The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

On several occasions people have stated in various ways that the ancient serpent/dragon in Revelations that symbolizes Satan/Devil refers back to the serpent in Genesis 3:1 which means that the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is Satan.I disagree. IMO, the plain text reading does not support that the serpent of Genesis is the same as the serpent/dragon in the vision of Revelation.The serpent in Genesis is a beast of the field. In Hebrew “satan” is not used as a proper name until the word adversary is personified in the Book of Job. In this book the adversary works for God and does nothing without God’s permission. Within this book, the personified adversary is not described as a beast of the field. The dragon/serpent mentioned in John’s vision regardless of the adjectives used to describe it represents Satan/Devil as he fit into the beliefs of the time. IMO, the imagery was more than likely drawn from the leviathan in the Old Testament. Given that there was roughly 700 years between the Isaiah verse and John's vision, a lot changes over time.Just because a dragon/serpent is used to symbolize Satan in John’s vision, doesn’t make the serpent/snake in the Garden, Satan.Sometimes a snake is just a snake.

quote:

---

revelation is clearly a purposeful incantation of ancient mythologies meant to convey a certain immediate point.

---

It's a shame that people forget that cultures continue to change and evolve over time and religions are no exception.Religions are not immune to influence from the secular world and other religions. Development of the Concept of Satan prior to 300 BCE in Israel

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The "ancient serpent" refers to the serpent in the ancient times when man was first created. This is obviously a reference to the serpent who opposed God with a lie. Only those who reject the New Testament as the oracles of God would argue otherwise.

---

Actually the ancient serpent refers to the great dragon and for the purposes of John's vision the Satan personna is portrayed by this huge serpentine creature. It isn't saying that Satan is a huge serpentine creature and it isn't referring back to Genesis.Just because I disagree with your interpretation, doesn't mean I reject the words of God within the NT. It only means that I disagree with your interpretation. I have no problem with John's vision.

quote:

---

The Apostle Paul writes "But I fear lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your thoughts would be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity toward Christ." (2 Cor. 10:3)

---

Now this verse is actually referring to the snake in the Garden, but Paul isn't referring to Satan in this comment. Read on: Paul is warning his audience against being deceived by other preachers.

quote:

---

But the Apostle feared that these simple and pure thoughts toward Jesus would be corrupted by the craftiness of the spiritual enemy of God.

---

IMO, that's reading more into the plain text than is actually there.

quote:

---

The plain text of Genesis does not name the serpent as anything other than a serpent.

---

The text disagrees with you.

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

In Hebrew “satan” is not used as a proper name until the word adversary is personified in the Book of Job. In this book the adversary works for God and does nothing without God’s permission. Within this book, the personified adversary is not described as a beast of the field.

I'm curious as to the source of this opinion. I have been seeing it on the Internet for years.

---

Judaism

quote:

---

Satan is like a mad and vicious dog on a leash.

---

Out of curiosity, what OT verses support this opinion?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The "ancient serpent" means that the Devil and Satan is the same being that was read about in Genesis. If you don't believe this then you probably have not seriously considered the parellel between Revelation 12:1-4 and Genesis 3:15-16

---

No it doesn't. The symbolic vision doesn't point to that conclusion. There is no parallel. Pregnant woman getting ready to birth. There are quite a few of those in the OT and through the ages. A very general visual aid.

quote:

---

In Genesis the enmity between the woman and the serpent parellels perfectly the enmity between the symbolic woman and the dragon.

---

No enimity (hatred) is implied in the text of John's vision. You're putting more into the text than what is there.

quote:

---

The head of Satan is crushed by Christ and His army of overcomers at the battle of Armageddon in chapter 19 of Revelation. This parellels God's promise in Genesis that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent.

---

Again not in the text.

quote:

---

There is no serious argument that the dragon is not the same being as in Genesis. And those who concoct such an interpretation only do so because they reject the New Testament as the word of God. They desire to slice and dice the Bible to separate that which is objectionable from it.

---

As I've said before, just because someone disagrees with your interpretation doesn't mean they reject the NT as the word of God or that they are slicing out what they don't like.The same type of thing can be said about those who pad the text.
Those who add to the word of God desire to hide that which is objectionable to them.All I've sliced out is what you have added.Several have shown you why the dragon in John's vision is not the talking snake in Genesis. But you haven't shown anything concrete without adding to the text, that shows the talking snake is Satan.Abraham deceived the king about his wife Sarah. Does that make him Satan? NoIt serves no purpose in the Genesis story to turn the talking snake into Satan or to John's vision to relate it back to the talking snake.Again disagreeing with you doesn't not equate with rejecting the Bible or the NT. It only means we disagree with you, not God.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

This in and of itself does not indicate that the serpant was one of the wild animals that the LORD had made. It only indicates that the serpant was smarter than the animals---in a devious sort of way.

---

You can go that route if you want, but it is rather fruitless. At face value, the A&E story is an ancient fable, using imagery familiar to the people of the time.Example: Now the fox is more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.My audience knows what a fox is and they know that the fox is a wild animal.The storyteller's audience also knew what a snake was and knew that it was an animal. The fact that it was talking is part of the storytelling.

quote:

---

So what is it about the bad vibes betwixt the offspring of a mere snake and the offspring of a woman?

---

In our wonderfully civilized environment, we don't have the problem of snakes crossing our path very often.Snakes are a creature we don't always see until we have trespassed their space. This isn't a problem unless you are in an area with poisonous snakes, which I think the Hebrews were.Since children don't really pay attention to where they are running, I can understand why women would hate snakes. It was a hazard of the times.I never went walking through tall grass or thick woods around the farm with no ankle protection.A neighbor lady where I grew up hated snakes so much she went looking for them and then killed them. She went blackberry picking with us one year. These were wild blackberries, so we found the bushes scattered over a huge pasture. Our favorite spot was a group of 6 or 7 bushes that made a semicircle. We could walk into the middle of it and pick. She decided to go into the middle. While she was in there picking she asked my father if he ever saw any snakes in the bushes. My father told her no. Then after a few seconds he added, "Of course, I never looked for them." She came flying out of those bushes. We were laughing, but she stayed to the outside.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Unfortunately we are going to have problems continuing this discussion because IMO 1 John is a homiletic writing (written as a vehicle for conveying a predetermined concept or lesson). These types of writings or lessons very often go against the plain sense reading of the Biblical text. They project a meaning onto the text they use.This does not lessen the importance of what is said in 1 John. What it does mean is that no matter what meaning the author of 1 John projects onto OT text, it doesn't change the plain sense reading of the text and it doesn't make the snake Satan.There is nothing wrong with homiletics as long as one realizes the difference between that and the plain sense reading of the text.Even today. No matter what meaning a preacher projects onto the NT text, it doesn't change the plain sense reading of the text.In a nutshell, what you find me arguing against are homiletics presented as God's word or fact.So what you have shown so far are homiletics projecting Satan onto the snake of the garden. Plain sense reading of the Genesis text does not support your projection.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Some of you skeptics are just under a spirit of deep sleep so that you cannot discern rightly spiritual truths from the Bible. I would encourage you to pray and ask God for His mercy. And that not that you would agree with me but that you wouldn't lean on your on understanding but seek revelation from God.

---

When all else fails, pray for those who disagree with you.

quote:

---

You can't see that from the beginning God has been in a battle over the earth and man with His enemy Satan. And this profound truth He has sought to communicate to us in many ways.

---

My personal revelation still disagrees with you. If that truth is there, the text will speak for itself, without embellishments.Right now all we have in Genesis is a talking snake.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

you know the difference? grammar. it's not easy to tell with a concordance. but those references are "l'satan" as opposed to "ha-satan," THE satan. even then, it's a title.

---

So "ha-satan" means "the satan" and "ha-satan" is the title?If we used the word adversary today, how would we use those two examples in a sentence? Gives me a more familiar visual to hold on to.How can you tell when it is used as a proper name in Hebrew?Yes it is difficult to understand the grammar and such from the concordance. I realize there is more to a language than just the possible meanings of the words, but I'm language challenged. That's why I'm glad you are around to enlighten me.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

when i say leviathan, what do most people think of?

---

I don't know about most people, but I think of a sea monster.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

The other thing I think of is the size. I think of something huge. Bigger than a sperm whale.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

so, as per the bible, whales = serpents. i know i've showed pictures before demonstrating that whales were not known very well, even somewhat more recently. they were considered sea-serpents.

---

Interesting. I was searching for info on whales in the Mediterranean Sea, which is the closest large body of water the ancients had access to, right?This site concerning the Med Sea states: The Fin Whale is the second largest animal in the world. It can grow to 85ft long.The Sperm Whale also gets to about 60 feet long and has teeth.Since the sperm whale blowhole is to the side and not centered, when it expells the stream is to the side. I wonder if that is what gave the inspiration for fire breathing? Looks like steam.I also wonder how much the swimming in pods and such inspired the many headed idea.Needless to say their sea had two very large whales for their viewing.I can see how the dragon in Revelation could be based on these whales.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

well, lets not go that far. the dragon of revelation is based on pre-existing legends,

---

Sorry I didn't connect the dots. Based on pre-existing legends that probably were inspired by these whales.

quote:

---

also, i would like to suggest (before anyone else) that the multi-headed sea-dragon myths might also have some origin in giant squid.

---

I wondered about that also when I read that the sperm whale feeds on the Giant Squids which feed at the lower depths. Makes one wonder if they bring them to the surface to eat.Lots of inspiration possibilities. (No wording changed in edit)This message has been edited by purpledawn, 03-13-2006 09:19 AM

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The serpent in Genesis is of course related to and representative of Satan the Devil.

---

IMO, you're projecting a later belief onto an earlier writing. The use of the word evil and corrupt is not indicative of Satan.You haven't really connected the dots in a way that I see a obvious connection from Revelation to Genesis.Since the Persions apparently believed in the good versus evil scenerio and they believed in a ruler over the powers of evil, who had many servants in this realm known as demons, I do see this influence on later beliefs. I don't see this view in Genesis though.

quote:

---

What kind of helper then is this?

---

One Jewish reading described Satan as a member of God's court, the prosecuting attorney, but IMO that is also a later belief than the Genesis story.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

You have to consider if God should open up the Bible with a long backround comment on the nature of angels good and bad. This as an introduction to the Bible might not make much sense.

​

I don't see why you cannnot see the wisdom of God in telling us initially sparse details about the nature of His ultimate advasary. That these details are provided latter seems proper to me. ...

---

God didn't open with details on his ultimate adversary because he doesn't have one. But humans do have good and bad urges. So God needed to explain this concept while teaching us how to deal with it.God put it in a nice story. We are all born without the knowledge of good and bad. We have to be taught. If we are not taught about good and evil, we can easily be lead astray by others. Keeping it simple and portable, God showed via the story that mankind acquired their knowledge of good and bad, they weren't created (born) with it.The OT stories speak of real life adversaries (enemies), not necessarily supernatural ones.In Revelation, God shows John the coming troubles. Not from a supernatural source, Satan, but from very real adversaries such as Rome, etc. Just as he used animal symbols to denote nations in Daniel's vision, God did the same for John.I'm sure any historians on the board will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the culture of the time had the freedom that we do today to speak out against the reigning government. Nursery Rhymes have political undertones.Religious songs such as “Wade in the Water”, “The Gospel Train” and “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” directly refer to the Underground Railroad.It's an age old tradition.Just as the historical events behind the songs and nursery rhymes are no longer prominent in our minds when we hear them, I feel that the historical events that sparked John's vision are also lost in a plain text reading.IMO, the snake is just a simple snake to make a point in the story.
The dragon signifies a real adversary, not a supernatural one.(ABE: Your Message 134 really backed up my point here. Thank you. This message has been edited by purpledawn, 03-14-2006 08:38 AM

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

If you are going to address my post, please address the point of my post. I didn't say that supernatural enemies weren't real and I didn't say that negro spirituals did not have spiritual content.Please stick to the topic and the point of my post.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz