Total Posts:179|Showing Posts:151-179|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Was Man Made?

annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:22:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:15:56 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

There are many reasons why snakes may not have any need to "eat dust" when the earth is returned to the Paradise the Garden of Eden was.

The passage, according to you, DESCRIBES the paradise earth state. That's the time that you claim it depicts. And here are a few of the characteristics:

(1) "They shall not build, and another inhabit"

Yes, and your problem with that is?

(2) "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together"

Considering that they are going to be returned to their original vegetarian diet, why would that be a problem?

(3) "The lion shall eat straw like the ox"

That's what they ate before the flood, as scripture tells us.

(4) "Dust shall be the serpent"s food"

That is as you know a mistranslation, it has to be, because though snakes have eaten dust since the curse, it has never been their food, just a side effect of spending so much time on their bellies in desolate places.

I still believe their pre-curse life was almost purely arboreal, plus of course in the Garden of Eden there were no desolate places for dust to be found in in any quantity.

Since, by the time the earth has been restored to what it was originally intended to be there will be no desolate places anywhere on the globe, "eating dust" will be easy to avoid.


When do the preceding four points occur? Paradise earth, according to you. What will the serpent be eating then? Dust, according to the passage. What does it eat now? Dust. Why? The curse. Therefore, according to your own illogical logic, the serpent will be eating the SAME THING in the future that it is now. But that's not what it always ate, is it? Of course not. "Eating dust" was a part of the curse, the punishment.

You really don't think things through to any depth o you Anna. All of your questions about the snake should have been very easy for you to answer for yourself with a little thought and a little knowledge of how snakes actually live eventoday.

No Anna it will not be the same in the future for the serpent, snake, whichever you wish to use., and I have explained enough times why now.

You haven't explained it at all, but you'll be forced into it. Since you whine that you are constantly being misrepresented, tell us the basics:

(1) What would you assume that the snake ate before the curse

(2) What does the snake eat now, typically?

(3) What will the snake eat on paradise earth?

(4) Where will be snake possibly dwell on paradise earth?

(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

No Anna it will not be the same in the future for the serpent, snake, whichever you wish to use., and I have explained enough times why now.

You haven't explained it at all, but you'll be forced into it. Since you whine that you are constantly being misrepresented, tell us the basics:

Yes I have.


(1) What would you assume that the snake ate before the curse

I don;t assume anything, other than what scripture says, and scripture says that everything on the earth ate vegetation right up to the flood.


(2) What does the snake eat now, typically?

That varies from snake to snake obviously, but everything from small invertebrates to medium-to-large sized animals.

After all some snakes as as small as your little finger, and then we have the Anaconda.


(3) What will the snake eat on paradise earth?

Like everything else it will be returned to eating vegetation.


(4) Where will be snake possibly dwell on paradise earth?

Wherever it wants to, but in all probably it will be mainly arboreal.


(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

However considering the poor quality of most translations I do not intend to assume anything, I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there.

I would offer to show you then but unless you change your thinking you won't be there.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 11:34:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

No Anna it will not be the same in the future for the serpent, snake, whichever you wish to use., and I have explained enough times why now.

You haven't explained it at all, but you'll be forced into it. Since you whine that you are constantly being misrepresented, tell us the basics:

Yes I have.


(1) What would you assume that the snake ate before the curse

I don;t assume anything, other than what scripture says, and scripture says that everything on the earth ate vegetation right up to the flood.


(2) What does the snake eat now, typically?

That varies from snake to snake obviously, but everything from small invertebrates to medium-to-large sized animals.

After all some snakes as as small as your little finger, and then we have the Anaconda.


(3) What will the snake eat on paradise earth?

Like everything else it will be returned to eating vegetation.


(4) Where will be snake possibly dwell on paradise earth?

Wherever it wants to, but in all probably it will be mainly arboreal.


(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

So your position is that on this proposed Paradise earth, all things will be returned to as they were prior to Adam's fall - with the exception of the serpent. The serpent will apparently be the only predator left on earth, which leaves it at a decided advantage.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

However considering the poor quality of most translations I do not intend to assume anything, I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there.

"I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there" = "I have no explanation for a portion of a passage that so thoroughly contradicts my entire scheme of things."

You have repeatedly informed us, erroneously of course, that all of creation would one day be returned to its pristine and original and perfect state, as God created it. You told us that nothing, no nothing, could thwart "God's plan". And on and on and on you've rambled about it.

NOW we come to find out that the entire scheme is thwarted by the lowly snake. God's plan was never for it to crawl on its belly and eat dust, was it? After all, that's not how He created it. NOW you come along and opine, "It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted" - a flat-out contradiction of what you've said in the past.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 5:18:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

However considering the poor quality of most translations I do not intend to assume anything, I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there.

"I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there" = "I have no explanation for a portion of a passage that so thoroughly contradicts my entire scheme of things."

You have repeatedly informed us, erroneously of course, that all of creation would one day be returned to its pristine and original and perfect state, as God created it. You told us that nothing, no nothing, could thwart "God's plan". And on and on and on you've rambled about it.

NOW we come to find out that the entire scheme is thwarted by the lowly snake. God's plan was never for it to crawl on its belly and eat dust, was it? After all, that's not how He created it. NOW you come along and opine, "It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted" - a flat-out contradiction of what you've said in the past.
And remember he only teaches what scripture teaches...........................................and all the madman crap he spews.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 6:18:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 5:18:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

However considering the poor quality of most translations I do not intend to assume anything, I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there.

"I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there" = "I have no explanation for a portion of a passage that so thoroughly contradicts my entire scheme of things."

You have repeatedly informed us, erroneously of course, that all of creation would one day be returned to its pristine and original and perfect state, as God created it. You told us that nothing, no nothing, could thwart "God's plan". And on and on and on you've rambled about it.

NOW we come to find out that the entire scheme is thwarted by the lowly snake. God's plan was never for it to crawl on its belly and eat dust, was it? After all, that's not how He created it. NOW you come along and opine, "It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted" - a flat-out contradiction of what you've said in the past.
And remember he only teaches what scripture teaches...........................................and all the madman crap he spews.

Like his mentors up in Brooklyn, he makes it up as he goes. First of all, he claimed that all of creation would be restored to whatever state in which they existed prior to Adam's sin. Remember that? "God's original creation will be restored, and His original plan will not be thwarted." Oops! Now he's discovered that the serpent apparently ain't gonna make the cut. No, all the snakes are gonna be left slithering along, accidentally ingesting dust. So on this proposed Paradise Earth, we are now dealing with X minus 1. Or X minus 2. Or X minus 10,000. He doesn't know.

This begs the question: if God leaves the snake out of this miraculous return to its former state, what all else gets left out?

Yet another reason that his (and the BotchTower's) "Paradise on Earth" theories are pure poppycock.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 6:16:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

However considering the poor quality of most translations I do not intend to assume anything, I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there.

"I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there" = "I have no explanation for a portion of a passage that so thoroughly contradicts my entire scheme of things."

You have repeatedly informed us, erroneously of course, that all of creation would one day be returned to its pristine and original and perfect state, as God created it. You told us that nothing, no nothing, could thwart "God's plan". And on and on and on you've rambled about it.

Nothing erroneous about it, it is what scripture promises and what scripture promises will be. Simple as.


NOW we come to find out that the entire scheme is thwarted by the lowly snake. God's plan was never for it to crawl on its belly and eat dust, was it? After all, that's not how He created it. NOW you come along and opine, "It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted" - a flat-out contradiction of what you've said in the past.

How can an appearance be a contradiction. I didn't say that it did contradict anything, just that worded as it there is, accurate or not, it gives that impression. I could say nothing else, since that is true. However, appearances can be deceptive, especially when Apostate translators have been at work.

Again you indulge in your favourite pastime of twisting what is said.

No we find nothing of the sort, we simply are not given that much detail.

There is much that scripture doesn't, cannot tell us. It would be far too big and unwieldy if it did.

However you can continue to mock God's word and his promises all you like, they will succeed despite all you can do.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 6:19:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2016 11:34:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

No Anna it will not be the same in the future for the serpent, snake, whichever you wish to use., and I have explained enough times why now.

You haven't explained it at all, but you'll be forced into it. Since you whine that you are constantly being misrepresented, tell us the basics:

Yes I have.


(1) What would you assume that the snake ate before the curse

I don;t assume anything, other than what scripture says, and scripture says that everything on the earth ate vegetation right up to the flood.


(2) What does the snake eat now, typically?

That varies from snake to snake obviously, but everything from small invertebrates to medium-to-large sized animals.

After all some snakes as as small as your little finger, and then we have the Anaconda.


(3) What will the snake eat on paradise earth?

Like everything else it will be returned to eating vegetation.


(4) Where will be snake possibly dwell on paradise earth?

Wherever it wants to, but in all probably it will be mainly arboreal.


(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

So your position is that on this proposed Paradise earth, all things will be returned to as they were prior to Adam's fall - with the exception of the serpent. The serpent will apparently be the only predator left on earth, which leaves it at a decided advantage.

No that s not my position at all.

My position is that scripture does not make that clear and therefore we will have to wait and see.

Whether that lack of clarity is intentional, or the work of apostate translators I cannot at this point say with any certainty. If I could, I would.

However don;t forget that Satan and his demons aren't going to be returned to their pre-fall state, since they will be destroyed.

So who is to say what the poor abused serpent will be. ONly Jehovah knows and at present he isn't telling.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 6:19:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 6:16:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

However considering the poor quality of most translations I do not intend to assume anything, I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there.

"I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there" = "I have no explanation for a portion of a passage that so thoroughly contradicts my entire scheme of things."

You have repeatedly informed us, erroneously of course, that all of creation would one day be returned to its pristine and original and perfect state, as God created it. You told us that nothing, no nothing, could thwart "God's plan". And on and on and on you've rambled about it.

Nothing erroneous about it, it is what scripture promises and what scripture promises will be. Simple as.



NOW we come to find out that the entire scheme is thwarted by the lowly snake. God's plan was never for it to crawl on its belly and eat dust, was it? After all, that's not how He created it. NOW you come along and opine, "It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted" - a flat-out contradiction of what you've said in the past.

How can an appearance be a contradiction. I didn't say that it did contradict anything, just that worded as it there is, accurate or not, it gives that impression. I could say nothing else, since that is true. However, appearances can be deceptive, especially when Apostate translators have been at work.

Again you indulge in your favourite pastime of twisting what is said.

Well, I sure don't want to twist anything you've said. For all I know, I might twist it so much that it becomes accurate. Thus I'm content to leave it just as you said it.

For the record, we have the passage:

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

EXACTLY what time period is this passage describing? Is it not the supposed post-Armageddon Paradise here on earth when all things are supposedly restored to exactly how God created them?
Omniverse
Posts: 1,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 6:24:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 6:49:25 AM, Willows wrote:
There have been many detailed books written on how mankind evolved through a process of evolution.
If mankind was created by God could someone please explain what processes God used?

They cannot.
They merely believe whatever their Holy Book of choice tells them.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 6:28:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 6:19:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:34:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

No Anna it will not be the same in the future for the serpent, snake, whichever you wish to use., and I have explained enough times why now.

You haven't explained it at all, but you'll be forced into it. Since you whine that you are constantly being misrepresented, tell us the basics:

Yes I have.


(1) What would you assume that the snake ate before the curse

I don;t assume anything, other than what scripture says, and scripture says that everything on the earth ate vegetation right up to the flood.


(2) What does the snake eat now, typically?

That varies from snake to snake obviously, but everything from small invertebrates to medium-to-large sized animals.

After all some snakes as as small as your little finger, and then we have the Anaconda.


(3) What will the snake eat on paradise earth?

Like everything else it will be returned to eating vegetation.


(4) Where will be snake possibly dwell on paradise earth?

Wherever it wants to, but in all probably it will be mainly arboreal.


(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

So your position is that on this proposed Paradise earth, all things will be returned to as they were prior to Adam's fall - with the exception of the serpent. The serpent will apparently be the only predator left on earth, which leaves it at a decided advantage.

No that s not my position at all.

My position is that scripture does not make that clear and therefore we will have to wait and see.

Scripture makes PLENTY clear the condition of the snake. "Dust shall be the serpent"s food." You've theorized that snakes originally dwelt in trees. Thus we have a case in which an entity or object is NOT returned to its status in God's original plan. But you've said that God's original plan will not be - cannot be changed or thwarted in the least.

You have no explanation. Something isn't working out for you, or else some of the stuff you've spewed was incorrect to start with.

God has cursed Canaan, certain land, certain enemies of His people, and many other things. And He cursed the serpent. For all you know, NONE of the preceding entities will be returned to their pre-fall state. After all, you just make it up as you go.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 7:02:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 6:28:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:19:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:34:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

No Anna it will not be the same in the future for the serpent, snake, whichever you wish to use., and I have explained enough times why now.

You haven't explained it at all, but you'll be forced into it. Since you whine that you are constantly being misrepresented, tell us the basics:

Yes I have.


(1) What would you assume that the snake ate before the curse

I don;t assume anything, other than what scripture says, and scripture says that everything on the earth ate vegetation right up to the flood.


(2) What does the snake eat now, typically?

That varies from snake to snake obviously, but everything from small invertebrates to medium-to-large sized animals.

After all some snakes as as small as your little finger, and then we have the Anaconda.


(3) What will the snake eat on paradise earth?

Like everything else it will be returned to eating vegetation.


(4) Where will be snake possibly dwell on paradise earth?

Wherever it wants to, but in all probably it will be mainly arboreal.


(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

So your position is that on this proposed Paradise earth, all things will be returned to as they were prior to Adam's fall - with the exception of the serpent. The serpent will apparently be the only predator left on earth, which leaves it at a decided advantage.

No that s not my position at all.

My position is that scripture does not make that clear and therefore we will have to wait and see.

Scripture makes PLENTY clear the condition of the snake. "Dust shall be the serpent"s food." You've theorized that snakes originally dwelt in trees. Thus we have a case in which an entity or object is NOT returned to its status in God's original plan. But you've said that God's original plan will not be - cannot be changed or thwarted in the least.

How is that making it clear when it is stating an impossibility.

There is no way that snake will ever get it's nourishment from dust, even for God that is simply not a practical proposition, and no-one is more practical in his outlook and actions than Jehovah.

No it is just another way of repeating the curse put on the serpent in the GArden which it has suffered with from that day forth.


You have no explanation. Something isn't working out for you, or else some of the stuff you've spewed was incorrect to start with.

I can only have an explanation where scripture gives me one.

Unlike you I do not spin them out of fresh air.


God has cursed Canaan, certain land, certain enemies of His people, and many other things. And He cursed the serpent. For all you know, NONE of the preceding entities will be returned to their pre-fall state. After all, you just make it up as you go.

The earth will definitely be returned to it's pre-fall state, scripture makes that clear especially since there is no other way the abundance of food can be achieved.

It was Canaan the grandson of Noah who was cursed for his disrespect to Noah, not the land of Canaan. It only got that name because Canaan's descendants settled there.

In fact Jehovah cursed the whole of the earth, which reduced it's productivity greatly and made growing food much harder work for mankind.

No Anna whilst it is true that there is too much we do not know about the pre-fall state of the serpent, which may not even existed until Satan brought it into being for all we know. Unlikely but possible. He was, after all, a powerful cherub, with power very close to that of Jehovah's only begotten son, before Jehovah was forced to restrict his power to prevent his destroying humans directly. Who knows what he was capable of.

Sorry Anna but for the conditions of prophecy to be fulfilled, everything with the possible, but not definite, exception of the serpent, will be, has to be, returned to it's pre-fall state.

It won't work any other way.

Interestingly the story of Noah and the Ark shows that animals had not cried far from the original kinds at that point so will only those basic kinds survive Armageddon?

It is highly likely that the answer is yes, but we are not told exactly.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 7:06:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 6:19:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:16:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

However considering the poor quality of most translations I do not intend to assume anything, I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there.

"I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there" = "I have no explanation for a portion of a passage that so thoroughly contradicts my entire scheme of things."

You have repeatedly informed us, erroneously of course, that all of creation would one day be returned to its pristine and original and perfect state, as God created it. You told us that nothing, no nothing, could thwart "God's plan". And on and on and on you've rambled about it.

Nothing erroneous about it, it is what scripture promises and what scripture promises will be. Simple as.



NOW we come to find out that the entire scheme is thwarted by the lowly snake. God's plan was never for it to crawl on its belly and eat dust, was it? After all, that's not how He created it. NOW you come along and opine, "It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted" - a flat-out contradiction of what you've said in the past.

How can an appearance be a contradiction. I didn't say that it did contradict anything, just that worded as it there is, accurate or not, it gives that impression. I could say nothing else, since that is true. However, appearances can be deceptive, especially when Apostate translators have been at work.

Again you indulge in your favourite pastime of twisting what is said.

Well, I sure don't want to twist anything you've said. For all I know, I might twist it so much that it becomes accurate. Thus I'm content to leave it just as you said it.

No?

Then why do you insist on doing it?


For the record, we have the passage:

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

EXACTLY what time period is this passage describing? Is it not the supposed post-Armageddon Paradise here on earth when all things are supposedly restored to exactly how God created them?

The whole of that prophecy, including that verse, is speaking of the return to the original plan as I have said before.

The wording about the snake is not only dubious but impossible, but hnts that snakes will remain as they are.

However only Jehovah knows the truth of that, and he will reveal it in his own time. I do not intend to move too far ahead of his timing, no matter how much you practice your usual bullying tactics to get me to.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 8:14:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 7:02:44 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:28:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:19:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:34:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

No Anna it will not be the same in the future for the serpent, snake, whichever you wish to use., and I have explained enough times why now.

You haven't explained it at all, but you'll be forced into it. Since you whine that you are constantly being misrepresented, tell us the basics:

Yes I have.


(1) What would you assume that the snake ate before the curse

I don;t assume anything, other than what scripture says, and scripture says that everything on the earth ate vegetation right up to the flood.


(2) What does the snake eat now, typically?

That varies from snake to snake obviously, but everything from small invertebrates to medium-to-large sized animals.

After all some snakes as as small as your little finger, and then we have the Anaconda.


(3) What will the snake eat on paradise earth?

Like everything else it will be returned to eating vegetation.


(4) Where will be snake possibly dwell on paradise earth?

Wherever it wants to, but in all probably it will be mainly arboreal.


(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

So your position is that on this proposed Paradise earth, all things will be returned to as they were prior to Adam's fall - with the exception of the serpent. The serpent will apparently be the only predator left on earth, which leaves it at a decided advantage.

No that s not my position at all.

My position is that scripture does not make that clear and therefore we will have to wait and see.

Scripture makes PLENTY clear the condition of the snake. "Dust shall be the serpent"s food." You've theorized that snakes originally dwelt in trees. Thus we have a case in which an entity or object is NOT returned to its status in God's original plan. But you've said that God's original plan will not be - cannot be changed or thwarted in the least.

How is that making it clear when it is stating an impossibility.

There is no way that snake will ever get it's nourishment from dust, even for God that is simply not a practical proposition, and no-one is more practical in his outlook and actions than Jehovah.

No it is just another way of repeating the curse put on the serpent in the GArden which it has suffered with from that day forth.


You have no explanation. Something isn't working out for you, or else some of the stuff you've spewed was incorrect to start with.

I can only have an explanation where scripture gives me one.

Unlike you I do not spin them out of fresh air.


God has cursed Canaan, certain land, certain enemies of His people, and many other things. And He cursed the serpent. For all you know, NONE of the preceding entities will be returned to their pre-fall state. After all, you just make it up as you go.

The earth will definitely be returned to it's pre-fall state, scripture makes that clear especially since there is no other way the abundance of food can be achieved.

It was Canaan the grandson of Noah who was cursed for his disrespect to Noah, not the land of Canaan. It only got that name because Canaan's descendants settled there.

In fact Jehovah cursed the whole of the earth, which reduced it's productivity greatly and made growing food much harder work for mankind.

No Anna whilst it is true that there is too much we do not know about the pre-fall state of the serpent, which may not even existed until Satan brought it into being for all we know. Unlikely but possible. He was, after all, a powerful cherub, with power very close to that of Jehovah's only begotten son, before Jehovah was forced to restrict his power to prevent his destroying humans directly. Who knows what he was capable of.

Sorry Anna but for the conditions of prophecy to be fulfilled, everything with the possible, but not definite, exception of the serpent, will be, has to be, returned to it's pre-fall state.

Possible, but not definite?

Curse due to the fall: "And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life" (Gen 3: 14)

Condition after all things are restored to their original state: "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent's food." (Isaiah 65: 25)

You told us MANY times that Jehovah loves A-L-L His creation, and that all of it would one day be restored to its pre-fall splendor right here on earth. Now you come along and say, "Oh, well, the snake won't be."

Then Jehovah's original plan for the snake ... failed, if your speculations be correct.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 8:18:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 7:06:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:19:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:16:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

However considering the poor quality of most translations I do not intend to assume anything, I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there.

"I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there" = "I have no explanation for a portion of a passage that so thoroughly contradicts my entire scheme of things."

You have repeatedly informed us, erroneously of course, that all of creation would one day be returned to its pristine and original and perfect state, as God created it. You told us that nothing, no nothing, could thwart "God's plan". And on and on and on you've rambled about it.

Nothing erroneous about it, it is what scripture promises and what scripture promises will be. Simple as.



NOW we come to find out that the entire scheme is thwarted by the lowly snake. God's plan was never for it to crawl on its belly and eat dust, was it? After all, that's not how He created it. NOW you come along and opine, "It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted" - a flat-out contradiction of what you've said in the past.

How can an appearance be a contradiction. I didn't say that it did contradict anything, just that worded as it there is, accurate or not, it gives that impression. I could say nothing else, since that is true. However, appearances can be deceptive, especially when Apostate translators have been at work.

Again you indulge in your favourite pastime of twisting what is said.

Well, I sure don't want to twist anything you've said. For all I know, I might twist it so much that it becomes accurate. Thus I'm content to leave it just as you said it.

No?

Then why do you insist on doing it?


For the record, we have the passage:

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

EXACTLY what time period is this passage describing? Is it not the supposed post-Armageddon Paradise here on earth when all things are supposedly restored to exactly how God created them?

The whole of that prophecy, including that verse, is speaking of the return to the original plan as I have said before.

The wording about the snake is not only dubious but impossible, but hnts that snakes will remain as they are.

However only Jehovah knows the truth of that, and he will reveal it in his own time. I do not intend to move too far ahead of his timing, no matter how much you practice your usual bullying tactics to get me to.

Well, in that case, the passage plainly states that the ole serpent - and all of its progeny - will be in the same condition on this supposed "Paradise Earth" that they are now. But NOT in the same condition as before the fall.

Even the NWT states, "And the serpent"s food will be dust."

So right then and there we have an abrupt failure of the BotchTower's silly speculations about "Paradise on Earth." It's not going to happen, and the serpent is a prime witness.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2016 8:32:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 7:06:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:19:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:16:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

However only Jehovah knows the truth of that, and he will reveal it in his own time. I do not intend to move too far ahead of his timing, no matter how much you practice your usual bullying tactics to get me to.

Oh, I'm not trying to "bully" you into anything. I'm trying to get you to see that despite all your excuses, the serpent is a prime example that there is no such thing as a paradise earth in the future. According to your own logic on the matter, just one exception to a complete return nullifies the whole scheme.

We always know when your on the ropes, or the canvas, because you start whining about "apostate translators". Dude, I've checked pretty thoroughly, and there isn't the slightest evidence of mistranslation on the passage. Even the perversion published by the Brooklyn illiterates says the same thing all the others do.

At least we all have learned that the next time a BotchTower promoters comes along and waxes long and eloquent about a complete restoration of creation's prefall splendor right here on earth, all anyone has to say is, "Snake! Snake!"
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:14:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 8:32:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 7:06:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:19:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:16:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

However only Jehovah knows the truth of that, and he will reveal it in his own time. I do not intend to move too far ahead of his timing, no matter how much you practice your usual bullying tactics to get me to.

Oh, I'm not trying to "bully" you into anything. I'm trying to get you to see that despite all your excuses, the serpent is a prime example that there is no such thing as a paradise earth in the future. According to your own logic on the matter, just one exception to a complete return nullifies the whole scheme.

No Anna your whole style is to keep bullying until you get what you want, which as you know doesn't work with me because I give you the truth, not what you want.

No Anna, nothing nullifies the whole system, and we do not even know that the serpent is an exception, that is simply your preferred take on what the translators made of tat verse.

Nothing can nullify the whole system because it is Jehovah's system and he does nto fail.


We always know when your on the ropes, or the canvas, because you start whining about "apostate translators". Dude, I've checked pretty thoroughly, and there isn't the slightest evidence of mistranslation on the passage. Even the perversion published by the Brooklyn illiterates says the same thing all the others do.

You haven't had me "on the ropes yet".

However we always know when you are on them because you stoop to insults having no weapons left.


At least we all have learned that the next time a BotchTower promoters comes along and waxes long and eloquent about a complete restoration of creation's prefall splendor right here on earth, all anyone has to say is, "Snake! Snake!"

No doubt yu will say whatever you wish to say, it is al about what you want to thin after all, in your eyes anyway, but that won;t do you any good, you are so far from the truth you can't see it with the hubble telescope. What's worse, you know you are, you just can't even admit it to yourself.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:16:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2016 8:18:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 7:06:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:19:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:16:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

(5) What time period does Isa 65: 25 describe?

a. The snake's condition prior to the curse
b. The snake's condition during the curse
c. The snake's condition when the curse is lifted, and all things return to their original state on paradise earth

It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted, ad the phrase in the initial curse "all your days" could even imply that, but it does not, cannot mean that the serpent will gain nourishment from dust, any more than it ever has done. It is only logical to assume that it's food will be the same as all creatures, vegetation.

However considering the poor quality of most translations I do not intend to assume anything, I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there.

"I shall wait to see what is the case when I get there" = "I have no explanation for a portion of a passage that so thoroughly contradicts my entire scheme of things."

You have repeatedly informed us, erroneously of course, that all of creation would one day be returned to its pristine and original and perfect state, as God created it. You told us that nothing, no nothing, could thwart "God's plan". And on and on and on you've rambled about it.

Nothing erroneous about it, it is what scripture promises and what scripture promises will be. Simple as.



NOW we come to find out that the entire scheme is thwarted by the lowly snake. God's plan was never for it to crawl on its belly and eat dust, was it? After all, that's not how He created it. NOW you come along and opine, "It appears to show that the curse on the snake will never be lifted" - a flat-out contradiction of what you've said in the past.

How can an appearance be a contradiction. I didn't say that it did contradict anything, just that worded as it there is, accurate or not, it gives that impression. I could say nothing else, since that is true. However, appearances can be deceptive, especially when Apostate translators have been at work.

Again you indulge in your favourite pastime of twisting what is said.

Well, I sure don't want to twist anything you've said. For all I know, I might twist it so much that it becomes accurate. Thus I'm content to leave it just as you said it.

No?

Then why do you insist on doing it?


For the record, we have the passage:

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent"s food."

EXACTLY what time period is this passage describing? Is it not the supposed post-Armageddon Paradise here on earth when all things are supposedly restored to exactly how God created them?

The whole of that prophecy, including that verse, is speaking of the return to the original plan as I have said before.

The wording about the snake is not only dubious but impossible, but hnts that snakes will remain as they are.

However only Jehovah knows the truth of that, and he will reveal it in his own time. I do not intend to move too far ahead of his timing, no matter how much you practice your usual bullying tactics to get me to.

Well, in that case, the passage plainly states that the ole serpent - and all of its progeny - will be in the same condition on this supposed "Paradise Earth" that they are now. But NOT in the same condition as before the fall.

Even the NWT states, "And the serpent"s food will be dust."

Yes it does, but then they take the phrase in the way in which it is meant, not in your ridiculous, impossible way.

Like me they are less worried about the words used than the meanings they are meant to convey.

Yet another thing I admire about them.


So right then and there we have an abrupt failure of the BotchTower's silly speculations about "Paradise on Earth." It's not going to happen, and the serpent is a prime witness.

Yup, as always when you lose and your twisting doesn't hold you insult.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 5:02:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2016 9:14:13 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/30/2016 8:32:12 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 7:06:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:19:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:16:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

However only Jehovah knows the truth of that, and he will reveal it in his own time. I do not intend to move too far ahead of his timing, no matter how much you practice your usual bullying tactics to get me to.

Oh, I'm not trying to "bully" you into anything. I'm trying to get you to see that despite all your excuses, the serpent is a prime example that there is no such thing as a paradise earth in the future. According to your own logic on the matter, just one exception to a complete return nullifies the whole scheme.

No Anna your whole style is to keep bullying until you get what you want, which as you know doesn't work with me because I give you the truth, not what you want.

No Anna, nothing nullifies the whole system, and we do not even know that the serpent is an exception, that is simply your preferred take on what the translators made of tat verse.

Nothing can nullify the whole system because it is Jehovah's system and he does nto fail.

Apparently He will fail pretty badly in the case of the serpent. The serpent wasn't "eating dust" when it was originally created: "eating dust" was a part of the curse back in Genesis. According to you, the serpent should be restored to its original condition, but the prophesy in Isaiah says otherwise.

You haven't given a suitable explanation of the passage.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 6:43:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2016 9:16:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/30/2016 8:18:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 7:06:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:19:48 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/30/2016 6:16:06 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 11:49:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 8:46:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:58:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/29/2016 7:32:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Even the NWT states, "And the serpent"s food will be dust."

Yes it does, but then they take the phrase in the way in which it is meant, not in your ridiculous, impossible way.

Like me they are less worried about the words used than the meanings they are meant to convey.

Blah! You'll do nothing now but talk in circles and evade. Why don't you explain EXACTLY what "take the phrase in the way in which it is meant" is in reference to Isaiah 65: 25 as opposed to Gen 3: 14?

Don't do your usual rambling in circles. You know as well as anyone on here that you can't have this proposed Paradise on Earth without having serpents restored to their original state at creation.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:46:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2016 6:43:25 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:16:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Blah! You'll do nothing now but talk in circles and evade. Why don't you explain EXACTLY what "take the phrase in the way in which it is meant" is in reference to Isaiah 65: 25 as opposed to Gen 3: 14?

Both phrases mean the same thing.

What they do not mean is that the serpent will ever or has ever gained nourishment from the dust its lifestyle forces it ti eat.


Don't do your usual rambling in circles. You know as well as anyone on here that you can't have this proposed Paradise on Earth without having serpents restored to their original state at creation.

I don't see why that it the case.

Jehovah can have it exactly as he want it.

The trouble is that whilst we now from scripture what the original plan was we do not know how many animals were originally included in it.

We don't even now that the snake God cursed was a literal snake, after all in Revelation 12 Satan is called the "original serpent" Original implies that eh was in fact the first serpent to exist., so a serpent may not even have been a part of the original plan.

You are very fond of ignoring the many facts we do not know and glossing over them. I at least know that we don't know them.

It is one thing understanding what we are told, though you can;t even manage that, but understanding where the gaps are is something you haven't even tried to do.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:59:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 7:16:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
Magic.

No better magic than the atheist so convinced that man evolved from a rock. From a rock to a man. That's amazing. It's even more amazing when you see the look on their face when you have a hard time understanding it. They don't even understand it. They just say evolution is a fact. Evolution, is a fact. Science says the world is an illusion. The atheist say science proves evolution. Ugh...huh? I'm not even from this planet. I just came from a starship bigger than all the world trade centers combined, yet I'm told I'm stupid because I don't believe I'm from a rock from this planet. Hilarious
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:07:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2016 9:46:33 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/1/2016 6:43:25 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:16:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Blah! You'll do nothing now but talk in circles and evade. Why don't you explain EXACTLY what "take the phrase in the way in which it is meant" is in reference to Isaiah 65: 25 as opposed to Gen 3: 14?

Both phrases mean the same thing.

What they do not mean is that the serpent will ever or has ever gained nourishment from the dust its lifestyle forces it ti eat.

Whether or not the serpent "gains nourishment" is irrelevant. What IS meant, even according to your speculative theories, is that the serpent is no different in this proposed "Paradise Earth" of the future from what it is now.

1. Prior to the fall of Adam: Serpent not "eating dust"
2. After the fall of Adam: Serpent "eating dust"
3. In the proposed Paradise Earth: Serpent STILL "eating dust."


Don't do your usual rambling in circles. You know as well as anyone on here that you can't have this proposed Paradise on Earth without having serpents restored to their original state at creation.

I don't see why that it the case.

Because you've said many times that everything has to be returned to its original state, i. e. God's original plan.

The trouble is that whilst we now from scripture what the original plan was we do not know how many animals were originally included in it.

It's for sure that the serpent existed before Adam and Eve.

It is one thing understanding what we are told, though you can;t even manage that, but understanding where the gaps are is something you haven't even tried to do.

The serpent may be figurative just as the lions, lambs, and serpent are figurative in Isaiah 65. Will you accept that? By the way, I told you that no WatchTowerite could remain consistent and still cling to his silly theories. Answer the question, and we'll see an example of that.
annanicole
Posts: 22,363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:57:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2016 9:46:33 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/1/2016 6:43:25 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:16:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Blah! You'll do nothing now but talk in circles and evade. Why don't you explain EXACTLY what "take the phrase in the way in which it is meant" is in reference to Isaiah 65: 25 as opposed to Gen 3: 14?

Both phrases mean the same thing.

What they do not mean is that the serpent will ever or has ever gained nourishment from the dust its lifestyle forces it ti eat.


Don't do your usual rambling in circles. You know as well as anyone on here that you can't have this proposed Paradise on Earth without having serpents restored to their original state at creation.

I don't see why that it the case.

I do. What was the status of the serpent before the fall? What will be the status on this Paradise Earth when it is returned to its original state as you propose everything will be?

Jehovah can have it exactly as he want it.

In other words, it COULD be that "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up" if that's the way Jehovah wants it. God is not compelled to follow your Paradise Earth (a term never found in the Bible, anyway) theories.

The trouble is that whilst we now from scripture what the original plan was we do not know how many animals were originally included in it.

We don't even now that the snake God cursed was a literal snake, after all in Revelation 12 Satan is called the "original serpent" Original implies that eh was in fact the first serpent to exist., so a serpent may not even have been a part of the original plan.

LMAO @ "not a literal snake". If it's not literal in Genesis, then it ain't literal in Isaiah. You previously said, regarding, Isa 65: 25, "It is literal." Alright, if Isaiah 65: 25 is literal, then Gen 3: 14 is literal. If Gen 3: 14 is literal, then the serpent is literal. It looks to me like you would anticipate some of these difficulties before you spew nonsense again and again.

I don't see where Satan is called the "original serpent". I checked a number of translations and can't find it.

You are very fond of ignoring the many facts we do not know and glossing over them. I at least know that we don't know them.

I'm not ignoring the FACT that it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even imply that that the order of creation MAY have been:

1. Water creatures and birds
2. Land animals
3. Adam
4. Eve
5. Snakes

There is not an ounce of Biblical evidence to support that nonsense. Oh, the lengths to which the deluded will go in order glean a glimmer of hope for their absurd theories.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 1:59:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2016 11:57:13 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:46:33 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/1/2016 6:43:25 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:16:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Blah! You'll do nothing now but talk in circles and evade. Why don't you explain EXACTLY what "take the phrase in the way in which it is meant" is in reference to Isaiah 65: 25 as opposed to Gen 3: 14?

Both phrases mean the same thing.

What they do not mean is that the serpent will ever or has ever gained nourishment from the dust its lifestyle forces it ti eat.


Don't do your usual rambling in circles. You know as well as anyone on here that you can't have this proposed Paradise on Earth without having serpents restored to their original state at creation.

I don't see why that it the case.

I do. What was the status of the serpent before the fall? What will be the status on this Paradise Earth when it is returned to its original state as you propose everything will be?

Jehovah can have it exactly as he want it.

In other words, it COULD be that "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up" if that's the way Jehovah wants it. God is not compelled to follow your Paradise Earth (a term never found in the Bible, anyway) theories.

The trouble is that whilst we now from scripture what the original plan was we do not know how many animals were originally included in it.

We don't even now that the snake God cursed was a literal snake, after all in Revelation 12 Satan is called the "original serpent" Original implies that eh was in fact the first serpent to exist., so a serpent may not even have been a part of the original plan.

LMAO @ "not a literal snake". If it's not literal in Genesis, then it ain't literal in Isaiah. You previously said, regarding, Isa 65: 25, "It is literal." Alright, if Isaiah 65: 25 is literal, then Gen 3: 14 is literal. If Gen 3: 14 is literal, then the serpent is literal. It looks to me like you would anticipate some of these difficulties before you spew nonsense again and again.

I don't see where Satan is called the "original serpent". I checked a number of translations and can't find it.

You are very fond of ignoring the many facts we do not know and glossing over them. I at least know that we don't know them.

I'm not ignoring the FACT that it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even imply that that the order of creation MAY have been:

1. Water creatures and birds
2. Land animals
3. Adam
4. Eve
5. Snakes

There is not an ounce of Biblical evidence to support that nonsense. Oh, the lengths to which the deluded will go in order glean a glimmer of hope for their absurd theories.

That's the problem. There is not a scrap of evidence either way apart from Jehovah calling Satan the "original serpent" which does rather make it sound like the serpent was Satan's production, nto Jehovah's.

Why else would Satan be "the original serpent" when he was created as a powerful Angel?

But like I always say, I cannot explain definitively to you what the Bible doesn't explain definitively.

Everything I post is based on and supported by the bible which is why I will not be definitive on any of these things.

You can badger, or bully me all you like I can only tell you what the Bible actually says, not what it doesn't.
I don't know what the Bible doesn't say?

Why?

Because it doesn't say it.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 2:04:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2016 11:07:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:46:33 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/1/2016 6:43:25 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/1/2016 9:16:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Blah! You'll do nothing now but talk in circles and evade. Why don't you explain EXACTLY what "take the phrase in the way in which it is meant" is in reference to Isaiah 65: 25 as opposed to Gen 3: 14?

Both phrases mean the same thing.

What they do not mean is that the serpent will ever or has ever gained nourishment from the dust its lifestyle forces it ti eat.

Whether or not the serpent "gains nourishment" is irrelevant. What IS meant, even according to your speculative theories, is that the serpent is no different in this proposed "Paradise Earth" of the future from what it is now.

1. Prior to the fall of Adam: Serpent not "eating dust"
2. After the fall of Adam: Serpent "eating dust"
3. In the proposed Paradise Earth: Serpent STILL "eating dust."


Don't do your usual rambling in circles. You know as well as anyone on here that you can't have this proposed Paradise on Earth without having serpents restored to their original state at creation.

I don't see why that it the case.

Because you've said many times that everything has to be returned to its original state, i. e. God's original plan.

The trouble is that whilst we now from scripture what the original plan was we do not know how many animals were originally included in it.

It's for sure that the serpent existed before Adam and Eve.

It is one thing understanding what we are told, though you can;t even manage that, but understanding where the gaps are is something you haven't even tried to do.

The serpent may be figurative just as the lions, lambs, and serpent are figurative in Isaiah 65. Will you accept that? By the way, I told you that no WatchTowerite could remain consistent and still cling to his silly theories. Answer the question, and we'll see an example of that.

The lions and lambs in Isaiah 65 aren't figurative, in any sense other than that they represent the peace that will reign throughout the animal Kingdom, not only with each other, but with humans as well.

That is how Jehovah created them to be.

It is how they will be when the time is right.

Jehovah cannot, will not fail.

Not that you believe that of course.

Correction, you don't want to believe that because despite all the suffering and death in this world you are happy with it as it is. You don;t want anything better as long as it doesn't affect you too badly.

That says it all really.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 2:33:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2016 2:04:31 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Jehovah cannot, will not fail.
read his book and accept reality.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2016 11:57:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2016 10:14:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:52:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:04:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
It doesn't tell us how long Jehovah took to create the universe.
Six days.
You haven't even read the book, have you?
And I think you'll find that some dude called yhwh is claimed to have done it.

No, Genesis 1 describes the preparation as done in 6 days, without any explanation of what each "day" represents, or even if all 6 are the same length.

All we know is that as the evidence proves they are "periods of definite but unspecified length" which is one very vague meaning of the word "day".

Verse one does not give any indication of the timescale whatever, it just makes the bland statement that in the beginning God created the heavens (the Universe) including the earth.

What you are saying is the Bible raises more questions than answers like what is the length of day in Genesis and are all the days equal. When people like you claim to know the bible your knowledge is not based on any real foundation but one of interpretation. But human fallibility makes interpretations and translations of text thousands of years old extremely unreliable and even impossible. Even biblical scholars often lose the historical context and literary styles because they cannot be recreated. What remains in divine revelations or inspired guidance which the Jehovah's Witnesses denied possessing.

Watchtower Quotes About Having NO Divine Inspiration.

"This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses [Joel 2:28-29] does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, ..." (Watchtower May 15, 1947, 157)
"... Because it [Watch Tower Society] is not infallible and has never claimed to be, from time to time corrections are necessary." (Watchtower Oct 15, 1954, 638)

'the New World Translation has endeavored to put God"s Word as contained in the original Greek into these languages with the "correct words of truth" in each language. No claim of divine inspiration is made for these translations in modern-day language.' Watchtower Nov 15, 1969, Article: "Between-the-Lines" Translations of the Bible, par. 23.

"True, the brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers." (Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981, page 19)

"The Governing Body consists of a group of anointed Christian men ... They are not inspired of God and hence are not infallible." (Jehovah's Witnesses Unitedly Doing God's Will Worldwide brochure [1986], 26) [2]

"Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration" (Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom [1993], 708)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 25,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2016 8:12:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2016 2:33:52 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/2/2016 2:04:31 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Jehovah cannot, will not fail.
read his book and accept reality.

I have.

I do.

Now you should.
It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.