Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 286 of 302 (298291)
03-26-2006 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-25-2006 11:53 PM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
While a 'plain text reading' of the text mght not give the full Jewish thought, there is no tradition that the snake is Genesis is Ha-Shaitain.
He might represent the "urge to do evil", but I don't believe you will find a Jewish source that will assocaite the snake in Genesis as 'Ha-shaitain" (or THE accusor).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-25-2006 11:53 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 3:59 PM ramoss has not replied

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


Message 287 of 302 (298357)
03-26-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by ramoss
03-26-2006 11:33 AM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
He might represent the "urge to do evil", but I don't believe you will find a Jewish source that will assocaite the snake in Genesis as 'Ha-shaitain" (or THE accusor).
ramoss, in fairness, i presented three pseudepigraphical sources a few pages back that do associate ha-satan with the serpent. i think those can be considered jewish sources.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ramoss, posted 03-26-2006 11:33 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by ReverendDG, posted 03-26-2006 4:09 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 288 of 302 (298359)
03-26-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by jaywill
03-26-2006 6:20 AM


Re: bronze serpents and goat-eaters
At the moment, I'm less concerned with divinely imparted understanding than your ability to simply read English.
ah, more condescending attitude. seriously jay, what's wrong? you've never acted like this before.
as for reading comprehension, i believe it's me and pd that are arguing for reading what's on the page.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2006 6:20 AM jaywill has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 289 of 302 (298362)
03-26-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by arachnophilia
03-26-2006 3:59 PM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
ramoss, in fairness, i presented three pseudepigraphical sources a few pages back that do associate ha-satan with the serpent. i think those can be considered jewish sources.
ramoss may mean mainstream traditional judaism, he can correct me if i'm wrong
i think the sources would be considered inline with the childhood gospel of jesus.
its not a common jewish belief that lasted very long, probly right after the exile the hebrews abandoned the ideas the persians influence added
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-26-2006 04:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 3:59 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 4:22 PM ReverendDG has not replied

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


Message 290 of 302 (298367)
03-26-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by ReverendDG
03-26-2006 4:09 PM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
ramoss may mean mainstream traditional judaism, he can correct me if i'm wrong
i think the sources would be considered inline with the childhood gospel of jesus.
they would, yes. that's a decent analogy. however, mr. ex was saying before about representing the full range of jewish thought regarding the text -- and these texts ARE part of that "full range."
the belief may not actually be held by any jew today, but evidently, some rabbi, somewhere, at some time, thought that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by ReverendDG, posted 03-26-2006 4:09 PM ReverendDG 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

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


Message 292 of 302 (298422)
03-26-2006 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-26-2006 7:55 PM


Providing References
quote:
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.
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.
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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 7:55 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

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


Message 293 of 302 (298437)
03-26-2006 9:01 PM


EOT in 7 Posts
Well this thread is drawing to a close. Good time to start winding down.
Unfortunately most of this thread was wasted complaining about looking at the plain text and no real discussion took place concerning the plain text or plain sense reading of serpent in the Genesis story.
In Message 170 I summarized the closest comments I've had concerning the plain text reading from the opposition. If I've missed any, please provide a link.
In Genesis the serpent is a beast of the field created by God and cursed by God. Even though presented as the villain of the story, the text doesn't support that the snake is Satan (enemy of God).

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 11:08 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 295 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 11:19 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 294 of 302 (298469)
03-26-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by purpledawn
03-26-2006 9:01 PM


Re: EOT in 7 Posts
Unfortunately most of this thread was wasted complaining about looking at the plain text and no real discussion took place concerning the plain text or plain sense reading of serpent in the Genesis story.
hi, let me be the first to welcome you to EvC.
seriously though, the same old story. we sit here and we debate how the text should be read, never what it actually says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2006 9:01 PM purpledawn 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

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 296 of 302 (298484)
03-26-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-26-2006 11:19 PM


Re: EOT in 7 Posts
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Where do the Scriptures actually say that God made the serpent?
If God didn't create the serpent, who did?
I was under the impression that God created everything.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 11:19 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 11:58 PM ringo has 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

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 298 of 302 (298490)
03-27-2006 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-26-2006 11:58 PM


Re: EOT in 7 Posts
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
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.
There's quite a difference between "chaos" and a flesh-and-blood serpent. (Plain-text reading, remember? )

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 11:58 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-27-2006 12:20 AM ringo 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

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 300 of 302 (298496)
03-27-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-27-2006 12:20 AM


Re: EOT in 7 Posts
I think "shining one" could just be a fairly literal description of a snake.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-27-2006 12:20 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