Poor Satan, so misunderstood.

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.

jaywill writes:

quote:

---

Okay, how did the serpent have this inside story about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

---

Why does it matter? The text simply says that the serpent is very intelligent. Why is this not enough?

quote:

---

How can man have dominion over the serpent if the serpent is smarter about what is going on than man?

---

Because that isn't what "having dominion" means. Just because I have dominion over you doesn't mean I know what's going on. Dominion is about control, not knowledge.

quote:

---

Where did the serpent get this information that Adam would become like God knowing good and evil? It sounds like the serpent had some previous experience with these things.

---

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean there was a previous creation that was somehow before the beginning (for there was no "previous" to the events listed in Genesis as Genesis makes clear).For all we know, the serpent ate from the tree and thus knew what it did. In the end, it doesn't matter. It is sufficient that the serpent didn't lie but told the truth.

---

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.

If you read it carefully the devil, is called Satan there." ... the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan ..." (Rev. 12:9)You see? I have imposed nothing. The ancient serpent is called the Devil and Satan. That means Devil is one name for the ancient serpent. And Satan is another name for the ancient serpent.Furthermore the similarity between the scene in Revelation 12 with the woman, her manchild, and a hostile dragon is reflective of the Genesis scene of a woman Eve, a serpent who is at enmity with her and her child, and a promised seed of the woman. It is perculiar, However we see it again a couple of more times in Genesis. God appears to Abraham with two angels and has lunch with him before taking care of Sodom.I think that the one walking in the garden in the cool of the day to meet Adam was probably Christ in His pre-incarnated state. That is true. I think the point in Balaam's exprience was he was so obsessed with material gain that he overlooked the obvious. But I have to think about it some more.In Adam's case it could be that there was some communication between man and some of the animals. Whether that was in human language I do not know.There are many things about the early creation that I do not understand at this time. If you don't want to believe that the serpent has anything to do with Satan the Devil go ahead and believe that.It is enough for me that "the ancient serpent,he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth" (Rev.12:9) is the crystal clear indication that the serpent, who in fact deceived the whole world, was connected to Satan. Adam was not a toddler. You don't give names to all the animals and not have some smarts.But since the activity of Satan is to accuse God, Its curious that you want to both conceal his identity and at the same time accuse God for the fall of man. So Satan is concealed. God is at fault. And God lied.Who do you work for ? I think below this there's probably not much else I could learn from or want to respond to.

quote:

---

Question for the zealots on this forum who are eager always to say "THERE'S NOOOOOO Satan in the Old Testament !!"

​

Okay, how did the serpent have this inside story about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Man was created to have dominion over all the creatures of the earth. How can man have dominion over the serpent if the serpent is smarter about what is going on than man?

​

Where did the serpent get this information that Adam would become like God knowing good and evil? It sounds like the serpent had some previous experience with these things.

​

What kind of snake is this? He has the "inside story" on such divine and eternal matters. Where did he get this knowledge?

---

Excellent question, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with any devil. There is no 'devel' mentioned in any of the five books. This is simply a display to indicate the sanctity of commands [laws], which was to be forthcoming unto humanity. Both this story in Genesis, and the opening words at Sinai, begin with a display of 'laws'.The fact that the serpent must have had some prior knowledge of good and evil is also correct, and is also an explanation of the plural 'US' - used in the texts before the advent of humans: 'LET *US* MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE'/Gen. Of note is the 'US' only relates to including the previously created spiritual beings in what God proposes to do next, while the following verse which tells of actually creating man is in the 'singular' verb.

I agree that the Devil is not mentioned by that name in the first five books of Moses. I have no argument about that. However, I do not believe that that means the activity of God's most powerful enemy is not mentioned.I could also say that there is no mention of the law in Genesis. You see, however, some things arguably related to the divine law of God. I am saying there are unquestionably some things related to God's enemy Satan and the Devil in Genesis. I think I agree with you to some extent. And here is how - At first Adam was directly ruled by God's instructions. At the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil his human conscience was activated. Because He is created in the image of God there is something of God's character in Adam with which his conscience agrees.So Adam fell from direct rule of God to the rule of the created conscience. Latter we will see in Genesis that human government was iinstituted after the flood. The reason from this is because God had to institute a system in which those who listen to conscience govern over those who do not listen to conscience.So was a step from rule of the direct command of God,
to rule of conscience,
to rule of human government in case all do not listen to human conscience.Higher and greater than all of these states is the state of man having the life of God dispensed into him. This is the peak of all human existence - for man to partake of the tree of life. This is higher than receiving command of God. This is an "organic" union and oneness with God in life and nature.The highest possible state of man was not coerced upon man. It was provided to man's freedom to choose. And that is to partake of the tree of life.The man of life, that is of the divine life, is a God-man. He is God and man incorporated together. Adam ignored this highest state and fell into union with God's enemy.Now some object that I read too much Pauline theology into Genesis. But consider the next thing that the writer mentions after the fall of Adam. It is the murder of Abel by Cain. And in that story it is clear that SIN has flooded into the heart of man and man must master this foriegn force.God tells Cain: Moses, writes of sin as if it is a living, creeping, opportunistic enemy - crouching, ready to devour its prey.Compare this with Paul's exposition the sin nature in Romans 6 through 8, especially chapter 7. In Paul's letter sin is a personified evil force that operated (v.5), bears fruit (v.5), seizes opportunity (v.8), worked out coveting (v.8), revieved (v.9), again seized opportunity and deceived (v.11), killed (v.11),works out death and becomes exceedingly sinful (v.13), forces man to practice what he hates (v.15), prevents man from doing the good he desires to do (v.18), drives man to go against what he delights in (v.16), dwells in the sinner's members (v.17,20), is a an evil law in the members of the sinner's body (v.21,23), is a evil evil law stronger than man's good mind (v.23), makes man a captive (v.23), gives man a sense of self wretchedness (v.24).Now go back to Genesis You see practically the same thing as you see in Romans 7. SIN is a evil, crouching, foe of God and man lurking at the door of man's heart, waiting for the right moment to drive man into rebellious and evil behavior.So some of us take it completely relevant that the New Testament apostle enlightens us of the state of man from his fall and of the nature of salvation in Christ. I have not spoken much about the salvation in this post.Compare again the crouching sin in Genesis and the indwelling sin of Romans 7 with this passage about the evil spirit operating in fallen man: We need Paul's New Testament revelation to get the most wisdom from the book of Genesis appropriate to this present stage of God's salvation for man. That is an interesting thought. I have thought of it in the years I have been studying this Bible. But I will not speak to it in this post, except to say that I believe that the "Us" refers to the Triune God - the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Maybe we can discuss that in another exchange.My concern is not how Genesis chapter 3 spoke to the Jews thousands of years ago who perhaps were in the days of Hezekiah. And it is not a matter of Christians saying that their level of understanding of Genesis was wrong. What the Spirit of God impressed upon them was appropriate to the stage of the outworking of God's economy.What I expound I believe is God's deeper enlightenment through the New Testament of the mysteries of Genesis. And they are appropriate to this stage of God's progressive unfolding of His eternal purpose.What we see does not render the previous light wrong. But today's revelation through the lense of the NT it is deeper. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

testing 1,2,3.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

In Genesis 1:26,27 we read: Could "Us" include the serpent ? In Deuteronmoy Moses warned the Israelites not to make an image of God that resembled any animal: The flying, walking, or crawling serpent is OUT as far as being any way associated with the divine "Us" and "Our image".But IamJoseph's thought still needs consideration. He says that the "Us" refers to spiritual beings. If that is the case then we have a spiritual being who has changed in likeness and image to become a serpent. Spiritually then, IamJoseph implies, some glorious and holy being is one of the divine "Us" in the past but is presently in the form of a serpent.This seems to bring us closer to pre-Adamic cherub or angelic being who is now apparently very much opposed to God's words and God's plans. But some still don't want to refer to such a being as Satan, the Devil because he is not specifically called that in Genesis. But who can deny that the function of such a Slanderer and Advsary is pracrically being acted out in the serpent?This interpretation brings us closer to the serpent being the Devil rather than farther away.But there is another problem. Could there be ANY reference ANYWHERE in the rest of the Bible that angels, other gods, cherubims, etc. assisted God in the creating of anything? Remember that God said - "Let Us make make man ..." but verse 27 does not say "So They created man in Their own image". Rather it says "And God created man in His own image ..."God makes a point of telling us that He alone is responsible for creation work: From these passages we see that God alone and no other gods are responsible for the heavens and the earth. But what about the creation of man? It does say in Genesis "Let Us make man in Our Image, according to Our likeness ..."I will leave off pondering this problem further until another post. But I would say this. In an attempt to remove and ancient powerful being who is Satan the Devil from Genesis, I think that IamJoseph has unwittingly brought us closer to such a concept.It should be clear that any spiritual being who is part of the divine "Us" in some sense is:1.) Changed in form or appearance
2.) In opposition against the plan of God
3.) In direct rebellion to the command of God
5.) Twisting the words of God
6.) Lying concerning the truth of God
7.) Judged by God
8.) Cursed by God
9.) Responsible for the trend of the human race away from God's Paradise
10.) Main instigator in the necesssity for God to have to judge man.What "spiritual" being in all the Bible best fits this discription?For those without a clue, consider Revelation 12:9: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Misc Response to Rrhain,I looked again over this posters remarks who I previously wrote off for accusing God of lying. But I'll address one or two other points. Hebrew language readers of the book of Genesis have at times understood the destruction of a previous creation to that world committed to Adam. And they were not only Christians.For example The Book of Light or Sefer Hazzohar or simply Zohar is attributed to a disciple of Akiba ben Joseph who was president and rabbi of the SChool Bene Barek near Saffa. He was executed in 135 A.D traditionally it is held that his disciple Simeon ben Jochai wrote these words in an exposition of Genesis 2:4-6 This was written before the invention of geology. It was written by a Hebrew Rabbi in the latter part of the first century or early part of the second century. It proves that some Hebrew readers of Genesis understood that the earth was found waste and void because of a divine judgement of a previous pre-Adamic world.Satan and his displaced hordes of evil angels were left over from that previous age. And in the garden of this new creature - man, the Devil is lurking to ruin God's new plan with human beings. The serpent did lie. But the lie, like all most damaging and dangerous ones, contains some truth.Their eyes were opened to know good and evil. That part is true. I don't know why you want to ignore that for the serpent to say that the couple would NOT die - was a lie.So the most damnable lie is the one which has some truth in it. They did die. So to say that they would not was a lie. Their eyes were opened to know good and evil. That part was true.You grasp the true part only and defend the serpent. Curious. Then you go on to accuse God of lying. I can't trust your way of interpretation here at all.Now, Noah was found to be righteous in all his generation. However it does not say that God created him like that from the very beginning of his existence. What I think it means is that Noah learned to walk with God. So comparing Noah to the king of Tyre in Ezek. 28 won't work.G.H. Pember points out that history knows of no king of Tyre though it knows of a prince of Tyre. Ezekiel 28 first starts speaking about the princeof Tyre. Then there is a full stop and the passages take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre. The change has some significance.Profound things of the spiritual realm are sometimes encapsulated in word pictures that we can understand. In Daniel for instance the viel of heaven is seemingly rolled back and the nature of angels warring over nations is revealed. Likewise in the OT the spiritual battle was shown to Elisha in terms of chariots and marching armies.This is to say that some humanistic aspects are certainly in the prophecy. But there are aspects of it which I take to only be relevant to superhuman sources.Exekiel 28 I take as containing instances of the prophetic past. The Eden could not be the Eden in Genesis where no king of Tyre was. It must refer to some pre-Genesis paradise. And as I alluded above Jewish rabbis, not only some Christians, held opinion that previous worlds were destroyed by God rendering the earth in a Bohu and Tohu condition in Genesis 1:2 some unspecified time after "the beginning"I agree with this Destruction / Reconstruction view of Genesis.And I might add that some quarters of science at least seem to be inching closer to theories of an ancient cataclysmic discontinuing of previous life on earth - a great cosmic catastraphy of some kind making previous life forms extinct.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In Genesis 1:26,27 we read:

​

And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ... So God created man in His own image ...

​

Could "Us" include the serpent ? In Deuteronmoy Moses warned the Israelites not to make an image of God that resembled any animal:

​

"So take careful heed to your souls for you did not see any form at all on the day when Jehovah spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire,
So that you do not spoil yourselves and make for yourselves an idol, a form of any image, a figure of male or female, a figure of any animal which is on the earth, a figure of any winged bird which flies in the sky, a figure of anything that crawls on the ground ... etc." (See Deuteronomy 4:14-19)

---

The command of images relates to the 'worship' of them only, and to humans on this physical realm. Note it says not to make a 'likeness' of anything in heaven or earth, listing all relevent examples. This does not include abstracts, such as a word or writing or an expressionism. The law was directed to humanity only.This law is akin to an advocation, although presented as a mandated law akin to THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. It is given for guidance to follow the best path for belief, as it says, [paraphrased]: FOR THEY SHALL FOLLOW MY STATUTES AND NOT GO ASTRAY, etc.

quote:

---

The flying, walking, or crawling serpent is OUT as far as being any way associated with the divine "Us" and "Our image".

​

But IamJoseph's thought still needs consideration. He says that the "Us" refers to spiritual beings. If that is the case then we have a spiritual being who has changed in likeness and image to become a serpent. Spiritually then, IamJoseph implies, some glorious and holy being is one of the divine "Us" in the past but is presently in the form of a serpent.

---

There was no humans at the point of that verse [pre-man creation]. That the serpent was punished with crawling on the ground, also says the serpent once walked. We know that spiritual beings [forces/angels?] can emulate humans while they enter this physical realm, from the 3 Angels who visited Abraham. This is specially so when there is a vision or relevation commanded [seeing with third eye/when the eyes are closed, etc/Bilham], or when a message is to be given, which is varied from the lesser omens, signs, dreams and thoughts of man.

quote:

---

This interpretation brings us closer to the serpent being the Devil rather than farther away.

---

No, this infers an adversary to God, which is a Non-OT; Non-Monotheist stance. All percieved bad/evil is Creator sanctioned else it could not occur, as with all things. Also, there is no loss of free will for humans in this regard. Further, angels cannot perform more than one designated task at one time [thus 3 angels were sent to Abraham, with 3 different messages], free will being exclusive to humans, and based exclusively on moral/ethical laws; there is no free will outside a moral/ethical decision. The OT clearly says of percieved evils, 'WHEN *I* SEND THE PLAGUE INTO YOUR CITITES'; 'WHO IS IT THAT MAKES ONE BLIND AND ANOTHER A MUTE?'; etc.There is no 'Lucifer' or Creator adversary syndrome in the OT, which describes evil and hated the Lord, as hating the laws of God only. This says the law is the only antidote to bad/evil. Eve would have not sinned and prevailed over the serpent but for disobaying a law; this was the serpent's designated role, also as seen in Job, to test one against a command. The same way, a spiritual force tempts one to gamble, rob or do some wrong on a constant basis while we live.

quote:

---

But there is another problem. Could there be ANY reference ANYWHERE in the rest of the Bible that angels, other gods, cherubims, etc. assisted God in the creating of anything? Remember that God said - "Let Us make make man ..." but verse 27 does not say "So They created man in Their own image". Rather it says "And God created man in His own image ..."

​

God makes a point of telling us that He alone is responsible for creation work:

​

I am Jehovah who makes all things, Who alone stretches out the heavens, Who spread out the earth (Who was with Me?) (Isa.44:24 RcV ).
I am the First and I am the Last, and apart from Me there is no God. (Isa. 44:6)

​

From these passages we see that God alone and no other gods are responsible for the heavens and the earth. But what about the creation of man? It does say in Genesis "Let Us make man in Our Image, according to Our likeness ..."

---

See the follow-up verse: when man is created - the word 'created' is in the singular term. The 'US' refers only to a dialogue which includes other spiritual beings created in Heaven, which preceded the physical realm.

quote:

---

I will leave off pondering this problem further until another post. But I would say this. In an attempt to remove and ancient powerful being who is Satan the Devil from Genesis, I think that IamJoseph has unwittingly brought us closer to such a concept.

​

It should be clear that any spiritual being who is part of the divine "Us" in some sense is:

​

1.) Changed in form or appearance
2.) In opposition against the plan of God
3.) In direct rebellion to the command of God
5.) Twisting the words of God
6.) Lying concerning the truth of God
7.) Judged by God
8.) Cursed by God
9.) Responsible for the trend of the human race away from God's Paradise
10.) Main instigator in the necesssity for God to have to judge man.

---

Only where this role is designated; in Job, the percieved adversary had to seek God's permission to test Job, and this was given in the opening preamble of that book. Belief in any independent anti-creator entity can conclude in paganism, polytheism, or the wrong path.

If Genesis had said "Now the writer was more subtle than any beast of the field ..." then we may the reason the writer was one of these beings included in the divine "Us". But it says the serpent which is a concrete member of the relavent examples.I pointed out that the serpent seems to have previous knowledge of things related to becoming as God knowing good and evil. He seems to know even what death is.I'm not sure I follow Joseph here. I realize that abstractions as in human virtues must be included in the image of God. And I acknowlege that the theory that God was using "Us" to refer to Himself and angels is a possibility. But I have outlined some problems with that view.Again, Genesis did not say that the angel was more subtle or more crafty among all the creatures God made. But it says the serpent was. Now you have to deal with the questions:Well if it was an angel member of this glorious "Us", how come he shows up now in the garden as a serpent? Why did it not record that a glorious angel came and spoke to Eve saying something like:"Eve, I am a glorious being as you can see. I am a member of US team in whose image you were made. You won't die if you eat of the forbidden tree."If a glorious angelic being is a member of the Divine "Us" then considerable corruption has taken place in that being. And whatever he is he is now not at all cooperative with the Divine "Us", not in harmony with the Divine "Us", and a total enemy of the Divine "Us".Whoever the serpent IS or WAS, making it a part of the Divine Us and member of Our image brings us closer to an understanding of a ancient rebellious being like Satan and not further away.I am not sure who the law is directed at, as Joseph points out, is really any solution to this. That is interesting. But I don't think it solves the problem of the identity of the serpent or explains how it had this knowledge about the ways of the Creator.quote: I agree with that. Of course the image of God is probably eternal. At least in its abstractions as in His divine attributes.I am trying to follow Joseph's thought here. This does not mean that this was the FIRST time the being who is behind or related to the serpent was punished. I take it as a FURTHER punishment of an already previously punished being.Satan HAD been punished by being deprived of some realm of glorious authority. He is now FURTHER punished by made to eat dust.My opinion is that the story means that Satan would be limited to eat the fallen man. He henceforth has his sphere of authority in fallen humankind.My feeling is that God has communicated to us exceedingly profound spiritual principles in terms of symbols that are familiar to us on this side of creation. Yes, I think a serpent was involved. Yes I think there was a tree of life and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in human history. I think this just as I think there was an Ark of the Covenant - a physical thing which held profound spiritual significance to Israel.Anyway, the descent of the serpent from a walking or flying being to a dust eating and crawling being I am sure was not the FIRST time this rebel had been dealt with by God. This was an additional punishment added to the already existing ones upon his head.The fact that he was NOT in the place of Adam as the deputy authority over the creation was itself a punishment against the serpent being.
Obviously, he is JEALOUS of both God and man. I agree. But the third one who did not go down into Sodom but remained speaking with Abraham was Jehovah God. I have no comment on this yet. I'm not sure I follow it completely. I am monotheistic. Christ is monotheistic. His apostles including Paul were monotheistic.Many of us who do not fall into the extreme of Modalism on one side or Tritheism on the other are monotheistic.Satan is an enemy to a monotheistic God. The Devil is a slanderer against a monotheistic God.It totally escapes me, Joseph's argument pitting monotheism against the self developed ancient enemy of God. God created a being which was exceedinly intelligent and good. He corrupted himself and became the opposite of all that God is.If God is life this enemy had to become the opposite - a king of death. If God is truth this enemy became the deceit and the lie. If God is light this enemy became the darkness. He had to become the total opposite of what God is.Satan is the enemy of the monotheistic God. That is all. I don't see how that makes it impossible for a monotheistic God to have a creator who rebels against Him to become a total Advasary. Sure I acknowledge that this could not happen without God allowing it to. I understand that.Apparently, God allowed it to happen. It is getting a little dense for me this morning.I need to think about what this is suppose to do for Joseph's argument of removing the Devil out of Genesis. I need time to think about this paragraph. We have here a fundamental difference in out beliefs.The Day Star [Latin - Lucifer] is an Old Testament reference. It is a reference to a being who sought by his will to set his throne above that of the Most High God.Saying, as some would, that plenty of world rulers sought to do that doesn't really help. That only indicates to me that Lucifer was the originator of them all.I do not draw my concepts about "Lucifer" from Milton's Paradise Lost or from Dante's Divine Comedy but from the prophet Isaiah in conjuction with other revealing passages from the whole Bible - Old and New Testament.As long as I am a participant in this forum, get use to the fact that to me as a Christian the complete revelation of God is the Old and the New Testament. Others can labor to chop off the New Testament from the full revelation of God.I take them as one revelation. "Lucifer" is the Latin version of the Day Star in Isaiah's prophecy who sought to make his throne above the throne of God the Most High. I believe that this is the prophetic past being spoken by the prophet Isaiah telling us what we need to know about the history of the main rebel against God - the Devil.All the rebels had an original rebel. That original rebel that pre-existed all the worldly rebellious rulers is Satan. He appeared as a serpent or behind a serpent in Genesis.He appears in an older book of the Bible Job. There he is slandering God again. There he is slandering God's man on earth - again.Yes, he can only go so far by God's permission. I fully acknowledge that. It doesn't help his case. It doesn't remove him from being insidiously evil. And it doesn't prove that there is no Satan in the Old Testament.His activity is to accuse God to man. His job is to accuse man to God. His activity is to make man believe that he the Devil is God and that Jehovah God is the real enemy of mankind. He is out to totally reverse truth.He is not mentioned specifically by name in Genesis. But he is there. The law of God is not specifically mentioned either. I see no equivalent insistence that the law has nothing to do with Genesis. I see some ground for saying this and don't want to counter it.
She crossed a line and was a trangressor.The following story of Cain's murder of Abel shows that at the expulsion from the garden man started down the slide of corruption. Something in their nature was being corrupted. It reaches its climax with the flood of Noah.God says man has become flesh and that His Spirit will not strive with them forever. Man not only transgressed the instructions of God. Man was polluted with a foriegn element of some evil nature. I call this the Satanification of man.To eat of the forbidden tree was one problem - a problem of disobedience. But it was also a problem of taking into his being poison.The poison that man took into his being caused him to be Satanified - the expression of God's enemy. So the man created very good and in teh image of God has become damaged and corrupted.This is like a radio which has been discarded into the trash. Instead of playing the radio music it yields ugly static. It, however, is still designed uniquely and reveals the goodness and wisdom of its creator. I'll continue latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

How can a "being which was exceedinly intelligent and good" corrupt himself? Doesn't that suggest that he was poorly designed in the first place?And when God created man, He made him even worse? He made the second creation susceptible to the first, flawed creation?You're portraying your god as incompetent. Interesting that you refer to the knowledge of good and evil as "poison".

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

It is not the knowledge of good and evil that is poison.It is the being who used this attractive sounding label to hide behind. Now if Satan had come to man in his ugliness he would have been rejected. He came hiding out behind something seeming so noble, right and good.Now sometimes I think that the title "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was thought up by Satan. I could be wrong. But perhaps it happened this way:As in Job God and the Devil were having a contest. They set the terms. God says that His way will be called the tree of life and Satan's way will be called the tree of death. We will see which way man will choose.Satan then suggests - "No. No. Call it something different. Call it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."As Satan did suggest some terms to God in the book of Job, and God accepted those terms - so it could have been in Genesis. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil could have been the name given to it by Satan to conceal that it really was the Satanic principle of rebellion and independence from God.It is not the knowledge of good and evil per se which is the poison. It is the rebellious Satan himself and the death that he brings to man which is the poison.The enemy of God cloaked the poison in something sounding so good, so necessary, and even noble. In fact it was of God to know good and evil.As I have repeated again and again, once man ate of it, he had neither the power to resist evil nor the power to perform good. That is to perform it to the satisfaction of GOD'S standard, not yours or mine.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Man had and has an opportunity which the highest creature created by God never had. That is to be in union in life with God.It could be that in the ancient universe God told Lucifer of His plans. And it could be that Lucifer, being the highest being at that time, rebelled in jealousy to preemtively derange this plan of God.It could be. The Devil knows a lot more than we think.Now God creates a man out of the DUST. But this man has the choice to eat of the tree of life and become God in life and in nature - an extension of God, a son of God in life and in nature.God cannot be stopped to fulfill His eternal purpose. Though an exceedingly intelligent and vicious foe set his entire resources against God, God turns a remnant of these dusty creatures into brothers of the Firstborn God-Man Jesus Christ.At first there was only the need to receive the life of God.Now after the fall there is the need to receive the blood of redemption and then the life of God.You MUST take the New Testament and the Old Testament together to understand this.Everything is to mass produce Christ. EVerything is to build up the New Jerusalem as the city of God of sons of God. Men transformed into God-men and built up in a corporate dwelling place of God.We can participate in this glorious eternal purpose of God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Once again. It is not the knowledge of good and evil which is the poison. It is the INDEPENDENT BEING who withdrew from God's authority and kingdom which is the poison.The poison was delivered in a deceptive and good sounding name - the knowledge of good and evil.Once man ate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he became aware that He was naked.God asked him "WHO TOLD YOU that you were naked?" God did not tell him that. Who told him?His conscience told him. But why was he afraid? Why did he run off to hide? It is a little mysterious.But this I know. Satan tempts man to sin. Then Satan turns around and condemns man's conscience FOR sinning.Satan lures you to commit evil. Then once you have commited it he accuses you to your conscience. He accuses you to God. He accuses God to you eventually.Adam stepped out from under the authority of God government and under the authority of the Devil. He is now a part of the kingdom of Satan. He needs not only forgiveness. He needs deliverance.He needs not only to be reconciled to God from his state as an enemy of God. He needs DIVINE LIFE POWER to escape the curse of sin.Man thinks that the problem is not that serious. Man thinks he can rectify the difficulty without too much problem. God gives man the law of God to show that man is constitutionally sick with the poison of a corrupted NATURE.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.