Myths and fairy tales ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Evolution is one of the must studied, criticized, cross-checked, and corrected theories in the history of science. It has been subjected to testing…

StAnastasia
How can “evolution” (by which I mean saying the species were all formed by natural selection all the way up from germs) be studied, checked, or cross-checked? No one was around when the species were made, or formed, so no one was there to study, check, or cross-check how they came into existence.
 
Similarly, biologists seek consistency between evolution – as the overarching theoretical framework in biology – and other things we know about biology. For example, we know a lot about the evolution of the heart and its chambers: pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/evolution-of-th-5.html

See also livescience.com/animals/090902-heart-evolution.html

StAnastasia
I read these. So there is a theory how it *could *have happened, but again, there are no animals found with in-between hearts, and no one has observed a species’ heart changing. And they “know” it *must *have happened some way. Evolutionists could sing their own version of “We Walk By Faith, and Not By Sight”.
 
The Jewish interpretation of the snake was and is that the snake-was a snake and not the devil.Devil and demons especially become way more prominent after the Babylonian exile where they picked up on the very strong belief in Babylon of demons.Note the higher rate of demonic type stories in the NT as opposed to the OT.In Job “the Satan” the adversary is seen more as a tester of humanity, and at God’s beck and call.
What do you mean by Satan being at God’s “beck and call” in Job? God didn’t tell him to do the things he did to Job, He only permitted him to do them. Isn’t that consistent with the New Testament? Jesus cast demons out people, and people said that even the demons were subject to Him. Once, Jesus permitted them to enter a herd of swine when they left the man that had been possessed. Jesus was stronger than the devils, and they had to leave when He told them to. Similarily, the devil in Job could only do what God allowed him to do.

Devils are realities, not just something the Jews picked up in Babylon. They are and always have been a “tester of humanity”, although they can only do what God allows them to.
 
Robintrinket, Evolution does not become correct because it is accepted by millions of people; rather, millions of people accept the theory of evolution because it works,** it has predictive value,** and it accurately describes the world in which we live.

StAnastasia
How does it have predictive value? Can you claim when the next natural evolution in any kind of specie happens next?
God bless,
John
 
Oh my goodness! J Vernon McGee used to come on the radio when I was a kid. We used to make fun of him, actually :o Even my mom, who is a staunch evangelical literal six-day creationist couldn’t take him seriously.

I think . . . I’ll take the Catholic Catechism over a dead fundamentalist Presbyterian. I love the Chesterton quote though! 👍
Well he goes into several theories concerning Genesis 1:1-2, Genesis 3, defending creation against Evolution, he makes some very good points. No matter how bad a homily/bible study/ commentary I have attended I always manage to get something out of it. I am not endorsing Vernon J. McGee, just stating it may be interesting to read.

God Bless,
John
 
The Jewish interpretation of the snake was and is that the snake-was a snake and not the devil.Devil and demons especially become way more prominent after the Babylonian exile where they picked up on the very strong belief in Babylon of demons.Note the higher rate of demonic type stories in the NT as opposed to the OT.In Job “the Satan” the adversary is seen more as a tester of humanity, and at God’s beck and call.
And you know this because?
Code:
   David Guzik: Gen 3,
                        a. The serpent: The text here does not, by itself alone, clearly identify the serpent as Satan, **but the rest of the Bible makes it clear this is Satan appearing as a serpent.**
i. In Ezekiel 28:13-19 tells us that Satan was in Eden. Many other passages associate a serpent or a snake-like creature with Satan (such as Job 26:13 and Isaiah 51:9). Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 speak of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan.
Code:
      iii. “**When Satan incites, he is interested merely in his own ends**. He neither cares for righteous punishment nor looks for possible repentance, since they are as foreign to his nature as temptation to sin is to God’s.” (Selman)
Chuck Smith commentary:
“Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD” (Eze 28:11-12);

Now, at this point there is a switch and w**e go behind the scenes and God is now addressing Himself unto Satan. **And this is probably one of the most graphic descriptions of Satan that exists in the Bible. And he isn’t, contrary to popular notion, wearing a red suit, holding a pitchfork and having a forked tail. And some evil sinister-looking creature with pointed ears and a goatee.

“Thou sealest up the sum” (Eze 28:12),

It means you are the sum total. You’ve got it altogether. You are the sum total.

"you are full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You have been in Eden the garden of God" (Eze 28:12-13);

Yes, he was there and was talking to Eve and tempting her to eat of that fruit that God had forbidden.

Read some Jewish commentary. I have!!

Try this you’ll be surprised what you see, Have to dig deeper for sAtan/ serpent in Bereishit commentary.

God Bless,
John
 
A big reason so many accept it (besides that fact you are thought of as "stupid’ if you don’t accept it) is because they think it *must *work–because there is this mindset that religion must be separate from everything else, so the world must have been made in a way in which it could have made itself. I know this doesn’t even work with the evolution theory, because without God no one can really explain why *anything *exists, but I think that is basically what it boils down to. Then you have the real world, “science”, and if you want to believe in religion, that’s a fantasy world inside your head that you can keep to yourself.
Hi RoBin,
Code:
       Evolution leaves God out, kinda like a 'God Particle."
However, even Darwin stated some force had to start the process, if you want to call that God, he could accept that. But Evolutionists leave that out, but focusing on the ‘Natural’ progression of one cell into complex Beings.

God Bless,
john :highprayer:
 
Robintrinket, you’re right – no one should accept evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, or any other scientific theory without question. StAnastasia
Hello,
Why is it you keep bunching in Gravity which can be scientifically proven exists, it is an axiom, it is governed by laws, and is predictable, with Evolution which is guess work at best?
Quantum Mechanics can only be explained Mathematically, so graphs are not used.

Are Gravity, quantum mechanics, plate tectronics relative to this discussion or thread anyway. Seems to me you keep saying if you can accept gravity why won’t you accept Evolution.
Well Gravity I have first hand experience with, Evolution? I Dun-no

God bless,
John:highprayer:
 
And you know this because? (I read,I study-I try to keep scripture in the cultural context it comes from)
David Guzik: Gen 3,
a. The serpent: The text here does not, by itself alone, clearly identify the serpent as Satan, but the rest of the Bible makes it clear this is Satan appearing as a serpent.( “The snake is not Satan, though later traditions interpret it so.(such as Wis.2:24)He is a trickster, who recedes tinto the background after being cursed”-Clifford SJ.

i. In Ezekiel 28:13-19 tells us that Satan was in Eden].(where ?He is certainly not mentioned-the snake was not driven out of Eden by an angel.God cursed the snake.it became footless at that point and acquired it serpentine ways.The snake was seen as a very wily and wise creature and was a part of many NE cults.Worship of snakes is very old and Many Jewish commentators see this passage as polemic against paganism.In Torah there are many polemics against paganism in very subtle and not so subtle ways.In Exodus the plagues (except the last) can be taken as polemics against the various gods of Egypt
COLOR=“DeepSkyBlue”]Many other passages associate a serpent or a snake-like creature with Satan (such as Job 26:13 (Again where?Translations vary- in RSV it is the “fleeing serpent” in REB it is the “twisting sea serpent” NAB the “fugitive dragon” in the NJB again we have the fleeing serpent-not exactly clear is it?)and Isaiah 51:9(Rahab was no serpent dragon has legs.Poetic for a crocodile maybe?). Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 speak of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan.("]Revelation N.T-By then the symbolism had changed greatly.The Babylonian exile was over way before .The Israelites had been culturally diffused.The adopted the Babylonian calendar, the cherubim and picked up on the vast demonology of Babylon.What they maybe thought existed before, they put a name to.Because I put this case out there DOES NOT invalidate the NT view.We come to both/and situation(Catholic view) instead of either /or(protestant view) The serpent in Eden is in the OT a snake/in the NT symbol of Satan.Just like a unblesmished lamb is a symbol of a pure sacrifice to God is for us the lamb of God.They are not incorrect views.They are both accurate according to the symbols and cultural context of the time.both sides of the same coin) iii. “When Satan incites, he is interested merely in his own ends. He neither cares for righteous punishment nor looks for possible repentance, since they are as foreign to his nature as temptation to sin is to God’s.” (Selman)

Chuck Smith commentary:
“Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD” (Eze 28:11-12);

Now, at this point there is a switch and w**e go behind the scenes and God is now addressing Himself unto Satan. **And this is probably one of the most graphic descriptions of Satan that exists in the Bible. And he isn’t, contrary to popular notion, wearing a red suit, holding a pitchfork and having a forked tail. And some evil sinister-looking creature with pointed ears and a goatee.

“Thou sealest up the sum” (Eze 28:12),(Rather seal as in signet.symbol of God’s personal favor to Tyre’s king.He is to be God’s ring .(see haggai2:23)Lawrence Boadt

It means you are the sum total. You’ve got it altogether. You are the sum total.

"you are full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You have been in Eden the garden of God" (Eze 28:12-13);(no the king of tyre-read the whole chapter-put it into context.V 5-ezekiel charges the king has overstepped his bounds.v 11-19-king is seen as semi-mythical-poetical in a jeweled garden of Eden.References to Eden are rare outside of Genesis.King boasts of wisdom and beauty-characteristics a king(any king) must have.Ezekiel uses Garden of Eden story to discribe Tyrian king’s downfall.V.12 seal-sign of royal authority.Ezekiel uses imagery of the cherub to stress the tyrian kings power and position once perfect is shown to have sinned and been struck down.v.16 the king is charged with corrupt trade practices(From the Jewish Study Bible)/COLOR]Yes, he was there and was talking to Eve and tempting her to eat of that fruit that God had forbidden.

Read some Jewish commentary. I I have!!(that’s where my comment stems from-JPS Torah commentary-Nahum Sarna and my Tanakh)
Try this you’ll be surprised what you see, Have to dig deeper for sAtan/ serpent in Bereishit commentary.

God Bless,
John
 
This is the Jewish view of Satan and the evolution of that view.
Term used in the Bible with the general connotation of “adversary,” being applied (1) to an enemy in war (I Kings v. 18 [A. V. 4]; xi. 14, 23, 25), from which use is developed the concept of a traitor in battle (I Sam. xxix. 4); (2) to an accuser before the judgment-seat (Ps. cix. 6); and (3) to any opponent (II Sam. xix. 23 [A. V. 22]). The word is likewise used to denote an antagonist who puts obstacles in the way, as in Num. xxii. 32, where the angel of God is described as opposing Balaam in the guise of a satan or adversary; so that the concept of Satan as a distinct being was not then known. Such a view is found, however, in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings or “sons of God,” before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: “From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it” (Job i. 7). Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men’s sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering (ib. ii. 3-5).

Yet it is also evident from the prologue that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress.He can not be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity; and the doctrine of monotheism is disturbed by his existence no more than by the presence of other beings before the face of God. This view is also retained in Zech. iii. 1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the “angel of the Lord,” who bids him be silent in the name of God. In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity; but in I Chron. xxi. 1 he appears as one who is able to provoke David to destroy Israel. The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan as an independent agent, a view which is the more striking since the source whence he drew his account (II Sam. xxiv. 1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David against the children of Israel. Since the older conception refers all events, whether good or bad, to God alone (I Sam. xvi. 14; I Kings xxii. 22; Isa. xlv. 7; etc.), it is possible that the Chronicler, and perhaps even Zechariah, were influenced by Zoroastrianism, even though in the case of the prophet Jewish monism strongly opposed Iranian dualism (Stave, “Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judenthum,” pp. 253 et seq.). An immediate influence of the Babylonian concept of the “accuser, persecutor, and oppressor” (Schrader, “K. A. T.” 3d ed., p. 463) is impossible, since traces of such an influence, if it had existed, would have appeared in the earlier portions of the Bible.

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=satan#ixzz0fEnm5J9S
 
In the Apocrypha.

The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology. In Wisdom ii. 24 he is represented, with reference to Gen. iii., as the author of all evil, who brought death into the world; he is apparently mentioned also in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxi. 27, and the fact that his name does not occur in Daniel is doubtless due merely to chance. Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxix. 4 et seq.). Since that time he has been called “Satan,” although previously he had been termed “Satanel” (ib. xxxi. 3 et seq.). The doctrine of the fall of Satan, as well as of the fall of the angels, is found also in Babylonia (Schrader, l.c. p. 464), and is mentioned several times in the New Testament. Satan rules over an entire host of angels (Martyrdom of Isaiah, ii. 2; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xvi.). Mastema, who induced God to test Abraham through the sacrifice of Isaac, is identical with Satan in both name and nature (Book of Jubilees, xvii. 18), and the Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is likewise to be identified with him, especially in view of his licentiousness. As the lord of satans he not infrequently bears the special name Samael. It is difficult to identify Satan in any other passages of the Apocrypha, since the originals in which his name occurred have been lost, and the translations employ various equivalents. An “argumentum a silentio” can not, therefore, be adduced as proof that concepts of Satan were not wide-spread; but it must rather be assumed that reference to him and his realm is implied in the mention of evil spirits of every sort (comp. Demonology, and Kautzsch, “Apokryphen,” Index).

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=satan#ixzz0fEp1podJ
 
In the New Testament.

The high development of the demonology of the New Testament presupposes a long period of evolution. In the Gospels the beliefs of the lower orders of society find expression, and Satan and his kingdom are regarded as encompassing the entire world, and are factors in all the events of daily life. In strict accordance with his manifold activity he bears many names, being called “Satan” (Matt. iv. 10; Mark i. 30, iv. 15; Luke x. 18 et passim), “devil” (Matt. iv. 1 et passim), “adversary” (I Peter v. 8, ἀντίδικος; I Tim. v. 14, ἀντικείμενος), “enemy” (Matt. xiii. 39), “accuser” (Rev. xii. 10), “old serpent” (ib. xx. 2), “great dragon” (ib. xii. 9), Beelzebub (Matt. x. 25, xii. 24, et passim), and Belial (comp. Samael). The fall of Satan is mentioned in Luke x. 18, John xii. 31, II Cor. vi. 16, and Rev. xii. 9. He is the author of all evil (Luke x. 19 et passim; Acts v. 3; II Cor. xi. 3; Ephes. ii. 2), who beguiled Eve (II Cor. xi. 3; Rev. xii. 9), and who brought death into the world (Heb. ii. 13), being ever the tempter (I Cor. vii. 5; I Thess. iii. 5; I Peter v. 8), even as he tempted Jesus (Matt. iv.). The belief in the devil as here developed dominated subsequent periods, and influenced indirectly the Jews themselves; nor has it been entirely discarded to-day.

Satan and his host are mentioned comparatively seldom in the Talmud and Midrash, although the material on this subject is not without importance. In the older or tannaitic literature the name of Satan is met with but rarely. Thus in Ab. iv. 11 sin itself, and not Satan, is the accuser, the term κατήγωρ becoming a standing epithet of Satan in the New Testament, and being applied to him by the later Talmudic teachers also. In Tosef., Shab. xvii. (xviii.) 3 it is stated that the angels of Satan accompany the blasphemer on his way, according to Ps. cxv. 6, while a comparison of Gen. R. xxxviii. 7 with Sifre, Num. xxv. 1 shows how reference to Satan was introduced by the Amoraim into tannaitic sayings (Bacher, “Ag. Pal. Amor.” ii. 254); and in like manner “Satan” is substituted for “angel” in Ned. 32a.

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=satan#ixzz0fEpTvQzI
 
Talmud and Midrash.

The Angelology of the Talmud, moreover, proves that, according to the older view (until about 200 C.E.), punishment was inflicted by angels and not by Satan. In the course of time, however, official Judaism, beginning perhaps with Johanan (d. 279), absorbed the popular concepts of Satan, which doubtless forced their way gradually from the lower classes to the most cultured. The later a midrashic collection the more frequent is the mention therein of Satan and his hosts. The Palestinian Talmud, completed about 400, is more reticent in this regard; and this is the more noteworthy since its provenience is the same as that of the New Testament. Samael, the lord of the satans, was a mighty prince of angels in heaven (Gen. R. xix.). Satan came into the world with woman, i.e., with Eve (Yalḳ., Gen. i. 23); so that he was created and is not eternal. Like all celestial beings, he flies through the air (.), and can assumeany form, as of a bird (Sanh. 107a), a stag (ib. 95a), a woman (Ḳid. 81a), a beggar (ib.), or a young man (Tan., Wayera, end); he is said to skip (Pes. 112b; Meg. 11b), in allusion to his appearance in the form of a goat (comp. the goat-demons of the Bible), and it was as such that he was addressed with the words “an arrow between thine eyes” by one who wished to express contempt for him (Ḳid. 30a, 81a, et passim).

He is the incarnation of all evil, and his thoughts and activities are devoted to the destruction of man; so that Satan, the impulse to evil (“yeẓer ha-ra’”), and the angel of death are one and the same personality. He descends from heaven and leads astray, then ascends and brings accusations against mankind. Receiving the divine commission, he takes away the soul, or, in other words, he slays (B. B. 16a). He seizes upon even a single word which may be prejudicial to man; so that “one should not open his mouth unto evil,” i.e., “unto Satan” (Ber. 19a). In times of danger likewise he brings his accusations (Yer. Shab. 5b et passim). While he has power over all the works of man (Ber. 46b), he can not prevail at the same time against two individuals of different nationality; so that Samuel, a noted astronomer and teacher of the Law (d. at Nehardea 247), would start on a journey only when a Gentile traveled with him (Shab. 32a).

Satan’s knowledge is circumscribed; for when the shofar is blown on New-Year’s Day he is “confounded” (R. H. 16b; Yer. Targ. to Num. x. 10). On the Day of Atonement his power vanishes; for the numerical value of the letters of his name () is only 364, one day being thus exempt from his influence (Yoma 20a). Moses banished him by means of the Divine Name (Grünhut, “Sefer ha-Liḳḳuṭim,” v. 169). If Satan does not attain his purpose, as was the case in his temptation of Job, he feels great sorrow (B. B. 16a); and it was a terrible blow to him, as the representative of moral evil, that the Torah, the incarnation of moral good, should be given to Israel. He endeavored to overthrow it, and finally led the people to make the golden calf (Shab. 89a; Yer. Targ. to Ex. xxxii. 1), while the two tables of the Law were bestowed on Moses of necessity without Satan’s knowledge (Sanh. 26b).

His Functions.

The chief functions of Satan are, as already noted, those of temptation, accusation, and punishment. He was an active agent in the fall of man (Pirḳe R. El. xiii., beginning), and was the father of Cain (ib. xxi.), while he was also instrumental in the offering of Isaac (Tan., Wayera, 22 [ed. Stettin, p. 39a]), in the release of the animal destined by Esau for his father (Tan., Toledot, 11), in the theophany at Sinai, in the death of Moses (Deut. R. xiii. 9), in David’s sin with Bath-sheba (Sanh. 95a), and in the death of Queen Vashti (Meg. 11a). The decree to destroy all the Jews, which Haman obtained, was written on parchment brought by Satan (Esther R. iii. 9). When Alexander the Great reproached the Jewish sages with their rebellion, they made the plea that Satan had been too mighty for them (Tamid 32a). He appeared as a tempter to Akiba and Mattithiah b. Ḥeresh (Ḳid. 81a; Midr. Abkir, ed. Buber, p. 11). He sowed discord between two men, and when Meïr reconciled them, he departed, crying, “Alas, Meïr has driven me from home!” (Giṭ. 52a; comp. ‘Er. 26a)—i.e., Satan is the angel of strife (see also Yoma 67b; Shab. 104a; Yeb. 16a). If any one brings a beautiful captive home, he brings Satan into his house, and his son will be destroyed (Sifre, Deut. 218); for Satan kindles the evil impulse ("yeẓer ha-ra’") to impurity (Ex. R. xx.). Where one makes his home Satan leaps about; where merriment rules, or wheresoever there is eating or drinking, he brings his accusations (Gen. R. xxxviii. 7); and when there is a chance that prosperity may be enjoyed in this world or in the next he likewise rises up as an accuser. Even Jacob was forced to prove to Satan that he had borne much suffering in this world (Gen. R. lxxxiv., in Weber, “System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie,” p. 323); and when Satan reveals the sins of Israel to God others plead the alms which Israel has given (Ex. R. xxxi.). In the hour of birth, and thus in the hour of peril, he brings his accusation against the mother (Eccl. R. iii. 2). The serpent of Gen. iii. is identified with Satan (see Weber, l.c. pp. 218 et seq.; comp. Adam; Eve; Serpent).

As the incarnation of evil Satan is the arch-enemy of the Messiah: he is Antichrist. The light which was created before the world was hidden by God beneath His throne; and to the question of Satan in regard to it God answered, “This light is kept for him who shall bring thee to shame.” At his request God showed Satan the Messiah; “and when he saw him he trembled, fell upon his face, and cried: ‘Verily this is the Messiah who shall hurl me and all the princes of the angels of the peoples down even unto hell’” (Pesiḳ. R. iii. 6 [ed. Friedmann, p. 161b]; further details are given in Bousset, “Der Antichrist”).
 
This is the Jewish view of Satan and the evolution of that view.
Term used in the Bible with the general connotation of “adversary,” being applied (1) to an enemy in war (I Kings v. 18 [A. V. 4]; xi. 14, 23, 25), from which use is developed the concept of a traitor in battle (I Sam. xxix. 4); (2) to an accuser before the judgment-seat (Ps. cix. 6); and (3) to any opponent (II Sam. xix. 23 [A. V. 22]). The word is likewise used to denote an antagonist who puts obstacles in the way, as in Num. xxii. 32, where the angel of God is described as opposing Balaam in the guise of a satan or adversary; so that the concept of Satan as a distinct being was not then known. Such a view is found, however, in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings or “sons of God,” before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: “From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it” (Job i. 7). Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men’s sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering (ib. ii. 3-5).

Yet it is also evident from the prologue that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress.He can not be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity; and the doctrine of monotheism is disturbed by his existence no more than by the presence of other beings before the face of God. This view is also retained in Zech. iii. 1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the “angel of the Lord,” who bids him be silent in the name of God. In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity; but in I Chron. xxi. 1 he appears as one who is able to provoke David to destroy Israel. The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan as an independent agent, a view which is the more striking since the source whence he drew his account (II Sam. xxiv. 1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David against the children of Israel. Since the older conception refers all events, whether good or bad, to God alone (I Sam. xvi. 14; I Kings xxii. 22; Isa. xlv. 7; etc.), it is possible that the Chronicler, and perhaps even Zechariah, were influenced by Zoroastrianism, even though in the case of the prophet Jewish monism strongly opposed Iranian dualism (Stave, “Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judenthum,” pp. 253 et seq.). An immediate influence of the Babylonian concept of the “accuser, persecutor, and oppressor” (Schrader, “K. A. T.” 3d ed., p. 463) is impossible, since traces of such an influence, if it had existed, would have appeared in the earlier portions of the Bible.

Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=270&letter=S&search=satan#ixzz0fEnm5J9S
This book is not against monotheism, because it does not say the other “celestial beings”, as you call them, or “sons of God” were gods. I always thought they were supposed to be angels when I read it. Satan can only do what God allows, even now, but he still is God’s opponent in that he tries to get people to sin, so Job does not say Satan wasn’t God’s opponent. As far as Satan saying he had come “From going to and fro the earth, and from walking up and down in it”, that does not mean he was “sent” there by God to seek out people’s sins. The Saint Michael the Archangel prayer says, “And do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.” God didn’t *send *those devils into the world.
 
** The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan as an independent agent, a view which is the more striking since the source whence he drew his account (II Sam. xxiv. 1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David against the children of Israel.**

But even in 2 Samuel, after David did this he said, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, I pray thee, take away the iniquity of thy servant, for I have done very foolishly.” (2 Samuel 24:10) Since David sinned against God in doing this, his sin did not come from God. The footnotes in my Bible say 2 Samuel 24:1 was only attributing the actions of the king to God, since he was God’s anointed one.
 
But even in 2 Samuel, after David did this he said, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, I pray thee, take away the iniquity of thy servant, for I have done very foolishly.” (2 Samuel 24:10) Since David sinned against God in doing this, his sin did not come from God. The footnotes in my Bible say 2 Samuel 24:1 was only attributing the actions of the king to God, since he was God’s anointed one.
Again not my opinion but the Judaic view.
 
The point of the post is to show that the Satan and devils were not a doctrine from the beginning of the Bible.It evolved-the concept that God did everything -Good or bad is very much in evidence.Since God was creator of all things then He was responsible for all things. The idea of an force outside of God that could compel bad actions would have seemed odd to them- to have a force outside of YHWH that could cause such havoc would be to give that entity a somewhat godlike power…YHWH was all -in all-nothing outside His realm was to be feared or taken seriously.Just as the pagan deities were first seen as sub par to YHWH(as when YHWH challenges the gods of Egypt in Exodus)then according to the prophets these deities become “no-gods” just clay and metal- of no account and no power. This alters during the Christian era when pagan deities become tied to demons and devils by the ECF-thus giving them an import they do not deserve and power they do not own…That their are spirits and demons around-yes. But some out there sound as if God has lost His Predominance and that the devil has an equal or semi equal powers.NO and no.They speak of the world as something evil and deadly to the soul-it can be only if we let it but God made out of nothing , everything and He called it “good”. I don’t believe that fact has ever been rescinded.
 
Why is it you keep bunching in Gravity which can be scientifically proven exists, it is an axiom, it is governed by laws, and is predictable, with Evolution which is guess work at best?
John, I take it from your writing that you are not overly familiar with how science works, and that you draw most of your talking points from creationist propaganda. Your vocabulary and arguments and even turns of phrase are reminiscent of the literature of such organizations.

Have you ever gone to a university to speak with a biologist? If there is a Catholic university near where you live, I encourage you to visit the biology department and speak with the faculty. Ask them why they accept evolution. Ask them to show you the consilient evidence supporting the evolutionary view, drawn from cosmology and physics, from biochemistry and biology, from genetics and cladistics, from geology and neuroscience. Ask actual scientists why the evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. Ask them why creationist anti-evolutionary sessions are not held at the conferences of professional organizations.

Interview priests at a Catholic university, especially scientists. Ask them why evolution does not conflict with their Catholic faith. I have numerous friends who are both priests and scientists; they say Mass in the morning and then go off to their labs and classrooms to teach evolutionary biology.

A book you might enjoy is Finding Darwin’s God, by Roman Catholic biologist Ken Miller, of Brown University.

StAnastasia
 
How can “evolution” (by which I mean saying the species were all formed by natural selection all the way up from germs) be studied, checked, or cross-checked? No one was around when the species were made, or formed, so no one was there to study, check, or cross-check how they came into existence.
Robintrinket, that’s not how historical science works. No one was around at the time of the big bang or the formation of the earth from a nebular accretion disc either. In fact, I wasn’t around when I was conceived, but I make an educated guess taht that is how I cam about.

Evolutionary biology has many sources of evidence: genetic, paleontological, archaeological, biogeographical, cladistic, geological, biochemical, neuroscientific.

An excellent learning resource is the University of California’s Museum of paleontology, which has a website called “Understanding Evolution”: evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46. Check out particularly their page on “What is the evidence for evolution?”

StAnastasia
 
How does it have predictive value? Can you claim when the next natural evolution in any kind of specie happens next?
God bless,
John
John, you mean “species” rather than “specie.”

As a matter of fact, evolution correctly predicted the discovery of a “transitional” species named Tiktaalik and precisely where its fossil remains should be found. They were indeed found right there, confirming paleontologists’ hypothesis that there had to be an intermediate species between Euthenopteron and Icthyostega. It turns out there are three intermediate forms: Panderichtys, Tiktaalik, and Acanthostega. nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/440747a.html

Moreover, evolution is happening all around us. Evolution is the reason we need new flu shots every year, and why methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is evolving into being such a huge problem.

StAnastasia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top