Bizarre origin of Satan according to genesis

[Joeman]

Sorry.

I had guessed that you had talked with someone about the translation, as that's what I always turn to when I find biblical discrepancies. The original aramaic word that translates to "generation" here does not indicate a generation in the length that you mean it -- a lifetime. I don't speak aramaic, but I think that the word is svatho. It means a generation in two senses -- 1. a familial sense, in a family tree sense and 2. a "people"/"populace" sense.

Going on the first interpretation: unless every single descendant of every person who had heard him speak throughout his lifetime had died, there is no reason to see any conflict with the passages you cited and what has happened.

My pastor also says that it can be translated to mean a populace, as in the "svatho" of Israel. (I haven't heard this explanation as often, though.) In this sense, there is still no conflict with the passages you cited and what has happened. The people of Israel have not been wiped off of the face of the earth.

hahahahaha. NT is never written in Aramaic. It's written in Greek. Genea is the Greek word for generation. Try looking up lexicon. There is no other meaning.

 

[invert_nexus]

I really shouldn't be in this forum...
But...

I don't remember if the new testament's original language was greek or not. I know there was the septunguint or whatever, but was that the original version or was it translated from Aramaic?

Regardless, it doesn't matter. The point is that no books of the new testament were written in the time of Jesus. Jesus himself didn't write any books. It's even possible that there were no firsthand accounts of the events of the bible.

The reason that no books were written until so much later is because there was no need. The end times were not coming. They were here. All those people out at John's baptismal thing were doomsday cultists. Jesus was a doomsday cultist.

But, for the argument about the new testament being as anecdotal as the old testament, we don't need to argue the meaning of generation. We just have to see that the books were written so long after the events they portrayed. The reasons why are irrelevant, even if they are funny.

 

[Joeman]

I don't remember if the new testament's original language was greek or not.

I took Greek in a seminary. Yes. NT's original language is Greek.

I know there was the septunguint or whatever, but was that the original version or was it translated from Aramaic?

Almost all OT are written in Hebrew with the exception of book of Daniel and some apocraphal books, which is in Aramaic. Septuigint is Greek translation of OT which is used to serve Greek speaking Jews. It is much inferior to Hebrew in terms of accuracy. The funny thing is Almost all quotes of OT by NT authors use Septuigint, like Holy Spirit forgot to tell them there is a better version of OT available. Even Jesus quotes from Septuigint and made mistakes.

 

[Ozymandias]

We just have to see that the books were written so long after the events they portrayed.

How long do you mean by "so long after the events?"

I am no biblical scholar, as has been made clear already. As it is, I am taking these dates provided by Wikipedia articles on the faith that the authors are correct and I can't confirm their veracity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Authorship

probably between the years A.D. 60 and 65, but others would date it in the 70s, even as late as A.D. 85.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Date

Most scholars contrast these comments with the more specific ones in Luke and Matthew, and would be hesitant to assign a date later than 70-73 CE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Date_of_composition

Consequently the tradition is that this Gospel was written about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. If the alternate conjecture is correct, that it was written at Rome during Paul's imprisonment there, then it would date earlier, 40–60.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship_and_date

Almost all critical scholars place the writing of the final edition of John at some time in the late first or early second century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Date

External evidence now points to the existence of Acts at least as early as the opening years of the 2nd century.

None of these dates seem to undermine the credibility of the gospels.

But, that's not really the point. How would outdated gospels undermine the moral message of love, humility and forgiveness? Non-Christians will rarely believe the miracles described in the gospels, Christians (usually) will.

Conversion over hearing of these miracles is ridiculous: it is too easy to rationalize what has been recorded as either lies, mis-documentation, a trick or simply some law of nature we don't fully understand yet. After all, it's not like the people who wrote these books were totally objective. If that is what you arguing over, I will confess that there is little evidence and really no reason to believe in the miracles.

What is it that we disagree with?

 

[ghost7584]

In the beginning, according to the bible, God created a bunch of helpers even though he doesn't need any help. One of the helpers, Lucifer, a.k.a. Satan, the prince of darkness, turned out to be very very bad and waged war against God. God defeated this Satan and imprisoned him in a pit. We have no clue how anyone can win because they are transcendent beings and can't get killed or injuried.

Instead of imprisoning this Satan forever so that he can't make any trouble, God let him come out and disguise as a snake. He walked up to Eve, made her eat an apple, and cause damnation of all mankind.

He then compelled God, out of necessity, to shrink Himself and exhibit Himself on the cross in the shape of a man, and get beaten, spit on, stoned, pierced ... (All because Eve ate an apple.)

Was Satan really defeated? After the war against God, God continue to let him hang around. Not only that, Satan has gotten a hell lot bigger. Before Satan was just a little angel. Now Satan is OMNIPRESENT! He is everywhere and is caused all kinds of miseries.

Why hasn't Christianity become the number one religions in every country yet? According to most Christians, that's because of the cultural and geographical isolation. Since Christians say all other religions besides Christianity are Satanic, Satan somehow is not bounded by this cultural, language, and geographical problem. Satan has become bigger than God!

The truth is Christianity could not have survived without inventing Satan. They need to use Satan to demonize their theological opponents. They need Satan to explain the unexplainable, such as why do miracles, dreams, and visions can occur to followers of other religions. Because of the importance of Satan, they may as well adopt Satan as the forth part of the quadrinity!

All things were created for God's pleasure, not because he needed helpers.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Satan and the devils never appear in physical form, in the bible. They use the physical bodies of others. Satan possesed the mind of the serpent and used the serpent to tempt Eve. (Devils can possess animals; they possessed swine that ran into the sea in the New Testament.)
Angels of God do have physical bodies in the bible and appear as men or creatures. Jacob wrestled with an angel, so the angel had a physical body. But angels can do supernatural things, like appearing and disappearing and walking through walls (ufo aliens have same abilities.)
If Satan and the devils were once angels, they must have had physical bodies at one time. It looks like when Satan and the fallen angels were defeate they lost their physical bodies. They must have been killed.
Men who become angels in the future can't die, but that might be because there will be no more rebellion in heaven, so there is no need to punish any future angels.
God is allowing Satan and the devils to test men to see if they will do good or evil. That is why Satan is still allowed to have power now. Satan can only do what God allows Him to do. God will allow Satan to test men and also to bring trouble or death on men to punish those men for their sins.
Satan did not compel God to use His plan of salvation. God did it out of Love for mankind, to set them free from Satan so that they can go to heaven and not be punished with Satan in the lake of fire.
Satan is not omnipresent. Satan has a multitude of fallen angels, lesser devils, that follow him and do his commands.
Real Christianity, based on the New Testament will not become the number one religion until Jesus comes back. [False Christian churches, will have many members.]
Jesus said this:
Matt. 7:
7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Only few will find the real way to salvation in a world full of Satan's lies.
King James version New Testament is the real way to salvation.

Jesus said false Christs and false prophets would work miracles. Moses said that people in false beliefs would work miracles. The purpose was to test the people to see if they would love God.
Deuteronomy 13:
1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

 

[Sushupti]

"Satan," the snake, and Lucy were completely different 'people.'

And more than 2, incidently. There were many 'Satans/adversaries.'

 

[Joeman]

"Satan," the snake, and Lucy were completely different 'people.'

And more than 2, incidently. There were many 'Satans/adversaries.'

Lucifer and Satan are two different entities in the Christian myth. Christians forced one to be equivalent of the other as the result of their theology axe, saws, and hammers used to ensure theological consistency.

 

[Sushupti]

Lucifer and Satan are two different entities in the Christian myth. Christians forced one to be equivalent of the other as the result of their theology axe, saws, and hammers used to ensure theological consistency.

Indeed; but don't forget the part about satans being more than one entity, either

 

[Silas]

M*W: Lucifer, Satan, and the Devil, are all names for the constellation Serapens, a group of stars. When Lucifer "rebelled against God," there was a massive meteor shower that looked to early humans like a rebellion in the heavens. Still, there were no gods except what early humans could imagine. When "Lucifer rebelled against God in the heavens," the ancient humans saw falling stars and meteors and called it "a war in the heavens." It's time to grow up, people.

Obviously there can be no possible proof of this, it's just speculation. M*W it is usual when making a statement such as that to pepper it with phrases such as "could have" and "might", otherwise you sound like a raving nutter. Which book did you pick this little unverifiable gem from?

The funny thing is Almost all quotes of OT by NT authors use Septuigint, like Holy Spirit forgot to tell them there is a better version of OT available. Even Jesus quotes from Septuigint and made mistakes.

Today's domination of Hebrew in Judaism actually post-dates the Christ. In New Testament times the Septuagint dominated, and old Hebrew was all but forgotten. The standard Scripture followed by Jews today, the Masoretic Text, was only finalised about a thousand years ago, after several hundred years of scholarship.

This is actually an area where I've changed my views relatively recently. Given the fact that the earliest Christians were Greek-speaking Jews who only knew Scripture in the Greek form, it seems to me to be theologically wrong to have gone back to the Hebrew original for modern English (and other language) translations, (even the KJV). It seems to me that the Catholic Church has had it right all along (although Jerome's Vulgate, while mainly translated from the LXX, was influenced by his Hebraic researches and help he had from rabbinic scholars). Jack Chick and others of his virulently anti-Catholic ilk have been reduced to making false claims about the Apocryphal books, that for example they are never cited by NT authors nor Jesus Christ. But the marginal notes of the grand original 1611 edition of their beloved King James Version frequently cite references to Baruch, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.