Satan serpent..

[Jayhawker Soule]

In 1967 Stan Tenen discovered a pattern in the arrangement of letters in the first verse of the [size=-1]Hebrew text of Genesis. He spent the next 20 years investigating the meaning of that[/size] [size=-1]pattern.[/size]

Yep - they made words. Did it really take him 20 years?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You promised evidence and you offered a comic book. I'm still waiting. Parenthetically, which version of which variant of the Torah was used to devise this magic decoder ring?

 

[No*s]

I am certain that Satan was the serpent in Genesis. I would just lke to share with thee who do not believe it how I got this opinion..

But first, let us start here:
"He was thrown down to earth, and all his angels with him.” (Rev. 12: 9)

Satan was an angel, much like God, and could appear in the form of another beast. Hewas always there, but was thrown down to Earth. Now following what
I believe, Satan DID have the possibility of appearing as the serpent in Genesis. As he was an opposing "angel"?John’s reference to the ancient serpent can only mean the serpent in the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 3: 1-20)
Eve was taken in with Satan's reasoning; especially when "the serpent said unto the woman,Ye shall not surely die:"(Gen.3:4)

Was Satan not trying to cease life's existance at the source? (indirectly). God was trying to create a world for humans to live and breathe, and reproduce, and Satan began his jealousy and adversary to foil God's plan?

Thankyou for your time

Soul,

I wouldn't try and guess at motives there. All I know is some type of pride. Maybe he wanted to exterminate life, maybe he wanted to dominate it, maybe something else. I don't think we can really know his motives...

 

[anders]

You promised evidence and you offered a comic book. I'm still waiting. Parenthetically, which version of which variant of the Torah was used to devise this magic decoder ring?

Deut, you are too kind. I have seen one worse example, though. Somewhere, a person tried to show that our digits were made up by one through nine strokes. The way they had to twist those poor digits to make their point!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut, you are a comic book.

As you wish. Now, which version of which variant of the Torah was used?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Duet, why don't you enlighten us more with your pure genious?

I claim no genius, much less "solid, concrete evidense that will blow literary scholarship out of the water." Now, again: which version of which variant of the Torah was used?

 

[SoulTYPE]

HTF did this conversation arise from serpents..I do not know..

 

[oracle]

With all logic and reason, to believe that a woman literally talked to a serpent is quite absurd. But the woman Eve, is not literally a woman, and the serpent not literally a serpent. Rather Eve represents the inner parts of the human psyche, our receptive faculties of intellectual thought, and the serpent, self-will. And through this self-will our consciousness (Adam) "logical thought and reason", desired to be awakened.
Eve is the soul, and Adam the mind. Eve is the right side of the brain, and Adam the left side.

 

[SoulTYPE]

With all logic and reason, to believe that a woman literally talked to a serpent is quite absurd.

Many things in the bible are hard to believe and sound absurd. But it is the faith of the many that make these "absudities" real today..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Now the Sumerian word for "rib" is ti (pronounced "tee"). The goddess created for the healing of Enki's rib, therefore was called in Sumerian Nin-ti, "the lady of the rib." But the very same Sumerian word ti also means "to make live." The name Nin-ti may thus mean "the lady who makes live," as well as "the lady of the rib." In Sumerian literature, therefore, "the lady of the rib" came to be identified with "the lady who makes live" through what might be termed a play on words." (Kramer, Mythologies 103)

 

[SoulTYPE]

It took me a while, but I finally got what you were getting at D32..and you are right..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just highly think that it should be taken into consideration that the characters in the book of genesis, could be symbolic, without disregard of the literary of course.

From which version of which variant of the Torah should we mine these symbols?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Even scholars claim that the new testament is symbolical.

This is so sad. Why do you evade my question?

As for your new diversion, precisely which scholars claim what pericopes of which new testament to be "symbolical" [sic]?

 

[No*s]

Yes, Deut does give positive criticism. He's given me some positive criticism. I think he just doesn't like fudge-work and speaks against it wherever he sees it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am witnessing the fact that

Witnessing? Fact? You come to a debate forum with your silly little decoder ring and we're suppose to thank you for showing us the light and run off to dedicate ourselves to your laundry list of reading? And then, to top it off, you start whining when asked the MSS source from which your esoterica was derived. How very sad that you should be asked to debate in a debate forum.

Tell ya what, I'll get back to you after I consult some goat entrails.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And you still can't bring yourself to answer my question. You're classic. :biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I already answered your question. Obviously you haven't looked at the previous page.

Obviously you haven't given any thought to the question, much less answered it.

It's unfortunate that we have come to this state of unnecessary quibbling.

It's unfortunate that you keep avoiding the question. Now, again: which version of which variant of the Torah was used?

 

[SoulTYPE]

You know, I tried entering this debate. Although I only know a LITTLE, I agree slightly on Deut's hands. I could help, but my last post was deleted so meh.

Dude all he asked was which version of which variant of the Torah was used? Deut man is not having a go at you, and would this nonsense not have emerged had you just answered the question? I speak of this as advice. Debates are one thing, but arguments that are caused over avoidance are another.

On a different matter:
-----------------------------
These debates are open, I am able to post here in this thread. As Rex stated "post what you like as long as it does not break the forum rules and regs." I have not done so here in this thread, that I have been notified of or had reason for deletion?

 

[SoulTYPE]

I'm sorry this thread caused such hassle

 

[tonyt1967]

I am certain that Satan was the serpent in Genesis. I would just lke to share with thee who do not believe it how I got this opinion..

But first, let us start here:
"He was thrown down to earth, and all his angels with him.” (Rev. 12: 9)

Satan was an angel, much like God, and could appear in the form of another beast. Hewas always there, but was thrown down to Earth. Now following what
I believe, Satan DID have the possibility of appearing as the serpent in Genesis. As he was an opposing "angel"?John’s reference to the ancient serpent can only mean the serpent in the Garden of Eden. (Genesis 3: 1-20)
Eve was taken in with Satan's reasoning; especially when "the serpent said unto the woman,Ye shall not surely die:"(Gen.3:4)

Was Satan not trying to cease life's existance at the source? (indirectly). God was trying to create a world for humans to live and breathe, and reproduce, and Satan began his jealousy and adversary to foil God's plan?

Thankyou for your time

I believe Satan did incarnate the serpent and that he had sexual relations with Eve. God is a just God and his punishment fits the crime. If Adam and Eve ate an apple and it made them realize they were naked, then why did God punish Eve by making her bring forth children in sorrow? If she ate an apple why wasn't she punished with heartburn? I believe that Cain was the son of Satan. How else could God curse him? God could not curse Adam because Adam was his son, but He did curse Cain. Cain is not listed anywhere in the Bible in the geneology of Adam. Cain was a murderer just like his father Lucifer.