Hmm. Interesting that you should mention that specifically. Wasn't that one of the reasons that the Hebrews did not see it fit to get on board with this concept and accept Jesus as the true Messiah? The overabundance of mistranslations?

I would disagree with you in that case. The symbolism that was being utilized was in fact quite deliberate and specific. Otherwise why not use a chicken or a pig in the place of the serpent? It is not limited to the serpent either of course.

SERPENTS

The serpent of Genesis was a deity in its own right, revered in the Levant for at least 7000 years before Genesis was written. Trees and gardens were involved in these early religions also, with no associations concerning guilt, sin, disobedience, or unpleasantness.

The serpent’s divine association has been insistently (and hopefully) interpreted as phallic, but the serpent was revered as female in the Near and Middle East (based on Sumerian and Babylonian texts, artifacts from Crete). (Did pre-dynastic Egyptians flee to Crete in 3000 bce with their belief in the cobra goddess?)

In ancient myths, the female deity was often symbolized as a serpent or dragon. The picture of the cobra as symbol of mystic insight and wisdom is used as a hieroglyphic sign signifying goddess, and it precedes the name of any goddess in Egyptian writing.

By the "not trying" comment actually what I meant by that was the writers of this story, Moses or whoever else might have aided him, were stealing snippets of other creation myths that pre-dated Genesis. Plagiarism in fact. They were very close. The snake was representative of Paganism and the much older belief system that was already in place and that Christianity would be in direct opposition with. The concept of a monotheistic deity such as Yahweh or Jehovah had been brought forth by the various invading tribes. The Hebrews were but one. So, in a sense, this story in the bible depicting the Tree of Knowledge (arguably one of the most critical) was a direct attempt at discrediting the much older religion of the day.

They weren't even trying.

It also makes sense that there are persons and events referenced in the Bible, the existence of which cannot be confirmed. I don't know for sure. But my conclusion is this: The lack of confirmation of the existence of a thing doesn't necessarily confirm its non-existence.

Thanks for the mental warm-up!! Have an outstanding morning!

Nah, I figured not Miguel but I think this is one of those questions that most people will automatically jump to conclusions on, I know I did (and figured I was wrong but went ahead anyway). And I most certainly didn't want to start any kind of controversy, having enough of that in my own life. Sorry if I did/do!

Ok, when you refer to this eternal polarization...whose polarization are you referring to? It isn't mine. Is it yours? And if it isn't mine or yours, what significance does it have?....as you and I are the only ones in this discussion. And....it also doesn't answer the question I just asked you.

but she was

Though I agree with you for the most part......are you entirely certain that anyone who is referenced in the Bible is fictional? And are you certain beyond a doubt who was fictional and who wasn't? And if you are, please tell me how you arrive at your degree of certainty?

I believe that life begins at conception. When it comes to a question of abortion, which is where my mind goes when a question like this comes up and maybe it's not your intention but I'll answer it as if it were, I think that "life" begins still at conception. But, I think that the mother's rights and "life" override any potential life that is created at conception. I do not believe in abortion for myself, however, I think it is my right to choose what happens with my body and my life. I don't advocate abortion and I certainly don't think that it should be used as a form of birth control. But, there are very good and valid reasons for ending a pregnancy and life within the first say 10-12 weeks of a pregnancy and even after, under some circumstances.

I know I probably just opened a can of worms. Everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks they are right. And I think both sides of this particular argument are both right and wrong, there is no black and white, there are a million shades of gray in between which need to be taken into account. Which is why I think everyone needs to look into their own conscience, decide what is right for themselves, and accept whatever consequences come of their action.

You asked what I believed so I told you, yes cells are alive but do they feel pain? or happiness? or anything at all?

Like I said...life begins when the little heart starts beating. Nothing is alive till there is a heart beat, its just cells till then.