|
Author
|
Topic: The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
Message 28 of 302 (292272)
03-05-2006 12:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
03-04-2006 4:45 PM
|
|
Re: Purpledawn Is Right
1. I've always contended that the deceiving serpent of Genesis was a beast of the field and not Satan the red heavenly dragon of Revelation 12. That's because I'm a strict Biblical fundie, inasmuch as I take scripture to be literal unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
i think the writer was making parallials between satan and tiamat, being that both at that time represent chaos
2. In fact, in the Genesis account, the writer identifies the pre-cursed serpents as being more subtle/intelligent than all the other serpents of the field, indicating that they were beasts of the field.
its only speaks of one snake, and this snake also parallials tiamat or laviathen in someway, considering it sowed chaos into the system
3. The pre-cursed serpents of Eden were not snakes. They were not belly crawling beasts as clearly implied in the account. They became belly crawling serpents after the curse. Thus my contention that they were the dinosaurs which were long legged serpents whose offspring became the belly crawling serpents via the curse.
its called a snake, the snake was cursed by god, there are very few dinosaurs that look remotely like snakes, they are called terible lizards not terrible snakes. buz do you understand they couldn't be dinosaurs? dinosaurs were not very smart, the smartest one was as intelligent as a turkey, and you do know what turkeys do when it rains right?
4. My argument has been that not only were they cursed to become belly crawlers, but that their whole physiology, including their intelligence, their size and even their blood physiology was adjusted to being belly crawling creatures.
sadly its not a ver convencing one, there is nothing biblical to back any of this up. god has never changed the whole structure of anything after it was created, the only maybe was the age limits on people but nothing on over-all anything
5. It is my contention that Satan inspired one of them to do the deceptive job on Eve.
how would a servent of god do such a thing? there isn't even a satan till job and he is only able to do things at the word of god
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 03-04-2006 4:45 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 30 of 302 (292280)
03-05-2006 3:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
03-05-2006 2:57 AM
|
|
Re: Snake or Satan?
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)
lol i hope i'm wrong in thinking you don't think god made the serpent, that would worry me  hmm i just had a thought, though i figure its not new, maybe god had the snake test adam and eve?
So what is it about the bad vibes betwixt the offspring of a mere snake and the offspring of a woman?
maybe people back then had a huge fear of snakes?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Phat, posted 03-05-2006 2:57 AM | | Phat has replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 32 of 302 (292285)
03-05-2006 3:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
03-05-2006 3:09 AM
|
|
Re: Reptilian Rationality
rofl, yeah i think the snake symbolizes free thought and sometimes the chaos it causes.
The idea that it could be satan is just, not really bibical unless you want to enforce revelations on to genesis, you have to do that to get snake = satan, since genesis doesn't ever talk about satan, though enoch does talk about sataniel i think thats the name of the bad guy to god the hebrews had,but historically they dropped it all
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Phat, posted 03-05-2006 3:09 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 39 of 302 (292332)
03-05-2006 10:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by jaywill
03-05-2006 8:42 AM
|
|
Re: Cain was "of the evil one"
God warns Cain that sin is crouching. Only a living thing would be discribed as crouching, poised to attack, stealthily positioned to take advantage of the situation. Sin is discribed as a personified evil beast crouching and ready to dominate Cain's heart. oh come on jat you are just making stuff up, its a phrase expressing that he is not making effort to control his wrong urges, you even say it but you add in somesort of animorphic expression of sin?
Cain failed to excercise self control over his envy. And the evil crouching power of sin flooded his heart. He rose up and did Satan's will and murdered the true seeker of God, Abel.
the story is about doing something agenst gods will, not about satan, satan is a servent of god, so he can''t do anything
So the Apostle John says that Cain was of the evil one. John also rightly tells us that the Devil has sinned from the beginning:
do you have any biblical evidence that he sinned from the begining? other than john of course? like "satan did sin, blah blah blah", everything you claim is imposing your view on the text. The authors of genesis didn't believe in satan, theres only one god for them, a representation of evil wouldn't make sense with one god
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2006 8:42 AM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 52 of 302 (292578)
03-06-2006 12:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
03-06-2006 12:00 AM
|
|
Re: Purpledawn Is Right
1. It was not a snake. Read the account. Snakes have no legs.
because it got cursed?, buz you imposing your own views on the text, it says serpent which is another name for snake.
2. All the descendents (seed) of this beast were cursed. Again read the account carefully and thoughtfully.
there was only one snake spoke of. not more than one. you are adding to the text buz
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 03-06-2006 12:00 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 68 of 302 (293485)
03-08-2006 9:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
03-08-2006 8:57 PM
|
|
Re: You're Missing the Context Message
.......into a snake, from what? What do you think, and where/what would the obvious thing creationists should look for in the fossil record which comes closest to the thing described in Gen 3:1?
a snake buz, a snake, it started as a snake with legs then got turned into what we see as snakes. I mean if snakes could talk and had legs then it wouldn't match anything we see, since dinosaurs look nothing like anything that relates to snakes. why do you feel the need to add in things that arn't in the text? i'm going to agree with who ever it was that said the snake was nothing but a foil for the story, just an antagonist for the story nothing more. also an explenation for why hebrews hate/dislike snakes
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 03-08-2006 8:57 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 03-08-2006 9:43 PM | | ReverendDG has replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 80 of 302 (293846)
03-10-2006 3:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
03-08-2006 9:43 PM
|
|
Re: You're Missing the Context Message
It's you, my friend, who's implicating things not said in the context. What is said is that the creature received a significant overhaul. If you take a snake as we know them and simply add long legs to it, you have nonsense. In order to reverse our snakes into something with long legs you've got to envision a whole lot more than just spindly legs attached to a snake and it needs to be in the fossil record, imo in order to be a real living earth kind, unlike the Rev 12 envisioned thing.
yes buz it would be a lizard, as arach says it would be a snake with legs. have you ever seen a leggless lizard? they look very much like snakes. the thing is buz is says it lost its legs. it didn' suddenly become something else it was a snake still, they called it a snake after it lost its legs. as for dinosaurs, have you seen a limbless dinosaur?
unlike the Rev 12 envisioned thing.
which was levithen, the serpent of chaos This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-10-2006 03:44 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 03-08-2006 9:43 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: let's be a bit more careful here
almost. it uses the imagery of lothan/tiamat, probably through leviathan. it does have seven heads, which matches the ugaritic lothan, but that description is not found in the bible before rev -- john patmos likely used another source for inspiration.
i forgot rev describes a seven headed serpent, yes it would describe taimat better, i should have said tiamat was the serpent of chaos, rather than leviathan, must have been tired at the time
curiously, btw, just to make my own life harder, are we all aware of how vague the hebrew description of "serpent" is? forget biblical and mythological knowledge. when i say leviathan, what do most people think of?
being that i have a large mythos knowledge i picture the world serpent from norse mythology - a huge ass immortal snake that will eat thor in the end
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: let's be a bit more careful here
no no, you were still right. leviathan embodies the same characteristic as tiamat, and is associated with chaos through some implications in the text we do have. leviathan seems to come from tiamat, through lothan.
darn people have no real clarity when it comes to this, but thats mythology for you 
it's just never mentioned in the hebrew texts that we have that leviathan had seven heads -- so that bit of coincidence leads me to believe that john had other sources.
more than likely
it's odd that similar stories keep popping up. the ironic thing is that buzsaw might accidentally be right in reverse. dragon myths might actually come from dinosaur remains.
i think so, giants and cyclopses and other things might be interpreted from remains of huge life-forms.
however, the serpent in the garden is a snake, not a dragon.
i agree with this, nothing in the bible says it was anything more than a crafty snake
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: The Size
this is very true, the norse vikings called whales sea serpents, they never got very close to the whales to really see what they were. since whales move rather fluidly, they could make that misstake
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: what was eve, then?
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.
it is foreign to judaism, the idea of evil spirits would be silly to yahweh believers since he is so powerful and angels are not independent of him, they are servents created to do his work, so even if it was a spirit possessing the snake it would be on gods watch the beliefs in spirits are influences from other religions, heck satan as gods oppesite is from zoranderism
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: bronze serpents and goat-eaters
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. just as a question, i wonder if azazel came into play before or after the exile to babaylon this sounds like zoroastrianistic effects {aBe: ahh i guess looking up something would help better, seems azazel was a god/demon that pulled belief from yanweh, but also a symbol as a scapegoat Azazel} This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-24-2006 02:54 AM
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: bronze serpents and goat-eaters
rofl maybe i should have left that out and just gone reading. Anyway Baaahhhhh
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
ramoss, in fairness, i presented three pseudepigraphical sources a few pages back that do associate ha-satan with the serpent. i think those can be considered jewish sources. ramoss may mean mainstream traditional judaism, he can correct me if i'm wrong i think the sources would be considered inline with the childhood gospel of jesus. its not a common jewish belief that lasted very long, probly right after the exile the hebrews abandoned the ideas the persians influence added This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-26-2006 04:09 PM
|
™ Version 4.2