I have been thinking about the description of serpent in Genesis 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?

Genesis 3:1

According to the Strong's Concordance the Hebrew word translated as subtil means:

Cunning (usually in a bad sense)

God said that everything he made was good. There was nothing bad in the Garden until AFTER Adam and Eve sinned. So, in what way was the Serpent's cunning good?

Edit: This post has been edited in the following manner: The word "Satan" has been changed to the word "serpent" in the first sentence.

Views: 124

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Right or wrong, a couple things to think about here.  

Satan Sinned before God and was cast out, this obviously happened before the Garden?  Also its not the Serpent, but what indwealt him?  Laslty what did God say was good?  HIs creative work? It does not imply anything else but that God was happy with his work like a Carpenter that builds a HOUSe, it does not apply to sin or anything BAd.  Obvious when Adam was told he shall surely die, this was before the fall and Adam certainly knew what that consequence inferred?  


 

Satan has never 'sinned'... sin was created and brought into the world by Man (specifically his fleshly nature) by disobedience unto God... (Romans 5:12) Sin is a product of God's creation within this universe.

Lucifer being a 'celestial, spiritual' body, much like God, is not confined to God's creation (continuum Matter, Time and Space) by which Sin was introduced into. (Job 38:7) Angels can not be redeemed and do not have a fleshly nature or carnal nature specifically of 'lust' which is where the origin of our sin (James 1:15) therefore angels can't 'sin' or at least are not held to the sinful standard or can be held to that same standard as man.

If Lucificer had 'sinned' against God in the Heavens, then Revelation 21:4, 21:8, 21:27 and 22:15 are in contradiction as they all support the claim that there is no sin in Heaven, and if any portion of scripture contradicts itself then all of it is false.

Take it for what its worth...

Gary you said?

Satan has never 'sinned'... sin was created and brought into the world by Man (specifically his fleshly nature) by disobedience unto God... (Romans 5:12) Sin is a product of God's creation within this universe.

Gary what is orthodox Christian teaching about your view?  Tis is absolutely outside of Christian teaching, And while Romans 5:12 is the story of Genesis fall of and and subsequent sin, Sin had already existed in Satan and in the Garden?  Certainly is conversation with Eve was "sinful" and its intent as was his with God and "his" fall was the same... Satan was in the garden in the form of the Serpent, and the intent to mislead the Perfect created humanity is very clear.  I am concerned Gary that you have posted this on the site as a doctrinal position on Romans 5:12.

You say take it or leave it.  MY goodness Romans5:12 is about the fall of man kind!  Clearly it's not about animals becasue they "didn't fa;;", and its not about Satan because he already was in the garden and had already fallen and his own action sin the Garden Gary has to be called sin?  Even the simplest google clearly shows Christian orthodox teaching understands that Satan was a sinner and existed because he was a created being. So the only fall taking place here is the fall of Man Gary? 

Lou's Response:

 Angels can not be redeemed and do not have a fleshly nature or carnal nature specifically of 'lust' which is where the origin of our sin (James 1:15) therefore angels can't 'sin' or at least are not held to the sinful standard or can be held to that same standard as man.

1/3 of the angels fell with Satan?  Why? 

Yes, Gary, the idea that Satan and angels are incapable of sinning would mean that their rebellion against God is somehow not sin.  And yet, sin is rebellion against God and His decrees.  Ergo, Satan sinned.   

I believe both of you read this "Therefore angels can't sin" and not this "or at least are not held to the sinful standard or can be held to that same standard as man."

We call what Lucifer did 'sin' comparing them to our own standards, but the Bible doesn't say that Lucifer sinned specifically if we read the scripture... further if it was sin, there are several issues we must rectify before moving on... I don't believe the same standards are held to Angels as they are to Mankind...

Ezekiel 28:15 says this (The Lord speaking of Lucifer):

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

I'd point out the Websters 1828 definition of Iniquity...

[.] INIQ'UITY, n. [L. iniquitas; in and oequitas, equity.] [.] 1. Injustice; unrighteousness; a deviation from rectitude; as theiniquity of war; the iniquity of the slave trade. [.] 2. Want of rectitude in principle; as a malicious prosecution originating in the ...

Yes I know this is splitting hairs, however, it is a discussion worth having... Iniquity is not "specifically" 'sin', at least not by definition. An argument can certainly be made that anything that is unrighteous is contrary to the nature of God and thus sinful, but we can't simply correlate 'sin' or its nature to be the same standard when comparing the actions of Angels to Mankind, they are two different creatures all together, residing in two different 'plains' and created for different purposes... I believe there is a lot more discussion to be had and I don't believe anyone holding to any belief on this can be dogmatic or conclusive... I don't think it matters much in the grand scheme of God's plan for humans, but it is a worthy conversation for Creation Conversations.

I would ask this of each of you... if angels sin... can they be redeemed? or does God's love, mercy and grace only rest on the sinful race of mankind?

Lou: The angels were thrown out of Heaven because they stood with Lucifer.

Lou: "  Certainly is conversation with Eve was "sinful" and its intent as was his with God and "his" fall was the same..."

I don't agree with your assertion that a conversation was 'sinful' true the serpent tempted even, but temptation in and of itself is not sin... following through with the temptation (action) would be the sin indeed.


Here is the truth we 'know', angels can't be redeemed because redemption comes from the shed blood of Christ, all throughout scripture it is said he died for the world "only", and based off the scriptural definition and explanation of sin coming from the carnal nature of man, i'm not so certain this applies to the celestial beings or at least not in the same way it does to man. Also both of you will need to rectify Habakkuk 1:13 which is the verse that most believe asserts that God can't be in the presence of sin or at least look upon evil.. if this be so how was it so for Lucifer to sin in Heaven? (not saying there isn't an answer and I am up for your explanation and correction, but as it sits scripturally speaking it is very difficult from the verses I have listed that Lucifer's 'sin' or 'disobedience' is not equal to the sin of man)

Again, Lou, you seem to take things I say so serious as though I speak with any authority. All I can do is read scripture, study its outcome from one book to another and post the scriptural evidence which forms my conclusions--I'm fully accepting that my conclusions can be flawed. Unlike the 6 literal 24 hour day creation event and the young earth position I take because scripture and evidence supports this.. I'm not dogmatic about angelology... the primary reason is because we honestly know very little in retrospect and I certainly won't fill in the blanks with my own reason and assertions. I'd rather go by the term you quite often use... 'inference' which is a scholarly way of saying educated guess.... I could be wrong, and I, Lou, am able to admit that if SCRIPTURAL correction is provided. Scripture is my authority, therefore if you have scripture, please correct away. :)

A question was asked in an earlier post by you, Lou, and I wanted to yield my answer... you asked when did Satan fall and I believe eluded to when were angels made... if it wasn't you that's fine, but my answer would be Genesis 1:1-3 Angels were made on day 1 when he made the Heavens- When he made the third heaven he made all the hosts of the third heaven, some argue that the stars correlate with the angels, I don't agree with that assertion. We know they were there for the creation event because Job 38:7 tell us that the morning stars sang and sons of God shouted for joy during creation. When was the fall of Lucifer? anytime likely between day 2 and day 6 but could have been any day afterward... one issue we in our finite minds often forget... God and his Angels are outside of time, so was there ever a 'time' when there was a 'time' when Lucifer fell with his angels? Again, a lot of the talk in this thread is conjecture without the benefit of consideration to what is outside of the universal framework or God's creation... we have to account or consider we don't know it all and likely won't until our faith becomes site. Faith being another issue at play when comparing sin of an angel to mankind... man lives by faith in God alone, angels know, they have seen... a lot to consider, this is not a cut and dry discussion.

First of all, I want to thank everyone for their participation. However, I think we have gotten slightly off the point of my question.

Genesis 3:1 is describing a "beast of the field". There is a difference of opinion on whether Satan impersonated this beast or possessed the serpent and spoke through it (after all, demons possessed swine and and God made a donkey talk). The point is, Genesis 3:1 is describing a "beast of the field" that God had made. The verse is NOT describing Satan.

I have done some studying, Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon gives six definitions for this Hebrew word in Genesis 3:1. They are: Subtle, shrewd, crafty, sly, sensible, prudent.

These are the definitions for the word sensible in Webster's 1828 dictionary:

SENS'IBLE, a.
1. Having the capacity of receiving impressions from external objects; capable of perceiving by the instrumentality of the proper organs. We say the body or the flesh is sensible, when it feels the impulse of an external body. It may be more or less sensible.


2. Perceptible by the senses. The light of the moon furnishes no sensible heat.
Air is sensible to the touch by its motion. Arbuthnot.


3. Perceptible or perceived by the mind.
The disgrace was more sensible then the pain. Temple.


4. Perceiving or having perception, either by the mind or the senses.
A man cannot think at any time, waking or sleeping, without being sensible of it.
Locke.


5. Having moral perception; capable of being affected by moral good or evil.
If thou wert sensible of courtesy,
I should not make so great a show of zeal. Shak.


6. Having acute intellectual feeling; being easily or strongly affected; as, to be sensible of wrong.


7. Perceiving so clearly as to be convinced; satisfied; persuaded.
They are now sensible it would have been better to comply, than refuse. Addison.


8. Intelligent; descerning; as a sensible man.


9. Moved by a very small weight or impulse; as, a sensible balance is necessary to ascertain exact weight.


10. Affected by a slight degree of heat or cold; as a sensible thermometer.


11. Containing good sense or sound reason.


He addressed Claudius in the following sensible and noble speech. Henry.
Sensible note, in music, that which constitutes a third major above the dominant, and a semitone beneath the tonic.


SENS'IBLE, n. Sensation; also, whatever may be perceived.

From these definitions I get the impression that the serpent was the most intelligent "beast of the field".

What do you think?

 

In regard to your question I lean more toward Satan having possessed the serpent, rather than taking the shape of the serpent... simply on account of God cursing the serpent after the incident. This is man's reason... as you study demonology and angelology it is evident that Angels (specifically fallen) long to possess or be apart of the natural world and so will delight in possession of any host including as you mentioned the swine. I don't believe there is any absolute conclusion one can draw from the scriptures, but logistically it would seem that he possessed a serpent that had been made during creation...

Douglas Collins said:

First of all, I want to thank everyone for their participation. However, I think we have gotten slightly off the point of my question.

Genesis 3:1 is describing a "beast of the field". There is a difference of opinion on whether Satan impersonated this beast or possessed the serpent and spoke through it 

I think you are misunderstanding my question, Gary. The reason I mentioned about the difference of opinion concerning Satan possessing the serpent or impersonating it, was because the conversation had shifted to talking about Satan and not about the Serpent. 

Genesis 3:1 is discussing or describing the "the beast of the field", the Serpent. Satan is not mentioned. My original question had to do with the description of the Serpent being subtil. In what way did God created the serpent to be subtil? The Strong's Concordance says the Hebrew word means cunning (usually in a bad sense). Did God create the Serpent to be subtil in a bad manner? Or does the Hebrew word translated as subtil merely mean that the Serpent was the wisest animal that God had created?

I apologize for any and all confusion on my original post.

What is your thoughts on this?

Now i know why everyone is confused about my original post. I used the word Satan when talking about Genesis 3:1. 

I should have said "I have been thinking about the description of the SERPENT in Genesis 3:1.

Instead, I used the word Satan. 

My apologies for all the confusion. My bad. My mistake. Forgive me, please.

I have edited my original post. Again, my apologies for the confusion.

No, it is impossible to understand or imagine that there was any kind of fall before the Garden of Genesis 2. This garden was created and formed during the Creation week, during the Six Days. And at the end of the six days, the Bible says, God saw all that he made, and behold it was very good. . . AND THAT REFERS to ALL THAT HE MADE - in heaven, in earth, and in the seas. ALL that God created or made was all created and made within the Six Days - that is plainly stated in very simple language in Genesis 2:1-3.

But of course there are many sincere Christians who do not believe that the record of Scripture is complete in the details of Creation, so they add their own imaginations.

At the end of the Six Days, everything, all things, in earth and sea and the heavens and "ALL THEIR HOST" (includes the unfallen anointed cherub) - all was created in these six days, and all was very good.



Lou Hamby said:

Right or wrong, a couple things to think about here.  

Satan Sinned before God and was cast out, this obviously happened before the Garden?  Also its not the Serpent, but what indwealt him?  Laslty what did God say was good?  HIs creative work? It does not imply anything else but that God was happy with his work like a Carpenter that builds a HOUSe, it does not apply to sin or anything BAd.  Obvious when Adam was told he shall surely die, this was before the fall and Adam certainly knew what that consequence inferred?  


 

Do we believe that in SIX DAYS "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" ? ? ? 

Was all of the created world, invisible and visible a product of creative activity of God during the Six Days? Isn't this was Moses says (Exodus 20:11)?


and do we believe: that "on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made." ?

And do we believe: that "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

I think that we do, or else we should change the statement of faith to conform to some imaginary creation before the beginning, a beginning before the beginning.

Our statement of Faith says: The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple, but factual, presentation of actual events, and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

I always thought that this group stands for six days of creation as the actual origin of all things that are created. Has this changed?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service