No One Can EVER Answer This Question Satisfactorily ........

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 64
Topic's author
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
I couldn't be sure I was right though. This is why I say, it has never for me, been Satisfactorily answered.
So? Suppose the snake isn't Satan. It makes no difference.
It does to me. I want to know the identity of the Eden serpent. Revelation suggests it to be the "Devil and Satan". Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2

 
All that would mean is that there's a part of the Bible we don't understand. 

Ok, then simply say that you do not understand and your business here will be done.




And a perfect example of what I mean is given above  at post #2 by the great biblical wordsmith himself EtrnlVw.
He tells us the serpent is only "symbolic".  and is " only  representative of the forms of temptation mankind faces".   Is he not correct? 

And he hasn't related or equate Satan Or the Devil at all to this serpent in the Garden. So, should he;  as you seem to have done.? And has Revelation appears to also do?
That proves...absolutely nothing.
I agree, but he is more than entitled to his opinion and give his interpretation.


He's not a Christian, though. He thinks that all religions have some truth, but none are completely right. To him, anything can be metaphorical.


And entitled to his opinion all the same. Do you not agree. if you believe his opinion to be totally wrong, then simply start a thread of your own laying out why he is wrong and with evidence to prove him to be wrong. As far as I am concerned he is trying to give his interpretation, without evidence. 



It would be nice to hear that it is "strong evidence"  from someone who believes they know more or better ,  SirAnonymous. 
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you rephrase that?

Well you said at post #4  above that I supplied "strong evidence " that answered my own question. I have simply asked that someone who believes him/herself to be in a position to know or not if that is actual "strong evidence" that I supplied.



Are you a devout Christian, SirAnonymous ?
Yes.
then you are just the man I am looking for.  And then you agree that the "ancient serpent" of Revelation is the same serpent written about in the Eden story of the serpent also  called  Satan & Devil?



and are you telling me that the serpent of the Garden is the Satan also known as the Devil?
Probably, or just a random snake that the devil was speaking through.

So you are not sure now then?


Again, though, what's the point of this question?

That's non of your concern. I have asked a question as to the identity of the tempting serpent, and up to this point I have been told it is  " only symbolism" , "that it is Satan"  that " it is the Devil", and  that "I have answered my own question". 



And could you just clear up for me if or not the serpent/Satan Devil at Genesis 3:1 is the same serpent Satan Devil as the one cursed Genesis 3:14
Most of it was to Satan, but the part about crawling on the belly was probably for all snakes.


 Ok.   I hope I don't get too confusing here but , let me point out, that the story starts already with a "serpent"  (you call it a snake) Genesis 3.  The women and the serpent have a conversation 3:2 - 4. This serpent goes on to tempt Eve and she takes the forbidden fruit .3:6 .https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=NIV;


So at this point it is, as you say,  already "a snake". ....

....then we get to Genesis 3:14 New International Version (NIV) where we read... 


14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
    and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
    and you will eat dust
    all the days of your life.



  It appears to me at least that we are talking two different snakes/ serpents. You see the one that tempted Even is already a "snake". But when we get to Gen 3:14 we read of something or some one only now being  cursed & condemned to crawl on it belly like a snake for the rest of its days

This is why I asked you  " if or not the serpent/Satan Devil at Genesis 3:1 is the same serpent Satan Devil as the one cursed Genesis 3:14


#32
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Figuratively speaking.

Therefore isn't the whole biblical mythology (hypothesis) including god, just a figurative representation of the unknown.

The unknown being a creative and subsequent process (material evolution) of development.

After all, the biblical stories including God were all derived from the imaginations of people.

#33
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Here is the story...

Gen 3:14 - So the LORD God said to the serpent:

“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

(Notice here that science agrees with the bible that snakes once had legs)

Gen 3:15 - And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

Then at the last supper, Jesus, who was the "her seed" mentioned above in Genesis, says of Judas, who was the "your seed" mentioned above in Genesis,...

John 13:18 - “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.

Now, what scripture is Jesus referring to? Genesis 3:15 of course.

So, whose seed was Judas? Speaking to the Father, Jesus says of Judas...

John 17:12 - “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Judas is called the "son of perdition" who is "lost", and who is mentioned in scripture.

Then, Paul, in his epistle to the Thessalonians, says,....

2Th 2:3 - Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

But this is not Satan, this person is called the beast. Revelations let's us know he is different from Satan, who is called the dragon...

Satan has tried to mimic God with a trinity of his own. John explains it in Revelation...

Rev 13:1 - Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name.

Rev 13:2 - Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.

This is the first "beast". Satan gives him his power, his authority, and his throne.

Rev 13:3 - And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.

This is the expected "falling away", that atheists remind us has already started. There will be fewer and fewer Christians, as they fall away.

Rev 13:4 - So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

So this "Beast 1" one gets set up by Satan and  worshipped by men, and causes others to worship Satan.

Rev 13:5 - And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.

Rev 13:6 - Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.

The way Stephen and Dee Dee do now.

Rev 13:7 - It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.

This is where Christian get the "One World Government", and why they oppose it.

Rev 13:8 - All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

So you either submit to "Beast 1" or die.

Rev 13:9 - If anyone has an ear, let him hear.

Rev 13:11 - Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon.

Rev 13:12 - And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

So we have the 2nd Beast, completing the Satanic trinity with the 1st beast and the dragon. The first beast comes out of the sea, the second comes out of the Earth. He has all the authority of the 1st beast, and forces everyone to worship the 1st beast.

Rev 13:13 - He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.

Rev 13:14 - And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived.

Rev 13:15 - He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

Rev 13:16 - He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,

Rev 13:17 - and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

So this 2nd beast will be able to convince people through seeming miracles, and under threat of death, to worship the 1st beast.

Rev 13:18 - Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.

666 then, is the number of the 1st beast, not Satan. The beast called the son of perdition.

This is the Antichrist Jesus spoke about. The son of perdition, whose father is Satan. The same Satan who entered Judas, and caused him to betray Jesus.

The beasts are men, but demon possessed. It is this first beast/demon who possessed the serpent in Eden, and the same one that possessed Judas.

But the good news is...

Rev 17:14 - “These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”

Satan has lost. Jesus is triumphant.

That is "who" possessed the serpent in Eden.
#34
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore isn't the whole biblical mythology (hypothesis) including god, just a figurative representation of the unknown.

The unknown being a creative and subsequent process (material evolution) of development.

After all, the biblical stories including God were all derived from the imaginations of people.

I'll answer this one, guys, don't worry. SOME parts of the bible are figurative, coincidentally these are the parts that through our studies we know are physically impossible (Noah's Ark, Genesis where people come from dirt), SOME parts are maybe literal and maybe embellished (Exodus), but the important parts, namely the one story in the book about God's son rising from the dead, that is TOTALLY LITERAL. Don't question it, it just is, I mean if it was figurative, it wouldn't be so mysterious. I mean what else could God have done? Forgive sins without that whole passion play? Then what holiday would Christians celebrate in springtime?!? It's not like that was within his powers! 

/jest.
#35
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore isn't the whole biblical mythology (hypothesis) including god, just a figurative representation of the unknown.

No, not at all. God is literal, it's just easier to communcate spiritual truths using analogies and metaphorical language in some cases. 

The unknown being a creative and subsequent process (material evolution) of development.

Creation IS a process, yes. But these are processes of the Creator. It is not unknown, I've been sharing them here for quite some time. 

After all, the biblical stories including God were all derived from the imaginations of people.

Lol, well now I know why you assume what you do. But thanks for the opinion. 


#36
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
but the important parts, namely the one story in the book about God's son rising from the dead, that is TOTALLY LITERAL.

Two things, there's not really anything figurative about it. BUT, it could be, it just doesn't seem to have any real meaning behind it if it is. It's just not presented in a figurative way.
Miracles can occur (even though rare) because of how creation is set up from the Godhead down to the physical world. Things in the physical realm can be manipulated because of the higher qualities of energy from the more advanced levels of creation. And since everything is energy at one level, these energies can be arranged and rearranged in whatever way God wants it. If you examine NDE's many of them are people coming back into their bodies long after brain death. Or even from incredibly damaged bodies. 

Either way, its okay for you to decide. The only thing important is that you apply what is applicable. You won't be damned because you weren't able to accept a few miracles. 
#37
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Don't question it, it just is

Question everything actually, but at some point you have to stop being a skeptic so you can allow for new knowledge, new ways of learning. You don't seem to have any flexibility or an open mind when it comes to God and spirituality, you're just closed off. That's not good, you don't want to be controlled by a false world view and ideology. 
#38
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Question everything actually, but at some point you have to stop being a skeptic so you can allow for new knowledge, new ways of learning. 

Would this new knowledge be...SPECIAL knowledge? Sorta sounds like it. Please describe the 'new' way of learning and why it's so different from the traditional way, maybe? 

Two things, there's not really anything figurative about it. BUT, it could be, it just doesn't seem to have any real meaning behind it if it is. It's just not presented in a figurative way.
Neither is Noah's Ark nor the creation myth, they're presented as literal, too. As is the bear killing the kids, as is Jephtha, as is Exodus, as is Sampson...it's only the central myth, which contains a guy rising from the dead after three days (again it doesn't explain the mechanics of why this somehow absolves all sins for all people or why it was necessary, and it contains details that are strikingly similar to other messianic myths from contemporaneous cultures, all of which you disregard as false, I presume). How do we decide? Is the burning bush literal? Or that time that guy wrestled god and won? The time that guy's two daughters, Lot I think, banged him because they decided they had to? The lady with the pillar of salt (also Lot Ibelieve)?

Miracles can occur (even though rare) because of how creation is set up from the Godhead down to the physical world. Th
when was the last one?

You won't be damned because you weren't able to accept a few miracles. 
Depends on what brand of Christianity you subscribe to. Or more accurately, which one your parents were into. 
#39
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Would this new knowledge be...SPECIAL knowledge? Sorta sounds like it. Please describe the 'new' way of learning and why it's so different from the traditional way, maybe?

How could it be special knowledge? when in fact everyone has access to it? I'm not saying anything new or something that is special.
A new way of learning regarding you, would be that of the spiritual aspect of yourself. It's no different than learning anything else, as we discussed before. But you have to understand the nature of spirituality (being beyond the physical sense perception), that's pretty much it. But you can't let in new knowledge if you always reject it, put it down or scorn it. Ask questions, be willing to apply things and consider what I say, what other sources say. If it makes sense, if it is logical just go with it.

when was the last one?

Miracles happen on personal levels probably more than you would think. Miracles aren't really there to be recorded and examined that is not their purpose. I would consider miracles many things, not just raising people from the dead, they are the removing of obstacles in a persons personal life.

Depends on what brand of Christianity you subscribe to. Or more accurately, which one your parents were into.

Religions are not in control of what you believe, they don't have any say in your relations with God. They are just there as a means to connect collectively and can be an active role in assisting you. I don't subscribe to anything my parents did, they don't dictate my beliefs. You as an individual have an individual responsibility spiritually speaking, you are also free as an individual with God.

#40
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Neither is Noah's Ark nor the creation myth, they're presented as literal, too. As is the bear killing the kids, as is Jephtha, as is Exodus, as is Sampson...it's only the central myth,

Actually you should ask me about those things...the first few chapters of Genesis is certainly figurative, you can take away from it whatever you want. You are not required to believe a certain way.

which contains a guy rising from the dead after three days (again it doesn't explain the mechanics of why this somehow absolves all sins for all people or why it was necessary, and it contains details that are strikingly similar to other messianic myths from contemporaneous cultures, all of which you disregard as false, I presume).

Are you serious? you have the memory of a flea lol. I've tried to tell you numerous times that I study all forms of spirituality not just the Bible. However I can explain to you the mechanics of what Jesus did and what it means. But I am not sure you really want me to.

How do we decide? Is the burning bush literal? Or that time that guy wrestled god and won? The time that guy's two daughters, Lot I think, banged him because they decided they had to? The lady with the pillar of salt (also Lot Ibelieve)?

Many things in the OT I believe are probably metaphorical stories that have a spiritual meaning or basis. Now we all know there's a lot of literal history involved, but most of the stories are pretty obvious what is figurative and what is literal. And again, it's all pretty irrelevant to you on a spiritual level if you get nothing out of it. It's just a book dude, you take what is useful and discard what is not useful.

#41
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
 Who was the serpent that had tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden?  Notice I ask who and not what.

Why do you always repeat the same question I previously answered? If it is a figurative illustration there isn't a WHO, it's what the serpent is representing (temptation). I did say however, many times the devil is representative of one who tempts man, so that's probably where that idea came from. The specific question you are asking doesn't pertain to me, because I'm not a Biblical literalist so I don't believe there was ever a literal talking snake or a who that spoke through it. All the illustrations and objects within that account are representative of other meanings. And I went over some of those things already. 
#42
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
There's no logical reason to reject anything I've said,
Have I done that? 

I was speaking in reference of those who have assumed the account a literal. 

#43
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Stephen
It does to me. I want to know the identity of the Eden serpent.
Why?
Revelation suggests it to be the "Devil and Satan". Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2
So if you're aware of this answer and have provided the biblical support for it yourself, why are you asking?
Ok, then simply say that you do not understand and your business here will be done.
Well, you've provided the biblical support for the serpent being Satan yourself, so it wouldn't be accurate to say I don't understand who the serpent was.
And entitled to his opinion all the same. Do you not agree. if you believe his opinion to be totally wrong, then simply start a thread of your own laying out why he is wrong and with evidence to prove him to be wrong. As far as I am concerned he is trying to give his interpretation, without evidence. 
Of course he's entitled to his opinion.
Well you said at post #4  above that I supplied "strong evidence " that answered my own question. I have simply asked that someone who believes him/herself to be in a position to know or not if that is actual "strong evidence" that I supplied.
then you are just the man I am looking for.  And then you agree that the "ancient serpent" of Revelation is the same serpent written about in the Eden story of the serpent also  called  Satan & Devil?
Yes, that is the best explanation of the passage.
So you are not sure now then?
I'm mostly sure. Even if the serpent wasn't Satan himself, I have no doubt that Satan was responsible for its actions.
That's non of your concern. I have asked a question as to the identity of the tempting serpent, and up to this point I have been told it is  " only symbolism" , "that it is Satan"  that " it is the Devil", and  that "I have answered my own question". 
No, it isn't my concern why you've asked the question. However, it seems to be a useless question to ask. It's as though I asked you why my pizza tasted bad while simultaneously pointing out that my pizza has pineapple. You would then respond, "It probably tastes bad because there's pineapple on it," to which I would then reply, "But you don't know for certain, do you? Why does my pizza taste bad?" You're using bold, underline and all caps to ask a question that you've provided a good answer for yourself. You've provided good evidence to accept that answer. But even if that answer is wrong, it proves nothing. It wouldn't create any contradictions. However, you're still asking it like it's some kind of earth-shattering question. I don't understand what you're trying to do here.
 Ok.   I hope I don't get too confusing here but , let me point out, that the story starts already with a "serpent"  (you call it a snake) Genesis 3.
Serpent and snake are synonyms. There's no need to put that much emphasis on such a minor distinction.
It appears to me at least that we are talking two different snakes/ serpents. You see the one that tempted Even is already a "snake". But when we get to Gen 3:14 we read of something or some one only now being  cursed & condemned to crawl on it belly like a snake for the rest of its days

This is why I asked you  " if or not the serpent/Satan Devil at Genesis 3:1 is the same serpent Satan Devil as the one cursed Genesis 3:14
Let me get this straight. You're wondering why the curse says that the serpent will be condemned to crawl on its belly if it is already a serpent. Is that what you're trying to ask?
#44
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
But then who is the "ancient serpent" of Revelation referring to-  Revelation 12:9, 20:2. It clearly states there that it is the same " Devil, and Satan".

"The great dragon was hurled down-that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

First of all, it doesn't say anything about the snake in Genesis, and as I said....IF the devil does in fact exist, he certainly would be considered a being who probably tempts man. And I went over that. However, the devil doesn't speak through animals to temp people, so again I believe the serpent is a symbolic rendering not a literal one either way we go. Even with a figurative rendering the serpent could be symbolic of the devil but I don't believe that fully conveys the meaning and is someone absurd. 

And who are the Devil and Satan

According to traditional Christian thinking it would be a being who has chosen to oppose God. I don't know if they are the same being, but generally they are accepted as so, and according to that verse there would be no reason to believe otherwise. 



Topic's author
#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous

It does to me. I want to know the identity of the Eden serpent.
Why?
That's  not the issue and it is irrelevant. I want to know is all.


Revelation suggests it to be the "Devil and Satan". Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2
So if you're aware of this answer and have provided the biblical support for it yourself, why are you asking?

I am aware of what it states in Revelation but I am not sure if that is the answer. You seem to think it is. 



Ok, then simply say that you do not understand and your business here will be done.
Well, you've provided the biblical support for the serpent being Satan yourself, so it wouldn't be accurate to say I don't understand who the serpent was.
Ok, Then according to you, Revelation is saying that the garden of Eden  serpent "snake" is Satan and Devil and you agree that it is. That is fine. It is just that there seems to be a disagreement and I want to satisfy myself.  Two people now appear to agree that the identity of the Eden serpent is Satan..  One states it is merely "symbolic" .
 .



 Ok.   I hope I don't get too confusing here but , let me point out, that the story starts already with a "serpent"  (you call it a snake) Genesis 3.
Serpent and snake are synonyms. There's no need to put that much emphasis on such a minor distinction.

OK we'll stick to snake as being our serpent.



It appears to me at least that we are talking two different snakes/ serpents. You see the one that tempted Even is already a "snake". But when we get to Gen 3:14 we read of something or some one only now being  cursed & condemned to crawl on it belly like a snake for the rest of its days

This is why I asked you  " if or not the serpent/Satan Devil at Genesis 3:1 is the same serpent Satan Devil as the one cursed Genesis 3:14
Let me get this straight. You're wondering why the curse says that the serpent will be condemned to crawl on its belly if it is already a serpent. Is that what you're trying to ask?

I am asking  are the serpent at Gen 3 and the serpent at Gen 3:14 the same or different serpents. And for the reason I have pointed out above. I think they are one and the same but I value your opinion. 

Here is why I think they are one and the same. Because at Gen it says ; - "The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
    and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
    and you will eat dust
    all the days of your life.

God  could only have been talking to the same snake as Eve had been talking to  other wise, why curse another snake.  What do you think?


Topic's author
#46
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Why do you always repeat the same question I previously answered?[..........................]The specific question you are asking doesn't pertain to me, because I'm not a Biblical literalist 

Then you have wasted both our times haven't you. I repeated the question because you didn't get around to naming the identity of the Eden serpent as if you had missed the question completely. Instead you told me a long tale about how it was all only ""symbolic".  and is " only  representative of the forms of temptation mankind faces". <<<<<< you see. no identification there is there?

You could have simply said, AT THE START that " The specific question you are asking doesn't pertain to me" but that you believe it was only symbolic anyway.  But instead I had a 150 word essay on your biblical interpretation of what was meant by "serpent".

And who are the Devil and Satan

According to traditional Christian thinking it would be a being who has chosen to oppose God. I don't know if they are the same being, but generally they are accepted as so, and according to that verse there would be no reason to believe otherwise. 



Ok. Nice. We are getting little closer to some kind of an answer. You say it is a "being" and others have put a name to this being, haven't they.
OK. nice.

Topic's author
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
the Bible alternates between literal and figurative throughout the entire Book. 

And how very convenient. I suppose this alternation only happens at a time of your choosing. 
#48
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Not really, why would I personally care about when and what is figurative and what is literal? Anyone that doesn't know the Bible uses figurative writing is basically ignorant. It weaves in and out throughout the whole book as I said. Analogies, parables, metaphors, figurative speech are a part of spiritual texts, not even just the Bible. 

#49
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Stephen
That's  not the issue and it is irrelevant. I want to know is all.
That's fine, but asking a question with a little all caps and plenty of bold gives a rather different impression.
I am aware of what it states in Revelation but I am not sure if that is the answer. You seem to think it is. 
Yes, it is the best explanation.
Two people now appear to agree that the identity of the Eden serpent is Satan..  One states it is merely "symbolic" .
There are some Christians like EtrnVw who think large portions of the Bible are metaphorical or symbolic. I think they don't take it as literally as they should, but that's not the issue in the this thread.
God  could only have been talking to the same snake as Eve had been talking to  other wise, why curse another snake.  What do you think?
I think He was talking to the same snake. However, He may very well have cursed all snakes. They're not sentient creatures, so they wouldn't know the difference anyway. I don't see how it makes much difference either way.
#50
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
There are some Christians like EtrnVw who think large portions of the Bible are metaphorical or symbolic. I think they don't take it as literally as they should

When I was a kid I used to take it all literally, so I'm fully aware of what I have concluded. It's not a matter of me overlooking something. And, even with a figurative understanding I lose no message or objective of the texts. As well I wouldn't say large portions of the Bible are metaphorical, I would say the majority is most likely literal, with overtones of figurative expressions. The Bible is a really big book, with plenty of metaphors and analogies. Even with the first few chapters of Genesis being figurative most of it is not.

#51
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
How are those things obvious metaphors? God is supernatural. So is Satan. They are capable of doing things that break natural laws because natural laws don't apply to them. If you accept the existence of supernatural beings, then you must accept the possibility of supernatural events.

So when you claim they are capable of doing things that break natural laws, we should see them occur all the time correct? not just in stories, if the devil can make animals talk in human voices, you should be able to give me an example of that IRL. Otherwise it's logical to conclude that talking snakes fall into the category of figurative, again I ask...then what is figurative if not talking animals? And since we know how human bodies were and are developed, we can conclude that being formed from dirt is a figurative expression. Essentially we are made from "dirt" or what some call star dust, meaning we are created from the same elements as every other thing. But this is again figurative speech. We aren't really formed literally from dirt, we are made from the same elements as earth, as stars as every other thing, but to get from an element to a human body there is in  fact a process.
These processes are indeed supernatural events, because they do not occur by themselves, but this is not magic. It's how God uses the elements to form what it is God wishes to create. But dust of the earth is not erected like a clump of clay into a human body lol, that's not how you were created. 
There would never be any need for your parents if God erected human bodies from the dirt you stand on, think about that. 

#52
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
Just don't get me wrong, with all that I've said there is a distinction between what God can do as opposed to what the devil can do. I don't believe any devil has the ability to make animals speak that have no voice box, that's absurd. You're giving too much power away where it doesn't belong. 
God creating things through processes IS supernatural, but the devil doesn't have any power to do either of those things. He's not a creator, and he doesn't make animals talk. When you expect someone to believe such things they lose respect for what you wish to communicate. 
#53
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
So when you claim they are capable of doing things that break natural laws, we should see them occur all the time correct?
To begin with, are you saying God can't do miracles, or that He can, but doesn't? I can't tell.
Now, I would say that we would actually expect not to see many miracles. Most of the times miracles happened in the Bible, it was to validate a message from God. However, the Bible is complete, and the only prophecies left to be fulfilled concern the end times. Thus, I would not expect to see many miracles.
then what is figurative if not talking animals? 
Parables, figures of speech, flowery language in the prophets and poetry books.
And since we know how human bodies were and are developed, we can conclude that being formed from dirt is a figurative expression. 
Not so. An omnipotent God can easily change the molecular structure of dirt into a man.
It's how God uses the elements to form what it is God wishes to create.
How are miracles different from that? God created the universe; why can't He manipulate it?
There would never be any need for your parents if God erected human bodies from the dirt you stand on, think about that. 
He doesn't create human bodies from dirt. He formed the first human from dirt; however, in order to do that, it would require changing the molecular structure of the dirt into cells.
#54
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
 I don't believe any devil has the ability to make animals speak that have no voice box, that's absurd. 
Firstly, who says the animal would need a voice box? All that's required is to move the animals mouth and have sound come out. Secondly, that's assuming it was a snake and not Satan taking the appearance of a snake. Thirdly, asserting something is absurd doesn't make it so.
You're giving too much power away where it doesn't belong. 
God creating things through processes IS supernatural, but the devil doesn't have any power to do either of those things. He's not a creator, and he doesn't make animals talk.
How do you know the devil can't make animals talk? That doesn't require creation ex nihilo.
When you expect someone to believe such things they lose respect for what you wish to communicate. 
Why? It's all fine to say such things are absurd and wave your hand vaguely at common sense. However, those are mere assertions. How do you know such things aren't possible?
Topic's author
#55
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's  not the issue and it is irrelevant. I want to know is all.
That's fine, but asking a question with a little all caps and plenty of bold gives a rather different impression.

For emphasis,SirAnonymous.  As some here continually actually forget the question at hand and would rather give their interpretation of everything without actaully addressing what is being asked.  It is not ever meant as an offence. You for instance took the direct approach to my question whereas others have gone off on their own tangents leaving my question in the dust. I am sure you understand my meaning.



I am aware of what it states in Revelation but I am not sure if that is the answer. You seem to think it is. 
Yes, it is the best explanation.
And I agree. But we could both be wrong.



Two people now appear to agree that the identity of the Eden serpent is Satan..  One states it is merely "symbolic" .
There are some Christians like EtrnVw who think large portions of the Bible are metaphorical or symbolic.


Yes, I have to agree with you, SirAnonymous. I have found Christians do this when they find themselves to be  completely cornered for an logical and factual answer to theological problem. You could call it a ' cure all ' for all sticky theological situations or simply a "get out". 



I think they don't take it as literally as they should, but that's not the issue in the this thread.

And that is their entitlement. But I find it doesn't help them at all in a theological debate or argument.



God  could only have been talking to the same snake as Eve had been talking to  other wise, why curse another snake.  What do you think?
I think He was talking to the same snake.

Me too.  

And this is something else I think. I think that the one addressed as  serpent  was another god , the creator god, I think that this god was a physician /doctor.  I think the argument here was everything to do with reproduction. It think one god (maybe a higher ranking god) had forbidden humans to reproduce.. I think that the god with the title serpent over- rid this taboo and endowed humans the knowledge of reproduction.

This is why I think that there are three accounts of humans being created. The first set of male and female humans could not  know each other but the second couple got down to a lot of knowing. Genesis 1:27.KJV.    Genesis 2:7. KJV. & Genesis 2:22

Today, particular in the western world many if not all hospital lobby's  and all ambulances in particular, have the sign of a serpent/s  - a snake/s -  to be precise -coiled around a tree or a branch or simply a wooden pole. This is the sign of medicine. There are instances in the scriptures where this sign is mentioned or shown along side the act of curing. The Greeks adopted this medical sign as I believe did  the Romans.



But that is only what I think

#56
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
@ludofl3x


You pick and choose to suit.

Nonetheless you both perfectly describe mythology.

#57
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
SirAnon - asking a question with a little all caps and plenty of bold gives a rather different impression.

Stephen - For emphasis, SirAnonymous.  As some here continually actually forget the question at hand and would rather give their interpretation of everything without actaully addressing what is being asked.
Who? Everyone here answered your question. My answer was not technically Satan. You dodged it, which is fine, but then you come back and say your question was not being addressed. Why lie?

It is not ever meant as an offence.
You are often condescending and vulgar in your posts. How it that not meant to be offensive?

You for instance took the direct approach to my question whereas others have gone off on their own tangents leaving my question in the dust.
No one left your question in the dust. I even went through the history to show the fulfillment in John, of the prophesy made TO the serpent in Genesis. You dodged that too.

I am sure you understand my meaning.
I'm sure he does, here is what he said to you.

... it seems to be a useless question to ask. It's as though I asked you why my pizza tasted bad while simultaneously pointing out that my pizza has pineapple. You would then respond, "It probably tastes bad because there's pineapple on it," to which I would then reply, "But you don't know for certain, do you? Why does my pizza taste bad?" You're using bold, underline and all caps to ask a question that you've provided a good answer for yourself. You've provided good evidence to accept that answer. But even if that answer is wrong, it proves nothing. It wouldn't create any contradictions. However, you're still asking it like it's some kind of earth-shattering question. I don't understand what you're trying to do here.
See? He does understand.
#58
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
In these types of debates, people conflate 2 different questions.

1. Who is this serpent God speaks to in Genesis?

And 2. Was there really a talking serpent in Genesis?

The questions aren't the same. Atheists ask question 1, when they really mean question 2. But the theist, not being a mind reader, can only answer what was asked.

If the atheist is trying to find out if the story is true, asking about a small detail inside the story is a strange way to go about it, no?

Who was the Serpent in Genesis? The biblical answer is "The son of perdition", Satan's #1 general, the anti-christ, a demon called " The Beast".

This answer is correct whether the story itself is literal or metaphorical.

Either way, as SirAnon says, 

It wouldn't create any contradictions.

But notice...

However, you're still asking it like it's some kind of earth-shattering question.
He behaves as if all his questions are earth-shattering for Christians. Dodging and preening till an answer is given that matches his pre-cooked agenda.

Most times he bakes his fake "contradiction" inside his question with fakery and equivocation.

What is Steven trying to do here? He thinks he sowing doubt. Think about it.

The constant fake questions, the weird interpretations, the pretense not to see replies, the needless reposting of the same verses....

Do you know any atheist more consumed with the minutia of Christian doctrine than Stephen?
Topic's author
#59
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
He behaves as if all his questions are earth-shattering for Christians. Dodging and preening till an answer is given that matches his pre-cooked agenda.

Most times he bakes his fake "contradiction" inside his question with fakery and equivocation.

What is Steven trying to do here? He thinks he sowing doubt. Think about it.

The constant fake questions, the weird interpretations, the pretense not to see replies, the needless reposting of the same verses....

Do you know any atheist more consumed with the minutia of Christian doctrine than Stephen?
All of your personal attacks from the above quote made at post 58 above.

Do you know any atheist more consumed with the minutia of Christian doctrine than Stephen?

He behaves....all his...his pre-cooked agenda.....he bakes his fake....inside his question.....What is Steven trying to do...He thinks he....


All personal attacks with no relevance AT ALL  to the simple question in the OP.

 I ask you to leave  this thread unless you have something worth contributing further to the subject in hand.

#60
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I ask you to leave  this thread unless you have something worth contributing further to the subject in hand.
And you decide what is worth 
contributing?

At some point you will awaken and comprehend that you are no one's boss.

... it seems to be a useless question to ask. [Snip] You're using bold, underline and all caps to ask a question that you've provided a good answer for yourself. You've provided good evidence to accept that answer. But even if that answer is wrong, it proves nothing. It wouldn't create any contradictions. However, you're still asking it like it's some kind of earth-shattering question. 
This is from this thread. Can I not comment on it? Is this also a personal attack?

...something worth contributing further to the subject in hand.
Ah, you must have missed it with your obtuse glasses on. Here it is again.

Who was the Serpent in Genesis? The biblical answer is "The son of perdition", Satan's #1 general, the anti-christ, a demon called " The Beast".

Now dodge it and claim you saw nothing again. Perhaps your pretending that I've contributed nothing will fool someone other than you.