Hello John and all
Doves and John G,
I enjoyed the thought experiment and certainly much of what
you put forth I have heard echoed by Hebrew speakers that the
original language could support this, (actually I have heard
Hebrew speakers say that the text supports that the serpent
may have approached Eve in a sexual way and desired to have
sex with her, but does not mean that in actuality he did)
however I have a few objections - one is personal, the other
more scriptural but I am curious what your thoughts are on
these objections.
First the personal objection, this sort of sets up our
first mother Chavah (Eve) to be something of a loose harlot,
which seems a bit unthinkable, and it reminds me of other
stories about another wife in the garden (Lilith) that was
there before Eve and so I am always very careful with such
stories as scripture does warn us that there are “Jewish
fables” to avoid.
But this is the biblical objection and the one I am really
curious as to your opinion on.
So if there were two bloodlines, one of Satan through Cain,
and the other of Adam through Abel and eventually Seth - what
happened after the flood?
Clearly the flood wiped out any of Cain’s descendants and
humanity was only preserved by Noah’s bloodline which was
perfect in God’s sight and yet also scripture supports that
there are wheat and tares in this world from the time of Jesus
even until the end of the age - so this being the case, Satan
certainly could not sleep with Eve again, and if he slept with
some other woman after Noah’s flood it could not corrupt the
entire bloodline at this point, so what would your opinion be
on this?
Also just as a PS objection, I just wonder if as you have
asserted, the tree was really in fact meaning satan and eating
of it was really sex, wouldn’t God have just said so?
And it seems to break with context since whatever that
tree was (atsah) it was compared with all the other trees like
it (etseh) So contextually wouldn’t God be saying you can have
sex with all the other trees in the garden, a regular orgy,
but this one tree is forbidden to have sex with?
Yes, there are hidden mysteries in the Bible, but the main
things are indeed the main things and the main things are
always given plainly as the plain things - so I would think
the original sin would be one of those plain things and it
gets a little gnostic when we have to read too deeply into the
text a meaning other than the plain text meaning that has been
interpreted as such for 6000 years. So I am really
curious about your thoughts, or anyone else here on doves,
because I am not trying to rebuke you as incorrect on this,
but I am just saying I have these objections that would
certainly have to have a good answer for me to accept this as
correct.
Iron sharpening iron,
Your brother in Christ
Derrick Drew