Was the Serpent a Literal Snake?

[nPeace]

Please quote me the part where they're offered either everlasting life or immortality.

(Genesis 2:15-17) Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”

(Genesis 3:22-24)
Jehovah God then said: “...in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever, - ” With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eden ... So he drove the man out, and he posted at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously to guard the way to the tree of life.

If Adam and Eve obeyed God's command, they had the guarantee of living forever, if they ate of the tree of life.

Quote me the part where anything like that is said to Adam and Eve.

Quoted above.

Quote me the part where the Garden story says that.

Again... Genesis 2:15-17 and Genesis 3:22-24.

No. They were not. They were chucked out of the garden to stop them eating from the tree of life and living forever. No other reason is stated or implied.

You said it.
They were chucked out of the garden to stop them eating from the tree of life and living forever.

Why do you ask a question, supply the answer, and deny that answer?
Does that not seem strange to you? Why are you saying no, when you see the answer is yes, just as said by @URAVIP2ME?

With regard to people living forever due to their obeying God's laws...
(Psalm 37:9-18)
9 For evil men will be done away with, But those hoping in Jehovah will possess the earth. 10 Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more; You will look at where they were, And they will not be there. 11 But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
18 Jehovah is aware of what the blameless go through,
And their inheritance will last forever.
27 Turn away from bad and do what is good,
And you will remain forever.
29 The righteous will possess the earth,
And they will live forever on it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

(Genesis 2:15-17) Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”
(Genesis 3:22-24)
Jehovah God then said: “...in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever, - ” With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eden ... So he drove the man out, and he posted at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously to guard the way to the tree of life. If Adam and Eve obeyed God's command, they had the guarantee of living forever, if they ate of the tree of life.


Quoted above.


Again... Genesis 2:15-17 and Genesis 3:22-24.


You said it.
They were chucked out of the garden to stop them eating from the tree of life and living forever.

Why do you ask a question, supply the answer, and deny that answer?
Does that not seem strange to you? Why are you saying no, when you see the answer is yes, just as said by @URAVIP2ME?

With regard to people living forever due to their obeying God's laws...
(Psalm 37:9-18)
9 For evil men will be done away with, But those hoping in Jehovah will possess the earth. 10 Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more; You will look at where they were, And they will not be there. 11 But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
18 Jehovah is aware of what the blameless go through,
And their inheritance will last forever.
27 Turn away from bad and do what is good,
And you will remain forever.
29 The righteous will possess the earth,
And they will live forever on it.

Or perhaps, at Genesis 2:9,16 Not 'if' they ate but rather 'when' they ate from the tree of life.
The only limiting directive was Not to eat from that one particular tree of knowledge of good and bad.( good=life & bad=death )
So, their disobedience would mean: No longer would have access to the tree of life. (good=life)
No longer access because they chose the evil or bad (bad=death)

 

[nPeace]

Or perhaps, at Genesis 2:9,16 Not 'if' they ate but rather 'when' they ate from the tree of life.
The only limiting directive was Not to eat from that one particular tree of knowledge of good and bad.( good=life & bad=death )
So, their disobedience would mean: No longer would have access to the tree of life. (good=life)
No longer access because they chose the evil or bad (bad=death)

You are free to eat my apple pie... if you want it. Or is it when?
You may have access to my apple pie. However, as long as it's a choice - future - when never happens. When does not exist. Am I correct?
When I get to heaven, they say, or when I get into paradise. I say if. When belongs to God. With him, when always is.

 

[blü 2]

(Genesis 2:15-17) Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”

No offer of immortality / eternal life there.

(Genesis 3:22-24)
Jehovah God then said: “...in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever, - ” With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eden ... So he drove the man out, and he posted at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously to guard the way to the tree of life.

No offer of immortality / eternal life there.

If Adam and Eve obeyed God's command, they had the guarantee of living forever, if they ate of the tree of life.

On the exact contrary, God made dang sure that would never happen.

And as we've seen, it wasn't anything [he]'d every proposed, let alone promised, anyway.

Again... Genesis 2:15-17

No offer of immortality / eternal life there.

and Genesis 3:22-24.

Outright refusal of immortality / eternal life there.

You said it.
They were chucked out of the garden to stop them eating from the tree of life and living forever.

Yea! At last something we can agree on!

With regard to people living forever due to their obeying God's laws...
(Psalm 37:9-18)
9 For evil men will be done away with, But those hoping in Jehovah will possess the earth. 10 Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more; You will look at where they were, And they will not be there. 11 But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
18 Jehovah is aware of what the blameless go through,
And their inheritance will last forever.
27 Turn away from bad and do what is good,
And you will remain forever.
29 The righteous will possess the earth,
And they will live forever on it.

No offer of immortality / eternal life there. An "inheritance" implies further generations, but we have that already.

 

[nPeace]

No offer of immortality / eternal life there.

No offer of immortality / eternal life there.
On the exact contrary, God made dang sure that would never happen.

And as we've seen, it wasn't anything [he]'d every proposed, let alone promised, anyway.

No offer of immortality / eternal life there.

Outright refusal of immortality / eternal life there.

Yea! At last something we can agree on!

No offer of immortality / eternal life there. An "inheritance" implies further generations, but we have that already.

I did anticipate this was going to be a head butter.
My brother said this...
Not quite sure why you say ' immortal ' because they were Never offered immortality, but offered everlasting life.
He made no claim of an offer of immortality. So what's up with the immortality claim?

The offer to live forever is there in the scriptures.
Repeating, one final time.
(Genesis 2:17) . . .But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.. . .

(Genesis 3:22) . . .Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever,. . .

God did not have to explicitly state, "Here I am offering you everlasting life."
When one reads anything, they do not complain that they don't see a particular phrase explicitly stated.
It seems evident to me, that anyone who is understanding, can read these scriptures, and with reasonableness "see" clearly, and with humility, like a little child - at an age of understanding, of course, accept the facts laid out in the following.

Fact #1
According to the Bible... God created the earth to be inhabited by living creatures, including man.
(Isaiah 45:18) . . .The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited:. . .

(Psalm 115:15, 16) 15 May you be blessed by Jehovah, The Maker of heaven and earth. 16 As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah, But the earth he has given to the sons of men.

(Psalm 37:29) The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it.

Fact #2
According to the scriptures, God created the tree of life... on earth... in the garden... where he put the man... and for what purpose?
(Genesis 2:8, 9) 8 Further, Jehovah God planted a garden in Eden, toward the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
For man to eat of it? Evidently.
(Genesis 3:22) . . .Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever,. . .

The scripture do not say Adam was restricted from eating fruit from the tree of life - one of the trees that was good for food. It was the tree of knowledge of good and bad that God laid the command for them not to eat, and the consequences for eating from that tree was death.
Whereas, the eating of fruit from the tree of life was a guarantee of everlasting life.

Fact #3
According to the scriptures... Everlasting life is promised by God, to those who obey him, and keep his way
(1 John 2:15-17) 15 Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world - the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life - does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.

(John 6:40) For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.

This is possible, because according to the Bible, God will remove death from all the righteous forever.
(Isaiah 25:8) . . .He will swallow up death forever, And the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will wipe away the tears from all faces. The reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, For Jehovah himself has spoken it.

What really are you arguing against? What's your argument in particular?
So that you know, if you are arguing for the sake of arguing... perhaps because you have nothing better to do, I want to let you know, I have things to do, so I'll have to say...

Take care blu. Bye

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You are free to eat my apple pie... if you want it. Or is it when?
You may have access to my apple pie. However, as long as it's a choice - future - when never happens. When does not exist. Am I correct?
When I get to heaven, they say, or when I get into paradise. I say if. When belongs to God. With him, when always is.

But Adam and Eve were Not free to eat from God's forbidden tree.
Out of all the trees on Earth only one tree was forbidden.
By saying, don't touch, don't eat ' was like God putting up a No trespassing sign on that one tree.
If you have a generous neighbor who had many fruit trees and said you can come over any time and eat as much as you want but just Not from one particular tree, would you consider your neighobr as Not being generous ________
So, it was NOT a question of IF or WHEN, but OBEY or NOT.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No offer of immortality / eternal life there.
No offer of immortality / eternal life there.
On the exact contrary, God made dang sure that would never happen.
And as we've seen, it wasn't anything [he]'d every proposed, let alone promised, anyway.
No offer of immortality / eternal life there.
Outright refusal of immortality / eternal life there.
Yea! At last something we can agree on!
No offer of immortality / eternal life there. An "inheritance" implies further generations, but we have that already.

I find the offer of 'eternal life' found at 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8.
People will then have the same original offer that Adam and Eve had.
They could live forever on Earth as long as they obeyed God.
So, Not immortal because the immortal are death proof, where as eternal life depends on listening to God.

 

[blü 2]

The offer to live forever is there in the scriptures.
Repeating, one final time.
(Genesis 2:17) . . .But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.. . .

Repeating as often as necessary, that is not an offer of immortality / eternal life. It does not imply anything outside the context of the prohibition. There is no point in the Garden story where Adam and Eve are intended to live forever. All that is Christian retrofit (or would be if any fit could be found).

(Genesis 3:22) . . .Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever,. . .

Yup, that's what it says. It says Man is not intended to become like God, not intended to know good from evil, not intended to live forever. Nowhere does it say anything to the contrary.

More Christian retrofit.

God did not have to explicitly state, "Here I am offering you everlasting life."

No,r did he ever do so. This is the point I've been making from the start.

When one reads anything, they do not complain that they don't see a particular phrase explicitly stated

In this case you can see it explicitly denied, 3:22-23.

Fact #1
According to the Bible... God created the earth to be inhabited by living creatures, including man.
(Isaiah 45:18) . . .The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited:. . .

So what?

(Psalm 115:15, 16) 15 May you be blessed by Jehovah, The Maker of heaven and earth. 16 As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah, But the earth he has given to the sons of men.

And every single one of them mortal.

(Psalm 37:29) The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it.

That is not a promise of personal, individual, immortality. It's an aspirational claim that the good guys will never be dispossessed. No one appears to have mentioned this to the native peoples of India, Asia, the Americas, Australia or the islands. In fact, so far the Australians are looking like the only candidates, but their religious traditions appear to be considerably older than Judaism.

Fact #2
According to the scriptures, God created the tree of life... on earth... in the garden... where he put the man... and for what purpose?

If you're going to ask questions like that, why did [he] choose the Jews and not the Indians, Chinese or indeed Australians? Why didn't [he] invent evolution to save [him]self all the personal fuss? And why on earth would [he] deny humans knowledge of good and evil at all? ─ Eve is a heroine of mankind, albeit a legendary one, for bringing us that knowledge, I'm sure you'll agree. And yet her spiteful, shifty, self-serving little god declared all women should suffer painful labor for her heroism.

(Genesis 2:8, 9)

Same answer.

(Genesis 3:22) . . .Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever,. . .

That's right. God was not going to have these critters he'd created become rivals to [his] power, [his] god-status. [He] wasn't acting out of any honorable motive.

The scripture do not say Adam was restricted from eating fruit from the tree of life

Then God's fright that they might do so is inexplicable.

the eating of fruit from the tree of life was a guarantee of everlasting life.

And it dang sure wasn't going to happen on God's watch.

By the way, if you're going to "live forever", as Genesis 3:22 says, that's both everlasting life and immortality ("deathlessness") ─ synonyms.

Fact #3
According to the scriptures... Everlasting life is promised by God, to those who obey him, and keep his way
(1 John 2:15-17) 15 Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world - the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life - does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.

First, that's Christian theology, and no applicable to the Tanakh, which is to be understood theologically in the light of Jewish thought.

Second, that's endtimes theology, and meant (at least in Paul, Mark, Matthew and Luke) in the lifetime of some Jesus' audience. Which, two millennia later is still a non-event,

(John 6:40) For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.

Since the middle ages, the idea of personal resurrection has been steadily replaced by the idea of the soul in heaven. In any event, you can only be resurrected after you're dead. You still have to die. That's not "living forever". That's resurrection.

This is possible, because according to the Bible, God will remove death from all the righteous forever.
(Isaiah 25:8) . . .He will swallow up death forever, And the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will wipe away the tears from all faces. The reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, For Jehovah himself has spoken it.

I'm not sure where God said that, but it wasn't in the Garden story. And it's a promise for the future, not the past.

What really are you arguing against? What's your argument in particular?

The absence from the Garden story of any mention of sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer and so on.

None of those things is in the Garden story. Not one. Not once.

 

[blü 2]

I find the offer of 'eternal life' found at 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8.

Corinthians is Christian theology, not applicable to the Tanakh. And if it's correct, then overpopulation will take on nightmarish proportions, worse even than at present.

People will then have the same original offer that Adam and Eve had.

There's no such offer in the Garden story. On the contrary, God boots them out to stop them becoming immortal.

They could live forever on Earth as long as they obeyed God.

Nothing of the kind appears in the Garden story ─ it's simply not there. That's the invention of Christian theology many centuries later, whereas the Tanakh is to be understood theologically in accordance with Jewish thought.

 

[nPeace]

Repeating as often as necessary, that is not an offer of immortality / eternal life. It does not imply anything outside the context of the prohibition. There is no point in the Garden story where Adam and Eve are intended to live forever. All that is Christian retrofit (or would be if any fit could be found).
Yup, that's what it says. It says Man is not intended to become like God, not intended to know good from evil, not intended to live forever. Nowhere does it say anything to the contrary.

More Christian retrofit.
No,r did he ever do so. This is the point I've been making from the start.
In this case you can see it explicitly denied, 3:22-23.
So what?
And every single one of them mortal.
That is not a promise of personal, individual, immortality. It's an aspirational claim that the good guys will never be dispossessed. No one appears to have mentioned this to the native peoples of India, Asia, the Americas, Australia or the islands. In fact, so far the Australians are looking like the only candidates, but their religious traditions appear to be considerably older than Judaism.

If you're going to ask questions like that, why did [he] choose the Jews and not the Indians, Chinese or indeed Australians? Why didn't [he] invent evolution to save [him]self all the personal fuss? And why on earth would [he] deny humans knowledge of good and evil at all? ─ Eve is a heroine of mankind, albeit a legendary one, for bringing us that knowledge, I'm sure you'll agree. And yet her spiteful, shifty, self-serving little god declared all women should suffer painful labor for her heroism.

Same answer.
That's right. God was not going to have these critters he'd created become rivals to [his] power, [his] god-status. [He] wasn't acting out of any honorable motive.
Then God's fright that they might do so is inexplicable.
And it dang sure wasn't going to happen on God's watch.

By the way, if you're going to "live forever", as Genesis 3:22 says, that's both everlasting life and immortality ("deathlessness") ─ synonyms.
First, that's Christian theology, and no applicable to the Tanakh, which is to be understood theologically in the light of Jewish thought.

Second, that's endtimes theology, and meant (at least in Paul, Mark, Matthew and Luke) in the lifetime of some Jesus' audience. Which, two millennia later is still a non-event,
Since the middle ages, the idea of personal resurrection has been steadily replaced by the idea of the soul in heaven. In any event, you can only be resurrected after you're dead. You still have to die. That's not "living forever". That's resurrection.
I'm not sure where God said that, but it wasn't in the Garden story. And it's a promise for the future, not the past.
The absence from the Garden story of any mention of sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer and so on.

None of those things is in the Garden story. Not one. Not once.

So you only read Genesis, and don't consider the collection of books to be the Bible?
What more is there to say then?
That says it all. Doesn't it?

 

[nPeace]

But Adam and Eve were Not free to eat from God's forbidden tree.
Out of all the trees on Earth only one tree was forbidden.
By saying, don't touch, don't eat ' was like God putting up a No trespassing sign on that one tree.
If you have a generous neighbor who had many fruit trees and said you can come over any time and eat as much as you want but just Not from one particular tree, would you consider your neighobr as Not being generous ________
So, it was NOT a question of IF or WHEN, but OBEY or NOT.

Not sure what any of this has to do with anything I said brother.

 

[blü 2]

So you only read Genesis, and don't consider the collection of books to be the Bible?
What more is there to say then?
That says it all. Doesn't it?

So you think the bible, made up of books written by different people at different places and times, with different agendas, still tells a single narrative?

That says it all.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So you think the bible, made up of books written by different people at different places and times, with different agendas, still tells a single narrative?.....................

I do wonder what you mean by 'different agendas' because I find the harmonious theme of the Bible is about God's kingdom (Daniel 2:44)
That was also the theme of Jesus' teaching - Luke 4:43; Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8
As with Jesus' teachings, there are harmonious corresponding cross-reference or parallel passages and verses among the many Bible writers.

 

[blü 2]

I do wonder what you mean by 'different agendas' because I find the harmonious theme of the Bible is about God's kingdom (Daniel 2:44)
That was also the theme of Jesus' teaching - Luke 4:43; Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8
As with Jesus' teachings, there are harmonious corresponding cross-reference or parallel passages and verses among the many Bible writers.

I meant what I said. Each biblical author has an outlook, a message, a take on Jewish politics, or in the NT Jesus, that's particular to himself. You can trace the concept of the Jewish God from a tribal henotheistic deity to the Babylonian Captivity when [he] starts to become the sole God, then to Paul who abandons the covenant of circumcision and whose followers are very largely pagan, scarcely Jewish at all. Jesus has three distinct Christologies, depending on whether you read Paul and John (Jesus as the demiurge), Mark (Jesus as ordinary Jew until adopted by God as [his] son), and Matthew and Luke (Jesus the result of divine insemination), all five of whom denies he's God, but is made God when the Trinity doctrine is invented in the 4th century CE.

And that's only a very rough start.

 

[nPeace]

So you think the bible, made up of books written by different people at different places and times, with different agendas, still tells a single narrative?

That says it all.

Yes. to me It does say it all indeed. It reveals a lot about you.
However, it's important to put the final nail in the coffin, so that no one is left wondering.
So have a few reasonable questions for you. A reasonable question requires a reasonable answer. I hope you agree.

You earlier mentioned the Tanakh and the Jews.
Do you think we should erase the entire history of the Jews as fraud created by a group of agenda driven Jews with a centuries committed pact?
Which books of the Tanakh do you think we should start ripping out for the incinerator?
Which words can we safely remove, as being penned by this agenda driven, pact making family?

 

[blü 2]

Yes. to me It does say it all indeed. It reveals a lot about you.
However, it's important to put the final nail in the coffin, so that no one is left wondering.
So have a few reasonable questions for you. A reasonable question requires a reasonable answer. I hope you agree.

You earlier mentioned the Tanakh and the Jews.
Do you think we should erase the entire history of the Jews as fraud created by a group of agenda driven Jews with a centuries committed pact?

No, not as such. We should instead approach each book of the Tanakh as we'd approach any other ancient document ─ what, where, when, who, why?

Each writer will have his own agenda. (From time to time one comes across arguments that parts of the Tanakh or of the NT were the work of female writers, which can't be ruled out, but which I don't think are yet established either). Some will record creation myths, and folktales like the Garden, the Flood, the tower of Babel &c. Some will record history / folk history ─ the unblinking narration of massacres, mass rapes, human sacrifice &c ordered by God in the early books shows a Bronze Age mindset not followed by later authors. Some will collect what is roughly literature ─ the Psalms, Job, Song of Solomon &c. Some will be books of wisdom, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. Some will be about politics, eg Isaiah and the advancement of monotheism; and the effects of the return of the captivity Jews to their homeland. Some will be political / exhorting / condemning / bewailing like the 'minor prophets'. Some will be a peculiar mix of folktale and 'prophecy' like Daniel. They each say what they want. They don't reconcile it to a single orthodoxy.

Which books of the Tanakh do you think we should start ripping out for the incinerator?

I'll leave that to you, My point is that each is a separate book, possibly with more than one author, that reflects the understandings beliefs and politics of its time; and like all ancient writings to be assessed for what it can tell us of ancient thought and perhaps history.

The point I make is that there's nothing like the harmonious whole you argue for.

Which words can we safely remove, as being penned by this agenda driven, pact making family?

If I were a bishop organizing early Christianity, I'd put Mark up front and quietly burn the other three gospels, so as to give the illusion of a uniform Christology and biography. But taking the historian's view as I do, I'd leave it all just as it is, variations and interpolations and pseudepigraphs and extracanonicals and all.

 

[nPeace]

No, not as such. We should instead approach each book of the Tanakh as we'd approach any other ancient document ─ what, where, when, who, why?

Okay.

Each writer will have his own agenda. (From time to time one comes across arguments that parts of the Tanakh or of the NT were the work of female writers, which can't be ruled out, but which I don't think are yet established either). Some will record creation myths, and folktales like the Garden, the Flood, the tower of Babel &c. Some will record history / folk history ─ the unblinking narration of massacres, mass rapes, human sacrifice &c ordered by God in the early books shows a Bronze Age mindset not followed by later authors. Some will collect what is roughly literature ─ the Psalms, Job, Song of Solomon &c. Some will be books of wisdom, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. Some will be about politics, eg Isaiah and the advancement of monotheism; and the effects of the return of the captivity Jews to their homeland. Some will be political / exhorting / condemning / bewailing like the 'minor prophets'. Some will be a peculiar mix of folktale and 'prophecy' like Daniel. They each say what they want. They don't reconcile it to a single orthodoxy.
I'll leave that to you, My point is that each is a separate book, possibly with more than one author, that reflects the understandings beliefs and politics of its time; and like all ancient writings to be assessed for what it can tell us of ancient thought and perhaps history.

Seems to me people decide who has an agenda, while exempting themselves from such.
Let me see how that works.
I think there are people who criticize the books of the Bible, because they have an agenda.
Some will say whatever they want with no evidence. Some will talk whatever because they can. Some will talk more whatevers, because everyone and everything they criticize cannot be represent with concrete proof... at least not yet.
Every time that poof turns up the critics then keep quiet, until later when they find something else.to attack.
Some will talk even more whatevers, even though there is evidence against what they are saying.
How's that?

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are considered authentic. So the Tanakh was accepted by the Jews, well before the first century AD.
Comparing the DSS to our manuscripts today do not reveal much difference.

True, they will make claims about what's written. However, interestingly, none of them agree with each other's claims.

The point I make is that there's nothing like the harmonious whole you argue for.

That's your point.... but it's a point that's just there... It does nothing. It not useful.
How many billions don't even care that it's just there.

If I were a bishop organizing early Christianity, I'd put Mark up front and quietly burn the other three gospels, so as to give the illusion of a uniform Christology and biography. But taking the historian's view as I do, I'd leave it all just as it is, variations and interpolations and pseudepigraphs and extracanonicals and all.

Were we not talking about the Tanakh?
The questions posed specifically applied to those books.
If you care to talk about Mark... again, Leroy has a thread discussing the Gospels.
So can we conclude that you have no evidence of a family sworn pact of fraud, You just have an opinion.

 

[blü 2]

I think there are people who criticize the books of the Bible, because they have an agenda.

I haven't criticized any book of the bible as such, so I can only assume you're talking about someone else.

Every time that poof turns up the critics then keep quiet

Who are you talking about?

Some will talk even more whatevers, even though there is evidence against what they are saying.
How's that?

All those accusations and not a single example. So nothing to reply to there.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are considered authentic.

Authentic in the sense of being from the period in question.

So the Tanakh was accepted by the Jews, well before the first century AD.
Comparing the DSS to our manuscripts today do not reveal much difference.

Your point being?

Were we not talking about the Tanakh?

Indeed, but only as part of the bible. A large part of the problem is the Christian interpretation of the Tanakh ─ as I've said, there's no mention, none at all, of sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer anywhere in the Garden story. Or the absurd-on-the-face-of-the-record notion that Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus ─ and so on.

If you care to talk about Mark... again, Leroy has a thread discussing the Gospels.

I was simply answering your question. Mark is only an aspect of what we're discussing, which is, whether the bible is a collection of books (which plainly it is) or a single coherent narrative (which plainly it isn't).

So can we conclude that you have no evidence of a family sworn pact of fraud, You just have an opinion.

Do you mean the Christian practice of wishing untenable readings onto the Tanakh? If not, what do you mean?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since angels have the ability to materialize in human form, perhaps they have the ability to transform themselves into any form they wish. God's ancient servants were visited by angelic messengers who were in human form. They visited Abraham and Daniel and also Mary.

In Noah's day rebel angels materialized in human form to indulge in the pleasures of the flesh. After the flood, which destroyed their monstrous children and sent their errant fathers back to the spirit realm, God took away their ability to materialize. They were put under restraint, but not entirely. There is no mention of them ever materializing again.

You contradict yourself.
First you say that after the flood their ability of "materializing" (lol) was taken away and that there is "no mention" of them "materializing" again. But 2 sentences prior to that, you said they materialized and appeared before Mary.

Mary lived long after the flood according to the story though.

So your claim about "materializing" no longer being possible after the flood, directly contradicts your claim that a "materialized" angel visited someone AFTER that flood.

So was the snake literal? I have no reason to believe that it wasn't a real snake that Eve encountered.

You have no reason to believe anything in the story, really.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..........., but is made God when the Trinity doctrine is invented in the 4th century CE.

Yes, the triune god was made / promoted in the 4th century, Not by Scripture, but by the corrupted Church of Constantine's day.