The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

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. 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. 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. 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.

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 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:05 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:06 AM

Ringo, 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 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:29 AM

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. 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" 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. 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. Yep. I have. 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. 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? 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? 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. 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

PurpledawnThanks. 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 - 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 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 01:47 PM

Without spiritual overview of the Scriptures I doubt that anyone has the slightest clue.The seed of the woman is the man who will come to destroy the works of the Devil. That seed is a woman's seed. A woman's seed probably refers to the virgin birth of Christ.We are told in the Bible "For this reason the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8)The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the Devil. If you're like Ringo and Purpledawn you will regard this as fanciful. Watch though to see if they provide a better alternative."Since therefore the children have shared in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might destroy him who has the might of death, that is the devil" (Hebrews 2:14)First John says the Son was manifested to destroy the works of the devil. Hebrews 2:14 says that the Son partook of human flesh like us in order that through His death He might destroy the one who has the might of death. That one is the devil. This obviously ties the serpent in Genesis to the devil who was intrumental in tempting man into an action that led to death for all men.Just before His crucifixion Jesus tells His disciples:"Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out" (John 12:31)The ruler of the world here refers to Satan "the ruler of the authority of the air, ... the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience..." (Eph. 2:2)After leading man into death the Satanic spirit also operates in fallen mankind ruling the world by controling all sinners.That Satan the Devil has the might of death and is a ruler of the world is reinforced by his temptations offered to Christ. He told Jesus that he would grant to Christ all the world if He would only bow down and worship him. Jesus did not deny that the world had been put into his hands:"And he [the devil] led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, To You I will give all this authority and their glory, because to me it has been delivered, and to whomever I want I give it. If You therefore worship before me, it shall be all Yours.

​

And Jesus answered amd said to him, It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve" (Luke 4:5-8)The evil one who has the might of death and is the ruler of the world sought to tempt Christ to follow him as Adam followed. Christ prevailed. The defeat of the devil was secured by Jesus Christ in successive stages advancing all the way until the devil is tormented eternally.Then enmity between the incarnated Son of God, the woman's seed and the ancient serpent last through human history. Christ was bruised in His death on the cross. But in His obedience unto death and resurrection Christ deals the death blow to Satan.Without this understanding I doubt that its critics have the slightest clue what the enmity between the snake and the woman and their respective seeds means. This is an interesting question.I think it was Adam's responsibility to deal with the serpent. He failed to. So the fate of it is unknown. But Adam and Eve were to have dominion over every creeping thing which creeps upon the earth (Gen. 1:26). Instead of having dominion they came under dominion. The story emphasizes that they were expelled.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:33 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 06:37 PM

An answer from Arach that gets my attention. But let's check it out.Psalm 38:20 talks about David's advasaries. Okay, David had lots of advasaries. I don't dispute that David as well as many more people have multiple advasaries. Does this mean that all these advasaries of David were also God appointed prosecuting attorneys?These appear to be human enemies of David (v.19) who are also his advasaries. There is not much to tie them to the angelic "sons of God" in Job.Did God select one of these advasaries of David and have him work on Job in the book of Job? Did God select one of David's many advasaries and have them make accusations against the high priest clothed in rags in the book of Zechariah?Psalm 71:13 are also David's enemies (v.10). Are you suggesting that throughout human history everybody's enemies or advasaries are all Satans? Then there are Satans who are advasaries of Satans! This doesn't make much sense.You're embarking on an approach that whenever advasary is mentioned that would be a Satan. Then David is also a Satan to his own Satans. Psalm 109:4 says that the advasaries are "wicked men" (v.2). So "wicked men" and an angelic son of God in Job are in two different catagories.The same would hold for verses 20 and 29.Thanks for a biblical answer. But I don't think this establishes that every advasary of all people in the world or of all God's prophets are mutiple Satans, in terms of the one who came with the sons of God to the angelic council to accuse Job and God.At best I would say that among all the "advasaries" that you set forth as candidates there is one chief advasary who is mainly advasarial against God. You might count this one as the head advasary. And he is an angelic type being.He may have hosts. But this Satan is the head and leader of all of those evil hosts.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 07:06 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 07:10 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 07:11 PM

There are three terms related to the dwellers of the kingdom of darkness. And I cannot use Greek fonts here.1.) ho diabolos which is never found in plural. The literal meaning is "the one who sets out variance," "the slanderer," or "malignant accuser."2.) The angels of Satan as in Matthew 25:41.3.) diamonia - used in plural and has translation of demons. Though the Revised Version corrected the KJV the American Committee protested over the correction. The RSV confirmed that "devils" was not a proper translation of the word.Daibolos has no plural usage in the New Testament and the proper name for Satan the Devil. Diamonia has singular and plural usage and the best translation is demon/s.In Matthew many were brought to Jesus who were possessed by demons who were also called evil spirits:"When the even was come they brught unto him many that were possessed with demons; and He cast out the spirits with His word" (Matt.8:16)Again in Luke we read "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject unto us through Thy name... [Jesus reponds] Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you" (Luke 10:17,20) [Beelzebul] is called the prince of the demons by the Jews in the New Testament. So there was in their understanding one chief leader of all the evil spirits. This is the Devil in my understanding.One woman had seven demons (Luke 8:2,3). These demons were also called foul spirits (Mark 9:25). Over the many foul spirits was a chief evil spirit in the Jew's understanding."But the Pharisees, hearing this, said, This man does not cast out the demons except by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons ... But knowing their thoughts, He said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself will not stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?" (See Matt. 12:24-26)Christ taught that Satan's kingdom is united. Demonic advasaries do not fight against one another. Furthermore there appears to be a head among them. Though his kingdom can collectively be called in some sense "Satan" - "... if Satan casts out Satan" what He really means is the aggregate kingdom of demons is Satan's kingdom.Satan the Devil has many hosts which include angels who have followed him and demons as evil spirits, foul spirits. And I will not discribe the difference between them in this post.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 07:48 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 08:13 PM

In the book of Job the sons of God are being who were created before man was created. This is proved by Job 38"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... Onto what was its bases sunk, Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (See Job 38:4-7)At earth's creation the sons of God were already there shouting for joy. Man was not created yet until the sixth day."Morning stars" should suggest that these sons of God were there in the morning of the creation of the universe.One particular "Daystar, son of the dawn!" (Isa. 14:12) (Latin has it as Lucifer,) in Isaiah 14 made a thrust to usurp the throne of God. So there are the angelic morning stars as sons of God in Job. And there is a particular angelic "Daystar, son of the dawn" who was particularly aggressive:"But you said in your heart: I will ascend to heaven; Above the stars of God I will exalt my throne. And I will sit upon the mount of assembly in the uttermost parts of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." (Isa. 14:13)The Latin "Lucifer" is Satan, the son of the dawn among the angelic morning stars who are called the "sons of God" who all were created before the foundation of the earth was laid and man was created upon it.This "Daystar, son of the dawn!" must be the same superhuman figure called the anointed cherub who was perfect from the day of his creation in Ezekiel 28. Can you name any other being in the whole Bible that was made perfect from the moment of his creation?He wanted to exalt himself above God and be like God. This is Satan the Devil. Revelation does say "the Devil" rather than "a Devil".This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-15-2006 08:10 PM

Uh ... that's okay with me.Need time to study your objections more closely.

I don't think that is really necessary to establish my point. I think that it is established sufficiently that the sons of God in Job were angels and among them Satan came.I think the evidence we have before us is sufficient to establish the most important things aout Satan's nature. Looking at your comments below I think will add something to the clarity of the picture. I admit that in Isaiah 14 there are elements which suggest that God is only speaking about human personages. But I think that like Daniel's book often when speaking of human matters a veil is lifted and the spiritual matters behind these earthly ones are revealed.Is God only speaking to the king of Babylon (Isa.14:4)? I think not by the time we reach verse 12. The "Daystar, son of the dawn" should refer to someone greater than the king of Babylon. The ultimate evil "king" of the history of the universe from its infancy is indicated. The title suggests that this Lucifer (Latin Vulgate) was one of the earliest angels (sons of God - Job 38:7, cf. Job 1:6).In the New Testament Jesus speaks to Peter but addresses his comment to another behind Peter's opinion - Satan:"And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be merciful to You, Lord! This shall by no means happen to You!

​

But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men" (Matt. 16:22,23)In this passage where Peter offers his opinion that Jesus should avoid going to the cross to die, Jesus turns to say something to Peter but rebukes Satan. He recognizes the subtle Devil behind Peter's appeal to human self pity as a Satanic plot to prevent Jesus from fulfilling His Father's will.In the same manner the prophet Isaiah speaking God's words apparently is talking to the king of Babylon. But a divine rebuke is aimed at the ultimate evil source behind this evil earthly king. God rebukes the "Daystar, the son of the dawn of creation - the Lucifer (Latin Vulgate). The rebuke is aimed at Satan. Probably the last Antichrist of all history could be infered somewhere in there also.So I don't think it is exactly a mock though I can see your point. In the Ezekiel passage the "king of Tyre" is refered to from verse 12. Some people assume that this is the same person as "the prince of Tyre" mentioned in 2. Yet G.H. Pember informs us that though history knows of a prince of Tyre we know nothing about a "king of Tyre."The section in the chapter concerning the prince of Tyre opens with verse 2 - [b]"Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyre, Thus says Jehovah ...". And it closes with verse 10 - "You will die the death of the incircumcized by the hand of strangers, for I have spoken, declares the Lord Jehovah"Then another section begins addressing not the "prince of Tyre" but "the king of Tyre" in verse 11:"Moreover the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord Jehovah, O you who sealed up perfection, full of wisdom and perfection in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God ... You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created. You were the anointed cherub who covered [the Ark]; indeed I set you, so that you were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteusness was found in you" (See Ezekiel 28:11-14)This is now another section of prophecy. Could God be sarcastically addressing a Gentile king as the anointed cherub guarding the ark of the covnant? I don't think so.Was any other human king ever said by God to have been perfect in his was and that from the day he was created? Again, I think certainly not. And furthermore it is not that this rebellious one took it upon himself to be exalted and close to God. The prophecy says that God set him so - "You were the anointed cherub who covered [the Ark]; indeed I SET YOU ..."His original splendour and dignity therefore was not something which he assumed for himself but was designated to him by God. This scenario does not match the theory of God speaking mockingly of a Gentile king in an idol worshipping land of Tyre.GOd's speaking is a case of the "prophetic past" way of speaking. The veil is lifted from earthly contemporary matters just enough for God to reveal ancient and transcendent matters pertaining to the anointed cherubic angelic being who became Satan. Though he was created perfect in his ways he corrupted himself and became Satan the Devil.The two passages of in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 give us a brief enough view of things pertaining to the creation and subsequent history of this being. Someone has pointed out that Isaiah shows a rebellion against God's authority and Ezekiel shows a rebellion against God's holiness. I think that the Bible shows there is one ultimate advasary among all the advasaries.I am not sure how important it is that you agree that there is one king of all the enemies of God. If you want to believe that there was one Satan who attacks Job which is different from another Satan who stands up to accuse Israel in Chronicles and another Satan who accuses the high priest in Zechariah ... etc. go ahead.As for me I think it is completely reasonable to understand that of among all the evil spirits, evil angels, enemies, slanderes, liars who oppose God, there is a hierarchy with a head most leader.If you believe that there is no organizational structure but only many Satans or many satans, I don't know how much that matters. I think the biblical evidence is clear that there is one head evil being of all of the enemies of God and he is refered to a number of times in Scripture.So go ahead and believe that there are a thousand or a million satans if you prefer.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-16-2006 07:48 AM

God didn't consider it just another point of view did He?Would God curse the serpent simply for having another point of view? There was a open fighting. It was just very subtle. That fighting in Revelation is fierce and not subtle.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-16-2006 07:41 AM

Purpledawn, Revelation is a book with many many allusions to previous things written in the Bible. Almost all of the symbols that I can bring to mind must be interpreted by finding out where those things were mentioned BEFORE.Lampstands, rainbows, serpent, thunders, trumpets, harlots, temple, ark of the covnamt, Jerusalem, Lamb, seven eyes, seven lamps...etc.All these symbols which comprise Revelation are things previously communicated elsewhere in the 66 books of the Bible. To get into Revelation you must have a good grasp as to how these matters were significant in the past books of the Bible.The same is precisely true with the sign in heaven of a dragon standning before a woman who is crying out to deliver a child. The serpent who is in this case enlarged to be a dragon is waiting to devour the woman's child. This is symbolism and it does indeed relate back to Genesis chapter 3 among other things.This book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ concerns the future of the whole world. It is not about one nation or even only about the Christian church. It is not restricted to visions concerning Israel though Israel is certainly there in the book.The Revelation of Jesus Christ is about the prophetic future of the whole creation of God (See Rev. chapters 4 and 5). These are large and all encompassing matters. And the basics of man's foundamental delimma involving his fall from God's plan and universal salvation are depicted.The relationship between the grand deception of man in Genesis and the grand salvation and spiritual warfare in Revelation is clear to many of us.I can go into greater detail concerning the vision of Revelation 12 to emphasize this more. There is no doubt a relationship between the truth of Genesis 3 and the subsequent history of the God fearing descendents of the woman Eve and the final victory of God's elect on earth over the Devil. Perhaps not. But she was the mother of all living. And God refered to her seed. So if she was not pregnant at the moment it is clearly important that she will be so. The prophecy of enmity between the woman's seed and the serpent's seed should furnish the backround for the serpent's hostility against that seed.I agree that the word devour is not used. But the hostility is there. These people understood something about this prophecy and assumed that it meant that a savior would be born to them.I say this because of subsequent statments of the descendents of Adam and Eve in Genesis itself:"And Lamech lived a hundred eighty-two years and begot a son. And he called his name Noah, saying, This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands, which come because of the ground which Jehovah has cursed" (Genesis 5:28,29)This verse indicates to me that the believing people were expecting a savior to come and deliver them from the curse upon the ground and the fall from God's favour. For some unknown reason Lamech believed that Noah his child was finally that savior that they were expecting.I believe that Adam and Eve must have had some kind of pre-Jewish expectation of a coming savior. This hope they passed on to their descendents.It is probable that they eagerly expected that the first man born to them, Cain, was that savior:"And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain and said, I have acquired a man, [with the help of] Jehovah" (Gen. 4:2)The meaning is a little uncertain to me because we really have the English translation as "I have acquired a man, Jehovah"At any rate I think the birth of Cain may have been expected by Eve to be the fulfillment of the prophecy of a seed to come and bruise their enemy's head, the serpent. Of course, not that fast was this to happen. They were utterly disappointed if that was their hope. Instead the son Cain turned out to be a murderer. And the couple lost two sons at one time. Abel was killed and Cain ran away to be a fugitive.I believe that Adam and Eve passed on to their children that one day a savior would be born. The next candidate seems to have been Noah judging from what Lamech his father said: "This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands, which come because of the ground which Jehovah has cursed" (Genesis 5:28,29)Incidently, devouring may indeed be related to Genesis chapter three. It is possible that the devouring of the dust by the serpent as a punishment had a veiled symbolism that Satan would devour man who is made from the dust. It is at least arguable IMO. It is possible that the serpent was something most beautiful. But he was afterwards rendered mean.I take Genesis as dealing with universal themes of God creating the world, forming man for His plan, and the history of why we die and are at odds with our sins against God. These are large themes to me.The flow of the whole book of Genesis does not lead me to believe that only a local myth about why there are poisoness snakes in the forest or in the desert is being dealt with. Not a word more is mentioned about that serpent.Is there any indication from the writer that the author is only amusing his readers with fables like Aesop? Even Aesop's fables had political or social meanings to them. But Genesis speaks about such things as the origin of many matters like creation, marriage, industry, the dispersement of the nations over the earth, the origin of human governement.In short the themes dealt with suggest the writer's deepness of thought about the origins of the most crucial issues facing human life on earth and intentions of God. I believe that the inspired Author of the Bible is eternal. What is a hundred years to God? Nothing.This is a bit of an ironic issue. If the whole Bible was written in one life time by one person then we might think that it does not have the approvedness of a larger view in it. It is too much one person's opinion based on one small slice of historic time. But on the other hand if God inspired multiple authors to write over centries then we might complain that how could the writings over so long a time possibly be related to each other?So the hundred years difference I don't think matters to God. He forgets NOTHING. God telling Moses that He was the God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob suggests that He is eternal. He does not forget or grow old. He does not overlook His previous word of promise. And He is God remaining throughout many generations.

Purpledawn,You asked me why I haven't answered Message 38? Probably because I don't answer every post. But I will reply now to Message 38. Even if it was there is no rule that a "predetermined concept" is because of that an incorrect one.So I don't have to agree with this line of logic:1.) Predetermined concepts are wrong.
2.) First John is a teaching on a predetermined concept.
3.) Therefore First John is wrong. I believe that First John is the oracles of God commenting on the oracles of God. I take Genesis and First John equally as the inspired word of God.Now I would place the two passages side by side:"And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?

​

If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him.

​

And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us fo into the field. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him.

​

Then Jehovah said to Cain, Where is Abel your brother? And he said, I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?

​

And He said, What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to Me from the ground." (See Genesis 4:6)The Apostle John's comment:"For this is the message which you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, Not as Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Becasue his works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

​

Do not marvel, brothers, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brothers..."( See First John 3:11-14a)John was an apostle of Jesus Christ. I take his experience of spiritual things to have been deep and not superficial. The apostle had his own solid personal experience as a trainee and disciple of Christ. This training was before and after the resurrection and ascension of Christ. Plus he had his appointment by God as an apostle and contributor to the divine writings of the Bible.Unlike you I don't think John was just a imaginative fisherman who came to presumptiously teach Judiasm something novel about Genesis. There are many things that the writer of Genesis could have written. What was selected by the writer must have some significance. When John says that Cain was of the evil one he is drawing upon the selected implications that the Genesis writer himself put into chapter 4. The firstborn son had some promise to Eve. What first child does not to a mother? And why less so to "the mother of all living".The utter disapointment of what Cain turned out to be must be a point that the writer is making. If you are reluctant to say the snake was Satan or even associated with Satan then what objection do you have for saying that Cain was of the evil one?I think that Satan is "the evil one" refered to by John. Before that I believe there WAS an evil one. Do you believe that there was an evil one at all in Genesis four? I don't think Eve was "the evil one" there, though she did sin. I don't think that Adam was "the evil one" there, though he also did sin. Who else should I think "the evil one" could refer to?The serpent is the best choice. Now the writer of Genesis speaks in some symbolic terms is evident by the writing itself. For example:It says that Abel's blood was crying out to Jehovah God from the ground in verse 10. This is a metaphorical way of speaking.It also says "sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him."Well this seems a metaphorical speaking also. But the question is how much of it should be taken more literally? Sin seems to be personified there. Could sin refer to someone not yet mentioned in the story who was crouching outside of Cain's cottage door? The details don't hint of that.Yet we do have some clues. The serpent could be the one who is being spoken about. It was subtle and lurking for an opportunity to lead Eve astray. That is probably why the serpent didn't go to Adam the head of the family, in a positive way, the head. The serpent went through the wife who had been created after Adam to be his helpmeet. I take this to be stealth and craftiness.So the best candidate for "crouching sin" trying to master Cain is the same crouching crafty being that sought to deceive Eve and Adam. However, no word is said about the snake crouching. Only sin is crouching, says the writer. But it crouches as an intelligent and opportunistic evil entity. So I think the connection between "sin" crouching to enfluence Cain and "the evil one" of First John is connected with the serpent in some way.In short Genesis personifies sin but does not specifically mention the serpent. But to be consistent, the serpent is the most likely to be the guilty party spoken of as one who is evil, crouching, oppostunistic, and ready to rush into man's "door" to cause man to commit something abhorent to God.Since John writes "He who practices sin is of the devil" (1 John 3:8) he surely means "of the evil one" (3:10) equals "of the devil" (3:8)That would close the case that John means that the devil was the one who Cain was of. That John is not speaking the word of God just like the writer of Genesis is speaking the word of God is not in my concept.But the crouching sin at the door which Cain must master and not be overcome by is personified. Since there is no litural reason to believe that the physical serpent was lurking outside of the door to Cain's cottage the writing must have more of the meaning of personified sin lurking outside the door of Cain's capacity to decide and act.Satan the Devil is the best candidate for this crouching sin given the rest of the Bible's revelation. Even though Genesis doesn't mention the Devil or Satan I still think this is what Genesis is teaching.Now some would argue that a hierarchy of evil angels underneath a leader - Satan, is a New Testament invention of Christianity. To those people I would point out that the apochryphal Jewish writings which predated the New Testament show a concept of a leader Satan.These writings are refered to in Jude's epistle:"But Michael the archangel, when he contended with the devil and disputed concerning the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a reviling judgment against him but said, the Lord rebuke you" (Jude 9)Jude's reference to pre-Christian era Jewish religious writing shows that there was a concept of rank between the angels. Michael realized that the devil (who was previously a higher ranking angel) should not be addressed disrespectfully in Michael's self assuming rebuke. The angel with the lower rank therefore said "The Lord rebuke you". It was a matter for the Most High God to put in order.This indicates that Satan the devil was thought to be the head of all the rebellious angels. He abused his previous high rank and led a rebellion against God. The idea not being an invention of Christianity. The plain reading of the text also says that Cain's blood was crying out from the ground. Some inference should be made there as well.The plain text says that sin was crouching at the door of Cain and that Cain should have mastered it. Some inference is needed there. When I make inference about this I include other portions of the Bible to ascertain what is the best possible meaning that the Spirit of God is communicating to the reader. That is quite true.And there are differences between application and interpretation. And application may not be so good. And interpretation may be just plain wrong.But I don't regard First John as a faulty error prone commentary on Genesis. I regard First John as every bit the word of God as much as Genesis. I take First John as God's word and fact.I have tried to show that even for those who do not have that New Testament faith, John's comment is quite reasonable.The evil one probably is better assigned to the serpent than to Adam or Eve. And since the serpent is not mentioned in connection to Cain's murder, the evil one could be the same evil one associated with the crouching, lurking, oppostunistic, intelligence seeking who led Eve astray in the previous chapter. By and large the Devil of the Bible is the best candidate for "the evil one" in John's comment.But if this is not reasonable to you I have no doubt whatsoever that "THE evil one" is Satan. And that even though there are many evil ones in the universe. No comment to the alternative from you has been more satisfactory.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:07 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:09 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:13 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:15 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:21 PM

Ringo,I cannot comment further at the moment, however you said: He certainly had the capacity.But as I pointed out verse 8 and verse 12 of the same chapter make it pretty clear that "the evil one" is the Devil in John's writing:"He who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil sinned from the beginning ..." (3:8)" ... Cain was of the evil one ..." (3:12) The devil who sinned from the beginning is the evil one.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 03:11 PM