There are actually different streams within Judaism and there is by no means a total consensus within Judaism on the nature and interpretation of these stories. The Jewish sources on the temptress of Adam are pretty saucy. Especialy if you consider that Eve was Adam's second wife, but that his first wife, Liliith, was the much more interesting one. Her story would probably be X-rated if it wasn't a holy text. So it's not surprising the translators toned that down and skipped some passages here and there, and neither is it surprising Renaissance painters went back to the original texts to look for inspiration for saucy paintings and got away with it by saying they were only painting religious scenes.
Some streams within Judaism did not believe there was evil as a real entity, but that evil was simply an absence of good just as darkness was an absence of light. Thus they believed there could not be a Prince of Evil and so there was no Satan. From that background, the meaning and nature of the snake in Eve's story changes totally. The origin of the present concept of Satan comes from Zarathustrianism, albeit somewhat changed from its original form.
However, neither Christianity nor Islam denies the existence of these earlier interpretations, but instead claim they were incomplete or incorrect, but that (especially in the case of Islam) dîvine revelation helped the Prophet Mohammed correct the earlier errors.
Amogles, perhaps for another thread as it is irrelevant to the OP- but mistakes, or toning down- is very different to total and deliberate change- according to Hebrew specialists the original Hebrew script about Adam and Eve, was never about a man and a woman- but the Catholic Church has deliberately changed the Bible to put the original sin on women, and get rid of any woman's contributions and worse, turn them into whores.
Looks and sounds wrong! And probably is wrong! Unless it's not wrong! In which case it's irking me for no reason but it's stil irking me which makes it wrong by virtue of its irk factor!
I think it's wrong. I've always thought butchery was the skill or trade or act of cutting up animals and preparing them after slaughter, before sale. The person who does it is called a butcher, the place is a butcher's shop or butcher's.
Actually the sentence "Halal Butcher in Zürich sold cheeks of pigs as veal for years", reads better when referring to a shop as well as a person who sells meat in a butcher's shop which makes it double right And we all know two rights don't make a wrong
the motivation behind the invention of the Catholic Church is frankly not all that dissimilar from the motivation behind the invention of Islam, despite the fact that many practicing Catholics eat pork.