The identity of the serpent

Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Wed Aug 30 11:48:58 EDT 2000


Raymond,
> >It seems to me that this is not only reading into the text, but
> >reading into other people's minds as well.  Once again, it's obvious
> >that this snake is no ordinary animal, there's something or
> >someone motivating its actions, at the very least there's something
> >or someone giving it the capability of speech since there's no
> >indication at all anywhere else in the text that any animals could
> >talk.
> 
> Dave,
> 
> About "reading into a text": nowhere in the text there is an indication
> that we are not dealing with an "ordinary animal". To the contrary, the
> serpent is the most subtle from *all the living of the field, that the Lord
> God made*. So when you are reading here something else than an "ordinary
> animal", it is your reading, feel free. But don't say it's in the text. You
> read it into it. The serpent is just an "ordinary creature" like you and
> me, not a sneaky figure -- or you have to think it of me too :->

Okay, which other of the "ordinary creatures" has the capability of 
speech, knows what God has commanded the man and questions 
it, lies to the people and all the rest?  I think you're the one reading 
"ordinary" into the text, because it's obvious in the context that this 
critter does things that no other critter does, has knowledge 
beyond what any other critter has, and has the capability of moral 
judgment that no other critter apparently has.  So perhaps you can 
explain to me how this constitutes "ordinary."  If we take the 
introductory statement in isolation, well sure, he looks  
ordinary enough.  But if we look at his actions, it's pretty obvious 
that he's anything but ordinary as compared to the other animals.  
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Éist le glór Dé."



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list