Poor Satan, so misunderstood.

quote:

---

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."

---

Consider this pivotal verse here.

quote:

---

2/15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

---

From where was the man taken? And to where? He was not taken to a garden - but to 'THE' garden, namely a particular garden like no other - where animals can walk, talk and debate; where a human is in its primal, original dual-gendered form [pre-seperation, and still in the previous chapter's state of 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM']; and where entry is guarded by 'angels'. This is hardly a garden variety ordinary garden.Later, the human is cast out of this garden: to where? - and why cast out/down if this is just a generic garden not different from any place on earth? - and why bar entry with angels with firey swords?Obviously, this is not on physical earth, or it is a metaphor, and quite excellently writ. It is obviously not an error in writing so it is not coherent - we see a coherence of writing every where in the OT, irrespective how one feels about its content. The opening chapters of genesis, being creational, are also, IMO, the most complex and hedy. It is a description of a transit zone, between essential creation in conjunction with all created entities [ch.1], and then an historical account of a 'human' [adam] becoming a particular man's name [pronoun]; because the adam of ch.1 was an essential human [in his essence of creation], not a historical person on earth; ch 1 is not about the creation of humans, but the creation of all things simultainiously - all elements and all life forms, including physicality itself. There is a transit twilight zone here, which acts as a bridge, thus it's metaphoric premise.We find also, that the technical word for 'create' is used in ch. 1 for essence of man, and the word 'formed' used outside of ch.1., when Eve was seperated from adam:

quote:

---

3/1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman: 'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'

---

This non-physical garden is 'away from' and 'different' than the place where four rivers are listed. Here, the phrase 'took man from' - refers to took man from this physical earth wherein is the historical rivers listed - namely 'away' from physicality. Thus in the garden, all the created life forms addressed in ch 1., which includes the animals, are likewise not in this physical realm, but still in their essence prior to their physical representation. All are in the transit zone.The relevent question now becomes, where then does this meta-physical realm and, and the historical, physical one begin? IMHO, it is at the following point, which introduces the first exclusive human trait, one which no other life form displays, and one which signifies nothing else than 'physicality' and more significantly, the exclusive human reaction to it: shame and embarrassment of being naked - which is the factor seperating humans from all other life forms. The opening clause here is also an eye opener:

quote:

---

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles.

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

How does this account for the serpent also being punished, if only man sinned? This also shows that the animals were in the same place [the serpent].

quote:

---

The poison was delivered in a deceptive and good sounding name - the knowledge of good and evil.

---

But this would account for a non-truth, which is not permissable, because this description ['knowledge of good and evil'] was ascribed as being given by God.

But it was God who created the tree and the fruit. It didn't "seem" good - it was good:

quote:

---

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

---

This is Bible Study, not Fairy Tale Theater. Stop wasting everybody's time with coulda-beens and deal with what the Bible says. That's the worst perversion of the Bible I've seen in a while.It was clearly God who labelled the tree:

quote:

---

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

---

That was well before the snake came along. (And his name wasn't "Satan".)

---

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.

I concur here. The term satan is Non-OT and an addition.The tree of knowledge was good, and only a precious status accorded it, later seen as irresistably desirous.Also, there is no rebellian in the sense of being able to withstand God's Will as a counter force, but more a failing, akin to one failing to adhere to a NO SMOKING sign. All were judged; non were a counter force; the latter notion contradicts the OT in a fundamental mode.

Yes the man was put into particular garden east of Eden.This was a particular garden on the earth. It was on the earth. How do I know? Because 2:6 says that " ... a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground." The ground of the earth is intended here. This fact governs Adam's activity IN the garden. Am I right?Also the river that went out of Eden to water the garden and is said to run to places which are on the earth. Most noteably to me are the land of Cush which would be Ethiopia in verse 13. And both Assyria with the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers are mentioned.All indications are that the garden is on the planet earth. That is largely speculation except for the fact that one animal more subtle was seen to have debated and spoken. God could not say that He created them male and female until after the woman was taken from the man. And that is after the man is put into the garden and charged to name the animals. Male and female therefore as far as man is concerned comes into being in 2:21-25 which is of course afterwards in time to 2:6 where "He put the man whom He had formed" into the garden. The garden was on the earth. And the man and woman were cast out of it. But they are still on the earth. The Tree of Life represents union with God. It represents the life of God imparted into man. It is beyond God simply giving natural life to man as in man's creation. The tree of life is representative of God imparting Himself into man.God will not coinherit with sin. So the cherubim of glory with the flaming sword guards the way to the tree of life.In the gospel of the new covenant (a covenant which was prophesied to come in Jeremiah) God does cause man to be born anew. He does come into man. We must ask if God would not allow His life to be imparted to man in the garden after man's sinful fall, why in the new covenant?The answer is that Christ on the cross has borne the judgment of sin for the whole race of men. In His death the glorious flaming justice has fallen on a Substitute on our behalf so that we might come forward to the tree of life. And the life of God is now in the man who shed His blood - Jesus."In Him was life. And the life was the light of men"The life of God in the tree of life was protected by the cherubim with the flaming sword. The cherubim represents the glory of God. The flame of the sword represents the holiness of God. And the sword represents the righteousness of God.Man is condemned and kept away from the divine eternal life of God because of God's glory, God's holiness, and God's righeoussness. These demands must be met before our race can again partake of the life of God.Christ, the Son of God is the answer to barrier of the glory, holiness, and righteousness of God. He has fulfilled all three demands in His life, death, and resurrection for our salvation. I don't see the garden as being in heaven. I don't see it as being in some abstract zone or state. It was east of somewhere called Eden. And the land of Cush and Assyria were mentioned as being directionally related to it.The garden of Eden in Genesis was on the planet. I see no twilight zone here in a physical sense.The first account of creation says that the last creature to be created was man whom God made male and female. The second record says that God caused Adam to sleep and builded a woman out of his rib. So if you put the two records together and believe them, it must be that God created man on the sixth day male and female.I conclude that the naming of the animals and the subsequent production of the woman from the man had to have occured on the sixth day. What? I agree that the garden was special. But it was on the earth.There are however, deep significances in the mentioning of the rivers and the substances related to the rivers. I won't speak to them now. Well. It is interesting .. an Outer Limits Garden of Eden. Or a garden of Eden in the twilight zone.I can see the need to view it that way. I see it as solidly on the ground of this earth, albeit marvelous in a divine way.After the couple were expelled, I think that they could still come before the garden and perform sacrifices. I am of the opinion that Cain and Abel may have brought there sacrifices to the entrance of the garden from which their parents had been expelled. It is there that God showed favor or disfavor to their offerings.This is speculative and I can't insist upon it. But I am of the opinion that for some time the garden and the tree of life with its fearful guardian were visible to the early people.If this is the case it may explain many mythological ideas of people the world over routed in the ancient memories of Adam's descendents. G.H. Pember taught that the early couple did have a covering. All the animals had a natural covering. Humans had a supernatural covering. Or shall I say that their covering was not clothing but a kind of shining that shown out from within them. This was the livingness of their human spirit. (Human spirit not to be confused with human soul).When they trangressed, Pember believes, their human spirit stopped shining and covering them with a kind of light. Then they noticed that they were naked. We see in the Psalms that God clothes Himself in light as like a garment. It is from this passage that Pember gets his idea of a covering of light emenating from within man which formed his "clothing" until he sinned.The light went out, he speculates, and he was found to be naked.I don't know.But I do know that fallen man must be born again. He must experience the regeneration of his human spirit by the imparting of the life giving Spirit of the resurrected Christ:"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Now we should compare the activity of Satan as the serpent in Genesis with Satan in Zechariah 3. In this vision God rebukes Satan who is there to belittle the High Priest Joshua because of his moral and spiritual failures signified by the filthy garments.It is not simply a matter of Satan wanting to damage the reputation of Joshua personally. Not in Genesis was it a matter of Satan wanting to simplu ruin Adam personally. It is the opposition to the plan of God which is the source of Satan's accusations and slanders.This is seen in what the Angel of Jehovah says - "And Jehovah said to Satan, Jehovah rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, Jehovah WHO HAS CHOSEN JERUSALEM rebuke you." (v.2) Satan's goal is to stop the rebuilding of Jerusalem as God's city on earth. In the same way his evil activity in the garden of Eden was to stop the establishment of God's kingdom in the earth.God has chosen Jerusalem as the place to place His name. This is His plan in the Old Testament. And He will not be stopped by Satan's slander against Israel. Joshua the High Priest also stands for all of Israel (Exodus 19:6; Zech. 8:20-23; Isa. 2:2-4a)Satan has tempted Jehovah's people to sin, including the High Priest. Then after successfully drawing them into iniquity turns around to accuse them before God. How can they be God's people? They are so dirty. They are so sinful. How can God use them.But God who has chosen Jerusalem rebukes the tactics of Satan.It was so in Genesis also. Satan accuses God to man to render man useless to God in the carrying out of the divine purpose. It is the kingdom that Satan wishes to hault. It is the city of God which Satan wishes to suspend. Accusation, slander, even with some justification, is the means by which Satan seeks to drive God and man further and further apart.The day soon is coming when the Accuser will be cast down altogether and God will bring in His kingdom to the earth: Satan resist the establishment of God's kingdom on the earth in Genesis, with accusation against the saints. Satan resists the establishment of God's city Jerusalem, with accusation. Satan resists the second coming of Christ and the reigning of the saints with Christ over the earth, with accusation.But the redemption of Christ shuts the mouth of the accuser. God has judged man'siniquity on the cross. Justice has been satisfied on behalf of the saints. And the accuser's mouth is shut up. Thousands may have been corrupted. But God will reserve some to be plucked from the fire. Some will be preserved to carry out His divine plans on the earth. All sinners are guilty before God. Through Christ God cloths the sinner with Christ as his or her righteousness.Adam and Eve were also under accusation and self condemnation for their nakedness. God clothed them by slaying a cattle and making the covering of the cattle the clothing for Adam and Eve. This was a type of God slaying the Son of God for man's redemption. And this atoning death removes the iniquity from the believers in God who come to Him through Christ's death and resurrection.As in the garden of Eden, here in Zechariah there are three parties: Joshua, the Angel of Jehovah, and Satan. This is a repetition of the scene in the garden of Eden, where God put the man He had created in front of the tree of life, denoting God, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, denoting Satan (Gen. 2:8-9)In type, garments signify one's conduct as one's expression (Isaiah 64:6; Rev. 19:8). That Joshua the high priest was clothed in filthy garments indicates that the conduct of God's servants is still indicative of living in the fallen flesh, which is altogether filthy (Rom. 7:18; 2 Cor. 7:1). Joshua's filthy garments were the bases of Satan's accusation. How does God remove the iniquity from Joshua the high priest?The perfection of Christ as the Angel of Jehovah was extended to Joshua by the removing ofthe filthy garments from him. This made his iniquity pass from him. The moral perfection of the Angel of Jehovah was extended to Joshua.Joshua was also clothed with stately robes. with garments befitting his office and status as high priest. These new clean garments also speak of the forgiven sinner being clothed in Christ as his covering and expression. The divine glory and human beauty of the Christ is imparted to the believer. Here the Angel of Jehovah is an Old Testament pre-figure of the incarnate Son of God to come.In many places in the Old Testament Jehovah and the Angel of Jehovah are virtually the same Person.

quote:

---

God could not say that He created them male and female until after the woman was taken from the man.

---

Not so. Both were created in dual-gender mode in ch.1., in their originally created essence, and here adam represents a generic human, not a male name:

quote:

---

1/27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

---

quote:

---

I agree that the garden was special. But it was on the earth.
I don't see the garden as being in heaven. I don't see it as being in some abstract zone or state. It was east of somewhere called Eden. And the land of Cush and Assyria were mentioned as being directionally related to it.

​

The garden of Eden in Genesis was on the planet.

​

There are however, deep significances in the mentioning of the rivers

---

That the garden was special, means it can be special here on earth as well, varied from the norm reality. The point here is this garden was non-physical/different by virtue of the factors it contains. The historical milestones such as river tigirs, etc - is the place this garden was seperate from, and where adam was taken and placed therein, then cast back to physical, historical earth. Earth and physicality do not apply here. East is also mentioned in Exodus, representing a factor transcending nature, namely a strong easterly wind split the sea of reeds.The rest of your post references are NT perspectives, which have fundamental core differences with the OT conclusions, contradicting all of the laws and statutes of the Mosaic - from the POV of pre-NT, OT commentary and provisions. It is just a different view and premise, and ends cyclical or contradictory when both premises are used. Obviously, if one followed the OT view for 2000 years b4 the NT emerged, he would not uphold the same views. The variance must be seen from a big picture view, not in a path which requires the OT to allign with an end point conclusion of the NT.Here, my preference goes to the OT conclusion - else all other factors in the OT become changeable; equally, we cannot determine the NT from an OT view. There is no adversary or devil in the text, only humans and a serpent being placed in situations and acting like all humans do in natural circumstances: they fail, fall and get up again: the message of this story of things to come.

Wrong.God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He pronounced it "very good". (See Message 108.) Nothing in Genesis 2 "denotes Satan", least of all the tree.You're not paying any attention to the Bible at all here. You're just making up your own demented version.

---

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.

To be fair, this is perhaps the most enigmatic writings I have ever encountered. It seems to infer something different, more or additional than what is read in it, even from numerous deliberations. The most poignant factor in it is that it appears to be intentional, because it cannot be conclusively faulted as an error, no matter which path is taken. Equally, all conclusions appear deficient and unsatisfactory.One must remember the hedy nature of the topic, and what mysterious issues would apply. In this sense, all my own views are conjurings only.

You should use that as your signature.

---

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.

This applies only to Genesis' creation chapters. No conjurings about the origin of science, medicine, herbology, fullfilled prophesies, the name Palestinian or the Pope's racism towards Israel. These were shown to this reluctant forum with adequate vindication. I know not what your post refers to specifically.

Do you think that God told Adam to multiply and replenish the earth BEFORE the woman was taken from him or AFTER?I think the command to Adam to multiply as in bear children had to have been given to the couple after there was a man and a woman to be married and come together to have offspring.Are you also saying that Adam was not male before the woman was taken out of him ? You mean that God took the physical man which He fashioned out of the dust of the ground, and put him into a non-physical garden?Was he tilling non-physical soil? You are saying that Adam was created on the earth and then taken off the earth. And then taken out of this non-physical existential place and put back on the physical earth? In your interpretation as you enter into this garden, time seems to stop. And then you enter into this non-physical abstract realm.I think we can hold to a special divine place and still commit to it being physically locatable on the earth. You have Adam being put into the garden as being placed in another dimension.Now if Adam is given dominion over the EARTH and over the things of the EARTH, why then would God remove him and place him in an abstract non-physical place removed from the EARTH ?The serpent is compared to other beasts of the field. Out of the ground made to grow every tree which is pleasant to the sight. Out of the ground, that is. Do you envision non-physical ground?Moses knelt on holy ground before the burning bush. God told him that the place on which his feet stood was holy ground. It was still ground on the earth, I think.The garden of Eden was likewise holy ground in that it was dedicated to God - sanctified, uncommon. I do not see it as in another dimension somehow at this point. No, I do not agree. As Genesis and Exodus are the oracles of God, the gospels and the letters of the Apostle Paul are the oracles of God.If you want to talk about how the ancient Jews derived wisdom from Genesis, I would not argue that they did not perceive some of these things. At that stage of God outworking His eternal purpose their was not at that time the need for them to have these realizations.Today we need these realizations. Both Jew and Gentile need the New Testament revelation to enighten our understanding of Genesis. To reject it is counter revelation.The loss is to those who will not consider the new covenant revelation seen in Genesis. For the last 2,000 years we are SUPPOSE to follow the new covenant revelation. We are to respond to the ministry of the Messiah Jesus, the Son of God.The ones who continued with the old covenant are being left behind in God's ongoing move. The Big Picture View includes the New Testament. The partial picture view restricts to only the Old Testament view disregarding the incarnation of God into man, His life, death, resurrection and
becomming life giving Spirit.As the New Testament tells us: The mystery was not made known to other generations as it has now been revealed to the New Testament apostles and prophets. We are in the New Testament age. And we should listen to the New Testament Savior and His apostles and prophets.To refuse to and hold only to the Mosiac law in order to be justified before God is rebellion. There is one Bible. And with the help of the wisdom of both, and especially the New Testament Christ and His apostles we can obtain the big picture. Yes the Devil is there. But he desires to conceal his evil activity. If you were to receive Christ as Savior and Lord I think you would surely see this. As it is you are a part of the deceived world. I'm sorry to be frank about it this way. But it is true.He has you somewhat blinded to the truth. For you also he would keep from the divine eternal life of God.I don't think I will spend more time on this subject now.Thanks for an interesting dialogue. On to another discussion somewhere else for me, now.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Do you think that God told Adam to multiply and replenish the earth BEFORE the woman was taken from him or AFTER?

​

I think the command to Adam to multiply as in bear children had to have been given to the couple after there was a man and a woman to be married and come together to have offspring.

---

Yes, the text says so: the dual-gendered human is in opening ch 1., and the command to multiply is after ch.1., namely after their seperation, in ch.2:

quote:

---

2/ 18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'

---

Are you also saying that Adam was not male before the woman was taken out of him ?Correct - he was a dual-gendered ['male and female created he them']human originally. The text says so. Also, the first comman, TO MULTIPLY, is after they are deemed seperated and married:

quote:

---

1/27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea,

---

I wrote: The Apostle Peter writes that the OT prophets inquired concerning prophesies about the coming of the Messiah and the manner of the time of the event. Even the angels were curious too.Peter says that it was revealed to them that they wrote many things for the main benefit of a future generation. So though there was much applicable to their own time, they mused on the myterious of Genesis and other books, considering how these things would be more clear to a future generation when the Messiah came. We believers in Christ are now living in that time when many mysteries of the OT are clearer to us on this side of the incarnation, life, and death of the Son of God - Messiah Jesus Christ.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

If you read it carefully the devil, is called Satan there.

---

I never said otherwise. But the serpent in Genesis is not referred to as Satan. Therefore, there is no textual justification for thinking that the "serpent" of Revelation is the "serpent" of Genesis.

quote:

---

You see? I have imposed nothing. The ancient serpent is called the Devil and Satan.

---

Incorrect. You are imposing that the character in Revelation is the same one as in Genesis simply because the word "serpent" is used, as if all references to a "serpent" are necessarily a reference to the devil.Since there is no such thing as the devil in Genesis, then clearly the claim that the devil mentioned in Revelation is the a reference to the serpent in Genesis because of the use of the word "serpent" is a Christian imposition upon a Jewish text.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wait a minute. Now we're talking about "dragons"? I thought we were talking about serpents. Which is it? If you can't keep to the same story, then your argument necessarily falls apart. There were no dragons in Genesis 3.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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?

---

​

It is perculiar

---

No, it isn't. Adam and Eve think nothing of it. Nobody else thinks it's that bizarre. During the Exodus, god takes up residence with the Jews and they carry him around in the temple. So if isn't unusual for god to walk and talk with humans, why would a talking snake be so bizarre? Remember, we've got a talking ass later on and the owner doesn't even blink but gets into an argument with it.

quote:

---

I think the point in Balaam's exprience was he was so obsessed with material gain that he overlooked the obvious.

---

Right. Greed overwhelms a talking animal.

quote:

---

If you don't want to believe that the serpent has anything to do with Satan the Devil go ahead and believe that.

---

It's not a question of belief. It's the fact that Judaism doesn't have a concept of the devil the way Christians do and the serpent certainly isn't it. The text does not refer to the serpent as anything but a beast. The text directly calls the serpent a beast. The punishment of the serpent is that of a beast.Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. Are you saying Jews don't know their own religion?

quote:

---

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.

---

But Genesis clearly states that the serpent was nothing more than an animal. Therefore, your belief is an imposition upon the text. You are free to have whatever belief you wish, but you have no justification for it.

quote:

---

Adam was not a toddler.

---

I never said he was. The point behind an analogy is not to indicate that the two things being compared are exactly the same in every respect. The point is not that Adam was stupid. It's that he was innocent. He doesn't know any better because he doesn't understand what good and evil are. Disobedience requires knowledge of good and evil which he doesn't have. You can talk to him all you want about it, but he doesn't understand.Here you go, jaywill: Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One of them will mean your salvation while the other will damn you forever. Which is it? Come on! You're an intelligent person, so why are you hesitating? Surely someone as sophisticated as you can tell the difference.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

But since the activity of Satan is to accuse God

---

Incorrect. The activity of Satan is to carry out god's will. Have you forgotten the story of Job? Satan is commanded by god to go forth.

quote:

---

Its curious that you want to both conceal his identity and at the same time accuse God for the fall of man.

---

It's only confusing if you insist that there is something other than god. If you accept that there is only one source for everything, only one being that creates both good and evil, then there's no problem. Of course god is responsible for the fall of man. God is responsible for everything.The Jewish texts clearly state so.Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.The idea of a separate entity from god is a Christian imposition upon Judaism.

quote:

---

So Satan is concealed. God is at fault. And God lied.

---

No, Satan is an agent of god, there is no devil, and god is responsible for everything. The text, however, clearly indicates that god was less than truthful in his description of the effects of eating of the Tree of Knowledge.

quote:

---

Who do you work for ?

---

Does it matter? What does my religious inclination have to do with anything? Either the text says what it says or it doesn't. One does not need to be a believer in order to understand what a text says and place it within its cultural context.You're treading into the territory of Pascal's Wager. You didn't think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

---

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.