It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Would Side With the Serpent

page: 13
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
why do you keep going on about peer pressure?


Because you have used peer pressure in to tell me and other in what parts of the bible should be taken literally and what parts of the bible are not. You have used your own words. No mater how many times you interject with the bible, those interjection are your words and your interpretations.



umm no. its doesnt mean "anybody" who is an adversary.


It doesn't? Then how do you know exactly when it literally means and when it doesn't? Where do you get that knowledge that isn't written in the bible?




Those quotes don't say the name "satan" or "serpent"

they dont have to.


They don't? Then what... lemme guess.. you'll tell me? Are you the bible?



satan lied in the garden of eden. lying is a sin. logically then satan is not a tool of god.


More interpretation of "satan" being in the garden of eden? More peer pressure attempts to get one to believe this? Hmmm....



its because people that go on about this theory of satan being good are doing exactly that. they call evil good


Must you make adversaries? Is that God's plan -- to make adversaries out of man and/or beings that aren't even considered man?

Oh and about Revelations, you know it originally was "titled" differently? You know how many translations I've seen written? Even if the words are similar, the syntax of the phrase are quite different in different versions! There are versions where the word satan comes up separate from serpent. The syntax of the KJV version makes satan, the serpent, and the angels all different personifications....

...but 'peer pressure' tells me they are the same... and 'peer pressure' tells me that they are all 'evil'.

I think the truth to this is that 'peer pressure' is evil. It certainly doesn't give me 'free will' to think what I want to think.


[edit on 28-8-2009 by dzonatas]




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


why dont you stick you fingers in your ears and go "la la la, im not listening, you cant make me"

it would make more sense than the argument you are presenting now.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
reply to post by dzonatas
 


why dont you stick you fingers in your ears and go "la la la, im not listening, you cant make me"

it would make more sense than the argument you are presenting now.


Very well, let this be evidence to what I have pointed out earlier in this thread.

Simply, the thought overwhelmed you. Look at how you reacted. Maybe you'll reconsider and actually try....

... to respond.

I heard a good quote today, "You may think we are godless, yet our gods don't require us to prove who they are or what they can do. They only require faith." Perhaps, you'll consider this one.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
You have a very good point. Some good movies to watch on that are Orgins and Oracle (atlantis alien visitation and genetic manipulation). Watch those and see if that gives you a little bit more of an understanding of why humans are the way they are.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

reply to post by dzonatas
 


By logic? You mean you can't find it said directly within the bible by exact quote?

k... let's analyze by logic...
...

Originally posted by miriam0566
 

- adam and eve died (whatdoyouknow, god didnt lie)


Are you sure they didn't ascend? Where is the bible quote and not your 'peer pressure' interpretation?


Your reference, as requested...

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Genesis 5:3-5


...and just in case you think that "died" in this passage could mean "ascend"...


21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Genesis 5:21-24


If the Scripture intended for us to read "he died" as "he ascended", than why would it divert from the format used to record every other person in this genealogy of Noah, when it came to Enoch? It is interesting to note, that the distinguishing feature is that Enoch, walked with God, which brings further support for the explanation of the choice between the "tree" and "God", in regard to "gaining knowledge of good and evil". Enoch was obviously not satisfied with aquiring such knowledge from a secondary, unreliable source.

It is also interesting to note that once Enoch came, demonstrating that one can actually "walk with God", that God utilised his son Methuselah (the oldest recorded man in Scripture) as an "hour glass" of sorts, counting down to the "great flood" (do your math, in Genesis 5 and you'll see what I mean).



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by miriam0566
- satan (which literally means "adversary") is a liar. lying is evil.


So the bible lies to tell everybody that there is a being called "Satan" when really it means just anybody who is your adversary... that is quite a lie!

dzonatas,

I really credit you with more intelligence that you have put forward in this comment. Every name in the Book of Genesis has a meaning (Jacob, for example means "he who grasps the heel", which held an ancient conotation meaning "opportunist, or con man". His name was later change to Israel, meaning "Prince of God", after the earlier mentioned event of him wrestling with the "man" whom he believed to be "God", even though the man never identified himself as such - Genesis 32:24-30). Obvously Scripture doesn't lie when it identifies a man by a descriptive attribute. Neither does it lie when it identifies a character, who was present amongst the angels presenting themselves to God (Job 1:6), in the same way.

On both occasions (ie, Jacob and Satan), the Hebrew words weren't translated into their English meanings. In the same way that you would go around calling a Jewish lady named "Rachel" by the English translation "Lamb".

[edit on 29-8-2009 by CJaKfOrEsT]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by miriam0566
why do you keep going on about peer pressure?


Because you have used peer pressure in to tell me and other in what parts of the bible should be taken literally and what parts of the bible are not. You have used your own words. No mater how many times you interject with the bible, those interjection are your words and your interpretations.



umm no. its doesnt mean "anybody" who is an adversary.


It doesn't? Then how do you know exactly when it literally means and when it doesn't? Where do you get that knowledge that isn't written in the bible?


Regarding the last comment, one doesn't converse with "concepts", but does with people. God had conversations with the "Satan" identified in the Book of Job, and it is obvious that it is the same "Satan" throughout, because they refer to their earlier conversations in the later ones.

Regarding your first comment, I'm sure that Miriam would welcome an opportunity to defend her rationale regarding "the Serpent/Satan", and why she refers to Scripture literally in some parts, and not in others, as would I. The problem is, that we have already been accused of attempting to derail this thread, so perhaps this would be better done in a new one.

Regarding "yielding to peer group pressure", we could equally charge you with the same crime. After all, you are not the first person to put forward the claims that you have here. I can't speak for Miriam, in this case, but I know that my findings have come from personal, prayer exploration, and not from my "peer group", and I find it particularly offensive that you'd accuse me of such a thing (as you did in an earlier post). Just because when you questioned Scripture, you came out rejecting the Christian claim, doesn't mean that everyone should. After all, I became a Christian by questioning the rationalist views that I was surrounded with, rather than yield to "peer group pressure" (and lost most of my friends in the process, to prove it).

I agree that Miriam's "put your finger in your ears comment" was a little immature (bearing in mind that I made a similar comment, earlier on), but frustration can bring out funny things in people.

Your move...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
I agree that Miriam's "put your finger in your ears comment" was a little immature (bearing in mind that I made a similar comment, earlier on), but frustration can bring out funny things in people.


oh its beyond frustrating.

its like i point out how her view is incorrect... (in terms of what the bible is saying)

she asks for scriptures...

i give them...

then its "No mater how many times you interject with the bible, those interjection are your words and your interpretations. "

which basically means, no matter how many scriptures you quote that show me that im mistaken, im going to continue to believe what i want to believe regardless of what the bible actually says on the matter. and just to help me sleep at night, ill blame it on your "interpretation"

listen dzonatas...

if you believe that the serpent was working for god, and that the "deception" (as the bible so plainly calls it) was actually a good thing, then you are not only calling god a liar, but you have single-handledly made jesus ministry and sacrificial death pointless.

if jesus' ministry was pointless, then the mosaic covenant was pointless too, making about 90% of the bible good for the fireplace

if you want to continue believing that politically correct fairy-tale where everyone is on god's side and noone (including satan) gets punished for anything, then go ahead.

the bible disagrees.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
I agree that Miriam's "put your finger in your ears comment" was a little immature (bearing in mind that I made a similar comment, earlier on), but frustration can bring out funny things in people.

Your move...


Then maybe you and Miriam really made some bad assumptions about what I think, and you are the fault of your own frustration. I don't claim to be always right, and I don't expect people to always believe me. Just because I can do something really well doesn't mean I'm perfect.

You aren't the only one who has devoted themselves to Christianity. You don't even know my church. What I have done that I'll admit, however, is move from a church where the bible is mandatory (along with other scriptures) to a church where the bible(s) is considered beneficial but not mandatory. I believe in faith. Is that so hard?


Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
Your reference, as requested...
[...]
...and just in case you think that "died" in this passage could mean "ascend"...
[...]
If the Scripture intended for us to read "he died" as "he ascended",


I just threw out the word 'ascend'. You and Miriam started to point out other meanings to words, which meant you didn't take them literally. Then I noticed you took 'died' literally. You aren't being consistent about what you take literally or not.


Originally posted by miriam0566
its like i point out how her view is incorrect... (in terms of what the bible is saying)


How could one possible be incorrect if someone is not consistent with the bible? They can't. Anybody could point out a word in the bible and says its means something else, and then come back and say 'you are incorrect... it means.. blah blah'. Everybody has their own interpretation. What you want to some acknowledgment that your interpretation is correct. If you do that with attempts to prove other people wrong about the bible, then that is conceit.

Of the scriptures both of you shown when taken literally, there is no direct evidence that:

* the serpent is satan
* the serpent is an adversary
* that when adam died that it was only his body that died
* that adam was an android and never actually alive
* and so on

There are many possibilities.


Originally posted by miriam0566
then you are not only calling god a liar


And in the scriptures it states how man is god once was.

That means I could take such passage and say that everybody could be a god. Then I could further take such passage and say that Miriam just said I called everybody a liar because everybody is a god. Ok... well... if you want to use logic that way.

Either you take the bible literally in whole or you don't at all. Anything in between will make others see you as random and inconsistent. That randomness and inconsistency is your frustrations.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

reply to post by dzonatas
 

Either you take the bible literally in whole or you don't at all. Anything in between will make others see you as random and inconsistent. That randomness and inconsistency is your frustrations.


The Bible itself defines when to take it literally, and when not to. It is riddled with references to other parts, which give clarity to the points it makes. Given adequate time and space, I would be more than happy to answer each accusation of arbitrarily deciding when to take its meaning as literal and when not to, from the Scriptures.

I'm trying my darnedest to respect the intentions of the OP, by discussing the issue at hand, but you keep bringing this up. I have tried to utilise my personal views of what the Scriptures say, and allowing them to be scutinised, as I am bringing others under scrutiny, when I know that they are contradictory to the plain meaning of the words inside. It isn't a question of whether or not the Bible should be taken "literally" or "figuratively", but whether or not it is taken at "face value".

The Book of Revelation (regardless of the name you choose to refer to it as) describes itself as being filled with symbolic content (Rev 1:1). It contains multiple references to Old Testament Scripture (particularly the major and minor prophets). Now, considering that it claims to be a Revelation given by the risen Christ, and dictated by the apostle John, while imprisoned on the isle of Patmos, for no other reason than "being a Christian" (granted the charge probably read something like "for subscribing to beliefs that are contrary to the interests of the Roman Empire", or something like that) it makes sense that it was written in code, with the Old Testament Scripture being the interpretive key.

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.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Revelation 12:9-10

In Revelation 12, the "great dragon"(v3) carries a striking similarity to the "fourth beast" in Daniel 7 (each having "ten horns" and each "making war with the saints"). That "fourth beast" also correlates to the "feet" of Nebuchadnezzar's vision, judging by the comparative similarities of the other three beasts to the head, breast, and legs. Each of these parts of Nebuchadnezzar's image are defined as kingdoms, begininng with the reign of Babylon, then Persia. Long after Daniel, Xerxe's Persia was followed by Greece (which was the subject matter of the movie "300"), and Greece was followed by Rome. So there is something about the Roman Empire in the Dragon symbology.

The dragon is further identified as "that old serpent" adding "which deceiveth the whole world" bearing in mind that the Serpent did deceive Eve (1 Timothy 2:14). Obviously this ties together this "evil empire" to the "serpent" in Genesis. Next, the dragon is identified as "Satan", adding that he "accused them before our God day and night". Obviously this is a reference to the Satan of the Book of Job, who accused Job of of faithlessness (Job 1:9-11;2:3-4). Why do I make such an assumption? Same name, and the description fits.

The point of the passage was to describe an empire that would arise out of the Roman empire, and serve the Serpent, aka the Devil, aka Satan's purpose of declaring war against God's people. Now we can argue about the identity of the "kingdom" but it is blatantly obvious that this passage identifies the "Serpent" as being the "Deivl/Satan".



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
[...]
Why do I make such an assumption? Same name, and the description fits.

[...]
Now we can argue about the identity of the "kingdom" but it is blatantly obvious that this passage identifies the "Serpent" as being the "Deivl/Satan".


Is it an assumption or is it blatantly obvious, which is it? Can't have both, as that is inconsistent and random for what you said.

Let's apply scrutiny to the words of the bible if you are to use such descriptions so literally. In the verse you find the phrase "which deceiveth the whole world." Notice it says "which" and not "whom." It doesn't not syntactically relate a proper name to a pronoun-conjunction. It therefore could be said whomever and whatever deceiveith the whole world is that... what you want to call it... a dragon? satan? the devil? all? Maybe it is your own eyes that deceiveth you, when that dragon could easily match to the constellations of the stars and the movements there. When the whole world looks upon the stars and doesn't see that, they have 'deceiveth' themselves and done so upon themselves by no other supernatural entity.

Somehow you think I have to go to you in order to understand, or better yet, somehow you think I'm incapable of being able to understand and obtain some knowledge that you have. If you know exactly who the serpent is.... and you keep the 'thou shalt not bare false witness'.... hmmm.... are you a god?

Practice what you preach. I expect your answer.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Is it an assumption or is it blatantly obvious, which is it? Can't have both, as that is inconsistent and random for what you said.
You seem to have a litle problem grasping the concept of "context". "Assumption" allowing you the benefit of the doubt, having not presented the evidence. "Blatantly obviously" the conclusions draw from Scripture, as presented.


Practice what you preach. I expect your answer.

So now we are expecting answers? All because I see the Bible differently to you and am prepared to defend opinion and myself against accusations of deception and blindly following the opinions of others, in regard to the plain meaning of the word of Scripture? Okay I'll play your little game. Just not right now because it's Sunday morning here.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   

reply to post by dzonatas
 

Somehow you think I have to go to you in order to understand, or better yet, somehow you think I'm incapable of being able to understand and obtain some knowledge that you have. If you know exactly who the serpent is.... and you keep the 'thou shalt not bare false witness'.... hmmm.... are you a god?


In response to your first question, my answer is, "No". In response to your second, based on what I have read of your posts, it would appear so. Considering that you have repeatedly taken my comments out of context, and tried to make then say something that I have not, it shouldn't surprise me that you think the same approach should be applied to the Scriptures.

How about you bring me one occasion where I didn't take Scripture at face value, and allow me to defend myself? Right now it feels like you are setting up straw men and then accusing me of their crimes.

On that note, you have often mentioned the term "false witness". To the onlooker, who would you say is a "false witness"? The one one who takes someone's words at face value, or the one who implies that that one didn't really mean what they said, in spite of nothing bring said that even remotely implies that they mean such a thing? It is a form of insanity to always read something else into what people say. I used to share a house with a guy like that. It was one of the most stressful times of my like.

And after all that, you try to tell me that I think I am a god? Please.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT
 




You seem to have a litle problem grasping the concept of "context".
[...]
Okay I'll play your little game.
[...]
Considering that you have repeatedly taken my comments out of context, and tried to make then say something that I have not, ...
[...]
Right now it feels like you are setting up straw men and then accusing me of their crimes.
[...]
It is a form of insanity to always read something else into what people say.


All these accusations we have to deal with above when we try to debate around the subjects in this thread. None of them are substantiated. None of them are true. Please, don't digress.



In response to your first question, my answer is, "No".


My first question: "Is it an assumption or is it blatantly obvious, which is it?"

To me, 'blatantly obvious' would be that facts are right there and no conclusion is needed. "No brainer" -- anotherwords. For example, someone with absolutely no knowledge about the scriptures could pick up a bible, read a single paragraph, and know exactly what it means without any "riddled" references to other parts of the bible.

Please clarify this answer of "No"... as it wasn't a yes/question. I don't understand, so please explain.



In response to your second, based on what I have read of your posts, it would appear so.


My second question is, "are you a god?"

Your answer is "it would appear so." The question asked is a yes/no type, and the response could be taken either way as a yes or a no. If you could just explain what you mean here that would be appreciated. I don't understand.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
How could one possible be incorrect if someone is not consistent with the bible? They can't. Anybody could point out a word in the bible and says its means something else, and then come back and say 'you are incorrect... it means.. blah blah'. Everybody has their own interpretation.


completely true, everyone does have their own interpretation. this does not however mean that every interpretation is right.

an interpretation is wrong when it conflicts with other parts of the bible.

you cannot say the soul is immortal in genesis, but not in ezekial.


Of the scriptures both of you shown when taken literally, there is no direct evidence that:

* the serpent is satan
* the serpent is an adversary
* that when adam died that it was only his body that died
* that adam was an android and never actually alive
* and so on

There are many possibilities.


possibilities?

read the scriptures. they a simply and straightforward.

how many "possible" meanings can "dust to dust" have?

how many "possible" meanings can a lie from a serpent have?

your not speaking reason.


And in the scriptures it states how man is god once was.


what?

i have no idea what passage you are refering to.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
read the scriptures. they a simply and straightforward.


In 2-Timothy-3:16, it is written in infinitives, it technically doesn't make any sense. It technically is not written straightforward. You can only guess what it means -- your interpretation. One possibility, is to say there is a means of 'self-correction'. Some can take it as a mean to correct others, while others could take it as a means to correct themselves. Either way, it suggests that it isn't right for you to correct someones interpretation, yet do make sure the scripture is correct.



how many "possible" meanings can a lie from a serpent have?


You say 'lie' to someone who is blind, do you think he might have heard 'lye'? Simple example, yet there is more better examples of such 'possibilities' you take for granted.




And in the scriptures it states how man is god once was.


what?

i have no idea what passage you are refering to.


I thought you just said the scripture is simple and straightforward.

In 1-Timothy-3:16, the body is just an 'appearance' and when the body 'dies' then this scripture reveals that there is more to this than just the body, at least for gods, which doesn't 'die',

Seems like that scripture is enough to suggest that when 'adam' 'died' that it was only his body that went 'dust to dust' and his 'spirit to spirit'. Of course, it doesn't mention either dust or spirit in genesis. It does leave the possibility the adam was never alive, yet you probably would see that as a deception.

Other bibles could have been used to say such, yet I didn't want to digress further.

Doesn't it appear that maybe the bible is the fruit?

Edit: "2" Tim... "1" Tim... both 3:16... what a coincidence!


[edit on 30-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
dzonatas

Do you really believe what you post or are you just trying to debate for the sake of debate?

Because some of the stuff you are posting doesn't make any sense.

For people who want to debate the bible, it has a couple of paths. I think you need to pick one either way, not jump back and forth between the two.

1) The bible is the actual inspired word of God all of it from Genesis to Revelation. (The debate is yes or no.)

2) Interpretation of the bible what is literal, what symbolic, doctrine.
(Debate the truth of scripture)

Too many people on ATS are jumping back and forth on these two.
People who don't believe in either God or the bible seem to always want to debate point number 2, not sure why, they need to resolve number 1 before they can move on to 2.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
dzonatas

Do you really believe what you post or are you just trying to debate for the sake of debate?


Does this topic say "Bible debate" or does it say "I would side with the serpent?"

There are questions in this thread about the serpent. How does that not make sense to talk all about serpents to understand why someone would want to side with the serpent?



I think you need to pick one either way, not jump back and forth between the two.


I already stated my position, so obviously it isn't that I don't make sense, yet you have ignored what I have wrote here in this thread.

I think you need to give reason to why you think I jump back and forth before you go off and start to accuse of such. However, that would further digress. There are questions up to be answered or understood better.



Too many people on ATS are jumping back and forth on these two.


Too many people talk about the people who give opinions rather than the opinions themselves. Seems like you tried to take an opinion I said and turn it against me rather then rebut the opinion itself, or maybe you finally agree in a very odd way to the opinion I stated.

Oh ya, you have an "interpretation" you made you stated earlier in this thread:


Regardless the endgame is the same anyway you slice it, those that oppose God and his standards will eventually not exist on this planet, they won't exist anywhere. They will be dead, really dead, as in non-existent.


I won't correct your interpretation that you want to live by... just don't force it upon me and others... like you tried to present "two" paths and told me to make a choice. Like the OP, that isn't a church I would want to be a part of that makes such interpretations.

To the OP, there are other churches.

Peace & Love



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

reply to post by dzonatas
 

My first question: "Is it an assumption or is it blatantly obvious, which is it?"

I already answered that one:

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsTT
 

"Assumption" allowing you the benefit of the doubt, having not presented the evidence. "Blatantly obviously" the conclusions draw from Scripture, as presented.

Regarding my answers to your "first" and "second questions", I'd like to apologise for not being clear. This was a reference to the section I had quoted in that post.

Somehow you think I have to go to you in order to understand (first question), or better yet, somehow you think I'm incapable of being able to understand and obtain some knowledge that you have (second question).

I realise that these weren't questions, per se, and that is where the confusion seems to have arisen. Feel free to reread my post in light of this, and it might make a little more sense. Again, my sincerest apologies, I haven't exactly made it easy for free discourse on this one.

To me, 'blatantly obvious' would be that facts are right there and no conclusion is needed. "No brainer" -- anotherwords. For example, someone with absolutely no knowledge about the scriptures could pick up a bible, read a single paragraph, and know exactly what it means without any "riddled" references to other parts of the bible.

Again, to clarify, I meant "riddled" as in "riddled with termites", not as is a "cryptic message". My point was to say that there are multiple references throughout the Bible. On one hand you say "blatantly obvious" means the facts are right there, and the next you say that a statement like "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world" doesn't actually mean what it says, and that we need to treat it as a "riddle" (as in "cryptic").

The problem with your comment, quoted above, is that the Bible isn't just a paragraph, it is a collection of 66 documents, compiled into one volume. Each statement adds meaning to each other.

Let's apply scrutiny to the words of the bible if you are to use such descriptions so literally. In the verse you find the phrase "which deceiveth the whole world." Notice it says "which" and not "whom." It doesn't not syntactically relate a proper name to a pronoun-conjunction.

..please reread my comment in the post you addressed..

The point of the passage was to describe an empire (ed - the dragon) that would arise out of the Roman empire, and serve the Serpent, aka the Devil, aka Satan's purpose of declaring war against God's people. Now we can argue about the identity of the "kingdom" but it is blatantly obvious that this passage identifies the "Serpent" as being the "Deivl/Satan".

Perhaps another thing that would have helped with the whole "assumption/obvious", would for me to place a "[sic]" after "assumption". Perhaps if I put the word "conclusion". Either way, it would be more profitable to our mutual understanding of each other to ask for clarification, than to attempt to trip up my words.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by CJaKfOrEsT]

[edit on 31-8-2009 by CJaKfOrEsT]

[edit on 31-8-2009 by CJaKfOrEsT]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
In 2-Timothy-3:16, it is written in infinitives, it technically doesn't make any sense. It technically is not written straightforward. You can only guess what it means -- your interpretation. One possibility, is to say there is a means of 'self-correction'. Some can take it as a mean to correct others, while others could take it as a means to correct themselves. Either way, it suggests that it isn't right for you to correct someones interpretation, yet do make sure the scripture is correct.


lol, of course its written in the infinitive. its describing a general action. the scriptures are good "to reprove, to teach" (infinitive). its not a question of what it means.

you just want it to be because its give you room to believe whatever it is you want to believe.




how many "possible" meanings can a lie from a serpent have?


You say 'lie' to someone who is blind, do you think he might have heard 'lye'? Simple example, yet there is more better examples of such 'possibilities' you take for granted.


that is the silliest attempt at side stepping a point i have ever heard

so jesus called satan a lye (musical instrument) because you dont want to believe that he lied.




I thought you just said the scripture is simple and straightforward.

In 1-Timothy-3:16, the body is just an 'appearance' and when the body 'dies' then this scripture reveals that there is more to this than just the body, at least for gods, which doesn't 'die',


i was going to go over this passage, but im saying to myself whats the point?

you know how to read but you seem to flavor everything with your feelings instead of reading whats right in front of you.


Seems like that scripture is enough to suggest that when 'adam' 'died' that it was only his body that went 'dust to dust' and his 'spirit to spirit'. Of course, it doesn't mention either dust or spirit in genesis. It does leave the possibility the adam was never alive, yet you probably would see that as a deception.


no its not. the scripture has nothing to do with the afterlife, paul is saying that to be like god, we need to imitate jesus.


Other bibles could have been used to say such, yet I didn't want to digress further.


other bibles COULD have said santa went out for a beer with jesus. but they dont, so im not going to waste my energy on stupid stories


Doesn't it appear that maybe the bible is the fruit?


where would that begin to make sense?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join