of God's time, so there would be no temporal sequence. What do you think? Do you have any theories? Sorry took me so long to respond. Your answer to question 1 makes perfect sense.
I really had to think about your answer to question 2. For instance we have Methuselah and Noah that lived for hundreds of years, so the fact that dragons are mentioned in the Book of Job would allow for this "time delay" of the effects of The Fall. Does that make sense? No problem - take your time to respond! I'm certainly far from perfect with my response time.
I think your theory makes plenty of sense. As you say, the effects of the Fall certainly increased and continue to increase over time. Yes I knew that the serpent was a dragon not a snake. I learned this from previous scripture study. However I enjoyed your description of Eve and the serpent. Adam must have been terrified of the serpent. Also Adam could have been in communication with the serpent also. Adam was afraid to die and co-operated with Satan.
Thanks for your comment! Right, as men, I think we have much to learn from this scene about the fall of manhood. My book published in identifies the pre-biblical origin of Eden's serpent as being several Sumerian gods: Enki, An, Ningishzida and Dumuzid.
They all had in common the Sumerian epithet usumgal "great serpent" or "dragon. In other words the Sumerian myths have man's creator to be an usumgal, specifically usumgal Enki Babylonian Ea of Eridu and usumgal Enlil of Nippur. See my book for more details on the internet at Amazon.
Scott Smith, according to my research is partially correct, a Dragon lurks indeed behind Eden's serpent, for the Sumerian usum-gal is described as being a serpent-dragon with four legs, two horns atop its head, two wings, and a serpentine body.
The Babylonians called the ushum-gal a Basmu. Sumerian was a dead language by BC, but it was kept alive by Babylonian scribes who wrote compositions in Sumerian as late as the Neo-Babylonian period BC. The author of Genesis is not attempting to copy the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts of how man came to be made in the Edin, deceived by a walking, talking snake and drowned in a flood, the Hebrews are refuting, and denying the earlier accounts.
The earlier accounts portray the gods as being rebels, murderers, adulterers, pedophiles, and rapists. Man's sinfulness is explained as being not his fault, he was made in the image of sinful gods! Genesis substitutes a righteous, ethical god for the sinner gods in the Sumerian and Babylonian myths and thereby blames man for his sinful ways instead of a sinful creator of mankind. My two books published in explain all this in greater detail.
On a some what different subject: When will the Messiah come? Both Jew and Christian have wondered on that topic. It was only recently that I came to realize that the Bible tells us who the Messiah is and when he will appear and what will be the sign accompanying his appearance. As a former Christian, and now Secular Humanist, you can imagine my shock to realize the Jews were right, Jesus could not be the Messiah. My Bible studies solved the Mystery of the long-awaited Messiah, what a shock!
He is identified by name as a prince of Judah, of the line of David, by the name of Zerub'babel. The prophecies about him are found in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Haggai and Zechariah. Jeremiah and Isaiah tells us that a 70 year Babylonian exile will end circa BC for Judah when God causes the fall of Babylon to its enemies. At that time his people will return to Judah, rebuild Jerusalem, rebuild the Temple, and God will cause a Messiah to reign on the throne of David.
Zechariah tells us that God has chosen Zerub'babel to rebuild his Temple, and further more, Zechariah informs us that the man who rebuilds the Temple will sit on the throne as the Messiah or king. Zechariah has Zerub'babel completing God's Temple, but he never is crowned the Messiah, as promised by God. Haggai has God declaring the Messiah will happen after the overthrow of the Persian Monarchy.
It never happened. The Persians and their client kings never assembled at Jerusalem to wage war against God and deny him his Messiah, Zerub'babel. Apparently Zerub'babel was recalled to Persia and that ended his chance at a Messiah-ship. What were the Rabbis to do? God had failed to carry out his promise of making the builder of the Temple his Messiah! The Rabbi's found a way out of the dilemma, the Messiah would come at a future unknown date, but he never did.
Jeremiah's prediction of a Messiah appearing at the end of a 70 year Babylonian Exile also failed to materialize. Then in 30 AD appears a false messiah, one Jesus of Nazareth, to claim to be the long-awaited Messiah.
The Problem? He was years too late according to Jeremiah's timetable of his appearance with the fall of Babylon circa BC , and Jesus did not build the Temple, Zerub'babel did, according to Zechariah. For an excellent source to read on all this see Rabbi Hayyim Angel. The Eden account has a walking, talking serpent contradicting God, telling Eve she will not die if she eats of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Usumgal Enki created man at Eridu to care for his fruit tree garden.
After eating of the Tree of knowledge Adam and Eve clothe themselves with fig leaves, suggesting for some commenTators that the Fig Tree was envisioned, perhaps, as being the Tree of Good and Evil. Elsewhere in the Bible we are informed that the Temple of Solomon was decorated with images of cherubim and palm trees suggesting that the Tree of Life was envisoned as being a date palm, the fruit being dates.
The Sumerians and later Babylonians grew both of these trees in their fruit tree gardens for the gods' consumption. The date palm was seen as a life-giving tree as it towered above all other fruit trees, including fig trees, that thrived in its shade.
The Sumerian version of why man is a naked gardener is preserved in myths. Man was created in the EDIN to care for the gods' fruit tree gardens. He is shown in SUmerian art, in a naked state presenting the harvest from the gods' gardens to the gods for their consumption, on a vase found at Uruk biblical Erech in Genesis. The Sumerians and Babylonians understood man was a sinner because the gods he was modeled after were sinners.
The Hebrews refuted this by changing the Sumerian myths. Instead of gods, there was only one God. Instead of man being considered a lowly despised gardening slave, God intended man to rule the earth. The gods made man to end their having having to toil for their food in their gardens of EDIN. Man would bear the back-breaking toil, giving the gods and eternal rest from physical gardening toil. There was a problem however.
The gods could not enjoy their new found rest from toil for man's nonstop clamor, night and day, denied them rest by day and sleep by night. Enlil of Nippur decides to destroy all of mankind, ending the clamor, he does so with a flood to destroy the earth and its mountains.
The flood lasted 7 days. On the 7th day the earth is peaceful and quiet for mankind has been drowned, except for those on a boat built by the Mesopotamian Noah, called Atrahasis. On the 7th day the gods can at long last rest by day and sleep by night for man's clamor is no more. Why man's clamor? The Atrahasis myth explained that when man was created the goddess Mami announced that the clamor of the Igigi gods had been transferred to man.
They had clamored over having no rest from gardening toil and had been ignored by the senior gods. So, man's clamor was that he had no rest from gardening toil as was enjoyed by the Annunaki and Igigi gods. Google "Mattfeld Sabbath Origins" for more info at my website www.
Hi there. This is a very thought-provoking article that reveals how literally you take the Bible. It was just as enjoyable and inspiring to read the comments and see how others are allowing their mental gears to turn.
I agree with your approach to a literal understanding of God's written and inspired word for mankind should n o t live by food alone but by every word spoken by the Creator. That's paraphrasing Deut and Matt I recently wrote a book called "The Serpent's Lie" and it explains life in the garden of Eden before the age of fear, death, and sin. As a simple experiment If you chose the first one, good luck! If you tried the second experiment, how original was this creature?
Was it truly without elements you've never seen before i. Dragons are creatures that have become legend throughout the world With that said, I do believe that the serpent of Eden was indeed a dragon. However,I don't believe Satan is a physical dragon and yet he was and will always be associated with that creature.
Satan was cast out as the first fallen angel. Heaven is spiritual realm. Yet we know that Spirit can interact with flesh.
We are spirit in flesh. When we look in the mirror, we see our invisible spiritual nature clothed in something tangible that we have assumed as our identity physical form.
What did God breathe into Adam's nostrils? He breathed the breath of life, the "spiritum" from Latin and Adam became a living soul. In other words, mankind came to life when God breathed a spirit into Adam. The spirit of Adam possessed his body.
It owned it and controlled it. When a foreign spirit enters a host, it is often referred to as spirit possession. Whereby an overwhelming spirit possesses a physical body and controls it. If that spirit would look in a mirror, it would see the identity it assumed. It would see the body of the host and while it controlled the host, it would be the host through symbiosis.
This is why Satan, the anointed cherub is referred to in the book of Revelations as the great dragon, the ancient serpent called the Devil and Satan Rev I look forward to your reply. This doesnt make any sense simply because why would god curse a simple snake for being possessed? Also, read Daniel. The prince of Persia apprehended gods angel and micheal had to rescue him.
Theu can take physical form. God is the serpent. A serpent and dragon does not mean the same. Ever heard the old tale that snakes once had legs. The snake was Christ. This was his first coming.
The serpent and Christ refers to your spine and fluid. Which is blood and water. In a sense Eve is hearing a voice in her own mind. Reply to Andrew Harrington I am afraid you are too quick to find error when there is none! Although in theory 'satan' in 1 Chron. On the one hand, it would be a bit odd for David to do something on the advice of an enemy. He would be more likely to oppose an enemy. On the meaning of satan that you advocate, it would be saying precisely this, namely that the adversary incited David to number Israel, not as you would like it to say, that the adversary created a situation of opposition in which David felt he had to number Israel.
On the other hand it makes perfect sense to see here a reference to Satan. You need to bear in mind that the books of Chronicles are largely a rewriting of Samuel and Kings, and in the parallel to 1 Chron. Since the story goes on to say that it was the Lord who punished David for numbering Israel, one can understand why the writer of 1 Chronicles felt this to be a bit odd as it surely does to us , since it was the Lord who had incited David to do so in the first place!
It therefore makes sense that the Chronicler substituted "Satan" for "the anger of the Lord". This fits in with the increasingly dualistic tendency in the post-exilic period to attribute evil to forces set over against God, like Satan, rather than directly to God himself.
Reply to Martin Hughes You ask whether we should not see the Serpent as an allegorical figure. Here I think we need to distinguish between exegesis what the text originally meant and hermeneutics how intelligent people of faith might try to appropriate the text today. Regarding the latter, you are surely correct: only a fundamentalist would wish to understand the figure of the Serpent literally.
To do so would be to go against all the knowledge and understanding that modern Biblical scholars have acquired over the last couple of hundred years. The story of the Garden is clearly a myth which is not the same as saying it has no religious value for us.
On the other hand, there is no reason to doubt that the Serpent, like the rest of the Garden of Eden story, was intended literally by the original writer. In keeping with this, both Jews and Christians tended to take the story literally until the time of the Enlightenment.
We commenters must be grateful to find a contributor who is prepared to spend some time on us. My tendency is to think of Genesis as a sophisticated literary work. So is Gilgamesh, where a natural feature of serpents, the shedding of skin, peculiar to them, represents allegorically the immortality that we want but cannot have.
I'm not sure that the author of Gilgamesh thought that it was literally the case that serpents are like this because one of them had stolen the immortal flower and all that but he weaves natural observation and allegorical reflection together to beautiful effect.
The natural element is enough to explain why a serpent is chosen for the dramatic but unnatural role of flower thief.
In the same way it seems to me that the naturally insidious nature of serpents is quite enough to explain why the author of Genesis chose one of them for the role of deceiver. He does not seem, as I think you show, to be engaging with rival or more positive views of serpents.
I am not sure that he thought that real serpents are insidious because of a real conversation, which he recounts literally, between one of their ancestors who could talk and our great ancestress. He did surely use the reptilian character in his drama to represent allegorically certain dangerous, insidious, harmless-seeming questioning of religious authority. That is what gives the story its moral force. I certainly believe as a matter of exegesis that it was intended to have moral force.
I have published two books on this subject in They are available at Amazon. Or can be read on-line, via preview, at www. My research is based on earlier works appearing in scholarly journals and tomes from European and American Universities. The Serpent book is in part a review of scholarly proposals for the pre-biblical antecedents of the serpent in Ancient Near Eastern Myths made by over 40 scholars like Rawlinson, Sayce, Jastrow, Smith, Ward, Jensen, Zimmern, Tennnant, etc who argued some individual appearing in pre-biblical myths Babylonian, Canaanite, Egyptian, Ugaritic had been recast into Eden's serpent.
I quote their arguments. I then studied the Myths and concluded as many as 10 mythical characters were fused into Eden's serpent's persona and its motifs. The Eden book investigates Scholarly proposals for Eden's pre-biblical characters, locations and motifs based on the myths of Canaan, Ugarit, Babylonia, and Egypt. I quote from these texts. I understand the book of Genesis was composed in the Exile, between BC, based on scholarly proposals, quoting said arguments.
My website explores this at www. In essence the Hebrews fused together gods and goddesses and motifs associated with polytheism and transformed all this into monotheism and its one god in the book of Genesis. The findings of archaeology are also cited in establishing when Genesis was written.
My understanding? For more info google "mattfeld Eden's serpent. Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson by had proposed that behind Eden's serpent was a Babylonian god which lived at ancient Eridu in Babylonia, whom he called Hea, rendered today as Ea. He identified him as the god who had created mankind, and who had bestowed upon man the knowledge of how to live like a god by building cities and creating laws to create a sense of right of wrong instead of living like a savage or brute animal.
Ea, pronounced Ay y a, according Gwendolyn Leick, was also famed for a statement he had made about mankind, personified in a priest called Adapa who lived at Eridu, saying "I gave him [godly] wisdom but denied him immortality. In the Adapa and the Southwind myth was found in Egypt, and by , Professor Archibald Henry Sayce was proposing Adapa was the pre-biblical prototype of Adam, and that Adapa might have been alternately rendered as Adama.
Scholars expressed doubt about Adapa being once uon a time Adama, but they acknowledged other parallels with Adam. Especially the conferring of godly knowledge and denial of immortality. The problem? None of the characters in the Adapa myth was called a snake or serpent. Another myth did mention a serpent eating a plant denying man Gilgamesh a chance at rejuvenation of life so many scholars seized on this snake being behind Eden's serpent, and for over years this is the most popular proposal amongst scholars.
The Gilgamesh snake doesn't speak and doesn't walk. Agreeing with scholars about the Adapa myth being the closest parallel to mans acquiring knowledge but not immortality, I asked myself a question: Given that no snake appears in the Adapa myth, had anyone in Academia sought serpent associations in other myths for any of the characters?
The answer appeared to be no. So I investigated various myths looking for any mention of Anu, Ea, Dumuzi, and Gishzida which might reveal a serpent association. I was successful. Ea Sumerian: Ushumgal Enki of Eridug had allowed Adapa to possess godly-forbidden knowledge, how to utter incantations stopping wind from blowing by breaking the southwind's wing.
This outraged Anu. They convinced Anu to treat Adapa kindly. So on Anu's behalf, the food bread of life was urged on Adapa to possess eternal life. He lost out on a chance at immortality for obeying his lying god's warning. Eden's serpent is: 1 Anu, 2 Dumuzi, 3 Gishzida because they urged on man Adapa the food of death he was warned not to eat. Eden's serpent asked Eve, why not eat? Anu asks Adapa why not eat? Yahweh-Elohim's pre-biblical prototypes: 1 Ea, as he warns man not to eat the food of death as Yahweh warned Adam; 2 Anu, as he summons Adam to give account of himself for obtaining godly forbidden knowledge; Anu also clothes man before dismissing him like Yahweh dismissed Adam, clothing him.
In other myths Dumuzi is turned into a sagkal serpent to slither out the bonds tying his hands and feet to sticks to be carried off to the underworld at Inanna's pleasure.
He says "turn my hands and feet into serpent hands and feet that I can escape. His plea is honored. Ningishzida is portrayed in art as human with serpent dragon heads erupting from his shoulders. So, there you have it, some of the characters in the Adapa myth in other myths were associated with serpents bearing the epithet ushumgal. Rawlings hit the nail on the head, Ea was indeed behind Eden's serpent, but there were pothers too, Anu, Dumuzi and Gishzida.
Adapa's reply as to why he would not eat was that his god told him he would die. This is Eve's reply to the Serpent. Anu's query has become Eden's serpent's query and Adapa's answer, I will die according to my lord Ea has been recast as Eve's reply to the Edenic serpent. My two books mentioned in the previous comment posted above has the details. Rawlings understood the Hea Ea was mankind's creator. In myths he creates man at Eridu to be his servant and care for his city garden in Edin the floodplain.
If anyone knows of another, earlier, scholar please let me know. Rawlinson built the Edenic serpent association in part on the Arabic word hiya meaning "life" and "serpent," assuming Hea was a form of hiya. His proposal reigned supreme from circa to In that year Rawlinson's under-study, George Smith British Museum Cuneiform Department challenged his mentor claiming there were no cuneiform inscriptions associating Hea with serpents.
He proposed the Babylonian goddess Tiamat who fought Marduk of Babylon in the Enuma Elish as being Eden's serpent's pre-biblical prototype. My research reveals the Sumerian god of Eridug, Enki, bore the epithet ushumgal "great serpent.
Only someone aware of Ea's formerly being known as ushumgal Enki would realize serpent associations existed behind the Adapa myth. Mesopotamian scribes would most likely possess this esoteric knowledge. Sumerian words were still being used in the Epic of Gilgamesh down to Neo Babylonian times, often as logograms.
As for example logogram edin being used in lieu of Seru, "the plain" that Enkidu meets Shamhat in, recast as Adam meeting Eve in Eden according to Professor Morris Jastrow Jr in publications of Professor Sayce s, proposed Gilgamesh's city, Uruk, which appears in the Epic as the Sumerian logogram Unug, was for him the prototype of the city of Enoch built by Cain. Cain, who built Enoch fears death and becomes a wanderer, perhaps this is wanderer Gilgamesh who fears death like Cain after his companion Enkidu's death?
The Babylonian Exile would put Jews in contact with Mesopotamian myths which they objected to and recast as a refutation. I mention this as Prof. Day mentions Cain and the Cainites in his book and they are a part of the Eden story. By the way, my two books on all this are free for all to read! Go to lulu. Click on "more info" and an image of the cover will again appear.
Under it is a blue link saying "Preview. Scroll to the top for controls to enlarge or reduce the book. Arrows at the top turn pages. Reply to Walter R. Mattfeld Thank you for your two communications which I have carefully pondered;I am also familiar with your published work.
My considered opinion is that though your published work makes some contribution to the history of interpretation of the Eden serpent over the last century and a half, your own conclusions are implausible and are unlikely to gather support from serious scholars.
You claim that the Eden serpent is dependent on no less than ten different Mesopotamian deities. I regard this as frankly incredible. One source is surely sufficient. Remember the principles in logic: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity and the simplest hypothesis is to be preferred! As I argued in my article, though certainty is not possible, most likely the Gilgamesh serpent exercised an influence on the Eden serpent, since like Genesis 3 the Gilgamesh epic combines the themes of a serpent depriving humanity of immortality or rejuvenation and a tree or plant of life that grants such.
The fact that the Gilgamesh serpent does not speak is not significant. Just consider the fact that the Mesopotamian flood hero speaks, but Noah in Genesis does not speak at all in our narrative.
Biblical writers were perfectly capable of transforming ancient Near eastern traditions. You make much of the fact that various Mesopotamian deities such as Enki! However, so far as I can see, the equivalent Akkadian term is not used of Ea and these other deities.
Since Akkadian was the dominant language of Mesopotamia after B. Thus, for example, in the Adapa myth, to which you attach importance, Ea is not at all referred to as a dragon or serpent. More Shrewd We now come back to Genesis three. The creature is called more shrewd than all other beasts. Shrewd is an ambiguous term. One the one hand, it is a virtue the wise should cultivate Proverbs ; , but when misused it become wiliness and guile Job ; ; see also Exodus ; Joshua More Subtle The Bible, in stressing the craftiness or cunning of the serpent, said he was more subtle than all other creatures.
The New Testament also emphasizes this fact. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ 2 Corinthians By Satan's fall, the wisdom and great intellect that he had was ed into an evil craftiness. Eve, along with Adam, had dominion over all the creatures, was now being tempted by Satan working through an inferior being.
Play On Words The choice of the term aroom shrewd is one of the more obvious play on words in the text; for the man and his wife have just been described as nude aroam They will seek themselves to be shrewd cf. Genesis is connected with by a Hebrew wordplay. Adam and Eve were naked 'arummim' ; and the serpent was more crafty 'arum, shrewd than all. Their nakedness represented that they were oblivious to evil, not knowing where the traps lay, whereas Satan did and would use his craftiness to take advantage of their integrity Allen P.
Why Allowed To Enter? This brings up an important question. If the Garden of Eden was God's paradise, then why would God allow the Devil the right to enter this place of perfection? How did Satan gain access to Adam and Eve? Obviously God had to allow the Devil access to the Garden. A similar situation can be found in the Book of Job where Satan had to ask God's permission to test Job.
The Lord allowed Satan to tempt him, but only within certain limits. So the Lord said to Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person. Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord Job However, this does not mean that God wished Adam and Eve to sin, forced them to sin, or kept them unprotected from sin. Though they were tempted by a crafty and intelligent being, they did not have to sin!
God told them the consequences ahead of time and they made the choice to disobey Him. Ultimately, as with every sin, it is the person's own decision. Scripture teaches that with every temptation God always provides a means to escape. The Bible says: No temptation has overtaken you except such is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it 1 Corinthians Consequently, blame cannot be placed upon God for their sin, it was their own choice.
Summary Satan entered the serpent, a real creature, for the purpose of deceiving Eve. The tempter used his craftiness to cause them to sin. God permitted Adam and Eve to be tested, but He certainly did not encourage them to sin or force them to sin. They could have resisted the temptation if they so desired. Ultimately it was their fault for not resisting the temptation. Donate Contact. Blue Letter Bible is a c 3 nonprofit organization. APA Format. Chicago Format. SBL Format. Share This Page.
Follow Blue Letter Bible.
0コメント