Were Serpents in Creation story flying dragons who could also talk and walk, or in fact Satan?

AdamjEdgar · Oct 1, 2021

I have tended to take the view that serpents in creation were able to fly and that after the deception of Adam and Eve, they lost the ability to fly.

I had I guess supposed that the reason the serpent could speak was because the devil had entered the snake...ie possessed the snake. However, I now wonder...

In the Genesis narrative, it's difficult to separate the envy and hatred of Satan from the snake in the garden...is the creation story really talking about the literal snake as we know them today at all or, is this simply a reference to Satan?

Genesis 3:1Now the serpenta was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’ ”

On the one hand we can read the Genesis account as illustrating that the devil simply possessed the snake in light of the way in which Genesis 3:1 reads

On the other hand, we can read the account as illustrating the Snake was actually the Devil himself and that he was envious of Adam and Eve.

Then we get thrown another curve ball in that Josephus states in his writings "Antiquities of the Jews" (book 1)

He also deprived the Serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground

Add Isaiah 14:29 into the mix and things really get interesting

"Do not rejoice, all you of Philistia, because the rod that struck you is broken; for out of the serpent's roots will come a viper, and its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent."

It seems that one may determine from the above references one of three possibilities:

1. that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was a walking talking snake, a lizard that could fly, a talking flying dragon!

2. The serpent was not a snake but the Devil himself

3. The more traditional view as i understand it, the devil possessed a beautiful flying snake and was speaking through it (which does not quite fit a couple of very specific Genesis statements and Josephus statements about the serpent..."was a very very crafty creature that could talk" and "had legs which were removed by God after the fall of man")

Are the medieval stories of flying dragons a little more realistic than we think?

thoughts?

Abaxvahl · Oct 1, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
I have tended to take the view that serpents in creation were able to fly and that after the deception of Adam and Eve, they lost the ability to fly.

Excluding for the moment medievil stories of flying dragons...

I had I guess supposed that the reason the serpent could speak was because the devil had entered the snake...ie possessed the snake. However, I now wonder...

In the Genesis narrative, it's difficult to separate the envy and hatred of Satan from the snake in the garden...is the creation story really talking about the literal snake as we know them today at all or, is this simply a reference to Satan?

Genesis 3:1Now the serpenta was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’ ”

On the one hand we can read the Genesis account as illustrating that the devil simply possessed the snake in light of the way in which Genesis 3:1 reads

On the other hand, we can read the account as illustrating the Snake was actually the Devil himself and that he was envious of Adam and Eve.

Josephus states in his writings "Antiquities of the Jews" (book 1)

He also deprived the Serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam

And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground

It seems that one may determine from the above references one of three possibilities:

1. that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was a walking talking snake, a lizard that could fly, a talking flying dragon!

2. The serpent was not a snake but the Devil himself

3. I think the more traditional view, the devil possessed a beautiful flying snake and was speaking through it (which does not quite fit a couple of very specific Genesis statements and Josephus statements about the serpent..."was a very very crafty creature that could talk" and "had legs which were removed by God after the fall of man")

thoughts?

IIRC it is a triple-pun (the word to describe it means serpent/deceiver/shining one) describing a serpentine (probably more dragon-like) spiritual being. When I first learned that view I thought it sounded legit, so it is the one I take. Not to mention it being referred to as "the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil" in the NT. Video that follows explains this view.

ewq1938 · Oct 2, 2021

2. The serpent was not a snake but the Devil himself

1rreducibly Complex · Oct 2, 2021

Matthew 12:34
34 Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Jesus refers to pharisees as offspring of vipers (sons of vipers?).

Most will say the relationship is implied figuratively.

But sometimes, I wonder if it has a more literal translation.

BeyondET · Oct 2, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
I have tended to take the view that serpents in creation were able to fly and that after the deception of Adam and Eve, they lost the ability to fly.

I had I guess supposed that the reason the serpent could speak was because the devil had entered the snake...ie possessed the snake. However, I now wonder...

In the Genesis narrative, it's difficult to separate the envy and hatred of Satan from the snake in the garden...is the creation story really talking about the literal snake as we know them today at all or, is this simply a reference to Satan?

Genesis 3:1Now the serpenta was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’ ”

On the one hand we can read the Genesis account as illustrating that the devil simply possessed the snake in light of the way in which Genesis 3:1 reads

On the other hand, we can read the account as illustrating the Snake was actually the Devil himself and that he was envious of Adam and Eve.

Then we get thrown another curve ball in that Josephus states in his writings "Antiquities of the Jews" (book 1)

He also deprived the Serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground

Add Isaiah 14:29 into the mix and things really get interesting

"Do not rejoice, all you of Philistia, because the rod that struck you is broken; for out of the serpent's roots will come a viper, and its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent."

It seems that one may determine from the above references one of three possibilities:

1. that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was a walking talking snake, a lizard that could fly, a talking flying dragon!

2. The serpent was not a snake but the Devil himself

3. The more traditional view as i understand it, the devil possessed a beautiful flying snake and was speaking through it (which does not quite fit a couple of very specific Genesis statements and Josephus statements about the serpent..."was a very very crafty creature that could talk" and "had legs which were removed by God after the fall of man")

Are the medieval stories of flying dragons a little more realistic than we think?

thoughts?

Interesting post indeed, well it seems in the garden the serpent was of the field so maybe it isn’t til later from its roots the field, a viper rises and it’s offspring is a flying serpent but yea a flying serpent is like a flying dragon.

maybe it’s a reference to revaluations in some way, satan being released, beast from the sea etc.

AdamjEdgar · Oct 2, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
IIRC it is a triple-pun (the word to describe it means serpent/deceiver/shining one) describing a serpentine (probably more dragon-like) spiritual being. When I first learned that view I thought it sounded
legit, so it is the one I take. Not to mention it being referred to as "the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil" in the NT. Video that follows explains this view.

an interesting video.
I am doubtful about the Garden of Eden representing Gods place of dwelling. I think that Moses sheds a different light on this in Gen 3

vs 8 Then the man and his wife heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the breezeb of the day, and they hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

i have heard and read a number of commentaries on this verse and the consensus has been that God came down and walked with Adam and Eve daily in the garden...likely in the evening (i would suggest quite possibly in the morning as well. I have tended to find that the breeze generally picks up in the middle of the day (due to sun heating the land as it moves across the sky drawing in cooler wind to replace rising heated air) however, there is often a special evening breeze that is unique to this time of the day and that seems to be a likely candidate.

Another factor in support of the view that God was not based in the Garden...The Apostle Paul seems to indicate that Adam was not by her side at the time of the deception

1 Timothy 2 13-14 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression

Therefore it appears that Eve wandered away from Adam in Genesis 3. If God was still in the garden, would not all of his creation wanted to remain with him and he with them (there were only two people alive on the earth at the time). This doesnt really fit the theme of the bible or indeed the narration by Moses here.

In the video, there is another problem...the video author i think implies that the Genesis account is generally metaphorical and not a true story. However, a little later in the video he uses the term "narrative" when describing what Moses has written. That is a very very big problem for me as its contradictory i believe.

The Bible does not make mention of any heavenly council on earth at this time. We know from the book of Revelation that the war in heaven was either immediately before, during or very soon after the earth was created (the dragon was hurled to the earth and his tail swept 1/3 of the stars down with it...stars here are very clearly angels).

That being the case, we know that God and evil do not co-exist in the same space...otherwise Satan would not have been thrown out of heaven with his angels!

Standford University - The Problem of Evil The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy - The Logical Problem of Evil https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

So, if Satan is cast down to the earth, why on earth would God setup his own headquarters here? It simply isnt consistent or logical and I am absolutely certain an incorrect assumption to make.

I like the video description moving forward from the 4 minute mark. Choosing between the Noun, Verb and Adjective options certainly shed a considerable light on who the serpent may be.

However, i think that after this point, the video heads off down a pathway that is problematic...it ignores the idea that Satan could have simply possessed the serpent in the same way Balaams donkey is possessed by an angel of God when it speaks to him in Numbers 22:22-30

SkyWriting · Oct 2, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
I have tended to take the view that serpents in creation were able to fly and that after the deception of Adam and Eve, they lost the ability to fly.

I had I guess supposed that the reason the serpent could speak was because the devil had entered the snake...ie possessed the snake. However, I now wonder...

In the Genesis narrative, it's difficult to separate the envy and hatred of Satan from the snake in the garden...is the creation story really talking about the literal snake as we know them today at all or, is this simply a reference to Satan?

Genesis 3:1Now the serpenta was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’ ”

On the one hand we can read the Genesis account as illustrating that the devil simply possessed the snake in light of the way in which Genesis 3:1 reads

On the other hand, we can read the account as illustrating the Snake was actually the Devil himself and that he was envious of Adam and Eve.

Then we get thrown another curve ball in that Josephus states in his writings "Antiquities of the Jews" (book 1)

He also deprived the Serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground

Add Isaiah 14:29 into the mix and things really get interesting

"Do not rejoice, all you of Philistia, because the rod that struck you is broken; for out of the serpent's roots will come a viper, and its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent."

It seems that one may determine from the above references one of three possibilities:

1. that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was a walking talking snake, a lizard that could fly, a talking flying dragon!

2. The serpent was not a snake but the Devil himself

3. The more traditional view as i understand it, the devil possessed a beautiful flying snake and was speaking through it (which does not quite fit a couple of very specific Genesis statements and Josephus statements about the serpent..."was a very very crafty creature that could talk" and "had legs which were removed by God after the fall of man")

Are the medieval stories of flying dragons a little more realistic than we think?

thoughts?

None of the Genesis story is literal. It is entirely about mans spiritual failure to be perfect. Once you get that, it all falls into place. Remember that God was walking around, so this was a Spiritual garden, not a weedy one. It had a couple of spiritual trees in it as well.

eleos1954 · Oct 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
None of the Genesis story is literal. It is entirely about mans spiritual failure to be perfect. Once you get that, it all falls into place. Remember that God was walking around, so this was a Spiritual garden, not a weedy one. It had a couple of spiritual trees in it as well.

None of the Genesis story is literal

Baloney

Jesus, who is the Word, created everything by simply speaking things into existence.

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days.
Now, consider Exodus 20:1: “And God spoke all these words, saying . . . .” Because Jesus is the Word, this must be a reference to the preincarnate Christ speaking to Moses. As we know, there are a number of appearances of Christ (theophanies) in the Old Testament. John 1:18 states: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” There is no doubt, with rare exception, that the preincarnate Christ did the speaking to Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, Moses, etc. Now, when the Creator God spoke as recorded in Exodus 20:1, what did He (Jesus) say? As we read on, we find this statement: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days. Not only this, but the one who spoke the words “six days” also wrote them down for Moses: “Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10).

Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?

SkyWriting · Oct 2, 2021

eleos1954 said:
Baloney

Jesus, who is the Word, created everything by simply speaking things into existence.

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days.
Now, consider Exodus 20:1: “And God spoke all these words, saying . . . .” Because Jesus is the Word, this must be a reference to the preincarnate Christ speaking to Moses. As we know, there are a number of appearances of Christ (theophanies) in the Old Testament. John 1:18 states: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” There is no doubt, with rare exception, that the preincarnate Christ did the speaking to Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, Moses, etc. Now, when the Creator God spoke as recorded in Exodus 20:1, what did He (Jesus) say? As we read on, we find this statement: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days. Not only this, but the one who spoke the words “six days” also wrote them down for Moses: “Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10).

Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?

Jesus wrote with His finger in the sand.
That is the only instance of Jesus writing anything.
We believe the sand has shifted since then.

Then for years, people wrote about God as they saw fit.

SkyWriting · Oct 2, 2021

eleos1954 said:
Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?

Not very clearly since the sun had not yet been created till day 4. The sun which creates light and shadow on the earth which rotates in relation to it and defines what a day is. On "day" four.

Nitsud · Oct 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
None of the Genesis story is literal. It is entirely about mans spiritual failure to be perfect. Once you get that, it all falls into place. Remember that God was walking around, so this was a Spiritual garden, not a weedy one. It had a couple of spiritual trees in it as well.

Satan is the great deceiver. Look he is working in your life very well.

SkyWriting · Oct 2, 2021

Nitsud said:
Satan is the great deceiver. Look he is working in your life very well.

And you imagine that you are different? Surprise!

Nitsud · Oct 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
Not very clearly since the sun had not yet been created till day 4. The sun which creates light and shadow on the earth which rotates in relation to it and defines what a day is. On "day" four.

A day is a full rotation of the Earth. Surely the God who is omnipresent would see when the Earth has rotated.

The Sun creates nothing. It emits photons which manifest as light to the eye. Faith in the truth tells me that if there were not a sun there would still be light.
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

I for one have been witness to the light that shone to me in the darkest moment of my life. The truth is that His light exists without the sun.

Nitsud · Oct 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
And you imagine that you are different? Surprise!

I surely have been deceived. But, not into questioning if the Bible is the truth.

AdamjEdgar · Oct 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
None of the Genesis story is literal. It is entirely about mans spiritual failure to be perfect. Once you get that, it all falls into place. Remember that God was walking around, so this was a Spiritual garden, not a weedy one. It had a couple of spiritual trees in it as well.

I think this is where a genuine discussion on the term "narrative" is applicable. A narrative is defined:

a spoken or written account of connected events;

the account can be for a completely fictitious story or real-life event. My question to you SkyWriting would be this,

At what point do you consider the Bible fictitious and fact? I believe it is a fairly universal consensus that 5 books of the bible are written by Moses...Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Are we to take Genesis as being fictional and those that speak very directly about the history of the children of Israel as fiction?

Would you agree that the giving of the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 and again in Deuteronomy are real? (may i add at this point, if you say no to this then you are in conflict with what Jesus said to the rich young ruler (if you look in a Bible concordance, you will immediately see that the commands Jesus quoted are from the 10 commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy).
If you then say that the Rich Young Ruler is a parable... at this point, i would really start to question not only your logic, but your Christianity also.

The entire problem with the theory that Genesis is fictional or metaphorical is this...

If it is metaphorical or fiction, how do you explain sin and the plan of salvation? The key points of this are the narrative concerning the fall of man, redemption of man at the cross, and the restoration of man (second coming and end of all sin).

SkyWriting said:
Jesus wrote with His finger in the sand.
That is the only instance of Jesus writing anything.
We believe the sand has shifted since then.

Then for years, people wrote about God as they saw fit.

I would argue that is a very unsupported view to hold. I would have to demand literary and biblical proof of such a view. Even secular literature alone would call that view questionable...it doesnt fit in with the way in which the bible is written when compared with universally accepted writing styles. See the thing is this, a narrative has to be taken as complete truth or complete fiction, it is impossible to claim the bible is not a narrative...that is already universally accepted as the writing style...especially the book of Genesis.

You can even google "which books of the Bible are narratives" and here is one result from that google search...
Genesis - Early World/patriarchs
Exodus - Story of Israel/Exodus
Numbers - Desert Wanderings
Joshua - Conquest of Canaan
Judges - Conquest and Judges
Samuel 1&2 - Royal Kingdom (saul)
Kings 1&2 - Royal kingdom
Ezra - the exile of Israelites Nehemiah - return from exile
Gospel of Luke - Life of Christ
Acts of the Apostles - early Christian church

You see the problem here yes? All of the books above, and indeed most of the Bible in intimately linked in narrating and illustrating exactly what sin has done to this world and how it is going to be fixed (for want of a better word). There are constant references back and forth between the New and Old Testaments...one cannot ignore one half of the Bible! Jesus and the apostles constantly made references even back to creation, the commandments, the Israelite exile...its impossible to claim parts of those things were a fable/fiction/ not literal. One cannot reference the creation story or the commandments in order to establish early Christian church doctrine if those passages being reference are not really true or did not really happen!

In our world today, how does one attain credibility in terms of say being a scholar? Let us think for a moment about the word "fraud" and add two names into the mix...Dr Ravi Zechariah and Dr James White (that should immediately raise a few eyebrows).

The credibility of the above two persons comes from the demonstration of a literal narrative of academic achievement and then a consistent application of the fundamental principles of that narrative in their daily lives. Dr White clearly demonstrates that he fulfilled all the requirements of that title he is given. Ravi Zechariah found himself moving from one scandal to another...ultimately culminating in his complete dethronement by even his own organization!

Ravi spent many years claiming Oxford and Cambridge university studies and theological institutional employment in high places in an effort to elevate himself...he bragged on about such things constantly. It seemingly gave him the upper hand in debates and certainly enabled his 500k+ per year income from public speaking engagements. IT is now of course known fact he even used this power against women for sexual gratification and dominance. Whilst his message was an interesting one and I have learned greatly from his words, his life was largely a lie!

What did Jesus say in Matthew 7:20, "by their fruits, ye shall know them"

I am not arguing that Ravi did not provide great insight and enlightenment, however, he was not a truthful man and a lot of people would have fallen away from Christianity as a result of his self-inflating attempts to give himself credibility without the appropriate qualifications and experience.

When we look at the Bible, we are searching for the source of all truth of our existence here. Because of the overall biblical theme and how it is interlinked, one must take either the WHOLE bible as being true or NONE of it as true (That is logical consistency)

SkyWriting said:
Not very clearly since the sun had not yet been created till day 4. The sun which creates light and shadow on the earth which rotates in relation to it and defines what a day is. On "day" four.

A great point and absolutely relevant to the discussion. What do you propose is the origin of the sun and the planets? (I am asking for both the theory and a timeline)

SkyWriting · Oct 2, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
I think this is where a genuine discussion on the term "narrative" is applicable. A narrative is defined:

a spoken or written account of connected events;
the account can be for a completely fictitious story or real-life event. My question to you SkyWriting would be this,
At what point do you consider the Bible fictitious and fact?

I've always held that the Bible is True.
I never hinted at fiction.

SkyWriting · Oct 2, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
I think this is where a genuine discussion on the term "narrative" is applicable. A narrative is defined:

a spoken or written account of connected events;

the account can be for a completely fictitious story or real-life event. My question to you SkyWriting would be this,

At what point do you consider the Bible fictitious and fact? I believe it is a fairly universal consensus that 5 books of the bible are written by Moses...Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Are we to take Genesis as being fictional and those that speak very directly about the history of the children of Israel as fiction?

Would you agree that the giving of the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 and again in Deuteronomy are real? (may i add at this point, if you say no to this then you are in conflict with what Jesus said to the rich young ruler (if you look in a Bible concordance, you will immediately see that the commands Jesus quoted are from the 10 commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy).
If you then say that the Rich Young Ruler is a parable... at this point, i would really start to question not only your logic, but your Christianity also.

The entire problem with the theory that Genesis is fictional or metaphorical is this...

If it is metaphorical or fiction, how do you explain sin and the plan of salvation? The key points of this are the narrative concerning the fall of man, redemption of man at the cross, and the restoration of man (second coming and end of all sin).

I would argue that is a very unsupported view to hold. I would have to demand literary and biblical proof of such a view. Even secular literature alone would call that view questionable...it doesnt fit in with the way in which the bible is written when compared with universally accepted writing styles. See the thing is this, a narrative has to be taken as complete truth or complete fiction, it is impossible to claim the bible is not a narrative...that is already universally accepted as the writing style...especially the book of Genesis.

You can even google "which books of the Bible are narratives" and here is one result from that google search...
Genesis - Early World/patriarchs
Exodus - Story of Israel/Exodus
Numbers - Desert Wanderings
Joshua - Conquest of Canaan
Judges - Conquest and Judges
Samuel 1&2 - Royal Kingdom (saul)
Kings 1&2 - Royal kingdom
Ezra - the exile of Israelites Nehemiah - return from exile
Gospel of Luke - Life of Christ
Acts of the Apostles - early Christian church

You see the problem here yes? All of the books above, and indeed most of the Bible in intimately linked in narrating and illustrating exactly what sin has done to this world and how it is going to be fixed (for want of a better word). There are constant references back and forth between the New and Old Testaments...one cannot ignore one half of the Bible! Jesus and the apostles constantly made references even back to creation, the commandments, the Israelite exile...its impossible to claim parts of those things were a fable/fiction/ not literal. One cannot reference the creation story or the commandments in order to establish early Christian church doctrine if those passages being reference are not really true or did not really happen!

In our world today, how does one attain credibility in terms of say being a scholar? Let us think for a moment about the word "fraud" and add two names into the mix...Dr Ravi Zechariah and Dr James White (that should immediately raise a few eyebrows).

The credibility of the above two persons comes from the demonstration of a literal narrative of academic achievement and then a consistent application of the fundamental principles of that narrative in their daily lives. Dr White clearly demonstrates that he fulfilled all the requirements of that title he is given. Ravi Zechariah found himself moving from one scandal to another...ultimately culminating in his complete dethronement by even his own organization!

Ravi spent many years claiming Oxford and Cambridge university studies and theological institutional employment in high places in an effort to elevate himself...he bragged on about such things constantly. It seemingly gave him the upper hand in debates and certainly enabled his 500k+ per year income from public speaking engagements. IT is now of course known fact he even used this power against women for sexual gratification and dominance. Whilst his message was an interesting one and I have learned greatly from his words, his life was largely a lie!

What did Jesus say in Matthew 7:20, "by their fruits, ye shall know them"

I am not arguing that Ravi did not provide great insight and enlightenment, however, he was not a truthful man and a lot of people would have fallen away from Christianity as a result of his self-inflating attempts to give himself credibility without the appropriate qualifications and experience.

When we look at the Bible, we are searching for the source of all truth of our existence here. Because of the overall biblical theme and how it is interlinked, one must take either the WHOLE bible as being true or NONE of it as true (That is logical consistency)

A great point and absolutely relevant to the discussion. What do you propose is the origin of the sun and the planets? (I am asking for both the theory and a timeline)

Jesus wrote in the sand. That is the only writing He is known to have written.
And what He wrote was not documented.

That's a pretty good clue that all of scripture is from the narrative of lay humans, as well as they remembered the stories they heard.

SkyWriting · Oct 2, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
A great point and absolutely relevant to the discussion. What do you propose is the origin of the sun and the planets? (I am asking for both the theory and a timeline)

Time didn't start before the beginning and perhaps not until Adam sinned.
All history is a narrative created by the writer, based on what mood they are in.

AdamjEdgar · Oct 3, 2021

SkyWriting said:
Time didn't start before the beginning and perhaps not until Adam sinned.
All history is a narrative created by the writer, based on what mood they are in.

oh man is this truly your view? That is in all honesty a very unsupported argument...do you have any scholarly references to support this statement?

Might i add, your other post where you stated that the only part of the bible that is literal is where Jesus wrote in the sand has an enormous problem...you have heard the textual criticism debate on the pericope adulterae yes?

There is very strong, almost irrefutable evidence, via writings of Eusebius and also Papias, that suggests that the story of the women caught in adultery was placed in the wrong book of the Bible...it may not even be authentic at all!

You have presented an argument here that appears to be reliant on a text from scripture that in almost all scholarly circles is considered added to the the Gospel of John in error. Note it is not found in any other Gospel which considering the significance of the story is rather strange!

That is a disaster for your view on bible literary classification.

SkyWriting · Oct 3, 2021

AdamjEdgar said:
oh man is this truly your view? That is in all honesty a very unsupported argument...do you have any scholarly references to support this statement?

Might i add, your other post where you stated that the only part of the bible that is literal is where Jesus wrote in the sand has an enormous problem...you have heard the textual criticism debate on the pericope adulterae yes?

There is very strong, almost irrefutable evidence, via writings of Eusebius and also Papias, that suggests that the story of the women caught in adultery was placed in the wrong book of the Bible...it may not even be authentic at all!

You have presented an argument here that appears to be reliant on a text from scripture that in almost all scholarly circles is considered added to the the Gospel of John in error. Note it is not found in any other Gospel which considering the significance of the story is rather strange!

That is a disaster for your view on bible literary classification.

ok

Were Serpents in Creation story flying dragons who could also talk and walk, or in fact Satan?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Newbie

Earth Treasures

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

God is Love

The Librarian

The Librarian

Active Member

The Librarian

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Similar threads