Dad on Youtube

[PsychoSarah]

This passage you can use as symbolism. Snake is a description of the way Satan is. Jesus is the Lamb of God, right? But He isn't a lamb, as far as I can tell.

So it really wasn't an animal that was talking to Eve. It was Satan who really appeared to her. He is also described as a Dragon in Révélations and a beast. However he is an angelic being, but an evil one.

So this can be symbolic or an allegory, but the rest can't -_- why?

 

[RealityCheck]

Yes!!! Exactly! So there is no definite 'it never happened'. There IS evidence but on top of this we have confusing evidence showing that the Flood does not make sense.

I think you misunderstood the point.

However, there is also evidence which must be ignored or dismissed because it should not be there if the Flood had occurred.

In scientific inquiries, evidence that contradicts a theory cannot be ignored or dismissed. Evidence that contradicts a theory indicates the theory is wrong at worst and incomplete at best.

You cannot take a narrow slice of evidence that appears to support a claim if interpreted a certain way, use that to support the claim, and ignore all the evidence that says the claim is wrong and contradictory to reality. If that's going to be your standard for judging whether a claim is correct or not, then you're forced to either accept any and every claim that comes along (because you have to accept the interpretation of what little evidence supports it and ignore everything that refutes it) or arbitrarily select what claims you're going to find credible and which ones aren't.

 

[RealityCheck]

This passage you can use as symbolism. Snake is a description of the way Satan is. Jesus is the Lamb of God, right? But He isn't a lamb, as far as I can tell.

So it really wasn't an animal that was talking to Eve. It was Satan who really appeared to her. He is also described as a Dragon in Révélations and a beast. However he is an angelic being, but an evil one.

So, why doesn't Genesis explicitly say that it was Satan, rather than confusing the issue with a symbolic representation of Satan?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes!!! Exactly! So there is no definite 'it never happened'. There IS evidence but on top of this we have confusing evidence showing that the Flood does not make sense.

So you choose to disregard any evidence which contradicts your predetermined conclusion.

 

[dad]

So, why doesn't Genesis explicitly say that it was Satan, rather than confusing the issue with a symbolic representation of Satan?

The bible is a big book, not every detail needs to be in Genesis. From other books, we can pin the name tail on the donkey.

 

[dad]

I find that the prophecies rely on vagueness and aren't used to predict events before they happen. Instead they are interpreted after an event to provide justification that Christians "knew that would happen!" It's like how people claim Nostradamus predicted 9/11 or any other event.

Take this derail about Chernobyl in the Bible for example. A poster claims that the Bible predicted the nuclear incident in Chernobyl.

I respond by wondering why nobody that read the Bible tried to evacuate Chernobyl or alert the world about what would happen. What use is a prediction that doesn't predict something before it happens?

That is silly. grasping at some straw to pretend the bible prophesied something is unrelated to actual prophesy.

 

[dad]

This passage you can use as symbolism. Snake is a description of the way Satan is.

I suppose if a serpent was possessed by Satan causing the fall of man, he could get associated for more than one reason.

 

[dad]

And back to Tyre. Yes, Tyre was attacked many times over the years. But it was a target before the prophecy. Since it was going to get attacked anyway that means the pose Nebby attacks are not valid.

And even if they were valid, which they clearly aren't, the prophecy still has not been fulfilled. The island was never to be found again. It was never to be built upon again. It has been rebuilt and I showed it to you on a map. The prophecy failed.

Lastly you need to look at who the prophecy was aimed at. It was clearly aimed at the people of Tyre at that time. Ezekiel want to put the fear of God into those people. Since the prophecy failed, and even Ezekiel admitted as much, those people were not too impressed.

Since Tyre as was pointed out is going to be here in the end, the final fulfilment is yet to come.

 

[dad]

Not when it talks about a global Flood; that never happened.

It sure did.

 

[dad]

Marx never expected to live long enough to see religion die out.

I don't mind that you don't fault the religion itself for the violence, people would have likely found another excuse to kill each other, but the church organization did encourage the violence and fan the flames.

So that tells me this organization is not of God.

 

[dad]

Yes, I would.

You are lowering the value of all Old Testament prophesies.

The Tyre prophesy was meant to affect the people at the time it was given. It is still a terribly failed prophesy and even Ezekiel new it.

Pulling a verse that just happens to mention the obviously still existing Tyre has nothing to do with the original failed prophesy.

One must comprehend that if Tyre is here when the end is near, that failing prophesy is nothing to fear.

 

[anyathesword]

So this can be symbolic or an allegory, but the rest can't -_- why?

In the way it is written. Such as in the first chapter is repeats "God said.." and "It was good" several times showing the importance of what happened.

It is best to study the way parts of passages are written. You can compare different accounts such as the Songs of Solomon, Proverbs, and the Parables to see how they are very different in the way they are written compared to Genesis.

 

[anyathesword]

So, why doesn't Genesis explicitly say that it was Satan, rather than confusing the issue with a symbolic representation of Satan?

It is using an animal that we humans know to try and give us understanding of how Satan was/is. To understand his characteristics and the way he is portrayed.

We see that with Jesus as portrayed as the Lamb. We also see in all kinds of literature where animals are used as descriptions for actual people.

It is just to give us an easier understanding of who Satan is.

 

[anyathesword]

So you choose to disregard any evidence which contradicts your predetermined conclusion.

I don't disregard any evidence. I showed the evidence for the destruction of ancient Tyre.

YOU all choose to disregard many many historical évidences and fulfillments of prophecies no matter what kind.

 

[anyathesword]

I suppose if a serpent was possessed by Satan causing the fall of man, he could get associated for more than one reason.

What do you mean?

(For your new videos, my advice is use your own voice, but just speed up a little when you talk. Do not go so slow. But please use your voice, not the women's voice...)

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is best to study the way parts of passages are written. You can compare different accounts such as the Songs of Solomon, Proverbs, and the Parables to see how they are very different in the way they are written compared to Genesis.

Different authors in different time periods will have that effect.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In the way it is written. Such as in the first chapter is repeats "God said.." and "It was good" several times showing the importance of what happened.

It is best to study the way parts of passages are written. You can compare different accounts such as the Songs of Solomon, Proverbs, and the Parables to see how they are very different in the way they are written compared to Genesis.

Saying it was good over and over doesn't mean it can't be allegory.

 

[dad]

What do you mean? ...

I mean that Satan was in the creature (serpent) and spoke to Eve. So if we call him the ol serpent, that would be more than just a casual description. The serpent never used to be a snake, or crawl on the ground, that was a curse, I assume that the creature had for allowing itself to be possessed. No?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I mean that Satan was in the creature (serpent) and spoke to Eve. So if we call him the ol serpent, that would be more than just a casual description. The serpent never used to be a snake, or crawl on the ground, that was a curse, I assume that the creature had for allowing itself to be possessed. No?

Perhaps, it makes more sense that way, obviously crawling on the ground isn't a punishment to a snake, which already does that.

 

[dad]

Perhaps, it makes more sense that way, obviously crawling on the ground isn't a punishment to a snake, which already does that.

Right, the serpent only ate dust, as it were, after it was cursed. More evidence of rapid evolution in action All laws and forces obey God's voice and will. Instantly.