Is Genesis to be taken literally Part II

so the tree of life wears off?and the tree or knowledge does not?

you know it's funny. i've come the conclusion that *I* am a literalist. i think the bible means what it says. i don't always think it's RIGHT or ACCURATE to REALITY per se, but i read it very literally.more so than the literalists, who seem to just make stuff up on a regular basis.

and i second's jar's opinion.also, i don't practice any more. i don't see what to practice, there's very little ritual associated with christianity, more or less only baptism (which was supposed to end with john the baptist) and communion (which i think was meant to be ironic, and apply to all food consumption nto a ritual).

god created hasatan, who tests men. if that's evil, god created it.lucifer is a misnomer. lucifer is a latin rendering of "heylel" which loosely means "bringer of light" in hebrew. literally translated into latin, that would be "lucifer" which means the same thing. both words are probably literally refering to the planet venus, which heralds the dawn half the year.but by the context (isaiah 14?) the title appears to applied to the king of babylon, nebuchadnezzar. not any spiritual being, although it seems to be playing on some lost ancient babylonian legend.either way, lucifer ≠ satan, and there is not evidence of a fall of any kind. in the context of the bible, or at least the ot, satan strictly serves the will of god.this concept is completely in line with biblical philosophy. it's nothing shocking to think that all evil originates from god. where else would it come from? is god not the creator of all things?

quote:

---

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

---

quote:

---

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

---