Not quite that simple in Rabbinic literature. Enoch, for example, has five satans, of which at the first two two led angels astray. That the serpent was one of these satans (the third one) is also documented–and is in ancient Babylonian literature as well.
Take a look at 2 Samuel 29:4-5 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. The earlier version (Samuel) records that God directed David to sin against him and conduct a census. Later, when Jewish priests recognized evil is not an attribute of God, who would not direct anyone to sin against him, David’s conducting a census was then attributed to a satan. This followed rabbinic literature that taught that there is evil that comes from within man–but also evil that comes from the outside–and that outside evil is not of God but against God.
John’s rendition of Revelation has other apocryphal accounts derived from this rabbinical literature as well–it was not his own. What did become a Christian construct was that instead of (at least) five satans, (Note in Chronicles it says “a” satan) it became a single satan.
It is an interesting study, but the idea of a satan against God is not a Christian construct. It came straight from rabbinical literature that was well-known generations before the time of John and Christ.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJ)
The book of Revelation is Scripture
All scripture is inspired of God and profitable for instruction
Therefore, the revelation the serpent is Satan is the infallible truth of God.
May want to keep in mind that the Scripture Paul referenced was the Old Testament, as there was no New Testament scripture in the 60s when Paul would have been writing to Timothy. Certainly, the Book of Revelation had not yet been written by John. Also worthy of note is that much of the basis for John’s Revelation is Rabbinical literature that was regarded simply as that–literature, not scripture.
2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Faith comes first. I am a strong believer in both science, and it was science that illustrated that the two are not incompatible. Science begins with a question–in this case, why does science say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, whereas the Bible claims six thousand? The first thing I discovered is that the Bible makes no such claim. A nineteenth century bishop made that claim for the Bible. Looking into the original language–and very early commentaries–made it clear that the math used by the English bishop had grave errors–this verified by the Bible itself.
Why people want to use the miscalculations of a nineteenth English bishop over science–and what the Bible actually says–is what mystifies me. They are not just denying science, but Biblical record as well.
In my life faith does come first–all without warring with scientific fact.
Thank you. A great philosopher once said “life is an endless series of train-wrecks with only brief commercial-like breaks of happiness”. This has been the ultimate commercial break.
Atheists pretend to have open mindedness, but still take just about any discussion or facet (or even word) of a faith-based message with an approach of finding why it’s wrong (in their view) rather than looking for ways to understand faith and God and religion.
It’s a choice, and the atheist comes across as bitter. Defensive. Angry.