Adam & Eve

[PsychoSarah]

But if the Serpent is old isn't he also the Serpent of old?

Not any more than calling one of my great great great great great grandmothers my ancestor of old makes her the only great great great great great grandmother I have. For the actual number, it's 64, 64 biological great great great great great grandmothers. If I call one my ancestor of old, you'd have no idea which one. Furthermore, if calling the devil a serpent is figurative instead of literal, that destroys your argument entirely.

The way old is used in this regard I'm sure this being antedates the garden incident. As a spirit being the Serpent wouldn't get 'old' in the human sense of 'aging', therefore it would more properly be read that Serpent of old. This would support my supposition.

What is old? A rather abstract amount of time, isn't it? I'd call something 100 years old or young depending on context. Seriously, unless you already are assuming that only 1 serpent could possibly exist that would be referenced, and that the serpent description to the devil is literal, your reasoning makes absolutely no sense. You have no basis for those two assumptions, so, yes, your reasoning is highly flawed.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Not any more than calling one of my great great great great great grandmothers my ancestor of old makes her the only great great great great great grandmother I have. For the actual number, it's 64, 64 biological great great great great great grandmothers. If I call one my ancestor of old, you'd have no idea which one. Furthermore, if calling the devil a serpent is figurative instead of literal, that destroys your argument entirely.

Yeah, but there is only 1 devil....not 64. And as I pointed out earlier both Strong and Thayer ID the serpent as the devil according to Jewish belief...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yeah, but there is only 1 devil....not 64. And as I pointed out earlier both Strong and Thayer ID the serpent as the devil according to Jewish belief...

We are talking about IN THE BIBLE. How people have interpreted it in the past or present beyond what it actually says is irrelevant. If the bible is so vague on the matter that you have to use someone else's interpretation to defend yours, then your interpretation is just as much conjecture as before.

 

[civilwarbuff]

We are talking about IN THE BIBLE. How people have interpreted it in the past or present beyond what it actually says is irrelevant. If the bible is so vague on the matter that you have to use someone else's interpretation to defend yours, then your interpretation is just as much conjecture as before.

You do understand that Strong and Thayer are interpretations of the original Hebrew and Greek words of the Bible? Unless you can read Greek and Hebrew I would suggest you might want to pay attention.....

 

[PsychoSarah]

You do understand that Strong and Thayer are interpretations of the original Hebrew and Greek words of the Bible? Unless you can read Greek and Hebrew I would suggest you might want to pay attention.....

I had a friend of mine that can read the bible to me before. There are also various translations that are word for word online. She knows a ridiculous number of languages, like having my own personal Google Translate that actually works.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am just trying to help you to understand the Bible.

I understand it just fine. The fact that I am not a believer makes you assume that can't possibly be true, because you can't handle the idea that a person could read it and not believe it without being confused somehow.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I understand it just fine. The fact that I am not a believer makes you assume that can't possibly be true, because you can't handle the idea that a person could read it and not believe it without being confused somehow.

1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[PsychoSarah]

1 Corinthians 2:14

I know what the bible says. You do know that if the book itself is actually wrong, that statement within it isn't relevant, right? To a person unwilling to even consider the possibility of being wrong, my contention would appear as nonsense or reaffirmation of that line, but that unwillingness is in and of itself a limiter on the ability to debate. I not only could be wrong, but I hope that I am, but for most believers, that prospect is so terrifying and horrible that they would rather pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You do know that if the book itself is actually wrong, that statement within it isn't relevant, right?

You are right and 2+ billion Christians are wrong.....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I understand it just fine. The fact that I am not a believer makes you assume that can't possibly be true, because you can't handle the idea that a person could read it and not believe it without being confused somehow.

Then you do 'understand' that Eve nagged Adam into eating the fruit (this is a great spiritual truth not revealed in the usual translations).

 

[mmksparbud]

Well---I was going to step into this, however, I have a real problem debating with someone named PsychoSarah! What is Chaotic Neutral?--I'll probably wish I hadn't asked.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I understand it just fine. The fact that I am not a believer makes you assume that can't possibly be true, because you can't handle the idea that a person could read it and not believe it without being confused somehow.

The more I understand God's word the more convinced I am that unbelievers cannot understand it. That's why God instructs us to study his words in a spirit of belief. That is the only way He grants understanding.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The more I understand God's word the more convinced I am that unbelievers cannot understand it. That's why God instructs us to study his words in a spirit of belief. That is the only way He grants understanding.

And yet, reading the bible has been the biggest barrier to me becoming a believer in its teachings.

Consider this: what if it is actually the people that don't believe in the text that understand it the best, and the only way to believe in it is to either not have the reading comprehension to notice the stuff in it that is wrong, or to be so biased in favor of it that you make excuses for its flaws rather than acknowledge them? That, or being so scientifically illiterate, that you wouldn't be able to identify the flaws that aren't when the bible contradicts itself.

Assuming that I am the one at fault, and that there is no possible chance that it is actually you that is wrong, is unfair. Did you ever consider that the reason so many people that go to college end up losing their faith isn't because their faith wasn't strong or because they never truly understood the bible, but because they lacked the knowledge in other disciplines that would allow them to see the various flaws in the bible?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well---I was going to step into this, however, I have a real problem debating with someone named PsychoSarah! What is Chaotic Neutral?--I'll probably wish I hadn't asked.

XD XD XD your issue with me is my username that happens to be the name I go by in video games XD XD XD XD XD XD

Actual crazy people usually aren't aware that they are crazy.

Chaotic neutral is an alignment, but not even mine, I just found True Neutral to be pretentious. These also apply to role playing games more than real life. Your issue with debating me based on my username is hilarious.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then you do 'understand' that Eve nagged Adam into eating the fruit (this is a great spiritual truth not revealed in the usual translations).

I don't see how this is particularly important, but that is a reoccurring thing in the bible. Especially with the storyline regarding Samson.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are right and 2+ billion Christians are wrong.....

Often the majority of people are wrong at various points throughout history. Furthermore, those many Christians are highly divided in their biblical interpretations, so to assume that all of them agree that it is impossible for an atheist to understand the bible is laughable.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Did you ever consider that the reason so many people that go to college end up losing their faith isn't because their faith wasn't strong or because they never truly understood the bible, but because they lacked the knowledge in other disciplines that would allow them to see the various flaws in the bible?

If it weren't for the fact that what you wrote is more than 2 words it would be an oxymoron.....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And yet, reading the bible has been the biggest barrier to me becoming a believer in its teachings.

Consider this: what if it is actually the people that don't believe in the text that understand it the best, and the only way to believe in it is to either not have the reading comprehension to notice the stuff in it that is wrong, or to be so biased in favor of it that you make excuses for its flaws rather than acknowledge them? That, or being so scientifically illiterate, that you wouldn't be able to identify the flaws that aren't when the bible contradicts itself.

Assuming that I am the one at fault, and that there is no possible chance that it is actually you that is wrong, is unfair. Did you ever consider that the reason so many people that go to college end up losing their faith isn't because their faith wasn't strong or because they never truly understood the bible, but because they lacked the knowledge in other disciplines that would allow them to see the various flaws in the bible?

I'm guessing they weren't called and chosen in the first place ("Many are called but few are chosen"). I don't think God grants understanding to those He hasn't chosen at this time.

 

[civilwarbuff]

so to assume that all of them agree that it is impossible for an atheist to understand the bible is laughable.

OK, 1 Cor 2:14....what does it mean....it applies directly to atheists.....

 

[PsychoSarah]

If it weren't for the fact that what you wrote is more than 2 words it would be an oxymoron.....

How? How were the terms contradictory, and oxymorons are considered common phrases in addition to containing a contradiction of sorts. Also, number of words is irrelevant to being an oxymoron.