The Bible account doesn't actually say the serpent...

[Bravus]

...in the Garden was Lucifer.

[Gerr]

...in the Garden was Lucifer.

[color:blue]

But Revelation does. That's why we need the whole Bible to put the pieces together. Just like the 4 gospels giving us a better picture of what Jesus was/is like.

Gerry

[cricket]

Actually, even Revelation does not say that "Lucifer" was the serpent at all, but rather the "devil" and "Satan".

Revelation 12:9(NASB) And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

[olger]

See also Revelation 20:2.

[cricket]

Says the same thing...nothing about "Lucifer", but rather of the "devil" and "Satan".

Revelation 20:2 (NASB) And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

[David Koot]

Interesting point that Bravus has made. Isa. and Eze. both describe Lucifer, his fall, and his ultimate destruction by fire. Is there sufficient Biblical evidence to correlate those descriptive passages with satan?

Dave

[Amelia]

Revelation 22:16

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

[Bravus]

Thanks all for your responses. Please note I was just sharing something interesting that struck me as I was re-reading that part of Genesis recently, not trying to make any serious theological point!

It basically says 'The serpent was more crafty than any other creature...', and doesn't really seem to suggest that the initiative came from anywhere other than the serpent itself, hence the curse.

[Amelia]

Understood Mr B. But you got me digging. I noticed that the NIV bible doesnt use the name Lucifer at all. But the NKJ does, but only in Revelations describing King Nebukenezer.

[Ron Lambert]

The impression I get is that the serpent was used by Satan. As for the serpent being "more crafty than any other creature," that almost suggests the serpent chose to be used in this way. But we have always assumed that man is the only creature on earth that was given free-moral agency, the power to choose. Of course, even if the serpent could choose to be used, it was man who was prince of the earth, and so it was the sin of man that brought the calamitous effects of sin upon all of nature.

Quite literally, the responsibility was Adam's. Notice this passage in Genesis 3: "She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. THEN the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked...." (v. 6, 7; NKJV) Observe that it was not until ADAM ate that they lost their innocence and "the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked." It was Adam who was lord of the earth, and the federated head of all humanity. So it was until Adam fell that humanity as a whole could be said to have fallen (the race did NOT fall when Eve ate). Likewise it was not until Adam sinned that all creation was made to be subject to "futility," and began groaning and travailing under the burden of the consequences of the fall of the original lord or prince of the earth.