Seems some on this forum believe the sin committed in the Garden is sexual relations with the serpent. What verses of Scripture do you who believe this doctrine base this teaching on?
The sin in the Garden of Eden
- Thread starter Ray
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Prentis
New Member
It's neat that this subject is brought up! A brother was talkng to me about this... 
The sin, he said, is that we chose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By this, we chose to have both good times and bad times. Now God is not the God of 'good times', he is the God of life! Which is why we must choose 'life'.
Now we live in a world of 'good and bad'. In this earthly life, these are the two things that we see with our carnal senses. Only if instead we choose life, Christ, and therefore live in the joy of the Lord no matter what our carnal senses tell us, then we can live according to life.
I thought what he had to say was very interesting.
The sin, he said, is that we chose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By this, we chose to have both good times and bad times. Now God is not the God of 'good times', he is the God of life! Which is why we must choose 'life'.
Now we live in a world of 'good and bad'. In this earthly life, these are the two things that we see with our carnal senses. Only if instead we choose life, Christ, and therefore live in the joy of the Lord no matter what our carnal senses tell us, then we can live according to life.
I thought what he had to say was very interesting.
The sin was disobeying God. We decided that we could judge between good and evil, when we were created to love. The tree wasn't magic...it didn't give us any new powers; instead, because of our disobedience we were thrown out into the world and forced to 'wing it' when it came to making judgments. Unfortunately, as prisoners of time and space, we are unable to see the future so determining good and evil can only be done in hindsight - we are also only capable of the most primitive, dualistic judgments. The world is seen as black and white, not from God's point of view. Jesus came to get us back on track - we are called to love and get out of the business of passing judgment.
We are called to obey, once more and to leave the judgment to God.
Speculating that Original Sin was sex is an idea that was popular within Christianity in the 19th century, which is why Mormons still believe it today. It is a false idea, of course - God told Adam and Eve to multiple before the Fall.
- Aspen
We are called to obey, once more and to leave the judgment to God.
Speculating that Original Sin was sex is an idea that was popular within Christianity in the 19th century, which is why Mormons still believe it today. It is a false idea, of course - God told Adam and Eve to multiple before the Fall.
- Aspen
It is possible that they "did something" hopefully not in the physical realm, perhaps a spiritual exchange took place, not really an expert on serpents.
According to Gen 3:16, Eve was pregnant before she 'knew' Adam (Gen 4:1). I'm no expert on the sexual prowess of serpents either, but I do know they're more subtil than any beast of the field (Gen 3:1).
Prentis
New Member
I like what you say, there aspen. We are called to love, and we are called to life. And let God judge between good or bad.
It is so intricately woven into our being we don't even realize it! "How was your day?" means did you have more good times than bad times... Our whole life is centered around 'good and evil', where we are supposed to center it around life and let go of all judgment, knowing that God works all things for our best, both what our senses says is good AND what is evil!
Not an easy one to live by, but that's what we have to learn!
Not much info on them is there ? The mainstream atheist media has done a good job covering the up..... Well maybe not they do sound like a magical creature of some kind. Is there a thread about this on CB.
Eh, the often willing blindness in understanding the serpent is a large hang up in Christianity, both for believers and those looking at our faith from the outside as potential believers. It comes in right on the heel (excuse the pun) of the whole 6,000 year timeline debacle. We hang ever so tightly to tradition.
Fortunately, we know from prophecy (and God's not prophetically speaking to a snake about Jesus - Jesus didn't come to save good snakes from the bad snakes) spoken in the same book of Genesis that this serpent was more than a talking snake. I understand the notion of intimate relations is uncomfortable for some, but I would agree with Ron's statement that it's ultimately about disobeying God. (And I will hold the line with someone that understands this point even if they believe in an apple and a talking snake.)
As far as the Bible verses on the subject, I outlined them in the original study. I do recognize it's a little dated and was back in my KJV days, but I stand behind what's said. In the case of Balam, it was clearly a donkey, but in this case, we can see from certain attributes much more than a snake was at work. Simply look at the reference in Revelation 12. At some point we cannot overlook the fact that God talks to that serpent almost exactly how he talks to Satan in later books.
Fortunately, we know from prophecy (and God's not prophetically speaking to a snake about Jesus - Jesus didn't come to save good snakes from the bad snakes) spoken in the same book of Genesis that this serpent was more than a talking snake. I understand the notion of intimate relations is uncomfortable for some, but I would agree with Ron's statement that it's ultimately about disobeying God. (And I will hold the line with someone that understands this point even if they believe in an apple and a talking snake.)
As far as the Bible verses on the subject, I outlined them in the original study. I do recognize it's a little dated and was back in my KJV days, but I stand behind what's said. In the case of Balam, it was clearly a donkey, but in this case, we can see from certain attributes much more than a snake was at work. Simply look at the reference in Revelation 12. At some point we cannot overlook the fact that God talks to that serpent almost exactly how he talks to Satan in later books.
^^^ This link here Hammerstone ? Link
Genesis 3:2-5And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
So what fruit does the serpent have ?
Also the notion of a woman talking to a snake is quite absurd. I was taught at a young age that a serpent was a different creature than a snake. It was like a small dinosaur with rainbow scales on it and big pretty fins on its head. Maybe it could talk maybe not.... Then God cursed it to crawl on it's belly and eat dust and to strike mans heel.
Genesis 3:2-5And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
So what fruit does the serpent have ?
Also the notion of a woman talking to a snake is quite absurd. I was taught at a young age that a serpent was a different creature than a snake. It was like a small dinosaur with rainbow scales on it and big pretty fins on its head. Maybe it could talk maybe not.... Then God cursed it to crawl on it's belly and eat dust and to strike mans heel.
Rev 12:9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(KJV)
The idea of a talking snake in Genesis is a euphemism.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
(KJV)
The idea of a talking snake in Genesis is a euphemism.
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,494
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Well, I’ll give you the scriptural basis, and reasoning for it.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Here is already a lie. God didn’t say that. He took one verse (Gen 2:16) but disregarded the next verse. Put together, God said Adam (Woman or “Eve” as she would later be known as) could eat of every tree EXCEPT one. However, technically, the serpent didn’t lie. He just asked a question.
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (v3) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eart of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Here is a second lie of the conversation. The woman misquoted God, although slightly. God didn’t say they couldn’t touch it. This gave the serpent a futher opening, and the serpent stated a truth based on the answer the woman gave.
This is important indirectly to the question. The sin was misquoting God. If the sin wasn’t misquoting God, it led to a sinful action. The serpent was able to deceive Eve based on a wrong answer, and her mishandling God’s Word.
Now we begin to get to the more focal scripture:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her; and he did eat.
The fact that the tree was good for food is the only thing that suggests it was literal “fruit”. The fact that it was pleasant to the eyes and was able to make one wise suggests it wasn’t literal fruit, like an apple or a grape. Obviously, very few would think this tree was just a physical fruit bearing tree, yet a spiritual tree of some sort.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked…..
Of course, no tree’s fruit is going to do this. They were already naked, but after eating the fruit of that tree, they realized it.
Here comes one of three key verses of scripture:
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
The key to this fruit and the sin being of a sexual nature is in the punishment. Because of what happened, Eve was going to conceive children. Not only that, there was going to be physical pain. If the crime was not sexual, why was the punishment a result of sexual relations? If a man and a woman have intercourse, the woman gets pregnant. A woman doesn’t get pregnant from eating fruit or learning something.
Next,
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve, his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (v 2) And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep…..
Adam knew his wife and she conceived, but Eve said I have gotten a man from the LORD. She didn’t say Adam was the dad. When Abel was born, she didn’t say she got another man from the Lord.
So we have to go to the NT to figure out who Cain’s father was….
1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother….
Cain was of the wicked one. That was the serpent. Now what of Eve saying I got a man from the Lord? The serpent was created by the Lord as Gen 3:1 explained.
So there is the reasoning…. I’m just laying it out and giving you the theory.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Here is already a lie. God didn’t say that. He took one verse (Gen 2:16) but disregarded the next verse. Put together, God said Adam (Woman or “Eve” as she would later be known as) could eat of every tree EXCEPT one. However, technically, the serpent didn’t lie. He just asked a question.
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (v3) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eart of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Here is a second lie of the conversation. The woman misquoted God, although slightly. God didn’t say they couldn’t touch it. This gave the serpent a futher opening, and the serpent stated a truth based on the answer the woman gave.
This is important indirectly to the question. The sin was misquoting God. If the sin wasn’t misquoting God, it led to a sinful action. The serpent was able to deceive Eve based on a wrong answer, and her mishandling God’s Word.
Now we begin to get to the more focal scripture:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her; and he did eat.
The fact that the tree was good for food is the only thing that suggests it was literal “fruit”. The fact that it was pleasant to the eyes and was able to make one wise suggests it wasn’t literal fruit, like an apple or a grape. Obviously, very few would think this tree was just a physical fruit bearing tree, yet a spiritual tree of some sort.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked…..
Of course, no tree’s fruit is going to do this. They were already naked, but after eating the fruit of that tree, they realized it.
Here comes one of three key verses of scripture:
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
The key to this fruit and the sin being of a sexual nature is in the punishment. Because of what happened, Eve was going to conceive children. Not only that, there was going to be physical pain. If the crime was not sexual, why was the punishment a result of sexual relations? If a man and a woman have intercourse, the woman gets pregnant. A woman doesn’t get pregnant from eating fruit or learning something.
Next,
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve, his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (v 2) And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep…..
Adam knew his wife and she conceived, but Eve said I have gotten a man from the LORD. She didn’t say Adam was the dad. When Abel was born, she didn’t say she got another man from the Lord.
So we have to go to the NT to figure out who Cain’s father was….
1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother….
Cain was of the wicked one. That was the serpent. Now what of Eve saying I got a man from the Lord? The serpent was created by the Lord as Gen 3:1 explained.
So there is the reasoning…. I’m just laying it out and giving you the theory.
jacob stole the birthright with a bowl of meat. the serpent did the same. thats why God cursed the ground. adam ate other than the herb bearing seed and fruit of a tree bearing seed Gods plan is amazing.. we lost it by blood yet he restored it by blood.
Gods plan is amazing.. we lost it by blood yet he restored it by blood. jacob stole the birthright with a bowl of meat. the serpent did the same. thats why God cursed the ground. adam ate other than the herb bearing seed and fruit of a tree bearing seed
Not trying to change the subject, but... Jacob did not really steal the birthright from Esau, because God had already foretold Rebekah before the children were born that two manner of people were in her womb, and that the younger would rule over the elder. Also in Malachi 1, God pronounced that He loved Jacob (Israel), but hated Esau. Apostle Paul quotes that in Rom.9. And ultimately, Esau SOLD it to Jacob. Esau PROFANED God's Birthright, treating it like wares to be traded, bought, and sold.
Similar threads
