Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
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

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


Message 267 of 302 (298134)
03-25-2006 8:50 PM


purpledawn and arachnophilia
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, approaching the Scriptures from two very different perspectives, may arrive at complementary opinions that are contradictory to your opinions. But you're both no different from the rest of us in this regard. In fact, bearing in mind the vast religious historical contexts prior to the Israelites, contexts which ascribed some spiritual significance to the snake, I'm fairly sure that you're both far more guilty of 'reading something into the text' than we ever were accused of doing.
By the way, I've editted those previous posts now -- so you can both go check them out if either of you like. But my next post will probably be a chronology of the development of the spiritual significance of the snake over the last 4,500 years or so.

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by purpledawn, posted 03-25-2006 9:13 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

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


Message 270 of 302 (298156)
03-25-2006 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by purpledawn
03-25-2006 9:13 PM


Re: Make Your Case
purpledawn writes:
Please show or refer to where we have specifically done this and present what we have ignored and how that applies to the OP.
The conclusion of the OP is this:
purpledawn writes:
Sometimes a snake is just a snake.
Furthermore, when I asked you this...
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
So what plain text reading within the Genesis account explains why the snake was "talking" to Adam and Eve?
You answered with this dodge...
purpledawn writes:
The literary style is mythical.
So you actually believe the people who scribed these thoughts and carried these traditions were writing them in order to carry on myths they didn't actually beleive in?
The answer "The literary style is mythical" is the standard bull$h!t answer that I'm challenging here. This kind of answer is also exactly what I was getting at when I said this...
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
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...
So what are you not understanding here?
purpledawn writes:
All I see you saying is that we are ignoring various things.
No. I'm saying that you're making some magnificient claims without having actually looked into the full range of reasons as to why the Israelites may have employed the serpent within the Genesis account.
In order to make a claim like this for example...
purpledawn writes:
Given that there was roughly 700 years between the Isaiah verse and John's vision, a lot changes over time.
...one has to completely ignore 2500 years of serpentine-like symbolism found all around the world (including extra-biblical Jewish writings and thought) that predated, merged, and overlapped the development of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Focussing on the fact that roughly 700 years passed between the development of these ideas is total bunk if one has restricted their inquiry to the passages you're 'allowing'.
It gets even worse when you can't even conceive of the possibility that your insistence that 'a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning' may in fact be based on someone else's homiletic writing written to convey a predetermined concept or lesson.
purpledawn writes:
Show where, don't just say it.
I already have started if you'd taken the time to check back a bit.
I've presented serpentine ideas from Assyrian, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and Indian religious thoughts which predated Judaism. I've presented things within the Scriptures themselves which open my case -- including links to similar phrases used within the Scriptures. I've presented several later Talmudic ideas which have no problem with what I've presented. And, for that matter, arach has already presented several quotes from many of 'extra-biblical' Jewish writings I've suggested -- all of which have further illustrated my point.
In other words, what we have here is 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) or was outright the pre-eminent symbol of enmity
Interestingly enough, 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.
How much more can I present?
I suppose one has to even consider the ideas of the Essenes an the Pharisees, both groups which used language such as "viper's brood" to designate things like "devil's children" -- much like Christianity did.
But since you seem to be having difficulty with this, I'll start with a repeating a few simple links which begin to present my case.
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (June 2001) By Michael E. Stone*
Reptiles Throughout Mythology by Norman A. Rubin
Snakes in mythology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like I said before, I'm working on a chronology to analyse serpentine mythology throughout the period in question, and then backward from there into other ancient cultures. I'm doing this specifically to analyse your initial assumptions.
So please forgive me if this takes a bit longer to put together accurately with references in the most simple way possible. However, this may take some time. If this thread's still open, then I'll try to present the general time-line tomorrow night -- complete with links and commentary on how these ideas developed.
Is that ok with you?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-25-2006 11:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by purpledawn, posted 03-25-2006 9:13 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2006 8:47 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

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


Message 273 of 302 (298197)
03-25-2006 11:53 PM


My apologies if I sound harsh...
Look guys. I'm not trying to cause hard feelings here. And I am sorry if I've laid the sarcasm on a bit thick.
purpledawn, you might think I don't like you, or that I'm picking on your idea, but that's not true. I remember when you talked about what your father went through and the loneliness he felt when he needed someone, loneliness after having dedicating his to helping so many other other people. It's simply not fair what happened to him. And I think it can really leave someone doubting things about their faith.
arach, in like manner, I just want you to know that I really do listen to what you're saying -- so don't think I'm dismissing your thoughts. I think you do really present some really interesting ideas. I don't consider you, along with Ifen and NoseyNed, one of my favorite posters for nothing. And I remember how you spoke up in my defense when one of the administrators called me an idiot here.
But, having admitted all this, I still have to stand strong on this one. What you guys are presenting as a 'plain text' reading does not capture the full range of Jewish thought in regards to the serpent in Genesis. It seems to focus on the earliest Talmudic writings, writings which do not mesh easilly with later Talmudic writings but have nontheless since been passed in some form into modern day Rabbinic Judaism (to the exclusion of all other possibilities I might add).
And there's a lot of other "Jewish" possibilities out there.
Consequently, whenever I hear accusations to the effect of me having a 'preconceived notion' about the Scriptures, it really irks me a lot. Making an appeal to authority by labelling someone else's idea as merely an excercise in 'homiletics' while maintinaing their own opinions are the 'plain text' reading never really accomplishes much.
I'm no expert, but I have studied these things a lot. I can pretty much guarantee you guys that there's very little left in regards to my faith that I haven't examined in-depth. Besides that, I'm not actually into homiletics that much (not that this would be bad). But, technically speaking, I'm actually more of a dialectic type researcher than anything else.
This doesn't mean that I'm claiming this study means I'm right. I'm sure we've all studied a lot -- we wouldn't be having this discussion if we didn't. But it does suggest that I know what I believe and that I've examined it very carefully before accepting it -- so it's not a preconceived notion.
If you want to have your ideas discussed with integrity, then I would ask you to treat our ideas with the same amount of integrity as you'd hope we'd treat your ideas.
Sound fair?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-26-2006 12:19 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 03-26-2006 12:06 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 276 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 12:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 281 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2006 7:17 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 286 by ramoss, posted 03-26-2006 11:33 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

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


Message 275 of 302 (298203)
03-26-2006 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by ringo
03-26-2006 12:06 AM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
But that's my point: there's no such thing as a 'plain text' reading of the Genesis acount.
How on earth does one make sense of things like people living for hundreds of years, or Adam being made from the dust of the earth, or Eve being made from Adam's rib, or a talking snake that leads humanity astray?
There's like nothing plain text about it -- yet this is pretty much what pd wants us to adhere to. My point is that I don't think it can be fairly done without examining all the cultures that may have came prior to, or interacted with, the Israelites.
And, technically speaking, pd did bring this up in Message 4 of this thread when she said this...
purpledawn writes:
It's a shame that people forget that cultures continue to change and evolve over time and religions are no exception.
Religions are not immune to influence from the secular world and other religions.
I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think this is a fair criticism to point out. And, in my own way, I am pointing this out.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me on where we draw the line?
Edit: hope that was short enough. I know. I know. I'm working on it.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-26-2006 12:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 03-26-2006 12:06 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 03-26-2006 12:40 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 278 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 12:41 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 280 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2006 6:26 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

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


Message 285 of 302 (298271)
03-26-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by jaywill
03-26-2006 7:17 AM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
jaywill writes:
This does reinforce what I have been told. That is that Judaism from the first or second century AD has been structured around a denial of Jesus being the Messiah.
I would urge a bit of caution before drawing this conclusion. There are some very anti-semetic writers, seethingly anti-semetic I might add, who have drawn this same conclusion.
Unfortunately, these people are, in my opinion, just as guilty of not looking at the religious dynamics that were transpiring during 1st century Palestine. Although none of them seemed to have as lasting an influence as Jesus, it needs to be noted that there were many people who rose up and claimed to be the fullfilment of messianic expectations during this time.
My general conclusion is that the earliest Talmudic writings seem to be capturing a knee-jerk reaction against a perceived merging of their own Jewish identity with other cultures, such as the Hellenistic cultures for example. In other words, these writings seem to reflect a restricted time of repelling a cultural synthesis within Judaism. However, the earlier pseudographical writings which predated the earliest Talmudic writings seem to have no problem with this cultural sysnthesis. In addition to this, the later Talmudic writings, likewise, seem to contradict the earlier Talmudic writings as these ideas once again became more palpable.
While one could point to concepts within the early Talmudic writings which would seem to be separating themselves from the early Christian church, one could also note the same thing against other Jewish writers such as Philo of Alexandria for example.
There's an odd fact that many people in this thread seem to be overlooking concerning 1st century Palestine when discussing the religious dynamics: The heightened expectations of the messiah during this particular era.
Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver wrote his doctoral thesis on the analysis of Jewish messianic thought over the last two thousand years. The thesis was later published in 1927 as A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel. The Rabbi illustrated that there was a tremendous explosion of messianic expectation during the first few decades of the first century of the Christian era at the very time that Jesus of Narareth made his claims to be Israel's true messiah:
A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel by Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver writes:
Prior to the first century the Messianic interest was not excessive, although such great historical events as the conquest of Persia by Alexander, the rule of the Ptolemies and the Seleucides, the persecutions under Antiochus, the revolt of the Maccabees, and the Roman agression find their mystic-Messianic echo in the apocalyptic writings of the first two pre-Christian centuries. Calculations, however, as to the exact hour of the Messiah's appearance are wanting....The first century, however, especially the generation before the destruction [of the Temple in A.D. 70], witnessed a remarkable outburst of Messianic emotionalism. This is to be attributed, as we shall see, not to an intensification of Roman persecution but to the prevalent belief induced by the popular chronology of that day that the age was on the threshold of the Millennium.
When Jesus came into Galilee, speading the gospel of the Kingdom of God and saying the 'time is fulfilled' and the 'kingdom of God is at hand', he was voicing the opinion universally held that the year 5000 in the creation calendar, which is to usher in the sixth millennium -- the age of the Kingdom of God --was at hand. It was this chronologic fact which inflamed the Messianic hope of the people rather than Roman persecutions. There is no evidence anywhere to show that the political fortunes of the people in the second quarter of the first century of the common era -- the period of many Messianic movements -- were in any degree lower than those in the first quarter, in which no Messianic movements are recorded.
Jesus appeared in the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate (26 - 36 C.E.). The first mention of the appearance of a Messiah in Josephus is in connection with the disturbances during the term of office of the procurator Cuspius Fadus (c. 44 C.E.), It seems likely, therefore, that in the minds of the people the Millennium was to begin around the year 30 C.E.
Be it remembered that it is not the Messiah who brings about the Millennium; it is the inevitable advent of the Millennium which carries along with it the messiah and his appointed activities. The Messiah was expected around the second quarter of the first century C.E., because the Millennium was at hand. Prior to that time he was not expected, because according to the chronology of the day the Millennium was still considerably removed.
Rabbi Silver's research seems to positively demonstrate that the ancient Jewish writers understood from the Scripture's prophecies that the Messiah was expected to appear in the first few decades of the first century, in the lifetime of the generation that ended with the burning of the Second Temple in A.D. 70.
The early Talmudic sources do actually seem to claim many traditions and comments about the coming messiah. For example Rabbi Elijah, who lived about two hundred years before Jesus, is claimed to have told his students:
Rabbi Elijah writes:
The world will exist six thousand years. The first two thousand years were those of chaos [without the Torah]. The second two thousand years were those under the Torah. The last two thousand years are the messianic years.
The belief within many Pharisaic schools of thought during this time was that they were living approximately five thousand years after the creation of Adam aand Eve.
For example, Josephus in his history of the Jews, said, "Those Antiquities contain the history of 5,000 years, and are taken out of our sacred books."
Ezra IV, which was also written around the 1st century, also refers to this beleif that only five thousand years had elapsed, "And I did so in the seventh year of the sixth week of 5,000 years of the creation, and three months and twelve days."
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-26-2006 07:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2006 7:17 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 291 of 302 (298416)
03-26-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by purpledawn
03-26-2006 8:47 AM


Re: Plain Text, Not Literal
pd writes:
When I ask you to refer me back to where I have made statements, I'd appreciate it if you would provide the link, so that I can refer back to the post itself.
Hmmm...
I seem to recall asking you to provide references to your thoughts in another thread we were engaged in a while back. Actually, I asked you a couple times to provide a link so I could understand your position if I recall correctly -- and yet you never provided a direct link to any of your thoughts.
Here's the conversation spanning over several posts...
purpledawn writes:
If you read some of my posts and threads I've started in the BA&I Forum, you will probably get a basic idea of what I mean by reality of the Christian Bible.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Thanks. I'll go check it out some time when I have a chance.
But...
At that time you had about 700 posts here at EvC. I thought to myself, "Is she really expecting me to go looking through all her posts here to find her thoughts on this matter?"
Since no direct link was provided, apparently you were.
And, by the way, I did go looking for a while, but had no luck with finding what you were getting at.
Please note that, after sincerely trying to grasp your position more clearly, and searching around, you eventually responded with this...
purpledawn writes:
Since I see the reality of the Bible, I am trying to keep my wording within the Christian belief system since the OP assumes the existence of God, which might make my personal position a little confusing. I am limited within this F&B forum, so I apologize if I come across vague or misleading.
This didn't really help matters, so I asked...
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Well...I have to admit that I do not know exactly what you're getting at. Maybe you could post a link to some of your other threads where I could get a clearer idea of what you're getting at.
Shortly after this time, however, since the thread was about to close, you responded with something like this...
purpledawn writes:
Good thing this thread is coming to a close, because you apparently don't understand anything I'm saying.
Suffice it to say, IMO you haven't shown that God is determined to allow proof of his existence today. You've mentioned if's, maybe's, beliefs, feelings, the invisible and the unknown.
So since we don't seem to have a good line of communication going on here, I bid you good day.
I never did get a link to your thoughts by that way. Not in this thread. And not in the continuation of that thread in this thread either.
Now, here in this very thread, you are apparently making a minor stink about me not providing links to my points within this very thread?
As SpongeBob SquarePants said to Plankton, "Well...good luck with that."
And about the chronology of the serpent mythology, I'll start a new thread when I've got it ready for presentation. I don't think I'll be able to finish it before this thread closes.
PS: Oh, and by the way, I wasn't trying to make you feel bad about anything. I was trying to take responsibility for my own actions and apologize to you for the things I may have done wrong.
You've since responded with the following:
purpledawn writes:
Please tell me you understand the difference between providing links to pertinent posts within the same thread concerning the topic and providing links to explain my personal view of the Bible which covered various threads and was off topic.
But it's not off-topic if one is portraying their view as the only acceptable view.
purpledawn writes:
If you were paying attention in this thread, you should have your answer now as to what I mean by understanding the reality of the Bible.
Yeah, I get it.
Nice way to twist my words around purpledawn.
Is this similar to the way you usually read the Scriptures?
Yes. Since I'm still apparently not understanding the OP I guess I have nothing further to contribute to this thread -- so I'll be stepping out now guys. Have a good one.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-26-2006 08:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2006 8:47 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2006 8:20 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

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


Message 295 of 302 (298472)
03-26-2006 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by purpledawn
03-26-2006 9:01 PM


Re: EOT in 7 Posts
Fine, I'll give an attempt at a 'plain text' interpretation of the Genesis account.
If we're going to focus exclusively on the "serpent" in the Genesis account, then perhaps it should be noted that the Hebrew word translated "serpent" in the above passage is (nachash).
{arach, you can verify this information for me if you wish}
Apparently, according to Dr. Bullinger, in addition to "serpent", this Hebrew root word also has three other possible meanings:
1) Nachash can be used as a noun to mean one who practices divination. This is suggested by some to be used in Numbers 23:23 and 24:1 for example.
2) Nachash can also be used as a noun to mean shining brass. In Chaldee it means brass or copper -- because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.
3) Nachash can also be used as a verb to mean to shine or to glow. Some have suggested that the verb nachash always means to enchant, fascinate, bewitch -- or of one having and using occult knowledge. They refer to Genesis 30:27; 44:5,15. Leviticus 19:26. Deuteronomy 18:10. 1Kings 20:33. 2Kings 17:17; 21:6. 2Chronicles 33:6.
According to some, in the Genesis account, it is possible that nachash is used in the verbal form. If that is the case, one translation of hanachash in the Genesis account could be "the shining one".
I'll note that the Greek word for Dragon literally means "seeing one".
In addition to this, it has been suggested that Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2 & 6, means a burning one. Apparently because the serpents mentioned in Numbers 21 were burning (in the poison of their bite) they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.
But when the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" in Numbers 21.8, he effectively said, "Make thee a Saraph". In obeying this command, we read in verse 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass".
Nachash is thus being used interchangeably with Saraph.
Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why couldn't nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?
In addition to this, it has been suggested that the word employed for "beast" in Genesis 3:1 is chay and it litterally denotes a 'living being'. If true, it has been suggested that it is flat-out wrong to translate chay as "beast" in the Genesis account because, in 'plain text', it simply means living creature. In other words, it does not say that the serpent was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being.
This brings up another point too:
Where do the Scriptures actually say that God made the serpent?
The 'plain text' statement is: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made." Or, if you check the KJV: "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." The Westminster Codex translation can be found here...
(the server is currently down, but I'm sure many here can verify this in another on-line Hebrew concordance).
Nonetheless, reviewing this information, the passage in question doesn't actually state that God made the serpent. It just says that the serpent was more crafty than any animal that God made -- 'plain text' reading and all.
I can provide a link where I got this information if you like.
Something else that I posted here but no one has addressed yet is this...
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
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 usage 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...
________________
Finally, from a traditional Christian perspective, we also note the explanation that the "old serpent" in the Apocalypse is the Devil and Satan seems to immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in the Genesis account.
Why?
The fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man" in the wilderness -- contrasting Christ to the "the last Adam" -- would seem to force the conclusion that it was none other than Satan himself who was the original tempter of "the first man, Adam".
I'll note that I'm still planing on investigating the history of serpentine mythology as it related to the development of Judaic beliefs. I'll also note that I've inserted some things in relation to the Apocalypse.
But I am curious to know:
Am I contributing meaningfully to a real discussion concerning the plain text (or plain sense reading) of serpent in the Genesis story now?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-26-2006 11:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2006 9:01 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by ringo, posted 03-26-2006 11:53 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 301 by arachnophilia, posted 03-27-2006 12:26 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

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


Message 297 of 302 (298488)
03-26-2006 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by ringo
03-26-2006 11:53 PM


Re: EOT in 7 Posts
It's not my opinion.
arach seems to be of the opinion that the ancient Israelites didn't beleive that God made the original chaos that existed prior to the creation event.
Ask him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by ringo, posted 03-26-2006 11:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by ringo, posted 03-27-2006 12:05 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

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


Message 299 of 302 (298495)
03-27-2006 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by ringo
03-27-2006 12:05 AM


Re: EOT in 7 Posts
In regards to the 'flesh and blood' serpent, I'll note that you didn't comment on the other 'plain text' commentary I posted above, noting the "shining one" translation.
Care to give some feedback?
*uh oh! look at my post count! ahhh!*
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-27-2006 12:20 AM
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-27-2006 12:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by ringo, posted 03-27-2006 12:05 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by ringo, posted 03-27-2006 12:25 AM 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