The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

why not? just read what's there on the page. ah, see, maybe that's your problem. it's just plain hard to believe. what sense do you want me or anyone else to make of it? revelation won't change what's on the page of genesis. and genesis has a talking snake in it, and woman being made out of man, and man being made of dust.i think the problem here is that faith is getting in the way. put the faith aside for a little while. don't worry about making sense out of it in terms of your beliefs or how we're going to fit it into christianity. just read it for what it is first. which is a good point, too. for instance, man being made out of dust comes from the babylonian myth, where marduk makes man. judaism isn't really all that different, and genesis is quite similar to the legends and myths of other cultures of the time and area.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

sure. now, back on page four i listed all of the meanings of nachash, as well as several of the related words. because i was lazy, and generous, i left out the vowels. but i promise you that the vowels change.it's a little bit of a weird point -- because the vowels were never originally recorded, and added later. the words are certainly related, i'll give you that. but i won't give you "shining." the word is a word relating to color -- and the serpents are called nachashim because of their color.curiously, your "nehushtan," if we un-slur the vowels is "nechushetan." the tail end of that should sound familiar. i'm not sure if it's even a purposeful association. consider satan's abscence in kings (but presence in chronicles) i would say that it's probably just a coincidence. i don't see any usage that fits "shine." and those you listed are ALL of the uses of nachash as a verb. if you can show me another one? supposing for a second that the verb nachash means "shine" (which is not demonstrated at this time), we HAVE a name that is the noun form this verb: nachshon.ha-nachash means "the serpent." the words used in numbers 21 are ha-nechashim ha-seraphim. the "ha-seraphim" is an adjective. (trust me, this is a very standard hebrew construction) in this one instance, and this one instance only. god is refering to the firey-snakes, not ANY snake. and everywhere else, even the firey-snakes are called by the title i used above: ha-nechashim ha-seraphim. they are not interchangeable, because not EVERY nachash is a nachash seraph. (at best, this is an argument for a word missing from the bible...) no. the seraphim of isaiah are called "seraphim" because they are on fire. here, the word is being used as a noun, not a adjective. it's not in regards to shining, it's in regards to fire.this argument is essentially that all seraphim are literally serpents. were the serpents in numbers, that afflicted the israelites, also angelic? you're missing half the phrase. genesis says -- chayat ha-sadeh. "field animal." while "chay" does mean life in general, this is a phrase that specifically applies to animals (and esau) mmhmm. good eye. i was waiting for someone to point out that it never actually says that the serpent is among the animals, or made by god. however, he is clearly associated with them, isn't he?well, hebrew's a funny language.

quote:

---

, , — , —

​

v'ha-nachash, hayah arom, m'kol chayat ha-sadeh, asher asah yahueh elohim;

​

and-the-serpent, was crafty, from-all animals the-field, that made [the lord] god.

​

and the serpent was the craftiest of all the wild animals that the lord god made

---

that's how *i* read it anyways. anyone read hebrew a little better? don't trust concordances. they're only useful for showing how a word was translated elsewhere, and the other contexts. not for true definitions -- and they certainly don't show any grammar, at all. and half the time, the part of speech is even wrong.i'm not trying to argue that "you have to read it in hebrew" but it really does help. which is why i'm learning hebrew in the first place.i might address those references. most seem to be establishment of a theme, at best. no actual links. is that a post i missed?

---