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

--- I have a lot of respect for the positive aspects of Christianity and of other religions, however I always have more admiration for a religious person who does not claim to know all the answers than one who does. Literal interpretation of scripture and corrupt interpretations for political reasons worry me greatly. People who say that the Bible is the 'inerrant word of God' and show unquestioning faith to a prescribed interpretation can be dangerous and they need to take the time to investigate what the Bible actually says as well as accept that it was written and heavily edited through many translations by men, not by God. --- I don't expect to change anybody's mind with this debate but if I can open it a little, I will be happy. I do hope that voters will see that there is very little Biblical evidence for the 'facts' I have suggested most Christians believe and that if one takes the time to look then a very different picture of Satan emerges. My opponent has done a great job but we are pretty much now arguing in circles around the few Bible quotes that can be (with a huge stretch of the imagination) interpreted to back up the conventional depiction of Satan. I will briefly address my opponent's latest round but think I have already proved most of these points, although that of course will be up to voters to decide. ---- Morning Star. My opponent gives an interesting interpretation of what this term means: "a star that is so bright that it can be seen shining in the morning, even with the sun out" but unfortunately he provides no source for this definition. As my previously posted source mentioned 'morning star' almost always refers to Venus in it's role as light-bringer being clearly visible just before dawn. This explains the significance of both Jesus and John the Baptist being called morning star, the light that heralds the dawn. ---- Isaiah 14. Sorry about the numbers in the quotes which I explained in comments section, basically this was just showing that the different words Phosphoros (Greek) and Helel (Hebrew) were both translated as Lucifer in the Vulgate. The reason "THAT ORIGEN AND JEROME MADE THE CONNECTION" when there was no connection to make is that there was pressure to define Satan according to the Church's needs and the Isaiah passage was vague enough and bizarre enough to fit. Best link yet, this is a Christian site which confirms the fallacy of Lucifer translation : . http://en.allexperts.com... We do indeed need to suspend a great deal of disbelief to interpret Isaiah 14 as describing the fall of Lucifer from heaven, we need not only see it as metaphoric symbolism but also, through it's dualism; as literal history as well (because there's no disputing the fact it talks about a human king). This is the kind of extreme imaginative leap I have been referring to and only someone who was looking to create a connection would find one. --- Serpent. Yes, I accept the distinction that it may be believed that the Devil possessed the serpent, but which one is it? are we to pick and choose one minute to the next whether it is Satan or the serpent. There's certainly no mention of possession in the text and it seems that the serpent himself is punished. If Revelations is saying Satan IS the serpent then how can Genesis be saying he possessed it. Con claims to have "provided several scripture references from the Bible that make the strong connection of the serpent being Satan. " This is not true, he has suggested that it is from his actions that we can interpret that it is Satan. His other arguments contradict each other, (see above) as he must either be the serpent or the possessor. ---- Revelation. Revelation makes so little sense that I guess you could allocate any set of dates you wanted to it, here are some conflicting examples with similar credibility to the one mentioned by my opponent: . http://www.timelinescroll.com... . http://www.geocities.com... . http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org... . http://www.rapturechrist.com... ----- Evil. I didn't say the devil was righteous or deny that he did bad things and I think my opponent's own earlier arguments (POWs etc. ) explain how one can be loyal for reasons of fear etc. rather than righteousness. The fact is he is a servant of God, encouraged and rewarded with great power and responsibility by God. He always does what God tells him, unless you want to make up stuff that's not in the Bible about a fall from heaven and possessing a snake. ---- Thanks again to Heart_of_the_matter (spelling? ) for an excellent debate, apologies if some of my rounds have seemed rushed or abrupt. Thanks to all readers, please vote rationally. Pro.