Serpent is his name


Earl
 Share

Recommended Posts

In a previous thread I stated that Adam was not the first man.I stated I have written a paper  giving proof collected from the KJV.

During the discussions I was asked to share this paper so I will.The foregoing is condensed ,it is not the full paper.This  is being stated in the Christian section however Christianity use the same Bible ,the KJV but has yet to discover this I am about to show,as well as all other groups who use the Torah or KJV in their religion..

Title :Serpent Is His Name.

It goes as follows,the current written record that Adam was the first man is not true.The Jewish historians covered up the truth.The Torah which covers the history of man and his creation has been in the possession and has been maintained by the Jews since it was first inked into written form.Therefore it is by them  the creation story was modified to read Adam was the first man.

The Jewish historians however failed to cover up how they did it.They only trace their history back to Adam and stop.They left important pieces of the puzzle allowing their modified story to someday unfold the real truth.

They knew Serpent was a man.

There are two major points that seperate man from animal.

1--animals cannot worship,only man can know God.

2--Only man can hate,animals cannot

Do you know of any THING other than man that has the capacity to hate?

Gen.3.1 KJV ONLY

Uncovering Serpent's name.

"Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field."

Clarification

"Now Serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field."

Now we have his name

Sarpent is a man in that

1-speaks Eve's tounge

2-Knows how to manipulate

3-knows about God

4-Knew God's law

5-Capacity to hate-

Capacity to hate

Gen.3.15 KJV ONLY

"And I will put enmity (hatred) between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed"

Again, only human can hate

Define seed----descendants,offspring,progeny,family,ancestors and extended family 

So Serpent had family as well as Eve and both had hatred for the other's family.

For Serpent to born he had parents and his parents had parents.And seed implies Serpent had offspring.This is called seed and is called family.

Eve could only go foward with offspring or extended family 

Gen.4.14-This hatred is the reason why Cain was afraid to leave home.Someone ,he said may kill him.The hatred from Serpent's seed.

Beasts of the field

Serpent meets all the qualifications of a human man,just as Adam.He was however called a beast of the field,a racial slur to this people he was .The Jewish historians left a consistent pattern ,trail of racial slurs or disparaging names to people not of Adam's blood.

(The people who modified the creation story lived long ago.Those who they may be related to today should not be reflected upon)

Other variants of beast of the field are beast beasts beast of the Earth and brute beasts

Hebrew or other is not reliable in determining a quadraped or biped human.The historians made no distinction between the two , both were animals,beasts as they were called.

One must consider the content in the verse  and see if it is describing human or animal  actions,conduct ,etc.

I am going to stop here at this point to see if this much will post and will continue after that

 

Edited by Earl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This posted so I will continue.

References to man being called beasts.

Jer.12.9-17

v9-animals cannot know God

v17 a nation is called beasts

Num.31.11 possessions taken from beasts-spoils

Num.31.26 the sum of possessions taken from beasts.Beasts owned property

Ex.19.13  not a hand touch it,wether man or beast.Beasts have hands?

Deut.7.22-25 beasts of the field have kings and carvings of their gods

Jona 3.8 man and beast wear sac cloth and pray loud to God

Lev.20.16 At first it seems like immorality with animals howevertheir blood shall be upon them is a reference to breaking a law.Capitol punishment.What does an animal know about capitol punishment?

2 Pe.2.12-14 What animals have eyes full of adultry?

Isa.43.20 beasts of the field cannot worship to honor God unless they are man

Jer.31.27 The beasts will marry into the house of Israel and Judah.This will make many people half Jew

Ezek.36.11 beasts will increase and bring you fruit

Zech.8.10 how much would a beast charge for a day's work?

2Pe.2 12-14 beasts riot ,talk and deny God.Animals cannot know God

Yes there is more than these

To show there was racial slurs going on in Jesus's day

Mk.7.25-30 and Mt.15.21-29 "cast it unto the dogs"(Gentiles)

This "saying" was being used in Jesus's day.It reads he said a racial slur.He got tagged for saying it.If Jesus would have spoken this he too would be saying recist remarks.It is not his nature or God's.

A reply to Christians who know the Bible

Four points to consider

1-Some say Satan was in the garden manipulating Eve.Untrue.It specifically states Serpent is a beast of the field .And Satan if an angel Jesus said angels cannot reproduce therefore Satan does not have seed as Serpent does.

2-The Jewish historians traced their lineage back to Adam and stopped

3-Racial slurs covered up the existance of man and Serpent was a man

4-Only man can hate.This qualifies Serpent as a man who lived during Eve's life.Serpent had family .He could not be born without them

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl said:

Finished

Just going on a limb here.  But I take it that this is not typical of any evangelical Christian or any other protestant denomination's interpretation of Biblical references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@EarlHi Earl! Is there a particular point that you had in mind?

In the LDS faith, we believe in the Old and New Testament as far as they are translated correctly. We also believe that prophets ancient and modern received revelation from God. Consequently, we do not rely entirely on the interpretation of biblical script although we do see the Bible as being one of a number of sacred texts. We anticipate further revelation tomorrow and Sunday in General Conference. Why not join us? https://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @Earl, your paper is rad from the mainstream Christian perspective.  

From the LDS perspective it doesn’t make a difference because the LDS do not believe that Man is created out of nothing at birth.  Rather, we believe that Man is eternal and, therefore, existed before his body was created in Eden.

Therefore, from the LDS perspective, Adam is the first Man because he was the first to receive a mortal body, transitioning from his first estate of pre-mortal existence to his second estate of mortal existence.  Satan, on the other hand, rejected God in his first estate and rejected mortality although he continues to influence Man to reject God as he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

hi anatess2

I have read Moses 1.34

I have demonstrated there was man before Adam

God created man at Gen. 1.24 they were called ,by the Jewish historians ,beasts of the Earth

Man, like Serpent, was created earlier than Adam but the historians did not recognize them and called them beasts.

So this paper does affect Moses 1.34 in that he was not the first man regardless of pre mortal existence,as well as the Christians,Jews and others who use the Bible 

Thanks for your reply

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Earl said:

 

hi anatess2

I have read Moses 1.34

I have demonstrated there was man before Adam

God created man at Gen. 1.24 they were called ,by the Jewish historians ,beasts of the Earth

Man, like Serpent, was created earlier than Adam but the historians did not recognize them and called them beasts.

So this paper does affect Moses 1.34 in that he was not the first man regardless of pre mortal existence,as well as the Christians,Jews and others who use the Bible 

Thanks for your reply

 

 

Not applicable.  Beasts is not Man.  They are Beasts.  If they were Man, they’d be called by God as Man and subject to Act rather than be Acted Upon.

In any case, the LDS believe that the Bible is true when translated correctly.  For this we have prophets to aid us in translating or interpreting the meaning of scriptures.  All prophets have declared Adam as the first Man and the first prophet.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anatess2

My reply to your statement 

You did not say,from my previous post, if there were more than one Adam,a LDS Adam or Biblical Adam

So ,from my paper

Do you know of any THING other than man that has the capacity to hate?

This is an easy yes or no question

If your prophets were here I will ask them the same.Will they come?

Thanks for your reply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl said:

You did not say,from my previous post, if there were more than one Adam,a LDS Adam or Biblical Adam

According to LDS scripture, there is only one Adam.  He was the very first man on this earth.

1 hour ago, Earl said:

Do you know of any THING other than man that has the capacity to hate?

Yes.  All sentient life has the capacity to hate, depending on your definition and use of the word.  For example, an animal will have a great aversion to a master that beats it, therefore, it could be said that the animal hates its master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personO

But is the Adam you speak of the Adam of the Bible or the Adam of LDS

Definitions of hate is from Webster .

Do not you use it too?.

If animals can hate then can you prove it.

What do the scientist say?  Well, they cannot conclude I checked.Will you check too?

Then you say "it could be said that the animal hates it's master"-that is not conclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Earl said:

But is the Adam you speak of the Adam of the Bible or the Adam of LDS

Well, this might seem like i'm interrupting a conversation.  But this is directly related to the comment I made earlier.  We believe the LDS version of Adam is pretty much the same as the traditional Christian version of Adam.  But it would seem that your take on Adam is the one that is different.

If you disagree, please educate me.

Quote

Definitions of hate is from Webster .

Do not you use it too?.

If animals can hate then can you prove it.

Can you prove they can't?  Such a thing could go both ways.  Can you prove that devils (that are NOT the same class of creatures as mankind) cannot hate?

The real question is the central point that you're trying to take for granted.  Was the serpent a man or not?  If not, then obviously other things can hate.  But you're using circular logic to "prove" that because the serpent could hate, he was a human.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Carborendum

The LDS version of Adam is or is not the exact version of traditional Christianity ?You said "pretty much" which leads me to believe that the two are not .

Simply put ,do you know of any THING other than man that has the capacity to hate?

I do not know of anything other than man that has the capacity to hate. No one has come forward and showed evidence that animals has the capacity to hate.No animal  has came forward and demonstrated that it has the capacity to hate.Do you know of any? Just a yes or no will do.Not a "could be."

Another said ,as an example,"an animal will have a great aversion to a master that beats it,,therefore ,it could be said that the animal hates it's master"."Could be " is not an answer.But it is asserting knowledge of the matter which did not provided an answer or prove "could be",where a yes or no answer would have been just fine..

I am not on the end of proving the "can't".What suitable animal subject would you suggest I question?But all of this said so far is not answering my question.

It is a simple yes or no,end of story question and this has already had over 100 views and not a yes or a no answer.

At this point I believe the response will only grow and grow with out a simple answer  for a simple question which it is beginning to do.

For everyone who responded to this condensed paper,Serpent Is His Name, I wrote last year, thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Earl said:

Definitions of hate is from Webster .

Do not you use it too?.

I put an actual link to the Webster definition of 'hate' in my answer.  Apparently you did not click the link if you are asking me this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Earl said:

Hi Carborendum

The LDS version of Adam is or is not the exact version of traditional Christianity ?You said "pretty much" which leads me to believe that the two are not .

I think you've completely missed the purpose of my post.  I am NOT AT ALL trying to teach you anything about Mormon theology or our view of Adam.  I'm curious about how close or far YOU are from traditional Christianity.

Yes, I said "pretty much".  Of course there are some differences.  But they are minor.  Your version of Adam, however, is much different.   I'd say you're farther away from traditional Christianity than what LDS believe.  So, I'd bet that most traditional Christians don't agree with anything you've said.

And ironically, your version of Adam is actually closer to LDS Adam than traditional Adam.

Quote

Simply put ,do you know of any THING other than man that has the capacity to hate?

I've already said so.  Devils apparently do. 

Quote

I do not know of anything other than man that has the capacity to hate. No one has come forward and showed evidence that animals has the capacity to hate.No animal  has came forward and demonstrated that it has the capacity to hate.Do you know of any? Just a yes or no will do.Not a "could be."

I've already said so.  Devils apparently do. 

Quote

Another said ,as an example,"an animal will have a great aversion to a master that beats it,,therefore ,it could be said that the animal hates it's master"."Could be " is not an answer.But it is asserting knowledge of the matter which did not provided an answer or prove "could be",where a yes or no answer would have been just fine..

And you're asserting an answer with an assumed basis with no proof either.  And it is going against at least 2500 years of combined traditional Jewish and Christian thought. 

I'm not trying to convince you that Mormons are right about anything here.  What I'm pointing out is that you're going against many other mainstream Christians with your position.  And I'm just curious what your basis is.  Your logic is riddled with assumptions that have no basis as well as non-sequiturs.

Quote

I am not on the end of proving the "can't".What suitable animal subject would you suggest I question?But all of this said so far is not answering my question.

Devils apparently do. 

Quote

It is a simple yes or no,end of story question and this has already had over 100 views and not a yes or a no answer.

Yes.  Devils apparently do.

And the 100 views could just be 25 people (most of which are lurkers who never post anyway) who have each viewed this 4 or 5 times.

Quote

At this point I believe the response will only grow and grow with out a simple answer  for a simple question which it is beginning to do.

Do you not know what circular logic is?  Do you not see how that is exactly what you've done?

I've answered your question multiple times.  Now it's your turn to answer mine.  No dodging.  Just answer the question.  Are you aware of your own circular logic?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2018 at 7:54 AM, Earl said:

anatess2

Unless there is more than one Adam.,the LDS Adam or the Biblical Adam

There's one Adam.  He is the same Adam in LDS reference as well as Christian reference. 

But how he becomes the First Man has a slightly different nuance in LDS understanding from the mainstream Christian understanding as follows:

1.)  In LDS understanding, Man's consciousness is eternal in the same manner that God's is.  God created for these consciousness something that it can act upon - the body.  When LDS say Adam is the First Man, that means to say that Adam is the first consciousness that God created a body for.  Therefore, your position that Adam was not the First Man because Satan (the Serpent) was the First Man before him is not correct.  Adam and Satan existed as eternal beings.  God created a body for Adam which He did not do for Satan due to Satan's rebellion.  Adam, therefore, is the First Man.  Satan can talk to and influence Adam just like he did as a serpent in Eden.  But, Adam is the First of the beings of consciousness to have gone through the Plan of Salvation, receiving a body to act upon, by which all mankind progresses through to attain joy.

2.)  In mainstream Christian understanding, Man is a different "species" than Devils and Angels.  Devils have the capacity to hate just like Angels have the capacity to love.  Adam is the First Man.  The Serpent is not Man - he is a Devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've already said so.  Devils apparently do. 

Technically angels too right, since I mean, even traditional Christians believe Lucifer is a fallen angel.  Theoretically they would have to accept that other angels could potentially hate God and fall also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, person0 said:

Technically angels too right, since I mean, even traditional Christians believe Lucifer is a fallen angel.  Theoretically they would have to accept that other angels could potentially hate God and fall also.

Well... technically no.  They are the same beings yes, but those who act with benevolence are Angels, those who act with malevolence are Devils.  So, technically, Angels can't hate God because then they'd stop being Angels and become Devils.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, technically, Angels can't hate God because then they'd stop being Angels and become Devils.

If they actually did it, yes, I agree.  But in order to do it they would have to have the capacity for it all along.  I think @Earl's question was specifically about capacity, not actual experience/event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Earl, Since this is your thread and it's in the Christian beliefs forum, I'm not so interested in challenge what you've presented, but I would like some clarification because I may have heard a variation of your ideas before. To see if it is, could you answer the following? Was Cain the son of Serpent?

Additionally, I'd like to know if this is a common model either in mainline Christianity or in your particular denomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share