TotD: Was the serpent in Genesis Satan?

[CDWolfe]

now you are moving the goal posts.

i never said, hinted, or even implied that the scholars claimed to be right.

Nice try though.

If you did not assume that those ""numerous Christian scholars" (there were over 20)" were right, then why did you bring them up in the first place?
And then you go out of your way to include the "over 20" part.
As if that somehow further shows that your assumption they are right is correct.=

You know what, the NASB is correct. The scholars that worked on it are correct. It is God's word translated as literal as possible into the English language for all Christians to enjoy. That is my belief and I won't be swayed from it. I'll leave it up to you to try and come up with some concrete evidence proving otherwise. Your attempts will be futile as there is no way you can replace my personal faith and system of beliefs.

Moving on.

 

[McBell]

You know what, the NASB is correct. The scholars that worked on it are correct. It is God's word translated as literal as possible into the English language for all Christians to enjoy. That is my belief and I won't be swayed from it. I'll leave it up to you to try and come up with some concrete evidence proving otherwise. Your attempts will be futile as there is no way you can replace my personal faith and system of beliefs.

Moving on.

I was not challenging your beliefs.
regardless of how badly you want me to be.
I was merely pointing out your blatant hypocrisy.
I shall attempt to remember that one needs tip toe around your fragile faith.

 

[Sleeppy]

Interesting.
Does this apply to yourself as well?

Knowledge says that I am not God, or all knowing.

 

[McBell]

Knowledge says that I am not God, or all knowing.

Does ALL of it apply to you as well?

 

[Primi Agminis]

...skipping over the rest of the garbage...

OP: no, I do not believe it was Satan. Pics or it didn't happen!

 

[Primi Agminis]

...I prefer the NASB as it is the most literal word for word translation into English for Christians to study by...

Actually the most literal English translation (which is more accurate than a dynamic or paraphrased version) would be an Interlinear Bible, but reading one can be confusing as sentence structure doesn't make sense when converting from Greek/Hebrew/Latin/German/whatever to English "word for word."

Aside from that, yes the NASB is widely regarded as the most accurate literal translation in English.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hebrew. Most of the Bible would be Hebrew to English.

 

[Primi Agminis]

Hebrew. Most of the Bible would be Hebrew to English.

Actually it would be more like Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek if you really want to get right down to it. Latin also plays a large role (The Latin Vulgate feeding the KJV) as does the German language. Heck, some modern versions are actually translated from French (i.e. New Jerusalem Bible).

Then again, it depends on which sources the translators chose to utilize. But for historical accuracy, go to the oldest source you can find.

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually it would be more like Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek if you really want to get right down to it. Latin also plays a large role (The Latin Vulgate feeding the KJV) as does the German language. Heck, some modern versions are actually translated from French (i.e. New Jerusalem Bible).

Then again, it depends on which sources the translators chose to utilize. But for historical accuracy, go to the oldest source you can find.

Some Aramaic and some Greek.
I'm hoping those translaters are comparing those languages agains't the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek or we are going to have some screwy versions of the Bible out there.

 

[Primi Agminis]

Some Aramaic and some Greek.
I'm hoping those translaters are comparing those languages agains't the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek or we are going to have some screwy versions of the Bible out there.

That is the sad truth about Bible translations. There are several versions that do not. They take the KJV and change words using modern language, as well as make it easier to understand or paraphrase certain things. Once that happens, you get into a version that is not as accurate as say, the NASB or any other literal translation. This is where they are classified as dynamic or paraphrased versions.

Some take it a step further and create a new bible for their religion, claim divine inspiration and that their authors were anointed (which does not mean squat) and produce something that has been altered to reflect their views. This is a very troublesome area, and in more than one "religion" it can be viewed as an occult.

Why so many translations? There's big $$$ in religion. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations and if you wish to use it, you have to pay them $$$. It is more cost effective to just do your own version w/o plagiarism (the KJV does not have a copyright, therefore it gets used all the time, as erroneous as it is).

 

[Desert Snake]

That is the sad truth about Bible translations. There are several versions that do not. They take the KJV and change words using modern language, as well as make it easier to understand or paraphrase certain things. Once that happens, you get into a version that is not as accurate as say, the NASB or any other literal translation. This is where they are classified as dynamic or paraphrased versions.

Some take it a step further and create a new bible for their religion, claim divine inspiration and that their authors were anointed (which does not mean squat) and produce something that has been altered to reflect their views. This is a very troublesome area, and in more than one "religion" it can be viewed as an occult.

Why so many translations? There's big $$$ in religion. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations and if you wish to use it, you have to pay them $$$. It is more cost effective to just do your own version w/o plagiarism (the KJV does not have a copyright, therefore it gets used all the time, as erroneous as it is).

Regardless of what people say about the KJV, I haven't seen anything better. Some newer versions have actually left out vereses. lol

 

[Primi Agminis]

Regardless of what people say about the KJV, I haven't seen anything better. Some newer versions have actually left out vereses. lol

Don't get me wrong, I love the KJV. It is beautifully written, it was part of the Protestant Reformation, and has great literary value. However, when cross referenced to the larger amount of sources that we now have (thanks to archaeology), it falls marginally short on accuracy. This does not mean that it is completely wrong or needs to be shredded. For the most part, it will agree on on about 95% of the text in modern literal translations. It's that other 5% that has been cleaned up, corrected or omitted if found to be in err.

5% of something that contains ~783,137 words yields a +/- change of 39,157 words. That's a lot of errors, bad translations, and improperly cross referenced verses in 1611 CE. Given that they had far fewer resources than we do now, it is to be expected.

Check out the NASB, as it is VERY close to the KJV, but is a modern translation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Don't get me wrong, I love the KJV. It is beautifully written, it was part of the Protestant Reformation, and has great literary value. However, when cross referenced to the larger amount of sources that we now have (thanks to archaeology), it falls marginally short on accuracy. This does not mean that it is completely wrong or needs to be shredded. For the most part, it will agree on on about 95% of the text in modern literal translations. It's that other 5% that has been cleaned up, corrected or omitted if found to be in err.

5% of something that contains ~783,137 words yields a +/- change of 39,157 words. That's a lot of errors, bad translations, and improperly cross referenced verses in 1611 CE. Given that they had far fewer resources than we do now, it is to be expected.

Check out the NASB, as it is VERY close to the KJV, but is a modern translation.

Sure, I will. I use a hard-copy Bibile to reference vereses though, I find it faster and easier on the forums. That way I'm not constantly exiting the forum screen to look up scripture. Just a preference.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

We've been over this before. Declaring it "an egregious lie" is simply ignorant rant. See, for example, here from September 2007.

Yes, your erudite rant was unconvincing then, as well.

What is the conjugation of 'in the day', again?

A death sentence threatened for that very day does not imply a long lifetime before; it's an EGREGIOUS lie.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

First off, reverse your hypothesis: a serpent is a snake ... should be stated as a snake is a type of serpent.

Second, don't take verses out of context and apply them elsewhere to try and prove a point. Once something is out of context, it becomes useless.

Thirdly, quote your source for passages. I prefer the NASB as it is the most literal word for word translation into English for Christians to study by (Jews will disagree but not concerned with them). Don't believe me, look it up and see how many Christian scholars prefer it. I am assuming you use the NWT (which is paraphrased btw, and the translators are unnamed and without credentials).

In the NASB your same Exodus passage states:

[ 9 “When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, ‘Work a miracle,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.’” 10 So Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, and thus they did just as the Lord had commanded; and Aaron threw his staff down before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a serpent. 11 Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret arts. 12 For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.]

Not one mention of the word snake. Various interpretations, including your's, ASSUMES it. Never assume anything.

I'll save you some time: www.biblegateway.com

Edit: on a side note, if you take the Bible literally, Exodus 7:11-12 "proves" that magic is real. You can't pick and choose what's literal and what's metaphorical.

So.. did the staff become a snake, or a serpent?

Whatever the answer is, can you please post a picture of what it looked like when it transformed?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We've been over this before. Declaring it "an egregious lie" is simply ignorant rant. See, for example, here from September 2007.

Yes, your erudite rant was unconvincing then, as well.

What is the conjugation of 'in the day', again?

A death sentence threatened for that very day does not imply a long lifetime before; it's an EGREGIOUS lie.

That something be convincing to you is not a very useful (and clearly not a particularly 'erudite') selection criteria. I'm perfectly willing to let others read you and Alter and make their own judgment regarding both the text and your demagogic reaction to it.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Let the games continue!

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, your erudite rant was unconvincing then, as well.

What is the conjugation of 'in the day', again?

A death sentence threatened for that very day does not imply a long lifetime before; it's an EGREGIOUS lie.

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?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, according to your understanding, why would the author accredit a lie to ...

It's a good question and one that exposes the arrogance of the position. Those who promulgate it assert that the Torah is a heavily redacted man-made document that contains serious and obvious flaws that only they and a few like-minded skeptics have been smart enough to notice and stalwart enough to expose. As to how and why such clearly apparent flaws managed to survive the filter of oral transmission? Certainly nothing more should be expected from such a dumb and primitive audience. As to why the redactors have not smoothed out these rough edges over centuries of study, debate, and transmission? It can only be a function of their gross incompetence and stupidity.

Stripped of its pomposity, it's little more than demagogic ad hominem.

 

[Thief]

not necessarily,

there is another account in the scriptures of a talking donkey. Its in the account about Balam who is being sent by the King of Moab to curse Israel. Jehovah God sends an angel with a sword to stand on the roadway, the donkey sees the angel and refuses to go forward. Balam gets mad at the donkey and begins to beat him...then God causes the donkey to speak. (Numbers 22:26-31)

So if God can cause a donkey to speak, then surely Satan can cause a snake to speak.

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.