Eric_C said:
gluadys said:
Where in Genesis does it say the snake is Satan?
You might also do a study on all the appearances of the word "ha-satan" (not just the name, the word) in the Old Testament. It might surprise you how often a "ha-satan" was commissioned to his/her task by God. In at least one passage, the "ha-satan" is an angel of God (and not necessarily the same angel as appears with that name in Job.) More often the "ha-satan" is a human being.
Satan, as "the devil" and "father of lies" only appears in the New Testament, and reflects the development of theology (especially apocalyptic theology) in the inter-testamental period.
And the NT doesn't say the snake in the garden was Satan either.
So thats how you deal with it. Red herrings and Fallacies of distraction and hope that the fact of not answering the question is missed, I gotcha. As for me, no can do.
No, it is you who put in the original red herring. You began with the assumption that the serpent in the garden is Satan. But you did not justify that assumption from scripture. You have never checked out that this was the case.
The writer did not name the snake as Satan. Since your question was based on the assumption of this identification, I say the question cannot be answered as stated, since the assumption has not been supported from scripture.
I assume that what you mean by "the word of creation", or "scriptures point us to creation" is based on a literal interpretation of Scripture? What happened to the literary framework method? Ah, I see, it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, now you need the literal. How convenient for you.
I don't know of anyone who boasts of interpreting the bible literally who genuinely reads every single phrase literally. All agree that some passages of scripture are intentionally poetic and figurative and are to be read as such. No one holds that when the lover of the Song of Songs speaks of his beloved's hair running down her shoulders like goats down a mountain that we should seriously consider her hair was made of small horned and hooved animals.
By the same token I know of absolutely no one who maintains that
nothing in scripture is to be interpreted literally. Of course there are passages for which a literal reading is the preferred reading. For me to appeal to a literal reading of some parts of scripture is no more inconsistent than for you to appeal to the figurative nature of another part.
Problems only occur when we do not agree about the status of a particular text.
By the "word of creation" I mean anything in the universe which was not produced by human hands and/or minds. That includes ourselves as creatures of God, but not the creations we produce from our imaginations. And, of course, it includes all the rest of nature such as stars, mountains, vegetation and all other non-human forms of life. Time and again scripture calls them to witness to the glory, majesty and wisdom of their creator and faults those who fail to consider their witness.
Science, at its core, is essentially a close and detailed reading of what 19th century theologians called this "second book of God"---the book of God's works.
To answer your question "can creation lie about itself?" absolutely! Men are part of the creation, are they not? They lie to themselves, they lie about themselves, they lie about the creation to themselves and to others.
But the lies come from their imagination. And when they try to lie about creation, another more honest investigator comes along and discovers the truth. Creation itself is incapable of lying about itself, and its truth stands sure through whatever devious schemes men engage in. We see this regularly in criminal investigations, where people have tried to hide the truth, but been found out because they simply could not cover all their tracks.
Here is a little something that Jesus said for you to consider. John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." Can the creation bear witness of itself? No! The Scripture (creation account) testifies of the creation and as it says in Job, the testimony of the creation is of The Lord,
Indeed it is. And so the testimony of creation to itself is as true as Jesus' witness of himself, and for the same reason--"there is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that his testimony of me is true." Unlike humans, creation is incapable of lying, so if it bears false testimony, that testimony comes from the second witness. And the second witness is the LORD.
I do not believe God lies to us.
The scriptures do not say evolution concerning the creation, nor do they say billions of years, those are things that can only be read into the text through fictitious interpretation.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are many things scripture does not speak of that are nevertheless true.
Now, concerning the appearance of age.
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."
In the passage above it is clear that the wine had no history of being wine, yet it was wine.
And as stated, it was a miracle.
Now creation is a miracle, to be sure. But it is a miracle whose effects we still see and can study.
The evidence of the miracle of Cana is no longer with us. So we can draw no scientific conclusions from it.
And what if we had been there? What if we had studied the leftover wine (if any) several days later? What would we expect to find? That it was now rancid, vinegary wine not fit to drink---indicating its age since it came to be. Just as creation tells us its age since it came to be.
2 Peter 3:5
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"
I have no problems with this. Not sure what your point was in including it.
Matthew 14:28-31
"And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"
Must all of you TEs, Gap Theorist, Day Age'rs, and whatever form of mutation of the creation account you hold to'rs, ignore the lesson learned by Peter? Jesus allows Peter to put it in his own terms and gives him just one word to trust "COME". And what does Peter do? He looks at the ranting winds of the creation and doubts what The Creator said.
And why would Peter not be wrong to think the Creator was incapable of ruling his creation?
