Biblical contradictions II

I suspect you want to edit this. Either that, or the logic you're using proves Mike has converted you :-).

Just some general thoughts, which unfortunately may be worth nothing at all. But, just in case...Satan the SerpentThe thing about the serpent being satan was brought up several times. Christians believe the serpent was satan because the Bible says so twice in Revelation (12:9 and 20:2), not because of logic deduced from the story. Paul also said the serpent "beguiled Eve through his subtlety," suggesting he would have considered the serpent at least a tool of satan (2 Cor 11:3). Most Christians have never thought about it beyond this. The serpent was satan, and it's as simple as that.I doubt that Christians made that up. I don't know what the modern Jewish view is of the serpent, and I'm sure Jews don't take the story literally, like Christians do, but I have heard some things about satan in Jewish history that would apply.A satan was an "accuser" or "adversary." Originally, I understand there could have been many of them. The satan of Job walked in heaven on a regular basis. He was most definitely hostile to God, but he was not some banned creature that had led a failed rebellion in heaven.I think ancient Jews would have considered the serpent a satan simply because he was an "adversary," an opponent of God. The word satan eventually applied to just one being, and the thoughts about the serpent were never really updated.The Lying SerpentEven when I was a young, brand new, on-fire (Bible-toting, Scripture-quoting, devil-chasing, sin-defacing, etc.) Christian in the early 80's, I could never figure out why I was being told the serpent lied. I asked numerous people what they meant by that, and I never got an answer that made sense to me.It's the same with the commonly stated opinion that satan misquoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptation. I don't see that satan "took the quote out of context" at all. Yeah, he applied it where Jesus didn't think it should be applied, but the quote was accurate enough.Anyway, I doubt that was worth even two cents, but just in case.

Ah, now that you mention it, that's how I heard it, too. Your point about "opposed to man, not God" is a good one if the Jews agreed with the folks here who think the serpent was being helpful. Obviously, the serpent wasn't the good guy to the Jews, either, so he was opposing man. He got Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden and cursed.He might not look like the bad guy to the westerner who's considering it, but he's the bad guy to the story teller.I think that does explain how he got to be satan as well as serpent, and I'm certain the Jews saw him as satan, because Paul and the John who wrote the Revelation were, after all, Jews.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not trying to support the view that the serpent is satan.In my original post, I was pointing out why Christians in general--not me--believe that the serpent is satan. They do not interpret it from anywhere. They have received it as tradition. I was trying to trace that tradition and push it back as far as I could.I don't think 2 Cor 11 proves anything, but I do think it indicates that the "serpent is satan" thinking is already there in Paul's writings. My comments about what a satan is, though a little off the mark due to bad memory, were also given to pinpoint the source of that thinking.I don't believe the garden story is literal, and my interpretations of that story vary a lot, probably depending on who I read last or who suggested something to me last. It is in doubt, which is why I said "the John that wrote Revelation." I was trying to distinguish him from the writer of the Gospel and the letters.I think he was Jewish because the Revelation was a very early writing, and it seemed unlikely he was a Gentile. DrBill summarized those reasons in post 78 better than I could have. I thought most people agreed it was a Jew. Certainly, he was very familiar with the earlier prophets, as The Revelation has a lot of subtle references to them.

Excuse me for being picky, as I wasn't going to impose my concerns about spelling on anyone else, but at this point, everyone's culturally-imposed ignorance of the spelling of imposed is being repeated so much that it will be a truthlover-imposed ignorance if I don't say something soon. ;->