gilgames wrote:
> <<
> gpatton@bayou.com
>
> Now you sound like you are changing your story. At first you
> identified the serpent with Satan, now you seem to be saying Satan was
> "behind the serpent". If you think about it, there is a
> difference. You seem to abandon one weak theory to adopt another weak
> theory. Please think it over and be consistent so that we can discuss
> this in a sane manner.
> >>
>
> I don't see any inconsistency. My opinion is that Gen 3 is a symbolic
> story about the original sin involving God, the Satan and the first
> human couple.
Oh, now I begin to see things from a different point of view. When the
writer of Genesis wrote the symbolic story, he spoke a serpent. But,
some think, that was not the best way to tell the story. So to tell
the symbolic story in the best manner, some think that they should
correct the author of Genesis and substitute "Satan" for
"serpent".
I, myself, do not feel that the symbolic story in question, needs me to
correct it nor improve it. I, differ with those many Christians who
see a need to make changes in any of the symbolic stories found in the
Bible. Having at least a little humility, I actually think that my
inspiration is no better than the author of Genesis's inspiration. I
think it better to tell the story, with all its "weaknesses", and
without making corrections. I really thought that the author of
Genesis did a very good job of telling the symbolic story.
Natuarally you are free to think otherwise.
> God wanted something from the first couple, the Satan who
> exercising his freedom earlier revolted against God wanted to destroy
> Gods plan,
I have studied the Bible, but I have not really studied the poem
Paradise Lost. Therefore, I am sure you know more about character
"Lucifer" found in John Milton's poem, Paradise Lost, than I do. I do
not consider Paradise Lost to be the best guide for me to use when
interpreting the Bible.
Natuarally you are free to think otherwise.
> the first couple exercising their freedom failed to carry out
> God's primary plan.
>
> Natuarally you are free to think otherwise.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
"Bart Goddard" wrote in message
news:151.00.15.05.563553000@srcbs.org...
>
>
> gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:
>
snip
> > Had God not sent His Son, then there could be no Gospel promise
> > to believe, and thereby to be saved.
>
> Right. You teach that all Jesus did was buy us a "chance" to
> get saved. This is contrary to a doctrine that says "Jesus
> saves". I believe J
