The plan of creation: Did God create humans to prove a point?

[Clare73]

Well, go back to the OP where I quote what the original hebrew meaning of "glory".


What do we see as the general theme throughout scripture? What are God's overwhelming attributes?

"In the Exodus 16:7, Israel will "see" the "armament" of YHWH, the one who has done battle for them with the Egyptians."

So it goes back to what I presented. . .the cosmic fight with Satan wherein Satan will be obliged to agree that God is just and right?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Jesus said that Scripture is not open to private interpretation. Private interpretation has led to many many false ideas, "claiming" to be from Scripture, but thinking after the way of man, and not of God.

Can you quote the scripture where Jesus said this specifically please.

 

[YahuahSaves]

So it goes back to what I presented. . .the cosmic fight with Satan wherein Satan will be obliged to agree that God is just and right?

I don’t think there's any "agreeing" on Satan's part, as he will be in chains forever... but he will be defeated (in fact, he already was at the cross) and why he's raged against God's people ever since. The question is, why did God not just defeat satan then and there and be done with it? why do believers have a continuing battle until Jesus returns?

 

[Clare73]

I don’t think there's any "agreeing" on Satan's part, as he will be in chains forever... but he will be defeated (in fact, he already was at the cross) and why he's raged against God's people ever since. The question is, why did God not just defeat satan then and there and be done with it? why do believers have a continuing battle until Jesus returns?

I think Scripture suggests that because God is Judge, he will therefore not only execute justice, but will oblige all to agree with it (Php 2:10-11), including Satan (proof of God's sovereignty), for he will be cleared (even by Satan) and vindicated of any charges of injustice when he judges (Ro 3:4).

 

[YahuahSaves]

including Satan (proof of God's sovereignty)

Just because satan and his demons bow, doesn't mean agreement. if that were the case, there would be no need for being chained for eternity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The devil if doing so,
but the translation serpent, snake, might be 'wrong' and was never have been an animal -
the devil is called a serpent by some, a snake by others, but not an animal.
The devil appears as if an angel of light,
which is something obviously that can and does talk, and deceive.

The translation is accurate. The Hebrew word refers, literally, to that very well known legless slithering reptile.

It is only because later, during the 2nd Temple period and the New Testament that we are clued in that the identity of the snake isn't that of an "ordinary" snake, but is identified with the devil. St. John's Apocalypse is the most obvious place where we read this in the entire Bible. But outside of the Canon of Scripture there are Jewish texts from the 2nd Temple period which mention it, one example of these being a 1st century work known as "The Life of Adam and Eve" which is an elaborate expansion on Adam and Eve's story.

But, in Genesis, in the Hebrew, the word literally just means snake. That it is to be understood as the devil, perhaps taking the form of a snake or possessing the body of a snake, or some other possible idea comes from a much later period where that interpretation is to be found.

This is also the reason why Christians regard the snake as the devil, while in modern Judaism it is regarded as nothing more than a snake. Judaism rejects that interpretation, whereas Christians accept it because it is found in our Scriptures and is the universal consensus of the Church since antiquity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just because satan and his demons bow, doesn't mean agreement. if that were the case, there would be no need for being chained for eternity.

The devil is chained for a season, during Christ's reign before He hands all things over to the Father. But when the End comes, that old snake isn't getting chained, he's getting damned. His end is doom.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[YahuahSaves]

Yes. The consequences put the serpent on its belly. Seems like leg removal to me.
The talking aspect is very curious. Unless all the animals were talking,
Eve's first comment to the serpent should have been,
"Oh, so you're talking now?" ???

I was looking for something else and found the "serpent" is actually a crocodile. qadash in hebrew

 

[Saint Steven]

I was looking for something else and found the "serpent" is actually a crocodile. qadash in hebrew

Reminds me of the song in the Disney movie, Peter Pan.

Never smile at a crocodile
No, you can't get friendly with a crocodile
Don't be taken in by his welcome grin
He's imagining how well you'd fit within his skin

 

[Clare73]

Just because satan and his demons bow, doesn't mean agreement. if that were the case, there would be no need for being chained for eternity.

Unless he just wanted out.

Would you refresh my memory on that, please?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I was looking for something else for another thread and came upon this, which adds another layer to angels. We know they cannot die, or else God would not have to chain the devil for eternity. They're the OG "Sons of God", according to what I've heard about the book of Enoch (yet to read it fully though). So if they never die, they must have been created from God...

Luke 20:34-36

34 Jesus replied, “Marriage is for people here on earth. 35 But in the age to come, those worthy of being raised from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage. 36 And they will never die again. In this respect they will be like angels. They are children of God and children of the resurrection.

You say, "So if they never die, they must have been created from God..."

Depending on what you mean by, 'from", there, I don't think you can know that, unless you see it as such in Scripture. That is your reasoning, and it looks reasonable on the surface, but we don't know enough about the spirit world and spirit beings, nor about how God created, to make a blanket statement there, I think.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was looking for something else and found the "serpent" is actually a crocodile. qadash in hebrew

The author there thinks that given some ambiguity of the use of the word נָחָשׁ nachash (qadash means "holy" or "consecrate") could refer to any reptile generally.

However the Hebrew word תַּנִּין taniyn while generally meaning crocodile, is used in some other interesting ways as well.

From what I can gather, the etymology of the two words provides some interesting information.

Nachash seems to derive from a Proto-Semitic word indicating a lion, as in the Akkadian "nēšu ša qaqqari", "snake" "chameleon", literally "lion of the ground". Whereas the word taniyn seems to have a root ultimately derived from the meaning of "underworld" in a reference to the force under the earth that causes earthquakes. Ancient people imagining earthquakes being caused by some great beast under the earth, then associated with perhaps sea-monsters (like the great sea-monster leviathan in Levantine mythology), but then used to describe the common crocodile.

Languages are interesting, because as languages evolve they continue to bear the interesting fingerprints of the thoughts and ideas of people from long ago. For example our English word "god" is ultimately derived from from an ancient Proto-Indo-European word that probably meant "to invoke" or "to pour libations for". Possibly originally used to indicate the spirits of recently buried dead. Whereas other Indo-European languages took the older *dyeu, meaning "to shine" or "sky" which evolved into the Latin word deus (and "Jupiter", literally from something like "dyeus phater", "sky-father"), the Greek word Zeus, and the Sanskrit daevas--though in the Vedic texts the daevas are hardly heavenly gods, but have instead become malevolent demon-like beings.

I don't know what validity there is to treating nachash as simply a general term for a reptile, but it is true that words have nuances and differences that change and evolve over time; though I think it's fairly safe to consider that the word as used in Genesis is referring to a snake specifically. And that is because snakes regularly, in the ancient near east, are associated with guile. In the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, it is a snake that tricks the hero Gilgamesh into giving over his immortality--though in the story the snake while a guileful trickster is not depicted as completely evil; likely with the serpent as frequently seen as a symbol of both death and rebirth, the ancient symbol of the ouroboros (snake eating its own tail) being an example of this. This serpent symbolism can be seen outside of Genesis in the Bible, as God instructs Moses to erect a bronze serpent to be a symbol through which God uses to heal his people of serpent bites, and even the Lord Jesus taught that while we should be gentle as doves to also be wise as serpents. Obviously snakes aren't actually wise, but the symbolism that was common in the ancient world is employed here.

So, in Genesis, it is a serpent who is a trickster that robs Adam and Eve of their eternal life in the Garden through the eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. And Christian exegesis has understood this to be a reference to the devil, it is the devil--rather than just an ordinary snake--that has done this. The snake being a creature associated with cunning, craftiness, guile, and death. But the story in Genesis, as is often the case, while sharing semiotic features with myths and stories of the Ancient Near East, does so in ways which subvert the usual tropes: the serpent that tricks Adam and Eve into eating the fruit which gets them kicked out of the Garden is not also a benefactor, but is purely a malevolent figure whom God curses and promises to ultimately destroy through the offspring of the very woman the snake sought to destroy by his guile.

As Christians we know, from this, that this is the promise of Christ who would come and defeat the devil and restore and reconcile Adam's progeny--the entire human race--from sin and death to God.

It should not be considered an accident that our Lord's Passion began, also, in a garden, and that the instrument of our redemption was also a tree--His cross.

-CrpytoLutheran

 

[Mark Quayle]

Just because satan and his demons bow, doesn't mean agreement. if that were the case, there would be no need for being chained for eternity.

Admitting can be agreement, but agreement is not submission.

 

[Saint Steven]

YahuahSaves said:

Just because satan and his demons bow, doesn't mean agreement. if that were the case, there would be no need for being chained for eternity.

Admitting can be agreement, but agreement is not submission.

Assuming you guys are discussing Philippians 2:10-11, you are missing the thrust of the definition of "acknowledge".
Anyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Source: Strong's Greek: 1843. ἐξομολογέω (exomologeó) -- to agree, confess

 

[sparow]

The way I see the verse personally, is to remind us that no matter what flesh-and-blood person comes against us - we are essentially in a fight with the "powers that be". Even if the spiritual enemy uses a person individually, we are still in a fight with that enemy and not the person. I think this is why Jesus speaks of forgiveness so often.


Well the hebrew only gives the title "satan" (adversary) to anything that's in opposition to God. And "Ha-Satan" (the adversary) to "the devil". Greek mythology was used in the NT quite often, even by the apostles, but I believe because of the times they were in, they often spoke symbolically to convey a message.

Behind every person should be an angelic force, such that flesh and blood is the meat in the sandwich.

I noticed there are three Greek words translated "devil", each meaning something different, none referring to Greek mythology.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Reminds me of the song in the Disney movie, Peter Pan.

Never smile at a crocodile
No, you can't get friendly with a crocodile
Don't be taken in by his welcome grin
He's imagining how well you'd fit within his skin

The creation/fall story would make a good musical

 

[YahuahSaves]

Unless he just wanted out.

Would you refresh my memory on that, please?

Huh? ..

Revelation 20:1-10

 

[YahuahSaves]

You say, "So if they never die, they must have been created from God..."

Depending on what you mean by, 'from", there, I don't think you can know that, unless you see it as such in Scripture. That is your reasoning, and it looks reasonable on the surface, but we don't know enough about the spirit world and spirit beings, nor about how God created, to make a blanket statement there, I think.

There's scriptures to support. I will be doing another thread some time on this very subject once I have my notes together

 

[YahuahSaves]

Languages are interesting, because as languages evolve they continue to bear the interesting fingerprints of the thoughts and ideas of people from long ago.

Yes I know, I was just having this conversation with my Dad last night. thanks for the informative post btw!

I don't know what validity there is to treating nachash as simply a general term for a reptile,

I believe the devil being depicted as a reptile is symbolism. They're cold-blooded, have scales and yes, are seen as cunning. Its interesting that the devil is also depicted as a dragon in revelation. Crocodiles are believed to have been around when the dinosaurs were on earth (makes another interesting speculation there, as to what the serpent might have been). Of course, its spiritual, not physical.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Admitting can be agreement, but agreement is not submission.

Exactly my point^