Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

One Verse At A Time...


Guest sub_zer0

Recommended Posts

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

My problem with this passage is the talking serpent.

 

Please explain Gen 3:1 while adhering to these:

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

I can't explain Genesis 3:1 while adhering to Revelaion 22:18-19 because, the passages in Revelation are in reference to Revelation, not Genesis 3:1.

You're not the first one to use that excuse. :HaHa:

 

No, it's not that those verses refer to the last book only. The fact is, no apologist really likes to adhere to those two verses that I mentioned because if they did, they wouldn't be able to play hocus-pocus with words and their meanings in order to explain away what the text actually says.

 

That's okay though. I'm sure that if I sniff around a bit, I'll be able to find a verse in Revelation that you can't play the apologist game with. :HaHa:

 

 

Be specific as to what your problem is with the serpent.
Umm... It talks! :mellow:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 815
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    81

  • thunderbolt

    73

  • SkepticOfBible

    58

  • Open_Minded

    55

To talk you need vocal cords, and I don't think snakes have that...

 

Did God surgically remove them at the same time as he ripped of its legs?

 

Snakes and lizzards are related, lizzards still got their legs, but they don't have vocal cords either.

 

I'm sure Adam and Eve was parselmouths. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option 1) This is an allegory as to how man was deceived by Lucifer and rebelled against God.

 

Please provide BIBLICAL proof that the serpent in the garden is Lucifer....satan...or even a devil.

 

Your allegory is merely an assumption without biblical proof.

 

I can choose to interpret, or assume that "Como se' llamo" means...... "monkeys eat cheese".

 

If I say it enough...and people choose to agree.....then "Como se' llamo" will become "monkeys eat cheese" in time.

 

Doesn't make it true though.

 

Option 2) The snake really did talk. If you believe God created the earth in 6 24 hour days then why can't you believe a talking snake?

 

:mellow:

 

So.....our believing in talking snakes depends on weather or not we believe god created the earth in 6 24 hour days.....well.....we DON'T believe god created the earth that way. So we don't believe in talking snakes.

 

 

Umm... It talks! :mellow:

 

It is Satan that has taken control of the animal.

 

 

I just addressed this....but I'll ask again.

 

Please provide BIBLICAL proof that this is so.

 

Anything else is assumption, regardless of how popularly it is held by christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm... It talks! :mellow:

It is Satan that has taken control of the animal.
Okay, this reply sounded a little bit too much like the Church Lady. :mellow:

 

Who is pullin' our leg here? :Hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sub_zer0

too much like the Church Lady. :mellow:

 

Who is pullin' our leg here? :Hmm:

 

Revelation 12:9

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan,..

 

Well what do you know they are calling that old serpent the devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

too much like the Church Lady. :mellow:

 

Who is pullin' our leg here? :Hmm:

 

Revelation 12:9

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan,..

 

Well what do you know they are calling that old serpent the devil.

 

 

I see no reference to the garden there.

 

An old serpent does not the original deceiver make.

 

Revelations 12:9

 

according to the Bible in my hands...the New International Version.....

 

"The great dragon was hurled down-that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

 

 

No garden there either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having some trouble understanding a passage in the Bible? Perhaps I can help. Just list ONE passage and explain what the problem is you see. I will then post back what the passage means hopefully eliminating the problem you see.

 

Hello Sub_Zero:

 

De 34:5: Then Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord's command.

 

How did Moses write about his own death?

 

When you're done answering this question... and all the others... you may want to check out the following thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...48&hl=iprayican

 

Me thinks this thread is a train wreck waiting to happen :lmao::funny:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me thinks this thread is a train wreck waiting to happen :lmao::funny:

Me thinks you are SPOT on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

too much like the Church Lady. :mellow:

 

Who is pullin' our leg here? :Hmm:

 

Revelation 12:9

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan,..

 

Well what do you know they are calling that old serpent the devil.

Okay, you were losing me there. For a minute, I thought you were saying that the serpent was able to talk because the devil possessed him or something. :mellow:

 

Anyway, you are breaking the rules of those two verses that I quoted you earlier on by making the connection between The Great Dragon™ and The Serpent That Was Cursed To Eat Dirt™.

 

You've added TO the book a Revelation, bub.

You cheated.

You're going to Hell.

 

Or is this one of those times where those verses pertain to the entire bible instead of just the last book?

 

I'm just checkin' here.

 

I know how you apologists like to cheat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't it bother you that an all-loving, all powerful, and all knowing God can change his mind on how to run the universe?

 

No, because Malachi 3:6 "For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."

 

I am confused. Should YOU, or should YOU NOT keep the law?

 

Keep Christ in your heart. That is the Law.

 

The New Testament has the Law work from the inside out. You accept the law (Christ) into your heart and by your outward actions you show it.

 

The Old Testament has the Law work in a different affect. It was applied by High Priests, the Pharisees and the like on Israel at the time (just like Christ is now) that enforce it, making you obey it.

 

Well they each work on a same principal as well in that you are forced in obeying it by accepting it or not.

 

So you use one verse from the OT and old covenant to defend the seemingly indefensible position that God does not change his mind... I am still confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you use one verse from the OT and old covenant to defend the seemingly indefensible position that God does not change his mind... I am still confused.

Well Pandora, I think unfortunately we have another cherry-picking Christian amongst us.

 

Of course anything can be explained when only "their" rules apply.

 

"This verse applies to the whole Bible, but this verse only apply to this book, and this verse only applies to this chapter. And this verse is literal, and this verse is an allegory, and this verse has the wrong translation." etc...

 

They use loopholes to get around the truth that stares them in the face!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ha... now I see. ;)

 

Cherry picking is fine, as long as you recognize that is what you are doing. Literalists deceive themselves. Those who take the Bible as it is, a collection of writings that were never taken to be one comprehensive book, are more honest and if they want to "cherry pick" I am okay with it... at least that way, one can come up with anything that is internally consistent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. If I spend the same time as people spend time in the Bible, I could come up with the same apologetics for Lord of the Rings. And try to convince people orcs and elfs exist. It does talk about dragons, and the Bible confirms the dragons exist, so it must be true! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... a religion after LOTR... I might actually consider following that.

 

 

 

 

 

JK. ;)

 

But Legolas is hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... a religion after LOTR... I might actually consider following that.

JK. ;)

 

But Legolas is hot.

A religion molded after the LOTR doesn't have to have a commandment against lust, you know. :wicked:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sub_zer0

Well Pandora, I think unfortunately we have another cherry-picking Christian amongst us.

 

Of course anything can be explained when only "their" rules apply.

 

"This verse applies to the whole Bible, but this verse only apply to this book, and this verse only applies to this chapter. And this verse is literal, and this verse is an allegory, and this verse has the wrong translation." etc...

 

They use loopholes to get around the truth that stares them in the face!

 

What is the difference between me picking a verse and using all context and other elements to find out tthe meaning of the passage, but you do a different way... According to you, you are cherry-picking.

 

The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains.

 

 

Okay, you were losing me there. For a minute, I thought you were saying that the serpent was able to talk because the devil possessed him or something. :mellow:

 

That is what I meant. Satan influenced, possessed, transformed, whatever he did he used the serpent to deceive adam and eve.

 

Anyway, you are breaking the rules of those two verses that I quoted you earlier on by making the connection between The Great Dragon and The Serpent That Was Cursed To Eat Dirt.

 

You've added TO the book a Revelation, bub.

You cheated.

You're going to Hell.

 

Or is this one of those times where those verses pertain to the entire bible instead of just the last book?

 

I'm just checkin' here.

 

I know how you apologists like to cheat.

 

lol, I have added nothing... check the book and verse again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains.

Of course... since it's so obvious that none of us ever studied the Bible with numerous resources or with an honest heart...

 

 

 

Do you come equiped with a standard record nowadays, 'cos you all say the same damn things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s kind of ironic that a god who is apparently so concerned about our salvation would require us to have NUMEROUS resources and concordances in order for us to get to the bottom of his message. Even George Lucas can explain the "force" better than BibleGod.

:Doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference between me picking a verse and using all context and other elements to find out tthe meaning of the passage, but you do a different way... According to you, you are cherry-picking.

 

What do you mean by "using all context and other elements..." you'll have to phrase that better because it doesn't make any sense as it is. I could interpret it to what I think it means, but then I'd just be an apologist. And I'd rather you tell me what it really means.

 

The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains.

 

Numerous resources? Explain that, because right now it sounds like it's propaganda veiled in the guise of intelligence & facts.

 

 

That is what I meant. Satan influenced, possessed, transformed, whatever he did he used the serpent to deceive adam and eve.

 

So where's your proof for this? So far the closest you've done is very circumstancially link a verse from the end of the bible to one at the beginning- as it has already been pointed out & not redressed by you. There's nothing in that revelation verse that remotely proves that the serpent is the same snake from the beginning. A serpent can be a great many things, not just a snake. And in context it appears to be nothing more than them talking about the Great Dragon/Satan (i.e. the serpent).

 

And even if it is some author's weak attempt to link the metaphor back, it's done by a different author than the one who wrote Genesis, and he/they had a couple hundred years to write that verse in after the original was well known anyway, so the whole argument is really moot.

 

lol, I have added nothing... check the book and verse again.

 

It's been checked, now justify it, or concede the point, because right now it holds no weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains.

 

There's the difference. People who Study the Bible study it like a math book. They get better and better at memorizing what it says, and the Traditional responses to typical questions, which all sound good... unless you find a conflict and then just ignore it.

 

The other way to study the Bible is to research the history external to it, and how it all came together in the first few hundred years after this supposed event that rocked the world.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you come equiped with a standard record nowadays, 'cos you all say the same damn things.

 

It must be the new 2005 How to Witness instruction manual.

 

Parroted Bumper Sticker Jargon.

 

Rah, Polly wanna cracker. RAH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't even have an honest heart according to your own book.

 

bdp

Hah! Excellent point there, too!

 

None are righteous. No, not one! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh really

Here is one once you are done with

 

Here is declaration God's laws are perfect, trustworthy, and eternal.

Psa 19:7

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

 

Psa 119:160

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever(are eternal).

 

According to Paul, God's laws have ended, were canceled, and stood against people.

 

Rom 10:4

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

Col 2:13-14

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances(laws) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

 

Please resolve

 

I suppose for Romans 10:4, the question to ask is, in what respect is Christ the end of the law? Two possible meanings for this.

 

One might be that the law was aimed at bringing us to Christ and that He came to fulfill the law and thus give it validity (Isaiah 42:21 and Matthew 5:17).

 

And second, this may mean that Christ is the terminal point of the law.

 

Be more specific with your problem in Colossians 2:13-14 please.

 

How do "eternal" and "perfect" law end?

 

 

The law represented god's morality. So you saying that god's everlasting and perfect moral absolute are not everlasting and perfect at all?

 

With His first advent, the old order, of which the law was a significant part, has been done away with and the new order of the Holy Spirit of God has been istituted.

 

Show one verse from the OT which say that parts of the law will be done away once the messiah arrives.

 

And here is verse which shows how is it that one determine that a believer is filled the holy spirit

 

Ezek 36:27

And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

 

As the above verse illustrate, those who claim to be filled with the holy spirit will follow all of God's law. You don't even keep the 10 commandments.

 

Keep Christ in your heart. That is the Law.

The law says no such thing.

 

There is nothing in the OT which says you have worship the messiah.

 

Deut. 13:18 is referring to the 10 commandments in which Christ fulfilled. Deut. 13 as a whole is concerning false prophets.

 

Deut 13:18 says no such thing. It is specifically talking about the laws that are given the 5 pentenuachal(sorry I don't know how to spell that word) books.

 

 

Umm... It talks! :mellow:

 

It is Satan that has taken control of the animal.

Verse please

 

Satan is not even mentioned in Genesis? Stop laying your theological bias in that story .

 

Revelations 12:9

according to the Bible in my hands...the New International Version.....

"The great dragon was hurled down-that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

No garden there either.

 

Please show me OT verses which says that Snake is the devil.

 

Do you even know the purpose of the Law?

 

Yes, and if you care to read the bible it says right over there

 

Deut 4:8

And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I(God) set before you this day?

 

God's Law was not, as Paul claims, "against the people" but represented righteousness which uplifted his people over others.

 

As I said, the law of OT was not just the 10 commandments. In the Old Testament, God(or Jehovah) laid down a complicated moral code to his people which contains over 600 various statutes, judgments, precepts, testimonies, and commandments which are known as God's Holy Law.

 

 

Deut 4:1-2

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes(laws) and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

 

Deut 11:1

Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.

 

Once again as it says in those verses, keeping the laws of God are defined as the essence of righteousness.

 

Eating Shellfish or breaking the sabbath was just as much a sin as homosexuality or adultary.[\b]

 

In the Messianic era which Christians claim Jesus ushered in, God promised that he would cause the people to obey all his statutes, not just the Ten Commandments.

 

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Do you want to imply that God is a jokester, that he first he tells his people that the law is perfect and is the way to righteousness, and then suddenly after 4000 years, he is saying that those perfect and everlasting were imperfect and temporary?

 

What you are displaying is typicall behavior that can be observed in the nature of the Christian religion, where a believer writes their own script while giving lip service and claiming to adhere to the Bible.

 

Once again as demonstrated from the above veres, the laws will not be replaced by anything but will be reaffirmed under a new contract.

 

Yet, none of these details seem to bother believers like you, who then claim to unbelievers that there is "no other deal" a man can make that will satisfy God.

Believers such as this are actually inventing their own deal with God and then pretent that God agrees with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having some trouble understanding a passage in the Bible? Perhaps I can help. Just list ONE passage and explain what the problem is you see. I will then post back what the passage means hopefully eliminating the problem you see.

 

Hello Sub_zero:

 

You haven't answered my original question, regarding this Bible verse:

De 34:5: Then Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord's command.

"How did Moses write about his own death"?

 

I understand you have many other verses to explain... and am willing to wait. But, last night I thought of another verse.

 

Ge 6:19: And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.

 

How did Moses get two of EVERY kind onto the ark, with ALL the food needed to keep them alive? Besides the fact that he would have had to search the entire earth for EVERY single type of living animal, it would have taken hundreds of years. Then when he got some of the animals rounded up and went to look for more, it would only make sense that a portion of the first set would "escape", or maybe die. And how did he keep the lions from eating other animals onboard the ark? On top of all of that, the weight of that many animals would have sunk the ark.

 

Sub_Zero the two questions I've given you any Sunday School student could ask.

 

It's a bit like the A Simple Method To Prove The Bible Is Not Inspired By A God thread.

 

Even a 10 year old will come up with challeging questions for the adults who believe in the stuff written in that story book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.