yguy

Dal, "moment" in this case is a synonym for "importance".

Daleth

Oh, well that was obvious, wasn't it? I mean just anyone might use moment to mean importance. Happens every day. I didn't comment on importance related to when it was written, merely on when it was written. I don't find great importance in the ancient texts either. I do think there is significance, however in its being a modern writer's attempt at linking the OT and the NT since no actual links exist in the texts themselves. Perhaps you do not, which is fine by me.

yguy

Oh, please. On a high-falutin' board like this one, you gotta expect a little intellectual pretentiousness now and then.

There are no links between the OT and the NT?? You are surely reading a different Bible than I am familiar with.

The idea that the book is an attempt to link the OT and NT never crossed my mind until now. I'm sure one wouldn't have to look too hard to find a reason to discount it, as with any other scripture. Such writings either hit me or they don't - same thing with anything else I read.

Daleth

Certainly. Just never from you.

There is nothing in the OT that suggests the contents of the NT, nor are the prophecies met. The NT, of course, refers back to the older document. This text presents itself as an expansion of an OT story, yet unlike any OT story it refers to events exactly as they will later be described in the NT. I suspect it is trying to present a lie, that when the OT was written there was such precise precognition of what would later become the NT. That's why it is important that the reader realize when it was written.

yguy

Some definitely were fulfillied by Christ, if the NT is at all accurate, but that's another thread for another forum.

Bree

Obviously you have forgotten that, just a few posts up, you wrote this:
Satan isn't even mentioned in the Bible (we're talking the real Bible here) until the New Testament. The Adam and Eve story is in the Old Testament. Therefore how can Adam and Eve be recreated in the image of Satan if that part of the story is conveniently left out of Genesis? Never mind the fact that Satan is left out of Genesis.

I bring it up only because you seem to be confused who was talking to Adam and Eve in the garden. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread in GRD on this subject?

Bree

Precisely. How do you know that 200 years down the road, someone got the story right?

Or doesn't that matter to you?

IMO, it seems like you cafeteria-style your way through life in order to justify your beliefs to yourself. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. It'd just be nicer if you admitted that you were doing that - then we could move on. This thread is long enough as it is.

yguy

Plenty of things were left out of Genesis. If it wasn't satan who spoke through the snake, it was some other lying spirit, so it hardly makes any difference what name you slap on it.

abe smith

That is the sybject of this post.

yguy

I don't, of course.

If someone provides evidence to the effect that it is false, I suppose it will. All I know is, truth is where you find it - and not necessarily all of it is in the books declared canonical by committee centuries ago. It makes perfect sense to me that we are devolved from a higher life form rather than evolved from a lower one.

I don't know what "that" is, so I can't admit to it.

Who's stopping you?