Well Tribo its true that some of what I am asserting here would require that we at least take the position that the serpent that is being referred to here is indeed a snake of some description. This has been the common presumption over the years. However, as I mentioned, if you look up this story online you will find any number of possible interpretations of the symbolism found within. The serpent is only the first. The tree, the garden, the fruit, even Adam and Eve and their roles as characters are open to evaluation. If you recall in the beginning of this thread I asked if you wanted to hear my opinion of this seeing as it was bound to be a little different than the typical debates and assertions that have transpired over the years. SP was interested in further discussion though I do not know if he will be returning. I am going to bow out unless he or others would like to hone in on these issues specifically.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/France_Paris_Notre-Dame-Adam_and_Eve.jpg

I thought this was an interesting photo. Adam, Eve, and the (female) Serpent at the entrance to Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Medieval Christian art often depicted the Edenic Serpent as a woman, thus both emphasizing the Serpent's seductiveness as well as its relationship to Eve. (This connection might be due do the influence of Lilith, as well.) Several early Church Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, interpreted the Hebrew "Heva" as not only the name of Eve, but in its aspirated form as "female serpent."

christian artist also have depicted adam as a white man as a black man as a oriental man etc.. The same with jesus. you cannot go by "art" to figure out meanings of things such as you suggest - hmm? well you can if you want, but it is not a good comparative or something you can do more than just speculate on. proves nothing.

Well its not as if all I have presented here is one photo. My point was that the common interpretation of the "serpent" in this story has been that of a snake. Now that may be wrong. You have the right to show us supportive evidence to prove this conclusion erroneous in some respect. I think the point being made here is that humans over the centuries, upon reading this particular work in Genesis have tended to believe that it was indeed a snake being discussed here for all practical purposes. Without Moses or any of these other men who took part in writing this story stepping forward to say no, the intended meaning was not a snake and you all have it wrong, then what do we have here? Its left on us to conclude one way or another what this vehicle of temptation was exactly if not a serpent.

I've already given you my take on it from the hebrew i can do no more as to offering other suggestions, and thats all they are is suggestions, just as what your stating. We have no "proof" one way or the other.your welcome to your thinking on this matter. I,m not out to prove whats unprovable on this subject. And your correct, most do think it was a snake even though the word can be translated otherwise, that is the accepted look at it. That though, is the very reason i don't hold to it as being the case. I find that usually that which holds true to the masses is usually incorrect - so I look for other explanations. I don't hold to popular traditions especially when it comes to a ""myth"".

Well all I was stating is most people through out the ages have interpreted this character to be a snake. I am looking for alternative conceptualizations right now. I think also its important to keep in mind that as you say if the masses and a significant portion of humanity have attributed this particular character to be snake, then the damage is done isn't it? When I say this I am viewing the snake as symbolic of Paganism. Its certainly not a huge or startling connection to make. I also agree with you its mythological so we are not at odds on everything here.

No, and that's why i said if you want to continue with your thoughts on this and paganism be my guest. i was merely trying to point out that because "snake" is the common perception for the word it can also be seen that it is being used figurative ly for "Satan" according to orthodox theology.

2. In the New Testament it is both directly asserted and in various forms assumed that Satan seduced our first parents into sin" #Joh 8:44 Ro 16:20 2Co 11:3,14 Re 12:9 20:2 Hodge’s System. Theol., ii. 127

from all that i've gathered - the hebrew word "nachash" can mean [just as viably] >enchanter< or tempter. one who by the act of persuasion causes another to do. So if were to take it literally that it's a snake i think it does injustice to the fact that animals don't talk. but they can be made to speak through the manipuation of others able to make it do so, such as in this case satan or the devil/adversary.

again though if you wan't to take this story literally, then you can look at the talking manipulative cunning snake as just that.

One Possibility:

Snake: A condition of the human mind (not an ailment) in which thoughts continually flowing are invaded by judgment of "good" or "bad". "Judgment" stops the free flow and ensnares the mind into a belief in fault or error. A belief that, if there be any "bad" at all, one will surly parish. The only relief from this form of "hell" is reliance on the heart (subconscious, higher self, or god) to intervene and bring acceptance of both "good" and "bad", in equal parts as the whole picture. Whole peace from whole acceptance.

could very well be SL, cant rule it out, there are so many other things it could symbolize i cant even settle on just one at least now - maybe never.

I found this. Im just throwing it out there. Im also still looking for other interpretations of this particular shady character other than snake or serpent to be fair. I just have not been able to find as much information thus far. Im not sold on this premise but it is interesting and definitely "the observation less traveled" when the Garden of Eden is discussed normally.

Although Adam, Eve, and a nasty serpent define images of origin in this culture, historical, mythological, and archaeological evidence indicates:

* a male-oriented view of divinity can claim only about 5000 years of history.
* female deities were worshipped at least 7000 bce, thousands of years before Abraham served as prophet of Yahweh, and some say as far back as 30,000 bce (based on Upper Paleolithic figurines, cave paintings, and other archaeological finds in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa).

The Goddess would have been thought of as the original creator (since this makes sense as a female role) and as patroness of sex and reproduction. These early social and religious structures, when acknowledged to have existed, have traditionally been dismissed as "fertility cults."

SERPENTS

The serpent of Genesis was a deity in its own right, revered in the Levant for at least 7000 years before Genesis was written. Trees and gardens were involved in these early religions also, with no associations concerning guilt, sin, disobedience, or unpleasantness.

The serpent’s divine association has been insistently (and hopefully) interpreted as phallic, but the serpent was revered as female in the Near and Middle East (based on Sumerian and Babylonian texts, artifacts from Crete). (Did pre-dynastic Egyptians flee to Crete in 3000 bce with their belief in the cobra goddess?)

In ancient myths, the female deity was often symbolized as a serpent or dragon. The picture of the cobra as symbol of mystic insight and wisdom is used as a hieroglyphic sign signifying goddess, and it precedes the name of any goddess in Egyptian writing.

THEORIES OF EVOLUTION

Previous theorizing as to what happened, how did the shift to male deities occur, include the so-called "big discovery" which assumes that the ancients were in awe of reproduction (Hebrew and Aramaic terms for "magic" derive from words meaning serpent). But eventually people came to realize men’s role in reproduction. Lately this theory has been seen as absurd since these same early peoples were animal breeders.

Actually, sporadic invasions from the north seem to be responsible. During the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age came the violent entry, massacres, and territorial conquests of the cattle-herding Indo-European or Indo-Aryan tribes with their own concepts of light and good vs. dark and evil, and worshipping a male storm god often conceived of as residing high on a mountain and blazing fire (volcanos?). (To some extent also, Semitic sheep-and-goat-herders from the south also invaded.)

These invaders either subjugated and suppressed, absorbed, or eliminated goddess worship. Male became valued above female, kings and priestly classes were established. In these new religions, goddesses/women were more likely to be associated with darkness/evil. Sometimes, as with the Greeks invaded by the Indo-Europeans between the 14th and 12th centuries bce (Homer’s "Achaeans"), the female was symbolically included into male god myths, but as reduced and conquered. Here the patriarchal gods marry instead of exterminate the goddesses indiginous to the land they conquered.

The Hebrews retain a shady memory of the mythic battle between Yahweh and the primordial serpent, Leviathan, although this has mostly been removed from scriptures; but see Job 26:13, Psalms 104, 74. Leviathan was known in northern Canaanite texts as the foe of the storm god Baal at least as early as the 14th century bce (var. Lotan, Lawtan, and Lat = goddess in Canaanite).

This mythic battle of male antropomorphic god and serpentine goddess emerges indirectly again in the Greek myth of Heracles/Hercules killing the serpent-dragon Ladon, said to be guarding a sacred fruit tree of a goddess.

Other Greek indications of cultural dominance include Athena born from the head of Zeus so that the male takes the role of creator (and Zeus is one of the few Greek gods never appearing with a snake), and Aphrodite being born from the genitals of Kronos. The Amazons are worrisome, perhaps reflecting the memory of a goddess-worshipping people who fought the initial seizure?

In Hebrew texts, Yahweh advocates the destruction of the shrines to female deities, so they did continue to exist, attract fans, and offend the Levite priests who established male authority and revised circulating creation myths. The shrines themselves probably involved a priestess who would give divine revelations of the goddess. The tree involved would probably have been a fig tree, the fig = "flesh and fluid of Hathor the goddess" in Egyptian texts, and fig leaves are mentioned in the story of Adam and Eve, displaced, with the fruit they ate unspecified. There may have been a type of communion with the goddess involved in eating the sacred fruit. The snakes involved may have been used for their bites, known in some religions to be used like sacred mushrooms -- the venom acts like an hallucinogen, yielding mystical perception changes.

well iwill agree that archeology has shown goddess worship to predate god worship so cant rule this out either. interesting find K.

Yeah. I mean, I take all this with a grain of salt. I also dont know what really the dividing line is between "fertility cult" and an established religion or what have you. Its a little confusing in that respect. Plus you always have to keep people's agendas in mind but some of this research is done by male archeologists. Its not all angry lesbians or man hating feminists and I dont think they are trying to take that position at all. Thats not my sense. Its more in the realm of "it is what it is" kind of thing.

I agree i don't see that either by what you've posted, not a clue of that going on, it's like my feild in decorartive and protective coatings chemistry, there is no agenda but to find out the how or why of something, that is why when i look at carbon dating i take into close account the problems we've had in dating cetain coatings ages. A new formed batch of bee's wax can date to be thousands of years old, the same with new samples of resin compared to ancient samples - both will read very similiar in age yet one is this years crop. so my background is such that most of the sciences donot have an agenda to or for or about disproving a religious belief no matter what the belief may be. Of course there will always be those that do - but i don't understand why a "faith Based" religion would even bother, if it's based on faith, who cares about the details? with thhem, its god said it - i believe it - and that settles it, to do more just nullify's what is first stated

Exactly. These are historical accounts of how things might have transpired. It would not damage or infringe on your faith if you were a Christian or Catholic or any of it. Its basically just saying this was going on prior to the advent of Christianity which is the "new kid on the block" when you look at it in relative terms.

Since the "bad" seems most difficult and painful to accept about oneself, one fights it the hardest, fighting (to the death of true self) to prove oneself “good”. It’s like quicksand. It seems insidious as a snake.

In fighting against it, one perpetuates the "bad".

The only relief is to finally, wholly admit the bad...

Only then can one begin to notice it fall away of it's own weight.

Less daunting once it’s been experienced just one time.

Only in terms of "documentation" though. Since archeology is anything but exhaustive - this conclusion is nothing but subjective.

hmmm - is not your statement also??

Well of course, everything is subjective. Its just one take on it based on supportive evidence. Not unlike the theory of evolution.

Right I agree with Tribo. I was not attempting to assert this was FACT and you all must bow down.

I bow down to no one, unless they ask really nice.