Reply to sTs and his Logic

Submitted by jennifer solis (United States), May 20, 2008 at 19:19

Perhaps it would help if you explain what you mean by "mock".

With regards to Jacob - first, he did not "steal" anything from his older brother, Esau. As the older brother, Esau had the "birthright" (in ancient times the birthright included the inheritance rights of the firstborn). The Bible describes that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob.

Esau had come in from the feilds and Esau was extremely hungry; Jacob had been cooking some food. Genesis 25:30 - "and Esau said to Jacob, 'Please let me have a swallow of that red stuff there, for I am famished (hungry).' Therefore his name was Edom ("red")."

Genesis 25:31-33 - "But Jacob said, 'First sell me your birthright'. Esau said, 'Behold, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?' And Jacob said, 'First swear to me'; so he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob."

So Esau sold his birthright because he was too lazy to fix his own food. This occured before Jacob became a prophet. The event did not involve Jacob "stealing" Esau's "prophethood" as you state.

Esau was never a prophet; he was merely Jacob's older brother.

Yes, Lot was made drunk with wine by his daughters, and then the horrible design of Lot's daughters became fullfilled. Both daughters became pregnant by Lot. The Bible describes that Lot was so drunk that he was not aware of what happened; however this does not excuse his behavior, or his getting drunk.

Note that the event was planned by Lot's daughters (Gen. 20:31-36); and, as a result of this evil event, both daughters gave birth to first Moab, and then Ben-ammi, and these sons were the beginning of the Moabites and Ammonites, two nations that were to become bitter enemies of Abraham's descedants (Jews) - Gen. 20:36-38.

Lesson from "Lot and his daughters" and what happened between them: evil produces evil.

Regarding your statement that the Vatican "changed" the Bible - well, not exactly. They tried, and for a considerable time period, succeeded, to hide what the Bible truly said. The Bible was temporarily restricted to only one laguage by the Catholic Church (600 A.D.). This language WAS NOT the language the Bible was originaly written in; the Catholic Church demanded that only a Latin translation be available. Anyone who had the Bible in another language was executed.

This gave power to the Catholic Church; nobody could read this Latin Bible except the priests.

As the Catholic Church became more and more corrupt, they (the priests) began adding a bunch of stuff that wasn't in the Bible (worshiping Mary, worshiping the saints; paying money to the Church so you would go to heaven, paying money to the Church so that your dead relatives would go to heaven,etc); they changed the Latin Bible that they had, to suit whatever desire over the people they wished.

Thankfully, the Bible was completed 500 years before the Catholic Church started all of that.

There were (and are) many, many (over 5,000) manuscripts of the Bible, written in the original language of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew, that would go on to prove how incorrect the Latin Bible of this Catholic Church was.

Gradually the Catholic Church "gave up the ghost" and said O.K., after the "Reformation".

Today the Bible is based on the original Greek and Hebrew. No more Catholic Latin Bible of the 7th century.

With regards to your last paragraph, Satan has never worshipped Jesus. Satan is Jesus' enemy. The name Satan translated means "accuser, adversary". Jesus does not "own" the world. Nobody is more powerful than Jesus (God). But volition (the free will) of man exists; if Jesus "owned" the world, would anyone (including Satan) be able to exercise their volition? But again, it depends on your definition of "own".

God's will and the free will of man coexist. Try and figure that one out.

'Till next time,

Jennifer

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".