Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, the root נחש ultimately bears those meanings in various constructs of "omens", "incantations", etc. The particular construct נָחָשׁ applying to "snake" may ultimately derive from them etymologically - especially if you look at the cognate in Ugaritic, where the root nḥÅ¡ not only means "snake" but an "incantation against snakebite". But which came first? The "chicken" or the "egg"? The vowel-formations would, of course, be different - as in Hebrew, but the root is the same.
The only possible connection of a "shining one" is to an Akkadian cognate: naḫāÅ¡u(m) : "to become luxuriant". But the translation of "luxuriant" is misleading - it does not bear our English meaning of "glowing", but means "healthy". So Howest2008 is still getting grossly misleading information.
I agree...He is getting misleading information...The only way to connect the snake to Satan is to connect him to the erroneous "Angel of Light", Lucifer, which most do, adding a meaning to Nachash of "shining one", so then one can connect it all together and be able to put Satan in the Garden possessing the snake...Do you see my reasoning here?...
I agree...He is getting misleading information...The only way to connect the snake to Satan is to connect him to the erroneous "Angel of Light", Lucifer, which most do, adding a meaning to Nachash of "shining one", so then one can connect it all together and be able to put Satan in the Garden possessing the snake...Do you see my reasoning here?...
Oh yes, I see it. He was arguing a meaning backwards into a Hebrew word. This shouldn't really surprise us - many Christians cannot even pick up a Hebrew Bible without putting it through a New Testament rinse-cycle.
Oh yes, I see it. He was arguing a meaning backwards into a Hebrew word. This shouldn't really surprise us - many Christians cannot even pick up a Hebrew Bible without putting it through a New Testament rinse-cycle.
Once one knows what the Hebrew word satan means, they will understand that it is not an entity but rather a definition of a person or it is a verb or it is an adjective...So, now they can say well, then it was Lucifer who possessed the snake, but Lucifer doesn't exist either, so it can't be him...Then they'll say well then it was the devil, but the devil doesn't exist in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), it's a new concept...A Greek concept...So, it's none of those three, so where does that leave us with the serpent in the Garden?...
Once one knows what the Hebrew word satan means, they will understand that it is not an entity but rather a definition of a person or it is a verb or it is an adjective...So, now they can say well, then it was Lucifer who possessed the snake, but Lucifer doesn't exist either, so it can't be him...Then they'll say well then it was the devil, but the devil doesn't exist in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), it's a new concept...A Greek concept...So, it's none of those three, so where does that leave us with the serpent in the Garden?...
Ha ha it never ends!
I think where it leaves us, if we are honest in our reading of the text: it was a snake. A very intelligent snake who possessed the power of speech, but a snake nonetheless. The text goes out of its way to make sure the listener is aware of its special status among the animals:
Now the snake was more shrewd than all the living-things of the field that YHWH, God, had made.
(Gen 3:1 SB Fox)
but it also made a very interesting contrast between the humans and the snake. Notice the Hebrew used to describe them and the similar-sounding arum:
Now the two of them, the human and his wife, were nude (עֲרוּמִּים ), yet they were not ashamed.
[RIGHT] וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ׃[/RIGHT]
Now the snake was more shrewd (עָרוּם ) than all the living-things of the field that YHWH, God, had made.
וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִ*כֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אַף כִּי־אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִ*כֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן׃
(Gen 2:25-3:1)
The humans are "nude" and the snake is "shrewd" - perhaps not the best literal translation of עָרוּם , but it subtly demonstrates the Hebrew wordplay. I think the author was trying to highlight one of the core themes of the story via this method: the snake was a creature, yet he was more intelligent and shrewd than the humans, who were so close to the animals that they walked around nude. The humans embrace the serpent's offer of knowledge over innocent animal-like peace and possible eternal life. The rest is history, as the saying goes.
You can find similar stories concerning snakes denying life to humans in Ancient Near Eastern parallels (see the Epic of Gilgamesh), and one can go even further with snake-like creatures that had legs, or even make a connection to a seraph - but at the end of the day, the text of Genesis clearly has a "snake" that is only distinguished by its intelligence. Well, and his legs. That part of the story is clearly etiological, an explanation as to why a snake doesn't look like a lizard.
I think where it leaves us, if we are honest in our reading of the text: it was a snake. A very intelligent snake who possessed the power of speech, but a snake nonetheless. The text goes out of its way to make sure the listener is aware of its special status among the animals:
Now the snake was more shrewd than all the living-things of the field that YHWH, God, had made.
(Gen 3:1 SB Fox)
but it also made a very interesting contrast between the humans and the snake. Notice the Hebrew used to describe them and the similar-sounding arum:
Now the two of them, the human and his wife, were nude (עֲרוּמִּים ), yet they were not ashamed.
[RIGHT] וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ׃[/RIGHT]
Now the snake was more shrewd (עָרוּם ) than all the living-things of the field that YHWH, God, had made.
וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִ*כֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אַף כִּי־אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִ*כֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן׃
(Gen 2:25-3:1)
The humans are "nude" and the snake is "shrewd" - perhaps not the best literal translation of עָרוּם , but it subtly demonstrates the Hebrew wordplay. I think the author was trying to highlight one of the core themes of the story via this method: the snake was a creature, yet he was more intelligent and shrewd than the humans, who were so close to the animals that they walked around nude. The humans embrace the serpent's offer of knowledge over innocent animal-like peace and possible eternal life. The rest is history, as the saying goes.
You can find similar stories concerning snakes denying life to humans in Ancient Near Eastern parallels (see the Epic of Gilgamesh), and one can go even further with snake-like creatures that had legs, or even make a connection to a seraph - but at the end of the day, the text of Genesis clearly has a "snake" that is only distinguished by its intelligence. Well, and his legs. That part of the story is clearly etiological, an explanation as to why a snake doesn't look like a lizard.
I think where it leaves us, if we are honest in our reading of the text: it was a snake. A very intelligent snake who possessed the power of speech, but a snake nonetheless. The text goes out of its way to make sure the listener is aware of its special status among the animals:
Now the snake was more shrewd than all the living-things of the field that YHWH, God, had made.
(Gen 3:1 SB Fox)
but it also made a very interesting contrast between the humans and the snake. Notice the Hebrew used to describe them and the similar-sounding arum:
Now the two of them, the human and his wife, were nude (עֲרוּמִּים ), yet they were not ashamed.
[RIGHT] וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ׃[/RIGHT]
Now the snake was more shrewd (עָרוּם ) than all the living-things of the field that YHWH, God, had made.
וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִ*כֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אַף כִּי־אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִ*כֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן׃
(Gen 2:25-3:1)
The humans are "nude" and the snake is "shrewd" - perhaps not the best literal translation of עָרוּם , but it subtly demonstrates the Hebrew wordplay. I think the author was trying to highlight one of the core themes of the story via this method: the snake was a creature, yet he was more intelligent and shrewd than the humans, who were so close to the animals that they walked around nude. The humans embrace the serpent's offer of knowledge over innocent animal-like peace and possible eternal life. The rest is history, as the saying goes.
You can find similar stories concerning snakes denying life to humans in Ancient Near Eastern parallels (see the Epic of Gilgamesh), and one can go even further with snake-like creatures that had legs, or even make a connection to a seraph - but at the end of the day, the text of Genesis clearly has a "snake" that is only distinguished by its intelligence. Well, and his legs. That part of the story is clearly etiological, an explanation as to why a snake doesn't look like a lizard.
Satan is generally a metaphor for our yetzer hara (bad inclinations)...The opposite would be our yetzer hatov (good inclinations)...
To add to Howest's misunderstanding, it is the Hebrew word Hillel that means "shining one"...Which they mistakenly translate as Lucifer...
The attempts by many Christians to read extra-Biblical material back into the text. I hope you didn't misunderstand me heh heh. You gave a very good rundown on how a typical apologist reacts to this material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Satan is generally a metaphor for our yetzer hara (bad inclinations)...The opposite would be our yetzer hatov (good inclinations)...
That is the sense understood by Judaism currently?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
To add to Howest's misunderstanding, it is the Hebrew word Hillel that means "shining one"...Which they mistakenly translate as Lucifer...
Yes, you're correct. I didn't really want to get into the long string of equations exegetes have made which ended up in his conflating the different terms. It's a pretty standard view that Satan is Lucifer, and then backreading this into the Gan Eden story. We mustn't forget the New Testament claim that Satan was "the original serpent" - which somehow "proves" the snake was Satan. Ugh. The author of Revelations was very familiar with the Chaoskampf traditions of a great Dragon that God had fought, and this reference was almost certainly to that - rather than to a small snake in the Garden.
There was a really interesting - but extremely speculative - academic work that came out a few years ago that tried to compare a Ugaritic text to the Garden story. While the theory itself is extremely speculative, the book itself is a treasure-trove of information pertaining to the evolution of the idea that the snake was some malevolent being, as well as a wealth of other interesting information: Adam, Eve, and the Devil: A New Beginning (Marjo C.A. Korpel & Johannes C. de Moor, 2014, 2015 2nd. ed. Sheffield Press). I would point Howest2008 to such a work, but I think it's a little too difficult for a layperson and could be easily misunderstood. The work has quite a bit of information on Hillel, and posits that it was originally the star Aldebaran. The root and name is not limited to Biblical Hebrew.
I think where it leaves us, if we are honest in our reading of the text: it was a snake. A very intelligent snake who possessed the power of speech, but a snake nonetheless. The text goes out of its way to make sure the listener is aware of its special status among the animals:
Now the snake was more shrewd than all the living-things of the field that YHWH, God, had made.
(Gen 3:1 SB Fox)
but it also made a very interesting contrast between the humans and the snake. Notice the Hebrew used to describe them and the similar-sounding arum:
Now the two of them, the human and his wife, were nude (עֲרוּמִּים ), yet they were not ashamed.
[RIGHT] וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ׃[/RIGHT]
Now the snake was more shrewd (עָרוּם ) than all the living-things of the field that YHWH, God, had made.
וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִ*כֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אַף כִּי־אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִ*כֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן׃
(Gen 2:25-3:1)
The humans are "nude" and the snake is "shrewd" - perhaps not the best literal translation of עָרוּם , but it subtly demonstrates the Hebrew wordplay. I think the author was trying to highlight one of the core themes of the story via this method: the snake was a creature, yet he was more intelligent and shrewd than the humans, who were so close to the animals that they walked around nude. The humans embrace the serpent's offer of knowledge over innocent animal-like peace and possible eternal life. The rest is history, as the saying goes.
You can find similar stories concerning snakes denying life to humans in Ancient Near Eastern parallels (see the Epic of Gilgamesh), and one can go even further with snake-like creatures that had legs, or even make a connection to a seraph - but at the end of the day, the text of Genesis clearly has a "snake" that is only distinguished by its intelligence. Well, and his legs. That part of the story is clearly etiological, an explanation as to why a snake doesn't look like a lizard.
Sometimes I am right , and sometimes I am wrong ( but the only ) talking animals ( Not Empowered )
by GOD to talk are BIRDS and certainly not sERPENTS........
So is GOD empowering this creature to destroy the Handy Work of his Almighty Hands....???.....
Sometimes I am right , and sometimes I am wrong ( but the only ) talking animals ( Not Empowered )
by GOD to talk are BIRDS and certainly not sERPENTS........
So is GOD empowering this creature to destroy the Handy Work of his Almighty Hands....???.....
Adam and Eve were born with free will, why wouldn't the SERPENT also have free will?...
The incident in the Garden was necessary for man's growth out of adolescence...
Sometimes I am right , and sometimes I am wrong ( but the only ) talking animals ( Not Empowered )
by GOD to talk are BIRDS and certainly not sERPENTS........
So is GOD empowering this creature to destroy the Handy Work of his Almighty Hands....???.....
Look, I'm only reading the text of Genesis, which very clearly and explicitly states that in the Garden of Eden a talking, walking snake was created by God. Let's look at that again:
Now the snake was more shrewd than all the living-things of the field that YHWH, God, had made.
(Gen 3:1 SB Fox)
A lot of crazy stuff happens in the first 11 chapters of Genesis: the world was surrounded by water, the sky was made out of metal, when it rained it was just windows being opened in the sky, all animals and humans were created to be vegans, talking snakes, a man being formed from mud and dirt and molded by hand, a woman created out of one of the man's bones, animals getting along and not killing each other, trees of knowledge, trees of life, people living to be 900 years old, gods coming down and having sex with human women and producing a race of half-divine "giants", a flood that destroys virtually the entire world but spares a few, a boat that somehow holds 2 of every animal - it's all very fantastical. So claiming that the Garden story does not relate a talking snake because that's not the way the world is today... is not a good argument. If you want to use that argument, then the rest of the crazy stuff in Genesis 1-11 never happened either. But that's the point: Genesis 1-11 happened in the Primeval Age - everything was different back then. It's the same in every Ancient Near Eastern culture - they make a huge division between the Primeval Ages and the Post-Diluvian Age when real history actually started.
You can read the text that we have and deal with it - even if you don't understand it or it seems crazy - or you can try to explain it away to make yourself feel better. The latter choice is not very honest.
Martin Luther commented on the story in which Eve is created from a rib and basically said that if one used his own sense of reason and logic, then it was a nonsensical fairy tail, but because he believed in the Authority of Scripture he had no choice but to accept it as actually having happened. Even if it's utterly nonsensical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
