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?Then you don't seem to take the Scriptures at face value...
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?Then you don't seem to take the Scriptures at face value...
Yes. Next question?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.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?
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.Yes. Next question?
...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.Get real...we know ...
Imagine being so biblically ignorant that you think "the narrative" is the only biblical word on the matter.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.
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.
In such a verbose form that nobody wishes to read it! LOL EEEEEEeeeeee eAwwwwwwww!Yes, just as I said in the post directly above yours.
So do you think God cursed the entire order of snakes because Satan wore a snake disguise?Yes, just as I said in the post directly above yours.
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.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. 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.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.
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.
Of course not.So do you think God cursed the entire order of snakes because Satan wore a snake disguise?
Exactly.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.
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.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.
Was the narrator of 1 Samuel, writing under divine inspiration, deceived by the illusion too?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.
Only eKKKImagine 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.
Nope. He just addressed the devil according to his disguise, as God did the devil in the Garden.Was the narrator of 1 Samuel, writing under divine inspiration, deceived by the illusion too?
1) the thing I love about circular reasoning is, it's so circular.Nope. He just addressed the devil according to his disguise, as God did the devil in the Garden.
Please show proof of this assertion or move on, "Braying Ass."Nope. He just addressed the devil according to his disguise, as God did the devil in the Garden.