Greetings again Matthias,
The serpent of old was the serpent.
I’ve already presented evidence against the Christadelphian dogma. You can’t be moved. While that’s disappointing, it’s not surprising. There are others that we have to take into consideration. I’ve strengthened them in their faith and left you in yours.
This is a very amusing incident, but I am not sure why you raise this. God gave the donkey a certain level of intelligence and remarkably able to voice this intelligence, and what the donkey stated was very relevant and true to the circumstances.
God gave the serpent a certain level of reasoning ability, and the ability to voice his reasoning. But the serpent's deductions were not all valid, and did not speak ALL the truth or the appropriate truth. The thoughts were completely based upon his given ability from God and his deductions based on his observations of the Angels, the Elohim of Genesis 3 who had a knowledge of good and evil, and yet the Angels were no longer subject to death, and anyway there was a tree of life in the midst of the garden.
Genesis 3:5 (KJV): For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:5 (ESV): For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Kind regards
Trevor
So we have a talking snake and a talking donkey. Someone enabled the donkey to speak. Someone enabled the snake to speak. We can identify that someone as God. In the donkey incident we have the angel of Yahweh you’re involving in the snake incident.
The donkey isn’t the devil. God worked through the donkey. The snake isn’t the devil. The devil, who is Satan, worked through the snake.
P.S.
We can go back to our conversation about the garden incident but you’re not going to be persuaded by anyone holding my position and I’m not going to be persuaded by anyone holding your position.
That brings me next to broaching the subject of the occult with you.
Last edited: