Would God give us an indication when Satan is chained?

[Sheilaw]

"Adam and Eve did not see any shining one, what they saw was an animal"

"The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4."

(Rev 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 makes it so easy.

"form which resulted in the punishment of serpents to slide on their bellies."

Our people are rich in figures of speach. Ever hear this one, "He's lower than a snake's belly"?

"So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat". This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth. It tells of constant continuous dissapointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Proverbs 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel". So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Galatians 3:14,15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

You may have overlooked what Genesis 3 says about the situation

Genesis 3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

Note the family of creatures God refers to when talking about the serpent.

God does not talk about cherubim or angels but He speaks of beasts of the field regarding the group of living things from which the serpent came..

Secondly , God does not refer to cherubim or angels when talking about the
nature of the serpent but He says cursed is the serpent above all cattle and beasts of the field. God does not refer to angels or cherubim at all, clearly proving that Satan appeared through the lizardlike version of a prehistoric snake [with legs] and not as a cherubim during
the temptation of Eve.

Genssis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;

 

[RVincent]

The word "beast" also, in Genesis 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Revelation 4, as it is to translate chay "beast" in Genesis 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being.

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

The Serpent of Genesis 3

 

[Sheilaw]

The word "beast" also, in Genesis 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Revelation 4, as it is to translate chay "beast" in Genesis 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being.

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

The Serpent of Genesis 3

Are you familiar with the form of the serpent prior to Genesis 3:15?

That form was not identical to the current form of snakes .

That is the mistake that causes people to derive equivalents for the term serpent.

 

[RVincent]

Do yo mean snakes or satan?

Are you tallking about a discovery of natural history, showing snakes with tails, and then later without?

It makes no sense to punish all snakes for an act of satan.

 

[Sheilaw]

Do yo mean snakes or satan?

Are you tallking about a discovery of natural history, showing snakes with tails, and then later without?

It makes no sense to punish all snakes for an act of satan.

In much the same way, would you then argue against Adam and Eve's fall

affecting people born thousands of years later?

If you do not see why the creature was punished for being Satan's

tool against Adam, then would you disgree with Adam and Eve's sin

affecting the entire human race thus humans needing forgiveness through

Christ to defeat that sin?

by man came death...for...in Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

The curse to return to the dust, to die because of sin (Gen. 3:19), comes upon us all.

Would you argue with that?

 

[Sheilaw]

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

3[/URL]

The biggest mistake of people over the centuries.

They consider Eve as a modern lady, dressed beautifully living in some castle.

Time and time again, people look at present day situations and erroneously

jump to conclusions.

Eve was a naked , ignorant, 'unaware'' female, living in the jungle, albeit

a beautiful garden BUT living in close proximity with animals NOT in a building

as people would wrongly assume but right amidst trees, vegetation etc.

Adam and Eve were created very simple, not much different from unclothed animals [ The Bible warns man about how we should never forget how close we are to the level of animals ] with the exception of superior intellect and the knowledge of God.

That is the only perspective that is valid to analyse any event prior to their leaving the Garden and the start of civilisations.

 

[RVincent]

"In much the same way, would you then argue against Adam and Eve's fall affecting people born thousands of years later?"

This is unrelated. Romans 5 tells us that we all sin, so the penalty of death passes from Adam to us:

(Rom 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

"for that all have sinned" we deserve the same penalty.

(1 Cor 15:21-23) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. {22} For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. {23} But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

The subject is man, what is passed to us is death and not sin. We sin on our own, each punished by death, for that sin.

I don't know why anybody would think that God is out to get the animals. Animals suffer the fallout of our sin, but nowhere does it say that God is punishing the animals for our sin...that would be unjust.

It looks like this snake thing is clearly a matter of personal interpretation.

 

[Sheilaw]

"In much the same way, would you then argue against Adam and Eve's fall affecting people born thousands of years later?"

This is unrelated. Romans 5 tells us that we all sin, so the penalty of death passes from Adam to us:

(Rom 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

"for that all have sinned" we deserve the same penalty.

(1 Cor 15:21-23) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. {22} For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. {23} But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

The subject is man, what is passed to us is death and not sin. We sin on our own, each punished by death, for that sin.

.

It is very well related and that is quite obvious.
You are incorrect for not all sin before they die.
Hundreds of infants have died without sinning.
What sin does a Baby who dies after a few weeks of life commit? None. That infant does not sin but yet it dies.

Yet it dies under sin passed from Adam.

The snakes after Genesis 3 were born into their new bodies, so they did not suffer since they knew not their first life forms, other than any serpents WHO HAPPENED TO BE ALIVE with the serpent of Genesis 3 [used by Satan]and thus lost their limbs after Genesis 3:15.

Eve was a naked female, living with animals amidst the flora and fauna.
She was very close to animals and was not an educated 20th century female.

 

[Sheilaw]

The subject is man, what is passed to us is death and not sin. We sin on our own, each punished by death, for that sin.

I don't know why anybody would think that God is out to get the animals. Animals suffer the fallout of our sin, but nowhere does it say that God is punishing the animals for our sin...that would be unjust.

What sin can be associated with a dead baby girl... dead after a few weeks?

 

[RVincent]

Who told you I was talking about babies?

The penalty which is death falls on all people. But obvioulsy accidents happen.

(Luke 13:4) Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

 

[saltoearth]

The entire book of revelations is PROPHECY, not HISTORY. This is clearly demostrated in the opening verse in the opening chapter.

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Revelation ch 12 is by no means excluded from PROPHECY. The fact that the man child appears to be Jesus, trips many people up. Just as the Woman in ch 12 is not a singular woman, the Man Child is also not a singular man.

 

[FreeinChrist]

The entire book of revelations is PROPHECY, not HISTORY. This is clearly demostrated in the opening verse in the opening chapter.

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Revelation ch 12 is by no means excluded from PROPHECY. The fact that the man child appears to be Jesus, trips many people up. Just as the Woman in ch 12 is not a singular woman, the Man Child is also not a singular man.

I disagree somewhat. John was instructed with this:
Rev 1:19 "Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

What he sess - the vision.
the things which are - the churches and they are each given a commendation and/or condemnation and promise to overcomers..and are saddressed later in Rev. 22.
'the things which will take place after these things' - starts in Rev. 4:1

However, in regards to Rev. 12, it is a prophecy that starts in the past. I believe that it does that to show the continuity of God's plan and of Satan's efforts. I can't see the man-child as anything but Christ, born of the woman Israel. Seems to me that Satan tried to destroy Christ when he led Judas to betray Him...otherwise, if Satan knew that Christ's sacrifice would cause him to lose power, wouln't have done the opposite?

 

[FreeinChrist]

And we have alll strayed from the topic of this thread....

 

[RVincent]

I can't see the man-child as anything but Christ, born of the woman Israel.

I agree with you, FreeinChrist. I wish he would have expounded on who else could fit these descriptions:

(Rev 12:5) And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

He would have ruled, but they crucified Him. Nevertheless,

(Rev 19:15) And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

I can't see this as anybody but Christ.

And we have alll strayed from the topic of this thread....

But isn't this typical, FreeinChrist?

(Isa 53:6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

We have all strayed from the topic of this forum, but thanks be to God, we can be forgiven for it.

(I'm a wacko )

 

[FreeinChrist]

 

[Lady Goodnews]

(Rev 12:5) And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

(Rev 19:15) And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

I can't see this as anybody but Christ.

Hi RVincent,

Re: (Rev. 12:5;19:15)!

I agree, this is Christ.

Perhaps you can explain, how after Christ smote the nations, ruled them with a rod of Iron, and treaded the fierceness of the winepress and wrath of God (judged and destroyed, the nations) at His Coming (Rev. 19:11,15) how the nations "re-appear" and are "deceived" when Satan, is loosed from his prison/chains (Rev. 20:7-10)?


Lady Goodnews

 

[RVincent]

(Rev 19:15) And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

nations = Gr. ethnos. It can mean a nation, but it can also mean a tribe or race. Our word "ethnic" comes from this word, as in the "ethnic people".

A race , or nation, or tribe, can be smitten - punished - without being destroyed.

 

[saltoearth]

I agree with you, FreeinChrist. I wish he would have expounded on who else could fit these descriptions:

overcomers fit this description VERY well

Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

(Rev 12:5) And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Don't mean to take your thread off topic, sorry for any interruptions I have caused.

 

[RVincent]

hello saltoearth.

I certainly agree that overcomers do partake of some of the benefits of Christ, but the throne is for One only.

(Rev 12:5) And she brought forth a Man Child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her Child was caught up unto God, and to His throne.

Cp. Matt. 19:28; 25:31. Luke 1:32. Acts 2:30. Heb. 1:8; 8:1; 12:2.

Believers may approach the throne, but only to obtain mercy (Heb. 4:16).

Man Child. This is somewhat indicitive also. It means literally a "male son".

I wish I could get my stupid Greek Interlinear to export to text correctly!

 

[Lady Goodnews]

(Rev 19:15) And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

nations = Gr. ethnos. It can mean a nation, but it can also mean a tribe or race. Our word "ethnic" comes from this word, as in the "ethnic people".

A race , or nation, or tribe, can be smitten - punished - without being destroyed.

Maybe!

Can they also be treaded by the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of God without being destroyed?

Lady Goodnews