The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

what logic!

quote:

---

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

---

the story explains why snakes have no legs, and why they appear to lick the ground. the idea that "maybe it's talking about a snake" comes from the fact that it describes what a snake is, by means of this curse. and so all subsequent snakes have no legs, and are too busy "eating dust" to tell us things to lead us astray.

---

more like the household dog. that's a myth. there are other tiamat legends. namely, the ones pd showed in the op. leviathan, and taniynm. the snake might be symbolic, but it's also clearly nothing special. more likely, it's employing something similar to later semitic and mesopotamian snake imagery: evil spirits.the snake is not clearly satan, however, in the tradition sense. in the operational sense, he IS a satan, because he attempts to lead man away from god, or is used to test man with a moral choice. but it is not symbolic of "the devil." that's a botched interpretation. the ages of the patriarchs in genesis gradually decrease from ~900 years to just upwards of modern human lifespans, ~120 years. there is no sharp cut-off point. that "120 years" is the time until the flood.

---

read genesis 4 again, and tell me who tested cain.

---

then why the difference of opinion? why the revision and reinterpretation of ideas? if the spirit of god is the real author, wouldn;t god, i dunno, get it right the first time? so let's break this apart. god is saying that cain's life is easy if he does the right thing. but if he doesn't do so well, he will be tempted. in this case, with jealousy. he is jealous of god's approval of his brother, abel.tell me how you read this? is satan physically crouching outside his door? you even used the word "personification." do you not understand how abstract ideas are sometimes metaphorically described as having personality? yet satan is never specifically mentioned in the story. i mean, even in harry potter, they let you know who "he who shall not be named" is referring to. why not, i dunno, include this character in the story? why only mention him 700 years later? so they devil was created evil? there was no good period, and a fall?

---

just for kicks.

quote:

---

Num 22:21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
Num 22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants [were] with him.

---

angel of the lord = satan.

quote:

---

1Sa 29:4 And the princes of the Philistines were wroth with him; and the princes of the Philistines said unto him, Make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men?

---

david = satan

quote:

---

2Sa 19:22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?

---

beni-zeruiah = satanim.

quote:

---

1Ki 11:14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom.

---

one of solomon's sons = satanyou know the difference? grammar. it's not easy to tell with a concordance. but those references are "l'satan" as opposed to "ha-satan," THE satan. even then, it's a title.

---

correct. we have have the additional problem with articles in english, we could easily say "the adversary" in war, and not refer to satan. i suppose you probably could in hebrew as well, but articles are used a little differently. it does denote a specific adversary, like it would in english. what seems to happen, however, is that any time it refers to a person or army or whatever that could be called "adversary," it uses "l-satan" which -- and i'm taking a guess here -- might be kind of like a gerund in english. lamed- is the usual prefix that denotes an infinitive verb in hebrew."satan" curiously, is also a verb. in that zechariah verse i posted, it's used BOTH as a proper noun, and a verb. the noun seems to come from the verb, and the proper noun is a modification of the nouned-verb.anyways, the way we would use it today. we might say "I fought the adversary in war," (satan) or "I fought The Adversary in temptation," (et Ha-Satan). this is the bit i want to make really clear for everyone in this thread:you can't.we can only get hints from context (is it talking about war? king david? clearly something natural?) and some from grammar. and from that grammar, all we can tell is whether something IS NOT a proper name. so here's the other bit i want to make clear:proper names never, ever, have a heh in front of them. ever.it doesn't work in english, and it doesn't work in hebrew either. and all of the uses that lack ha- are clearly describing someone besides THE Adversary. so here's the subtle point: i don't think satan is ever once used as a proper name in the old testament. but i'm too lazy and tired right now to sort through ALL of them (including the ones not translated as proper names).i should note that it's still a "proper" noun, and refers to a specific (divine?) entity, but is not actually a name. rather, it refers to him with a title, or placeholder. well, that's exactly the reason i'm bothering to take hebrew. granted, it's not biblical hebrew; it's modern hebrew. some of the grammar is VERY different. but a lot of the basic rules are adopted from biblical hebrew. the direct object signifier (et) and the usage of "to-" and "the-" are the same.

---

just to be a real stickler here, where exactly is the indication that the snake has legs? what are you looking at, exactly? here are some of the usages of "nachash." just to be especially ambiguous, i'll leave the vowels out.

• נחש - snake (genesis 3:1)
• נחש -- to practice divination (gen 44:5)
• נחש -- divination / enchantment (num 23:23)
• נחש -- copper / bronze / brass (daniel 2:32)
• נחש -- "serpent," a proper name (1st samuel 11:2)
• נחשון -- "enchanter," another proper name. (num 1:7)
• נחשת -- copper / bronze / brass (gen 4:22)
• נחשתא -- "brass," another proper name. (2nd kings 24:8)
• נחשתן -- "thing of brass," the name of the serpent moses made of brass. (2ki 18:4)

so what can we conclude? well, we can take a good guess at what color the serpent was. and we can establish a relationship with the fiery flying serpents of numbers, through the name of the snake on a stick moses makes. we can make an association with magic, and enchantment. but there is no "shining" (ie: lucifer) and no angelic relationship. yes. into a snake. personally, i think it was to shut him up. clearly the authors understood that talking snakes are not common, but that regular snakes are. since the rest of it explains why the snakes go around on the ground, why not explain why they no long talk? but it is a degrading punishment, yes.

---

snakes, though very advanced reptiles, are not related to dinosaurs, if that's what you're saying. snakes, dinos, and crocs all come from about the same common ancestor. right, but post-curse, it's a snake. i think there's some confusion here. there doesn't really seem to be an argument. just that the serpent pre-curse is not a dino. no, see, you lost it there. dinosaurs are NOT reptiles. common though it is to refer to them as such, they are not. dinosaurs walk upright, their legs under their weight. they appear to have been warm-blooded, and the majority of them were probably feathered. if we saw them walking around today, we'd think "bird" not "lizard." in reality, they are somewhere in between. the ironic thing is that there may be some truth to your position if you put it in reverse. it's quite possible that remains of dinosaurs sparked legends of dragons.but the serpent of genesis 3 is NOT a dragon. he's a snake, whether or not he has legs. why? he's a "beast of the field." when he's cursed, he's grouped with cattle. the serpent is a domesticated animal pre-curse. part of his curse is that he no longer enjoys the nice relationship with men.

---

no. where is the implication of legs? the implication is merely that the snake does not crawl on the ground. one possible interpretation is that it had legs. but there are others, as well. perhaps the snake simply held its body upright, but was still legless. nowhere does the bible describe god removing the snake's legs. and snakes would not look a think like dinosaur if they did have legs. i keep hearing this. and it's still the wrong serpent. the great red dragon is leviathan, re-interpretted. really? i concluded that it was magical. that was, btw, why i posted all of the related roots. i don't see a "shining" in the sense you propose. no relation to the shining one of isaiah 14, either. but yes, the color is important. perhaps a snake, with legs, would be a good place to start. fins might be acceptable too, if we're talking about leviathan as opposed to the snake of genesis 3:This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-08-2006 10:03 PM

---

dinosaurs ≠ snakes. they're just not related in that way. they are two separate classes of diapsid "reptiles." i saw "reptiles" in quotes because dinosaurs don't fit the label very well.snakes are lepidosauromorps; they have overlapping scales. dinosaurs are archosaurs; they have feathers or non-overlapping scales and scutes. like birds. look at a bird's foot sometime, and tell me if the scales look anything like a snake's.snakes are related more closely to lizards and legless lizards, but not even all that closely. dinosaurs split of reptilia well before snakes, cladistically. yes, i posted one example above. the mosasaurs are actually a legitimate candidate -- i wasn't just making it up. there are others, and it's somewhat debated. but that's a better candidate cladistically than dinosaurs.of course, if you believe in magic... why? dinosaurs and other reptiles did live simultaneously. and modern reptiles evolved mostly during the mesozoic. from the same roots of dinosaurs, but not from dinosaurs. dinosaurs went in a different direction: up.think about it for a second. how do lizards run? how do dinosaurs run? which mode is more similar to a snake's slither?lizards flex their backbones side-to-side as they run. dinosaurs are not physically able to do this. many even have stiff, reinforced backbones. in terms of spinal columns, dinosaurs are very bad candidates physiologically to be related to snakes. and lots of things that are NOT dinosaurs, too. like that mosasaur i posted above. here's another interesting one, an elasmosaur:This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-08-2006 10:26 PM

---

you mean the one with seven heads?

---

nobody pays attention to it anyways.no, buz. you're asking for a lot of change. and not evolutionary change. creationists like to use "well, a dog never gives birth to a cat!" as counterexample to evolution, not understanding that what they're saying doesn't even make any sense. you're making the same argument in reverse. you're saying that dogs DID give birth cats.only your dogs are dinosaurs and your cats are snakes.making up ad-hoc fantasies just isn't going to work, and it fits neither the text, nor the fossil record, nor biology. now, i showed you some animals that are more closely related to snakes, but that have appendages. their skulls are similarly shaped, and their roughly the same kind of reptiles. dinosaurs are not even close. you'd have to change scale types. you'd have to lose the feathers. you'd have to change the innards, especially the lungs. you'd have the change the way the bones connect. you'd have to change the ability to regulat bod temperature. you'd have the change the skull-flattening direction. you'd have to change the rib structure. ...at a certain point, it becomes pointless, because you're just making a whole new animal. it's no longer a simple curse, but a complex and complete re-design from something completely different, for no other purpose than to support your fanciful idea.if the bible was talking about anything with legs, it was likely a lizard, not a dinosaur. snakes and lizards have a lot more in common than dinosaurs have to either lizards or snakes.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-10-2006 03:03 AM

---

you mean that "serpent" part? yeah, that does sound reptilian.however, you seem to be forgetting the relatively subtle point i made earlier: dinosaurs are not reptiles.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-10-2006 03:05 AM

---

i keep hearing arguments about what it says. and it says nothing of the sort. it never once says that the creature was modified in any way. it never once said it had legs, and then lost them. please check the text -- ALL it says is that the snake will crawl on his belly from that day forward. that implies that it did not crawl on its belly before. which implies it went upright, or elevated from the ground. neither necessitates legs. and curse does not describe god modifying creation.it just doesn't say either of those things.now, as etiology, the logical conclusion is that the myth exists to explain why snake lack legs. but you can't accept that line of logic unless you agree that it's an etiology; a myth. if it's the word of god, you'd better read it for what's actually there. almost. it uses the imagery of lothan/tiamat, probably through leviathan. it does have seven heads, which matches the ugaritic lothan, but that description is not found in the bible before rev -- john patmos likely used another source for inspiration.curiously, btw, just to make my own life harder, are we all aware of how vague the hebrew description of "serpent" is? forget biblical and mythological knowledge. when i say leviathan, what do most people think of?

---

yes, this is another possibility. we do find the serpent associate with trees -- well, one tree in particular. consider that this is also adam's curse (and eve's as well, because she's with him) that wouldn't be suprising. i doubt the snake got to stay in the garden, but it doesn't actually say, iirc. right.the point being: you can't pick out one part of a particular interpretation, and treat it as if were obvious, while ignoring the other readings, and the bits of this one that disagree with your position. saying that it's an explanation of why snakes have no legs might be a good reading, but only if you accept the part about it being a story invented to explain something.otherwise, maybe we should just stick to the descriptions in the text. what reason do i have to believe that the snake had legs before the curse? where does the text say this, or strongly imply it in such a way as to make these other readings unacceptable?

---