Open Bible

Is this a Sneed thread?

Why did god punish an entire species of non-sentient creatures for the crime committed by a sentient being that had forcibly possessed one of the non-sentient creatures?

well yeah, snake was a divine being
come on, lad

People DIED over this shit.

That has always bothered me

Underrated

Morality comes from JHWH, not JHWH from morality. That's a common mistake, and the reason Christianity is so fucking stupid.

snakes also had legs appearantly, since the bible says that as punishment for what he did in the garden of eden the snake crawls on his stomach

The first commandment is a metaphor too, kek.

They didnt, they had wings to fly

once again no evidence that this was a snake, in fact the meaning of the word implies a serpent of divine origin, this is why some translations used the word Shining one instead since the word nachash also meaning shining one or serpent.

>forcibly possessed
Isn't it just a meme? It was only a snake.

Religious people are idiots, news at 11.

Serpent is another word for snake and nachash comes from "to hiss" so anyone translating it as "shining one" is clearly mistranslating it.

I do not believe that the translators are clearly mistranslating it. Two, the nachash has two roots, the to hiss is actually up for debate, but its other roots are more solid meaning to seek omens, or foretell

damn my boy reviewbrah looking good

>I do not believe that the translators are clearly mistranslating it.

You mean the majority that say snake or serpent or this tiny minority that give it a different meaning?

>You mean the majority that say snake or serpent or this tiny minority that give it a different meaning?
there would be a rationale behind it no? It would have to be reviewed by actual scholars who work in the field

>>Open Bible
>>Chapter 1
>>Talking imaginary god that doesn't exist
>People DIED over this shit

Are you seriously claiming that actual scholars back this crazy theory you have dreamed up that it doesn't mean serpent or snake?

biblehub.com/hebrew/5175.htm

yes, it has been questioned, the problem is again I never denied it to being a serpent. But rather the serpent is mix of many categories of things that simply doesn't make it just that, the elements of animal, human and divine knowledge doesn't conclude it to being that.

See what I said here , it is of divine origin

I should have put just a mere snake instead, this again clears up some of the misconception

Snakes were seen as having supernatural qualities by the ancient Hebrews it doesn't mean they are not snakes.

There's no misconception, just you trying to play word games that snake and serpent don't mean the same animal.

>supernatural qualities
correct in that they were as healers, it is no wonder that even Yahweh himself is associated with the snake.

Did I not say that it is a word that implies a serpent of divine origin? Again it was my fault for not putting 'mere; snake at the beginning of the text, even if was the case for back peddling.

>Did I not say that it is a word that implies a serpent of divine origin?

What difference does it make whether it was a snake of divine origin or not? Besides which everything in the Garden of Eden was of divine origin.

>What difference does it make whether it was a snake of divine origin or not?
It does greatly with the ad absurdum argument made by people here on Veeky Forums, fundamentalists (some fundies propose a defence of a snake with legs) and such. By distinguishing the serpent from its animal roots and understanding the divine nature of it, greatly diminishes this argument. Most of the time the so called snake argument is presupposed by modern 'anachronistic' ideas than actually looking at what the Israelites thought of it.

>Besides which everything in the Garden of Eden was of divine origin.

Correct, Eden was Yahweh's cosmic sanctuary.

You mean it's convenient for you to try and forget that it means a snake (presumably with legs).

see
read carefully

I'm sorry I'm just not interested in your word games, I understand exactly what you are saying and exactly where you are coming from and the actual point of it all is you trying to kid yourself, just like you are now trying to kid yourself that I have somehow misunderstood or that you have badly communicated something.

Nothing is totally divine. There's flaws on every creation. the bible admits that by showing the snake in paradise.

when the small amphibians would become bothersome, the gods would summon snakes to cull them. also Elo eats the snakes and thus provides food for angels. the snake is needed for the circle.

The divine depends on the non-divine.

Heh, humanity is pretty stupid isn't it?

YHWH is a colossal douche who routinely punishes humans for the sins of others, why not do the same with snakes? Also it was just a snake, the idea of it being the devil postdates Genesis by centuries.

Snaede's Viande ad Meale
Erstwhile Cnut's

God did not wright the bible. The writers did it. It's fiction and its metaphor leads nowhere.