The Serpent of Genesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter nablaise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nablaise

Guest
In Genesis, we read about a serpent tempting Eve. This is the quote:
Gen.3
[1]
Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, `You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?”
Click to expand...
Here it seems that the serpent is one of God’s visible creatures. It also seem that since the serpent was going against God’s will, it had fallen already as a creature but man had not fallen yet. May be it was possessed by the devil or something.

I am thinking along this line also because of some discoveries by Zacharia Sitchen I am considering to have some truths. The

Now, Sitchen claims that those aliens ‘created’ us in their image by upgrading a primitive Ape species through DNA manipulation.
I don’t agree with him on how he interpret his discoveries. This is my interpretation:

I think that it is possible that actually Aliens of a reptilian species CORRUPTED our original DNA in order to make us more docile for their project. Sitchen discoveries claim that they were trying to make us slave so we can work for them. He believes that they made us intelligent and could learn things like reading and science.

When I take his discoveries and compare them to the readings of the Fall in Genesis, somethings make sens as I have already started to explain. The Serpent could be a galactic species which corrupted us and our flesh started going against our spirit and the counsel from God.

It could be that the Sin of Adam and Eve was consumed when they accepted to be genetically manipulated. This is possible since according to Sitchin discoveries, these aliens had high tech things which were impressive enough for the primitive race of humans. So it would make sense the use of the term ‘wise’ in Genesis to describe the serpent. So Adam and Eve wanted to KNOW how to do science probably like the serpent was doing…

On an other side, I got interested in Hebrew alphabet after hearing the claims that it one of the original language and is somewhat scientic language. According to some hebrew schoolars and scientist, the whole alphabet is based on what is like a ‘universal law’ and viewing it from different perspective. So when geometry is used to draw the connections, we have something which looks like an aple. See this link.

To me, in our familiar language, this aple would be a representation of what we probably call ‘natural law’. And it would seem that God simply told Adam and Eve in their heart not to interfere with the natural law. But the serpent tought them and invited them to participate in manipulating nature which they did starting with themselves. So Original Sin would consist in these desobedience which had as a consequence, a permanent corruption of our DNA, corruption of ‘the flesh’.
This would explain why we always need great effort to fight against our flesh, self-control, etc…

So this is how I read those discoveries in Catholic doctrine. Does anyone else know more about these things?
 
Some of the Church Fathers understood that the serpent, before the fall, had sort of a relationship that dogs have with man today, and Satan spoke through the serpent to deceive Adam and Eve.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Some of the Church Fathers understood that the serpent, before the fall, had sort of a relationship that dogs have with man today, and Satan spoke through the serpent to deceive Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Something makes sens here. The creatures Sitchins talks about as being report in ancient sumerians writtings where from a planet which takes 365 years to orbit our sun. What I think is that may be just as man can own a chimpanze as a pet. May be these reptilian aliens owned snakes as their pets. And when they came here, they brought them along. Almost the same way Nasa, often send chimpanze in Spacecraft to test the conditions a human can endure…something like that.

May be the curse the Bible speaks of on the serpent consist of those serpents being stuck here on Earth while their origin is from outer space. Physical conditions of our planet could have altered it greatly from its normal environment…

Do you know those Church Fathers who commented about that? I would like to see their comments. Thanks.
 
No the Church Fathers nor any other Doctor or Saint of the Church ever came close to suggest such claims as Zacharia Sitchin.

As Msgr. Balducci of the Church pointed out, aliens did not engineer man, only God did. Sitchin has an approach that compromises sound Catholic thought, even when Catholic thought can accept life on other planets. The Church stresses that if there is life on other planets then God is the creator of them, Sitchin has the premesis way out of wack.
 
nablaise said:
Something makes sens here. The creatures Sitchins talks about as being report in ancient sumerians writtings where from a planet which takes 365 years to orbit our sun. What I think is that may be just as man can own a chimpanze as a pet. May be these reptilian aliens owned snakes as their pets. And when they came here, they brought them along. Almost the same way Nasa, often send chimpanze in Spacecraft to test the conditions a human can endure…something like that.
Click to expand...

**Sitchin can write what he does, only because - to be blunt - the vast majority of his readers wouldn’t know a Sumerian text from a hole in the wall. People know no better; so they fall for his nonsense 😦 - just as people fall for the nonsense about the Bible Code. FWIW, H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu is not a Sumerian god or word either. **​

Sitchin is not a serious Sumerologist - if he were, he would be mentioned in the academic literature by & along with those who are; scholars such as:
34. Zechariah Sitchin and Extraterrestrials

>I am attempting to find an expert in the Sumerian language who can
>verify or debunk Zechariah Sitchin’s claims of Sumerian translation. As
>far as I can tell, no one with a scholarly and reputable background has
**>ever verified or denied his claims.:o **
>His eight books on the subject of the Annunaki have gone unchallenged
>for years. If you are unfamiliar with his works, it is his contention
>that sumerian texts verify that the human race was genetically altered
>to service a superior extraterrestrial race called the annunaki.
>Can you verify or refute these claims?
>Thank you for your attention to this matter.

To which the answer is:

I am very familiar with the Sumerian language and culture. There is nothing extraterrestrial about it.
May be the curse the Bible speaks of on the serpent consist of those serpents being stuck here on Earth while their origin is from outer space. Physical conditions of our planet could have altered it greatly from its normal environment…
Click to expand...

There is a Sumerian text about the god Dumuzi, in which he is given “gazelle’s feet”; or, as the words are also translated, “snake’s feet”. But this is perhaps too far removed from the environment in which Gen. 3 came into existence to be of direct relevance to what the chapter says about the serpent:​

**
  • “Utu, you are my brother-in-law, I am your sister’s husband! I am he who carries food to E-ana, I am he who brought the wedding gifts to Unug, I am he who kisses the holy lips, I am he who dances on the holy knees, the knees of Inana. Please change my hands into gazelle (1 ms. has instead: snake) hands, change my feet into gazelle (1 ms. has instead: snake) feet, so I can escape to the house of Old Woman Belili.”
  • Utu accepted his tears. He changed his hands into gazelle (1 ms. has instead: snake) hands, he changed his feet into gazelle (*1 ms. has instead: *snake) feet, so he evaded the demons and escaped with his life to the house of Old Woman Belili. He approached the house of Old Woman Belili.
    **www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr143.htm - lines 192-205
Do you know those Church Fathers who commented about that? I would like to see their comments. Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Revelation of Moses

Account and life of Adam and Eve, the first-created, revealed by God to His servant Moses, when he received from the hand of the Lord the tables of the law of the covenant, instructed by the archangel Michael.
 
An other thing I have been thinking about today is about the use of the snake in other ancient civilizations and what COPLAND suggested about some Church Fathers thinking that serpents used to be pets like dogs for men.

Ancients cultures like the Mayan would use the imagery of the snake to mean our Milky Way galaxy. It happens that when viewed familiarly during nights, one notice that our Galaxy has a shape of a disc whith ends which look like a serpent eating its own tale…

Then I consider some readings about the nature of the hebrew alphabet and how the first page of genesis is constructed. Apperently, the ancient hebrew analyzed carefully, reads like mathematical formulas expressing universal truths.

From this, the trees spoken of in Genesis, while being also real, they could also illustrate some facts. For example, eating of any tree, means that man was free to arrange creation as he please, modify things, turn others around, to acheive his objectives since he was called to subdure the earth. Eating involves destroying the fruit, and consuming it.
It appears that the forbidden fruit could represent the natural order. So God ordering Adam not to eat of it, he meant do whatevery you please, but just don’t alter the natural older of things…your freedom is not absolute, it is limited…

Considering that we are made in the image of God and thus we are called to show to each other by our very existance who God is, the in whose/what image are other animals made of for example?
It appeared to me that animals could be like living letters of God to humanity, somehow telling us about the universe and how it works.
For example, the serpent by its life, it would illustrate how the Milky Way works. Meaning that humans could observe a serpent changing skins for example and tell that our Galaxy could change or know some reallignements or self-cleaning in some periodic interval…etc.
This would mean that man having a serpent as a pet was illustration that man was friendly and in good terms with galactic forces. Hmm, what would make of dogs today ?😃 That we have switched from considering our galaxy as friendly to realising its hostility and taking our defenses against it?

If the forbiddent fruit is the ‘natural order’, and the serpent is galactic forces and influence on man, I can speculate on an other senario.
How if the basis of the story just tells that Eve notices some apparent danger approching from the natural order, and getting afraid, she influenced her husband, and they both decide to take matters in their own hands and broke the natural law in hope of securing themselves…In this case the Devil as usual would have infuenced them from the heart causing the to doubt that God cares about them.

The idea that plants and animals could be living signs/letters of God to us telling us a message for our good seem to be attractive. In fact the fact that Adam named everyone of them, means that he know this ‘God’s alphabet.’
 
buffalo said:
It is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Lesser Genesis is worth reading.
Click to expand...
I’ve read and studied many non canonical books and of course they are valuable in their historical , and cultural context.But you are using this document to prove your point.These stories are quaint and colorful and give voice to the mindset of a certain era- still not canon.And just because it’s part of someone else’ canon doesn’t make it part of our canon. If “Good night Moon” was part of their canon-would we adopt it?Read them? sure! Canonicity is determined by, traditional use of the document, is the document widely read and accepted by the churches?Was it widely used liturgically? Some of the books were wildly popular in some churches and not others-not acceptable as canon then.They had to be ‘catholic’ in usage.🙂
 
juliamajor said:
I’ve read and studied many non canonical books and of course they are valuable in their historical , and cultural context.But you are using this document to prove your point.These stories are quaint and colorful and give voice to the mindset of a certain era- still not canon.And just because it’s part of someone else’ canon doesn’t make it part of our canon. If “Good night Moon” was part of their canon-would we adopt it?Read them? sure! Canonicity is determined by, traditional use of the document, is the document widely read and accepted by the churches?Was it widely used liturgically? Some of the books were wildly popular in some churches and not others-not acceptable as canon then.They had to be ‘catholic’ in usage.🙂
Click to expand...
The Church Fathers knew and cited these writings.
 
buffalo said:
It is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Lesser Genesis is worth reading.
Click to expand...

But - neither is of any value as a biographical source for the first humans.​

Any more the Protevangelium of James or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas the Israelite Philosopher are biographical sources for the Holy Family.

One book that ought to be canonical - but is not, except in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church - is 1 Enoch. Even though St. Jude calls Enoch as a prophet, & quotes a passage from it. An inerrant book , the NT, includes a letter by an inspired & inerrant Apostle - therefore, Jude’s words prove both Enoch’s existence & that patriarch’s prophetic gift. If the normal Fundamentalist logic & arguments are valid, Enoch is as genuine a prophet as Isaiah. It was good enough for the holy & inspired & inerrant Apostle, so it is good enough for us: by what right does a Christian contradict his words ?

It is sheer modernism & unbelief & anti-supernaturalism to listen to those liberals who “prove” :rolleyes: that the book is a pseudepigraph from the second century BC. Real Christians & True Catholics know perfectly well that it is a genuine prophetic book by a genuine prophet - St. Jude, moved by God to write an inspired, totally inerrant, Scriptural, canonical letter, says so. God can do anything, so God can easily preserve the holy prophecy of St. Enoch His servant whom He took to be with Him. Only those liberal God-haters would dare to deny the the inerrant Testimony of God’s Holy, God-Breathed, Totally Inerrant, Perfect, Canonical, Unbreakable, Ever-enduring Divine Scriptures, of which St.Jude’s words are part: so 1 Enoch must be genuinely by the Prophet Enoch. What do liberals know ? Nothing. The most ancient Fathers accepted the book - & they should know. Therefore, it is a genuine prophecy from no later than the year 1052 after the creation: just as the Bible requires, if we are to believe Genesis 5. Which is a proof that prophets can predict the distant future - in this case, the world-wide Flood that came in 1656, at least 604 years after Enoch’s assumption. Now that’s prophecy !

In all likelihood, Noah was given it by Methuselah son of Enoch, & himself passed it on to Shem; who left it to Jacob; who gave it to Levi; who passed on it to Amram; who gave it to Moses; from whom it came in due course to Ezra the scribe; who left it to Zerubbabel; through whose descendants it came to St. Joseph the Foster-Father; who left it on his death to St. Jude. There is not the shadow of a reason to doubt that the book is genuine. And since Enoch did not say he was persecuted, we may take it that Adam had repented: his being the most ancient of men, & the fact that he died no earlier than 930, when Enoch was 243, points to this; as does the undoubted piety of several of his descendants through Seth.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

But - neither is of any value as a biographical source for the first humans.​

Any more the Protevangelium of James or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas the Israelite Philosopher are biographical sources for the Holy Family.

One book that ought to be canonical - but is not, except in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church - is 1 Enoch. Even though St. Jude calls Enoch as a prophet, & quotes a passage from it. An inerrant book , the NT, includes a letter by an inspired & inerrant Apostle - therefore, Jude’s words prove both Enoch’s existence & that patriarch’s prophetic gift. If the normal Fundamentalist logic & arguments are valid, Enoch is as genuine a prophet as Isaiah. It was good enough for the holy & inspired & inerrant Apostle, so it is good enough for us: by what right does a Christian contradict his words ?

It is sheer modernism & unbelief & anti-supernaturalism to listen to those liberals who “prove” :rolleyes: that the book is a pseudepigraph from the second century BC. Real Christians & True Catholics know perfectly well that it is a genuine prophetic book by a genuine prophet - St. Jude, moved by God to write an inspired, totally inerrant, Scriptural, canonical letter, says so. God can do anything, so God can easily preserve the holy prophecy of St. Enoch His servant whom He took to be with Him. Only those liberal God-haters would dare to deny the the inerrant Testimony of God’s Holy, God-Breathed, Totally Inerrant, Perfect, Canonical, Unbreakable, Ever-enduring Divine Scriptures, of which St.Jude’s words are part: so 1 Enoch must be genuinely by the Prophet Enoch. What do liberals know ? Nothing. The most ancient Fathers accepted the book - & they should know. Therefore, it is a genuine prophecy from no later than the year 1052 after the creation: just as the Bible requires, if we are to believe Genesis 5. Which is a proof that prophets can predict the distant future - in this case, the world-wide Flood that came in 1656, at least 604 years after Enoch’s assumption. Now that’s prophecy !

In all likelihood, Noah was given it by Methuselah son of Enoch, & himself passed it on to Shem; who left it to Jacob; who gave it to Levi; who passed on it to Amram; who gave it to Moses; from whom it came in due course to Ezra the scribe; who left it to Zerubbabel; through whose descendants it came to St. Joseph the Foster-Father; who left it on his death to St. Jude. There is not the shadow of a reason to doubt that the book is genuine. And since Enoch did not say he was persecuted, we may take it that Adam had repented: his being the most ancient of men, & the fact that he died no earlier than 930, when Enoch was 243, points to this; as does the undoubted piety of several of his descendants through Seth.
Click to expand...
😃 😃
 
buffalo said:
It is your position these writings should be ignored and cannot shed light on Genesis?/QUOT
Like I said before I’ve read Book of Jubilees,Protoevangelim, Gospel of Mary Magdalene,Shepherd of Hermas,!&2 Enoch etc. My library contains Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphia of both Old and New Testament-so no- I don’t ignore them and they do shed light on the Bible and what was considered sacred literature at in certain eras which are not considered sacred now.!!! AND NOT CANONICAL!!
Click to expand...
 
juliamajor said:
buffalo;4547813:
It is your position these writings should be ignored and cannot shed light on Genesis?[/QUOT
Like I said before I’ve read Book of Jubilees,Protoevangelim, Gospel of Mary Magdalene,Shepherd of Hermas,!&2 Enoch etc. My library contains Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphia of both Old and New Testament-so no- I don’t ignore them and they do shed light on the Bible and what was considered sacred literature at in certain eras which are not considered sacred now.!!! AND NOT CANONICAL!!
Click to expand...
Good.

Now we bring Jesus into the debate.

*"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. *
Click to expand...
Was Jesus wrong?
[/quote]
 
Two things:
  1. Even if this theory is correct, the question would then be, what made this reptilian race sin in the first place? Where did sin come from.
  2. According to Scott Hahn, the word translated as serpent, in the original Hebrew means ‘sinister being’ (modern version: snake in the grass). This is the translation I go by, and I think it solves some problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top