From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Summary: Look ma, I can ride my bike with no exegesis!
Organization: bikers of the way of no exegesis required
 	<BtLvHF.Cs6@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <fRV5Wjs@quack.sac.ca.us> 
	<adams.715272199@spssig> <adams.714922883@spssig> 
	<ycfnyz-.gordons@netcom.com> <adams.715098634@spssig> 
	<fRU5vbc@quack.sac.ca.us>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:50:46 GMT

In article <adams.714663184@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
But, at the same time as they were expelled, God promised Eve that her
'seed' would bring on a savior to redeem mankind.

(Paul Harvey) writes:
Yeah, WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? 

In article <adams.714663184@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
GEN 3:14-15!  Geesh.  How many times do I have to repeat this.  These
verses are informed by other Scripture, as I've said.  You are denying the
exegesis that I use by blatant assertion and insult.

Oh, excuse me. How can I be so evil as to deny your most holy exegesis. Of
course I should have known that my ideas are vile and evil and blantant
assertion and insult unsupported by scripture such as Luke 14:26 whereas
your ideas are pure and holy exegesis whether supported by scripture or not.
How blind of me not to see that, your most holyness. May I kiss your holy
feet?

(Paul Harvey) writes:
Is this just some more creationist science
boosh*t unsupported by scripture or is this just devine revelation received 
by you personally? Or did you hear this on one of those Fundy/Evilgelical
fund raising TV shows? Or is this from the book that proves the Earth is
flat?

(Steve Adams) writes:
I hate to break the news to you that I'm not a fundamentalist, and the
average reader of talk.religion.misc will likely back me up on that.  Your
insulting style is getting very tiring.  I've repeatedly told you where the
exegesis comes from.  I didn't pull it out of thin air.  It's AT LEAST 1900
years old.  Got that?

Ah, so the book that proves the Earth is flat shall be your reference. Tell
me though, what do you have against the words of the Bible?

(Steve Adams) writes:
I don't think you understand the basic philosophy here.  Remember, I start
with the default assumption that God exists and that the Bible is valid.
And that clearly influences my opinions, thoughts, actions, etc.

If the Bible is valid, why must you use this exegesis thing to back up your
assertions about it? Why is it that when you read between the lines of the
Bible, that is exegesis, but when I do the same that is blatant assertion?
And why is it that when you select scritural verse that is devine inspiration
and when I do that it is taking meaning of out context? The point being that
if you are going to start fabricating words that are not in the Bible, it is
still a fabrication regardless of who does it. You may call it exegesis or
blatant assertion and insult, but it is still fabrication.

(Steve Adams) writes:
It is in light of the violation
of this limitation and following Adam and Eve's rebellion against God that
God establishes a covenant with Eve.

(Paul Harvey) writes:
I don't see this covenant that you talk about. As far as I can tell, the
first covenant or deal is between Noah and the Lord.

(Steve Adams) writes:
We find this covenant in the conversation between God and the serpent
where God tells the serpent that
        "(15)...I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
        between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,
        and you will strike his heel." (Gen 2, NIV)

(Paul Harvey) writes:
This seems to me to be just a simple explanation of our strange
relationship with snakes. It is also a not so subtle jab at pagan
religions which see a great deal of power in the snake. It is the snake
that sheds it's skin and is born again. This does not fit the typical
Biblical Covenant. It seems to me that you are looking for something
that just is not there. The fact that others before you may have done
the same thing does not make it any more valid.

(Steve Adams) writes:
Well, now you seem to be saying that I *DIDN'T* make it up.  Decide which
it is.

WOAH! TIME OUT! RECAP!

In article <adams.714663184@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
But, at the same time as they were expelled, God promised Eve that her
'seed' would bring on a savior to redeem mankind.

(Paul Harvey) writes:
Yeah, WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? 

I never questioned the existence of Genesis. I just don't see where it says
that God promised Eve that her 'seed' would bring on a savoir to redeem
mankind. Since it doesn't actually say anything like this in the Bible, you
then start throwing up the smoke screens of exegesis and other boosh*t. This 
concept of God making a deal with Eve about her seed is actually incompatible 
with the Bible. In the Bible, it is the man who owns seed, the woman is only 
the field on which to sow the seed of man. If any seed deal was made it would 
have been between God and Adam. Although I'm sure your exegesis will allow
you to see some type of deal there also. If you're gonna start fabricating,
you may as well make it consistent.

(Steve Adams) writes:
Basically, I am reading the text in light of my understanding of Scripture.
This concept of snake == devil is mentioned numerous times.  The attributes
of Satan (==accuser) are given throughout scripture.

Yes, and this really has absolutely nothing to do with any seed deals, does it?

In article <adams.715098634@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
It's really immaterial whether or not the Serpent was Satan.  Obviously,
the NT writers thought that to be the case.  The Serpent can, if you wish,
be simply thought of as a great deceiver, the one who brought down Adam and
Eve.

(Paul Harvey) writes:
And it looks like I must remind you that you originally said that God
made a deal with Eve that her seed would bring salvation in Genesis. As
proof you claim that the snake is none other than the famous Christian
Devil. Excuse me if I fail to follow that gigantic leap of faith. Now
please, one more time, where in Genesis does it say that God made a deal
with Eve that her seed would bring the salvation of us horrible,
miserable, evil, vile, filthy and oh so humanistic human beings. We eaters 
of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Maybe this helps:

(Steve Adams) writes:
I already posted it.  Your verses (Gen 2:25 - 3:7) are the lead up to what
I posted.  Go read Gen 3:14-15.  Your style over the past couple of weeks is 
comparable to Josh McDowell.  Polemic, but terrible ineffective.

Yes, and your style is just so clear, isn't it Mr. Exegesis B.S. Smokescreen?
It doesn't say anywhere in Genesis anything about any seed deals. Why don't
you just admit it already? Yes it does describe a snake who may or may not
be the Christian Devil making any early appearance in the books of Judaism, but
I fail to see how you can link the Christian Devil to any seed deals or
promises of salvation. Now that the smoke has cleared, will you be stiring
up more exegesis?

(Steve Adams) writes:
My eyes are wide open.  I read the verses about the snake.  You failed to
make any point in your verses, other than asserting blatantly that I'm
wrong.  I've told you at least twice where the theology comes from,
including the verses.  How exactly do YOU interpret Gen 3:14-15?
Differently?  You are free to do that.  But you do not get to decide for
everyone what the verses mean.

True, but at least I don't have to raise a cloud of exegesis to support what
I read in Genesis. And I haven't put any additional words into the words of
Genesis, nor have I speculated on any behind the scenes seed deals. Once
you start seeing things that don't exist, there in no end to what can be
fabricated.

(Steve Adams) writes:
This antagonism is used to symbolize the struggle between good and evil,
played out in human history.  The promise is fulfilled in Christ's
suffering and victory over death and Satan, in which we all will eventually
share.  Paul makes a clear allusion to the promise in his comment that
"...the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet"  (Rom 16:20,NIV).
See also Gal 3:19-20.

Ah, that's clear? I would normally classify that as coincidence, but maybe
that's just me. So, let's see if I get this straight. Paul says in Romans
that the God of peace, whoever that may be, will soon crush Satan under my
feet. And in Genesis, Yahweh the God of War, says to Eve that she will step
on the head of snakes who in turn will strick at her heal. So these snakes
must be Satan and as mankind steps on snakes, so does the God of peace step on 
Satan. So God in Genesis must be predicting the birth of Jesus to Eve, of 
course! And that must be in the form of some type of seed deal. Of course! 
Since God was right there, he could have exchanged the seeds with Eve right
there. OPP? Yeah you know me! Oh, the connections, it's just too incredible. 
Where does Elvis fit into this? Thank you Steve, that is so clear now. Isn't it
amazing how simple it is to manipulate scripture to support whatever theories 
and goals you want? All that's required is a little of that exegesis stuff and 
a wild imagination. Luke 14:26 is just to obvious by comparison, isn't it?

(Paul Harvey) writes:
That seems like a gigantic leap of blind faith unsupported by any
scripture. Don't go blaming the snake or Eve or Satan for your troubles.
It is you who ate the fruit. Take a little self-responsibility for once.
See if you can aspire to the image you were created in. Or as the
patriarchal one himself would probably say, be a man, not a snake!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc