Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Postulate? Assume? Did I postulate anything? No I did not!!! I have told you what the Bible (that's the word of God) reveals.
You yourself are under such strong delusion and deception that you are unable to see the truth. The Bible does not present Satan as a mere symbol of evil. The word of God is quite clear that Satan and the demons are real. Satan is not an allegory. Neither is the Bible as a whole as you claim it to be. The longer you refuse to accept the truth the stronger your deception will become.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin.spin
The sad scenerio is that if one insists on wantonly to refuse the truth ... there is nothing stopping God in choosing to making it impossible to see.
The Lord gives and the Lord takes away ... that includes the ability to see the truth ...... aka time of grace.
Pardon the long post - it is considerably shorter than it could be heh heh!
It was typical in the Hebrew Bible to attribute certain emotions and states of mind to God - for instance, see the hardening of Pharoah's heart in the matter of the Exodus.
One thing to bear in mind is that Chronicles is a much later re-telling of the history of Israel, a very concrete example of a biblical writer using previous biblical books and interpreting them in the light of his own ideology. This is called inner-biblical interpretation. Samuel is part of the Deuteronmistic History and is included in the Prophetic Section (Nevi'im) of the Hebrew Bible (which includes the historical books). The late books and miscellaneous writings were included in the section called Writings (Ketuvim). It was well-known how late the Chronicler was, which is why he ended up in the Ketuvim - and not as part of the main history. He had a decidedly pro-Davidic bent in his retelling of Israel's history, and I think this accounts for the change in the story you're talking about. David's character is mostly white-washed in Chronicles, for political reasons.
The Book of Samuel
A theological issue is raised when one sees that God incites David to sin in order to use it as a pretext to punish Israel. The Chronicler will resolve that in his account by using Satan. The sin is the census, which was never a good thing (though Deuteronomy allows census for military purposes) - the reasons for it's "badness" were: it was difficult, it was seen as an excuse for government taxation, it spread plague and epidemics, involved the "evil eye" in some cases, and was generally seen as bad in the ancient Near East, and not just in Israel.
The anger of Yahweh again flared up against Isarel;
and He incited David against them, saying,
"Go and number Israel and Judah."
(2nd Samuel 24:1, NJPS with DN inserted)
Even Joab, the ruthless general of David, is against the idea - but David persists and the census is carried out.
But afterward David reproached himself for having numbered the people. And David said to Yahweh,
"I have sinned grievously in what I have done. Please, O Yahweh, remit the guilt of Your servant, for I have acted foolishly."
(2nd Samuel 24:10)
Afterwards, the price of sin must be paid, and the "messenger of Yahweh" (typically, "angel" - though this is not a Hebrew term) brings a pestilence upon the people, which is finally stopped by Yahweh when he is about to destroy Jerusalem. Through a prophet, David is told to set up a high place on the threshing floor of Araunash the Jebusite - and this story becomes an etiological tale on why the Temple is later located in Jerusalem at that particular spot.
What many think, is that the "angel of Yahweh" is actually Yahweh himself (see Daniel McKellan's excellent thread here and my unfinished thread on the "Messenger of Yahweh" as Balaam's "satan" here, in which I am eventually driving at the identity of the Angel as Yahweh - if you take the Angle as Yahweh, then your idea that Yahweh can act as a "satan" is indeed tenable!) in the older texts of the Hebrew Bible and that over time, this idea became uncomfortable to later writers. Daniel provides compelling evidence that the earlier anthropomorphisms of Yahweh were soon sub-contracted out to God's "Messengers" - or Angels. One must always ask whether a later editor, writer has interpreted an earlier theophany of God as an Angel, instead.
The Book of Chronicles
In Samuel, David is not always portrayed in the best light. The Chronicler makes his best attempt at changing this state of affairs. The affair with Bathsheba is never even mentioned. In this account of the census, we no longer have "the satan", but we finally have "Satan" as an individual with evil intentions. Previously, his role had been one of the members of the Divine Council (again, see Job, or his appearance in Zecharaiah) - his job being to accuse the guilty to God. At this time of composition, the Chronicler would not have wanted to attribute any evil actions to God, and thus Satan is used.
Satan rose up against Israel by enticing David to count Israel.
(1st Chronicles 21:1, AB)
Noticeable differences in the account are present, with the identity of the "inciter" being the most obvious one. Again, Joab protests, David is insistent, the census is carried out, and
This thing was displeasing in the sight of God, so that he punished Israel.
Then David said to God, "I sinned greatly when I did this thing;
forgive me, now, I pray, the transgression of your servant, for I have acted foolishly."
(1st Chronicles 21:7-8)
Again, via the seer David is given a choice of what punishment to receive, the pestilence is brought, and David chooses to place himself at Yahweh's mercy, rather that at the mercy of his human enemies (one of the choices).
So Yahweh let loose a pestilence in Israel during which seventy thousand Israelites succumbed.
God also sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy it but when [he was about] to destroy (it), Yahweh looked upon it and changed his mind about the disaster [which he had threatened].
So he said to the destroying angel, "Enough now; stop."
The angel of Yahweh was standing just at the threshing floor of Ornan, the Jebusite. When David lifted up his eyes he saw the angel of Yahweh was standing between the earth and the heavens with the drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders covered themselves with sackcloth and fell down upon their faces.
(2nd Chronicles 21:14-16)
Again, with differing details, the plague is avertere by the construction of an altar to Yahweh:
The tabernacle which Moses had made in the desert together with the altar of burnt offering were at the high place at Gibeon at that time. But David could not go before it to consult God because he was terrified by the angel's sword.
David said, "This is the house of Yahweh God and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel."
(2nd Chronicles 21:29-22:1)
Conclusion
The phrase used of Satan in "rose up against" can also be translated as "to stand against", "bring to trial", "tempt", or "seek an occasion against" - hearkening back to the satan's previous role. The entire incident has a three-structured form: Census, Plague, Altar. For some reason, God was angry with the Israelites so he brings this series of calamaties upon them, but not in the Chronicles account, which refuse to picture God as being responsible for any evil (despite Isaiah's insistence that both good and evil came from God). There, Satan takes the rap. Thus the theological problem of Samuel is re-interpreted. Even within the Bible, we can see how tradition interprets past traditum (the written sources). Genesis was written well before Chronicles and the idea of a personal Satan - which is why the idea that the serpent in Genesis was the devil does not hold up to close scrutiny.
Chronicles must be read with a grain of salt, and it's political and ideological motivations taken into consideration, as well as it's theological views of God. The birth of blaming evil on a Satan figure was beginning. The issue of Theodicy was getting a new answer. An even newer answer to the theodicy problem would be the introduction of the idea of rewards or punishment in an afterlife, as hinted at in the book of Daniel (written around 150 BCm after Greek influence had sufficiently fertilized the idea into Jewish consciousness).
I hope that helps, and wasn't too long!
Whoppers, I appreciate your insight. ... Very nice and informative post. I only disagree with you on how the Chronicler was using the word “Satanâ€. I believe the Chronicler was consistently using the word “Satan†the same way it is used in other “Old Testament†texts. The Chronicler was saying ‘God’ was acting as the “Satan†in this particular instance. ‘God’ was the adversary. 'God' did the same to Job by bringing trials into his life, so that Job said about 'God': “You have turned cruel to me; with the might of your hand you persecute me. †(Job 30:21 NRSV).
I praise and thank the Lord Jesus for those He has chosen to save.
Your words are an encouragement to me in these chaotic posts.
Twin.spin, you say,
"...when God spoke what he did in Gen 3:15, that's all he (Satan) knew of the end result..... that he (Satan) was going to be defeated.
Satan did not know of Psalm 16 till it (Psalm 16) was spoken by God.
The point is that until God reveals his intentions or his word, it remains a hidden mystery."
If this is true, then why are there so many pagan gods who claim to have did the same things Jesus did? Lots of the Greek gods paralleled Jesus' life.
When were these pagan gods written about?
I mean how in the world did Greek Mythology come up with the things Jesus did before He did them?
I really believe Satan had to have known. No one else could come up with such an elaborate plan as this.
The word of God is quite clear that Satan and the demons are real. Satan is not an allegory. Neither is the Bible as a whole as you claim it to be. The longer you refuse to accept the truth the stronger your deception will become.
I think you fail to see that under demonic possession there is no such thing as free will.
To have free will one cannot have external interference.
If you accept that demons are real then you have to give up free will.
I think you fail to see that under demonic possession there is no such thing as free will.
To have free will one cannot have external interference.
If you accept that demons are real then you have to give up free will.
It is not about being able to make a choice without external influences. It is about being able to choose between alternatives given the existing circumstances. God gave man volition. Man has limited volition. With that volition man can respond to the gospel or resist it. With volition man can choose what to do with his life within the confines of the opportunites that are available to him. With his volition an unbeliever can choose to do things which invite demon possession, such as getting involved in occult activities.
The Bible is clear that man has volition and the Bible is clear that Satan and demons exist.
It is not about being able to make a choice without external influences. It is about being able to choose between alternatives given the existing circumstances. God gave man volition. Man has limited volition. With that volition man can respond to the gospel or resist it. With volition man can choose what to do with his life within the confines of the opportunites that are available to him. With his volition an unbeliever can choose to do things which invite demon possession, such as getting involved in occult activities.
The Bible is clear that man has volition and the Bible is clear that Satan and demons exist.
OK, I see your modification to your view.
Now you are saying that man has volition to either choose God or Satan.
Free will would be preserved as long as Satan does not manipulate man with demonic possession or any other form of influence. In other words Satan would only be relevant if MAN decided to seek Satan. Otherwise Satan could not influence MAN and there could not be a demonic possession. Is this correct?
Now you are saying that man has volition to either choose God or Satan.
Free will would be preserved as long as Satan does not manipulate man with demonic possession or any other form of influence. In other words Satan would only be relevant if MAN decided to seek Satan. Otherwise Satan could not influence MAN and there could not be a demonic possession. Is this correct?
I have made no modifications to anything that I have said. Man uses his volition to choose for or against God. There are only two plans of which man can be a part. God's plan, or Satan's plan. The choice is yours.
Last edited by Michael Way; 04-03-2012 at 06:07 PM..
Twin.spin, you say,
"...when God spoke what he did in Gen 3:15, that's all he (Satan) knew of the end result..... that he (Satan) was going to be defeated.
Satan did not know of Psalm 16 till it (Psalm 16) was spoken by God.
The point is that until God reveals his intentions or his word, it remains a hidden mystery."
If this is true, then why are there so many pagan gods who claim to have did the same things Jesus did? Lots of the Greek gods paralleled Jesus' life.
When were these pagan gods written about?
I mean how in the world did Greek Mythology come up with the things Jesus did before He did them?
I really believe Satan had to have known. No one else could come up with such an elaborate plan as this.
I don't know.
Thanks for your help.
I don't know what Greek Mythology you're speaking of that has the complexity of the Triune God while having Jesus being the Godman who set aside his Godhood and became human so that he could suffer death and offer salvation without cost to all who put their faith in him.
All other Greek Mythology gods (to my recollection) seem to know about one another... while God in Christianity knows of no other.
But that isn't to say Satan is dumb either...it is unwise for anybody to under estimate him. For we know that even the angels do not bring any charge against him, except for saying "The Lord rebuke you".
I have made no modifications to anything that I have said. Man uses his volition to choose for or against God. There are only two plans of which man can be a part. God's plan, or Satan's plan. The choice is yours.
Ok.
Then by your own definitions Satan cannot posses or influence MAN. Is this correct?
Then by your own definitions Satan cannot posses or influence MAN. Is this correct?
I didn't even remotely say or imply that. I've already shown the Scripture which says that Satan deceives the world, and I told you that you are either a part of God's plan or you are a part of Satan's plan. And Satan in fact indwelt Judas Iscariot (Luke 22:3).
I've spent enough time on this. This isn't really on topic anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
