Do you like to gamble?

[james bond]

Okay, Taking a look at just what this original sin is from which you've been saved, I found this explanation in Wikipedia:

"Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt."
​

So paraphrasing, you've been saved from a state of sin, characterized by anything from a slight deficiency or a tendency to sin, to total depravity. OR any automatic collective guilt. You are not plagued by any of this. Your are without sin and any tendency toward sinning. Boy! that's almost Christ-like, isn't it.


OR, is it that you've been saved from consequences of all this sinning: hell?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not really Christ-like, that on occasion you do sin a bit, I'm opting for the latter conclusion; you've been saved from the consequences of all this sinning as described in post 96: hell. Biblical salvation then, is salvation from hell.

.

You're really hung up on this, aren't you? If you're a brave atheist, then just call yourself Skwimburnsinhell and call it a day. What does it matter?

For the rest of us, we were given salvation. It does not release us from the original sin, but gives us a way to eternal glory, power and the kingdom forever.

For practical reasons, I look at it this way. Adam and Eve were perfect, yet they fell. We are fallen, but we still strive for perfection. We admire perfection. We celebrate perfection. This is one of the evidence for God. Through salvation, God gave us our spiritually perfect selves. This is what Jesus the man became after the Resurrection. We can use our spiritually perfect selves to get around in the next life. They become our identity and we keep our personalities and soul forever. I suppose we can still do good things for people on the new earth. For some, they think it will be like flying first class to admire beauty and complexity. It could be.

 

[james bond]

Great music! I had forgotten how much I liked that song.

But to the point, how can you sin if you were tricked by the serpent?

Second, even if Adam and Eve did sin, hasn't the price already been paid since they were supposed to die (Gen 2:17)?

Adam and Eve sinned because they were selfish. They were tempted by the Lucifer serpent. They still knew it was wrong to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. No, the sin was not repaid with their deaths. The Garden of Eden was gone forever. The fact they were the first two made all the difference in the world.

 

[Skwim]

You're really hung up on this, aren't you?

Hey, sometimes posts are fun to get into.This happened to be one of them.

If you're a brave atheist, then just call yourself Skwimburnsinhell and call it a day. What does it matter?

If you recall, our discussion began over the use of Pascal's wager, which revolves around gaining heaven and avoiding hell.
Just to refresh your memory:

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).
Source:Wikipedia​

I had said: "I would bet that a decent number (say 5-10%) of Christians have adopted Christianity through just such a wager."

To which you asked: "I don't think there are many atheists/agnostics who became Christians because they were afraid of hell, do you?"

I answered: "Probably not." and said ". . . I do think the fear of hell is an immense driving force behind the decision to accept Jesus as one's savior. After all, it's what people are supposedly being saved from."

You responded: "If it takes hell to convince somebody, then great."

To which I asked: "What else is there? What else is the Christian belief in salvation addressing if it isn't salvation from hell?"

You seemed upset with this and retorted: "First, you're wrong about salvation. Atheists are wrong again. Second, why don't you find out what salvation is yourself?"

Being told I'm wrong about my understanding of salvation as being saved from hell evoked the question of just what the object of salvation was anyway???

As a result of my searches I then offered up five quotes that confirmed my impression of salvation: Salvation did indeed amount to being saved from hell. I was right after all. And having also been told this isn't what you thought salvation was I asked you "What is salvation supposed to save you from?" You replied "original sin." Fine, but looking into it I found salvation only conected with original sin in two possible ways. Salvation . . .

Saves one from ever sinning.​

OR IT

Saves one from the consequences of sinning: hell.​

Not believing that you or anyone else has been saved from ever sinning again, I opted for the second possibility. Salvation amounts to being saved from hell.

Which brings us to the present point in my investigation into your take on Pascal's wager and the nature of salvation as you regard it. Obviously not liking the turn our conversation has taken, justifying hell as the object of salvation, you now resort to ad homs and a curt dismissal. A sad, but common tactic of the cornered/defeated Christian.

Too bad we had to waste all this time, but at least I've given you a better understanding of your faith.

Have a nice day

.

 

[james bond]

Hey, sometimes posts are fun to get into.This happened to be one of them.



If you recall, our discussion began over the use of Pascal's wager, which revolves around gaining heaven and avoiding hell.
Just to refresh your memory:

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).
Source:Wikipedia​

I had said: "I would bet that a decent number (say 5-10%) of Christians have adopted Christianity through just such a wager."

To which you asked: "I don't think there are many atheists/agnostics who became Christians because they were afraid of hell, do you?"

I answered: "Probably not." and said ". . . I do think the fear of hell is an immense driving force behind the decision to accept Jesus as one's savior. After all, it's what people are supposedly being saved from."

You responded: "If it takes hell to convince somebody, then great."

To which I asked: "What else is there? What else is the Christian belief in salvation addressing if it isn't salvation from hell?"

You seemed upset with this and retorted: "First, you're wrong about salvation. Atheists are wrong again. Second, why don't you find out what salvation is yourself?"

Being told I'm wrong about my understanding of salvation as being saved from hell evoked the question of just what the object of salvation was anyway???

As a result of my searches I then offered up five quotes that confirmed my impression of salvation: Salvation did indeed amount to being saved from hell. I was right after all. And having also been told this isn't what you thought salvation was I asked you "What is salvation supposed to save you from?" You replied "original sin." Fine, but looking into it I found salvation only conected with original sin in two possible ways. Salvation . . .

Saves one from ever sinning.​

OR IT

Saves one from the consequences of sinning: hell.​

Not believing that you or anyone else has been saved from ever sinning again, I opted for the second possibility. Salvation amounts to being saved from hell.

Which brings us to the present point in my investigation into your take on Pascal's wager and the nature of salvation as you regard it. Obviously not liking the turn our conversation has taken, justifying hell as the object of salvation, you now resort to ad homs and a curt dismissal. A sad, but common tactic of the cornered/defeated Christian.

Too bad we had to waste all this time, but at least I've given you a better understanding of your faith.

Have a nice day

.

Otey.

I think I tried to answer your questions the best way possible. I mean you misunderstand what the Bible says. Again Pascal's wager isn't something to use in place of faith. For example, if someone changes your idea of hell, then is it more acceptable to you? Will that change your mind? His point is not to be a victim, but that's not God's and Jesus' point. Then there is finite loss which you mention. Where does it say that you'll have finite loss? Source:Wikipedia. You shouldn't be using Wikipedia for these important questions. LOL. Pascal's wager may indeed say that, but that's another subject that it's wrong about. Isn't it better to do the right thing the right way instead of the right thing in not such a right way? Then your faith and resolve will be stronger. The truth will be more evident. Someone bringing up an argument against Pascal's wager won't change your "faith."

>>Fine, but looking into it I found salvation only conected with original sin in two possible ways. Salvation . . .

Saves one from ever sinning.​

OR IT

Saves one from the consequences of sinning: hell.​

Not believing that you or anyone else has been saved from ever sinning again, I opted for the second possibility. Salvation amounts to being saved from hell.<<

Salvation does not save on from ever sinning. It does not save one from the consequences of hell either. How can a gift do this? Thus, your conclusion does not follow either. What I am saying is it may be better to learn about salvation without Pascal's wager. The wager seems to confuse things.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

Adam and Eve sinned because they were selfish. They were tempted by the Lucifer serpent. They still knew it was wrong to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. No, the sin was not repaid with their deaths. The Garden of Eden was gone forever. The fact they were the first two made all the difference in the world.

Where are you getting selfish? Where do you get that from what it says in Genesis? I think it is an assumption or Augustinian.

Tempted or tricked?

I also think you have assumed an association between Lucifer and the serpent. I don't see how the fallen one gets into the Garden.

If sin was not repaid in their deaths what was the point Genesis 2:17?

The first two? Check out Genesis 1:26.

No need to push back. This part of Genesis is my favorite part of the Bible and I couldn't resist. We are VERY far away from Pascal. My bad.

 

[Skwim]

Otey.

I think I tried to answer your questions the best way possible. I mean you misunderstand what the Bible says.

Where? I never cited the Bible.

Again Pascal's wager isn't something to use in place of faith.

And I never said it was.

Then there is finite loss which you mention. Where does it say that you'll have finite loss?

Err, it appears you have me confused with someone else, I never cited the Bible, or said or even hinted that "Pascal's wager is something to use in place of faith," or "that you'll have finite loss."

Source:Wikipedia. You shouldn't be using Wikipedia for these important questions. LOL. Pascal's wager may indeed say that, but that's another subject that it's wrong about.

Really! So how about explaining exactly what the wagers is about.

THIS IS WHAT PASCAL'S WAGER IS REALLY ABOUT by james bond ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ .

Salvation does not save on from ever sinning. It does not save one from the consequences of hell either. How can a gift do this? Thus, your conclusion does not follow either. What I am saying is it may be better to learn about salvation without Pascal's wager. The wager seems to confuse things.

Sorry, but I'm not about to go down that fruitless path again. You've essentially admitted that salvation is about being saved from hell already and that's good enough for me.

.

 

[james bond]

Where are you getting selfish? Where do you get that from what it says in Genesis? I think it is an assumption or Augustinian.

Tempted or tricked?

I also think you have assumed an association between Lucifer and the serpent. I don't see how the fallen one gets into the Garden.

If sin was not repaid in their deaths what was the point Genesis 2:17?

The first two? Check out Genesis 1:26.

No need to push back. This part of Genesis is my favorite part of the Bible and I couldn't resist. We are VERY far away from Pascal. My bad.

I'm not the one making assumptions. You think it was a trick and that Adam and Eve paid for their sins. How wrong is that?

 

[james bond]

Where? I never cited the Bible.


And I never said it was.


Err, it appears you have me confused with someone else, I never cited the Bible, or said or even hinted that "Pascal's wager is something to use in place of faith," or "that you'll have finite loss."


Really! So how about explaining exactly what the wagers is about.

THIS IS WHAT PASCAL'S WAGER IS REALLY ABOUT by james bond ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ .



Sorry, but I'm not about to go down that fruitless path again. You've essentially admitted that salvation is about being saved from hell already and that's good enough for me.

.

>>You've essentially admitted that salvation is about being saved from hell already and that's good enough for me.<<

I've explained salvation. This is why you do not understand. You can continue to believe what Pascal's wager says and that you're being saved from hell, but that's not what it's about at all.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

I'm not the one making assumptions. You think it was a trick and that Adam and Eve paid for their sins. How wrong is that?

WOW! You stay up late.

Sorry "tricked" was a poor choice of word. I should have focused on the word you used "tempted". I think that is a mischaracterization (also an assumption) of what the serpent said since the serpent told the truth. BUT I supposed that could be tempting.

In terms of A&E being punished for their eating the fruit, I think that by virtue of what was said in Genesis 2:17 Adam was not punished as set out in that verse. (By the way, Genesis 2:17 does not appear to apply to Eve. So what did she do that was so wrong?"

 

[james bond]

WOW! You stay up late.

Sorry "tricked" was a poor choice of word. I should have focused on the word you used "tempted". I think that is a mischaracterization (also an assumption) of what the serpent said since the serpent told the truth. BUT I supposed that could be tempting.

In terms of A&E being punished for their eating the fruit, I think that by virtue of what was said in Genesis 2:17 Adam was not punished as set out in that verse. (By the way, Genesis 2:17 does not appear to apply to Eve. So what did she do that was so wrong?"

I have too much time on my hands now. Will be starting a new venture in July, so aside from my online studies and watching sports, movies and tv shows and sleeping odd hours this is the only other entertainment I have.

I'm glad you realize they were tempted.

>>I think that is a mischaracterization (also an assumption) of what the serpent said since the serpent told the truth. BUT I supposed that could be tempting.<<

Why do you think the Satan told the truth?

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

I have too much time on my hands now. Will be starting a new venture in July, so aside from my online studies and watching sports, movies and tv shows and sleeping odd hours this is the only other entertainment I have.

I'm glad you realize they were tempted.

>>I think that is a mischaracterization (also an assumption) of what the serpent said since the serpent told the truth. BUT I supposed that could be tempting.<<

Why do you think the Satan told the truth?

Sorry about the late rely. Wednesday are always bad days.

I'm glad you realize they were tempted.

If you look carefully at my response, it says they were tempted by the truth (of what the serpent said). I have used "tempted" to express irony here.

Why do you think the Satan told the truth?

I know it has been accepted that the serpent is Satan or Lucifer but as far as I can see there is no association with these names within Genesis. How do you get this association? Job? (I ask this question in earnest because my reading in this area has been sparse.)

When I said the serpent told the truth, I am referring to what is written in Genesis. I am paraphrasing Genesis 3:4-5 but the serpent said:

1. You will not die if you eat the fruit as God said (meaning on that day). (True)
2. By eating the fruit, you will know good and evil. (True)
3. By eating the fruit, you will be as gods. (True for Adam but not for Eve. See Genesis 3:22)

The last one, being as gods, was the reason A&E were cast out of the Garden.

 

[james bond]

Sorry about the late rely. Wednesday are always bad days.



If you look carefully at my response, it says they were tempted by the truth (of what the serpent said). I have used "tempted" to express irony here.



I know it has been accepted that the serpent is Satan or Lucifer but as far as I can see there is no association with these names within Genesis. How do you get this association? Job? (I ask this question in earnest because my reading in this area has been sparse.)

When I said the serpent told the truth, I am referring to what is written in Genesis. I am paraphrasing Genesis 3:4-5 but the serpent said:

1. You will not die if you eat the fruit as God said (meaning on that day). (True)
2. By eating the fruit, you will know good and evil. (True)
3. By eating the fruit, you will be as gods. (True for Adam but not for Eve. See Genesis 3:22)

The last one, being as gods, was the reason A&E were cast out of the Garden.

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the beasts that the Lord God had made, and he said to the woman, "Even though god said you shall not eat from any tree of the garden..."

And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God has said, "You shall not eat from it and you shall not touch it, or you will die!"

And the serpent said to the woman, "You shall not be doomed to die, for God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become as divine beings, knowing good and evil."

Clearly, the serpent lied and misled with his cunning. They and all of humankind became doomed to die.

As for the serpent not being named in Genesis, it has been ascertained that it is Lucifer from other passages in the Bible.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the beasts that the Lord God had made, and he said to the woman, "Even though god said you shall not eat from any tree of the garden..."

And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God has said, "You shall not eat from it and you shall not touch it, or you will die!"

And the serpent said to the woman, "You shall not be doomed to die, for God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become as divine beings, knowing good and evil."

Clearly, the serpent lied and misled with his cunning. They and all of humankind became doomed to die.

I believe the translations of the Bible that we are using are different. (I am using the King James version.) Discussing which is the more appropriate translation is not a fruitful exercise. I can see how you could come to this conclusion. We shall have to agree to disagree.

However, what I can discuss is the word "doomed". My understanding is that it means "inevitable". It would appear your conclusion is that because A&E ate the fruit, they and mankind were doomed to die, i.e. be mortal. However, I can see no place in Genesis where mankind was immortal prior to eating the fruit. This mortality is specifically set out in Genesis 3:22 where God is afraid that man would eat of the tree of life and live forever. So, it would appear that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil had no bearing on mankind's mortality.

As for the serpent not being named in Genesis, it has been ascertained that it is Lucifer from other passages in the Bible.

You have to give me a little bit more than assertions on this one, a chapter and verse reference will suffice. As I said, my reading in this area has been limited and I would like to see for myself. (Better an Old Testament reference since the New Testament is very difference in tone.)

Also, you use Lucifer and Satan interchangeably. Again, I know that it is generally accepted that this is the case. However, your help with a Biblical reference in this would also be helpful.

 

[james bond]

I believe the translations of the Bible that we are using are different. (I am using the King James version.) Discussing which is the more appropriate translation is not a fruitful exercise. I can see how you could come to this conclusion. We shall have to agree to disagree.

However, what I can discuss is the word "doomed". My understanding is that it means "inevitable". It would appear your conclusion is that because A&E ate the fruit, they and mankind were doomed to die, i.e. be mortal. However, I can see no place in Genesis where mankind was immortal prior to eating the fruit. This mortality is specifically set out in Genesis 3:22 where God is afraid that man would eat of the tree of life and live forever. So, it would appear that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil had no bearing on mankind's mortality.



You have to give me a little bit more than assertions on this one, a chapter and verse reference will suffice. As I said, my reading in this area has been limited and I would like to see for myself. (Better an Old Testament reference since the New Testament is very difference in tone.)

Also, you use Lucifer and Satan interchangeably. Again, I know that it is generally accepted that this is the case. However, your help with a Biblical reference in this would also be helpful.

I'll have to defer to yours. I'm using The Book of Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb ha ha. I think the key difference is Lucifer is the serpent and I can quote the other verses for it from a more mainstream source. This is a huge difference, so we need to resolve. Anyway, Lucifer is a liar, tempter and trickster. What do you think he is? Do you think he's the best looking and most powerful angel?

As for the rest, I don't think you have the correct story. It's difficult enough to explain what happened. Yet, the whole point in my mind is to compare the incredulous story with that incredulous story of evolution. So, if you're going to interpret it the way you are, then I don't think it will be fruitful.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

I'll have to defer to yours. I'm using The Book of Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb ha ha.

OK. Let's use the King James Bible (KJB). It is available on line. (BTW Crumb has a really cool cover.)

I think the key difference is Lucifer is the serpent and I can quote the other verses for it from a more mainstream source. This is a huge difference, so we need to resolve. Anyway, Lucifer is a liar, tempter and trickster. What do you think he is? Do you think he's the best looking and most powerful angel?

As for Lucifer, I know he is the fallen angel and is associated with those descriptions you listed. However, that's about all I know. If you could give me the references from the KJB that would be great.

As for the rest, I don't think you have the correct story. It's difficult enough to explain what happened. Yet, the whole point in my mind is to compare the incredulous story with that incredulous story of evolution. So, if you're going to interpret it the way you are, then I don't think it will be fruitful.

I am not trying to compare Genesis to evolution. Also, I am also not trying to interpret Genesis. I just want to get a clear understanding of what Genesis says in plain English. Once that is done, we can move on to what it means.

 

[james bond]

OK. Let's use the King James Bible (KJB). It is available on line. (BTW Crumb has a really cool cover.)



As for Lucifer, I know he is the fallen angel and is associated with those descriptions you listed. However, that's about all I know. If you could give me the references from the KJB that would be great.

Question: "Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3?"

Answer: Yes, the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was Satan. Satan was either appearing as a serpent, possessing the serpent, or deceiving Adam and Eve into believing that it was the serpent who was talking to them. Serpents / snakes do not possess the ability to speak. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both describe Satan as a serpent. "He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" (Revelation 20:2). "The great dragon was hurled down, that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him" (Revelation 12:9).

While the Bible is not clear as to whether or not the serpent stood up or walked before the curse, it appears likely that, like other reptiles, it probably did walk on four legs. That would seem to be the best explanation of Genesis 3:14, "So the LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.'" The fact that the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly and eat the dust of the earth forever is also a way of indicating that the serpent would be forever despised and looked upon as a vile and despicable creature and an object of scorn and contempt.

Why did God curse the serpent when He knew that it was actually Satan who had led Adam and Eve into sin? The fate of the serpent is an illustration. The curse of the serpen

Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3?

Question: "Who is Satan? Who is the devil?"

Answer: People's beliefs concerning Satan range from the silly to the abstract—from a little red guy with horns who sits on your shoulder urging you to sin, to an expression used to describe the personification of evil. The Bible, however, gives us a clear portrait of who Satan is and how he affects our lives. Put simply, the Bible defines Satan as an angelic being who fell from his position in heaven due to sin and is now completely opposed to God, doing all in his power to thwart God's purposes.

Satan was created as a holy angel. Isaiah 14:12 possibly gives Satan’s pre-fall name as Lucifer. Ezekiel 28:12-14 describes Satan as having been created a cherub, apparently the highest created angel. He became arrogant in his beauty and status and decided he wanted to sit on a throne above that of God (Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:15; 1 Timothy 3:6). Satan’s pride led to his fall. Notice the many “I will” statements in Isaiah 14:12-15. Because of his sin, God permanently removed Satan from his exalted position and role.

Satan became the ruler of this world and the prince of the power of the air (John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2). He is an accuser (Revelation 12:10), a tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5), and a deceiver (Genesis 3; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 20:3). His very name means “adversary” or “one who opposes.” Another of his titles, the devil, means “slanderer.”

Even though he was cast out of heaven, he still seeks to elevate his throne above God. He counterfeits all that God does, hoping to gain the worship of the world and encourage opposition to God's kingdom. Satan is the ultimate source behind every false cult and world religion. Satan will do anything and everything in his power to oppose God and those who follow God. However, Satan’s destiny is sealed—an eternity in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).

Who is Satan? Who is the devil?

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

Question: "Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3?"

Answer: Yes, the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was Satan. Satan was either appearing as a serpent, possessing the serpent, or deceiving Adam and Eve into believing that it was the serpent who was talking to them. Serpents / snakes do not possess the ability to speak. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both describe Satan as a serpent. "He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" (Revelation 20:2). "The great dragon was hurled down, that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him" (Revelation 12:9).

While the Bible is not clear as to whether or not the serpent stood up or walked before the curse, it appears likely that, like other reptiles, it probably did walk on four legs. That would seem to be the best explanation of Genesis 3:14, "So the LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.'" The fact that the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly and eat the dust of the earth forever is also a way of indicating that the serpent would be forever despised and looked upon as a vile and despicable creature and an object of scorn and contempt.

Why did God curse the serpent when He knew that it was actually Satan who had led Adam and Eve into sin? The fate of the serpent is an illustration. The curse of the serpen

Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3?

Question: "Who is Satan? Who is the devil?"

Answer: People's beliefs concerning Satan range from the silly to the abstract—from a little red guy with horns who sits on your shoulder urging you to sin, to an expression used to describe the personification of evil. The Bible, however, gives us a clear portrait of who Satan is and how he affects our lives. Put simply, the Bible defines Satan as an angelic being who fell from his position in heaven due to sin and is now completely opposed to God, doing all in his power to thwart God's purposes.

Satan was created as a holy angel. Isaiah 14:12 possibly gives Satan’s pre-fall name as Lucifer. Ezekiel 28:12-14 describes Satan as having been created a cherub, apparently the highest created angel. He became arrogant in his beauty and status and decided he wanted to sit on a throne above that of God (Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:15; 1 Timothy 3:6). Satan’s pride led to his fall. Notice the many “I will” statements in Isaiah 14:12-15. Because of his sin, God permanently removed Satan from his exalted position and role.

Satan became the ruler of this world and the prince of the power of the air (John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2). He is an accuser (Revelation 12:10), a tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5), and a deceiver (Genesis 3; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 20:3). His very name means “adversary” or “one who opposes.” Another of his titles, the devil, means “slanderer.”

Even though he was cast out of heaven, he still seeks to elevate his throne above God. He counterfeits all that God does, hoping to gain the worship of the world and encourage opposition to God's kingdom. Satan is the ultimate source behind every false cult and world religion. Satan will do anything and everything in his power to oppose God and those who follow God. However, Satan’s destiny is sealed—an eternity in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).

Who is Satan? Who is the devil?

Now here is something I get into: references! Give me the rest of today to review this.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

Question: "Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3?"

Answer: Yes, the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was Satan. Satan was either appearing as a serpent, possessing the serpent, or deceiving Adam and Eve into believing that it was the serpent who was talking to them. Serpents / snakes do not possess the ability to speak. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both describe Satan as a serpent. "He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" (Revelation 20:2). "The great dragon was hurled down, that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him" (Revelation 12:9).

There is nothing in the text of Genesis that the serpent was anything other than a serpent. As such, there was no appearing to be, possessing or deceiving in that regard. While serpents do not possess the ability to speak, this one did in Genesis. That is what we are told.

YES these references in Revelation refer to the serpent as the Devil and Satan. However, because of the definite article in front of the noun "devil", the term is an epithet. Well-known epithets are Richard the lion heart or New York the big apple. "Satan" is also an epithet. He first appears in Job as "Ha-satan" (Hebrew for "the adversary", "the accuser" or "the Satan") and functions as God's prosecuting attorney. I think the early church fathers found it convenient to drop the "the". The same thing happened when "Jesus the Christ" (Jesus the anointed) was shortened to "Jesus Christ".

Satan was created as a holy angel. Isaiah 14:12 possibly gives Satan’s pre-fall name as Lucifer.

From my reading of Isaiah 14:12-15 there is no association with Lucifer to Satan or Lucifer to the serpent in Genesis. "Possibly" is not definitive. There is nothing that identifies Lucifer as an angel except that he has fallen from heaven. Perhaps, no one but an angel falls from heaven. However, I think it has been interpreted as a prophecy of the fall of Babylon. In that case, the verses could be allegorical. I would like to stay from discussing the case for or against a fallen angel versus the fall of Babylon.

Ezekiel 28:12-14 describes Satan as having been created a cherub, apparently the highest created angel. He became arrogant in his beauty and status and decided he wanted to sit on a throne above that of God (Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:15; 1 Timothy 3:6). Satan’s pride led to his fall. Notice the many “I will” statements in Isaiah 14:12-15. Because of his sin, God permanently removed Satan from his exalted position and role.

The Ezekiel association is unclear. It could also be interpreted as being about the King of Tyrus (Ezekiel 28:12). I would like to stay away from interpretations and stick to plain English.

In conclusion, I am not convinced that Satan or Lucifer are one in the same or are the serpent. In addition to the foregoing analysis, there is Zachariah 3:1 which describes Satan standing. This after being told he has to crawl.

However, our original point of discussion was original sin. So, for the sake of discussion if I accept that the serpent is who you say he is, did he lie to A&E about the eating the fruit? I say "no".

I know you're just getting started but I'm done like dinner. Have a great evening.

 

[james bond]

There is nothing in the text of Genesis that the serpent was anything other than a serpent. As such, there was no appearing to be, possessing or deceiving in that regard. While serpents do not possess the ability to speak, this one did in Genesis. That is what we are told.

YES these references in Revelation refer to the serpent as the Devil and Satan. However, because of the definite article in front of the noun "devil", the term is an epithet. Well-known epithets are Richard the lion heart or New York the big apple. "Satan" is also an epithet. He first appears in Job as "Ha-satan" (Hebrew for "the adversary", "the accuser" or "the Satan") and functions as God's prosecuting attorney. I think the early church fathers found it convenient to drop the "the". The same thing happened when "Jesus the Christ" (Jesus the anointed) was shortened to "Jesus Christ".



From my reading of Isaiah 14:12-15 there is no association with Lucifer to Satan or Lucifer to the serpent in Genesis. "Possibly" is not definitive. There is nothing that identifies Lucifer as an angel except that he has fallen from heaven. Perhaps, no one but an angel falls from heaven. However, I think it has been interpreted as a prophecy of the fall of Babylon. In that case, the verses could be allegorical. I would like to stay from discussing the case for or against a fallen angel versus the fall of Babylon.



The Ezekiel association is unclear. It could also be interpreted as being about the King of Tyrus (Ezekiel 28:12). I would like to stay away from interpretations and stick to plain English.

In conclusion, I am not convinced that Satan or Lucifer are one in the same or are the serpent. In addition to the foregoing analysis, there is Zachariah 3:1 which describes Satan standing. This after being told he has to crawl.

However, our original point of discussion was original sin. So, for the sake of discussion if I accept that the serpent is who you say he is, did he lie to A&E about the eating the fruit? I say "no".

I know you're just getting started but I'm done like dinner. Have a great evening.

I was afraid this was your purpose in asking for the links. You're looking for some contradiction. Usually, it's better to ask someone who knows more about this or has more experience in interpreting the Bible. This is because if you're wrong, then it has consequences upon your destiny.

For example, I questioned what was Lucifer doing in heaven to become the best angel and make him believe that he had powers equal to God. Whatever I came up with turned out to be wrong.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

I was afraid this was your purpose in asking for the links. You're looking for some contradiction. Usually, it's better to ask someone who knows more about this or has more experience in interpreting the Bible. This is because if you're wrong, then it has consequences upon your destiny.

For example, I questioned what was Lucifer doing in heaven to become the best angel and make him believe that he had powers equal to God. Whatever I came up with turned out to be wrong.

I am not looking for contradictions. I am looking for information. Your references prodded me to look at those corresponding verses in the New Testament, many thanks. (I am a Pentateuch kind of guy.)

I am also not trying to interpret the Bible. (Note in my last post how I particularly avoided those verses steeped in another meaning.) I am not a Biblical scholar but I can read and so can you. Have you read and cross-referenced what the Bible says or have you just accepted what someone else has told you or interpreted? Call me a doubting Thomas but I would like to see for myself.

There are two ways to process information. One is to accept it and check it out later. The other is to take the matter under advisement until you can check it out. I do the latter.

Your cautionary note on my being wrong sounds oddly like Pascal's wager. Should I take the bet just to be safe?