How do you explain the talking snake??

[SummaScriptura]

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!

Dear moderators, this post contains an implied threat to MamaZ, "time to pluck you off!" What does that mean? I request action be taken to deal with this thoroughly repugnant poster.

 

[gluadys]

Not being a literalist I believe both,

Exactly.

 

[MamaZ]

Dear moderators, this post contains an implied threat to MamaZ, "time to pluck you off!" What does that mean? I request action be taken to deal with this thoroughly repugnant poster.

Thank you.. I am so glad that He that is in me is Greater than he that is in the world..

 

[theFijian]

Question - Well, context then question-

I've always read Genesis 3:15 as the first prophesy of the coming messiah. I've always thought that way because 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. After the devil did this God said - ' I will put hatred between you and the woman and between your off spring and hers and he will crush your head and you will bruise his heal.'
My Question is - How do literal creationists read these passages. I assume since you read it literally, that anything that I might see refering to Jesus would have to be wrong in the eyes of a literalist, since there is no room for symbolic meaning in a literal understanding. But maybe I'm missing something. Can someone help me?

See this earlier thread, much the same responses I think.

 

[Calminian]

I don't see why everyone is stumbling on the snake being incited by Satan. This has been Satan's MO throughout history. He incited David and Peter. In fact Jesus said to Peter, "get behind me Satan!" calling him the devil himself. He entered Judas who betrayed Christ. He's always used vehicles to incite and tempt. Why should this be any different with the snake? It was a real instrument of Satan. End of thread!

 

[Assyrian]

I don't see why everyone is stumbling on the snake being incited by Satan. This has been Satan's MO throughout history. He incited David and Peter. In fact Jesus said to Peter, "get behind me Satan!" calling him the devil himself. He entered Judas who betrayed Christ. He's always used vehicles to incite and tempt. Why should this be any different with the snake? It was a real instrument of Satan. End of thread!

Because the bible does not say it was a snake incited by Satan. There is no reference to two players anywhere in the text. It is simply a snake throughout the account.

We learn Satan was involved later in the bible, but not that he possessed a snake or incited a snake, but that he was the snake. Given that the account describes the snake as an ordinary snake, who ends up slithering on its belly and 'eating dust', the only was this animal can actually be an angel is if the description as a snake is really a metaphor. I don't why creationists stumble over Satan being described in a story as if he were an ordinary animal, Jesus described him as 'birds or the air' eating fallen seeds in the parable of the sower.

 

[Calminian]

Because the bible does not say it was a snake incited by Satan.

Nor does it say it was Peter incited by Satan. But Christ clearly says "get behind me Satan!" Was it really Peter? Or perhaps you see Peter as a metaphor?

 

[gluadys]

I don't see why everyone is stumbling on the snake being incited by Satan. This has been Satan's MO throughout history. He incited David and Peter. In fact Jesus said to Peter, "get behind me Satan!" calling him the devil himself. He entered Judas who betrayed Christ. He's always used vehicles to incite and tempt. Why should this be any different with the snake? It was a real instrument of Satan. End of thread!

No one is stumbling over it. The question is how does a literalist deal with it.

Most people are quite content to recognize that the snake is not literally a snake. You seem to be fine with this as well.

 

[gluadys]

Nor does it say it was Peter incited by Satan. But Christ clearly says "get behind me Satan!" Was it really Peter? Or perhaps you see Peter as a metaphor?

Well, that is the point. Christ clearly says to Peter "get behind me Satan." But the creation story nowhere says that the snake is Satan.

 

[Calminian]

Well, that is the point. Christ clearly says to Peter "get behind me Satan." But the creation story nowhere says that the snake is Satan.

The Bible does tell us who the snake is, just not in that passage. No biggie. Peter was real and so was the snake.

 

[gluadys]

The Bible does tell us who the snake is, just not in that passage. No biggie. Peter was real and so was the snake.

Yes, in Revelation written a thousand years later.

It is not until then that we get an explicit interpretation of the snake as symbolic.

Interestingly, the canonicity of Revelation was hotly disputed and the Eastern church did not include it for hundreds of years after it was accepted in the Western church.

But, in any case, the reference in Revelation does not tell us anything about the intentions of the writer of Genesis. Without Revelation, what do we know from Genesis?

The snake you say was real. Yet the snake was Satan. One cannot have it literally both ways. Literally, a snake is a snake is a snake. It can only be Satan figuratively. Or, if it is literally Satan, it can only be a snake in appearance, a figure of a snake.

Literal and figurative meanings do not cancel each other out. Affirming one does not deny the other. So the question goes more to the intent of the author (who had not read the interpretation in Revelation). Did he intend to convey that the snake was really a snake and nothing more? Or that the snake, however real, was also a symbol of something else? Or that the snake is pure symbol and not real at all?

 

[Assyrian]

Nor does it say it was Peter incited by Satan. But Christ clearly says "get behind me Satan!" Was it really Peter? Or perhaps you see Peter as a metaphor?

And Jesus called Herod a fox. It did not mean Herod was incited by a fox or even that a fox was incited by Herod.

But if you think the snake was real and not a metaphor for Satan as we discover in the book of Revelation, then you have the problem that God promised Messiah would bruise that snake's head, not bruise the angel inciting the snake, but the snake itself. As Jesus never did step on a literal 4004 year old snake in any of the gospel narratives, not even a snake incited by Satan, if the snake was literal, then Jesus did not fulfil the very first Messianic prophecy.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, in Revelation written a thousand years later.

So?

It is not until then that we get an explicit interpretation of the snake as symbolic.

Er, where is it stated that it is symbolic?

Interestingly, the canonicity of Revelation was hotly disputed and the Eastern church did not include it for hundreds of years after it was accepted in the Western church.

Churches have no authority over the canon.

But, in any case, the reference in Revelation does not tell us anything about the intentions of the writer of Genesis. Without Revelation, what do we know from Genesis?

That it was a snake.

The snake you say was real. Yet the snake was Satan. One cannot have it literally both ways. Literally, a snake is a snake is a snake. It can only be Satan figuratively. Or, if it is literally Satan, it can only be a snake in appearance, a figure of a snake.

Soooo, I guess you reject a literal peter also?

Literal and figurative meanings do not cancel each other out. Affirming one does not deny the other. So the question goes more to the intent of the author (who had not read the interpretation in Revelation). Did he intend to convey that the snake was really a snake and nothing more? Or that the snake, however real, was also a symbol of something else? Or that the snake is pure symbol and not real at all?

Nah. This is all in an effort to reject script for the sake of science. There's nothing in the Bible that supports what you're saying. The snake, incited by Satan, talked. You'll just have to put your scientific bias aside and deal.

 

[Calminian]

And Jesus called Herod a fox. It did not mean Herod was incited by a fox or even that a fox was incited by Herod.

No, it means that Herod was taking on characterizations that were fox like. This is a literary tool that is common in our culture today.

But if you think the snake was real and not a metaphor for Satan as we discover in the book of Revelation, then you have the problem that God promised Messiah would bruise that snake's head, not bruise the angel inciting the snake, but the snake itself. As Jesus never did step on a literal 4004 year old snake in any of the gospel narratives, not even a snake incited by Satan, if the snake was literal, then Jesus did not fulfil the very first Messianic prophecy.

Nah. You're getting confused about hebrew literary devices. God said that the snake would go about on its belly from then on and it did. This is literally true. No one denies that snake crawl on their bellies. And then He said that Eve's descendant would crush the head of this snake, which is revealed to be a metaphor for Satan being defeated at the cross. As you have admitted, this does not refer to the literal snake. There are dual meanings in many portions of scripture.

Sooo, do you believe Peter was a metaphor? If not, why not?

 

[Assyrian]

And Jesus called Herod a fox. It did not mean Herod was incited by a fox or even that a fox was incited by Herod.

No, it means that Herod was taking on characterizations that were fox like. This is a literary tool that is common in our culture today.

Exactly.

So now that you realise there were other common literary tools in Hebrew culture, why do you insist that Satan inciting Peter is the only analogy we can use for Satan and the snake in Gen 3? In fact how do you know that Jesus called Peter 'Satan' because Satan was inciting Peter? It could easily be that Pater was taking on the characteristics of an adversary. After all Jesus didn't say "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of a fallen angel." He said Peter was setting his mind on the things of man.

It is not even a particularly close analogy, a person being called Satan because of their actions. We have much closer analogies in scripture where animals are identified as Satan

Mark 4:3 "Listen! A sower went out to sow.
4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it...
13 And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?
14 The sower sows the word.
15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them.

1Pet 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

It is not that Satan was inciting the birds to eat the farmer's seeds, or even inciting real lions to attack believers. The stories are figurative descriptions of Satan, and the animals aren't even real, they are part of a fictional story

The ancient serpent wasn't simply called Satan. Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.
Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He is Satan

Nah. You're getting confused about hebrew literary devices. God said that the snake would go about on its belly from then on and it did. This is literally true. No one denies that snake crawl on their bellies.

But I think you will find people do deny snakes eat dust. No that is like insisting because birds really do eat seeds the parable of the sower is literal. No a snake slithering on its belly and seemingly eating dust is used as part of the metaphor to symbolise Satan being cast down. It is how Ezekiel seems to have interpreted it. You have an angel an in Eden encrusted in jewels like the scales on a snake, but the angel sins and is cast to the ground.

Ezek 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.
16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you.

And then He said that Eve's descendant would crush the head of this snake, which is revealed to be a metaphor for Satan being defeated at the cross. As you have admitted, this does not refer to the literal snake. There are dual meanings in many portions of scripture.

Where does the text switch from talking about the snake to Satan? There isn't a hint of two characters in the story and there certainly isn't a hint of switching from the snake to Satan. In fact if you take snakes crawling on their bellies as evidence this is about a literal snake, then the the passage about snake biting Messiah's heel and getting its head bruised is about a literal snake too. Literal snakes do bite people on the heel and they do get their head stamped on.

Sooo, do you believe Peter was a metaphor? If not, why not?

Metaphors don't write epistles.

 

[Calminian]

Exactly.

So now that you realise there were other common literary tools in Hebrew culture, why do you insist that Satan inciting Peter is the only analogy we can use for Satan and the snake in Gen 3?

Because the plain reading of the text says it was a snake. It was you and others that tried to make it figurative by citing the verse that says it was Satan. I simply made the case that this is not evidence for or against the literalness of the snake by pointed to an example of where Christ refers to literal Peter as Satan. The burden is on you to show that the snake must be figurative based on the verse in revelation. If you can't, then we must conclude it was a real snake incited by Satan.

 

[gluadys]

The Bible does tell us who the snake is, just not in that passage. No biggie. Peter was real and so was the snake.

And now we get another confusion. "Literal" does not mean "real". It means that the word used is to be taken in its normal reference.

"Snake" used without qualification or figure in a fictional text still literally means "snake" even though it is not a real snake.

Whether something is real or not is a separate question from whether the meaning of the text is literal or not.

Peter is real, even when Jesus refers to him metaphorically as Satan.

The snake in Genesis is literal even if the story is not historical and the snake is a fictional character.

 

[Calminian]

And now we get another confusion. "Literal" does not mean "real". It means that the word used is to be taken in its normal reference.

"Snake" used without qualification or figure in a fictional text still literally means "snake" even though it is not a real snake.

Whether something is real or not is a separate question from whether the meaning of the text is literal or not.

Peter is real, even when Jesus refers to him metaphorically as Satan.

The snake in Genesis is literal even if the story is not historical and the snake is a fictional character.

See post 50.

 

[Assyrian]

Because the plain reading of the text says it was a snake. It was you and others that tried to make it figurative by citing the verse that says it was Satan. I simply made the case that this is not evidence for or against the literalness of the snake by pointed to an example of where Christ refers to literal Peter as Satan. The burden is on you to show that the snake must be figurative based on the verse in revelation. If you can't, then we must conclude it was a real snake incited by Satan.

Where do you get the idea that 'real snake incited by Satan' is some kind of default setting you can claim if you don't want to listen to what scripture says? I have shown how 'Peter incited by Satan' is a poor analogy, not even clear in the passage about Peter. How does that get to be the default interpretation?

Of course the plain text says it was a snake. The plain text in parables always describes things that sound literal. The plain text in the parable of the sower says the seed was eaten by literal birds. The plain text in the parable of the Good Shepherd says Jesus literally did work minding sheep.

And it is not simply one verse in Revelation. I quoted two verses, and if you look at the context, the dragon is a major character in the book of Revelation found in chapters 12, 13 and 20 as well as a mention in ch 16. In fact there is more about the serpent in the book of Revelation than there is in Genesis. The dragon is referred to twice as 'the ancient serpent' and in another two verses simply as 'the serpent'. We are told the ancient serpent is not only called the devil and Satan and that he is the devil and Satan. If there were any uncertainty who the ancient serpent meant, we are told he is the one who deceived the whole world.

Not only that, but when the angel is throwing the dragon into the pit for a thousand years we are given a description of 'the dragon that ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan' and we are told the angel threw him into the pit. Rev 20:1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. The angel did not throw a serpent and Satan into the pit, we are told five times in the short passage that the ancient serpent and Satan are a single person, 'him'. Nor was it simply a serpent who had been incited by Satan. After the thousand years, though it was the ancient serpent who was thrown into the pit for a thousand years, we are told it is Satan who gets released Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison. The ancient serpent is Satan.

Nor is it only the book of Revelation, Ezekiel took the description of a serpent in Eden and interpreted it as an angel encrusted in jewels who is thrown to the ground for his iniquity.

Psalm 78 sees the serpent's head being bruised, not as an actual snake, but as a battle God fought against the powers of Egypt when the Israelites escaped across the Red Sea. Psalm 74:13 You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters. 14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

We find the same thing in Isaiah, God's battle with a non literal serpent/dragon during the Exodus, Isaiah 51:9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, that pierced the dragon? 10 Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? As well as the promise a future fulfilment, Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.

And of course Jesus himself showed us how the serpent wasn't literal, when instead of stepping on a 4,000 year old snake at Calvary, he defeated the power of Satan and cast down the ruler of this world John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

And what verses do you have to support your default interpretation the snake was incited by Satan? Just the weak analogy that Jesus once referred to Peter as Satan, which you think meant Peter was incited by Satan.

 

[gluadys]

See post 50.

Same confusion. You refer to Peter as "literal" when you mean he was a real, historical person. And you do that in a verse where Jesus is referring to this real person metaphorically as Satan.

So what we have here is a metaphor applied to a real person, not a literal reference to the person.

In Genesis, we have a literal reference to a snake that elsewhere in scripture, but not in this passage, is interpreted symbolically as Satan.

Does that make the snake in Genesis real? Or a symbolic but fictional character in a story which is really featuring Satan?