Evidence for God from Science

We lost a lot of information because of manipulated translations.

Do you have special expertise? Or are you just "poisoning the well"?

With regard to the New Testament, a "manipulated translations" conspiracy is ludicrously impossible. There are well over 11 million people in the world who could easily expose any such "manipulated translations", starting with the ~11.28M citizens of Greece. So, what's the next step deeper into this Translation-Truth rabbit hole? Is it a cake labelled, "Eat me"? Or a vial labelled, "Drink me"?

jerzy wrote:1over137

Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you but wanted to provide a bit more of information on the subject.

While most of the Christians never read the entire Bible through many of the pulpit man are ignorant or preach false doctrines deliberately to conform to what people want.

Really? You know "most of the Christians" in the world, and what they have or have not read? I've read the entire Bible, Genesis through Revelation, multiple times, including finishing such a read-through last evening. And that does not include the many times I've read sections or books of the Old or New Testament. I know, personally, that I am far from unique. And you know "many" pastors and preachers, their educations, and their intentions behind what they preach and teach?

You cannot be serious! You're posting inflammatory absurdities!

PaulSacramento

You said; “esus, the son of God, the incarnate Word of God states that HE SAW satan fall from heaven.
If that does NOT mean that satan is a fallen angel, what does it mean?
Who else is in heaven but angels and God ?”

My dear friend.

1. The text doesn’t state that Jesus saw an angel Satan fall. It states that he saw Satan fall. You just added to God’s word.
2. The word rendered as heaven has few meanings.
3. You might be unaware of the way of speech applied in the Bible. Since you didn’t really know but asked me this is my answer. Please compare your text with this one: “…cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel…” Lam 2:1. Was Israel’s buty in heaven?

So you don’t have a text stating that Satan is a fallen angel but merely adding to God’s word to justify your theology.

Besides, you could spend more time on paying attention to what the texts you are pointing to really state instead of lashing at me.

Threatening to ban me because you cannot find proof of your theology is a lame thing to do. The Trinitarians used to burn on stacks such heretics like me pointing to God’s word.

RickD
You said: “It's in Luke 10:18
And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.”

No, it is not. Jesus didn’t say that Satan is a fallen angel.

Please see my post above.

Jerzy, proof texting is the worst way you can read the scriptures.

B.W.

You said: “Next, Ezekiel 28:12,13, 14 describes satan as a Cherub and Genesis describes him as a serpent and in Isaiah 14:12 describes him as the shinning one. Job mentions a name,”

I am so sorry to disappoint you my friend. Both of your statements are false. Neither of the texts mentions or refers to Satan. If you bother reading Isa 14 from the beginning you would have noticed that the prophet foretells fall of the king of Babylon, the prophecy delivered by other prophet & declared fulfilled.

Ezekiel, in turn, prophesized the fall of king of Tyre in chapter 28. You need to find out what King Solomon’s relationship with the king of Tyre was in reference to construction of the Temple, who Hiram was, what the king was offered upon completion of the Temple and what he did with it.

Please don’t come up with either of those texts as proof because you need a statement that Satan is a fallen angel in the first place to even consider substituting the prophecy about fall of those two kings with fall of Satan.

You said: “Jesus said this in Luke 10:18, "And He (Jesus) said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning." This means, Jesus is divine and preexisted when the rebellion happened. This rebellion is mentioned in Rev 12:7,8, 9 read below...’

Unfortunately none is true as I explained in my post to PaulSacramento above.

Besides, you made a false statement based on theology not on God's word. Bible doesn’t mention that Jesus didn’t pre-exist except in God’s prophecies.

If you paid attention to 2Sam 7:12 prophecy of genesis of Jesus and found declared fulfilled in Ac 2:30 and 13:23 you wouldn’t have to draw rely on man-made stories you call theology.

You said: “This rebellion is mentioned in Rev 12:7,8, 9”

Wow!!!
Once again you failed to read a (symbolic) chapter from the beginning. You didn’t bother to find out from Dan 7 and Re 17 that the heads and horns depict kings or kingdoms. Thus the great red dragon of Re 12:3 (the little horn of Da7) who destroyed 3 out of ten states of fallen (476) Roman kingdom (Wandals, Herulis and Ostrogoth) that old serpent, called (not being) the Devil, and Satan was cast in Re 12:9.

Although Re 12:9 can be molested to account for the Christian stupid idol supposed fallen angel Satan theoloogy one has to know the Bible and speak as it is written instead of peddling man-made fables.

Youu said: “That is basic Theology 101.
Something the most that have truly studied the bible can see and know.”

Well, if you really studied the Bible instead peddling the man-made stories you call theology you would have know it better, my friend.

The conclusion.

Neither you nor your friends here have any idea what God really says in His word. You simply follow man-made story not God's word.

PeteSinCA

You asked: “Do you have special expertise? Or are you just "poisoning the well"?”

Please hold your horses my friend.

You cannot show a text stating that Satan is a fallen angel, can you?
You cannot dispute that Peter was Satan, can you?

Conclusion.

Satan is not a fallen angel. God didn’t mention this to His chosen nation.

Christians developed many pagan flavoured stories called theologies. One of those stories was adopted from the old Egyptian bad god Sat belief with a little spin. The spin is a fallen angel.

PeteSinCA

You said: “You cannot be serious! You're posting inflammatory absurdities!”

Since when a Christian considers God’s word “inflammatory absurdities”?

Did I say anything from my own “interpretation”?
Don’t I keep asking for texts from Good’s word?
Is it my problem that Christians cannot point to texts but offer man-made stories called theology instead?

You said: “I've read the entire Bible, Genesis through Revelation, multiple times… "many" pastors and preachers, their educations, and their intentions behind what they preach and teach?”

One think you are not doing is forgetting what those pastors/preachers educated by theologians preach but listen to what God says and ask Him for gift of knowledge.

I spoke not only to those educated pastors and preachers but to docs and profs of theology. Some were honest to say: people think that by studying theology we really study the Bible”.

So the ball is back at your court, my friend.

Please point to a text stating that Satan is a fallen angel opposing God, tempting, killing and destroying. Begin from the OT, if you don’t mind.

Please explain why you reject probably 50% or more of the OT records of God’s killing, destruction, setting wicket against evil people/nations.

Lastly, why you, following the man-made stories or theologies believe that God lied about His power, authority, acts of killings and destructions?

neo-x

You said: “Jerzy, proof texting is the worst way you can read the scriptures.”

I don’t think you understand the difference between proof texting and my asking for proof texts.

Proof texting is building a theology and then trying to find traction in some texts which people explain what they should mean.

My asking for proof texts is in line with God’s commandment that man is not allowed to remove or add an iota to His word. Thus, unless it is written exactly it is not God’s word but molested text or proof texting to account for the man-made stories about God’s word.

Further, we know now about forced or deliberate additions and manipulations of some texts.

Well, that’s how much the Christian theologists and interpreters have turned their back on God’s word.

jerzy wrote:neo-x

You said: “Jerzy, proof texting is the worst way you can read the scriptures.”

I don’t think you understand the difference between proof texting and my asking for proof texts.

Proof texting is building a theology and then trying to find traction in some texts which people explain what they should mean.

My asking for proof texts is in line with God’s commandment that man is not allowed to remove or add an iota to His word. Thus, unless it is written exactly it is not God’s word but molested text or proof texting to account for the man-made stories about God’s word.

Further, we know now about forced or deliberate additions and manipulations of some texts.

Well, that’s how much the Christian theologists and interpreters have turned their back on God’s word.

I think you are on a one way trip to the ban-hammer, and that very soon, given that you already have received warnings and you still are on the warpath. I'd say calm down but from experience I doubt you'd take it seriously. Discussion is fine, borderline trolling, which you are actually doing is not.

But to take your post aka feeding the troll (I am hoping against hope that you will listen), I think its pointless to ask for such and such texts because we also know that we have lost text too, pauls epistles etc. Which simply means what we already have isn't the FULL COMPLETE PICTURE in its entirety, but hopefully its is enough to get us going and be saved.

The point that is apparently flying over your head, is that what you are saying is nothing new at all. Furthermore we do know of such "additions" take mark 16:16 or John 8 for example, but how does that equal "molestation of the text", is beyond me as long as the overall theological arch of the purpose of the said text remains the same?

So you need to show how the "molestation" happened, and you need to do it with evidence. Show me how does this changes the theological message first.

I think God has 3 eyes and tear ducts, prove me wrong without using the "molested text" please.

neo-x

You said: “borderline trolling, which you are actually doing is not.”

Since when asking for proof texts (as commanded) instead of man-made stories is called trolling?

You said: “Which simply means what we already have isn't the FULL COMPLETE PICTURE in its entirety, but hopefully its is enough to get us going and be saved.”

Why then keep meddling with what we have?

You said: “So you need to show how the "molestation" happened, and you need to do it with evidence. Show me how does this changes the theological message first.’

Let me mention the three heavenly witnesses of 1Jn 5:7. I suppose you are familiar with how it was added. Aren’t you using it as proof of a Trinity God?

What about few texts like Jn 20:28 whereby rendered multiple meaning word in our Bibles doesn’t conform to, say, to Lu 1:32 but contradicts sharply the over Biblical context and the immediate context whereby the eternal life is subject to knowing the Father the only true God and the man-servant, the Messiah whom He sent.

It follows that those acknowledging existence of two more God’s besides the Father the only true God have no required knowledge.

jerzy wrote:PaulSacramento

You said; “esus, the son of God, the incarnate Word of God states that HE SAW satan fall from heaven.
If that does NOT mean that satan is a fallen angel, what does it mean?
Who else is in heaven but angels and God ?”

My dear friend.

1. The text doesn’t state that Jesus saw an angel Satan fall. It states that he saw Satan fall. You just added to God’s word.
2. The word rendered as heaven has few meanings.
3. You might be unaware of the way of speech applied in the Bible. Since you didn’t really know but asked me this is my answer. Please compare your text with this one: “…cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel…” Lam 2:1. Was Israel’s buty in heaven?

So you don’t have a text stating that Satan is a fallen angel but merely adding to God’s word to justify your theology.

Besides, you could spend more time on paying attention to what the texts you are pointing to really state instead of lashing at me.

Threatening to ban me because you cannot find proof of your theology is a lame thing to do. The Trinitarians used to burn on stacks such heretics like me pointing to God’s word.

If Satan was in heaven and he was NOT an angel like you claim, who and what was he?
I don't threaten, I simply warn.

One think you are not doing is forgetting what those pastors/preachers educated by theologians preach but listen to what God says and ask Him for gift of knowledge.

I spoke not only to those educated pastors and preachers but to docs and profs of theology. Some were honest to say: people think that by studying theology we really study the Bible”.

So the ball is back at your court, my friend.

Please point to a text stating that Satan is a fallen angel opposing God, tempting, killing and destroying. Begin from the OT, if you don’t mind.

I've simply responded to ad hominem claims you've posted, jerzy. Others have responded concerning Satan quite ably, so I won't repeat their efforts. That you can't/won't recognize the import of their responses is not my concern, either. You've made some ad hominem claims regarding pastors and other teachers; I've pointed out that your ad hominem attacks are intrinsically absurd, absurdity that reflects on the overall credibility of what you post. BTW, the first two paragraphs of what I quoted are less than intelligible. Did you start your sentences one way and end them another? The "ball" and "court" look to me more like a treadmill.

The arrogance in your posts, the absurd ad hominem, and the well-poisoning all persuade me that you are something quite other than what you represent yourself to be, jerzy. My habit in discussions such as this is to draw people out, let them show what they are. Your refusal to back your claims and dodging questions arising from your posts demonstrates to me quite clearly that you are not here for serious discussion. Not that I have any official authority here.

PaulSacramento

You said: “If Satan was in heaven and he was NOT an angel like you claim, who and what was he?”
1. If the beauty of Israel was in heaven and it wasn’t an angel who/what was it? What beauty Jesus meant?
2. What Jesus meant by Heaven if not elevation of the Jewish authority?
3. Who was the great red dragon of Re 12:3 who was cast?
4. Where exactly he was cast from? Wasn’t he cast from the position of authority, the Temple and the country in the year 70 AD?
5. Don’t you remember Jesus warning Israel about this?

jerzy wrote:PaulSacramento

You said: “If Satan was in heaven and he was NOT an angel like you claim, who and what was he?”
1. If the beauty of Israel was in heaven and it wasn’t an angel who/what was it? What beauty Jesus meant?
2. What Jesus meant by Heaven if not elevation of the Jewish authority?
3. Who was the great red dragon of Re 12:3 who was cast?
4. Where exactly he was cast from? Wasn’t he cast from the position of authority, the Temple and the country in the year 70 AD?
5. Don’t you remember Jesus warning Israel about this?

I asked a simple question, please answer.

If satan was NOT an angel, what was he and what was he doing in Heaven?
How do you address Job in this regard?