It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
(I wonder why 1/3rd of the angels went with Satan?)
dirtusbagious you ask in your O.P. and I quote "Is the truth that Satan actually had a sexual encounter with Eve?". And I answer you as follows. I can provide no scripture that says specifically that Eve and Adam had "copulative and penetrative sexual relations" with Satan in any way shape or form. I have a quick look but nothings registering in the KJV but I could be searching wrong or not looking in right places ect and would love to be proved as lacking in investigative skills
Originally posted by misswanderer31
reply to post by OmegaLogos
Sure here are the references... some are from the bible, some are from the dead sea scrolls that have since been translated into english and one from Doctrine & Covenants... so here goes... P.S. I use the KJV version of the Bible.
(Num. 27: 16) "God of the spirits of all flesh."
- This scripture tells us that we are the spirit children of God. Literally.
17 “And as for me, here I am bringing the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens. Everything that is in the earth will expire.
I'm sorry i wasn't aware that that was the question that you were asking. I went back and looked at the op and couldn't find anyplace that you mentioned that you wanted opinions on the mp3. You question seemed to be that you couldn't understand why they were so severely punished for eating a measley piece of fruit. Which is what i was giving my opinion on. I listened to the mp3,although i did cheat fastfowarded a little bit. Anything's possible but i wasn't there so i don't know. The explanation on the mp3 doesn't make me change my beliefs, but i'm not saying that it's impossible, again i wasn't there. IMO she seems to take the definition of the hebrew words that will sway listeners to her beliefs. She lists several different meanings for several words, but always seems to use the definitions that support her views. She does say one thing that isn't true and i believe that she uses this untruth to further sway people. All it takes is one known untruth to negate her whole theory. She states that fraternal twins are concieved at different times, that is untrue. Fraternal twins are simply a case where the woman has released more than one egg, and two eggs are fertilized by two different sperm, usually from the same man. I may be wrong.but i believe that it would be a very rare case if a woman were carrying twins from two different men.
Originally posted by dirtusbagious
reply to post by chise61
[anyway, if you chose not to listen to it, well, it "is" the crux of the question I raise..therefore, the explaination it contains, is what I am interested of what your insight or thoughts my be.]
All it takes is one known untruth to negate her whole theory.
Yes it is an unfamiliar concept to most, and worth pondering. One should never just accept without looking at all possibilities. I was dicussing this thread with someone today & they reminded of something that may help you to understand a little better the magnitude of God's anger. It wasn't just the disobedience, it was something more. When God asked Adam what he had done, Adam said it was the woman that has done it, the woman that YOU gave me. So not only did he disobey God, but he then put the blame on God, saying in essense that it was God's fault because he created and gave Eve to Adam. Imagine your child disobeying the ONLY rule that you had laid down for him & then having the nerve to tell you that it was your fault that he disobeyed you.
reply to post by dirtusbagious
I have no children, but can relate that God simply adored His new creation. And to utterley smite them (us) for what amounts to "sticking your hand in the cookie jar", or, "telling on your little sister", so to speak (though perhaps not greatest for comparisons), well, still, it seems unjustly harsh.