Talk:Serpents in the Bible

Context
I've set this in the Ancient Near Eastern context, from which it was seeming oddly isolated.--Wetman (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please
Please use edit summaries, as I have... and discuss for anything contested, which your edits are. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 05:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whom are you addressing? Maybe this message should be left on a user talk page. — the Man in Question (in question)  06:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Focus
This article is on the serpent who appears in Genesis, and therefore (given the Christian interpretation), the serpent/dragon which appears in Revelation. It is not simply an article about serpent in general in the bible, which would not be worthy of forming a separate article from Serpent (symbolism), and which furthermore would be called Serpent in the Bible or Biblical serpents. — the Man in Question (in question)  06:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for expanding it, something like this is in order:

==Christian interpretations== ==Jewish interpretations== ==Islamic interpretations== ==Other interpretations== ===Lilith=== ===Draconcopedes=== ==Historical background== ==In literature and art==
 * — the Man in Question (in question)  06:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To be quite straight on this, the first text of this article was simply cut and pasted, cannibalized from Serpent (symbolism), leaving no summary at that article, in an attempt to strip this subject material from its historical and cultural background, which I have supplied. I think there is no "contesting" as someone has put it. The encyclopedic treatment of an article Serpent (Bible) must cover the serpent in the Bible: if that's not what's wanted, brains will have to be racked for a better title. --Wetman (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the serpent in the Bible"? Do you mean the symbol of the serpent? Because this is not so. Since the serpent of Genesis is referred to as the serpent, an article titled Serpent (Bible) is appropriate enough to deal directly with this serpent. Of course background information should be given where applicable, but the brief information I read on the page did not seem to be related (I did not read all of the additions, though). My main point is that when I came back to look at this page, it had been turned into serpents in the Bible, which is not a worthy topic for this encyclopedia, and even if it were, the serpent of Genesis still deserves its own page (with historical analysis where applicable and available, of course). — the Man in Question (in question)  17:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Christian terms
It seems to me that "Serpent" in this context is a Christian term. I assume Carlaude objects to the categorization because "serpent" is simply an English word which has a specialized meaning in biblical contexts, but the same can be said for Alpha and Omega, Antithesis, Backslide, Catholic, Celibacy, Confession, Confirmation, Creed, Demon, Efficacy, Fasting, Forgiveness, Heaven, Hermit, Hierarchy, Immortality, Incarnation, Indulgence, Inquisition, Lent, Mercy, Ordination, Paradise, Patriarch, Prophet, Repentance, Revelation, Rood, Salvation, Savior, Sin, Soul, Throne, Venerable, and Vocation, all of which are categorized as Christian terms. I would particularly point out Abyss (religion), Covenant (biblical), Elder (Christianity), Futurism (Christian eschatology), Good news (Christianity), Historicism (Christian eschatology), Justification (theology), Minister (Christianity), Mission (Christian), Nail (relic), Passion (Christianity), Patriarchs (Bible), and Watcher (angel), all categorized as Christian terms, which directly parallel the name of this article. It's not really a big deal to me whether this page is categorized as a Christian term, but seeing as it discusses nothing but a term used in the Old and New Testament, I can't particularly see how it's not. — the Man in Question (in question)  20:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Serpent does not have any specialized meaning in Biblical contexts. It might have a specialized use in the book of Revelation, but that could bearly make it a Biblical term-- and it would be missleading to put it in any Category:Biblical terms, since it could and would be better put in Category:Book of Revelation. But, of course, a Biblical term is not the same as a Christian term. By the way, many of your examples-- such as Catholic, Celibacy, Indulgence are not even in the Bible. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but they fall under the realm of broader topics that are considered Christian terms. Again, I'm not advocating it should be categorized as a Christian term, I'm simply arguing that it is a Christian term. (I was not the IP who re-added the category.) — the Man in Question (in question)  00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure that Donkeys and Sheep are discussed even more in the Bible, but you don't need to know anything about Christianity to know what a Donkey or a Sheep is. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But not to a specific sheep or donkey. This article is about a specific serpent. — the Man in Question (in question)  00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Only some of the article is about a "specific" serpent -- and I am not sure that is even half of the article-- but even if it were all on one use of the word, "serpent" is not be a Christian term, even if the word can be used to refer to the Devil, just as "Lamb" is not be a Christian term, even if the word can be used to refer to Christ. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 01:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When Christians talk about the biblical serpent, they are not talking about a generic serpent or a generic snake or a generic dragon. Hence, serpent in a Christian context is a Christian term. 75.14.209.7 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument fails on multiple levels. Read, , , , and . User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Satan only" or "Serpent, symbolism"

 * This article has nothing to do with those instances, though. This article is only about the Serpent which Christianity identifies with Satan. — the Man in Question (in question)  05:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that is not the case.
 * This article is about serpents (and their symbolism) in the Bible.
 * However, if it is your view this should be a "Satan only" article, then feel free to open a formal Requested Move to discuss a rename of the article to that effect. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 16:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is the case, seeing as I created the article as such. It doesn't need to be renamed, because there are no other significant serpents who function as biblical characters. — the Man in Question (in question)  17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. You cannot WP:own an article
 * 2. you "created" it by only spliting it off the Serpent (symbolism) article
 * 3. If anyone really created it a such they would have called it "Serpent (Satan)"
 * 4. the use of symbolism in the Bible (or elsewhere) need not reference any specific character or characters.
 * 5. I see User:Wetmen agrees with this "The encyclopedic treatment of an article Serpent (Bible) must cover the serpent in the Bible" So there is also not only no WP:CON for your idea ATM, there is more against your idea.User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 17:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting I own it, I'm suggesting that an article on serpents in general in the Bible would be absurd. To change the entire topic of an article is what goes against Wikipedia policy. Anyhow, every link and redirect to this article (every) is in reference to Satan as the Serpent. Any unlikely but possible confusion that might arise from people thinking this article is about serpents in general is immediately assuaged by the hatnote and the capitalization of "Serpent". I'm not sure why you're so adamant about having it be about serpents in general. As for Serpent (Satan), that does not work since not everyone agrees that the serpent is meant to be Satan. As with The Beast (Bible), using the common name plus a generic disambiguation is standard procedure. — the Man in Question (in question)  20:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * With some background reading it will become clear that the equation "Serpent=Satan" is specifically and only a Christian interpretation of one passaage in the Hebrew Bible, after an interval of centuries. As the Man in Question says, not everyone agrees that the serpent is meant to be Satan. So, is the article intended to cover specifically the Serpent in the Garden of Eden? Then that is its best title. There is already an article Nehushtan and Serpent (symbolism), so bible serpents are fairly well covered. In a neutral encyclopedia article covering the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, the earlier ancient Near Eastern context is inherently part of the story. And the Christian interpretation is also a sub-section. Would that be satisfactory?--Wetman (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also an article Draconcopedes. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 15:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More than just one passage is involved, as the material I have added indicates. Once the connection was established, all snakey references were taken to reinforce the connection. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, Rabbis (not just Christian Rabbis) also held that the snake in Genesis to be Satan-- until at least 70 AD. They just may not hold that veiw any more (but I would be curious what veiw they do have). User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 15:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Christian Rabbis"? I know the term Rabboni was used of Jesus, but "Christian Rabbis", that's a new one to me. Should there be a wikipedia article on the topic: Christian Rabbis? 75.15.203.48 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, the association of the serpent of the Garden of Eden with the Devil is found in the Biblical apocrypha, Book of Wisdom to be exact. 75.15.203.48 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarity

 * For the sake of argument, lets say we are trying to agree on what this article is (or should be) about.
 * It could be about the serpent in Genesis and any interpetaions that come later by Christian/Jews to be about that one same being/snake-- in the veiw of the later author. (And if so-- where would any discussion of plural "serpents" etc in NT figures of speech go? (Such as Matthew 3:7, Matthew 10:16, Mark 16:17-18, Luke 10:19, and John 3:14-15.) Would it still go here, or in Serpent (symbolism), or a new article?)
 * It could be about any serpents/snakes in the Bible and their symbolism, regardless of any diversity in the use of it for symbolism.
 * Or is there another, 3rd option? Please comment, esp. Johnbod & Wetman.User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 15:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you already know my opinion, but I will restate it briefly here: (1) Snakes in the Bible does not seem like a notable encyclopedia topic; (2) the name Serpent (Bible) seems to clearly point to the Serpent, and does not require any sort of renaming; (3) any confusion that might arise between Serpent (Bible) and Snakes in the Bible (i.e., Serpent (symbolism)) can immediately be assuaged by the use of a hatnote; and (4) every link to this article, and every redirect, is in reference to the Serpent of Genesis or Satan as the Serpent. — the Man in Question (in question)  17:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about Christian interpretations, we should be guided by what Christian commentators actually said. I have been careful to reference my addition on Psalm 91 & refer to two classic commentators. For them the Genesis sepent & the one in Psalm 91 were presumably the same beastie. Some other NT passages, afaik were not linked to Satan in this way, but related to normal snakes. I don't really mind having a short section on them - a whole article would be overkill - but the distinction should be made more clearly than it is at present. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirection
The serpent should not redirect here. It should go to a disambiguation page including the film The Serpent. Salopian (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New Layout
The whole reason why there was so much confusion on this page, is because of the incoherent layout. So I've made a major modification to its structure. This page has all of the elements for the various concepts of serpent in the Bible, but the way it was presented was not coherent. The only addition that was needed for the new layout was a new introduction to present the scope of all of the elements that had already existed on this page. - Jasonasosa (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your work was reverted after you left the above comment, but I think that was a misunderstanding. I have reinstated your version of 31 October, and repeated all the subsequent edits that were made from 20 November to date. – Fayenatic L (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fayenatic L . I'm glad my major edit wasn't a complete waste. Pico tends to strip things apart more than contribute. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Doubt?
Why is doubt shown in this article as to whether the serpent referenced in 2 Kings 18:4 is the same one Moses made? All translations of that passage are clear that it was the same one. Unless there is some hidden agenda (Say! Isn't this the symbol used by modern medicine?!), the doubt should be taken out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.84.7.117 (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Calidum T&#124;C 01:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Serpent (Bible) → Serpents in the Bible – As noted in a previous section, this article discusses serpents throughout the Bible. Some of them could certainly be interpreted as the same character, but surely not all of them. The proposed title better reflects the scope of the article, and uses WP:NATURAL disambiguation. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest Serpent references in the Bible. Believers might say there is only a main serpent entity that is alluded to in many ways.  GregKaye 19:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support precisely per nom. I think there are many references to snakes in the Bible, and no scholarship I can imagine suggests that every single one of them somehow is Satan. Red Slash 03:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the proposed title doesn't seem neutral. No evidence is presented that the article is about more than one distinct serpents. The current title seems good and I think must be kept for the article. Per WP:CONSISTENCY. Animal titles on Wikipedia are generally in singular. Also per consistency with the title Serpent (symbolism) which uses the singular form as well. Khestwol (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence? I want to ask this in a non-condescending manner, but that may not be possible: did you look at the article? It covers serpent imagery, groups of serpents, and individual serpents. It's quite plainly about serpents in the Bible; I'm not sure how we could state that more neutrally. --BDD (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Your opinion does not count as evidence I am sorry. I have the opinion that there is just one symbolic serpent character in the Bible. Please note the article's focus is on the serpent character in the Bible and not explicitly about stories from outside the Bible about multiple serpents. Khestwol (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that you have not read the article. – Fayenatic  L ondon
 * I had missed some content you are right. For example the one about the Old Testament. Thank you for making me read it. I have modified my !vote but I still oppose the proposal. Khestwol (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, seems sensible, following Category:Animals in the Bible. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, animal and plant-related titles on Wikpedia are generally in singular form. See for example rose, dog, snake, etc. Why should this title be an exception? For WP:CONSISTENCY this title should also be in singular form. Khestwol (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's not describing snakes from a zoological perspective or anything. It fits WP:PLURAL's criterion of being about "groups or classes of specific things", namely, a group of references to serpents in the Bible. The proposed title is more along the lines of Figs in the Bible or Wells in the Bible. The only title I found after a quick search with a singular "in the Bible" name is Soul in the Bible, which is a bit awkward, but acceptable since it's more about the idea of "the soul". --BDD (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nāḥāš (נחש‎) vs. Nachash (נָחָשׁ)
The second paragraph of the lede begins:


 * "Nāḥāš (נחש‎), Hebrew for 'snake'..."

The subsection "Eden" begins:


 * "The Hebrew word נָחָשׁ (Nachash) is used to identify the serpent that appears in Genesis 3:1..."

It looks to me that Nāḥāš and Nachash are two different ways of transliterating the same Hebrew word, and that נָחָשׁ and נחש are the same Hebrew word but the former has vowel markings and the latter doesn't. However, I don't speak Hebrew so I'm not sure. If I'm right, though, I think we should use the same transliteration throughout this article to make clear that we're talking about the same word and not a series of variations on it. --Jfruh (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis
— Assignment last updated by Keegancroteau12 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)