The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

sorry to interrupt here, but i think this point needs to be made: what was eve, then? she tempted adam to disobey god in the exact same way. when adam is questioned by god, he blames god for putting eve in the garden.we could find similar misleading women all throughout the bible. you know their names, too. delilah, jezebel, bathsheba... surely they are not the devil too?

---

why would eve tempt the snake? the snake tempted her, and SHE gave man the fruit (possible temptation there, but never spelled out).bathsheba temps david, and misleads him. jezebel tempts ahab, and misleads ALL OF ISRAEL. delilah tempts samson, and leads him astray (and gives him a haircut).certainly these are just as much satan, for tempting and leading men astray? am i? if the serpent is satan because it misleads mankind, why isn't ANYTHING that misleads mankind also satan? remember, he flies through the air, and can take any form, including a bird, a stag, a woman, a beggar, a young man, and a goat...

---

no. the genesis account defines what a snake is: it crawls on the ground and licks dust. the passage in micah invokes the imagery from genesis as a metaphor. it's not a metaphor for a metaphor, as you put it.

---

neither do donkeys:

quote:

---

Num 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

---

well, something DOES change at the end of genesis 3. it changes the snake, and it changes how we think of snakes.

quote:

---

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

---

quote:

---

Main Entry: en·mi·ty
Pronunciation: 'en-m&-tE
Function: noun

​

: positive, active, and typically mutual hatred or ill will

---

doesn't sound like we're on speaking terms. maybe the authors thought snakes could still talk? he wasn't. he was contradicting it. he told man that god lied. nor was man, nor was woman. they were ALL punished for their actions. how man evil spirits do you know? look, at certain point, you just have to accept that this is a story with a talking snake in it. if you want to get technical about it -- snakes don't have vocal chords. they can't talk, whether or not they are possessed by satan. and it was the animal talking, not god. god just gave it the ability. and these beasts in revelation talk, too:

quote:

---

Rev 4:7-8 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

---

can you provide another instance of an evil spirit granting an animale the ability to talk? and even if snakes *ARE* unclean spirits -- what are they doing in the garden? you remember how animals GOT there, right?

quote:

---

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

---

quote:

---

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made

---

is the serpent not a beast of the field, made by the lord? if it's not foriegn to judaism... why isn't it in the bible? the question isn't what this rabbi or that rabbi reads into the text, but what the person who wrote the book thought. and why is the book of enoch not in the bible?there are other books that have the snake literally biting seth on the heel:

quote:

---

The Books of Adam and Eve.

​

xxxvii. 1 Then Seth and his mother went off to wards the gates of paradise. And while they were walking, lo! suddenly there came a beast 2 [a serpent] and attacked and bit Seth. And as soon as Eve saw it, she wept and said: 'Alas, wretched woman that I am. I am accursed since I have not kept the commandment of God 3 And Eve said to the serpent in a loud voice: Accursed beast! how (is it that) thou hast not feared to let thyself loose against the image of God, but hast dared to fight with it?'

​

xxxviii. 1 The beast answered in the language of men: 'Is it not against you, Eve, that our malice (is directed)? Are not ye the objects of our rage? 2 Tell me, Eve, how was thy mouth opened to eat of the fruit? But now if I shall begin to reprove thee thou canst not bear it.'

​

xxxix. 1 Then said Seth to the beast: 'God the Lord revile thee. Be silent, be dumb, shut thy mouth, accursed enemy of Truth, confounder and destroyer. Avaunt from the image of God till the day when the Lord God shall order thee to be 2 brought to the ordeal.' And the beast said to Seth: 'See, I leave the presence of the image of God, as thou hast said.' Forthwith he left Seth, wounded by his teeth.

---

here's another book, which links satan and the serpent -- the OTHER way:

quote:

---

First Book of Adam and Eve

​

XVII 1 The Adam and Eve came out at the mouth of the cave, and went towards the garden. 2 But as they went near it, before the western gate, from which Satan came when he deceived Adam and Eve, they found the serpent that became Satan coming at the gate, and sorrowfully licking the dust, and wiggling on its breast on the ground, by reason of the curse that fell on it from God. 3 And whereas before the serpent was the most exalted of all beasts, now it was changed and become slippery, and the meanest of them all, and it crept on its breast and went on its belly. 4 And whereas it was the fairest of all beasts, it had been changed, and was become the ugliest of them all. Instead of feeding on the best food, now it turned to eat the dust. Instead of living, as before, in the best places, now it lived in the dust. 5 And, whereas it had been the most beautiful of all beasts, all of which stood dumb at its beauty, it was now abhorred of them. 6 And, again, whereas it lived in one beautiful home, to which all other animals came from elsewhere; and where it drank, they drank also of the same; now, after it had become venomous, by reason of God's curse, all beasts fled from its home, and would not drink of the water it drank; but fled from it.

​

XVIII 1 When the accursed serpent saw Adam and Eve, it swelled its head, stood on its tail, and with eyes blood- red, acted like it would kill them. 2 It made straight for Eve, and ran after her; while Adam standing by, cried because he had no stick in his hand with which to hit the serpent, and did not know how to put it to death. 3 But with a heart burning for Eve, Adam approached the serpent, and held it by the tail; when it turned towards him and said to him: -- 4 "O Adam, because of you and of Eve, I am slippery, and go on my belly." Then with its great strength, it threw down Adam and Eve and squeezed them, and tried to kill them. 5 But God sent an angel who threw the serpent away from them, and raised them up. 6 Then the Word of God came to the serpent, and said to it, "The first time I made you slick, and made you to go on your belly; but I did not deprive you of speech. 7 This time, however, you will be mute, and you and your race will speak no more; because, the first time My creatures were ruined because of you, and this time you tried to kill them." 8 Then the serpent was struck mute, and was no longer able to speak. 9 And a wind blew down from heaven by the command of God and carried away the serpent from Adam and Eve, and threw it on the seashore where it landed in India.

---

notice that the serpent becomes satan, not vice versa. (also, notice the point in both where the snake goes mute). there's another book or two that has "the devil" talking the snake into it, and talking throught the snake:

quote:

---

The Apocalypse of Moses

​

xvi. 1 And the devil spake to the serpent saying, "Rise up, come to me and I will tell thee a word 2 whereby thou mayst have profit." And he arose and came to him. And the devil saith to him: 3 "I hear that thou art wiser than all the beasts, and I have come to counsel thee. Why dost thou eat of Adam's tares and not of paradise? Rise up and we will cause him to be cast out of paradise, even 4 as we were cast out through him." The serpent saith to him, "I fear lest the Lord be wroth with 5 me." The devil saith to him: "Fear not, only be my vessel and I will speak through thy mouth words to deceive him."

---

if this sounds a little, um, unbiblical, it's because it is. none of these books are in the bible -- they're ALL later traditions. they provide us with some insight into what people were thinking at the time, and they way they were reading the texts they had. but they're not the bible. they're newer.and frankly, some of them just sound kind of silly after a while. in all of the above texts i presented -- he is. or at least was. in the first text, which includes satan's fall from the heavens, he is quite an independnet force from the serpent. in the second, the serpent BECOMES satan. in the third, the satan possesses. but in all three texts -- he's just a snake.now, i can find more texts, if you want, that associate the snake and azazel (whom you might remember from enoch -- he falls in typical satan fashion).the point i'm trying to make here is that there's a lot of different interpretation going on. finding one little bit that supports your idea doesn't actually mean anything. it's just how one particular author read that particular passage, and what he thought it meant. these are ALL post-biblical, and non-biblical. and the only real point you've got is that "snakes don't talk." but like i said, a certain point, you have to deal with the fact that this is a story with a talking snake in it.

---

quite the opposite. the fact that a snake talks is NOT important. but it's one we seem to get stuck on -- and one that leads people to think that the snake was supernatural. or, as one of the accounts above puts it, possessed. clearly this talking thing was on the minds of the readers and reinterpretters of genesis -- all three accounts i presented attempt to explain why snakes no longer talk.but in genesis, the idea that the snake talks is, well, pretty nonchalant. it's just a story with a talking snake. i'm basically saying "get over it, and stop trying to explain it."

---

bringing this back to the point i was trying to make: you implied that the role of temptation, and leading mankind astray makes this snake more than "just a snake." in some regards, i have even agreed. now, the question is "why is eve not also a satan?" eve tempts adam to disobey god -- one oculd even say that in the story she is an archetype that represents all women, and adam is every man.if the bible is saying that the serpent is "the devil" then why isn't woman also, for the same reasons? certainly, she is portrayed almost as badly.

---

they do pop up from time to time in the bible. for instance, azazel (the "scapegoat") shows up in the torah, and there are several other mentions of lying spirits, unclean spirits, demons, and satyrs ("devils" in the kjv). i can give you references, if you'd like.i'm not debating that these are later influences from other religions -- but you have to keep in mind that judaism was also quickly changing while the bible was being written. we can, for instance, see the development and evolution of satan over time. and judaism does seem to have its roots in polytheism. the question is, what happened to everything else with the monotheistic revolution they must have had? and was this STRICT monotheism that forbids other spirits and gods from even existing just a fluke in the long run of jewish religious tradition?

---

well, the snake is important here, but only in the aspect that he's neccessary to tell the moral: we can't blame the snake for our actions. in numbers, when snakes are the problem, a snake is the solution. the symbol of a snake on a standard is still a popular emblem of the medical profession. moses uses the image of a snake to heal the wounds of snake.now, i'm sure you're making a christ reference above. you do so love to preach, why not just come out and say it? i specifically want the numbers issue addressed because this is one of the issues that really, really bugged me years ago when i was still working this out.a snake on a stick seems a little like crucifixion, doesn't it? our wounds healed by something hanging from a large piece of lumber? but who sent the snakes in the first place? god. and is jesus a snake, the symbol of the devil? the imagery is too analagous to be coincidence, in my mind, but too wrong to actually make sense.are we saved from god, by the image of god? or are we saved from the snake, by an image of the snake? can you see how this can be a difficult point to get around? yet, this thread exists. even as "just a snake" why could it not have deeper significance? certainly, there is still moral. and certainly there is still powerful imagery -- maybe even metaphor. but as literally something besides a snake, i don't see it. no, and this is why i object so strongly. the snake was NOT the cause of man's sin. nor was he the cause of woman's sin. to say so fundamentally betrays the meaning of the text. if it's only the snake's fault -- why punish adam eve? they were just innocent victims of the devil, after all.when god punishes eve, it's because she's done something wrong. she was wrong to listen to the snake, instead of god. when god punishes adam, it's because he's done something wrong. he was wrong to listen to eve instead of god. genesis 3 tells us that no matter what we hear, and no matter how right it sounds, it is our duty to follow god and only god. and when we mess up, we can't get out of it by saying "the devil made me do it," because we are responsible for our own actions.it's MAN'S fault that man fell from grace. not the devil's.

---

i presented several earlier writings. i can probably find more, if you'd like. granted, those were pseudepigraphical, so they're not all that much older. but it seems the earlier we go, the more of "just a snake" he is.

quote:

---

Isa 13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

---

"cry" here is anah, which tends to get translated as "answer" (verbally). kind of weak, but, uh, here's an argument by ezekiel metaphor:

quote:

---

Eze 29:3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

---

nonexistant in this verse:

quote:

---

—, , —, ‘

​

v'ye-amer yahueh elohym, "hen ha-adam hayah ke'achad m'menu, ladat tov v'ra..."

​

and-said [the lord] god, "behold! the man is as-one from-us, to-know good and-evil.

---

now, "achad" is pretty simple. that's the number one. we learned that in hebrew one. it also can refer to a person, the same way we say "no one" or "anyone" or "everyone." what about m'menu? m' is the prefix for "from" but honestly, i don't remember using menu for "us" in class. but i've missed some, so i dunno.but do a little googling, and don't take my word for it:

quote:

---

The final word of verse 1:9 [of Exodus], mimenu means "from us". The Egyptians were falsely claiming that the Israelites had increased at the expense of the Egyptians.

​

http://penei.org/parashot/Shemot.shtml

---

quote:

---

Pharaoh's reality was one in which we read verse 9 to say, 'the nation of the Children of Israel is elevated and righteous on their own accord'. The term 'from us (MiMenu)', according to the Ben Ish Hai, is understood to refer to the Children of Israel. ...

​

... Rabbi Moshe David Volei presents a different approach to the interpretation to the term 'from us (MiMenu)'. ...

​

source cached in google, fixed with tinyurl.

---

quote:

---

ve'ahavosecho al tosir mimenu le'olomim . . . and never remove Your love from us . . .

​

http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/...es5764/NTZ64ochevron.htm

---

quote:

---

LAMAH HALACHT MIMENU
WHY DID YOU GO AWAY FROM US

​

LAMAH HALACHT MIMENU - Jewish Songs | Hebrew Songs

---

seems to me that, judging from multiple sources, "ke-achad mimenu" means "as one from us." i don't know where this "unique one comes from" but i've spotted it in some targums. aramaic is a funny language, you know.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-22-2006 11:41 PM

---

no. telling someone to disobey god is also a sin, isn't it? man is responsible for his own actions, but the snake is also responsible for his. uh, no, he just says what i said. that the two are analogs. that raises another question. if christ is like the snake -- and worshipping the snake is idolatry... you will find me preaching from time to time -- remember jaywill, i did once in a conversation with you here, and i got a potm for it from an athiest. think about it for a second. book, chapter, verse? whoa whoa whoa. back up. for someone debating me about how the snake is not "just a snake" you sure have missed a big one right here. the "scapegoat" is azazel -- a demon, or according to enoch head of the fallen angels. the goat goes off to be eaten by azazel, not to "escape." we're talking about serpents, so i suspect not. but when part two comes around... let's rephrase. because while your statement is technically correct, i suspect you're figuratively alluding to original sin, which is NOT correct. man was plunged into sin in the respect that man was removed from god -- and so every man afterwards sinned. but sin was evidently well within our capabality in the garden, too.if it wasn't, the serpent's subtle trickier would never have worked. well, where it first began to go wrong. if there's a consistent message in the bible, it's that man messes up, and god gets angry at us for screwing around. look at the flood, the botched exodus (40 years wandering), moses denied entering the promised land, david's sin, the exile... sort of. we die because we are denied the tree of life. we are denied the tree of life because of adam's sin -- and our own sin. but christ grants us the tree of life, he IS the tree of life, metaphorically speaking. you explicitly said above that man's fall was the fault of the snake. it was not, it was the fault of man for following the snake.is it the golden calf's fault it was worshipped in the desert, at the base of mt. horeb? is it the bronze serpent's fault it was worshipped as an idol? the serpent is responsible for his actions of trying to mislead man, but it's man's fault for being misled. depends how powerful we make this satan character, doesn't it. someone who can be god's opponent, but can't possess and manipulate and control mere mortals? ok.

---

christ said:

quote:

---

Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

---

that's a little paltry on the "interpretation" side. that's a comparison, a reference as you said. it doesn't tell us anything more than what i said: that christ on the cross is clearly analagous to the serpent on a stick in numbers. also a nice try, for you are not to worship any man, for man is made in the image of god, and worshipping an image is idolatry. making claims about what makes this particular image different is no different than saying the golden calf represents god, who lead us out of egypt. no argument here. yes, even the bible records this. so i guess i should conclude that the bible does not actually say this, then? yes, but i don't see an serpents biting heels and christ smashing his head in. lacks the serpentine aspect, and the biting of the heel. we are not "in adam's fall." we're quite capable of it on our own. god does not hold the children responsible for the sins of the parents (and that IS in the bible). i don't either, but fact is that one of the only translations renders "azazel" as "scapegoat" is the kjv. the translators assumed, basically, that it was a typo. they translated ——— as a combination of the two root words that make it up: — (goat) and —— (go away). but if you look at the verse, it's not "to be the go-away-goat" it's "TO the go-away-goat." it says:

quote:

---

leviticus 16:8

​

’— —, ’— ————

​

...goral achad l-yahueh. v'goral achad l-azazel.

​

portion one to-[the lord],
and-portion one to-[azazel]

---

and it's not an infinitive, either. "azazel" is a noun, the same as "yahueh," because the structure is parallel. more importantly, azazel has a similar status to yahueh. meaning not only does it seem to be a proper noun, but it's probably the name of something spiritual.azazel is either a demon, evil spirit, or another god that lives in the wilderness that the israelites are instructed to send sacrifice to, in the same manner they sacrifice to god. the goat does not escape. it is sent TO azazel. at best, he is another animal that eats goats. at worst, he is a competing god they consider very real.and it has nothing to do with the book of enoch -- enoch interprets this "scapegoat" business as being a fallen angel, and thus presents the story of how he fell (~genesis 6). it's just evidence that people were reading azazel to be a divine entity, and not the goat who escaped. you made similar remarks above: "we ... remain in Adam's fall." etc. perhaps you should clarify this position (in a new thread) and detail how it differs from the classical dogma of original sin.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-23-2006 06:21 PM

---

well, the principle effect seems to be closely linked to the naturist religions -- they send the goat off to be eaten, so the predator doesn't come through their flock and cause more harm.it's possible that he was elevated in status, much the way satan was. though both, concievably, could have come from other sources.(short answer: "i don't know.")

---

jay, that's not an answer; that's an insult. and it's condescending.if you are in possession of the full meaning, why don't you address my concerns about the comparison of christ to the serpent, instead of pretending that it's already been dealt with by a statement far less detailed than my question?

---

what, no more preaching, jay?what's wrong?can't put that divinely imparted understanding into words to answer my questions?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-25-2006 11:22 PM

---

and got suspended for it. thanks, though. well, there's a problem here though. there's what the text says, what the text implies or does not imply, and what people read it as meaning. the interpretted meanings are pretty varied -- we'll never represent the full range of jewish thought here.because, and i think this is a fact we will have to face, the text does not represent the full range of jewish thought. if it DID, we wouldn't have things like the oral law (talmud). and we can barely get the text to agree with itself on some things -- how can we ever even dream of representing the full range of jewish thought?the other obvious problem is that some of the thought in that range is sometimes wrong, or at least inconsistent with the text and its straightforward implications. well, if the plain text is devoid of references to satan, spiritual powers, demons, possessions, etc -- it *IS* the plain text reading to say that it does not represent those ideas. reading those ideas into the text must, therefore, be interpretation.and interpretting something into a text when it does not literally present the idea frequently (though not always) involves a preconcieved notion. in this case, since the plain reading says nothing about satan -- and satan plays very little role in the hebrew scriptures at all, reading him into the text requires something of a preconcieved notion of who or what satan *IS*. the jewish scriptures don't mention much.if we took satan's role in job, defined it as the angelic or demonic position that tests mankind's faith in god, and then went back to genesis we might say "well, that seems kind of like the serpent -- maybe satan had something to do with it." but that is reading the pre-concieved notion job implies into genesis -- it's interpretting genesis in light of job. the same would apply to revelation, or matthew, or anything else.any way you look at this particular case, it's reinterpretting what this particular text says in light of something else -- with a preconcieved notion from that other source.

---