Gnostic Doctrine

Wednesday, 22 August 2018

The literal-serpent theory


The literal-serpent theory



A backer of the “literal-serpent theory” offered the following “evidence” in its support: “If Adam was the serpent and the serpent represented Adam (or some facet of his mental process) then they (or it) is actually one entity and the account in Genesis 3:14 and 17 stating God addressed two separate entities was only put there to cause confusion. By saying two different proper nouns were used for the same entity (and two different curses were issued) without giving any indication only one subject was involved is claiming God and Moses used a kind of double talk that is a disservice at best, and a strong delusion at worst.”

Yes, the serpent is a symbol which represents Adams rebellious nature and behaviour not Adam the man.
God uses figures of speech, symbols, dark sayings (proverbs or riddles) and parables throughout Scripture to conceal His Truth (Prov. 25:2) or send “strong delusion” upon those who refuse to believe Him. (2 Thes. 2:11)

Isn't He using this Divine “double talk” to confuse the “wise” of the world? (1 Cor. 2:7; 3:19)

The Lord Jesus certainly used parables to hide the Truth from those who weren't destined to know the “mystery of the Kingdom.” In fact, he only interpreted the parables for his disciples. (Mk. 4:11, 24)

 Wasn't this using “double talk” to send strong delusions that might cause certain hearers to believe lies?

Since Jesus spoke only what he was given by the Father, didn't these delusions also originate with God?

In view of all this, why would anyone imagine that God (who does not change) didn't use a figurative serpent in the very beginning to mask the Truth concerning the real source of human temptation?





This in no way denies that the Deity speaks plainly when and where plain speaking is necessary.

No comments:

Post a comment