Why did God send Satan to us instead of hell.
Some believe that God and Satan disagreed on thing and the Satan was evil and out of control.
Why send him and his third of angels to pester us.
Would God’s job not be easier if He had sent them elsewhere.
They would not have fornicated with humans and the reason for the flood would have been avoided. No giants to drown.
In this way God would not look like a genocidal maniac.
Instead of killing millions including innocent children and babies in a flood, why not just create a new earth for the eight that He thought were worthy and let the old earth just be? It could not look any worse than hell.
Two blemishes on His record is just as telling as two. You would think that a new earth would be better than Him breaking His own laws.
Why pit these supernatural beings against weak humans.
Regards
DL
There is a metaphorical interpretation I was pondering but like most of the stories in the bible it just seems made up and as something that would be interesting and would move the story a long.
It also is probably a reinterpretation of older stories. People do that occasionally. One famous american rewrote the entire bible and removed all the crazy supernatural references... any idea who that was? hehe
I was thinking earlier about many of the references in the bible to years and days and thinking how any unit of measurement was probably period specific but then more generally all units of measurement are based on mans intepretation of his surroundings...
So a day ends up being based on how fast the earth turns and year how fast we go around the sun.... different planet different measurements... same planet could even give different measurements...
But of all the ways we could have described how long a day and a year is... look what we picked...
There is a theological argument I heard last night that says the universe is so finely tuned it could only exist if there was an intelligence tuning it.... Which is pretty bad argument in its own right but it illustrates just how much bias we bring into our interpretation.
There was an argument that even your everyday common rock is mostly air. We dont interpret or understand it as such. We say its heavy, solid and classify it and understand it as such. Why? Well the best argument is that is what is most useful to us.
In a similiar vein we interpret our origins on the same biased level.
So I think you are just reading a book that is based on older stories that were finally written down. It was what made the most sense at the time and how they figured out their origins. Why you believe it to be true now or a factual account of real events the author could not possible know is another argument... (Second had stories.)
One thing that would be cool though is if instead of writing it down they had choose to continue to pass it on orally then the story would have been VERY different today... each generation gets to reinterpret it and spin it so that it makes more sense in this day and age... as long as elders were involved to insure that the oral story wasnt so twisted as to lose its original meaning and that the authenticity was preserved and took the matter seriously it would have been cool. (The origins of killing blasphemers is a cool research project if you get bored.)
Anyways.... I would suggest you read it anew and try to see it through the bias they must have had at the time when it was authored.
