Biblical contradictions II

If the snake was satan, why is satan not mentiond at all in genesis? The whole six day thing happens, there is a cunning snake etc. but satan is never mentiond.And the jews, for your information, have a very diffrent concept of the devil. They don't personafy him as christians do, he is more a manifestation of human folly, more a spirtual concept than an entetie.look it up at: http://www.religioustolearnce.orgFinaly, if satan posessed that one snake, then why did God curse all snakes?What you are not seeing is the fact that your belifes are your interpretations, and arent necissarly what is written in the book. You are looking at the book in a certain way that, while valid, is not the only way to look at it.As a matter of fact, those who hold views oposit to yours, are actually being more literal than you are as they are interpretting the texts as the words read.

Im not denying that my belifes are my interpretations. But it's your word against mine isn't it?Not only that, Im going by exactly what the book says. And no where in Genesis does it say explicitly that the snake was satan. If you can find that line I implore you do do so!I should ask you, why on earth do you think your interpretation, which relies hevely on you infering and adding things to the text, is correct?When all I have to do is read what the text actually says, in plain language, and see that it says nothing similar to what you think it does.As to the God lied thing,In the Bible, it says "you will die this very day", ok. That's what it says. It dosn't say spiritual death, etc. It says hear and now, right here, if you eat it you die. Ok. If you wan't to read into it, that's fine, but you are adding, it's not what the book says.Second, as far as God putting a lying spirit into someone, comeon?That makes no sense to me, God dosn't lie, so he makes people do it for him? So he recruits people to lie? How does that make God sinless? Does it not make him a co-conspiritor in the perpetration of false whitness?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

Sorry if I paraphrased.Here it is from the KJV: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.Note: it says very clearly, "FOR IN THE DAY THAT THOU EATEST THEREOF THOU SHALT SURELY DIE"It says they will die in the day that they eat the fruit, not a hundred years later, and not a spiritual death.Answer my other questions tho, my argument is not relegated to this point alone. Why is your interpretation better than mine?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

"AS for Genesis not saying it was Satan- No kidding Sherlock. Since you are a non-believer you will NOT agree. See II Corinthians 4:4 to know why. Revelation calls Satan the serpent, a little "s" just like Genesis 3. see:Rev. 12:9 and 20:2."I don't care what Revelations, written ages after the fact, has to say about Genesis. That could be an interpretation as well couldent it?Lets look at the verses you site:Rev 12:9 - And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.Were does it say thats the same serpent as the begining? It seems to be refering to some kind of dragon. He is not saying that this is Genisis' serpent is he? If he is, it's at best a loose refrence, and quite mbiguous open to interpretation.Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,Again, this says nothing about the devil being the snake in the garden. Were does it say this? Could I not interpret this figuratively? As being that the devil is a cursed creature, as the snake was cursed? Or just that the devil is loathsome? Why does this nceisitate your interpretation?Onward:"Telling the truth? What do you base this on? "Yea hath God said," starts doubting God or contradicting Him from the onset. Why would a created thing just one day decide to doubt God and create doubt in the mind of Eve? The serpent didn't tell Eve to eat the fruit because it was a choice of free will."The serpent was telling the truth and not deciving anybody, as pointed out time and time again, the serpent mearly said you won't die, you will know good and evil. And guess what? It happend. You want the KJV, here it:Gen 3:4,5 - And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.Was that a lie? How is that deceptive? How is that leading eve astray? He mearly told the truth. She said "God said we would die" serpent was walking by said "no you wont", that was it. No lie, no nothing, just a passing comment."WOW! You have a copy of the original Hebrew? I'm impressed. The Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandranus manuscripts are all corrupted
by Gnosticism and Origen and take way from the blood atonement of Christ, His Deity and many other doctrines. BTW, they only make up 1% of the family of manuscripts. I'm no lightweight when it comes to Textual criticism."Oh, so you admit that the current Bible comes from various conflicting, disparet sources, so basicaly what we have today is unrealiable rubish! Cool! That clears up alot [This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

"I compare scripture with scripture. That's how it is supposed to be done. I'm not denying WHAT the scripture says. I HAVE the KJV right next to me. It's ALL I use. I have been reading it for over 35 years. The KJV, not this particular bible. LOL Some things in the Bible are to be taken literally while others are figurative or have a deeper meaning than what is first read. Why couldn't it mean "begin to die"?Im not denying that you can interpret the scripture this way, but that is your choice. It can also be interpreted in the way I do. You still have not answerd the question why are you so sure you have the right interpretation?"LOL Some things in the Bible are to be taken literally while others are figurative or have a deeper meaning than what is first read."This is disturbing. Somehow you feel you are able to decide for yourself which bits are litteral and which arent? To assume that somehow you have this judicial power is foolish at best.Why can I then not assume that the entire story of Adam and Eve, or Genesis for that matter, is figurative? By your same logic I can do the same. Pick and choose whats true, and whats a metaphore based on my own Gut feeling, and because I feel its right, then it necesitates it's reality.Thats pretty crazy if you ask me."I choose to believe the latter."So it was a choice then? Just a choice, no better or worse than mine, sicne we both started from the same textual basis. You took it one way, I took it another, but we cannot invalidate each others opinion now can we?"If God lied He is a sinner and is in need of redemption and needs to accept His Son Jesus as His savior."Isn't Jesus God? So God is a sinner???? What????? You can allow for that in your logic? I thought God was perfect, are you saying he may not be? And why would God have to accept himself???"Not only that but He will eventually end up in the lake of fire along with YOU. "But the fearful and unbelieving (YOU),...and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone..." God in Hell? I think not! If you don't want to burn, TURN! Turn from your unbelief and accept Jesus as your Saviour."this is the most pathetic attempt at reductio ad absurdum I have ever seen. And your acusatins and condemnation of me will not help your case in this argument.But at least you have admited, that your views are mearly your opinions about what you have read. And thus, aren't necissarly the right interpretation, but rather your gut feelings about them. Sounds good.

"God putting a lying spirit into someone could very well be a demonic spirit. Since HE is all powerful, there is nothing in His nature that HE cannot do. Remember, YOU, used these verses to support your idea of God lying, not me. "So God can command demons to possess people in order to meat his ends? How is this right?God: "Gee, Im good I can't lie, hmmmm... Oh I know, hey belzebub! Posses that man and make him break one of my commandments!"How on earthm, can you possibly, ever, justify this?

"You can assume anything you want."So can you, and so far it's all you have been doing. Assuming a bunch of stuff is true, just because you belive it to be so."God gave you that right but Paul, under inspiration from the Holy Spririt,"So, you are certain, that a guy who lived a couple of thousand years ago, claiming to be inspired by a holy spirit, and formes an OPINION on what he has read, is necissarly right?Paul has some wierd ideas ya know, he says some funkey things about how we should treat women and slaves amongst others. Do we belive those? (if you wan't to make me dig up verses you can, but Im sure you know which ones I am "misiniterpreting")."talks about sin entering into the world because of Adam (see Rom. 5:12) and Paul says that the woman (Eve)was in the transgression 1 Tim. 2:14."He dosn't say eve by name, but you are right we can say this referes to her. So? This is timothies interpretation of Genesis. How do we know he is right?"Paul is a liar too and then God AGAIN becomes a liar since the Holy Sprit is also God and HE inspired holy men to write the scriptures. II Timothy 3:16 and that includes Paul."Paul is not God, Paul can lie. But more likely, Paul can be very passionate of his belifes, so much so, that he puts fourth his opinions on an old text as truth and fact.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

"FYI, Paul wrote I and II Timothy NOT Timothy."Realy? I thought there was still contraversy to this day about all scriptural origins... but that's for another discusion.Thanks for correcting me as to the common OPINION of chritians."Yes, I believe an old man thousand of years ago was inspired by God to write books of the bible and in doing so he COULDN'T lie."Ok fine, so you belive it. It's just your opinion then, because you have no rational reason too.I have a corny UFO conspiracy tract that says it's for real, guess I should belive that too."ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God..."Ok 2 things. First, the obvious:So you belive the book, because the book says it's true. Not God, nobody else, your reading a book, a pile of glue and paper. And it says it's for real. So it says it's real, and you belive it, for no other reason than that cool.I think Im gonna put on that tinfoil hat and go live in a compund awaiting the mothership then.Second:What is the meaning of God inspired? Could I not interpret this as it is inspired by God, and contains some of his knowledge, yet the term inspiration does not necisserely conote verbatim 100% acurate truth.No where in the bible does it say "God told them what to write", if anything your only leg to stand on is the term "inspired". Which is again, ambigious, subjective, and subject to opinion.It can easely mean (and more likely) that the people who wrote it were so passionete about their belifes that they were inspired to write what they thought about it. Couldent it? What makes me wrong?"He tells husbands to love their wives in Ephesians 5:25 JUST as Christ loved the church and died for it. YEAH, that's real funky."no not that..."AND just before that he tells the wives to be in submission to their husbands. Now THAT's REAL funky especially in liberal, humanistic America where the women are running the homes."Ah! there it is.Im gonna let your venomous tounge and backward resoning be teh judge of you, and your belife system. Lest you can actually provide factual justification as to why women are somehow inferior to men that they cannot lead the household?"BTW, you are imposing YOUR opinion upon the text too. Since Adam and Eve didn't drop dead on the spot, you naturally assume God is a liar. To that I say BWAA-HA-HA."well woop ti doo. And your not?"You fail to convince me that the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 is for mankind. Mankind is called it, the seed of the woman, but "his" is a personal pronoun for ONE person. The Jews DIDN'T exist at that time so your rejection of Christ as the Messiah argument is fallible."No, by the same token, Christ didn't exist yet either.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

oops. Go back one post [This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

Ok, My apologies I get excieted in debates, and am still getting used to teh forum layout read the end of my last post as I have added a reply to the post you specificaly pointed at me.My apologies for confusing the arguments.EDIT: Actually, most of my post is on what you directed at me.... well... answer it [This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

not to interupt, but do you have a refrence?A link would suffice. I think this notion is rather intereting and would like to look into it further.

"If you die in your sins you will spend eternity in Hell. Jesus came to take away your sins. John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoseover believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." Don't you want the free gift that God has to offer? Repent and be saved."I have, nothing happend. Why should we belive it? Do you have verifiable evidence that there is a Hell, or was a Jesus? Do you have PROOF. Even doubting Thomas was rewarded proof, do we not deserve the same?Verily I say unto you (I allways wanted to say that ) I have repented. I was a christian at one point, and guess what... nothing happend. Never felt special, and I never was reaveald any special truth. So I fell away, and have been happy ever since."That's the ONLY way to know the truth. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. NO man cometh unto the father but by me." JOhn 14:6
It's your choice. Like Eve, you can take it or leave it. This time the death IS spiritual. I pray you make the right choice. "Ya, I sure hope the Hidus were wrong, or the Jews, or the Shinto, or the Pagans, or all the other religions. Cuz if your wrong, I guess your screwd. Its a crap shoot isn't it?Like religious rulete, pick the right one or you fry. I sure hope you did, I prefer not to play.

Theologian63, first off, I respect your faith and your story, and I do not deny a metaphiscal or spirtual aspect to the world, personaly I think it is very real. But I don't think we as humans have a compleat conception of it, I belive firmly there is something beyond the phiscal, I just don't belive there is only one way of interpreting it.I don't throw out the Bible as a whole, I think it is an excellent book full of great stories, and much wisdom on many a subject. But I am also not blind to it's shortcomings, nor easely made to take it as a whole. Personaly, I see the Bible as being no diffrent than any other religious text, which Is why I take great pleasure in reading things about Zen, Budhisim, Hindo mythology etc. Because I think all of them together paint a vague picture of the spiritual nature of human beings, yet non render it as a final perfect entetie.But that, is just an Opinion I know you belive deeply, and Im happy for you that you found peace in your particular faith, but I don't think (by necessity) that your faith is for everyone. Personaly I don't agree with many tenets of chritianity. And I think some of it's concepts are downright absurd.For example:Christ. Ok... so what is he? He is God. Explain this to me:God sends himself to kill himself, to apease himself, so he dosn't have to burn, the humans he loves so much, in hell. And all the humans who don't belive this, who God loves, will be thrown in hell.Now.... does that make any sense by any logic other than that used by a schizophrenic?To top that all off, he sends this guy to a little patch on the map no one has ever heard of (think in relation to the whole world) and we are somehow supposed to belive every word of a cobbled together acount some 2000 years later?I think that is silly.Why shoulden't I choose any other religion? Why is Hinduism wrong? What makes it so invalid? By all historical records it has existed longer than even Judaism.Also, then there is Hell:What is Just about a place of eternal punishment? Especialy for falible humans that God loves!?I mean if it was gonna come to all this, God being omnisient, coulden't he have just undone eves "sin" and made it all over again at the beginning?Not only that, an all loving, all powerfull God, dosn't have the power to forgive a human, who has never seen him, for questioning his existance???Silly stuff guy, it really is.That's all.I'm not knocking christianity, I'm just saying it's not for me. For the reasons above and more.

"It sounds like you ARE knocking it to me. If you make a case like that then STAND behind it."I am, I think Christianity is Chrit's golden rule, "love one another", nothing else. That to me is real Christianity. Everything else is interpretation, adendum, and silly "mind job" concepts. Remember, the bible is not God, it's a book. Make sure you are actually listening to what christ said, and not blindly beliving every "fact" in a dusty tombe.It seems to me, atributing God like qualities to an old book (inerrant, divine, etc.) is tantamount to idolitry."As far as undersanding the Trinity, you are better off trying to solve the Rubics cube with no help. The concept of three in One intertwined is beyond our perception and understanding."So basically what your saying, is that it is beyond all logical thought. And makes no sense to the rational mind, but we are supposed to swallow it whole? Ok."ONLY GOd is worthy of worship. Man is NOT a deity. "Ye shall be as gods..." Yeah right!"Ya, I agree, so sto worshiping the Bible.