UC Professor. No evidence in the Bible attributing Satan as being evil.

[Ingledsva]

No you just can't follow logic.

Genesis 3:1

3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

See the "serpent" spoke here in Gem 3:1. The he I underlined is referring to the serpent.

You act like you have never heard a sneaky underhanded backstabbing person a "snake" before or " Yeah watch out that guy is a snake in the grass".

Otherwise how do you explain the serpent speaking in Gen 3:1? You have not offered any explanation of than the serpent is a literal snake but deafening silent on why it spoke.

LOL! Logic?

The word is NACHASH - which means serpent in Hebrew.

Also you keep ignoring that it says he is condemned to slither on the ground forever. Thus not Satan.

So - a slithering serpent.

*

 

[MonkeyFire]

Satan is hatred. As it may be that he's moral, he once was now is not and is yet to go to his destruction.

 

[Ingledsva]

Your misunderstanding of scripture is remarkable. You should stop now because your just making yourself look bad.

How so? Be precise.

EDIT - here they are again.

Tanakh says YHVH murdered people having nothing to do with Pharaoh's decision, after he (YHVH) made it impossible for Pharaoh to let the Hebrew go. (Death of the Egyptian firstborn.)

Tanakh says YHVH murdered David's innocent infant son, - for the father's crimes, - and then makes the criminal David a hero.

Tanakh says YHVH caused a flood killing all but 8 people. Thus he would have also murdered all of the innocent, in this story.

*

 

[Enoch07]

LOL! Logic?

The word is NACHASH - which means serpent in Hebrew.

Also you keep ignoring that it says he is condemned to slither on the ground forever. Thus not Satan.

So - a slithering serpent.

*

Condemned to the ground forever. Almost like he was ousted from somewhere eh?

Your ignoring the serpent speaking.

 

[Ingledsva]

Wanting to exclude the NT from the Bible is somehow relevant to that? Is the Tanakh nonsense as well?

How did you get that from what I said?

However -

Tanakh and Christian Bible are actually two different religious books from two different religions.

Christianity grabbing the texts from another religion and adding them to their "new testament" does not magically make them one religion.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Condemned to the ground forever. Almost like he was ousted from somewhere eh?

Part of the animal creation, - read the text.

Condemned to slither - obviously doesn't say tossed out of heaven, or any such thing.

*

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

How did you get that from what I said?

However -

Tanakh and Christian Bible are actually two different religious books from two different religions.

Christianity grabbing the texts from another religion and adding them to their "new testament" does not magically make them one religion.

*

Of course they are not the same religion. But that is irrelevant to the subject, The Bible is the subject, OT and NT, OT not being identical to the Tanakh.although the differences are not relevant to this discussion. You want to ignore the NT and allow only the Tanakh in the discussion. Do you deny that?

 

[Enoch07]

Part of the animal creation, - read the text.

Animals speaking!?! Is part of the animal creation! Roflmao

 

[Ingledsva]

Of course they are not the same religion. But that is irrelevant to the subject, The Bible is the subject, OT and NT, OT not being identical to the Tanakh.although the differences are not relevant to this discussion. You want to ignore the NT and allow only the Tanakh in the discussion. Do you deny that?

Actually the first post is a link to an article about a book, which proves no evil autonomous Satan in the Hebrew Bible = Tanakh.

"In "Satan: A Biography" (Cambridge Press), Henry Ansgar Kelly puts forth the most comprehensive case ever made for sympathy for the devil, arguing that the Bible actually provides a kinder, gentler version of the infamous antagonist than typically thought.

"A strict reading of the Bible shows Satan to be less like Darth Vader and more and more like an overzealous prosecutor," said Kelly, a UCLA professor emeritus of English and the former director of the university's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. "He's not so much the proud and angry figure who turns away from God as [he is] a Joseph McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. Satan's basic intention is to uncover wrongdoing and treachery, however overzealous and unscrupulous the means. But he's still part of God's administration."

The book's author is obviously using the Hebrew Bible, - as the later Christian Bible has Satan as evil-evil-evil.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Animals speaking!?! Is part of the animal creation! Roflmao

You continue to attempt to twist using derision.

We are talking about what Tanakh says. Not what I believe. Get that simple idea through your brain.

Apparently they thought animals could speak in the beginning.

And the serpent is called a beast of the field.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all animals, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

That - above - meaning - is actually - from among = out of. Thou art cursed among (out of) all the animals/beasts, and among (out of) every living thing/beast of the field/ground ...

*

 

[Enoch07]

You continue to attempt to twist using derision.

I asked you to explain why the serpent was speaking.

You answered with.

Part of the animal creation, - read the text.

You twist yourself.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Actually the first post is a link to an article about a book, which proves no evil autonomous Satan in the Hebrew Bible = Tanakh.

"In "Satan: A Biography" (Cambridge Press), Henry Ansgar Kelly puts forth the most comprehensive case ever made for sympathy for the devil, arguing that the Bible actually provides a kinder, gentler version of the infamous antagonist than typically thought.

"A strict reading of the Bible shows Satan to be less like Darth Vader and more and more like an overzealous prosecutor," said Kelly, a UCLA professor emeritus of English and the former director of the university's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. "He's not so much the proud and angry figure who turns away from God as [he is] a Joseph McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. Satan's basic intention is to uncover wrongdoing and treachery, however overzealous and unscrupulous the means. But he's still part of God's administration."

The book's author is obviously using the Hebrew Bible, - as the later Christian Bible has Satan as evil-evil-evil.


*

If you read the article, you will see that it refers to both the OT and the NT. The author is not using only the Hebrew Bible.

 

[Enoch07]

You continue to attempt to twist using derision.

We are talking about what Tanakh says. Not what I believe. Get that simple idea through your brain.

Apparently they thought animals could speak in the beginning.

And the serpent is called a beast of the field.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all animals, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

That - above - meaning - is actually - from among = out of. Thou art cursed among (out of) all the animals/beasts, and among (out of) every living thing/beast of the field/ground ...

*

Why does the serpent speak?

 

[Ingledsva]

Of course they are not the same religion. But that is irrelevant to the subject, The Bible is the subject, OT and NT, OT not being identical to the Tanakh.although the differences are not relevant to this discussion. You want to ignore the NT and allow only the Tanakh in the discussion. Do you deny that?

Of course I deny such.

I bring it back to Tanakh Only when the subject is actually Tanakh based.

Satan is a character from Tanakh and has set characteristics.

Christianity grabbed another religions "being" and added evil characteristics to it.

Christianity, - a new separate religion, - misunderstood/mistranslated what Tanakh said about Satan, and ran with their error, adding evil to it.

For instance they think a story about a King of Babylon, is Lucifer/Satan falling from heaven.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

If you read the article, you will see that it refers to both the OT and the NT. The author is not using only the Hebrew Bible.

Reread that.

The link is to AN ARTICLE about A BOOK which uses the Hebrew Bible, which is Tanakh.

This is also obvious by what the BOOK author says about Satan, = no evil autonomous Satan.

If he were using the NT he would obviously have a bunch of verses about an evil Satan.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Why does the serpent speak?

For whatever reason the writer of the story wanted it to.

It's a STORY.

*

 

[Enoch07]

I bring it back to Tanakh Only when the subject is actually Tanakh based.

Really because in post #173 You are trying to refute Revelations using the Tanakh. How much dishonesty must be pointed out before you give up?

 

[dfnj]

The discussion/debate is based on the narratives and the stories as they are written in the context that God and Satan of the Holy Bible actually exist.

It's not really intended to be a thread on the subject as to whether deities or gods exist or not exist, but rather focusing on the storylines and narratives with the premise of God and Satan as being truly alive and living regardless whether or not there's an actual belief or not involved in regards to the portrayals of Satan and God in the Bible as it applies to the storylines involving their actions, motivations. :0)

Well, then that shuts me out of the discussion.

 

[Enoch07]

Whatever the writer of the story wanted it to.

Not what.

Why is the serpent speaking?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

For whatever reason the writer of the story wanted it to.

It's a STORY.

*

I agree. Whether it literally happened that way is not the point. It is about what ideas the story conveys. IMO the literal inerrancy movement ruined those branches of Christianity that practice it. It is not what the writers intended. Admittedly much of the Tanakh is history whose core stories appear based in genuine fact. But again, it is the ideas the writer wanted to convey that is the real point.