trendkill

Indeed, one would think he would choose an animal of lesser cunning rather than greater to speak through, if the animal's character mattered. I agree, the obvious reading of the story is that the snake's "subtil" mind was the source of the deception, rather than the mind of someone controlling it.

post tenebras lux

But why? Just saying 'it is [h]is purpose' (shouldn't that be His Purpose?) is not an answer without telling us what his purpose is. So, what is his purpose/plan? It can't be to bring everyone to him, so what is it?

God does it/allows it just to show everyone how powerful he is? But - as we don't get to see sinners burning in hell whilst we're alive - that can't be the reason for actually sending the people he (allowed to be) blinded to burn in hell. :huh:

No trickery?
So the people who sweet talk away failed prophesies in the bible with the claim 'but god told them A knowing that would cause them to do B, which means that A didn't actually come to pass' are wrong?
Punishing Adam and Eve for not knowing the difference between right and wrong before they knew the difference between right and wrong, is not trickery?
You don't consider hardening Pharaoh's heart to be trickery?
Or anything he allowed to happen to Job?
:huh:

So, is it due to your character that you fail the test of 2 Cor 4:2, or do you think that it's your apologetics that are the problem?

Maybe your apologetics are wrong? :huh:

darstec

If you accept Genesis as literal, Adam & Eve saw him. How much was his effectiveness reduced? How much worse off could mankind have become? Job saw him. How much was Satan's effectiveness reduced? Will the antichrist be of Satan? Won't he appear? How much is his effectiveness going to be reduced?

Mageth

I don't recall Job seeing Satan. Maybe YHWH...

In any case, Jesus was supposedly "God Made Flesh." And, even after he died, he allegedly was resurrected and appeared visibly to his disciples. Odd that God would choose to do that, allowing himself to become visible (and doing so seems key to his alleged plans), if becoming visible considerably reduces his effectiveness.

He's much more effective now, I guess, since he's gone back to being invisible.

John A. Broussard

There isn't?

Supposedly, god gave all human beings--including pharoah--free will.

So how come he violates pharoah's free will by "hardening his heart?"

Please explain.

Rowantree

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard I've occasionally wondered how the soldiers determined which of the girls were virgins. Though the bible is silent regarding that matter, rhutchin may be able to explain how it was done.

I believe the Hebrew used in the Old Testament ("[ha-]almah") actually translates into "(very) young woman." Which would then mean women who either had yet to come of age or had just entered puberty.

Rowantree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins So the woman is claiming of a deception that never exists. The serpent said that they wouldn't die, they didn't, and that God would see that their eyes had opened, which he did. Ironically, it is for this reason that God throws man out of the Garden... not because they broke the prohibition, but because man had become like God himself. And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." It doesn't take a scholar to see jealousy in God's actions. He isn't throwing them out because they broke the rule but because if they stayed, they'd become Godly. The story tells us that the serpent is cunning. Some people want to automatically assume that means the serpent was against man. But from the story, the cunning of the serpent would apparently see right through God's lie. If anything, it could be argued that the serpent was freeing man from God's false prohibition. That the serpent wanted to lead man to all knowledge, while God wanted to keep it to himself. God was jealous of what man could become. The serpent was cunning enough to see this and didn't want man to be held back by God's jealousy.

Your hypothesis has a few hole in it though. If the Serpent didn't want Adam and Eve held back then why didn't he seek out the fruits for himself? (Granted it could be assumed he partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge but why not the Tree of Life?) Is it not simple evolution to seek out perpetuity of one's race?

Another problem was that man was created in God's image. If that is the case and God is immortal then at this point man too would be immortal would he not? If so then did not God tell the truth since man is certainly mortal now and DOES die? (I would note here that some traditions do not view Adam and Eve as corporeal beings until AFTER they left Eden. Thus making them spirits and by taking the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge but not Life that they became immortal spirits with mortal bodies. And that those bodies would not be immortal until after judgment.)

Also, you used Eve's account of God's message to Adam as a condemnation of God. In any court of law this would be considered hearsay. It therefore cannot be assumed Eve even knew God's words. And even if she WERE to have heard them it would be a game of telephone from God to Eve to Serpent. (Otherwise, it would be from God to Adam to Eve to Serpent.)

Also there was mention previously that Adam and Eve were tricked because they didn't know good and evil before they ate the fruit. But that is not what the story was even about. The story was about a creator telling his creation not to do something and see if they would obey. (Remember unlike angels, mankind was given free will and could/can choose to disobey God.) But just like a parent that told their child not to eat the cookie, man was punished. (It is also kinda funny that when God asked Adam what happened he immediately pointed the finger at Eve and said "SHE DID IT!" much like a two year old.)

Amaleq13

How does seeking the fruits for himself keep A&E from being held back?

Then why would God be concerned that they might eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal?

That they were already mortal does not save God from lying because death is given as the specific consequence of eating the fruit. If they were already mortal as God indicates by the aforementioned concern, they were already going to die eventually and eating the fruit had nothing to do with it.

You are missing the point that one can only know that obedience is good or that disobedience is evil if one already has knowledge of good and evil. A&E were set up from the beginning.

IMO, it is best to read fables as fables and try to understand the moral that the author is attempting to convey rather than pretend they relate history.

Diogenes the Cynic

No. It uses the word bethulah, "virgin." It also specifies women "who had not lain with men" which takes any ambiguity out of the equation.

show_no_mercy

Snakes don't eat dust. The story was obviously written by someone to explain why snakes [were thought to] eat dust.