Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 143 of 302 (295454)
03-15-2006 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by jaywill
03-15-2006 6:26 AM


Hebrew vs Greek
quote:
Why didn't John say "the ancient Leviathan" rather than "the ancient serpent?"
Because he wasn't writing in Hebrew.
If you look at a Greek Interlinear Bible you will see that the word "leviathan" is translated into Greek as "drakonta" or dragon which is a great serpent.
quote:
Why is the sumbolism of the dragon before the pregnant woman so similiar to the story of Genesis - God putting enemity between the woman and the serpent and their respective seeds?
I really don't see the similarity you speak of.
Eve was not pregnant when she dealt with the snake (small snake).
The snake in Genesis was not trying to devour anything.
Snake had one head.
The curse on the snake gives a visual of snakes striking out at the legs and people stepping on snakes.
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.
Genesis may be the only story you know of with a woman and a snake involved, but not necessarily John.
quote:
What do you really hope to gain by disconnecting Revelation from Genesis is this regard?
Understanding the reality behind the writings. IMO, the point of Revelation is missed if the enemy is considered supernatural.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 6:26 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jaywill, posted 03-16-2006 11:11 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 146 of 302 (295557)
03-15-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jaywill
03-15-2006 12:22 PM


Satan
Ringo writes:
The serpent in Genesis is a "deceiver" (according to you). The Satan in Job is more like a prosecuting attorney, working at God's behest.
quote:
You picked that up from where? I'm curious to know who propogates this understanding that so many skeptics of the Bible like you love to parrot over and over again.
Judaism
...Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; ...
Now you know.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 12:22 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 1:45 PM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 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

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 184 of 302 (296384)
03-17-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jaywill
03-17-2006 1:05 PM


Re: Homiletics
quote:
You asked me why I haven't answered Message 38?
Actually I didn't, but thanks.
quote:
Unlike you I don't think John was just a imaginative fisherman who came to presumptiously teach Judiasm something novel about Genesis.
Wow, you really are clueless about me and what I was trying to say in the post.
Apparently I haven't been clear that I'm not interested in a battle of embellishments.
In Message 170 I summarized your comments that I could find concerning the plain sense reading of the texts. I'm comfortable with my opinion in the OP. No one has presented anything signficantly contrary concerning the plain text reading.
But I still haven't figured out why you persist in answering me with homiletics when I'm discussing plain text. Message 176

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2006 1:05 PM jaywill has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 195 of 302 (296609)
03-19-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jaywill
03-18-2006 2:55 PM


Re: What About the Serpent in Numbers?
quote:
Can we move on to discuss the serpent in the book of Numbers? I think you'll find many juicy things not to agree with me on there.
Shall we move to the book of Numbers and its serpent?
Nope. The serpents in Numbers are not related to my topic.
Please keep on the original topic.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 2:55 PM jaywill has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 198 of 302 (296637)
03-19-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-19-2006 3:24 PM


Not a General Discussion on Serpents
Hey Mr. ExN
Welcome to the discussion. I'd appreciate it though if you would keep to topic as presented in my OP.
Present what you feel is relevant to the OP which deals with the plain text or sense reading, but the verses in Numbers as presented do not deal with the OP. Please don't encourage jaywill to stray.
Thanks

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-19-2006 3:24 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-19-2006 8:59 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 206 of 302 (296733)
03-20-2006 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-19-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Not a General Discussion on Serpents
If you notice the OP, I’m discussing plain text or plain sense of the text. I’m not looking at homiletics Message 38. Many allusions in the Bible can be gleaned to generate lessons and sermons. This topic is not looking at lesson and sermon possibilities. It is looking at the plain text or plain sense meaning.
Matthew 23:33 isn’t relevant to this discussion. This is not a general discussion on serpents/snakes. The OP is very specific.
As far as Eve’s deception mentioned by Paul see Message 7. The point of Paul’s lesson doesn’t turn the serpent in Genesis into Satan (a supernatural enemy of God).
Yes the point Arach made concerning Moses staff turning into a whale is interesting, but the plain text of that story and the bronze serpent used to heal don’t point to the serpent in Genesis as being Satan (a supernatural enemy of God).
quote:
. 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 . .
That’s a very nice lesson, but really has nothing to do with this discussion. The serpents in Numbers don’t deal with Satan (a supernatural enemy of God).
quote:
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.
metaphor - A direct relationship where one thing or idea substitutes for another.
There are instances, but not all uses of the word snake or serpent are metaphors. The usage in the staff story and the bronze serpent story is not a metaphor. The way it is used in the Genesis story is not a metaphor. In Revelation, a vision, everything is symbolic. The dragon there represents an adversary. After a closer look since this thread started I don’t think it represents Satan (a supernatural enemy of God) but an earthly adversary of whoever the woman represents.
Now the way Jesus used it in John 3:14 is more of a simile (An indirect relationship where one thing or idea is expressed as being similar to another.). Jesus was teaching and trying to give a visual.
While a nice discussion on the different uses of the word serpent/snake, it doesn’t address the OP.
On several occasions people have stated in various ways that the ancient serpent/dragon in Revelations that symbolizes Satan/Devil refers back to the serpent in Genesis 3:1 which means that the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is Satan.
I disagree. 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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-19-2006 8:59 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Phat, posted 03-20-2006 7:08 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 208 of 302 (296737)
03-20-2006 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Phat
03-20-2006 7:08 AM


Dragon in Revelation
quote:
Wow! All this purple logic! Dazzling!
Some would say dizzying. Purple Smiles
quote:
OK so if the walking snake is an "earthly adversary of who the woman represents, could we surmize that she represented no one?
I was speaking of the dragon in Revelation as an earthly adversary. IMO, the woman represents the nation of Israel.
I'm not really sure what you are asking about the plain text of the Genesis story.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Phat, posted 03-20-2006 7:08 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Phat, posted 03-20-2006 7:28 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 210 of 302 (296741)
03-20-2006 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Phat
03-20-2006 7:28 AM


Re: Plain Text meanings
Sorry I'm so dense this morning, but I still don't understand what you are asking in relation to the OP or what I've already stated.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Phat, posted 03-20-2006 7:28 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Phat, posted 03-25-2006 9:03 AM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 213 of 302 (296820)
03-20-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by jaywill
03-20-2006 12:37 PM


Re: Bible Study without studying the Bible
quote:
Purpledawn seems to want to have a Bible Study without studying the Bible when it comes to comments on Paul's references to the serpent.
There is a difference between studying the Bible and studying lessons or sermons presented about the Bible.
I made it very clear in the OP that my case is based on the plain text and that is what I wish to discuss.
I'd appreciate it, if you would stop claiming that I am not studying the Bible (not sure what else you think I'm looking at) or that I reject God's word if I don't agree with your statements or sermons.
I feel you are trying to make your point by intimidation. Please stick to the text.
quote:
But Paul said that these preachers and false apostle were ministers of Satan
Actually he didn't.
11:13-15
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.
He just insinuated that the competition could be, hoping his readers would jump to the came conclusion that you did.
He was warning them against subtle deception.
But again, Paul's comment concerning Satan has nothing to do with the snake in the Garden.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jaywill, posted 03-20-2006 12:37 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by jaywill, posted 03-20-2006 6:42 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 215 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-20-2006 6:51 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 220 of 302 (296932)
03-20-2006 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-20-2006 6:51 PM


Just Saying What
Not sure what you are just saying. Please be more specific.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-20-2006 6:51 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-20-2006 8:20 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 222 of 302 (296939)
03-20-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by jaywill
03-20-2006 6:42 PM


Summary Please
quote:
But your "plain text" explanation of what John meant in Revelation 12 is challenged.
It really doesn't matter if you agree with my explanation of what I feel John meant. There are many variations. You can believe that the dragon is Satan (enemy of God) all you want.
The symbology used in Revelation doesn't automatically make the snake in the Adam and Eve story into or represent Satan (enemy of God). My concern is the Adam and Eve story. I have no problem with what John is saying, which I've told you before. His vision does not change the Adam and Eve Story.
As usual you are focusing on the wrong thing.
In Message 170 I summarized your comments that I could find concerning the plain sense reading of the texts. I'm comfortable with my opinion in the OP. No one has presented anything signficantly contrary concerning the plain text reading.
quote:
Beside you might learn something from a Bible thumping, holy roller, hoot and holler SERMONIZING Bible Study . Especially when you put out flaky stuff like John was not refering to Satan in Revelation as the ancient serpent, Satan the Devil.
Been there, done that.
Actually in Message 7 I said:
Actually the ancient serpent refers to the great dragon and for the purposes of John's vision the Satan personna is portrayed by this huge serpentine creature. It isn't saying that Satan is a huge serpentine creature and it isn't referring back to Genesis.
"And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him." (Rev.12:9)
Notice that the term acient serpent refers back to the dragon. Then it states "he who is called the Devil and Satan. The verse doesn't actually say it is Satan (enemy of God). As you so clearly pointed out in Message 10:
jaywill writes:
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".
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to Him to show to His slaves the things that must quickly take place; and He made it known by signs ..." (Rev. 1:1)
Over the thousands of years this book covers, animals have been used to symbolize or describe many different things and not always the same depending on the writer.
My contention is that the talking snake in Genesis is just a talking snake, not Satan (enemy of God). The dragon in Revelation has its purpose, but it doesn't change the plain text reading of Genesis story.
quote:
Incorrect. The serpent in the garden is at work as Satan with his phony "ministers of righteousness" doing his biding by corrupting the hearts of the Corinthian congregation.
The snake in the actual Garden did not present himself as righteous to Eve or as representing God. Paul uses the deception of Eve to illustrate the subtle deception he feels the false apostles are using, but he doesn't say that they are ministers of Satan (enemy of God). He just says that ministers of Satan (enemy of God) would probably work in disguise as he states Satan (enemy of God) does. I have no doubts as to Paul's purpose in what he is saying in these verses. I don't feel he is placing Satan (enemy of God) in the actual Garden of Eden.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by jaywill, posted 03-20-2006 6:42 PM jaywill has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 223 of 302 (296942)
03-20-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-20-2006 8:20 PM


Re: Just Saying What
quote:
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.
You have the whole Bible to draw upon, but the analogies need to actually be in the text of the Bible not projected onto it.
That's all I ask.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-20-2006 8:20 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-20-2006 9:47 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 226 of 302 (297036)
03-21-2006 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-20-2006 9:47 PM


PaRDeS
quote:
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.
That is not what I'm suggesting.
My topic is concerning very specific comments that have popped up in discussions.
On several occasions people have stated in various ways that the ancient serpent/dragon in Revelations that symbolizes Satan/Devil refers back to the serpent in Genesis 3:1 which means that the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is Satan.
It just happens to be a Christian concept. I don't believe I ever stated it was a Chritian invention to project Satan (enemy of God) onto the snake in the Garden, but I did say that it (Satan as God's enemy) didn't appear to be a part of the early Hebrew religion around the time the A&E story was probably written.
quote:
Obviously opinions vary within Judaism, just as opinions vary within Christianity.
Yes opinions vary, but the concept of PaRDeS in Judaism allows for the study of the plain text or Peshat (The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context.)
The Talmud states: ... A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning ... Shabbat 63a
Homiletics have their place and purpose as I alluded to in Message 38, but in this discussion I'm looking at the plain text meaning of the A&E story.
IMO, if we understand the plain sense of the text we are better equiped against false teachers.
In a nutshell, what you find me arguing against are homiletics presented as absolute.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-20-2006 9:47 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-22-2006 12:50 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 239 of 302 (297251)
03-22-2006 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-22-2006 12:50 AM


Make the Connection
quote:
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?
That opinion was given in my OP and as you know, to keep the OP relatively short we don't usually show our complete argument in the first post.
Jaywill addressed that opinion in Message 134. I didn't respond because I felt his last statement supported my opinion.
jaywill writes:
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.
Due to another question by jaywill, in Message 143 I tied the word for dragon back to the same greek word used for Leviathan. The imagery for John's vision could just have easily been drawn from outside writings, but I have no access to what he might have known outside the OT.
If you disagree with my opinion then make your case that the imagery is more reasonably pulled from the plain text of Genesis.
quote:
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.
There was also over 1000 years between the probable penning of the Cain story to the early Christian Church and even though the author of 1 John states that Cain is of the evil one, the original story of Cain, does not.
1 John is a homiletic writing. It is written to convey a predetermined concept or lesson. It would be a whole other discussion to determine if the belief at the time 1 John was written (90-120CE) truly was that Cain was of the evil one, but given the evolution of Satan (enemy of God) they probably did.
I don't see your point in presenting Genesis 6:1-8.
quote:
I think evangelicals would simply call it something like "allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible."
I don't see this as the same as plain text. You'll have to be more specific.
quote:
...For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."...
I realize that each religion has their method of interpretation. I prefer to look at the plain or simple meaning of the text (The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context.) Judaism just happens to have the definition that describes how I read the Bible. That is my reason for presenting that definition to you and what the Talmud stated. Do you feel that other interpretations override the plain text? I don't. I don't support Jewish dogma and tradition either if it contradicts the plain text reading.
The Talmud is commentary and yes it gives many opinions. I'm presenting my opinion from a plain text reading concerning the issue presented in the OP.
quote:
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?
Which one of my arguments were dogmatic?
quote:
So what plain text reading within the Genesis account explains why the snake was "talking" to Adam and Eve?
The literary style is mythical.
quote:
Bearing these time-lines in mind, what gives the Talmud chronologically more authority in resolving this matter than Christian tradition?
I don't understand your question in relation to the OP.
quote:
And who are the false teachers?
Those in it for the money, their own glory, power, etc.
If you are not comfortable discussing the plain text, then don't continue in this thread. The choice is yours, but using homiletics to counter plain text doesn't really get us anywhere.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-22-2006 12:50 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-22-2006 10:39 PM purpledawn has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024