Satan - the Quintessential Shyster

i was talking about the bible, not you.

Quote:

I realize you may believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you know that what I wrote is probably not what I meant.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I knew I'd hear some convoluted attempt to explain away God's apparent lie, and this is it.

God never said the right to life. He never said "dead man walking". He said, you would die the same day. If someone came up to you and said, "Don't drink that poison or you'll die in a day", what do you think that means?

In fact, it's very telling that the NIV (at least, as far as I can remember) removes that little statement made by God. He never says "you will die the same day" in the NIV. It means there was no death in the Garden of Eden, which is still nonsensical, but at least it doesn't make God look like a complete liar.

Before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they had the prospect of living indefinitely. Upon disobeying, they lost that prospect, not only for themselves but for their offspring.

You may nitpick the point all you wish, but they are still dead.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

i was talking about the bible, not you.

Quote:
I realize you may believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you know that what I wrote is probably not what I meant.

Yeah!

Huh?

0 Replies

Notice how "Satan" and "Santa" are similar?

0 Replies

God also promised everlasting life if only you believe in him. The promise has been around for a while, and is obviously not entirely literal, otherwise we would have people here many thousands of years old, and more.

Of course, Adam and Eve and creation are just a story, as anyone who's played Chinese Whispers would know, especially given it was, Biblically, thousands of years before Genesis was written.

0 Replies

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

God also promised everlasting life if only you believe in him.

where does the bible say that?

vikorr wrote:

The promise has been around for a while, and is obviously not entirely literal, otherwise we would have people here many thousands of years old, and more.

If Adam and Eve had obeyed, yes, according to the bible, that is.

vikorr wrote:

Of course, Adam and Eve and creation are just a story, as anyone who's played Chinese Whispers would know, especially given it was, Biblically, thousands of years before Genesis was written.

That would no doubt be true if God did not exist.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Notice how "Satan" and "Santa" are similar?

Excellent observation, farmer.

0 Replies

as a joke, it's gold.

if you read about the story of st. nicholaus, he's just a guy that went out and did alms in secret. there's nothing satanic about generousity without asking anything in return, for christ's sake. giving gifts and demanding something in return, that's satanic. oddly, that's kind of the fundamentalist view of god Smile

"god has given you life, now you must repay him by hating everyone else, blah blah blah blah..." yeah, okay, *sure.*

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they had the prospect of living indefinitely. Upon disobeying, they lost that prospect, not only for themselves but for their offspring.

You may nitpick the point all you wish, but they are still dead.

You may nitpick the point all you wish, but they still didn't die in the same day they ate of the fruit as God promised.

And you still haven't provided a verse by Jesus that clearly stated that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan. I'm having difficulties finding it, you see.

0 Replies

Quote:

where does the bible say that?

John 3:16. I doubt I need to quote it, and I have little doubt you needed to ask that.

Quote:

If Adam and Eve had obeyed, yes, according to the bible, that is

No, it was promised in John 3:16.

Quote:

That would no doubt be true if God did not exist.

It is true even with the existence of God. There is not a natural law in existence that isn't followed each and every time in nature, regardless of the existence of God or not. Peoples memories are naturally fallible, Peoples perspectives are naturally coloured, Peoples interpretations naturally differ...and so word of mouth stories cannot help but change.

The bible has never claimed to be infallible, The prophets don't claim that God spoke the words directly to them, nor did they claim they were perfect. What then makes you think that a story handed down verbally over thousands of years has remained the same? (when people in the same room can't keep a story the same)

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

neologist wrote:
Before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they had the prospect of living indefinitely. Upon disobeying, they lost that prospect, not only for themselves but for their offspring.

You may nitpick the point all you wish, but they are still dead.

You may nitpick the point all you wish, but they still didn't die in the same day they ate of the fruit as God promised.

And you still haven't provided a verse by Jesus that clearly stated that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan. I'm having difficulties finding it, you see.

Jesus, Speaking to the pharisees:
"YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]."(John 8:44)

More about the identity of Satan:
"And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:2)

More stuff available, but if this doesn't work for you we are not communicating in the same language.

As for your inability to comprehend how Adam and Eve can be considered to have died on the same day of their eating the fruit, I can only say. . . 'wow.'

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
where does the bible say that?

John 3:16. I doubt I need to quote it, and I have little doubt you needed to ask that.

Quote:
If Adam and Eve had obeyed, yes, according to the bible, that is

No, it was promised in John 3:16.

Quote:
That would no doubt be true if God did not exist.

It is true even with the existence of God. There is not a natural law in existence that isn't followed each and every time in nature, regardless of the existence of God or not. Peoples memories are naturally fallible, Peoples perspectives are naturally coloured, Peoples interpretations naturally differ...and so word of mouth stories cannot help but change.

The bible has never claimed to be infallible, The prophets don't claim that God spoke the words directly to them, nor did they claim they were perfect. What then makes you think that a story handed down verbally over thousands of years has remained the same? (when people in the same room can't keep a story the same)

If belief were the only thing necessary, we would not read in James that the demons believe. (James 2:19). A better understanding of John 3:16 comes from a careful consideration of what it means to believe.

As for whether the bible claims to be inerrant, read 2 Timothy 3:16.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Jesus, Speaking to the pharisees:
"YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]."(John 8:44)

Yeah, that's really up to interpretation isn't it?

Quote:

More about the identity of Satan:
"And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." (Revelation 20:2)

The Book of Revelation, you must admit, is a very shakey source. Its canonicity has been disputed many times, once by Martin Luther (although I hear he eventually changed his mind), once by Thomas Jefferson and I do believe one of the Orthodox Churches rejects it, but I can't remember which one.

Quote:

More stuff available, but if this doesn't work for you we are not communicating in the same language.

Oh the last one works fine, but its still rather up to interpretation. There is nothing to say that the serpent that tempted Eve was the original serpent, now is there?

Quote:

As for your inability to comprehend how Adam and Eve can be considered to have died on the same day of their eating the fruit, I can only say. . . 'wow.'

Adam and Eve lived for another 900 or so odd years. It would take a very bizarre definition of day or death, for them to have died the same day of them eating the fruit yet still live to 930.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

. . .
Adam and Eve lived for another 900 or so odd years. It would take a very bizarre definition of day or death, for them to have died the same day of them eating the fruit yet still live to 930.

HMM. . . Let's see. . . How will we evaluate the consequences of A & E's decision?

Before eating fruit - could live forever and would still be here.

After eating fruit - died

Noteworthy difference, to say the least.

No wonder Moses didn't try to fudge the words.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
. . .
Adam and Eve lived for another 900 or so odd years. It would take a very bizarre definition of day or death, for them to have died the same day[/i] of them eating the fruit yet still live to 930.
HMM. . . Let's see. . . How will we evaluate the consequences of A & E's decision?

Before eating fruit - could live forever and would still be here.

After eating fruit - died

Noteworthy difference, to say the least.

No wonder Moses didn't try to fudge the words.

You do realise your statement doesn't address mine at all, don't you?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

neologist wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
. . .
Adam and Eve lived for another 900 or so odd years. It would take a very bizarre definition of day or death, for them to have died the same day[/i] of them eating the fruit yet still live to 930.
HMM. . . Let's see. . . How will we evaluate the consequences of A & E's decision?

Before eating fruit - could live forever and would still be here.

After eating fruit - died

Noteworthy difference, to say the least.

No wonder Moses didn't try to fudge the words.

You do realise your statement doesn't address mine at all, don't you?

Except for the fact that I have provided several references to the biblical use of the word day to include periods of up to thousands of years, including Genesis 2:4, in which the entire creative process is referred to as a single 'day.' Apparently these are not good enough for you and you wish to counsel Moses on his use of language.

Well, its too late.

He's dead as well. And the seventh creative day is not yet over.

0 Replies

Hi Neologist,

The point of my post was not that one needed only 'belief' to have everlasting life, it was that everlasting life was promised, yet people die.

Now, I know the Bible is a little more complex than that. The point was made in relation to anothers statement that God lied to Adam and Eve about the consequences of eating of the Tree (In that they didn't die). The poster stated there was no reason to believe it meant anything other than an literal death.

My post was pointing out how such things can't in fact, always be taken literally.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Except for the fact that I have provided several references to the biblical use of the word day to include periods of up to thousands of years, including Genesis 2:4, in which the entire creative process is referred to as a single 'day.' Apparently these are not good enough for you and you wish to counsel Moses on his use of language.

Really? Let me go back and check.

Nope. Can't see it. Unless it's one of those Biblical verses you quoted in the OP. Let's go back and check again.

Genesis 3:4-5 NIV
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Nope.

Job 2:4 (NIV)
"Skin for skin!" Satan replied. "A man will give all he has for his own life.

Nope.

John 12:31 (NIV)
Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.

Nope.

John 14:30 (NIV)
I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me,

Nope.

2Corinthians 4:4 (NIV)

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Nope, although that one does sound rather Gnostic.

Not Proverbs, not Matthew 13:45.

As for Genesis 2:4, you may also notice that the order appears to be different to the first account. It blatantly contradicts Genesis 1. How can the entire Creation take a single day in Genesis 2 but six in Genesis 1?

Even if you were right, according to your logic, the Bible is contradicting itself. It either takes six days (up to period of six thousand years) or one day (a period of up to a thousand years). Which puts the entire view of the account being literal on highly shakey ground.

Now there is another argument I found on the Internet that suggested the original Hebrew word was ages as in era. Well, now that means the Creation either took six eras or one era.

So, either they're both stories not to be taken literally.
Or one of them is wrong
Or both are wrong, in which case both are stories not meant ot be taken literally.

Sorry, I forgot. What was your original point again? It was all a bit vague.

0 Replies

I've mentioned these before, albeit not in this thread.

Cut and pasted with little editing:

"Man's situation does not compare with that of God, who is not affected by our measurement of a solar day. Accordingly, the psalmist says: "For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch during the night." (Psalm 90:2, 4) Correspondingly, the apostle Peter writes that "one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2Peter 3:8) For man, a 1,000-year period represents some 365,242 individual time units of day and night, but to the Creator it can be just one unbroken time period in which he begins the carrying out of some purposeful activity and brings it on to its successful conclusion, much as a man begins a task in the morning and concludes it by the day's end."

Once again, the obvious grouping of days into one at Genesis 2:4 and the fact that the seventh creative day has not yet ended.

0 Replies

Satan - the Quintessential Shyster

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know