Bible Question: What was the First Sin?

I do not necessarily agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, but that is another matter. The original reason I posted the verse from Revelation was to show that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible, and it is understandable that Pringlesguy would think that. And, no, I do not think any time "serpent" is used it is referring to Satan. Also, whether Revelations is referring to a dragon or not is meaningless; it stills calls Satan a "serpent." You base this on what? If you type "oldest book in the Bible" into a search engine, almost all the sites indicate Job. This is the closest thing I can find that supports your argument that Genesis is the oldest book in the Bible:

quote:

---

Many scholars agree that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, written by an unknown Israelite about 1500 B.C. Others hold that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) are the oldest books in the Bible, written between 1446 and 1406 B.C.

---

My point about Job had nothing to do with Satan being a serpent. I was simply pointing out that if Job is the oldest book in the Bible, then obviously the Jews had SOME concept of the devil. Again, proof? Anyway, without a description of how the early Jewish Satan differs from the modern-day Christian Satan, this makes no difference. Cool. Any more useless information? I am willing to bet that most people who have read the Bible would consider Satan to be an adversary to God. No, certainly not. If I was, then why would I argue that Job was the oldest book in the Bible? Unless you are speaking of the Hebrew version, I see no indication of this. The fourth word in Genesis is "God" in all its singular glory. (Here comes the "Elohim" is a plural noun argument.)Finally, Once again I do not see any indication of this. If you could provide some proof or at least something supporting this idea, I would greatly appreciate. Also, if I come across a bit harsh, I apologize, but I tend to get that way when someone makes wild assumptions and insults my intelligence (or at least that how I took it).

quote:

---

Once again I do not see any indication of this. If you could provide some proof or at least something supporting this idea, I would greatly appreciate. Also, if I come across a bit harsh, I apologize, but I tend to get that way when someone makes wild assumptions and insults my intelligence (or at least that how I took it).

---

For starters, do this yourself: Search the bible for "Satan" - you can use the Bible Gateway for this. Don't use NIV, because NIV changes the text very heavily from the originals to attempt to iron out contradictions and overall make it more suitable for a modern audience (I don't know if they've changed this particular part). You'll find it in 1st Chronicles. Now, this is parallel to another passage - it is a retelling of history. Look up the parallel passage in 2 Kings. Then come back and tell us what you think. Chronicles was from after the Babylonian captivity and the freeing by the Persians; Kings was from before.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

The original reason I posted the verse from Revelation was to show that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible

---

Irrelevant. You've got the direction backwards.All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan.

quote:

---

And, no, I do not think any time "serpent" is used it is referring to Satan.

---

Then we're left with my original statement that the serpent in the garden has nothing to do with the devil. He is not called the devil, he is not treated like the devil, and the people who were writing about him didn't even have a concept of the devil at the time they were writing.Seeing as how the serpent in the garden is treated as a beast, receives a physical curse, and is not regarded in any way as supernatural, from where does the idea come that the serpent in the garden has anything to do with Satan? Because somebody over a thousand years later also happened to use a word in a completely different language that also happens to mean "snake"?

quote:

---

Also, whether Revelations is referring to a dragon or not is meaningless;

---

Incorrect. If Satan is being referred to as a dragon, then one would expect to find linguistic descriptions appropriate for a dragon. One such description is "serpent" as dragons are reptilian. Let us not forget that Revelation was written at a time when Greek mythology had managed to create quite a large amount of symbolism and snakes represent wisdom and knowledge. There's a reason that the caduceus of Apollo has snakes twined about it.

quote:

---

it stills calls Satan a "serpent."

---

Yes, but it is the height of naivete to then claim that because Revelation calls Satan a "serpent," that means that the "serpent" mentioned in Genesis is therefore Satan.Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not as old as Genesis.

---

​

You base this on what?

---

Analysis of the texts. As I pointed out in my next post, Genesis was written in the period before the 7th century, some parts as early as the 10th. Job, on the other hand, somewhere around the 5th, possibly as late as the 4th.Ergo, the book of Job is not as old as the book of Genesis.Oh, plenty of people will claim that Job is older than Genesis, but those people also claim that the Torah was written by Moses and we know that isn't true, either (hint: How can Moses write about his own funeral at the end of Deuteronomy?)

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not as some creature that crawls around on its belly. Instead, Satan is a servant of god who does his bidding.

---

​

My point about Job had nothing to do with Satan being a serpent.

---

Too bad. You're the one claiming Satan is serpentine and that Genesis makes use of this, implying that the serpent is Satan.You have to maintain consistency. If Satan is a serpent, if god has the power to physical force Satan into a physical shape, then he doesn't get to snap out of it when Job comes around. If Satan isn't a snake in Job, then the snake in Genesis isn't Satan.

quote:

---

I was simply pointing out that if Job is the oldest book in the Bible, then obviously the Jews had SOME concept of the devil.

---

But as it isn't, it ain't.

quote:

---

quote:

---

, the "Satan" in Job is not the devil as Christians understand him.

---

​

Again, proof?

---

Again, analysis of the texts. I pointed you in the right direction. Look up Zoroastrianism and follow its development alongside Judaism and how Judaism took up the tenets of Zoroastrianism.Early Judaism had no "all good"/"all evil" dichotomy. Everything came from one place. When Judaism had settled into monotheism, god was responsible for everything, good and evil. How can there be a "devil" in such a thing? That would mean that evil comes from somewhere else and we've just established that god is the source of everything.Zoroastrianism changed that.Get off your butt, do your own homework, and come back.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Genesis starts with a mention of many gods.

---

​

Unless you are speaking of the Hebrew version

---

Of course. What other version is there?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I don't really think I have any directions backwards. To clarify a bit: in no way am I arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan (this doesn't mean I believe he isn't, just that it is certainly debatable). Furthermore, I am not even so much arguing that every serpent is Satan, or even that Satan is a serpent. I was simply presenting a passage where Satan IS referred to as a serpent, whether it be a dragon, snake, or whatever. You seemed to insult Pringlesguy for thinking that the Genesis serpent was Satan, and I was just trying to give a reason why he might have thought that. Once again, I'm not arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. To say, though, that the serpent "is not regarded in any way as supernatural" is slightly off. The serpent DOES speak, if you recall, and seems to be intelligent enough to deceive Eve. I never claimed this. And I agree completely that Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan. Pretty basic stuff. I understand that your analyses of the texts may have led you to believe that Job was written somewhere around the fifth century B.C. Obviously, though, whoever it is that originally determined that Job was written around 1500 B.C. did some analysis, too. So why should I believe you before I believe him? (Not that I put complete faith in this man's date of 1500, just that I am more inclined to accept it than I am to your proposed date.) Again, I am not claiming this. And even if I did believe the serpent in Genesis is Satan, I would not think you are wrong for believing it isn't. I am claiming, however, that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible (Revelations)--nothing more than that. I really wish I could read/speak Hebrew, but as it stands, I cannot. For this reason, I am referring to the several English translations I have right next to me. If you could elaborate on your point that Genesis starts out mentioning many gods and slowly evolves into monotheism, I would appreciate it.This post was a little more civil. If I ever get too harsh or out-of-line, please address me. I do not intend to infuriate anyone/make enemies over an internet message board. Thank you.

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Irrelevant. You've got the direction backwards.

​

All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

​

Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan.

---

​

I don't really think I have any directions backwards.

---

So every serpent, even the pet snake a friend of mine from college had, is an incarnation of the devil?

quote:

---

To clarify a bit: in no way am I arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan (this doesn't mean I believe he isn't, just that it is certainly debatable).

---

Well, no, it isn't debatable. The serpent in Genesis is clearly not the devil. It was written by people who had no concept of the devil and the narrative treats the serpent as an animal, not a supernatural being.

quote:

---

Furthermore, I am not even so much arguing that every serpent is Satan, or even that Satan is a serpent.

---

Then the invocation of Revelation is a non sequitur. Why bring it up?Besides, you've just contradicted yourself. Did you or did you not say the following: Well, which is it? Did you bring up Revelation to argue that the devil is a serpent or are you arguing that the devil is not a serpent?

quote:

---

I was simply presenting a passage where Satan IS referred to as a serpent, whether it be a dragon, snake, or whatever.

---

But what's the point? Why bring it up if not to make an argument relevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not the serpent in Genesis is the devil?If your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the serpent in Genesis being the devil, then what on earth was the point of your comment?

quote:

---

You seemed to insult Pringlesguy for thinking that the Genesis serpent was Satan,

---

Insult? Please. You'll know when I've insulted you.

quote:

---

and I was just trying to give a reason why he might have thought that.

---

Oh, I understand why he thinks that: He was told to think that. But analysis of the text, both literary and historical, indicate that the serpent in Genesis was a beast, not the devil.

quote:

---

quote:

---

and is not regarded in any way as supernatural, from where does the idea come that the serpent in the garden has anything to do with Satan?

---

​

Once again, I'm not arguing that the serpent in Genesis is Satan.

---

Once again, what was the point of your comment if not to argue that? If Revelation has no connection to Genesis, then what is the point of bringing it up?Let me see if I can show you just how much of a non sequitur it is:In a discussion of the conjugation of the imperfect in Spanish, someone points out that many cultures deliberately make their works imperfect by introducing mistakes so as not to anger the gods with creating something perfect.Ok...that may be so, but what on earth does that have to do with the imperfect tense in Spanish? Just because both things use the word "imperfect" doesn't mean there is any connection. The two have no connection, even at the most basic levels. Why bring it up?

quote:

---

To say, though, that the serpent "is not regarded in any way as supernatural" is slightly off. The serpent DOES speak,

---

So? How does that make the snake supernatural? He is not treated so in any way. Just because you have never seen an animal speak doesn't mean it never happens. Have you considered the possibility that they just don't have anything to say to you?

quote:

---

if you recall, and seems to be intelligent enough to deceive Eve.

---

So? The serpent is described as the most subtil of all the beasts.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, but it is the height of naivete to then claim that because Revelation calls Satan a "serpent," that means that the "serpent" mentioned in Genesis is therefore Satan.

​

Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan.

---

​

I never claimed this.

---

Then what was the point of bringing up Revelation if not to connect it back to Genesis?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Analysis of the texts. As I pointed out in my next post, Genesis was written in the period before the 7th century, some parts as early as the 10th. Job, on the other hand, somewhere around the 5th, possibly as late as the 4th.

​

Ergo, the book of Job is not as old as the book of Genesis.

---

​

I understand that your analyses of the texts may have led you to believe that Job was written somewhere around the fifth century B.C.

---

So if Job was written after Genesis, then that makes Job younger than Genesis.

quote:

---

Obviously, though, whoever it is that originally determined that Job was written around 1500 B.C. did some analysis, too. So why should I believe you before I believe him?

---

Why don't you do some research and find out?

quote:

---

(Not that I put complete faith in this man's date of 1500, just that I am more inclined to accept it than I am to your proposed date.)

---

Might it be because you want it to be that way?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Too bad. You're the one claiming Satan is serpentine and that Genesis makes use of this, implying that the serpent is Satan.

---

​

Again, I am not claiming this.

---

Then what was the point of bringing up Revelation? If Revelation has no connection to Genesis, what possible reason could you have had for mentioning it?

quote:

---

I am claiming, however, that Satan is referred to as a serpent in the Bible (Revelations)--nothing more than that.

---

Why?What on earth does Revelation have to do with Genesis?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Of course. What other version is there?

---

​

I really wish I could read/speak Hebrew, but as it stands, I cannot.

---

Even so, do you not agree that the books of Judaism must necessarily be understood within the context of Judaism? That they must be studied in the historical context of the Jews who were present at the time of its writing? That it was written by Jews for Jews and attempts by Christians to re-write its meaning are ill-conceived?

quote:

---

For this reason, I am referring to the several English translations I have right next to me.

---

That's fine. But what is the context for which they were translated? Were they done in order to preserve Christian theology (such as the NIV) or were they done in order to preserve Jewish theology?

quote:

---

If you could elaborate on your point that Genesis starts out mentioning many gods and slowly evolves into monotheism, I would appreciate it.

---

Just take a look. From the very first chapter. "Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26). This is followed by god looking to the other gods and panicking over Adam and Eve's becoming as gods knowing good and evil, "Man is become as one of us" (Gen 3:22). And then the Tower of Babylon, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen 11:7).In fact, that is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the various authors of the Torah: Some refer to god in the singular and some in the plural. The earlier writings tend to refer to god in the plural while the later ones move to monotheism.And don't worry about offending me. I've been doing this for too long to become emotional about it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain: your original comment to Pringlesguy was:

quote:

---

Satan does not go about on his belly.

---

With my original post, I was simply suggesting that maybe Satan DOES "go about on his belly." The verse from Revelations seems to support this idea. The "serpent" it speaks of may be a dragon, but this is beside the point--Satan is still referred to as a serpent, and if you want to get REAL technical, even dragons "go about on their bellies," for the most part.

quote:

---

So every serpent, even the pet snake a friend of mine from college had, is an incarnation of the devil?

---

I never claimed this. In fact, I never even implied this. I do not know where you get this idea, but you seem to be stuck on it. Never once did I claim that ANY snake was Satan, and I only said that there is a POSSIBILITY that Satan may be able to take the shape of a snake.

quote:

---

Well, which is it? Did you bring up Revelation to argue that the devil is a serpent or are you arguing that the devil is not a serpent?

---

I brought up Revelation to argue that Satan is referred to as a serpent, and it was understandable for Pringlesguy to think so. You may believe that Judaism had no concept of the devil at that time, but obviously he didn't know that and/or doesn't subscribe to that idea.

quote:

---

Oh, I understand why he thinks that: He was told to think that.

---

That may be so, and there are people who try to impose their beliefs on others, but that's another topic.

quote:

---

Insult? Please. You'll know when I've insulted you.

---

That's great. Does it really matter, though? Maybe I should have said that you replied in "an insulting manner"? It is only a matter of semantics.

quote:

---

So? How does that make the snake supernatural? He is not treated so in any way. Just because you have never seen an animal speak doesn't mean it never happens. Have you considered the possibility that they just don't have anything to say to you?

---

This is silly. Most anyone would agree that an animal that speaks should be treated as supernatural. No, I have never seen an animal speak, so it is possible that it happens, but have you ever encountered a supernatural animal? So why, then, are you the judge of what characteristics of supernatural beings are?

quote:

---

So if Job was written after Genesis, then that makes Job younger than Genesis.

---

But if Job was written before Genesis, then that makes Job older than Genesis.

quote:

---

Might it be because you want it to be that way?

---

No. I really could care less whether Job was written in the 5th century B.C. or the 15th, beyond this argument. I always thought, though, that Job was older and because of this, I saw your statement ("Judaism had no concept of the devil at the time Genesis was written") as incorrect.

quote:

---

Even so, do you not agree that the books of Judaism must necessarily be understood within the context of Judaism? That they must be studied in the historical context of the Jews who were present at the time of its writing? That it was written by Jews for Jews and attempts by Christians to re-write its meaning are ill-conceived?

---

I agree with all three points.

quote:

---

That's fine. But what is the context for which they were translated? Were they done in order to preserve Christian theology (such as the NIV) or were they done in order to preserve Jewish theology?

---

The three versions of the Bible I have next to me are: NIV, KJV, and the English Translation (Good News Bible?). I also have a copy of the Revised Standard Version somewhere, I think. You tell me, though--which English translation sticks most closely to the original context of both the Old Testament and the New Testament? I will be sure to purchase it if I do not already have it.

quote:

---

Just take a look. From the very first chapter. "Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26). This is followed by god looking to the other gods and panicking over Adam and Eve's becoming as gods knowing good and evil, "Man is become as one of us" (Gen 3:22). And then the Tower of Babylon, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen 11:7).

---

This is another debate, but has it ever occurred to you that this may be speaking of the Trinity? I am not saying you are wrong for thinking it isn't, but you should at least take this idea into account.Thank you.

More to the point, Judaism does have a concept of "a satan" but no concept of "The Devil" or "Satan" as a Christian thinks of it.ForbiddenForbiddenDoes Judaism Believe in Satan?Page not found – What Jews Believehttp://www.geocities.com/~alyza/Jewish/satan.htmlFrom this site:
Alternative Religions ------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

With my original post, I was simply suggesting that maybe Satan DOES "go about on his belly." The verse from Revelations seems to support this idea.

---

But dragons have feet. Satan is a dragon in Revelation.

quote:

---

The "serpent" it speaks of may be a dragon

---

No, not "may be." It directly states that it is.

quote:

---

but this is beside the point--Satan is still referred to as a serpent

---

But if Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, then it's a non sequitur and should be ignored.

quote:

---

even dragons "go about on their bellies," for the most part.

---

No, they don't. They go about on their feet.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So every serpent, even the pet snake a friend of mine from college had, is an incarnation of the devil?

---

​

I never claimed this. In fact, I never even implied this.

---

Did we or did we not have the following exchange: If you don't have the direction backwards, then you are, indeed, saying that all serpents are Satan.So I'm wondering why you keep flipping back and forth. If you agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, why on earth did you bring it up? If you agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, why do you keep coming back to it? If you agree that Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis, why are we still talking about it?Again, you have the direction backwards. That Satan is referred to as a serpent is irrelevant. The question is whether or not the serpent in Genesis is Satan. Do you see how that is a reversal of direction? We don't get to start with Satan, find ways that he's being described, and then go look for other mentions of that description and insist that it's a reference to Satan. Instead, you have to start with the actual reference and see if those references lead to a conclusion that is Satan being referred to.Satan may be a serpent, but not all serpents are Satan. The fact that Revelation calls Satan a serpent is irrelevant because Genesis doesn't refer to the serpent as a supernatural being but as an animal.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Insult? Please. You'll know when I've insulted you.

---

​

That's great. Does it really matter, though? Maybe I should have said that you replied in "an insulting manner"? It is only a matter of semantics.

---

Incorrect. The distinction between inferral and implication is not merely semantic. And yes, it does matter. You'll know when I reply in an insulting manner.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if Job was written after Genesis, then that makes Job younger than Genesis.

---

​

But if Job was written before Genesis, then that makes Job older than Genesis.

---

But as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.

quote:

---

You tell me, though--which English translation sticks most closely to the original context of both the Old Testament and the New Testament?

---

I don't think such a thing exists. On the most basic level, we're dealing with texts for which we do not have the original and even if we did, they are based upon oral traditions and thus we have no hope of finding the "original context." Instead, we have to look at the full tradition that surrounds the texts...and that doesn't really exist in a single book.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Just take a look. From the very first chapter. "Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26). This is followed by god looking to the other gods and panicking over Adam and Eve's becoming as gods knowing good and evil, "Man is become as one of us" (Gen 3:22). And then the Tower of Babylon, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen 11:7).

---

​

This is another debate, but has it ever occurred to you that this may be speaking of the Trinity?

---

Didn't we just agree that "the books of Judaism must necessarily be understood within the context of Judaism? That they must be studied in the historical context of the Jews who were present at the time of its writing? That it was written by Jews for Jews and attempts by Christians to re-write its meaning are ill-conceived?"So what on earth are you doing invoking the Trinity, a Christian idea, and placing it upon a Jewish text?

quote:

---

I am not saying you are wrong for thinking it isn't, but you should at least take this idea into account.

---

Why would somebody take a Christian idea and claim a Jewish text was written with that in mind?

Christian/New Testament concepts of sin, Satan, redemption, and the Redeemer seem far more matured than Jewish/Old Testament concepts. The concept of covetousness (for example) is repeatedly spelled out as sin.I realize that word "mature" evokes varying meanings and is a gross oversimplification. (Thus, my speculation is meager and not dogmatic)By the time of Daniel, Satan seems as a ruler over kings in metaphysical realms (i.e., withstanding the King of Persia).That the OT has many gaps and mysteries in this matter we'd all probably agree. (So does the NT) Comparing OT and NT scriptures becomes fruitful in filling in the gaps, methinks.Today, many of us have quite an astute concept of Satan, demons, sin, selfishness, pride, and the evil that lurks within and without.Redemption from so many subtle yet overwhelming evil forces (via the Lamb-Redeemer's mechanism) is my desperate and dogmatic solution to my own pain of sin and the devil.

quote:

---

Christian/New Testament concepts of sin, Satan, redemption, and the Redeemer seem far more matured than Jewish/Old Testament concepts.

---

That is a very limited perspective. I submit that it the Christian versions of these concepts only strike you as more mature because of a presupposition that they are correct. If God intended his people to believe in a God-Satan dialectic, don't you think he'd have told them about it from the beginning?Kudos for acknowledging the weakness of the term "mature," but I think it is so weak and unsupportable as to prohibit its use entirely.

quote:

---

The concept of covetousness (for example) is repeatedly spelled out as sin.

---

Whose concept are you referring to here? It doesn't get any clearer than "thou shalt not covet...." in the Ten Commandments.

"Whose concept are you referring to here? It doesn't get any clearer than "thou shalt not covet...." in the Ten Commandments."Regarding people from your country and mine: Judgemental Laws and legal systems on various levels should answer your question better than I could begin to.As for NT concepts of covetousness, sin, and the laws of judgement (and redemption) you might pick up and read the first chapter after Acts, Romans 1

That's just clear as mud to me. I'll check out Romans 1 when I get home, but I still don't see how you can improve upon this:Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.It's absolute, and it's got all the clarity in the world.

OK, I see your (good) point now:Essentially it is true:Covetousness as a commandment is clearer defined in the OT.Notwithstanding, the hypocrits, pharasees, saduccees, etc. of Jesus' day did not preach against covetousness, lust, etc. to any near extent that Christ did. They were "clean on the outside" only. Well you and I may excuse ourselves as being clean on the outside as did the OT doctors of Jesus' day.(Albeit you may still rebuke me that the OT states the same and I won't disagree)

Rrhain,I know this topic is a little dead, but I don't want you or anyone to think that I am "fleeing" the discussion. Feel free to respond, but if you don't, that is perfectly fine. I'll ignore the smaller points and focus on just a few things. I am not really claiming any direction. My position is that Satan is referred to as a serpent, so it is understandable for someone to think that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. You do not, however. Our disagreement arises because of our different views of the Bible, I believe. The Bible to me is the word of God through man. Therefore, I see the Bible as God's message to us, and so the period in history that each book was written is a little less important. The Bible to me is ONE work of art, whereas many view it as a "compilation" of books discussing God. My point is that I believe Revelations DOES have something to do with Genesis. I tried to ignore this belief for the sake of the argument, but I didn't do that too well, coming across as hypocritical. I apologize.Anyways, all serpents are not Satan, and Satan may not be a serpent. I believe there is enough evidence present, though, to at least provide a reasonable argument that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. Of course one exists. I asked which English translation sticks MOST CLOSELY to the texts. They all may be horrible, but one has to be better than the rest. "That's logic."Finally, regarding the Job-Genesis debate:It does not really matter to me which book is older. It has no effect on my beliefs, whatsoever. You know far more than I do about the history of both books. I still just wonder why I am supposed to take your word (Genesis 1st, Job 2nd) over whoever it was that determined that Job was written before Genesis, though. So saying, "As it isn't, it ain't," is misleading. The date of the book of Job is obviously debatable, so please do not present your date (which may be correct) as fact.Thanks.

quote:

---

The Bible to me is ONE work of art, whereas many view it as a "compilation" of books discussing God

---

You don't seem to get it. The Bible *is* a "compilation" of books discussing God. The Canon was only closed when Constantine ordered 50 Bibles printed - it was open for change for 300 years. Some early Christians working on the project actually argued for the omission of the Old Testament all together. Some gospels were included. Some weren't included. Some, such as the gospel of Thomas, were not even known about at the time because the gnostics (another early Christian sect, but not the one that went on to found the Roman Catholic Church) were in hiding.It's hard for many Christians to accept, but creating what we know as the bible actually involved things like debate and bargaining - and this is just when the final collection of texts were put together. Earlier Jewish books, such as the Septuagent, were compiled from conflicting earlier texts by a team of 70 Rabbis; it's due to this why you see some parts of the bible that seem to repeat themselves in different times, places, or with different people (Moses has several of these).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."