Since it's October, anybody miss Lisa Ruby?

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?
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. ;)
 
Get real...we know ...
...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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Yes, just as I said in the post directly above yours.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Exactly.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Was the narrator of 1 Samuel, writing under divine inspiration, deceived by the illusion too?
 
Nope. He just addressed the devil according to his disguise, as God did the devil in the Garden.
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.
 
Back
Top