Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 181 of 302 (296343)
03-17-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by jaywill
03-16-2006 7:40 AM


Re: A False Statement
God didn't consider it just another point of view did He?
Would God curse the serpent simply for having another point of view? There was a open fighting. It was just very subtle. That fighting in Revelation is fierce and not subtle.
it's not subtle. the serpent is subtle -- not god. god PUNISHED the snake. there was no fight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 03-16-2006 7:40 AM jaywill has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 182 of 302 (296346)
03-17-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by jaywill
03-16-2006 7:26 AM


Re: satanim
I don't think that is really necessary to establish my point. I think that it is established sufficiently that the sons of God in Job were angels and among them Satan came.
it says the he came "ALSO among them." it leaves it open for the reader to determine if he is part of the group, or an outsider.
I admit that in Isaiah 14 there are elements which suggest that God is only speaking about human personages. But I think that like Daniel's book often when speaking of human matters a veil is lifted and the spiritual matters behind these earthly ones are revealed.
Is God only speaking to the king of Babylon (Isa.14:4)? I think not by the time we reach verse 12. The "Daystar, son of the dawn" should refer to someone greater than the king of Babylon.
yes. this is called irony. isaiah is mocking the king of babylon's opinion of himself.
The ultimate evil "king" of the history of the universe from its infancy is indicated. The title suggests that this Lucifer (Latin Vulgate) was one of the earliest angels (sons of God - Job 38:7, cf. Job 1:6).
i see no such thing indicated anywhere.
In the New Testament Jesus speaks to Peter but addresses his comment to another behind Peter's opinion - Satan:
"And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be merciful to You, Lord! This shall by no means happen to You!
But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men" (Matt. 16:22,23)
In this passage where Peter offers his opinion that Jesus should avoid going to the cross to die, Jesus turns to say something to Peter but rebukes Satan. He recognizes the subtle Devil behind Peter's appeal to human self pity as a Satanic plot to prevent Jesus from fulfilling His Father's will.
or, you could just look at it like i explained -- "satan" is an adversary, someone or something that tests. ANY adversary. this is the same problem: providing another instance where you read way too much into a rather simple meaning does not support you reading way too much into a different verse elsewhere. besides, does "for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men" sound like something jesus would say to ultimate evil force in the galaxy, or to a very human friend?
The rebuke is aimed at Satan. Probably the last Antichrist of all history could be infered somewhere in there also.
So I don't think it is exactly a mock though I can see your point.
what in text supports your reading? besides tradition, and the stories we've all heard?
This is now another section of prophecy. Could God be sarcastically addressing a Gentile king as the anointed cherub guarding the ark of the covnant? I don't think so.
and when god appears to job (another gentile, i might add) he asks job where he was the foundations of the earth were set. it's the same kind of statement -- obviously the king (or prince) of tyre was NOT any of those places. it is meant as mockery.
Was any other human king ever said by God to have been perfect in his was and that from the day he was created? Again, I think certainly not.
exactly. certainly the king of tyre was not, either. why, then, do you suppose it is addressed to him?
His original splendour and dignity therefore was not something which he assumed for himself but was designated to him by God. This scenario does not match the theory of God speaking mockingly of a Gentile king in an idol worshipping land of Tyre.
really?
what were the cherubim that covered the ark of covenant?
GOd's speaking is a case of the "prophetic past" way of speaking. The veil is lifted from earthly contemporary matters just enough for God to reveal ancient and transcendent matters pertaining to the anointed cherubic angelic being who became Satan. Though he was created perfect in his ways he corrupted himself and became Satan the Devil.
yet this is neither a plain reading of the text, nor does it fit with several thousand years of jewish thought. remember -- there is no rebellion of satan in judaism.
and it is a tricky and decietful god who hides his meanings, and addresses prophecy to people who are not involved.
I think that the Bible shows there is one ultimate advasary among all the advasaries.
I am not sure how important it is that you agree that there is one king of all the enemies of God. If you want to believe that there was one Satan who attacks Job which is different from another Satan who stands up to accuse Israel in Chronicles and another Satan who accuses the high priest in Zechariah ... etc. go ahead.
god has enemies? see, that's the bit i'm not sure about. WE have enemies. and WE have adversaries. and there are those that test and tempt US.
but not god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by jaywill, posted 03-16-2006 7:26 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 10:09 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 194 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-19-2006 1:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 183 of 302 (296348)
03-17-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ramoss
03-16-2006 9:10 AM


Re: what is a satan?
I will accept this distinction. The difference between 'an' adversary and 'The adversary'
and you understand, then, that not every instance of someone or something testing or tempting a man is "the" satan? for instance, the snake, and peter?
You won't. The term 'angel' comes from the greek of 'messanger'. There is no 'fallen angels' in judaism. Angels were merely the messanger from god.
yet we do have angels in the old testament, don't we? "the angel of the lord" is one we see quite frequently. yet the only thing we see close to rebellious angels are the sons of god in genesis 6. it's this story that spawns one of the earliest fallen angel legends, actually, in the book of enoch.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ramoss, posted 03-16-2006 9:10 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 8:55 AM arachnophilia has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 184 of 302 (296384)
03-17-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jaywill
03-17-2006 1:05 PM


Re: Homiletics
quote:
You asked me why I haven't answered Message 38?
Actually I didn't, but thanks.
quote:
Unlike you I don't think John was just a imaginative fisherman who came to presumptiously teach Judiasm something novel about Genesis.
Wow, you really are clueless about me and what I was trying to say in the post.
Apparently I haven't been clear that I'm not interested in a battle of embellishments.
In Message 170 I summarized your comments that I could find concerning the plain sense reading of the texts. I'm comfortable with my opinion in the OP. No one has presented anything signficantly contrary concerning the plain text reading.
But I still haven't figured out why you persist in answering me with homiletics when I'm discussing plain text. Message 176

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jaywill, posted 03-17-2006 1:05 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 185 of 302 (296439)
03-18-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by arachnophilia
03-17-2006 5:32 PM


Re: what is a satan?
and you understand, then, that not every instance of someone or something testing or tempting a man is "the" satan? for instance, the snake, and peter?
One might argue that it was [NOT] the devil himself who is said to do bad things but just one or some his emmisaries. It really doesn't matter. One of his subordinates doing it counts for the devil doing it in the Bible. Like any great battle, the attack of one army is usually attributed to the commander of that army.
The Bible draws our attention to the fact that a very key and strategic points in God's plan Satan got involved to counter God.
For example we are told that Satan entered into Judas to entice him to betray the Son of Man (John 13:27). Satan saw to this deed personally. He put it into his heart and he entered into his heart.
"And while supper was taking place, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, that he should betray Him" (John 13:2)
The net effect is that the devil put it into Judas's heart to betray the Son of Man. That was a decisive point in the spiritual battle, that Jesus be betrayed by one of His disciples. Either the devil did so personally himself or directed some evil subordinate to do so.
In verse 27 John is more graphic. It was not only put into the heart of Judas by the devil but Satan entered into him:
"And at the moment, after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus therefore said to him, What you do, do quickly." (John 13:27)
I take this to mean that the attack was too key for Satan to leave it to any less powerful subject of his to carry out.
Satan also seems to have personally been involved in wanting to cause Peter to fail in his faith. This required special preventative prayers from the Son of God:
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked to have you to sift as wheat. But I have made petition concerning you that your faith would not fail; and you, once you have turned again, establish your brothers." (Luke 22:32)
In His prayer before His going to the cross Jesus prays specifically that the Father would keep the disciples from the evil one:
"I do not ask that You would take them out of the world, but that You would keep them out of the hands of the evil one." (John 17:15)
Keeping the disciples from the evil one would include Satan himself and any evil spirit in Satan's army of enemies of God.
In Revelation there is not doubt that Satan is counted as one individual among two others.
"And I saw out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits as frogs" (Rev. 16:13)
Satan, the dragon, is counted there as one among three. The other two being the beast, who is the Antichrist and the false peophet who accompanies the beast.
I see no compelling reason to think the individual advasary Satan who is pointed out in Job is obviously a different one from that advasary mentioned in Zechariah 3:1,2.
All the above examples are key moments in God's plan.
1.) The betraying of the Son of God by Judas that Christ would be destroyed by His enemies.
2.) The stumbling in faith of the prominent disciple among the twelve, Peter.
3.) The preserving of the disciples of Christ from the evil one after Jesus physically leaves the earth.
4.) The last and final ditch effort of Satan with his Antichrist and false prophet to lead the earth astray from God in the last days.
5.) The rebuilding of the temple after the captivity.
There are many advasaries of course. I see no reason why Satan the devil - the evil one is not specifically pointed out in these verses. Just like there are many anointed people in the Bible there is one Christos. So there are many advasaries but one Satan. And the two are opposed to each other.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 08:58 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 10:16 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 10:20 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 10:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:32 PM arachnophilia has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 186 of 302 (296451)
03-18-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by arachnophilia
03-17-2006 5:28 PM


Re: satanim
Arach,
it says the he came "ALSO among them." it leaves it open for the reader to determine if he is part of the group, or an outsider.
It implies that Satan was in some way in the same class as the other "sons of God."
yes. this is called irony. isaiah is mocking the king of babylon's opinion of himself.
Do you think that God could be mocking the king of Babylon and at the same time revealing something about the Daystar, the son of the dawn, as an angelic being?
I don't think God is mocking in Ezekiel. I doubt that God would mock a Gentile king telling him that he was set as the anointed cherub guarding the ark of the covenant of the God of Israel. Again God says that He set him so. He appointed him that way. God does not say mockingly that he asserted himself to be such.
or, you could just look at it like i explained -- "satan" is an adversary, someone or something that tests. ANY adversary.
Possibly. But if Ezekiel is to be taken as a history of the fall of an "anointed cherub" he must have been a particularly wise one. Not anyone can present a convincing case of accusation before God. Just like not anyone can arrange a debate with the president of a country.
This advasary must be rather exceptionally skillful to counter God's wisdom. The fallen "anointed cherub" and "the Daystar, the son of the dawn" of Ezekiel and Isaiah is the perfect candidate:
"You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteusness was found in you. ... Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness" (See Ezek. 28:15-17)
This kind of being would have the gull and the skill to actually try to debate God Himself. Knowing so much about God's creation and God's way with man, he would be the real ultimate evil accuser.
this is the same problem: providing another instance where you read way too much into a rather simple meaning does not support you reading way too much into a different verse elsewhere. besides, does "for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men" sound like something jesus would say to ultimate evil force in the galaxy, or to a very human friend?
Peter at that moment was one with Satan. So it was a speaking to both.
Now the comments of the New Testament apostles are key to my underwstanding of the whole Bible. Some things were mysteries in the past generations but were illuminated upon by the new covenant apostles and prophets:
"Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, that is, the proclamation of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which has been kept in silence in the times of the ages but has now been manifested, and through the prophetic writings, according to the command of the eternal God, has been made known to all the Gentiles for the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:25,26)
Some things you wonder how I could derive such meaning from in the Old Testament. It is with the help of the New Testament revelation. When John shows a vision of a dragon dragging one third of the angels of heaven away, we put this together with other Old Testament verses and understand that this is a vision of Satan's rebellion.
and when god appears to job (another gentile, i might add) he asks job where he was the foundations of the earth were set. it's the same kind of statement -- obviously the king (or prince) of tyre was NOT any of those places. it is meant as mockery.
But in Ezekiel God says that he set the anointed cherub in that ancient exalted position:
"You were the anointed cherub who covered [the Ark]; INDEED I SET YOU ... you were upon the holy mountain of God ..."
And again "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created ...". God set him. God created him. This is not a mock of something he assumed for himself. Rather God appointed him to be something which he corrupted.
I do not gain my undertanding of Satan from Milton's Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno. I gather my understanding from the Holy Bible with prayer and careful study. I do benefit from the wisdom of past students of the Bible accepting or dismissing carefully their expositions in conjunction with my own study.
what were the cherubim that covered the ark of covenant?
I don't know that much about it. But when God ordered the design of the ark of the covenant He instructed Moses to make two cherubims hovering over it.
The assumption I make is that these things Moses built regarding the tabernacle had some corresponding reality in heaven. I do not know much about cherubim other than that they seem to stand for the glory of God. Or that is all I really want to share at this time.
One guarded the way to the tree of life with a flaming sword when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. They stand for the glory of God. They are angelic beings of some kind.
yet this is neither a plain reading of the text, nor does it fit with several thousand years of jewish thought. remember -- there is no rebellion of satan in judaism.
I don't know how much of that statement is reliable. I will do some study about it.
Regardless, I wrote from Paul's epistle - " ... my gospel, that is, the proclamation of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which has been kept in silence in the times of the ages but has now been manifested, and through the prophetic writings, according to the command of the eternal God, has been made known to all the Gentiles for the obedience of faith"
God revealed some matters to the new covenant apostles and prophets that were not that clear to the Jews of previous times. And through them God illuminates many things in the Old Testament.
and it is a tricky and decietful god who hides his meanings, and addresses prophecy to people who are not involved.
Nonsense. Is a fourth grade teacher being tricky and deceitful because she or he witholds 10th grade material from the students? The revelation of the Bible progresses and we have to mature along with it. This can even be seen in God's gradual unfolding of Himself to the prophets of the Old Testament.
This is why they kept coming up with new names for God. As He revealed more of Himself the number of His descriptive names also grew.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 10:12 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 10:13 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 10:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 10:33 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 190 by arachnophilia, posted 03-18-2006 3:59 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 187 of 302 (296456)
03-18-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by jaywill
03-18-2006 10:09 AM


Re: satanim
and it is a tricky and decietful god who hides his meanings, and addresses prophecy to people who are not involved.
I think more needs to be said concerning this.
The light and revelation that a people have at a certain time is to be followed. God commends that in His believers. If they have a certain level of revelation it is that level that they must obey God in.
For example: Abraham is said to have made sacrifices which produced smoke which went up to be sweet pleasing smell to God. Now I do believe that latter wisdom had it that God did not actually want to smell smoke. However, Abraham's obedience was looked upon by God.
The level of understanding Noah and Abraham had in the making of sacrifices was the level in which they were to be found in obedience. I don't think it is deceitful or tricky for God to disclose deeper meanings of things in the Bible.
He looks for obedience. He looks for faith and the taking heed to His word.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 10:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 10:09 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 188 of 302 (296501)
03-18-2006 2:55 PM


What About the Serpent in Numbers?
I respectfully admit that we have come to the point (Ringo and Purpledawn and possibly others) to agree to disagree on the serpent in Genesis being Satan or just a satan.
Can we move on to discuss the serpent in the book of Numbers? I think you'll find many juicy things not to agree with me on there.
Shall we move to the book of Numbers and its serpent?

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by arachnophilia, posted 03-18-2006 3:19 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 195 by purpledawn, posted 03-19-2006 1:48 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 196 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-19-2006 3:24 PM jaywill has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 189 of 302 (296505)
03-18-2006 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jaywill
03-18-2006 2:55 PM


Re: What About the Serpent in Numbers?
(serpents, plural)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 2:55 PM jaywill has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 190 of 302 (296506)
03-18-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by jaywill
03-18-2006 10:09 AM


Re: satanim
It implies that Satan was in some way in the same class as the other "sons of God."
i see nothing in the grammar that requires it to be read either way.
Do you think that God could be mocking the king of Babylon and at the same time revealing something about the Daystar, the son of the dawn, as an angelic being?
no.
it might be drawing on another myth. but it's not revealing anything. it's a prophecy regarding the king of babylon. why do fundamentalists require that everything has a second meaning?
I don't think God is mocking in Ezekiel. I doubt that God would mock a Gentile king telling him that he was set as the anointed cherub guarding the ark of the covenant of the God of Israel. Again God says that He set him so. He appointed him that way. God does not say mockingly that he asserted himself to be such.
when one understands the close relationship that tyre (phoenicia) and israel had, maybe it's not such a mystery. even ignoring the historical alliances, and the sharing of religions (something the bible speaks rather strongly about...), just look at the hebrew alef-bet. it's phonetic. half the characters look the same, only rotated.
do you really think that the extra little bit of religious mockery wouldn't have been understood?
Possibly. But if Ezekiel is to be taken as a history of the fall of an "anointed cherub" he must have been a particularly wise one. Not anyone can present a convincing case of accusation before God. Just like not anyone can arrange a debate with the president of a country.
ok, look. you're really reading a lot of tradition and dogma into this, and missing what's there. we've been through this before. it refers to aaron, moses, the ark, the tabernacle, and cherubim who protected eden after adam and eve were kicked out. i don't know how you can take this imagery, and pretend it refers to something else.
Some things you wonder how I could derive such meaning from in the Old Testament. It is with the help of the New Testament revelation. When John shows a vision of a dragon dragging one third of the angels of heaven away, we put this together with other Old Testament verses and understand that this is a vision of Satan's rebellion.
i wonder because it makes no sense. not even in light of the new testament. revelation is prophecy, and does not change the plain reading of other passages. it is not an excuse to read whatever you want into whatever verse you want. i suppose the big fish that swallowed jonah was really satan? how about goliath. was he satan? how do you tell what is a "satanic conspiracy" and what is just simply what the bible says?
hey look, god calls ezekiel "son of man." maybe ezekiel's really jesus.
But in Ezekiel God says that he set the anointed cherub in that ancient exalted position:
"You were the anointed cherub who covered [the Ark]; INDEED I SET YOU ... you were upon the holy mountain of God ..."
And again "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created ...". God set him. God created him. This is not a mock of something he assumed for himself. Rather God appointed him to be something which he corrupted.
and, yes, that is the basic meaning of the passage. have you never heard of the concept of the divine right of kings? the term is rather new, but kings have claimed to placed on their thrones by god (or BE gods) for thousands of years. look at psalm 2 -- oh wait, no, we won't agree on that one either.
I do not gain my undertanding of Satan from Milton's Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno. I gather my understanding from the Holy Bible with prayer and careful study. I do benefit from the wisdom of past students of the Bible accepting or dismissing carefully their expositions in conjunction with my own study.
then why does the story you propose so exactly mimic milton's, as opposed to the content of the bible?
what were the cherubim that covered the ark of covenant?
I don't know that much about it. But when God ordered the design of the ark of the covenant He instructed Moses to make two cherubims hovering over it.
you missed the basic meaning here, too. the cherubim on the ark of the covenant were *drumroll*
graven images. idols.
so your question as to why god would use figurative references to graven images to an idolatrous king make very, very little sense. now, i'm sure you'll come back with the standard "oh no, those were commanded by god, so they're ok" or maybe "yes, but they didn't worship them," but the fact remains that they are, indeed, graven images. and most idols in mesopotamia were NOT worshipped. rather, they were representations of the person who owned them so they didn't have to be in church continuously, vehicles for an aniconic god (cherubim and golden calves), or the offering itself.
israelite culture regarding graven images was not all that different than their neighbors. but "idolator!" was a good insult to sling around. notice that even moses' bronze snake eventually gets trashed as an idol? it was made by the commandment of god too.
God revealed some matters to the new covenant apostles and prophets that were not that clear to the Jews of previous times. And through them God illuminates many things in the Old Testament.
so god, who loves prophecy, kept secrets?
Nonsense. Is a fourth grade teacher being tricky and deceitful because she or he witholds 10th grade material from the students?
careful there -- you're implying that jews are somehow inferior in mental capacity. people don't take well to that. (and given the many different viewpoints i've heard, they tend to know what their talking about far more frequently than do christians)
This is why they kept coming up with new names for God. As He revealed more of Himself the number of His descriptive names also grew.
god has ONE name, and ONLY one name. he has a few titles, and a few nicknames, but only one name.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 10:09 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 8:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 191 of 302 (296530)
03-18-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by arachnophilia
03-18-2006 3:59 PM


Re: satanim
Arach,
so god, who loves prophecy, kept secrets?
How many years did Jacob think his son Joseph was dead? God knew that Joseph was alive in Egypt all the time Jacob was sorrowing. Why didn't God reveal it to Jacob?
Then all of a sudden Jacob's sons tell him that Joseph his long lost beloved son is alive and quite well ruling as a leader in Egypt. And God simply says:
"... I am God, the God of your father; do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make of you a great nation there.
I Myself will go down with you to Egypt, and I Myself will also surely bring you up again; and Joseph's hand will close your eyes." (Gen. 46:3,4)
All those painful years of mourning and longing God didn't reveal to Jacob that Joseph was still alive. Why?
Why didn't God tell Jacob that he was marrying Leah instead of his beloved Rachel? Why didn't God tell Elijah the prophet earlier that He had reserved seven thousand men who had not bowed down to the image of Baal? Elijah certainly could have used that information earlier.
Even the prophet says that God had hidden someting from him: "... but the man of God said, Leave her alone; for she is bitter in soul, and Jehovah has hidden the matter from me and has not told me about it" (See 2 Kings 4:27)
On occasion even Christ marveled in surprise at something the Father had not revealed to Him.
Why does God not tell the Christian church the hour and day of the second coming of Christ? God conceals things from us still to this day. We should not complain about the things that God does not reveal to us. But we should be careful that we know when He IS revealing something and then we should look to His mercy to believe and not reject revelation.
careful there -- you're implying that jews are somehow inferior in mental capacity.
I intend no such thing. If the analogy conveyed that that was not my intention.
people don't take well to that. (and given the many different viewpoints i've heard, they tend to know what their talking about far more frequently than do christians)
Since that was not my thought I don't have to be concerned about it.
God progressively reveals His economy in the Bible. From the first generation of humans to today we are entrusted with more and more of His revelation as He educates us.
god has ONE name, and ONLY one name. he has a few titles, and a few nicknames, but only one name.
Exodus 6:3 says "And God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as the All-sufficient God; but by my name Jehovah I did not make Myself known to them."
Yet when Moses asks God the "name" of the God who sends him to deliver the Hebrews from Egypt God says "... I AM WHO I AM. And He said Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." (Exodus 3:15)
I'm not sure there is that much difference between a name and a title of God.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 08:55 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-18-2006 08:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by arachnophilia, posted 03-18-2006 3:59 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-18-2006 9:18 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 193 by arachnophilia, posted 03-18-2006 9:50 PM jaywill has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 192 of 302 (296536)
03-18-2006 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by jaywill
03-18-2006 8:54 PM


Re: satanim
I'm not sure there is that much difference between a name and a title of God.
i call myself brennakimi. my name is not brennakimi. you do not know my name. if you knew my name you would have some power over me. even if that power is just googleing me and finding my address and egging my house, it would be some power.
there is a huge difference in title and name. titles are given by certain groups but a name is something that you learn and associate with yourself. i have considered changing my name to brenna. but i fear not answering to it because i have learned my name means me.
i can't believe that you wouldn't think there is a huge difference between god's name and god's title. it's like the difference between walt and daddy. (my dad's name was walt.)
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-18-2006 09:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 8:54 PM jaywill has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 193 of 302 (296538)
03-18-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by jaywill
03-18-2006 8:54 PM


Re: satanim
How many years did Jacob think his son Joseph was dead? God knew that Joseph was alive in Egypt all the time Jacob was sorrowing. Why didn't God reveal it to Jacob?
right, but this is a bit like god saying "joseph's dead" and there being a cryptic message buried inside that really says something entirely different.
I intend no such thing. If the analogy conveyed that that was not my intention.
well, you should be more careful in the future. people can take offense when other claim to be capable of understanding more than they can.
God progressively reveals His economy in the Bible. From the first generation of humans to today we are entrusted with more and more of His revelation as He educates us.
and how do you sort out what is and what is not revelation? what do you do when the newer interpretations and re-definitions don't fit the plain meaning of the older established texts?
Exodus 6:3 says "And God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as the All-sufficient God; but by my name Jehovah I did not make Myself known to them."
Yet when Moses asks God the "name" of the God who sends him to deliver the Hebrews from Egypt God says "... I AM WHO I AM. And He said Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." (Exodus 3:15)
I'm not sure there is that much difference between a name and a title of God.
what's happened here is that you missed out on a good hebrew pun.
god's proper name is a conjugation of the hebrew verb:

lehyot, to be. so when god says, "I AM that I AM", he is saying

eheyeh asher eheyeh. when god calls himself "I AM" it is just the first word of that phrase. the verb "be" in present tense is:

hayah. god's proper name is:

that's YaHUeH. he that is. not "jehovah" and not anything else. yahweh. the other "name" is a play on his name, like a nickname. only more of a pun.
the other el- "names" are all titles. elohim is a title.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 8:54 PM jaywill has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 194 of 302 (296557)
03-19-2006 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by arachnophilia
03-17-2006 5:28 PM


Re: satanim
arachnophilia writes:
-- obviously the king (or prince) of tyre was NOT any of those places. it is meant as mockery.
Hi arachnophilia.
Just curious: A mockery of what?
The reason why I ask is because the king of Tyre is depicted as residing within Eden, the garden of God.
I think no one here will dispute the fact that the king of Tyre was not in the garden of God. However, it does raise the interesting question of exactly who was in the garden of God in the first place?
In other words, who is the king being compared too?
Who is the king of Tyre a mockery of?
I'm not sure of other translations, but the NIV describes the king of tyre as being "anointed as a guardian cherub..." The KJV says "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth..." The Westminster Leningrad Codex has it as such...
I'm not familiar with Hebrew so maybe you could help me this passage.
NIV writes:
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
The Hebrew word Kerub is translated by some scholars as "one who intercedes" and by others as "knowledge." The original Karibu were the terrible and monstrous guardians of the temples and palaces in Sumer and Babylon. There were also similar guardians in the Near East, and there were winged, eagle-headed deities that guarded an Assyrian Tree of Everlasting Life.
Doesn't this sound awefully similar to the Scriptural account of the snake sitting next to the tree of tife -- and leading humanity to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil instead?
I'll note that if the a word similar to gaurdian cherub is actually in present there, then one has to wonder who this cherub was, why he was in the garden of God, and why this garden of God sounds suspiciously like the Garden of Eden noted in the first accounts found in Genesis?
One has to also look at the historical background that Judaism emerged from as well.
As I said before, I think the idea of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is akin to the Israelites participating in foreign religions which employed hallucinagens in order to "open their eyes" and gain "spiritual wisdom". When one notes the hallucinagenic nature of some of the 'sorceries' practiced by other nations, it certainly seems to be within the realm of possibility.
Similarly, as I already brought up in Message 169 of this thread, in Zoroastrinism we have a concept very similar to the devil employing "snakes" as his servants around the time (or before) Judaism recorded the concept of the the "snake in the garden" -- testing humanity much like an adversary would go against God. Zoroastrianism is a religion which perceived snakes as being the messengers and servants of an ultimately evil deity.
I also noted many other religions, religions which came before Judaism, and which perceived spiritual implications behind the snakes nature, such as the Canaanites for example. It seems to me that if the Hebrew culture is a convergence of Babylonian, Egyptian, and Zoroastrian influences (among others such as the Assyrian example noted above for example), then this synomony of the snake equalling a satan is almost impossible to miss.
One might be able to make a good argument that the "snake" was not the "Great Satan". But if one is insisting that the snake can "only" be a snake, I think a casual glance at the ancient religions that surrounded (and pre-dated) the ancient Israelites will simply cast this theory out of the garden so to speak.
The connotations, both within the Hebrew Scriptures and outside them, seems to make the case of the snake being more than a snake nearly impregnable to me.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-19-2006 02:02 AM
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-19-2006 02:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by arachnophilia, posted 03-17-2006 5:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 03-19-2006 8:55 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 195 of 302 (296609)
03-19-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jaywill
03-18-2006 2:55 PM


Re: What About the Serpent in Numbers?
quote:
Can we move on to discuss the serpent in the book of Numbers? I think you'll find many juicy things not to agree with me on there.
Shall we move to the book of Numbers and its serpent?
Nope. The serpents in Numbers are not related to my topic.
Please keep on the original topic.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jaywill, posted 03-18-2006 2:55 PM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024