Bible Question: What was the First Sin?

I realize that the prize has already been awarded, but isn't there a sin before that?That is:Genesis 2:25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.Considering that the first thing that Adam and Eve do when they eat from the Tree of Knowledge is panic not over the fact that they just ate from the Tree of Knowledge but rather over the fact that they are naked, it would appear that going naked is a sin.Thus, the first sin mentioned was going without clothes.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

No, the sin would be being ashamed of their nakedness, which came after the tree incident.

---

So it isn't a sin until you feel guilty about it? So psychopaths who don't care what it is they are doing aren't really sinning?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz:

quote:

---

Actually your all wrong.Eve taking the fruit was first,

---

Says who? The people who have an agenda to push? Why should we believe them?

quote:

---

Also, the serpant was a false witness or 'liar' suggesting they would benefit from taking the fruit.

---

Not at all. The serpent didn't lie in the slightest. In fact, he corrected god's lie.You will note that the serpent did not tell Eve to eat from the tree.

quote:

---

So the serpant brought the evil and Adam and Eve were tempted.

---

How is telling the truth "evil"? How is pointing out someone's bare-faced lie "evil"?

quote:

---

I am guessing I will be hung, drawn and quartered for having this opinion, but thats all it is really.

---

You are free to have whatever opinion you wish.

quote:

---

will I recieve a five page retort from Rhain.lol

---

Oh, I see...taking a person's post seriously and providing a thorough response is something to sneer at. You'd prefer people just take what you say at face value and not give your words any real thought?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Brian writes:

quote:

---

I think a sin is a sin whether you know you are committing it or not.

---

Then I was right...the first sin was running around naked. The very first thing Adam and Eve panic over after eating from the Tree of Knowledge and learning about good and evil and what to feel guilty over is the fact that they are naked. It wasn't eating from the tree.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then I was right...the first sin was running around naked.

---

​

Is there an actual Biblical basis to the idea that nudity is a sin?

---

Most every time it's brought up, it's described in terms of shame. The Bible makes a point of saying that Adam and Eve, before they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, go around naked "and were not ashamed." And again, the very first thing, the very first thing they do after eating from the Tree of Knowledge is notice that they're naked and cover up.

quote:

---

Just because they feel ashamed and embarassed doesn't mean that they're hell-bound, now.

---

Well, whether or not god is going to condemn them to hell for being naked isn't quite spelled out. But they do realize that it is evil to go around without clothes. And let's not forget, when god finds them after they have eaten from the tree, he gives them clothes just before he kicks them out of Eden:Genesis 3:21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

quote:

---

And they were married, right?

---

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

quote:

---

Why is it any more sinful for Adam to be naked with his wife than for me with mine?

---

Again, what does that have to do with anything? There's a difference between being naked in sexual congress and being a nudist.Thus, I don't think there's a specific commandment, "Thou shalt not be naked," but the description of people who are naked tends to be toward that it is something that shouldn't be done. Let's not forget what happens with Noah:Genesis 9:20: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:9:21: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.9:22: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.9:23: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.9:24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.9:25: And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.Of course, there is some discussion as to what "saw the nakedness of his father" really means, but if we take it as a fairly straightforward description, there is something unusual about being nude and looking upon someone else without clothes has strictures placed upon it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Oh, I see...taking a person's post seriously and providing a thorough response is something to sneer at

---

​

It was so obviously a joke!

---

I know. I was pointing out it was pathetic. It even insinuated that you weren't even really interested in honest debate.

quote:

---

Do you really want to go on about the serpant again?

---

Serp[i][b]E[/i][/b]nt. With an e. S-E-R-P-E-N-T.What's to go over? The serpent didn't lie and was not possessed by Satan.

quote:

---

as we have done that previously, so why go over it again?

---

You're the one who brought it up again. Apparently you want to.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

---

​

Well, I just mention it because they're the only two people who exist at the time, and the entire garden is theirs, so it's no more sinful for them to be naked than for me and the wife to walk around the house naked. (Sorry for the mental image.)

---

What does that got to do with anything?

quote:

---

Unless that's a sin?

---

Apparently. Remember, the very first thing Adam and Eve do when they eat from the Tree of Knowledge is cover up. They're still the only people alive and they still have the entire garden to themselves, but the very first thing they do is cover up. It's a sin to go around naked.

quote:

---

But clearly there's some people who have to see you naked, so it can't be a big deal.

---

But those times are highly regulated. It is something that is done out of necessity, not out of choice.

quote:

---

Clearly the bible is down on public nudity.

---

Even more so, it's down on nudity in general. Ham's son gets cursed because he comes across Noah drunk and naked (and this I don't understand...Ham is the one that came across Noah, but Noah curses Canaan, Ham's son...what'd he do to deserve that?)

quote:

---

But if the only other person who exists is your wife, and the entire world is your home and garden, is that public nudity? I don't think so.

---

Well, according to the Bible, it is nudity and it is something to be ashamed of. The Bible makes a point of their shamelessness in being naked before eating of the Tree of Knowledge and follows it up by having Adam and Eve panicking over the fact that they are naked when they do. Too, when god sends them packing, he gives them clothes. And all of this while they're still the only people in the world.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I know. I was pointing out it was pathetic.

---

​

I was being light hearted,

---

Oh, I'm sure you were trying, but desire and success are two different things.

quote:

---

it was a hint for you to not go on about the serpant again.

---

Serp[b][i]E[/b][/i]nt. With an e. S-E-R-P-E-N-T.

quote:

---

quote:

---

SerpEnt. With an e. S-E-R-P-E-N-T.

---

​

You are reaching Rhain.

---

You mean you don't keep misspelling the word?I'm not the only one that's pointed it out to you. Is there some sort of reason why you keep misspelling it?Yes, I know...spelling flames are pretty low, but really. What's the point of misspelling it?And it's "Rrhain," with two r's."One is my name. The other is not."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, according to the Bible, it is nudity and it is something to be ashamed of. The Bible makes a point of their shamelessness in being naked before eating of the Tree of Knowledge and follows it up by having Adam and Eve panicking over the fact that they are naked when they do.

---

​

Right, but is their shame indicative of sinfulness?

---

If it weren't, why would they be ashamed? Nobody told them they were naked. The only reason they have any feeling about it at all is because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge and became as gods, knowing good and evil.

quote:

---

That's the jump that I don't see supported by the Bible.

---

Again, why would they be ashamed over something that wasn't a sin? Why would the very first thing they do after eating from the Tree of Knowledge is cover up? And why would god give them clothes?If you can come up with some other reason for all of this panic over clothing that isn't connected to the concept of sin, then I'm all for it, but I don't see anything in Genesis 2 or 3 that indicates that being naked is neutral. It seems quite clear that it is sinful...Adam and Eve just get a pass for it at first because they are innocent and don't know any better (which makes one wonder why that doesn't apply to eating of the Tree of Knowledge.)

quote:

---

What I see is that the writers of Genesis expected their audience to already believe that nudity was a sin.

---

And why isn't that good enough? Look at the behaviour of the three characters in question. Again, the very first thing Adam and Eve do after eating from the tree is cover up. And when god is getting ready to kick them out, he gives them clothes.Why would anybody do that if being naked were not a sin? As you say, they're the only people around, they're married, what's the big deal? Apparently, it is a big deal...so important that god becomes the first L.L. Bean franchise.

quote:

---

What I don't see is a specific Biblical condemnation from God of a man and his wife being naked together in their garden.

---

He asks them right out: "Who told you you were naked?" He gives them clothes. You're absolutely right that nowhere in Genesis 2 or 3 does it say flat out, "Being naked is a sin." Instead, it is implicit in the direct statements of the text and the actions of the characters described in the text.It directly states that Adam and Eve were naked and "were not ashamed." Why would it be important to say that unless being naked were a sin? Why would Adam and Eve panic immediately upon eating from the Tree of Knowledge and cover up unless being naked were a sin? Why would the response to god about why they hid themselves be that they were naked and ashamed? Why would god be surprised that they knew this and were behaving as if they were ashamed? Why would god give them clothes?That last one is the only one that I can think of that might have a different answer: Since they're leaving Eden where everything was perfect, they're going to need the protective properties of clothing. However, that doesn't seem so likely given the previous context.You are perfectly free to feel that the admonition about being naked is silly, but the text in Genesis clearly indicates that it is something to be ashamed of.

quote:

---

If they're shame is supposed to imply, that, fine, but that's something I'll need a little more support for.

---

What more do you need? Adam and Eve were naked "and were not ashamed." What is that if not a direct indication that they should have been but weren't simply because they were innocent and didn't know any better? Why is the very first thing they do is cover up and not panic over eating from the Tree of Knowledge?

quote:

---

After all sometimes people get ashamed of perfectly non-sinful things that they do.

---

Indeed, but don't you think the very first thing Adam and Eve should have panicked over was eating from the Tree of Knowledge? And since their entire existence has been lived without clothing, why would they suddenly become ashamed of it after eating from the tree? If it weren't a sin, why would anybody care? If being naked weren't a sin, why would they worry about it since they had just become as gods knowing good and evil? If it weren't evil, they would know that and thus they wouldn't be upset over it and wouldn't cover up.Again, you're right that nowhere in Genesis 2 or 3 do we find, "Being naked is a sin." But to claim that the text doesn't clearly seem to think that being naked is a sin is disingenuous at best.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Pringlesguy7 responds to me:

quote:

---

But isnt it kind of odd that eve is not surpised that the serpent talks to her?

---

No. Why would it be?

quote:

---

And....is the serpent an acutal serpent?

---

Yes.Remember what happens to the serpent:Genesis 3:14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:That sounds like the description of the typical snake (except for the eating dust part).

quote:

---

or is it another name for Satan.

---

No.Satan does not go about on his belly.Too, Judaism had no concept of the devil at the time Genesis was conceived. Why would they include a reference to a being they didn't think existed and had no comprehension of?Remember, Genesis is a Jewish story. It is illegitimate to try and place Christian symbology on top of it.

quote:

---

i thought someone said somthing earlier about the serpent not being posessed by satan, so I was just wondering who they thought it was then.

---

A serpent. What on earth makes anybody think it was anything else?In fact, the Bible pretty much says so directly:Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?The serpent is a beast. Not a supernatural entity.

quote:

---

And since Eve does not appear to be startled by the serpent talking to her, does this mean that it was a regular thing?

---

Who knows? The Bible also talks of a talking ass:Numbers 22:28: And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?22:29: And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.22:30: And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.So apparently, talking animals really aren't that bizarre to characters in the Bible.And no, the fact that Balaam's ass was possessed by god is not indicative that the serpent was possessed by anything. Remember, the serpent is never described as being possessed and is declared a beast.After all, if the serpent were possessed, why would god curse it? What did it do to deserve that?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

Revelation 12:9. . . ."The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the world astray. . . "

​

I know it's the New Testament, but I thought it was worth adding.

---

But Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis.Or are you saying that anytime anybody uses the word "serpent," they're referring to the devil?The reason why the word "serpent" is used is staring at you right in the face. It has nothing to do with Genesis and everything to do with the fact that the author of Revelation is describing a DRAGON.

quote:

---

Also, I always learned that the book of Job was one of the oldest (if not the oldest) books in the Bible.

---

Not as old as Genesis.

quote:

---

Job refers to Satan numerous times (all of chapter 1 involves Satan),

---

Not as some creature that crawls around on its belly. Instead, Satan is a servant of god who does his bidding.

quote:

---

so I don't think you can safely say, "Judaism had no concept of the devil."

---

Um, the "Satan" in Job is not the devil as Christians understand him.In Hebrew "Satan" means "Adversary."You seem to be functioning under the idea that all of the Old Testament was written down at once. It wasn't. As Judaism evolved, new stories were developed. Judaism did, eventually, acquire a concept of a devil, but that concept is not present at the time of the writing of Genesis. It wasn't until the influences of Zoroastrianism came to Judaism that the devil started showing up.You can find many of the interesting shifts in Judaic history through the texts and how they treat the celestial hierarchy. Genesis starts with a mention of many gods. As the Old Testament continues on, it slowly coalesces into only one god from whom everything, both good and evil, come from. Then a split starts to happen and we see god as all-good and the devil as all-evil.So yes, at the time that Genesis was dreamed up, Judaism had no concept of the devil.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The information I have is that the J text of Genesis was written between 848 and 722 BCE, E between 922 and 722 BCE, P before 609 BCE, and D about 622 BCE.Job was written sometime about the 5th century BCE.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

The original reason I posted the verse from Revelation was to show that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible

---

Irrelevant. You've got the direction backwards.All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan.

quote:

---

And, no, I do not think any time "serpent" is used it is referring to Satan.

---

Then we're left with my original statement that the serpent in the garden has nothing to do with the devil. He is not called the devil, he is not treated like the devil, and the people who were writing about him didn't even have a concept of the devil at the time they were writing.Seeing as how the serpent in the garden is treated as a beast, receives a physical curse, and is not regarded in any way as supernatural, from where does the idea come that the serpent in the garden has anything to do with Satan? Because somebody over a thousand years later also happened to use a word in a completely different language that also happens to mean "snake"?

quote:

---

Also, whether Revelations is referring to a dragon or not is meaningless;

---

Incorrect. If Satan is being referred to as a dragon, then one would expect to find linguistic descriptions appropriate for a dragon. One such description is "serpent" as dragons are reptilian. Let us not forget that Revelation was written at a time when Greek mythology had managed to create quite a large amount of symbolism and snakes represent wisdom and knowledge. There's a reason that the caduceus of Apollo has snakes twined about it.

quote:

---

it stills calls Satan a "serpent."

---

Yes, but it is the height of naivete to then claim that because Revelation calls Satan a "serpent," that means that the "serpent" mentioned in Genesis is therefore Satan.Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not as old as Genesis.

---

​

You base this on what?

---

Analysis of the texts. As I pointed out in my next post, Genesis was written in the period before the 7th century, some parts as early as the 10th. Job, on the other hand, somewhere around the 5th, possibly as late as the 4th.Ergo, the book of Job is not as old as the book of Genesis.Oh, plenty of people will claim that Job is older than Genesis, but those people also claim that the Torah was written by Moses and we know that isn't true, either (hint: How can Moses write about his own funeral at the end of Deuteronomy?)

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not as some creature that crawls around on its belly. Instead, Satan is a servant of god who does his bidding.

---

​

My point about Job had nothing to do with Satan being a serpent.

---

Too bad. You're the one claiming Satan is serpentine and that Genesis makes use of this, implying that the serpent is Satan.You have to maintain consistency. If Satan is a serpent, if god has the power to physical force Satan into a physical shape, then he doesn't get to snap out of it when Job comes around. If Satan isn't a snake in Job, then the snake in Genesis isn't Satan.

quote:

---

I was simply pointing out that if Job is the oldest book in the Bible, then obviously the Jews had SOME concept of the devil.

---

But as it isn't, it ain't.

quote:

---

quote:

---

, the "Satan" in Job is not the devil as Christians understand him.

---

​

Again, proof?

---

Again, analysis of the texts. I pointed you in the right direction. Look up Zoroastrianism and follow its development alongside Judaism and how Judaism took up the tenets of Zoroastrianism.Early Judaism had no "all good"/"all evil" dichotomy. Everything came from one place. When Judaism had settled into monotheism, god was responsible for everything, good and evil. How can there be a "devil" in such a thing? That would mean that evil comes from somewhere else and we've just established that god is the source of everything.Zoroastrianism changed that.Get off your butt, do your own homework, and come back.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Genesis starts with a mention of many gods.

---

​

Unless you are speaking of the Hebrew version

---

Of course. What other version is there?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Irrelevant. You've got the direction backwards.

​

All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

​

Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan.

---

​

I don't really think I have any directions backwards.

---

So every serpent, even the pet snake a friend of mine from college had, is an incarnation of the devil?

quote:

---

To clarify a bit: in no way am I arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan (this doesn't mean I believe he isn't, just that it is certainly debatable).

---

Well, no, it isn't debatable. The serpent in Genesis is clearly not the devil. It was written by people who had no concept of the devil and the narrative treats the serpent as an animal, not a supernatural being.

quote:

---

Furthermore, I am not even so much arguing that every serpent is Satan, or even that Satan is a serpent.

---

Then the invocation of Revelation is a non sequitur. Why bring it up?Besides, you've just contradicted yourself. Did you or did you not say the following: Well, which is it? Did you bring up Revelation to argue that the devil is a serpent or are you arguing that the devil is not a serpent?

quote:

---

I was simply presenting a passage where Satan IS referred to as a serpent, whether it be a dragon, snake, or whatever.

---

But what's the point? Why bring it up if not to make an argument relevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not the serpent in Genesis is the devil?If your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the serpent in Genesis being the devil, then what on earth was the point of your comment?

quote:

---

You seemed to insult Pringlesguy for thinking that the Genesis serpent was Satan,

---

Insult? Please. You'll know when I've insulted you.

quote:

---

and I was just trying to give a reason why he might have thought that.

---

Oh, I understand why he thinks that: He was told to think that. But analysis of the text, both literary and historical, indicate that the serpent in Genesis was a beast, not the devil.

quote:

---

quote:

---

and is not regarded in any way as supernatural, from where does the idea come that the serpent in the garden has anything to do with Satan?

---

​

Once again, I'm not arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan.

---

Once again, what was the point of your comment if not to argue that? If Revelation has no connection to Genesis, then what is the point of bringing it up?Let me see if I can show you just how much of a non sequitur it is:In a discussion of the conjugation of the imperfect in Spanish, someone points out that many cultures deliberately make their works imperfect by introducing mistakes so as not to anger the gods with creating something perfect.Ok...that may be so, but what on earth does that have to do with the imperfect tense in Spanish? Just because both things use the word "imperfect" doesn't mean there is any connection. The two have no connection, even at the most basic levels. Why bring it up?

quote:

---

To say, though, that the serpent "is not regarded in any way as supernatural" is slightly off. The serpent DOES speak,

---

So? How does that make the snake supernatural? He is not treated so in any way. Just because you have never seen an animal speak doesn't mean it never happens. Have you considered the possibility that they just don't have anything to say to you?

quote:

---

if you recall, and seems to be intelligent enough to deceive Eve.

---

So? The serpent is described as the most subtil of all the beasts.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, but it is the height of naivete to then claim that because Revelation calls Satan a "serpent," that means that the "serpent" mentioned in Genesis is therefore Satan.

​

Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan.

---

​

I never claimed this.

---

Then what was the point of bringing up Revelation if not to connect it back to Genesis?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Analysis of the texts. As I pointed out in my next post, Genesis was written in the period before the 7th century, some parts as early as the 10th. Job, on the other hand, somewhere around the 5th, possibly as late as the 4th.

​

Ergo, the book of Job is not as old as the book of Genesis.

---

​

I understand that your analyses of the texts may have led you to believe that Job was written somewhere around the fifth century B.C.

---

So if Job was written after Genesis, then that makes Job younger than Genesis.

quote:

---

Obviously, though, whoever it is that originally determined that Job was written around 1500 B.C. did some analysis, too. So why should I believe you before I believe him?

---

Why don't you do some research and find out?

quote:

---

(Not that I put complete faith in this man's date of 1500, just that I am more inclined to accept it than I am to your proposed date.)

---

Might it be because you want it to be that way?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Too bad. You're the one claiming Satan is serpentine and that Genesis makes use of this, implying that the serpent is Satan.

---

​

Again, I am not claiming this.

---

Then what was the point of bringing up Revelation? If Revelation has no connection to Genesis, what possible reason could you have had for mentioning it?

quote:

---

I am claiming, however, that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible (Revelations)--nothing more than that.

---

Why?What on earth does Revelation have to do with Genesis?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Of course. What other version is there?

---

​

I really wish I could read/speak Hebrew, but as it stands, I cannot.

---

Even so, do you not agree that the books of Judaism must necessarily be understood within the context of Judaism? That they must be studied in the historical context of the Jews who were present at the time of its writing? That it was written by Jews for Jews and attempts by Christians to re-write its meaning are ill-conceived?

quote:

---

For this reason, I am referring to the several English translations I have right next to me.

---

That's fine. But what is the context for which they were translated? Were they done in order to preserve Christian theology (such as the NIV) or were they done in order to preserve Jewish theology?

quote:

---

If you could elaborate on your point that Genesis starts out mentioning many gods and slowly evolves into monotheism, I would appreciate it.

---

Just take a look. From the very first chapter. "Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26). This is followed by god looking to the other gods and panicking over Adam and Eve's becoming as gods knowing good and evil, "Man is become as one of us" (Gen 3:22). And then the Tower of Babylon, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen 11:7).In fact, that is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the various authors of the Torah: Some refer to god in the singular and some in the plural. The earlier writings tend to refer to god in the plural while the later ones move to monotheism.And don't worry about offending me. I've been doing this for too long to become emotional about it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

With my original post, I was simply suggesting that maybe Satan DOES "go about on his belly." The verse from Revelations seems to support this idea.

---

But dragons have feet. Satan is a dragon in Revelation.

quote:

---

The "serpent" it speaks of may be a dragon

---

No, not "may be." It directly states that it is.

quote:

---

but this is beside the point--Satan is still referred to as a serpent

---

But if Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, then it's a non sequitur and should be ignored.

quote:

---

even dragons "go about on their bellies," for the most part.

---

No, they don't. They go about on their feet.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So every serpent, even the pet snake a friend of mine from college had, is an incarnation of the devil?

---

​

I never claimed this. In fact, I never even implied this.

---

Did we or did we not have the following exchange: If you don't have the direction backwards, then you are, indeed, saying that all serpents are Satan.So I'm wondering why you keep flipping back and forth. If you agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, why on earth did you bring it up? If you agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, why do you keep coming back to it? If you agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, why are we still talking about it?Again, you have the direction backwards. That Satan is referred to as a serpent is irrelevant. The question is whether or not the serpent in Genesis is Satan. Do you see how that is a reversal of direction? We don't get to start with Satan, find ways that he's being described, and then go look for other mentions of that description and insist that it's a reference to Satan. Instead, you have to start with the actual reference and see if those references lead to a conclusion that is Satan being referred to.Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan. The fact that Revelation calls Satan a serpent is irrelevant because Genesis doesn't refer to the serpent as a supernatural being but as an animal.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Insult? Please. You'll know when I've insulted you.

---

​

That's great. Does it really matter, though? Maybe I should have said that you replied in "an insulting manner"? It is only a matter of semantics.

---

Incorrect. The distinction between inferral and implication is not merely semantic. And yes, it does matter. You'll know when I reply in an insulting manner.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if Job was written after Genesis, then that makes Job younger than Genesis.

---

​

But if Job was written before Genesis, then that makes Job older than Genesis.

---

But as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.

quote:

---

You tell me, though--which English translation sticks most closely to the original context of both the Old Testament and the New Testament?

---

I don't think such a thing exists. On the most basic level, we're dealing with texts for which we do not have the original and even if we did, they are based upon oral traditions and thus we have no hope of finding the "original context." Instead, we have to look at the full tradition that surrounds the texts...and that doesn't really exist in a single book.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Just take a look. From the very first chapter. "Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26). This is followed by god looking to the other gods and panicking over Adam and Eve's becoming as gods knowing good and evil, "Man is become as one of us" (Gen 3:22). And then the Tower of Babylon, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen 11:7).

---

​

This is another debate, but has it ever occurred to you that this may be speaking of the Trinity?

---

Didn't we just agree that "the books of Judaism must necessarily be understood within the context of Judaism? That they must be studied in the historical context of the Jews who were present at the time of its writing? That it was written by Jews for Jews and attempts by Christians to re-write its meaning are ill-conceived?"So what on earth are you doing invoking the Trinity, a Christian idea, and placing it upon a Jewish text?

quote:

---

I am not saying you are wrong for thinking it isn't, but you should at least take this idea into account.

---

Why would somebody take a Christian idea and claim a Jewish text was written with that in mind?