Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[busterdog]

Eve was a mental midget, child-like. She didn't know good from evil.

Careful now, unlike your Star Trek friends, Eve walked in the same garden as God. You think that might have rubbed off just a little?

 

[busterdog]

I'm going to go with.... there was no talking snake.

*cue mark kennedy* "That denies the gospel!"

That was helpful.

I will say it for him.

Is it any surprise that you have only a part of the gospel and deny a part of it every single day? It shouldn't be. It is quite obvious to me that I do the same. And you just did it here.

Mark would never say that you can't receive the grace and forgiveness of the gospel because of such things. Hopefully that is not where you were going. But, yes, it does deny some of the gospel and I would think he would agree.

 

[busterdog]

This is a common misconception. Satan as we know him was not developed until the post-exilic community. When the Israelites were under captivity they had enormous theological influence from the Persians and developed the Zoroastrianism concept of duality. That's why the character in Job is called ha satan - "the satan" meaning "the adversary". Even though we have what the NT identifies as being Satan, the serpent in Genesis was nothing of the sort to the Israelites at that time.

Begging some enormous questions:

1. Did Moses write or receive Genesis?

2. Job was evidently as old a story as any. Satan is as fully formed there as anywhere in the Bible.

3. What of al these brazen serpents in the wilderness as a type of sin and the crucifixion of sin? Was that a lucky guess or a later editorial comment?

Once you dispose of the idea that the Bible is accurate in a number of its major suppositions, you can proceed to conclusions at will.

Having done so, you can also accuse Jude of creating the following out of whole cloth:

Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

And you can argue that Jesus (or those who invented him later) didn't understand anything either:

Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

How about Isaiah 14? That was not post exile.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Begging some enormous questions:

1. Did Moses write or receive Genesis?

Neither. He probably received a portion of it and edited it, but I think there are passages that were written after Moses' death.

2. Job was evidently as old a story as any. Satan is as fully formed there as anywhere in the Bible.

No, actually he isn't. You'll notice the "ha" before satan in the original Hebrew, meaning the adversary. This wasn't a name, but more of an epithet. Have you also noticed that "the satan" comes to God with the angels? Are we to assume these are actually fallen angels now? No, this is the proverbial "trickster".

3. What of al these brazen serpents in the wilderness as a type of sin and the crucifixion of sin? Was that a lucky guess or a later editorial comment?

What exactly are you referring to? John 3:14? I'd say that is a later editorial comment.

The brazen serpent was originally created to cure snake bites...

Once you dispose of the idea that the Bible is accurate in a number of its major suppositions, you can proceed to conclusions at will.

The Bible doesn't claim to be historically or scientifically accurate, BD. You assume I'm proceeding to conclusions at will, but I'm really just informing you of anthropological discoveries of the ANE culture.

 

[Assyrian]

This is a common misconception. Satan as we know him was not developed until the post-exilic community. When the Israelites were under captivity they had enormous theological influence from the Persians and developed the Zoroastrianism concept of duality. That's why the character in Job is called ha satan - "the satan" meaning "the adversary". Even though we have what the NT identifies as being Satan, the serpent in Genesis was nothing of the sort to the Israelites at that time.

I think we are dealing with two threads of biblical revelation here, Satan as you point out is a much more recent idea than the Genesis creation account (not that that means Satan is recent...)

However there is a much older stream of revelation in scripture, that of Leviathan, the twisting serpent, the ancient apocalyptic enemy of God. It looks like the story of the Eden serpent opposing God is either based on the idea of Leviathan, or the Leviathan references are drawn from the Genesis account, interpreting the serpent not as a literal snake but as God's spiritual enemy.

It was only in much later in the bible that the two streams are explicitly linked, that the serpent of Eden is specifically identified with that other stream of revelation, that the serpent was Satan Rev 12:9 & 20:2.

Anyway, the bible tells us the serpent in the Garden of Eden was an angel, Satan, it was not an a talking animal.

 

[PaladinValer]

There are no such things as dragons.

There are no such things as couatl.

Let myth be myth, and let us learn the moral and spiritual truths from them always.

 

[gluadys]

How about Isaiah 14? That was not post exile.

And it is about the king of Babylon, later interpreted to be a type of Satan.

For the rest, I agree with ScottishFury and Assyrian.

 

[Citanul]

I always just thought he presumed himself to be a T-Rex.

Wasn't that Marc Bolan?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

That was helpful.

I will say it for him.

Is it any surprise that you have only a part of the gospel and deny a part of it every single day? It shouldn't be. It is quite obvious to me that I do the same. And you just did it here.

Mark would never say that you can't receive the grace and forgiveness of the gospel because of such things. Hopefully that is not where you were going. But, yes, it does deny some of the gospel and I would think he would agree.

Oh c'mon.

Just people a person denies the historicity of a talking snake doesn't mean they deny the historical nature of Adam's fall.

And just because a person denies that all people are descended from Adam doesn't mean that his failure hasn't condemned all of us.

And just because some others don't believe in a real Adam doesn't mean that all cannot inherently be sinful.

These aren't intricate pieces of the puzzle. A person can disbelieve in these and still cling to the fullness of the gospel- the universal need of all humans from conception for salvation, and the provision of that salvation in Jesus Christ.

This 'gospel denial' nonsense is getting really old.

 

[busterdog]

This 'gospel denial' nonsense is getting really old.

My post was pretty clear on this. All people do it in one way or another.

Act 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.

I don't know anyone who declares it all without error anymore. Everyone is denying some of it.

Mat 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

That is the Gospel. What God says will not pass away. None of it. Deny any of it and you have denied the gospel in part. Obviously if you are going to make that mistake, better to do it with Genesis 3 than John 3:16.

This obviously begs the question of which of us has a better handle on talking snakes.

Taking a cheap shot at Mark, by extension, is denying part of the gospel.

 

[crawfish]

Careful now, unlike your Star Trek friends, Eve walked in the same garden as God. You think that might have rubbed off just a little?

Actually, the bible is remarkably silent on the subject, save that Eve was innocent.

My personal view on the whole snake thing is allegorical (of course). Satan rebelled by convincing A&E to sin, and as punishment his status as a divine being was terminated - akin to cutting one's legs off.

 

[busterdog]

Actually, the bible is remarkably silent on the subject, save that Eve was innocent.

Well, its not very direct, I suppose. But, revisit the whole God walking in the Garden and Adam and Eve hiding from God thing. How does one live without death if not in the presense of God?

You want to make that metaphorical? I guess you get to have your own opinion.

My personal view on the whole snake thing is allegorical (of course). Satan rebelled by convincing A&E to sin, and as punishment his status as a divine being was terminated - akin to cutting one's legs off.

Not an unreasonable metaphor. But, the Bible is usually much more apt in its metaphors. They usually work better on many levels for key events like this. How about the tree of life? The serpent as sin? Much better metaphors that the loss of legs.

 

[crawfish]

Well, its not very direct, I suppose. But, revisit the whole God walking in the Garden and Adam and Eve hiding from God thing. How does one live without death if not in the presense of God?

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that we have no evidence that God gave them any prenatural intelligence. In other words, no need to add assumptions that lie outside of scripture to try and understand other scripture.

Not an unreasonable metaphor. But, the Bible is usually much more apt in its metaphors. They usually work better on many levels for key events like this. How about the tree of life? The serpent as sin? Much better metaphors that the loss of legs.

It's just one small part of a larger story. I do believe that most of this stuff is quite simple when you get around to it.

 

[busterdog]

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that we have no evidence that God gave them any prenatural intelligence. In other words, no need to add assumptions that lie outside of scripture to try and understand other scripture.

OK.

Well, lets go back to the Eve was dumb thing. Which assumption is worse? Mine or that one?

Their eyes were open and they took the knowledge of good and evil.

What they "knew" before their eyes were opened is pretty speculative. But, unless you are going to say that Eden was just a better version of Club Med (ie, fallen in the sense that sickness and death had entered), isn't there a case to be made for the proposition that in a way their knowledge was superior because it was not confused with a fallen reality?

Making the pre-fall and post-fall comparison is pretty difficult. The Eve was dumb comment however must miss it completely. Saying they were subtle or educated or wise (as the world measures wisdom) is something obviously wrong. The text does make a good case for the idea that whatever "knowledge" they had before was BETTER than what they had after the fall, even if it was less sophisticated.

Going back to your metaphor point, the "legless" serpent apparently attends Court with the other sons of God in Job 1, 2. He announces that he has been "walking" up and down the earth where he pleases. Do you think he was a wise guy? Does your metaphor still work? Did he find another body? Is that why dinosaurs are extinct (messing with you)?

 

[artybloke]

Begging some enormous questions:

1. Did Moses write or receive Genesis?

No. Next question.

2. Job was evidently as old a story as any. Satan is as fully formed there as anywhere in the Bible.

The word was ha-satan, meaning the adversary. It was a literary device in a story, a kind of devil's advocate figure.

3. What of al these brazen serpents in the wilderness as a type of sin and the crucifixion of sin? Was that a lucky guess or a later editorial comment?

Proabably a later editorial comment.

 

[crawfish]

OK.

Well, lets go back to the Eve was dumb thing. Which assumption is worse? Mine or that one?

Their eyes were open and they took the knowledge of good and evil.

What they "knew" before their eyes were opened is pretty speculative. But, unless you are going to say that Eden was just a better version of Club Med (ie, fallen in the sense that sickness and death had entered), isn't there a case to be made for the proposition that in a way their knowledge was superior because it was not confused with a fallen reality?

Making the pre-fall and post-fall comparison is pretty difficult. The Eve was dumb comment however must miss it completely. Saying they were subtle or educated or wise (as the world measures wisdom) is something obviously wrong. The text does make a good case for the idea that whatever "knowledge" they had before was BETTER than what they had after the fall, even if it was less sophisticated.

I'll buy that. Of course, the "eyes were open" refers to their ability to distinguish sin from righteousness, not arcane knowledge. There is no evidence that it went any farther than that.

Going back to your metaphor point, the "legless" serpent apparently attends Court with the other sons of God in Job 1, 2. He announces that he has been "walking" up and down the earth where he pleases. Do you think he was a wise guy? Does your metaphor still work? Did he find another body? Is that why dinosaurs are extinct (messing with you)?

Obviously, I take the snake account as parable. I also lean to the belief that the account of Job is also a parable. However, Satan falling as divinity doesn't mean that he is no longer a supernatural being; simply that he is no longer part of the host of heaven.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Going back to your metaphor point, the "legless" serpent apparently attends Court with the other sons of God in Job 1, 2. He announces that he has been "walking" up and down the earth where he pleases. Do you think he was a wise guy? Does your metaphor still work? Did he find another body? Is that why dinosaurs are extinct (messing with you)?

When Job was written, these two characters were not considered the same. They were completely separate. As I've already noted, the idea of Satan as the fallen archangel did not come until much later. The name Lucifer probably isn't even Satan's real name. The term lucifer came from Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of helel meaning "bright or brilliant one" in the very passage of Isaiah you mentioned earlier. That's the only time Lucifer is ever mention in the entire Bible. The only English translation with Lucifer in it is the KJV which is based on the Latin Vulgate. Later scholars put the emphasis of The Devil into these passages.

Even if they were the same, I assume you think he "walked" up and down the earth just as God "walked" through the garden? Joseph Smith hasn't been visiting you in your dreams, has he?

 

[busterdog]

I'll buy that. Of course, the "eyes were open" refers to their ability to distinguish sin from righteousness, not arcane knowledge. There is no evidence that it went any farther than that.

That's kind of what I thought for many years. I am not sure "distinguish from" is in the Hebrew as opposed to "knowledge of ... and ..." One suggestion of the technology statement is the change in Adam's occupation from supervisor to plowman. He wasn't picking, now he was planting. He was "doing for himself."

Obviously, I take the snake account as parable. I also lean to the belief that the account of Job is also a parable. However, Satan falling as divinity doesn't mean that he is no longer a supernatural being; simply that he is no longer part of the host of heaven.

I just never get completely comfortable with your metaphor. It just seems not to say enough.

 

[busterdog]

When Job was written, these two characters were not considered the same. They were completely separate. As I've already noted, the idea of Satan as the fallen archangel did not come until much later. The name Lucifer probably isn't even Satan's real name. The term lucifer came from Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of helel meaning "bright or brilliant one" in the very passage of Isaiah you mentioned earlier. That's the only time Lucifer is ever mention in the entire Bible. The only English translation with Lucifer in it is the KJV which is based on the Latin Vulgate. Later scholars put the emphasis of The Devil into these passages.

Even if they were the same, I assume you think he "walked" up and down the earth just as God "walked" through the garden? Joseph Smith hasn't been visiting you in your dreams, has he?

Joseph Smith. Hmm.

Well, walking means walking to me.

As for the Nachash, thinkg Bilbo Baggins meets the dragon.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/image.cfm?img=0842425F49DB3E98C988C431CE628C301

 

[Scotishfury09]

Joseph Smith. Hmm.

Well, walking means walking to me.

As for the Nachash, thinkg Bilbo Baggins meets the dragon.

Who let the wild donkey go free?
Who untied his ropes? I gave him the wasteland as his home,
the salt flats as his habitat.
He laughs at the commotion in the town;
he does not hear a driver's shout.


Job 39:5-7


I assume laughing means laughing to you too?