Since it's October, anybody miss Lisa Ruby?

Ekklesian said:
Well, I do, because my opinion is informed by the Scriptures. Do you think it was a snake that tempted our parents, or the Devil?
Click to expand...
Get real...we know that the devil was in the snake. Are you so dense you couldn't understand that? Still, wouldn't the snake have to allow itself to be used? Remember, this was before sin...and there's no proof that animals couldn't talk back then. ;)
 
AverageJoe said:
Get real...we know ...
Click to expand...
...because we're informed of other inviolable truths in other places. Why the manifestations of the devil are referred to by his disguises in the narratives, I don't know, but there they are. In one place, he is disguised in the serpent, and in another place he is disguised as Samuel . . . well . . . at least Saul thought it was Samuel. Saul didn't see the spirit, and the description given by the witch was rather vague.
 
Ekklesian said:
See? There ya go. The narrative doesn't say it was the Devil. It says it was the serpent, the most subtle of all God's creatures.
Click to expand...
Imagine being so biblically ignorant that you think "the narrative" is the only biblical word on the matter.

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. (Rev. 12:9)​

The Bible begins with the downfall of man, deceived by the serpent who was the devil. It ends with the downfall of the deceiver: the serpent, called the Devil.

Easy to understand, really, if you're not playing the fool.
 
Ransom said:
Imagine being so biblically ignorant that you think "the narrative" is the only biblical word on the matter.

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. (Rev. 12:9)​

The Bible begins with the downfall of man, deceived by the serpent who was the devil. It ends with the downfall of the deceiver: the serpent, called the Devil.

Easy to understand, really, if you're not playing the fool.
Click to expand...
Yes, just as I said in the post directly above yours.
 
Ransom said:
Imagine being so biblically ignorant that you think "the narrative" is the only biblical word on the matter.

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. (Rev. 12:9)​

The Bible begins with the downfall of man, deceived by the serpent who was the devil. It ends with the downfall of the deceiver: the serpent, called the Devil.

Easy to understand, really, if you're not playing the fool.
Click to expand...
A full reading of the Scriptures will show that Satan was present in the serpent. It is one of the clearest things when one reads the whole Bible.
 
Bob Jones V said:
A full reading of the Scriptures will show that Satan was present in the serpent. It is one of the clearest things when one reads the whole Bible.
Click to expand...
Yes. The agent doing the tempting/deceiving is clearly Satan, not the snake itself. And if Satan was merely disguised as a serpent, it would be absurd for God to curse it afterward (Gen. 3:14-15), since no actual serpents were involved in the deception.
 
Ransom said:
Yes. The agent doing the tempting/deceiving is clearly Satan, not the snake itself. And if Satan was merely disguised as a serpent, it would be absurd for God to curse it afterward (Gen. 3:14-15), since no actual serpents were involved in the deception.
Click to expand...
Imagine someone thinking it was an actual garden snake doing the tempting lol. I’m pretty sure I learned that in Sunday school at about 5 years old.
 
Ransom said:
Yes. The agent doing the tempting/deceiving is clearly Satan, not the snake itself. And if Satan was merely disguised as a serpent, it would be absurd for God to curse it afterward (Gen. 3:14-15), since no actual serpents were involved in the deception.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Huk said:
Imagine someone thinking it was an actual garden snake doing the tempting lol. I’m pretty sure I learned that in Sunday school at about 5 years old.
Click to expand...
Again, exactly. I'm just pointing out, that simply because the narrative says it was Samuel, doesn't mean it was actually Samuel, but the disguise, just as the serpent was the disguise of Satan.
 
Ekklesian said:
Again, exactly. I'm just pointing out, that simply because the narrative says it was Samuel, doesn't mean it was actually Samuel, but the disguise, just as the serpent was the disguise of Satan.
Click to expand...
Was the narrator of 1 Samuel, writing under divine inspiration, deceived by the illusion too?
 
Ekklesian said:
Nope. He just addressed the devil according to his disguise, as God did the devil in the Garden.
Click to expand...
1) the thing I love about circular reasoning is, it's so circular.
2) The author didn't address the devil. He reported facts. The only way to read Samuel as being a demonic deception is eisegesis--reading your presuppositions into the text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top