I Would Side With the Serpent

reply to post by DaisyAnne


It never fails, whenever there is a talk about the serpent, inevitably Yahweh creeps in and sucks the oxygen out of the room. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

You mentioned that the truth will become apparent soon enough. What do you mean? Does that have anything to do with 2012 that you know of?

reply to post by DaisyAnne


Didn't Jacob wrestle with an Angel? Seems that I do remember reading that.
Wasn't Lot trying to protect Angels in Sodom, who in turn protected him, seems I remember reading that too.

Yup your right somebody does need to read some more but it's not Miriam

reply to post by JayinAR

 

I have a question to ask of any believer. If God is all powerful why would he knowingly create a being that was going to eventually turn against him, deceive his creation into following him in his treason and eventually punish the people for buying into what was, for all intents and purposes, a 'Godly Mistake'?

Free will carries with it the potential for evil. A failure to show consideration to others has the potential to be misread as cruelty, leading to hurt, leading to vengeance, leading to war, and worse. Evil tends to begin with a logic that says, "I know better. I will do it my way, regardless of what has been proven." The greater the evil, the greater the casting off of subordination, and the greater the rebellion.

The irony is that the "evil one" fails to see that in liberating himself of his "oppressor", he essentially becomes his own oppression; the cruelest task master of all, demanding his own desires be fulfilled. So the question is one of who we are subordinate to: a benevolent Master, who is capable of meeting our needs, and knows what they are, better than we do ourselves.

The pre-material creation of angelic beings, were fixed in their choices, leading to a permanent decision of being either "good" or "evil". The principle at work is that the greater the level of personal maturity, the greater the consistency of belief. God desired to have beings created in His own image, capable of choosing between good and evil. He chose to take the route of creating them into a "Father/child" relationship, in regard to subordination. The idea being they would learn of Him, and He would provide for them.

He created a temporal reality for His "children" to exist in, which is where Genesis 1 picks up. In allowing the angelic beings access to man, He provided them with the means of making an educated choice, allowing the possibility exposure to good and evil, without the permanency of an eternal nature. In the garden He placed two tress, which I believe were literal, but represented something symbolic - Moral Choices, and Eternal Life; neither to be taken for a "tree", but given by God. Interestingly, it would appear that one tree was attractive enough, for the other to be ignored.

Ultimately, the choice was between the advice of two beings: God, and an evil angelic being (finite and the Infinite), in the form of a serpent. One said "don't eat", while the other said "take and eat". The interesting thing is, the primary of lure the serpent was "Ye shall be as God", when God had declared that He had made man in His own image". In other words, man was already, "as God".

In making the choice, man was allowed the right to follow the evil angelic host, but all along limitations were placed on them, by God (ona can see this occuring in the Book of Job). God's ultimate goal was that man would be restored from evil, to good. This would create safety, for man, in that he would know what he had given up, in choosing good. This "redemptive component" of creation was hinted at when God killed and lamb and made skins for mankind, covering their nakedness (which was not a concern for them, before being introduce to the knowledge of good and evil in the sudden way that they were).

This sacrifice was to be a foreshadowing of the sacrifice He would make of Himself, come in the flesh, once for all time. In this one event, God took ultimate responsibility for His creation, enabling a legal ground for man to return to an innocent relationship with Him (this legal exchange is explained in a variety of levels in Romans 5-8).

So in summary, it is true that God knew that man could (some would say, "would") fall, but that by no means equates to a mistake. Glorified humanity will have something that the angels never did, the experiential knowledge of what is like to be evil, and yet be good.

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
Oh dear.
Someone needs to read more.
Did you not notice their absence until the Book of Daniel?

your claim is SO ridiculous i have to ask, did your studying of bible "myths" ever actually involve opening the bible? im not trying to insult you, but i feel im missing something. you said earlier "I am unflinching in defense of the truth." and yet some of the things you claim are just outright untrue.

just saying

gen 3:[24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a

flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

even if you think they are refering to the Hittite "griffin", this is still refering to a spirit creature as adam

and eve would have been the only humans at this point.

gen 6:[1] And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto

them,
[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all

which they chose.

the term "sons of god" is used exclusively for angels. it is used in the book of job to describe the heavenly

congregation of angels (a book also written before the exile in babylon)

and yes they were having sex with human women. (1 peter 3:19,20; 2 peter 2:4,5; jude 6)

gen 16:[9] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
[10] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered

for multitude.
[11] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his

name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

and angel talked to hagar in the wilderness

gen 19:[1] And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot

seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
[2] And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash

your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all

night.

lot as his wife were rescued by angels.

gen 22:[11] And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here

am I.

angels interacted with abraham regularly

same with jacob

gen 31:[11] And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.

gen 32:[24] And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
[25] And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of

Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
[26] And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
[27] And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
[28] And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and

with men, and hast prevailed.
[29] And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask

after my name? And he blessed him there.
[30] And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

jacob wrestling an angel

angel talked to moses on mount sinai

exodus 3:[2] And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he

looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

an angel directed the isrealites

exodus 14:[19] And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the

pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:

exodus
23:[20] Behold, I send an Angel before thee
23:[23] For mine Angel shall go before thee
32:[34] mine Angel shall go before thee:
33:[2] And I will send an angel before thee;

numbers 20:[16] And when we cried unto the LORD, he heard our voice, and sent an angel,

Balaam and his donkey

numbers 22:[35] And the angel of the LORD said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.

judges 2:[1] And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim,

5:[23] Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD,

judges 6:[11] And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abi-ezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.
[12] And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.

judges 13:[3] And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.

2 sam 24:[17] And David spake unto the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father's house.

1 kings 19:[5] And as he lay and slept under a juniper tree, behold, then an angel touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat.
[7] And the angel of the LORD came again the second time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee.

2 kings 1:[15] And the angel of the LORD said unto Elijah,

2 kings 19:[35] And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand:

1 chronicles 21:[16] And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.
[18] Then the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

2 chronicles 32:[21] And the LORD sent an angel,

assorted use of angels in poetry
psalms 8:5; 34:7; 35:5,6; 68:17; 78:25,49; 91:11; 103:20; 148:2

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
Free will carries with it the potential for evil. A failure to show consideration to others has the potential to be misread as cruelty, leading to hurt, leading to vengeance, leading to war, and worse. Evil tends to begin with a logic that says, "I know better. I will do it my way, regardless of what has been proven." The greater the evil, the greater the casting off of subordination, and the greater the rebellion.

Back on topic, thanks CJaKfOrEsT

The irony is that the "evil one" fails to see that in liberating himself of his "oppressor", he essentially becomes his own oppression; the cruelest task master of all, demanding his own desires be fulfilled. So the question is one of who we are subordinate to: a benevolent Master, who is capable of meeting our needs, and knows what they are, better than we do ourselves.

That's an easy assumption to make, yet it place a label of "evil" too quickly. It could be more like the only one with complete control found no other with a desire to take on the same responsibility, which would lead the one with complete control to be excessively in control. In essence, the "evil" is to keep the one in complete control longer than that one really desires. As you pointed out above, "demanding his own desires be fulfilled" could simply be turned around to say "the rest demand of the one all their desires to be fulfilled." It's not irony because it isn't even funny.

The pre-material creation of angelic beings, were fixed in their choices, leading to a permanent decision of being either "good" or "evil". The principle at work is that the greater the level of personal maturity, the greater the consistency of belief. God desired to have beings created in His own image, capable of choosing between good and evil. He chose to take the route of creating them into a "Father/child" relationship, in regard to subordination. The idea being they would learn of Him, and He would provide for them.

A "permanent decision"? In an infinite reality, the only thing that is permanent is that Life has no start or end. To go beyond that and decide what is good and evil and to see attempts to make that permanent suggests only those being belong to some sub-reality, and either they don't comprehend the infinite reality or they deny it.

He created a temporal reality for His "children" to exist in, which is where Genesis 1 picks up. In allowing the angelic beings access to man, He provided them with the means of making an educated choice, allowing the possibility exposure to good and evil, without the permanency of an eternal nature. In the garden He placed two tress, which I believe were literal, but represented something symbolic - Moral Choices, and Eternal Life; neither to be taken for a "tree", but given by God. Interestingly, it would appear that one tree was attractive enough, for the other to be ignored.

We don't argue against the possibility that somewhere in an infinite reality such events like above are possible, yet what we find is that we allow such possibilities and other argue against us to say that it is the only possibility and they attempt to "push their desires" on us to deny us our desires to continue to believe in what we always knew -- infinite possibilities.

Noted above how you acknowledged the possibility of the symbolism in the tree, yet you take the word "God" to be more literal, which denies the possibilities of symbolism in the word. If you know the bible contains symbolism, then why deny the possibility that it all is symbolism? When you pick and choose what is symbolism is what is not, then that choice, on a word for word basis, isn't something pre-determined and written in the bible. Therefore, those "interpretations" of the bible are not of the bible.

When the bible says "thou shalt not bare false witness"... I believe that includes to not let those "interpretation" appear as a "witness" to what is written in the bible. The bible doesn't say the tree is a symbol, so to say anything of the sort is to bare false witness.

Hate the sin, love the sinner. -- Gandhi

This is why I have chosen the bible to simply represent historical accounts, which I don't take literally. It contains ideas that are quite evil... like why would TPTB ban books from High School, yet TPTB won't ban a story about incest as written in the bible (gen 19). Anybody who tries to justify any good out of that "idea" in any ordinary sense is obviously delusional and probably mentally sick.

Ultimately, the choice was between the advice of two beings: God, and an evil angelic being (finite and the Infinite), in the form of a serpent.

Oops, you made that judgment of "evil"... not the bible.

If any fruit was eaten, the knowledge obviously was not inherited by you or anybody else that makes the same mistake to pass such judgment of evil that isn't even supported by the bible.

This is evidence, dear watson. *wink*

Ladies and gentlemen!
One at a time please!

The quotes you have used mention angels, malakhey elohim: These are simply messengers without names.

Again, I refer you to the Talmud, where it clearly states that the names of the angels were taken from Babylon. It is not until the later Jewish tradition that we find the intricate angelology, complete with names and tasks, duties and attributes. I refer you to the Mishnah, were there exists not even one single reference to angels. The fact remains, they came from Babylon.

The book of Daniel is placed in the later part of the Bible, the Hagiographa, and not in the Prophets, because he is not considered a prophet. He spoke only with angels and not with God, and therefore, the Jewish religion claims he had the lower form of sight, the Holy Spirit, not the higher form, of Prophecy. Its placement has nothing to do with chronology.

As for Jacob in the desert, surely you remember that he claimed to have wrestled God himself?

I know you would prefer to think that my disagreement with you, my adherence to scholarly facts, must be based on ignorance. But, I think you'll find it is based on research, facts, and insight.

reply to post by tungus


My friend,
I will send you a U2U!

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
The quotes you have used mention angels, malakhey elohim: These are simply messengers without names.

thats what angels are. messengers.

earlier you said "Jewish monotheism didn't even contain the concept of angels, much less fallen ones, until after the Babylonian captivity, when the deities worshipped by the Babylonians were recast as angels of the God of Israel."

so, earlier jewish monotheism didnt have even the "concept" yet they wrote exstensively about spiritual visitors that did the will of god?

im sorry but either im not hearing you well, or you not being clear, or both.

Again, I refer you to the Talmud, where it clearly states that the names of the angels were taken from Babylon.

i fail to see how a claim that the names "gabriel" and "michael" were taken from babylon equals no "concept of angels"

As for Jacob in the desert, surely you remember that he claimed to have wrestled God himself?

and?

jacob getting it wrong doesnt mean he did have a concept of angels

I know you would prefer to think that my disagreement with you, my adherence to scholarly facts, must be based on ignorance. But, I think you'll find it is based on research, facts, and insight.

i think its based on research, facts and insight, but your conclusions are way off.

just because some details of jewish belief were assimilated from other cultures doesnt mean that ALL of it was

reply to post by miriam0566


Miriam, I feel at fault here for not making myself clear. Let me try again.

I meant to convey the concept of angels as we have them today: Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel. These chaps are very specific entities, with specific attributes. These are the chaps I am referring to when I say that Babylonian deities were demoted and rewritten as angels. I meant specific angels.

For instance, we can trace the Archangel Gabriel. By using attributes, duties and symbolism we can see The Archangel Gabriel as Ningishzidda, Anubis, Hermes, Mercury, Lugus. We can even find it on old Abraxas gems, which depict "Gabriel Sabaoth," (Strong God of Hosts) on one side, and Anubis on the other.

Excerpt from Robert Graves book, The White Goddess (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 1948) "The Essenes invoked angels in their mysteries. Here is something odd: that the "Hounds of Herne the Hunter', or the 'Dogs of Annwm', which hunt souls across the sky are, in British folklore, also called 'Gabriel ratches' or 'Gabriel hounds'. Why Gabriel? Was it because Gabriel, whose day was Monday, ran errands for Sheol (the Hebrew Hecate) and was sent to summon souls to Judgment? This was Hermes's task, and Herne, a British oak-god whose memory survived in Windsor Forest until the eighteenth century, is generally identified with Hermes. Gabriel and Herne are equated in the early thirteenth-century carvings around the church door at Stoke Gabriel in South Devon. The angel Gabriel looks down from above, but on the right as one enters are carved the wild hunter, his teeth bared in a grin and a wisp of hair over his face, and a brace of his hounds close by. But Hermes in Egypt, though Thoth in one aspect, in another was the dog-headed god Anubis, son of Nepthys, the Egyptian Hecate; so Apuleius pictures him in the pageant at the end of The Golden Ass as 'his face sometimes black, sometimes fair, lifting up the head of the Dog Anubis'. This makes the equation Gabriel=Herne=Hermes=Anubis. But was Gabriel ever equated with Anubis in ancient times? By a piece of good luck an Egyptian gem has been found showing Anubis with palm and pouch on the obverse, and on the reverse an arch-angel described as Gabriel Sabao, which means 'Gabriel Sabaoth', the Egyptians having, as usual, converted the l into an R. (This gem is described in de Haas's 'Bilderatlas.) then is 'Annwm', which is a contracted form of 'Annwfn', a Celtic version of 'Anubis'? The B of Anubis would naturally turn into an F in Welsh."

You are free to think my conclusions are way off.
But there are facts to support them, and there are scholars to agree.
I'm not referring to Biblical scholars, but scholars who look at comparative mythology in a bigger way.

reply to post by JayinAR


It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge as a whole.

And believing in reptilians makes no more sense than believing in God. You've seen neither, sources of both existing are sketchy and include faith in something that has no evidence.

Find enlightenment and see where that takes you.

reply to post by DaisyAnne


Nah you just got pwned by Miriam from her numerous quotes from the bible.
She knows the bible too well for you to try that one on her.

One thing people who want to post on ATS need to understand you aren't talking to your typical uneducated Joe/Jane in here.

The ATS forums have some of the most knowledgeable informed people posting on the net, you'll have to step your game up next time. Or don't post at all, when you don't understand the subject at hand.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by DaisyAnne

 

Nah you just got pwned by Miriam from her numerous quotes from the bible.
She knows the bible too well for you to try that one on her.

One thing people who want to post on ATS need to understand you aren't talking to your typical uneducated Joe/Jane in here.

The ATS forums have some of the most knowledgeable informed people posting on the net, you'll have to step your game up next time. Or don't post at all, when you don't understand the subject at hand.

Having a Masters degree in the subject at hand means that I understand it far better than you do.

If you cannot understand the subtleties in my arguments, then I suggest you go play elsewhere.

Miriam did indeed understand the subtleties, and I was therefore willing to move forward in the discussion with her. She is quite obviously intelligent and she can understand me.

You, on the other hand, didn't even remember exactly who wrestled Jacob in the desert. You said he wrestled with angel. Perhaps you need another read of Genesis 32:21-32.

"So went the present over before him: and himself lodged that night in the company. 22 And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok. 23 And he took them, and sent them over the brook, and sent over that he had. 24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. 25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. 26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. 27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. 28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. 29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. 30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. 31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh. 32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank."

I think it is you who is used to arguing with people who will back down to you, because you simply tell them that you know what you are talking about. I, however, can see just how much floundering you do. I actually do know what I am talking about. I studied for seven years to know what I am talking about. I wrote a thesis to know what I am talking about.

Now run along and find me an "angel" with a name, with personal attributes and specific tasks that occurs before Gabriel in the book of Daniel, chronologically. Or just don't bother to challenge me.

And while you are at it, why don't you go and tell a member of the Jewish faith that their Talmud is lying.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by DaisyAnne]

There's no need to have a deep understanding on angel beings to take sides on the original poster's matter.
Creation according to Gen. 1 does not mention angels or 'messengers'.

We can clearly see in the text that two trees were involved. Nothing complicated or symbolical on that.
If God is creating life, then life does not come from eating the fruit.
The 'tree of the knoledge' was not a deadly poisonous plant. Death does not come from eating that other fruit.
It's a matter of obedience or disobedience.

As far as who was the fruit being grown for, in order to have free will, one needs to have options, be able to make choices.
This is a rough comparison, but you have options on your choices with everything else, from personal life to interaction with other people. Don't you have options at traffic? Can you choose to obey or desobey rules when driving? Were you warned of consequences? There are consequences on Gen. 2:17...
Still, history does not see human kind being any happier after sin, just because we now know good and evil. There was only one time when man had dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth and was truly happy. It was all before somebody chose to side with the serpent.

Interesting thread S+F

I thought I would play devils advocate here (no pun intended) and throw this question into the mix.

How did Adam and Eve commit the original sin, “fall of man” sin, if they had no knowledge (prior to eating the apple) of “good or evil”?


- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft



Interesting thread S+F

I thought I would play devils advocate here (no pun intended) and throw this question into the mix.

How did Adam and Eve commit the original sin, “fall of man” sin, if they had no knowledge (prior to eating the apple) of “good or evil”?


- JC

The Devil made them do it!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. It is by imparting the knowledge of good and evil one recognizes one's actions to be either good or evil. So by eating the apple they immediately knew that they have sinned. I don't subscribe to that view but that's what the Yahwehists say.

On a side note here is what other cultures have to say about the serpent:

Nagas (serpents) are recognized as superior to humans. They inhabit subaquatic paradises, dwelling at the bottoms of rivers, lakes and seas. A most important function of these divine serpents is their function as guardians. We find them at the doors of Hindu and Buddhist shrines. They van not only frighten ordinary human intruders with their dangerous aspect as cobras, they can as divinities, discern and repel any divine invader.

link

[edit on 19-8-2009 by tungus]

Cool!
It seems I have effectively 'stirred the pot' enough that we are begining to bring out the 'big guns,' so to speak.
We have people laying their academic credentials down in defense of their position and others who are ignoring the point of the OP and are reciting scripture to further their wrongheaded approach.
I'm going to have to read the last page and half or so and see if there is even anything I can add other than...

YOU HAVE NO FREE WILL.

Originally posted by Taskism
reply to post by JayinAR

 

It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge as a whole.

And believing in reptilians makes no more sense than believing in God. You've seen neither, sources of both existing are sketchy and include faith in something that has no evidence.

Find enlightenment and see where that takes you.

Not entirely true. You have certainly seen a reptilian. If have not seen a reptilian go to the nearest pet shop chain they have all kinds of reptilians. But I think your statement refers more to a belief in a reptilian intelligence not making much sense.
I myself often wondered what do they mean when they say that Nagarjuna received knowledge from the serpents, knowledge that they were the keepers of.

Enlightenment, that would be nice. I think that's what Adam and Eve started when they took a bite of the apple. And that's what Yahweh was so afraid of, that the humans will become like gods.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by tungus]

The real problem was the fact that we were not designed to contain within ourselves that kind of information apart from G-d who we were spiritually linked to. What happened is that the link was severed and the "food" or information that we needed to stay in a state of equalibrium was taken away...
Its a bit like a coin placed on its edge on a table. If there are no outside forces acting on the coin it will remain there on its edge forever. However if you give that coin a flick and it starts spinning, it will for a while. But eventually that energy/information that started the coin to spin starts to run out, and the only way the coin can acheive equalibrium is to expell all its energy at once and fall flat on the table.. Dead.. That is how "sin" works.. We were given that "flick" and so the process of regaining that equalibrium started, however without the "true" food/information" source to bring us back into harmony, we take on board that much corrupted information ourselves that the only way our systems can equalise is to shut down.. Die.. Hence "The wages of sin is death."
You can see "sin" at work everywhere.. The balance in nature as a whole is taken away. Even the stars are dying. You add anything to a eco system or any system from an outside source creates havoc!
Like a computer; too much information and the system crashes.. So with creation as whole being cut off from from the source that stablizes it, and with all of the natural disasters impending on the earth, that "coin" is about to expend all its energy at once and crash! So was that "knowledge" worth it? But G-d has made a way for us to escape this systems crash through His Son... I know who I side with!! And it aint no lying serpent! Eat dust if you like!

reply to post by DaisyAnne


Your masters doesn't mean anything to me, do you know why?

Holy Spirit!

This trumps all knowledge and degree's, you either have it or you don't.

John 4:24

24God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).

I too have extensive training and schooling to the point that I can be a minster, but all that knowledge is useless without the Holy Spirit.

And as for Jacob and the unnamed angel, the one who refused to give his name in Genesis 32:29

29Then Jacob asked Him, Tell me, I pray You, what [in contrast] is Your name? But He said, Why is it that you ask My name? And [the Angel of God declared] a blessing on [Jacob] there.

If you would do some research you would find the cross reference leads you to Judges 13:15-21

15 Then Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, “Please stay here until we can prepare a young goat for you to eat.”
16 “I will stay,” the angel of the Lord replied, “but I will not eat anything. However, you may prepare a burnt offering as a sacrifice to the Lord.” (Manoah didn’t realize it was the angel of the Lord.)
17 Then Manoah asked the angel of the Lord, “What is your name? For when all this comes true, we want to honor you.”
18 “Why do you ask my name?” the angel of the Lord replied. “It is too wonderful for you to understand.”
19 Then Manoah took a young goat and a grain offering and offered it on a rock as a sacrifice to the Lord. And as Manoah and his wife watched, the Lord did an amazing thing. 20 As the flames from the altar shot up toward the sky, the angel of the Lord ascended in the fire. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell with their faces to the ground. 21 The angel did not appear again to Manoah and his wife. Manoah finally realized it was the angel of the Lord

Your understanding of angels is flawed, that much is very clear to me, and no amount of degrees', theses, major or any other form of clergy type training can help you, only God's Holy Spirit can open this up to you.

And for the record the bible has only two real names of angels
Gabriel & Michael, all others are titles not actual names.

In any event I do not want to take this any more off topic than it has gone.
So this ends with this post. You get the last word

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply to post by dzonatas

 

Back on topic, thanks CJaKfOrEsT

You're most welcome.

Oops, you made that judgment of "evil"... not the bible.

If any fruit was eaten, the knowledge obviously was not inherited by you or anybody else that makes the same mistake to pass such judgment of evil that isn't even supported by the bible.

This is evidence, dear watson. *wink*

Actually, I could establish that point, out of the Bible, by quoting vast quantities of it, even citing multiple references for each point, but it seems that to do so invokes accusation of "Bible-bashing" (my terminology, not the direct term used). I thought I'd take a different course, by presenting my personal take on what the Bible has to say, considering that it forms a significant part of my worldview, and yet is rooted in the actual words of Scripture.

In essence, my point is to say that the Bible consists of 66 books, and not just a 3 chpater passage, which is being discussed here.