Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 136 of 302 (295149)
03-14-2006 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by jaywill
03-14-2006 2:53 AM


Jaywill,
The topic is not "indestructible life" (Message 131) or the serpent's "deception" (Message 132 and Message 133). You can take those discussions to the appropriate threads.
The dots that you need to connect are:
Dot #1: the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Dot #2: the dragon in the Revelation.
You are trying to connect every dot in the Bible and in your imagination, but you are neglecting the topic at hand. You are writing a book where a paragraph would do if you had a strong argument.
Your sole point seems to be that serpent=Satan and dragon=Satan, therefore serpent=dragon.
You need to establish that serpent=Satan is true and that all "satans" are equal before your math will work.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by jaywill, posted 03-14-2006 2:53 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 6:26 AM ringo has replied

DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6438 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 137 of 302 (295237)
03-14-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ReverendDG
03-05-2006 3:06 AM


Re: Snake or Satan?
ReverendDG said: "hmm i just had a thought, though i figure its not new, maybe god had the snake test adam and eve?"
If God had the serpent test Adam and Eve, why did he curse the creature in Gen. 3:14 after Adam and Eve flunked?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ReverendDG, posted 03-05-2006 3:06 AM ReverendDG has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 138 of 302 (295243)
03-14-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by purpledawn
03-14-2006 8:32 AM


Re: God's Story
The OT stories speak of real life adversaries (enemies), not necessarily supernatural ones.
The implication of this ignorant statement is that supernatural enemies are not "real life" enemies.
Job is Old Testament. Satan works over Job pretty bad. Satan was a supernatural enemy.
Exodus and Joshua show that behind the actual warfare God's hosts aided Israel in the spiritual realm. So you're wrong.
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.
That is wrong that there are no supernatural sources in Revelation or Daniel. It is particulary bogus as related to the book of Daniel which plainly tries to convey to you that the angels were principalities struggling with each other on behalf of the nations. The "prince" of one nation hindered Daniel's prayers from being answered. And the arch angel Michael is a "prince" of the nation of Israel. It is right there in Daniel that there are supernatural sources behind the scene.
You totally missed the main point of the book of Daniel. It is useless then to discuss Revelation with you.
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.
Using Swing Low Sweet Chariot to send a subtle signal does not mean that the original creation of the song and its singing of it was not pertaining to spiritual themes. It is totally rediculous to pretend that most of those spirituals were not arrived at by means of the spiritual aspirations of slaves.
That they had real live flesh and blood masters does not mean that they had no spiritual problems, spiritual enemies, and spiritual battles to fight. And therefore the came up with many songs which have been spiritually enjoyed ever since.
I do not argue that on occasion the songs may have served as signals pertaining to the underground railroad. I would never say that the spirituals of the American slaves were purely secular symbols with no spiritual content or evidence of a struggle against spiritual enemies.
It is ludicrous to suggest that "Go Tell It On the Mountain" had no spiritual content to it but was only code words for escaping to the North.
I've read some books on this. For example Wyatt T. Walker's book on Negro Spirituals. And I have read G.S. Wilmore's book on "Last Things First" that deals with social struggle of slaves and their spiritual battles from an eschatological point of view.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-14-2006 01:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by purpledawn, posted 03-14-2006 8:32 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by purpledawn, posted 03-14-2006 6:16 PM jaywill has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 139 of 302 (295322)
03-14-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by jaywill
03-14-2006 1:50 PM


Re: God's Story
If you are going to address my post, please address the point of my post.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by jaywill, posted 03-14-2006 1:50 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 5:41 AM purpledawn has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 140 of 302 (295432)
03-15-2006 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by purpledawn
03-14-2006 6:16 PM


Re: God's Story
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.
The link between what John is talking about and what Genesis is talking about is established by John. The context is the entire history of the world. It is hard to get that lost about it because practically every age of man is related to the things of which John is speaking.
That is all I will say about that at the moment. You fellas have a way of telling me to stick to the subject whenever you make your incorrect statements about related issues. Its okay for you to diverse to make your point. When you are refuted or examined on that point I get this "Please stick to the topic" tone.
You make some statement about an issue you regard as related. Expect to be examined on it and stop resorting to "stick to the topic" as a defense.
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.
The serpent was in an advasarial relationship with God in Genesis. That is obvious. If he was not then he would not have been CURSED.
It may be arguable whether he was in an advasarial relationship with Adam and Eve. But for those who have some insight into the Bible it is not too arguable. For to be persuaded from following God is an advasarial activity against man's best interest.
God created man. Man should listen to God. Someone comes along and persuades man NOT to listen to God. Do you think that someone is a friend of man or not? I say that one is an enemy of man's best interest.
If that is not good textural criticism of Genesis chapter three it is good theology of it.
Please stick to the topic and the point of my post.
You make side points as well as I. I wish you and Ringo would stop telling me to stick to the topic when you get refuted or examined.
I didn't say that supernatural enemies weren't real and I didn't say that negro spirituals did not have spiritual content.
Perhaps, I missed your point on those matters. But you said that the enemies in the Old Testament were real life ones and not spiritual ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by purpledawn, posted 03-14-2006 6:16 PM purpledawn has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 141 of 302 (295435)
03-15-2006 6:00 AM


A False Statement
The statement that the serpent in Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelation I regard as a false statement.
The proposers of this theory that the serpent in Genesis is not the ancient serpent refered to in Revelation want to leave Revelation out of the discussion. Occasional references to it are okay as long as they support the theory.
This is not that compicated. The serpent opposed God in Genesis. He is still opposing God in Revelation. He has grown more fierce and more murderous. He has become more desperate and more treacherous. That is the point that Revelation is trying to convey.
The ancient serpent is still fighting against God and God's people. That is the simple bottom line of Revelation 12. It is the same personage.
The title of this discussion is simply a false statement. I have listened and considered the arguments to support the discussion title and I find them not supportive of the theory. They are not strong enough.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:02 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:05 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:06 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by ramoss, posted 03-15-2006 2:47 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 151 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 5:27 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 142 of 302 (295436)
03-15-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by ringo
03-14-2006 9:40 AM


Ringo,
The topic is not "indestructible life" (Message 131) or the serpent's "deception" (Message 132 and Message 133). You can take those discussions to the appropriate threads.
You are reminding me of the fleeing serpent in the sea.
What Does the Bible Really Mean? Does the Bible Really Mean that the serpent/dragon in Revelation is not the same character in Genesis chatper 3? The answer I give you is that the Bible Really Means that the serpent/dragon in Revelation is the same Satan that was in the serpent character in Genesis 3.
Leviathan in Isaiah is a symbol of the Gentile nations which punished Israel and went too far in doing so. God did use the nations to discipline Israel. But of course they have only thier own self interest in mind. And they went too far. So God will smite the nations who are depicted as the fleeing mythological Leviathan, the serpent in the sea.
Why didn't John say "the ancient Leviathan" rather than "the ancient serpent?"
Why is the sumbolism of the dragon before the pregnant woman so similiar to the story of Genesis - God putting enemity between the woman and the serpent and their respective seeds?
What do you really hope to gain by disconnecting Revelation from Genesis is this regard?
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:27 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 03-14-2006 9:40 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by purpledawn, posted 03-15-2006 7:58 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 03-15-2006 10:47 AM jaywill has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 143 of 302 (295454)
03-15-2006 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by jaywill
03-15-2006 6:26 AM


Hebrew vs Greek
quote:
Why didn't John say "the ancient Leviathan" rather than "the ancient serpent?"
Because he wasn't writing in Hebrew.
If you look at a Greek Interlinear Bible you will see that the word "leviathan" is translated into Greek as "drakonta" or dragon which is a great serpent.
quote:
Why is the sumbolism of the dragon before the pregnant woman so similiar to the story of Genesis - God putting enemity between the woman and the serpent and their respective seeds?
I really don't see the similarity you speak of.
Eve was not pregnant when she dealt with the snake (small snake).
The snake in Genesis was not trying to devour anything.
Snake had one head.
The curse on the snake gives a visual of snakes striking out at the legs and people stepping on snakes.
Hundreds of years have passed between Genesis to Isaiah and hundreds more between Isaiah and Revelation. Hundreds of writings of various styles were written within this timeframe.
Genesis may be the only story you know of with a woman and a snake involved, but not necessarily John.
quote:
What do you really hope to gain by disconnecting Revelation from Genesis is this regard?
Understanding the reality behind the writings. IMO, the point of Revelation is missed if the enemy is considered supernatural.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 6:26 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jaywill, posted 03-16-2006 11:11 AM purpledawn has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 144 of 302 (295500)
03-15-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by jaywill
03-15-2006 6:26 AM


Connect the dots
Jaywill writes:
The answer I give you is that the Bible Really Means that the serpent/dragon in Revelation is the same Satan that was in the serpent character in Genesis 3.
You keep telling us "What The Bible Really Means", but you don't back it up with anything but your opinion.
The OP claims that what the Bible really says - to a plain reading - is that the serpent and the dragon are different characters in different stories with different symbolism and different purposes. If you disagree with the OP, it is up to you to connect the dots.
You have to show that the serpent was Satan. You have not done that. There are other ongoing threads where you can try to make that case, but until that case is made there, you can not just assume that it is made here.
You also have to show that the word/name "Satan", as used in the Bible, always refers to the same "entity". Your insistence on an external supernatural "adversary" actually mitigates against that idea.
The serpent in Genesis is a "deceiver" (according to you). The Satan in Job is more like a prosecuting attorney, working at God's behest. The dragon in the Revelation is a mighty, destructive power. If they are all the same, why are they depicted so differently?
As you have been told before, you miss the meaning of each individual story if you insist on conflating them all into one gigantic conspiracy theory.
What do you really hope to gain by disconnecting Revelation from Genesis is this regard?
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less whether the snake and the dragon are the same or not.
I have no vested interest because I don't believe there is a devil in the woodpile lying in wait to trap me. Since the supernatural adversary doesn't exist, what do I care if there are two different stories about him or one story about him?
If you can make a reasonable case, I'd be glad to agree with you. Until then, there's more to be learned from two separate stories.
(Edited to add subtitle.)
This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-03-15 08:50 AM

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 6:26 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 12:22 PM ringo has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 145 of 302 (295535)
03-15-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ringo
03-15-2006 10:47 AM


Re: Connect the dots
You keep telling us "What The Bible Really Means", but you don't back it up with anything but your opinion.
Revelation is part of the Bible. So is Genesis. Revelation refers to the ancient serpent. Which and what ancient serpent? I gave many reasons why the ancient serpent in Genesis is the one that Revelation speaks of.
So the Bible really means .... I mean it really REALLY means ... that "the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth" (Rev. 12:9) refers to that same being in Genesis who deceived Eve.
I also gave reasons why Leviathan ( a reasonable runner up as a candidate, I admit ) is a less likely interpretation of who the dragon is in Revelation 12.
Complaints from you that I have not made a good case I think are bluffs ... pointless posturing.
The OP claims that what the Bible really says - to a plain reading -
Do you mean a plain reading of the Bible? This is a Bible Study. Do you mean a plain reading of only Genesis? You didn't say.
It is noted that you did NOT say "a plain reading of" WHAT. I see you. I think by refering to a "plain reading" of Genesis in conjunction with other biblical sources like Job and certainly Revelation which is relevant to the discussion, shows that the ancient serpent is the one in Genesis.
I don't mean that physically it is the exact serpent in the garden that is physically noticed in Revelation. I don't mean that. There is no evidence that the actual physical snake in Genesis has a history worth tracing through the subsequent chapters and books of the Bible. There is NOTHING in the Bible indicating that the continued whereabouts of the physical serpent is something worth including in all the writings of the Bible. There IS however continued attention given to an advasary, as enemy of God, a slanderer, a fallen angel. THAT is traced beyond the book of Genesis if NOT the physical creature that spoke with Eve.
So what lies behind the serpent is what is important. And that entity is refered to in Revelation as "the ancient serpent"
is that the serpent and the dragon are different characters in different stories with different symbolism and different purposes. If you disagree with the OP, it is up to you to connect the dots.
I disagreed with the statement that Revelation does not refer to the serpent in Genesis. And I gave my reasons why I disagree. I see no rebuttal from you why those specific reasons are not valid.
You have to show that the serpent was Satan.
By comparing the symbolism of Revelation 12 with the words spoken by God in Genesis 3:15 my case that John is refering to the Genesis serpent is stronger than the theory that John is NOT refering to the Genesis serpent.
The particulars of the vision of John mirror the particulars of God's words about the enimty between the woman and the serpent and between her seed and the serpent's seed. This I established by interpreting the quite plain words about the manchild that the woman in Reelation gives birth to. The one the dragon has enemity against and is trying to devour as soon as it is born. If this does not ring some bells and remind you of Genesis 3:15 you must have a pre-formed position to not want to consider the parellel.
You have not done that.
Yep. I have.
There are other ongoing threads where you can try to make that case, but until that case is made there, you can not just assume that it is made here.
Those who believe this can review what I wrote on this thread and make a determination.
I suggest that they review what I wrote comparing Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 12 - On this thread.
You also have to show that the word/name "Satan", as used in the Bible, always refers to the same "entity". Your insistence on an external supernatural "adversary" actually mitigates against that idea.
Show mean the plural "Satans" anywhere in the Bible please.
For that matter show me the plural "Devils" in the Bible. The King James translates sometimes "devils" as in plural. But that is a poor translation. It is not the same word for Devil. Demons is a better translation. That's King James.
You may find multiple evil spirits. That I will give you. But the burden of proof is on you to show that the Scripture anywhere speaks of multiple "Satans" (plural) or multiple "Devils" (plural).
So where's your evidence of multiple Satans?
The serpent in Genesis is a "deceiver" (according to you). The Satan in Job is more like a prosecuting attorney, working at God's behest.
You picked that up from where? I'm curious to know who propogates this understanding that so many skeptics of the Bible like you love to parrot over and over again.
Deceiver is not the ONLY activity assign to Satan. That is all that that proves. If Satan can be seen doing someting else that doesn't mean that it is a different Satan.
A prosecuting attorney is not that good of a description of Satan's activities in Job. I pointed to a mad dog on a leash. That is better. Or it is at least as good.
Now, was Satan doing something for God? In a sense, yes. He was furnishing a backround against which God could demonstrate His superior wisdom. He outwitted Satan. Does that make him God's hired attorney?
I think this is not accurate a description of Satan. That is because Satan's accusations are mixed truths. They are in fact lies. They are lies with some apparent ground for fact. That makes him a rather malicious and slanderous attorney. God doesn't need Satan's lies to do his courtroom work.
God does not condemn falsly. He condemns based on truth. Where you conedemn yourself perhaps God would not because He knows better. And where you excuse yourself perhaps God does NOT excuse you. That is because He knows better. God does not need a twisted malicious attorney to spin half truths and slanders to do His work.
Who said God needs a liar to be His prosecutor for anything?
The dragon in the Revelation is a mighty, destructive power. If they are all the same, why are they depicted so differently?
I told you. The idea that John puts across is that this entity has grown stronger, more malicious, more treacherous, more furious, more murderous. Over time his malignant nature has waxed worse if such is possible.
This is depicted in the very chapter itself:
"Woe to the earth and the sea because the devil has come down to you and has great rage, knowing that he has only a short time" (Rev. 12:12)
Right there you have it. He is more furious because he sees that time for him is running out. He comes down to earth in great rage before the end of this age. He knows that Christ is coming to totally disarm him and gain the planet. So he has little time left to act. Perhaps in Genesis three he had lots of time. By the time of the events in Revelation 12 he has little time left.
As you have been told before, you miss the meaning of each individual story if you insist on conflating them all into one gigantic conspiracy theory.
But there IS indeed a conspiracy Ringo. There is indeed a Satanic conspiracy. Thank God that Christ can defeat the conspiracy.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 12:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 03-15-2006 10:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by purpledawn, posted 03-15-2006 1:02 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 03-15-2006 2:21 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 5:51 PM jaywill has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 146 of 302 (295557)
03-15-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jaywill
03-15-2006 12:22 PM


Satan
Ringo writes:
The serpent in Genesis is a "deceiver" (according to you). The Satan in Job is more like a prosecuting attorney, working at God's behest.
quote:
You picked that up from where? I'm curious to know who propogates this understanding that so many skeptics of the Bible like you love to parrot over and over again.
Judaism
...Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; ...
Now you know.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 12:22 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 1:45 PM purpledawn has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 147 of 302 (295576)
03-15-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by purpledawn
03-15-2006 1:02 PM


Re: Satan
Purpledawn
Thanks. That's not a bad article. It will take me some time to read it all.
I hope you noticed that it refered to the Talmud and Midrash as teaching those of the Jewish faith -
He is the incarnation of all evil, and his thoughts and activities are devoted to the destruction of man; so that Satan, the impulse to evil
I will take some time to explore this matter that God needs one who is bent on the destruction of mankind to be His attorney. But the article is informative as to the source of some of your thoughts.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 01:46 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 01:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by purpledawn, posted 03-15-2006 1:02 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ramoss, posted 03-15-2006 2:55 PM jaywill has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 148 of 302 (295580)
03-15-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jaywill
03-15-2006 12:22 PM


Re: Connect the dots
Hi Jaywill,
I'm going to go through your rant in some detail - while trying to keep the topic in sight. If I get tired, I might not make it through to the end.
Complaints from you that I have not made a good case I think are bluffs ... pointless posturing.
As always, I leave it to the intelligent members of the board to decide who has made whose case. If they wish, they may also decide who is "posturing" instead of presenting a clear case.
The OP claims that what the Bible really says - to a plain reading -
Do you mean a plain reading of the Bible? This is a Bible Study. Do you mean a plain reading of only Genesis? You didn't say.
When I say, "what the Bible says - to a plain reading," I mean a plain reading of the Bible.
Try for a plain reading of my posts.
I think by refering to a "plain reading" of Genesis in conjunction with other biblical sources like Job and certainly Revelation which is relevant to the discussion, shows that the ancient serpent is the one in Genesis.
The problem here is the "conjunction" - which you have not adequately shown.
There is NOTHING in the Bible indicating that the continued whereabouts of the physical serpent is something worth including in all the writings of the Bible.
Agreed.
There IS however continued attention given to an advasary, as enemy of God, a slanderer, a fallen angel.
And you have not made a convincing connection between the snake and any fallen angel.
I do not accept that there is an entity "behind" the serpent. And purpledawn does not accept that the dragon in the Revelation is supernatural. You are still just assuming your conclusion.
I disagreed with the statement that Revelation does not refer to the serpent in Genesis. And I gave my reasons why I disagree.
The reasons why you disagree are not what the debate is about. There's not much point in posting your opinions unless you're trying to make them clear to somebody else. Why treat me like an adversary when I'm trying to get you to clarify your position?
I see no rebuttal from you why those specific reasons are not valid.
Since you are taking a position against the OP, it is up to you to rebut it. It isn't my job to defend it.
Even so, I have rebutted you:
1. There is no evidence that the serpent was Satan.
2. There is no evidence that every use of the word "Satan" in the Bible refers to the same entity.
Purpledawn has also rebutted you:
3. There is no evidence that the dragon is Satan. (I make no pretense of presenting her whole case here. )
The particulars of the vision of John mirror the particulars of God's words about the enimty between the woman and the serpent and between her seed and the serpent's seed.
So, are you saying that Sleeping Beauty and Goldilocks were the same person too? Look at the similarities - both female, both good-looking, both sleepy.... What about Snow White? Didn't she go into a deep sleep too? Maybe all of the fairy tales are really about the same young woman.
The one the dragon has enemity against and is trying to devour as soon as it is born.
The enmity in Genesis is between people and snakes. The enmity in the Revelation is between the Jews and the Roman Empire. Why does all enmity have to be the same?
... you must have a pre-formed position to not want to consider the parellel.
Do you know the difference between a parallel and an intersection?
Parallels, by definition, are similar in some ways but not identical. Parallel lines (of thought) can not intersect both in Genesis and in the Revelation.
Show mean the plural "Satans" anywhere in the Bible please.
Now, where did I say anything about "plurals"?
I referred to different usages of the word. Your beloved Strong's Concordance will tell you that the Hebrew word means "an opponent" and the Greek word means "the accuser". Arachnophilia has discussed elsewhere the various usages, definite and indefinite articles, etc. You are welcome to refer to that discussion when you show us that every use of the word refers to the same entity.
The serpent in Genesis is a "deceiver" (according to you). The Satan in Job is more like a prosecuting attorney, working at God's behest.
You picked that up from where?
Purpledawn has answered that.
A prosecuting attorney is not that good of a description of Satan's activities in Job. I pointed to a mad dog on a leash. That is better.
A mad dog on a leash?
Who do you think a mad dog would attack? Would he strain against the leash or would he turn on whoever was holding the leash?
Very, very, very bad analogy. You depict Satan as a threat to his Master.
Who said God needs a liar to be His prosecutor for anything?
Not me.
Please try to keep up: I have said that the snake was not a liar and that the snake was not Satan.
As for what God "needs": I have said that the storyteller needed a character to be the "bad guy". In Genesis, the bad guy tempts Adam and Eve to eat from the tree. In Job, the bad guy tempts Job to turn against God. Both of them advance the plot. In both cases, the decision is in human hands. No adversary to God is needed or implied.
The idea that John puts across is that this entity has grown stronger, more malicious, more treacherous, more furious, more murderous. Over time his malignant nature has waxed worse if such is possible.
It isn't possible, of course.
I have said that if God is all-powerful there is no room for a rival entity with any amount of power, whether waxing or waning. You have not addressed that point.
quote:
"Woe to the earth and the sea because the devil has come down to you and has great rage, knowing that he has only a short time" (Rev. 12:12)
It's your own quote. Look at the last three words - "a short time".
That was written two thousand years ago. Does that not suggest to you that the "short time" referred to a contemporary menace? For example, the Roman Empire?
But there IS indeed a conspiracy Ringo. There is indeed a Satanic conspiracy.
Still blasphemy.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 12:22 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 5:41 PM ringo has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 149 of 302 (295585)
03-15-2006 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by jaywill
03-15-2006 6:00 AM


Re: A False Statement
The statement that the serpent in Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelation I regard as a false statement.
The proposers of this theory that the serpent in Genesis is not the ancient serpent refered to in Revelation want to leave Revelation out of the discussion. Occasional references to it are okay as long as they support the theory.
This is not that compicated. The serpent opposed God in Genesis. He is still opposing God in Revelation. He has grown more fierce and more murderous. He has become more desperate and more treacherous. That is the point that Revelation is trying to convey.
The ancient serpent is still fighting against God and God's people. That is the simple bottom line of Revelation 12. It is the same personage.
The title of this discussion is simply a false statement. I have listened and considered the arguments to support the discussion title and I find them not supportive of the theory. They are not strong enough.
Yes, I am sure that you associate the Great dragon in revelation to the clever beast in Genesis. In my opinion , you have not made a very good case.
You have not countered the arguemetns about the 'great dragon' in revelation being the leviatian. You have repeated your assertions you don't believe that.
Nor, have you countered the arguements that Genesis specifically says 'The snake was the most cleaver of the beasts'. Are you saying that Satan is a 'beast', and not an angel? You did not properly address that issue either.
Now, you also have to address that is Job, satan was walking over the earth. In genesis, the serpent was cursed, and had to crawl on his belly forever. How can someone who has to crawl on his belly walk?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 6:00 AM jaywill has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 150 of 302 (295592)
03-15-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by jaywill
03-15-2006 1:45 PM


Re: Satan
"Satan" is a different concept in Judasm than it is in Christianity.
Satan, in Judiasm, is more like the 'imp of the perverse', whose job it is to provide bad choices, so people can 'learn to live a sanctified life' by choosing good choices. Angels in Judiasm do not have 'free will', so you don't have the concept of a rebellion by angels, with Satan ruling hell.
If you read the Jewish commentary on Job, it will explain it in better detail. A source that discusses the first half of job in detail, including explaining jewish concepts, is at http://www.torah.org/learning/iyov/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 1:45 PM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024