13
   

Satan (a discussion)

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 11:33 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona, responding to neo, wrote:
That's a silly argument. Just because the same word happens to be used doesn't mean anything. Does every lamb mentioned in the Bible literally refer to Jesus? Peter is "the rock", does that mean it was Peter that David hurled at Goliath to slay him?

You have to look at the text for what it is. And, it is very clear.

The serpent in Genesis was a snake, a created "beast of the field". His descendants (today's snakes) were punished for his role in the story. This does not describe Satan.

Read the text in Genesis 3 again.
Are we to assume that snakes had the facility of speech? Whom do you suppose put the words in the serpent's mouth? Was it . . . Satan?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 11:50 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Satan is referred to as a liar (John 8:44) because he lied to Adam and Eve, telling them, if they ate the fruit, not only would they not die, but they would be better off, judging for themselves what was good and what was bad.


Here we go again. It was a serpent who persuaded Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. It was not Satan.

We know this because the text refers to the serpent as one of "the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made". And God punishes snakes for this act, condemning them to crawl in the dust which wouldn't make sense if it wasn't really a literal snake at fault.

See Genesis 3 for the actual text.

I don't know why you persist in this error.



But if it is a "literal snake"...how could the god condemn it to crawl on its belly? Wouldn't that be like condemning a fish to swim in water?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 11:52 am
@Frank Apisa,
Survival tip from my Friend Joe Sixpack:
Did you know all snakes are edible? Never tried 'em, though.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 04:44 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
Are we to assume that snakes had the facility of speech? Whom do you suppose put the words in the serpent's mouth? Was it . . . Satan?


The Bible says that the serpent was a created beast of the field. And, the Bible says that God punished snakes for what happened. There is nothing there to imply that Satan was there.

The Bible says what it says. See Genesis 3 for the literal text. It is pretty clear .

Anything else is your invention.


neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 04:56 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I wrote:
Are we to assume that snakes had the facility of speech? Whom do you suppose put the words in the serpent's mouth? Was it . . . Satan?
The Bible says that the serpent was a created beast of the field. And, the Bible says that God punished snakes for what happened. There is nothing there to imply that Satan was there.

The Bible says what it says. See Genesis 3 for the literal text. It is pretty clear .

Anything else is your invention.
The real object of God's judgement was the spirit creature who misused the serpent. The Bible describes Satan as “the father of the lie” and “the original serpent.” Both of these expressions apparently point back to Satan’s using a visible animal, a serpent, as his mouthpiece to induce Eve to disobey God’s command. See John 8:44; Revelation 20:2.
Additionally, my herpetologist assures me that no snakes were harmed in this production.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 08:39 pm
@neologist,
There is nowhere in the Bible, not John 8:44, not Revelations 20:2, that says that the serpent in the Garden of Eden is Satan.

The text in Genesis calls the serpent one of the "wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made". And the text clearly says that snakes, real snakes, were cursed by God (so your herpetologist is wrong). Two partial phrases from two different books that have nothing at all to do with the Garden of Eden doesn't help your point.

You are making up this story about "spirit creature who misused the serpent". That isn't what the Bible says at all.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 08:44 pm
@maxdancona,
Did the serpent tell the truth?
If he lied, it is the first recorded lie, making him the father of the lie.
If you believe he told the truth, you and I have another area of disagreement, much larger, I imagine.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 09:12 pm
@neologist,
You are piecing together random phrases to support a story that contradicts the Biblical text (in the two ways that you still haven't answered). There is nowhere in the Bible that says that "Father of the lie" refers to this one particular lie (in the Garden of Eden). Again you just made that up and it is easy to speculate that there were lies before this point (if this was after the rebellion). But then again the point is that the Bible says what it says and speculation is just an invention especially when it contradicts the text.

Jewish Scholars don't consider that the serpent in this story is Satan (and this is there story). Most Biblical scholars don't consider this story to refer to Satan. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

You are pushing a doctrinal belief that isn't supported by the biblical text and than twisting random scriptures to lend it credence.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 09:54 pm
@maxdancona,
I don't usually cut and past large amounts of text as I consider it lazy. But, here is the first 2 paragraphs of your link with emphasis added:
Wikipedia wrote:
Satan (Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan, "the opposer,"[1]) is a character appearing in the texts of the Abrahamic religions,[2][3] who personifies evil and temptation, and is known as the deceiver that leads humanity astray. The term is often applied to an angel who fell out of favor with God, seducing humanity into the ways of sin, and who now rules over the fallen world.

Satan is primarily understood as an "accuser" or "adversary" in the Hebrew Bible, and is not necessarily the personification of evil that he would become in later Abrahamic religions. . . .
If the highlighted words don't fit the serpent, what does? You can't seem to get it out of your mind that a powerful spirit creature would be able to deceive Eve into believing she was talking to a real entity.

The judgement upon the serpent from God applied to the spirit creature, the opposer, the deceiver, the tempter.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 10:18 pm
@neologist,
Highlighting words. Do you see what you are doing?

You are picking and cutting words and phrases completely out of context to support your doctrine. You are ignoring the Biblical text which as a whole and in context contradicts your doctrine. Let's go to the text one more time which I will put in its entirety because I am taking it in context and the text is clear on its own merit.

Quote:

Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: “Is it really so that God said ​YOU​ must not eat from every tree of the garden?”2At this the woman said to the serpent: “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat.3But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU​ must not eat from it, no, ​YOU​ must not touch it that ​YOU​ do not die.’”4At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU​ positively will not die.5For God knows that in the very day of ​YOUR​ eating from it ​YOUR​ eyes are bound to be opened and ​YOU​ are bound to be like God, ​KNOWING​ good and bad.”

6Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it.7Then the eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked. Hence they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves.

8Later they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden about the breezy part of the day, and the man and his wife went into hiding from the face of Jehovah God in between the trees of the garden.9And Jehovah God kept calling to the man and saying to him: “Where are you?”10Finally he said: “Your voice I heard in the garden, but I was afraid because I was naked and so I hid myself.”11At that he said: “Who told you that you were naked? From the tree from which I commanded you not to eat have you eaten?”12And the man went on to say: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me [fruit] from the tree and so I ate.”13With that Jehovah God said to the woman: “What is this you have done?” To this the woman replied: “The serpent—it deceived me and so I ate.”

14And Jehovah God proceeded to say to the serpent: “Because you have done this thing, you are the cursed one out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild beasts of the field. Upon your belly you will go and dust is what you will eat all the days of your life.15And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”


There is no way to spin this Neo. The text is clear.

First the text refers to the serpent as the most cautious "of all the wild beasts. Later God cursed the serpent "out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild beasts of the field". I am not jumping around to unrelated passages to prove my point. This one passage, in context and as part of the relevant text taken as a whole makes it clear, two times, that the serpent is part of the animal kingdom that God had created.

If this story was about Satan, as a spiritual being that is not part of the animal kingdom speaking through the snake, then the text would have said so. And if this were the case, than God would not have punished the snake.

The story you are telling is not Biblical and it doesn't make sense with the actual text.




neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 11:12 pm
@maxdancona,
God did not punish the snake. His judgement was against the one who did the decieving
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2013 11:36 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

God did not punish the snake. His judgement was against the one who did the decieving
Give up.. you're wrong and you know it.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2013 04:09 am
@tenderfoot,
tenderfoot wrote:
neologist wrote:
God did not punish the snake. His judgement was against the one who did the deceiving
Give up.. you're wrong and you know it.
I detect a logical fallacy here. Let's see: What type of fallacy would that be? Appeal to authority? Which authority? You? Well, state your credentials and lets see...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2013 04:51 am
Essentially, "the deceiver" in the story was the god of the story. The god denied this couple the ability to make an informed, reasonable decision...denied them the ability to know any difference between right and wrong; between good and evil...

...and then punished them for doing something wrong and evil.

The story is a joke of sorts, because the only thing it can possibly "teach" a reasonable, intelligent person is that the god cannot be trusted in any way.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2013 05:02 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Essentially, "the deceiver" in the story was the god of the story. The god denied this couple the ability to make an informed, reasonable decision...denied them the ability to know any difference between right and wrong; between good and evil...

...and then punished them for doing something wrong and evil.

The story is a joke of sorts, because the only thing it can possibly "teach" a reasonable, intelligent person is that the god cannot be trusted in any way.
Actually, Frank, since you declined to capitalize the word 'god', you are essentially correct.

I said 'essentially'. Still some adjustment needed. But, hey!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2013 05:28 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Essentially, "the deceiver" in the story was the god of the story. The god denied this couple the ability to make an informed, reasonable decision...denied them the ability to know any difference between right and wrong; between good and evil...

...and then punished them for doing something wrong and evil.

The story is a joke of sorts, because the only thing it can possibly "teach" a reasonable, intelligent person is that the god cannot be trusted in any way.
Actually, Frank, since you declined to capitalize the word 'god', you are essentially correct.


Well...I was talking about that god described in the Bible...so naturally I would use a small "g."

Quote:
I said 'essentially'. Still some adjustment needed. But, hey!


That was cute...but it really didn't work, did it?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2013 06:14 am
@neologist,
Why do you keep making things up, rather than referring to the text? Look at the text (I posted it in context and in its entirety up above).

Quote:
And Jehovah God proceeded to say to the serpent: “Because you have done this thing, you are the cursed one out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild beasts of the field. Upon your belly you will go and dust is what you will eat all the days of your life.15And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”


Very clearly when God says to the snake "you are the cursed one out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild beasts of the field." he is talking to an animal.

And yes, God did very clearly punish the snake in this text.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2013 08:53 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Very clearly when God says to the snake "you are the cursed one out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild beasts of the field." he is talking to an animal.

talking to an animal... Hahaha, that just stuck me as too funny. Smile

Not that I mean to accidentally support Neo's argument on this or anything because it's ridiculous, and not that I mean to give any credence to such a silly discussion as a literal interpretation of genesis... but does it make any sense at all that God would be talking to an animal?

A snake wouldn't understand anything unless God changed it to make it understand, and then it wouldn't really be a "snake" any more. And condemning a snake to crawl on its belly, which it does anyway just by its very nature, is just dumb.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2013 09:03 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 responding to maxdancona wrote:
Not that I mean to accidentally support Neo's argument on this or anything because it's ridiculous, and not that I mean to give any credence to such a silly discussion as a literal interpretation of genesis... but does it make any sense at all that God would be talking to an animal?

A snake wouldn't understand anything unless God changed it to make it understand, and then it wouldn't really be a "snake" any more. And condemning a snake to crawl on its belly, which it does anyway just by its very nature, is just dumb.
See, ros, we can get along. But don't assume that I take the Genesis account literally. The seven days, for example, were not literally 24 hours in length, but that's another issue.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2013 09:08 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
. . . Well...I was talking about that god described in the Bible...so naturally I would use a small "g." . . . .
Rats! I thought you had finally realized there is a God with a capital 'G' , different from god who deceived Eve.

And I had such high hopes.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/12/2019 at 09:42:05