Poor Satan, so misunderstood.

jaywill writes:

quote:

---

Yes Satan appeared in the form of a serpent in the garden.

---

No, he didn't. The serpent in the garden was precisely that: A serpent. Nothing more, nothing less. The Bible directly calls the serpent a beast. The punishment of the serpent is to have its legs removed and to have his offspring forever crushed under the heel of humans.Those are things you to do animals, not supernatural beings.There was no devil in the garden.

quote:

---

Especially when the serpent challenged them to disobey God

---

No, he didn't. The serpent never tells Eve to eat from the tree. He simply points out that god is not being truthful regarding it. Unlike the direct statement of god, that eating from the tree would cause a physical death before the sun set on the day that one ate of it, instead the eater would become as gods, knowing good and evil.And the serpent was right: Adam and Eve, of their own volition, eat from the tree and become as gods, knowing good and evil.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Greatest I am writes:

quote:

---

Job shows that God is in control of Satan at all times.

---

Which means that Satan is not evil but is an instrument of god.Has it not occurred to you that the "Satan" of Job is not the same persona as the devil that appears in the New Testament?There is no such thing as the devil in Judaism. That would defy the purpose of the monotheism: One god, only one, everything comes from him. To have a devil would mean there are two and there is only one. To have a son would mean there are two and there is only one.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill writes:

quote:

---

The New Testament says that Adam the man, was not deceived

---

Why are you forcing a Christian interpretation on a Jewish text?Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

That the serpent has his legs confiscated, means he onced had legs and did not crawl - which says this garden was not in this physical realm.

---

Except the Bible says it was. The garden was placed among the four rivers, two of which most people actually have heard of: The Tigris and Euphrates.If it were not in the physical realm, what on earth were Adam, Eve, all the other animals, and all the plants doing there since all of them were physical beings?

quote:

---

It also alludes to why we have no knowledge of anything of a pre-physical realm or of the origins of anything whatsoever.

---

Except the Bible specifically says that everything started on the first day, five days before the creation of humans.

quote:

---

This is given as a reason to await a Messiah or further revelation.

---

There's that Christian imposition upon a Jewish text again.The Messiah is not a philosopher. The Messiah is a warlord. Prophecy specifically says so.Oh, and the Messiah does not die.Ergo, Jesus cannot be the Messiah which is one of the myriad reasons why Jews don't accept him.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

Absolutely, though we don't blame those following their belief sincerely.

---

Oh, yes, you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't try to push a Christian concept onto a Jewish text.

quote:

---

specifically atheist science

---

No such thing. Science says nothing about the existence of god, just as it says nothing about the existence of YOU.Nobody thinks you don't exist. Science is the study of things that happen on their own.Oh! Looks like we're back to the question that never gets answered:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

The answer to all these issues are also vested in the OT

---

And yet, you reject the OT. You continue to try and push Christian concepts onto Jewish texts.

quote:

---

faith is meritless with revealed, open knowledge.

---

Why?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

Was Adam a Jew ?

---

Adam was created by the Jewish god, wasn't he?

quote:

---

I thought he was the first created man not just the first created Jew.

---

The fact that you have strayed and have started worshipping other gods doesn't change the fact that the creation story in Genesis is a Jewish story.

quote:

---

What happened to God's promise that through Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed?

---

Nothing. All you have to do is follow the god of the Jews. It's the first commandment, after all: I am the lord, your god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

quote:

---

Did God say only the Jews would be blessed through Abraham?

---

Of course not. But if you decide to worship other gods, what do you expect?

quote:

---

This book is to the Jews yet also to all mankind.

---

Indeed. But that means you don't get to claim it says things it clearly doesn't simply because you wish it applied to this other god you're worshipping.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, he didn't. The serpent in the garden was precisely that: A serpent. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

​

Okay. It amounts to the same thing. The serpent was somehow utilized by the spiritual advasary of God, the devil.

---

No, it doesn't. For precisely the reason that the serpent was nothing more than an animal, no connection to god, not supernatural, not the devil.There is no such thing as the devil in Judaism.

quote:

---

The old serpent was the devil - " ... The ancient serpent; he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth" (Rev. 12:9)

---

See, there you go trying to force a Christian interpretation on a Jewish text. The serpent mentioned in Revelation is not the same character as the one mentioned in Genesis.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Bible directly calls the serpent a beast. The punishment of the serpent is to have its legs removed and to have his offspring forever crushed under the heel of humans.

---

​

On one level that may be true. I am not sure.

---

What do you mean you aren't sure? You mean you haven't read the Bible?Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.See? A beast of the field. Not an angel. Not a devil. Not an instrument of god. Just a plain serpent.Genesis 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; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:See? A beast of the field. Treated like an animal. Not a fallen angel. Not a devil. Not an instrument of god. Just a plain serpent.3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.See? Treated like an animal. Not a fallen angel. Not a devil. Not an instrument of god. Just a plain serpent.

quote:

---

But the Bible is a deeply profound and spiritual revelation.

---

Indeed. And the Bible clearly and directly calls the serpent a serpent. Not a fallen angel. Not a devil. Not an instrument of god. Just a plain serpent.

quote:

---

And the fuller significance is that God incarnate, as the seed of the woman born of a virgin, would crush the Devil in His death and resurrection.

---

There you go again trying to force a Christian interpretation on a Jewish text. There is no such interpretation to be found in the Torah.

quote:

---

The Bible calls the Devil the ancient serpent in Revelation 12:9.

---

Yes, but it isn't referring to Genesis. The "Satan" of the Torah is the agent of god, doing god's bidding and in perfect harmony with god.The idea that Revelation is referring to Genesis is a modern Christian interpretation forced upon a Jewish text.Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context...which means there is no such thing as the devil and the tale told in Revelation is made out of whole cloth with no connection to the Torah of any kind as it refers to entities that do not exist.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, he didn't. The serpent never tells Eve to eat from the tree. He simply points out that god is not being truthful regarding it.

---

​

For what purpose?

---

We don't know. The Bible doesn't say. That doesn't change the fact that the serpent was right. Adam and Eve did not die as god said they would. Instead, they became as gods, knowing good and evil as the serpent said.The serpent never told Eve to eat of the tree. He simply told her the truth.

quote:

---

Of course that she would take of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

---

Why? Why does knowing the truth mean she has to eat of the tree? The serpent does not tell Eve to eat. He merely tells her the truth.[quotations from the New Testament deleted for space]There you go again trying to force Christian interpretations upon a Jewish text.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And the serpent was right: Adam and Eve, of their own volition, eat from the tree and become as gods, knowing good and evil.

---

​

The most effective lie is always mixed with a little truth.

---

Where was the lie? The serpent didn't tell Eve to eat from the tree. He simply told her the pure truth.[quotations from the New Testament deleted for space]There you go again trying to force Christian interpretations upon a Jewish text.Geneis was written by Jews for Jews and cannot be understood outside of a Jewish context. Any reference to the New Testament is necessarily flawed. You have to explain Genesis using the Torah and Judaism, not Christianity.Or are you saying that Jews don't understand their own religion?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Greatest I am responds to me:

quote:

---

I believe that the name Satan is only a catch all name for evil thoughts and notions and deeds.

---

Again, that's a Christian claim. The Torah directly contradicts that idea. "Satan" first appears in Job as an agent of god, under orders from god, carrying out god's will.

quote:

---

Like God is a title, so is Satan.

---

Indeed. It means "Adversary," but not as one to god. Rather, it is god's adversary to man.You are forcing a Christian interpretation onto Judaism.Are you saying Jews don't understand their own religion?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill writes:

quote:

---

Please don't tell me that that is not the devil but God's friendly neighberhood prosecutor. Who started that foolishness on the Internet anyway?

---

That's an overly simplistic way of putting it, but it gets to the point: Satan in Job is an agent of god. The name translates as "Adversary," but not as an adversary to god but rather god's adversary to man.Where does this idea come from? Well, that would be the Torah. You have actually read it, have you not? Here:Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand.See? Satan is being driven by god, working under god's direction and orders. And again in Job 2, Satan does nothing but what god tells him to.And who does Job finally raise his wrath to? Not to Satan but to god. And eventually, god comes unto Job and lifts him from his travails.

quote:

---

The behavior of the slanderer who is of some kind of angelic nature is the same throughout all references to the serpent, or Satan (in Job or Zechariah).

---

There's no reference to a serpent in Job. And the reference to Satan in Zechariah is to a person: The King of Tyre.We've been through this before.

quote:

---

I believe Revelation 12 that says that the old serpent was the Devil and Satan, the one who deceives the whole inhabited earth.

---

But that's a Christian interpretation imposed upon a Jewish text. There is no devil in Genesis, therefore the "serpent" of Revelation cannot be the same serpent from Genesis.

quote:

---

I am not sure how the existence of the Devil was denial of monotheism.

---

Because it means that there is an "other" to god. But in monotheism, there is no "other." There is only god. All things, good and evil, come from god.

quote:

---

I think I'll limit myself to something like a topic at a time. Right now I am in the process of exposing Satan and discussing what he did and how he is being dealt with.

---

But you're confusing Christianity with Judaism as if Jewish texts could ever justify a Christian claim.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

OT = The 5 Mosaic books.

---

Incorrect. The first five books of the Bible are the Torah.The "Old Testament" is everything you find in the "Old Testament" in the Bible. That's why it's called the "Old Testament."The "Old Testament" contains the Torah, the Nevi'im (the Prophets), and the Ketuvim (the writings).Judaism refers to this collection as the "Tanakh," but they order the books differently than Christians do.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you mean the Jewish God who said

---

Why did you ignore my very next sentence? The fact that you have started worshipping other gods doesn't change the fact that the creation story in Genesis is a Jewish story.

quote:

---

The fact that you have revolted against the Messiah doesn't mean that I should not turn to the one true God and be saved.

​

Have you not read?

---

Yes. That's how I know that Jesus isn't the Messiah. He fulfills none of the prophecies of the Messiah clearly delineated in the Jewish texts.For one thing, the Messiah doesn't die. Jesus died. Ergo, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.Or are you saying Jews don't know their own religion?

quote:

---

Are you going to talk loud about mercy from one side of your mouth and cut off the Gentiles from it on the other side?

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase. We're discussing whether or not Christian concepts can be imposed upon Jewish texts.

quote:

---

So I have repented at the Jewish Messiah Whom you reject.

---

But Jesus wasn't the Messiah. He fulfilled none of the prophecies of the Messiah as laid out in the Jewish texts. Ergo, you have done no such thing.

quote:

---

The Old Testament is also my book. Sorry.

---

If it were, why do you have it out of order? Why do you split it into 39 books when there are only 24? Why do you impose line breaks on it that do not exist?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

Consider the words, 'THENCE' and 'PARTED' here. The garden was parted [seperated from] the river; one was not on the physical earth realm.

---

Incorrect. You ignored your own text. The river parted into four. Those four rivers are here on earth. Therefore, the thing happens here on earth.

quote:

---

'Took man' [from where? - from the physical earth he was created in], and placed him in the [separated] garden

---

But the earth he was created in WAS THE GARDEN. Therefore, the garden was on earth.Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.The garden is "east." Not in another dimension. Not in a spiritual realm. It's simply "east." It's here on earth.

quote:

---

We know also from ch 2, the text, the animals emerged prior to Eve's emergence/seperation: this signifies a time prior to the garden placement of Adam

---

Incorrect. The text says the exact opposite. The animals are specifically created FOR THE USE OF ADAM TO FIND HIM A WIFE.Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

quote:

---

[The OT is contextual, not chronological].

---

Incorrect. The story of Genesis 2 is chronological. Adam is created. God notices that Adam is alone. God creates animals in an attempt to find a wife for him. None of the animals are suitable, therefore god creates Eve.

quote:

---

Yes, but w/o any contradictions with the conclusion.

---

Incorrect. Genesis 1 directly contradicts Genesis 2. This is not surprising since Genesis 1 and 2 are distinct and separate creation myths from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text.

quote:

---

their chronological emergence in the six cosmic days [not earth-calendar 24 hour days].

---

Incorrect. The days in Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days. That's what "evening and morning" means: A literal, 24-hour day.

quote:

---

This was the generic creation of life forms per se, and then explained in more subjective, historical context in the subsequent chapter. The text imposes this critical reading, else it does not make any orderly connections.

---

You're right that Genesis 1 and 2 don't make any sense when placed next to each other. That's because they're separate, distinct creation stories from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text. For an even clearer and more startling example of this hatchet job of an editing, see the story of Noah. Two stories of a flood are told in parallel. That is why Noah does things like enter the ark twice, the fact that the animals come in both "twos" and "sevens," that the ark comes to rest twice, etc.

quote:

---

Yes, nor does the messiah need resurrecting

---

That's because the Messiah does not die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

The river was parted [seperated] from Eden; it went 'out of Eden' [seperated from Eden], and became 4 heads 'after' this parting:

​

Gen. 2/10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads.

---

You're being disingenuous. "Out of Eden" means it kept on flowing. Eden was not all there was to existence. All rivers that currently flow on earth do not flow "out of earth." They are completely self-contained on the planet. Remember, Adam and Eve are cast out "east of Eden."And "parting" does not imply a spiritual or supernatural or interdimensional leaving of one space-time continuum into another. It means exactly what it appears to mean: Split into four. You're ignoring the second part of the statement: "parted [I][B]and became four heads[/i][/b]."

quote:

---

East, and Easterly Wind, refers to something else in the OT, as with a strong easterly wind which split the sea of reeds: it denotes an unnatural act or event.

---

No, it doesn't. You're forcing your desires upon the text. Where do you find anything in the text that indicates such? Chapter and verse, please.

quote:

---

Also, on earth there are no talking serpents

---

And that doesn't tell you something? No, not that the garden of Eden is in some supernatural place (else how could the rivers that started in Eden make it to the earth where we can see the Euphrates still today?) Something else? You know...about stories?

quote:

---

nor do angels bar man from anyplace on earth, as with eden

---

Why would they? There's nothing special about any other place on earth. The reason why Eden is guarded is because the Tree of Life is there and if humans were to eat from it, their apotheosis would be complete.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. The text says the exact opposite. The animals are specifically created FOR THE USE OF ADAM TO FIND HIM A WIFE.

---

​

Exactly, and 'to find him a wife' means Eve was not yet seperated from Adam, and yet played no character role in the scene at this time.

---

But you've just ignored the fact that you made an error. You claimed that the animals were made [I][B]before[/i][/b] Adam was put in the garden. That isn't true. They were made after. This is in contradiction not only to historical fact but also in direct contradiction to Genesis 1. Considering that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by different people at different times in different cultures, it is not surprising to find that they tell contradicting stories.

quote:

---

One of the rules of understanding the OT is it is not chronological but contextual.

---

Incorrect. One of the rules of understanding the OT is that it is cobbled together from many different sources. But each source relates its tale chronologically. Genesis 2 is written chronologically: First god creates Adam, then creates plants and animals, then creates Eve. You're trying to say that when the Bible says that god took pity on Adam for being alone and created animals to be with him, what it's really saying is that god didn't create the animals for Adam to be with him because he had already created them in some non-discussed time and place.Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.Your logic is saying that those two lines should be reversed and the entire intent of Gen 2:18 needs to be discarded because it directly states that god creates the animals after he created Adam. You said, and I quote: "We know also from ch 2, the text, the animals emerged prior to Eve's emergence/seperation: this signifies a time prior to the garden placement of Adam." But that isn't what the text says. Genesis 2:18-19 clearly show that the animals emerged after.

quote:

---

While in ch 1 the generic created life forms are listed, chronologicslly and contextual to this created chronology, this chapter does not expound that the animals predated Eve's seperation from Adam

---

Irrelevant. We're not talking about the appearance of the animals with relation to Eve. We're talking about the appearance of the animals with relation to Adam. You directly stated that the animals were created in "a time prior to the garden placement of Adam." But the text directly contradicts that claim. God sees Adam is alone [I][B]and then[/i][/b] creates animals. Therefore, they cannot have been created [I][B]before[/i][/b] Adam was placed in the garden. And we know that Adam was already in the garden because in Gen 2:15, we are told that god put Adam in the garden.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Genesis 1 directly contradicts Genesis 2. This is not surprising since Genesis 1 and 2 are distinct and separate creation myths from earlier times that were cobbled together into a single text.

---

​

Your evidence?

---

The textual analysis of it. A big example of the evidence is that Genesis 1 directly contradicts Genesis 2. That wouldn't be consistent with a single authorship. It is, however, consistent with a multiple authorship. And if we look at other mythologies of the time, we find parallels in other cultures.Take, for example, the story of Noah. It's pretty much plagiarized from the myth of Ut-Naphishtim. And if you read the text, it is clear that it is two stories told simultaneously. That's why we see such bizarre things as Noah entering the ark twice, the number of animals being inconsistent from one verse to the next, that the ark lands twice, that the earth dries up twice, etc.

quote:

---

The sun's luminosity did not appear till the 4th cosmic day

---

Irrelevant. People are capable of distinguishing time without the sun. When the astronauts are up in the shuttle, they are orbiting the earth about once every 90 minutes. They see the sun rise and fall multiple times during a "day." That's because everybody knows what a "day" is.The phrasing, "evening and morning," is indicative of a literal, 24-hour day. If you want to indicate a metaphorical, nebulous length of time, you don't phrase it that way.

quote:

---

That the days and nights you refer to are not 24-hour days is also supported in the psalms of David

---

Irrelevant. The Psalms are not referring to Genesis.Besides, if you do go that route, you've got a problem: The plants are created before the sun. Plants cannot live without the sun. If a "day" is referring to thousands of years, how on earth did the plants manage to live without the sun?

quote:

---

The OT calendar is regarded the world's most accurate and exacting

---

Incorrect. First, there is no real "calendar" of the Old Testament. Second, the most accurate actual calendars of the ancient world is that of the Maya.

quote:

---

There is hatchet job. Everything in ch 1 and 2 are perfectly alligned.

---

You do realize that sentence one is directly contradicted by sentence two, yes? At any rate, Gen 1 and Gen 2 directly contradict each other.The order of creation in Gen 1 is plants, animals, humans (both male and female). The order of Gen 2 is male human, plants, animals, female human.

quote:

---

This debate has been well handled generations ago with scholars.

---

Indeed. That's why we know that Gen 1 and Gen 2 were written by different people at different times from different cultures and thus, we are not surprised to see they contradict each other.

quote:

---

Ch 2 pointedly begins with 'AND' - signifying a continueing narrative.

---

Irrelevant. You must remember that there are no "chapters" or lines in Genesis. People who wrote it down arbitrarily put the breaks in. In fact, the Jewish and Christian versions of the texts have different line breaks and even have a different order of the books. For you to try and maintain some sort of cosmic significance over the placement of a single word in an arbitrary breakpoint is the height of silliness.Remember: The Torah is an oral document. It's supposed to be spoken aloud.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's because the Messiah does not die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

---

​

The messiah is to be a man - an ordinary one, subject to all man's traits, same as with Moses, also a messiah of his generation.

---

Which is another reason why Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Jesus claimed to be god.

quote:

---

The criteria for a Messiah ID is listed copiously in Isaiah, whereby all factors must be evident.

---

And Jesus fulfills none of them. That's why Jews don't accept him as the Messiah.Or are you saying Jews don't understand their own religion?

quote:

---

I agree this has not happened according to the OT rendition, while the NT demands a totally different premise.

---

Therefore, why would Christians care what the Jewish texts say? Why all the sturm and drang about Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of the Jews? If the Christians are simply making stuff up, why do they care what other people say?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

You say that because you don't believe that the divine revelation of God includes the books of the New Testament. The New Testament tells us that the ancient serpent is the Devil and Satan.

---

No, it doesn't. It simply calls the devil a "serpent" in Revelation and you have imposed upon the text that this reference to a "serpent" is the same one as the "serpent" of Genesis 3. But there is no textual support for such a claim.

quote:

---

However, you go on to say that the serpent was nothing more than an animal. But it talked with the woman.

​

Something is up with a talking serpent, don't you think?

---

Something's up with the entire story since god is regularly wandering along the earth, but we don't find that to be so bizarre, now do we?Genesis is not the first time animals talk. Balaam's ass talks to him and he isn't surprised by it in the least. Yes, god grants the ass the power of speech, but that is irrelevant. Balaam doesn't flinch when his animal talks to him. He even responds to it and they have an argument.So the idea that we're supposed to ascribe supernatural origin to the serpent simply because it talked is irrelevant. Remember, god made the animals specifically for Adam to see if any of them would be a suitable wife. Why wouldn't they talk?

quote:

---

It implies that God does not have the couple's best interest at heart.

---

Incorrect. God does have the couple's best interests at heart...he just screws up in how he goes about protecting it. We're back to the example of the vase and the baby.Suppose you have a delicate Mhing vase. It's standing on a rickety table. You put your toddler in the room with the pedestal and the vase. Do you really think simply telling the toddler, "Don't touch!" is going to be sufficient? And when we inevitably hear the crash of an ancient piece of porcelain shattering, do we blame the toddler for disobeying a direct order or do we blame the parent for being irresponsible in putting an innocent toddler next to a potential disaster?God didn't want them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. There's a simple solution to that: Don't put the couple where they can get at the tree. Instead, god decides to put them by the tree and then [I][B]lie[/i][/b] to them about it.

quote:

---

That is advasarial. That is devilish.

---

Huh? There's no such thing as the devil in Judaism. That's the entire point behind monotheism: There is only one. The Old Testament clearly states that god is the source of everything, including evil.

quote:

---

The talking animal also lies.

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite. The talking animal tells the truth. The only thing the serpent says is that if they were to eat of the tree, they would not die but would become as gods, knowing good and evil.And that's exactly what happens. Adam and Eve eat of the tree, they do not die, and they become as gods, knowing good and evil.

quote:

---

The talking animal of yours also seems to have the inside story. He does know something extraordinary for a mere snake, don't you think.

---

And? The serpent is described as quite intelligent. Why is this problematic?

quote:

---

Their eyes were indeed opened when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

---

And what's the first thing they panic over? You would think it would be eating from the tree since that's apparently the only thing they were ever told not to do. But it isn't. They panic over something else.

quote:

---

Explain to us HOW this animal KNEW this.

---

I don't have to. It's a story, therefore it is simply a given. The serpent is smart. It doesn't matter how the serpent knew what it did. The simple fact of the matter is that it did know and told the truth: If you eat from the tree, you will not die but instead will become as gods, knowing good and evil.

quote:

---

Man was given dominion over all the other creatures, right? Then what is up with one of the creatures having the "inside story" on God's ways that even MAN does not have?

---

Why does having dominion mean that man knows everything? Remember, humans are innocent. They necessarily don't know everything. After all, they don't know good and evil.

quote:

---

Where did the animal get this information? It turned out to be true.

---

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, yes? Previously, you said, "The talking animal also lies." Now, you're saying that the animal is telling the truth. Which is it?

quote:

---

In the long pre-Adamic ages of the universe

---

But there weren't any. Genesis is quite clear on this. "In the beginning" means there was no "previous." If there were, it wouldn't be the "beginning."

quote:

---

After all the very name of the book "Genesis" implies things in thier initial stage.

---

You've got it backwards. The reason why we think of "beginnings" when we hear "Genesis" is because the book called "Genesis" talks about a beginning. That is, we attached the meaning "beginning" to the word "Genesis," not the other way around.That said, you just contradicted yourself. "Genesis" is a story of the beginning. Therefore, there cannot be a "before" or it wouldn't be a "beginning."

quote:

---

You say that the Devil is non-existent in the Hebrew Bible?

---

Not as such. I say that there is no such thing as the devil in Genesis. The Jewish texts were not written of a piece. They, like the rest of the Bible, are cobbled together from various sources over hundreds of years. If you read the text, you can see the influences of other cultures slowly start to color the text. The texts evolve. That said, there is no real concept of the "devil" in Judaism the way there is in Christianity. Judaism is a monotheism: There is only one. All things come from god. The text directly states that everything does, including evil:Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

quote:

---

Well, in Ezekiel....

---

...there is no mention of the devil. We've been through this before. Ezekiel is talking to the king of Tyre:Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.Are you saying the devil was the king of Tyre?

quote:

---

So what mortal was perfect in his ways from the day he was created?

---

Noah, for one.Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

quote:

---

Would God use such a glorious symbol for a Gentile official of Tyre?

---

Well, since Ezekiel 28:12 directly indicates god does, the answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative by simple inspection.Are you saying the devil was the king of Tyre?

quote:

---

We also have the Old Testament passage of the Day Star in Isaiah 14.

---

Again, not about the devil. This is a reference to the king of Babylon.Isaiah 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!Are you saying the devil was the king of Babylon?

quote:

---

The best candidate for this prophecy is a supernatural being.

---

Incorrect. The best candidate for this statement is the person to whom the text specifically states it is directed toward: The king of Babylon (generally considered at this time to be Nebuchadrezzar).

quote:

---

So a full biography of Satan is not given in Genesis.

---

That's because Satan is not to be found in Genesis.

quote:

---

So why should the Devil not be treated in a similar manner in Genesis?

---

Because there is no such concept as the devil in Judaism. Not in the way Christianity sees it.

quote:

---

Just because we get a partial glimmer of him as the serpent in Genesis gives you no ground to say "Oh, there is no Devil and no Satan in the Hebrew Bible."

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is because there is not even a glimmer of the devil to be found anywhere in Genesis, that gives us grounds to say there is no concept of the devil to be found there.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

You have not seen the significance of all those sacrifices of blood?

---

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter that Jesus decided to become a martyr (assuming he even existed in the first place). The only thing that is important is whether or not Jesus fulfilled any of the prophecies of the Messiah as laid forth by the Jewish texts.And he doesn't. The biggest one is that the Messiah doesn't die. Jesus died. Therefore, he cannot be the Messiah.

quote:

---

You don't see the consecration offering and it significance.

---

Incorrect. I see it and fully understand its significance. I just don't claim that it has any connection to the Jewish texts. It's a Christian claim and concept. It holds a great significance to Christians.But Christians and Jews don't worship the same god.

quote:

---

You better run with Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.

---

Why? He fulfills none of the prophecies of the Messiah, therefore how could he possibly be the Messiah?Unless you're saying that the prophecies of the Messiah are false?

quote:

---

I think you should reconsider and speak more with some of your kinsmen Jews who have come to believe in Yeshua the Messiah.

---

Um, who said I was Jewish?And now you're engaging Pascal's Wager. You didn't think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

quote:

---

And Israel can turn to Jesus as the Messiah. Don't think it cannot happen.

---

Indeed. As the various televangelists say in their anti-Semitic ranks, they need the Jews. Their vision of the Apocalypse requires that Jews exist in Israel in order for them to be cast into hell at the second coming.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.