Changes

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so?  Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name?  Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan.  You do.  My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me.  It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all.  Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me.  If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan.  I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that.  I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.   

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so?  Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name?  Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan.  You do.  My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me.  It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all.  Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me.  If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan.  I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that.  I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.   

::::Genesis 3:1 says "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."  Why would it say that if it meant "the Devil?" <b>Of course</b> the Devil is more cunning than any beast of the field.  It says it because serpents were special in the Garden.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 12:10, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place.  The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly.  Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

==Changes==