Is the "snake" on Genesis, Satan? Or who else?

[GarretKadeDupre]

Interesting thought, but as a guy I am thankful I only have to work in a field rather than give birth!

Good point lol.

I don’t know about specific ranks for Adam and Eve, but I definitely think the serpent gets the worst. This seems to be indicated not only by the language of absolute defeat in its curse, but also in the fact that the serpent does not get the chance to defend itself like Adam and Eve. God goes straight to punishment without questioning.

I agree.

Did the author really believe snakes ate dirt?

Snakes do eat dust. Watch closely at the 10 second mark in this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ph53u9nd9ZI

Obviously the snake is on a rock, so it’s tongue didn’t get dusty. But when they are on the ground, their tongue picks up dirt everytime they do that. Unless you want to argue snakes spit out the dust (something I’ve never seen or heard of lol), they’ve got to swallow it.

In other words, snakes eat dust.

 

[ScriptStudent]

Snakes do eat dust. Watch closely at the 10 second mark in this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ph53u9nd9ZI

Obviously the snake is on a rock, so it’s tongue didn’t get dusty. But when they are on the ground, their tongue picks up dirt everytime they do that. Unless you want to argue snakes spit out the dust (something I’ve never seen or heard of lol), they’ve got to swallow it.

In other words, snakes eat dust.

Another interesting point, but I don’t think this qualifies as “eating dust” in terms of an etiological change in a snake’s diet. This seems more fitting for Micah 7:17, which describes snakes licking dust (always being face down on the ground). Micah uses it as an image of defeat and I believe the author of Genesis uses an even stronger image to describe the complete defeat of the serpent antagonist, who is figuratively described as a snake.

 

[GarretKadeDupre]

Another interesting point, but I don’t think this qualifies as “eating dust” in terms of an etiological change in a snake’s diet. This seems more fitting for Micah 7:17, which describes snakes licking dust (always being face down on the ground). Micah uses it as an image of defeat and I believe the author of Genesis uses an even stronger image to describe the complete defeat of the serpent antagonist, who is figuratively described as a snake.

I’m very confused as to what you are trying to say lol. Are you saying the first snake God created already lacked legs? How can that be reconciled with the Bible?

 

[ScriptStudent]

I’m very confused as to what you are trying to say lol. Are you saying the first snake God created already lacked legs? How can that be reconciled with the Bible?

Sorry about that. In trying to talk with 1newcatholic about an etiological reading, I never fully formulated my understanding of the text.

Beginning with a canonical approach to scripture, I think it is important to recognize that the serpent is Satan (Revelation 12:9). Even without the Book of Revelation, one can make a strong case that the serpent figure is more than a literal snake (such as a supernatural antagonist). But since we are both Catholic according to our profiles, and therefore both believe in the inspiration of the Bible, we can simply use Revelation 12:9 as a starting point.

The question then becomes, “Why is Satan portrayed as a serpent?” Did Satan possess a snake? This could be, but then one would have to ask why an innocently possessed snake gets punished (removed legs theory). This doesn’t make sense and was the original question I asked you. Perhaps the snake worked together with Satan (mutually agreed possession). But again, this can’t be the case since it would ascribe an intellect and will (spiritual soul) to an animal.

Therefore, in light of the rich symbolism of the Genesis narrative, it seems most fitting that the author described this supernatural antagonist in zoomorphic terms. God is described in anthropomorphic terms, but the author wasn’t implying he had a body. Furthermore, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are not known to the field of botany. They are not meant to be literal trees, but poetic symbols.

So I don’t believe there was a literal snake in the garden and I don’t believe snakes once had legs. The language of God’s curse is very similar to other biblical examples of complete defeat.

 

[GarretKadeDupre]

Sorry about that. In trying to talk with 1newcatholic about an etiological reading, I never fully formulated my understanding of the text.

Beginning with a canonical approach to scripture, I think it is important to recognize that the serpent is Satan (Revelation 12:9). Even without the Book of Revelation, one can make a strong case that the serpent figure is more than a literal snake (such as a supernatural antagonist). But since we are both Catholic according to our profiles, and therefore both believe in the inspiration of the Bible, we can simply use Revelation 12:9 as a starting point.

Right.

The question then becomes, “Why is Satan portrayed as a serpent?” Did Satan possess a snake? This could be, but then one would have to ask why an innocently possessed snake gets punished (removed legs theory). This doesn’t make sense and was the original question I asked you. Perhaps the snake worked together with Satan (mutually agreed possession).

That made me laugh. Lol.

But again, this can’t be the case since it would ascribe an intellect and will (spiritual soul) to an animal.

Therefore, in light of the rich symbolism of the Genesis narrative, it seems most fitting that the author described this supernatural antagonist in zoomorphic terms. God is described in anthropomorphic terms, but the author wasn’t implying he had a body. Furthermore, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are not known to the field of botany. They are not meant to be literal trees, but poetic symbols.

I don’t think that’s a reasonable inference. Leviathan is not known to the field of zoology but wouldn’t you agree it was (and possibly is) a real, fire-breathing creature? If we disagree on this point, we probably aren’t going to agree on much of anything else regarding Genesis lol.

So I don’t believe there was a literal snake in the garden and I don’t believe snakes once had legs. The language of God’s curse is very similar to other biblical examples of complete defeat.

I more comfortable with the idea that there was a literal serpent with legs, and we just haven’t gotten around to making a coherent theory that is consistent with the Bible, yet.

 

[1newcatholic]

Leviathan is not known to the field of zoology but wouldn’t you agree it was (and possibly is) a real, fire-breathing creature?

It’s probably a reference to the very large saltwater crocs that used to traverse the Nile… just like a “unicorn” is a hippo…

If we disagree on this point, we probably aren’t going to agree on much of anything else regarding Genesis lol.

That’s probably true.

I more comfortable with the idea that there was a literal serpent with legs,

Those are called lizards.

 

[ScriptStudent]

I don’t think that’s a reasonable inference. Leviathan is not known to the field of zoology but wouldn’t you agree it was (and possibly is) a real, fire-breathing creature? If we disagree on this point, we probably aren’t going to agree on much of anything else regarding Genesis lol.

This is where we would part ways. I do not believe the Leviathan was/is an actual or historical creature. Several Ancient Near Eastern texts describe a Leviathan, often as a seven headed beast, so seeing it as a symbol of chaos seems the most likely interpretation.

1newcatholic is correct that some scholars view it as a crocodile found in the Nile. This obviously does not match the description found in Job, though (fire breathing creature). Furthermore, scholars who interpret the Leviathan this way often attempt to dismiss the miraculous/supernatural narratives with natural explanations, such as the bloody water in Exodus actually just being a red, clay-like sediment mixed in the Nile. I am very, very wary of such approaches to the Bible. This is not to say that the crocodile theory is wrong, but I think the symbolic chaos imagery more fitting.

I more comfortable with the idea that there was a literal serpent with legs, and we just haven’t gotten around to making a coherent theory that is consistent with the Bible, yet.

This is a very humble approach. Saint Augustine would be especially happy to hear this! The evidence leads me to believe there was not an actual snake for the reasons I stated above. I am glad you acknowledge the serpent as Satan, though. At least we can agree on that important aspect of the narrative.

 

[mikekle]

I’m very confused as to what you are trying to say lol. Are you saying the first snake God created already lacked legs? How can that be reconciled with the Bible?

If you look at those verses, after the snake (satan) tempts adam and eve successfully, God condemns ALL snakes to forever crawl on their bellies, so this tells me, at one time, snakes were probably bipedal and likely much different creatures than they are today. Many creatures probably existed back then that do not today though, (dragons as well),Ive heard it explained how a species of dragon could have existed at one time, and how they could have literally spit fire, it would be possible if they had the right chemical compounds in their system, there were also other animals back then that have never existed on earth at any other times…Im not sure if what we think of as dinosaurs existed then, but I would not discount it either, whether the dragon was a close relative or not is anyones guess, but I think dragons were something unique and not related to the dinosaur in anyway.

 

[juliamajor]

etiological stories abound in Genesis. It is a cosmogony of the the world as the ancients understood it. The “How” and “why” of things was always on the ancients mind as they struggled to understand the world around them. “How did a rainbow come to be”?
Why to people speak different languages? Why are people different from each other? How did evil come to be?
Genesis, answers some of those questions. But one reading is not the way scripture should be viewed. we have layers of meanings in scripture.
could the snake be a snake and a adversary?Yes. . Each passage in Scripture is understood to have four meanings:

Literal: What the passage says about past events.
Allegorical: What the passage can tell us about Christ
Moral: What the passage can teach us about how to live
Anagogical: What the passage tells us about our ultimate fate
This is hermeneutics of the Middle Ages and is rooted in the layers of meaning seen by the Sages in Judaism.
Say something means this and always and only this does an injustice to the scripture.
If scripture were that transparent why would we be talking about? This is how Catholic bible scholars view scripture.

 

[ScriptStudent]

Literal: What the passage says about past events.
Allegorical: What the passage can tell us about Christ
Moral: What the passage can teach us about how to live
Anagogical: What the passage tells us about our ultimate fate
This is hermeneutics of the Middle Ages and is rooted in the layers of meaning seen by the Sages in Judaism.
Say something means this and always and only this does an injustice to the scripture.
If scripture were that transparent why would we be talking about? This is how Catholic bible scholars view scripture.

I would simply correct/clarify your description of the literal sense. It is not necessarily about past events. Rather, the literal sense focuses on the author’s original intention while conveying his message. This is an important distinction because when one looks at prophecy, the literal sense could still incorporate future events.

 

[GarretKadeDupre]

Say something means this and always and only this does an injustice to the scripture.

Premise 1: Truth does not change.
Premise 2: Scripture is truth.
Conclusion: Scripture does not change.

Scripture means the same as it did when it was first penned. It’s meaning does not change over time, nor evolve.

 

[juliamajor]

You better look at the scripture the way the church does. It is not viewed on one level. We do not take an either/ or view of scripture, we take a both/and . I’ll give you an example that most Protestant would disagree with.
Mary is the mother of Jesus and the Mother of God.
The woman clothed with the sun in the book of Revelation stands for both Mary and Israel.

Two or three levels of meaning do not change the truth of something.

The sun is hot.
the sun is bright
both are true…
the way of looking at scripture on different levels is not a “new” theory. It is from the Middle Ages and taught at the universities of that time period.
The wrong way to read scripture is as the Fundamentalists do. It makes scripture seem shallow and irrelevant to people. The Word of God is potent and sharp as a two edged sword.You can’t get that with flat, one level meanings.

 

[GarretKadeDupre]

…]

It appears to me that you completely missed the point. I did not deny that scripture has both literal and allegorical meanings. What I said was that the meanings of scripture are the same today as they were 1,000 years ago. They don’t change.

 

[juliamajor]

It appears to me that you completely missed the point. I did not deny that scripture has both literal and allegorical meanings. What I said was that the meanings of scripture are the same today as they were 1,000 years ago. They don’t change.

T**that’s still thinking that one reading is the right one. we rely on ECF and tradition but that doesn’t negate other readings of scripture which relate to our lives here and now.
**
Different generations can draw meanings out of scripture than another generations. You can see yourself and your actions through the prism of our lives.
Just as the view of an afterlife evolved over the centuries in Israel and dogmas evolved over time , scriptures meanings and insights can evolve and become richer for each new generation.

 

[GarretKadeDupre]

Tthat’s still thinking that one reading is the right one.

The Church’s interpretation is ALWAYS the right one.

we rely on ECF and tradition but that doesn’t negate other readings of scripture which relate to our lives here and now.

As long as you agree the meaning of scripture does not change, that’s fine.

Just as the view of an afterlife evolved over the centuries in Israel and dogmas evolved over time , scriptures meanings and insights can evolve and become richer for each new generation.

Dogmas do not evolve over time. That’s a heresy called Modernism and condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis in 1907:

[E]volution of dogma is an] immense collection of sophisms…] that ruins and destroys all religion. [According to Modernists, d]ogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles.

Sorry for the heavy paraphrasing. You can read the text in context here if you like:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

 

[juliamajor]

Not every line in scripture is interpreted. There is no huge book hidden in the vatican that tells us what every verse means. Surprisingly much in scripture is left the reader. We all interpret scripture to a degree…It is our nature as human beings. As long as we do it cognizant of what the church has truly defined- and again every verse in scripture does not have a church interpretation that is dogmatic. If there is one I’d love to see it.

 

[juliamajor]

Not every line in scripture is interpreted. There is no huge book hidden in the vatican that tells us what every verse means. Surprisingly much in scripture is left the reader. We all interpret scripture to a degree…It is our nature as human beings. As long as we do it cognizant of what the church has truly defined- and again every verse in scripture does not have a church interpretation that is dogmatic.
when we read Scripture in the light of the apostles’ authentic teachings, we sometimes forget that some central doctrines (such as the Trinity and the hypostatic union) were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Church’s early days the way they are now. Understanding grew and deepened over time. As an example, consider the Holy Spirit’s divinity. In Scripture, references to it seem to jump out at us. But if we imagine ourselves as ancient pagans or as present-day non-Christians reading the Bible for the first time, we realize, for them, the Holy Spirit’s status as a divine person is not as clearly present in Scripture, since they are less likely to notice details pointing to it. If we think of ourselves as having no recourse to apostolic tradition and to the Church’s teaching authority that the Holy Spirit guides into all truth (cf. John 14:25-26, 16:13), we can appreciate how easy it must have been for the early heresies concerning the Trinity and Holy Spirit to arise.

 

[cjforJesus]

The snake in Genesis represents Lucifer,the bringer of false enlightenment. Lucifer is also known as satan the adversary or deceiver,and he continues to beguile mankind with his false promises

 

[juliamajor]

The snake in Genesis is also part of the etiological stories contained in Genesis. Could be called “How this creature , that mankind has had aversion, came to be so hated and what is that weird thing of having no legs.”
The many layers of scripture.

 

[grannymh]

Not every line in scripture is interpreted. There is no huge book hidden in the vatican that tells us what every verse means. Surprisingly much in scripture is left the reader. We all interpret scripture to a degree…It is our nature as human beings. As long as we do it cognizant of what the church has truly defined- and again every verse in scripture does not have a church interpretation that is dogmatic. If there is one I’d love to see it.

Genesis 1:1 is Dogma.

Those who participate in the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass profess this Dogma.