This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Serpents in the Bible is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Serpents in the Bible is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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. Carlaude:Talk01:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
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.Carlaude:Talk17:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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). Carlaude:Talk15:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
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.
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)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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 Slash03:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Thank you for clarifying that you have not read the article. – FayenaticLondon
Fayenatic london 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)Reply
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)Reply
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 BibleorWells 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)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 February 2024 and 24 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keegancroteau12 (article contribs).