Genesis
Princesa SophiaRead this to understand why i'm making this article: https://telegra.ph/Bible-reading-09-25
PAGES:
CHAPTER 1:
So at the first chapter, we can see God created the Heavens, is it plural?
I believe there is more than one "Heaven". Like i said in my conclusion article:
I believe there are layers of Heaven, Genesis writes "Heavens" in plural. 2 Corinthians 12 talks about a "third heaven", i don't think heaven is the sky (i talked about that in my Genesis article), consequently, i don't believe in the "one heaven is our sky, and the other heaven is the universe" theory, because, heaven is not sky and not universe, heaven is a special spiritual layer. And it seems that in this spiritual layer, there is three divisions, one which is called the "Third Heaven", that seems to be the higher one.
Ephesians 6:12 says: "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms". Once again, "heavenly realms" is in plural. And we can see that evil stuffs happens on such "realms". I believe the third heaven can't have evil stuffs. But i believe that people think all "heavens" are good, but i think there are lower-spiritual realms where evil can wander and act.
"For the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands". - Psalm 19:1.
Here we can see that the word "skies" is not linked to "heavens", which is another evidence that both are not one and the same.
Anyway, here we can see a curious thing:
Since the beginning there was [created] "heavens and the earth", and then later it says: "the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep."
"And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."
Seems to me that there are two distinct things that means "heaven" and "earth"...
At first there was this distinct difference of "heaven" and "earth", but this earth at first was just a deep dark void, joke me, but, like video-games...
And this seems to be the same earth that came after the water revealed an earth. But at the same time not, because, once "dry earth" appears, that is what God calls "earth" (verse 10). So it can indeed be a reference that there is this "realm" called "earth", that later, when "dry earth" appeared, God also calls "earth".
But, as can be seem, there is the "heavens", and a realm where there is "the sky and earth", because verse 7 and 8:
"So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky". And there was evening, and there was morning - the second day."
Meaning the heavens are separated from "the earth", and it seems like the sky is also part of this "earth realm", and so, the "earth realm" is not just about the "dry earth" that appeared, but a whole realm which encompasses the expanse called "the sky"... And then it would also mean that the "heavens" are not "the sky" and neither something "above the sky", but a realm of its own. That heaven and earth are separated things, which, in my belief based on the idea of "the Reign of God is in our midst", "the heavens" are another layer of reality, but within us, and around us, and not on "earth", and by "earth" i mean, the "earth realm", that is not only the "dry earth", but also the sky, and what people call "the material world".
At verse 16 to 18, seems like there is a difference between what is called "day" and "night" and the "light of the day" and "light of the night". I don't know what to say about that. But i think this seems something important to take in consideration.
My interpretation, and of some Christians too, is that the first is a Spiritual Light or other form of Light, and later comes the Sun indeed, and this would make sense with the verse 15: "And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so", which shows there is something special in this light, which is to shine upon the earth. So i think the Light in Verse 3 may be another type of Light.
However, these verses are normally used by atheists to say that vegetation came before sun, there lot of interpretation and denomination and views of that, some are from creationists, Young Earth people and etc, and then, in my view i would argue my that:
As we can see in Genesis 2:5, the plants only sprouted later, God have not made it rain on them, and we can assume by Genesis 1 that those vegetation were "prototyped" to existence, but only later those came to sprout.
Maybe, the elements that would lead to the first beings with few cells that later became plants, had their basis in this moment of creation.
In later verses, i think it is important to remember that animals of the world are good for God and were blessed by him.
And that "to rule over them" is not in terms of being evil to animals. It is that we can have such control and power over them, to be their regulators, to grow animal for food (in case you don't know, i follow a carnivore diet which leave space for some plants), to have pets and etc. I also believe animals have soul and spirit and should be treated properly because of that, they aren't so far from humans.
The verse 30 does says those animals have the "breath of life", the breath is a soul in this case.
Not sure if i'm going to debate here about the creationism vs evolutionism, as i have a personal though about that, but i can consider myself an evolutionary theist. But my focus here is to study the bible by the eyes of a Christian and to consider it as my faith without adding or removing anything (and sorry if by accident i may end up doing it).
But my faith consist that since "neurons constantly rewrite the DNA", and since i believe that the "hard problem of conscience" is a strong evidence of a soul, and that i believe God mess with our Soul, and then, i believe the evolution is controlled by God, so then, i believe in evolution, but, not that it is random [1, 2] and not that things comes by chance, in fact, there is NO scientific proof that "because there is a chance, something will eventually happen", since i believe all chances breakdown in a certain point and become a "quilt" of irregular (but organized) meshes. We have no proof of chance doing anything complex, only otherwise.
However, since i also believe in miracles, i wouldn't deny that God could merely "pop up" animals and creatures out of nowhere, and if it is to consider in that way, then i would consider the evolution is a work of God after he created the species, and not in the creation of the species. And that if God wants, he can still, in current times, "pop up" more creatures as he wishes.
In simple terms, i'm an evolutionary Christian that think it is possible to reconcile the Genesis with evolution. But i don't have a conclusive position, something i say "this is it". I'm going to explain more about it in the next chapter.
My view is that evolution is guided by God. It is too rational, strategic and perfect to be random. I think evolution in fact should be seem as something that gives more validity to God, not otherwise, and that we should welcome and see this theory as something good to our faith.
I also think the "Our Image" does not mean physically, but spiritually, that is why only humans have this rational capacity and our capacity to do crazy abstraction and imagine all sort of things, i think this is in image of God. I believe both man and woman are made under his image, i don't think there is a hierarchy of sexes, however i think there are natural gender roles and there are factual psychological (and neurological differences). However, i also think our physical image is also aligned to a "perfect image", in terms of a "spiritual representation on earth".
1 John 4:13:
"This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit".
That shows the spirit is connected to God, regardless of the body (living or not). We live IN GOD and HE IN US and not IN BODY. That shows we are a spark of God, and in fact this is how i see us as "in image of God".
Verse 28: "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth.”"
I think this is very important to highlight, as i think that is one of the most important thing we can do, reproduce! Since i'm an evolutionary theist, i believe our instruction is "saved" in genetic form, and we should "transfer files" to a new being. Dying without reproducing is like a "waste of learning", remember, our neurons constantly rewrites DNA.
An answer i gave to another fellow Christian:
"While i like your answers. I think the verse [which the guy you are answering talks about] that [he claims and] says "all plants are edible" does not exactly says that, but that all plants can be used by us. At first God says that every herb bearing seed are GIVEN to us [some translations use the word plant instead of herb]. Then later it talks about tree which bear fruits and then, i think it is just not detailed, but it is not about poisonous fruits, but, like when a kid ask "can i get some orange", and you answer "you can get all fruits in my yard! Orange, apple, lemon!", God does not need to specify that. It also ends with "to you it shall be for meat", which does not exactly means to eat [even if most translations translate as 'food'], the same way some cow parts can be used for other stuff. We can get some plants that are considered poisonous and still extract medicine or something useful from it, "from their meat" [or see the medicine as a sort of food, since in fact, food and medicine are side-by-side]."
Ok, here comes the very polemic part:
People that know me, know that i think psychedelics may be beneficial, and it is not only me, there is numerous studies that shows it is the best treatment to depression, anxiety and other problems. It helped me a lot, i'm a schizoid and i have huge ahnedonia. I wrote an article about why i use it. There is studies on how it behave on the brain and body, some substances (the ones i would "recommend") are not toxic at all, some are even medicine. Hate me as much as you want, most of you wouldn't mind to drink a beer in a barbecue, one of the worst drugs ever, a drug that i had struggle and i was addicted, while weed (mainly) and psychedelics was what made me deal with it, at a point i kept four years without drinking. There is evidence on the power of such plants to defeat addictions and etc.
However i won't say it is a "sure solution", some people may indeed have problem, people may still do sins with it, people may use it in parties and do hedonism, some people may use in a pagan way.
However, i think what is implicit, as you can see in both the animal and plant cases, that God gave us the world to us, for us to rule the world. And there is no blatantly direct prohibition of the use of psychedelics. And considering those psychedelics aren't toxic, in fact, most of the time are helpful and medicinal, then it have no problem to be used, in fact the opposed, i think i would even recommend people to use in a responsible way.
Especially that most psychedelics aren't artificial toxic stuff (also, i'm not those of "all of the nature is good" and "all of the artificial is bad", otherwise, people that know me, knows i'm pro-technology, and so, i'm very pro artificial stuff, i think artificial just separes what comes from human synthesis to what is not, but in the end, the root, is that everything is inherently natural)...
... And so, considering the creation and verse 31, those plants were created by God and he saw it and saw it was VERY GOOD.
I also think Genesis 1 and 2 are oversimplified and open to too many interpretations, to be honest, this might spite some, but i think anyone that says they have a concrete interpretation of such texts are fooling themselves.
In conclusion:
My view is that: God made the heavens, that are three heavens, which are like sort of spiritual realms. The so called "physical realm", is not a "heaven", but it is called "earth", then there is the "earth of the earth, and God make a sky in the earth realm". However, i think everything is here mixed together, but in subtler layers.
Then God made creatures and plants, and made us to rule over it all and to be able to enjoy it at the fullest (but, i'm not talking about sins). The plants and animals are ours for us to explore and enjoy. And everything God did he saw as "very good".
Also noticed on the wiki:
"The use of numbers in ancient texts was often numerological rather than factual – that is, the numbers were used because they held some symbolic value to the author. The number seven, denoting divine completion, permeates Genesis 1: verse 1:1 consists of seven words, verse 1:2 has fourteen, and 2:1–3 has 35 words (5×7); Elohim is mentioned 35 times, "heaven/firmament" and "earth" 21 times each, and the phrases "and it was so" and "God saw that it was good" occur 7 times each".
Important to note:
Israelites had neighbor tribes and also older histories.
So it is important to take in consideration what neighbor mythologies had alike. Which is also an interesting contrast that validates the bible and our faith (multiple accounts), and also shows our faith to be the true one, since it is more realistic than the other faiths.
We don't need to see the pagan myths as true, of course, but that there are blurred truth that is revealed by the bible.
These knowledge are very old and there is a basis for all myths that we can use to find a common ground and how this belief was spread around. This is from the dawn of humanity, and should be addressed.
I think all religions saw the same truth about a spiritual realm, i just think they got fooled and began to worship the creation instead of the creator. But i believe they saw the same entities, but with different design and aesthetic. Then Jesus appeared and made people perceive the real deal, which is God Almighty: Yahweh. But not that they were wrong or believing in a lie, but that their practices are wrong and a belief in a lie told by those entities. And also that their history are not the correct and original one.
It is also important to point defenses and apologetic against arguments from pagans, satanists, new-agers and etc.
And so, the Babylonians, in the Enūma Eliš, probably had an aspect:
"In it are described the primeval state of an abyssal darkness and water, the two primeval beings existing therein, said to be of a twofold principle. The description then relates the creation of further beings, partly human but with variants of wings, animal heads and bodies, and some with both sex organs. (Berossus states images of these are to be found at the temple of Bel in Babylon.) The text also describes a female being leading over them, named as Omoroca, called Thalatth in Babylonian (derived from Greek), and her slaying by Bel, who cut her in half, forming Heaven of one part and Earth of the other".
Here we can see, other myths could perceive the same truth of the beginning of Genesis. But immediately fail by having "two primeval beings", everything needs to come from one, it is logically impossible to share a spot as "omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient". Everything must come from one and divides into two, four, eight and etc, and so, a "dualistic god" already does not make sense to me.
Then the creatures that appears also are strange to take in consideration, the bible have realistic creatures, the creatures we know are the creatures made by God of the Bible.
And God of the bible simple forms Heaven and Earth by himself, by his own power.
It is interesting to note that the Marduk view of this is pretty alike:
"The Enûma Eliš, a creation myth epic was an original Babylonian work. In it, Apsu and Tiamat created "the elements of the world", but fought for various reasons, with Tiamat winning but being slaughtered along with her army by Marduk. Marduk became the first king within Tiamat's split body, which created the earth and sky, and founded Babylon".
"In Enuma Elish, the watery deep is personified as the goddess Tiamat, the enemy of Marduk. In Genesis, however, there is no such personification. The elements of chaos are not seen as evil but as indications that God has not begun his creative work".
I have a strange view that the Bible faith was a suppressed very old religion that spoke some truth and was the root of all those other religions. But it was being spread around and losing the original truth. And somehow, managed to survive by the hands of the Israelites.
Refuting the Gnostic view of "Yahweh as Dermiuge":
Because Yahweh was the one in the bible that made the material world, and since Gnostic view the material world as something bad and made by the Dermiurge, they think both are one and the same.
I said about this here:
https://telegra.ph/Critics-to-Gnosticism-08-15
Remember this page whenever i talk about them.
However, the end point i make in my article about it is (text below is an older version):
This view does not make sense biblically, because, in no moment Adam and Even got a knowledge that made they see Yahweh as a "tyrannical evil God that maintains them in ignorance". Christ also wants to come back and redeem the world. If that was true, then, Adam, Eve and their generations would know that the world was a bad illusory place.
Later, the same God guides the generation of Adam and Eve and gives them wisdom, knowledge and etc; and other tribes couldn't deal with that. The same God that is seem as the one guiding to salvation, is the one that ended up making everything for Jesus to appear.
Then, to oppose even more the Gnostic in this term, Jesus never claimed to be against the God of the Old Testament, otherwise, Jesus said:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them" - Matthew 5:17.
And Jesus teaching had lot of from the Old Testament:
https://biblecentral.info/library/chapter/old-testament-passages-cited-by-jesus-christ/
And so, it would be impossible for Christ to be a hero and also opposite to Yahweh (when viewed as Demiurge). Biblically, it only makes sense that Yahweh and Christ are one and in the same mission. In this case, the Gnostic people would have to distort the bible in an immense level.
CHAPTER 2:
I do have a respect for the Saturday, but i don't think it is something like Jews think, i think Colossians 2:16: "Therefore let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a feast, a New Moon, or a Sabbath" speaks about it, i like this chapter, and so, i make the words of this chapter my words.
However, i think God indeed sanctified the Saturday and God does not change, the things he changes are things he didn't change in terms of what he didn't predestined to change. And we should at least have a sort of respect to this day.
The scientific view of the earth at its beginning was chaotic and lifeless, the verse 5 seems to show the bible is aligned with the scientific view.
Verse 7 shows that man was made from the dust of the ground, i had numerous debates with atheists about this, this is one of the main points of concern. However, i think bible talks in a language understood by the people of the time, and wouldn't use fancy modern chemistry language. However, technically, we are indeed made from 'dust' if you analise the basic components of life, and that in fact, life have to had sprouted from basic components of the earth, which, is dust.
However, notice what i talked about the hard-problem-of-conscience, which i use to show that conscience is not part of our body. This is one of the main points of debate i have with Adventists, because they believe in soul-sleep, and one of their ideas is that "the man became a living being" means that our soul is our body altogether.
However, i contest that, dust alone don't have conscience, it have conscience only with spirit. And that:
"before the dust returns to the ground from which it came and the spirit returns to God who gave it" - Ecclesiastes 12:7.
And they also argue the use of the word "soul" (nephesh), but in this case this word can mean "living being; life", and if we consider some words previously, this seems to be the correct interpretation, since those words means:
"become, be" and "alive".
So, if we compose this as:
a) Become alive soul;
b) Become alive living being;
I then think option 'b' makes more sense.
I wrote about what i think about this verse in the "soul-sleep" topic here:
Why don't I believe in the Soul-Sleep idea.
Atheists normally comment about verse 7 and 19:
They issue that Genesis 2 the animals are made after humans and Genesis 1 they are not.
I believe Genesis 2 does not talk about it in a timed event like Genesis 1, it just says God made every beast, but it does not specify if it was before or after humans.
This is just how people used to speak in the past. We don't had the formality we have today like we do in scientific paper and legal documents. And we all once said things like that casually, like: "i got home and then she made a cake to me", while the cake was already done.
Verses 15 to 17:
"Then the LORD God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it. And the LORD God commanded him, "You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die".
There is something very interesting here. This is the first time God communicates with a human, also, he was also capable to cultivate and keep a Garden, both which is an advanced type of intelligence (near animals).
Animals, they all eat, breath, drink water and etc, but humans can communicate, and communication is somewhat of a computer, since it is commands, information (data) and logic being broadcast. The mere ability we have of deep communications already shows we have a door to Knowledge, and the tree was about a specific type of knowledge, which is why in fact, with our modern words, i call "Tree of Duality" which is in fact more properly the "Tree of Knowledge of the Choice to Sin".
So, in one experience i once had, i had a view that showed humans as the pillar of intellect on earth, like, the fishes are for the water, the air for the birds, the land for the land animals, and the intellect for humans. Some people mislead thinking that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil separates us from animals, but that is not true, humans could talk like we do now with God, and the tree have a explicit name that it is about the theme of "Good AND Evil".
Pagan parallels:
"Humans being created by the mother goddess Mami to lighten the gods' workload. She made them out of a mixture of clay, flesh, and blood from a slain god" - Wiki.
- "With help of divine women the victorious party arranges the production of a first pair of humans who, with all their descendants, are to serve all the gods as labour slaves (sacrificing mass) for eternity.
As result of the unrestrained multiplication of the workers, an overpopulation crisis breaks out, which the upper gods try to get under control, among others by triggering a global flooding to wash humanity as a whole off the face of mother earth.
As is well known, this genocidal project failed. The reason for this divine misadventure was not so much the human's shipbuilding skills (Noah's Ark), but the quarrelling between the gods. Finally, they seal their fate as well as that of mankind by agreeing on a utopian method to regulate the reproduction of their creatures to a bearable level" - Wiki.
Not only shows how the "gods" are not our friends, but also that they don't have a Godly wisdom to make a proper strategy.
I think pagan gods are demons, entities that got angry and mad that humans are a sweetheart of God. And that when "gods" ask humans for offerings and etc, they are in fact just slaving humans like they wanted it to be.
"The text also describes the beheading of a god, and the mixing of the god's blood with the Earth's soil, leading to the creation of men (people) (...) By then additional fragments of tablet six had been found, concerning the creation of man; here Marduk was found to have made man from his blood combined with bone, which brought comparison with Genesis 2:23 ("This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man") where the creation of woman required the use of a man's bone (...) The Ashur texts uncovered by the Germans necessitated some corrections: it was Kingu, not Marduk, who was killed and whose blood made men" - Wiki.
The Babylonian view was very alike the Old Mesopotamian ones.
"Marduk then organises the heavenly bodies and assigns tasks to the gods in maintaining the cosmos. When the gods complain about their work, Marduk creates humans out of the blood of the god Kingu (...) The gods in Enuma Elish are amoral, they have limited powers, and they create humans to be their slaves. In Genesis 1, however, God is all powerful. He creates humans in the divine image, and cares for their wellbeing, and gives them dominion over every living thing".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
In the Marduk story, it is the same, humans are created to deal (be enslaved) with all the work gods have.
We can see this pattern, Judaism was the root of a God that is Good and love humans. This also points it to be the real root religion.
THE RIVERS:
...| |... <- "a river flowed out of Eden..." (v. 10)
...| |... <- "... It branched into four headwaters"
|| || || |_========= <- Euphrates
|| || |_============ <- Hiddekel
|| |_======= | .... <- Assyria
||..... .||.. <- Cush
Havilah .....
"There is pure gold, bdellium and onyx".
... -> land;
|| |_ === | -> river pieces.
Land name;
River name;
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
"The "tree of life" is a motif from Mesopotamian myth: in the Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 1800 BCE) the hero is given a plant whose name is "man becomes young in old age", but a serpent steals the plant from him. Kline regards the tree of life as a symbol or seal of the reward of eternal life for successful fulfilment of the covenant by humanity" - Wiki.
"And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die”. The LORD God also said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper”" - Genesis 2:16-18.
Here it goes, one of the most iconic moments, when God prohibits the fruit. It reads "daath towb ra'" ("knowledge good evil").
I believe this speaks in fact about a tree of the knowledge of "good-evil", which would be the duality. Duality, in this case, in terms of having the possibility to do evil as well as good.
This would permit sin to enter in the world. And i think all sins comes from a sexual type of force, even when a sin is not directly related to that. And then, the price of sin is death.
God also made a woman to be a helper, and that is also why i think they neurological and physical design of a woman is inclined to be for nurture, care and house.
I don't want to debate about the rib issue, i think there is multiple ways to interpret it, and it would bloat, if i end up talking about this issue, i will make an article about it. I don't think this is of huge priority for my faith tough and i never studied this deep to make a proper resolution, i'm pretty open-minded to any answer about this, but i don't talk about what i don't properly know.
But i'll leave this here:
"Adam and Eve are the Bible's first man and first woman. Adam's name appears first in Genesis 1 with a collective sense, as "mankind"; subsequently in Genesis 2–3 it carries the definite article ha, equivalent to English 'the', indicating that this is "the man". In these chapters God fashions "the man" (ha adam) from earth (adamah), breathes life into his nostrils, and makes him a caretaker over creation. God next creates for the man an ezer kenegdo, a "helper corresponding to him", from his side or rib. The word 'rib' is a pun in Sumerian, as the word ti means both 'rib' and 'life'. She is called ishsha, "woman", because, the text says, she is formed from ish, "man". The man receives her with joy, and the reader is told that from this moment a man will leave his parents to "cling" to a woman, the two becoming one flesh" - Wiki.
Which is interesting, because the name Eve have relation to the word "life" (Genesis 3:20; "'Eve' sounds like the Hebrew for 'giving life' or 'living'"): ""Eve" in Hebrew is "Ḥawwāh" and is most commonly believed to mean "living one" or "source of life" as it is phonetically similar to "ḥāyâ", "to live", from the Semitic root ḥyw (...) from a root that can also mean "snake"" - Wiki.
Verses 24 - 25:
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
And the man and his wife were both naked, and they were not ashamed".
Here we see that we have an instinct nature to have an age to get away from our family. However, at that time, it was when one united to his wife, but that was normally done at a young age.
We can also see that they could be innocently naked, without sinning, this is important to remember.
CHAPTER 3:
The "nachash" (Serpent or Snake) appears here.
It is important to note that this is another polemic issue.
There is different interpretations throughout the bible that people use to assume The Snake is Satan. However, it is not explicitly said anywhere that this is the case.
People generally assume it is Satan, it is the view of most denomination tough. Saying that is not may raise some eyebrows.
But, technically, we don't know. And my position is that we don't know, but also that it could be true, or he could be a servant of Satan instead.
There is a Judaic Myth that points to Lilith, which Gnostic people also talk about sometimes. But that is a fringe issue, the myth is not canonical and the word appears only once in Isaiah, but, there is no indication that it is about an entity.
I believe the canonical bible, and there is no Lilith as Adam's wife there. I made a special article about Lilith, but i wont post here.
I, however, believe Lilith is real! But in another sense, not her myth of Adam's wife, but that she is in fact a syncretic entity to some pagan entities that shares the same characteristics, any entity that is presented as a "Queen Goddess of the Sky".
I believe in fact that Lilith is the Whore of Babylon, but not completely the Lilith in her myth, but her syncretic representation. I wont say the serpent can be Lilith, but also wont say that the serpent, instead of being Satan, couldn't be an entity alike Lilith, in terms of: a servant, like i said.
Once again, my position is that i don't know. If you want to be safe, believe the snake is Satan, and consider that this is the traditional view.
This is an interesting perspective:
"A second apocalyptic development in response to Hellenism can be found in Daniel 7 (written just before Antiochus IV’s death in 164 BCE). In a change from the first six chapters where the kings of the world were ultimately “good” and rewarded God’s obedient, here they are depicted as hybrid, unclean beasts. Drawing upon the Ancient Near Eastern combat myths like Baal vs. Yam or Marduk/Bel vs. Tiamat, these beasts are associated with the chaotic foundations of Creation. Many texts following upon this tradition would equate evil beasts and dragons with the evil foundations of the current world, like 4 Ezra.
(..) Revelation (c. 90 CE) uses images of the red dragon that rebels against God (Rev. 12), supports the evil kingdoms of the world (Rev. 17), and is associated with Creation and the chaotic depths (Rev. 13).
(...) The connection to the snake of Eden that tempts with forbidden knowledge (Gen. 3:1–7), seemingly becomes obvious in hindsight. However, we must note that in Genesis 3, the serpent is never referred to as "Satan"—only as "the serpent" (הנחשׁ, ha-naḥash). As far as Genesis 3 is concerned, it is simply a talking snake; at no point does the narrative describe the serpent as Satan, but it is easy to see how people would merge the two concepts in the later Hellenistic period.
The strong apocalyptic influence on many early Christian communities was one of the driving influences why the serpent in the Garden of Eden came to be identified with Satan, and how this interpretation became so engrained in the popular imagination".
https://bam.sites.uiowa.edu/faq/snake-garden-eden-satan
This video also explain pretty well what could be the "snake" in such verse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mBa87IVCu4
At this point is important to consider some other religions:
- GNOSTICISM likes to present the idea (and there is a text about it) that the fruit is in fact an entheogen, the snake is Christ, that Yahweh is the Demiurge.
https://telegra.ph/Critics-to-Gnosticism-08-15
- PAGAN religions have diverse accounts about a "Demiurge like entity", some gods of "Death, Time and Space", but, instead of being alike Demiurge (view as the creator of the material realm), those are seem as "robber of the material realm". Odin, for example, is not "God Almighty", he is the son of other higher "gods", gave his eye for Wisdom, and killed an entity to "steal" the material realm and rule over it.
https://telegra.ph/Why-do-i-dislike-all-sorts-of-paganism-09-25
- HINDUS believes Vishnu separated the Heaven from Earth, but i believe Kali is a female aspect representation of Demiurge.
https://telegra.ph/Why-do-i-dislike-Hinduism-09-28
- GERMAN MYTHOLOGY shows Odin killing an entity that made him "steal" the material realm to him.
CONTINUE:
https://telegra.ph/Genesis-2-10-25