TotD: Was the serpent in Genesis Satan?

[Desert Snake]

Though, you'd then need reason for the lie being there. The understanding of the people upholding the text's authenticity, over the span of it's existence, say that God hasn't and even can't lie.

There was no lie, perhaps you need to read Genesis again.

 

[Pegg]

Ok...I can deal with it.

Humans afterall, are little more than talking monkeys.

But I look to this topic thread as a focus on Man in the Garden.
God walks with Adam....and Eve is talking to the Advesary.

the genesis account does not say that God was with Adam while Eve was talking to the serpent.

God had a certain time of the day when he would come into the garden...it was in 'the breezy part of the day'

And according to the account, God came 'later' after they had both sinned and asked them what they were doing.

 

[Sleeppy]

There was no lie, perhaps you need to read Genesis again.

I remember Genesis. Perhaps, you've misread my post, friend?

 

[Desert Snake]

I remember Genesis. Perhaps, you've misread my post, friend?

Ah, we're in agreement then.
Something else, the punishment that was given to the snake in no way fits the usual description of Satan and his characteristics anywhere else in the Bible. The "the snake was Satan" crowd is obfuscating at this point.

 

[McBell]

Ah, we're in agreement then.
Something else, the punishment that was given to the snake in no way fits the usual description of Satan and his characteristics anywhere else in the Bible. The "the snake was Satan" crowd is obfuscating at this point.

Or suffering from a case of Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[Sleeppy]

Ah, we're in agreement then.
Something else, the punishment that was given to the snake in no way fits the usual description of Satan and his characteristics anywhere else in the Bible. The "the snake was Satan" crowd is obfuscating at this point.

It's much easier to come to the conclusion that Satan had part in the events of Eden, using Christian scripture. How literal the events or characters are to be taken, is difficult. For this reason, there is a lot of debate. Is Satan a personification of temptation, and/or an actual being?

 

[Desert Snake]

Is Satan a personification of temptation, and/or an actual being?

I'm not sure, but the leap from snake to Satan is just unfounded in scripture. Theologically it poses problems, one of which, being, the snake is not made out to be pure evil, rather cunning, whereas Satan is made out to be pure evil. So, do you want Satan to have almost likeable attributes, such as telling Eve the truth??
I wouldn't go labeling every negative character in the Bible as Satan unless you want those character traits to represent who you are saying Satan is.

 

[Wolfborne]

...whereas Satan is made out to be pure evil.

Judaism might disagree with you on that. They can clarify their position better than I can, but I have read that there is a belief amongst (some) Jews that since God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent:

1. God created everything including Satan.
2. Satan is following God's orders to try and test us to see if we will sin or not.
3. Satan can't do anything without God's permission.

Obviously this would be based off the OT.

 

[Desert Snake]

Judaism might disagree with you on that. They can clarify their position better than I can, but I have read that there is a belief amongst (some) Jews that since God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent:

1. God created everything including Satan.
2. Satan is following God's orders to try and test us to see if we will sin or not.
3. Satan can't do anything without God's permission.

Obviously this would be based off the OT.

Good point, there isn't just one view on who Satan is.

 

[Walkntune]

I believe it is part prophecy of the fall of man and man coming back to God.Satan only bruised her heel in the fall of man but through her seed Satan was going to be crushed.The serpent is representative as Satan who tempts and causes the fall of man.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm not sure, but the leap from snake to Satan is just unfounded in scripture. Theologically it poses problems, one of which, being, the snake is not made out to be pure evil, rather cunning, whereas Satan is made out to be pure evil. So, do you want Satan to have almost likeable attributes, such as telling Eve the truth??
I wouldn't go labeling every negative character in the Bible as Satan unless you want those character traits to represent who you are saying Satan is.

There is no such thing as pure evil. "Evil," itself is a description of things undesireable/contrary to a perceived goodwill. It's all perspective. As outlined in Genesis, among other scripture, God's perspective/will is God (specifically called Father). So, when God created in His likeness, His response was, "good" and even "very good." Again, though these creations were given these descriptions, they were created as limited beings, within limited space and time, and given limited goodwill according to their limited appointed purposes.


God's will for each being and instant progresses constantly. In other words, God is always doing something. Really, an infinite number of somethings at any instant, and we are the results of some things done, being done, and to be done. There is no actual evil - only perceptions, which are according to appointed limitations and purpose. And this was summarized with "there is one God."

 

[Awoon]

The "serpent" eats dust and so do Humans. Humans=Serpent=Humans=Serpent.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Though, you'd then need reason for the lie being there. The understanding of the people upholding the text's authenticity, over the span of it's existence, say that God hasn't and even can't lie. So, according to your understanding, why would the author accredit a lie to the overseer and Creator of the creations involved? Then have the event continue as if God's words were truthful?

I know that's what people say about him; they say that because they are conditioned to leave all trust in an imperious leader about whom nothing bad can be said. You are not allowed to say it. In conversations here an elsewhere the blind-spot of being able to even consider the idea is often obvious.

I am saying that the book itself does not state it is a lie, and such an idea is preposterous. But examining the events shows that it is a lie. The deduction is obvious when you remove the praising voice of the general narrator.

the bible is God's spin-book, so it is never going to tell you when God does something bad.

Would a politician tell you he himself is lying in a speech?

Look at the deeds, not just at the words.

 

[Sleeppy]

I know that's what people say about him; they say that because they are conditioned to leave all trust in an imperious leader about whom nothing bad can be said. You are not allowed to say it. In conversations here an elsewhere the blind-spot of being able to even consider the idea is often obvious.

I am saying that the book itself does not state it is a lie, and such an idea is preposterous. But examining the events shows that it is a lie. The deduction is obvious when you remove the praising voice of the general narrator.

the bible is God's spin-book, so it is never going to tell you when God does something bad.

Would a politician tell you he himself is lying in a speech?

Look at the deeds, not just at the words.

Though you deeply misunderstand me. Not allowed is correct, and I had not known until I had already had my understanding. I don't see evil. For what? To curse my life and the lives around me? I never saw point in that, so I eventually moved away from it to survive a little better and with peace. And I've found it to be true. And while it may seem to you a lie, it doesn't to me. Day is used for varying lengths of time. You know that. In that day, that's how they spoke. In that day, this is what the understanding was. In that day they ate of the wrong tree and eventually - dying, they died. God had said, In the day they ate "Dying, [they would] die." That day, they began dying. Was it the eighth day? Was it a lesser day? These are the types of things that should be considered in your mind, when you're really examining something. Consider that these are different perspectives of time and space being relayed to you. You don't stop at the first perspective you meet, you should test a few for the best fit.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Though you deeply misunderstand me. Not allowed is correct, and I had not known until I had already had my understanding. I don't see evil. For what? To curse my life and the lives around me? I never saw point in that, so I eventually moved away from it to survive a little better and with peace. And I've found it to be true. And while it may seem to you a lie, it doesn't to me. Day is used for varying lengths of time. You know that. In that day, that's how they spoke. In that day, this is what the understanding was. In that day they ate of the wrong tree and eventually - dying, they died. God had said, In the day they ate "Dying, [they would] die." That day, they began dying. Was it the eighth day? Was it a lesser day? These are the types of things that should be considered in your mind, when you're really examining something. Consider that these are different perspectives of time and space being relayed to you. You don't stop at the first perspective you meet, you should test a few for the best fit.

Testing a few for the best fit? You mean trying things that weren't meant, until the falsehood goes away? No thank you.

There was no 'eventually' said nor implied.

Day is not used for varying lengths to such a degree as to increase by a factor of 3,650,000. Why would God wax so deceptively poetic at that particular moment, hm? I again call attention to the - let us say, tellingly unanswered - question I posed: if threatened with consequences of death a thousand years hence, would that matter to you at all, the day you were warned?

Or are you suggesting that Genesis is not getting God's actual quotes down?

Because if that's the case....

Often apologetics are in fact, removing context all-together, until it can create one where the meaning of what is actually there, can be shifted to a less horrible explanation.

 

[Sleeppy]

Testing a few for the best fit? You mean trying things that weren't meant, until the falsehood goes away? No thank you.

There was no 'eventually' said nor implied.

Day is not used for varying lengths to such a degree as to increase by a factor of 3,650,000. Why would God wax so deceptively poetic at that particular moment, hm? I again call attention to the - let us say, tellingly unanswered - question I posed: if threatened with consequences of death a thousand years hence, would that matter to you at all, the day you were warned?

Or are you suggesting that Genesis is not getting God's actual quotes down?

Because if that's the case....

Often apologetics are in fact, removing context all-together, until it can create one where the meaning of what is actually there, can be shifted to a less horrible explanation.

I say eventually because you, among others, act as if 'die' isn't a verb. 'It's what you do!' And what is done takes time. Hence, 'eventual.' Understood?

What about the word 'dying?' What is it's definition? To die? Or do you have some other understanding?

As far as the fact that humans wrote the texts, Why is it somehow beyond them to have a communication gap with people several thousand years into the future, with a totally differing language and lifestyle?

You can't fool me. I don't know how you fooled yourself but, they're are 7 creation days mentioned directly before this event. I don't know how many people actually believe, especially in our time, that these days were the same in length to our current day or some other civilization's understanding of a day. It takes a little arrogance to assume and leave it at that. That's much like believing that everything revolves around the Earth. Your perspective doesn't matter until it's actually aligned with the right one.

 

[Thief]

the genesis account does not say that God was with Adam while Eve was talking to the serpent.

God had a certain time of the day when he would come into the garden...it was in 'the breezy part of the day'

And according to the account, God came 'later' after they had both sinned and asked them what they were doing.

You're attempting a shallow grammar knee jerk to circumvent.

It remains.....
God walked with Adam...
Eve and the serpent had a conversation....
Adam wasn't there to hear it.

Are you attempting to deny the gensis of Man and the play of the spiritual characters
in that event?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There was no 'eventually' said nor implied.

Yes, in fact there was. And, in fact, it was argued by one of the leading leading and world renown Biblical translators (Alter) and one of the leading and world renown commentators (Plaut). Yet you, grossly unqualified to compare yourself favorably to either of these gentleman, simply dismiss them them out of hand. It's truly pathetic.

 

[darkendless]

Yes, in fact there was. And, in fact, it was argued by one of the leading leading and world renown Biblical translators (Alter) and one of the leading and world renown commentators (Plaut). Yet you, grossly unqualified to compare yourself favorably to either of these gentleman, simply dismiss them them out of hand. It's truly pathetic.

Still can't go a single post without having a crack at someone Jay?

Come on, play nicely.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Still can't go a single post without having a crack at someone Jay?

Come on, play nicely.

Whine less.