The Bible does not support the traditional Christian concept of The Devil/Satan.

A wonderfully researched and superbly presented argument by my opponent in the last round but the resolution stands. To my suggestion that the 'facts' about Satan were not "clarified or implied in the Bible" my opponent responds by saying that "many of these things ARE implied in the Bible." If I was to take this response at face value I would assume that my opponent is conceding that some are not implied and NONE are clarified but perhaps this is not the case. 'FACTS' (believed by most Christians.) 1. Satan = Serpent: a)Genesis: In most modern translations the first line of 3:1 is correctly interpreted as: "Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made". http://www.usccb.org... This confirms the implication in the King James quote offered by my opponent that the serpent was one of the "beast(s) of the field which the Lord God had made" not an Angel or Son of God. My opponent argues that "It can be reasonably implied that because of the actions that the serpent was taking (seeking to destroy the work of God by causing Adam and Eve to Fall) that it was the devil (or the devil spoke through the serpent)." The implication is reasonable only if we disregard logic and what the text actually says. My opponent cannot find any suggestion in Genesis that the serpent is Satan because there is none. He argues that it must be the devil because of the way he behaves, but by this logic many other figures in the Bible would be Satan. From Judas, Pontious Pilate and Herod in the New Testament to all the 'bad' kings of Egypt in the OT. b)Revelations: Note that there are a whole lot of books (in fact the rest of the Bible) between Gen and Rev with no mention of Satan in Eden or as a serpent but yes, the dragon in Revelations is identified as Satan. A dragon is of course a serpent but there is no indication that this is the same serpent from all the way back in Genesis. The line about "deceiving the whole world" is often taken as a reference to the Eden story, but if we look back at Genesis we see that the serpent does not actually deceive them at all. God says that they will die if they eat or touch the fruit but the serpent tells them they won't die but will instead have knowledge of good and bad, they eat the fruit and it turns out that the serpent was right. The word 'cunning' shares etymological roots with 'knowledge' and serpents are traditionally associated with wisdom in many cultures. 2 & 3: Revelations is a vision of the apocalypse so if it does describe Satan being thrown out of heaven this is an event which is still yet to happen. It is inconsistant with the idea put forward by my opponent that he has already cut his ties with heaven and roams about the world. If Satan is to be bound for a thousand years after this battle and it has already happened then how can he be roaming around now? Was this before or after he became (or possessed) the serpent in Eden? Isaiah 14 has been and will I'm sure continue to be discussed elsewhere in this debate. The passage in Luke about Satan falling like lightning from heaven (or from 'the sky' in some translations) also does not fit into any timeline of events that makes sense. He saw (beheld) it when? 4: Satan is "described as the adversary" because this is what the word means. A 'satan' is anyone who opposes you in any way. But in the Bible, Satan is always the adversary of man, never of God. (See loyal servant) The dualistic black-and-white, good-and-evil concept was grafted onto Christianity in post- Biblical times. CON: "If the devil was not evil or bad why would God feel the need to "bind him" for a thousand years?' The point here is whether he is completely evil or as bad as God is good and this clearly proves he isn't. If he was that bad God would surely not have allowed him to cause so much mischief in the first place and would have bound him sooner and for an infinite time. God is clearly superior and has power over him so why did he not take firmer action sooner? 5: My opponent quotes the same lines from Luke and Revelations again which I have already shown suggest that Satan has not yet been cast out of heaven. Both these passages describe visions of things yet to come, reported in the prophetic past tens, not events that have already occured. They provide evidence of rather than contradiction of Satan in heaven. 'FACTS' (reported in the Bible.) 1 & 2 Loyal servant / encouraged by God: My opponents arguments here are starting to stray off topic. The questions of whether Satan is God's enemy or of who is manipulating who are not really relevant to this particular point. The fact is that Satan is depicted following God's instructions obediantly and carrying out his wishes like a loyal servant. This is in contrast to the actions of the serpent who tells Eve the truth but goes against God's wishes and is duly punished. Unlike the serpent, Satan is not punished (until Revelations) but rather congratulated and rewarded for his good work tempting humanity. 3 & 4. Ruler of the world/son of God: I apologise for not addressing my opponents points about Power/Favour and Relationship/Righteousness but again I did not really see their relevance to this debate and never tried to claim that Satan was righteous. My opponent accepts that Satan is a son of God and the Prince of the world and that he has been rewarded and appointed as such by God. I'm not sure how many other Christians would accept this without seeing it as contradicting their other beliefs about Satan. I should point out now that it is not my intention to blaspheme or cause offence in this debate and I apologise if I inadvertently do so. My intention is merely to prove the resolution and I have no ulterior motive of suggesting that Satan is righteous or equating him with Jesus in a bid to shock or offend. As I do not believe in the supernatural qualities of either or in the very existence of Satan, this is absolutely not my aim. 5: The link posted that allegedly "explains Isa. 14" does little to negate the resolution, it claims that the Hebrew word meaning Venus or morning star that was translated into Lucifer was actually a proper name for a minor deity unconnected with Christianity and goes on to attempt to justify use of the term Lucifer for Satan simply because it has been common usage for so long. The original article that this link is a response to makes much more interesting reading. http://www.lds-mormon.com... ------- My opponent has used most of the Biblical references to Satan that are usually sited to back up Christian theories - passages from Isaiah, Luke and Revelations These are some of the most vague, inconsistent, mixed metaphor-ridden passages in the whole Bible and we need huge leaps of imagination and a great deal of 'reading between the lines' to make the inferences that have been made. Biblical evidence for these traditionally believed satanic myths is severely lacking. Thankyou.