Amaleq13

I suspect that has more to do with your beliefs than anything actually in the text. I see no hint or suggestion that the snake is something or someone else in disguise.

That isn't evident to me. The focus appears to be on the couple from my reading. The snake gets punished but it isn't the focus of the story and it isn't nearly as severe as what the couple obtains.

The serpent plays a pivotal role so a central position in a chiasm wouldn't necessitate or even suggest that my reading alter. That is setting aside the question of whether the chiasm is genuinely of the author's creation or that of your imagination.

Yes, lifelong enmity between the species is what is promised. See, that is why humans hate snakes. Fables tell us things like that quite often.

Yes, feel free to use the story to determine that meaning rather than imposing your personal beliefs upon it.

You are incorrect. The concept to which I referred was that the snake was Satan.

I suspect they are arguing against those foolish enough to treat the fable as though it described history.

The Dagda

Is the snake as Satan just a Christian thing then? Incidentally all snakes evolved from animals with legs, that's why some snakes have vestigial legs. God is apparently very slow in his punishments though as that would have taken millions of years.

sschlichter

Because you think the story is about fruit and snakes, I think you do not know waht a metaphor is.

sschlichter

well, I flunked my last class, so maybe I do not. However, I think the name Adam is a word play on the word for earth (vs. specifically dust) linking Adam to the earth in an agrarian sense. The purpose is to explain to his audience how we got this way.

sschlichter

The serpent is a metaphor that Christians use because the metaphor is used in Genesis.

The evolution of the snake is irrelevant. Your argument that because I am trying to draw meaning from the text in Gen 2 (instead of putting in), that I must also be a young earther is silly. You are at least the 3rd post to do that.

Isn't there a separate forum for that discussion.

~Steve

Headache

What you are doing can best be described by the word "shoehorning".

You have a belief and now you want to shoehorn everything in the bible to fit into your narrow beliefs.

Amaleq13

That is my understanding, yes.

That must be one of those "day is a thousand years" deals.

Amaleq13

For Satan? That is simply untrue and you know it. It is a metaphor imposed on the text with no genuine connection to the text.

It is a metaphor that Christians use because it suits Christian beliefs. It is not derived from the text.

sschlichter

Satan is a hebrew word used in the OT before christians existed.

Would you call something like this shoehorning? A=B, B=C, so A=C.

Presuppositions are common to all men. you would not get out of bed without them. Ignorance comes from those who cannot set them aside for a moment. I.e. Because Christians teach the concept of Satan, it must not have existed before Christians.

funinspace

Is the story within Job supposed to be a literal history, or is it metaphorical? Does a writing have to have a preamble with words such as "In reading the following please realize that this is a metaphorical story" to be accepted as metaphorical?

I'm not trying to argue whether or not certain passages within Genesis are supposed to be literal or not. But is seams odd to require any religious/poetic passage to be literal, unless it clearly says otherwise. This just doesn’t seam to fit with how humans operate/communicate. Now this does make any religious theology more complicated, but they all do it at some level. There are aspects of Genesis that do seam to have a metaphorical leaning from my POV. And it certainly makes for a saner theological view for the non-literalist Christian. And if the argument includes the idea that the Bible is God-breathed, it gets still odder. How can one determine whether or not a God that operates in the shadows will communicate with humans via metaphores or not?