eve the serpent

[redhotmagma]

Just tooling around on the ole internet and happened across someone saying that the word for eve chaya is very similar or the same as the aramaic root for serpent.

Can't find any good evidence, anyone else know anything about this?  Did see some more writing about it, but nothing solid.

[Beloved Servant]

I found this but I didn't get anywhere with it.

http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=serpent&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0

[micah7:9]

Just where do you "tool?"

[redhotmagma]

I was searching for mythology and the bible.  I still have a few unanswered questions, like why are there so many pagan god names, for instance heaven in NT is ouranos, or uranus.  Star is aster, or ashera/astarte.

What is the nature or how much revelation was given to the pagan nations. 

Why did God use symbolism identical to pagan nations?  Like the sphinx/cherubim.

I just found out that the sphinx in egypt and most of the egyptian sphinxes wore a cobra around the head (pharoahs did too).  Since I think the cherubim symbolize our flesh it makes sense that they have a serpent around their head.  The wings on the sphinx represent horus, the hawk/eagle, and the body is the lion with the human face.  The rear legs are the ox.

Oh to answer your question, I was just doing a google search.  I found that on a few sites.  Just no primary sources.

[Molly]

Not sure what you're looking at RHM.

E-sword says Eve means 'lifegiver.'

Chavvah (or Eve),
lifegiver

Comes from the root chavah, to live.

The Bible calls her the mother of all living.


Then the man--Adam--named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live.

--Gen 3:20


Got to be careful out there on the internet...

[WhiteWings]

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/12/the-serpent-and-eve-nonsense-where-the-idea-comes-from-and-does-not-come-from/

[Molly]

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/12/the-serpent-and-eve-nonsense-where-the-idea-comes-from-and-does-not-come-from/

You can trust this guy, RHM [Michael Heiser].  He's the real thing.  He's a scholar of ancient languages and history.  He also teaches [cheap:50 dollars a course] courses on the internet in the Memra Institute, and has some software you might like for searching the Bible [although I'm not sure how expensive that is.]

[WhiteWings]

Molly, do you have  a link to that software? Or teh name of the program?

You can trust this guy, RHM [Michael Heiser].

You can trust me too RHM! As long as nothing of value is near  :winkgrin:

[WhiteWings]

Found it. http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/heiser
Overpriced bloatware with a clumsy interface. $150-$4500. All sorts of of extra's sold seperately.

[redhotmagma]

I read the article he provides.  There are credible scholars who point to the connection.  He doesn't think so.  I don't know enough about it and the reasons given in the article (against the connection) seem logical.  So...

[redhotmagma]

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/08/romans-512-and-universalism-applying-my-take-on-romans-512-to-the-problem/

Molly Heiser may lose some credibility in your eyes when you read his handling of romans 5:12.

Not saying you have to agree with everything someone says, but...

[micah7:9]

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/08/romans-512-and-universalism-applying-my-take-on-romans-512-to-the-problem/

Molly Heiser may lose some credibility in your eyes when you read his handling of romans 5:12.

Not saying you have to agree with everything someone says, but...

says, but    :eek:

[Beloved Servant]

lol, BUT.

[Beloved Servant]

IN THEORY, THEN — :eek:

[Molly]

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/08/romans-512-and-universalism-applying-my-take-on-romans-512-to-the-problem/

Molly Heiser may lose some credibility in your eyes when you read his handling of romans 5:12.

Not saying you have to agree with everything someone says, but...

Oh, this is just his opinion of Bible verses in English.  Same as your opinion or my opinion.

I didn't say he was a universalist.

His expertise is ancient semitic languages and OT Hebrew and history.

Otherwise, he's just like you and me.

[Beloved Servant]

And all the other fire and brimstone preachers.

[Molly]

Heiser has a particular area of expertise that RHM shows an interest in --words and their meanings in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.

He is not a preacher, much less a fire and brimstone preacher.

He is a much better source for the meaning of words than whoever told RHM that Eve means snake.

Take it or leave it.

He's fun to talk to, maybe RHM could introduce him to universalism.

[WhiteWings]

http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/heiser
"He has taught over twenty different courses covering both testaments, systematic theology, ethics, and biblical languages."

"Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs.  He observed that many who have adopted "alternative" worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had."


So it seems he also teaches NT. His NT view is fire and brimstone. Obviouly that can't be seen seperate from his OT views.

[Molly]

How do you know his new testament view is fire and brimstone?

Maybe it's annihilation.

And what does that have to do with the meaning of words?

Aramaic is one of his languages=NT, also probably ancient Greek.

He does have a wholeview of the Bible, but it seems to revolve around the sons of God.

I have never heard him say anything about fire and brimstone.

Do you people only talk to universalists?

[Molly]

"Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs.  He observed that many who have adopted "alternative" worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had."

I don't know if you would call this a 'ministry.'

He seems to give lectures on the OT at strange UFO conferences from time to time.

He talks on the radio about similar things from time to time.

What he presents to these people is that what they think is going on is described in the Bible.

[WhiteWings]

How do you know his new testament view is fire and brimstone?

Maybe it's annihilation.

On one hand, the "life" part is easy, since it could refer to eternal life, which is actually shared by all (unless there is annihilation), the unsaved and the saved.

Annihilation seems not to be his first choice of doctrine.

How to avoid universalism here?

He rejects universalism.
So I would say he's an ET that thinks tehre is a small possibility for annihilation.

And what does that have to do with the meaning of words?

It means for example he disagrees wth most Jewish scholars who are are mostly universalists. A few belevieve in annihilation for a small percentage of people. I never founds another Jewish view. With an exception the Saduccees who didn't believe in afterlife at all.
Basicly that means his expertise is challanged by lots of Jewish scholars.

And what does that have to do with the meaning of words?

When people look in a dictionary/lexicon they (usually) aren't primary looking for the meaning of words. They are looking for information that helps them understand words in a certain context. In this case the meaning of a verse.
Take 3 top notch scholars. Let them study a few verses and ask them to label them: ET, ED or UR.
Only one answer can be correct

Aramaic is one of his languages=NT, also probably ancient Greek.

But that's not the basis of this article.
He doesn't analyse the words. He reasons from a certain perspective.

How to avoid universalism here? (and it's important since universalism is denied elsewhere in Romans 5 and many other places

In that quoute he basicly says: "As shown above, the verses seems to clearly point to Universalism. I don't believe in Universalism so I'll reason it away."


Everybody uses a certain amount of reasoning to reach a conclusion. That's totally fine with me. But it does also mean the article isn't a scholary approach.

[WhiteWings]

"Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs.  He observed that many who have adopted "alternative" worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had."

I don't know if you would call this a 'ministry.'

Maybe that depends on what you think the definition of ministry is.

Reading his article he certainly doesn't sound like  a secular linguist.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: He's a tree like all the rest of us, and we were told in the garden we could eat of ALL the trees, EXCEPT the one (carnal mind). Let the Spirit distill the truth he has been given to hold in UN-righteousness (corrupted by reason of the carnal mind), and drink of the new wine of the Kingdom. My  :2c: Blessings....

[Molly]

It means for example he disagrees wth most Jewish scholars who are are mostly universalists

What do you mean by Jewish scholars?  All the ones I have known were atheists.  Do you mean priests from ancient times? Or rabbi's today?

Here's a question for you.  I could see why Jews would be universalists--for the Jews.  But what did they think happens to the Gentiles?

Did the ancient rabbi's[priests] or current ones even consider the Gentiles?  Did they ever make a statement about them?

I've seen things in the Talmud that don't paint a pretty picture of Gentiles.  I don't see how the people writing that stuff could be universalists for Gentiles.

In that quoute he basicly says: "As shown above, the verses seems to clearly point to Universalism. I don't believe in Universalism so I'll reason it away."

I agree with that.  He's out of his field here and into belief.  Because that verse does clearly point to universalism, what he said after that, didn't make any sense to me.  Did it make sense to you?  It sounded like he was trying his best to not make it universalist.

This article was found on a website, not in a scholarly paper.  He's just chatting with his friends.

That doesn't detract from his area of expertise.  There is nothing in that verse that requires a Greek or Aramaic expert to understand it.

[Molly]

"Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs.  He observed that many who have adopted "alternative" worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had."

I don't know if you would call this a 'ministry.'

Maybe that depends on what you think the definition of ministry is.

Reading his article he certainly doesn't sound like  a secular linguist.

He's a Christian with Christian beliefs.  So I suppose in your mind that makes him not a 'secular linguist' which would require him to be atheist.  Neither are the 'Hebrew scholars' you mention secular linguists then.   That doesn't make them any less expert on the Hebrew language.

  He isn't talking about linguistics in that chat session  He's talking about belief.