El Diablo Part I

A biblical history of the devil.

The devil is an enigmatic creature, steeped in history, superstition and controversy. He has graced many a page of history with his so called influence and has been blamed for the crimes and atrocities of men and women alike throughout time. Over the years we’ve devised tests to reveal his presence and procedures to punish and banish him and his minions. But who is he exactly and where does he come from?

Anyone reading this who has had any sort of exposure to mainstream Christianity will probably answer the above question with the story of the Arch Angel Lucifer, who coveted God’s throne. The story goes that when God (Yahweh) was away doing something or other, Lucifer got uppity and sat on the throne. Yahweh saw him, got jealous and like a petulant child threw a hissy fit and booted Lucifer out. Sorry guys, but I’m going to have to have a crack at shattering that myth for you.

Lucifer is just one of the names given to “The Prince of Darkness” and it seems as though he’s always been with us. As you work through the bible however, you find that this is not necessarily the case. Were you to look for the devil’s influence in the Garden of Eden, Babylon or Egypt for instance, you would simply draw a blank. In fact, you’d have to get all the way to Job before you find Satan mentioned at all and even then it’s not quite the “devil” you’d expect. It seems then, that El Diablo hasn’t been around for quite as long as some would have us believe.

In Genesis of course, we have the appearance of the serpent, which some have argued is in fact the devil in disguise. Well, Eve says it “deceived” her after all. This is clearly not the case however. It seems, upon closer study, that the serpent told Eve nothing less than the complete and absolute truth about apples, a truth which God had denied both her and Adam, so any suggestion that this was the work of “The Great Deceiver” and that the serpent is anything more than a talking snake who liked to chat is simply wrong. You could even argue that it was God who lied by omission. God even goes so far as to punish it though and at the end of it all we end up with something that can only be described as a snake.

The first real references we have to Satan are in Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-2 where Satan is a member of God’s court. It is his job to accuse humans before God (hence “judgement”) and he is in no way depicted as an enemy of Yahweh. He doesn’t rule over his own personal minions in his own personal domain or actively involve himself in the lives and affairs of people, trying to win followers to himself through deceit and possession. In Job, although Job certainly get’s the rough end of the stick in my opinion, God is only trying to prove to Satan “the accuser” that Job is just righteous because he is, not because God is protecting him more than he does anyone else. When it’s all said and done, God proves himself right and Satan goes away satisfied that Job is indeed, one heck of a righteous dude. In Zechariah, he’s prophesying about Joshua and Satan is rebuked in God’s court because God is putting Joshua’s sins behind him so he can start fresh. Well, he did need someone to go and smite the Canaanites and Josh was a logical choice after all. There’s no banishing from heaven though, or casting to the earth, it’s just the Arch Angel Satan doing his job.

The popular story of Lucifer is taken or interpreted from Isaiah 14:12-17. As you get to verse 17, it becomes plain that we are actually talking about the king of Babylon here, not an Arch Angel called “Lucifer” after all. In the link above, the word “Lucifer” doesn’t even appear. The NIV study notes, on the Literary Features of Isaiah say the following about these verses; A taunting song against the king of Babylon is found in 14:4-23. If you are a rival nation with a rival God who’s been held in exile, then taunting songs about the ex-king of Babylon, treating him as if he’s a fallen minor deity are probably fairly common. The king’s of Babylon, like their Egyptian counterparts, were after all considered to be God-Kings and deities in their own right. When they fell from grace, god’s fell in a very real sense in so far as the imagery and idols, (statues, paintings, etc.) were often pulled down and destroyed or reshaped into something else.

The word Lucifer itself comes to us from the original King James version. It is simply a 4^th century Latin name for Venus and only appears in those translations. The plural, luciferum, also appears in other works in reference to astral constellations. It is translated from the Greek heosphoros which in turn comes from the Hebrew noun Helel, the term for the “morning star”, which is said to vanish with the light, hence the analogy. Later versions of the King James don’t include the word at all.

Ezekiel 28:13-19 speaks similarly about a fall from grace and has been used to lend credence to the Isaiah passages. It is also plain here however, as you get through verse 18 and into 19, that we are actually talking about the king of Tyre who God kills and reduces to ashes so he “will be no more” which doesn’t exactly describe the devil as we know him. So it seems that nearly all of chapter 28, from verse 1 to 19, is simply a prophesy against the king of Tyre and has nothing to do with the devil either.

All of the references I’ve mentioned so far are quite late as far as the establishment of Judaic monotheism is concerned. About 600bc at their earliest. It would appear then that the earliest traditions of Judaism did not include the concept of hell or the devil, that Lucifer never actually existed in the original texts and that any reference to Satan is referring to the angel Satan who was a member of Yahweh’s court. That means that back then, the only real alternative to the Judaic God was no God or some other god and it appears that the devil as we know him has somehow been incorporated into the popular faith much later on.

In Part II we’ll take a look at some of the other gods that were available and in competition with Yahweh in the area at the time and how Yahweh, his priests and prophets go about vilifying and demonising them in one way or another.

3:46 PM - 19/9/2006 - post comment

Satan

Talking about satan ~ The word translated "hell" in english is the Greek word Gehenna. "Gehenna" is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Genhinnom", an actual place in Israel which we would call "the valley of Ben Hinnom".

The prophet Jeremiah dubbed this "the Valley of Slaughter" (Jeremiah 19:6) because so many children were immolated here in a deep pit known as the Tophet- "Place of Fire."

So it seems that hell is in Israel.

beepbeepitsme - 10:05 PM - 19/9/2006

Hell

Thanks for that Beep. I hadn't considered the actual location of hell. I always thought it was here where I work...:)

plonka - 10:22 AM - 20/9/2006

Slightly off topic

Tag! You're it!

My Favourite Things
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/09/my-favourite-things.html

beepbeepitsme - 7:17 PM - 22/9/2006

revision

My Favourite Things
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/09/my-favourite-things_22.html

beepbeepitsme - 8:01 PM - 22/9/2006

Serpent

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.

On a biblical basis, the "serpent" is the "devil".

Anonymous - 3:16 AM - 30/9/2006

RE: Serpent

Anon,

Thanks for reading my blog...:)

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any BEAST of the FIELD" (unfortunatly we can't use tags in comments here yet...)

This is where I have my problem. Genesis seems quite explicit in it's reference to this particular snake being nothing more than an animal, "field" being the word that draws the implication, and I feel that the reference in Revelation ("old serpent") is ambiguous at best when making the conclusion that it refers to the same beast.

Anonymous - 11:04 AM - 30/9/2006

Untitled Comment

May I subjest simply asking ANY orthodox Christian who the "serpent" in Genesis is and see what answers you get from people who have studied the bible.

By the way, if you are wondering who the "hell" I am my blog name is "under_the_mercy" and my url is "shadowsoflove.blogspot.com"

Anonymous - 12:52 AM - 1/10/2006

More serpent

Thank you under_the_mercy, I was curious. The "hell" made me giggle. Nice...:)

I have to admit, Whitepage don't make it all that easy when it comes to getting a name and URL in the comment and as I said, we can't use tags yet (they did tell us they're working on it, so hopefully soon...) Beep's managed to get her's working well enough, though I don't know how. I shall ask and post it...

Now, to the subject at hand.

In my life (I'm now over 40) I've been involved in the Anglican Church (I was brought up Anglican with a Presbyterian, Uniting Church and finally Anglican education), the Catholic Church and the Assemblies Of God (charismatic, NOT affliliated with the American AOG at the time. Yes, I was even baptised in the spirit). I have asked any number of orthodox and non-orthodox Christians that very question and I can safely say that in my experience, more tend to believe that Adam, Eve and the Snake didn't happen than do and tend to be willing to concede that the talking snake cannot possibly be the devil. That's in Aus though. Things may well be a little different in your part of the world.

I don't think the snake can be the devil for the reason I stated earlier and also because it seems to me from the biblical evidence, he didn't exist at that stage in the development of the Judaic tradition. Some theologians I know even go as far as saying that Yahweh and Satan are the same entity. Personally I think that's stretching it a bit, but it makes for an interesting argument.

plonka - 2:29 AM - 1/10/2006

Under_the_mercy

I don't know about Aus. but at least in America, any orthodox church will say that the serpent is Satan. Also, if this "beast of the field" was no more that that, why was it talking? One last thing, what else could the Revelation ref. be refering to?

Anonymous - 4:02 AM - 1/10/2006

Names and stuff...

You should be able to overwrite the "Anonymous" in the "from" field I think?

Would it be to much for God to create a simple, normal snake that talks? Considering he made man from clay and woman from a single rib of said man, I don't think it would really be a problem for him. Genesis has more to say about it though:

(I'm using an NIV here) 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."

Please note the words "livestock" and "animals". Like I said, Genesis is quite explicit in it's description and by the look of things, so is God himself.

This also happened in the garden remember, where the temperature was perfect all year round and mana fell from heaven to feed them. Fanciful stuff in my opinion.

Who or what else could it be refering to? There are many examples of "serpents" thoughout the bible. Jeremiah 51:34 for instance: "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has devoured us, he has thrown us into confusion, he has made us an empty jar. Like a serpent he has swallowed us and filled his stomach with our delicacies, and then has spewed us out." Could it be Nebuchadnezzar perhaps? Or Dan (Gen 49:17) or Egypt (Jer 46:22). Amos (9:3) seems to be able to command serpents. So you see, there are plenty of other references we can use.

Revelation 12:9 - "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."

The problem I have here is that there just doesn't seem to be any evidence within the old testament to support that verse. We don't seem to hear about Satan getting thrown out until the new testament, yet the passage above calls him ancient. It just doesn't make any sense logically.

plonka - 5:22 AM - 1/10/2006

Untitled Comment

Sorry, I dont get how to link it to me (i'm not that good with computers).

Double sorry, I acidently also posted this on your yoga post.

To the point:

C’mon, you don’t really think the bible is saying the devil is some king that has been dead thousands of years, or a godly judge of Israel, or some image made by man. Really, is that feasible, the Bible clearly shows that the devil is a spiritual being. (he could still have been in the form of a snake as we know he can change form)
Yes, God could make a serpent that could talk, but why on earth would he just randomly create some one of a kind evil freak of nature that talks.
As to the garden being a perfect temp. all year and manna falling from the heaven, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Just as a side note, the first “real‿ reference to Satan is in 1Ch 21:1, not Job.

Anonymous - 5:00 AM - 2/10/2006

Kings.

No worries. I see you got your name in there on the last post. I think that's the best you can do here, so it's all good...:-)

But why not? It's one of the passages used to support the dogma (for want of a better word) that the devil was thrown down, but it is in fact, about Babylon. So is the king of Babylon a metaphore perhaps?

I'm not the only one that thinks this way though. The NIV study notes (I use an NIV Study Bible) also says the same thing, as I posted it ( in italics, you can check it at BibkleGateway), I mearly justified a reason for it. Taunting seems to be a popular human pass time, more's the pity. Similarly, Ezekiel would appear to be a prophersy concerning the king of Tyre, another king that was "thrown" down.

These are the passages that are generally attributed to Satan being "thrown down", as it were, so if they are the basis for it, then in my opinion, the whole story is seriously flawed. BTW, I used the NIV for this because BibleGateway has excellent links for it that include all the study notes.

And I must apologise, you are correct. 1CH 21:1 is where Satan first appears. When I said "real reference", I really didn't explain myself very well. Thanks for picking it up.

Job 1:6 is where we see Satan really speak for the first time and start to play an "active" role here on earth, rather than as "the accuser" of "the Heavenly council who stand in God's presence" (once again, the NIV's words, not mine). In 2:1-3 however, we see "He who accused Job of having a deceiptful motive is now shown to have a deceitful motive himself" (more NIV...). So this is where Satan starts to get a reputation for having a poke at God. The books themselves, being as late as they are in the formation of the tradition, pose an anomaly for me which is why I draw the conclusion that I do.

As to the garden. Adam and Eve were naked and were comfortable. This implies that it neither got to cold nor to hot for them to be uncomfortable, ie perfect temprature.

The manna thing is because this from Gen 3:18 "and you will eat the plants of the field" implies that they didn't have to before hand. Some have argued that it therefore also has to imply that they either didn't eat at all or manna was provided for them up until that moment, that's all. It's rediculous, I know. They were allowed to eat of anything, with the obvious exception, of course. It was a stupid joke, sorry...:)

Ooops, another correction. It's not Biblegateway with the study notes, but IBS:

http://www.ibs.org/niv/studybible/

Apologies to IBS, Biblegateway and anyone that went looking for something that wasn't there....

Edited by plonka on 2/10/2006 at 12:29 AM

plonka - 12:15 PM - 2/10/2006

Under_the_mercy

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.

Compare these attributes of Satan to the serpent in Genesis.


Check this out:

Gen 3:14-15 And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Here is one of the Ezekiel references about what I believe to be Satan's fall. (I strongly doubt that the king of Tyre was a cherub)

Eze 28:14-17 Thou wast the anointed cherub that covereth: and I set thee, so that thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee. By the abundance of thy traffic they filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore have I cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God; and I have destroyed thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thy heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I have cast thee to the ground; I have laid thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

So sorry about trying to refute a joke (lol).

Anonymous - 12:34 AM - 3/10/2006

Books...

Well, I'm not denying that Satan has gained a reputation, just debating whether a) he's the entity we really think he is and b) how old he is and where he comes from.

John is a New Testament gospel, and the latest of the 4 at that. The New Testament mentions the devil as the serpent, the dragon, Satan and a number of other things besides, of that there can be no doubt. The problem is that it nearly always refers back to things that don't seem to exist in the old. Well, not to my mind anyway.

I have an issue with this bit in 44 if it's the serpent of Genesis though: "He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him." That's not entirely true is it? He told Eve nothing but the absolute truth about the apples...

"cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

This is an excellent description of a snake, still likened with cattle and "beasts of the field" (the field, not spiritual beings in the siritual field, per se). I've stepped on the heads of a few of them myself, having spent much of my life in the Aussie country where snakes abound. I hurt my heal doing it once and I've even eaten one or two as well. Very nice...:) What's it taste like? Well, snake. There's not even a hint of chicken, but the texture is similar and it's much nicer than crocadile...:)

I digress, sorry... Romans, Like John was written at least 4000 years after Genesis. Can we really use it to lend credence and meaning to the ideas that have grown up around a book written 4000 years earlier? I really don't think so. But yes, this is probably a direct reference to the serpent in Genesis, but Genesis gives no indication that the serpent was anything other than a snake, as I've said.

I seriously doubt that the king of Tyre was a cherub too. Let's look at a more modern transation (although I do like the King James):

Eze: 28:14 from my fav NIV: "You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you" So, "as a cherub" doesn't mean "you are a cherub". He got the same treatment perhaps, but that's all.

A quick look at 18 - 19 should clear it up for us:

18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.

19 All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.' "

Reduced to ashes? Will be no more? That doesn't exactly sound like the devil now does it? But it does sound like Tyre.

Well, it was a bad joke. It stems from a debate that took place in the middle ages. I don't think (not sure about this) the outcome, which was the actual joke believe it or not, has ever actually been refuted as far as history in the annals of the Vatican is concerned, so go for it, it needs it...:)

plonka - 1:08 PM - 3/10/2006

Under_the_mercy

lol, I think i'll pass on having another try at the joke :)

Anyway,

Concerning 44:

"He told Eve nothing but the absolute truth about the apples"

Not true, according to the Bible (as this is a biblical history)

Gen 3:13 And Jehovah God said unto the woman, What is this thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Notice "beguiled" it means led astray, decieved, etc. then look at the result, man fell, and became Dead in his sin.

Gen/Rom:

If it be a direct reference, then "shall bruise Satan under your feet" is talking about the serpent, thus satan is the serpent.

Good point with the translation, I have to agree that considering the NIV, one cannot say that verse is refering to Satan. Let me take it into contect now,

Ezekiel 28:13-17
You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. -NIV

Notice the phrases "You were in Eden" "You were on the holy mount of God" "and I expelled you, O guardian cherub" (here even the NIV does not say "as") "So I threw you to the earth"

Also, if you are considering vs. 2

"of man, say to the ruler (prince in KJV) of Tyre"

as proof that this is to the ruler of Tyre, take a look at the following:

Dan 10:13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

Joh 12:31 "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out."

Demons are also referred to as rulers, princes, and kings.

Anonymous - 1:53 AM - 6/10/2006

Lies

Strap yourself in, it's a long one...:(

They did have some rather silly debates back in those days. Are we doing any better do you think?...lol :-)

I grant you that Eve said "beguiled" ("deceived" in the NIV), because she did. If we look at what the snake said though, can we actually find any lies or deceptions? I can't see any; "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God." Did she die? No. Were her eyes opened? Yes. Did she become like God? Apparently. So, if Genesis is to be believed, that's pure fact. No lies and no deceptions. Then she eats it. Yummo...:) Ooops...:(

We should also keep in mind that by the time she's talking to God, Eve has partaken of the fruit, has gained knowledge and discovered sin. When God get's there, she knows she's done the wrong thing, is embarrassed and doesn't want Him to know. SHE lied, not the snake. Ever heard anyone say that Eve was the devil? Neither have I, but it makes more sense to me in that context. She was trying to deceive God and make out that it couldn't possibly have been her fault because "the snake made me do it." Wish I had a dollar for every time my son and daughter have tried that one.

No wonder God got annoyed. I often wonder if the outcome would have been different if she and Adam had just fessed up and been honest with God at that point, instead of trying to make excuses. Oh well...

Now, to throw a spanner in the works, I mentioned earlier that some theologian friends of mine have argued that God and the devil are the same person. This is where the arugument comes from.

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. He can do anything, knows everything and is everywhere. The bible makes this very clear.

2. That being the case, then before any of this happened, He put the apples there, already KNEW Eve would partake, already KNEW they'd both try and worm out of it and already KNEW the punishment he was going to meter out.

God made "all the beasts of the field" which means he also made the snake because it isn't described as anything other than that in these passages. Therefore, this means that God put the snake there to do His bidding. If it was His bidding, then He's also the devil. QED. Like I said earlier, probably stretching it a bit, but it's still a valid argument.

As to Ezekiel, it's worth remembering that the kings of Tyre, like the Egyptian Pharos and Babylonian kings were also God kings and were considered, at the time, to be Gods themselves and ruled by devine right. You don't dispute the Isaiah passages (14: 12-17), so I assume you agree that this is about Babylon, not "Lucifer" or Satan? If so, look at the description of the king: "How you have fallen from heaven. O morning star, son of the dawn. You have been cast down to earth..." etc. Sounds eerily familiar and also like someone who used to reside in heaven (a God King would fit the bill nicely), but if you look at 9-11, it can't possibly be. He got dealt with because he had delusions of grandeur. Similarly with the king of Tyre in Ezekiel, he meets with a definate and final end, there's no question. How can this possibly be the "living" devil?

In using Daniel and John you've made a leap between what's obviously a king on earth and what's obviously a "prince" of a spiritual "world". There's no mention of Persia here in John.

That aside though, I'm not really arguing that the references in the new testament (John, Romans or any others for that matter) are not direct references, just that if they are, they're wrong. There was no "devil" in the garden, just a serpent, an older word meaning "snake". To say that John or Paul had devine inspiration and therefore knew what God was talking about way back in Genesis implies that Moses didn't. You can't have it both ways I don't think.

So it doesn't really alter my argument. These books, other than Genesis of course, are all very late. 600bc at thier earliest and about 400bc at the latest for the old testament books and John comes in at about 65ad at the earliest estimation. Genesis was written 4000 years earlier and makes no mention of "the devil", and I think that assuming the author meant anything other than what he/she wrote is a tad pretentious. The only reason to come to the conclusion that the snake is the devil is because of the interpretation that because Eve was tempted, that somehow means she was lied to. It doesn't and she wasn't. She wasn't deceived, tricked or bamboozled into eating the apple, she was given the facts and made an informed decision which she then tried to cover up in the presence of God. And she should have known better by that stage, she had the knowledge after all...

All I'm really saying here is that the "devil" was a very, very late inclusion in the development of the Judaic traditions. It seems to be more a new testament thing than an old testament thing and that any references made to the old testament in the new testament concerning the devil, are ambiguous at best.

Now I also have to thank you Under_the_mercy (wish I could link that...sigh...). You made my 200th comment, thanks...:-)

plonka - 12:12 PM - 6/10/2006

shadowsoflove.blogspot.com

What else could "You were in Eden" -Ezekiel 28:13 be referring to?

As this is a biblical debate, and the Bible says all scripture is inspired by God and is without error, you cannot say that "I'm not really arguing that the references in the New Testament (John, Romans or any others for that matter) are not direct references, just that if they are, they're wrong."

I would also like to thank you for being so kind throughout our discussions; I have known many people who simply ridicule those who stand up for a different worldview.

Anonymous - 7:10 AM - 15/10/2006

Thanks

Well, this is where our difference of opinion is bourne out. I know it's a scriptual debate and I know the scriptures say they are the inspired word of God. I think that's just a convenient excuse so it can be the "truth" and is horribly wrong. If you look at it from my postition for a moment, I'm sure you'd agree that because I don't think God exists then it follows for me, that these words cannot possibly be "devinely" inspired, so I also happen to think the words in this most wonderful of books, are simply the words of men, inspired by what was going on around them and their own ideals and dreams. All authors do it and if you can get passed his writing style, Robert Heinlein is a perfect example, as is Tolkien, Hamilton and Dostoyevsky amoung a myriad. So you see, I can say the scriptures are wrong because I'm not only disagreeing with their take on Satan, I'm also disagreeing with them being "true", obviously.

I was hoping I'd made that plain in the essay but alas. It's way to late to edit it and change it now though I guess...:(

Anyway Mercy (you didn't complain...:)), there is absolutely no need for thanks. Having been involved in both mainstream and fundamental Christianity, I've been where you are and know where you're coming from, to an extent at least, thanks to our discussion. I've also been subjected to ridicule by Christians when having these sorts of debates, I tend to quote Matthew and walk away when that happens, so you won't get any of that from me.

It's also refreshing to find a Christian that's prepared to look at, research and discuss Satan. Rare in my experience, so it's you who deserves the thanks...:)

plonka - 8:23 PM - 15/10/2006

God lied by omission?

That's some extremely interesting stuff Ted. Amazing that such a general acceptance of Satan has evolved with such a sparcity of Biblical reference. Reading the Bible in full is one of the chores that I keep putting off, so I can't really debate any of the points that you and Mercy are discussing. One point I found interesting in your post though was this:

"You could even argue that it was God who lied by omission."

I would have thought that God lied directly and unequivically. In Genesis 3:3, it says:

"God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

How is this not a direct lie on God's part?

ajscanlan - 3:43 PM - 22/10/2006

More lies

Well yes, he did. I was trying to be diplomatic by refering only to the knowledge stuff he didn't talk about when he was telling them not to eat it.

But when you look at it that way, it probably serves quite well to help reinforce the notion that God and the Devil are one and the same. I mean, only the devil lies, not god, surely...

plonka - 6:43 PM - 22/10/2006

Satan etc

Agree with you entireley on this. This is a little something I wrote about 8 years ago:

http://dikkiisdiatribearchives.blogspot.com/2006/01/uoy-sevol-natas.html

It's one of my personal favourite Diatribes.

dikkii - 12:12 PM - 24/10/2006