Comments on: Dust Eating Serpents

By: quick pest control

quick pest control — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:23:31 +0000

Rather neat post. I just now became aware of your blog and needed to point out that I have truly enjoyed exploring your blog blogposts. Naturally I will be signing up to your information aggregator and I am hoping you write again quickly!

By: Reuel

Reuel — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:32:23 +0000

I think the serpent could actually be a snake. Because naturally snakes do have legs but they are inside of the body. If snakes had legs outside the body, then they would be able to keep their head of the ground when crawling. Genesis 14, “….upon thy belly shall thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” That part about dust doesn’t necessarily mean that the serpent will eat dust alone forever. It will partake of other delights but, correct me if i’m wrong, snakes move with their mouths somewhat open when sticking out the tongue causing them to partake of dust. Genesis 15, “………it shall bruise thy head…” refering to the serpent.

By: David Cottrell

David Cottrell — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:53:54 +0000

In Isaiah 30:6 the prophet spoke of the viper and the flying serpent. Perhaps the meaning is more allegorical than factual. The snake does not actually eat dust today (the Genesis curse). However, eating rodents is a very low thing (eating dust). Man was also made from the dust of the earth but we know that man is much more complex than plain old dirt. The molecules in man (i.e., DNA is very complex). So snakes eat items made from the natural world (i.e., dust). If Satan was a flying serpent (i.e, archangel) then he was transformed to an earthly thing (of flesh and blood). Of course I talking about the fall of Lucifer more than his physical representation. In Rev. 12:9 Apostle John equates the dragon with the ancient serpent. Pergamum was Satan’s throne at that time. So in this respect the serpent (i.e., Satan) was thrown from his first estate and made to roam earthly regions due to deceit, trickery, and pride.

By: of healt insurance

of healt insurance — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:27:57 +0000

is insurance healt insurance com healt

By: Blue Cord » Scripturizer Plugin

Blue Cord » Scripturizer Plugin — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:27:48 +0000

[…] Poetry has a post in which he discusses the issue of interpretation I raised in my post “Dust Eating Serpents.” I hope to respond to what he has to say about Isaiah. For now, I wanted to address another […]

By: John Hobbins

John Hobbins — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:33:51 +0000

Hi Kevin,

your post inspired to write a reply on my blog. Let me know if you find it helpful.

By: Calvin

Calvin — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:48:53 +0000

Kevin,

Interesting thoughts. Personally, I think that if we just assume the author here was not aware of Genesis 2-3, or if he was aware that he was not trying to make any connection, we could easily understand the verse: the serpent will eat dust, not small rodents.

Of course, this assumes that if the author was aware of Genesis 2-3 he had no desire to make a direct connection. I admit, it’s a dubious assumption, but its one of the few things that I can think of off the top of my head.

By: Jin

Jin — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:10:00 +0000

Kevin,
I enjoyed your article, and I think that the issue of the exception of the serpent is a very difficult to understand.

Let me go back to your translation: The wolf and the lamb will graze together; the lion will eat straw like the ox; and the serpent will have dust for its food.

What does that mean the wolf and the lamb will graze, and the lion will eat straw like the ox? Alike these transformations, do we expect something transformation of the serpent that the serpent will eat something vegetation rather than dust?

Let’s take the agricultural words, grazing in the pasture, straw as a guide to discuss this issue. Both dust and ground are also understood as same way. The peaceful imagery in the transformation of the wild animals is also found in the serpent. Isn’t it? As you translated “And the serpent…” I agree with your translation rather than NRSV (But the serpent).

They are all peaceful imaeries including the serpent. I’m not sure whether we need to go Genesis or somewhere else to understand this issue.

The last section of v. 25 says, “they shall [including the serpent] not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, says the LORD.” I’d like to focus on this last section to understand the issue that you raised up.