Shining Light

Aug 14 2016, 04:19 AM

Son Goten

Aug 14 2016, 03:24 AM

Shining Light

Aug 14 2016, 02:03 AM

First, I'll start with Genesis 3:6. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. As is seen, Adam was with Eve. Now, backtracking to 3:1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Note: No mention of the serpent leaving, nor Adam showing up, is given. What do you suppose this means? Could it be that the serpent was a literal snake being controlled, and such minor details weren't put in? Maybe, but that's not what was given to us. Or could it be that the serpent waEven something as simple as, "the serpent left the presence of the two", or something along those lines, would suffice. But that's not mentioned at all. Instead, we're left with these facts; Adam was with Eve, and the serpent never left from the two. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but these seem rather important to be left out, to me at least. Moving on.

3:9. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Interesting. Eve was the first one tempted by the serpent, yet Adam gets called first by God. In case you think Eve just didn't know, 3:2-3. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. So then, why would God not call upon Eve first? Could it be that Adam tempted her?

Also, why would a snake be punished for being a host? Or was it Adam that was punished, and the part about crawling on it's belly wasn't literal?

Another thing. 3:14-15. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life, and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. But wait. Nowhere, not even in the bible, are snakes mentioned in any relation to women. Nor are demons, not to my knowledge. So then, how do these two verses have any coherent meaning? They can if Adam is the serpent.

That's all I have until your awaited response, Son Goten.

First off I just want to say this is an interesting theory, if you don't mind me calling it that.

All right so here come my responses. Now Adam and the serpent both had their introductions. So that's the first reason why I don't think this is possible. Humans have never been known as serpents or been described as such. Specifically Adam is called the man, Eve is called the woman, and the serpent is called the serpent. There's no mistakes there in my opinion. Now the serpent is referred to as a wild animal. Not once are Adam and Eve referred to as wild animals or even animals. Later on when God states the punishments of them eating the fruit from the tree he actually speaks to all three of them individually. I'm going to sum it down a bit. First of course he tells the serpent that he will be cursed above all wild animals, second he tells the woman that her pains for child birth will greatly increase, and thirdly he tells Adam he will basically eat the rest of the life (that is really summing it down badly but these are long quotes). If Adam was the one being punished for what the serpent was said then why would God have two separate punishments away from each other, that doesn't make any sense. He punished the serpent, then Eve, and then Adam. There would be no point to separate those two.

All in all I think you're thinking a bit too much about it. I don't think God wanted us to interpret that way. The serpent was the one who was be deceiving, God would have said something about Adam being deceiving. There would be no point of God referring to Adam as Adam then as the serpent. It just doesn't add up that way.

If there was something in your post that I didn't respond to that you wanted me to respond to specifically, just let me know. I tried my best to answer most of it.

Yes, Adam and the serpent had their introductions seperately. But is it not possible that temptation struck Adam, and that's when he became a serpent and not righteous?

Actually no, the serpent is only said to be "more subtil than any beast of the field". No mention of it being a wild animal.

Yes, but like I said, I've yet to find a verse making mention of snakes outside of this story. Neither have I found a verse describing the devil as an angel. There is 2 Corinthians 11:14, where it says Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, but that can be understood as something similar to the "wolves in sheep's clothing", mentioned in Matthew 7:15. Anyway, back on topic.

Define overthinking. And why do you think it shouldn't be interpreted that way?

Alright, I'll admit, you've got me stumped here. I'll have to get back to you on that one. Might just throw this whole odea off, who knows.

Actually yes, I don't think you answered my question of why the snake would be punished.

Lazuli

Aug 14 2016, 07:00 PM

Why is there any sort god in the equation at all? What need is there for it to be there? It doesn't explain anything, has nothing at all pointing to it, and only raises more questions. Until someone points out why it is true, or why it might necessarily be true, it's nothing more than human imagination; the same goes for your many, non-interventionist gods that you have absolutely no reason to believe in other than the seeming-fact that you want to.

It explains nothing; it offers nothing; it is nothing.

I should probably take another break of sorts from these kinds of discussion.

OFG

Aug 14 2016, 05:58 PM

Atoms are the basic units of matter and the defining structure of elements. It would make sense that something like that would exist. We can physically see atoms using electron microscopes. I feel like you're really reaching for the sake of playing devil's advocate when there really is no need for that in an argument as clear cut as this one.

"What are objects (both living and nonliving) made out of?" We answered that question through science using the scientific method and discovered cells, atoms, protons, neutrons, etc. We know that these things exist by observation, as in we can actually observe them existing. Humans have always pondered the question "what created our universe? What created life?" Through the same scientific method, we have already come to the conclusion that the universe more than likely created itself or was created at random. There is currently no need to throw in the god argument any longer. Sure, if a deity is scientifically proven, I would believe it, but we have been running toward a different conclusion. Atoms and god aren't analogous.

Buuberries

Aug 14 2016, 10:21 PM

I was typing up a post at work a few hours ago over a period of about an hour but i lost it

Shining Light

Aug 15 2016, 03:58 AM

Does the bible not mention false Jews?

I'll address Gotenks and Son Goten later.