Hi Terri and James,

We know that Adam named all the animals before God made Eve. I close my eyes and see these animals, and Adam having a conversation with them.
Could it be sin that set us apart?
I love to ask what we don't know, such as this. It makes for good talk.
James, sorry about yesterday, stayed up way to long.
God bless

No worries, ritarick, glad you're feeling better.

Adam named the animals--- by speaking. Whoops, forgot that little bit with my initial response.

I suppose it would stand to reason that he spoke Hebrew. Or maybe there was no such thing, even precursorily, before the tower of Babel fell. Aargh!

But the serpent w/legs question stands. I shall ask no more pre-answered questions. Probably.

Well James a dragon has legs, and that is what satin is. And when I watched the movie (the last dragon) draco talked, he sounded a lot like sean connery.
Hope this helps
God bless

Brother James,

The serpent of Genesis 3 was no more a snake than when Dan is called a snake in Genesis 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2 Timothy 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp". It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matthew 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is intended. So what we have here, in Genesis 3 is a Figure of speech, and it is for the purpose of expressing the truth more impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the actual letter of the word.

Just throwing in some loose change...

Thank you, Pastor David.

Was there then, any kind of creature disguise at all?

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman..." doesn't seem like a metaphor.

"...upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life..." doesn't seem like the continuation of a metaphor.

Just incidentally, how great is this Bible Gateway thing? Woo!

Told ya I'd have some silly questions!

Quite interesting JV, you know how you can read something ten times and miss the little things that make the whole story. Even when you said in your first reply I didn't know what you ment. Know I do, all makes sence.
Boy do I feel like a stupid.

Here we go....

The Hebrew word that is translated "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and literally means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Also, the word Nehushtan, is seen to mean a piece of brass, in 2 Kings 18:4.

In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2, and Isaiah 6:6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Numbers 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.

BUT when the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Numbers 21:8), He actually said, "Make thee a Saraph", and, in obeying this command, we read in Numbers 21:9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachas be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Ok Brother James, let's take a good look at this, and let's first look at the structure of Genesis 3. The Structure of Genesis 3 will show that the Cherubim of the last verse (Genesis 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter, Genesis 3, is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2 Cor. 11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light" in 2 Cor. 11:14.

Now, don;t we have here a clear intimation that it was NOT a snake, but a glorious shining being, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a serperior (NOT of an inferior) order? And then, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a super-natural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezekiel 28:14-16, read Ezekiel 28:11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (Ezekiel 11:13, is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (Ezekiel 11:12) his being "perfect" in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (Ezekiel 11:15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (Ezekiel 11:17).

All of this compels the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Genesis 3, and especially because the following words could be addressed to him, "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brihgtness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (Ezekiel 11:17).

There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezekiel 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (Ezekiel 28:1-10). The words can be understood to be only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and THIS for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall. The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

THEN, the word translated "subtle" in Genesis 3:1 means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense. In Ezekiel 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in Ezekiel 28:17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom"...this, referring of course, to his fall. As well the word translated "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Proverbs 1:4; Proverbs 8:12; Proverbs 12:23; Proverbs 14:8; and THEN in a bad sense in Job 15:5. 1 Samuel 23:22. Psalm 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Genesis 3:1, "chay", denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa as "beasts" in Revelation 4, as it is to translate chay as "beast" in Genesis 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan WAS a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being.

Then a little common sense, we cannot conceive Eve as holding a conversation with a snake. Eve was a DIRECT creation of God. Let's give her a little credit. HOWEVER, we can understand her being fascinated by one, apparently "an angel of light" (for example, a glorious angelic being), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

So there ya have it...more of my loose change