Summations Only

No, I know that the Jews didn't believe in anything like the Devil of Christianity.The Jews had an adversary, which was something that was inside of everyone and not an outward personification like the Devil is.Even in Job, "the satan" is an angel of God, nothing like the Devil that modern Christians envision. To them it was a snake. It was a plot device... something needed to tempt them into eating the fruit, and nobody likes snakes, so viola. To the Jews, there was no hidden meaning behind the snake that could be applied to the Devil in modern day Christianity.That's why if the story really does use the snake as a metaphor for the Devil, then all those Jews throughout all those generations were believing the wrong thing. No, but what you're saying requires that God treated his chosen people in a certain way. And that is allowing for generations of them to believe something that was wrong and miss out on something else that was right, just so you could have a figure of speech thousands of years later. Well, at least it has evidence for it rather than just being wishful thinking.ABE:Here, take it from a Rabbi:http://www.myjewishlearning.com/...ring_and_Evil/satan.shtmlEdited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

In Job 1, Satan is on earth. This is clearly after judgement in Gen 3 and in Ezekiel 28 13-15, and Isaiah 14:12-14. What we see here is God having Satan (the evil one and an ACTUAL BEING) do God's bidding. This does not show Satan as an angel of HEAVEN (or just an internal adversary). Further we are reading Jewish scripture thus the Jews were aware of Satan as their adversary (A ACTUAL BEING). The link you provided is not an actual respected link, it is a .com so it is just an opinion. No matter which way you swing that link, it is just an opinion. If I read Jewish scripture I see an adversary by the name of Satan. I am directly interpreting Jewish scripture. This is not a Christian vantage per say because the name of SATAN (as a being i.e. son of god)) is used in Jewish scripture. Further it is CLEAR if you read all of Jewish scripture, SATAN (an actual being) is the adversary (external adversary) of the JEWS. Do Jewish people believe in an internal adversary perhaps but to argue that they merely believe in an internal adversary is ignoring the facts. The above Jewish scripture DOES NOT depict SATAN as a HEAVENLY Angel. It does depict SATAN as a son of God on earth. This fits everything I am saying. Further in VS 8 God is asking Satan if he knows about the man who does not FEAR evil. Clearly Satan is referenced as being evil here.Edited by Blue, : errEdited by Blue, : errEdited by Blue, : errEdited by Blue, : AddEdited by Blue, : AddEdited by Blue, : Add

I am wasting my time here. You don't come across as somebody who is faithful. I am almost certain you're a pawn.

Really? Is that the relationship you see in Job? What I read sounds more like a wager in which Satan goes only as far as God allows. The question is whether the Jews believed Satan to be a personification rather than an actual being. You cannot determine this by whether or not Satan actually does things in the scripture because a given story may or may not have been interpreted literally. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Actually, they wrote it as Ha-Satan, with that definite article. It means "the adversary" and it is not the name of someone.

quote:

---

Hebrew Bible
The original Hebrew term, satan, is a noun from a verb meaning primarily to, obstruct, oppose, as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6. Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as the accuser, or the adversary. The definite article ha-, English the," is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus this being would be referred to as the satan. source

---

So there. The link was written by a Rabbi:

quote:

---

Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs (1920-2006) was a Masorti rabbi, the first leader of Masorti Judaism (also known as Conservative Judaism) in the United Kingdom, and a leading writer and thinker on Judaism.

---

His opinions on the matter are far more valuable than yours, especially considering that you incorrectly think that Ha-Satan is a name instead of realizing it is a title. So far, you're doing a terrible job. And don't seem to be interested in learning anything.Can you at least admit that the Jews wrote Ha-Satan as a title and not a name? And it has nothing at all to do with the snake in the Garden of Eden.

It explains why snakes crawl on their bellies. (Incidentally, crawling on their bellies is only a bad thing from the human viewpoint. Snakes are probably just as glad not to have all those legs to get tangled up. From their viewpoint it's no punishment.)The rest of the chapter explains why people don't like snakes, why women have pain in childbirth, why men have to sweat to grow food, etc. It's about what is; it isn't about a "change".You know how you can tell it isn't literal? Because it's a talking snake, for crying out loud. Do you take Donald Duck literally too?

---

ABE:I meant to respond to this: That works for me. Edited by ringo, : Added response to another point.

That isn't the choice God is giving you though; it's a "choice" between eating a meal and being a meal for the lions. No real choice, no freedom.

So perfection is slavery. God is an alien being. Lock phasers.

That would be PantheismPantheism - WikipediaBeats me why believers have such difficulty believing that atheists just don't believe.

Mostly, the snake is a plot device. It's there to reflect Eve's thoughts, her doubts and questions about what God said. If Shakespeare had written Genesis, Eve would have done a solilioquy. The only other character in the story is Adam and it wouldn't be proper to set them up as antagonists so the snake is introduced as an antagonist.

In pantheism nature is intelligent. In atheism nature is random. In both cases God is nature. God doesn't have to be intelligent. It is a matter of belief. I'm more of a pantheist.

I do think your comment is interesting regarding atheists not believing. Science does not merely support atheism. Science says nothing about if God exists. Theists and atheists draw from science equally. If you don't agree you have a closed mind and thus DO believe. You even believe as far as to think morality is ultimately decided by man. You do believe in nature.

Moses wrote the book of the law/torah. Ref deuteronomy 31:24 - 26. Whatever your response is, it is pre refuted. Fyi: I will respond later to post 356 as that is wrong.Edited by Blue, : EditEdited by Blue, : Add

It is all a matter of what is evil to God. Slavery in the Bible is worse in the usage of the word "slavery" than it is in reality. Most of the time slaves had a debt to be repaid just like in America. Plus there debt was fully repaid after 6 years, and slaves were set completely free, unlike in America. Most of the time slaves chose to remain slaves because they had more resources for their family, just like in America. If you think American citizens are not slaves you are nutz imo. You can compare slavery under Jewish law to American citizens and our laws. Slavery under Jewish law was nothing like it was for africans. I'm not going to explain it any further. Anyone interested and open minded can do their own research. I just want to point out you are using a terrible example to argue God does not exist as per the Bible.Edited by Blue, : AddEdited by Blue, : Add

This is just a argument, and it is not more grounded in fact. The facts, we know Moses wrote it down, and we know it was written down centuries after it WAS observed. The usage of a metaphor to explain what happened is a interpretation even if I agree with it being metaphorical. All we can do is interpret is fact. Also Modern day Jews are as lost as atheists in interpreting this story. However I would argue the serpent is a being since it is being judged. The usage of a serpent in this story is to reflect the character of the being (deceptive). Further ancient Jews even during all the prophets were well aware of the adversary as Satan vs it JUST being a internal adversary. Ref to prior posts, they have not been refuted. Arguments are not refutations and no better argument has been argued.Edited by Blue, : ErEdited by Blue, : AddEdited by Blue, : Add