The 'Serpent' in the Eden Story of Genesis Represents All 'False' Gods

I just concluded that the 'serpent' in the Eden story of Genesis represents all 'false' gods.
"False" in having no proper support as being an authority.
"True" being a term properly (according to the priests of that particular god, who were writing it) applied to the Yahweh character based on his making the garden.
Making the garden then (according to this priestly philosophy) gives the maker, Yahweh, the right to be the supreme authority within its boundaries.
The serpent, like the tree of knowledge, are things that are just there, not being made by that particular deity, Yahweh, but by the shadowy entities, the Elohim.
The collective of the residual spiritual entities of the world itself is represented by the person of the serpentine, clever, and articulate master of nonauthoritative rhetoric.
They have no authority because they didn't really make anything, but are somehow residents of the earth, and are integral with it, so can never be just removed, but have to be crushed down to their proper status, which is not the lofty and heavenly status of Yahweh.

Really? That's your greatest concern? Who the serpent is in the story of Genesis? For God's sake.
Everyone is telling you that it's Satan, because Satan is a Jinn (demon or spirit) and he's made of fire, and Allah gave the spirits the ability to transform into other beings. They are often black dogs, snakes and they can even appear in the shape of human beings.

It's nothing unusual that Satan appears in the form of a snake, just like a serpent, Satan whispers in the ears of men to do evil.

I really think you should go on, It's not important if the serpent was a "fake" god or if he was Satan. Because it's suppose to represent bad.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I just concluded that the 'serpent' in the Eden story of Genesis represents all 'false' gods.
"False" in having no proper support as being an authority.
"True" being a term properly (according to the priests of that particular god, who were writing it) applied to the Yahweh character based on his making the garden.
Making the garden then (according to this priestly philosophy) gives the maker, Yahweh, the right to be the supreme authority within its boundaries.
The serpent, like the tree of knowledge, are things that are just there, not being made by that particular deity, Yahweh, but by the shadowy entities, the Elohim.
The collective of the residual spiritual entities of the world itself is represented by the person of the serpentine, clever, and articulate master of nonauthoritative rhetoric.
They have no authority because they didn't really make anything, but are somehow residents of the earth, and are integral with it, so can never be just removed, but have to be crushed down to their proper status, which is not the lofty and heavenly status of Yahweh.

Just a few questions.

?How did you arrive to your conclusion
?Is Yahweh not also Elohim
?If the Tree of Knowledge was not made by Yahweh and the Elohim did not create anything then what is it and where did it come from.

reply to post by jmdewey60


The serpent is the 'talking serpent'.
It is words and thought that speak of 'becoming'. It is deceptive because there is only 'being'.

reply to post by Misbah

You are looking at this from a fundamentalist point of view, that the story is an actual history as if there were surveillance cameras set up in the garden recording everything that happened.
To me, what we have here is a situation where people naturally make up stories about where they came from, so the priests of the official community god take that as a cue to make their own version, one that supports the local deity.

As for the Jinn, what do you think those are? They would have to be former nature spirits that got displaced or made irrelevant, or subservient with the advent of whoever is believed to be the supreme deity.

I really think you should go on, It's not important if the serpent was a "fake" god or if he was Satan. Because it's suppose to represent bad.

Maybe the explanation you were given is made to be seen as being clear cut, so as not to leave room for misconstrual, where you are taught in a sort of catechism style.
What serves as the influence for my opinion is the big theme of the entire Old Testament, that everything bad in the world can be blamed on the worship of false gods. It makes no sense to me that the main "bad" character in the Eden story would be anything other than the main nemesis of the happiness of the Israelites throughout their recorded history.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Go back to the drawing board my friend. Food for thought. Satan or Lucifer as the brightest star demanded to god that not one soul would be lost with his plan. Jesus said that he would give the souls or humans a choice. As then Lucifer was casted out of Heaven with the Hosts. So who is the Serpent? As the Snakie snakie only presented a choice, hmmm who does that sound like? Who does a vengeful or wrathful god sound more like? Jebus or Satanus? Hrmm..... The wrabbit hole truelly get deeper the more you ponder this... As well the stories of the bible and other religious books tend to become more clear.

Good day~

reply to post by Tindalos2013

?How did you arrive to your conclusion

From writing out an explanation of the themes in the Book of Revelation.
I was examining the repugnance exhibited by the author of that book for the allowance by some Christian teachers for eating food bought in the marketplace that may have been offered to idols.
It seemed to me that the author would not have been so concerned about those idols, unless he believed in some kind of reality of those gods.

?Is Yahweh not also Elohim

No. He may the a Elohim, but not the Elohim.

?If the Tree of Knowledge was not made by Yahweh and the Elohim did not create anything then what is it and where did it come from.

Yahweh is an individual. The Elohim, in Genesis 1, created the inhabitable world, while the individual who is of the classification, Elohim, created his garden with his humans to be the god of.
The tree or the sacred type trees in the Garden could have been already there or they could have grown there. There are two different ways to interpret the scriptural account, according to how you decide to phase it. It is ambiguous as it is, with no hard rule or other indication that it should be phrased in any specific way.

The Lord planted or caused to grow, all the trees in the Garden good to look at and to eat. In the midst of the garden was the two trees.
or
The Lord planted or caused to grow, all the trees in the Garden good to look at and to eat, in the midst of (the garden) was the two trees.

The first version makes it look like Yahweh only planted trees good to eat, which probably excludes the two sacred trees.
The second version makes it look like Yahweh planted all the trees, which included ones that were good to eat.
The wording is a bit ambiguous about how the people were to make use of the Tree of Life, meaning it does not describe an actual sort of fruit on it that you pluck and bite into.

The serpent in the Garden was a A.nun.na.ki named En.ki (Ea,Posidon,Ptah,Oannes etc). Half brother to En.lil (Yahweh). En.ki was born first, but not to the origional mother. Succession rules state that the heir can not be born from a concubine. Zecharia Sitchin's books lays all of this out in detail. And the Garden of E.din (place in the faraway built) was in Mesopotamia. This explains why different Els were warring against each other in the biblical days. Each El had his own people to watch over. En.ki ruled the African domains, while Yahweh got the Semitic peoples.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

The serpent is the 'talking serpent'.
It is words and thought that speak of 'becoming'. It is deceptive because there is only 'being'.

Do you think that the priesthood of the Yahweh god had that in mind when they wrote Genesis?
I sort of doubt it.
Do you think that really God wrote it so that a few thousand years later you would interpret it to get the "real" meaning of it?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Isn't it more logical after years of reading religous books to presume that the Genisis that we are reading whether King James or Giddeons that, that book is a re-creation of the original texts passed down from Ancient Civ to Ancient Civ. As all the stories represented in the Bible are also found throughout all books as there's not just 1 Jesus but many depicted in different forms? Also, everything is traced back to the Sumerian times as they also had a Noah a Moses a Jesus and so forth.

So to base your assumptions off of the current books in circulation, I would state to find the oldest version you can and cross reference that which is contradictory to the original docterine that was skewed by the "Common Man" with a political agenda.

reply to post by sulaw

Go back to the drawing board my friend. Food for thought. Satan or Lucifer as the brightest star demanded to god that not one soul would be lost with his plan.

I don't remember reading anything like that in the Bible.

Jesus said that he would give the souls or humans a choice.

So, was there an angel watching this, who later told you about it?

As then Lucifer was casted out of Heaven with the Hosts.

As an interpretation of Revelation 12 and Isaiah 14?

So who is the Serpent? As the Snakie snakie only presented a choice, hmmm who does that sound like? Who does a vengeful or wrathful god sound more like? Jebus or Satanus? Hrmm..... The wrabbit hole truelly get deeper the more you ponder this... As well the stories of the bible and other religious books tend to become more clear.

The "choice" would be to disregard the official rules, for solutions that are self-derived.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't remember reading anything like that in the Bible

Because you can't just use the bible to understand that which is hidden.

So, was there an angel watching this, who later told you about it?

Anyone who has dug into religion/philosophy/theology/spirituality have searched many different texts and know about the " War In Heaven " how you interpret is not, nor how I interpret is not the end game just a "Interpretation" of that we are looking to find.

The "choice" would be to disregard the official rules, for solutions that are self-derived

And that choice sounds more like the official plan layed out of free will, we all have a choice but self-derived individually. Or are you stating that we don't have free will and we must follow these rules or else we will not be allowed entrance through those "Pearlie Gates"?

reply to post by Oannes

The serpent in the Garden was a A.nun.na.ki named En.ki (Ea,Posidon,Ptah,Oannes etc). Half brother to En.lil (Yahweh). En.ki was born first, but not to the origional mother. Succession rules state that the heir can not be born from a concubine. Zecharia Sitchin's books lays all of this out in detail. And the Garden of E.din (place in the faraway built) was in Mesopotamia. This explains why different Els were warring against each other in the biblical days. Each El had his own people to watch over. En.ki ruled the African domains, while Yahweh got the Semitic peoples.

The location of the Garden of Eden in Genesis corresponds to the same location described by ancient Canaanite mythology.
It seems to be local myth not dependent on Babylonian mythology.
According to Canaanite myth, the Shaddayyin have a sort of counsel to work out conflicts between them. Human rulers within the individual boundaries of those sovereign regions do come into conflict with its El person, and are susceptible to being called to explain their actions in the court of that offended deity.

reply to post by sulaw

. . . everything is traced back to the Sumerian times as they also had a Noah a Moses a Jesus and so forth.

That interpretation has been called into question and is no longer supported so much, but rather it is believed that there were other centers of myth creation that preceded the Sumerians.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Human rulers within the individual boundaries of those sovereign regions do come into conflict with its El person, and are susceptible to being called to explain their actions in the court of that offended deity

Is this not contradictory to your title and OP / The 'Serpent' in the Eden Story of Genesis Represents All 'False' Gods

As you were only working off one book in your OP and all other gods are false? No?

So is there 1 god or many? Maybe we should call them the Divine respectively, to discern the many?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Totally agree, yet the fact that in all books there is a Noah, a Moses and a Jesus still holds true.

reply to post by sulaw

. . . are you stating that we don't have free will and we must follow these rules or else we will not be allowed entrance through those "Pearlie Gates"?

I'm not stating what I believe is the right way.
I actually do, but it is more just advice to question other people's interpretations, and to think things through for yourself.
I didn't write the Bible, or people who have the same sort of attitude that I have.
I'm trying to get at what was the motivation for writing, and the lesson wanted to get across, of the biblical writers.
I have a cynical view of the Old Testament, that it was created to support a status quo in the religious practice of the Israelites, or the people that the title was supposed to be describing.

My personal cosmology is that we are basically trapped in a material matrix that puts us at the mercy of the universe, which is not loving or caring. To get any sort of advantage within that matrix, we have to have the help of spiritual entities not materially entrapped, who can override the universe in certain ways.

reply to post by sulaw

So is there 1 god or many? Maybe we should call them the Divine respectively, to discern the many?

I'm talking about mythology, including the biblical version.
I am mainly, probably, questioning the wrong idea that many people have, that ancient Canaanite (Old Testament) religion was monotheistic.
I see monotheism in Judaism as a response to Christian trinitarianism.

As for my personal view, I see God in a way that was normal in the world of the New Testament, that the gods were referred to in the singular, God.

reply to post by sulaw

. . . the fact that in all books there is a Noah, a Moses and a Jesus still holds true.

There is probably a lost, Atlantis sort of place in the bottom of the Black Sea, that is the source for those "Noah" stories.
"Jesus" is the conqueror over Hades, be it a place or an entity.

reply to post by jmdewey60


dewey I'm glad we had this little discussion. Your a smart man! SnF Have a great weekend! And stay