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

I fully accept Con's clarification of "facts" 1 and 5, regarding the idea that 'Satan' some how possessed or "spoke through" the serpent as well as the notion of him travelling about the Earth freely from his abode in Hell. However I reiterate that none of these 'facts' or the 'facts' I posted in round 1 are clarified or implied in the Bible. Job shows 'Satan' travelling back and forth to Earth but from a base in Heaven rather than Hell. My opponent has accepted these 'facts' as being the popular Christian idea of Satan. Therefore in order to negate the resolution he must endeavor to find actual Biblical evidence that supports all of the 'facts' 1 - 5. Instead my opponent has limited his arguments to an attempted debunking of my examples of what the Bible Does say about 'Satan'. It is to these I shall respond to while awaiting my opponent's Biblical proof of common Christian opinion. --- 1. Loyal servant of God. The example of prisoners of war is an interesting one but is hardly comparable to how Satan's relationship with God is portrayed in the Old Testament. Would a captive be given free reign to come and go as he pleased? Also, while POWs may be put to work on menial tasks such as digging ditches they would be very unlikely to be used for the kind of torture (verb used with object: to subject to torture, to afflict with severe pain of body or mind . http://dictionary.reference.com... ) missions described in Job or the assassination assignments of the Angel of Death. It is Satan's own idea to torment and test Job, if anyone is manipulating the situation it's him. --- I said: " 2. God encourages and facilitates his tempting and testing of people. " My opponent said: "God does not tempt people but He knows what is going to happen, and He makes provisions for that. " This seems to be avoiding the issue. Saying God does not tempt people himself has little to do with whether he encourages Satan to do so. Some might also argue that the real tempter in the Eden story is God who set up the whole situation. --- I said: " 3. God appointed him ruler of the world. " My opponent said: "God may have granted the devil temporary control of this dominion but it will be short lived. " My opponent concedes that the Devil's dominion over Earth and his status as Prince of the World was bestowed on him by God, albeit on a temporary basis. This is not the sort of honour God would bestow on just anybody and certainly only a loyal servant who was not completely evil. The quote from Isaiah 9, assumed to relate to Jesus does not actually include the words Messiah (Christ), Jesus, Son of Man, Son of David or any other of Jesus' titles, but that is a subject for a different debate. --- 4. He is, like Jesus, a son of God. My opponent apparently concedes this point: "Someone can be a son of God and be evil OR righteous! " --- 5. Ok, this one is really interesting, the Isaiah 14 passage is always quoted completely out of context, with the contrived assumption that it refers to Lucifer rather than the king of Babylonia. This assumption requires us to suppose that the writer shifts seamlessly back and forth through metaphors while talking about both the earthly king and the satanic one. Let's look at a range of interpretations of this passage. Merely as a starting point, Wiki has this: "Lucifer is a name frequently given to Satan in Christian belief. This usage as a reference to a fallen angel stems from a particular interpretation of Isaiah 14:3-20, a passage that speaks of someone who is given the name of "Day Star" or "Morning Star" (in Latin, Lucifer) as fallen from heaven. [2] 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere, the same Latin word lucifer is used of the morning star with no relation to Satan. .. . .. In Latin, the word "Lucifer", meaning "Light-Bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), is a name for the "Morning Star" (the planet Venus in its dawn appearances). [3] The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible used this word twice to refer to the Morning Star: once in 2 Peter 1:19 to translate the Greek word Φωσφόρος (Phosphoros),[4] and once in Isaiah 14:12 to translate the Hebrew word הילל (Hï¿½lēl). [5] In the latter passage the title of "Morning Star" is given to the tyrannous Babylonian king, who the prophet says is destined to fall. This passage was later applied to the prince of the demons, and so the name "Lucifer" came to be used for Satan, and was popularized in works such as Dante Alighieri's Inferno and John Milton's Paradise Lost, but for English speakers the greatest influence has been its use in the King James Version of Isa 14:12 to translate the Hebrew word הילל, which more modern English versions render as "Morning Star" or "Day Star". . http://en.wikipedia.org... The following biblical study site has this footnote on Isaiah 14: 12 ; "This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff. , he is called "the man" in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body". .. .. "Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, "Isaiah," BKCOT, 1061). " . http://www.bible.org... Here is a Christian website that explains the mistranslation in the King James version: . http://www.crivoice.org... And another that I will quote at length: "It may come as a surprise to many Christians that to the Jews and New Testament Christians there was no such person as Lucifer. To many Christians Lucifer is equivalent to Satan, the devil. How could it be that the Jews knew nothing of Lucifer, we find it clearly printed in our King James Bible in Isaiah 14. But then again it is not found in most contemporary language versions. With the curiously notable exception of the New King James Version. As way of introduction here is what The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia has to say about Lucifer: Lucifer, the rendering of the Vulgate for the Hebrew phrase helal ("day-star") in Isa. 14:12; the verse is rendered in the Authorized Version as: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! " The passage in question is a song of derision over the downfall of a Babylonian king; the figure used may trace back to a Hebrew or Babylonian astral myth like the Greek story of Phaethon, in which the day-star is cast out of heaven because of presumption. The term Lucifer is never used in Jewish legend; but Christian writers identified Lucifer with Satan who, according to the gospels (Luke 10:18), fell from heaven like lighting; accordingly, Lucifer became one of the terms for the devil in Christian theology. (Page 229)" . http://newprotestants.com... So evidence from independent scholars as well as some Christian organisations themselves that this passage has nothing to do with Satan and is expressly directed towards the king of Babylonia (thought by some to be Nebuchadnezzar). Sorry for pasting such bulky excerpts here to back up my points but I am tired and don't have much time to get this round in. I eagerly await my opponent's next round and hope he can provide some stronger evidence to back up his position and attempt to disprove mine. Thankyou.