The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

Hi, PD! in my translations, the serpent is less indictative as one of the animals. Lets look at a few other translations: Im gonna check a few more later....This in and of itself does not indicate that the serpant was one of the wild animals that the LORD had made. It only indicates that the serpant was smarter than the animals---in a devious sort of way. The serpent talks---something no other animal does...(unless you include humans as animals) So what is it about the bad vibes betwixt the offspring of a mere snake and the offspring of a woman?And why did God boot the humans out of the Garden and not the snake?This message has been edited by Phat, 03-05-2006 12:58 AM

The snake and the dragon are both symbolic. It would appear, however, that they both represent the same vibe. Its that pesky dungeons and dragons freethinking vibe that never wants to listen to Major Dad!

Wow! All this purple logic! Dazzling! OK so if the walking snake is an "earthly adversary of who the woman represents, could we surmize that she represented no one?

She was not able to represent God as she was unaware of His Spirit.

She may have represented herself, but did she really understand who she was in life---apart from the "helpmate" of Adam?

​

This message has been edited by Phat, 03-20-2006 05:09 AM

That brings up a good point.What were the authors intending to convey?

Were they drawing on the stories and legends that they heard from others? (Much as many of us do today as well...second hand traditions, interpretations, and information)

If they were drawing on such sources, can we gather that a cohesive zeitgeist was being discussed? Or was there controversy even then?

​

This message has been edited by Phat, 03-20-2006 05:29 AM

I am questioning the idea of Biblical literalism in my own personal walk of faith. Despite what many literalists say, there does seem to be sketchy details surrounding the early stories of Genesis and the much later books of the New Testament. Many philosophical concepts are introduced in the Bible, and many other philosophical concepts have been discussed throughout the history of humanity.People liken the snake and the story of the Fall as indicative of the concept of free will. Maybe the snake was "just a snake", but regardless whether Genesis was literal or a symbolic collection of early writings, it can be argued that the ideas and cultural yearnings of that day and age were adequately explained in the first book of the Bible and that a foundation for faith was suggested. If the snake is just a snake, and the stories are just stories, the philosophies and questions of the early authors will be discussed and pondered for generations from now.

We know that the authors of Genesis were many many years removed from the author(s) of Revelation.

​

We do not know the events that inspired the authors to record what they had observed or were taught. Literalists assume that the entire Bible was inspired by One Spirit. Genesis may have been written for us if the authors intended folk to read it.
Similarly, Revelation may have been written for folk to read. But were these books...(and the snake...and the Dragon...) written as stories to our souls and questing hunger for spiritual enlightenment?

​

This message has been edited by Phat, 03-25-2006 07:21 AM

​

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago