Search results

Where do you see that? That isn't how I read it. As nearly as I can tell, in Genesis 1, Satan is the 'covering cherub,' not the snake. He's still on God's payroll there.

I'm beginning to see why you keep getting the metaphorical boot. o_O

Once is happenstance. Twice is a coincidence? Three would be a trend.

No disagreement here. Now, how do translators determine what meaning the original authors intended? They look at other manuscripts from the same period and examine the context clues there. For Hebrew, we have over a thousand "new" manuscripts with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls...

Yes, there is. I think that the Christian fixation on the afterlife contributes to our self-blindness. Jesus didn't just come to save us from our [past tense] sins... he came to save us from sinning. That right there is a point to being a Christian - that I can avoid making life-mistakes by...

I don't think I agree. God already has all the glory, and all the power. What exactly can man do to increase that? We are insignificant by comparison.

What a mess we've made of theology. I think I said to someone here the other day that even if Genesis didn't exist, we would still know that all men are sinners... because we have eyes.

A clarification - The meanings of the words - according to the people who wrote them - have not changed. The meanings of the words - as interpreted by modern people - have changed.

It's not the meanings of the words that have changed... it's OUR understanding that has increased. The largest group of ancient Hebrew writings - the Dead Sea Scrolls - was not discovered until 1947, and the piecing together of the scroll fragments and translation thereof took decades after...

As [Jesus] sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Jesus answered and said to them, Take heed that no man deceives you. For many shall come in my...

That's 90 years ago... I think one either has to embrace modernity in the belief that humanity progresses in knowledge, OR one must embrace the oldest texts in the belief that the closer we get to the source the less obfuscation there is. Century-old opinions do neither of those things. confused

This line of argument is worth exploring, but I think it gets complicated quickly. First, because it depends on WHERE each book was written, as well as WHEN. Second, because trying to separate Greek influence from Babylonian and Persian influence is difficult, since the Greeks themselves were...

I disagree, at least partially. The Zealots certainly got it wrong - they were looking for a Messiah to be a military leader to throw off Roman rule. But the Essenes had it right - they were looking for a Messiah to abolish the corrupt priesthood, which DID happen. The Melchizedek scroll...

Yes. Even if the whole book of Genesis were omitted, we would still know that happens. All have sinned... and it's observable.

Yes, I believe the snake is a symbol of wisdom - not God's wisdom, but human wisdom. Adam's a literal person, but like most people in the early parts of the Bible, he also stands for ALL his descendants.

It's not an allegory, but it's also not entirely literal. It belongs to a different category of literature called apocalyptic.

The Hebrew is more like ambassador or delegate. It comes with a measure of authority that is a bit more than messenger implies.

Well, not with the definition that the modern church puts on "angel." If one would define Malaakim ("angels") as being essentially the same as Malakim ("kings"), it all makes a certain amount of sense.

Isn't this forum for introducing yourself? Setting some... interesting... expectations

I don't reckon we agree, but I read the serpent as being a symbol of worldly-wisdom. It wouldn't make much sense to address a question to a concept.