Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 241 of 302 (297267)
03-22-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by jaywill
03-22-2006 8:48 AM


Beyond "The Jewish Concept" with Satan
Mr. Ex Nihlo,
I want to add that I understand why the Old Testament Jewish concept of Satan might be more restricted among some adherents of Judiasm. The cocept of salvation is likewise restricted with them to a national Messiah. So since man as a whole and creation as a whole are viewed as that important to a restrictive national messiah, a larger function of an advasary might not play into their concept.
If Yahwehs' only concern is to free Israel from her national enemies then there might be less importance given by such believers to a cosmic struggle between the God of all creation against an enemy with the whole human race in view.
Not that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves would always represent such a "Jewish concept" of Satan or salvation. Even in the messianic Isaiah 11 we have the Gentiles hoping in God's anointed servent:
"Him will the nations seek, And His resting place will be glorious" (Isa. 11:10). The Gentiles look to the anointed national Savior of Israel as well. And His reign also has a restorational effect on the natural world:
"Righteuosness will be that which girds His loins, And faithfulness will be that wwhich girds His hips,
And the wolf will dwell with the lamb; and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a young boy will lead them about. The cow and the bear will grazel Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like an ox. The nursing child will play by the cobra's hole, and upon the viper's den the weaned child will stretch out his hand.
They will not harm nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.
And in that day the root of Jesse, who stands as a banner to the peoples - Him will the nations seek ..." (See Isaiah 11:5-10)
Though this passage doesn't mention Satan, it does show the effect of God's messianic salvation reaching beyond just the cultural interests of Israel as a nation. The hope encompasses the whole world and the environment of the earth as well. By way of extention the advasary of God to be conquered is more than an national divinely appointed attorney related to the restrictive "Jewish concept".
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-22-2006 09:17 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-22-2006 09:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by jaywill, posted 03-22-2006 8:48 AM jaywill has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 242 of 302 (297380)
03-22-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by jaywill
03-22-2006 6:41 AM


Re: what was eve, then?
So your point seem to be that there are many views and opinions and that at a certain point one has to realize that a talking snake issue is really the only thing that is important?
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."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by jaywill, posted 03-22-2006 6:41 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by jaywill, posted 03-22-2006 5:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 243 of 302 (297382)
03-22-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-22-2006 2:17 AM


Re: what was eve, then?
bringing this back to the point i was trying to make:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
purpledawn writes:
Sometimes a snake is just a snake.
Not if it's tempting humanity to disobey God.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-22-2006 2:17 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 244 of 302 (297384)
03-22-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by arachnophilia
03-22-2006 5:10 PM


Hung up on a supernatural snake ?
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."
What is really important is that the man created by God and for God has come to be estranged from God and at odds with God. That I think is more important. At least any discussion concerning the serpent that I have engaged in is with this in view - What happened to man and his relationship with God.
The remedy of the problem is important. And to come to a remedy one must know the causes of the sickness. With many students of the Bible the nature of the cause of man's fall is important to the remedy of such a tragedy. In that context the exposure of what the serpent means becomes important.
So unlike you I don't see many Bible students being hung up on the snake or even focusing on the snake. It may seem that way to some people who launch an objection that the serpent means nothing more than a animal, and that is that. So in defending the deeper significances of the serpent you may surmise "Why are people hung up on a supernatural snake?"
But the focus is not the serpent. It is the cause of man's fall and the nature of his salvation and victory over those causes - That is the perspective that I would be coming from.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-22-2006 05:20 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-22-2006 05:21 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-22-2006 05:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2006 5:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2006 5:37 PM jaywill has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 245 of 302 (297385)
03-22-2006 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by ReverendDG
03-22-2006 6:24 AM


unclean spirits
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
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by ReverendDG, posted 03-22-2006 6:24 AM ReverendDG has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 246 of 302 (297386)
03-22-2006 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by jaywill
03-22-2006 5:20 PM


Re: Hung up on a supernatural snake ?
What is really important is that the man created by God and for God has come to be estranged from God and at odds with God. That I think is more important. At least any discussion concerning the serpent that I have engaged in is with this in view - What happened to man and his relationship with God.
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.
The remedy of the problem is important. And to come to a remedy one must know the causes of the sickness. With many students of the Bible the nature of the cause of man's fall is important to the remedy of such a tragedy. In that context the exposure of what the serpent means becomes important.
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?
So unlike you I don't see many Bible students being hung up on the snake or even focusing on the snake.
yet, this thread exists.
It may seem that way to some people who launch an objection that the serpent means nothing more than a animal, and that is that. So in defending the deeper significances of the serpent you may surmise "Why are people hung up on a supernatural snake?"
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.
But the focus is not the serpent. It is the cause of man's fall and the nature of his salvation and victory over those causes - That is the perspective that I would be coming from.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by jaywill, posted 03-22-2006 5:20 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jaywill, posted 03-22-2006 6:59 PM arachnophilia has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 247 of 302 (297412)
03-22-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by arachnophilia
03-22-2006 5:37 PM


Re: Hung up on a supernatural snake ?
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.
It doesn't seem that God lets Adam off the hook but rather does indeed hold him responsible. Yet at the same time God does not totally ignore that the serpent did either.
If the moral of the story was that man alone was the guilty party it should have had nothing whatsoever pronounced about the serpent's punishment. Don't you think?
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.
Moses just obeyed God's command. It is Christ who injected the real interpretation into the lifting up of the bronze serpent in John chapter 3.
Incidently, latter the people worshipped the bronze serpent and one of the kings had to have it destroyed. It had been saved for generations and become an idol. Some people must have missed the point in making it an idol.
now, i'm sure you're making a christ reference above. you do so love to preach,
Sure do. Haven't you read "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, of him who announces peace, who brings good news of good things; Who says to Zion, Your God reigns" (Isa. 72:7)
Perhaps you never felt that God gave you anything worth announcing to anyone. I'm sorry. It should be quite a normal human experience.
why not just come out and say it?
Say what? Jesus is Lord and the Savior of man? Jesus did crush the head of the serpent.
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.
When you realize that the sins of the world were laid upon Him as He hung there on the cross, you might come to see that in God's eyes He died in the form of Satan the serpent.
Bronze stands for judgment. Bronze serpent stands for the judged serpent. Christ died as the sin bearer of the whole world. It is much like the "scape goat" that was sent into the wilderness bearing the iniquities of Israel.
First God established His hatred for sins in our minds by the Old Testament. Then He established His great love for man by causing His Son to bear those hated sins on the cross on our behalf.
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?
That question is worth a new thread. Addressing it here will raise the off topic flag.
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.
I wonder if you can see that not just a man sinned, but the human race was plunged into sin.
I think that is where you begin. This story is a story of how our race got started and where it went wrong. These are far reaching and profound matters. I think you first have to have that kind of realization. This Genesis story is about why man DIES and why man's world is so corrupted and alienated from God.
The flow of history coming our of Genesis is a seemless continuation of the story. And this is a story of where the human race went wrong. In this context all the details must be considered as having more than trivial significance. At least it should be so with all the details that the writer chose to elaborate on at length. One of them being the serpent.
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.
All three parties had words of punishment announced concerning them. So it is not an either / or situation. Adam has his part and his responsibility, Eve has hers, and the serpent has his. Our task is to discern to what extent each was responsible. Please stop suggesting that to say the serpent was Satan is to obsolve anyone of moral responsibility. This is not the case.
Again I say, interpreting the serpent as Satan is NOT absolving man from moral responsibility.
Look at the judges of the world. When a complex case comes before them with multiple participants in wrong doing, that judge, if she or he is just and wise, knows just what to dispense to what parties in the right manner. So it is with the Judge of all the world, God.
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.
I said before that interpreting the serpent as Satan is not obsolving man from his moral failure. It is not the same as Flip Wilson's joke "Oh, the Devil made me do that!"
it's MAN'S fault that man fell from grace. not the devil's.
True. Now, God does pronounce ill concerning the serpent as well. Does He not?
That is all I am saying. I agree with you to a large part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2006 5:37 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by arachnophilia, posted 03-23-2006 12:04 AM jaywill has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 248 of 302 (297456)
03-22-2006 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by purpledawn
03-22-2006 8:41 AM


Re: Make the Connection
Let's start from the end and come back to the beginning...
purpledawn writes:
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.
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.
purpledawn writes:
I don't understand your question in relation to the OP.
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.
purpledawn writes:
The literary style is mythical.
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.
purpledawn writes:
Which one of my arguments were dogmatic?
This one...
purpledawn writes:
The Talmud states: ... A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning ... Shabbat 63a
Quoting Shabbat 63a is dogma because Shabbat 63a is one the few dogmatic pronouncements of the Talmud.
purpledawn writes:
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.
No. You're quoting the Talmud -- which contradicts your earlier limitation you placed on me.
purpledawn writes:
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.
Then perhaps you should stop quoting the Talmud.
purpledawn writes:
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.
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?
purpledawn writes:
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.
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.
purpledawn writes:
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.)
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?
purpledawn writes:
I realize that each religion has their method of interpretation.
I do too. And I probably know more than you realize.
purpledawn writes:
I don't see this as the same as plain text. You'll have to be more specific.
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.
purpledawn writes:
I don't see your point in presenting Genesis 6:1-8.
Do you read Genesis 6:1-8 as a homiletic writing or a mythical literary style?
purpledawn writes:
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.
Actualy, although there are a tremendous variety of opinions, some nonetheless did conclude that Cain was of the evil one.
positive atheism writes:
It is in the apocryphal writings, and especially in the Enoch apocalypses, that Satan first appears as the full-fledged instrument of evil. The earlier portions of Enoch, written in the second and first centuries B.C., several times refer to the 'sons of God' and make it clear that in coming to earth these angels were undergoing punishment for rebellion, and that in cohabiting with women they were doing evil. It is implied that during their sojourn on earth they imparted to their wives various arts as well as evil practices, and that the women passed this knowledge on to subsequent generations. Their leader is variously identified as Cain (who thus comes close to apotheosis as an evil fiend), Azazel, or Satan. In the Wisdom of Solomon (100-1 B.C.), Satan alone is charged with the responsibility for evil, while in Similitudes, satans are distinguished from angels, and are supposed to have existed before them; indeed, the descent of the angels to earth is represented as due not to a desire to unite with the daughters of men but to the desire to become subjects of these satans. In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (200 B.C.) it is made to appear that the angels had been led astray by the women of earth, while the Life of Adam relates that Yahweh commanded the angels to worship Adam, and Satan was banished for refusing to do this, and for saying, on being threatened with Yahweh's wrath, that he would exalt his throne above the stars of heaven. In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (A.D. 1-50), myriads of angels attend the sun, regulate the stars and control the lightning, frost and hail; here the leader is first called Satanial, his name being changed to Satan after he left the heavens; envious of Adam, he endeavored to rule the world. Although in these apocryphal books there is no unified belief, there is a common objective -- to explain the existence of evil by blaming it directly or indirectly on a celestial fiend.
You might find this interesting...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/homer6a.htm
purpledawn writes:
1 John is a homiletic writing. It is written to convey a predetermined concept or lesson.
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.
purpledawn writes:
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.
What do you think these passages mean?
NIV writes:
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
NIV writes:
Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
NIV writes:
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."
NIV writes:
Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.
But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over."
Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
purpledawn writes:
If you disagree with my opinion then make your case that the imagery is more reasonably pulled from the plain text of Genesis.
Hmmm....
Is the leviathan ever recorded as "talking" within the Hebrew Scriptures?
Just curious.
purpledawn writes:
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.
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?
Bereshit 3:22 writes:
Behold Man has become like the Unique One among us, knowing good and bad
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?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
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?
purpledwn writes:
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.
Do you feel my statements support your opinion as well?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 10:44 PM
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 10:50 PM
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-23-2006 08:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by purpledawn, posted 03-22-2006 8:41 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2006 11:39 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 255 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2006 5:48 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 256 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2006 5:54 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 257 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2006 7:06 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 258 by purpledawn, posted 03-23-2006 7:22 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 249 of 302 (297459)
03-22-2006 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by arachnophilia
03-22-2006 12:44 AM


Re: satanim
Reserving a spot for reply.
This will be the main focus of my reply...
arach writes:
right, but it never says the CHERUB was in eden. it says "YOU" were in eden -- using adam as a metaphor. it says "YOU" were a cherub, using the ark of the covenant as a metaphor. what you're trying to do is equate the metaphors, and make it all one great big metaphor instead of a collection of smaller and rather obvious references.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 11:20 PM
alrighty then...let's go.
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
ezekiel uses "you" throughout to refer to the king. not the cherub.
Yes. Actually, it is the cherub.
Look for yourself arach...
NIV writes:
You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
arach writes:
the image changes.
nah...actually, it doesn't change at all...
arach writes:
the cherub itself is only mentioned once, and it's the reference to the ark.
No. It's in reference to the cherub in the garden. And it's not just mentioned once. You yourself admit this down below.
arach writes:
it says "you were this, you were this, and you were this." and "these" are not all the same thing, but the "you" is. the "you" is the king of tyre -- and it is the kind of tyre who will fall. it says nothing about the cherub falling.
Are you seriously trying to grab ahold of the word "you" in this passage?
That's the best you've got to offer?
Could you define "is" for me too while you're at it?
On the one hand, using Occams's razor, you're arguing that the most simple explanation is the best explanation when applied to the serpent in the garden -- basically concluding that the talking snake is just a snake which employs a literary device to convey a deeper message. But when it comes to any passage of text which suggests a cherub might actually have been in the garden of Eden, you're doing unwarrented hermeneutical back-flips multiplying meaning upon meaning to conclude anything other than what the text actually says.
Look at what you're actually writing here arach.
arach writes:
notice when the cherub is mentioned again at the end, it's garbled together with the other imagery, and the fall is in FUTURE tense?
The comparison is not garbled in the least when you reduce it to a simple formula:
the king of Tyre compared to a fallen cherub in the garden of Eden.
It only becomes garbled when one tries to connect a simple analogy with several different themes which are probably not intended to be conveyed in the first place.
And since you're going to say something like, "You're doing the same thing with the snake too! You're doing it with the snake Mr. Ex!", I'll answer in advance, "No. Actually, I'm not."
Here's a brief explanation why...
I'm looking at everything that influenced this era of Judaism, past and present, within and without, and concluding there's no such thing as a "plain text reading" of the Genesis account about the serpent in the garden.
I'll also note that using capitals is a sign of yelling on the internet. relax please.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
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.
arach writes:
i think it's a mistake to start including the talmud.
Then maybe you should tell purpledawn to not base her entire argument on a principle which is found directly in the Talmud.
Don't get me wrong arach.
I know that neither you nor purpledawn strictly adhere to any form of Talmudic Judaism. I also understand that she, like you, is simply impressed with what you both believe to be a very profound insight into the nature of the Scriptures.
However, what you are both "preaching" -- just like what jaywill and I are "preaching" -- does come from traditions which predate our time here on earth. In both the case of you and purpledawn, you are both "preaching" a dogma of the Talmud, and the earliest writings of the Talmud at that.
On the one hand, when you do this, you appear to be presenting it in such a way so that it is considered simply beyond question -- that it is somehow true because it has to be true, as if there were no other way one could possibly read it without being considered intellectually lacking.
On the other hand, when you do this, you also appear to be presenting it in such a way so that it is considered somehow closer to the ancient perception of Jewish thinking in regards to the serpent -- which is a pretty bogus claim in my opinion.
Now, since neither one of you seem to be stepping back from either of these opinions, I'm pretty much going to pile-drive this thought right down the last part of this thread.
Pay attention (might as well put my cap locks on and yell a litle bit here -- since, y'know, others are yelling at me).
THE EARLIEST JEWISH THOUGHTS ON THE SERPENT IN THE GARDEN, DESPITE CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY, WERE "NOT" THE EARLY TALMUDIC WRITINGS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE "EARLIEST JEWISH THOUGHTS" ON THE SERPENT IN THE GARDEN EASILLY PREDATED THE EARLIEST TALMUDIC WRITINGS BY UP TO 300 YEARS -- AND THEY DIDN'T THINK THE SNAKE WAS "JUST A SNAKE".
So, when I hear over and over again how the earliest Jewish writings thought the snake was "just a snake", I'm telling you right now that this claim is, historically speaking, totally false. As a matter of fact, based on my own readings of ancient Jewish writings, it seems to me that the earliest Talmudic writers (who were concluding the snake was "just a snake" of course) were actually the ones who were separating themselves from the traditional understanding of their ancestor's Scriptures. In other words, the ones who are claiming the snake was "just a snake" were the ones who were, historically speaking, projecting their own thoughts onto what the text meant.
And, yes, I actually am going to categorically go though the historical time-line of Jewish thoughts and outside cultural influences regarding their perception of snakes. I'll touch on it a bit in this post. But I'll be mostly presenting it in reply to purpledawn's posts.
arach writes:
what was the joke about 2 rabbis having 3 opinions between them? there's a lot of fun stuff in the talmud that has very, very little to do with the bible. like that whole bit about lilith. looking at it is just looking at the opinions, interpretations, and ad-hoc ideas of others.
Ad-hoc ideas like assuming the serpent in Genesis was just a snake?
I'll be getting into the time-line very soon. You're next words lead into it somewhat.
arach writes:
and we know that some people read the garden snake as satan.
Jewish thinkers prior to the writing of the Talmud expessed this too.
arach writes:
we know some read him as a representation of satan.
Jewish thinkers prior to the writing of the Talmud expessed this too.
arach writes:
we know some read him as an agent of satan.
Jewish thinkers prior to the writing of the Talmud expessed this too.
arach writes:
we know snakes are associate with evil spirits -- and we know this is a later tradition imported from zoroastrianism.
No. Actually this tradition was probably imported before the Scriptures were even written. And, in case I haven't mentioned it, Jewish thinkers prior to the writing of the Talmud expessed this too.
arach writes:
and so when this opinion pops up in places like the talmud, we know why.
And so when the opinion of the serpent being "just a snake" pops up in places like the earliest writings of the Talmud -- even though many Jewish writings prior to the Talmud concluded the opposite -- and when later parts of the Talmud contradict the earliest parts of the Talmud by thinking the snake might be "more than a snake" -- we also know why too, right?
arach writes:
the question is what the people who wrote genesis thought, not what various different readers of it thought.
So the people who wrote the Genesis account believed it was a myth?
nah...I don't think so Tim.
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
i'm not especially set on it. but the problem is that people just go reading things into the text willy-nilly, trying to retro-fit their current mythology onto a book that was never written to present the story they want told.
Kind of like the willy-nilly, retro-fitting snake is "just a snake" idea promulgated by early Talmudic theology?
arach writes:
my philosophy is pretty simple:
first, we read what's on the page. and on the page, he's a snake.
A snake that talks, right?
arach writes:
and there are a lot of signs that point to him being a snake, and nothing more.
And there are a lot of signs that point to him being under the influence of something evil, and something more.
arach writes:
once we've got the literal meaning down, we can go interpretting it. we can interpret it on one level and say "look, it's a story about why a snake is a snake, why women do this, why men do that... etc." and we'd be right.
But you're "assuming" that this is what the original writers indented.
arach writes:
and we can look at it on another level, and say "it's a story about morality, choice, and responsibility." and we'd still be right.
I think, being fair, this is close to what the original writers intended.
arach writes:
and we can look at it on yet another level, and say "it's about how god tests us, and the snake is a representative of satan, adam is representative of all mankind, and eve all women." and we'd STILL be right.
But, to be fair, I don't think the original writers were intending this. I think you're missing my own perspective on this. I mean, I've already said this before. Since I believe that the Scriptures are God-breathed, I'm almost positive that the writers did not understand the full significance of what God was revealing in this passage.
Like I said before, I don't even think the writers of the Scriptures even fully grasped what they were writing until events casme to pass to confirm their utterances.
For example:
NIV writes:
Then the LORD replied:
"Write down the revelation
and make it plain on tablets
so that a herald may run with it.
For the revelation awaits an appointed time;
it speaks of the end
and will not prove false.
Though it linger, wait for it;
it will certainly come and will not delay.
or again...
NIV writes:
They are a nation without sense,
there is no discernment in them.
If only they were wise and would understand this
and discern what their end will be!
or again...
NIV writes:
A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?
or again...
NIV writes:
I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, "My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?"
He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.
There's actually quite a bit in the Scriptures which are not clearly spelled out. Words that can be easilly misunderstood. And, in the most extreme exampple, when prophecy is spoken, no one really knows for sure what will come to pass until it happens -- and even then it can be hard for some to see. Prophecy is tricky -- especially when you're talking about the future. Prophecies about the past, such as the earliest portions of the Genesis account as relayed by Moses, are likewise subject to much misunderstanding.
Having said that, I too think that one can read the Scriptures on many levels.
arach writes:
but to go back and read it and say "the snake IS satan, and there's all this stuff about opposing god and christ-prophecy" etc kind of ruins the other meanings. the standard christian reading, for instance, tends to miss the point that no matter what satan tells us and whether or not it's the truth, our actions are our own responsibilities -- they're busy blaming adam for all our problems. which is funny, because adam blames eve (or rather, god putting eve there), and eve blames the snakes. shifting blame is utterly against what the story means. there is no "the devil made me do it" here.
It seems now a days the idea that "the devil made me do it" is being replaced with "my genes made me do it."
But, nonetheless, I too agree that the acount is more about blame than sin. But I'm probably different from other Christians. I think the original sin was Adam and Eve's refusal to forgive -- and it all started with Adam in my opinion.
Ever notice that God started his interrogation with Adam?
Some seem to blame Eve for many things...and I'll admit that the Scriptures portray her as playing her part in the downfall of humanity...just like the serpent...but Adam is portrayed much worse in my opinion...
NIV writes:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man..
NIV writes:
For as in Adam all die..
There's this passage here too...
NIV writes:
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
However, I have to admit that I myself find this passage to be kind of non-sensical because...um...Adam was deceived and...um...he did become a sinner too.
As a matter of fact, one of the verses I quoted above seems to contradict this passage when read in full...
NIV writes:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned”
And another passage says about Adam...
NIV writes:
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Anyway, I'll note that jaywill has already addressed many of your concerns, and has done a very good job in my opinion.
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.
arach writes:
that's jumping to conclusions though.
And concluding the snake was "just a snake" isn't jumping to conclusions too?
arach writes:
we don't see a cherub in eden before "the fall." why wasn't adam the cherub? i'm not being funny, either. look who god set up in eden to take care of it BEFORE the cherubs that are explicitly mentioned:
quote:
Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
adam is the care-taker of the garden. there's nowhere that you can fit the snake in here, either. the garden is made AFTER man, and man is placed in the garden as soon as it is planted. so if there's an "cherub" looking after eden that's not the ones the bible actually talks about, and we're being fast and loose with what constitutes a cherub here, why not adam?
adam looks after the garden. adam betrays god's trust. adam is kicked out. sound similar to the idea of ezekiel 28? it does to me. why do we need to read a story into it that isn't on the page when the one that is matches far, far better?
Wait a sec...I thought you said you thought the cherub was symbolic of the Ark of the Covenant?
Besides that, why go through such arduous labours to explode a passage of Scripture into a dozen different directions when one central theme will suffice?
All these things can be roled up in a simple analogy: the king of Tyre is being compared to a fallen cherub.
It's not like there's no other passages of the Hebrew Scriptures that do not portray God getting ready punish those in heaven.
Isaiah 24:21 NIV writes:
In that day the LORD will punish
the powers in the heavens above
and the kings on the earth below.
Another passage that might be alluding to some kind of battle in heaven...
Judges 5:20 NIV writes:
From the heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera.
Although it's in the context of idol worship, a battle in heaven is implied here as well...
Jeremiah 2:11-12 writes:
Has a nation ever changed its gods?
{Yet they are not gods at all.)
But my people have exchanged their Glory
for worthless idols.
Be appalled at this, O heavens,
and shudder with great horror,
declares the LORD.
And there's this too...something terrible...a battle all along earth and upward into the heavens...
Isaiah 13:5 writes:
They come from faraway lands, from the ends of the heavens” the LORD and the weapons of his wrath” to destroy the whole country.
Furthermore, you know already, linguistically speaking, that your adherence to "you" being applied in multiple directions isn't what was intended by the authors of Ezekial.
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.
arach writes:
no offense, but that's just silly and missing the point. god creates eden especially FOR mankind. in genesis 1, god creates everything preparation for the ultimate creation: mankind. in genesis 2, god makes a specific man, and the creates everything he needs as he goes. the garden is one of those creations.
Man is a steward of the garden. It does not belong to him though.
Genesis 2:15 writes:
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
arach writes:
would you put rat poison in your child's playpen?
They apparently weren't children and they apparently were warned.
And you're saying I'm reading too much into this?
Mr. Ex writes:
I'll also note that serpent is a strong symbol within medicinal circles.
arach writes:
yes -- in relation to numbers, not genesis. (close, though...)
Close eh?
Care to explain?
arach writes:
he could have just as easily NOT put those things there. god's not dumb.
Mr. Ex writes:
I don't think God's dumb either. I think he's the most intelligent being ever.
arach writes:
god put the tree of knowledge there...
Mr. Ex writes:
...perhaps for good reasons.
arach writes:
...and god put the snake there.
Mr Ex writes:
...perhaps for good reasons.
arach writes:
exactly.
Exactly what?
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
Mr. Ex writes:
well, i think the idea is that god was trying to find out if he could trust us to do something that doesn't make sense, just because we trust him. the idea was that he could not -- we betrayed that trust.
Let me be more clear on what I believe.
I think humanity temporarilly went wrong when they failed to trust God. This would be the beginning of original sin in my opinion. However, it could have been fixed.
I think humanity massively extended this temporary wrong when they failed to forgive each other. From that point on the pattern remained ingrained in them and God was going to require more powerful measures to resolve it.
In other words, in my opinion, original sin, although bad, isn't just failing to trust God. Original sin, although worse, isn't just eating from the tree of knowledge. Original sin, although really bad, isn't just blaming each other for what went wrong. The original sin, in my opinion, is that it all could have been avoided if they had simply forgiven each other, including the serpent. In other words, if they simply continued to love one another even though the other did something wrong to them, they would not have disfigured humankind's spirit as much as we see it disfigured today.
Mr. Ex writes:
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?
arach writes:
well, i don't think god would curse someone or something for following his orders. but what's wrong with cursing someone for following reason? the serpent is, afterall, the right one. the tree doesn't kill them. and the serpent apparently makes a pretty good case to eve. and it is the tree of KNOWLEDGE.
Bah!
...don't get me started on this...there's still a Great Debate thread waiting for your repsonse if you're going down this road...
When we last left off, you had admitted that the ancient Israelites believed that even God had limits, not being omniscient and not being omnipotent if I recall correctly.
I'm still waiting for your reply there as the Spirit leads us.
(purpledawn, I haven't forgotten about our thread either -- it will be concise and to the point as you requested).
Mr. Ex writes:
We should follow the one who tells the truth out of love -- even if the truth hurts.
arach writes:
but that wasn't the choice they were given, was it? they were given the inaccurate but morally correct word of their creator, vs the accurate and immoral word of some puny snake whom they owed nothing to.
The Great Debate thread is waiting for you arach. Don't waste my time with this stuff here. I'm going to be tracing the history of Jewish thought in regards to the last 2500 years in this thread.
Mr. Ex writes:
According to many Christian thinkers, he was already there.
Do you think it was the Father walking around with Adam and Eve?
arach writes:
i meant the whole dying-on-the-cross salvation and absolution-of-sins bit. (and yes, i do. but that's a different thread i think. we're already pretty far off topic)
Yes. We are.
Mr. Ex writes:
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?
arach writes:
i'm saying that multiple metaphors are being used for the king of tyre. one is probably adam, another is aaron. another is moses. another a cherub on the ark of the covenant. and another is the tabernacle. if we recall, adam was kicked out of eden, neither aaron nor moses were allowed to enter the holy land, the ark of covenant was lost and the temple was destroyed at about the time ezekiel was writing.
So much for the "plain text" approach eh?
arach writes:
i'm saying that it's not all one metaphor, for some uber spiritual evil force, but multiple ones for well known biblical figures.
Yeah, I get it. The problem with this is that you really have to stretch each individual passage to conform to some different aspect of the Hebrew Scriptues when one simple analogy works much easier and more precisely.
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
William Jefferson Clinton writes:
right, but it never says the CHERUB was in eden. it says "YOU" were in eden -- using adam as a metaphor. it says "YOU" were a cherub, using the ark of the covenant as a metaphor. what you're trying to do is equate the metaphors, and make it all one great big metaphor instead of a collection of smaller and rather obvious references.
Obvious references?
um..yeah...it's so obvious that no one ever thought of it until you just imagined it in this thread as a defence.
My apologies arach if this sounds harsh. Maybe there is some writing within Judaism or Christianity or somehwere else that made this connection before. Maybe I'm wrong so I'm willing to givwe you the benfit of the doubt. But if it's so obvious why haven't I heard of it before? Could you provide a reference where others also made this "obvious" connection?
I dunno...take a look at the Wikipedia...
Ezekiel documents a different version of cherubim, probably of popular origin (according to the compilers of the Jewish Encyclopedia). The cherubim in this tradition had each four faces” that of a lion, an ox, an eagle, and a man” and combined features of these four creatures, the stature and hands of a man, the hooved feet of a calf (compare the image of Satan), and the two pairs of wings that identified deities, e.g. in contemporary Assyria. Christians will recognize these as the symbols of the four Evangelists. Two of the wings extended upward, meeting above and sustaining the throne of God; while the other two stretched downward and covered the creatures themselves. They never turned, but went "straight forward" as the wheels of the cherubic chariot, and they were full of eyes "like burning coals of fire" (Ezekiel i:5 - 28; ix:3, x;
As a side note, I'll note we see "burning coals" being direclty associated with angels, which sounds a lot like the "burning stones" we discussed earlier (and which I attempted to make a connection with angels).
Mr. Ex writes:
So what is the fallen cherubim a reference to?
Was the fallen cherubim a non-existent metaphor...or did it really exist?
arach writes:
the "fallen cherub" sits on top of the ark of covenant. which, btw, is still missing from what i hear. he's a physical object, made of gold.
According to one Christian tradition, it's not missing at all.
Revelation 11:19 writes:
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
i think the qabalists have an angel per sphere of the heavens. but it's no suprise that we see angels associated with "the heavens." the problem is, why refer to something heavenly when all the other references are very down to earth? if you could show that the "stones of fire" have to be heavenly objects, you MIGHT have a point. might.
Did I make the point above with the Wikipedia quote?
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
that does not appear to refering to anything angelic either. it is a similar mock. the similar reference to christ is probably intentional. christ *IS* what the king of babylon claimed to be.
Sounds like a refence to a falling star to me.
Mr. Ex writes:
so who is he being compared to? aaron, moses, an angel, and several inanimate objects. Could you point out these references in Ezekial 28? Looking through it, I'm not immediately seeing them.
arach writes:
and i still don't know about the stones of fire. but the above things are clearly references to adam, aaron, moses, and the ark. the more questionable ones might be the tabernacle or saul and david. none of these are satan, and they are all different things. it's a mistake to read a SECOND and more mysterious metaphor into all of these.
Great.
Now if they're so obvious, please provide the references to other thinkers who also came to these conclusions. I'm not talking about a few lightweight obscure references. I'm talking about a list of major thinkers or at least a tremendous body of documents that have pieced together the pieces you've assembled here -- because if it's so obvious, then a lot of people should have spotted it.
Thanks.
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
exactly. we don't need a devil to sin, or to fall from grace. we just need our own human nature.
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
i don't think the serpent was following god's orders. neither was eve. but yes, there is a humbling aspect. as there is when one puts their foot in their mouth (figuratively). but when one HAS no feet to put in their mouth....
buh?
Mr. Ex writes:
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 their venom to vile poisons for example.
arach writes:
well, like i said. we may be lacking some social context. pigs are also unclean -- and in one instance in the new testament, we find demons in pigs. jesus put them there.
but unclean animals and unclean spirits are different things. and yes, we can find talmudic stuff that says that unclean spirits take the forms of unclean animals (like, uh, women...) but how are we going to sort out the traditions and superstitions from the religion and the text?
By examining the cultures that influenced Judaism before Judaism was born, while Judaism was in it's heyday, and after Judaism in Israel declined in influence.
Like I said before, you can't ignore 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.
You also can't ignore the Jewish historicity and context that was in existence before 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 you can't ignore 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.
It's late so I'm going to bed. But my chronology of serpentine pre-Judaic, mid-Judaic, and post-Judaic thinking will be next, directed to purpledawn, provided this thread does not close before then.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-24-2006 01:22 AM
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-24-2006 01:28 AM
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-24-2006 03:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2006 12:44 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 250 of 302 (297460)
03-22-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by jaywill
03-22-2006 8:48 AM


Re: Man to stop the enemy
Reserving a spot.
Thank you jaywill. This quote is what I was looking for...
Scripture writes:
You have established strength because of Your advasaries, To stop the enemy and the avenger.
I think Adam and Eve were placed on this earth for a fight -- and not between each other.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-22-2006 11:18 PM
Ok...here's the last one to edit.
First of all, I think jaywill brought up an interesting point with this...
jaywill writes:
If Yahwehs' only concern is to free Israel from her national enemies then there might be less importance given by such believers to a cosmic struggle between the God of all creation against an enemy with the whole human race in view.
Not that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves would always represent such a "Jewish concept" of Satan or salvation. Even in the messianic Isaiah 11 we have the Gentiles hoping in God's anointed servent:
"Him will the nations seek, And His resting place will be glorious" (Isa. 11:10). The Gentiles look to the anointed national Savior of Israel as well. And His reign also has a restorational effect on the natural world:
"Righteuosness will be that which girds His loins, And faithfulness will be that wwhich girds His hips,
And the wolf will dwell with the lamb; and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a young boy will lead them about. The cow and the bear will grazel Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like an ox. The nursing child will play by the cobra's hole, and upon the viper's den the weaned child will stretch out his hand.
They will not harm nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.
And in that day the root of Jesse, who stands as a banner to the peoples - Him will the nations seek ..." (See Isaiah 11:5-10)
Though this passage doesn't mention Satan, it does show the effect of God's messianic salvation reaching beyond just the cultural interests of Israel as a nation. The hope encompasses the whole world and the environment of the earth as well. By way of extention the advasary of God to be conquered is more than an national divinely appointed attorney related to the restrictive "Jewish concept".
Bingo.
I also think that the Israelites believed Adam and Eve were placed on earth as more than stewards of the earth. It seems to me that they believed Adam and Eve were placed on earth for a fight so to speak.
Genesis 1:28 writes:
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Many say that this subdual is to be understood in relating to the tilling of the earth, like a reference to an agricultural society, but I disagree.
When one checks the Scriptures themselves to see the context in which things are subdued, one quickly sees an extremely violent context being employed...
Although it's not always associated with violence, I suppose one could also check how phrase "rule over" is employed in the Scriptures too...
This is just my own thoughts, but it seems to me that the earliest parts of the Genesis account seems to be a dark parody of the Israelites (Adam and Eve) in contrast to the Pagans (the serpent) that surrounded them. In other words, in my opinion, the serpent in Judaism would be akin to a synthesis of many cultural influences, albeit adapted for a monotheistic belief system. In this sense, the serpent could be partly symbolic of the Canaanites for example, a culture that did worship snakes and thought they were quasi-divine bringers of secret knowledge. To me, similarities like this, and many others which predated the emergence of Judaism, seem extremely obvious.
But...
Unlike others here, I wouldn't dare, not even in my wildest dreams, make the claim that this is what the Israelites themselves believed about their own sacred writings. In other words, I don't think the original authors fully grasped the scope of their own relelations.
Having said that, I'm fairly sure -- looking at the many religious concepts that existed before Judaism, the early pseudographical inter-testiment writings, the concepts of the Eseenes and the Pharisees, the later Talmudic writings, and Christianity's and Islam's concepts of the serpent in the garden -- that the authors of Genesis did not think this was only a snake.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-25-2006 05:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by jaywill, posted 03-22-2006 8:48 AM jaywill has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 251 of 302 (297462)
03-22-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by arachnophilia
03-22-2006 4:39 AM


Re: what was eve, then?
Reserved: I will be replying to these post tomorrow -- in depth.
The bulk of this will be an examination of arach's reply.
This will be a main focus:
arach writes:
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.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-25-2006 10:23 AM
Alrighty then...let's move to the next one...
Note: I'll be answering some of purpledawn's thoughts in this too.
Mr. Ex writes:
Look arach, there appears to be a BIG problem with this assumption...snakes don't talk period.
arach writes:
neither do donkeys:
Num 22:28 writes:
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?
Yeah...um...I already mentioned this one when addressing purpledawn's post.
Mr. Ex to purpledawn in post 228 writes:
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...
an ass writes:
What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?
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?
I'll note that you replied to that threada already...so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. Your reply, if I recall correctly, seemed to be nothing more than an attempt to force my words well past what I intended.
Eventually you just outright stated...
arach writes:
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.
Why is that? Because you said so? What about the literary criticism necessary to back up your claim?
Could you start producing some Israeli thoughts prior to the Talmud which concluded that the story about the serpent was written in the genre of a mythical literary style effectively teaching that this was only a story about why snakes are bad?
You and purpledawn are busy accusing jaywill and myself of projecting our opinions onto the text of the Genesis account. But I haven't seen either one of you actually counter any arguments we've presented -- except, of course, by saying to jaywill and me, "blah, blah, blah...you're wrong...yadda yadda yadda...it has to be...blah, blah, blah...at some point you have to...yadda, yadda, yadda...it's the 'plain text' reading."
Here's a wild concept...
Maybe the people who concluded that the snake was only a snake were the ones projecting their thoughts over the "plain text" reading that their own culture were passing down to them.
Is this possible?
I think so, and I'll be getting to this part soon.
But let's come back to this thought again...
arach writes:
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.
Of course, to this I wondered, "And what does the Genesis acount define the serpent as?"
Genesis writes:
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Before I even get into other cultures, in order to be fair to purpledawn's request for a "plain text" reading of the Genesis account, a request to effectively allow the Scriptures to interpet themselves, I will note that a casual inspection of the Scriptures reveals the following thoughts expressed:
1) The snake is the most cursed thing in the garden, curse above all animals...and an inspection of the usuage of the word cursed in the Scriptures reveals...
2) The snake's position has been lowered when compared to his former status -- since what was once considered more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made, has now been laid low...an an inspection of the usage of the word belly reveals...
3) The snake will live off of humanity and other animals as long as it lives -- since from from dust man was made and to dust man will return, and the animals too were formed from the earth too. And an inspection of the usage of the phrase "dust of the earth" reveals... In addition to this, an inspection of the usage of the phrase "lick the dust" reveals...
4) The snake is man's chief adversary, implied by the emnity between it's offspring and the woman's offsping, and women give birth to both boys and girls I might add.
Arach, you fairly well already demonstrated this part with your definition...
arach writes:
well, something DOES change at the end of genesis 3. it changes the snake, and it changes how we think of snakes.
Gen 3:15 writes:
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.
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.
I agree. As a matter of fact, it sounds an aweful lot like the snake has become humankind's chief adversary from this point on.
You can't gat a much better definition of a chief adversary to mankind then an animal that actually harbours hatred or ill will to humanity. And when you add to the mix the idea that the feeling is mutual, you actually end up with a nearly perfect definition of humanities' adversary.
Consequently, an inspection of the phrase involving two kinds of seeds reveals..
5) The woman's offspring will crush the snake's head even as the snake will bite the heel of the woman's offspring. And an inspection of the Scriptures employing some kind of "crushed head" analogy reveals... In addition to this, an inspection of how the "heel" is mentioned in the Scriptures reveals...
But let's come back to this again...
arach writes:
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.
This, of course, eventually leads us to your post at Message 234 -- which I'm addressing right now.
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
well, something DOES change at the end of genesis 3. it changes the snake, and it changes how we think of snakes.
Gen 3:15 writes:
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.
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.
Exactly.
Mr. Ex writes:
There appears to be nothing within the "plain text" reading to conclude that God took away this ability from the serpent.
arach writes:
maybe the authors thought snakes could still talk?
Fine. Now can you produce some early Jewish thoughts which arrived at this conclusion -- Jewish thoughts which came prior to the development of the Talmud?
Mr. Ex writes:
There also appears to be nothing within the "plain text" reading to conclude that the serpent was simply questioning God's plan.
arach writes:
he wasn't. he was contradicting it. he told man that god lied.
I thought you said the snake was telling the truth?
Mr. Ex writes:
And there also appears to be nothing within the "plain text" reading to conclude that the serpent was blessed for his independent thinking.
arach writes:
nor was man, nor was woman. they were ALL punished for their actions.
That's exactly right. I've never disagreed with you on this part. Although I think the punishments in the case of Adam and Eve were blessings in disguise, I still think each participant, especially the snake, was punished in proportion to what they knew and what they were responsible for -- which is what I've always claimed around here.
Mr. Ex writes:
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?
arach writes:
how man evil spirits do you know?
I suppose I asked for that one. But I still think you're missing my point. We're dealing with religious accounts which portray people being created from the dust of the earth, the man's rib, and talking snakes among many other things that are generally believed to be physically impossble to happen outside of supernatural means.
So I'm not talking about our own experiences.
I'm talking about trying to find out what the author's believed the character's in their stories believed.
In other words...um...I'm talking about ancient religions arach -- and I'm talking about people in this modern age projecting their assumptions back onto these texts.
You've already provided a lot of evidence against your own idea that that the earliest Jewish writings concluded that the snake was just a snake.
Although I do believe evil spirits exist, I don't know any of them.
But let's continue on with the historical criticism.
arach writes:
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.
I'm talking about the original thoughts that surrounded this story arach prior to it emerging into the realm of Talmudic thought.
Besides that, your basic premise is false.
Although I'm sure there were skeptics back then, and many of them, the people who carried on the traditions surely didn't beleive they were following a mythical literary style as you're claiming. The ones who believed in these books and continued to scribe them over the centuries did so becasue they thought this was something that really happened.
I've already said that I myself think the earliest parts of the Genesis account seem to be a dark parody of the Israelites (Adam and Eve) in contrast to the Pagans (the serpent) that surrounded them. In other words, in my opinion, the serpent in Judaism would be akin to a synthesis of many cultural influences, albeit adapted for a monotheistic belief system. In this sense, the serpent could be partly symbolic of the Canaanites for example, a culture that did worship snakes and thought they were quasi-divine bringers of secret knowledge. To me, similarities like this, and many others which predated the emergence of Judaism, seem extremely obvious.
Consider the legend of St. Patrick within my own Catholic faith.
As one person asked Straight Dope...
Straight Dope writes:
Dear Straight Dope:
Early Christian myth suggests that St. Patrick chased the snakes out of Ireland. This sounds like a load of rubbish to me but the fact remains that there are no species of snakes native to Ireland. Why is this? --Rich
I found the answer rather interesting, and I think this does apply to the argument that the snake was viewed as "just a snake" in the Genesis account.
Straight Dope writes:
SDSTAFF Colibri replies:
Snakes in Ireland were wiped out not by St. Patrick, but by the last ice age. Up until roughly 10,000 years ago the British Isles, along with most of the rest of northern Europe, was covered by icecaps and glaciers, not the most snake-friendly of environments. Both Ireland and Great Britain were part of the continent then--sea level was lower since so much of the Earth's water was locked up as ice. Snakes survived in southern Europe, where conditions were warmer. Once the climate improved, snakes were able to recolonize northern Europe, but didn't manage to reach Ireland before rising ocean water caused by melting ice cut them off by forming the Irish sea--snakes don't cross water very well. Only three species of snakes were even able to reach Great Britain--the grass snake, smooth snake, and adder. They either colonized it before the English Channel formed, or perhaps were somehow able to cross it afterward.
The British Isles as a whole are pretty poor in reptiles and amphibians in general. Besides the three snakes, Great Britain has only three lizard species, one frog, two toads, and three newts. Ireland does even worse, with no snakes, one lizard, one frog, one toad, and one newt, all of them species that also occur in Great Britain. And the frog may have been introduced by humans.
Many have explained the legend about St. Patrick and the snakes as a metaphor for his success in converting the pagan Celts to Christianity. Snake imagery has been important in many ancient religions, often as a symbol of rejuvenation or rebirth due to the snake's habit of shedding its skin. In Ireland, the snake symbol was associated with some Celtic goddesses, and also with the cult of Crom Cruaich, which demanded human sacrifice to a serpent deity. Patrick did not drive snakes themselves out of Ireland, but rather these Celtic snake spirits. How did the Irish Celts come up with symbolic snakes if they'd never seen real ones? First of all, their ancestors, and their religion, had come from the European mainland where snakes were plentiful, and second, they were in frequent contact with areas that had snakes, most obviously Britain, where the adder was capable of memorable bites. It's not surprising that such enigmatic creatures would be preserved in mythology even if they weren't present physically.
--SDSTAFF Colibri
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
I think this puts things in clear perspective in relation to my thoughts about the serpent representing the pagan cultures that surrounded the Israelites.
But...
I wouldn't dare, not even in my wildest dreams, make the claim that this is what the Israelites themselves believed about their own sacred writings.
See what I mean?
You guys shift back and forth in your definitions, often exchanging 'literary criticism' for 'plain text reading', and then make these astounding claims that this must have been what the ancient Israelites thought.
In addition to this, you guys ignore about 1500 years of ancient religions which predate Judaism, many of which ascribed mystical significance to the role of the serpent in the world -- whether Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon for exmaple.
In addition to this, you guys ignore a wealth of information coming from the Jewish people themselves, some of which can be dated anywhere from 300 to 100 years before the birth of Christ -- and many of which ascribe evil spiritual tendencies to the serpent in the garden.
You also ignore information within the Hebrew Scriptures which indicate that the Israelites clearly felt that snakes were something akin to an arch-nemesis of humanity.
I dunno guys. I think it's a joke what you're trying to pull here.
And I just hope you guys realize that when you make the claim that the ancient Israelites beleived the snake was "just as snake", it is actually you guys who are 'projecting' your mythical literary style onto what the ancient Israelites believed about their own holy text.
Me and jaywill may arrive at different opinions than you two. But you're no different from the rest of us in this regard. In fact, bearing in mind what I'm about to present below, I'm fairly sure that you're both far more guilty of 'reading something into the text' than we ever were accused of.
Now let's more on to the nitty gritty here.
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
and it was the animal talking, not god.
Exactly my point. This animal did not talk of it's own power. It was considered a supernatural occurance within the Hebrew Scriptures.
arach writes:
god just gave it the ability. and these beasts in revelation talk, too:
Rev 4:7-8 writes:
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.
Thank you for a reference to animal-like creaures in the Scriptures which were considered 'angels' by the way.
Check it out...
Ezekiel documents a different version of cherubim, probably of popular origin (according to the compilers of the Jewish Encyclopedia). The cherubim in this tradition had each four faces” that of a lion, an ox, an eagle, and a man” and combined features of these four creatures, the stature and hands of a man, the hooved feet of a calf (compare the image of Satan), and the two pairs of wings that identified deities, e.g. in contemporary Assyria. Christians will recognize these as the symbols of the four Evangelists. Two of the wings extended upward, meeting above and sustaining the throne of God; while the other two stretched downward and covered the creatures themselves. They never turned, but went "straight forward" as the wheels of the cherubic chariot, and they were full of eyes "like burning coals of fire" (Ezekiel i:5 - 28; ix:3, x;
Mr. Ex writes:
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?
arach writes:
can you provide another instance of an evil spirit granting an animale the ability to talk?
Who cares if I can't?
The only thing I need to demonstrate is that the serpent was not acting according to God's will. That alone is sufficient for many to infer that it wasn't God that enabled the serpent to talk. When I say 'enabled' I'm not talking about 'allowing' in the sense of God generally allowing something to happen. When I say 'enabled' I talking about a supernatural event that God himself didn't directly 'cause'.
Futhermore, there are traditions within Judaism that, similar to Christian thinking, beleived that evil spirits could cause people to speak in other languages other than their own primary language -- they believed that these unclean spirits could speak through people.
In addition to this, there is a very famous passage of Scripture which talks about the king of Babylon being given control over the wild beast.
This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I will put an iron yoke on the necks of all these nations to make them serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they will serve him. I will even give him control over the wild animals.
arach writes:
and even if snakes *ARE* unclean spirits -- what are they doing in the garden? you remember how animals GOT there, right?
Yes. I do.
You remember what happened to the serpent, right?
Licking the dust and crawling on his belly and all, the serpent doesn't sound too clean now.
Gen 2:19 writes:
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.
Gen 3:1 writes:
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made
arach writes:
is the serpent not a beast of the field, made by the lord?
Does the serpent not have his own free-will? Does the serpent not change?
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
if it's not foriegn to judaism... why isn't it in the bible?
According to many people, it is in the Scriptures.
arach writes:
the question isn't what this rabbi or that rabbi reads into the text, but what the person who wrote the book thought.
What on earth do you think I'm talking about here?
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
and why is the book of enoch not in the bible?
One could easilly re-address with, "and why is the Talmud not in the Scriptures?"
But...um...actually, that Book of Enoch is in some people's canon. Likewise, it was considered by some of the early church to be part of the canon. Even Jude quoted it. It wasn't until the fourth century, if I recall correctly, that it was removed from the Catholic canon -- and even then, it wasn't because of the ways angels interacted with humanity (some of the early fathers had similar views for example).
But let's move on to the Jewish evidence you've supplied which demonstrates my point: the earliest Jewish traditions do not agree with your claim....
arach writes:
there are other books that have the snake literally biting seth on the heel:
The Books of Adam and Eve. writes:
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.
I think Michael E. Stone explains the value of these works well...
Michael E. Stone writes:
The oldest known Jewish work not included in the Bible is the Book of Enoch. This is a complex work, written in the third (or perhaps even the late fourth) century BCE, after the return from the Babylonian Exile and the establishment of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (6th-5th centuries BCE) and before the Maccabean revolt in 172 BCE. The oldest copies of the Book of Enoch, dating from the third century BCE, were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The latest of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are the Apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch, written in the decades following the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. These works, contemporary with those of the early Rabbinic school of Yavneh, reflect the theological and ethical struggles and dilemmas aroused by the Roman conquest of Judea and the destruction of the Temple.
He goes on...
Michael E. Stone writes:
When these books were first studied, scholars realized that they could help to provide a context for the understanding of the origins of Christianity. No longer was rabbinic Judaism to form the primary basis for comparison with the earliest Christian literature, but rather the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period, and particularly the Pseudepigrapha, could contribute much insight, making the Jewish origin of Christianity more comprehensible.
The contribution of the study of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha to the understanding of the New Testament should not be underrated. The approach to Jesus that is typified by Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus (1964) - using the context of "Jewish apocalyptic" to help understand his activity - would not have been possible without the discovery of the Pseudepigrapha. As a result of these studies, we now have insight into types of Judaism and religious ideas within the Jewish tradition that would otherwise have remained lost.
Here we move closer to answering a central question: why study this literature at all? The general answer is that the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha should be studied because they embody an expression of the human spirit, and the historian is enjoined to study the human past. But, for scholars of the so-called "Judeo-Christian culture", a particular interest is inherent in the investigation of that segment of the past in which Judaism took on the form it still has and in which Christianity emerged. Yet this very agenda, when formulated thus, bears within it potentialities for the perversion of truth and the misconception of reality. The historical enterprise is an interpretative one; there is a great danger inherent in the study of the origins of one’s own tradition. Modern and medieval "orthodoxies" tend to interpret the time before they existed in terms of themselves. It has only been in the last generation of scholarship of Judaism in the Second Temple Period, that the implications of this way of seeing the world have begun to penetrate the fabric of historical thinking and writing.
This is an extremely important development, for it permits the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period, and the people who produced and cherished these works, to step outside the giant shadows cast by the twin colossi of the Talmud and the New Testament. It then becomes possible to start to delineate what appear to have been central aspects of Judaism in the Second Temple Period. New features of Jewish life and thought become evident and the task of their detailed description and integration into an overall picture can be broached. Only such an endeavor will, in the final analysis, make it possible for us to advance our understanding of the development of rabbinic Judaism and of Christianity. This is a weighty labor but a very important one, and it is the Pseudepigrapha that provide us with evidence of vital aspects of Judaism that would otherwise have remained unknown.
Here's the article in it's entirety
arach writes:
here's another book, which links satan and the serpent -- the OTHER way:
Let's look at the Date & Composition: The lack of historical allusion makes it difficult to precisely date the writing, however, using other pseudepigraphical works as a reference, it was probably written a few hundred years before the birth of Christ. Parts of this version are found in the Jewish Talmud, and the Islamic Koran, showing what a vital role it played in the original literature of human wisdom.
First Book of Adam and Eve writes:
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.
arach writes:
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:
Date & Compostion: Assumption of Moses (AD 6-30)
The Apocalypse of Moses writes:
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."
arach writes:
if this sounds a little, um, unbiblical, it's because it is.
wow. that's clever.
Look. I can do that too.
If the idea that snake is "just a snake" sounds a little, um, unbiblical, it's because it is.
Doesn't really acomplish a whole lot in my opinion.
arach writes:
none of these books are in the bible -- they're ALL later traditions.
Yes. And the idea that the snake was just a snake is a LATER tradition.
arach writes:
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.
So is the idea that the snake was "just a snake" -- it's even newer.
Go figure.
arach writes:
and frankly, some of them just sound kind of silly after a while.
Yeah, just like the idea of the snake being "just a snake", right? Bearing in mind the whole historical setting involved, the ideas sounds downright silly to me.
Mr. Ex writes:
I'm sorry guys but this does not appear to be your ordinary serpent.
buh?
Are we reading the same text here?
arach writes:
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.
What the hell are you talking about? On all three cases, something EXTREMELY supernatural is transpiring -- and ALL OF THEM have the symbol of the snake being linked with evil.
arach writes:
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).
A name and date of it's composition would be sufficient.
arach writes:
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.
But it's not a "little bit" arach.
arach writes:
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 yet we have a tremendous body of Jewish literature concluding the snake was either:
1) influenced supernaturally by an adversary
2) became an/the adversary
3) represented or was an agent of the adverary
4) actually was an/the adversary
5) was the pre-eminent symbol of evil
But what we never see in the ancient writings is a Jewish thinker claiming that the snake was merely a mythical literary device employed to explain why the Israelites didn't like snakes.
And you guys say jaywill and me are projecting?
Furthermore, it's very possible that only a portion of these are post-biblical in the Christian sense. And nearly all of them came prior to the development of Rabbinic Judaism. And, quite frankly, with the way people throw the Scriptures around like a tossed salad here, I can guarantee you that any argument for what's "biblical" or not is virtually useless -- so who cares?
Mr. Ex writes:
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.
arach writes:
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.
uh...yeah...right...
Let's get into the pre-history of Judaism now.
I guess where I'm going with it is the idea that many other religions used different kinds of substances and believed that they were gaining some kind of mystical insight or spiritual visions of knowledge -- which would fit very easilly with the idea of Genesis "mocking" other religions.
More specifically, however, the word used for sorcery within the Christian Scriptures is often designated by the word pharmacia. Many do not know that the word pharmaceutical actually comes the word pharmacia. This doesn't sound all that alarming until you learn that the scriptural translation for the word pharmacia is sorcery. In other words, if this does apply, then it may be possible to apply this idea to the genesis account of Adam and Eve as a partaking in some kind of other faith system outside that of God's divine providence.
Took a look at Zoroastrianism:
Religious Tolerance writes:
Development of the Concept of Satan prior to 300 BCE in Ancient Iran:
Historians have traced the foundations for the concept of Satan to the Indo-European invasion circa 2000 BCE. This migration of what are now called the Kurgan people, emigrated from what is now southern Russia into the Near East, Middle East and Europe. They were polytheists, and worshiped at least one Mother Goddess and one male God. Their religious beliefs were based on the Hindu sacred writings of the Vedas. Those who settled in western Europe became the Celtic people with their religion of Druidism and perhaps what is now called Wicca. Those Kurgans who settled in the Middle East developed religious belief along different lines. They developed the twin concepts of salvation and damnation after death. Upon dying, they believed that soul of the deceased must pass over a narrow bridge on horseback. It was called the "Bridge of the Petitioner." Rashu, a god, judged each soul and decides who is sufficiently righteous to cross the bridge and who will fall into a type of Hell with "flames and terrible smells." 1 Once salvation and Heaven, (and damnation and Hell) were created, then the stage was set for the next logical concept: that of a Devil.
Zoroaster (a.k.a. Zarathrustra, Zarthosht) is believed by some to have lived circa 628 to 551 BCE. (Other estimates run from 600 to 6,000 BCE) He was a Persian prophet in what is now Iran. Like Jesus, he was recorded as having been tempted by Satan; he performed many miracles and healings and was considered a supernatural being by his followers. He introduced a major spiritual reform and created what is generally regarded as the first established monotheistic religion in the world. He rejected the worship of the established trinity of Varuna, Mithra and Indra. The new religion, to be called Zoroastrianism, involved the worship of a single male god, Ahura Mazda, the "sovereign, lawmaker, supreme judge, master of day and night, the center of nature and inventor of moral law." He created the heavens and the earth. In short, he had all of the attributes attributed to Jehovah by the ancient Israelites, but with a different name. Zoroaster also recognized Ahura Mazda's twin brother: Angra Manyu, (a.k.a. Ahriman) the God of Evil. The only things that he created were snakes, demons, and all of the world's evil. 2 The old gods of the previous polytheistic religion became the demons of the new faith. Thus, Ahriman became the first Devil that the world has seen, and his assistants became the first cohort of demons under the control of a all-evil deity
Zoroaster taught that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman would continually battle each other until the God of Evil is finally defeated. At this time, the dead will be resurrected, a Last Judgement will divide all the people that have ever lived into two groups; the bad go to Hell for all eternity; the good go to Paradise. As author Gerald. Messando eloquently wrote: "The framework of the three monotheisms [Judaism, Christianity, Islam] had been erected. The Devil's birth certificate was filled out by an Iranian prophet."
When one looks more deeply into Zozoastianism, 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.
Mr. Ex writes:
we see that serpents (or snakes), such as the Egyptian Cobra, were also thought by many people to represent evil or Satan. The basis of the Zoroastrian purity laws, for example, is the battle between good and evil. Among living things of the good creation, it was wrong to kill any immature animal or plant, no sapling, lamb or calf may be killed. Nor might they be maltreated. A dog is clean except, of course, when dead. Any sacrificial animal remains pure once sanctified. But any animal deemed to be of the evil creation had to be killed, and magi carried a stick with a leather loop for catching and killing flies, scorpions and especially snakes.
Vendidad 18.61-62 actually addresses prostitution and declares that, because she grieves Ahuramazda most, the courtesan has less right to live than a snake. More specifically, Azi Dahaka (the 'fiendish snake') is conceived of as partly demonic and partly human. He was probably originally the 'snake' of the storm-cloud who was a counterpart of the Vedic Ahi or Vrita. In the Yasht, he is described as struggling for the Hvareno, or Kingly Glory, against Atar (Fire). In the Shah Namah, he appears as a man with two snakes springing from his shoulders. These snakes were have said to have grown from a kiss bestowed by Ahriman. At the renovation, Azi Dahaka will be put in chains on Mount Demavand; but in the end, he will break loose from the bonds and return to disturb creation.
I'll continue with other cultures too...
Let me explain it another way. If we're going to look at the cultures around the Israelites then we have to look no further than the Canaanites to see some images of how the surrounding cultures conceived of snakes -- because Israel's neighbors did associate the serpent (snake) with an Earth Mother (and the snake played a beneficial role in fertility cults). In Israel, a bronze snake, dated from the 15th Century BC has been found at Gezer, demonstrating that the ancient Canaanites worshipped snakes. An iron serpent from the Israelite period was found by archaeologists in the Ayalon Valley, suggesting another snake cult.
In ancient Egypt, RE was primary among the god-head and was identified by the snake. The Pharoah are frequently represented with this snake on their crown. For a long time the Egyptian cobra, Naja Haje, has been the stock-and-trade for the conjurer and side-show snake charmers. Cobras are well known for their ability to expand their upper neck into a disc shape by spreading its ribs. The cobra, then, symbolized immortality and was regarded as a protected deity, being frequently illustrated on ancient Egyptian monuments.
Consequently, we do have a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures which makes a direct connection with the serpents of Pharaoh and the great dragon...
Ezekiel 29:3 writes:
"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."
...or, in the NIV...
Ezekiel 29:3 writes:
Speak to him and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, you great monster lying among your streams. You say, "The Nile is mine; I made it for myself."
Incidently, a casual inspection of the Scriptures for 'monsters' reveals...
In Hindu mythology, the Nagas/Nagis were a race of serpents whose purpose was to populate the underworld, Patalas. They were the 1000 offspring of the sage, Kasyapa, and Kadru, the daughter of Daksha. They are associated with weather (especially rain) & pictures of them are worshipped during times of drought. The Nagas are only malevolent to humans when they have been mistreated, and while their venom is deadly, they also carry the elixir of life and immortality. One story mentions that when the gods were rationing out the elixir of immortality, the Nagas grabbed a cup. The gods were able to retrieve the cup, but in doing so, spilled a few drops on the ground. The Nagas quickly licked up the drops, but in doing so, cut their tongues on the grass, & since then their tongues have been forked. Sesha, whose name meaning "eternal", is the world serpent who provides the bed for Vishnu as his heads give Vishnu shade.
A well-known Theravada sutra turning around the device of Buddha's giving advice to Rahula his son, is called the Chapter of the Snake [Uragavagga] It is the first chapter of the Sutta-Nipata [Collection of Discourses]. Its title comes from the name of the first section, Uraga Sutta [On the Snake?s Skin] that is about the monk who discards all human passions and is then compared to a snake that has shed its skin. It is also interesting to note that Nagarjuna, in his teaching on the Prajnaparamita, refers to the dehumanizing effects of poverty. He reminds us of the three friends that lived happily together in a pool -- a snake, a turtle and a frog. It is interesting to note that the snake had been Devadatta, the Buddha's nemesis, in a former lifetime.
It seems unfair to overlook the context from which Judaism emerged from in order to read the Scriptural accounts of the snake as being only a "talking snake". In fact, I think it's basically impossible to divorce the earliest parts of the Genesis account from the cultures that the Israelites emerged from -- especially when many religions which pre-dated Judaism either venerated the snake as a sign of divine wisdom or else a source of demonic inspiration (with some religions actually concluding that snakes were demons in disguise well before Judaism emerged from their own culture).
Don't get me wrong.
We both seem to agree that the idea of leviathan came from pre-existing texts that predated Judaism. This is to say, we both agree that the concept of the gliding serpent was an idea that emerged from the cultures that predated the appearance of the Israelites -- even though it is not explicitly stated in the Scriptural text that it came from another culture.
However, you seem to turn around and be unwilling to accept that the concept of the "snake" representing satan (or at least "evil") also predated Judaism. If Judaism emerged from pre-exiting cultures around them, then it seems unfair to assume that the snake was only a snake when the cultures around the Israelites did perceive snakes as being metaphorical of demons and/or fallen spirits (or even good spirits or benevolent gods in some places).
When one adds to this the information from the earliest Jewish writings, later Talmudic writings, and writings from the Christian (and Muslim) faith, it seems to me that it is very hard to honestly conclude that the Israelites believed the snake in the garden was "just a snake".
Note: this took me a long time to type -- there are probably numerous typos.
Have a good night guys.
Edit: corrected numerous typos, plenty more to be fixed.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-25-2006 08:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2006 4:39 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-22-2006 11:20 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 252 of 302 (297464)
03-22-2006 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-22-2006 11:16 PM


Re: what was eve, then?
Mr. Ex,
I hope you realize that after the thread is closed you will not be able to edit in any content to these posts.
Hope you answer fast.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-22-2006 11:16 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 253 of 302 (297469)
03-22-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-22-2006 10:39 PM


Re: Make the Connection
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 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.
Is the leviathan ever recorded as "talking" within the Hebrew Scriptures?
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.
What are the hebrew words for "unique one"
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-22-2006 10:39 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 254 of 302 (297478)
03-23-2006 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by jaywill
03-22-2006 6:59 PM


Re: Hung up on a supernatural snake ?
If the moral of the story was that man alone was the guilty party it should have had nothing whatsoever pronounced about the serpent's punishment. Don't you think?
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.
Moses just obeyed God's command. It is Christ who injected the real interpretation into the lifting up of the bronze serpent in John chapter 3.
uh, no, he just says what i said. that the two are analogs.
Incidently, latter the people worshipped the bronze serpent and one of the kings had to have it destroyed. It had been saved for generations and become an idol. Some people must have missed the point in making it an idol.
that raises another question. if christ is like the snake -- and worshipping the snake is idolatry...
Perhaps you never felt that God gave you anything worth announcing to anyone. I'm sorry. It should be quite a normal human experience.
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.
Jesus did crush the head of the serpent.
book, chapter, verse?
It is much like the "scape goat" that was sent into the wilderness bearing the iniquities of Israel.
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."
That question is worth a new thread. Addressing it here will raise the off topic flag.
we're talking about serpents, so i suspect not. but when part two comes around...
I wonder if you can see that not just a man sinned, but the human race was plunged into sin.
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.
I think that is where you begin. This story is a story of how our race got started and where it went wrong. These are far reaching and profound matters. I think you first have to have that kind of realization.
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...
This Genesis story is about why man DIES
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.
All three parties had words of punishment announced concerning them. So it is not an either / or situation. Adam has his part and his responsibility, Eve has hers, and the serpent has his. Our task is to discern to what extent each was responsible. Please stop suggesting that to say the serpent was Satan is to obsolve anyone of moral responsibility. This is not the case.
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.
Again I say, interpreting the serpent as Satan is NOT absolving man from moral responsibility.
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?
I agree with you to a large part.
ok.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jaywill, posted 03-22-2006 6:59 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jaywill, posted 03-23-2006 7:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 255 of 302 (297493)
03-23-2006 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-22-2006 10:39 PM


Justification
quote:
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.
This thread isn't about justifying whether one should employ a plain text reading of the A&E story.
This thread is about looking at the plain text reading.
Do you feel that other interpretations override the plain text?
This message has been edited by purpledawn, 03-23-2006 05:57 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-22-2006 10:39 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024