Fall of Man

[redflameent]

The serpent, in his Edenic form, is not to be thought of as a writhing reptile. That is the effect of the curse Genesis 3:14. The creature which lent itself to Satan may well have been the most beautiful as was the most "subtle" of creatures less than man. Traces of that beauty remain despite the curse. Every movement of a serpent is graceful, and many species are beautifully coloured. In the serpent, Satan first appeared as "an angel of light" 2 Corinthians 11:14.

Source: Schofield Study Bible

[Drewsov]

redflame,

What I'm extrapolating from your comments is a fear of sex. How do I get that? I get that because you said that sex is "the original sin" (which, if we take Genesis as literal fact, is so far from the literal interpretation that it's almost unbelievable). So taking that idea into account, the act of sex - God-given sex between man and wife - is a sin, and should only be used for procreation. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of later books of the Bible? Doesn't that actually provide the basis for all sexual sin in Christians today?

Fear of sex is brought on by thinking like that which you presented.

Further, the fact that you're citing a televangelist - most of whom are noted philanderers, frauds and false prophets - as your main source of theological ideology/doctrine/whateverelse is a little hard to stomach. You can't exactly expect anyone to believe that Satan got with Adam's wife and had her son - and remember, Cain is mentioned as Abel's brother, not half-brother, not step-brother, not lesser-slave-boy, which is important, because in those times, a half-son wouldn't necessarily have the same rights as a full-born son, born into wedlock (see Ishmael) - and then had Adam's son. Don't you think that God would have had the tiniest bit of a problem with that? You know. Before Eve ate the poison apple.

And if we take the idea that Eve was sinless and Adam was sinless before any sort of sin took place, there would have to be a catalyst. The two were unaware of their nakedness, until they both partook. And that means that they didn't have a drunken romp through the woods with a serpent, but instead, welcomed something into their hearts.

[redflameent]

redflame,

What I'm extrapolating from your comments is a fear of sex. How do I get that? I get that because you said that sex is "the original sin" (which, if we take Genesis as literal fact, is so far from the literal interpretation that it's almost unbelievable). So taking that idea into account, the act of sex - God-given sex between man and wife - is a sin, and should only be used for procreation. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of later books of the Bible? Doesn't that actually provide the basis for all sexual sin in Christians today?

Fear of sex is brought on by thinking like that which you presented.

Further, the fact that you're citing a televangelist - most of whom are noted philanderers, frauds and false prophets - as your main source of theological ideology/doctrine/whateverelse is a little hard to stomach. You can't exactly expect anyone to believe that Satan got with Adam's wife and had her son - and remember, Cain is mentioned as Abel's brother, not half-brother, not step-brother, not lesser-slave-boy, which is important, because in those times, a half-son wouldn't necessarily have the same rights as a full-born son, born into wedlock (see Ishmael) - and then had Adam's son. Don't you think that God would have had the tiniest bit of a problem with that? You know. Before Eve ate the poison apple.

And if we take the idea that Eve was sinless and Adam was sinless before any sort of sin took place, there would have to be a catalyst. The two were unaware of their nakedness, until they both partook. And that means that they didn't have a drunken romp through the woods with a serpent, but instead, welcomed something into their hearts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_Seed

I became fascinated with this thought after reading this though. The only reason I mentioned Arnold Murray was to say that there is still someone teaching it today. But to invoke fear in sex is not the reason behind this. Understand that when Eve had sex with the Serpent, it wasn't her husband. It outright teaches that having sex with other than your married partner is bad. Simply you can see that.

[Drewsov]

You became fascinated with Gnosticism... from Wikipedia.

Reliable AND theologically sound.

It's on the internet, it must be true!

/done with thread

[ccgr]

Judaism believes in the serpent seed theory. I heard of the theory before but didn't know the reasoning behind it. I also heard that the giants of Genesis were from angels sleeping with humans. I thought that was an interesting theory but didn't hop onto the band wagon. I figure the flood was a cleansing of sorts but I'm not 100% sure on the details behind it other than perverse and sinful people

[redflameent]

You became fascinated with Gnosticism... from Wikipedia.

Reliable AND theologically sound.

It's on the internet, it must be true!

/done with thread

I don't know what Gnosticism is but I know that I have a passion for finding the truth of a matter by searching his word.

[redflameent]

Judaism believes in the serpent seed theory. I heard of the theory before but didn't know the reasoning behind it. I also heard that the giants of Genesis were from angels sleeping with humans. I thought that was an interesting theory but didn't hop onto the band wagon. I figure the flood was a cleansing of sorts but I'm not 100% sure on the details behind it other than perverse and sinful people

Well if you read the Midrash, Mishnah and Talmud, you will find that Judaism teaches alot off off balance things.

But getting back on topic, I am no bible scholar but I believe in taking out my Strong's concordance and translating the engllish into the original Hebrew and Greek. I have found that the translations given by the references I gave to be somewhat correct. Not only does iit line up with my bible but it lines up in Strong's as well.

There are not many bible teachers in this generation that teach from a translation perspective. The ones that do are older and very wise to me. Wisdom is something I cherish when it comes to bible teaching. I will surely miss the older generation when they pass because bible teaching will never be the same.

[Drewsov]

You became fascinated with Gnosticism... from Wikipedia.

Reliable AND theologically sound.

It's on the internet, it must be true!

/done with thread

I don't know what Gnosticism is but I know that I have a passion for finding the truth of a matter by searching his word.

This is more or less the best definition you're going to find on the Gnostics:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

And the obligatory Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

[Kendrik]

But getting back on topic, I am no bible scholar but I believe in taking out my Strong's concordance and translating the engllish into the original Hebrew and Greek. I have found that the translations given by the references I gave to be somewhat correct. Not only does iit line up with my bible but it lines up in Strong's as well.

The problem I see here is that Bible translations (especially more current ones like the NASB and ESV) are based on better source material than the KJV (which is what it looks like you cited earlier) and put into a contemporary tongue.

Modern translations are written by scholars much like the ones you value. They translate in a way that is true to the original meaning of the text.

Any time you have to go to the concordances to get a meaning other than the one presented by Scripture itself, it's immediately worthy of much skepticism. If a conclusion is only supported by possible meanings for words used, then I have a problem with it. If a conclusion doesn't fit a natural reading of the text at all, then I have a huge problem with it.

The natural reading of Genesis 3-4 doesn't come across in any way to support the notion of Eve having sex with Satan. So yes, I have a big issue with this claim; it doesn't make sense.

Don't get me wrong. I love original languages. I'll go back to them in a heartbeat... which probably explains the fact that I have original language Bibles and lexicons on my shelf. Thing is, I'm a big proponent of common-sense hermeneutics. By this, I mean that I view Scripture to be intended for understanding, so the natural read of a text is very important. Sure, there are literary devices to consider. Some things have double meaning. But most of the double meaning stuff takes place in prophecy and is explained by the Apostles.


On a side note: If you want to get insight into Scripture from sources other than Scripture, then I highly recommend going through esteemed church fathers rather than modern teachers who teach ideas foreign to historical orthodoxy. Start with the Apostles themselves and work up through history. Read up on St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc. If you wanna move up to more current stuff, there's always Schaeffer and Lewis (though he has some weird ideas, too; I consider him a better apologist than theologian). If you want today, go with esteemed textbooks used in mainline Christianity Bible colleges and seminaries. Go with Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology or check out Norman Geisler's work. As much as I dislike some of the uses of the Message, Eugene Peterson is also a really good theologian.


By the way, there is a ton of love for original language scholarship. Just gotta get outta the mainstream and into the academic journals. I'm a Bible college student myself, and the vast majority of my research papers involve original languages and reading up on scholars who make heavy use of 'em.


Additionally, it is easy to infer from Scripture itself that translations continue to retain the meaning of God's word. In all likelihood, when Paul told Timothy that "we know all Scripture (graphe) is God-breathed (theopneustos)," he was referring to the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. If Scripture lost meaning in translation, then most of human history would be completely outta luck. If, however, Scripture maintained its meaning in translation from Hebrew to Greek, and maintained its Divine nature, then why shouldn't it be the same for Hebrew to English or Greek to English? Indeed, looking into original languages to gain a fuller understanding of something that is there makes sense (think of word plays). Having to go into the original languages to pull something out from a concordance's list of possible meanings that isn't in the translation (assuming a quality translation, of course)? Yeaaaaaah...no. Doesn't click.

[Drewsov]

Judaism believes in the serpent seed theory.

Not quite.

Kabbalists and Jews who practice Scriptural rhetoric followed the doctrine a loooooong time ago... like 9 AD.

[ccgr]

ahhh my bad, probably picked that misinformation from a history channel program or something

[Orodrist]

Well if you read the Midrash, Mishnah and Talmud, you will find that Judaism teaches alot off off balance things.

This statement, combined with your lean toward the serpent seed theory, which historically has been used as an explanation for Jewish origin, leads me to the suspicion you are at some level an anti-Semite.

ahhh my bad, probably picked that misinformation from a history channel program or something

And that's why I don't watch anything remotely related to history on the History channel.

[ohnolookout]

If you wanna move up to more current stuff, there's always Schaeffer and Lewis (though he has some weird ideas, too; I consider him a better apologist than theologian).

You include no Piper?

Why is dis?!

[Drewsov]

Well if you read the Midrash, Mishnah and Talmud, you will find that Judaism teaches alot off off balance things.

A) "Midrash" isn't a book. It's a word for rhetorical interpretation of a religious text.

and

B) Your listing of the other two betrays a complete lack of understanding of Jewish culture, Jewish tradition, and a religion other than your own.

It must be because the Jews are all Kenites, right? Right?

[Kendrik]

If you wanna move up to more current stuff, there's always Schaeffer and Lewis (though he has some weird ideas, too; I consider him a better apologist than theologian).

You include no Piper?

Why is dis?!

I also left out Sproul and a host of other fantastic theologians. It was nothing personal; I was just trying to give a short list.