One Verse At A Time...

[SkepticOfBible]

So when God cursed the snake that he slither on the earth, he really didn't mean it literally? I see.

 

No, that is quite literal and implied to be so. You see you thinking the snake is in fact Satan is wrong. Satan is Lucifer, a fallen angel from heaven.

So you are arbitarly deciding what is literal and what is not?

 

If the curse on Satan was literal, then you do have a certain problem.

 

Satan was doomed to crawl on his belly and eat dust all the days of his life. However the NT states that Satan tempted Jesus long after the incident in the Garden of Eden.

 

Matt 4:8-10

Again, the devil(Satan) taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

 

If Satan took Jesus to the top of a very high mountain, it would have taken a rather long time since Satan was doomed to crawl on his belly the whole trip. And how could Jesus bow down and worship Satan if Satan was already on his belly? Could Jesus have bowed down lower than the ground itself?

 

And if Satan was the talking serpent who was doomed by God to crawl on his belly, how then could we have the following verses from the book of Job?:

 

Job 1:6-7

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

(Satan in the Old Testament is man's accuser, and not an adversary of God)

 

Satan is one of the angels or sons of God. The text does not say that a talking serpent also presented himself before God. Satan says he has been roaming the earth, going back and forth in it. This would have taken a great deal of time if Satan was crawling on his belly, occasionally stopping from time to time to eat some dust. In other words, there is no reason to believe that God EVER cursed Satan with the same curse that he used on the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden.

 

 

Please give biblical proof for you assertion about the influence of Satan on the snake.

 

Because in Revelation 12:9 it states, that serpent of old the devil and satan...

1.) Satan is or was in some how control of the snake, or perhaps became the snake for a short amount of time by possession. See Revelation 12:9 that states, the "serpent of old the devil and Satan.."

 

i specifically said OT. THE OT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF DEVIL. NOWHERE DOES IT SAYS IN THE OT THAT THE SNAKE WAS SATAN.

 

And here are some facts about the book of revelation.

 

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html

 

The Greek Orthodox Church did not finalize its canon until the tenth century (primarily in doubt was inclusion of the book of Revelation). The Syrian Church had an even more complicated debate, and today recognizes only 22 books in its New Testament (excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The Copts and Ethiopians have a few additional books included in their New Testament.

When Martin Luther reviewed Scripture during his break from Catholicism, he judged the contents of the Bible in the light of his convictions. He found a number of books difficult to reconcile with what he understood of the Gospel--specifically, II Maccabees, Esther, James, Hebrews, and Revelation.

 

Most christian still haven't figured out what does the book of revelation says. It is filled with imagery, and yet you want to take this verse literally from a disputed book because it suits your pet doctrine of the devil.

 

1)Satan is snake

1.) Satan is or was in some how control of the snake, or perhaps became the snake for a short amount of time by possession. See Revelation 12:9 that states, the "serpent of old the devil and Satan.."

 

Sorry that doesn't support your claim. I said OT not NT

 

2)That Satan is a rebel angel who was kicked out of heaven

2.) Isaiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

 

Lucifer is Satan. You can see that if you draw a parallel between Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 12:9.

 

Thanks for ripping a verse out of context to prove your assertion.

 

As the context shows, the passage is aimed at the king of Babylon and is a taunt to be issued to him.

 

Isa 14:3-4

And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

 

Satan is no more identified as the morning star or Lucifer in this passage than the talking serpent is identified as Satan in Genesis.

 

The king of Babylon is never said to be Satan.

 

Since you like to make up whatever doctrine suits your needs, I can play that game too.

 

The Bible identifies the morning star as a fallen rebel who tried to assume power and authority.

 

Isa 14:12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!(also known as the morning star) how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

 

Jesus claimed that he was the morning star.

 

Rev 22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

That's a prophecy fulfillment I'll wager you don't want to recognize.

 

Honest Christian Site Which Debunks Your Claim About Is. 14

 

1.) It didn't end, it was fulfilled in Christ and ultimately widened its scope to all peoples not just Israel and the Jews.

 

If it did not end, then why do you break so many laws from the OT?You don't want to follow God do you?

 

And that also means Paul is telling a lie when he says the following

 

Rom 10:4

For Christ(or Messiah) is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

Gal 5:18

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

 

 

How did Jesus fulfill the law when he ignored parts of it?

 

So are we or are we not under the law?Please choose from the following 2 options

 

1)Yes

2)No

 

Where are the verses in OT which says part of the law will be taken away when the messiah arrives.

2.) Jeremiah 30 is all about the New Covenant.

 

I think you meant Jer 31, which says no such thing. On the contrary it undermines Jesus death on the cross.

 

Jer 31:31

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

 

As the above verse says in the days of the new covenant, each person will die for their own sin.

 

This is confirmed by Ezek 18:20-28, where God declares that each man will die for his own sin and will redeem himself through his own actions and faithful obedience to God's Law.

 

Links(Please Read):

Was Satan Really A Rebel And Fallen Angel?

Let's Take A Look At Satan

The New revised Covenant Of Christianity

 

Of course, if you add to or take away from what is in the Bible, it's no longer the Perfect Word of God, is it?

That is actually a sin according to the bible

 

Prov 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

When a book, which is declared to be the word of a perfect, all knowing, and infallible God, has to be defended by these types of inane rationalizations exhibited by Christian apologists, Bible scriptures become little more than a large piece of putty which can be molded to say whatever a believer wants it to say.

 

Facing the idea and likelihood that the Bible is not the word of God is far more unthinkable and unbearable to Christian apologists than the idea of making use of ill-conceived, inane, and spurious rationalizations in order to make scriptural problems go away.

 

These rationalizations are the types of antics which Christians have based their beliefs around, and it displays how the human mind will concoct whatever rationalization is needed to keep an established belief from being questioned.

 

At the end of the day The Bible and God's so-called word can and will mean anything a believer wants it to mean.

[crazy-tiger]

Let me make the question very clear. Show us verses from the OT which demonstrate the following.

 

1)Satan is snake

2)That Satan is a rebel angel who was kicked out of heaven

 

You will not find a single verse in the OT which proves your above assertion.

 

The Devil/Satan concept (along with many other concept) was invented in the NT. This was most likely borrowed from existing Greek mythology.

 

1.) Satan is or was in some how control of the snake, or perhaps became the snake for a short amount of time by possession. See Revelation 12:9 that states, the "serpent of old the devil and Satan.."

 

2.) Isaiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

 

Lucifer is Satan. You can see that if you draw a parallel between Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 12:9.

So, even though the Bible states that Isaiah 14:1-23 is talking about the King of Babylon, you still insist otherwise...?

 

Is it fun making Isaiah out to be a liar?

[SkepticOfBible]

Since we are talkng about the book of revelation. Please tell me what you think of the following verses

 

Rev 19:11-15

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he(Jesus) that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his(Jesus) mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

 

Rev 19:17-18,21

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God Jesus;

That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him(Jesus) that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

 

So you think that Jesus the God will dress in clothes dipped in blood and will kill people with a sword that comes out of his mouth.

 

And do you think that invitations will be sent out for a great supper party where the flesh of the dead will be eaten, which is hosted by Jesus.

 

I am sure you gonna say. Nah those are allegory

 

So why do verses become allegorical/literal when you want to be?

[white_raven23]

Quit bringing the Bible, the Word of God down to your standards of how it should be written. The fact is the "serpent of old" is the serpent in Genesis and Satan the devil is that as well, in that he used the serpent.

 

 

 

Excuse me? Oh. I get it. My expectation that a loving god, who wants the best for all people would take the trouble to spiritually inspire the author's of the bible to clearly detail The Word.....is simply "my own standards"? Expecting clarity and assurance when the destiny of my eternal soul depends on it is soooo unrealistic.

 

And expecting the bible to support what christians SAY is absolutely silly too. The bible does NOT support your assertion that the snake in Genesis had any connection to Satan.

 

The bible does NOT connect the serpent of old/ dragon in Revelations to the snake in Genesis AT ALL. Not a single verse anywhere in the bible makes that connection. Not a single verse in the bible hints at such a connection.

 

And just because you, and thousands of christians like you all declare the snake in the garden was, in some way, connected to satan.....does NOT make it biblical fact when nothing in your own book supports that.

 

It is a christian myth and that is all.

 

I haven't done anything to the bible. I've read it and expected the words within to MEAN what they SAY. I've neither added, nor taken away.

 

Christianity is REALLY in trouble now......the internet has made every verse in the bible truly accessable to ALL people (you wish has been granted!). And all people can look for themselves and see, and check, and look up every verse associated with any word put in the search engine...in seconds.

 

The days of christians answering biblical questions with: "I can't recall the exact chapter and verse, but this is the answer to your question...[insert acceptable christian-ese here]". NOW everyone can look stuff up easily without trying to speedread through the whole book for hours looking for the biblical support for vague christian references given by people like you.

[NotBlinded]

Nope, God is the author of the Bible. You wanna back that up with scripture that man wrote it?

 

OM, you didn't know? The Ark problem is easily solved.

 

First of all, Noah was flying around earth on a dragon-dinosaur to pick up all the animals.

 

And then God used a shrink-ray to get them to fit in the ark.

 

He then put them into suspended animation, same style as Sci-Fi movies.

 

It's friggin simple, really, as long as you have little imagination!

But you know that raises the question as to why god didn't just lift Noah and all the animals into the air, flood the earth, and put them back down. Simple really...if you're god!

 

The serpent is describing the nature of the dragon. Wrong, it describes the dragon AND Satan, the devil.

 

rev. 12:9serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

 

Now let's take that, what is bolded and see what else matches up to it in the Bible when describing Satan or the devil, because as we know the serpent is also called the "devil and Satan". So with that phrase in your mind, lets look at Isaiah 14:12.

 

12"How you have fallen from heaven,

O star of the morning, son of the dawn!

You have been cut down to the earth,

You who have weakened the nations! "

 

The bolded parts are the relevant parts. The devil has many names throughout the Bible.

This is really weird...I was just talking to someone about this. Anyway, you should do some more studying. This is an interpretation error.

 

"How Lucifer got to be used as a name for a devil is a complicated story. In the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (chapter 14), there is a passage talking about the King of Babylon, who was not a favorite of Isaiah's. Verse 12 of that chapter runs (in the oldest known version of the Bible): How you are fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground-you who laid low the nation. (Dead Sea Scrolls Bible 292).

 

The King of Babylon had apparently been given (or perhaps himself assumed) the title Day-Star, which is a name for the planet Venus, the first planet or star seen in the morning just before the sun rises, hence the King was also called "son of the morning." The identification of important monarchs with heavenly bodies has always been common, as for example King Louis XIV of France was called the "Sun King". Now, the word Lucifer, light bearer, was the Latin term for the "day-star" or Morning Star because it brought in (or bore) the light of the day.

 

So when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Latin, the word lucifer was used in this verse, rendered into Latin as Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, lucifer, qui mane oriebaris? That is literally, "How have you fallen from heaven, light bearer, who are born in the morning?" The reference to falling from heaven was doubtless Isaiah's way of putting the Babylonian king in his place by sarcastically observing in effect: "OK, you call yourself the Day Star of Heaven, you who think you're so high and mighty, but look at you now--you, the so-called Day Star, have fallen from your place in the heavens and have yourself been cut down to the ground."

 

However, the early Christian interpreters misunderstood the expression "fallen from heaven" and, instead of recognizing it as a figure of speech playing on the destruction of the wicked King of Babylon, who called himself the Day Star, they thought it was a literal statement about a fall from heaven and identified the event with the legendary fall of Satan. So they thought that the term "Day Star", or "Lucifer" in Latin, referred to Satan. And thus a term for the planet Venus became one of the names of a devil. It was a mistake caused by misunderstanding figurative language as a literal statement, a common problem among fundamentalists."

 

From here. Please, finish reading the article. There are many more sites on this if you really wish to know. Stick around here and we'll help you.

 

 

 

 

Maybe he did have many names, but he was never a king of Babylon... Which is who that verse is refering to.

 

 

So, since that verse isn't talking about Satan at all, where is your evidence?

 

Since when was the king of Babylon ever a cherub, or in the Garden of Eden, or named Lucifer?

Once again...your logic goes in circles! Please man, think before you post!

 

which version of the bible are you gettting this quote from? in some translations "O Lucifer" does not even appear, It is absent from the NIV for instance. so perhaps this word does not even apear in all of the hebrew manuscripts...thats a posiblity anyway.

Yep. The dead sea scrolls does not mention it at all. It was a word used by christian interpreters.

[Eponymic]

Once again...your logic goes in circles! Please man, think before you post!

 

This youngin' has been nothing but circles, ellipses and lemniscates of late.

[Ouroboros]

So....why was the snake punished for being possessed by Satan?

Damn good question Asimov!

[Eponymic]

So....why was the snake punished for being possessed by Satan?

Damn good question Asimov!

 

Because that's the Christian way. Yee ha!

 

Punish the innocent, especially those meddlesome first borns, and not the guilty.

It's all about learning from example.

 

Kinda like-

You did really really bad Timmy. Really Bad!

 

Now I'm going to give your sister fifty lashings & a lemon & vinegar bath so that you might learn from your mistakes.

[Japedo]

 

 

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).

 

Actually if you took the time to read and study the Bible you would see that the serpent in Genesis is the devil as it is specified clearly in Revelation but written throughout the Bible.

 

The Book of Genesis is Hebrew, it was never written in anything else originally. It is one of the fundamentals of the Torah. There is no Satan according to the Jews who were the Original authors of the creation story. So xtains can not use and twist the works of another religion to support their own interpretation of Satan. Sorry but you're going to have to do better then your doing. The story of Adam and eve is a story about personal responsibility as can be read below (From a Jewish Point of view) I find it odd how the xtians Hijack a story and make it into something that fits their beliefs rather then how it was originally written.

 

Blame Game

 

and

 

Did It? Admit It!

 

 

No it is one author throughout the Bible. That author is God Himself.

 

A real god would never contradict himself. The Buy-bull is full of Contradictions.

 

 

 

 

Men aren't perfect and with the offering of the daughters in protecting of the men the mob of townspeople came to rape, Lot enraged the mob further, endangered his children and subsequentlyy because of that act the men, or angels had to intervene and accomplish their mission.

 

 

Why didn't Lot offer himself and his sons in-laws instead of his kids? Men aren't perfect? But the innocent children that lived in that city were burned alive. how is lot and his daughters sin any less sinful the the people who were burned alive? color]

 

 

Actually, his children got him drunk and had sex with him because they thought they were the last people on earth. That is the how the earth was first populated, not excusing it, but giving you something to think about.

 

 

How extremely lame.

 

1) did a grown man not know enough to stop drinking, did the kids force it down his throat? Would you buy this excuse from anyone? 2) Those evil hoes, why weren't they killed along with the rest of the sexual sinners? Huh? 3) Blame the kids how nice, they got them own selves knocked up I suppose. Made their father plant his seed in not one but both of them. He wasn't to drunk to get it up apparently. This is not how the earth was 'first populated', where does it state that anywhere in the book? Sodom and Gomorrah were cities they were not the entire planet. any thinking person who saved the strangers would have thought perhaps the strangers came from some place no? If this 'case' was standing trial and two cities of people died, would you buy this evidence?

 

Lot isn't a hero because of his sex crimes, Lot is a hero because he was faithful to God despite his downfalls.

 

Oh, odd but the others were burned for their sex crimes... funny kind of justice that is. What makes him Righteous or faithful to god?

 

 

You are forgetting that His word is still AVAILABLE to us. You can read any Bible at face value. It takes all those other things to STUDY His word.

 

Turn the other cheek or an eye for an eye? Which face, which value?

[white_raven23]

This is not how the earth was 'first populated', where does it state that anywhere in the book? Sodom and Gomorrah were cities they were not the entire planet. any thinking person who saved the strangers would have thought perhaps the strangers came from some place no? If this 'case' was standing trial and two cities of people died, would you buy this evidence?

 

 

Yeah....just how ignorant are these girls supposed to be? Cities have to have rural support systems, and are generally linked to bigger and smaller communities. I don't care HOW big the booms and crashes were in the destruction of the city the girls fled from........deciding to get pregnant with their own daddy is NOT a decision anyone would opt for lightly.

No one in their right mind would merely look outside the cave entrance and go...."Yep, whole world is gone.....we're the only people left. Time to repopulate."

 

You cannot live in a city without hearing references to OTHER places....I don't care how secluded a man might keep his womenfolk.....they know other places exist. Names of other villages, towns, bigger and smaller cities.

 

No one would impregnate themselves so quickly! Not without making as sure as possible that good ol' daddy was the only male option.

[Asimov]

So....why was the snake punished for being possessed by Satan?

Damn good question Asimov!

 

I feel the need to swear a lot, but since this is the Colosseum I'll refrain....plus I have a juicy steak cooking right now and I'm in a good mood.

 

You see, sub zero, arguing mythology is fun, but what purpose does it serve other than to quench the thirst of those who enjoy studying the intricacies of any book? People argue about Star Trek, Star Wars, Greek Mythology, the Quran, The Wheel of Time, Middle Earth etc. but does finding answers to the questions one asks really conveying any truth other than your ability to explain away these things?

 

What does it matter to me if Lucifer is Satan is the Devil is the serpent in the Garden? It's just a story and I can state with authority that you would be unable to provide adequate evidence to support that it is more than that.

 

You say it the Bible is authored by God, but why should I accept what you say? Truths are not always self-evident, and claiming it is doesn't make it so. You can still provide evidence that 1+1=2.

 

Are you willing to defend your belief that God exists? Are you able to? Can you provide argumentation and specific evidence or are you just a parrot?

[white_raven23]

So what's a saved righteous man to do? What happens that night? Lot drinks and has sex with both his kids and plants his seed and this is suppose to be somehow righteous? Where are the sons in law now? Who was married? His daughters weren't his wife, they were his children. Quite possibly they were some one else's wife, so now on top of molestation, fornication and adultery, he fathered bastard children, Also caused his daughters to be pregnant with out a husband, in those day one could be killed for such things. This 'justice' wouldn't even stand up in a human court of law. God destroys people for sex crimes, then the righteous one commits sex crimes and is somehow just and made excuses for and paraded around as the hero. What a lopsided sense of Justice this just god has.

 

Actually, his children got him drunk and had sex with him because they thought they were the last people on earth. That is the how the earth was first populated, not excusing it, but giving you something to think about.

 

 

OH WOW!!!!!

 

Another Christian Myth NOT supported by the bible is revealed!!

 

See the bolded and enlarged quote above???

 

Well.... here is what the verses actually SAY.

 

Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth.

 

Sooo how does this in ANY way match the idea that these girls thought they were the last people on the whole planet????

 

IT DOESN'T!

 

That does it! I'm officially double checking the verses supposedly associated with anything that comes out of a christian mouth from now on! I encourage others to do the same. Biblegateway.com is sure handy!

[Japedo]

Nice catch WR!!!!

[thunderbolt]

Good Catch.

 

That does it! I'm officially double checking the verses supposedly associated with anything that comes out of a christian mouth from now on! I encourage others to do the same. Biblegateway.com is sure handy!

You bet. I have come to the same conclusion.

 

Here are two great links that shows parallel translations and a great resource to see what words different translations settled for.

 

Old Testament

New Testament

 

and another

 

Literal NT Translation

[Amanda]

 

 

HanSolo, how many earthquakes...

 

can a person endure at a time...

 

and still be able to think about it...

 

without the sequential complications...

 

of post traumatic stress?

 

 

 

I know earthquakes can be tough. :wink:

[Guest bdp]

Okay sub_zer0 I have a verse for you that I have never understood:

 

I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes

as one that found favour. Song of Solomon 8:10

 

Melons, jugs, I understand that. But towers??! Like radio towers, or like towers on a castle with parapets, or a water tower maybe, or like the seige towers the Babylonians used? Madonna's boobs looked kind of like towers when she wore that pointy bra but it was really more the bra than her hooters. Maybe this verse ties in with that verse that says 'The name of the Lord is a strong tower;' like the name of the Lord has the majesty of a really nice rack, or maybe this chick's rack is so fine it's a deity unto itself. Now, that she says she's a wall, I understand that, I know talking to a woman can be like talking to a wall so no mystery there for me, but if you could clear up exactly how she means her breasts are like towers, 'cuz I have never seen a pair of breasts that in any way remotely put me in mind of towers - I'm trying to imagine if I were a woman and was telling a guy 'my breasts are like towers' exactly what I would be trying to convey to him but I just don't know - I suppose you can climb a tower but is she really inviting someone to climb her boobs? Radio towers do send signals and I suppose boobs send signals too but really, all in all this verse just has got me beat. Any help would be appreciated, all scripture is God-breathed for edification and all that and I don't want to miss getting proper edification here.

 

bdp

[Antlerman]

Okay sub_zer0 I have a verse for you that I have never understood:

 

I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes

as one that found favour. Song of Solomon 8:10

 

Melons, jugs, I understand that. But towers??! Like radio towers, or like towers on a castle with parapets, or a water tower maybe, or like the seige towers the Babylonians used?

Thank you so much for bringing this up!! I've always assumed it was an ancient form of implants, where instead of using silcone, they used two bricks. I also would like clarification. It might help me come to Christ if this made more sense?

[Guest bdp]

Implants - hmm, never thought of that, the 'theological implications' are staggering... Maybe that's why she found his favor though...

 

bdp

[Guest sub_zer0]

So you are arbitarly deciding what is literal and what is not?

 

If the curse on Satan was literal, then you do have a certain problem.

 

No there is no problem, because you are saying that the snake was Satan literally. I am saying that the snake was Satan more figuratively, like Satan posessed it, or did something to make the snake deceive Eve. The curse on the animal was literal. The snake before the curse could of stood erect (Luther), or having been possessed of bone (Josephus). It is also possible that the language of the verse indicates and implies no more than the humiliation of the serpent, once exalted as the most subtile of the beasts (Gen. 3:1).

 

The point being is that the snake was not literally Satan. Satan is not a snake, Satan is rather a fallen angel, a golden cherub, as Ezekial points out.

 

Satan was doomed to crawl on his belly and eat dust all the days of his life. However the NT states that Satan tempted Jesus long after the incident in the Garden of Eden.

 

Matt 4:8-10

Again, the devil(Satan) taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

 

If Satan took Jesus to the top of a very high mountain, it would have taken a rather long time since Satan was doomed to crawl on his belly the whole trip. And how could Jesus bow down and worship Satan if Satan was already on his belly? Could Jesus have bowed down lower than the ground itself?

 

Like I have said, Satan is rather a fallen angel, not literally the snake in Genesis 3.

 

And if Satan was the talking serpent who was doomed by God to crawl on his belly, how then could we have the following verses from the book of Job?:

 

Job 1:6-7

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

(Satan in the Old Testament is man's accuser, and not an adversary of God)

 

Satan is one of the angels or sons of God. The text does not say that a talking serpent also presented himself before God. Satan says he has been roaming the earth, going back and forth in it. This would have taken a great deal of time if Satan was crawling on his belly, occasionally stopping from time to time to eat some dust. In other words, there is no reason to believe that God EVER cursed Satan with the same curse that he used on the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden.

 

Good you caught on, that is exactly what I am saying.

 

 

i specifically said OT. THE OT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF DEVIL. NOWHERE DOES IT SAYS IN THE OT THAT THE SNAKE WAS SATAN.

 

And here are some facts about the book of revelation.

 

The Greek Orthodox Church did not finalize its canon until the tenth century (primarily in doubt was inclusion of the book of Revelation). The Syrian Church had an even more complicated debate, and today recognizes only 22 books in its New Testament (excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The Copts and Ethiopians have a few additional books included in their New Testament.

 

When Martin Luther reviewed Scripture during his break from Catholicism, he judged the contents of the Bible in the light of his convictions. He found a number of books difficult to reconcile with what he understood of the Gospel--specifically, II Maccabees, Esther, James, Hebrews, and Revelation.

 

Most christian still haven't figured out what does the book of revelation says. It is filled with imagery, and yet you want to take this verse literally from a disputed book because it suits your pet doctrine of the devil.

 

http://www.biblebb.com/files/howbible.htm

 

Thanks for ripping a verse out of context to prove your assertion.

 

As the context shows, the passage is aimed at the king of Babylon and is a taunt to be issued to him.

 

Isa 14:3-4

And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

 

Satan is no more identified as the morning star or Lucifer in this passage than the talking serpent is identified as Satan in Genesis.

 

The king of Babylon is never said to be Satan.

 

Since you like to make up whatever doctrine suits your needs, I can play that game too.

 

The Bible identifies the morning star as a fallen rebel who tried to assume power and authority.

 

Isa 14:12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!(also known as the morning star) how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

 

"The Bible identifies the morning star as a fallen rebel who tried to assume power and authority."

 

Exactly what I am trying to prove.

 

Jesus claimed that he was the morning star.

 

Rev 22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

That's a prophecy fulfillment I'll wager you don't want to recognize.

 

Honest Christian Site Which Debunks Your Claim About Is. 14

 

Indeed Jesus is identified as "the bright and morning star" (II Peter 1:19) links Him with the church. Look at this connection and reasoning behind that saying near the end of the Bible. In Malachi 4:2, being the last book of the Old Testament, it states that the "sun of righteousness will rise" with "healing in its wings;" in millenial (second coming) blessing. The New Testament likewise closes with Him (Jesus) as "the bright and morning star." He will come for His saints before He comes with them to reign, just as the morning star appears before the sun.

 

If it did not end, then why do you break so many laws from the OT?You don't want to follow God do you?

 

The Law didn't end but was fulfilled. That is key with Christ and Him alone. We don't have to fulfill the Law because Christ did. We have to make Christ fulfill us. Christ is the New Covenant the New Testament for believers.

 

And that also means Paul is telling a lie when he says the following

 

Rom 10:4

For Christ(or Messiah) is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

Gal 5:18

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

 

 

How did Jesus fulfill the law when he ignored parts of it?

 

So are we or are we not under the law?Please choose from the following 2 options

 

1)Yes

2)No

 

As far as Romans 10:4, this is what I have already said. 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).

 

I think you meant Jer 31, which says no such thing. On the contrary it undermines Jesus death on the cross.

 

Jer 31:31

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

 

As the above verse says in the days of the new covenant, each person will die for their own sin.

 

Firstly, specifically I was talking about Jeremiah 30:1-31:40. Jeremiah 31:31 doesn't say that, you meant Jeremiah 31:30. Anyway, you are right, sin is directly responsible for death.

 

This is confirmed by Ezek 18:20-28, where God declares that each man will die for his own sin and will redeem himself through his own actions and faithful obedience to God's Law.

 

Exactly. Proved my point. And indeed they would be redeemed through actions and obedience to God's Law during those times. But you are forgetting about Jeremiah 30:1-31:40 which speaks on the New Covenant, the New Law.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Since we are talkng about the book of revelation. Please tell me what you think of the following verses

 

Rev 19:11-15

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he(Jesus) that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his(Jesus) mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

 

Rev 19:17-18,21

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God Jesus;

That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him(Jesus) that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

 

So you think that Jesus the God will dress in clothes dipped in blood and will kill people with a sword that comes out of his mouth.

 

And do you think that invitations will be sent out for a great supper party where the flesh of the dead will be eaten, which is hosted by Jesus.

 

I think Jesus is God. You have to keep in mind that Revelation is saturated in metaphors and symbolism. In Revelation 19:11-15 the "white horse" symbolizes victory and triumph. He is "faithful and true" symbolizes the rider of the white horses character and every deed. Indeed, He is the mighty warrior who will right the world's every ill (Acts 17:31). He (Jesus) in "righteousness" He "judges and wages war."

 

In verse 12, "His head were many crowns" symbolizing His supreme authority. In verse 13 it says "His name is called the Word of God" which shows that He is the full expression. He is coming to judge remember. In verse 15, the sword that is coming out of His mouth, is undoubtedly the Word of God.

 

I am sure you gonna say. Nah those are allegory

 

So why do verses become allegorical/literal when you want to be?

 

Indeed that is all symbolic representation, or allegory. Well if the text demands it like in this case. In Revelation it is symbolic in its style and apocalyptic in its characteristics. Prophecy and apocalyptic differ in form. Prophecy uses visions; but they are implied rather than described. In apocalyptic the vision is the vehicle in which the prediction is described.

[Asimov]

So why was the snake punished for what Satan did?

[Eponymic]

No there is no problem, because you are saying that the snake was Satan literally. I am saying that the snake was Satan more figuratively, like Satan posessed it, or did something to make the snake deceive Eve.

 

The point being is that the snake was not literally Satan. Satan is not a snake, Satan is rather a fallen angel, a golden cherub, as Ezekial points out.

 

Good job, once again, of picking & choosing your battles. And as a result ignoring the majority of people who are not disputing whether or not Satan was literally the snake, or just possessing it. The POINT IS: YOU HAVE GIVEN and are avoiding giving ANY VIABLE PROOF other than presumption & opinion, to link Satan to the snake.

 

Unless you can properly link & affirm the connection between the two, everything else you say is futile.

 

And if Satan was the talking serpent who was doomed by God to crawl on his belly, how then could we have the following verses from the book of Job?:

 

Satan is one of the angels or sons of God. The text does not say that a talking serpent also presented himself before God. Satan says he has been roaming the earth, going back and forth in it. This would have taken a great deal of time if Satan was crawling on his belly, occasionally stopping from time to time to eat some dust. In other words, there is no reason to believe that God EVER cursed Satan with the same curse that he used on the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden.

 

Good you caught on, that is exactly what I am saying.

 

Dude. That's rude. Don't go claiming you put this thought in his head. These are his comments reagarding something else other than what you are claiming victory on.

 

Basically, you're doing what you say you shouldn't do, and that's taking it out of context.

 

He's using this to refute any literal connection with Satan & the snake (which you have made it clear you don't support). He's supporting his point about picking & choosing what's literal & not overall in the Bible. But you're claiming it as if you led him to discover your point of view in connection with the debate about Satan's connection to the snake, not whether it's literal or not.

 

 

 

 

And to affirm a point, it's really pointless to debate the intricacies of a mythological book anyways. I mainly do it to show that even in it's finer points, it doesn't make sense. Let alone when you look at how historically it can hardly be held up as holy or God inspired in any shape or form.

[SkepticOfBible]

No there is no problem, because you are saying that the snake was Satan literally. I am saying that the snake was Satan more figuratively, like Satan posessed it, or did something to make the snake deceive Eve. The curse on the animal was literal. The snake before the curse could of stood erect (Luther), or having been possessed of bone (Josephus). It is also possible that the language of the verse indicates and implies no more than the humiliation of the serpent, once exalted as the most subtile of the beasts (Gen. 3:1).

 

I am saying no such thing, rather I am saying that the snake was actually a snake. I remaining true to the verse.

 

There is nothing in thoses Genesis Verses or any other verse in the OT which says that the snake was Satan figuratively or Satan possesed. On the contrary there is no cases of "satan - possession" in the OT. The whole idea of possesion comes from the NT(which borrowed it from the pagans).

 

The point being is that the snake was not literally Satan. Satan is not a snake, Satan is rather a fallen angel, a golden cherub, as Ezekial points out.

 

Ezekial does not say that the golden cherub is Satan, once again it is aimed at the king of babylon

 

Where is the OT proof that Satan was a fallen angel

 

Stop rewriting and twisting the verses to serve your theological agenda

 

You are doing exactly what your God warned you not to do, which is to modify his word to suit you needs.

 

Prov 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

Good you caught on, that is exactly what I am saying.

 

You are not even listening are you

 

http://www.biblebb.com/files/howbible.htm

 

I know the history of the bible. Your biblical canon is nothing than list of book which is modified at the whims of men

 

Why does the word of god/Truth needs the democratic approval of men?

 

"The Bible identifies the morning star as a fallen rebel who tried to assume power and authority."

 

Exactly what I am trying to prove.

 

i was merely stating your assertion

 

The Law didn't end but was fulfilled. That is key with Christ and Him alone. We don't have to fulfill the Law because Christ did. We have to make Christ fulfill us. Christ is the New Covenant the New Testament for believers.

 

The New Convenants says no such thing. Read Jer 30.

 

What you are doing is actually double talk.

 

according to this sophistry the law wasn't destroyed, it was just set aside like an old shoe.

 

This claim that the "old law was done away with" is contradicted by Jesus himself.

 

Matt 5:17-20(Jesus speaking)

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

As Jesus clearly states, whoever breaks even the least commandment shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven and that people should have the righteousness of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were followers of the law.

 

Heaven and earth have not passed away, nor has everything been fulfilled.

 

the word "fulfilled" can mean anything christian want it to mean, which is why Christians define it according to their doctrinal needs.

 

Just like every other fundamentalist christian you cherry pick the laws of the OT that you like, and then state these represent god's morality, however if you don't like particular law, you just ignore it.

 

You mock the very god you worship

 

As far as Romans 10:4, this is what I have already said. 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).

 

You don't fulfill the law by breaking it. Jesus broke several OT laws (and including his own). Paul also broke many OT laws.

 

Exactly. Proved my point. And indeed they would be redeemed through actions and obedience to God's Law during those times. But you are forgetting about Jeremiah 30:1-31:40 which speaks on the New Covenant, the New Law.

The New Covenant is reaffirmation of the OT laws. And that certainly has not come to pass.

 

As per your highlighted words are you saying that God's moral and absolute Law and code for his worshippers depends on which part of the world the live in and the time they were born?

 

Congratulations. You've reduced God's Law to moral relativism which fundamentalist Christians hate so much.

 

Where does the Bible say that God's Laws aren't in effect in certain countries and at certain times?

[Lycorth]

Well done, pritish, as usual. The irrefutable truth is that Cheesus, according to the Holah Babble, didn't come to eradicate the cruel and sick Judaic laws (even though he broke a few himself) but rather to reaffirm them, reaffirm the "goodness" of the Hebrew tribal god, and even broaden it all to include the whole world, not just Jews. In the end, it's still a justification of the same old garbage found in the Old Testament, which is why Xianity is so insidious. It's basically a form of Judaism for the rest of the world.

[Open_Minded]

No there is no problem, because you are saying that the snake was Satan literally. I am saying that the snake was Satan more figuratively, like Satan posessed it, or did something to make the snake deceive Eve. The curse on the animal was literal. The snake before the curse could of stood erect (Luther), or having been possessed of bone (Josephus). It is also possible that the language of the verse indicates and implies no more than the humiliation of the serpent, once exalted as the most subtile of the beasts (Gen. 3:1).

 

The point being is that the snake was not literally Satan. Satan is not a snake, Satan is rather a fallen angel, a golden cherub, as Ezekial points out.

 

 

Sub_zero....

 

Just stepping in here to present some information...

 

This thread seems to be getting hung up on the snake -- preventing you from adequately addressing all the other requests for enlightment about different Bible verses. I - for one - would like to move on. So... following is a quote from my copy of from The Oxford Companion to the Bible:

 

Asherah. The Canaanite mother goddess, associated with lions, serpents, and sacred trees. The word "asherah" in the Bible most often refers to a stylized wooden tree.

 

The biblical writers generally condemn worship of the goddess, but there is evidence that many in Israel devoted themselves to Asherah, perhaps even worshipping her as consort of Yahweh. At several times an asherah stood in Yahweh's Temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings 18.4; 21.7; 23.6); there were in the Temple, moreover, vessels dedicated to Asherah (2 Kings 23.4) and a compound in which women wove garments for her statue (2 Kings 23.7). An asherah also stood in Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 16.33; 2 Kings 13.6) and in Yahweh's temple in Bethel (2 Kings 23.15). Recent archaeological discoveries have confirmed that the cult of Asherah was a part of Yahwistic tradition for at least some Israelites.

 

So.... everyone... what do you think the chances are that the tree in the garden and the serpent represented Asherah? What do you think the chances are that when the writer of this myth wrote that the serpent was just, "a "wild animal that the LORD GOD had made" that s/he was demoting a Canaanite goddess to "wild animal"?

 

It can not be proven, and no scholar will argure that the serpent represents Asherah because a solid link has not been made. But let us not forget that the serpent is a common symbol for ancient goddesses. THAT IS WHY scholars won't commit to Asherah. The serpent could be representing any one of many goddesses. But that point aside, the serpent represents a lot of things, but Satan is very highly likely NOT one of them.

 

So Sub_Zero please move on to the other verses and let the serpent go....