How do you explain the talking snake??

[ReverendDG]

No.

well thats the way the hebrews used it, the snake was a symbol

I do such studies in Hebrew, rather than English.
It avoids such misunderstandings

well the word used for the snake is nahash which means serpent in hebrew, so no you are wrong according to just about every source i have found about the snake and hebrew

 

[RobertByers]

So you agree that the snake is to be interpreted symbolically, not literally, and this would have been clear to the first audience.

No. How see so? The snake talked ain audio like a person. Yet it was Satan really. This is how the first audience would of understood the story. Just as we do.

 

[gluadys]

No. How see so? The snake talked ain audio like a person. Yet it was Satan really. This is how the first audience would of understood the story. Just as we do.

If it was Satan really, it was not really a snake. It was not literally a snake.

That is what "literally" means: that it was really a snake and not really Satan.

So, if you and the first audience understand that it is not really a snake, it is really Satan, you are interpreting it symbolically, not literally.


It is amazing to me that many of the people who defend a "literal" interpretation of scripture don't know what "literal" means. They think they are interpreting literally when they are really interpreting symbolically.


If the snake is "literal" it is a snake and nothing but a snake. FULL STOP

If it is anything other than a snake, that is NOT a literal interpretation.

That is what "literal" means.

 

[mooduck1]

Exactkly right! If the standard for all scripture is that we must assume a literal understanding for everything thne the sanek is Just a snake can can not be said to have been controlled by satan, or a symbol of satan because all the TEXT says is that it was a snake!

 

[RobertByers]

If it was Satan really, it was not really a snake. It was not literally a snake.

That is what "literally" means: that it was really a snake and not really Satan.

So, if you and the first audience understand that it is not really a snake, it is really Satan, you are interpreting it symbolically, not literally.


It is amazing to me that many of the people who defend a "literal" interpretation of scripture don't know what "literal" means. They think they are interpreting literally when they are really interpreting symbolically.


If the snake is "literal" it is a snake and nothing but a snake. FULL STOP

If it is anything other than a snake, that is NOT a literal interpretation.

That is what "literal" means.

What is meant is clear. Your playing with words.
The clear meaning is that a actual snake was taken over by Satan.
Your interest here is to make some statement about something unrelated to the clear meaning of my statement.
This is unproductive and silly.
Your not a snake by any chance are you. just kidding.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here's a thought.

The bible says that the critter was a serpent, not a snake. All snakes are serpents but not all serpents are snakes. A dragon is not a snake, but is a serpent. Satan was called a dragon, and, a serpent, never a snake.

Also because it was cursed above the cattle and other creatures means that they too were cursed, but allowed to live out their natural physical lives. This may indicate that the fallen angels, now demons, were allowed to inhabit the newly created animals of the restored earth (but were restrained from doing mischief until after the flood). Demons like to have bodies to live in.

Of course this reveals and explains that the dinosaurs of the past were the creatures that God provided for Satan and the demons to 'ride around in' after the original fall. These monsters were a perfect reflection of what these angels had become.

The great serpent that appeared to Eve was perhaps a re-creation of the very body Satan appeared in in pre-Adamic ages. Never intending this glorious monster to live past his final purpose in the garden God condemned it to starve, denying it sustaining food, instead forcing to eat dirt out of desperate hunger.

That Satan passed on 'seed' is a metaphor for the spiritual descendants of Cain. (Yup, there's them metaphors.)

So yes, there was a talking serpent, physically reproduced by God one last time for the purpose of tempting Eve, never to appear in that form again, but like many such evildoers in bible history, to die an ignominious physical death.

owg

 

[gluadys]

What is meant is clear. Your playing with words.
The clear meaning is that a actual snake was taken over by Satan.
Your interest here is to make some statement about something unrelated to the clear meaning of my statement.
This is unproductive and silly.
Your not a snake by any chance are you. just kidding.

I am not disputing what the text means.

What is at issue is what it means to understand a text "literally", as many people make a virtue out of understanding a text "literally".

Now as the OP says

I believe that the Genesis Stories speak symbolically of an actual event. I have always seen the snake as a symbol for the devil who first tempted man.

It sounds to me like you are agreeing with the OP: the snake is a symbol of Satan and not to be understood literally as a snake.

Yet I get the impression you consider yourself a "literalist".

So why does a literalist understand the snake non-literally, as Satan, instead of literally, as a snake, given that this is not something the author points out in the story?

 

[gluadys]

Here's a thought.

The bible says that the critter was a serpent, not a snake. All snakes are serpents but not all serpents are snakes. A dragon is not a snake, but is a serpent. Satan was called a dragon, and, a serpent, never a snake.

No, that is letting oneself be influenced by translation into English. English is a basically Germanic language with a heavy dose of French/Latin superimposed. As a result we have many couplets of words, one with a Germanic base and one with a Latin base. cf "heavenly" and "celestial" "earthy" and "terrestrial" "fatherly" and "paternal" "kingly" and "regal".

In the days after the Norman conquest the aristocracy spoke French while the ordinary folk spoke Anglo-Saxon. That is why we raise cattle, but eat beef, raise pigs but eat pork, raise sheep but eat mutton and raise/hunt deer but eat venison.

"snake"/"serpent" is one of these pairs, "snake" coming from a German root, "serpent" from a Latin root. The distinction does not exist in the original Hebrew.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, that is letting oneself be influenced by translation into English. English is a basically Germanic language with a heavy dose of French/Latin superimposed. As a result we have many couplets of words, one with a Germanic base and one with a Latin base. cf "heavenly" and "celestial" "earthy" and "terrestrial" "fatherly" and "paternal" "kingly" and "regal".

In the days after the Norman conquest the aristocracy spoke French while the ordinary folk spoke Anglo-Saxon. That is why we raise cattle, but eat beef, raise pigs but eat pork, raise sheep but eat mutton and raise/hunt deer but eat venison.

"snake"/"serpent" is one of these pairs, "snake" coming from a German root, "serpent" from a Latin root. The distinction does not exist in the original Hebrew.

According to Strong's it does:


05175 // vxn // nachash // naw-khawsh' //

from 05172 ; TWOT - 1347a; n m

AV - serpent 31; 31

1) serpent, snake
1a) serpent
1b) image (of serpent)
1c) fleeing serpent (mythological)

The root, 05172, is also very interesting:


05172 // vxn // nachash // naw-khash' //

a primitive root; TWOT - 1348; v

AV - enchantment 4, divine 2, enchanter 1, indeed 1, certainly 1,
learn by experience 1, diligently observe 1; 11

1) to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience,
diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen
1a) (Piel)
1a1) to practice divination
1a2) to observe the signs or omens

So the Hebrew root word for serpent is more descriptive of Satan powers of deception than physical appearance.

owg

 

[Mallon]

Is a dinosaur a serpent?

 

[gluadys]

According to Strong's it does:


05175 // vxn // nachash // naw-khawsh' //

from 05172 ; TWOT - 1347a; n m

AV - serpent 31; 31

1) serpent, snake
1a) serpent
1b) image (of serpent)
1c) fleeing serpent (mythological)

The root, 05172, is also very interesting:


05172 // vxn // nachash // naw-khash' //

a primitive root; TWOT - 1348; v

AV - enchantment 4, divine 2, enchanter 1, indeed 1, certainly 1,
learn by experience 1, diligently observe 1; 11

1) to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience,
diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen
1a) (Piel)
1a1) to practice divination
1a2) to observe the signs or omens

So the Hebrew root word for serpent is more descriptive of Satan powers of deception than physical appearance.

owg

No, the case is quite different.

English uses two words for the same thing (snake/serpent) both of which can have a literal or a symbolic meaning.

Hebrew uses one word but with two different meanings. (Like "flush"="blush" and "flush" meaning "level with" not to mention numerous other meanings). Are the meanings connected? Maybe, but its obscure. In any case, no translator has chosen the second meaning in this case.

So we still come down to how does one determine when the literal meaning is meant and when the symbolic meaning is meant. Or to follow Strong, when the first meaning is intended and when the second?

What, in the story, tells us that we are to understand the snake symbolically here and not literally?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, the case is quite different.

English uses two words for the same thing (snake/serpent) both of which can have a literal or a symbolic meaning.

Hebrew uses one word but with two different meanings. (Like "flush"="blush" and "flush" meaning "level with" not to mention numerous other meanings). Are the meanings connected? Maybe, but its obscure. In any case, no translator has chosen the second meaning in this case.

So we still come down to how does one determine when the literal meaning is meant and when the symbolic meaning is meant. Or to follow Strong, when the first meaning is intended and when the second?

What, in the story, tells us that we are to understand the snake symbolically here and not literally?

Not being a literalist I believe both, together. I think the Hebrew describes Satan as both a literal physical serpentlike being, with all the characteristic cunning described in the root word. Of course this is connected to my belief (present speculation) that Satan and the demons inhabited living creatures down through the pre-historic ages. So it is not a stretch (for me) for Satan to appear in an animal body, but with all the wisdom and knowledge that he was created with. Mystical stuff.

owg

 

[wiselady]

The snake was beezlebub, he is called a serpant because he is slithery, sly, slippery,

it is described in Ezekiel 28


12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.



and Merlin something God wants me to say to you

Deuteronomy 18:9-14 - Every aspect of the occult is here mentioned specifically. It is all an "abomination" and is forbidden. Specifically forbidden are: one who practices "witchcraft" and a "sorcerer" and "one who conjures spells" and a "spiritist."

Leviticus 19:31 - Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.


Leviticus 20:6 - The person who turns after mediums and familiar spirits, God says He would set His face against that person and cut him off from his people.


Leviticus 20:27 - A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones.


Revelation 21:8 - But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
Revelation 22:15 - But outside [heaven] are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

The Lord told me you are involved with witchcraft, occult practices,
any type of divination, reading horoscopes and the likes gets left here.




God condemns, not just the whole practice of the occult, but also the specific methods, rituals, and mumbo-jumbo words used.


[Lev. 19:26; 2 Kings 17:17; Isa. 47:9,12; Jer. 27:9; 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6; Isa. 3:20; Rev. 9:21]



this would include astrology as well

Astrology is augury based on observing the stars. By observing such events, people attempt to predict the future.

Isaiah 47:13-14: All the counsel you have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. They cannot even save themselves from the power of the flame. Here are no coals to warm anyone; here is no fire to sit by.

Deuteronomy 4:19: "Be careful that you don't worship the sun, moon, and stars."

he wanted you to know to give up any of those practices, including new age forms of healing, such as holding your hands above a person, and sucking out whatever, that is new age crappola, not Jesus

 

[wiselady]

I only told you the message Merlin so you would not be left behind, you do energy new age healing which is considered witchcraft,

the little photo really gave it away, along with your name,

I only did what the Lord asked me to do

 

[MamaZ]

I only told you the message Merlin so you would not be left behind, you do energy new age healing which is considered witchcraft,

the little photo really gave it away, along with your name,

I only did what the Lord asked me to do

Was it the Lord who told you or was it real lady or was it belongs to Jesus? Or should I ask this. To which one of these three personalities did the Lord speak to? your gig is up..

 

[wiselady]

I confessed my sins MAMA LOL

they knew it all along, the moderators and staff new MAMA, do you still see me talking! Now you are my little thorn, like Paul had, time to pluck you off!

 

[wiselady]

and actually mama some of them laughed according to the holy spirit, they thought it was funny, creative and persistant!

 

[wiselady]

sly like a serpant mama, but innocent as a dove LOL

you thought by pointing it out, like little thorns like to do, that I would either lie about it, or that I would be sent packing,

nope

not the case

 

[wiselady]

thorns follow, like you are from board to board by either moderating where I am posting to be a bother..I stopped posting in your thread right..because I can not be bothered to waste precious valuable time on one individual who has the issues, let Jesus deal with you later

 

[Mallon]

Does the Holy Spirit tell you to refer to your fellow siblings in Christ as thorns and goats, too, wiselady?