All I can say is that the artwork in the old literature was a lot more interesting than nowadays.
Did the serpent have legs before the curse?
by Acluetofindtheuser 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
waton
I guess vaginas and penises were out but women's breasts were allowed in WTS publications.
pictures of post-fall episodes would feature fig leafs, courtesy of the greatest taylor, but no green bras?
-
Hairtrigger
Yes. But too many. Was confused about how to wear a bikini. Didn't want to be confused with a Chinese dragon!
-
Hairtrigger
Hey. That's one firm pair of pears. Adam you lucky fruit-pickin' , sinning sod!
-
David_Jay
The Jewish answer to this question is "yes," but it's not what you might think.
"In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so," states the well-known Jewish scholar Steven T. Katz. Keeping this in mind, I repeat that the answer to the original question ("Did the serpent [in Genesis 3] have legs before the curse?") is: "Yes, the serpent did."
But the story is allegorical. As suggested by Jewish exegesis, in the narrative the serpent has both hands and legs (and obviously fingers and feet/toes). It loses these to the curse: "On your belly shall you crawl / And dirt shall you eat / All the days of your life." (Genesis 3:14, NJPS Tanakh) Again the account is not meant to be historical, claiming that snakes once had appendages.
In Judaism the talking snake is also not identified with Satan the Devil or any type of demonic being. Instead it is a type of personification that plays off the innocence of Adam and Eve. Their innocence is exemplified by their being nude (in Hebrew 'arummim,) whereas the serpent is "shrewd" ('arum). The play on words is lost in English, of course.
Unlike Christianity which sees this as a story of a "fall from grace" and thus the origin of the "Original Sin" that gets passed on from Adam and Eve to their progeny, Jews read this as a story illustrating a simple truth: humans ruin things when they give in to ambition. Already created in the "image of God," humans are described as subject to being the architect of their own disasters when they choose to abuse their God-like status.
The "serpent" may be representative of this ambition or desire, thus setting the tone for the Torah which follows. Remember that Genesis is not a standalone work, but merely part of--and the introduction to--the entire Mosaic Law. This is the beginning not of a history book but the foreshadowing framework for the Law of Moses, with the "sin" of Adam and Eve only setting the tone anticipating the need for the Torah (which, by the way, arrives later at Mt. Sinai and generally fills the rest of the Book of the Law, overtaking the narrative).
In conclusion the "serpent" is neither the "snake" of our current zoology nor the Devil in disguise. The narrative describes not the origin of sin, but merely describes the innate human appetite for evil that has Torah as its antidote. That this story is meant specifically to describe the Jewish position only and not a historical origin of humanity lies in the fact that Jews see the Torah as binding only on the nation of Israel, not Gentiles. It could therefore never be literal, historical, or universal.
-
St George of England
I guess vaginas and penises were out but women's breasts were allowed in WTS publications. Is this from a non-WTS source, George, or did they "borrow" it?
Sorry for the delay blondie. Yes this is from the WT publication "The truth shall make you free" Page 89 (1943).
Note Adam clean shaven and parting in his hair, blonde Eve with perky little breasts. I wonder whose fantasy this was?
George