05-20-2010, 07:13 PM
You see, and here's the problem I have with your position: you say that there are no instances in the TN"K where this terminology is used to refer to human beings, but your only defense for that position is that you reinterpret every instance of it to mean Satan. This is a logical fallacy called assuming the consequent. Your conclusion is the same as one of your premises.
Paraphrasing, you say "this is not about a man, because no man is referred to this way. No man is referred to this way, because this is not a man." We might as well say "this is about Satan because it is about Satan." Your argument is essentially tautological.
I do hold Revelation to be canonical, but (1)the ancient serpent does not necessarily mean the one in the garden. (2)the fact that John uses the imagery of the serpent does not necessarily mean that he intends to say that the two are the same. (3) Genesis makes it clear that it is talking about a serpent. Because I am not an inerrantist, I do not feel it is necessary to say that, even if John means what you say he means, that reflects on what Genesis 3 or Ezekiel mean.
Paraphrasing, you say "this is not about a man, because no man is referred to this way. No man is referred to this way, because this is not a man." We might as well say "this is about Satan because it is about Satan." Your argument is essentially tautological.
I do hold Revelation to be canonical, but (1)the ancient serpent does not necessarily mean the one in the garden. (2)the fact that John uses the imagery of the serpent does not necessarily mean that he intends to say that the two are the same. (3) Genesis makes it clear that it is talking about a serpent. Because I am not an inerrantist, I do not feel it is necessary to say that, even if John means what you say he means, that reflects on what Genesis 3 or Ezekiel mean.