Do Genesis literalists also take the rest of the Bible literally?

[Wiccan_Child]

Into what?

Into believing the wrong thing.

the Bible portrays him as a liar.

Indeed - what a fantastically convoluted double-bluff!

That the Bible portrays Satan as a liar might be the only true thing in there, in the hypothetical. Maybe Satan wrote it in there as a double-bluff. Maybe God restricts himself (much as he does to preserve free will), and his only influence in the Bible's composition is the line "Satan is a liar!".

Are you saying Satan wrote the Bible to fool us by portraying himself as a liar, when in fact he wasn't?

No, I'm saying he wrote the Bible into fooling us into not giving our diabetic children insulin, or nailbombing gay bars, or burning Qu'rans. Or maybe his goals are more spiritual: by making people believe this false book, they're fooled into not following the true religion and are therefore damned to hell. Or maybe Satan is just insane.

Whatever his reasons, can you refute the idea that he, and not God, authored the Bible?

I also use the example whenever people claim to 'hear' God, or that God is talking to them. How do they know it's God, and not Satan tricking them for his own kicks?

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever his reasons, can you refute the idea that he, and not God, authored the Bible?

As my pastor says, Satan isn't that smart.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm pointing out that you have no way of knowing it isn't true. (Actually, I'm riding on Wiccan's coattails, but I approve of the point he's making.)

If you don't believe it, then I'm wasting my time discussing this with you, aren't I?

If neither you, nor I, believe Satan wrote the Bible, then let's just shake hands and agree to agree agreeably, eh?

 

[And-U-Say]

As my pastor says, Satan isn't that smart.

I don't know about that. The bible is an extremely simplistic piece of work. Rambling. Convoluted. Conflicting. Some huckster in up state New York wrote the even newer testament and millions believe it with the same fervent faith as part one and/or part two. And if a huckster can write a bible and get so many followers, I think Satan could, too. That might just explain a lot.

 

[And-U-Say]

Does that portrait include himself as a defeated foe?

Doesn't seem very defeated to me. He gets an awful lot of credit for the events on this planet. And even more credit for the actions of humans. Most people are not christians, and when you think about denominations, most people are not of the right denomination either. As Jesus said, if you are not with me, then you are against me. It would seem that the vast majority of humankind follows Satan. I don't think we have a loser, i think we have a winner!

 

[AV1611VET]

Some huckster in up state New York wrote the even newer testament and millions believe it with the same fervent faith as part one and/or part two.

I promise you, no huckster in New York will ever fool a KJVO with 'an even newer testament.'

And while I can't believe I'm actually having a conversation with atheists (of all people) about who wrote the Bible ... Satan or God ... I guess I have to admit I'm bored.

I notice that, even when I agree with you guys on issues (like the age of the universe), you still want to argue the point with me; and I feel it's simply because you guys have some pent-up feelings towards God and/or His people that you need to vent.

When I see atheists (of all people) discussing the plausibility of Satan having written the Bible, then I submit that as evidence that he didn't.

Either that, or if you guys are atheists, then I'm Hitler.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As my pastor says, Satan isn't that smart.

And the same question applies to your pastors claims to knowledge: how does he know the difference between a dumb Satan, and a bluffing Satan? If his answer is "God told me!", that just pushes it back a step - how does he know it was God, and not a bluffing Satan, who told him?

I promise you, no huckster in New York will ever fool a KJVO with 'an even newer testament.'

And while I can't believe I'm actually having a conversation with atheists (of all people) about who wrote the Bible ... Satan or God ... I guess I have to admit I'm bored.

I notice that, even when I agree with you guys on issues (like the age of the universe), you still want to argue the point with me; and I feel it's simply because you guys have some pent-up feelings towards God and/or His people that you need to vent.

When I see atheists (of all people) discussing the plausibility of Satan having written the Bible, then I submit that as evidence that he didn't.

Either that, or if you guys are atheists, then I'm Hitler.

We're well aware who wrote the Bible - men. The point is that any claim of divine intervention (God's alleged hand in writing the Bible, God's alleged voice being heard inside a pastor's head, etc) aren't know with 100% certainty. It could be Satan fooling you for his own ends, and I welcome you to prove otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't seem very defeated to me.

He might be your hero, but he's not mine.

To quote Jesus: TETELESTAI!

Atheists and scientists can't say that, can they?

 

[AV1611VET]

And the same question applies to your pastors claims to knowledge: how does he know the difference between a dumb Satan, and a bluffing Satan?

At the risk of sounding repetitive, the Bible portrays Satan as a defeated liar.

He's locked in a bottomless pit for one thousand years, while his Antagonist rules and reigns on the earth; and when he is finally let loose, he makes another attempt to defeat Him, only to be banished forever in Lake Phlogiston.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me ask you Satan-loving scientists a serious question, just to see if you have the guts to answer it.

Is Judas the hero of the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

We're well aware who wrote the Bible - men.

Uh-huh.

This coming after you guys finally showed your true colors?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

At the risk of sounding repetitive, the Bible portrays Satan as a defeated liar.

He's locked in a bottomless pit for one thousand years, while his Antagonist rules and reigns on the earth; and when he is finally let loose, he makes another attempt to defeat Him, only to be banished forever in Lake Phlogiston.

Right, the Bible portrays him as that. The Bible portrays him as defeated, locked away, etc. And yet, if the Bible was written by Satan, if it was a lie and a hoax, then its portrayal of him may also be incorrect, in part or in whole.

If your only source of information is the Bible, and the Bible is authored by Satan and therefore full of lies (give or take), wouldn't that make the information you glean from the Bible untrustworthy?

My point isn't to seriously suggest that Satan wrote the Bible. My point is that claims like "God told me, so it must be true!" are utterly untrustworthy as sole sources of information.

Let me ask you Satan-loving scientists a serious question, just to see if you have the guts to answer it.

Is Judas the hero of the Bible?

I'm not a Satan-loving scientist, but I'll have a stab at it.

IMO, no.

Uh-huh.

This coming after you guys finally showed your true colors?

Err... which were?

You know I used the word 'hypothetical' for a reason, right?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If you don't believe it, then I'm wasting my time discussing this with you, aren't I?

If neither you, nor I, believe Satan wrote the Bible, then let's just shake hands and agree to agree agreeably, eh?

No, because how I view the Bible isn't the point. It is the shortcomings of your own view that are being highlighted:

1. Your belief that the Bible was written by God is not in any way verifiable.

2. In fact, your belief system is so flawed that it demands you actively reject any evidence, whatever it is, that conflicts in any way with your unverifiable belief that God is the Bible's author.

2. This puts you in such a position that you cannot prove or know in any way at all that satan didn't dictate the Bible himself or interfere in its transcription to fool you. Your own totally blind, unthinking belief that demands you reject any contrary evidence, leaves you not only wide open to this possibility, but positively inviting it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

And it has to be said, given the contents of the Bible, that the idea that you are the butt of an evil trick is actually a little less unlikely than your own belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

2. In fact, your belief system is so flawed that it demands you actively reject any evidence, whatever it is, that conflicts in any way with your unverifiable belief that God is the Bible's author.

Show me this evidence that conflicts with my belief that God is the Bible's author, please, and I'll be happy to reject it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Show me this evidence that conflicts with my belief that God is the Bible's author, please, and I'll be happy to reject it.

I've just rephrased your boolean standards, that is all. You really need to be reminded?

Now, have you got the point we are trying to get through to you? Has any part of it penetrated the concrete?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've just rephrased your boolean standards, that is all. You really need to be reminded?

Now, have you got the point we are trying to get through to you? Has any part of it penetrated the concrete?

Oh, I get it perfectly well.

That's why I ask you guys ... (but you won't answer) ... if you believe that as well.

And if you don't, then why should I?

You're just trying to convince me of something you don't believe in the first place, aren't you?

(In an earlier post, I used the term "Satan-loving scientists." Here's your chance to tell me I'm wrong, and I'll delete it.)

Once again ... if we're on the same page already, then why are we having this conversation?

 

[mzungu]

He might be your hero, but he's not mine.

To quote Jesus: TETELESTAI!

Atheists and scientists can't say that, can they?

I thought the KJV only uses English words

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh, I get it perfectly well.

That's why I ask you guys ... (but you won't answer) ... if you believe that as well.

And if you don't, then why should I?

We're not saying you should. We're saying it's a possibility that Ubogion dismisses without good reason, and which nullifies his argument.

(In an earlier post, I used the term "Satan-loving scientists." Here's your chance to tell me I'm wrong, and I'll delete it.)

You're wrong.

Once again ... if we're on the same page already, then why are we having this conversation?

Because Ubogion made the claim that the Flood happened, and "that God cleaned up and left a note so you know truth when you read His note". My alternative hypothesis is that in fact, there was no Flood, there was no supernatural clean-up, and the 'note' alleging otherwise is a forgery by Satan. No one's saying this is what actually happened, but the possibility of it refutes Ubogion's argument.

It's also an interesting philosophical discussion on how you can tell the difference between genuine divine revelation/authorship and a hoax by a sufficiently powerful trickster.

 

[Juelrei]

THIS THREAD QUESTION IS FOR EVERYBODY, anybody can answer and participate in the discussion.

Do those who literally interpret the passages in Genesis 1-9 also literally interpret these passages:

Most of the topics below were addressed to the Jews. In a different timeframe and society standards. Such are not feasible today for the Christian.

1 - Women should not teach or have authority over men.

This interpretation is not accurate. The apostle Paul never denied women to teach. But only those of a controlling nature are not to be allowed to. That stipulation also applied to men of a controlling nature.

2 - Nobody should work on the Sabbath.

A sabbath by Hebrew definition takes two days. And to be literal interpretation goes, the wife can use that statement to refuse to cook meals and do all housework for the family. But actually, in order to properly keep it, a Christian would have to know from the Jews what "work" is and isn't, according to the current Jewish standards which follow the Pharisaical view. Then there's Jesus view. Plus the new testament grace view that applies to the Christian.

3 - Pork and shellfish are unclean and should not be eaten.

That statement ignores the new testament liberty to eat whatever one wants to.

4 - Women should not wear pants.

When such a statement is looked at in view of men who like to wear women's clothing. One can clearly see the intended meaning of the phrase.

5 - Nobody should wear clothes woven with different fabrics.

That was stipulated to Jews living under law, and of a closed society, who grew their own food, raised their own animals, etc. Which is far different from Christians today who don't live in that kind of society, and live under grace to be in this world but not of it.

6 - Nobody should sit in the same place a woman during her period has sat.

One wonders how a man would go about inquiring of every woman if they're menstruating today. The various responses would be interesting to watch.

So, your ideas of what scriptures restrict and how to keep them are flawed.

As to the literal of Genesis chapters 1-9. I'd have to say that "literal interpretation" is required. And certainly not subject to change due to timeframe or society differences.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's also an interesting philosophical discussion on how you can tell the difference between genuine divine revelation/authorship and a hoax by a sufficiently powerful trickster.

I don't deal in philosophy though; I deal in theology.

I think philosophy has more than met its quota of paradoxes and talking points, don't you?

And as far as Satan writing the Bible ... that way of thinking might be "philosophy" to you, but it is blasphemy to us.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.