The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

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.

---

I don't see why it should show up in the fossil record necessarily, but it might do.I appreciate that the pre-curse serpent was much different that the post-curse one. It had legs for a start. I don't see anyone missing this. It was what became the snake. It was a legged snake you might say. In the same way that a pre-curse woman was still a woman. The same way that a man with no legs is still a man. Yes, I know. It seems to be everyone elses literal reading too, particularly arach's. Which is why I'm having difficulty understanding where the issue is. Not all ancient reptillians were dinosaurs though. Evolutionary thought has snakes descending from a sister line of the dinosaurs, so the best bet is looking away from dinosaurs. I always thought of the Eden serpent looking like this little fella.I'm fairly sure that Voranidae are not the same linneage as dinosaurs, but I could be wrong. What do you think? Which is fine, and the way I read it, and the way arach reads it...when we consider the text literally.

But you don't want to hear the Apostle John clarify matters to you on Genesis. If I point out that John called the Devil and the dragon in Revelation "the ancient serpent" you could not care less.If I point out that John said Cain was of "the evil one" you're still not impressed.It doesn't matter that John was a Jew. It doesn't matter that he was 2,000 years closer to the writing of Genesis than you or I. It deosn't matter that he probably had a relative who was in the priestly order or that the New Testament says that he was on familiar terms with the high priest.Probably you write him off up front because he is a Christian. Anyway I don't think that the comments of the Apostle John can be lightly dismissed when he expounds on Genesis or draws upon the symbolism in his Revelation alluding back to Genesis. I think that I did. I did not write as much on it as I could have my any means.Generally the battle between God and the Devil is over the earth. And it is particularly over who has the dominion and deputy authority over the earth.This opposition to Adam and Eve was not simply a little personal matter against an arbitrary couple. It was an attack, a preemptive attack of God's enemy against the human race. It was a strategic strike aimed at arresting the course of the creation - who would be the dominion? Would it be God's man or someone else.I think in the desire to "demythasize" the Scripture some readers here want to simply make this a little fable about a snake and a couple - and not a terribly significant couple at that. If I try to explain more someone will object that I am reading too much into the cute little story about a couple.They only see as far as some details of chapter three of Genesis. The flow of history afterwards means nothing to them. They really don't see any significant scheme of purpose to the Bible. Their Bible is just a scrap book of unrelated and disjointed tales.They read the Bible like they would read Grimm's Fairy Tales. They see no common thread, no theme, and certainly no divine inspiration spanning over the ages of the writing from Genesis to Revelation. This may be a comment of what did it mean to the pre-Christian era Jews. That is a legitimate question. I am sure that they had some thoughts about it which they took in a spiritual way from their teachers.Those explanations may not be as developed as what I referenced in Revelation. But what Revelation shows about it should be regarded as the latest and most clear light on how the Spirit of God applied meaning to the serpent in Genesis.But this you are likely to not accept as you would not think any Spirit of God is involved with the delivery of the Bible to mankind as a communication from God. In other words - Just stick to Genesis and don't bring Revelation into the matter at all. But the topic is about a comparison between a matter that is found (supposedly) in both books.It should be noticed that the serpent is not mentioned any more in Genesis. In Exodus and in Numbers we do have some extremly interesting passages which further touch the serpent/s. For instance the brass serpent lifted on the pole by Moses. And those who looked upon the brass serpent were healed of snake poison.Jesus directly refered to this record in John 3. I don't think you would appreciate Christ's expounding of the serpent in Numbers as related to Himself. You are not interested in Christ as the the centrality of the Bible apparently.Well, within the confines of Genesis alone the serpent is no longer mentioned after Genesis three. This alone should mean something about its significance. This alone should alert us that perhaps that detail is lost because the serpent points to something beyond itself.There is one exception. When Jacob blesses his sons he refers prophetically to the tribe of Dan as a serpent by the way. The serpent, says Jacob, would bite the horse rider and cause him to fall off backwards from the horse.Now the tribe of Dan brought in a horrendous idolatry. And they caused Israel to stumble as far as God's will was concerned. So this link between the symbol of a serpent is established in connection to idolary and apostasy of Israel.This strengthens to me the understanding of the serpent as related to Satan in the scheme of the entire Bible. The rider of God's people was bitten and fell backwards. They went into apostasy. The tribe of Dan was dropped from the list of twelve tribes temporarily in the New Testament. But they are mentioned again in connection with the millennial kingdom. You might move the goal post again if I do that.

Could you explain to me how those could both be true?

I'm not dismissing the comments of John. I'm just interpreting them differently from you. No offense, bud - but what you think of your efforts doesn't count. You're trying to edify others, aren't you? You have to show the connection to their satisfaction, not your own. Try for quality instead of quantity. As I have said, there can be no "battle" if God is all-powerful. All power on one side versus no power on the other side? What battle?As long as you have that wrong, the rest of your interpretations make no sense. Far from it. Adam and Eve could not be more significant because they represent all mankind. But the point of the story is our invividual responsibility for our actions, not some imagined "battle" between God and an imagined "adverary". The battle is within us. Maybe so, but if your interpretation of the Revelation depends on the false notion of an "adversary", then your interpretation is not a very bright light. I didn't say ignore the Revelation. I meant that a discussion of Genesis shouldn't just be, "The Revelation explains Genesis thusly."If your interpretation of the Revelation is wrong (which I believe it is), then your interpretation of its relationship to Genesis may also be wrong. I suggested that you try to get some of your interpretation of Genesis out of Genesis. What goalposts have been moved?The OP says:

quote:

---

... the plain text reading does not support that the serpent of Genesis is the same as the serpent/dragon in the vision of Revelation.

---

You are the one who claims that serpent=Satan and dragon=Satan, therfore, serpent=dragon. I'm just saying that you have to establish that serpent=Satan and that dragon=Satan before your equation can work.

---

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

As I said, my friend, "put on your thinking cap." If the thing became a belly crawler eating dust post-curse doesn't that pretty clearly imply that pre-curse, it had legs enough to effect it's stance as being well above the earth compared to a slithering snake? 1. That the red dragon of Revelation 12 was reptilian in nature is significant in that the dragon/Satan evidently chose a like kind on earth to incarnate/inspire to do the job in Genesis.2. I conclude by the word used that the pre-cursed animal was, as I said, spectacular and significantly more awesome, as were the dinos.3. I don't see the color of brass being so significant, but the shinny bit is significant, implicating spectacular which the dinos were.Buz: "At any rate, this curse clearly transformed the "seed" of this "snake/serpent" creature into a significantly inferior creature." .......into a snake, from what? What do you think, and where/what would the obvious thing creationists should look for in the fossil record which comes closest to the thing described in Gen 3:1?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

a snake buz, a snake, it started as a snake with legs then got turned into what we see as snakes. I mean if snakes could talk and had legs then it wouldn't match anything we see, since dinosaurs look nothing like anything that relates to snakes.why do you feel the need to add in things that arn't in the text?i'm going to agree with who ever it was that said the snake was nothing but a foil for the story, just an antagonist for the story nothing more. also an explenation for why hebrews hate/dislike snakes

1. Because the context implies kinds here. This is a species which was devinely cursed into something far different than the originals.2. Likely the parent dinos or whatever they were lived out their lives in tact as they were. It was likely the offspring which became belly crawling creatures. Then too, in those early days of life, humans lived up to nearly a millenium, indicating that it's likely the parent dinos could have lived right up to the time of the flood. It is possible that these creatures lived even longer than humans. If this is so, the fossil record should show it to have been possible. Imo, it indeed does. So if you were creationist IDist, wouldn't the dinos be the most likely explanation in the fossil record? Can you think of anything more fitting? I agree, but it was likely a creature similar in appearance to the dinos. Imo, there was a whole lot more than the legs that were affected by this curse. This thing got zapped big time for this diabolic and despicable thing it did to the whole creation which God had made. I dono. I'm wondering the same thing as you people seem to be missreading stuff I say. I'm simply answering the missunderstandings Arach and you seem to be experiencing. Well, of course, I don't see any living things as early like you. I see the voranidae as being also cursed offspring of someting larger and having longer legs, et al. Btw, as per my hypothesis, the modern reptiles and the dinos lived together simultaneously for many centuries, the parent dinos being still alive after their zapped offspring came on the scene. Aren't the modern gilla monsters similar to what would be considered voranidae or large lizzards?As an aside here, if you could take a shapable snake balloon with a snake head, blow it up, shape it up a bit and add legs to it you could come up with a thing resembling some of the dinos.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

It's you, my friend, who's implicating things not said in the context. What is said is that the creature received a significant overhaul. If you take a snake as we know them and simply add long legs to it, you have nonsense. In order to reverse our snakes into something with long legs you've got to envision a whole lot more than just spindly legs attached to a snake and it needs to be in the fossil record, imo in order to be a real living earth kind, unlike the Rev 12 envisioned thing.Well, then you have a non-event, a figment of the imagination, rather than a real event, imo. I go with literal, unless otherwise indicated in the context. That's how I handle the Biblical record, but each to his own.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

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?

---

It kind of implies that there was a kind in which the serpent fits. It does seem that there were more than one member in this kind, but that doesn't imply that it will definitely get fossilized. It might be that there were only 12 in its kind. Wouldn't expect fossilization then. A plain reading would indicate that the individual serpent that was guilty would have lost its legs, and all the offspring it sires would be legless. Given that the original serpent and its offspring were cursed to be stamped on by humans (in the head), I'd be surprised if the original serpent lived that long, but its possible. Yes, arach has expanded on this, but in the thread you were replying to, I put a link to certain monitor lizards, which are how I imagine the genesis serpent. I'm not surprised you agree, you just quoted yourself (not me). Yep, but if God cursed me, would I change kinds? What I'm confused about is the nature of these misunderstandings. We don't really seem to be having any obvious ones, just some minor differences of opinion. Well...that's fine. The point I was making is imagine those guys as having no legs. They kind of look snake like. When I picture the Eden serpent I see something similar to one of those guys. In the very simplest way, yes, but it could also look like a daschund so that wouldn't be useful! When we look closely at snake body structure and dino body structure we see that dinos are far from snakes with legs. There are other organisms in the fossil record that would be more obvious candidates for legful snakes.

As per my hypothesis on this, the entire reptile group were dinos before the curse. There were no belly crawling reptiles until the offspring of the cursed parent leggy ones came on the scene.Note that the curse affected all of the human species. So, imo, with the reptiles. This curse also even affected the plant kingdom and the whole earth. This was a big and very significant event for planet earth! Not when you consider the whole context. If the curse effected it's power on all humans and the plant kingdom, why not all reptiles? Where do you get that? The originals were already too large and mighty to have their heads bruised by the heels of men. It is not feasable that they were suddenly zapped from monsters into snakes, etc. Most likely and logically, their offspring were the belly beings. The genes of the biggie originals were what would have been zapped. Note the heads and the tails. Nothing else fits the heads and tails like the similarity of dino reptiles and modern reptiles, for the most part. Dashhund, for example doesn't cut it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is a reply to:
Message 69 by buzsaw, posted 03-08-2006 09:30 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW