Tommy

"Someone" is a reference to my OP? Surely my plain reading of the text reads less into the intentions of the authors than your presumptions of allegory and redaction.

outhouse

You need to understand how these works were put together and written if you want to understand the meaning.

the meaning evolved into its present form over centuries changing with the culture


there are two parts written centuries a part, but beyond that, there were plenty of other parts, and the work is heavily fragmented as collections of early legends and text and thoughts were all compiled together. this didnt happen at once. It happened over a very long period of time and changing cultural influences.


your reading mythology and trying to play reality and it doesnt fly.



the devel was never in the garden by the way, the snake or serpent predates satan.


there are no presumtions about it being allegory, that is a fact. So is the compilation and redactions [plural] a dead fact.



do you want to learn or refuse knowledge? if you want to learn I can give you links to a complete breakdown at a scholarly level if you want to becaome educated on the subject

Toto

outhouse: please provide your links.

outhouse

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/log/log06.htm



very old but very very complete, and while some things have changed and added, much of his works stands as excellent work done on the subject and can serve and scholar with a great foundation

Joan of Bark

Except that in the Christian view, sin did not exist before the fruit was consumed, so A & E could not have sinned by consuming it.

In Judaism, the serpent was not Satan, but simply "the most subtil creature". How Christians could believe Satan was running around free in a perfect garden is item number 237 in the long list of inconsistencies believed by Christians.

sotto voce

As defined by which authority? It's easy, if not convenient, to define what one opposes in one's own terms. Straw, with dexterity.

The possibility of sin did, obviously.

Subtil, eh. A true thoroughbred Hebrew spelling, that.

I think "the most sly creature" could just as well serve here. Perhaps rather better.

Now do Jews, or people calling themselves Jews, or animal behaviourists, or safari rangers, or zoo-keepers, as they chat over a coffee or a beer, comment on the latest sly trick pulled on them by some confounded snake? No animal species other than Homo sapiens (ho, ho,) is particularly noted for cunning that could outwit that subtle, strutting species. So what, or who, managed to deceive A&E? Extra-terrestrials? Is the Bible a biology textbook, or does it have a different purpose?

What perfect garden? Eden was very plainly a 'place' of hazard, from the outset:

'The Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because on the day you eat of it you will surely die."' Ge 2:16-17

Note that this command is what the sly creature caused Eve to doubt. Eden is and was not a location, either in space-time or spiritually; unless the human mind is a location.

Perhaps, but their view appears to be much the most convincing explanation of a highly popular old text.

outhouse

after debating if the serpent was actually satan in the garden for a year with christians.


what you get is a mixed bag of different beliefes based on imagination.



hebrews never wrote the sepent in as ha-satan in any way shape or form

Joan of Bark

Obviously? Why? Sin is not mentioned before the fall.

Tell that to the inerrantists.

Christians' explanations are not how you've outlined them. At least not any Christians I've read or encountered.

sotto voce

Because the Lord God said it was a possibility.

:banghead:

Curious, that.

Inerrantists cannot object. Weird proponents of literalism can, of course; but we take no notice of that crazy notion, surely???

You do know the difference, Joan?

So you apparently allow that only fundies are Christians? That's farcical. Unworthy of BC&H. And fantasy, completely out of touch with scholarship, modern or otherwise.

Where is your crucial answer to the question in re the identity of the snake? There is no purpose in posting unless you have that answer; unless it is to effectively capitulate. Are we really to assume that snakes converse as a matter of daily course? Are we really to suppose that mere reptiles have intellects equal or superior to that of our own?

Of course, one can see your difficulty, your acute embarrassment. It's a simple, but totally destructive question. There is no possible intelligent, hermeneutic answer to it, other than that the snake represents Satan. What's more, it is completely out of order to assert that Jews did not believe that it did, simply because one cannot claim to know what people whom one has never met believed. It is completely out of order to assert that Jews did not believe that it did, if only because this could have been the first intimation to Israel that there was a personal adversary of both God and Israel. It is completely out of order to assert that Jews did not believe that it did, because repeated mention of Satan in the Hebrew Bible must have made it possible (if not likely) that Israelites and Jews would have taken the snake as representative of Satan. There is certainly no way in which any Israelite or Jew could have argued against this view.

So it is perfectly legitimate to state that Satan is represented by the Edenic snake in the view of Jews; particularly contemporary Jews, or people who call themselves Jews today. Before that dyed-in-the-wool Jew of Jews John wrote of 'that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan' (Rv 20:2), Jews had it that:

'Through the devil's envy, death entered the world.' Wisdom of Solomon 2:24

Before Jesus, Jews believed that the snake was Satan, and the statement that 'In Judaism, the serpent was not Satan,' implying that this belief was of Christian origin, is demonstrably false.

Joan of Bark

When (before the fall) does God say sin is a possibility?

Why is he called the Serpent before and the Satan afterwards? A name change to avoid creditors?

I know many non-fundamentalist Christians who believe in a literal acceptance of the Garden story.

Wow, you are a condescending bastard, aren't you? You and aa5874 should have some fun conversations.