If you cannot believe the genesis account....

[Tomk80]

Of course it is not relevant for you, because you will not be here during the tribulation period. But for those who will be here, it is relevant. They need to know what they have to look forward to. Or at least I need to tell them and then once I have done that, it us up to them what to do with the information.

The only thing we need to be concerned with is if we do not deliver the message that God sends us to deliever. Once we deliver the message, then our job is done.

Whether or not I will be here during the tribulation period is not up to you to decide (fortunately).
But now I know that next time I will not write that it is irrelevant, but ask you to stop preaching and stick to the discussion.

 

[lucaspa]

Satan was talking through the serpent.

So that is the new theory? Your textual evidence?

There are people on this board that satan talks through all the time.

That's just ad hominen. John, you are stating your prejudices as tho they are fact. Would you care to try to back that up with some evidence?

 

[JohnR7]

ask you to stop preaching and stick to the discussion.

Ask all you want, it will not stop me. Unless Erwin or one of his representives were to put a gag order on me. From my brief discussions with him, there is not much of a chance of that happening. Like it or not, Erwin provides this web site for us in the hope that the unbeliever will be exposed to the gospel.

For most people that does not seem to be a problem. It is up to them if they want to accept it or reject it. No one is forcing anything on anyone.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Interesting how people are "too lazy" to read the book.
But they can feed on junk books all day long.
Just like some people are to lazy to put up a proper post.
But they can put up junk posts all day long.
Present company excluded of course

Johnny, Irony is utterly lost on you, isn't it?

Why didn't you post this in response when jobob said this?

 

[lucaspa]

Genesis 1 means what it says because it went to great lengths to DEFINE and day and then show that these defined days were being used..

And then Genesis 2 undercuts all that by having creation in one day. Jobob, why do you focus on Genesis 1 and ignore Genesis 2:4?

Was Augustine a Scholar of the ancient Hebrew language or a theologian?

Yes. He was both.

You might also like to hear what Augustine had to say about people like creationists:
"Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"
Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19.

 

[Tomk80]

Ask all you want, it will not stop me. Unless Erwin or one of his representives were to put a gag order on me. From my brief discussions with him, there is not much of a chance of that happening. Like it or not, Erwin provides this web site for us in the hope that the unbeliever will be exposed to the gospel.

For most people that does not seem to be a problem. It is up to them if they want to accept it or reject it. No one is forcing anything on anyone.

I am fully aware of the goals of this website. I also won't ask anyone to stop you. It will help me to discern from your writing whether you are preaching or discussing. Nevertheless, I'll sometimes ask just to be sure.

 

[JohnR7]

So that is the new theory? Your textual evidence?

No, it is not really my theory, just something I heard somewhere. For us really I think what God said to Cain is important.

Genesis 4:7
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Do you think satan can work through lions to?

 

[JohnR7]

It will help me to discern from your writing whether you are preaching or discussing.

Oh, ok, I could maybe do something like that. I could say: Warning preaching is about to begin

 

[Smidlee]

So not everything in the Bible is literal then. Common sense tells us that plants were not created before the sun so I guess we shouldn't interpret Genesis 1 as literal after all.

There are a number of verses that say the the earth is fixed. Do we still refer to the earth as fixed and immobile in common usage? It was certainly common sense that the earth didn't move until science showed otherwise.
1 Chronicles 16:30: " Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

There are other verses in which the sun moves

Psalm 19:4-6 Their line [the heavens] is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." (I added the bold)



Now how is it that there was morning and evening in the days before the sun was created?

Bible can be taken literal in context. Ex.When the scripture says it a dream I believe it's literally a dream. When scriptures clearly points out it's using symbols then I believe they are literally symbols which points to a literal event or truth. Even the parible which Jesus uses are literal true. When Jesus told the parible of the sower I sure many farmer listening to him understand exactly what Jesus was saying because it dealt with reality.
Why did you leave out the first verse which seems to be the main point of verse 4-6 " The heavens declare the glory of God; and firmamant sheweth his handywork" . trying to claim this verses teaches "the sun goes around the earth" in this Psalm just like trying to claim these verses teaches "the heavens has vocal cords"
I was studing science a few months ago and was surprised to find out that scientist has never prove if the sun goes aroung the Earth or the earth around the sun. It fact this was the main reason Einstien theory of relativity was accepted. So according to the general theory of relativeity both theories are true.

the scriptures clearly point out that there will not be a sun thoughout eternity. So if on Day one there wasn't no sun but yet there was light then it not hard to figure out according to scriptures who this light was? Jesus claim he is the light of the world which not only it this meant to be spiritual but one day will be literally true on this Earth. ( funny, even scientist today knows the sun won't be around forever)

 

[JohnR7]

That's just ad hominen. John, you are stating your prejudices as tho they are fact. Would you care to try to back that up with some evidence?

Wow lucaspa, do you really want to go there? We could if you want.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Bible can be taken literal in context. Ex.When the scripture says it a dream I believe it's literally a dream. When scriptures clearly points out it's using symbols then I believe they are literally symbols which points to a literal event or truth. Even the parible which Jesus uses are literal true.

Have you ever seen a writer so untalented that they have to include in their own text, "Okay, I'm going to use something symbolic now..."

When Jesus told the parible of the sower I sure many farmer listening to him understand exactly what Jesus was saying because it dealt with reality.

So they believed that Jesus was talking about a real farmer sowing real seeds?

Why did you leave out the first verse which seems to be the main point of verse 4-6 " The heavens declare the glory of God; and firmamant sheweth his handywork" . trying to claim this verses teaches "the sun goes around the earth" in this Psalm just like trying to claim these verses teaches "the heavens has vocal cords"

But it doesn't say it's symbolic...

I was studing science a few months ago and was surprised to find out that scientist has never prove if the sun goes aroung the Earth or the earth around the sun. It fact this was the main reason Einstien theory of relativity was accepted. So according to the general theory of relativeity both theories are true.

Huh?

 

[lucaspa]

you are wrong since the scripture plainly teaches that God protected Job in Job 1:10 " hast not thou made an hedge about him..." (notice Job prayed for his children which also put them in his hedge)
why did God have a hedge around Job ? Simply because the freedom and power Satan has on this earth.

Let's try the whole verse: "Would Job worship you if he got nothing out of it? You have always protected him and his family and everthing he owns. You bless everything he does, and you have given him enough cattle to fill the whole country." Now 1:11 "But now suppose that you take everything he has -- he will curse you to your face!"

The complete two verses doesn't support your exegesis. In fact, it falsifies it. Satan is saying that the Lord blessed Job and gave him material wealth, not protected Job from Satan.

Let's do the complete verses for 1:6-7 "When the day came for the heavenly beings to appear before the Lord, Satan was there among them. The Lord said unto Satan "Whence comest thou?" Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and for in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

In another words Satan can do as his pleased in this world EXCEPT when it come to the prayers of God's saints. Satan was angry with God because God interfered with his rule on this earth.

The complete verse shows that Satan had no rule on earth. He was a member in good standing of the "heavenly beings". He was just one of them and showing up with the crowd.

Notice that Satan offer Jesus the kingdom of this world and Jesus didn't deny this claim. this is one reason why prayer is very important to a believer since it's by prayer God will overrule Satan on this earth.

Yes, by this time the view of Satan had changed. Man's view of what Satan was had drastically altered between the writing of Job and the NT. You can read about the transformation of Satan in The Evolution of Satan by Elaine Pagels. Instead of trying to force your view of Satan on the Bible, listen to what the Bible is telling you. In Job Satan is not an evil being. He is simply a gofer for God; one of the heavenly beings. Not exiled, not having a kingdom, but just one of the good guys who detects what he thinks is a flaw in God's reasoning and makes a bet with God about the outcome of an experiment.

 

[Smidlee]

Let's try the whole verse: "Would Job worship you if he got nothing out of it? You have always protected him and his family and everthing he owns. You bless everything he does, and you have given him enough cattle to fill the whole country." Now 1:11 "But now suppose that you take everything he has -- he will curse you to your face!"

The complete two verses doesn't support your exegesis. In fact, it falsifies it. Satan is saying that the Lord blessed Job and gave him material wealth, not protected Job from Satan.

Let's do the complete verses for 1:6-7 "When the day came for the heavenly beings to appear before the Lord, Satan was there among them. The Lord said unto Satan "Whence comest thou?" Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and for in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."
The complete verse shows that Satan had no rule on earth. He was a member in good standing of the "heavenly beings". He was just one of them and showing up with the crowd.

Yes, by this time the view of Satan had changed. Man's view of what Satan was had drastically altered between the writing of Job and the NT. You can read about the transformation of Satan in The Evolution of Satan by Elaine Pagels. Instead of trying to force your view of Satan on the Bible, listen to what the Bible is telling you. In Job Satan is not an evil being. He is simply a gofer for God; one of the heavenly beings. Not exiled, not having a kingdom, but just one of the good guys who detects what he thinks is a flaw in God's reasoning and makes a bet with God about the outcome of an experiment.

Hedge is put around something to protect it from adversary and since Job belong to God, he did blessed Job . satan means "adversary". of course the scriptures tells us more about this adversary thoughout the bible yet this teaching line up with satan has authority on this earth. this is also an underlining truth in Genesis as well since mankind has fallen from the position which god place him. in fact the three temption satan tried to uses againest Jesus are exactly the same he used on Eve.
"The evolution of satan" must have said something about God had a bet with satan or all this is some kind of experiment like a scientist does to a lab rat since it no where seen to be found in Job. It seems you have misunderstood God and the teaches of Job. actually Satan own judgment condemns himself. God can and will use man's and satan's own judgments againest themselves as these is something even Job clearly testified. ( which it one of many truths reveal in this book)

 

[Smidlee]

But it doesn't say it's symbolic...

no it says it's a psalm of David and the first verse point out the subject of the first 6 verses.
P.S. When I sing "He is the lily of my valley" please know I'm not worshiping a flower

 

[JohnR7]

P.S. When I sing "He is the lily of my valley" please know I'm not worshiping a flower

Hang in there, don't let them wear you down.

 

[MQTA]

It is said right here...

Revelation 12 : 9 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.

That old serpent CALLED the Devil and Satan. IT IS THE SAME ENTITY. The serpent IS Satan. And there is symbolism all throughout Scripture... not just in revelation.

For instance the book of Daniel is saturated with symbolism... The pharoah's dream's...you know, with the 7 fat and thin cows, representing 7 fruitfull years and 7 years famine. Not to mention the Millennium
Statue with the Head of Gold, arms and chest of silver etc... which symbolize different Kingdoms....

In Genesis, the Serpent was the Serpent, and the Serpent wasn't deceptive, he was telling the Truth. He told Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit, whereas she was told he would die THE DAY she ate it.

There is no description in Genesis that the serpent was Satan.

Those who do not know the NT, but only know and/or follow the OT have no reference to That serpent Being Satan, do they?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The heavens declare the glory of God; and firmamant sheweth his handywork" . trying to claim this verses teaches "the sun goes around the earth" in this Psalm just like trying to claim these verses teaches "the heavens has vocal cords"

Declare can mean to show or demonstrate and not to speak directly si vocal cords are not required. The verse clearly states that the Sun makes a circuit and that nothing escapes its heat. There are several verses that state that the earth is fixed and does not move and yet the earth orbits the sun and moves with the solar system through the cosmos as well as rotating on its axis and wobbiling a bit. Virtually all Christians considered these verses literally true prior to Copernicus and some still do. Josuha did not say Earth stop thou rotating and Isaiah didn't tell the earth to turn its rotation backwards. These verses are now interpreted differently by most, but not all, Christians than they were in the past.

I was studing science a few months ago and was surprised to find out that scientist has never prove if the sun goes aroung the Earth or the earth around the sun. It fact this was the main reason Einstien theory of relativity was accepted. So according to the general theory of relativeity both theories are true.

Not really. General Relativity was first accepted because Einstein was able to correct predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html

It is hard to absolutely prove the heliocentric solar system. Geocentrists even have some "explanations" for the Corealis Force and geostationary satellites. However, massive earthquakes can change the rotation rate of the earth and is hard to imagine how an earthquake could change the rate that the universe out to the farthest star wizzes around the earth each day.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

Those who do not know the NT, but only know and/or follow the OT have no reference to That serpent Being Satan, do they?

Rev. 20:2
He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

The NT does tell us the serpent of old is satan.

 

[MQTA]

The punishment for their disobedience is very specific and very limited. There's nothing in the text to support the Fundamentalist theory that all of creation was changed.

Well, they certainly ruined it for the nudists among us.

 

[MQTA]

You claimed: You said "the 'serpent' is Satan". Well, what happened to the serpent in Genesis 3:14-15? The "serpent" lost its legs (became legless and so a "snake" as we know them) and will have offspring! So, if the serpent = Satan, then those offspring are Satan's offspring! All the way to today! Present day snakes are therefore the great, great, great .... grandsons and grandaughters of Satan! Now, since DNA is inherited, it must mean that modern snakes have Satan's DNA. Just follow the logic.

OR ... if you don't like where the logic goes, then you can stop the whole thing by recognizing that the serpent in Eden is not Satan, but just "the serpent".

And why, of all the animals in the Garden of Eden was the Serpent gifted with the same language of Adam and Eve? Did he really speak their language, or was it ventriloquism?

And if he lost his legs and made to eat dirt, does that mean serpents can still Speak? NO mention of losing tongue.