The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

Hi arachnophilia. Just curious: A mockery of what?The reason why I ask is because the king of Tyre is depicted as residing within Eden, the garden of God.I think no one here will dispute the fact that the king of Tyre was not in the garden of God. However, it does raise the interesting question of exactly who was in the garden of God in the first place?In other words, who is the king being compared too?Who is the king of Tyre a mockery of?I'm not sure of other translations, but the NIV describes the king of tyre as being "anointed as a guardian cherub..." The KJV says "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth..." The Westminster Leningrad Codex has it as such...I'm not familiar with Hebrew so maybe you could help me this passage. The Hebrew word Kerub is translated by some scholars as "one who intercedes" and by others as "knowledge." The original Karibu were the terrible and monstrous guardians of the temples and palaces in Sumer and Babylon. There were also similar guardians in the Near East, and there were winged, eagle-headed deities that guarded an Assyrian Tree of Everlasting Life.Doesn't this sound awefully similar to the Scriptural account of the snake sitting next to the tree of tife -- and leading humanity to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil instead?I'll note that if the a word similar to gaurdian cherub is actually in present there, then one has to wonder who this cherub was, why he was in the garden of God, and why this garden of God sounds suspiciously like the Garden of Eden noted in the first accounts found in Genesis?One has to also look at the historical background that Judaism emerged from as well.As I said before, I think the idea of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is akin to the Israelites participating in foreign religions which employed hallucinagens in order to "open their eyes" and gain "spiritual wisdom". When one notes the hallucinagenic nature of some of the 'sorceries' practiced by other nations, it certainly seems to be within the realm of possibility.Similarly, as I already brought up in Message 169 of this thread, in Zoroastrinism we have a concept very similar to the devil employing "snakes" as his servants around the time (or before) Judaism recorded the concept of the the "snake in the garden" -- testing humanity much like an adversary would go against God. Zoroastrianism is a religion which perceived snakes as being the messengers and servants of an ultimately evil deity.I also noted many other religions, religions which came before Judaism, and which perceived spiritual implications behind the snakes nature, such as the Canaanites for example. It seems to me that if the Hebrew culture is a convergence of Babylonian, Egyptian, and Zoroastrian influences (among others such as the Assyrian example noted above for example), then this synomony of the snake equalling a satan is almost impossible to miss.One might be able to make a good argument that the "snake" was not the "Great Satan". But if one is insisting that the snake can "only" be a snake, I think a casual glance at the ancient religions that surrounded (and pre-dated) the ancient Israelites will simply cast this theory out of the garden so to speak.The connotations, both within the Hebrew Scriptures and outside them, seems to make the case of the snake being more than a snake nearly impregnable to me.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-19-2006 02:02 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-19-2006 02:03 AM

I would like to share some thoughts on this as well if possible -- that is, the possibility of the serpent in Genesis actually being the chief adversary we commonly refer to in the Apocalypse.But if you feel this discussion shouldn't go any further, I'll repsect that and step out. Do you mean this passage? What do you think this passage means?Do you think Moses's staff turning into a serpent has any relevence to this discussion?I personally do believe that pasages like this are relevent to the discussion at hand -- but I'd like hear your feedback before I proceed.

Hi purpledawn. Thanks pd. That's the thing though -- I do think this pertains to the topic as presented. But shouldn't we look at what is intended when Christ, for example, says the following: I suppose I could also draws allusions to John the Baptist's words in Matthew 3:7 or Luke 3:7.Or perhaps Christ's words in Matthew 12:34 should be considered.I'll note that Christ's response in Matthew 12:34 seems to itself be in response to other's thinking that he is himself of the prince of demons. Seems ironic that Christ would overturn the tables on their accusations of him being of the prince of demons, overturning tables by him making even worse accusations back at them -- that they were children of the devil. He seems to be essentially holding up a psychological mirror, casting their own reflection back at them, and bluntly asking them to carefully examine what they see.It seems to me that Christ is basically calling them "sons of devils", within a traditional Christian sense.A similar passage could be observed here... His words seem to be referencing back to these very words... I'll also note that Paul seems to drawing a similar picture going right back to the beginning... Perhaps I John 3:10 is saying much the same... I'll note that John is traditionally held as being the author of these words as well... Revelation 12:14-16 seems to continue a similar theme.Arach brough up a good point in relation to jaywill's thoughts... In my own thoughts, when I see Moses lifting up the snake in the wilderness, I essentially see God telling the Israelites the same thing..."You are a brood of vipers, just like your father."Micah 7 seems to be drawn on this analogy quite a bit, noting the usage of the word adversary/enemy in relation to family/children .I agree that the comparison of Christ in the Christian Scriptures to the brazen serpent in the Hebrew Scriptures can be confusing at first. But I don't think one needs to get overly complicated about it -- because the message is rather simple in my opinion.Just as Moses lifted up the serpent, Christ was lifted on the cross.In other words, in my opinion, when God commanded Moses to lift the brazen serpent, he was essentially saying something very negative, "See this serpent? This is you! Take a good look at it and repent of your ways or else I'll allow the real serpents to claim you!"Similarly, in inverse fashion, when Christ was lifted on the cross, he was essentially saying. "See my son? This is what you have done to him! Take a good look at him and repent of your ways or else I'll allow that old serpent to claim you!"In other words, like a mirror, when the Israelites looked upon the brazen serpent held up by the Lawgiver, they were essentially gazing upon a reflection of themselves. This was done in the context of the Law of Moses.Similarly, like a mirror, when humanity looks upon the image of the cruxified Christ, they are essentially gazing upon what their own actions have wrought. But, in this sense, it is done within the context of the Gospel of Christ.Moses's stafff turning into a snake carries much the same meaning in my opinion -- and I'll explain it in depth if you like.This is all my opinion of course. Thank you.But your point seemed to basically be saying that sometimes a snake is just a snake. I disagree with this. I think the usage of snake within the Scriptures is usually always a metaphor for something else -- kind of like Paul's thorn in his side.Not always. But usually.That's why I'm addressing these questions. I think jaywill makes some valid points. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-19-2006 10:08 PM

Interesting.So you do admit that there may have been a cherub that did "fall" much like Christian theology portrays -- but that the chronology may be in reverse?Would it make a difference if I could point to some passages which brought this chronology into question? I don't think they've overlooked it though.Traditional Christianity simply views the serpent as being either an agent of the primal adversary...or else the adversary himself in disguise. In other words, it's not that complicated -- the cherub placed after humanity is expelled is simply viewed as a replacement for the original cherub that failed his original protectoral assignment. Only if you're reading these passages in the most literally strict sense possible. Many people don't have a problem with the snake being the adversary in disguise or else an agent of him. Could be. Or it might be something else entirely. But I'll talk about this more below. The same could be said with Genesis.But this brings up an interesting point: why is the Ezekial passage permitted to employ symbolic imagery whereas the Genesis account has to be strictly interpretted as literal? The context seems fairly clear to me. It seems as though a sizable portion of this passage is drawing comparisons directly back to the actions of a cherub in the garden.Don't get me wrong. If you're saying that these comparisons can be made to fit the tempatations of kings and political figures, then I agree with you. In fact, that that's pretty much what's going on -- the king of Tyre, in this case, being described as having fallen due to his pride in his own political power.But the question still remains, "Who is the king of Tyre being compared to?"I think that, technically speaking, a passage such as this might not be limited to political persuasiveness. One could trust in anything, such as their own skill in a trade, to the point that that they trust in their own skill more than the God who gave them the skill in the first place. But the Israelites did have a tradition of ascribing bad behavior to unclean spirits. There's nothing in the story to suggest that snake is supernatural at all?Snakes normally talk?If so, why don't snakes still talk?I've read nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures to indicate that God took this ability away. No. I think we need an explanation as to why the snake has to be a snake -- and why no other interpretation is considered to be the likely interpretation.Edit: corrected spelling.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-19-2006 10:04 PM

But the metaphors used are being applied to a cherub in the garden. You can wrangle the meanings whichever way you want -- the king of Tyre is being compared to a cherub that fell from God's grace.There's no getting around this arach. I'll come back to this. I think the concept of the cherub in the garden should be explored more first. How do you know that?As I said before, like all celestial beings, an adverary flies through the air (Genesis Rabbah 19), and can assume any form, as of a bird (Talmud, Sanhedrin 107a), a stag (ibid, 95a), a woman (ibid, 81a), a beggar, or a young man (Midrash Tanchuma, Wayera, end); he is said to skip (Talmud Pesachim 112b and Megilla. 11b), in allusion to his appearance in the form of a goat.If this is true, it doesn't seem outside the scope of the Talmudic thinking to conclude that the adversary could also assume a serpentine form. Yes. But I've already explained how many traditional Christians view these passages. I realize you're Christian as well arach. Like you, I enjoy questioning the faith to get a deeper understanding of it. I consider it a challenge.But exactly how far are we going to depart from traditional Christian thoughts in order to arrive at progressive and unique ideas?Or are some of these ideas an continuation of Talmudic studies?If you hold these things dear to you, I'm ok with that. It's not for me to judge. But yet you seem to be presenting these ideas as if anyone who concludes that the snake if more than a snake is absolutely wrong.While I think you bring up interesting points, I don't think you've come close to defending these thoughts to the point that you claim.It seems kind of ambiguous to me to be honest -- epicycles of references to metaphors within metaphors throughout metaphors. As I said before, we don't see any reference to a cherub in Eden before the fall. However, we do see the snake testing man and leading him away from God. Bearing the symbolism most likely borrowed from Zoroastrianism, many would simply conclude that the snake was the fallen guardian cherub in disguise. It's been my opinion from the beginning that they were supposed to have it -- after they partook in the tree of life first.I've already explained this before with the ergot analogy if I recall correctly. In other words, he forbid them to eat of it because eating from it was most likely harmful to them in that state. However, after cutting down the tree of knowledge and preparing it for medicinal purposes, it would be quite benevolent to humanity.I'll also note that serpent is a strong symbol within medicinal circles. I don't think God's dumb either. I think he's the most intelligent being ever. ...perhaps for good reasons. ...perhaps for good reasons. I think what we have is God placing his trust in man. I think humanity's downfall is the result of humanity betraying God's trust -- not vice versa.I also think that shame is the final result of their actions. Was the serpent following orders or reason?Where in the Genesis account does it say the serpent was obeying God when he did what did?Or, was the serpent using clear reason?Where in the Scriptures does it say this?Or, for that matter, why does God curse the serpent so harshly if indeed the serpent was simply following orders or clear reason? We should follow the one who tells the truth out of love -- even if the truth hurts. According to many Christian thinkers, he was already there.Do you think it was the Father walking around with Adam and Eve? Uh...no. I didn't claim that.I said that the God probably couldn't see into their consciencenesses clearly because they weren't trusting in him completely. I said the same thing in regards to the adversary if I recall correctly.Do you want me to go back and find exactly what I said?Here's where that conversation started...somewhere around here...it goes back a few pages too if you want to check it out.http://EvC Forum: The location of the Tree of Life -->EvC Forum: The location of the Tree of Life metaphor... metaphor... But I'm not saying that Ezekial can be read 100% literally. In fact, I'm the one claming that Ezekial is using a metaphor when describing the king of Tyre.On the other hand, it seems as if you are saying that Ezekial's contrast of the king of Tyre compared to the cherubim is a two-fold metaphor. In other words, perhaps the king of Tyre is compared to a cherub, but neither of them may have ever really existed because both of them could apparently be metaphors for other things that likewise may have never actually existed either.What exactly are you saying? So you don't think the king of Tyre was in Eden?If so, I don't either. It's a metaphor in my opinion.However, what he's being compared to doesn't appear to be a metaphor. Were the stones a non-existent metaphor...or did they really exist? Was the tabernacle a non-existent metaphor...or did it really exist? Was the Ark of the Covenant a non-existent metaphor...or did it really exist? Was Moses a non-existent metaphor...or did he really exist? So what is the fallen cherubim a reference to?Was the fallen cherubim a non-existent metaphor...or did it really exist? Could be. It might some odd reference to the stones worn by the high priest. I tend to think it's some kind of obscure reference to stars in the heavens...For example, Anaxagoras, who lived in Athens, Greece, around 450 BC (about 2450 years ago), thought that the Sun and stars were fiery stones, that the stars were too far away for their heat to be felt, and that the Sun was perhaps more than a few hundred miles in size. With that Anaxagoras was, as far as we know, the first one to suggest that the Sun is a star. His ideas were met with disapproval and he was finally imprisoned for impiety, because his ideas did not fit the prejudices of the time.References: Ask a Solar PhysicistOther's claim that they are gems that are somehow linked with the fiery stones of the zodiac. Anyway, I'm not sure what to make of this quoted astrological aspect. I can say that some astrologers believed that gems were formed by stars falling from heaven.I will also note that, according to the ancient Israelites, angels were often compared to stars in the celestial heavens. For example, according to Wikipedia, the identification of the "hosts" with the stars comes to the same thing; although not the same things, the stars were thought of as being closely connected with angels. Scholastic theologians taught that angels were intermediaries to some forces that would otherwise be natural forces of the universe, such as the rotation of planets and the motion of stars.There is, or course, the reference to Lucifer the fallen/morning star found within Isaiah. A similar reference to Christ seems prevalent within the Christian Scriptures as well.Just as Moses lifted the snake, Christ was lifted on the cross. Could you point out these references in Ezekial 28? Looking through it, I'm not immediately seeing them. You kind of lost me on this one arach. I thought we were debating ideas here.I'm not talking about you personally. I'm just saying that this passage in question can be applied to politics -- but it can also be applied to many other things as well. I tend to agree with this. I'm quite sure that even if the adversay were locked up for a thousand years humanity would still tend to take a long time to filter out the wrongs. Quite. Hmmm...I think that's a bit of a stretch to be honest. But let's run with it for a moment and see where the Spirit leads.A casual glance through the Scriptures doesn't seem to imply that this phrase strictly means to silence an opponent. It seems to imply that an adversary has been thoroughly humbled though -- so I can see this in a round-a-bout way I guess. But I'll also note that the adversaries are presented as being in rebelion against God's will whenever that phrase "lick the dust" appears -- so this doesn't seem to reinforce the idea that the serpent was following God's orders in my opinion. I think some Talmudic references I quoted above seem to indicate that the Israelites did not think it inconceivable for an adversary to appear as an animal.In addition to this, animals that creeped on their belly (like snakes) were also considered unclean according to Mosaic Law. Certainly, the references to snakes and serpents within the Hebrew Scriptures do not present them as generally good for them. Many passages contrast the speech of a liar* to the effects of a serpent's venom; ie., a vile poison.*Editted for clarificationThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-20-2006 04:00 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-20-2006 07:01 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 01:13 AM

My apologies purpledawn. I didn't see that post before.I have to ask, however, exactly how one is supposed to debate the position as you've presented it?The evidence within the Scriptures is minimal, since the serpent is not the central focus of the Scriptures, so much so that one could simply do a poll and see what people think -- and it would acheive much the same effect as the debate you've presented.It seems as though any meaningful discusion beyond a simple poll is nearly impossible to achieve within the framework as you've presented it.Just saying.

Good point Phat. That's what I was getting at too. It seems difficult, in my opinion, to completely divorce the Israelite culture from the cultures that preceeded it, surrounded it, and may have very likely influenced their thinking. Any "plain text" reading of Genesis is nearly void without examining the context of the times and cultures they emerged from.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-20-2006 07:20 PM

I think jaywill crushed the serpent's head with this one.purpledawn, I think you might be able to make a good case that the serpent in Genesis was not considered much more than a serpent in the Genesis account -- and even then, noting the cultures which preceeded and surrounded Israel, I'd issue a word of caution on this.But if you're going to attempt to argue that the Christian Scriptures are not linking the the serpent in the garden directly with the adversary as presented in the Apocalypse, then I think you're going to have to do a bit more work. I, for one, haven't read any convincing arguments as to why a Christian can't accept this idea.jaywill, do you know of any passages within the Scriptures which talks about God creating man with the special purporse of defeating the adversary but failing...or somesuch?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-20-2006 07:29 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-20-2006 07:34 PM

It seems as if you're restricting the amount of analogy that one can draw upon. With only a limited amount to select from it seems as if one could simply answer this thread with an answer not much different from a yes or no poll.In other words, considering the restrictions placed on what is permissible within this debate, it seems as though you could have just as easily asked, "Do you think the Serpent of Genesis is the Dragon of Revelations: Yes or No?"It would have covered fairly well the extent of the answers we can fairly give without applying the restrictions in the process.That's what I'm saying.

It seems to me that exorcism came from the Israelites before Christianity set foot on the earth. An example of this thinking can be found within the Christian era itself based on Josephus' writings. I suppose I could point to the writings contained within Tobit as well.The Hebrew Scriptures do depict people doing evil in order to attain demon's graces so to speak. Admittdely, many other cultures prior to Christianity also had similar views too. But as far as the Israelite's traditions are concerned, one could note some of the following exmaples within the Hebrew Scriptures...1. A wizard -- that is, a soothsayer or a necromancer -- has a familiar spirit in Leviticus 20:27 (New International Version) 2. God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem in Judges 9:23 (New International Version) 3. The witch at Endor was said to be in contact with a familiar spirit in I Samuel 28:7 (New International Version) 4. King Ahab of Israel was judicially given up by God to succumb to a lying spirit of false prophecy in 1 Kings 22:22-23 (New International Version) 5. God says the spirit of harlotry caused His people Israel to err in Hosea 4:12 and 5:4. and.. There's a lot more too. I dunno. Seems to me there's a tradition of ascribing some behaviors to unclean spirits -- which seems to be the Hebrew equivalent of the Christian concept of demons.What do you think?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-20-2006 09:25 PM

But what if the people who wrote the Hebrew Scriptures already had their ideas about it?For example, consider the Wikipedia article... Obviously opinions vary within Judaism, just as opinions vary within Christianity. And I myself will be stress that many of these Talmudic writings came after the dawn of early Christianity.However, if one is suggesting that the idea of serpent being the chief of adveraries is a Christian invention, then one has to wonder why some Jewish brethren arived at similar conclusions both before and after Christianity even came about. An investigation into the beliefs of the Essenes, a group which did predate Christianity, might be very relevent to this discussion. Various deuterocanonical Judeo-Hellenistic writings might give some insights too, such as the Wisdom of Solomon of Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes found within the Hebrew Scriptures)This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-20-2006 10:15 PM

Yes.And you also said, "The dragon/serpent mentioned in John’s vision regardless of the adjectives used to describe it represents Satan/Devil as he fit into the beliefs of the time. IMO, the imagery was more than likely drawn from the leviathan in the Old Testament."This does raise an interesting question...Why are you permitted to conclude the imagery was more than likely drawn from the leviathan in the Hebrew Scriptures whereas other are not permitted to conclude that the imagery was more than likely drawn from the serpent in the Hebrew Scriptures? I'll note that, from a traditional Christian perspective which seemed prevalent very early in church history, it appears to be fairly well accepted that Cain was of the evil one.For example... This also comes back to a passage I quoted earlier... As far as early Judaism is concerned, I'll note a passage that many here seem familiar with... I've heard many bizarre explanations as to what these passages concerning the Nephilim mean -- everything ranging from fallen angels to aliens or fallen children of god to pagans -- all of them involving literal sexual reproduction.However, when I read these passages I don't necessarilly connotate sex at all in a physical sense. Rather, in regards to having children, I simply see something akin to demonic possession. The "birth" in this sense could be understood in a negative contrast to Jesus' own words indicating that children of God are "born from above".In other words, it seems obvious to me that no literal sexual encounter is prevalent when a person becomes Christian. It simply indicates to me that God's Spirit has impregnated their being. It's poetic imagery.Similarly, it seems obvious to me that no literal sexual encounter is prevalent when the children of God becomes Christian. It simply indicates to me that fallen spirits have impregnated their being. It's poetic imagery.If I'm correct, it seems to me that this does make a connection between fallen angels and their "children" very early in the Hebrew Scriptures. I'll also note one of the Books of Enoch makes this connection even stronger -- according to Enoch, the earth has been and still is host to embodied evil spirits, Watchers and fallen angels who are the cause of evil, war, hatred, genocide and the myriad atrocities which have been committed on earth since the beginning of time. Even the "Serpent" who seduced Eve was not a mere snake but one of the fallen Watchers whose name was Gadrel.Bear also in mind many myths within pagan nations that involve some kind of celestial rebellion against their spiritual "parents". Consider the Olympians going against the elder Titans or the Asgardians rising against the primordial Giants for example. I think evangelicals would simply call it something like "allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible."I'll note the similarity between the concept of PaRDeS within Judaism compared with the senses of Scripture as understood within traditional Roman Catholicism... Sound familiar?But let's examine what the concept of PaRDeS in Judaism allows for the study of the Peshat... Quoting the Talmud now?I'll note the words you spoke before... So then why are you quoting the Talmud to make your point?Unless, of course, you consider the Talmud to be part of the "Bible".This, of course, raises a few interesting points:1) Many within Judaism consider the Talmud to be of equal authority with the "Bible".2) In fact, some within Judaism consider the Talmud to be of superior authority to the "Bible".3) As a point of fact, some within Judaism consider the "Bible" to be incomplete an ineffective without the Talmud's expanded exegesis.Which view do you hold?This also raises another interesting question:Why should Shabbat 63a of the Talmud be considered something being of greater authority than other passages found within the Talmud?Here's an interesting article that discusses many different opinions regarding the authority of Talmud within the various schools of Judaism itself...Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's QuestionsPlease note that there are many different views regarding the authority of the Talmud. Which view do you ascribe to?The reason why I ask is because your view as presented within this thread seems to jive with the Orthodox view, essentially rarely using Talmudic legal methodology to alter Jewish law as codified in later compendia.Or perhaps you ascribe to the Conservative view, in effect not always accepting modern (post-1500) legal codes as absolutely binding.Or maybe you also hold to some Reform and Reconstructionist views, essentially rejecting the idea of binding Jewish law but nevertheless using the Talmud as a source of inspiration and moral instruction.Either way you look at it on the overall view, your adherence to Shabbat 63a within the context of this debate seems to link you with the Orthodox or perhaps Conservative branch -- which I find an odd adherence for you to take.The reason why I find it odd is because this links you with the more dogmatic aspects of Judaism -- and yet I specifically remember you telling me that you didn't care for dogma if I recall correctly. Maybe I should just cut to the chase here...Is it possible that you adhere to the more dogmatic aspects of Judaism when it suits your argument and reject the more dogmatic aspects of Judaism when it doesn't suit your argument -- just like the rest of us?I say this because, on the whole, the Talmud in itself presents many contradictory statements just like the entirety of Holy Scriptures themselves can do -- including the traditional Christian canons.While it is admitted that the Babylonian Talmud seems to carry some more authority among Judaism, when one compares the differing views as presented between the two distinct Gemaras (the Yerushalmi and the Bavli) and their corresponding Talmuds (the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud), one can still be left, quite frankly, very confused in our modern era of competitive Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaic interpretations of the "The Talmud".As I quoted before, the consensus of the Scriptural commentators in classical Judaism is that the serpent of the narrative in Genesis was indeed literally a serpent. They differed, however, regarding what it represented: The evil inclination (Yetzer HaRa), Satan, or the Angel of Death. Others have suggested that the serpent was a phallic symbol.Futhermore, the Babylonian Talmud also states that the Evil Inclination (Yetzer ha-Ra), the Angel of Death and Satan are identical.In a midrash (Genesis Rabbah 19) Samael, the chief of the satans (a specific order of angel, not a reference to demons), was a mighty prince of angels in heaven. Samael came into the world with woman, that is, with Eve (Midrash Yalkut, Genesis 1:23), so that he was created and is not eternal.In some works some rabbis hold that Satan is the incarnation of all evil, and his thoughts are devoted to the destruction of man. In this view, Satan, the impulse to evil and the angel of death are one and the same personality.In other words, purpledawn, depending on which view one holds, the Talmud effectively states many, many, things.I don't think you're quotation of Shabbat 63a carries as much authority as you think it does. So what plain text reading within the Genesis account explains why the snake was "talking" to Adam and Eve?And what plain text reading within the Genesis account explains why snakes don't "talk" to people today?The only other time I see an animal talking within the Hebrew Scriptures is the account of the ass talking to Baalam -- and we know from that account that God supernaturally enabled the ass to talk to him... Bearing this in mind, looking back at the account of the serpent in the garden, is it possible to infer that the serpent's ability to speak was also supernaturally enabled?If so, is it also possible to infer that, since the serpent was punished by God for what it said, it was not actually God himself who supernaturally enabled the serpent to speak?If so, then who enabled the serpent to speak?Or, looking at another possibility, is it possible that the serpent wasn't actually speaking -- but rather that the speech employed by the serpent was used symbolically like passages such as this... And who are the false teachers? But the Talmud itself is a vast compilation of the Oral Law with rabbinical elucidations, elaborations, and commentaries, in contradistinction to the Scriptures or Written Laws.In other words, by quoting Shabbat 63a it seems as though you are employing homiletics presented as absolute.One of your original points was presented as follows... Yes, but...As Avram Yehoshua notes, the Rabbis say that Talmud or Oral Law came from Moses, who got it from Yahveh. But there isn't one rabbi -- or anyone else -- named in Talmud that goes back before Babylonian captivity around 580 BCE. This is not noted to contest the fact that the seminal form of Talmud (Mishna) is ancient. But it does suggest that ancient doesn't equal divine -- and there's a long void between Moses and Babylon -- anywhere from 900 to 600 years by different account.Furthermore, the redaction of the Mishna was completed under the auspices of Juda ha-Nasi, c.A.D. 200, who collected and codified the legal material that had accumulated through the exposition of the Law by the Scribes (Soferim), particularly Hillel and Shammai, and its elaboration by the Tannaim of the 1st and 2d cent. A.D., particularly Akiba ben Joseph. The Gemara developed out of the interpretations of the Mishna by the Amoraim. Both the Palestinian and Babylonian schools produced Talmuds, known respectively as the Talmud Yerushalmi (compiled c.5th cent. A.D.) and the Talmud Babli (c.6th cent. A.D.).Bearing these time-lines in mind, what gives the Talmud chronologically more authority in resolving this matter than Christian tradition?Likewise, since there are Judeo-Hellenistic views of "the fall" which easilly agree with Christian thinking -- even though they predate both Christianity and the Talmud -- what gives the Talmud more authority, chronologically speaking, than these other Judeo-Hellenistic works?What about the views of the Essenes, which also predated the birth of both Christianity and Talmudic Judaism? In traditional Christian theology, it does. Not if it's tempting humanity to disobey God.That's how it seems to me anyway. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 01:49 AM

No, actually, it doesn't...because Eve didn't tempt the snake.Neither did Delilah, Jezebel, or Bathsheba for that matter.We're talking about "talking snakes", right?I think you're trying to extrapolate my words beyond what was intended.Nice try though. Edit: I do find it interesting that your comparison connects the serpent to people though.Is the Genesis account talking about a person using the allegory of a serpent like Micah 7:16-17 does? This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 01:36 AMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 01:39 AM

More absolutes eh?Look arach, there appears to be a BIG problem with this assumption...snakes don't talk period.They don't appear to converse with humans.They don't appear to ask people to eat things.They don't appear to do many of the things that the Genesis account portrays this serpent as doing.I've noted this before too.There appears to be nothing within the "plain text" reading to conclude that God took away this ability from the serpent.There also appears to be nothing within the "plain text" reading to conclude that the serpent was simply questioning God's plan.And there also appears to be nothing within the "plain text" reading to conclude that the serpent was blessed for his independent thinking.How many snakes do you know of that can reason and articulate to the level necessary to convince a human being to go against God's will?And how many times in the Scriptures do we read of an animal talking?We know that the only other case of this happening in the Scriptures is when when God supernaturally enables the donkey to talk.If this is the case, then why can't others inder that the serpent was supernaturally enabled to talk?And, since the serpent did not appear to be doing God's will, why can't others infer that some unclean spirit supernaturally enabled the serpent to talk -- or infer that the serpent was itself a spiritual manifestation for that matter?It's not like this idea is totally foreign to Judaism and so totally whacked out that it can't even be considered a valid interpetation -- because other Jewish thinkers did conclude these same things well before Christianity was even born.According to one of the books of Enoch, the earth has been and still is host to embodied evil spirits, Watchers and fallen angels who are the cause of evil, war, hatred, genocide and the myriad atrocities which have been committed on earth since the beginning of time. Even the "Serpent" who seduced Eve was not a mere snake but one of the fallen Watchers whose name was Gadrel. I'm sorry guys but this does not appear to be your ordinary serpent.If you want to hold that view, I'm fine with that. But don't give me static because I don't agree with you. You're not really making a convincing case here as to why someone can't conclude that the this serpent is more than a serpent as portrayed within the Genesis account.I'll address the Ezekial passage tomorrow. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 02:44 AM

Let's start from the end and come back to the beginning... I'm more than comfortable discussing the plain text -- provided one can give a good justification for one to employ a plain text reading for a talking snake.I don't feel I've read such a justification within this thread yet -- and I'll explain why I feel this way below. My point is that you and arach seem to be presenting a view which is very similar to the earliest Talmudic concepts of the snake being merely a snake -- and claiming this to be something similar to the ultimate and most pure perspective by which to guage the Genesis account. The problem with this is that the Talmud can be dated to a time not far removed from the earliest origins of Christianity -- so, chronologically speaking, their is no historical justification for either source having a more "pure" perspective on what the serpent in Genesis was.See here...http://www.webspawner.com/users/historycriticism/Going one step further backward in time, we see many Judaic influences which came before the composition of the Talmud and the birth of Christianity -- and many of these sources did indeed claim that the serpent was more than a serpent.I'm going to make this fairly clear: the concept of the snake being only a snake, histortically speaking, came after a tremendous outgrowth of Jewish thinking which, in many divers ways, connected the snake with the most horrible aspects of human nature (ie., evil}Technically speaking, when one reads the Talmudic writings, one is almost seeing a movement within Judaism which is not radically unlike the dynamics of the Protestant Reformation in contrast to Catholic Traditions -- albeit, beginning about 1500 years before the Reformation did. And this, in my opinion, is where your argument for the "plain text" seems to begin to unravel: you're using today's style of literary criticism to vindicate the hidden meanings of a text that was written over two thousand five hundred years ago.In other words, while you claim that many are "projecting" their ideas onto the Genesis account, you seem to be incapable of considering the possibility that you yourself are doing the very same thing you claim others are doing.If you are claiming that a mythical literary style is being employed when the authors of Genesis wrote about a snake "talking" to Adam and Eve, then you also have to ask if the authors of Genesis actually considered their own writings a myth or something real?I think the authors of Genesis believed their writings to be reflecting something real. As a matter of fact, I'm almost 100% sure of this. This one... Quoting Shabbat 63a is dogma because Shabbat 63a is one the few dogmatic pronouncements of the Talmud. No. You're quoting the Talmud -- which contradicts your earlier limitation you placed on me. Then perhaps you should stop quoting the Talmud. Then why are you quoting the dogma of the Talmud as if it were more historically authoritative then other Jewish writings that came prior to it and came to conclusions contradictory to early Talmudic writings but agreed with later Talmudic writings?Does this connect the dots? That's cool.Like I said, I don't have a problem with this if that how you view it. I'm being very serious here too. I really do usually go out of my way to not offend others. And if I have said anything to hurt your feelings purpledawn I am truly sorry about that.Yet, at the same time, stating your preference as the most pure way to read the Scriptures is not going to convince others simply by preaching it to them, I'll note that you made some accusations against jayhill's "preaching" style -- but you again seem to be incapable of thinking that you yourself might be doing the same thing.Here's a simple fact purpledawn. We all do this. Every one of us. All of us including myself. Then why are you ignoring the cultures and religions which predated, surrounded, and interacted with Judaism -- cultures and religions which all concluded that snakes had some mystical nature to them, whether benevolent of benign?And why are you ignoring the Jewish historicity and context that was in existence prior to the birth Christianity and the development of the Talmud -- many of which concluded that the serpent in the garden had some mystical benevolent nature to it?And why are you ignoring the thoughts of the early Church and later Talmudic writings which bear a striking similarity to Christian thinking -- many of which concluded that the serpent in the garden had some mystical benevolent nature to it?Does this connect the dots? I do too. And I probably know more than you realize. You can't get much more "plain text" than a definition that the Bible interpets the Bible. I don't think I have to get more specific with this one.If you still want an example, I give you one in regard's to Paul's thorn. Do you read Genesis 6:1-8 as a homiletic writing or a mythical literary style? Actualy, although there are a tremendous variety of opinions, some nonetheless did conclude that Cain was of the evil one. You might find this interesting...http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/homer6a.htm It might not be "predetermined" at all. It might be a "conclusion" they arrived at after reading the Scriptures -- just like many other Jewish people prior to the birth of Christianity. What do you think these passages mean? Hmmm....Is the leviathan ever recorded as "talking" within the Hebrew Scriptures?Just curious. Hmmm...The literal meaning of the word dragon means something to the effect of "seeing one".Could a connection be made between this and the "unique one" presented in the Genesis account? What are the hebrew words for "unique one" and does it sound at all similar to any ancient words for "seeing one" found in other ancient languages?Does this connect the dots? Do you feel my statements support your opinion as well?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 10:44 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 10:50 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-23-2006 08:32 AM