If its good, God did it... if its bad Satan did it....

by Elsewhere 162 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  mysterio91

  I think the act of God creating a tree with "forbidden fruit" was evil. It seems like he set man up to fail. It's a game I don't care to play.
• 

  Terry

  Devil/Demon:
  
  In the Septuagint, its first and clearest signification is as a simple designative of the imaginary heathen gods.
  
  So in Psalm xcvi. 5; oi theoi twn ethnwn daimoniaeisin 'the gods of the heathen are daemons'; also in Deuteronomy xxxii, 17; ethusan daimoniois, ka ou thew 'they sacrificed to daemons, and not to God:' and again Psalm cvi. 37; ethusan tas thugateras autwn daimoniois.
  
  In these passages the Hebrew words corresponding to daimonia are [Hebrew word in original text] and [Hebrew word in original text]: the one, according to Gesenius, signifying vanities; the other, lords or rulers. [2]
  
  So that there is nothing in them to fix on these spirits the character of devilish, or satanic; as the word satanim, or some indubitable equivalent, would have done. [2]
  
  Nor, though the tone of the two latter statements be deemed objurgatory, does there need any such explanation of the word to account for it.
  
  It is sufficiently explained, on the hypothesis of its simple meaning, by multitudes of parallel Scriptural passages: in the which Israel's sin is depicted as made up of two evils; viz., 1st, forsaking God; 2ndly, forsaking Him (not for devilish or satanic spirits, but) for them that were no gods, but profitless idol vanities. (Deut. xxxii. 21, &c.)
  
  Thus, there being nothing implied of devilish, or satanic, in the original Hebrew, so neither, we may reasonably infer, as it seems to me, in the daimonia of the Septuagint translation.
  
  It is plain that the Alexandrine translators used the word in its popular meaning, simply to signify the gods or daemons of heathen mythology; Alexandria being a place where the Platonic philosophy had necessarily made that meaning most familiar to them.
  
  [1] In 1 Chron xvi, 26 the former of these two Hebrew words also occurs; but in the Septuagint it is rendered eidwla, instead of daimonia. Buxtorf derives [Hebrew word in original text] from [Hebrew word in original text], vastavit: whence the word in Psalm xci. 6, noted in the next page.
  
  [2] Compare too 2 Chron. xi. 15; where it is said of Jeroboam, katesthsen eautw iereis twn upshlwn, kai tois eidwlois, kai tois mataiois, kai tois mosxoios, a epoisen, answering to our authorized version, 'priests for the devils, (daemons,) and for the calves which he had made.' Heb. [Hebrew word in original text] the same word as in Is. xiii. 22, xxxiv. 14. referred to overleaf.
  
  
  Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume 2, pages 498-9, 5th edition, 1862

  Deuteronomy 32:
  17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

  Note carefully the following:
  

  • They are clearly gods, not 'minions of satan'.
  • Their existence is categorically denied, because God Himself tells us that there are no other gods but Him.
  • The word used many times of them is daimonios, the same word as used in the New Testament (the other word used is the word for 'vanities', which also proves they do not exist).

  Yes, the Jews understood daimonioi (devils, demons), to be gods - and Scripture not only condemns their worship, but denies their existence.
• 

  undercover

  God didn't punish A & E

  
  
  16 To the woman he said,
  
  "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
  with pain you will give birth to children.
  Your desire will be for your husband,
  and he will rule over you."
  
  17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
  
  "Cursed is the ground because of you;
  through painful toil you will eat of it
  all the days of your life.
  18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
  and you will eat the plants of the field.
  19 By the sweat of your brow
  you will eat your food
  until you return to the ground,
  since from it you were taken;
  for dust you are
  and to dust you will return."
  
  20 Adam [3] named his wife Eve, [4] because she would become the mother of all the living.
  21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [5] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

  That's not punishment?
• 

  Terry

  When the early Christian apologists attempted to explain to the heathen where their gods came from, they did not try to deny that these gods existed. What they attempted to do was offer an explanation for their origin. They attempted to convince the heathen that these were divine beings who had fallen from grace (fallen angels), or the spawn of such fallen angels and mortals.
  
  Thus:

  QUOTE

  'The poets and mythologists did not know that it was the [wicked] angels, and those demons who had been begotten by them? For they called them by whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and to his children.' Justin Martyr (c. 110-165 AD)

  Again:

  QUOTE

  'These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, and are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the giants, who are the demons who wander about the world, perform similar actions.' Athenagoras (c. 175 AD)

  Again:

  QUOTE

  'From the seed [of the fallen angels and women], giants are said to have been born. By them, arts were made known in the earth. They taught the dyeing of wool and everything that is done. When they died, men erected images to them. Yet, because they were of an evil seed, the Almighty did not approve of their being brought back from death when they had died. For that reason, they wander and they now subvert many bodies. And it is these whom you [pagans] presently worship and pray to as gods.' Commodianus (c. 240 AD)
• 

  Terry

  In their efforts to convince the pagans that their 'gods' were really fallen angels (or their spawn), they forgot or did not realise that the Hebrew Old Testament actually refers to the pagan deities as elohim (gods), and that the LXX refers to them as daimonia (demons).
  
  In every case, however, it's clear that they knew that the word 'daimonia' referred - as far as the pagans were concerned - to gods. What we see here is the attempt by the Early Fathers to redefine a word which was already used by both Scripture and the pagans to refer to gods.
  
  The 'demons' of which modern Christians speak are the result of this change of defiinition. They are a complete invention of the Early Fathers. Such ideas were foreign to the Old Testament, to the New Testament, to the first century Christians, and the pagans themselves.
  
  But even then, it may be seen that this inaccurate description of the Early Fathers bears no resemblance to the 'demons' of modern Christianity The Early Fathers believed them to be angels who had fallen from grace, not demonic supernatural agents of evil. The modern Christian makes a distinction between 'demons' and 'fallen angels' - to the Early Fathers, demons were fallen angels.

  Interesting, no?
• 

  doogie

  mye-

  so by your logic, the parent who says to their child, "the doors are locked at such and such a time. if you're not home by your curfew, you will be locked out.", and then subsequently locks the child out, is not punishing the child for staying out late?

  the "consequence" is still instituted by the parent and therefore the power to enforce or withdraw the "consequence" is their's alone. a consequence which can be removed and is not, is a punishment.
• 

  undercover

  Satan brought God's wisdom into question. He personally misled the first couple, who were essentially children. They didn't even know the difference between good and evil.

  Who lied to who here?

  1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
  2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
  4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
  
  22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [5] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

  God said they would die. They didn't. The serpent said if they ate they would know good from evil. They did. It was confirmed by God himself. So who lied to who here?
• 

  myelaine

  Undercover,

  If God is not there to "hold your hand" birth would be painful. Eve chose to not have God there with her.

  If you move to a house with an over-grown garden that needs attention to be productive and beautiful again, it is hard work. But did the previous owner neglect it for years just to spite you?

  michelle
• 

  myelaine

  undercover,
  

  they did die

  doogie,

  Jesus came to show (and make it possible) that the consequence (death) can be reversed for those that truely want the real(complete) fellowship with God.

  michelle

  p.s. spanking and being locked out are consequences, you wouldn't spank a child for being locked out and you wouldn't lock a child out for being spanked. That would be punishment. If God had kicked A & E out of the garden before they had sinned it would have been punishment and unjust. He was perfectly justified in what He did, and we have to live with the consequences.
• 

  Sargon

  Satan brought God's wisdom into question. He personally misled the first couple, who were essentially children. They didn't even know the difference between good and evil.

  Without knowing the difference between good and evil; the first people were essentially powerless against wiles of the serpent. They also would not have had the ability to fully understand the prohibition to eat from the tree.