science proof creation

[gluadys]

Re 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.
Re 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
--a very common name for the ol boy, actually.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
So we see here it was right from the getgo.
1Jo 3:12 - Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
Yep, it all started way back when. Just cause he was allowed access still to heaven, doesn't mean he wasn't fallen.

And where is the connection of these verses with Genesis 3?

Just because you have taken it for granted that the serpent in the garden was Satan, doesn't mean you can point to verses about Satan or the devil and say they are describing that serpent.

And no, "serpent" is not a common name for Satan. It occurs only here in Revelation, and without any reference to Eden.

Furthermore, even if John is making this connection--and that is not explicit--it does not follow that the writer of Genesis 3 was making any such connection.

You also did not answer my second question. What lie did the serpent of Eden tell?

 

[gluadys]

Ezekiel 28:13 with...

Gen 3:1 And the serpent was cunning ...

Why?

What connects Ezekiel's tirade against the king of Tyre with the serpent in Genesis 3:1?

 

[gluadys]

At a different time than when he was king of Greece. Also a different time then when he possesed Judas.

But where does Ezekiel say that the king of Tyre was Satan?

 

[Ark-Guy]

In a serpent body telling lies about God is an unfallen state? I don't think you are sure about that.

We don't know how long the time frame was between the creation of Adam and Eve and the fall. It could have been days or it could have been years.

Satan fell sometime between the two as evidenced in my post above.

 

[Ark-Guy]

And when was Satan the king of Tyre?

"Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD God, "You had the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God....."'

Ezekiel 28:11-13

emphasis added

The King of Tyre mentioned in the verse references superhuman powers. It is obvious that this "king" was not human but instead Satan described in a pre-fallen state......you had the seal of perfection...

DAN 10:13 describes a supernatural being as the Prince of Persia which is similar to the way "King" of Tyre is mentioned about Satan.

 

[time]

And no, "serpent" is not a common name for Satan. It occurs only here in Revelation, and without any reference to Eden.

Notice it right there also calls him 'the devil' and 'satan'. Call him any of those names, but he was there from our earth's beginning.

Furthermore, even if John is making this connection--and that is not explicit--it does not follow that the writer of Genesis 3 was making any such connection.

All scripture has something in common. God sent it. That's why it's special. Seems to me you'd have to be pretty set in your own ideas to try to deny the obvious.

 

[gluadys]

The King of Tyre mentioned in the verse references superhuman powers. It is obvious that this "king" was not human but instead Satan described in a pre-fallen state......you had the seal of perfection...

DAN 10:13 describes a supernatural being as the Prince of Persia which is similar to the way "King" of Tyre is mentioned about Satan.

Obvious to whom? Those who have already decided this is the correct interpretation? I suppose you know what "seal of perfection" is and why it cannot be said of an earthly king? I suppose you have good reason to dismiss the possible use of hyperbole to describe both the king's past glory and his future disgrace.

btw did you notice farther along the emphasis on trade (vv. 16, 18)--the principal source of the wealth of Tyre? What would that have to do with Satan?

Daniel 10:13 is part of an apocalyptic vision, all highly symbolic. The prince referred to here is part of the symbolism. It certainly refers to a power (heavenly and/or earthly) which opposed the angel, but nothing in the text connects it to Satan other than your wishful thinking. Satan is never referred to anywhere in the book of Daniel.

In fact, in the OT Satan is referenced only twice outside the book of Job.


btw, you still have not answered my other question regarding the serpent in Genesis 3. What lie did the serpent tell?

 

[time]

We don't know how long the time frame was between the creation of Adam and Eve and the fall. It could have been days or it could have been years. Satan fell sometime between the two as evidenced in my post above.

Oh, yes, that's true. But the more I think about it, the more I lean towards the creation happening after the rebellion in the spirit world.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Isn't it ironic that this thread started early with a scientific discussion with a lot of nonsense and misunderstandings and as is usual, reverted to a Scriptural discussion. YEC's, never ones to be scientifically versed have to run to the Book when facts and knowledge find them wanting.

 

[time]

btw, you still have not answered my other question regarding the serpent in Genesis 3. What lie did the serpent tell?

'you shall NOT surely die' -in other words God isn't telling the truth..you won't really die, like He said. Soon as they sinned, by believing this lie of the devil, they started to die. We still die. The devil was a liar from the beginning, and the father of it.
It is my belief that the devil personally possesed each world leader. We know, he took Jesus up to a high place and offered to give them up. Being a spirit, the devil and his crowd are also not limited by time. Apparently, he is still allowed to visit the halls of heaven, in the invisible universe, where, it could be our night, or day, he does not cease to accuse us before God. Soon, (I guess some may think already) he'll get the boot, and be confined to the earth. Which is why he gets madder than a wet hornet.

btw did you notice farther along the emphasis on trade (vv. 16, 18)--the principal source of the wealth of Tyre? What would that have to do with Satan?

I gave my opinion, that there were real kings, and had real trade, etc. But there came a time when the leaders were possesed. Anyhow, is there some reason you feel that the spiritual universe will not unite with our physical one, at the time of the new heaven and earth?

 

[time]

Isn't it ironic that this thread started early with a scientific discussion with a lot of nonsense and misunderstandings and as is usual, reverted to a Scriptural discussion. YEC's, never ones to be scientifically versed have to run to the Book when facts and knowledge find them wanting.

I guess this means you are a christian, being in this forum area, and don't like bible believers? Something wrong with the book? Something wrong with the Author? Doesn't look like you think there's something wrong with the science, as you never added or took away from that part of the discussion. Any particular reason you have such a bitter and scathing attitude towards other of God's children? Would you be happier if they all denied the creation, and embraded the evolutionary idea of coming from bacteria?

 

[gluadys]

All scripture has something in common. God sent it. That's why it's special. Seems to me you'd have to be pretty set in your own ideas to try to deny the obvious.

What is obvious is that Genesis was written a long time before Revelation. Even if John wants to call Satan a serpent, that doesn't mean the author of Genesis did. If you can't make the textual connection you are simply voicing an opinion not grounded in the bible itself. Satan appears in only three OT writings, and in two of those he is named only once each. All of those writings are post-exilic, and there is good reason to believe the Jews borrowed the concept of Satan from the Zoroastrian faith of the Persians during and after the exile.

Even in the OT writings which mention Satan, he is not depicted unambiguously as an enemy of God. Only in the NT is Satan called a liar. These differences among different writers in different times indicate changes in theological conceptions over time. Trying to apply a NT theology or a post-exilic theology to the theology of Judah and Israel during the time of the kings is adding to their writings ideas they knew nothing of and did not intend.

Yes, God inspired both the earlier and later writers. But God chose each to speak to his/her own time and culture within the framework of their understanding. And if we are to perceive the true message of God in their writings, we need to understand what they really said, not impose on their thinking ideas from later ages. The later messages are valid for their times, not earlier times.

 

[gluadys]

We don't know how long the time frame was between the creation of Adam and Eve and the fall. It could have been days or it could have been years.

Years? I don't think so as there is no record of children being born to them in Eden.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I guess this means you are a christian, being in this forum area, and don't like bible believers? Something wrong with the book? Something wrong with the Author? Doesn't look like you think there's something wrong with the science, as you never added or took away from that part of the discussion. Any particular reason you have such a bitter and scathing attitude towards other of God's children? Would you be happier if they all denied the creation, and embraded the evolutionary idea of coming from bacteria?

I asked rmills several questions of which he could not answer and he disappeared. Shocked I am! My point was is that there is not a single Creationist poster on this entire forum who has even an understanding beyond high school level science. Not a one.

I don't like Bible idolatry. Many posters in this forum are more Biblicalists than Christians. And yet they knock Catholics for their embrace of Mary. There is a heck of an irony here.

I only have a scathing attitude to ignorant people who wont do anything about their ignorance. To call them ostriches is a disservice to flightless birds.

And I would be happier if they accepted evolution for what it is - the best theory of how life changed over time on the Earth - a theory tested by observation and experiment and validated as a result.

 

[Curt]

I asked rmills several questions of which he could not answer and he disappeared. Shocked I am! My point was is that there is not a single Creationist poster on this entire forum who has even an understanding beyond high school level science. Not a one.
[Creationists don't need to know anything about science, they have the whole story written by God.]

I don't like Bible idolatry. Many posters in this forum are more Biblicalists than Christians. And yet they knock Catholics for their embrace of Mary. There is a heck of an irony here.
[You qualify your self as a non Christian with your first statement. God esteems His word higher than Himself. And then you judge all Christians for what a few do?]

I only have a scathing attitude to ignorant people who wont do anything about their ignorance. To call them ostriches is a disservice to flightless birds.
[This is abeautiful self portrait and in line with what The Bible says about the foolishness of the worldly wise.]
And I would be happier if they accepted evolution for what it is - the best theory of how life changed over time on the Earth - a theory tested by observation and experiment and validated as a result.

You can bet your sweet biffy that you will never be happy if that's what it takes. The only way to hapiness that's everlasting is found in The Bible. You will never sell anything about evolution to any circumcised in the heart believers because they have a personal relationship with the creator, and don't need any of mens fabrications to know how He does, anything. All we have to do is look in His Book, and what isn't explained there will be by The Holy Spirit when He knows we're ready for it. One thing of hope for the deceived is that God will send His Word and convict them of their need, and then send the Holy Spirit to lead them out.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

You can bet your sweet biffy that you will never be happy if that's what it takes. The only way to hapiness that's everlasting is found in The Bible. You will never sell anything about evolution to any circumcised in the heart believers because they have a personal relationship with the creator, and don't need any of mens fabrications to know how He does, anything. All we have to do is look in His Book, and what isn't explained there will be by The Holy Spirit when He knows we're ready for it. One thing of hope for the deceived is that God will send His Word and convict them of their need, and then send the Holy Spirit to lead them out.

Yawn. I can see you are a real questioning individual.

BTW Curt, according to your profile - you were a WWII vet.

How? You are not old enough by some 2 years. You didn't turn 18 until 1946.

 

[Curt]

Yawn. I can see you are a real questioning individual.

BTW Curt, according to your profile - you were a WWII vet.

How? You are not old enough by some 2 years. You didn't turn 18 until 1946.

All that means is that I joined the Navy when I was 16, I lied about my age. But that has nothing to do with anything on these boards. For your information I was also in The Korean war. None of these things have anything to do with this discussion. Could this perhaps be an effort on your part to discredit? And would that be because you have no Truth to respond with? Man do you ever need help. I could introduce you to The One Who can lead you out of all this worldly wisdom into the light.

 

[time]

Only in the NT is Satan called a liar. These differences among different writers in different times indicate changes in theological conceptions over time.

Maybe I give God too much credit for being the One behind the whole exercise. Do you have something against the new testament? You seem to have God pretty far away from things.
Jesus Himself called devil a liar and He made the world, do you think His theology was just different before?

 

[time]

I don't like Bible idolatry. Many posters in this forum are more Biblicalists than Christians. And yet they knock Catholics for their embrace of Mary. There is a heck of an irony here.

I only have a scathing attitude to ignorant people who wont do anything about their ignorance. To call them ostriches is a disservice to flightless birds.

And I would be happier if they accepted evolution for what it is - the best theory of how life changed over time on the Earth - a theory tested by observation and experiment and validated as a result.

So would one be ignorant for thinking Adam was made out of the earth, and Eve came shortly after from an operation? But if I thought bacteria somehow formed into Eve, or Marilyn Monroe, I would be clever? Am I ignorant for knowing there is a spirit world, where, yes, Mary lives now? Would I be ignorant to think there was a star of Bethlehem? Would I be ignorant for believing in a virgin birth? Would I be ignorant to expect a new heaven, and a new earth, and a city 1500 miles high, and made of pure gold?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

All that means is that I joined the Navy when I was 16, I lied about my age. But that has nothing to do with anything on these boards. For your information I was also in The Korean war. None of these things have anything to do with this discussion. Could this perhaps be an effort on your part to discredit? And would that be because you have no Truth to respond with? Man do you ever need help. I could introduce you to The One Who can lead you out of all this worldly wisdom into the light.

Very Christian of you to lie. That was why I asked the question - so as to verify that lying is not out of character. Thanks.