Dubious Plot and Cast

[whag]

Wow,
Whag was so utterly destroyed as phony, then 37818 has to throw away the game to Whag. Adrift took one post to say it all so well, then 37818 undoes it all with an irrelevant platitude.

His reply wasn't a platitude but an answer to Pixie. You don't know what a platitude is.

Stay out of this thread unless you can contribute more than lame sports commentary. You're welcome to respond to my reply to Adrift.

[37818]

That's no explanation. By the time that was written, humankind was already well out of the food chain, multiplying like rabbits, dominating fish and fowl.

But it is the explanation. That was the intent of God's design. So this explanation is given after the fact.

It's obviously an observation of ourselves, built on previous Sumerian tradition,

OK. Please cite it. This Sumerian text.

fitted to a newer religious interpretation. It says jack squat about an angelic rebellion that supposedly explains all moral and natural evil. For that, we have Isaiah 14:12, which even Christians acknowledge might not be about Satan.

So you suppose, being the Torah is more recently written.
Genesis 1 does not address that rebellion.
Isaiah only hints as to this.

[whag]

But it is the explanation. That was the intent of God's design. So this explanation is given after the fact.

After *what* fact? From what existing story were the ancient Israelites to assume the fact of an angelic rebellion???!

OK. Please cite it. This Sumerian text.

It'a scholarly consensus that the Genesis oral tradition built on Sumerian content. It's okay if you reject that truth because we're talking about the angelic rebellion here. I want to focus on that extrapolation.

So you suppose, being the Torah is more recently written.
Genesis 1 does not address that rebellion.
Isaiah only hints as to this.

So the origin of evil is built on a vague hint that many Christians acknowledge might not even be about Satan. In a nutshell, that's why I find it implausible and unbelievable.

[37818]

After *what* fact?

That man has dominion over the earth.

From what existing story were the ancient Israelites to assume the fact of an angelic rebellion???!

Actually, I am not aware that Israel was aware. There was the individual entity, we identify as the serpent/dragon/ and satan. That a larger rebellion is hinted in Daniel, though, the entity called "the prince of the kingdom of Persia" withstood Gabriel, until Michael the archangel came to Gabriel's aid (Daniel 10:13).

It'a scholarly consensus that the Genesis oral tradition built on Sumerian content.

The scholarly consensus based on oral tradition is a suppositional, cannot be trusted, and can only be regarded as late. Now the Sumerian texts are at issue and are of interest to the reasons supposed.

It's okay if you reject that truth because we're talking about the angelic rebellion here.

I do not reject the interpretation of an angelic rebellion. I do object to supposing what is not supported by the Biblicial texts. This is where fellow Christians do disagree.

I want to focus on that extrapolation.

Please do explain your take on this "extrapolation."

So the origin of evil is built on a vague hint that many Christians acknowledge might not even be about Satan. In a nutshell, that's why I find it implausible and unbelievable.

Actually evil is the negation of finite good. Evil, the possibility of evil was always part of God's good creation. God being the infinite good.

The knowledge of good and evil was always God's knowledge (Genesis 3:5, 22). Isaiah reports God saying, ". . . I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. . . ." -- Isaiah 45:6-7.

Modern translation reders it as, "create disaster." " creating calamity," and the like. It is the same word as used in the "knowledge of good and evil."

[The Pixie]

". . . And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. . . . "-- Genesis 1:28.

I think you are referring to the fall of man. I was referring to the fall of satan. Can you point Adrift and me to the verses that set out the narrative of the fall of satan?

[37818]

I think you are referring to the fall of man.

My reply was to your reply under this quote:.

...Here's a backstory that could work. God gave dominion over the earth to mankind...

I was referring to the fall of satan. Can you point Adrift and me to the verses that set out the narrative of the fall of satan?

There are two prophecies interpreted to refer to the fall of the one we csll the Devil and Satan. Against the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14:4-15 and against the the prince of Tyrus in Ezekiel 28:2-15.

The Isaiah prophecy against that king for aspiring to be as God. The name Lucifer comes from the Latin translation of the Hebrew for the shining one. The Latin being transliterated to English to get that name.

In Ezekiel there is an identification of being in the garden of Eden, having been being created as a perfect entity. Yet this created perfect being was found to want to be as God v.6.

[The Pixie]

I think you are referring to the fall of man.

My reply was to your reply under this quote:.

I think this cast of characters works fine if we understand the backstory. Here's a backstory that could work. God gave dominion over the earth to mankind, but Adam gave up this dominion through disobedience. The one who deceived Adam inherited his dominion, and became (as we find in the New Testament) "the ruler of this world", "the prince of the power of the air", and "the god of this age". By Satan usurping mankind's dominion, direct divine communication between God and man was broken off. Since Satan acquired dominion over the earth legally, it required God to take it back legally (God being a God of order, and not of chaos must follow whatever guidelines he has previously laid out).

That paragraph by Adrift mentions the fall of man, but looks to me to be more about Satan.

There are two prophecies interpreted to refer to the fall of the one we csll the Devil and Satan. Against the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14:4-15 and against the the prince of Tyrus in Ezekiel 28:2-15.

The Isaiah prophecy against that king for aspiring to be as God. The name Lucifer comes from the Latin translation of the Hebrew for the shining one. The Latin being transliterated to English to get that name.

In Ezekiel there is an identification of being in the garden of Eden, having been being created as a perfect entity. Yet this created perfect being was found to want to be as God v.6.

You say two prophecies of the fall of Satan, does that mean the fall had not happened at the time Isaiah and Ezekiel were writing? When (approximately) do you think it happened?

Given you see Isaiah 14 as referring to the King of Babylon, in what sense is that a reference to Satan? Was Satan the King of Babylon? Lucifer is a name derived from a sarcastic description, the shining one. The shining one is not a name in the Hebrew. Most (all?) modern Bibles have dropped the word Lucifer altogether.

Similarly, given Ezekiel was talking about the Prince of Tyre, I wonder about the connection to Satan. Sure, the hyperbole used mentions "an anointed guardian cherub" and "You were in Eden, the garden of God", but this is to emphasise the arrogance and pride of the human prince.

Look at the Parallel Commentaries on the verses towards the bottom of this page:
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/28-13.htm

[shunyadragon]

I think this cast of characters works fine if we understand the backstory. Here's a backstory that could work. God gave dominion over the earth to mankind, but Adam gave up this dominion through disobedience. The one who deceived Adam inherited his dominion, and became (as we find in the New Testament) "the ruler of this world", "the prince of the power of the air", and "the god of this age". By Satan usurping mankind's dominion, direct divine communication between God and man was broken off. Since Satan acquired dominion over the earth legally, it required God to take it back legally (God being a God of order, and not of chaos must follow whatever guidelines he has previously laid out).

This is a clear and distinct example of what I call the Doctrine and Dogma of traditional Christianity 'mired in the ancient archaic past.' These beliefs are rooted in Canaanites and pre-Babylonian myths and legends. Pixie makes some very good points that need to be answered regarding this problem.

The claim that it 'works fine if we understand the backstory,' needs more explanation how this could be understood as 'reasonable' without believing in the 'backstory' of ancient myths and legends as factual as the church fathers believed.

[whag]

This is a clear and distinct example of what I call the Doctrine and Dogma of traditional Christianity 'mired in the ancient archaic past.' These beliefs are rooted in Canaanites and pre-Babylonian myths and legends. Pixie makes some very good points that need to be answered regarding this problem.

The claim that it 'works fine if we understand the backstory,' needs more explanation how this could be understood as 'reasonable' without believing in the 'backstory' of ancient myths and legends as factual as the church fathers believed.

YES. Adrift says "it works fine if we understand the backstory" but cannot explain the most dubious part of the backstory. Satan comes in at Eden and gets full legal rights to the earth...because God's obligated to grant him those rights.

Whuh????

[The Pixie]

Perhaps the most damning part is this:

I think this cast of characters works fine if we understand the backstory. Here's a backstory that could work. ...

Adrift is claiming Christianity makes sense if we know the backstory, then tacitly admits we do not actually know it.

[MaxVel]

YES. Adrift says "it works fine if we understand the backstory" but cannot explain the most dubious part of the backstory. Satan comes in at Eden and gets full legal rights to the earth...because God's obligated to grant him those rights.

Whuh????

That's the glory and greatness of God - He can defeat evil with both hands tied behind His back, and the rules stacked against Him, and using feeble, weak, doubting human beings as His soldiers.

[whag]

That's the glory and greatness of God - He can defeat evil with both hands tied behind His back, and the rules stacked against Him, and using feeble, weak, doubting human beings as His soldiers.

The inevitability of Satanic and Adamic falls would seem to counter that statement. The idea of rules that he created constraining him such that 6 million years of suffering were necessary is, of course, absurd to the highest degree.

and using feeble, weak, doubting human beings as His soldiers.

They’re doubting because of the context I described above. Doubt is the default position precisely because the story sounds like bollocks, requiring the sort of tortuous anthropomorphic rationalizations that most religions (that want to be taken literally) use.

Now if only you had a backstory that wasn't a few dubious verses from Ezekiel and Isaiah, you'd have a stronger case to make.

[Mountain Man]

I find that life itself tends to be full of dubious plots and an unbelievable cast of characters. One of the things that gives the Bible a ring of authenticity is its chaotic portrayal of human nature. It certainly doesn't present a nice, neat narrative. It's rather messy, in fact, just like life.

[shunyadragon]

I find that life itself tends to be full of dubious plots and an unbelievable cast of characters.

True, but these unbelievable cast of characters and plots are recognized as myths and legends.

[Mountain Man]

True, but these unbelievable cast of characters and plots are recognized as myths and legends.

[citation needed]