Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 166 of 302 (295842)
03-16-2006 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 8:16 PM


Re: satanim
ok. you might have me there. now show that satan is one of the sons of god.
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.
that one you're going to have to look a little closer at. because it's still not applying to anything spiritual. a little more, erm, down to earth. who do we know that built a tower that went to the heavens?
mocking somebody for thinking they are divine, and calling them divine are not the same thing.
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.
uh, no. that was the king of tyre. this one's the king of babylon. close though! i think you read a little too much into things...
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.
and job says "the satan" rather than "a satan." what's your point? it's just refering to a specific one (in hebrew, you use "the" to refer to the specific item in question. it doesn't mean that no other such item exists).
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 8:16 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:28 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 167 of 302 (295845)
03-16-2006 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 5:27 PM


Re: A False Statement
the serpent does not oppose god in genesis. rather, he tells man that god was lying. there is no opposition -- no open fight. just two competing points of view.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 5:27 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:10 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 168 of 302 (295880)
03-16-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by arachnophilia
03-15-2006 5:41 PM


Re: what is a satan?
figuratively, the snake *IS* satan. in a manner of speaking. the snake is the figure in the story that provides an alternative choice, and who attempts to lead man astray from god. he is the tempting and testing force -- and that makes him satan.
I will accept this distinction. The difference between 'an' adversary and 'The adversary'
i can't actually find anything about fallen angels anywhere in the ot. can you? there's the nephilim (who's name comes from the word for "fall") but they are at best half-angelic, not angels themselves.
You won't. The term 'angel' comes from the greek of 'messanger'. There is no 'fallen angels' in judaism. Angels were merely the messanger from god.
The concept of 'archangels' happened probalby in the disporia, and was adopted from the zoarastorian religion. I believe they are mentioned in the Kabbalah. I think Gabrial is mentioned in the Book of Daniel as an angel, but Gabrial also is hebrew for 'Man of God', or 'God has shown himself to be mighty'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 03-15-2006 5:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:32 PM ramoss has not replied

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


Message 169 of 302 (295922)
03-16-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by purpledawn
03-15-2006 7:58 AM


Re: Hebrew vs Greek
Purpledawn,
I really don't see the similarity you speak of.
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.
Eve was not pregnant when she dealt with the snake (small snake).
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 snake in Genesis was not trying to devour anything.
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.
Snake had one head.
The curse on the snake gives a visual of snakes striking out at the legs and people stepping on snakes.
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.
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.
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.
Genesis may be the only story you know of with a woman and a snake involved, but not necessarily John.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by purpledawn, posted 03-15-2006 7:58 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2006 6:43 PM jaywill has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 170 of 302 (296066)
03-16-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jaywill
03-16-2006 11:11 AM


Plain Text vs Homiletics
I haven't figured out why you persist in answering me with homiletics (Message 38) when I'm discussing plain text.
Message 1 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.
In Message 5 you stated before embellishments:
I agree that there is nothing right there that would identify the serpent as Satan. However, there is strong clue.
The serpent was made along with all the other creatures. But the made serpent was more subtle.
In Message 10 you agree that Revelation is symbology and that Satan is not a huge serpentine creature:
The writing is not saying that Satan is a huge serpentine creature. That is for sure. The book of Revelation was made known to John "by signs".
In Message 134 you state:
Leviathan is symbolic of the nations who trouble Israel. They are as the mythological dragon in the sea which God will punish with His mighty sword.
In my Message 143 I tied the word for dragon back to the same greek word used for Leviathan.
So from a plain text reading the dragon in Revelation more than likely symbolizes one or more adversaries of the nation of Israel.
Since Revelation is supposed to be vision of the future, I see no plain sense purpose served in projecting the symbology back to the plain text of Genesis.
So far I don't see a viable connection without embellishing.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jaywill, posted 03-16-2006 11:11 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2006 4:14 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 171 of 302 (296253)
03-17-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
03-05-2006 10:28 AM


Re: Homiletics
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
There is nothing wrong with homiletics as long as one realizes the difference between that and the plain sense reading of the text.
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.
Even today. No matter what meaning a preacher projects onto the NT text, it doesn't change the plain sense reading of the text.
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.
In a nutshell, what you find me arguing against are homiletics presented as God's word or fact.
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.
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.
No comment to the alternative from you has been more satisfactory.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:07 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:09 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:13 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:15 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 01:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 03-05-2006 10:28 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 1:43 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 184 by purpledawn, posted 03-17-2006 8:41 PM jaywill has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 172 of 302 (296259)
03-17-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jaywill
03-17-2006 1:05 PM


Sin and Evil - Evil and Sin
quote:
... Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother.
Jaywill writes:
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.
I never thought of it that way before, but maybe that's exactly what John meant - a kind of reference to "original sin".
I don't mean upper-case-Original upper-case-Sin. I mean the inborn capacity to sin, which we inherited from the parents-of-us-all, Adam and Eve.
Cain being "of the evil one" might just mean he had the capacity to sin.
I'm also curious as to why you make a distinction between "sin" and "evil". Adam and Eve sinned, but they weren't "evil"?
It seems to me that you are unnecessarily projecting onto an outside source - that poor little snake - our own deficiencies.

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 171 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2006 1:05 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2006 3:11 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 175 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2006 3:21 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 173 of 302 (296308)
03-17-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ringo
03-17-2006 1:43 PM


Re: Sin and Evil - Evil and Sin
Ringo,
I cannot comment further at the moment, however you said:
Cain being "of the evil one" might just mean he had the capacity to sin.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 1:43 PM ringo has not replied

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


Message 174 of 302 (296312)
03-17-2006 3:15 PM


Incidently Ringo, if you were to ask me if man can commit sin apart from the influence of the Devil, I think I would have to say yes.
Sin could be in existence apart from the Devil. It is only that the Devil got sin started and going in the universe and has the most stake in keeping it alive and well.

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


Message 175 of 302 (296315)
03-17-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ringo
03-17-2006 1:43 PM


Re: Sin and Evil - Evil and Sin
Ringo,
I'm also curious as to why you make a distinction between "sin" and "evil". Adam and Eve sinned, but they weren't "evil"?
I only mean that they are not IMO "THE EVIL ONE". That one and only unique "evil one" is the being associated with the serpent - Satan the Devil. He is the main evil one.
I would remind you that the very good web site that Arach pointed me to said that the Midrash and Talmud taught that Satan was the most evil or chief evil. So John is in agreement with the Talmud and the Midrash to designate the devil as "the evil one". Don't you think so?
It seems to me that you are unnecessarily projecting onto an outside source - that poor little snake - our own deficiencies.
I think "the poor little snake" points to something more profound in Genesis. God just arranged it so that the poor litte snake could be used in the story to communicate some deeper truths.
Beside an African Rock Python can reach up to 35 feet and hundreds of pounds.
I don't know how little the critter was. Do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 1:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 4:19 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 176 of 302 (296325)
03-17-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by purpledawn
03-16-2006 6:43 PM


Re: Plain Text vs Homiletics
Purpledawn,
So from a plain text reading the dragon in Revelation more than likely symbolizes one or more adversaries of the nation of Israel.
This might be plausible. If either the woman or the manchild born from the woman symbolized Israel then I would agree.
Now the woman should not point to the nation of Israel alone for this reason:
Revelation 12:17 says that the dragon went off to war against the rest of the woman's seed. And these children of the woman seem to be the law keeping Jews with the Christ believing Christians - "And the dragon became angry with the woman and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. 12:17)
Now those "who keep the commandments of God" may safely be interpreted as the God fearing faithful of Israel. But "who ... have the testimony of Jesus" must refer to the constituents of the new testament church.
Since the other remaining seed of the woman is composed of these two groups, those "who keep the commandments of God" and those who "have the testimony of Jesus" I must conclude that the children of the woman are both of Israel as a nation and the Christian church.
That would make the opposing dragon not exclusively the nation of Israel's enemy but also the enemy of the church of Christ.
Now another way of reasoning is that the manchild that is born to the woman and is raptured to God's throne symbolizes Israel. Then the opposing dragon might be the nations who are a Leviathan dragon against Israel. But this is not likely either because the manchild is composed of those who overcome the Devil "by the blood of the Lamb".
"And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb ..." (Rev. 12:11)
This would of course refer to the redemptive death of Christ for man's atonement before God. Since Israel is yet in a state of unbelief in Christ's redemption it is not likely that the manchild represents Israel [nationally].
The manchild does, I believe, include Jews who have believed in Jesus. But as of yet I don't think that Israel as a nation should be symbolized as the manchild who overcame the accuser of the brothers by the blood of the Lamb.
A possible objection might be that the ones who overcome mentioned in verse 11 are not the manchild. But this I must reject. The manchild that is born of the woman is evidently a corporate entity. This is demonstrated by the words "brothers" and "they" and "their" and "them".
This "brothers, them, they, their" should refer to the manchild who has escaped from the dragon's desire to devour it. The child was caught up to God and to His throne in verse 5.
Who else could the manchild refer to? It should not symbolize the angels who are fighting against the Devil and his angels in verse 7 -
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels went to war with the dragon. And the dragon warred and his angels. And they did not prevail, neither was place found for them any longer in heaven."
Though the good angels do overcome the Devil and his angels, they do not do so by the blood of the Lamb. The good angels are sinless and have no need for the atoning blood of Christ's death.
So logically, the ones who overcome the Devil in verse 11 "by the blood of the Lamb" must be humans who have won spiritual warfare against the accusing Satan by believing in the redemption of Jesus Christ. I think that that would include Jews and Gentiles. I don't think Israel as a national identity is symbolized by this collective manchild.
Since Revelation is supposed to be vision of the future, I see no plain sense purpose served in projecting the symbology back to the plain text of Genesis.
Revelation is a harvesting of all the seeds of revelation previously sown elsewhere in the whole Bible. So it is quite normal that it should allude back to Genesis as well as New Testament books. Revelation hails back to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and other books of the Hebrew canon.
The center of the Bible as a whole is Christ the Messiah.
I do not mean that Genesis had no purpose or meaning to the pre-gospel era Jewish nation. But the new covenant apostles and prophets must illuminate its deepest meaning to us.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 04:16 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 04:18 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 04:19 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 04:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by purpledawn, posted 03-16-2006 6:43 PM purpledawn has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 177 of 302 (296328)
03-17-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by jaywill
03-17-2006 3:21 PM


Re: Sin and Evil - Evil and Sin
Jaywill writes:
... verse 8 and verse 12 of the same chapter make it pretty clear that "the evil one" is the Devil in John's writing:
I don't think it's clear that the personification of evil is an actual "entity". You have to assume the existence of a powerful "adversary" in order to read it that way. (As you know, my a priori assumption is that no poweful rival of God can exist - and therefore it probably doesn't. You have never adequately addressed that issue.)
So John is in agreement with the Talmud and the Midrash to designate the devil as "the evil one". Don't you think so?
I haven't studied that website, but I'm guessing that the Talmud and the Midrash are referring to "the devil" in a figurative sense - i.e. the personification of evil. As I understand it, the Jewish commentaries are more concerned with the capacity for sin within us than with external sources of "evil".
God just arranged it so that the poor litte snake could be used in the story to communicate some deeper truths.
That's pretty much what I've been saying. It was a snake.
And the deeper truths are about us, not "the Devil".

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 175 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2006 3:21 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2006 4:38 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 178 of 302 (296334)
03-17-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by ringo
03-17-2006 4:19 PM


Re: Sin and Evil - Evil and Sin
I don't think it's clear that the personification of evil is an actual "entity". You have to assume the existence of a powerful "adversary" in order to read it that way. (As you know, my a priori assumption is that no poweful rival of God can exist - and therefore it probably doesn't. You have never adequately addressed that issue.)
Where did you get your beliefs about God? That's what I would like to know first. Did your reading of a book called the Holy Bible have anything to do with you arriving at a belief in a God?
My belief in God is quite much influenced by the Bible. It says some other things too which I have come to believe along with its teaching about God.
Unfortunately, one of the things is that for a temporary time God has an enemy. We cannot blame our wrong doing totally upon this enemy as an excuse for our moral choices. But the enemy is involved.
It is good for us to want to take responsiblity for our actions. It is good that we don't, like comedian Flip Wilson, say in a frivolous way "Oh the Devil made me do that!" But the Bible, while holding us responsible for our decisions, does teach plainly about a superhuman source of opposition against God.
I have come to believe that it is so.
So John is in agreement with the Talmud and the Midrash to designate the devil as "the evil one". Don't you think so?
I haven't studied that website, but I'm guessing that the Talmud and the Midrash are referring to "the devil" in a figurative sense - i.e. the personification of evil. As I understand it, the Jewish commentaries are more concerned with the capacity for sin within us than with external sources of "evil".
So I take it that you would not go along with the prosecutor especially utilized by God to be His court accuser?
God just arranged it so that the poor litte snake could be used in the story to communicate some deeper truths.
That's pretty much what I've been saying. It was a snake.
And the deeper truths are about us, not "the Devil".
The bait of wanting to argue against that I will not take. Because I don't think an external Satan is verses deeper truths about us.
I don't think the two concepts are at odds with one another and that to argue for one side is to deny the other.
So I agree with you to a large extent. But not completely if you mean that no intelligent being exists who opposes God.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 04:39 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-17-2006 04:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 4:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 03-17-2006 4:58 PM jaywill has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 179 of 302 (296341)
03-17-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jaywill
03-17-2006 4:38 PM


Re: Sin and Evil - Evil and Sin
Jaywill writes:
Did your reading of a book called the Holy Bible have anything to do with you arriving at a belief in a God?
No.
But the Bible, while holding us responsible for our decisions, does teach plainly about a superhuman source of opposition against God.
I have come to believe that it is so.
I've been trying - without much luck - to get you to show us that "plain teaching". (This thread may not be the place to do that.)
So I take it that you would not go along with the prosecutor especially utilized by God to be His court accuser?
I have no problem with that. Sometimes the aspect of a prosecutor, sometimes the aspect of a tempter - it's the same figure of speech.
... if you mean that no intelligent being exists who opposes God.
That is exactly what I mean.

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 178 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2006 4:38 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 180 of 302 (296342)
03-17-2006 5:09 PM


Cain being touched deeply
I would like to say a word about Cain in this passage:
"And Jehovah has regard for Abel and for his offering. But for Cain and his offering He had no regard. And Cain became very angry, and his countenance fell. And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are your angry, and why has your countenance fallen?" (Genesis 4:4b-5)
What I propose to you all here is that Cain's hidden inner motive was touched and that his outward facade was effected. The countenance is the outward expression of his face. But inwardly there was something there which was at odds with God.
Now we may fool people by our outward expression. We may look pious or satisfied. But God knows the innermost condition of man's heart. God saw deep in Cain's being something there in opposition to God's way of worship. When God touched that matter, Cain's outward countenance was shaken and effected.
I believe that the power of sin was working in all the descendents of Adam and Eve. Deep within their beings somewhere sin was operating. Outwardly they may have all looked quite godly and upright. But God looks beyond the outward expression and can shine and expose the innermost motive of man.
And this God does for the sake of His great love - "And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifeted up?
And if you do not well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you."
The outward countenance of Cain fell because the perceptive word of God penetrated beyond the outward facade to the true inner condition of his heart. And on the negative side God warns that sin is crouching at the door.
This seems very much that two sources were competing for Cain's innermost being. God was competiting for Cain's true worship. And sin was crouching at the door competing to drive Cain further from God in rebellion.
The account of Cain and Abel therefore reveals that sin and God were both competing for the inward being of man. God through speaking to the human conscience. And sin through its evil suggestions injected into the mind of man.
Furthermore God says "If you do well ...". Though man has gained the knowledge of good and evil it is still God who has the authority to establish what doing well is and is not. At least in this matter of approaching God, God will not accept any way devized by Cain and Abel. He has His prescribed way. Abel must have taken it. And Cain must have stubburnly decided that his own invention would do.
When God rejects Cain's self chosen device the inward pricking of Cain causes his outward countenance to fall. He is seen as extremly angry to the point of wanting to murder Abel the accepted one.
These things I share to also demonstrate that an external source of sin as Satan is not verses the spiritual light shinning on man's inward nature. The account of Genesis 4:3-13 does reveal that the inner corruption had dulled Cain's human conscience.
Throughout Cain shows no remorse, except for himself -"My ounishment is greater than I can bear" (v.13). His heart had become hardened by sin. He was not only not his brothers keeper (v.9). He was neither sorry or repentent though God gave him time to acknowledge his sin.
This is the way NOT for man to go concerning the conviction of God's word and God's light on our inner being.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024