- Apr 14, 2003
- 7,490
- 1,319
- 72
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't put any value in any of commentaries idk why u quote them as some sort of authority when there is thousands of them disagreeing with each other most of time.
It's mistranslations it's shinning one not snake from hebrew.
Ezekiel 28:13-19
Besides the mistranslation probably happend because cherubim have 4 heads with animal faces so any of the combination of :snake , ox , eagle , man or lion
This is an immediate error in logic, for it does not follow from observable reality; for we can see, through the fossil record, that many astonishing creatures existed that are no longer around today; thus, your conclusion is false, fundamentally.In Genesis 3, a serpent, or snake, talks with Eve. In Genesis 3:14-15, God says that the serpent will lose its legs. God doesn’t say that the serpent will no longer be able to talk or no longer have the intelligence to talk. We know there are no talking snakes today. Snakes do not have the vocal cords for speech, or any brain that could carry on a conversation.
This conclusion is more faulty than it's premise, for it is purely an assumption derived from the previous conjecture, yet it does not follow from it, at all.All of this fits with the creation story in Genesis 2-3 being a parable for our instruction. It is not history. It doesn’t take place in the real world. The talking snake is a literary device.
The question is malformed, because it is based on the aforementioned faulty premises. --it remains reality, that what existed in the past is not required to exist now. (This ought not seem dubious to anyone.)For creationists, God did not take the serpent’s voice away, or say that it would lose intelligence to become a dumb animal. If there were talking snakes only six thousand years ago, when many creationists believe the world was created, there should be talking snakes today. How do creationists explain this?
This failure to understand the meaning of the first book is caused by ignorance of the last book, for in it, the identity of Satan is spelled out, viz:Many creationists have been taught that Eve was tempted by Satan. They have been taught to substitute “Satan” for “snake” or serpent. Yet Genesis says nothing about Satan being in the Garden of Eden. This could be one reason creationists don’t ask when snakes lost their voices, they think of the snake as a manifestation of Satan. Yet Genesis says no such thing. God talks about the serpent as a real animal when it says it will “crawl on its belly,” or lose its legs.
That malformed question is derived from the aforementioned faulty premises.If God didn’t take away the snake’s voice or its intelligence at the Expulsion from Eden, why don’t snakes talk today? It’s something for creationists to think about.
You failed to realize that the first mention of Satan was, indeed, in Genesis.The King James Version does mention devils more often than most modern translation. Even so, the first mention of Satan in the KJV is in I Chronicles.
Yes, the old serpent, the Devil, up to what he's always been up to, since the beginning, deception.And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
I Chronicles 21:1 KJV
Yes, that old serpent, Satan, deceiving people into worshiping him--it's his modus operandi.The first mention of devil or devils in the KJV is in Leviticus.
Yup.And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after
whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them
throughout their generations. Leviticus 17:7 KJV
You are wrong, unequivocally: anywhere the serpent is mentioned is referring to the red dragon, Satan, for that is but one of his names, yet his mo remains the same, deception, period.There is no mention of Devil or Satan in Eden, or in any other part of Genesis.
I haveHave you ever heard a sermon preached on Numbers 22? I don't remember hearing one.
This is an immediate error in logic, for it does not follow from observable reality; for we can see, through the fossil record, that many astonishing creatures existed that are no longer around today; thus, your conclusion is false, fundamentally.
This conclusion is more faulty than it's premise, for it is purely an assumption derived from the previous conjecture, yet it does not follow from it, at all.
The question is malformed, because it is based on the aforementioned faulty premises. --it remains reality, that what existed in the past is not required to exist now. (This ought not seem dubious to anyone.)
This failure to understand the meaning of the first book is caused by ignorance of the last book, for in it, the identity of Satan is spelled out, viz:
"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." --Revelation 12:9
"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," --Revelation 20:2
The old serpent is called the Devil and Satan: those are the names of the red dragon that deceives the whole world. (This is common knowledge to most believers.)
That malformed question is derived from the aforementioned faulty premises.
You failed to realize that the first mention of Satan was, indeed, in Genesis.
Yes, the old serpent, the Devil, up to what he's always been up to, since the beginning, deception.
Yes, that old serpent, Satan, deceiving people into worshiping him--it's his modus operandi.
Yup.
You are wrong, unequivocally: anywhere the serpent is mentioned is referring to the red dragon, Satan, for that is but one of his names, yet his mo remains the same, deception, period.
Yes, of course, many, but the dragons are the most notable, and my favorites; because I believe that it was a dragon of great splendor that spoke with Eve, and it is great dragons that we see have been eradicated; thus to me, this shows that God's word had an immediate effect on the serpents of old, not just to shame that particular dragon, but to cause an enmity between men and his kind, that to this day remains unshakable; moreover, and of greater significance, is also the spiritual side to what God said, for indeed He was speaking with more significance to the seed that should come through woman, the seed that will subdue the seed that came through serpents, the very word of God, the truth made flesh: this is He who is born of God, to vanquish, forever, what is born of Satan.Any others?
Dragons.
This is an immediate error in logic, for it does not follow from observable reality; for we can see, through the fossil record, that many astonishing creatures existed that are no longer around today; thus, your conclusion is false, fundamentally.
This conclusion is more faulty than it's premise, for it is purely an assumption derived from the previous conjecture, yet it does not follow from it, at all.
The question is malformed, because it is based on the aforementioned faulty premises. --it remains reality, that what existed in the past is not required to exist now. (This ought not seem dubious to anyone.)
This failure to understand the meaning of the first book is caused by ignorance of the last book, for in it, the identity of Satan is spelled out, viz:
"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." --Revelation 12:9
"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," --Revelation 20:2
The old serpent is called the Devil and Satan: those are the names of the red dragon that deceives the whole world. (This is common knowledge to most believers.)
That malformed question is derived from the aforementioned faulty premises.
You failed to realize that the first mention of Satan was, indeed, in Genesis.
Yes, the old serpent, the Devil, up to what he's always been up to, since the beginning, deception.
Yes, that old serpent, Satan, deceiving people into worshiping him--it's his modus operandi.
Yup.
You are wrong, unequivocally: anywhere the serpent is mentioned is referring to the red dragon, Satan, for that is but one of his names, yet his mo remains the same, deception, period.
I understand dinosaurs to be dragons; that is what I mean by the term dragon, I simply mean great reptile of various specie and kinds.It is very likely that legends of dragons came from dinosaur bones. It is not unusual for erosion to expose dinosaur bones, for instance. Primitive peoples saw them and weren’t sure if such creatures were still around or not.
You've greatly misunderstood: I said anywhere the serpent is mentioned, not anywhere a serpent is mentioned, for the latter would be absurd. --You've confused the definite article the with the indefinite article a, they are not even remotely the same, for one means only, and the other means any.Religion: << You are wrong, unequivocally: anywhere the serpent is mentioned is referring to the red dragon, Satan, for that is but one of his names, yet his mo remains the same, deception, period. >>
Religiot, there must be parts of the Bible that you aren’t familiar with.
Moses held up a bronze snake before the Israelites in the wilderness.
The Bronze Snake
4They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”
6 Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you. Pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.
8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.
Numbers 21: 5-9 NIV
Surely Moses did not mean to honor Satan by putting a bronze snake on a pole, to be seen by everyone in the camp of the Israelites. God would not tell Moses to do such a thing. The scripture specifically says that the snakes were sent by God, so they are not under the Devil's power.
This isn't just a piece of Old Testament trivia, it is referred to in the Gospels.
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
John 3: 14-15 NIV
This is Jesus speaking to Nicodemus, just before John 3:16. Not only does Moses hold up a bronze snake in the wilderness for healing of a plague, Jesus compares himself to the bronze snake. We cannot conclude that a snake or serpent always refers to the devil, it obviously means different things in different passages.
You want to determine which parts of the Bible are true and which are not by how many sermons are preached about it? Ridiculous.
How about actually believing the God who created snakes and donkeys, and you? If God can make you talk, why not snakes as well. God could make a snake fly through the air if He wanted.
In Genesis 3, a serpent, or snake, talks with Eve. In Genesis 3:14-15, God says that the serpent will lose its legs. God doesn’t say that the serpent will no longer be able to talk or no longer have the intelligence to talk. We know there are no talking snakes today. Snakes do not have the vocal cords for speech, or any brain that could carry on a conversation.
All of this fits with the creation story in Genesis 2-3 being a parable for our instruction. It is not history. It doesn’t take place in the real world. The talking snake is a literary device.
For creationists, God did not take the serpent’s voice away, or say that it would lose intelligence to become a dumb animal. If there were talking snakes only six thousand years ago, when many creationists believe the world was created, there should be talking snakes today. How do creationists explain this?
Many creationists have been taught that Eve was tempted by Satan. They have been taught to substitute “Satan” for “snake” or serpent. Yet Genesis says nothing about Satan being in the Garden of Eden. This could be one reason creationists don’t ask when snakes lost their voices, they think of the snake as a manifestation of Satan. Yet Genesis says no such thing. God talks about the serpent as a real animal when it says it will “crawl on its belly,” or lose its legs.
If God didn’t take away the snake’s voice or its intelligence at the Expulsion from Eden, why don’t snakes talk today? It’s something for creationists to think about.
The King James Version does mention devils more often than most modern translation. Even so, the first mention of Satan in the KJV is in I Chronicles.
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
I Chronicles 21:1 KJV
The first mention of devil or devils in the KJV is in Leviticus.
And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after
whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them
throughout their generations. Leviticus 17:7 KJV
There is no mention of Devil or Satan in Eden, or in any other part of Genesis.
It is not a bad translation. It was intentional. The difference between a snake (saraph) and seraph is one swiggle in hebrew (look up Michael Heisers work). I believe it was Godly sarcasm. Imagine the highest order of angel willfully sabotaging Eden. Instead "wayward Morning Star", "snake" is used. Instead of "billionaire playboy", "pedo" is used. It is very funny.I don't put any value in any of commentaries idk why u quote them as some sort of authority when there is thousands of them disagreeing with each other most of time.
It's mistranslations it's shinning one not snake from hebrew.
Ezekiel 28:13-19
Besides the mistranslation probably happend because cherubim have 4 heads with animal faces so any of the combination of :snake , ox , eagle , man or lion
Not until verse 15 do we begin to understand who this serpent is. His seed and the seed of the woman will encounter each other one day only to see how he will be crushed and never again be able to deceive the nations. Be blessed.In Genesis 3, a serpent, or snake, talks with Eve. In Genesis 3:14-15, God says that the serpent will lose its legs. God doesn’t say that the serpent will no longer be able to talk or no longer have the intelligence to talk. We know there are no talking snakes today. Snakes do not have the vocal cords for speech, or any brain that could carry on a conversation.
All of this fits with the creation story in Genesis 2-3 being a parable for our instruction. It is not history. It doesn’t take place in the real world. The talking snake is a literary device.
For creationists, God did not take the serpent’s voice away, or say that it would lose intelligence to become a dumb animal. If there were talking snakes only six thousand years ago, when many creationists believe the world was created, there should be talking snakes today. How do creationists explain this?
Many creationists have been taught that Eve was tempted by Satan. They have been taught to substitute “Satan” for “snake” or serpent. Yet Genesis says nothing about Satan being in the Garden of Eden. This could be one reason creationists don’t ask when snakes lost their voices, they think of the snake as a manifestation of Satan. Yet Genesis says no such thing. God talks about the serpent as a real animal when it says it will “crawl on its belly,” or lose its legs.
If God didn’t take away the snake’s voice or its intelligence at the Expulsion from Eden, why don’t snakes talk today? It’s something for creationists to think about.
The King James Version does mention devils more often than most modern translation. Even so, the first mention of Satan in the KJV is in I Chronicles.
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
I Chronicles 21:1 KJV
The first mention of devil or devils in the KJV is in Leviticus.
And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after
whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them
throughout their generations. Leviticus 17:7 KJV
There is no mention of Devil or Satan in Eden, or in any other part of Genesis.
God will never abuse suspension of disbelief, to make a point the Holy Spirit cannot echo.
If the Holy Spirit can echo everything God does, there is no reason to fear sin.
The more mysterious belief in God becomes, the readier you are to embrace the miracles that are still to come.
To add for clarity in my post, the two seeds that had enmity are Jesus Christ of Nazareth and the adversary Satan.In Genesis 3, a serpent, or snake, talks with Eve. In Genesis 3:14-15, God says that the serpent will lose its legs. God doesn’t say that the serpent will no longer be able to talk or no longer have the intelligence to talk. We know there are no talking snakes today. Snakes do not have the vocal cords for speech, or any brain that could carry on a conversation.
All of this fits with the creation story in Genesis 2-3 being a parable for our instruction. It is not history. It doesn’t take place in the real world. The talking snake is a literary device.
For creationists, God did not take the serpent’s voice away, or say that it would lose intelligence to become a dumb animal. If there were talking snakes only six thousand years ago, when many creationists believe the world was created, there should be talking snakes today. How do creationists explain this?
Many creationists have been taught that Eve was tempted by Satan. They have been taught to substitute “Satan” for “snake” or serpent. Yet Genesis says nothing about Satan being in the Garden of Eden. This could be one reason creationists don’t ask when snakes lost their voices, they think of the snake as a manifestation of Satan. Yet Genesis says no such thing. God talks about the serpent as a real animal when it says it will “crawl on its belly,” or lose its legs.
If God didn’t take away the snake’s voice or its intelligence at the Expulsion from Eden, why don’t snakes talk today? It’s something for creationists to think about.
The King James Version does mention devils more often than most modern translation. Even so, the first mention of Satan in the KJV is in I Chronicles.
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
I Chronicles 21:1 KJV
The first mention of devil or devils in the KJV is in Leviticus.
And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after
whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them
throughout their generations. Leviticus 17:7 KJV
There is no mention of Devil or Satan in Eden, or in any other part of Genesis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?