Replies

No offense, but I stopped reading after these paragraphs: (By permission of the author)
“Total misreading, I believe. This is my own hypothesis. This is my own interpretation. You don't have to abide by it, but my view is that the nahash, the serpent is deliberately depicted as a kind of, I'd say mythical figure but I don't want to deny the historicity of this text. It's just that Hebrew historical narrative can often use mythical imagery to communicate historical truth. In Daniel 7, I mentioned four gentile kingdoms are described as being “four beasts.” So, I believe, here we have the serpent as a kind of dragon. The word is used and used and used in Hebrew to connote or denotes a dragon figure like Leviathan or Banmuth or Rehab, the monster later than Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Revelation 12:9 in the New Testament confirms this translation of nahash, not as serpent/snake, but as serpent/dragon, because there Satan is described as the “ancient serpent” and then it goes on to describe a seven-headed dragon.

So she is being confronted and brutally intimidated by a dragon who is intent upon producing disobedience, come hell or high water. So in the cross-examination, in the interrogation that goes back and forth, Satan uses the truth in a clever, deceptive, but intimidating way to kind of force this woman to see, in effect, that if she doesn't eat that fruit, she will die, at least in the biological, physical sense because Satan will see to it.

The question, then, as you read through this narrative is not based upon anything that is explicitly stated, but rather that which is so conspicuously unstated, and that is, where the heck is Adam in all this? By the end of the narrative you discover that he's right by the woman because she just turns and gives him the fruit to eat; but the question is, where was he all along? This loving covenant head, this loving covenant partner who is to show the great love that he's willing to lay down his life for his beloved? Well, he was probably rationalizing his silence by saying, “Well, if I oppose such a serpentile monster as this, I stand no chance.” “

The author uses an example of a prophet's envisioned allegory, to show how one could change the meaning of what a direct relation of Eve's action. This point can be allowed because one hopes it matters that one accept his alteration. In fact the only thing alteration allows is for further alteration of additional verses.

As for brutal intimidation, nothing is implied. Unless one read, "You will not surely die," as to mean, "If you eat it, I won't kill you."

But, the fact is, until sin affected the bodies of Adam and Eve, they did not know corruption, nor did they know death. They were in effect, immortal and would not die, nor suffer injury. These only entered after sin and the cursing of creation for that sin. A threat of death would mean nothing, and besides, Adam had dominion over all the animals.

Further, it is not apparent that Adam was immediately beside Eve when she was decieved.By the immediacy of the wording, it appears to be implied. However, reading that into the story is similar to people reading the narrative of the Book of Acts and believing it happened in a matter of weeks rather than years.

Adam's choice was not because he feared the serpent, but because he saw a seperation between God and Eve. He chose fellowship of Eve over God. This is a common decision, wrongly made by nearly the entire human population since that moment.

Because of the extent of misapplication, anything said either pro or against my current understanding, I deemed not worth my pursuit. If it agreed with my understanding, it is still a weak argument given the weak initial basis. If it disagreed with my theology, it still does not matter due to the same weak ness.