2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

[MARAB0D]

There is also a version of these affairs by Siegmund Freude, who made a psychological analysis of the situation and came to conclusion that the Israelites were so upset with Moses leading them in circles around the desert instead of taking them to the Promised land, that they made a human sacrifice - killed him in the name of Apis, fried and ate him. The aftermath of this was the entire tribe having the decomposition of Oedipus' complex (killing the father) and acquiring a group Conscience, which made the Israelites one nation from a group of clans. This is seriously stated in his work on Oedipus' complex!

[Dr. D]

There is also a version of these affairs by Siegmund Freude, who made a psychological analysis of the situation and came to conclusion that the Israelites were so upset with Moses leading them in circles around the desert instead of taking them to the Promised land, that they made a human sacrifice - killed him in the name of Apis, fried and ate him. The aftermath of this was the entire tribe having the decomposition of Oedipus' complex (killing the father) and acquiring a group Conscience, which made the Israelites one nation from a group of clans. This is seriously stated in his work on Oedipus' complex!

Well, it sounds as logical as Moses writing about his own death.

[MARAB0D]

LOL, he was not a mathematician, he had a logic of a psychiatrist!

[Omnaka]

There is also a version of these affairs by Siegmund Freude, who made a psychological analysis of the situation and came to conclusion that the Israelites were so upset with Moses leading them in circles around the desert instead of taking them to the Promised land, that they made a human sacrifice - killed him in the name of Apis, fried and ate him. The aftermath of this was the entire tribe having the decomposition of Oedipus' complex (killing the father) and acquiring a group Conscience, which made the Israelites one nation from a group of clans. This is seriously stated in his work on Oedipus' complex!

aftermath of this was the entire tribe having the decomposition of Oedipus' complex (killing the father) and acquiring a group Conscience, which made the Israelites one nation from a group of clans. This is seriously stated in his work on Oedipus' complex!

Dude Marabod, Please explaine your thoughts?

Oedipus is loving The Mother.

Love Omnaka

[MARAB0D]

Dude Marabod, Please explaine your thoughts?

Oedipus is loving The Mother.

Love Omnaka

Omnaka, Oedipus complex is a desire to kill own father, subconscious hatred to him. This is for males - females have Electra's complex instead, hatred to mother. A person with such complexes is a sort of an innocent monster, driven by hatred. The cure against this hatred is a ritual murder of a sort - one does not need to kill the parents or a human, it is enough to associate some creature with this parent (subconsciously!) and then viciously kill without any sense, just for the sake of killing.

When the murder is committed, the sufferings of the victim remain in the memory, and start causing the sufferings of the murderer, in fact it is awakening of Conscience, when the sufferings of the victins are applied to oneself. After this murder (which can be even a fly or frog, personally I killed a grass snake) we acquire Free Will and ability to make moral judgement, it is a sort of initiation all humans pass through.

Freud applied the same to the entire nation of Israelites - they commited a group murder of their Father, so later they all acquired similar type of Conscience, which made them one nation.

[Cadetak]

Omnaka, Oedipus complex is a desire to kill own father, subconscious hatred to him. This is for males - females have Electra's complex instead, hatred to mother. A person with such complexes is a sort of an innocent monster, driven by hatred. The cure against this hatred is a ritual murder of a sort - one does not need to kill the parents or a human, it is enough to associate some creature with this parent (subconsciously!) and then viciously kill without any sense, just for the sake of killing.

When the murder is committed, the sufferings of the victim remain in the memory, and start causing the sufferings of the murderer, in fact it is awakening of Conscience, when the sufferings of the victins are applied to oneself. After this murder (which can be even a fly or frog, personally I killed a grass snake) we acquire Free Will and ability to make moral judgement, it is a sort of initiation all humans pass through.

Freud applied the same to the entire nation of Israelites - they commited a group murder of their Father, so later they all acquired similar type of Conscience, which made them one nation.

Are you saying I should go kill something?

[MARAB0D]

Are you saying I should go kill something?

No, it not me- it is Freud. He reckons you should (if you haven't done this before, usually this happens when we are children).

[Jor-el]

well perhaps in this case with jorel he supports being 'right' and either doesnt know that when one buys into contradicitons (on blind faith) that any ole conclusion can be reached on this premise and is it can be just as easily argued that the serpent was really a dog who barked out to eve who understood woof lingusitics blah blah l ..in argumentation its the grit of sound data to begin with that shows the merit and trust worthiness of the concept.... this is a fallacious argument in form and no debater worth thier weigth would contiune arguing in this context they are obliged to call it bad form and bow out .... because it has the potential to decieve and mislead............

marbaond is correct it is understood to be a serpent Jorel IMO needs to be right for what ever reason..

And I suppose that now you are also a Semitic language scholar to state who is right and who is wrong, hasn't it ever occured to you that the reason so many interpretet this text to be a serpent is because they exactly didn't know hebrew and thus weren't aware what the author was trying to convey by using this word?

[Jor-el]

Dr D is really a DR in language sceince he has been gracious enough to share his expertise on hebrew in this case one of many languages he knows... ....its unbiased and well informed that is the key poiint.....

perhaps you missed his post....

in informal argument one seeks to meet certain critera to be considered a valid posit and DR D does..he is an expert in language it just so happens.....

there is alot to be said for the quality of a posit of course we try and use the most meaty ones....

It is a wonder then that you take Dr. D's opinion more to heart than that of someone who is a Semitic Language scholar, whos profession is actually studying the hebrew language and can actually speak it... you are simply taking for granted that this is "my" opinion, when I have repeatedly stated many times when this arguement has come up that this is the professional opinion of someone in the field of Semitic languages, who can not only translate hebrew and greek but aramaic and akkadian (Sumerian) as well.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Jor-el

[Jor-el]

Talmudic Judaism and Mosaic Judaism are one in the same. Of course, you wouldn't be able to admit that as a Christian.

Oh its true, everyone thinks Judaism has been a static belief over the last 2000 years and more, that is certainly not the case. As I've demonstrated many times on this forum. Judaism changed many of its theological foundations since 70 AD especially after 100 AD when they had their Council in Jamnia.

The Jewish Encyclopedia's 1905 article on ACADEMIES IN PALESTINE states:

The destruction of Jerusalem put as abrupt an end to the disputes of the schools as it did to the contests between political parties [ Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots ]. It was then that a disciple of Hillel, the venerable Johanan ben Zakkai, founded a new home for Jewish Law in Jabneh (Jamnia), and thus evoked a new intellectual life from the ruins of a fallen political existence. The college at Jabneh, which at once constituted itself the successor of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem by putting into practise the ordinances of that body as far as was necessary and practicable, attracted all those who had escaped the national catastrophe and who had become prominent by their character and their learning. Moreover, it reared a new generation of similarly gifted men, whose task it became to overcome the evil results of still another dire catastrophe — the unfortunate Bar Kokba war with its melancholy ending. During the interval between these two disasters (56-117), or, more accurately, until the War of Quietus under Trajan, the school at Jabneh was the recognized tribunal that gathered the traditions of the past and confirmed them; that ruled and regulated existing conditions; and that sowed the seeds for future development. Next to its founder, it owed its splendor and its undisputed supremacy especially to the energetic Gamaliel, a great-grandson of Hillel, called Gamaliel II., or Gamaliel of Jabneh, in order to distinguish him from his grandfather, Gamaliel I. To him flocked the pupils of Johanan ben Zakkai and other masters and students of the Law and of Biblical interpretation. Though some of them taught and labored in other places — Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in Lydda; Joshua ben Hananiah in Beḳiin; Ishmael ben Elisha in Kefar Aziz, Akiba in Bene Beraḳ; Hananiah ben Teradyon in Siknin — Jabneh remained the center; and in "the vineyard" of Jabneh, as they called their place of meeting, they used to assemble for joint action.

Palestinian Judaism Restored.

In the fertile ground of the Jabneh Academy the roots of the literature of tradition — Midrash and Mishnah, Talmud and Aggadah — were nourished and strengthened. There, too, the way was paved for a systematic treatment of Halakah and exegesis. In Jabneh were held the decisive debates upon the canonicity of certain Biblical books; there the prayer-liturgy received its permanent form; and there, probably, was edited the Targum on the Pentateuch, which became the foundation for the later Targum called after Onkelos. It was Jabneh that inspired and sanctioned the new Greek version of the Bible — that of Akylas (Aquila). The events that preceded and followed the great civil revolution under Bar Kokba (from the year 117 to about 140) resulted in the decay and death of the school at Jabneh. According to tradition (R. H. 31b), the Sanhedrin was removed from Jabneh to Usha, from Usha back to Jabneh, and a second time from Jabneh to Usha. This final settlement in Usha indicates the ultimate spiritual supremacy of Galilee over Judea, the latter having become depopulated by the war of Hadrian. Usha remained for a long time the seat of the academy; its importance being due to the pupils of Akiba, one of whom, Judah ben Ilai, had his home in Usha. Here was undertaken the great work of the restoration of Palestinian Judaism after its disintegration under Hadrian. The study of the Law flourished anew; and Simon, a son of Gamaliel, was invested with the rank that had been his father's in Jabneh. With him the rank of patriarch became hereditary in the house of Hillel, and the seat of the academy was made identical with that of the patriarch.

As can be seen, it was here that the modern form of Judaism was born, accompanied not only by a new style of exegesis but also by the creation of the foundation of what later came to be the Targum of Onkelos.

In effect it was here that the verses concerning the Jewish Messiah were reinterpreted, it was here that any theological similarities to the new religion called christianity were expunged and reinterpreted.

Actually, I think that many Rabbis will tell you that the serpent is a representation of Satan in the world. If you read the Serpents of Desire series by Rabbi David Fohrman, you'll see that the serpent is a representation of Satan. OJ does not teach that Satan doesn't exist, but that he isn't a separate force which is opposite to God. Satan is a loyal angel of God who is simply doing as God commands him to do.

The serpent in the garden is more accurately a representation of man's animal nature, but that which he embodies is nothing less than Satanic force. Satan's most powerful weapon against man, is man's physical desire.

At least you don't try to sell the idea of the non existence of satan, which in itself is a good starting point. We may differ to the concept of loyalty, since christianity accepts that it is not so much loyalty as God using Satans own rebellious nature against him.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Jor-el

[Jor-el]

This is not entirely correct. Jorel did not provide any data, he simply pointed out that in his view the WRITTEN Hebrew words for "serpent" and "Shiny one" are spelled similar way (I can not comment on this as I do not know Hebrew). But I know that Hebraic words are often written only as a root, consisting of 2-3 consonants, and each such root would form differently sounding words upon the vowels are filled in. This allows for ambiguity of interpretations.

Incorrect, the written word for "serpent", "The Diviner" and "The Shining one" are spelled in exactly the same way. It is their use within a phrase in terms of grammar that determine their meaning.

The word nachash is a very elastic term in Hebrew. It can function as a noun, a verb, or even as an adjective. When nachash functions as a noun it means "snake", and so the traditional translation is possible but it yields the contradiction with Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14.

When nachash serves as a verb it means "to practice divination". That meaning could also be possible in Genesis 3 due to the deception or going on. Satan claiming to have the "real" word from God. When a verb receives an article attached to it, the action of the verb is then transformed into a person doing the action. Hence the word ha-nachash would then best be translated "the diviner".

The third option - the adjectival meaning of nachash - is the solution to the contradiction problem. When nachash serves as an adjective, it’s meaning is "shining bronze or "polished" (as in "shiny"). By adding the article to the word, ha-nachash would then quite easily mean "the shining one". Angelic or divine beings are elsewhere described in the Bible as "shining" or luminous, at times with this very word, nachash.

Here let me help you out further, the following is a link to Appendix 19 From The Companion Bible, I'll post some of it but you can read the rest...

See: Appendix 19 From The Companion Bible

In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasised by the use of certain Figures of speech (see Appendix 6).

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasising, and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake; no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (chapter 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Genesis 3: and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force the conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.

In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2,6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Numbers 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.

But when the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Numbers 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and, in obeying this command, we read in verse 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Second, and most important part in Jor-el's concept is that he believes that there was Devil in the early version of Abraham's religion, described in Torah. This is his belief, and he seems frustrated that the Bible does not talk much about Devil at all, in Old Testament Devil or Satan is mentioned only few times, and not as a force, opposing God, but as son of God, as an angel or even as God's servant (Book of Job, 1,2,3). Out of this, Jor-el tries to find Devil, and presumes that the word "serpent" can be also read as "Shiny one" which makes a link between the serpent and Lucifer (Light-carrier). But even this is a flaw, as the name Lucifer is derived from the Morning Star, from Sirius, and it appeared AFTER 500s BC, when Assyrians and Babylonians destroyed Israeli state and Judaean state, taking the Jews to captivity - so this name comes from the religions of the conquerors, as the Jews announced their gods to be Devil. Under the name Lucifer Satan could not be mentioned in Genesis at all!

But I've always maintaied that Satan was a Son of God, only he is a Son of God in Rebellion. What you forget to state is that Judaism was not unique in its theological concepts. Ugarit among many others, was was a close neighbour and an enemy of Israel held such similar beliefs. It is here that we find much of the context that Helel Ben Sachar (a minor deity - son of God) attempted a rebellion against El and was violently expelled from the mount of God. This is merely one of many common myths which have a similar theme. Although it cannot be stated that Ezekiel or Isaiah drew upon these myths directly, a prallel can be established that such a common myth pervaded all local cultures, including Israel at that time. It is this very concept that is evident in both Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. Helel ben-shachar, meaning "Helel (bright one) son of Shachar (dawn) or Helel, bright one, Son of the Dawn.

See: THE CONTRIBUTION ANCIENT NEAR EAST BACKGROUND MATERIAL MAKES TOWARD UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETING ISAIAH 14:12-15

Third part is, that the Bible is not open to interpretations, as it was given to us 2200 by the Jews themselves, as 70 their scholars made a Greek translation called Septuagint, and made it not for the Europeans, but for the Jews, who were living in Alexandria and lost their original tongue. All our modern Bibles are based on this Septuagint one way or another, and it is precisely Serpent mentioned in it, not anyone else. So, Jor-el challenges even those ancient Jewish scholars and de-facto states that the entire religious development for the last 2200 years was wrong due to the error of these scholars. His position on amending the Bible must inevitably amend modern Christianity, Judaism and Islam, as they all only can see the serpent, not Devil!

Since the bible was originally in hebrew, it is the hebrew that has textual supremecy over later traditions, all translations, whether Greek or any other come from the Hebrew, it is here that one must look for answers regarding the text.

Fourth part is that he bases on some European Medieval concept of Devil as opponent to God. The concept itself is rather an urban legend than a theological finding, because it contradicts both Old Testament and New Testament, in the latter Devil is Christ's Teacher, who was showing him the temptations.

That is all - so there was no "data" ever given by Jor-el.

What do you mean by opponent of God?

Edited August 9, 2008 by Jor-el

[Jor-el]

The first five books are attributed to Moses only by tradition . . . . he was not, in truth, responsible for them since he would have had to have written about his own death in Deuteronomy.

I find it amazing that so many people try so hard to state categorically that Moses didn't exist or even write the Pentateuch. Just because the final remarks on Moses death are included in the Pentateuch doesn't invalidate this claim.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Jor-el

[Omnaka]

Omnaka, Oedipus complex is a desire to kill own father, subconscious hatred to him. This is for males - females have Electra's complex instead, hatred to mother. A person with such complexes is a sort of an innocent monster, driven by hatred. The cure against this hatred is a ritual murder of a sort - one does not need to kill the parents or a human, it is enough to associate some creature with this parent (subconsciously!) and then viciously kill without any sense, just for the sake of killing.

When the murder is committed, the sufferings of the victim remain in the memory, and start causing the sufferings of the murderer, in fact it is awakening of Conscience, when the sufferings of the victins are applied to oneself. After this murder (which can be even a fly or frog, personally I killed a grass snake) we acquire Free Will and ability to make moral judgement, it is a sort of initiation all humans pass through.

Freud applied the same to the entire nation of Israelites - they commited a group murder of their Father, so later they all acquired similar type of Conscience, which made them one nation.

We were both right, I looked it up.

OEDIPUS COMPLEX: For Freud, the childhood desire to sleep with the mother and to kill the father. Freud describes the source of this complex in his Introductory Lectures (Twenty-First Lecture): "You all know the Greek legend of King Oedipus, who was destined by fate to kill his father and take his mother to wife, who did everything possible to escape the oracle's decree and punished himself by blinding when he learned that he had none the less unwittingly committed both these crimes" (16.330). According to Freud, Sophocles' play, Oedipus Rex, illustrates a formative stage in each individual's psychosexual development, when the young child transfers his love object from the breast (the oral phase) to the mother. At this time, the child desires the mother and resents (even secretly desires the murder) of the father. (The Oedipus complex is closely connected to the castration complex.) Such primal desires are, of course, quickly repressed but, even among the mentally sane, they will arise again in dreams or in literature. Among those individuals who do not progress properly into the genital phase, the Oedipus Complex, according to Freud, can still be playing out its psychdrama in various displaced, abnormal, and/or exaggerated ways. See also Freud Module 3 on repression and Freud .

Love Omnaka

[mklsgl]

I find it amazing that so many people try so hard to state categorically that Moses didn't exist or even write the Pentateuch. Just because the final remarks on Moses death are included in the Pentateuch doesn't invalidate this claim.

Just one question: Isn't it quite plausible that one scribe collated what was written/dictated by Moses and Joshua, therefore explaining its structure and style? Since we don't have "Moses and Joshua; 'Torah'; First Edition; Sinai Press, 1200 B.C.E.".....

Edited August 9, 2008 by mklsgl

[Marcus Aurelius]

IamsSon - Satan is very important, as he acts, preventing the humans to find the Second Forbidden Fruit, the Immortality, which is supposed to make us Gods. We ate the first one, and acquired Free Will from it, as we became able to distinguish Good from Evil. So, our life is a chain of our own deeds, and each our action has some Reasoning, some Motif - these motifs are the result of our Choice between Good action and Evil action.

We can follow Jesus, Ramah, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed - it does not matter at all as soon as we make our Free Will to make the choices of Good - and the Devil, Satan acts in a way tempting us to make Evil choices. When we learn to fully follow those sons of God I mentioned, we ourselves can become sons of God (or daughters, it does not matter) - and as such we would acquire the Immortality. This Immortality is not our Body's immortality, but the one of our Spirit, which acquires then the ability to be able to materialize as another Image of God, maintaining the continuity of these materializations. So, Satan is not an "enemy of God" in any way, Satan is just the temptations, our Body and Soul present to us, detracting our Spirit from discovering its own divine nature. In essense Satn is just this our Material World we live in, who stops us from gloriously leaving it and becoming Gods.

What Jor-el presented here was just a primitive medieval pagan interpretation of the "enemy" - if we accept it, this vision downgrades God and puts God on the same level as His Images, "creatures". God is One and Allmighty - how can some creature like Satan oppose God? Thats ridiculous, as this makes God to be not Allmighty but only as mighty as some of His own creatures. In fact what he says destroys Monotheism, as there are two Gods in his vision - Good God and Evil God.

Wow. Nice post, Marabod. At first I thought you and I might be polar opposites, but the more I read of your posts, I think we might be on the same wavelength, at least to an extent. This post here, I completely agree with. This is exactly how I feel about Satan's role as well. Its funny how so many Christians attribute so much power to this entity, almost enough to make him the dualist opposite of God. I mean, this concept is ridiculous IMO. If one does not live in a selfish, materialistic, hedonistic state, then, as you say, if he follows good IN ANY CAPACITY, he has nothing to fear from Satan. I do believe that he exists, but the role you place him in is much more in keeping with my own view than the traditionalist approach. Satan is part of the karma police lol. Karma is the law of cause and effect, your actions and your thoughts, have both material and spiritual implications. If you sew kindness, then you reap same, in a material and/or karmic fashion, however, negative thoughts and deeds create bad karma, now Satan's role here, would be to attach to the ego as a sort of parasite, driving you to continue down the path of seperateness. As he says, its your actions, see? If you do good things, you draw closer to God, God draws closer to you. If you do bad things, you get further away from God, leading to the hellish realms, and ultimately Satan. A MAN CREATES HIS OWN HEAVENS AND HELLS BASED UPON THE CHOICES HE MAKES.

[Dr. D]

I find it amazing that so many people try so hard to state categorically that Moses didn't exist or even write the Pentateuch. Just because the final remarks on Moses death are included in the Pentateuch doesn't invalidate this claim.

I have never denied the existence of Moses . . . . not here or anywhere else. But I do apply logic to my arguments and in that logic, the tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch cannot be asserted to be anything more than tradition.

The supplementary fact that his death appears within those writings does, indeed, cast doubt upon his authorship and the only way to justify this belief is to amplify the tradition to assert that Joshua became a co-author.

There is nothing within written or physical record to verify such a claim . . . . only claims to perpetuate it . . . .and by every approach, whether academic or through personal studies, the concept can only continue to be nothing more than tradition.

[Jor-el]

I have never denied the existence of Moses . . . . not here or anywhere else. But I do apply logic to my arguments and in that logic, the tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch cannot be asserted to be anything more than tradition.

The supplementary fact that his death appears within those writings does, indeed, cast doubt upon his authorship and the only way to justify this belief is to amplify the tradition to assert that Joshua became a co-author.

There is nothing within written or physical record to verify such a claim . . . . only claims to perpetuate it . . . .and by every approach, whether academic or through personal studies, the concept can only continue to be nothing more than tradition.

Ok, I can live with that, but I have come across many such claims that Moses never even existed, or that it was merely oral tradition that was later written down, centuries after, since at the time of Moses writing was not invented yet, or some such thing...

Yes we can ascribe authorship to Moses because the bible says it was Moses and thus is in keeping with tradition, but we can't prove such a claim at this time. That Joshua was probably the actual scribe for the majority of the Pentateuch is also quite possible and relevant, not just for the final part of Deuteronomy.

[Jor-el]

Just one question: Isn't it quite plausible that one scribe collated what was written/dictated by Moses and Joshua, therefore explaining its structure and style? Since we don't have "Moses and Joshua; 'Torah'; First Edition; Sinai Press, 1200 B.C.E.".....

Yes it is possible and at later times quite probable since the material was edited a number of times... but always for clarification of terms and modernization of word usage. In terms of the content itself, I think the scribes would have been extremely reluctant to change anything since they have historically been known to burn any defective manuscripts and incidental errors that are found make the entire manuscript defective.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Jor-el

[Jor-el]

What Jor-el presented here was just a primitive medieval pagan interpretation of the "enemy" - if we accept it, this vision downgrades God and puts God on the same level as His Images, "creatures". God is One and Allmighty - how can some creature like Satan oppose God? Thats ridiculous, as this makes God to be not Allmighty but only as mighty as some of His own creatures. In fact what he says destroys Monotheism, as there are two Gods in his vision - Good God and Evil God.

And how may I ask, does it downgrade God?

Maybe you are talking of your own interpretations and not of christianity itself. Christianity does not hold the dualistic concept that Satan can battle against God, we merely state that he tried and failed to do so. Just as he is at this time trying to subvert peoples minds and attitudes against God. The person willingly makes a choice, does he not, that choice can be influenced can it not?

Satan will take many with him at the end of the age, because they chose his lies over the truth, the truth is quite simple, there is only one saviour for mankind, and his name is Jesus Christ. Nobody comes to God but through him.

Nowhere is he portrayed as having equal power to God, which is what you are trying to convey in your post. But he does have power, the power we gave him...

How can men who are even less than satan have the same attitude, make war on God, yet they did... and will again.

Psalm 2

1 Why do the nations rage

and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth take their stand

and the rulers gather together

against the LORD

and against his Anointed One.

3 "Let us break their chains," they say,

"and throw off their fetters."

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;

the Lord scoffs at them.

5 Then he rebukes them in his anger

and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,

6 "I have installed my King

on Zion, my holy hill."

7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD:

He said to me, "You are my Son;

today I have become your Father.

8 Ask of me,

and I will make the nations your inheritance,

the ends of the earth your possession.

9 You will rule them with an iron scepter;

you will dash them to pieces like pottery."

10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;

be warned, you rulers of the earth.

11 Serve the LORD with fear

and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry

and you be destroyed in your way,

for his wrath can flare up in a moment.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Jor-el

[Dr. D]

Ok, I can live with that, but I have come across many such claims that Moses never even existed, or that it was merely oral tradition that was later written down, centuries after, since at the time of Moses writing was not invented yet, or some such thing...

Yes we can ascribe authorship to Moses because the bible says it was Moses and thus is in keeping with tradition, but we can't prove such a claim at this time. That Joshua was probably the actual scribe for the majority of the Pentateuch is also quite possible and relevant, not just for the final part of Deuteronomy.

References within Scripture claiming that Moses authored the Pentateuch can also be viewed as nothing more than verifying the age of the tradition. Paul also made that claim but obviously had no first hand awareness of the actual writing.

One of the great problems we have in modern scholarship is that investigations are usually conducted by those with pre-established bias or are funded by those with special . . . . usually theological . . . . interests. The views of Bertrand Russell, for example, were immediately discarded because he was a professed ahteist. "Scientific" investigations of the Shroud of Turin, for example, have been conducted repeatedly by seminary scientists funded by the Vatican. When an independent study dated the cloth as the 14th century, the protest was heard to all parts of the academic world.

As often as not, seminary training indoctrinates as much as educates and I have long since lost confidence in much of their work. I am now at the point that I rely solely upon new concepts and translations from universities or organizations unaffiliated with any church or particulr interest.

[Jor-el]

References within Scripture claiming that Moses authored the Pentateuch can also be viewed as nothing more than verifying the age of the tradition. Paul also made that claim but obviously had no first hand awareness of the actual writing.

One of the great problems we have in modern scholarship is that investigations are usually conducted by those with pre-established bias or are funded by those with special . . . . usually theological . . . . interests. The views of Bertrand Russell, for example, were immediately discarded because he was a professed ahteist. "Scientific" investigations of the Shroud of Turin, for example, have been conducted repeatedly by seminary scientists funded by the Vatican. When an independent study dated the cloth as the 14th century, the protest was heard to all parts of the academic world.

As often as not, seminary training indoctrinates as much as educates and I have long since lost confidence in much of their work. I am now at the point that I rely solely upon new concepts and translations from universities or organizations unaffiliated with any church or particulr interest.

Well, you certainly are free to do that, I personally don't accept the shroud of Turin and most of the other tidbits offered by the church of Rome, I grew up with all that and it is one of the reasons I initially became an atheist.

[MARAB0D]

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.

Jor-el - when Genesis was written, Israelites haven't even heard about existence of Chaldea. Moreover, ladies would hopely excuse me, but I can give you similar example of "comparative linguistics" from modern days. In Russian the word meaning "shield" (Щит) would sound like English "sheet" with "ee" shortened to just "i" - but this does not mean that we must interpret their chronicles in a way that they were entering the battle, defending themselves with chunks of turd. And vice versa, simple English "blah" would sound in Russian as a non-parliamentary word derived from their term for a whore. Meanwhile Russian and English are at least not less closer to each other than Hebrew and Chaldean.

Pity you do not want to find out what "nachash" may also mean in Vietnamese or Tongan...

[Leonardo]

Just an inquiry . . . . as we move farther away from the roots and heritage of a language, how is it supposed that our knowledge of it increases?

On the money!

As our knowledge of the physical and psychological world grows ever more with the discoveries of science, so must religion become ever more metaphysically complex to accommodate that which science has stripped from it. Religious scholars - especially those who look to promote a certain belief and I count Dr Heisers 'Snake as Satan' theory among those - seek to place extra meaning in words written in a very much simpler environment.

Of course the Christian scholar will justify this by falling back to the 'God knows all and the scribes simply wrote the words He inspired without necessarily understanding them' position. This is balderdash! The bible was a living document to those who wrote it. It carried the simple mythological messages picked up from preceding cultures as well as adding a few (also very straightforward) of its' own.

As for Genesis, the passage with the snake has multiple puposes, but this is not and early example of Satan hiding as a serpent. The language used (as I pointed out earlier, but Jor-el whitewashed over) and that which follows disavows that notion.

God took the snakes' legs from it. If Satan was a shapeshifter (disguised as a serpent) how would the removal of limbs be effective punishment - even metaphorically?

The reasons the Israelites wished to demonise the snake were few:

1) Snake-worship was an ancient and ingrained belief that had to be eradicated for the Israelite 'no God but ours' to be effective. First step on this path is to make the snake unworthy of worship.

2) Snakes have no legs. It's obvious, how many miss the obvious, but part of this passage is a retelling of a simple (and archaic) myth as to how the snake 'lost' it's legs. Similar 'punishment' stories can be found in other cultures mythology.

3) The Israelites needed a victim to play the 'bad guy' role in the tale of how Mankind needed salvation and, wouldn't you know it, their God would be able to provide this! The snake, being convenient and having the two other points to make, was the ideal victim.

People like Jor-el, with a vested interest in complicating these ancient, and very simple, tales for the purpose of validating the belief in a modern world will decry such interpretation as 'kindergarten theology'. What he forgets is that the knowledge the authors had of the physical and psychological environment was at kindergarten level compared to what we know today. This is not to say these people were less intelligent or intuitive, but knowledge was lacking.

[MARAB0D]

Yes, Leonardo. Genesis was written for the people much less sophisticated that we are now. There were some simple allegories used, but to suggest such a complex preparations for the much later concept of Satan would be less than wise. If we go this way, why do not we suggest also that juvenile Hercules did not strangle two snakes in his craddle, but two devils - Satan and Lucifer, foreseing them to come and tempt future Christian Greeks... Or that Cadmus, who at old age was turned into a serpent, in fact turned into Devil... Or that Phaeton was the Fallen Angel (LOL- and this could really be "remembered" in Genesis, if it was an asteroid impact!)

[Jor-el]

On the money!

As our knowledge of the physical and psychological world grows ever more with the discoveries of science, so must religion become ever more metaphysically complex to accommodate that which science has stripped from it. Religious scholars - especially those who look to promote a certain belief and I count Dr Heisers 'Snake as Satan' theory among those - seek to place extra meaning in words written in a very much simpler environment.

Of course the Christian scholar will justify this by falling back to the 'God knows all and the scribes simply wrote the words He inspired without necessarily understanding them' position. This is balderdash! The bible was a living document to those who wrote it. It carried the simple mythological messages picked up from preceding cultures as well as adding a few (also very straightforward) of its' own.

As for Genesis, the passage with the snake has multiple puposes, but this is not and early example of Satan hiding as a serpent. The language used (as I pointed out earlier, but Jor-el whitewashed over) and that which follows disavows that notion.

God took the snakes' legs from it. If Satan was a shapeshifter (disguised as a serpent) how would the removal of limbs be effective punishment - even metaphorically?

The reasons the Israelites wished to demonise the snake were few:

1) Snake-worship was an ancient and ingrained belief that had to be eradicated for the Israelite 'no God but ours' to be effective. First step on this path is to make the snake unworthy of worship.

2) Snakes have no legs. It's obvious, how many miss the obvious, but part of this passage is a retelling of a simple (and archaic) myth as to how the snake 'lost' it's legs. Similar 'punishment' stories can be found in other cultures mythology.

3) The Israelites needed a victim to play the 'bad guy' role in the tale of how Mankind needed salvation and, wouldn't you know it, their God would be able to provide this! The snake, being convenient and having the two other points to make, was the ideal victim.

People like Jor-el, with a vested interest in complicating these ancient, and very simple, tales for the purpose of validating the belief in a modern world will decry such interpretation as 'kindergarten theology'. What he forgets is that the knowledge the authors had of the physical and psychological environment was at kindergarten level compared to what we know today. This is not to say these people were less intelligent or intuitive, but knowledge was lacking.

Yeah sure Leonardo, whatever makes you feel better, but one question, where do you find in the bible that the snake had legs or limbs of any kind?

If you are correct then it should be asimple matter of showing me the passage that says that the serpent had limbs that could be taken from it.

Sometimes what I see here is actually people trying desperately to make the ancient peoples out to be dimwits. People that were not evolved socially and had complex linguistic skills. Are you one of those that says they spoke in snorts and grunts?

History and archeology has demonstrated time and again that these languages were very well developed, even more so than our modern day languages. When you have multiple words to refer to the same thing, then this is a sign of complex language skills inherent to the people who speak a particular language.

In our modern day world, probably only chinese or Japanese can compare themselves in complexity to the Hebrew and Greek of those times, yet here you are saying they were not a complex people incapable of knowing what the word "nksh" implied...

Edited August 10, 2008 by Jor-el