is the snake(cobra,...) the devil?

[7he4uthor]

the bible speaks in pre-judeo/Christian symbols

serpent means
''wise one''

[wise guy]

think snake oil salesman


jesus commands his followers to be serpent-like.

DNA

two serpents

wisdom
knowledge
gnosis
veda

the other person on the dragon line
is going the right way ...

reptilians
dinosaurs

ruling the earth

 

[mark kennedy]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The word simply means snake:

Strong's H5175 - nachash נָחָשׁ

1) serpent, snake

a) serpent
b) image (of serpent)
c) fleeing serpent (mythological)​

the bible speaks in pre-judeo/Christian symbols

serpent means
''wise one''

[wise guy]

think snake oil salesman


jesus commands his followers to be serpent-like.

DNA

two serpents

wisdom
knowledge
gnosis
veda

the other person on the dragon line
is going the right way ...

reptilians
dinosaurs

ruling the earth

The serpent and the dragon are Satan, think proper name.

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. (Rev 12:9)​

 

[Calminian]

No, snakes have no power. And mighty small brains.
But they taste OK in a pinch.

But what about the prelapsarian snakes? According to jewish tradition God took away their speech after the Fall, along with their legs. Jewish tradition also holds that God placed poison in the mouths after the Fall.

Now if these snakes never tasted death, we would have no fossils of them prior to their postlapsarian modifications.

 

[Calminian]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The word simply means snake:

Strong's H5175 - nachash נָחָשׁ

1) serpent, snake

a) serpent
b) image (of serpent)
c) fleeing serpent (mythological)​

The serpent and the dragon are Satan, think proper name.

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. (Rev 12:9)​

I would tend to agree. Satan was the snake only in the sense that he incited this once intelligent animal into tempting Eve. Jesus called Peter Satan, after he was incited by this same being. The King of Tyre was also referred to as the devil after being used by him as well.

I think the snake was an actual snake, who before the fall had legs, and the gift of speech.

 

[Calminian]

I no longer think the serpent in Genesis 3 was an animal, even a possessed one. Instead, I think he was a spiritual being of serpentine shape. And that he was one of the sons of God who had stopped shouting with joy at the creation of the earth after he saw Adam and Eve put in charge of the place.

I've been persuaded by Michael Heiser's argument, which can be found here.

Thanks for that article. I took it in and wanted to just make a couple of comments. I'm no hebrew expert (far from it, in fact), but I felt the hebrew arguments he made were irrelevant to the issue. The definite article in hebrew is always adhered to the word it is making definite. The word is not hanachash, but rather nachash, or the nachash if you will. Very simply and literally it is the snake. Yes, nachash can also be an adjective, just as snake in english can be descriptive of other nouns—snakelike, for instance, which would likely mean crafty. That doesn't mean that references to snakes are really references to crafty people or crafty beings.

Also look at how nachash is used elsewhere. What did Moses' staff turn into? What venomous creatures did God send to torment the Israelites (Num. 21)? It's the same hebrew word, and even has the same definite article attached—hanachashiym (snakes). The prefix on this word has the same identical he, pathach, daghesh forte in the nun construction. It's an identical plural of the word used in Genesis 3. Does this mean that these were really venomous angels that were biting the ankles of the Israelites in the desert?

But the key here in understanding this being is not nuances in the original language, but what the snake is compared to and how the curse was applied to it. God said, “Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field;..." I would just have to ask, if this creature is a cherub, why would God compare him to the animals of the Garden of Eden? Why not say you are cursed above other angels?

Also the imagery of the curse, which certainly was symbolic also, but also literal would not make sense if this was literally a cherub. "On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust. All the days of your life...." How does that imagery make any sense for a being like a cherub? They're never depicted in this way in scripture. But if this really was a snake who had been delegged the imagery works, as does the symbolic imagery of the curse to the being who incited the snake. The imagery of the head crushing as well would only make sense if this was an actual animals low to the ground. That would give us a literal picture, as well as an abstract one of Christ destroying Satan on the cross.

Also, he mentioned that he was stumbling on the fact that Eve was not surprised by the serpent having speech, but at that point what norms would she have had to compare this event to? According to jewish tradition, God removed the speech of the snake, which makes sense to me, being how his gift of language impacted the world. For us, speechless animals are the norm, but for Adam and Eve, the opposite may have been the norm.

Satan's mode of operation has always been to incite human instruments to lead men astray. Therefore why would it not also be normal for him to use prelapsarian animals who had the gift of speech in the same way? It would seem rational for him to do so, and rational for God to modify all animals after the curse, taking away their speech. That's my take anyway.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would tend to agree. Satan was the snake only in the sense that he incited this once intelligent animal into tempting Eve. Jesus called Peter Satan, after he was incited by this same being. The King of Tyre was also referred to as the devil after being used by him as well.

I think the snake was an actual snake, who before the fall had legs, and the gift of speech.

You would seem to think he was either manifest as an actual snake or somehow possessed one, I tend to disagree. The more I think about it the more I think it was a proper name, just like calling him the 'Dragon' in the Revelation. This is one of those instances where I think a figurative interpretation is called for given the hermeneutic principle here.

I do agree with you about the prophecy concerning the King of Tyre, it sounds like Lucifer's original sin being described as well as a prophecy regarding the power behind the throne in Tyre.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

You would seem to think he was either manifest as an actual snake or somehow possessed one, I tend to disagree. The more I think about it the more I think it was a proper name, just like calling him the 'Dragon' in the Revelation. This is one of those instances where I think a figurative interpretation is called for given the hermeneutic principle here.

I do agree with you about the prophecy concerning the King of Tyre, it sounds like Lucifer's original sin being described as well as a prophecy regarding the power behind the throne in Tyre.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Looking at the hebrew, I don't think it's possible. Proper nouns in hebrew don't take the definite article, and nachash has the definite article. And I would have to ask, if nachash is to be understood as a proper noun here, what about all the others instances where it is found in the old testament and clearly indicating snakes?

 

[mark kennedy]

Looking at the hebrew, I don't think it's possible.

It's not that cut and dried and looking at the actual Hebrew there is a progression of thought that begins in Genesis 3 and continues until Revelations 20:2:

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years (Rev. 20:2)​

Clearly the 'ancient serpent' is Satan, the same Satan who tempted Adam and Eve. Of course as an isolated text it's not rendered that way in the Hebrew text of Genesis. I never suggested that based on an exegetical treatment of the text it should be. What I said was that the hermenuetic principle here clearly indicated Satan. Thus, it's just one of the many things he has been called down through the ages.

I don't know what the definite article is supposed to mean here to you but the same word is used of:

• A town (1 Ch. 4:12)
• A king of the Amonites (1 Sam 11:1)
• Various men (2 Sam 17:27; 2 Sam 17:25)

(Blue Letter Bible Strong's H5175 nachash נָחָשׁ see Gesenisu Lexicon )

What is more it's from this root that simple means, 'to practice divination':

Blue Letter Study Bible Strong's H5172 - nachash נָחַשׁ

Proper nouns in hebrew don't take the definite article, and nachash has the definite article.

Which would indicate it's a specific 'nachash', thus an individule rather then a general reference nothing more.

And I would have to ask, if nachash is to be understood as a proper noun here, what about all the others instances where it is found in the old testament and clearly indicating snakes?

That is is most often used for snakes, no two ways about that. However, it actually means 'shinning one'. I found this rather interesting expostion, thought you might find it of interest:

Nachash means the “shining one” or “glistening one.” The root word (etymology) for “nachash” is also “nachash” [H5172] which means “to hiss or whisper” and specially used as the “whispering of soothsayers. Lucifer is a title ascribed to a chief fallen spiritual being in Isaiah chapter 14. Used in a modern context as a proper name for Satan though the title is neither a name nor describes Satan. Most applicably applied to a fallen Watcher, the Hebrew title is literally “heylel:, literally ” to shine or boast”.

Blue Letter Bible: Strong’s H5175 - nachash (נָחָש&#1473
Blue Letter Bible: Strong’s H5172 - nachash (נָחַש&#1473

Eve was not talking to a snake. She was speaking to a bright, shining, upright being who was serpentine in appearance,​

The Serpent’s Seed

As far as I'm concerned, even though it is not semantically perfect as a proper name, that is exactly what it is in effect. Surely John wasn't talking about some random snake and clearly the tempter in Genesis 3 was Satan.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

It's not that cut and dried and looking at the actual Hebrew there is a progression of thought that begins in Genesis 3 and continues until Revelations 20:2:

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years (Rev. 20:2)​

Clearly the 'ancient serpent' is Satan, the same Satan who tempted Adam and Eve. ....

It seems the snake is a title for Satan, rather than a proper name, to be precise, the serpent of old, the original serpent. Certainly Satan was the old snake, the only question is, in what sense was he the old snake? Did he materialize into a snake, or simply incite the original snake, thus taking on him as one of his titles like the King of Tyre?

There must have been an original snake pair created on day 6. And it's clear these creatures carried the name nachash. Moses clearly uses the very same identical term for snakes—creatures with no legs and slither on their bellies. And yet scripture makes it clear Satan was this original creature. But somehow there has to be a connection between the two. An inciting similar to the inciting of the King and Tyre seems to fit well. If you read Ezek. 28 it is clear God is addressing the King of Tyre, and yet it is also clear he's addressing Satan and his fall in the Garden.

Bringing in jewish tradition, Josephus reported that a plurality of animals in the garden had the gift of language.

God therefore commanded that Adam and his wife should eat of all the rest of the plants, but to abstain from the tree of knowledge; and foretold to them, that, if they touched it, it would prove their destruction. But while all the living creatures had one language, at that time the serpent, which then lived together with Adam and his wife, showed an envious disposition, at his supposal of their living happily, and in obedience to the commands of God; and imagining, that when they disobeyed them, they would fall into calamities, he persuaded the woman, out of a malicious intention, to taste of the tree of knowledge, telling them, that in that tree was the knowledge of good and evil; which knowledge when they should obtain, they would lead a happy life, nay, a life not inferior to that of a god: by which means he overcame the woman, and persuaded her to despise the command of God. Now when she had tasted of that tree, and was pleased with its fruit, she persuaded Adam to make use of it also. —Antiq. 1:40-43​

According to his sources, they all shared one language. Now that certainly sounds incredible, and this is by no means scripture, but there is definitely a plausibility to it. Prelapsarian animals may have been worlds apart from the forms they were given immediately post-fall. They may have had an intelligence far beyond what they have today, and their forms in general may have been drastically different. He went on to speak of the removal of the snakes attributes of legs and speech.

He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to man; and suggested to them that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him that way: and when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, and made him go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground. —Antiq. 1:50​

Clearly the ancient jews and Moses considered the nachashiym to be snakes, and the original nachash to be the original snake, who underwent an amazing transformation. Prior to the fall, he was intelligent with the gift of language, and his original means of locomotion were legs. Again, Josephus is not authoritative, but some of these ancient traditional beliefs can be quite helpful, and complement scripture well. If the original prelapsarian animals were indeed intelligent and possessed the gift of speech, they would seem perfect candidates for the inciting tactics of the devil. If the snake could walk talk and persuade, what would make him any less useful than the king of Tyre, or any other human instrument?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hello everyone!

as a christian, I have been told that people who use snakes in their rituals are devil worshippers for the snake is the serpent of the garden of Eden; it used to have another shape but because of the curse in Genesis, the serpent has been turned into a snake; I believed that and no one could really tell me about the exact shape of the serpent before the curse until I came across the verses below:

Revelation 12:9
This great dragon⿿the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world⿿was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.

Revelation 20:2
He seized the dragon⿿that old serpent, who is the devil, Satan⿿and bound him in chains for a thousand years.

in the verses above, it is the "dragon" that is mentioned; we know that the curse in Genesis turned the serpent into snake; we also know that a dragon looks somehow like a dinosaure; nowaday we don't see dragons nor dinosaures, they've all disapeared mysteriously; and if the dragon is the serpent as the Bible states, could it be that the real explanation of this disapearance is the one given in the Bible? have dinosaures and dragons been turned into snakes? because if we refer to the curse in Genesis, women still give birth with pain, man(in different parts of the world) still struggles to get his daily bread; so my question is: is the snake(cobra and others) the devil? are snakes the ones making people of the world to lie, steal, kill,...? is the cobra Lucifer? the devil=the snake??

If interested,

There was actually another thread elsewhere on the issue which went into much detail/discussion on the identity of the serpent and you may find it beneficial to some of the concerns you've had. For more on the thread, it can be found at Death Before the Fall ( #24 , #37, #38, #54, & #59 ). Hope that helps and wishing you the best in your journey

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I no longer think the serpent in Genesis 3 was an animal, even a possessed one. Instead, I think he was a spiritual being of serpentine shape. And that he was one of the sons of God who had stopped shouting with joy at the creation of the earth after he saw Adam and Eve put in charge of the place.

I've been persuaded by Michael Heiser's argument, which can be found here.

Good article - as Heiser brought up some excellent points which often get overlooked in many respects.

 

[enlightened1]

By definition, a serpent is one who speaks enchantments or sorcery, or as it was in the case with Eve, a lie. For fact, Eve was deceived by the subtlety by the serpent, who, as the devil, also told the first lie (JN8:44): and, since there was only One Truth in the Beginning, which was the Commandment, then this lie had to be to Eve and had to be about the Commandment, which lie she believed and became deceived by.

If one compares GEN 2:16-17, which is the account of the LORD GOD telling Adam the Commandment, with GEN 3:2-3, which is what Eve quoted GOD has having said, then it is obvious that there is an added restriction not to touch the forbidden fruit, and Eve not only failed to use the name of the forbidden tree, but she incorrectly referenced it as being the only tree in the center of the Garden, when in fact there are two. Therefore, since Eve cannot be the first liar, this untruth (don't touch) is not the first time it was spoken, rather, it was spoke to her first, and she believed it.

If I convince a young child who does not know his colors that my blue car is yellow, then, because he did not know the truth about the colors, I was able to deceive him, and he had no clue he was being deceived. This is subtlety, and it is the exact same subtlety used by the serpent, because the serpent is not a snake, he is Adam, and he deceived Eve from the very Beginning. For when Adam told Eve the Commandment, he told her the very one she quoted, which had been added to, and diminished from, thereby perverting the truth. And Eve had no reason to doubt her husband, or believe he would lie.

Sorry, folks, but the party is over, and the Truth is upon you. You see, we were suppose to be the angels, but we all fell when Adam and Eve fell. Yet to those who overcome, they will appear as the angels of GOD in Paradise, with their flesh glorified into glorious light, regaining the Likeness of the Lord that Adam lost when he sinned (PS17:15; MT13:43.

P.S.
The serpent's curse (GEN 3:14) is the curse of sin upon all the serpent's seed (all humanity except JESUS since GOD is HIS Father, not Adam), and the curse to sleep.

 

[enlightened1]

The truth is so simple, people do not believe it. It seems they would rather have mystery and myth (snakes that talk), just as Paul said they would. Yet, by GEN 1-2, they cannot even prove GOD created beings called angels, apart for the man and woman. Would GOD lie or not be totally forthcoming? Why hide the TRUTH? The answer is HE did not, we have only allowed ourselves to be duped by the subtlest creature on the planet, which is man! If we accept only what GOD said concerning the Beginning, and reject all that man has said, then seeing the TRUTH is simple, because it is simple.

GOD bless all who truly desire to know the TRUTH.

 

[Calminian]

By definition, a serpent is one who speaks enchantments or sorcery, or as it was in the case with Eve, a lie. For fact, Eve was deceived by the subtlety by the serpent, who, as the devil, also told the first lie (JN8:44): and, since there was only One Truth in the Beginning, which was the Commandment, then this lie had to be to Eve and had to be about the Commandment, which lie she believed and became deceived by.

Okay, so let's test out this theory. Let's look at other passages that speak of the nacash (nahash) and see if your theory holds up.

Gen. 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way,
A viper by the path,
That bites the horse’s heels
So that its rider shall fall backward.

Ex. 4:3 And He said, “Cast it on the ground.” So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it.

Num. 21:6 So the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.

Num. 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD that He take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

Num. 21:9 So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.


Deut. 8:15 who led you through that great and terrible wilderness, in which were fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty land where there was no water; who brought water for you out of the flinty rock;

2Kings 18:4 He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.

Is. 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,”
Says the LORD.

Jer. 8:17 “For behold, I will send serpents among you,
Vipers which cannot be charmed,
And they shall bite you,” says the LORD.

Amos 5:19 It will be as though a man fled from a lion,
And a bear met him!
Or as though he went into the house,
Leaned his hand on the wall,
And a serpent bit him!

Amos 9:3 And though they hide themselves on top of Carmel,
From there I will search and take them;
Though they hide from My sight at the bottom of the sea,
From there I will command the serpent, and it shall bite them;

Mic. 7:17 They shall lick the dust like a serpent;
They shall crawl from their holes like snakes of the earth.
They shall be afraid of the LORD our God,
And shall fear because of You.

Psa. 58:4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent;
They are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear,

Psa. 140:3 They sharpen their tongues like a serpent;
The poison of asps is under their lips.
Selah

Prov. 23:32 At the last it bites like a serpent,
And stings like a viper.

Prov. 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air,
The way of a serpent on a rock,
The way of a ship in the midst of the sea,
And the way of a man with a virgin.

Eccl. 10:8 He who digs a pit will fall into it,
And whoever breaks through a wall will be bitten by a serpent.

Eccl. 10:11 A serpent may bite when it is not charmed;
The babbler is no different. ​

In all these verse above, your definition does not work. All of these are the same root word, nachash. And yet if you put "one who speaks enchantments" instead of serpent, the passages won't make any sense. Notice all the parallelisms with other names for snakes. In english we also have multiple names for snakes, serpents vipers cobras, asps, etc. The use of nachash with all these other terms shows the hebrews understood it as a parallel term.

Now it is true that the hebrew uses the word nachash to describe enchantment or sorcery based on the original snake's behavior. An ultra literal translation might be snakery or serpentry which would be understood is sorcery to the hebrew reader. But since in english we don't have such a derived term, we translate it as sorcery or enchantment. But that doesn't erase the normal usage of that word, it merely adds to its meaning in certain contexts. But you look at the verses above, you see that the only valid translation in those cases is serpent or snake.

Now we do sometimes use the term snake in english to describe a swindler or sometimes an unfaithful cheating spouse, etc. So even in english we'll use the term snake in a non-literal meaning. But that doesn't negate the normal usage of the term to describe an animal that goes about on its belly.

 

[enlightened1]

Okay, so let's test out this theory. Let's look at other passages that speak of the nacash (nahash) and see if your theory holds up.

Gen. 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way,
A viper by the path,
That bites the horse’s heels
So that its rider shall fall backward.

Ex. 4:3 And He said, “Cast it on the ground.” So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it.

Num. 21:6 So the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.

Num. 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD that He take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

Num. 21:9 So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.


Deut. 8:15 who led you through that great and terrible wilderness, in which were fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty land where there was no water; who brought water for you out of the flinty rock;

2Kings 18:4 He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.

Is. 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,”
Says the LORD.

Jer. 8:17 “For behold, I will send serpents among you,
Vipers which cannot be charmed,
And they shall bite you,” says the LORD.

Amos 5:19 It will be as though a man fled from a lion,
And a bear met him!
Or as though he went into the house,
Leaned his hand on the wall,
And a serpent bit him!

Amos 9:3 And though they hide themselves on top of Carmel,
From there I will search and take them;
Though they hide from My sight at the bottom of the sea,
From there I will command the serpent, and it shall bite them;

Mic. 7:17 They shall lick the dust like a serpent;
They shall crawl from their holes like snakes of the earth.
They shall be afraid of the LORD our God,
And shall fear because of You.

Psa. 58:4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent;
They are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear,

Psa. 140:3 They sharpen their tongues like a serpent;
The poison of asps is under their lips.
Selah

Prov. 23:32 At the last it bites like a serpent,
And stings like a viper.

Prov. 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air,
The way of a serpent on a rock,
The way of a ship in the midst of the sea,
And the way of a man with a virgin.

Eccl. 10:8 He who digs a pit will fall into it,
And whoever breaks through a wall will be bitten by a serpent.

Eccl. 10:11 A serpent may bite when it is not charmed;
The babbler is no different.
​

In all these verse above, your definition does not work. All of these are the same root word, nachash. And yet if you put "one who speaks enchantments" instead of serpent, the passages won't make any sense. Notice all the parallelisms with other names for snakes. In english we also have multiple names for snakes, serpents vipers cobras, asps, etc. The use of nachash with all these other terms shows the hebrews understood it as a parallel term.

Now it is true that the hebrew uses the word nachash to describe enchantment or sorcery based on the original snake's behavior. An ultra literal translation might be snakery or serpentry which would be understood is sorcery to the hebrew reader. But since in english we don't have such a derived term, we translate it as sorcery or enchantment. But that doesn't erase the normal usage of that word, it merely adds to its meaning in certain contexts. But you look at the verses above, you see that the only valid translation in those cases is serpent or snake.

Now we do sometimes use the term snake in english to describe a swindler or sometimes an unfaithful cheating spouse, etc. So even in english we'll use the term snake in a non-literal meaning. But that doesn't negate the normal usage of the term to describe an animal that goes about on its belly.

You have proven nothing at all, but I know you think you have. Let's test out your theory that the serpent was a snake. For a fact, snakes do not talk, and nowhere is scripture does it say the devil had the power to make animals talk; therefore, you believe in myth and fable, but not the truth.

 

[Calminian]

You have proven nothing at all, but I know you think you have. Let's test out your theory that the serpent was a snake. For a fact, snakes do not talk, and nowhere is scripture does it say the devil had the power to make animals talk; therefore, you believe in myth and fable, but not the truth.

Nor do donkeys. Does that mean we also throw out the account of Balaam's ass (Num. 22)? Dead men don't rise from the dead after 4 days (Lazarus) nor 3 days (Jesus). Do we throw that out as myth as well. This is a very poor line of reasoning.

You see, all we know is that today animals do not talk. But we weren't around for the original creation. We don't know what prelapsarian animals were like that lived in the Garden with Adam and Eve. All the animals may have been able to talk for all we know. We do know that the snake was altered as a result of the curse, and no longer moved upright, but went forth on his belly. According to jewish tradition, the snake lost his legs. Could God have also taken away its speech? interestingly, Jewish tradition says just that, that the serpent lost it's legs and speech.

Now my previous post merely took to task your assertion that nachash only means sorcery and not serpent. I merely gave you some very conclusive evidence why that cannot be true. Since you have no reply, I would say it at least stopped you from making that claim.

 

[frogman2x]

..in the verses above, it is the "dragon" that is mentioned; we know that the curse in Genesis turned the serpent into snake;,,

The curse did not turn the serpent into a snake "Serpent" is a metaphore for Satan.

Look at Ezk 28:12-14:

Here we have an alegory about Satan.

This is not abaout the king of tyre for at least 2 reasons: He was not in the garden of Eden and he was not a Cherub.

There was only 4 people in the garden, God, Adam and Eve and the serpent but making the king of Tyre part of the allegory, he musts represent Satan.

Also notice in verse 14 who put him in the garden---God. If you read verse 14 in the NIV it seems to make satan's original purpose was to be Adam and Eve's guardian angel.

Even in the NASB it says "you were the anointed cherub who covers and "covers" should be translatged protects."


>> is the cobra Lucifer? the devil=the snake?? <<

I don't know know where you are getting "cobra." The serpent in Geneis is the devil, satan and Lucifer and the draqgon of Revelation.

kermit

 

[Calminian]

..in the verses above, it is the "dragon" that is mentioned; we know that the curse in Genesis turned the serpent into snake;,,

The curse did not turn the serpent into a snake "Serpent" is a metaphore for Satan.

Look at Ezk 28:12-14:

Here we have an alegory about Satan.

This is not abaout the king of tyre for at least 2 reasons: He was not in the garden of Eden and he was not a Cherub.

There was only 4 people in the garden, God, Adam and Eve and the serpent but making the king of Tyre part of the allegory, he musts represent Satan.

Also notice in verse 14 who put him in the garden---God. If you read verse 14 in the NIV it seems to make satan's original purpose was to be Adam and Eve's guardian angel.

Even in the NASB it says "you were the anointed cherub who covers and "covers" should be translatged protects."


>> is the cobra Lucifer? the devil=the snake?? <<

I don't know know where you are getting "cobra." The serpent in Geneis is the devil, satan and Lucifer and the draqgon of Revelation.

kermit

No, the serpent is not a cobra, but it is one of the several words in scripture used as a parallel for snake. Do you know what hebrew parallelism is? The Serpent was not a person, nor even the devil incarnate, but a real snake, like a cobra, or viper, etc.

In fact, the king of Tyre helps to illustrate how this worked, and in what sense the serpent was Satan. For just as Satan incited the king of Tyre to the point where Satan was identified as the king of Tyre, so he also incited the snake. The point of the revelation in Ezekiel was to point out that while it was the king of Tyre being spoken of, the true mind behind his actions was the devil. Inciting men is what he does. He incited David to number the people. He incited Peter to oppose the plan of Christ, to which Christ replied to Peter "get behind thee Satan." Likewise, in the Garden before the fall he incited an intelligent animal to beguile Eve. Makes perfect sense as there were no other humans around at that time, and the animals were much different than today.

But again, if you look at the usage of the term nachash in the O.T. it is very often used to describe a snake. That is its normal meaning, and the basis of its figurative meanings.

 

[purity2holiness]

No, the serpent is not a cobra, but it is one of the several words in scripture used as a parallel for snake. Do you know what hebrew parallelism is? The Serpent was not a person, nor even the devil incarnate, but a real snake, like a cobra, or viper, etc.

In fact, the king of Tyre helps to illustrate how this worked, and in what sense the serpent was Satan. For just as Satan incited the king of Tyre to the point where Satan was identified as the king of Tyre, so he also incited the snake. The point of the revelation in Ezekiel was to point out that while it was the king of Tyre being spoken of, the true mind behind his actions was the devil. Inciting men is what he does. He incited David to number the people. He incited Peter to oppose the plan of Christ, to which Christ replied to Peter "get behind thee Satan." Likewise, in the Garden before the fall he incited an intelligent animal to beguile Eve. Makes perfect sense as there were no other humans around at that time, and the animals were much different than today.

But again, if you look at the usage of the term nachash in the O.T. it is very often used to describe a snake. That is its normal meaning, and the basis of its figurative meanings.

what?? the serpent is not a cobra? but you will agree that a cobra is a serpent? is it one way only?? and when the serpent was cursed, he became the snake we know, a cobra is a snake unless that God created snakes when he created the animals and the serpent was turned into a specific snake or into another shape; but if snakes com from the original serpent, then a cobra is a serpent therefore the devil or satan; I don't see why you don't understand my point; why would devil worshipers use snakes in their worships? it is as if identifying a snake as devil embarasses some people here;

 

[SkyWriting]

what?? the serpent is not a cobra? but you will agree that a cobra is a serpent? is it one way only?? and when the serpent was cursed, he became the snake we know, a cobra is a snake unless that God created snakes when he created the animals and the serpent was turned into a specific snake or into another shape; but if snakes com from the original serpent, then a cobra is a serpent therefore the devil or satan; I don't see why you don't understand my point; why would devil worshipers use snakes in their worships? it is as if identifying a snake as devil embarasses some people here;

The serpent was in the Garden of Eden. Many things
existed only there and nowhere else. Then the gates
were closed after man was cast out.