Dead Sea Scrolls and Gen 4:1?
By paranominal
Published: July 3, 2009
Tagged with: Dead Sea Scrolls, God, satan, Truth
Recent Posts
- Would anyone please comment (good or bad) on my poem?
- The Curious Case of the Happy Hamster Rolling His Wheel on a Moving Walkway
- Concerning The UFO Sighting Near Highland, Illinois – Sufjan Stevens cover
- Wolf Parade- Dear Sons And Daughters Of Hungry Ghosts (video)
- South Florida LandShark
- Best Place to Buy Auto Insurance
If you follow the traditional teaching, the "father of lies" (i.e., Satan or Lucifer, however, you want to express his name) is an adopted father. Cain, through his actions, became the "son of Perdition" just as those who "follow Christ" become the adopted sons and daughters of God.
It is largely metaphorical and while we may all be "gods and children of the most high" (Psalm 82; John 10:34) in the spiritual sense, we can, through our actions, become adopted by God, also.
And your authority is . . .?
your imagination?
Jesus said Satan was the father of liars. Cain lied to God after he killed his brother, so I’m thinking it was metaphorical, not literal.
The dead sea scrolls are portions of Isaiah and some of the other prophets.
What it does is prove that the most modern manuscripts virtually match some the most ancient manuscripts.
Since the Bible doesn’t mention any such nonsense, and the DSS matches the Bible, therefore the DSS doesn’t mention any such nonsense, either.
You can take your lies elsewhere. Satan is the father of all lies!
I’ve never heard of that.
Where did you hear it?
In any event, the biggest thing you’ll learn if you do any serious research on the DSS is that some of them are practically perfect matches to the Masoretic text, and some of them are waaaay off. And sometimes, you’ll have BOTH of those for the same books…meaning, of course, that one mss being off isn’t an indication that the Bible has changed, but rather that it had various versions in the 1st century. Also remember that the DSS community was most likely a small group that you or I would just call a "cult"…they almost certainly didn’t have access to the official temple scrolls.
but certainly, the documents they left are INVALUABLE for textual criticism of the OT.
If it said that cain was the son of the devil, doesnt necessarily mean biologically.
Figure of speech most likely.
i have not heard of that . would like to know where it come from . if you say the RCC then your a lier . the scientist wont allow the RCC near it after what they done on the find before that . and due to the fact you have no ide what i am talking about means your Q is fictitious .