Does Genesis 3:1 imply that God did not create serpents?
Genesis 3:1 says
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made...
[The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.]
In English, if God created the serpent, one would have to say, "Now the serpent was more cunning than any other beast..." Without specifically saying, "other", it would imply that the serpent was not a beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
As I don't know Hebrew, I'm wondering if Hebrew grammar works the same way where you would have to include the word "other." Does the lack of the word "other" imply that the serpent was not created by God, does it imply that it is simply not a "beast of the field," or does Hebrew grammar simply not require "other"?
hebrew genesis creation
edited Jan 22 at 0:48
Der Übermensch
3,3281329
asked Jan 22 at 0:23
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
1539
add a comment |
Genesis 3:1 says
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made...
[The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.]
In English, if God created the serpent, one would have to say, "Now the serpent was more cunning than any other beast..." Without specifically saying, "other", it would imply that the serpent was not a beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
As I don't know Hebrew, I'm wondering if Hebrew grammar works the same way where you would have to include the word "other." Does the lack of the word "other" imply that the serpent was not created by God, does it imply that it is simply not a "beast of the field," or does Hebrew grammar simply not require "other"?
hebrew genesis creation
edited Jan 22 at 0:48
Der Übermensch
3,3281329
asked Jan 22 at 0:23
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
1539
Even in modern English it is not mandatory to use any other instead of simply any, let alone in King James' or Shakespeare's time. This question would probably have been better fitted elsewhere.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 2:01
@Lucian, English does require any other (see this question), but this question was more about whether Hebrew does or doesn't. That's why I asked it here.
– ElliotThomas
Feb 5 at 17:37
Your question, along with many others on this site, are, from a logical perspective, below sea level. Why you, along with countless others, even feel the need to ask such brilliant questions in the first place, is, quite frankly, beyond me. Don't get me wrong, the same can be said about other sites, such as Math.SE, for instance, but, in those cases, they are redeemed by the presence of a substantial amount of (extremely) rewarding postings alongside them. This (beta) site, however, is, unfortunately, drowning in rampant mediocrity.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 18:04
add a comment |
Genesis 3:1 says
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made...
[The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.]
In English, if God created the serpent, one would have to say, "Now the serpent was more cunning than any other beast..." Without specifically saying, "other", it would imply that the serpent was not a beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
As I don't know Hebrew, I'm wondering if Hebrew grammar works the same way where you would have to include the word "other." Does the lack of the word "other" imply that the serpent was not created by God, does it imply that it is simply not a "beast of the field," or does Hebrew grammar simply not require "other"?
hebrew genesis creation
edited Jan 22 at 0:48
Der Übermensch
3,3281329
asked Jan 22 at 0:23
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
1539
Genesis 3:1 says
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made...
[The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 3:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.]
In English, if God created the serpent, one would have to say, "Now the serpent was more cunning than any other beast..." Without specifically saying, "other", it would imply that the serpent was not a beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
As I don't know Hebrew, I'm wondering if Hebrew grammar works the same way where you would have to include the word "other." Does the lack of the word "other" imply that the serpent was not created by God, does it imply that it is simply not a "beast of the field," or does Hebrew grammar simply not require "other"?
hebrew genesis creation
hebrew genesis creation
edited Jan 22 at 0:48
Der Übermensch
3,3281329
asked Jan 22 at 0:23
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
1539
edited Jan 22 at 0:48
Der Übermensch
3,3281329
asked Jan 22 at 0:23
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
1539
edited Jan 22 at 0:48
Der Übermensch
3,3281329
edited Jan 22 at 0:48
Der Übermensch
3,3281329
edited Jan 22 at 0:48
Der Übermensch
3,3281329
3,3281329
asked Jan 22 at 0:23
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
1539
asked Jan 22 at 0:23
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
1539
asked Jan 22 at 0:23
ElliotThomasElliotThomas
1539
1539
Even in modern English it is not mandatory to use any other instead of simply any, let alone in King James' or Shakespeare's time. This question would probably have been better fitted elsewhere.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 2:01
@Lucian, English does require any other (see this question), but this question was more about whether Hebrew does or doesn't. That's why I asked it here.
– ElliotThomas
Feb 5 at 17:37
Your question, along with many others on this site, are, from a logical perspective, below sea level. Why you, along with countless others, even feel the need to ask such brilliant questions in the first place, is, quite frankly, beyond me. Don't get me wrong, the same can be said about other sites, such as Math.SE, for instance, but, in those cases, they are redeemed by the presence of a substantial amount of (extremely) rewarding postings alongside them. This (beta) site, however, is, unfortunately, drowning in rampant mediocrity.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 18:04
add a comment |
Even in modern English it is not mandatory to use any other instead of simply any, let alone in King James' or Shakespeare's time. This question would probably have been better fitted elsewhere.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 2:01
@Lucian, English does require any other (see this question), but this question was more about whether Hebrew does or doesn't. That's why I asked it here.
– ElliotThomas
Feb 5 at 17:37
Your question, along with many others on this site, are, from a logical perspective, below sea level. Why you, along with countless others, even feel the need to ask such brilliant questions in the first place, is, quite frankly, beyond me. Don't get me wrong, the same can be said about other sites, such as Math.SE, for instance, but, in those cases, they are redeemed by the presence of a substantial amount of (extremely) rewarding postings alongside them. This (beta) site, however, is, unfortunately, drowning in rampant mediocrity.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 18:04
Even in modern English it is not mandatory to use any other instead of simply any, let alone in King James' or Shakespeare's time. This question would probably have been better fitted elsewhere.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 2:01
Even in modern English it is not mandatory to use any other instead of simply any, let alone in King James' or Shakespeare's time. This question would probably have been better fitted elsewhere.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 2:01
@Lucian, English does require any other (see this question), but this question was more about whether Hebrew does or doesn't. That's why I asked it here.
– ElliotThomas
Feb 5 at 17:37
@Lucian, English does require any other (see this question), but this question was more about whether Hebrew does or doesn't. That's why I asked it here.
– ElliotThomas
Feb 5 at 17:37
Your question, along with many others on this site, are, from a logical perspective, below sea level. Why you, along with countless others, even feel the need to ask such brilliant questions in the first place, is, quite frankly, beyond me. Don't get me wrong, the same can be said about other sites, such as Math.SE, for instance, but, in those cases, they are redeemed by the presence of a substantial amount of (extremely) rewarding postings alongside them. This (beta) site, however, is, unfortunately, drowning in rampant mediocrity.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 18:04
Your question, along with many others on this site, are, from a logical perspective, below sea level. Why you, along with countless others, even feel the need to ask such brilliant questions in the first place, is, quite frankly, beyond me. Don't get me wrong, the same can be said about other sites, such as Math.SE, for instance, but, in those cases, they are redeemed by the presence of a substantial amount of (extremely) rewarding postings alongside them. This (beta) site, however, is, unfortunately, drowning in rampant mediocrity.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 18:04
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It is a reasonable conclusion based on the English translation, but it is not justifiable by the Hebrew. The fact is, the biblical Hebrew authors didn’t need to include the Hebrew word אַחֵר (“other”) when making such comparisons.
Consider the example of Jacob and Esau (the two sons of Rebekah and Isaac) in Genesis 25:22–23.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it be so, why am I thus?” And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. KJV, ©1769
For the English phrase “and the one people shall be stronger than the other people,” the Hebrew text states, וּלְאֹם מִלְאֹם יֶאֱמָץ—which is literally, “and a people shall be stronger than a people.” The KJV italicizes “the one” and “the other,” indicating that the Hebrew text of Genesis 25:23 lacks such an equivalent. Nevertheless, the KJV’s interpretation of the Hebrew is quite appropriate.
answered Jan 22 at 0:43
Der ÜbermenschDer Übermensch
3,3281329
2
Another example (with even more closely parallel wording) is in Numbers 12:3: "Moses was more humble than any man" doesn't mean Moses wasn't a man
– b a
Jan 22 at 11:14
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("virtualKeyboard", function () {
StackExchange.virtualKeyboard.init("hebrew");
});
}, "virtkeyb");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "320"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38468%2fdoes-genesis-31-imply-that-god-did-not-create-serpents%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It is a reasonable conclusion based on the English translation, but it is not justifiable by the Hebrew. The fact is, the biblical Hebrew authors didn’t need to include the Hebrew word אַחֵר (“other”) when making such comparisons.
Consider the example of Jacob and Esau (the two sons of Rebekah and Isaac) in Genesis 25:22–23.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it be so, why am I thus?” And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. KJV, ©1769
For the English phrase “and the one people shall be stronger than the other people,” the Hebrew text states, וּלְאֹם מִלְאֹם יֶאֱמָץ—which is literally, “and a people shall be stronger than a people.” The KJV italicizes “the one” and “the other,” indicating that the Hebrew text of Genesis 25:23 lacks such an equivalent. Nevertheless, the KJV’s interpretation of the Hebrew is quite appropriate.
answered Jan 22 at 0:43
Der ÜbermenschDer Übermensch
3,3281329
2
Another example (with even more closely parallel wording) is in Numbers 12:3: "Moses was more humble than any man" doesn't mean Moses wasn't a man
– b a
Jan 22 at 11:14
add a comment |
It is a reasonable conclusion based on the English translation, but it is not justifiable by the Hebrew. The fact is, the biblical Hebrew authors didn’t need to include the Hebrew word אַחֵר (“other”) when making such comparisons.
Consider the example of Jacob and Esau (the two sons of Rebekah and Isaac) in Genesis 25:22–23.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it be so, why am I thus?” And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. KJV, ©1769
For the English phrase “and the one people shall be stronger than the other people,” the Hebrew text states, וּלְאֹם מִלְאֹם יֶאֱמָץ—which is literally, “and a people shall be stronger than a people.” The KJV italicizes “the one” and “the other,” indicating that the Hebrew text of Genesis 25:23 lacks such an equivalent. Nevertheless, the KJV’s interpretation of the Hebrew is quite appropriate.
answered Jan 22 at 0:43
Der ÜbermenschDer Übermensch
3,3281329
2
Another example (with even more closely parallel wording) is in Numbers 12:3: "Moses was more humble than any man" doesn't mean Moses wasn't a man
– b a
Jan 22 at 11:14
add a comment |
It is a reasonable conclusion based on the English translation, but it is not justifiable by the Hebrew. The fact is, the biblical Hebrew authors didn’t need to include the Hebrew word אַחֵר (“other”) when making such comparisons.
Consider the example of Jacob and Esau (the two sons of Rebekah and Isaac) in Genesis 25:22–23.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it be so, why am I thus?” And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. KJV, ©1769
For the English phrase “and the one people shall be stronger than the other people,” the Hebrew text states, וּלְאֹם מִלְאֹם יֶאֱמָץ—which is literally, “and a people shall be stronger than a people.” The KJV italicizes “the one” and “the other,” indicating that the Hebrew text of Genesis 25:23 lacks such an equivalent. Nevertheless, the KJV’s interpretation of the Hebrew is quite appropriate.
answered Jan 22 at 0:43
Der ÜbermenschDer Übermensch
3,3281329
It is a reasonable conclusion based on the English translation, but it is not justifiable by the Hebrew. The fact is, the biblical Hebrew authors didn’t need to include the Hebrew word אַחֵר (“other”) when making such comparisons.
Consider the example of Jacob and Esau (the two sons of Rebekah and Isaac) in Genesis 25:22–23.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it be so, why am I thus?” And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. KJV, ©1769
For the English phrase “and the one people shall be stronger than the other people,” the Hebrew text states, וּלְאֹם מִלְאֹם יֶאֱמָץ—which is literally, “and a people shall be stronger than a people.” The KJV italicizes “the one” and “the other,” indicating that the Hebrew text of Genesis 25:23 lacks such an equivalent. Nevertheless, the KJV’s interpretation of the Hebrew is quite appropriate.
answered Jan 22 at 0:43
Der ÜbermenschDer Übermensch
3,3281329
answered Jan 22 at 0:43
Der ÜbermenschDer Übermensch
3,3281329
answered Jan 22 at 0:43
Der ÜbermenschDer Übermensch
3,3281329
answered Jan 22 at 0:43
Der ÜbermenschDer Übermensch
3,3281329
3,3281329
2
Another example (with even more closely parallel wording) is in Numbers 12:3: "Moses was more humble than any man" doesn't mean Moses wasn't a man
– b a
Jan 22 at 11:14
add a comment |
2
Another example (with even more closely parallel wording) is in Numbers 12:3: "Moses was more humble than any man" doesn't mean Moses wasn't a man
– b a
Jan 22 at 11:14
2
2
Another example (with even more closely parallel wording) is in Numbers 12:3: "Moses was more humble than any man" doesn't mean Moses wasn't a man
– b a
Jan 22 at 11:14
Another example (with even more closely parallel wording) is in Numbers 12:3: "Moses was more humble than any man" doesn't mean Moses wasn't a man
– b a
Jan 22 at 11:14
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38468%2fdoes-genesis-31-imply-that-god-did-not-create-serpents%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Even in modern English it is not mandatory to use any other instead of simply any, let alone in King James' or Shakespeare's time. This question would probably have been better fitted elsewhere.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 2:01
@Lucian, English does require any other (see this question), but this question was more about whether Hebrew does or doesn't. That's why I asked it here.
– ElliotThomas
Feb 5 at 17:37
Your question, along with many others on this site, are, from a logical perspective, below sea level. Why you, along with countless others, even feel the need to ask such brilliant questions in the first place, is, quite frankly, beyond me. Don't get me wrong, the same can be said about other sites, such as Math.SE, for instance, but, in those cases, they are redeemed by the presence of a substantial amount of (extremely) rewarding postings alongside them. This (beta) site, however, is, unfortunately, drowning in rampant mediocrity.
– Lucian
Feb 5 at 18:04