How did Satan get to the garden of Eden?

[outhouse]

If this is true, please tell us who their first leader was, as well as the first city they built in order to begin set up their land.

They didnt have just one


Their history is well known despite your nit silly picking. I never stated we knew 100% or implied.

we know they migrated to the area after 1200 BC, coming from Cannan and Mesopotamia and Egypt. BUT were never a enslaved race in Egypt. Those who did come from Egypt were the vast minority

 

[michaelsherlock]

They didnt have just one


Their history is well known despite your nit silly picking. I never stated we knew 100% or implied.

we know they migrated to the area after 1200 BC, coming from Cannan and Mesopotamia and Egypt. BUT were never a enslaved race in Egypt. Those who did come from Egypt were the vast minority

And some stayed in Egypt.

 

[outhouse]

And some stayed in Egypt.

lets clarify this, so there is no confusion.


Some Semetic speaking people stayed in every place Semetic speaking people came from.


There were never Israeli's in Egypt ever. Or ancient hebrews as we know them.

 

[fallingblood]

They didnt have just one


Their history is well known despite your nit silly picking. I never stated we knew 100% or implied.

we know they migrated to the area after 1200 BC, coming from Cannan and Mesopotamia and Egypt. BUT were never a enslaved race in Egypt. Those who did come from Egypt were the vast minority

Okay, what were there first cities built? Who were their first leaders? When did they all first migrate to the area (you simply stated they migrated after 1200 B.C.E., and there is no reason to assume they all just migrated at the same time. And why would they have to come from Cannan, when it is in Cannan that they settled?).

How did they exactly mix, coming from three distinct areas? As in which area did they first settle and actually become one people?

My point, is that their history is not well-known. We can pick out basics, and from there make possible scenarios. These scenarios change quite a bit over time.

 

[outhouse]

Nice little test, ill take it without the help of wiki. I know you already have your own answers.

Okay, what were there first cities built?

you already know ther answers, they were not cities but villages spread out. these villages are almost impossible to tell from canaanite villages, A few have claimed a absense of pig bones has made a difference while the pottery remained identical.

Who were their first leaders?

the elder's, LOL they had groups of leaders like any nomadic settlements

When did they all first migrate to the area (you simply stated they migrated after 1200 B.C.E., and there is no reason to assume they all just migrated at the same time.

they migrated slowly and increased the population size dramaticaly over a 200 year period.

And why would they have to come from Cannan, when it is in Cannan that they settled?).

The governement collapsed during the late bronze age, and there are many guesses as to why. I like the enviromental changes that brought on famine.

How did they exactly mix, coming from three distinct areas?

North and South.

I would run with Mesopotamians to the north, and Egyptians to the south with a mixtures increasing as time went by, filling the whole area of people using their freedom to look for a better life. Canaanites were all over the place not just Israel.

As in which area did they first settle and actually become one people?

the highland to the north


One people? after the fall of the temple.

My point, is that their history is not well-known. We can pick out basics, and from there make possible scenarios. These scenarios change quite a bit over time.

we are only missing a few hundred years here and there, and thats just for fine details. As a people and race we have a really good picture of their evolution

 

[Thief]

And these most recent posts assist the topic how?

Too late to kill the serpent.

Back to topic anyone?

 

[waitasec]

god created the serpent.

 

[outhouse]

And these most recent posts assist the topic how?

Too late to kill the serpent.

Back to topic anyone?

Sure show in the text were it implies the snake is a bad deity.


when this scripture was created ancient hebrews were polytheistic and they would have no problem naming it a deity if they didnt want it to only be a snake.



also you might want to ask yourself why did the Mesopotamians have a creation story simular to this one for thousands of year's before hebrews became a culture? Their first man was named Adamu. And guess what!!!! these same people later migrated to Israel to become some of the first ancient hebrews to exist, bring this legends with them.


explain

 

[Thief]

god created the serpent.

So....you might lean to the notion the entire garden event was a setup?

 

[waitasec]

So....you might lean to the notion the entire garden event was a setup?

i lean where ever it may go...
point is there are way too many ways to interpret this mess.

and if you are comfortable with the notion that your god set adam up to fail thusly using his ignorance as an excuse for your death then by all means lay back in that cozy realization

 

[outhouse]

So....you might lean to the notion the entire garden event was a setup?

Nope

it was a allegorical legend to give the people the morals of Israelites through metaphors and parables.

By taking a literal reading you butcher the authors original message

 

[outhouse]

LETS put this silly thread to bed once and for all.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(symbolism)

In the Hebrew Bible the serpent in the Garden of Eden lured Eve with the promise of forbidden knowledge, convincing her that despite God's warning, death would not be the result. The serpent is identified with wisdom: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made"

READ THAT


(Genesis 3:1). There is no indication in Genesis that the Serpent was a deity in its own right

AND THIS

in Genesis the Serpent is merely portrayed as a deceptive creature or trickster, promoting as good what God had directly forbidden, and particularly cunning in its deception. (Gen. 3:4–5 and 3:22)

 

[Thief]

LETS put this silly thread to bed once and for all.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(symbolism)

In the Hebrew Bible the serpent in the Garden of Eden lured Eve with the promise of forbidden knowledge, convincing her that despite God's warning, death would not be the result. The serpent is identified with wisdom: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made"

READ THAT


(Genesis 3:1). There is no indication in Genesis that the Serpent was a deity in its own right

AND THIS

in Genesis the Serpent is merely portrayed as a deceptive creature or trickster, promoting as good what God had directly forbidden, and particularly cunning in its deception. (Gen. 3:4–5 and 3:22)

So now you want to 'put this to bed'....by saying what the rest of us have already said?

But how did the serpent get into the garden?
If he is not a deity of his own, he is then, the handiwork of God....
and God is then responsible for the serpent's presence....
and God then, is the ultimate 'trickster'.

Is that what you mean to assert?

 

[waitasec]

So now you want to 'put this to bed'....by saying what the rest of us have already said?

But how did the serpent get into the garden?
If he is not a deity of his own, he is then, the handiwork of God....
and God is then responsible for the serpent's presence....
and God then, is the ultimate 'trickster'.

Is that what you mean to assert?

god created the serpent...

 

[outhouse]

But how did the serpent get into the garden?

written in

If he is not a deity of his own, he is then, the handiwork of God....

Its a story, quit ruining it, with a literal translation. YOU destroy all the beauty within its pages.

its not history, its a legend handed down from mesopotamian mythology.

and God is then responsible for the serpent's presence....

if you want to play that, then yes. If god put man and woman there he also put the trees, the bugs, the snakes ect ect ect.

but we all know homo sapiens existed 197,000 years before this fable was created.

and God then, is the ultimate 'trickster'.

yes he is

he was written in, as jealous, and as a warrior god wreaking vengence on his enemies. He is also written in as a murderer and one he wants his followers to take advantage of women and torture the victims. He mimics almost every human aspect.

 

[outhouse]

read

Good and evil both proceed from God: "I form light and I create darkness, make peace and create evil: I YHVH do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

 

[Thief]

god created the serpent...

And the next question....Did He control the serpent?
Did God send the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve?

The serpent lacked freewill?

And how do you tempt anyone...who has no freewill?

If the garden was a setup....was it to alter the body and spirit of Man?
(yes)

If the serpent has freewill...he acted to spoil the alteration.
Did he succeed?...I think not.
Man was intended to act on his own.
And to seek knowledge even if it meant dying.

Did the ploy of the serpent prevail?.....nay.

 

[Thief]

written in

Its a story, quit ruining it, with a literal translation. YOU destroy all the beauty within its pages.

its not history, its a legend handed down from mesopotamian mythology.

if you want to play that, then yes. If god put man and woman there he also put the trees, the bugs, the snakes ect ect ect.

but we all know homo sapiens existed 197,000 years before this fable was created.

yes he is

he was written in, as jealous, and as a warrior god wreaking vengence on his enemies. He is also written in as a murderer and one he wants his followers to take advantage of women and torture the victims. He mimics almost every human aspect.

So I see your 'opinion'....all myth...no truth...
Is that it?

 

[waitasec]

And the next question....Did He control the serpent?
Did God send the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve?

The serpent lacked freewill?

And how do you tempt anyone...who has no freewill?

If the garden was a setup....was it to alter the body and spirit of Man?
(yes)

If the serpent has freewill...he acted to spoil the alteration.
Did he succeed?...I think not.
Man was intended to act on his own.
And to seek knowledge even if it meant dying.

Did the ploy of the serpent prevail?.....nay.

well, the main character in this story is a character named god.
and the writer of this story set up the theme that this god character
is in control of everything since he created everything, snake/serpent included.

in relation to the thread "how did satan get into the garden" there is no mention of satan in this narrative. it seems as though this one story, among many others in a collection of stories called the hebrew bible, one needs to borrow the antagonist of another story to make up for the literal interpretation a particular reader applies to this work of fiction, that the snake/serpent is satan and is able to speak.

as everyone knows a snake/serpent cannot talk in the real world and it is for this very reason that the antagonistic character borrowed from another work of fiction is able to reconcile the fact that this particular snake/serpent spoke to adam and eve, characters who personify mankind, in this dramatic monologue between satan and mankind.

rather than reading it as a work of fiction of a talking snake certain readers ignore this one little line in the narrative which describes the snake/serpent to be "more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made"
when interpreting this narrative literally.

if one is to interpret this narrative literally, why is that line conveniently not considered?

 

[Thief]

well, the main character in this story is a character named god.
and the writer of this story set up the theme that this god character
is in control of everything since he created everything, snake/serpent included.

in relation to the thread "how did satan get into the garden" there is no mention of satan in this narrative. it seems as though this one story, among many others in a collection of stories called the hebrew bible, one needs to borrow the antagonist of another story to make up for the literal interpretation a particular reader applies to this work of fiction, that the snake/serpent is satan and is able to speak.

as everyone knows a snake/serpent cannot talk in the real world and it is for this very reason that the antagonistic character borrowed from another work of fiction is able to reconcile the fact that this particular snake/serpent spoke to adam and eve, characters who personify mankind, in this dramatic monologue between satan and mankind.

rather than reading it as a work of fiction of a talking snake certain readers ignore this one little line in the narrative which describes the snake/serpent to be "more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made"
when interpreting this narrative literally.

if one is to interpret this narrative literally, why is that line conveniently not considered?

Most of Genesis, Chapters One and Two in particular, is inconvenient.

As you noted, the details in the literal are not believable.
So...
The serpent would be something other than a snake.
The term serpent wold then lean to a character trait rather than physical.

The action of the 'serpent', indicates a contrariness to God.
Hence the notion, it was Satan is disguise.

As for the notion..... it's all fiction?...nay.

Someone had to be first to walk with God....that would be Adam.
That an Adversary would seek some means to undo such a relationship...
is believable.