»The serpent in Genesis is never called Satan, only assumed«
|
|||
  Quote: The speaking Serpent (nachash) in the Garden of Eden brought forbidden knowledge, but is not identified with Satan in the Book of Genesis. Nor is there any indication there in Genesis that the Serpent was a deity in his own right, aside from the fact that the Pentateuch is not otherwise rife with talking animals. And every word the Serpent spoke was in fact true. His information may be illicit, but it is not inaccurate. "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God has made," Genesis 3:1 reminded its hearers, and Matthew exhorted his listeners "be ye therefore wise as serpents." (Matthew 10:16).  Quote: The sin of Adam and Eve was not the eating of the fruit — but the attempt to pass the blame for the action. Adam pointed his finger to Eve who in turn tried to blame the serpent. Jewish tradition doesn't attach any particularly negative symbolic significance to the serpent. In fact, the coiled serpent is the symbol for the Israelite tribe of Dan. Judaism sees no "evil" other than the evil actions of human beings so they disagree with Christian traditions that identify the serpent with Satan. i was never aware of this until recently so i brought it to the table for those who might not have known as well. It probably won't be a good discussion until we get some hardcore christians in here to refute this claim. posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsThe serpent in Genesis is never called Satan, only assumed |
|
|||
 Re 12:9: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. That's the argument xians use to name the serpent Satan. Now, let me head off objections right away by saying that nowhere in the Old Testament is the serpent called Satan. This reference comes only at the end of the New Testament. I like the spin that the sin was not taking responsibility for ones own mistakes. It's a lesson that lawsuit-crazy Americans should take to heart! posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: That's the argument xians use to name the serpent Satan. Where is the original? Translations often replace "Yahweh" by "God" and "Jesus" and "God" by "Lord" which leads to a total mix-up, including the Trinity belief itself. Let me also add that it's a mystery for me, why the book "Revelation" made it into the bible. It's as wicked as Nostradamus and its value is practically 0, except you start to interpret it as you like. Tiefling: I like the spin that the sin was not taking responsibility for ones own mistakes I dislike it. From the Genesis part that I quoted above, it's obvious that Elohim got angry with humans cause they became like god and wanted to stop them to get eternal life. It's simply mean. In other words: Christians obviously cannot accept that god is so mean (although god is violent all of the time in the old testament), so they try to explain this as "blame shifting was the sin" or "disobedience was the sin". posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: The sin of Adam and Eve was not the eating of the fruit Doubtful that this is correct. Possible, but I disagree. It is just a lame excuse to justify god's punishment: IMO → God vs Serpent - the real story without bible smear campaign posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 07:53 php B.B. |