Satan (a discussion)

@maxdancona,

You've, conveniently, formed your own definition of Prejudice.

Websters:

1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

It's more than clear how you feel about prejudice and it's disingenuous for you to suggest that there is no value judgment associated with the term.

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

As for the first question,Satan's goal is to destroy humankind and as for the second question,it will make everyone evil,due to which we would have conflicts with each other and inevitably kill everyone.

0 Replies

Referring to a post of neologist on page 3, no.
They were literal 24 hour days. The original hebrew word use for 'day' is Yom, which in the hebrew language means 1 literal 24 hour day.

1 Reply

@InkRune,

Then explain Genesis 2:4 which lumps 6 days into one

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Quote:

Satan and God (a discussion)

There's no discussion, neither exist, now go shopping and be happy.

2 Replies

@jcboy,

Thank you for your well documented and thoughtful exegesis Mr. Green

0 Replies

Gladly.

Genesis 2:4
'This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created(a). When the Lord made the earth and the heavens(b)-'

The passages 1:1-31 and 2:1-3 in Genesis are being referenced in part (a). Part (b) is starting a brand new topic about the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve.

Genesis 2:5-20 shows whats known as Aspect to Aspect, and moment to moment. Its displaying a shortened story of the past few days in the creation process. Going further into detail about Adam, who chap. 1 didnt say much about.

If I poorly explained, or didnt fully answer your question,
I apologize.

1 Reply

@InkRune,

No,you did not explain very well. So let me drop this one into the mix.
Regarding God's view of time: 2nd Peter 3:8

Quote:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

1 Reply

@jcboy,

jcboy wrote:

Quote:
Satan and God (a discussion)

There's no discussion, neither exist, now go shopping and be happy.

My usual questions: You KNOW this how? Or is it a blind guess?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Boy has wisdom beyond his years

0 Replies

@neologist,

God spans all time all the time. Constantly. So of course to him a day is as if a thousand years. And the other way around. But here is something for you to consider. God, using men he handpicked, wrote te bible. And God told them to write 'Yom', so that all would know that it meant a literal day.

God, according to the bible, never makes mistakes.

3 Replies

@InkRune,

So how do you figure Genesis 2:4, when 6 days are reckoned as one?

And how do you explain that the 7th day has not yet been recorded as having ended?

0 Replies

@InkRune,

I am no scholar my friend, but I have researched this in depth in the past, take for instance just a few other occurances of the word in Genesis as used by Moses.

In Genesis 1:5 Yom is referred to as a period of light, (12ish hours?)
It appears all six Yoms were referred to as a single yom in Genesis 2:4. (a week?)
In Genesis 4:3. Cains crops grew in a single Yom (a few months?)
In Genesis 43:9 Moses declares that he shall bare the blame for Yom (eternity?)

The word Yom actually has several meanings in Hebrew and not all meanings were always used literally. If you wish to use the word literally you need to overcome the suggestion of evenings and mornings before the luminaries were put in place.

0 Replies

@InkRune,

InkRune wrote:

God, using men he handpicked, wrote te bible.

Well that's complete nonsense.

Quote:

In the new documentary, Beckford, a committed pentecostal Christian, describes a journey he made to some of Christianity's holiest places to help him uncover the provenance of the Bible. He calls his conclusion an 'earth-shattering experience' and one that made him doubt some of his most basic Christian beliefs.

Of the Old Testament, Beckford declares: 'The so-called law of Moses turns out to be the work of many human hands. What I once thought was the word of God was now beginning to sound like something out of Stalin's Russia.'

He produces archaeological evidence to suggest the Bible's claims that the kingdoms of David and Solomon dominated the 10th century BC were wrong, an error that raises profound claims about the genesis of Christianity.

He declares the New Testament a 'masterwork of spin written by people who were nowhere near the events they describe, all gathered by powerful editors who kept out ideas they did not like'.

The story of the nativity is also doubted. Beckford argues that Matthew added the story to fulfil a prophecy made in the Old Testament.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/dec/19/broadcasting.channel4

It's pretty much accepted that the Biblical account of the Israelites working as slaves on the pyramids is complete fantasy. The pyramids were built by free men, and the working conditions were very good. If "God" wrote the Bible, he was a lying God, and quite a stupid God at that.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Yeah, but the Biblical account does not have the Israelites building the pyramids.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I'll take your word for it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

So Beckford is a loon, eh?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Far from it, he's actually looked at real evidence. The documentary was very good, its outcome didn't make any waves in academic circles. The problem/controversy comes from religious literalists who tend to view faith like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dam. If just one bit goes the whole lot will come crashing down. Such an approach makes people look absurd, arguing all the points which are patently untrue.

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

I don't know how he is the serpent either-that is a very confusing point. He's an arch angel; this sort of cross references with other faiths, but the bible said so. He is thrown down with Lucifer and the rebel angels and chained to the vicinity of the Earth where he may be until the end of time. He's immaterial right now. His goal is to ruin people or cause trouble, whatever might be interesting to do if you could only be immaterial.

1 Reply

@kiuku,

this website says he is the "voice behind the serpent" shrugs. He's apparently the adversary, who stands at the right hand of a man, as in a court room. He was alive and well in Job. Somewhere before Revelation is recorded he is thrown down. I think he was with Jesus. Basically AD, after Rome, after Greece and Egypt and the Mayans; he was a king of the ancient world. There is really some proof that Lucifer and Satan are the same angel. This might be Quetzalcoatl who is a birdman, aka an angel; certainly the reign of the old world dynasties. Possibly the face of the Sphinx is another contender for Satan, who is, or what he looks like, because it's so big and it's basically a king. Wouldn't that be Lucifer? Wouldn't that be the face of the king of the Old World? Are there bigger faces than that one? Lucifer was the king of the old world. Satan is an adversary who questions the goodness of Man all the time. Satan is not in Hell according to the bible and contrary to belief, he is in the vicinity of the Earth until judgment, when he will be allowed out for some time.

That's what demons are, a host of immaterial angels, part of Satan's army.

Satan fell in AD, so Satan was still running things in Rome, because Satan was with Jesus, unless we say he could materialize because God let him; or that he hadn't fallen yet.

0 Replies

Satan (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know