*** Adam and Eve: Who Sinned First? - Chuck Runs From Proof Again! ***
Pastor Dave
<shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:01:48 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>> <shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>When will you let go of this direct contradiction
>>>of Scripture, Jeff? God's word says ADAM was
>>>the first to sin, not Eve!
>>
>> Where?
>
>Romans 5:12-19.
That does not say that Eve did not sin,
nor does it say that Adam sinned first.
>> Your claim about Eve not knowing doesn't
>> hold water, since she was punished and
>> if she had not sinned, she would not have
>> been punished.
>
>All abide under the wrath of God, Dave.
Sorry, it's not about that.
>> Do you punish your children for doing what
>> you never told them not to do? What kind
>> of picture of God do you draw here?!
>>
>> Eve was told not to do it and she did it.
>> She was punished.
>>
>> Adam was told not to do it and he did it.
>> He was punished.
>
>All are punished according to the sin of Adam, Dave.
Again, my comment above is not about "all", Chuck.
It is about your claim that Eve did not sin and so,
was not punished.
When Eve was punished, she was punished for eating
the fruit, not for Adam's sin. She was not a descendant
of Adam's and original sin is passed down through the
line of descendants. It didn't magically float over to Eve.
After she ate the fruit and God found out about it,
He said to her...
"And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this
that thou hast done? ... Unto the woman he said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule
over thee." - Genesis 3:13a,16
That sounds like her being punished to me!
As for whether or not she sinned, she did, contrary
to your previous claim that she did not sin, because
she did not know what she was doing. She did
indeed know what she was doing!
"And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat
of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit
of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God
hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
it, lest ye die." - Genesis 3:2-3
And don't bother with some, "But she didn't *really*
*know* what she was doing." crap. She knew not
to do it, period, or she wouldn't have said what
she did to the serpent, including the fact that she
knew that it meant death for her to do it and Eve
was an adult and obviously knew that was a pretty
damned serious thing or she would have ate the
fruit right after she was told not to! So none of
that "She didn't really know" crap will fly and nor
can you fly back through time and read her mind,
nor do you get to add your wishes to Scripture
and then pretend they're Scripture!
>> I know the Bible says that through one man sin
>> entered the world, but it doesn't say, "Adam
>> sinned first before Eve", but it entered the world
>> because Adam's seed was involved and that is
>> the view, which is why in Gen 3:15, the first
>> promise of the Savior, it mentions Him as "Seed".
>> So you are twisting a view into a statement that
>> simply isn't made in the passages you quoted
>> (Romans 5:12-19)!
>
>Romans 5 doesn't just say that by one man sin
>entered the world, but even if it left it at that,
>that would be enough to support what I'm saying.
No, it wouldn't. Not about Eve.
>However, Paul doesn't just leave it at:
>
>"...as through one man sin entered the world"
>
>But repeats the concept in several different ways
>just so we can't miss it or mistake it for something
>else. Thus...
>
>Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,
>EVEN OVER THOSE WHO HAD NOT SINNED
>ACCORDING TO THE LIKENESS OF THE
>TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM, who is a type
>of Him who was to come. Romans 5:14
>(emphasis added)
You are reading what you want into it. Those Paul
is mentioning, are those born after Adam and he's
talking about those who did not actually talk to God
and then eat that same fruit. So that does nothing
to support your claims! And that is why his statement
is plural ("those"). You need to stop reading into
the text!
>> And why do you think it is that woman is
>> to be subject to man?
>
>Because that is God's design in creating "man";
>to make "man" male and female in a union of
>one flesh, where the woman is taken out of the
>man., and not the man out of the woman.
>
>It's God's design, Dave, not God's judgment
>on Eve's sin. It was there in the creation story
>LONG before we get to the story of the Fall.
I agree that woman was made a helpmate to man.
However, it wasn't like it was after they both sinned
and you are missing the big picture here!
"And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this
that thou hast done?" - Genesis 3:13a
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy
sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt
bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy
husband, and he shall rule over thee." - Genesis 3:16
God wasn't just repeating Himself here! He was
stating this to Eve when handing out punishments
to Adam and Eve for eating the fruit!
And you try to cut out Scripture, when you claim that
Eve didn't know any better! She did!
"And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat
of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit
of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God
hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
it, lest ye die." - Genesis 3:2-3
Sorry Chuck! You lose! And I notice we don't see
that claim of yours in your latest response now, huh?!
>> Because she didn't know not to eat the fruit and so,
>> didn't sin?! No! It was because she is the one who
>> caused the Fall (which does not alleviate Adam of
>> his guilt)!
>>
>> You are missing a very important point in Scripture!
>
>So are you if you think Eve caused the Fall.
I said that Eve did sin and sinned first. That is all I said
and it is clear to me, that you did not take the time to
actually read the whole post, before responding!
You don't get to build what you know are straw men
around me so that you can pretend I'm some loony
who has no understanding of Scripture, as is your
usual M.O. Chuck!
>> The truth is, that the Bible says that "the woman
>> is the glory of the man". You are completely
>> misunderstanding the Scriptural language here!
>> As I have said to you and others here many times,
>> it is impossible to understand the Bible, without an
>> intimate working knowledge of how these people
>> thought and wrote and spoke and lived.
>>
>> It is the seed of the man that is in view in the
>> "by one man sin entered the world and was passed
>> on to all men" passage and not who sinned first.
>> Human life goes on, in the Biblical view, by the seed
>> of the man. You have read passages like that in
>> the Old Testament many times, but yet here wish
>> to conveniently forget this, or show us that you
>> do operate in ignorance of this subject.
>
>Dave, nice try
It is absolute fact!
>but you can't correctly understand Scripture by denying
>what is repeatedly stated in the text in front of you
Nowhere did you provide one single passage that says
that Eve did not sin; that only Adam sinned and that
Eve was not punished for her sin!
There is no such thing as a passage that says those things!
>and is absolutely MANDATORY to the analogy Paul
>is constructing
Paul is not constructing what you claim and now you are
pretending to know it all again and that you are the teacher
of the world! Stop glorifying yourself!
And stop building straw men! You are trying to fight a view
that you stupidly claimed I stated, when I stated no such
thing! And you snipped things from what I did say!
What I am said was:
1) Sin was passed on to everyone after Adam, through Adam.
2) You are wrong to claim that Eve did not sin, because she
didn't know what she was doing! Eve did sin and Eve
did indeed know what she was doing!
3) Paul never said that Adam sinned first in the passages
that you quoted, nor can you show me those words!
You are applying your interpretation to it and you are
wrong! And in fact, as seen below, you ignore the
passage that clearly states that Eve sinned first and
says it in those words!
It is obvious that you have snipped to try to hide the truth!
>> Sin entered the world through one man, because
>> it was Adam's seed that passed on physical life to
>> the world and Biblically, it is by him that any of us
>> ended up existing!
>
>It wasn't Adam's seed that is spoken of, Dave. It's Eve's...
Sorry Chuckles, but the fact is, that it is Adam's seed
that impregnated Eve. I know what Gen 3:15 says.
I mentioned it, remember? Hello???
And had you actually read the whole message, instead
of hitting the reply button right away, because you think
that no one could possibly say anything that is right unless
it agrees with what you said, you would know that!
Now read the rest of the Bible and stop being ignorant
of the Old Testament and stop pretending that the
few passages you are shown, which are falsely twisted
into some "end time" thing is actual OT study!
>> That passage has nothing to do with whether
>> Adam or Eve sinned first.
>
>Okay, you're into straight denial now, which is
>my signal to end the discussion. Besides, all
>the points have been touched upon by now that
>come up in 1 Timothy, Romans, 1 Corinthians,
>and Genesis. The rest is just talking past each
>other.
>
>Chuck Stamford
Now let's translate that, folks! :)
CHUCK: I Chuck, saw that further down, Pastor Dave
quoted a passage that proves that I am wrong
and proves that Eve sinned first and so, even
though I always love being long winded in my
rants and insults against Pastor Dave, I will now
stop here and pretend it's because I'm upset
that Dave is so far off the mark and that there's
no point in continuing, because I am a liar who
will never admit when someone has proved me
wrong, period!
And you know that is an accurate translation of what you are
doing Chuckles, because the very next set of paragraphs are
where the proof is, which means that you read the next set
of paragraphs, saw what it says, saw that it absolutely proves
you 100% wrong and then scrolled back up and wrote the
crap you did above! Typical Chucky Chuckles M.O. !
I.e., Isn't it funny that you stop in this message immediately
before the passages that prove that you're wrong and that
Eve did sin and was punished for it, which shows that she
did know what she was doing, which she even admitted
in Genesis 3?!
1 Timothy 2 says that Eve sinned first and says it in those
words and that makes you a liar who is trying to avoid
dealing with the fact that you have just been proved wrong
and so no, it has not "been dealt with" as you claimed in
the lie you just told!
This is what you always do, every time I prove you wrong,
which is every time we engage each other! You see the
proof that you are wrong and then pretend it doesn't exist
and then lie about the fact that you ran away and refused
to admit to what you just saw!
Again, here are the passages that disprove your claims
still quoted and which prove that the Bible teaches that
Eve did sin and sinned first, that you refuse to address
and now run away from! ...
>> Read the account and stop making excuses
>> for Eve! You claim to believe what Scripture says about
>> the role of authority of men over women and that women
>> are to submit to men in church and in their marriages
>> and yet, you refuse to acknowledge why they are in that
>> position!
>>
>> 1 Timothy 2:11-14
>>
>> 11) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
>> 12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
>> authority over the man, but to be in silence.
>> 13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
>> 14) And Adam was not deceived, but THE WOMAN
>> being deceived WAS IN THE TRANSGRESSION.
>>
>> Adam was not the one deceived. Rather, it was
>> the woman, Eve, who was in the transgression.
>>
>> Now let me quote from an extremely accurate,
>> literal, word for word type translation. And notice
>> how it says that the woman is to be subject to the
>> man and how her role is to be kept safe through
>> childbearing. Now does that really sound like the
>> role of someone who didn't sin first to you?
>>
>> 1 Timothy 2:11-15 [LITV]
>>
>> 11) Let a woman learn in silence, in all subjection.
>> 12) And I do not allow a woman to teach nor to
>> exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.
>> 13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
>> 14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman
>> being deceived has come to be in transgression;
>> 15) But she will be kept safe through the childbearing,
>> if they continue in faith and love and holiness,
>> with sensibleness.
>>
>> Pay special attention to v14!
>>
>> And here is another very literal translation,
>> that really gets really literal! :) :
>>
>> 1 Timothy 2:11-15 [ALT]
>>
>> 11) Let a woman be learning in quietness with
>> all submission.
>> 12) But I do not permit a woman to be teaching,
>> nor to be exerting dominance over a man, _but_
>> to be in quietness.
>> 13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
>> 14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman,
>> having been deceived, has come to be in transgression.
>> 15) But she will be saved through the bearing of children,
>> if they remain in faith and love and sanctification,
>> with decency [or, self-control].
>>
>> Again, pay special attention to v14 above!
>>
>> Eve did sin first, period! But it is through one man
>> that sin is passed on to the world, because in the
>> Biblical view, it is the seed that contains the life
>> and so, life is passed on through the man's seed.
>>
>> Why Chuck, do you think it was such a big deal
>> when Onan spilled his SEED onto the ground,
>> not giving SEED to his brother?! Hello?!?
>> read Genesis 38!
>>
>> Genesis 38:6-10
>>
>> 6) And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn,
>> whose name was Tamar.
>> 7) And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in
>> the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.
>> 8) And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy
>> brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up
>> seed to thy brother.
>> 9) And Onan knew that the seed should not
>> be his; and it came to pass, when he went
>> in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it
>> on the ground, lest that he should give seed
>> to his brother.
>> 10) And the thing which he did displeased
>> the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.
>>
>> Since it is the seed that is considered to ass on life,
>> it is man who is said to pass down the sin to all.
>>
>>
>>>Let it go, Jeff. Humble your every thought to
>>>the revealed word of God, and let the Holy Spirit
>>>relieve you of this burden.
>>
>> I think you should both take that advice!
--
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; That
whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new guards for their future security."
- Thomas Jefferson
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Pastor Dave
It is absolute fact!
--
Ever has it been, that love does not know its own depth,
until the pain of separation.
Randy ®
in article <aqvg74l465bfhp80r...@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>I am a liar who
>will never admit when someone has proved me
>wrong, period!
Thanks for admitting that.
©2008 pulpitfire.com, pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
Randy ®
in article <aqvg74l465bfhp80r...@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Eve did sin first, period! But it is through one man
>>> that sin is passed on to the world, because in the
>>> Biblical view, it is the seed that contains the life
>>> and so, life is passed on through the man's seed.
The answer is that Adam was both the seminal _and_ federal
head.
Al Smith
>>>> >>>of Scripture, Jeff? God's word says ADAM was
>>>> >>>the first to sin, not Eve!
>>> >>
>>> >> Where?
>> >
>> >Romans 5:12-19.
>
> That does not say that Eve did not sin,
> nor does it say that Adam sinned first.
>
>
Eve is the conduit, the facilitator, the medium. She's the gun. The
Serpent pulls the trigger. The apple is the silver bullet. Adam is
the target. If you understood the concept of Shakti, you would
understand the role of Eve in the Fall.
-Al-
Libertarius
he said:
"I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from
man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am
sorry that I have made them." (Genesis 6). -- L.
bob young
Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
> <shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>
> >"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:01:48 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
> >> <shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >>>When will you let go of this direct contradiction
> >>>of Scripture, Jeff? God's word says ADAM was
> >>>the first to sin, not Eve!
> >>
> >> Where?
> >
> >Romans 5:12-19.
>
> That does not say that Eve did not sin,
> nor does it say that Adam sinned first.
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each
other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest
forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement in
their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head
of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little
pigs of those it wins over to its side."
[R.J.Hoffmann]
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:xd4ek.3990$7%6.487@edtnps82...
No, you would understand the role of SATAN in the fall.
Ike
Pastor Dave
<shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>> <shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:01:48 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>>>> <shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>>When will you let go of this direct contradiction
>>>>>of Scripture, Jeff? God's word says ADAM was
>>>>>the first to sin, not Eve!
>>>>
>>>> Where?
>>>
>>>Romans 5:12-19.
>>
>> That does not say that Eve did not sin
>> and Adam sinned first.
>
>It identifies Adam as the first sinner.
No, it does not.
>There can't be two first sinners, Dave.
That's right and you are wrong. Eve sinned first.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 [ALT]
11) Let a woman be learning in quietness with
all submission.
12) But I do not permit a woman to be teaching,
nor to be exerting dominance over a man, _but_
to be in quietness.
13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman,
having been deceived, has come to be in transgression.
15) But she will be saved through the bearing of children,
if they remain in faith and love and sanctification,
with decency [or, self-control].
>Let me try to show you something
No Chuck, no distractions! You are wrong, period
and you don't get to escape from it! And the more
you try to wiggle out of it, the bigger the ass you
look like!
>> When Eve was punished, she was punished
>> for eating the fruit, not for Adam's sin.
>
>I"m going to end this right here with a challenge.
No, what you are really doing, is trying to dodge
1 Timothy 2:11-15 and we both know it!
Did you really think that after I pointed out this fact
in my last response, that you could just ignore that
too and no one would notice it, you deceiver?!
>The Bible is a very large book. Go find me a passage
>in it that says, expressly and clearly, that Eve was
>punished for her sin.
You see, you're an ass Chuckles! You set up a game
that you know can't be won and then pretend you're
being honest! Just like Glenn always does! Now it
has to say, "Eve, I am punishing you"? Idiot!
Where's your passage that says, "Adam sinned first"?!
Romans 5:12-19 does not "expressly and clearly" say it!
The burden is for you to deal with 1 Timothy 2:11-15,
which you keep intentionally ignoring, being the liar
that you are!
What you are saying Chuck, is that one can disobey
a direct order from God and that is not sin! Eve knew!
"And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat the fruit
of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree
which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You
shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."
- Genesis 3:2-3
She knew what God said, since she repeated it to the
serpent! Yet she did the opposite! THAT IS SIN CHUCK!!!
And as for Eve being punished, as I showed you, she was!:
Genesis 3:
11) And He said, Who told you that you were naked?
Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded
you that you should not eat?
12)Then the man said, The woman whom You gave
to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.
13) And the Lord God said to the woman, What is
this you have done?
Notice that the man says that the woman gave him
the fruit to eat and God immediately turns to the
woman and says, "What is this YOU have done?!".
16) To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply
your sorrow and your conception; In pain you
shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be
for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
Notice that the woman is punished here. And only
an ass like you would claim that God turning to her
and saying, "What have YOU done?!" is not a
statement of her guilt! And only an ass like you
would claim that the curse God put on her above,
is not a punishment! But you are an ass, Chuckles!
Now it is not just her being "a helpmate".
Now her husband is to RULE over her!
Now she will bring forth children IN PAIN!
God says that He is greatly multiplying her SORROW
AND CONCEPTION!
But hey, you're right Chuck! That doesn't sound like
a punishment at all! <chuckle>
God did not turn to Adam to meet out punishment,
until AFTER He dealt with EVE!
Your claim that Eve didn't know what she was doing
and therefore did not sin, was not true! The Bible
says she knew not to do it, since she told the serpent
that she was not supposed to do it!
Now deal with 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and stop dodging it!
1 Timothy 2:11-14 [KJV]
11) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14) And Adam was not deceived, but THE WOMAN
being deceived WAS IN THE TRANSGRESSION.
Adam was not the one deceived. Rather, it was
the woman, Eve, who was in the transgression.
Your claim that somehow Adam sinned first, is flat out
ludicrous, when we can easily see that Eve clearly did
sin first and the Bible clearly says she did!
Now let me quote from an extremely accurate, literal,
word for word type translation. And notice how it says
that the woman is to be subject to the man and how
her role is to be kept safe through childbearing.
Now does that really sound like the role of someone
who didn't do anything wrong to you?
What you are saying Chuck, is that one can disobey
a direct order from God and that is not sin! Eve knew!
She knew what God said, since she repeated it to the
serpent! Yet she did the opposite! THAT IS SIN CHUCK!!!
1 Timothy 2:11-15 [LITV]
11) Let a woman learn in silence, in all subjection.
12) And I do not allow a woman to teach nor to
exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.
13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14) And Adam was not deceived, but THE WOMAN
BEING DECEIVED HAS COME TO BE IN TRANSGRESSION;
15) But she will be kept safe through the childbearing,
if they continue in faith and love and holiness,
with sensibleness.
Pay special attention to v14!
And here is another very literal translation,
that really gets really literal! :) :
1 Timothy 2:11-15 [ALT]
11) Let a woman be learning in quietness with
all submission.
12) But I do not permit a woman to be teaching,
nor to be exerting dominance over a man, _but_
to be in quietness.
13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14) And Adam was not deceived, but THE WOMAN,
HAVING BEEN DECEIVED, HAS COME TO BE IN
TRANGRESSION.
15) But she will be saved through the bearing
of children, if they remain in faith and love and
sanctification, with decency [or, self-control].
Again, pay special attention to v14 above!
Eve did sin first, period! But it is through one man
that sin is passed on to the world.
--
The Last Days were in the first century:
Revelation 1:1,3
1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God
gave unto him, to show unto his servants things
WHICH MUST SHORTLY COME TO PASS;
and he sent and signified it by his angel unto
his servant John:
2) Who bare record of the word of God, and of
the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things
that he saw.
3) Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things
which are written therein: for THE TIME IS AT HAND.
Al Smith
> a direct order from God and that is not sin! Eve knew!
>
> "And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat the fruit
> of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree
> which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You
> shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."
> - Genesis 3:2-3
>
> She knew what God said, since she repeated it to the
> serpent! Yet she did the opposite! THAT IS SIN CHUCK!!!
Yeah, Chuck. Smarten up. :-)
-Al-
Sam Taylor
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
><shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:01:48 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>>> <shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>>When will you let go of this direct contradiction
>>>>of Scripture, Jeff? God's word says ADAM was
>>>>the first to sin, not Eve!
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>>Romans 5:12-19.
>
>That does not say that Eve did not sin,
>nor does it say that Adam sinned first.
It said she was bequiled(decieved) but He sinned.
so His Sin was greater, g-D expected adam
to be her covering, but he rejected bieng that covering
thus she was cursed with pain in childbirth
but the ground was cursed for His sake.
until it was removed for Noah after the Deluge.
duke
>On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
><shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:01:48 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>>> <shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>>When will you let go of this direct contradiction
>>>>of Scripture, Jeff? God's word says ADAM was
>>>>the first to sin, not Eve!
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>>Romans 5:12-19.
>
>That does not say that Eve did not sin,
>nor does it say that Adam sinned first.
Adam is credited with the sin because Eve is a woman.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Chuck Stamford
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:i91l74lto66kq4nbm...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:51:20 -0400, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>><shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:01:48 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
>>>> <shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When will you let go of this direct contradiction
>>>>>of Scripture, Jeff? God's word says ADAM was
>>>>>the first to sin, not Eve!
>>>>
>>>> Where?
>>>
>>>Romans 5:12-19.
>>
>>That does not say that Eve did not sin,
>>nor does it say that Adam sinned first.
>
> Adam is credited with the sin because Eve is a woman.
You get the shortest, most concise explanation award, Duke. It clearly
leaves open several questions, but it seizes on the main, and consistent
biblical principle here. Eve was created as a part of Adam, she sinned as
part of Adam, and she was judged as part of Adam. There is no sense in
which we can concieve of her doing anything apart from Adam in Genesis. It
is therefore not realistic to conceptually separate her from Adam and say
she sinned first.
I would just add the stress that the one who did the "crediting" was God,
the offended and omniscient party to all this, and if anyone is in a
position to say who sinned and who didn't, it's Him. ;-)
Chuck Stamford
Mark T
> Eve was created as a part of Adam, she sinned as part of Adam, and she was
> judged as part of Adam.
Widdle Churcky thinks Adam and Eve are real people rather than a fable.
Ada\m and Eve never existed in time / space history. Adam literally means
man and Eve means mother.
Jesus was Jewish and, like all other Jews, had no understanding of a "Fall"
as described by modern Christian fundamentalists.
--
MY BLOG - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
PASTOR DALE K WHANGKE
http://dalekwhangke.blogspot.com/
Wyrst Pentacostal Church
wax
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote
<CLIP>
> No, you would understand the role of SATAN in the fall.
Satan had no role in the garden of Eden story. Satan is a Christian
bogeyman. Although his name is found in the Old Testament, the character is
not. Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the serpent was one of the "animals of
the field."
The first sinner in the Garden of Eden story was God himself when he lied to
Adam:
Genesis 2:17
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in
the very day you eat from it you will surely die.
Adam did not die the day he ate of the apple.
--Wax
Chuck Stamford
"wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Tkyek.117071$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote
> <CLIP>
>> No, you would understand the role of SATAN in the fall.
>
> Satan had no role in the garden of Eden story.
Actually, that incorrect. Satan is identified with the Devil, and the Devil
is identified with the Serpent. Things equal to the same thing are equal to
each other.
Satan is a Christian
> bogeyman. Although his name is found in the Old Testament, the character
> is not. Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the serpent was one of the
> "animals of the field."
Actually it doesn't, any more than it says you are one of the beasts of the
field. It says...
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD
God had made Gen 3:1
I'm sure you're more subtil than any beast of the field, too. Doesn't mean
you are a beast of the field.
>
> The first sinner in the Garden of Eden story was God himself when he lied
> to Adam:
>
> Genesis 2:17
> but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for
> in the very day you eat from it you will surely die.
>
> Adam did not die the day he ate of the apple.
Actually, according to what God had in mind when He said "die", Adam died
that same instant. It just took his body a long time to get the word and
lie down. Same deal with you, except your body's going to be a lot smarter,
and lie down a lot quicker, relatively speaking.
>
> --Wax
>
>
Al Smith
>> > "animals of the field."
>
> Actually it doesn't, any more than it says you are one of the beasts of the
> field. It says...
>
> Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD
> God had made Gen 3:1
>
> I'm sure you're more subtil than any beast of the field, too. Doesn't mean
> you are a beast of the field.
>
>
The implication is obvious, though ... that the serpent is the most
subtle of the beasts of the field. You're splitting slithery red
tongues, Chuck.
-Al-
Chuck Stamford
If that were the sentence, it would be. That's not the sentence. The
sentence is:
"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field "
not:
"the serpent is the most subtle of the beasts of the field", as you've
changed it.
The phrases "more subtle than any" and "most subtle of any" have two very
different meanings in English. Glossing over that difference doesn't
eradicate it.
You're splitting slithery red
> tongues, Chuck.
And you're mixing metaphors. So what?
wax
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote
>> <CLIP>
>>> No, you would understand the role of SATAN in the fall.
>>
>> Satan had no role in the garden of Eden story.
>
> Actually, that incorrect. Satan is identified with the Devil, and the
> Devil is identified with the Serpent. Things equal to the same thing are
> equal to each other.
The identification of Satan with the Serpent is not found in the Old
Testament. The Christian concept of Satan or the Devil is not found in the
Old Testament.
>> Satan is a Christian bogeyman. Although his name is found in the Old
>> Testament, the character is not. Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the
>> serpent was one of the "animals of the field."
>
> Actually it doesn't, any more than it says you are one of the beasts of
> the field. It says...
>
> Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
> LORD God had made Gen 3:1
>
> I'm sure you're more subtil than any beast of the field, too. Doesn't
> mean you are a beast of the field.
It would be a silly statement to make, unless the serpent was a beast of the
field. Suppose that verse 3:1 said, "Satan is more subtil than any beast
of the field." Would that be saying that Satan was subtil? No. Because
beast of the field do not have to intelligence to show real subtilty. I
know that you are smarter than any beast of the field, but I'm not saying
that you are smart.
By saying "The serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field" it makes
the serpent stand out from all other beasts in the area of subtilty. How
smart, we find out in the following verses.
>> The first sinner in the Garden of Eden story was God himself when he lied
>> to Adam:
>>
>> Genesis 2:17
>> but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for
>> in the very day you eat from it you will surely die.
>>
>> Adam did not die the day he ate of the apple.
>
> Actually, according to what God had in mind when He said "die", Adam died
> that same instant. It just took his body a long time to get the word and
> lie down. Same deal with you, except your body's going to be a lot
> smarter, and lie down a lot quicker, relatively speaking.
Don't tell me what you think God was thinking. You don't know what God had
in mind except for what the text says. The text does not say "Adam died
that same instant/" You are adding things to the text which is not there.
The Hebrew text of Genesis 2:17 is emphatic that Adam would die on the very
day he ate the fruit, and that he would DIE. Unfortunately, the emphasis
is not brought out in most translations: "in the very day you eat from it
you will surely die." (see notes 53 and 54 on Genesis 2 in the NET Bible
http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=2#n35 )
--Wax
wax
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1cAek.20604$YO1....@newsfe08.phx...
>
> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
> news:mWzek.4435$7%6.305@edtnps82...
>>>> Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the serpent was one of the
>>>> > "animals of the field."
>>>
>>> Actually it doesn't, any more than it says you are one of the beasts of
>>> the field. It says...
>>>
>>> Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
>>> LORD God had made Gen 3:1
>>>
>>> I'm sure you're more subtil than any beast of the field, too. Doesn't
>>> mean you are a beast of the field.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The implication is obvious, though ... that the serpent is the most
>> subtle of the beasts of the field.
>
> If that were the sentence, it would be. That's not the sentence. The
> sentence is:
>
> "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field "
You equate "Satan" with "the serpent". Now replace "the serpent" with
"Satan" in the above line and see if it makes sense. Is it saying that
Satan was subtle?
--Wax
Al Smith
The King James translation, which I like, and the Douay-Rheims
translation, which I like a lot, agree with you on this.
On the other hand, the New Revised Standard Version reads:
"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the
Lord God had made."
The Ronald Knox translation, which is considered quite accurate, reads:
"Of all the beasts which the Lord God had made, there was none that
could match the serpent in cunning."
So it appears to be a matter of interpretation, and the more recent
translators place the serpent among the beasts.
And really, think for a moment what is being said, here. The serpent
is being named along with "all the beasts." Why? The obvious answer
is that he is one of the beasts. Sometimes the obvious answer is the
correct answer.
Oh, and I was not mixing metaphors, I was coining a new metaphor
with reference to the forked tongue of serpents, and included a
punning reference to the old metaphor of "splitting hairs" just to
be playful.
-Al-
Al Smith
>>> >> Testament, the character is not. Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the
>>> >> serpent was one of the "animals of the field."
>> >
>> > Actually it doesn't, any more than it says you are one of the beasts of
>> > the field. It says...
>> >
>> > Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
>> > LORD God had made Gen 3:1
>> >
>> > I'm sure you're more subtil than any beast of the field, too. Doesn't
>> > mean you are a beast of the field.
>
> It would be a silly statement to make, unless the serpent was a beast of the
> field. Suppose that verse 3:1 said, "Satan is more subtil than any beast
> of the field." Would that be saying that Satan was subtil? No. Because
> beast of the field do not have to intelligence to show real subtilty. I
> know that you are smarter than any beast of the field, but I'm not saying
> that you are smart.
>
> By saying "The serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field" it makes
> the serpent stand out from all other beasts in the area of subtilty. How
> smart, we find out in the following verses.
>
You are obviously correct. Your argument makes sound good sense.
Therefore it follows that Chuck will dispute it to his dying breath.
-Al-
Chuck Stamford
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1cAek.20604$YO1....@newsfe08.phx...
>>
>> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
>> news:mWzek.4435$7%6.305@edtnps82...
>>>>> Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the serpent was one of the
>>>>> > "animals of the field."
>>>>
>>>> Actually it doesn't, any more than it says you are one of the beasts of
>>>> the field. It says...
>>>>
>>>> Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
>>>> LORD God had made Gen 3:1
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you're more subtil than any beast of the field, too. Doesn't
>>>> mean you are a beast of the field.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The implication is obvious, though ... that the serpent is the most
>>> subtle of the beasts of the field.
>>
>> If that were the sentence, it would be. That's not the sentence. The
>> sentence is:
>>
>> "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field "
>
> You equate "Satan" with "the serpent".
*I* don't do anything of the kind. Scripture, otoh, equates Satan with the
Serpent, by equating the Serpent and the Devil, and the Devil and Satan.
> Now replace "the serpent" with "Satan" in the above line and see if it
> makes sense. Is it saying that Satan was subtle?
Ya think?
Chuck Stamford
Hardly.
Let's begin with your very weird characterization of the Knox Version. You
say it is a "more recent" translation. Well that may be, but more recent
than what? The 1608 King James? Undoubtedly!
However, almost all of the translations I'll list for you below that
contradict the Knox Version at Genesis 3:1 were published AFTER it was (New
Testament in 1945, and the Old Testament in 1950). So it is not the case
that you're relying on a newer translation than I am.
Nor is it the case that translations are split here in any real sense. The
VAST majority of modern translations follows the sense, if not the exact
wording, of the King James (which I've already covered and won't repeat
here.). In fact, only the RSV, the NRSV, and the New Century Version have
what you are suggesting is the proper translation.
The Revised Standard Version and it's update have had their problems, but
nothing like the NCV:
"This dynamic equivalence version began as a project of the World Bible
Translation Center in Ft. Worth, Texas, a society formed in 1973 by persons
associated with the Churches of Christ. The initial purpose of the society
was to produce and publish a version specially adapted to the needs of deaf
people who were unfamiliar with many idioms of English as it is commonly
spoken. The New Testament was completed in 1978 and published as the English
Version for the Deaf (EVD) by Baker Book house. It was perhaps the simplest
English version ever published, being done with a third-grade vocabulary and
with very short sentences. In 1980 Baker tried to market this version to a
wider readership by publishing it as A New Easy-to-Read Version (ERV), in a
format which made no reference to its original purpose. By 1983 the New
Testament was revised and again issued, this time by Sweet Publishing in Ft.
Worth, as the International Children's Version New Testament. In 1984 the
same publisher issued the same version as The Word: New Century Version. The
complete Bible (with slightly revised New Testament) was then published as
The Holy Bible, International Children's Version in 1986, and in 1987 the
complete Bible was also published under the name New Century Version. By
this time Sweet Publishing had merged with Worthy Publishing in Ft. Worth
Texas, and had issued the version in a special edition called The Everyday
Bible, with an endorsement by Billy Graham. In 1988 Sweet/Worthy Publishing
was acquired by Word Publishing, which in 1991 published another revision.
This 1991 revision was more extensive, and it was designed to make the
version more suitable for an older readership, with longer sentences and
more fluent style. In 1992 Word Publishing was acquired by Thomas Nelson
Publishers, which continues to print the 1991 revision under the name, New
Century Version.
The Easy-to-Read Version is basically the work of Ervin Bishop, who also
serves as vice-president of the World Bible Translation Center."
(http://www.bible-researcher.com/ncv.html)
As can easily be seen, this version of the Bible has had an inordinate
number of revisions in its short history, been through a number of
publishing houses, been marketed a number of different ways, and is
basicially the product of only one man's work.
As for the RSV...
"The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament purported to be a
revision of the American Standard Version, although very little of the ASV
remains in the RSV. The Greek text usually followed was the 17th edition
(1941) of the Nestle text...The American Standard Version excelled in
literal accuracy, but the RSV tended to be more free in its renderings. As
F.F. Bruce puts it, the RSV translators "blurred some of the finer
distinctions in New Testament wording which ... have some significance for
those who are concerned with the more accurate interpretation of the text."
The New Testament was well received by American churches, including the
evangelical ones; but the Old Testament (1952) provoked a storm of
controversy, and killed the version's chances of becoming a generally
accepted standard Bible in America.
The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles,
chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament
passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given
in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament
ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish)
context. Christian interpretations, including those of the New Testament
writers, are therefore deliberately excluded as "anachronistic." But this,
as conservative critics perceived, practically amounted to a denial of the
truth of the New Testament. As the conservative scholar R. Laird Harris
wrote, 'It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the
Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every
important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of
Christ has been altered so as to remove this possibility ... It is almost
impossible to escape the conclusion that the admittedly higher critical bias
of the translators has operated in all of these places. The translations
given are by no means necessary from the Hebrew and in some cases ... are in
clear violation of the Hebrew.'" (http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv.html).
The New International Version also supports your take here, but here again
it has been severely criticized for it fidelity to its higher critical
methodology at the expense of it's fidelity to either New Testament theology
or Hebrew in its primary translations (however, it is better than the RSV in
that it makes a somewhat better use of its footnotes to cover its bases)
Here is a listing of the mainstream translations of Genesis 3:1 which have
it essentially as the King James does; ie. worded so as to distinguish the
Serpent from the rest of the animals "of the field":
So, you've relied here on two versions, each the work of only one Bible
scholar, neither of whom used the oldest Maseoritic manuscripts, and two
Bible committees that were demonstrably more interested in preserving their
higher critical reputations than their loyalty to either the Christian New
Testament OR the Hebrew of the Masoretic text.
In short, you seem perfectly willing here to resort to the fringe to support
your case, because the consensus is decidely against you. Thus you ignore
the New King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, the Living Bible*,
the New Living Translation*, the New American Standard Bible (1977), the New
American Standard Bible, Darby's Translation, the Bible in Basic English,
the New Jerusalem Bible*, and the American Standard Version.
(* these have the serpent as the wisest of all the creatures God made, but
don't limit those creatures to just those "of the field" that God made.
They therefore fully support my understanding of this text.)
>
> And really, think for a moment what is being said, here. The serpent is
> being named along with "all the beasts." Why? The obvious answer is that
> he is one of the beasts. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct
> answer.
If it was so obvious, I'd expect you to be arguing from the majority view.
Since your not; not even close, I'd say your take is the less obvious one
here.
>
> Oh, and I was not mixing metaphors, I was coining a new metaphor with
> reference to the forked tongue of serpents, and included a punning
> reference to the old metaphor of "splitting hairs" just to be playful.
Mixed metaphors are what they are regardless of your frame of mind in using
one of them.
Now that's all you get from me, Al, so have your last typically inane word
and we'll be finished here.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote
>>> <CLIP>
>>>> No, you would understand the role of SATAN in the fall.
>>>
>>> Satan had no role in the garden of Eden story.
>>
>> Actually, that incorrect. Satan is identified with the Devil, and the
>> Devil is identified with the Serpent. Things equal to the same thing are
>> equal to each other.
>
> The identification of Satan with the Serpent is not found in the Old
> Testament. The Christian concept of Satan or the Devil is not found in
> the Old Testament.
>
>>> Satan is a Christian bogeyman. Although his name is found in the Old
>>> Testament, the character is not. Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the
>>> serpent was one of the "animals of the field."
>>
>> Actually it doesn't, any more than it says you are one of the beasts of
>> the field. It says...
>>
>> Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
>> LORD God had made Gen 3:1
>>
>> I'm sure you're more subtil than any beast of the field, too. Doesn't
>> mean you are a beast of the field.
>
> It would be a silly statement to make, unless the serpent was a beast of
> the field.
If that were true the authors of the New Testament would agree with you, but
they don't. I doubt any orthodox rabbi would either.
> Suppose that verse 3:1 said, "Satan is more subtil than any beast of the
> field." Would that be saying that Satan was subtil? No. Because beast
> of the field do not have to intelligence to show real subtilty. I know
> that you are smarter than any beast of the field, but I'm not saying that
> you are smart.
Serpents are reptiles, and as such have one of the most primitive brains of
all the higher animals. The designation that the Serpent was more subtle
than any other creature of God, then, is for the purpose of informing the
reader it wasn't just a serpent; wasn't anything like a serpent except for
the fear and disgust the metaphor dredges up in people. Your argument is
facetious and fallacious, and I'm too tired to cater to it.
Chuck Stamford
Pastor Dave
<shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>>>>>Romans 5:12-19.
>>>>
>>>> That does not say that Eve did not sin
>>>> and Adam sinned first.
>>>
>>>It identifies Adam as the first sinner.
>>
>> No, it does not.
>
>So now you're denying what the text actually says?
>
>For as by one man's disobedience many were
>made sinners Romans 5:19
That does not say that he sinned first and that is
what is required for it to say, in order to prove
your claim that Eve did not sin and that this means
that Adam sinned first! That verse simply does not
say that period, Chuck and you know it!
>The "many" here includes Eve
According to you!
>because there is no sense in
And now you go into your own reasoning!
You keep thinking that people will accept your
interpretation as if it were Scripture and we won't!
>Chuck Stamford
No Chuckles, you don't get to stop there, nor do you get
to reduce the amount of news groups this thread goes to!
Nor do you get to ignore other Scriptures and try to make
a doctrine off of that one verse (Romans 5:19)! And you
prove your fear of the passages I provided, with each and
every response in which you ignore them, which thus far,
has been each and every response you have made, Chuck!
Deal with the following text that you keep ignoring, because
you don't like the fact that it disproves your claim that Eve
did not sin, by proving that Eve did sin!
You hate it, because you also know that the fact that she
did sin in eating the fruit, means that she sinned before
Adam, since she ate the fruit before Adam!
You are not going to get away from it and you're not going
to be successful in trying to limit the discussion to exclude
the following text!
1 Timothy 2:11-15 [ALT]
11) Let a woman be learning in quietness with
all submission.
12) But I do not permit a woman to be teaching,
nor to be exerting dominance over a man, _but_
to be in quietness.
13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman,
having been deceived, has come to be in transgression.
15) But she will be saved through the bearing of children,
if they remain in faith and love and sanctification,
with decency [or, self-control].
--
I know God won't give me anything I can't handle.
I just wish He didn't trust me so much.
Pastor Dave
<shell-s...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>Chuck Stamford
Yea, it's just too bad the Bible says otherwise, huh?
1 Timothy 2:11-14 [KJV]
11) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14) And Adam was not deceived, but THE WOMAN
being deceived WAS IN THE TRANSGRESSION.
--
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
neither love nor patience are in order... For
a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
are in order, but only anger, dispute and
destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
Phoenix Rising
The very concept of "original Sin" is a faulty idea.
Eze 18:20 “The being who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the
crookedness of the father, nor the father bear the crookedness of the
son. The righteousness of the righteous is upon himself, and the
wrongness of the wrong is upon himself.
Eze 18:21 “But the wrong1, if he turns from all his sins which he has
done, and he shall guard all My laws, and shall do right-ruling and
righteousness, he shall certainly live, he shall not die. Footnote:
1Similar passages in 3:18-21, 33:8-20.
Eze 18:22 “All the transgressions which he has done shall not be
remembered against him – in his righteousness that he has done, he
shall live.
As far back as the Torah this concept of individuals holding
responsibility for themselves is written:
Deu 24:16 “Fathers are not put to death for their children, and
children are not put to death for their fathers, each is to die for
his own sin.
But more important Dave, it shows that you are correct in pointing out
that Eve did in fact sin first in that she willfully disobeyed the
command of Elohim that she clearly knew and quoted to the serpent
prior to her disobedience.
You were correct in quoting Genesis 3:3:)
Gen 3:3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
garden, Elohim has said, ‘Do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest you
die.’ ”
Excellent observation in catching that.
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Be thou the rainbow in the storms of life. The evening beam that
smiles the clouds away, and tints tomorrow with prophetic ray.
Lord Byron
duke
>>>That does not say that Eve did not sin,
>>>nor does it say that Adam sinned first.
>> Adam is credited with the sin because Eve is a woman.
>You get the shortest, most concise explanation award, Duke. It clearly
>leaves open several questions, but it seizes on the main, and consistent
>biblical principle here. Eve was created as a part of Adam, she sinned as
>part of Adam, and she was judged as part of Adam. There is no sense in
>which we can concieve of her doing anything apart from Adam in Genesis. It
>is therefore not realistic to conceptually separate her from Adam and say
>she sinned first.
Scripture well says "she" acted first, but the sin is credited to Adam because
he should have stopped her.
>I would just add the stress that the one who did the "crediting" was God,
>the offended and omniscient party to all this, and if anyone is in a
>position to say who sinned and who didn't, it's Him. ;-)
But it's not really an issue. The key is that "mankind", right out of the box,
told God "no", and that mankind will decide right v wrong.
That is the first sin of mankind and has nothing to do with the type of fruit or
whether it was Adam or Eve that did it.
bob young
You never see animals going through the absurd and often
horrible fooleries of magic and religion. Only man behaves
with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay
for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent
enough.
[Aldous Leonard Huxley]
bob young
A grown man cannnot recognise mythology when he sees it.
How terribly terribly sad.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist, Brit.
Man creates gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote
> <CLIP>
>> No, you would understand the role of SATAN in the fall.
>
> Satan had no role in the garden of Eden story.
Absolute idiocy.
Re 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the
Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the
earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
> Satan is a Christian bogeyman.
Nonsense.
"Satan" is a presence found throughout the entire Bible.
> Although his name is found in the Old Testament, the character is not.
Idiot.
There are many names, but they're ALL the same "character," which was the
point Jesus was making in Rev 12:9
> Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the serpent was one of the "animals of
> the field."
Moron.
"Beasts of the field" = legalists who attempt to attach themselves to Israel
by their own means.
> The first sinner in the Garden of Eden story was God himself when he lied
> to Adam:
Ehhhhhh.
Wrong answer.
God never lied to Adam.
> Genesis 2:17
> but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for
> in the very day you eat from it you will surely die.
>
> Adam did not die the day he ate of the apple.
Yes, he did--he died the death of the communing Spirit with God, which
eventually led to his death in the flesh...just like everything that already
existed in the natural world.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
No, he's just not reading the texts like an idiot, as you do.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1cAek.20604$YO1....@newsfe08.phx...
>>
>> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
>> news:mWzek.4435$7%6.305@edtnps82...
>>>>> Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the serpent was one of the
>>>>> > "animals of the field."
>>>>
>>>> Actually it doesn't, any more than it says you are one of the beasts of
>>>> the field. It says...
>>>>
>>>> Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
>>>> LORD God had made Gen 3:1
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you're more subtil than any beast of the field, too. Doesn't
>>>> mean you are a beast of the field.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The implication is obvious, though ... that the serpent is the most
>>> subtle of the beasts of the field.
>>
>> If that were the sentence, it would be. That's not the sentence. The
>> sentence is:
>>
>> "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field "
>
> You equate "Satan" with "the serpent".
No, the WORD equates "Satan" with "the serpent" (and the Devil, and
Baal-Zebub, and Tophet, and Lucifer, etc., etc., etc.).
They're just PROPHETIC NAMES for the SAME FIGURE covering DIFFERENT ASPECTS
of the liars character traits.
> Now replace "the serpent" with "Satan" in the above line and see if it
> makes sense. Is it saying that Satan was subtle?
Satan is ALWAYS subtle, as you so clearly demonstrate.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
LOL
By stating that the obvious answer is the correct answer, you demonstrate
that you don't know WHAT the "correct answer" is, and thus, that you don't
know what you're talking about.
A "serpent" or "snake" = a deceiver hell bent on subtly sneaking up on its
prey to devour it.
A "beast of the field" (or "earth") = a gentile attempting to attach himself
to God by earthly means.
What was the "serpent?"
The great "Gentile" who was jealous that God created Adam distinctly and put
Him in charge of the Earth.
Ezekiel even TELLS us as much...
Eze 31:3-9
Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with
a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick
boughs.
The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers
running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the
trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of
the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long
because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his
branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under
his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in
the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were
not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor
any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the
trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
> Oh, and I was not mixing metaphors, I was coining a new metaphor with
> reference to the forked tongue of serpents, and included a punning
> reference to the old metaphor of "splitting hairs" just to be playful.
It's your failure to "split hairs" which leads to your ridiculous
conclusions.
(But of course--YOU are whom the story is about.)
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
LOL
What was the "serpent?"
Eze 31:3-9
> Oh, and I was not mixing metaphors, I was coining a new metaphor with
> reference to the forked tongue of serpents, and included a punning
> reference to the old metaphor of "splitting hairs" just to be playful.
It's your failure to "split hairs" which leads to your ridiculous
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
LOL
What was the "serpent?"
Eze 31:3-9
> Oh, and I was not mixing metaphors, I was coining a new metaphor with
> reference to the forked tongue of serpents, and included a punning
> reference to the old metaphor of "splitting hairs" just to be playful.
It's your failure to "split hairs" which leads to your ridiculous
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote
>>> <CLIP>
>>>> No, you would understand the role of SATAN in the fall.
>>>
>>> Satan had no role in the garden of Eden story.
>>
>> Actually, that incorrect. Satan is identified with the Devil, and the
>> Devil is identified with the Serpent. Things equal to the same thing are
>> equal to each other.
>
> The identification of Satan with the Serpent is not found in the Old
> Testament.
Nevertheless, it's STILL TRUE.
> The Christian concept of Satan or the Devil is not found in the Old
> Testament.
Bullshit.
It's found IN THE VERY BEGINNING.
[snip]
> By saying "The serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field" it
> makes the serpent stand out from all other beasts in the area of subtilty.
> How smart, we find out in the following verses.
Idiot: "Beasts of the field" = Gentiles.
[snip]
> Don't tell me what you think God was thinking.
Don't have to: GOD tells us what "God was thinking."
[snip the rest of the doggerel]
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
LOL
What was the "serpent?"
Eze 31:3-9
> Oh, and I was not mixing metaphors, I was coining a new metaphor with
> reference to the forked tongue of serpents, and included a punning
> reference to the old metaphor of "splitting hairs" just to be playful.
It's your failure to "split hairs" which leads to your ridiculous
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:bc93794f-146f-4587...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> The very concept of "original Sin" is a faulty idea.
So say those hell-bent on perishing in their "original sin."
[snip]
Ike
Chuck Stamford
It does in this sense, duke, that the man should have stopped her, as you
say. When we look carefully at the story, we find Eve acts first and Adam
follows suit, but when God conducts His inquisition, He goes to Adam first,
then the woman; and when God judges the players, only Adam is given a reason
for God's judgment. Eve is evidently judged as a part of Adam, as being
"bone of [his] bone, and flesh of [his] flesh", not for her action.
And the only reason this is an issue is because this is one of the only
places in the Old Testament where we find any Old Testament support for
Paul's teaching on authority in a Christian marriage and the Church, or
Jesus' teaching on why we are not to divorce our wives. In the Genesis
story we see both the authority issue (via it's accountability flip side:
God holds Adam accountable for what Eve did), and the unity issue (God
punishes Eve for what Adam did).
Some in here want to keep the authority over their wives, but blame women
for the mess the world is in. They want to see God giving them authority
over their wives not as part of the basic design of God in creation, meant
to testsify of His relationship with His creation for all time, but as part
of God's punishment for "corrupting" the great and wonderful "male". That's
nonsense. And worse, it's nonsense that contradicts God's word. And it's
nonsense that destroys Paul's teaching on the absolute uniqueness of
Christ's ministry at Romans 5:12-19.
Chuck Stamford
wax
The Old Testament does not make any such equation. The Garden of Eden story
is in the Old Testament.
>> Now replace "the serpent" with "Satan" in the above line and see if it
>> makes sense. Is it saying that Satan was subtle?
>
> Ya think?
I will say one good thing about you. You are smarter than a baboon.
Now you think about that.
wax
>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>>> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote
>>>>>> Genesis 3:1 clearly states that the serpent was one of the
>>>>>>> "animals of the field."
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually it doesn't, any more than it says you are one of the beasts
>>>>> of the field. It says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
>>>>> LORD God had made Gen 3:1
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure you're more subtil than any beast of the field, too. Doesn't
>>>>> mean you are a beast of the field.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The implication is obvious, though ... that the serpent is the most
>>>> subtle of the beasts of the field.
>>>
>>> If that were the sentence, it would be. That's not the sentence. The
>>> sentence is:
>>>
>>> "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field "
>>
>> You equate "Satan" with "the serpent".
>
> No, the WORD equates "Satan" with "the serpent" (and the Devil, and
> Baal-Zebub, and Tophet, and Lucifer, etc., etc., etc.).
No. It is people who erroneously make the connection. It is not really in
the Bible.
> They're just PROPHETIC NAMES for the SAME FIGURE covering DIFFERENT
> ASPECTS of the liars character traits.
They each have different backgrounds and traits. Satan in the New
Testament has little in common with The Satan in the Old Testament.
>> Now replace "the serpent" with "Satan" in the above line and see if it
>> makes sense. Is it saying that Satan was subtle?
>
> Satan is ALWAYS subtle, as you so clearly demonstrate.
And you are more subtle than a dead monkey.
--Wax
wax
Saying that Satan is more subtle than the beasts of the field is saying
nothing.
It would have been more reasonable to compare him with angels or Adam and
Eve.
It is only if the serpent is regarded as a beast of the field does it make
sense to compare him with other beasts.
Wax
Chuck Stamford
You miss the point of the observation that the Serpent was more subtle than
any other creature of God. It's not to tell the reader how smart the
Serpent is, but to identify the metaphor as a metaphor for much more than a
snake.
It seems that simple identification isn't obvious enough to permeate your
biases.
Chuck Stamford
> If the serpent was Satan, why compare him with the beasts of the field?
Ah, to identify the use of the name "serpent" as a metaphor? Is that too
obvious for you?
Al Smith
It ain't over till the fat lady sings, Chuck. Which is to say, I
stop commenting only when I feel like stopping.
I will grant you that the translation of many editions of the Old
Testament *can* be interpreted to separate the serpent from the
other "beasts" created by God. However, I agree with the translators
of those alternative versions I quoted that the only reasonable
interpretation is that the serpent is the wisest of all the beasts,
not separate and different from all the beasts. Otherwise, why
mention the beasts?
If the serpent were substantially different here, the author of
Genesis would have said something such as, "the serpent, not a beast
of the field but Satan masquerading as a beast ..." In fact, there
is no mention here of Satan or Lucifer or the Devil at all. The
snake is just a snake, as far as Genesis is concerned.
But nothing I say will possibly change your mind about anything at
all, no matter how well documented my remarks, or how many
authorities I might cite, or how much reason I have on my side of
the argument.
-Al-
Al Smith
> that Eve did in fact sin first in that she willfully disobeyed the
> command of Elohim that she clearly knew and quoted to the serpent
> prior to her disobedience.
>
> You were correct in quoting Genesis 3:3:)
>
> Gen 3:3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
> garden, Elohim has said, ‘Do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest you
> die.’ ”
It just occurred to me ... God wasn't saying here, "If you eat the
fruit of this tree or touch it, the tree will kill you." What he was
saying is, "If you touch this tree, *I* will kill you."
-Al-
Al Smith
Another with forked tongue hisses from the grass.
-Al-
Al Smith
>> > reference to the forked tongue of serpents, and included a punning
>> > reference to the old metaphor of "splitting hairs" just to be playful.
>
> It's your failure to "split hairs" which leads to your ridiculous
> conclusions.
>
> (But of course--YOU are whom the story is about.)
>
> Ike
>
>
You're arguing in favor of splitting hairs? OK, up to you. :-)
-Al-
Al Smith
You know, Satan isn't even mentioned here. It seems obvious that
this very ancient Messopotamian myth predates the concept of Satan.
In Genesis, the serpent is just a snake. Serpents were renowned
among the pagans for their wisdom -- they were a symbol for wisdom
and long life. So I agree with you.
-Al-
Al Smith
>> > being named along with "all the beasts." Why? The obvious answer is that
>> > he is one of the beasts. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct
>> > answer.
>
> LOL
>
> By stating that the obvious answer is the correct answer, you demonstrate
> that you don't know WHAT the "correct answer" is, and thus, that you don't
> know what you're talking about.
>
> A "serpent" or "snake" = a deceiver hell bent on subtly sneaking up on its
> prey to devour it.
>
> A "beast of the field" (or "earth") = a gentile attempting to attach himself
> to God by earthly means.
>
> What was the "serpent?"
>
> The great "Gentile" who was jealous that God created Adam distinctly and put
> Him in charge of the Earth.
The Great Gentile??? You pulled that out of your ass; come on, confess.
-Al-
Al Smith
Ah, to compare the beasts of the field with Satan .... because ... why?
The author of Genesis might as well have said that the "Serpent"
(nudge-nudge; wink-wink) was more subtle than the rocks and clods of
earth in the field. Or the droplets of water in the pond. Or the
petals on the daisies. He didn't say that because the serpent has
nothing to do with water droplets, or flower petals, or rocks -- it
has to do with living animals, because it is a living animal.
-Al-
wax
>>
>> It would be a silly statement to make, unless the serpent was a beast of
>> the field.
>
> If that were true the authors of the New Testament would agree with you,
> but they don't. I doubt any orthodox rabbi would either.
New Testament writers have a way of twisting and misquoting Old Testament
text. For example, Matthew 27:9-10 is supposed to be quoting Jeremiah, but
try finding it. Therefore I can't see the New Testament as being
authoritative on the Garden of Eden story.
Judaism does not share Christianity's view of Satan, so I doubt if an
orthodox rabbi would would equate Satan with the serpent.
>> Suppose that verse 3:1 said, "Satan is more subtil than any beast of
>> the field." Would that be saying that Satan was subtil? No. Because
>> beast of the field do not have to intelligence to show real subtilty. I
>> know that you are smarter than any beast of the field, but I'm not saying
>> that you are smart.
>
> Serpents are reptiles, and as such have one of the most primitive brains
> of all the higher animals. The designation that the Serpent was more
> subtle than any other creature of God, then, is for the purpose of
> informing the reader it wasn't just a serpent; wasn't anything like a
> serpent except for the fear and disgust the metaphor dredges up in people.
> Your argument is facetious and fallacious, and I'm too tired to cater to
> it.
It is doubtful that the author of the Garden of Eden story understood the
primitive nature a serpent's brain. On the contrary, among other things,
serpents were known for their healing powers.
When an author says, "serpent." I like to think he says "serpent" because
he means he means "serpent". He didn't call it Satan, or say that it was
Satan disquised as a serpent. He said, "serpent."
--Wax
wax
<clip>
>> The identification of Satan with the Serpent is not found in the Old
>> Testament.
>
> Nevertheless, it's STILL TRUE.
Like a True Christian (c) you mistake belief for fact.
That may be okay if you are giving a sermon in your own church, but here we
expect you to think.
--Wax
wax
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote
>
>
> The King James translation, which I like, and the Douay-Rheims
> translation, which I like a lot, agree with you on this.
>
> On the other hand, the New Revised Standard Version reads:
>
> "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord
> God had made."
>
> The Ronald Knox translation, which is considered quite accurate, reads:
>
> "Of all the beasts which the Lord God had made, there was none that could
> match the serpent in cunning."
>
> So it appears to be a matter of interpretation, and the more recent
> translators place the serpent among the beasts.
>
> And really, think for a moment what is being said, here. The serpent is
> being named along with "all the beasts." Why? The obvious answer is that
> he is one of the beasts. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct
> answer.
>
> Oh, and I was not mixing metaphors, I was coining a new metaphor with
> reference to the forked tongue of serpents, and included a punning
> reference to the old metaphor of "splitting hairs" just to be playful.
You can add the Jewish publication Society's translation and the NET Bible
to your list:
Genesis 3:1 JPS Tanakh (1985)
Now the Serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts that the LORD God
had made.
Genesis 3:1 NET Bible
http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=3#n13
Now the serpent was more shrewd than any of the wild animals that the LORD
God had made.
--Wax
wax
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>
> You miss the point of the observation that the Serpent was more subtle
> than any other creature of God. It's not to tell the reader how smart the
> Serpent is, but to identify the metaphor as a metaphor for much more than
> a snake.
>
> It seems that simple identification isn't obvious enough to permeate your
> biases.
There is no reason to accept that line of rationalization. The text of the
story is clear, and I have no problem with it. You cannot accept it at
face value because it does not fit what you learned in Sunday School.
A serpent with subtle speech is no more unbelievable than the hundreds of
other impossible things which are described in the Bible, the sun standing
still or Balaam's ass talking to him. So why should the reader accept the
serpent as anything other than a snake?
--Wax
Al Smith
What's the percentage of translations that go this way, and the
percentage that go the other way on this verse, I wonder? Is it
about half and half?
-Al-
Al Smith
And consider that this is a very old myth, older than the Hebrews
who probably picked it up during the Babylonian Captivity. In many
myths around the world there are talking animals -- myths of the
American Indians, for example, and African tribal myths.
It's obvious that the serpent is intended as an agent of deception,
or corruption, but it is still a snake, if we regard only the text
of Genesis.
-Al-
wax
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote
There are Sumerian parallels, but don't let a Christian hear you say that.
--Wax
Linda Lee
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:51:20 -0400, Pastor Dave
>
> <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
> ><shell-stamf...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>
> >>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:01:48 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
> >>> <shell-stamf...@cox.net> spake thusly:
>
> >>>>When will you let go of this direct contradiction
> >>>>of Scripture, Jeff? God's word says ADAM was
> >>>>the first to sin, not Eve!
>
> >>> Where?
>
> >>Romans 5:12-19.
>
> >That does not say that Eve did not sin,
> >nor does it say that Adam sinned first.
>
> so His Sin was greater, g-D expected adam
> to be her covering, but he rejected bieng that covering
> thus she was cursed with pain in childbirth
> but the ground was cursed for His sake.
> until it was removed for Noah after the Deluge.
Right. Actually, according to the text, the 'serpent' caused Eve to
doubt (herself and/or God) because God never said 'don't touch' as Eve
told the serpent; God said only "thou shalt not eat".
Gen. 3:3 Eve says, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst
of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
touch it, lest ye die." It gives one the impression she was confused
i.e. convinced God was wrong or she was wrong because touching it
would not lead to death.
Gen. 2:16 "the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Gen. 3:13 "And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that
thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did
eat."
Beguiled - Heb. 5377 - " to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to
delude, or (morally) to seduce".
Eve was beguiled by a superior being (the serpent/Satan); Adam was not.
Linda Lee
Yes, that's it, Al. If they disobeyed God and ate of (not touched) the
tree of knowledge of good and evil, their spirit (as they were spirits/
angels at the time; the story being allegorical) would eventually be
destroyed by God, assuming nothing else happened.
But something else did happen, and it was God that did it; He supplied
salvation to those who would repent of abandoning God in favor of
following the serpent/Satan (otherwise known as the fall of the
angels). It is the basic biblical story, which I know you don't see as
fair, but according to the Scriptures God didn't see it that way and
would not allow His angels to worship Satan/Lucifer (Isa. 14:13), and
God will one day put an end to evil and return everything to its
former state - the spiritual world.
Isa. 14:13 "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" ("the stars of
God" is biblically another term for the angels of God - as in Job 38:7
the "morning stars" sang when God created the physical world (as a
realm in which salvation could be accomplished for their fallen
brethren, the fallen angels). Isa. 14:14 "I will be like the most
High."
Chuck Stamford
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>
>>
>> You miss the point of the observation that the Serpent was more subtle
>> than any other creature of God. It's not to tell the reader how smart
>> the Serpent is, but to identify the metaphor as a metaphor for much more
>> than
>> a snake.
>>
>> It seems that simple identification isn't obvious enough to permeate your
>> biases.
>
> There is no reason to accept that line of rationalization. The text of
> the story is clear, and I have no problem with it.
You have no problem with snakes being the smartest animals to ever live.
Ah, okay.
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish
leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he
shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. Isaiah 27:1 (KJV)
Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which
thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a
thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto
thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for
ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy
maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the
merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the
sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before
me? Job 41:1-10 (KJV)
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and
Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and
his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and
strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the
accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day
and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their
testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the
inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you,
having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted
the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might
fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time,
and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman,
that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and
swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the
remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 12:9-17 (KJV)
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless
pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and
Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon
him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years
should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. Rev
20:1-3 (KJV)
I understand that to you the Bible is just another book. To me it is the
product of one Mind working through many different people, and so I can use
the metaphors used in Revelation to help me identify and understand those
used in the Old Testament. Thus, "the devil", Satan, Lucifer, the Morning
Star, the dragon, leviathan, the serpent; these are all words used to name
Satan.
Al Smith
I ponder to myself sometimes, what's the whole purpose of human
creation, and life in general? Assuming that life was initiated and
is being driven and directed by some higher force or intelligence,
what sense does it make that we should depart from a perfect state,
descend into matter which is imperfect and filled with suffering and
sorrow, only in order to strive to return to our perfect state,
which we inhabited before we descended into matter?
There are a few possibilities that spring to mind.
1. Incarnate existence is a punishment. We are all serving a prison
sentence, and eventually when our sentence is up, we will be
released from the cycle of reincarnation in earthly shells.
2. Incarnation is an entertainment, a kind of game that is being
played by spiritual beings. As is true of any game, its play depends
on rules that limit the powers of the players. Without limiting
rules no game could be played, and the rules of life are the
limitations we all face every day.
3. Incarnate existence is a school in which we spirits, encased in
vessels of flesh, learn lessons we would be unable to learn in a
discarnate existence. The very hardships of life teach us what we
cannot learn in any other way, and it is valuable knowledge in some
manner we cannot yet comprehend.
4. Incarnate existence is a science experiment being played out in
real time, with a duration of aeons, for the purpose of progressing
evolution -- why? Who can say. We don't know the reason for the
experiment, but we are its white lab mice, running through our
mazes, and some higher intelligence is observing and recording our
responses.
-Al-
Al Smith
> product of one Mind working through many different people, and so I can use
> the metaphors used in Revelation to help me identify and understand those
> used in the Old Testament. Thus, "the devil", Satan, Lucifer, the Morning
> Star, the dragon, leviathan, the serpent; these are all words used to name
> Satan.
By the time you hit Revelation, these links have been made. The
serpent and Satan are equated. But back in Genesis, the link had not
been made.
-Al-
sophia perennis
> I ponder to myself sometimes, what's the whole purpose of human
> creation, and life in general? Assuming that life was initiated
> and is being driven and directed by some higher force or
> intelligence, what sense does it make that we should depart from a
> perfect state, descend into matter which is imperfect and filled
> with suffering and sorrow, only in order to strive to return to
> our perfect state, which we inhabited before we descended into
> matter?
<snip>
> 3. Incarnate existence is a school in which we spirits, encased in
> vessels of flesh, learn lessons we would be unable to learn in a
> discarnate existence. The very hardships of life teach us what we
> cannot learn in any other way, and it is valuable knowledge in
> some manner we cannot yet comprehend.
>
Bingo ;) And, I believe it takes several trips to learn what we need
to learn ;)
Linda Lee
Try a choice 5. This realm was created in order to provide us (God's
fallen angels) with the chance to repent of following/worshipping the
serpent/Satan, rather than following/worshipping God.
It is throughout the Old and New Testaments that the purpose of God's
creation was to provide salvation, and that only makes sense if we are
the fallen angels who sinned, that The Sin we've all committed
occurred before God's Creation of man containing a spirit/angel, not
after. That is why I say Genesis Three's story of Adam/his wife being
led astray by the serpent is an allegorical story of the fall of the
angels, led astray by the serpent/Satan.
There is a purpose to life in the flesh; choose to repent and return
to following God (rather than Satan) and receive salvation and eternal
life as an angel (again) before it is the final Judgment Day and it is
too late to repent and we are destroyed for partaking of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil (symbolic of following the serpent/Satan).
Chuck Stamford
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
>>>
>>> It would be a silly statement to make, unless the serpent was a beast of
>>> the field.
>>
>> If that were true the authors of the New Testament would agree with you,
>> but they don't. I doubt any orthodox rabbi would either.
>
> New Testament writers have a way of twisting and misquoting Old Testament
> text. For example, Matthew 27:9-10 is supposed to be quoting Jeremiah,
> but try finding it.
You can't make a general argument out of one example. If you want to argue
that NT authors generally twist OT texts, you need more than one example.
Lots more.
Besides, Matthew doesn't necessarily "twist" anything here. The quotation
is from Zechariah 11:13, in several manuscripts it's in the text that way,
and this is old, and irrelevant news. You want to make a general statement
about how the NT authors treat the OT? Then you need to show them generally
doing what you say they generally do.
> Therefore I can't see the New Testament as being authoritative on the
> Garden of Eden story.
You haven't even shown where the NT authors "twist" the OT even once.
Misattributing a quote, even if it's the case that was done by Matthew
himself (which I seriously doubt), isn't "twisting" it's meaning, and
Matthew is faithful to Zechariah's saying as to the fact the potter
(potter's field) was paid with thirty pieces of silver cast down in the
house of the Lord.
>
> Judaism does not share Christianity's view of Satan, so I doubt if an
> orthodox rabbi would would equate Satan with the serpent.
I doubt you know what Judaism's view of Satan is, much less what any
orthodox rabbi would have to say about it.
>
>>> Suppose that verse 3:1 said, "Satan is more subtil than any beast of
>>> the field." Would that be saying that Satan was subtil? No. Because
>>> beast of the field do not have to intelligence to show real subtilty. I
>>> know that you are smarter than any beast of the field, but I'm not
>>> saying that you are smart.
>>
>> Serpents are reptiles, and as such have one of the most primitive brains
>> of all the higher animals. The designation that the Serpent was more
>> subtle than any other creature of God, then, is for the purpose of
>> informing the reader it wasn't just a serpent; wasn't anything like a
>> serpent except for the fear and disgust the metaphor dredges up in
>> people. Your argument is facetious and fallacious, and I'm too tired to
>> cater to it.
>
> It is doubtful that the author of the Garden of Eden story understood the
> primitive nature a serpent's brain. On the contrary, among other things,
> serpents were known for their healing powers.
There is not a shred of evidence ancient Judaism recognized any "powers",
plural, snakes had to heal. In the one instance where the Jews made use of
a SCULPTURE of a snake for the purpose of healing, there is no evidence they
chose the snake out of any belief snakes have healing powers generally.
>
> When an author says, "serpent." I like to think he says "serpent" because
> he means he means "serpent". He didn't call it Satan, or say that it was
> Satan disquised as a serpent. He said, "serpent."
And I 'm sure you like to think this so you can continue to ascribe to the
ancient Israelites many odd beliefs and superstitions they most likely never
had; things like they believed in serpents who were smarter than the most
perfect man God could design, who talked and knew the language of this man,
who was obviously privey to conversations between God and man, and who was
interested in cajoling man into disobeying God's command. It's not that the
Jews didn't believe in snakes like this, right? And it's just a coincidence
that all the things this snake did in the Garden would be things Satan would
be interested in doing in BOTH the Jewish and Christian view of Satan,
right?
What a ridiculous argument you're making here!
Linda Lee
> Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote innews:lpVek.242$rR2.89@edtnps83:
>
> > I ponder to myself sometimes, what's the whole purpose of human
> > creation, and life in general? Assuming that life was initiated
> > and is being driven and directed by some higher force or
> > intelligence, what sense does it make that we should depart from a
> > perfect state, descend into matter which is imperfect and filled
> > with suffering and sorrow, only in order to strive to return to
> > our perfect state, which we inhabited before we descended into
> > matter?
>
> <snip>
>
> > 3. Incarnate existence is a school in which we spirits, encased in
> > vessels of flesh, learn lessons we would be unable to learn in a
> > discarnate existence.
Not quite; if we had had not followed the serpent/Satan, we would have
remained in our discarnate existence as angels, and we wouldn't need
to learn to repent of abandoning God to be restored to our former
state as God's children/angels.
> > The very hardships of life teach us what we
> > cannot learn in any other way, and it is valuable knowledge in
> > some manner we cannot yet comprehend.
>
> Bingo ;) And, I believe it takes several trips to learn what we need
> to learn ;)
That is biblical; that the deceased return to Hades for a time and
then are born again in the flesh to give them another chance to repent
- until the final Judgment Day.
Linda Lee
Here is an example:
In Job 41:25, God says of the fallen angels, “the mighty are afraid”
and through “breakings they purify themselves.”
In this instance, the word translated ‘mighty’ – Heb. 410 – ‘el’ – is
defined as strength; mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of
any deity); rendered God, god, idol, mighty, power. (The Latin Vulgate
translates this instance of the word as angels.) It is from Heb. 352,
meaning strength, and is cited the “same as 193”. Heb. 193 is defined
to twist and “the body (as being rolled together); also powerful”.
The word here translated ‘breakings’ – Heb. 7667 – means “a fracture;
figuratively ruin, specifically, a solution (of a dream)”; rendered
affliction, breach, breaking, bruise, crashing, destruction, hurt, and
vexation. (Some meanings of the English word “breakings” chosen in the
English translation are to come suddenly into being and to change
suddenly – as by a sharp fall, turn, rise, etc.)
Its root form – Heb. 7665 – means to burst (literally or
figuratively); rendered broken, broken-hearted, and “bring to the
birth” (in reference to the bursting of the 'water' sac, which occurs
prior to birth.)
It is through birth in Adamic flesh that God has given the fallen the
opportunity to purify themselves via repentance.
The “dream” was Satan’s, who was, as Jude 8 states, one of the “filthy
dreamers” who “defile the flesh, despise dominion”. Satan had caused
the angels to fall into defiled flesh and to despise the sovereign
authority “dominion” of God.
These deities (i.e. ‘gods’ or angels), “the mighty” that “are afraid”,
are the fallen angels who are purified by means of God’s solution of
being brought to the birth through cleansed Adamic flesh, fathered by
Adamic man and born of Adamic woman. Birth ordained by God through
Adamic humankind affords the fallen the chance of being saved if they
turn to God during their lifetime. They (and we) are born through
Woman (the reason for God’s creation of her) for the sole purpose of
deciding whether or not they will choose to return to God.
Linda Lee
> On Jul 15, 12:36 am, sophia perennis <do...@think.so> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Al Smith <inva...@address.com> wrote innews:lpVek.242$rR2.89@edtnps83:
>
> > > I ponder to myself sometimes, what's the whole purpose of human
> > > creation, and life in general? Assuming that life was initiated
> > > and is being driven and directed by some higher force or
> > > intelligence, what sense does it make that we should depart from a
> > > perfect state, descend into matter which is imperfect and filled
> > > with suffering and sorrow, only in order to strive to return to
> > > our perfect state, which we inhabited before we descended into
> > > matter?
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > 3. Incarnate existence is a school in which we spirits, encased in
> > > vessels of flesh, learn lessons we would be unable to learn in a
> > > discarnate existence.
>
> Not quite; if we had had not followed the serpent/Satan, we would have
> remained in our discarnate existence as angels, and we wouldn't need
> to learn to repent of abandoning God to be restored to our former
> state as God's children/angels.
>
> > > The very hardships of life teach us what we
> > > cannot learn in any other way, and it is valuable knowledge in
> > > some manner we cannot yet comprehend.
>
> > Bingo ;) And, I believe it takes several trips to learn what we need
> > to learn ;)
The Spirit/resurrected Christ says in Rev. 3:12 "Him that overcometh
will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more
out" - no more out into lives in the flesh for those who overcome the
lies of the serpent and return to worship of, and repentance towards,
God.
wax
>>
>>>
>>> You miss the point of the observation that the Serpent was more subtle
>>> than any other creature of God. It's not to tell the reader how smart
>>> the Serpent is, but to identify the metaphor as a metaphor for much
>>> more than a snake.
>>>
>>> It seems that simple identification isn't obvious enough to permeate
>>> your biases.
>>
>> There is no reason to accept that line of rationalization. The text of
>> the story is clear, and I have no problem with it.
>
> You have no problem with snakes being the smartest animals to ever live.
> Ah, okay.
You are the one who buys the mythology. Not my.
> In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish
> leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and
> he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. Isaiah 27:1 (KJV)
Don't confuse the sea monster Leviathan with the serpent in the Garden of
Eden. The Leviathan stories were borrowed from the Canaanite body of
mythology, while the Garden of Eden stories originated in the Sumer-Babylon
period..
I will post you some information on Leviathan, I know you won't like it,
but somebody might find it interesting.
--Wax
wax
Satan. In parts of the Old Testament, there is a duality of order vs.
disorder. God vs Leviathan.
Although early people depended upon water to live, water was a threat to to
them and is still a threat to many of us today. Storms from the ocean can
wash away land, rain can ruin crops, and floods can destroy homes and
communities. Control of the waters is essential to survival.
In Genesis 1, God creates the heavens and earth. The Hebrew word for "to
create" ("bara" Strong's #01254) also means "to form". But water is
formless. God did not create the seas, the waters are formless.
The struggle begins: God creates, while the waters destroy. God must
control the oceans. God asks Job. 38:8 "Who shut up the sea with doors
when it burst forth, coming out of the womb (Job 38:8.)
In the Psalms, God's kingship is demonstrated by his dominence over the
water seas:
Psalms 29:3
The Lord's shout is heard over the water;
the majestic God thunders,
the Lord appears over the surging water.
Psalms 29:10
The Lord sits enthroned over the engulfing waters,
the Lord sits enthroned as the eternal king.
Psalms 93:2-4
Your throne has been secure from ancient times;
you have always been king.
The waves lift up, O Lord,
the waves lift up their voice,
the waves lift up their crashing."
Above the sound of the mighty waters,
and the mighty waves of the sea,
the Lord sits enthroned in majesty.
In Psalm 77, the Red Sea trembles in the presence of God:
Psalms 77:16
The waters saw you, O God,
the waters saw you and trembled.
Yes, the depths of the sea shook with fear.
The waters takes on a personality charactorized by a sea serpent sometimes
called Leviathan, and at other times called Rahab ("The Proud One".) It is
God's control of this sea monster which establishes his rule:
Psalms 89:9-10
You rule over the proud sea.
When its waves surge, you calm them.
You crushed the Proud One and killed it;
with your strong arm you scattered your enemies.
In Psalms 74, the destruction of Leviathan is associated with the creation.
Psalms 74:13-17
You destroyed the sea by your strength;
you shattered the heads of the sea monster in the water.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
you fed him to the people who live along the coast.
You broke open the spring and the stream;
you dried up perpetually flowing rivers.
You established the cycle of day and night;
you put the moon and sun in place.
You set up all the boundaries of the earth;
you created the cycle of summer and winter.
In Isaiah, the destruction of Rahab is used in connection with the
crossing of the Red Sea:
Isaiah 51:9-10
Wake up! Wake up!
Clothe yourself with strength, O arm of the Lord!
Wake up as in former times, as in antiquity!
Did you not smash24 the Proud One?
Did you not wound the sea monster?
Did you not dry up the sea,
the waters of the great deep?
Did you not make a path through the depths of the sea,
so those delivered from bondage could cross over?
Isaiah saw the sea monster as a reoccuring threat which had to be repeatedly
destroyed in order to restore order:
Isaiah 27:1
At that time the Lord will punish
with his destructive, great, and powerful sword
Leviathan the fast-moving serpent,
Leviathan the squirming serpent;
he will kill the sea monster.
In Job, God's control over Leviathan is used to demonstrate his powers:
Job 41:1-4
Can you pull in Leviathan with a hook,
and tie down its tongue with a rope?
Can you put a cord through its nose,
or pierce its jaw with a hook?
Will it make numerous supplications to you,
will it speak to you with tender words?
Will it make a pact with you,
so you could take it as your slave for life?
This Hebrew concept of the sea serpent is echoed in later writing. In
Daniel 7, the earth is threatened by four beasts which come out of the sea.
And in Revelations 13, the earth is threatened by a seven headed beast who
also comes out of the sea.
--Wax
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> If the serpent was Satan, why compare him with the beasts of the field?
1) "Beast of the field" = GENTILES.
2) Satan wasn't "the Serpent" until God cursed him.
> It is only if the serpent is regarded as a beast of the field does it make
> sense to compare him with other beasts.
Idiot: Satan WAS (and still is) one of the "other beasts:" BEASTS = THE
NATURAL MAN, as in...
"And I saw a BEAST rise from the earth..."
"And I saw ANOTHER BEAST rise from the sea..."
BUY A CLUE ALREADY: You're trying to read METAPHOR LITERALLY, and only an
IDIOT takes an IDIOM IDIOSYNCRATICALLY.
Ike
Chuck Stamford
What I don't particularly like is your total absence of any decent
background knowledge of the Bible itself, which allows your biases full
reign.
The term "leviathan" (not capitalized in translation) appears at many places
in Scripture, and not always in relation to a sea creature. See Job 41, for
example, which clearly describes Leviathan as a creature at home on both
land and sea. Sometimes it is directly associated with a "serpent" (See
Isaiah 27:1, which not only describes "leviathan" as "that crooked serpent",
but goes on to contrast leviathan with "the dragon that is in the sea").
You are one of these people who think you are justified in saying
theological propositions are "borrowed" (some of your ilk prefers the
stronger derogatory "stolen") from other cultures based on nothing more than
a few similarities that have been observed (or manufactured!) between them.
I, and people I respect, need some actual evidence to come to such
conclusions. You know what evidence is, don't you?
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
news:ZwKek.4553$7%6.3033@edtnps82...
>> But more important Dave, it shows that you are correct in pointing out
>> that Eve did in fact sin first in that she willfully disobeyed the
>> command of Elohim that she clearly knew and quoted to the serpent
>> prior to her disobedience.
>>
>> You were correct in quoting Genesis 3:3:)
>>
>> Gen 3:3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
>> garden, Elohim has said, ‘Do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest you
>> die.’ ”
>
>
> It just occurred to me ... God wasn't saying here, "If you eat the fruit
> of this tree or touch it, the tree will kill you." What he was saying is,
> "If you touch this tree, *I* will kill you."
Oh Lord! That just occured to you?
But you still don't have the concept quite right. It's not I will kill you
in any sense in which God engages in any action meant to kill Adam, but that
God, who was "life" to Adam, now becomes "death" to him. God didn't change
when Adam ate, Adam did.
wax
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>>> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> New Testament writers have a way of twisting and misquoting Old Testament
>> text. For example, Matthew 27:9-10 is supposed to be quoting Jeremiah,
>> but try finding it.
>
> You can't make a general argument out of one example. If you want to
> argue that NT authors generally twist OT texts, you need more than one
> example. Lots more.
To list them all would be much too tedious, so I will list a few of my
favorites.
The best known example is Matthew 1:23 where the author quotes from the
Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew.
I always liked Matthew 2:15 where the author quotes Hosea 11:1, "I called my
son out of Egypt." In context you find that Hosea was talking about Isaral.
The author of Matthew inadvertantly made Jesus into a worshipper of Baal:
Hosea 11:1-2
When Israel was a young man, I loved him like a son,
and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
I have often commented upon Matthew 21:5
Tell the people of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
unassuming and seated on an ass,
and on a colt, the foal of an ass.
This is supposed to be a quote Zechariah 9:0
Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion!
Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!
Look! Your king is coming to you:
he is legitimate and victorious,
humble and riding on a donkey -
on a young donkey, the foal of a female donkey.
It would have been too early to call Jesus "victorious", so the author of
Matthew leaves that line out. The major problem is that he didn't
understand the poetic use of parallelism which distinquishes Hebrew poetry.
Therefore the author put Jesus upon two asses instead of one (Matt. 21:7.)
A mistake which was not made in the other gospels.
> Besides, Matthew doesn't necessarily "twist" anything here. The quotation
> is from Zechariah 11:13, in several manuscripts it's in the text that way,
> and this is old, and irrelevant news. You want to make a general
> statement about how the NT authors treat the OT? Then you need to show
> them generally doing what you say they generally do.
The author of Matthew said, "Jeremiah", not "Zechariah". And even Zechariah
11:13 is not close:
Matthew 27
27:9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
"They took the thirty silver coins, the price of the one whose price
had been set by the sons of Israel, 27:10 and they gave them for
the potter's field, as the Lord commanded.
Zechariah 11
11:13 The Lord then said to me, "Throw to the potter that exorbitant
sum at which they valued me!" So I took the thirty pieces of silver
and threw them to the potter at the temple of the Lord.
In Matthew you have a potter's field, but no potter. In Zechariah, you have
a potter, but no field.
<CLIP>
>> Judaism does not share Christianity's view of Satan, so I doubt if an
>> orthodox rabbi would would equate Satan with the serpent.
>
> I doubt you know what Judaism's view of Satan is, much less what any
> orthodox rabbi would have to say about it.
In the Old Testament, "Satan" is not used as a name. The expression used is
"ha Satan" which can be translated as "the adversary." The title is most
often found in the Book of Job chapters 1 and 2, where ha Satan questions
Job's faith in God. Ha Satan is given permission by God to test Job.
Ha Satan may also be found in Zechariah 3 where he is standing before an
angel of the LORD.
Translations of 1 Chronicles 21:1 sometimes uses the name "Satan", but the
Hebrew text does not have the article before "satan", which sussests that it
should be translated as "adversary".
There is no other references to a Satan in the Old Testament. And as you
can see, he is far from the rebellious arch-demon the New Testament
glorifies. That is unless you are thinking of Lucifer. But Lucifer isn't
in the Hebrew texts, and the chant in Isaiah 4 was actually a taunt to the
King of Babylon (Is 14:4).
The name "Lucifer" is Latin and is the Roman name for the morning star
(Venus). In Revelation 22:16 the morning star is identified with Jesus: "I
am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!"
--Wax
wax
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>
> What I don't particularly like is your total absence of any decent
> background knowledge of the Bible itself, which allows your biases full
> reign.
What you don't like is that I disagree with your Sunday School
interpretation of the Bible.
--Wax
Chuck Stamford
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>>
>> What I don't particularly like is your total absence of any decent
>> background knowledge of the Bible itself, which allows your biases full
>> reign.
>
You pretending you know.
polaris
Chuck Stamford
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>>>> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
>>> New Testament writers have a way of twisting and misquoting Old
>>> Testament text. For example, Matthew 27:9-10 is supposed to be quoting
>>> Jeremiah, but try finding it.
>>
>> You can't make a general argument out of one example. If you want to
>> argue that NT authors generally twist OT texts, you need more than one
>> example. Lots more.
>
> To list them all would be much too tedious, so I will list a few of my
> favorites.
> The best known example is Matthew 1:23 where the author quotes from the
> Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew.
Isaiah, chapter 7, isn't exclusive to the Septuagint, and it and Matthew
were both written in Greek, so what are you talking about? I hope you're
not alluding here to the "virgin" debate, as that is pretty outdated by this
time. I'll be happy to supply you with an online source to bring you up to
speed here if you like.
>
> I always liked Matthew 2:15 where the author quotes Hosea 11:1, "I called
> my son out of Egypt." In context you find that Hosea was talking about
> Isaral. The author of Matthew inadvertantly made Jesus into a worshipper
> of Baal:
Oh, please! The parallel is God's son/Son. Are you really this dense, or
are you this desperate?
>
> I have often commented upon Matthew 21:5
>
> Tell the people of Zion,
> Look, your king is coming to you,
> unassuming and seated on an ass,
> and on a colt, the foal of an ass.
>
> This is supposed to be a quote Zechariah 9:0
I assume you mean Zechariah 9:9
>
> Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion!
> Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!
> Look! Your king is coming to you:
> he is legitimate and victorious,
> humble and riding on a donkey -
> on a young donkey, the foal of a female donkey.
>
> It would have been too early to call Jesus "victorious", so the author of
> Matthew leaves that line out.
Nonsense.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the
world: Matt 25:34 (KJV)
You have no idea why Matthew left out that line, and the line is not
important to the application, as you've suggested for Matthew's motive.
> The major problem is that he didn't understand the poetic use of
> parallelism which distinquishes Hebrew poetry.
The major problem is you think you understand it better than a Jew living in
the 1st century! Now THAT'S a major epistemic problem!
Still waiting for that example of "twisting".
>
>> Besides, Matthew doesn't necessarily "twist" anything here. The
>> quotation is from Zechariah 11:13, in several manuscripts it's in the
>> text that way, and this is old, and irrelevant news. You want to make a
>> general statement about how the NT authors treat the OT? Then you need
>> to show them generally doing what you say they generally do.
>
> The author of Matthew said, "Jeremiah", not "Zechariah". And even
> Zechariah 11:13 is not close:
>
> Matthew 27
> 27:9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
> "They took the thirty silver coins, the price of the one whose price
> had been set by the sons of Israel, 27:10 and they gave them for
> the potter's field, as the Lord commanded.
>
> Zechariah 11
> 11:13 The Lord then said to me, "Throw to the potter that exorbitant
> sum at which they valued me!" So I took the thirty pieces of silver
> and threw them to the potter at the temple of the Lord.
>
> In Matthew you have a potter's field, but no potter. In Zechariah, you
> have a potter, but no field.
Oh, for crying out loud! We're done.
Chuck Stamford
"polaris" <pol...@andromeda.galaxy> wrote in message
news:236fk.1649$Zc5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Making plausible inferences about his procedures from his use of them isn't
pretending to know his personal likes and dislikes. Besides, he was already
informed I've never attended a Sunday school in my life.
Al Smith
Your remark has no application to my post. I didn't suggest that God
had changed. Where did you got that idea? Hence, your criticism is
meaningless.
-Al-
Al Smith
>>> >> Judaism does not share Christianity's view of Satan, so I doubt if an
>>> >> orthodox rabbi would would equate Satan with the serpent.
>> >
>> > I doubt you know what Judaism's view of Satan is, much less what any
>> > orthodox rabbi would have to say about it.
>
> In the Old Testament, "Satan" is not used as a name. The expression used is
> "ha Satan" which can be translated as "the adversary." The title is most
> often found in the Book of Job chapters 1 and 2, where ha Satan questions
> Job's faith in God. Ha Satan is given permission by God to test Job.
>
> Ha Satan may also be found in Zechariah 3 where he is standing before an
> angel of the LORD.
>
> Translations of 1 Chronicles 21:1 sometimes uses the name "Satan", but the
> Hebrew text does not have the article before "satan", which sussests that it
> should be translated as "adversary".
>
> There is no other references to a Satan in the Old Testament. And as you
> can see, he is far from the rebellious arch-demon the New Testament
> glorifies. That is unless you are thinking of Lucifer. But Lucifer isn't
> in the Hebrew texts, and the chant in Isaiah 4 was actually a taunt to the
> King of Babylon (Is 14:4).
>
> The name "Lucifer" is Latin and is the Roman name for the morning star
> (Venus). In Revelation 22:16 the morning star is identified with Jesus: "I
> am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!"
>
> --Wax
>
>
I wonder of the Hebrew concept of the Adversary is based on the
dualistic theology of the fire worshippers in Persia?
-Al-
polaris
polaris
All his posts are meaningless. He's a blowhard who knows
approximately .0003% of what he *thinks* he knows.
Chuck Stamford
It was certainly a reasonable inference from what you did say.
> Where did you got that idea?
The differences between the tree and God in the story is that the tree is a
contingent being (at least in the story itself) and God isn't. Contingent
beings change all the time. Non-contingent beings don't. I simply assumed
you were taking all the ontological baggage a contingent being carries with
you when you switched from the tree to God being the agent of death to Adam.
> Hence, your criticism is meaningless.
To you.
Chuck Stamford
"polaris" <pol...@andromeda.galaxy> wrote in message
You don't know what you're talking about.
Al Smith
>>>>> >>> > fruit of this tree or touch it, the tree will kill you." What he was
>>>>> >>> > saying is, "If you touch this tree, *I* will kill you."
>>> >>
>>> >> Oh Lord! That just occured to you?
>>> >>
>>> >> But you still don't have the concept quite right. It's not I will kill
>>> >> you in any sense in which God engages in any action meant to kill Adam,
>>> >> but that God, who was "life" to Adam, now becomes "death" to him. God
>>> >> didn't change when Adam ate, Adam did.
>> >
>> > Your remark has no application to my post. I didn't suggest that God had
>> > changed.
>
> It was certainly a reasonable inference from what you did say.
>
>> > Where did you got that idea?
>
> The differences between the tree and God in the story is that the tree is a
> contingent being (at least in the story itself) and God isn't. Contingent
> beings change all the time. Non-contingent beings don't. I simply assumed
> you were taking all the ontological baggage a contingent being carries with
> you when you switched from the tree to God being the agent of death to Adam.
>
>> > Hence, your criticism is meaningless.
>
> To you.
>
>
>
Well, gee, Chuck, you jumped to a completely baseless conclusion.
I'd say that makes your comment meaningless. Why on earth would you
suppose that I would suggest that God had changed? God doesn't
change. I said nothing to suggest that, but of course, you won't
admit that you were mistaken.
-Al-
wax
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>
> Making plausible inferences about his procedures from his use of them
> isn't pretending to know his personal likes and dislikes. Besides, he was
> already
> informed I've never attended a Sunday school in my life.
I didn't say you went to Sunday School. My statement was to your "Sunday
School interpretation of the Bible." It's didactic, narrow and lacking
scholarship.
The best source for learning about the Sumerian source for the Garden of
Eden stories is the book "History Begins At Sumer" by Samuel Kramer, but
a quick search of the internet might take you to
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/paradise.html
Under the heading Lotan the Wikipedia says some of the same things I said
about Leviathan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotan
--Wax
wax
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote
> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> If the serpent was Satan, why compare him with the beasts of the field?
>
> 1) "Beast of the field" = GENTILES.
With only one man and one woman, I can't see how they can be divided up
between Jews and gentiles.
--Wax
wax
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>>> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>>> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>>>>> "wax" <weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>
>>>> New Testament writers have a way of twisting and misquoting Old
>>>> Testament text. For example, Matthew 27:9-10 is supposed to be quoting
>>>> Jeremiah, but try finding it.
>>>
>>> You can't make a general argument out of one example. If you want to
>>> argue that NT authors generally twist OT texts, you need more than one
>>> example. Lots more.
>>
>> To list them all would be much too tedious, so I will list a few of my
>> favorites. The best known example is Matthew 1:23 where the author
>> quotes from the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew.
>
> Isaiah, chapter 7, isn't exclusive to the Septuagint, and it and Matthew
> were both written in Greek, so what are you talking about? I hope you're
> not alluding here to the "virgin" debate, as that is pretty outdated by
> this time. I'll be happy to supply you with an online source to bring you
> up to speed here if you like.
The author of Matthew normally quoted from the Hebrew text, but in this case
he quoted from the Greek. And as you know, the Hebrew text says nothing
about a virgin:
>
>>
>> I always liked Matthew 2:15 where the author quotes Hosea 11:1, "I called
>> my son out of Egypt." In context you find that Hosea was talking
>> about Isaral. The author of Matthew inadvertantly made Jesus into a
>> worshipper of Baal:
>
> Oh, please! The parallel is God's son/Son. Are you really this dense, or
> are you this desperate?
The text nust have bothered you, you clipped it out, but:
Hosea 11:1-2
When Israel was a young man, I loved him like a son,
and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
The quote was taken out of context. The subject was the people of Israel,
not Jesus, and he accused the people of sacrificing to Baal, a statement you
would never make about Jesus
>> I have often commented upon Matthew 21:5
>>
>> Tell the people of Zion,
>> Look, your king is coming to you,
>> unassuming and seated on an ass,
>> and on a colt, the foal of an ass.
>>
>> This is supposed to be a quote Zechariah 9:0
>
> I assume you mean Zechariah 9:9
>
>>
>> Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion!
>> Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!
>> Look! Your king is coming to you:
>> he is legitimate and victorious,
>> humble and riding on a donkey -
>> on a young donkey, the foal of a female donkey.
>>
>> It would have been too early to call Jesus "victorious", so the author of
>> Matthew leaves that line out.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of
> my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the
> world: Matt 25:34 (KJV)
>
> You have no idea why Matthew left out that line, and the line is not
> important to the application, as you've suggested for Matthew's motive.
It would have been difficult for the author to leave the line in.
>> The major problem is that he didn't understand the poetic use of
>> parallelism which distinquishes Hebrew poetry.
>
> The major problem is you think you understand it better than a Jew living
> in the 1st century! Now THAT'S a major epistemic problem!
Do you understand poetic parallelism? I find it strange that nearly one
third of the Old Testament is poetic in form, yet most Christians do not
even understand what parallelism is.
> Still waiting for that example of "twisting".
I cited to you the author of Matthew using the Septuagint instead of the
usual Hebrew so he could throw in the word "virgin". That is twisting.
I cited to you the same author quoting Hosea out of context, thus giving the
line an entirely different meaning. That is twisting.
I cited to you the same author portraying Jesus as riding upon two asses
instead of one in order to conform with his misinterpretation of Zecharia.
That is twisting. (Each of the other gospels has Jesus riding into
Jerusalem on only one ass.)
And below I pointed out how the author misquoted Zecharia in order to make
it look like Judas' death was prophesied. That is twisting.
Would you like more examples?
>>> Besides, Matthew doesn't necessarily "twist" anything here. The
>>> quotation is from Zechariah 11:13, in several manuscripts it's in the
>>> text that way, and this is old, and irrelevant news. You want to make a
>>> general statement about how the NT authors treat the OT? Then you
>>> need to show them generally doing what you say they generally do.
>>
>> The author of Matthew said, "Jeremiah", not "Zechariah". And even
>> Zechariah 11:13 is not close:
>>
>> Matthew 27
>> 27:9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
>> "They took the thirty silver coins, the price of the one whose price
>> had been set by the sons of Israel, 27:10 and they gave them for
>> the potter's field, as the Lord commanded.
>>
>> Zechariah 11
>> 11:13 The Lord then said to me, "Throw to the potter that exorbitant
>> sum at which they valued me!" So I took the thirty pieces of silver
>> and threw them to the potter at the temple of the Lord.
>>
>> In Matthew you have a potter's field, but no potter. In Zechariah, you
>> have a potter, but no field.
>
> Oh, for crying out loud! We're done.
I wish I could believe you, but you are not even honest with yourself.
--Wax
wax
"Linda Lee" <lyndal...@juno.com> wrote
>
>
> Right. Actually, according to the text, the 'serpent' caused Eve to
> doubt (herself and/or God) because God never said 'don't touch' as Eve
> told the serpent; God said only "thou shalt not eat".
>
> Gen. 3:3 Eve says, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst
> of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
> touch it, lest ye die." It gives one the impression she was confused
> i.e. convinced God was wrong or she was wrong because touching it
> would not lead to death.
>
>
> Gen. 2:16 "the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
> the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of
> good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou
> eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
>
> Gen. 3:13 "And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that
> thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did
> eat."
>
> Beguiled - Heb. 5377 - " to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to
> delude, or (morally) to seduce".
>
> Eve was beguiled by a superior being (the serpent/Satan); Adam was not.
Why not say that Adam was beguiled by a superior being (Eve)?
There are so many games that are played with the Bible.
Quit playing them.
--Wax
polaris
polaris
Chuck Stamford
"polaris" <pol...@andromeda.galaxy> wrote in message
polaris
Chuck Stamford
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote
>
>>
>> Making plausible inferences about his procedures from his use of them
>> isn't pretending to know his personal likes and dislikes. Besides, he
>> was already
>> informed I've never attended a Sunday school in my life.
>
> I didn't say you went to Sunday School.
Oh come off it. You and I know you did in another post, and we both know
that adds a dimension to it here. If it was merely an unwise repetition
given your goal is being properly understood, then fine, I will accept that.
> My statement was to your "Sunday School interpretation of the Bible."
> It's didactic, narrow and lacking scholarship.
It enjoys a heck of a lot better "scholarship" than what's behind your
assertion that Matthew "twisted" Old Testament prophecy in his gospel, and
it's certainly no more narrow, and a heck of a lot less speculative in
nature. For example, I don't have to assume that I, as a Western, modern
man, know more about what Zechariah meant at a given passage, and more about
Hebrew poetry, than an educated Jew in 1st century Palestine did. What
would ever possess anyone to think such a thing? Yet it's like water off a
duck's back for you; you don't bat an eye at expressing that sort of bias;
likely don't ever regard it for the cultural chauvinism it so obviously is.
And I would have accepted it as the rhetorical scorn that so often
substitutes for sound defeaters around here, except for the fact that you
had already resorted to that particular concept to assume facts about my
background.
>
> The best source for learning about the Sumerian source for the Garden of
> Eden stories is the book "History Begins At Sumer" by Samuel Kramer, but
> a quick search of the internet might take you to
> http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/paradise.html
>
> Under the heading Lotan the Wikipedia says some of the same things I said
> about Leviathan:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotan
I've no doubt. Why haven't you addressed the Job and Isaiah references that
give us some reasons for thinking this term "leviathan" has more than one
meaning in Scripture? And what about your earlier assertion that in the
Ancient Near East (ANE) serpents were generally believed to have healing
powers? Clearly, not according to the Babylonian creation epic, which has
much clearly ties to Sumer than do the Hebrews.
"They banded themselves together and at the side of Tiamat they advanced;
They were furious; they devised mischief without resting night and day.
They prepared for battle, fuming and raging;
They joined their forces and made war,
Ummu-Hubur [Tiamat] who formed all things,
Made in addition weapons invincible; she spawned monster-serpents,
Sharp of tooth, and merciless of fang;
With poison, instead of blood, she filled their bodies.
Fierce monster-vipers she clothed with terror,
With splendor she decked them, she made them of lofty stature.
Whoever beheld them, terror overcame him,
Their bodies reared up and none could withstand their attack.
She set up vipers and dragons, and the monster Lahamu,
And hurricanes, and raging hounds, and scorpion-men,
And mighty tempests, and fish-men, and rams;
They bore cruel weapons, without fear of the fight."
[http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm]
Obviously this notion that snakes were generally regarded as healers in the
ANE (one of your earlier off the cuff remarks) needs some work, wouldn't you
say? I believe it would be a much easier task to document a contiguous
cultural strand between this particular creation story (ca. 1124 bc) and Mr.
Kramer's Sumer (which he evidently gets from Sumerian literary sources
dating ca. 1750 bc; see the Introduction to his book "Sumerian Mythology"
online at books.google.com, and enter the title in the search box. I'd give
you the link, but it's one of those that covers three lines of text, and I'm
afraid it would screw up the formatting of this post. In any case, I'm
confident he uses the same basic source in the book you've read.), than it
would be to show such a strand between Mr. Kramer's Sumer and the Hebrews
who eventually entered and conquered Canaan.
Tell you what: since I'm not going to run out and buy a book on the
recommendation of a total stranger, especially one who's whole baillywick
thus far has been either the misapplication of sound scholarship, over
reliance on controversial scholarship, or some combination thereof, why
don't you reproduce his premises, and his main arguments for their truth
that lead to the inescapable conclusion Moses got his creation story from
the Sumerians. Or does Kramer even support you in this?
Chuck Stamford
polaris
>sound scholarship
Yeah, let us know when you get around to learning something of this.
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <lyndalee8...@juno.com> wrote
(You didn't send this back to alt.messianic, so I don't see how you
thought I'd see it, but it turns out I did.) You may have a point
there if women are superior to men. ;-) But Eve's simple act of
offering could not be equated with beguiling.
>
> There are so many games that are played with the Bible.
> Quit playing them.
>
> --Wax
I am sincere in my belief and am not playing games with the
Scriptures. The "serpent"/Satan/"Lucifer" proved himself superior to
the other fallen angels by persuading or enchanting them into
following him, rather than remaining allied with God.