Could Adam be the serpent??

[Bolt_upright]

It is all good if you think I'm grasping at straws.
But to suit my own whims a bit judgmental. LOL!
This is more about how Genesis and how it is written perhaps how things are not always as they are taught.

 

[JRT]

I see nothing that would justify the idea that "Adam" was meant to be understood as including the serpent.

As for Genesis 5,



The Hebrew word translated here (NIV) as "Mankind" is "a-dam." It does in fact mean "mankind" or "humanity." So you're correct in a sense. All people are "a-dam."

It's one of the things that we miss and something that can cause a lot of problem in understanding. We insist on using "Adam" as a name when there are times when it's really "a-dam" - a word for all humanity. We have the same problem with insisting on "Satan" rather than "sa-tan."

Genesis 2 is completely unlike the other Biblical creation accounts such as in Genesis 1, Proverbs 8, Psalm 104 or Job 38. It is a "stand alone" account. It begins with God creating ha'adam from ha'adama. This Hebrew pun literally means "the earth creature from the earth". It is usually quite difficult to preserve a pun in translation from one language to another but in English we might say, "the human from the humus". Note that ha'adam is not yet at this point a proper name but merely indicates what it is. In Hebrew it is a nephesh or "living creature". Note also "it" is not yet a creature with a sexual identification of any kind. We should further note that God's creative action here might be thought of as a form of evolution from a lower state to a higher.


God continues the creative process by producing a "garden" of all vegetation and places the ha'adam there to tend and till it. The care of the garden is entrusted to the care of the earth creature whom we might even think of as the patron saint of the environmental movement. The ha'adam is informed that it may eat of the fruit of any plant except the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". This suggests two things. Firstly, the ha'adam is a totally naïve and innocent creature. Without the knowledge of good and evil it lacks even the capability of sin. This would seem to me a crucial defect in the storyteller's development of this mythology.


Now we are informed that our androgynous ha'adam is lonely. Would not an omniscient God have foreseen this from the beginning? To remedy this lack of foresight God creates the animals and brings them to the ha'adam who names them, thus attaining symbolic power over them. However the ha'adam does not find another creature that would be suitable to overcome it's loneliness. Once again it seems odd that God could not have foreseen this as well. God now intervenes to cast the ha'adam into a deep sleep so as to perform the world's first "sex change operation". The rib taken from the ha'adam is formed into a woman and what remains of the ha'adam is now male. Both sexes came into being simultaneously! The woman is now described as a suitable "helpmate" to the man who is still referred to as ha'adam even though he is now a sexual creature. The Hebrew word that translates as "helpmate" seems to us in our language to infer a degree of inferiority. This is primarily a translation problem since the same word is used in many instances to refer to God as the helpmate of Israel. This hardly could suggest inferiority! It could in fact be suggestive that the female is superior to the male at this point.

 

[Bolt_upright]

Genesis 2 is completely unlike the other Biblical creation accounts such as in Genesis 1, Proverbs 8, Psalm 104 or Job 38. It is a "stand alone" account. It begins with God creating ha'adam from ha'adama. This Hebrew pun literally means "the earth creature from the earth". It is usually quite difficult to preserve a pun in translation from one language to another but in English we might say, "the human from the humus". Note that ha'adam is not yet at this point a proper name but merely indicates what it is. In Hebrew it is a nephesh or "living creature". Note also "it" is not yet a creature with a sexual identification of any kind. We should further note that God's creative action here might be thought of as a form of evolution from a lower state to a higher.


God continues the creative process by producing a "garden" of all vegetation and places the ha'adam there to tend and till it. The care of the garden is entrusted to the care of the earth creature whom we might even think of as the patron saint of the environmental movement. The ha'adam is informed that it may eat of the fruit of any plant except the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". This suggests two things. Firstly, the ha'adam is a totally naïve and innocent creature. Without the knowledge of good and evil it lacks even the capability of sin. This would seem to me a crucial defect in the storyteller's development of this mythology.


Now we are informed that our androgynous ha'adam is lonely. Would not an omniscient God have foreseen this from the beginning? To remedy this lack of foresight God creates the animals and brings them to the ha'adam who names them, thus attaining symbolic power over them. However the ha'adam does not find another creature that would be suitable to overcome it's loneliness. Once again it seems odd that God could not have foreseen this as well. God now intervenes to cast the ha'adam into a deep sleep so as to perform the world's first "sex change operation". The rib taken from the ha'adam is formed into a woman and what remains of the ha'adam is now male. Both sexes came into being simultaneously! The woman is now described as a suitable "helpmate" to the man who is still referred to as ha'adam even though he is now a sexual creature. The Hebrew word that translates as "helpmate" seems to us in our language to infer a degree of inferiority. This is primarily a translation problem since the same word is used in many instances to refer to God as the helpmate of Israel. This hardly could suggest inferiority! It could in fact be suggestive that the female is superior to the male at this point.

Virtuous! She is virtuous.

Cheers
Bolt

 

[Luce NDs]

One needs some dirty relations ... to create nous sol from half baked ochre ... a miracle after the dirty act?

As a child I was taught that knowledge and love was evil ... thus stupid conflicts! However these are only said to occur in the darkness of soul ... and thus I couldn't have experienced eM! Paradigm IHC incarnation ... mire imagination in the impossible mind ... a minor dream in the eternal vast extent?

It'll pas ...

The Shadow resumes ...

 

[Bolt_upright]

That is why I believe Adam was created before day 6. And was not separated until he was placed in paradise and after naming the animals.
Adam was neither male nor female but both before he was "separated".
He was separated by being placed in the garden from there other "humans" that are created like Adam before he was separated.

 

[Waterfall]

"Could Adam be the Serpent?"

Here's another viewpoint from one group of christian gnostics. They believed the angel of light, Lucifer (was the true Gods messenger, who is supposed to be above the creator God), was the Serpent and it was the "Creator God" that created the garden of Eden. Lucifer/serpent/angel of light, was supposed to have encouraged Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge and then led them out of Eden, which wasn't the paradise that orthodox Christians believe it to be, because it suppressed knowledge.
Christ is said to be the second coming of Lucifer/Serpent....and there is a gnostic diagram of the Serpent nailed to the tree, which is supposed to represent the tree of knowledge and the serpent/Christ of salvation.

In numbers 21:4-9, God instructs Moses to erect a serpent of bronze which was used to heal those who looked upon it.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus discusses his destiny by comparing the raising of the son of man with the act of the serpent being raised by Moses for the healing of the people. John 3:14-16

 

[Bolt_upright]

Wow who would've thought?
That is an interesting viewpoint.
Not that I can agree to it. It is what it is I suppose.
And yes, I remember about Moses erecting the serpent in the wilderness and how they are both mentioned by Yeshua about how He himself will be lifted up.
Cheers

 

[Bolt_upright]

I do believe in a rebirth as opposed to reincarnation.
For if it is destined or commissioned for mankind, to die once, then judgement.
So who's to say one has to die more than once, if one is born again and then never tastes of death ever after?

 

[Waterfall]

I do believe in a rebirth as opposed to reincarnation.
For if is destined for once to die, so who's to say one has to die more than once, if one is born again and then never tastes of death ever after?

I think it can happen with reincarnation too if you get your life right the first time.

 

[Bolt_upright]

I think it can happen with reincarnation too if you get your life right the first time.

I don't think I'd be so blessed.LOL!

 

[Luce NDs]

Rein carnation is a fall of blossoming stuff ... kind've like when your thoughts catch up to your wild emotions ... depressing huh?

 

[revjohn]

Im not sure if anyone has brought this up before

Yay! Potential new discussion thread.

but has anyone else pondered the idea that maybe Adam was the serpent/whisperer who did the deceiving?

That is a new idea for me. I cannot recall any such thing being suggested by anyone, ever.

Personally, I believe Adam was the person described as the serpent/whisperer.

Okay. What is it that leads you to this particular conclusion?

Was it Adam who was the first to call her wife? Or woman?

Technically, it is the narrative of scripture which first mentions woman rather than wife.

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

An argument could be made that the narrative is informed by Adam's naming action in Genesis 2

Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken.”

Which means that the actual event of Genesis 2: 23 occurs before the narrative of scripture and shapes Genesis 2: 22 when it was written.

The narration then introduces the term wife in Genesis 2

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

It is also important to know that in the Hebrew texts, just as in the Greek texts the word used for wife is also the word used for woman. Surrounding context helps us to understand which meaning best conveys the intent of the narrative.

It seemed to me as though Adam was all about Adam in Genesis.

Well, up until the end of Chapter 3 then Adam becomes a foot-note and not a principal character. And it is in Genesis 3 that we find it very problematic to see Adam as the serpent.

Particularly when the blame game is played. Adam blames God for giving him a woman who cannot stay away from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve blames the serpent for deceiving her and then the curses follow. The serpent is cursed to crawl on his belly and eat dust. The woman is cursed with pain in childbirth. The man is cursed with having to produce food by the sweat of his brow.

If Adam is the serpent he is cursed twice.

And we have to explain why, being cursed to crawl on his belly, males still have legs to walk upon.

For me, it is important to note that in Gen.5, it says that Most High named them both Adam when they were created.
When Most High names someone, why change it?

As revsdd points out adam is the Hebrew for "mankind" or "humanity" or maybe even "peoplekind" if you are the Prime Minister. So both are not named Adam but both belong to adam (humanity).

 

[unsafe]

God says this in Genesis 3 Bolt_upright

Genesis 3:16-17 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

unsafe says
So from this scripture How do you see Adam as being or could be the the serpent --------

 

[Luce NDs]

Yay! Potential new discussion thread.



That is a new idea for me. I cannot recall any such thing being suggested by anyone, ever.



Okay. What is it that leads you to this particular conclusion?



Technically, it is the narrative of scripture which first mentions woman rather than wife.



An argument could be made that the narrative is informed by Adam's naming action in Genesis 2



Which means that the actual event of Genesis 2: 23 occurs before the narrative of scripture and shapes Genesis 2: 22 when it was written.

The narration then introduces the term wife in Genesis 2



It is also important to know that in the Hebrew texts, just as in the Greek texts the word used for wife is also the word used for woman. Surrounding context helps us to understand which meaning best conveys the intent of the narrative.



Well, up until the end of Chapter 3 then Adam becomes a foot-note and not a principal character. And it is in Genesis 3 that we find it very problematic to see Adam as the serpent.

Particularly when the blame game is played. Adam blames God for giving him a woman who cannot stay away from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve blames the serpent for deceiving her and then the curses follow. The serpent is cursed to crawl on his belly and eat dust. The woman is cursed with pain in childbirth. The man is cursed with having to produce food by the sweat of his brow.

If Adam is the serpent he is cursed twice.

And we have to explain why, being cursed to crawl on his belly, males still have legs to walk upon.



As revsdd points out adam is the Hebrew for "mankind" or "humanity" or maybe even "peoplekind" if you are the Prime Minister. So both are not named Adam but both belong to adam (humanity).

Thus the expression from foreign parts that people are in general a'damn'd thing to the ghosts essences and other intangible power like bright emotions and darker intelligence (stuff we don't know)! There's a pile of that latter attribute from what I've experienced (empiric)!

 

[Bolt_upright]

Yay! Potential new discussion thread.



That is a new idea for me. I cannot recall any such thing being suggested by anyone, ever.



Okay. What is it that leads you to this particular conclusion?

Conclusion is not the right word to use yet.
It is a notion.
As the thread goes I'll try to explain why.

 

[Bolt_upright]

God says this in Genesis 3 Bolt_upright

Genesis 3:16-17 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

unsafe says
So from this scripture How do you see Adam as being or could be the the serpent --------

For me, this whole Idea stems from notion that scripture should be looked at through and through to see if there are ways around the original interpretation.
I'm not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination but I just noticed the way the words are written and try to see if there could be alternate meaning to their original interpreted story.

For example
First how does one get around the naming of them both Adam when they were created?
My interpretation to this is that they had equal dominion of the earth and all that crawls and has breath of life within.
I have a notion that Adam was high and mighty on himself as he was part of the sound/light relationship harnessing the power of Almighty to create or restore the void heaven and earth.

Another notion is...
When Adam was involved creating mankind, they were created exacty like Adam were they were not separated man and woman but male and female in one body.
How many is anyone's guess.

After creation Adam was "set apart" and placed in the garden to tend and keep it.
He was given a job to name all the animals being the authority of mankind to do so.
Who named them other "mankind" created on day 6?
Did they all have the same name?

To me all through scrupture and it means something when Most High chooses a name for a person.

To try to explain the blame game is hard but this is what I get from it I'll post on another posted so it won't be discouraging to read.

Again these are notions, not conclusions.

 

[Bolt_upright]

For me, the blame game was hard to contend with but my Idea came to a spin thinking about the equal dominion between Adam/male and Adam/woman. I believe there was equality beween the man and woman until they fell.
They had equal authority as both king and queen of the earth.
My take is that Adam/male had other ideas about equal authority as there is no reference to the woman ever receiving first hand instruction from Most High, to not eat of the tree of knowledge.
Where did she hear the words then? From the man? The timing suggests that she was not even created when Adam heard the words so did she hear them while still within Adam/man?
If one can assume she heard it from her husband or Most High or while in the man one can assume anything.

While she says about not being able to eat of the tree of knowledge. She talks as though it is "ye" or "you" quoting what she obviously heard to who the "whisperer" she was talking to. To me, it seems as though the woman felt as though because she didn't hear it first hand she had doubts as to the integrity of what she heard before even included her.
It cause her to be deceived.
Yet if she even handed the fruit to her husband who was with her without a word and Adam is not deceived as well?

How can it say in 1 Tim. That Adam is not deceived when he himself was unaware he was eating of the tree of knowledge? Because he was wise as a serpent and was the one who deceiveed his wife.

 

[Bolt_upright]

Just something to think about.

If Adam was not born of woman. How is it he is quoted as saying "leave both father and "mother" and cleave to their wife."
This is something he said before the fall, so how would he know about a mother before they themselves would become parents?

If Adam had a name, what would it be?
If the word means mankind and both were referenced as being called Adam, is Adam now his name still? Is that his name written in their book of life from their foundation of them earth?

 

[Luce NDs]

Just something to think about.

If Adam was not born of woman. How is it he is quoted as saying "leave both father and "mother" and cleave to their wife."
This is something he said before the fall, so how would he know about a mother before they themselves would become parents?

If Adam had a name, what would it be?
If the word means mankind and both were referenced as being called Adam, is Adam now his name still? Is that his name written in their book of life from their foundation of them earth?

Consider the cognizance of celestial fallout ... dropping out of a domain called heaven ... what a pain ... individualizing for a bit to see what it is like to be outstanding in the pasture ... a kind 've field of one's own?

 

[Bolt_upright]

So, to try to explain the blame game.
If it was Adam that was the serpent is speculative but
I believe the woman wanted to protect Adam/man after they partook.
Adam/male blamed the woman and Most High.
The woman blamed the serpent.
I believe the woman lied to buffer any blame to Adam and told Most High a lie to protect him.
Most knew who the serpent was.
I just have a notion about this but I think most High went along with the woman and treated Adam like the serpent she named him at that time and lied.
The following are the consequences of all these actions taken place after partaking.
I believe Adam received twofold consiquences for heeding to his wifes voice yet did not take any blame.
Like I said this is just so one will take a closer look.
Not to convince you that this is true.