Hot answers tagged

22

The answer to the question regarding the first book of the Bible actually comes from the last book of the Bible: And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Revelation 12:9 NASB And he laid hold of ...


15

I don't have enough information to speak about the Southern Baptist Convention, where each congregation is a separate entity, and some could accept what the OP cites as the "serpent seed" doctrine, nor can I address the issues of the Assemblies of God. I do have some familiarity with the beliefs of the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches, and am a ...


13

On the surface, the teaching that 'the original sin' was Eve having sex with the serpent/Satan and that this resulted in Cain could seem to most Protestants to be bizarre, nonsensical and offensive. They may think that someone promoting such a line would be mocking the scriptures and Christianity and not be in any way serious. On further investigation, ...


6

The Hebrew word שְׂרָפִים śərāfîm / Latin seraphim means "burning ones", it is used to sometimes imply fiery serpents (likely because of the burning sensation their bite cause) (Num.21:4-9; Deut.8:15) and also to describe the angelic creations around God's throne (Isaiah 6:1-8). However, the Hebrew word נחש‎, nakhásh is used in Genesis 3 for serpent, so it ...


6

At your suggestion lets take a longer look at 2nd Corinthians chapter 11. As with most Scriptures, it is extremely difficult to extract the true meaning from a verse or a couple of verses without considering other verses not only around that verse, but in other verses in the Bible which lend explanation to the verses in question. All Scripture is taken ...


5

The consensus of the first millennium Church Fathers was that the serpent of Genesis 3:1 (Masoretic נָחָשׁ - nā·ḥāš; Greek ὄφις - ophis) was a simple creature that was used as a tool by the devil. John Chrysostom (c 349-407) wrote: Do not regard the present serpent; do not regard how we flee it and feel repulsion towards it. It was not such in the ...


5

The Bible employs animals as descriptions of character, as we do also. In the verse that you allude to, it expressly says "the" Serpent and draws a distinction from the beasts of the field. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree ...


4

I think that the reason so many see the serpent to be a literal entity is because that is the way the bible treats of the entity throughout the old and new testament scriptures. Particularly, John the Apostle records in the Apocalypse (Revelation 20:2) : And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a ...


2

I think most denominations understand that the serpent was but a tool used by Satan to deceive Eve. Jehovah’s Witnesses state as much in a response to a related question from readers in the June 15 2007 Watchtower on page 31. Below is the page. The bold print contains the statements indicating the opinion about the nature of the animal called the serpent....


1

We know that before the serpent was introduced, the Bible describes the beasts of the field being created, which are literal animals. Therefore when the Bible introduces the serpent as a beast of the field, it too is a literal animal. Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. Satan chose to ...


1

This truly is a interesting question and one that we as humans can let our imaginations run wild. As we read Gods word, our own mind can see many strange images and lead us to believe some things that are only a figment of our imagination. Also, our minds are of the impression of what we have been told and learned at early ages in our lives. As we age and ...


1

No, there is no catholic teaching that serpents had legs. As you say, NABRE assumes Genesis as allegorical, therefore I would take their description of the serpent as allegorical. That is, allegorically "the serpent had legs" - as in, was in right standing with God (before Satan's fall). Then "lost the legs" / was punished meaning is no longer in the ...


1

The original written Hebrew text of Genesis 3:1 would have been נחש (nhs). The Masoretic Text vowelizes this as נָחָשׁ (nā·ḥāš) - a word that is normally used to mean serpent, snake, or viper. There are four possible answers here, I think, as to how נחש could be construed to mean "shining one". None of them are terribly compelling, in my opinion. ...


1

It is because that serpent was the Devil, Lucifer, the son of the morning, aka the shining one. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" Isaiah 14:12 Satan is symbolized elsewhere by the image of a serpent (see Revelation 12:9; there are also references in ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible