The doctrine of creation is not an ambiguous aspect of the Bible. The first four chapters of Genesis contain the main biblical information on creation; therefore, they provide the basis of biblical doctrine. This seemingly simple part of the Bible, however, has remained for several millennia the subject of considerable speculation by various writers who have given interpretations to the text that have little to do with what the writer(s) was originally trying to convey to his public. . The meaning of the serpent in Genesis 3 and the origin of evil and the relationship between Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-4, each supplemented by three different authorial analyses, provide considerable support for a bold literary notion. Clearly, the meaning of Scripture has more to do with the perception and understanding of its original audience than with the perception and understanding of future generations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Since the dawn of civilization, snakes have played a vital role in most of the world's mythologies and cults (Sarna 26). As early as the 4th millennium BC, ancient Near Eastern societies recognized the serpent as both a symbol of fertility and a figure of divinization. The Hebrew Scriptures, particularly chapter 3 of Genesis, also features a very influential serpent, probably the most famous of its kind in recorded history. Despite lacking an anglicized name or real word power, he critically alters the landscape of human nature with a few short sentences in a short conversation. In the treatise Understanding Genesis, Sarna describes the Jewish incarnation as “not an independent creature; does not possess occult powers; he is not a demonic being; he is not even described as evil, but simply as extraordinarily cunning” (26). According to Dr. Sarna, this creature does not possess any supernatural qualities. The serpent cannot think outside of its limited animalistic faculties, cannot perform miraculous magical rites, and cannot communicate with Satan or other demonic beings. Sarna also reminds readers that after Eve's successful seduction and equally successful subsequent investigation, God does not forcibly question the serpent about its role in the crime. Rather, the brunt of His wrath falls on Adam and Eve for easily falling prey to basic human desire. Sarna theorizes that the serpent, contrary to popular belief, did not function as a direct corruptor or manipulator of Eve's soul. Through verbal instigation, he cunningly brought out the temptation that already lay dormant in his heart. One might also question whether or not the serpent existed in the physical realm. What if this creature simply inhabited the mind of its victim? Knowledge of ancient Israelite religious practices provides a historical link to the Sarna theory: the Israelites did not practice paganism or any other form of idolatry. Therefore, serpents could not have possessed divine admiration in Jewish monotheistic society. Kimelman presents a very similar, if not slightly modified, perspective on the Eve-Serpent interaction. The writer chooses to shed light on the relatively short period of time that passes during the Seduction of Eve sequence. The short amount of time certainly raises considerable doubts about the undisputed guilt of said serpent (Kimelman 4). After all, he enters the scene after God, man and woman in chapter 3:1 and comes out before God, man and woman in 3:15; it clearly does not act as the primary driver of action in the narrative. If the serpent did not possess abnormal powers of persuasion, howpreviously pointed out by Sarna, how could he have corrupted morally pure Eve in just a few minutes? The answer is surprisingly simple: thoughts of deviance had crossed Eve's mind before our cunning serpent even arrived on stage. Evidence for this radical proposal is found in the contradictory accounts of chapter 2:16-17 and chapter 3:2-3. For example, God commands Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die, yea, thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17). God's will is obviously absolute; Its commands leave no room for loopholes or other workarounds. However, Eve tells the serpent that God said “…but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden…you shall not eat of it, nor touch it, lest you die” (Gen. 3:2-3). According to her, God simply advises against consuming the fruit of knowledge and alludes to the possibility of serious consequences. Without outside help, Eve gives rise to the idea of ​​original sin: that humanity can make morally conscious decisions independently of God's divine authority. From this surprising development we can deduce that “evil is a product of human behavior, not a principle inherent in the cosmos” (Sarna 27). The Israelites, fiercely loyal to their One God and His strict commands of moral obedience, disapproved of individuality and its potentially radical consequences. In the Biblical/Israelite sense of the term, evil can simply be defined as human freedom, and unlimited freedom will more often lead to total destruction than unlimited opportunity. If Eve, the first woman, indeed gave rise to the concept of evil, as both Sarna and Kimelman strongly suggest, we can now logically explain the reasons behind Adam's ordained leadership in their marriage. Blindly accepting God's chauvinistic accommodation of holy matrimony would naturally conflict with our ongoing search for historicity in the Book of Genesis. Before original sin, God did not distinguish man from woman. “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them, and called their name Adam on the day of their creation” (Kimelman 7). Even though Eve emerges from a rib of Adam's body, the idea that Adam automatically dominates the relationship from day one is nowhere to be found. You might recall the sentiments of equality expressed in chapter 2:23-24: “This, finally, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This will be called Woman, because she was taken from man. This is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.” Adam pays no attention to the presence of female genitalia; can only speak to fundamental similarities in human anatomy. However, as stated previously, the biblical status of women changes significantly after Eve succumbs to desire and subsequently creates the force of evil. The denunciation of Eve as a sinner forces God to place her under the control of her husband Adam, who is still considered a symbol of justice. The incident in the Garden of Eden highlights a clear psychological divide between men and women. Moments after the discovery of their betrayal, Adam begs for his forgiveness and in one fell swoop throws Eve to the wolves: "the woman whom you placed at my side gave me from the tree, and I ate of it" (Gen. 3 : 12). With a little connivance, Adam manages to obtain divine approval of blind obedience and thus receives full power from God over his unfortunate companion. Thus, the notion of male superiority invades the story. To make matters worse, Eve gets the sole responsibility of giving birth to Adam's children and bearing his children will not be an easy task. She is warned: “I will make your pains during pregnancy very severe; with, 1966.