God's Mighty Plan Of Salvation

[seven77]

As I have already said,the word Evil in Isaiah is only found in maybe two translations incuding the King James.

It is just an old english term that can mean ruin, destruction, bad (not to be mistaken as evil), and such.

As an example, in Jeremiah 24, God has a converation with Jeremiah about figs. In the King James they are reffered to as 'Evil figs'. In fact they where 'very evil and cannot be eaten they are so evil.' Did these figs grow fangs and suck blood? No, there where just bad, rotten, no good to eat.

 

 

Here is the verse about Jeremiah's evil figs:

And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt: And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them. And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers. [Jer 24:8-10, KJV]

 

Earlier in this passage, the author and/or the translator spells out the interpretation of the "evil" that we are to assume for the following passages.

 

"Then said the LORD unto me, What seest thou, Jeremiah? And I said, Figs; the good figs, very good; and the evil, very evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil. Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good. [Jer 24:2-5, KJV]

 

Now, which parts of this passage can be interpreted using the following standard: ruin, destruction, bad (not to be mistaken as evil)?

 

The figs may be spoiled (bad), but people cannot spoil like that. The hearts of man do not rot. The physical body surely decays, but that is in obedience to the supposedly God-created law of entropy. That is not what the author this passage is referring to. He is referring to two peoples, one good (Israel) and one evil (Egypt). Egypt was evil because they did not worship the LORD. They were in sin, hard-hearted against the LORD and his chosen people.

 

----------------------

 

The passage in Isaiah goes as follows:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." [isaiah 45:7, KJV]

 

The translation of the word "evil" here is the Hebrew word "ra" which can mean any of the following:

 

• bad, disagreeable, malignant

• bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

• evil, displeasing

• bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

• bad (of value)

• worse than, worst (comparison)

• sad, unhappy

• evil (hurtful)

• bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

• bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

• distress

• misery

• injury

• calamity

 

The KJV translates Strongs H7451 [ra]  in the following manner: evil (442x), wickedness (59x), wicked (25x), mischief (21x), hurt (20x), bad (13x), trouble (10x), sore (9x), affliction (6x), ill (5x), adversity (4x), favoured (3x), harm (3x), naught (3x), noisome (2x), grievous (2x), sad (2x), misc (34x). [Taken from Blue Letter Bible, Strong's Concordance, HERE]

 

Evil is all-encompassing term. One thing it doesn't mean is "rotten", as in "the figs weren't good to eat".

 

Other translations may choose to render the word "ra" differently.

 

"I form light and create darkness,

I make well-being and create calamity,

I am the LORD, who does all these things." [isa 45:7, ESV]

 

"The One forming light and creating darkness,

Causing well-being and creating calamity;

I am the LORD who does all these." [isa 45:7, NASB]

 

"I create the light and make the darkness.

I send good times and bad times.

I, the LORD, am the one who does these things." [ Isa 45:7, NLT]

 

In all cases, this verse is used to contrast two ideas, such as well-being vs. calamity, or good times vs. bad times. Or in the KJV, peace vs. evil. If we take the KJV perspective here, evil in this verse is meant to be the opposite of peace. A more accurate rendering would indeed be the word "calamity" used in the ESV and NASB translations.

 

---------------

 

In both Jeremiah 24 and Isaiah 45, the idea of evil is used as a contrast to some other idea. In Jeremiah, it is good figs vs. bad figs, the chosen people vs. the heathen nations. In Isaiah, it is used to contrast the ideas of light and dark, good and evil, and the last line is the LORD telling us that he is indeed responsible for it all.

 

Feel free to bust out a concordance at any time. Also feel free to consult your nearest Bible. Perhaps reading the Old Testament will help you to see that God is not good and that asserting his goodness through trite apologetic "arguments" will get you nowhere here.

[centauri]

 

 

The following extract is taken from Andrew wommack who has written quite extensively on the book of Job. This explains better than I could write the reason as to why actually, God could not refuse Satan’s request.

 

You might say, “God could stop Satan if He wanted to. Therefore, the devil only does what God allows Him to do.” That’s not true. That’s a religious tradition that will render you passive and prey to the devil.

When God gave Adam unconditional authority over the earth, He gave him His word (Ps. 89:34). There were no strings attached. He didn’t say, “If you blow it, I’ll take back My power and authority.” No! God had to allow what man allowed. The Lord had given man total control over the earth. It was his to govern as he saw fit. Adam then yielded to Satan the power and authority God intended for man.

God is a good God. If it was only up to Him, we would all be blessed (James 1:17). That can be seen in the life of Job. God blessed Job abundantly. He was the greatest man in wealth and integrity of all the people of his day. But Job didn’t have a covenant with God. The Lord didn’t really have the legal right to be so good to Job. Job was a sinner and therefore under Satan’s control. So Satan pressed his case, and the Lord had to turn Job over to Satan because he legally came under Satan’s jurisdiction.

This is why the Lord started making covenants with people like Abraham and, eventually, the whole nation of Israel. If they would comply, then the Lord could legally bless them. This worked, to a degree. The problem was, no one could live up to God’s standard for very long…..

A few observations on Wommack's apologetic:

God can't stop Satan, even though Satan is his agent.

Job is labeled a sinner even though God said otherwise:

Job 1:8

And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

 

The Lord created evil (Isa 45:7), and if God is only good, then evil must also be good.

The idea that God simply had to turn Job over to his agent Satan for torture is admitting that God isn't all powerful or all good.

It was God that suggested Job to Satan for testing.

It was his idea.

 

Satan is not Gods agent.

 

He's one of the many sons of God, who tests people and functions as a prosecutor in God's court.

 

Job was as perfect as a man could possibly at the time, but he stil had a sinful nature. Abraham was held in equally high regard and yet his actions show he sinned. It is believed the book Job was very early, and the law had not yet come into place yet, so his sins where not being imputeed to him yet.

Having a sinful nature doesn't mean one practices intentional sin.

Sin can be overcome as God told Cain in Gen 4:7.

Job was held as being righteous by God.

 

When God said 'Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?', he wasn't bringing Satans attention to Job and saying, 'here look at this guy you can't pick fault with him!'

God knew what Satan was up to and whom he had chosen to have. God was basicaly saying 'So, you have considered Job have you? And you know that there is no like him, and you think he is only an upright man because I bless him so much?'

Satan was now acussing God himself. That's why he wanted to take away all Job had, and see how he responded.

This was a cosmic wager, initiated by God.

God also violated his own edict in the process.

 

Prov 12:21

There shall no evil happen to the just: but the wicked shall be filled with mischief.

 

Even if God let him test Job when he could have stopped it (which I don't personally adhere to but won't competley dismiss either), God knew he could trust Job. And at the end God restored eveything back and twice as much. God was never going to abandon him.

God didn't restore the dead children, he only let Job have more children.

The revolting torture was performed as part of a wager, in which God punished a just man, even suggesting him as a target.

 

As I have already said,the word Evil in Isaiah is only found in maybe two translations incuding the King James.

It is just an old english term that can mean ruin, destruction, bad (not to be mistaken as evil), and such.

As an example, in Jeremiah 24, God has a converation with Jeremiah about figs. In the King James they are reffered to as 'Evil figs'. In fact they where 'very evil and cannot be eaten they are so evil.' Did these figs grow fangs and suck blood? No, there where just bad, rotten, no good to eat.

The Hebrew word "ra" includes ethical evil.

If God didn't create evil, then you have to assume that it spawned itself.

That's a theological impossiblity, as God is the sole creator and is the ultimate source for all things.

 

 

 

[Ravenstar]

"If God didn't create evil, then you have to assume that it spawned itself.

That's a theological impossiblity, as God is the sole creator and is the ultimate source for all things."

 

​and that friends, is what it all comes down to…!

[sdelsolray]

"If God didn't create evil, then you have to assume that it spawned itself.

That's a theological impossiblity, as God is the sole creator and is the ultimate source for all things."

 

​and that friends, is what it all comes down to…!

Yes, the Christian God created all, except when he didn't and he takes responsibility for his actions, except when he doesn't.

[ironhorse]

You thought Einstein was talking about bible god, but no, he wasn't.  His god is not bible god.

 

I did not say he was talking about the God of the Bible.

 

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist."

~from a 1930 interview

[sdelsolray]

 

You thought Einstein was talking about bible god, but no, he wasn't.  His god is not bible god.

 

I did not say he was talking about the God of the Bible.

 

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist."

~from a 1930 interview

 

No, you just repeated a lie after being informed it was a lie.

 

As to your new Einstein quote, Einstein actually said this.  Please post the entire conversation.  You know, context and all that.

 

You do know about context, don't you?

 

Do you know what disingenuous quote mining is?

[ironhorse]

 

 

You thought Einstein was talking about bible god, but no, he wasn't.  His god is not bible god.

 

I did not say he was talking about the God of the Bible.

 

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist."

~from a 1930 interview

 

No, you just repeated a lie after being informed it was a lie.

 

As to your new Einstein quote, Einstein actually said this.  Please post the entire conversation.  You know, context and all that.

 

You do know about context, don't you?

 

Do you know what disingenuous quote mining is?

 

 

 

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."

 

~from a 1930 interview

 

The entire quote does not diminish the first sentence I posted.

 

He viewed it as a mystery and he was searching.

[Roz]

Kirk IH Cameron at post 41 is talking about his christian bible god.  He uses a capital G when talking about his god.  Then he misquotes Einstein at 56 with another capital G god.  A proper noun. 

 

Now he's backtracking saying that he was talking about a deist god (unknown) all along?  IH, the Kirk Cameron of our Lion's Den.  He's that loveable cousin that thinks harry potter is real and keeps running around saying "expecto patronum!" everywhere (his own sunday dispatch).

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

You thought Einstein was talking about bible god, but no, he wasn't.  His god is not bible god.

 

I did not say he was talking about the God of the Bible.

 

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist."

~from a 1930 interview

 

No, you just repeated a lie after being informed it was a lie.

 

As to your new Einstein quote, Einstein actually said this.  Please post the entire conversation.  You know, context and all that.

 

You do know about context, don't you?

 

Do you know what disingenuous quote mining is?

 

 

 

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."

 

~from a 1930 interview

 

The entire quote does not diminish the first sentence I posted.

 

He viewed it as a mystery and he was searching.

 

Sure it does.  Study Spinoza and you will find out why.

 

But back to an earlier point I made in another thread.  Why quote Einstein, a physicist?  You seem to be employing an invalid and fallacious argument from authority.  What do Einstein's thoughts about religion (and there are many) have to do with anything?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

...

[The Book of Job] tackles, I think, realistically with the problem

of pain and suffering.

...

No it doesn't.  Not at all.  Apparently, you do not understand the "Problem of Evil (Suffering)".  Study hard.

 

 

"Apparently, you do not understand the "Problem of Evil (Suffering)"

 

Do you understand?

 

What your explanation for suffering and evil?

 

Cute.  But before we get to whether I understand, let's see if you understand the Problem of Evil (Suffereing).  I challenged you first, and normal discourse requires you to respond with something more than avoiding the question and posing it upon me.  And, after all, you claim to be well read and have considered "opposing" viewpoints (whatever that means).  So it should be easy for you.  Simple as pie.

 

In your own words (no copy and pastes from your favored blogs or apologetic websites), please identify and define, completely, the "Problem of Evil (Suffereing)".

 

Ironhorse, would you please respond to this post, or run away, your choice.  I realize it will require hard work on your part.  Tough toenails.

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

 

...

[The Book of Job] tackles, I think, realistically with the problem

of pain and suffering.

...

No it doesn't.  Not at all.  Apparently, you do not understand the "Problem of Evil (Suffering)".  Study hard.

 

 

"Apparently, you do not understand the "Problem of Evil (Suffering)"

 

Do you understand?

 

What your explanation for suffering and evil?

 

Cute.  But before we get to whether I understand, let's see if you understand the Problem of Evil (Suffereing).  I challenged you first, and normal discourse requires you to respond with something more than avoiding the question and posing it upon me.  And, after all, you claim to be well read and have considered "opposing" viewpoints (whatever that means).  So it should be easy for you.  Simple as pie.

 

In your own words (no copy and pastes from your favored blogs or apologetic websites), please identify and define, completely, the "Problem of Evil (Suffereing)".

 

Ironhorse, would you please respond to this post, or run away, your choice.  I realize it will require hard work on your part.  Tough toenails.

 

 

What is your question?

[Roz]

Sdelsolray:

In your own words (no copy and pastes from your favored blogs or apologetic websites), please identify and define, completely, the "Problem of Evil (Suffereing)".

 

Tinpony Cameron:

What is your question?

 

I present evidence that IH = Cameron.

[mymistake]

Sdelsolray:

In your own words (no copy and pastes from your favored blogs or apologetic websites), please identify and define, completely, the "Problem of Evil (Suffereing)".

 

Tinpony Cameron:

What is your question?

 

I present evidence that IH = Cameron.

 

 

No way!  Ironhorse is not a bad enough actor to be Kirk Cameron.

[Ravenstar]

Einstein: He wasn't talking about Yahweh...

 

From everything he has written I would surmise he was a deist, at best. probably more a panentheist.

 

These things have little to do with Yahweh, and less with jeebus.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

...

[The Book of Job] tackles, I think, realistically with the problem

of pain and suffering.

...

No it doesn't.  Not at all.  Apparently, you do not understand the "Problem of Evil (Suffering)".  Study hard.

 

 

"Apparently, you do not understand the "Problem of Evil (Suffering)"

 

Do you understand?

 

What your explanation for suffering and evil?

 

Cute.  But before we get to whether I understand, let's see if you understand the Problem of Evil (Suffereing).  I challenged you first, and normal discourse requires you to respond with something more than avoiding the question and posing it upon me.  And, after all, you claim to be well read and have considered "opposing" viewpoints (whatever that means).  So it should be easy for you.  Simple as pie.

 

In your own words (no copy and pastes from your favored blogs or apologetic websites), please identify and define, completely, the "Problem of Evil (Suffereing)".

 

Ironhorse, would you please respond to this post, or run away, your choice.  I realize it will require hard work on your part.  Tough toenails.

 

 

What is your question?

 

 

ONE AT A TIME, Ironhorse!

 

Practice what you preach and stop asking new questions before dealing with your outstanding ones!

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

You thought Einstein was talking about bible god, but no, he wasn't.  His god is not bible god.

 

I did not say he was talking about the God of the Bible.

 

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist."

~from a 1930 interview

 

No, you just repeated a lie after being informed it was a lie.

 

As to your new Einstein quote, Einstein actually said this.  Please post the entire conversation.  You know, context and all that.

 

You do know about context, don't you?

 

Do you know what disingenuous quote mining is?

 

 

 

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."

 

~from a 1930 interview

 

The entire quote does not diminish the first sentence I posted.

 

He viewed it as a mystery and he was searching.

 

Sure it does.  Study Spinoza and you will find out why.

 

But back to an earlier point I made in another thread.  Why quote Einstein, a physicist?  You seem to be employing an invalid and fallacious argument from authority.  What do Einstein's thoughts about religion (and there are many) have to do with anything?

 

 

He's trying to show that even smart people (like Einstein) can fall for the belief in stupid stuff (like Christianity).

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

 

...

[The Book of Job] tackles, I think, realistically with the problem

of pain and suffering.

...

No it doesn't.  Not at all.  Apparently, you do not understand the "Problem of Evil (Suffering)".  Study hard.

 

 

"Apparently, you do not understand the "Problem of Evil (Suffering)"

 

Do you understand?

 

What your explanation for suffering and evil?

 

Cute.  But before we get to whether I understand, let's see if you understand the Problem of Evil (Suffereing).  I challenged you first, and normal discourse requires you to respond with something more than avoiding the question and posing it upon me.  And, after all, you claim to be well read and have considered "opposing" viewpoints (whatever that means).  So it should be easy for you.  Simple as pie.

 

In your own words (no copy and pastes from your favored blogs or apologetic websites), please identify and define, completely, the "Problem of Evil (Suffereing)".

 

Ironhorse, would you please respond to this post, or run away, your choice.  I realize it will require hard work on your part.  Tough toenails.

 

 

What is your question?

 

I posed no question.  Perhaps you could read my posts and respond as requested.  That way, I may change my tentative conclusion that you are simply a passive-aggresive dumbass.

[sdelsolray]

 

You thought Einstein was talking about bible god, but no, he wasn't.  His god is not bible god.

 

I did not say he was talking about the God of the Bible.

 

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist."

~from a 1930 interview

 

Here's a good example of Ironhorse's disingenuousness.  Subtle, clever and too cute by half.  Plausible deniability and all that too.  He used the misquote of Einstein in an attempt to show that the "God" currently under discussion (at that point in the thread) was not evil.  Guess what?  The "God" currently under discussion (at that point in the thread) was the Christian God (review posts #34 to #56 in this thread to see the contextual evidence for this conclusion).

 

Now he claims he was not "talking about the God of the Bible".  He just used a false quote from Einstein to talk for him.

 

Ironhorse lies.  And it's a particularly creepy lie too.

[LifeCycle]

Yup. Christians do not understand the power they attribute to God means he's ultimately responsible for everything. Is it God's will not to intervene and stop the slaughter of innocent people at the hands of rebels or tyrants? Yes. Is it God's will for unbelievers to go to Hell? Yes. He abides by no rules but his own. Who made the rules that unbelievers go to hell? He did because that's how he wanted things. So, if you're an unbeliever (which is something you do not have complete control over) you're going to hell, because it's God's will that unbelievers go to Hell. He's really loving though!

 

If you see someone that you love dearly (allegedly, God loves us all dearly) about to jump off a cliff into shallow water, yet they think it's deep enough, and you sit idly by and watch as their deception and ignorance kills them, you're not loving, you're complicit and you might actually, not love them, no matter what you say. But God does this, and he's such a great fellow. The guy was deceived, it doesn't matter how or why, it just matters that he was. Now he's crushed his spine, collapsed his lungs and will drown to death. Ultimately, it was God's will.

[Androo]

I know for me, once I got over the initial shock that I had been deluded for so long, everything started to make so much more sense. Maybe iron horse will feel the same way eventually. Or maybe he's just messing with people on an Internet forum. Either way, god's amazing plan to save the world is failing horribly. That much should be obvious.

[SpaceWrangler]

First time poster. Long time reader.

 

From my obsessive study over the bible due to my dwindling belief, there are some things I should put out here about satan/lucifer.

 

From my research, and correct me if I'm wrong, but satan is not in genesis, job, nor any other OT text. It comes from Hebrew ha-satan meaning "the accuser". He was obviously a "son of god" and was with the rest of them reporting to god. Who knows why tho since god is all knowing...

Somewhere ha-satan was turned into "satan" in the NT.

 

Lucifer is a mistranslation from Latin vulgate. Lucifer is a star. The text talks about the bright morning star falling. I believe it was from Isaiah? The reference was to the Babylonian king, who was referenced as the bright morning star; strangely so was jesus in revelation. So then lucifer got "his" way into the Christian vernacular.

 

It was a serpent in the garden. He did not punish "satan" he punished all serpents. It even says the serpent was the most crafty if the animals. So strange. So from revelation comes the father of lies or old serpent, so Christians = with garden serpent.

 

Anyhow, just my 2 cents. Again I am by no means an expert, but searching and this is what I've found.

 

Also who knows what was really written first and how old? Like job? To my knowledge we have no extant writing before @250bce. And it is the septuigent.

[sdelsolray]

Welcome SpaceWrangler.  You have studied Biblical history.  That's a good thing.

 

I would like to ask you a question.  Now that you are no longer a "lurker", could you summarize you experience as a lurker on this forum, regarding the back and forth discussions between Ex-Christians and Christians, such as the one occurring in this particular thread (for example)?

[Gus]

 

 

When God gave Adam unconditional authority over the earth, He gave him His word (Ps. 89:34). There were no strings attached. He didn’t say, “If you blow it, I’ll take back My power and authority.” No! God had to allow what man allowed. The Lord had given man total control over the earth. It was his to govern as he saw fit. Adam then yielded to Satan the power and authority God intended for man.

 

Gus,

 

If you can provide me with a scripture verse from the Genesis record wherein god explains to Adam that by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam would yield his authority to satan, and bring Original Sin into the nature of humanity, then I am willing to accept this argument in its entirety.

 

If such a verse cannot be found in the book of Genesis, then this entire line of reasoning can be dismissed as unsupported by the text.

 

Take note, Gus; I do not care if some new testament writer explained it all 4,000 years after the fact.  I need to see god explaining it to Adam.  If god did not explain it to Adam personally, then my point that god planned the fall as a set-up from the beginning not only still stands, but is further supported by yet another vital piece of information that god witheld in order to ensure that Adam and Eve took the fall.

 

Again, Gus, we cannot simply read into the scripture what we think it should say.  I look forward to your response.

 

Cheers,

TheRedneckProfessor

 

HI RNP and sorry for late reply, I am busy (lots of people to train in the gym!) and can't be on this site that often.

 

I cannot provide you with a specific scripture from Genesis that says what you want it to, so if that is what you are looking for, sorry I cannot help and you are free to dismiss my theory.

 

However, I don’t think you need to have one as there is evidence through the bible that this is the case.

On numerous occasions Satan is credited with having some authority and power over the earth. His biggest claim was to Jesus himself that he could give him authority as it had been given to him. Of course, this claim itself may not be true as Satan is called 'the father of lies', but what is interesting is that Jesus did not discredited it. More like, his claim was a truth, but giving it up was the lie.

There are also references to him as God of this earth, prince of this world and the prince of the power of the air.

Satan does not own the earth, which is Gods. But he has authority to wield huge influence (on people, government and any man made systems) and has some power to affect it physically.

 

Another suggestion I gave only just had proposed to me is that Satan already had power on the earth before Adam and Eve fell from relationship with God, and when cast out of Eden, they effectively entered Satan’s domain. And this is what God is now rescuing us from.

The bible is not clear on when Satan was cast from heaven and onto the earth, it could have happened pre-genesis. Personally, I don't quit buy into this as it would not make sense for God put man on earth with the devil already lingering around. I still think he changed in the garden, and was originally sent there to minister to Adam and Eve.

[Androo]

Gus, why do you feel the need to make sense of what is so clearly absurd? To christians in general: why is it so hard to say, "I don't know?"

 

The christians on this site always seem to end with, "but I believe," or, "well I think," without ever providing a good reason for their belief. It is obvious. Why not just acknowledge the fact that the bible is often confusing, ancient, and doesn't provide every answer?

 

Even without a loss of belief in "God" it seems that would be a more genuine, honest, and humble response.

[Guest end3]

Gus, why do you feel the need to make sense of what is so clearly absurd? To christians in general: why is it so hard to say, "I don't know?"

 

The christians on this site always seem to end with, "but I believe," or, "well I think," without ever providing a good reason for their belief. It is obvious. Why not just acknowledge the fact that the bible is often confusing, ancient, and doesn't provide every answer?

 

Even without a loss of belief in "God" it seems that would be a more genuine, honest, and humble response.

Why is it so hard for non-believers to be ok with not knowing?