Pages: 1

Was Satan not a serpent in the garden of Eden?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Frederik

What do you think about this here?

***removed by akabezalel***


Posted by: Christian Commando

Oh Frederik, if only you payed closer attention to what he writes. He states clearly, that his description is how "he" interpretes the wording, but not actual definitions given, which he references, but refuses to accept.

He clearly shows definition declares- serpent, etc, but still he changes the belief to something else on his own accord.

Ask yourself this then, is he really looking at the Truth of God for what It says, or reading lies of satan into it instead?

God Bless my friend.


Posted by: Frederik

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Commando
Oh Frederik, if only you payed closer attention to what he writes. He states clearly, that his description is how "he" interpretes the wording, but not actual definitions given, which he references, but refuses to accept.

He clearly shows definition declares- serpent, etc, but still he changes the belief to something else on his own accord.

Ask yourself this then, is he really looking at the Truth of God for what It says, or reading lies of satan into it instead?

God Bless my friend.


I only asked what you think about this.
And even if he was right and the translation of serpent is wrong what difference does it make? Wether Satan was a real serpent or a serpentine being? This is nothing fundamental.


Posted by: Christian Commando

The question really is Frederik, why did you ask if not important? It was a waste of thread space and others time.

You asked what we thought. I checked out the site and told you what I thought of his explainations. There is little if any Biblical foundation for what he tries to claim as his own interpretation. Anyone can do that and come up with anything for a belief.

God Bless!!


Posted by: Frederik

Doesn't he analyze the words?
I don't speak hebrew but maybe he's right who knows?


Posted by: Christian Commando

But you have to watch the way he said it my friend. I don't interprete it like most others do. For one thing. Secondly- He admits the actual definition and use we are accustomed to thru majority translation acceptance.

Third- He comes up with a different belief of particular words used in order to come up with a belief not accepted by the Christian majority leadership.


Granted, some interpretations of God's Word have been changed since the Early Church Teachings. Keep in mind, it has been man translating over and over, for centuries and centuries. Being falable and born in sin, we cannot help but get some percentage wrong eventually over time. That is a given for what we are.

I checked further into that site and found the forum. What I read mostly there was, people arguing over the difference between -(Old Test Scriptures), what was actually mean't, because of knowing there are two Hebrew languages of which I've dealt with in my years of study.

The old original one Jews had before captured by Egypt. The newer one which they developed after being released from captivity from Egypt. Because of variations in the language, people like to argue over for example- wether the wall of Jericho fell on one person or 1,000 people.

Stupid. Whats the difference? The real point is, God did what He said when we followed his leading. The results were what God said they would be if we did as He commanded. Thats the point.

what is happening is, people getting into arguments over what Scripture really says or means when between christians, is satan showing the world how dumb we can be to fall for arguing over simple little differences that are pointless, as it keeps us from focusing on the main point- a relationship with God.

God Bless!!


Posted by: Frederik

But if they are only trying to be accurate then why is this dumb?
I think this is better than showing no interest in the bible or not caring much about details.


Posted by: Christian Commando

The problem is, too many people arguing over less important points. The point with your example given is not wether the creature Eve dealt with was a serpent or a serpentine creature, but that she was decieved into sinning against God and drawing Adam into it as well.

This is how sin came into the world. Thats the point. So, since you even brought up which creature satan was doesn't matter, why did you ask? Seeking to be so accurate on such meanial points is of no consequence, as they serve no purpose in our relationship with God. but, I will say this, I suggest, if satan had appeared incarnated as an unnatural creature to this physical world, I'm sure Eve would've avoided the area. Thus, it makes sense it was a serpent- (snake with legs).

How would I know? In science and biology classes in school and college, I used snak bodies to prove what God declared of the curse on the serpent. If disect the body of a snake, you can find upper leg bones still present close to the head and back towards the tail.

I would not claim all snakes were that way, I just know the type we disected way back then showed them. Secular scientists explain this away as evolutionary change or developement.

God Bless!!


Posted by: Frederik

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Commando

How would I know? In science and biology classes in school and college, I used snak bodies to prove what God declared of the curse on the serpent. If disect the body of a snake, you can find upper leg bones still present close to the head and back towards the tail.

I would not claim all snakes were that way, I just know the type we disected way back then showed them. Secular scientists explain this away as evolutionary change or developement.

God Bless!!


This is a good argument.

But even if it was not a snake I don't think that it would change much.
Maybe for some people it's easier to imagine Eve talking to a serpentine being than to a snake. Many people will have intellectual problems with this. Maybe for them this is an aid.


Posted by: Christian Commando

It comes down to individual choice my friend, but I like to go with original translations that have been widely accepted for centuries from back in Early church teachings.

God Bless!!