₦airaland Forum

mbaemeka:
Multiple Personality Disorder. Anybody? I thought I said this before? Did y'all think I was mocking him?

let him keep lying to himself, he cannot lie to God and his conscience. Na him sabi, come to think of it, yet he'd be the first to nail another person

I was of the opinion before that he was bit but studying it again, it wasn’t expressly written. This act could be similar to that of Daniel in the den, the lion’s mouth was shut

The bible says Paul shook the snake off, if truly the viper fastend his fang on his hand, will it just take a shaking to pull if off?

Either way, at the end of the day, this scripture was fulfilled

Mar 16:18

They shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover


[size=13pt]John Gill Exposition on the Bible[/size]

and fastened on his hand; or wrapped itself about his hand: the Syriac and Arabic versions render it, "bit his hand"; but that does not seem so likely, since he felt no harm by it; the Ethiopic version, "hung upon his hand"; which agrees with what follows; nor is it inconsistent with its wrapping itself about his hand, which is the more proper signification of the word used.

[size=13pt]Albert Barnes Note on the bible[/size]

And fastened on his hand - καθῆψεν kathēpsen. This word properly means to join oneself to; to touch; to adhere to. It might have been by coiling around his hand and arm, or by fastening its fangs in his hand. It is not expressly affirmed that Paul was bitten by the viper, yet it is evidently implied; and it is wholly incredible that a viper, unless miraculously prevented, should fasten himself to the hand without biting.

vooks:
So now FASTEN is BITING?

[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%2028:3[/url]


FASTENING ON. I thought snakes bite hands not bite ON hands, but with CE hooligans, they never admit wrong. And I forgot to mention you can't possibly beat them on hallucinations
https://lifecoachontheradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/snake-in-hand-web-200x300.jpg

Jesus is lord!!!!!! This is what he means by fastening? This is what binding, laying hold of, fitting means?

Wooooooaw. You are to be quarantined for possessing a depressingly low IQ.

nannymcphee:
I was of the opinion before that he was bit but studying it again, it wasn’t expressly written. This act could be similar to that of Daniel in the den, the lion’s mouth was shut

The bible says Paul shook the snake off, if truly the viper fastend his fang on his hand, will it just take a shaking to pull if off?

Either way, at the end of the day, this scripture was fulfilled

Mar 16:18

They shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover


[size=13pt]John Gill Exposition on the Bible[/size]

and fastened on his hand; or wrapped itself about his hand: the Syriac and Arabic versions render it, "bit his hand"; but that does not seem so likely, since he felt no harm by it; the Ethiopic version, "hung upon his hand"; which agrees with what follows; nor is it inconsistent with its wrapping itself about his hand, which is the more proper signification of the word used.

[size=13pt]Albert Barnes Note on the bible[/size]

And fastened on his hand - καθῆψεν kathēpsen. This word properly means to join oneself to; to touch; to adhere to. It might have been by coiling around his hand and arm, or by fastening its fangs in his hand. It is not expressly affirmed that Paul was bitten by the viper, yet it is evidently implied; and it is wholly incredible that a viper, unless miraculously prevented, should fasten himself to the hand without biting.

The problem they are now having is that he felt no harm which should have been the norm. Ha ha ha ha. So the Maltans who had seen vipers for days didn't know why they expected Paul to die?

Ha ha ha ha

Gombs:
This is a confirmation then. I wonder when reading and comprehension became a herculean task for some of you. Let's read that Acts 28 in the Message translation

Paul pitched in and helped. He had gathered up a bundle of sticks, but when he put it on the fire, a venomous snake, roused from its torpor by the heat, [size=20pt]struck his hand[/size] and held on

Now, I know English is a bit difficult for some of you to understand, let's leave the above enlarged aside for a minute,

V6
They kept expecting him to drop dead, but when it was obvious he wasn't going to, they jumped to the conclusion that he was a god!

Are you saying folks there did not see Peter being bitten by the snake, yet, they expected him to drop dead? They actually kept expecting . But in your mammoth scriptural ineptitude, you said they assumed he was bitten, and kept expecting him to die.

I actually prayed for God to turn your cousel yo folly. See how you all keep embarrassing yourselves. Snake and Eve, Paul and Galatia, now this?

Was Paul really bitten by the snake? Hmm!

Most translations maintained the word 'fastened' why? because there is no certainty if Paul was bitten or not. some commentaries also prefer to use the word 'wrapped' to describe the snakes action; but what really happened? The details are not so clear especially considering the fact that vipers are not known to live on the island of Malta today, maybe they became extinct, just maybe; or maybe the type of snake was actually mistaken..Just saying
Vipers are in the family of very venomous snakes, they are naturally ambush predators that strike with lightening fast speed and accuracy, in fact, you could be bit by a viper and not even know you've been bit. So how and why do people allege that the vipers fangs were buried in Paul's hands and even hung on it?
I agree with commentaries that believe that the snake wrapped itself around his hands and he simply shook it off quickly before it could cause any harm. The people already had superstitious beliefs about snakes so they observed from a distance and gave their own interpretation to what had transpired.
So in a nutshell, I do not think there is sufficient detail to conclude that Paul was bitten, however, I would strongly disagree with any submission that the snake fastened its fangs on Paul, Vipers don't bite like pythons, they strike fast and release and unless you have a slow mo camera, you could miss the strike.
I do however believe that Gods mercy was at work in keeping Paul from being harmed by the venomous beast.

I recommend you read Gills Exposition on this: http://bibleapps.com/gill/acts/28.htm
Thanks

mbaemeka:
The problem they are now having is that he felt no harm which should have been the norm. Ha ha ha ha. So the Maltans who had seen vipers for days didn't know why they expected Paul to die?

Ha ha ha ha

DB said they assumed he was bitten.. Amazing huh?

Gombs:
Stop making yourself even more sillier.

get a study bible, read verse 5. It gave two references Mark 16:18, Luke 10:19

any reason(s)?

not that i expect you to reason well now, but for viewers sake. If you think he was bitten, fine.


Baba Candour, what sayeth thou?

You don drag me inside this una derailment again abi?

Actually, I don't see anything about bite in that scripture. The Greek in that scripture is truly "kathapto" which is translated "to fit or fasten to" and has nothing to do with "bite". In fact this is the only instance in scripture where the word "kathapto" is used.

if Paul was actually bitten as you and mba insinuate, the bible didn't say (as far as that scripture is concerned) but it doesn't detract or reduce the miracle God wrought there. I believe preventing the beast from biting Paul was a big enough miracle or will we reduce the enormity of the miracle of Daniel in the lions den because they didn't bite Daniel? Would it have been better appreciated if they bit Daniel and he still survived?

The miracle is that a viper fastened itself to Paul's hand yet couldn't cause him any harm. Shikena.

WinsomeX:
The phrase "and fastened on" which is used in the text to describe what happened to Paul by the snake on that Island is "kathapto" in Greek. It means: to fit or fasten to; bind on; to lay hold of; or to fasten on hostilely (Strong Concordance).

[s]There is nothing in that scripture that meant bite.

Bite, which is "brucho" in Greek is not anywhere found in that text. [/s]

you for obvious reason did not quote the whole of Srong Concordance, why did remove the word [size=20pt] Hostilely [/size] from the concordance?

ok, you did not see it shey? Ok o

The highlighted.
Nobody aksd you to fall sick BECAUSE Paul was sick.
You can't flash INSTANT healing by apostles as evidence of your theory and when I point to their persistent sicknesses or delayed healings you dismiss that as not for you.

If you stick to Jesus example, I will have to ask you to walk on water,multiply loaves and fish to feed 5,000. Go the whole yard. You can't grab INSTANT aspect of His miracles and ignore the rest

How have you added to the scriptures, am not here to babysit you kid, go back to the first time you attempted a dumb Christ Embassy commentary on Peter's healing the lame and my FIRST reply to your shenanigans

mbaemeka:
Everything in the scriptures are for learning. Not all (including from NT) are benchmarks for other christians, only Jesus is. So when you keep shifting the rules of the game to accomodate yourself then you probably do not know anything to begin with but are simply learning on the go.

I am not in the camp of those who delve head first into verses they haven't studied properly- which is your stock in trade. And you may end up not learning anything because you are strongly deluded. If you weren't using a bungalow head (as there's nothing upstairs) you would have simply seen the same connections you have refused to see all through this thread. And what is most risible is the fact that you think you are disproving anything. You are simply exposing yourself further. First I was accused of adding to the scriptures. Now I have quoted the scriptures and he is questioning my interpretation. Ask the Holy Spirit why he had to tell us that it was when Peter pulled him up that his feet and ankles received strength. Ask the Holy Spirit why he had to use 2 different words for leaping in vs 8 and subsequently when the man began leaping and praising God. Also ask him why he didn't say his sovereignty healed the man but that Peters faith in Jesus name did.

You have a lot to learn. The sooner you realize it the better for you.

Candour:
You don drag me inside this una derailment again abi?

Baba, no vex jare

Actually, I don't see anything about bite in that scripture. The Greek in that scripture is truly "kathapto" which is translated "to fit or fasten to" and has nothing to do with "bite". In fact this is the only instance in scripture where the word "kathapto" is used.

read through the translation of that greek word, did you also miss the word Hostilely fastened?

if Paul was actually bitten as you and mba insinuate, the bible didn't say (as far as that scripture is concerned) but it doesn't detract or reduce the miracle God wrought there. I believe preventing the beast from biting Paul was a big enough miracle or will we reduce the enormity of the miracle of Daniel in the lions den because they didn't bite Daniel? Would it have been better appreciated if they bit Daniel and he still survived?

So, the viper who was chased by the heat of the fire, just fastened itself on Paul, and Paul now shook it off, instead to taking it away gently, then the Maltans there were watching the film trick, and were expecting him to die? shey?

Paul was bitten, the miracle there was that it did not kill him, why? that's why verse 5 gave us two references.

The miracle is that a viper fastened itself to Paul's hand yet couldn't cause him any harm. Shikena.

ok, thanks for your opinion,

Gombs:
you for obvious reason did not quote the whole of Srong Concordance, why did remove the word [size=20pt] Hostilely [/size] from the concordance?

ok, you did not see it shey? Ok o

The bible explains why the snake had to have bitten Paul. It was reacting to the heat from the fire that Paul was stoking with the wood he was fetching. The Maltan's watching saw what transpired: If Paul wasn't bitten then there would have been no reason to expect him to swell and die. There would have been no reason to conclude he was an extraordinary man. Any ordinary man will knee-jerkly shake a rope off let alone snake, if it accidentally drops on him. So the reaction of the Maltan's is the answer to it all.

Puny brained godess,
ANY time you want to point to what I said, please post it here instead of paraphrasing my posts off your rear.
Show me where Paul was bitten by a snake

mbaemeka:
Hahahahahaha besides Point 4 was not your claim. Your claim was there is nothing like shedding of blood in relation to remission of sins, to which I pointed you to Hebrews. I make bold to belabor my assertion that a child gets his blood from the father and not from the mother- explaining Jesus' divine blood. You even claimed Jesus blood was human but you retracted your claims when your friends steered clear from such cretinism.

Now you have added Paul was never bitten by a snake and you think by screaming the never you would all of a sudden become right? hahaha. Please tell us what the word fastened as used there portrays? When you make a mess of it, I would be here to put you in your place like I did the other bucolic churl that spoke with the same whim as you.

As per Paul and going to Jerusalem, you are a late comer. Some of your friends will tell you what they learnt on the lost WOF thread. I would have taken my time to show it to you in clear words again, and then pray in tongues for an hour hoping you would get a brain and a life, but you are not worth it. Let me see you wriggle your way from this recent goof.

Gombs:
Baba, no vex jare



read through the translation of that greek word, did you also miss the word Hostilely fastened?



So, the viper who was chased by the heat of the fire, just fastened itself on Paul, and Paul now shook it off, instead to taking it away gently, then the Maltans there were watching the film trick, and were expecting him to die? shey?

Paul was bitten, the miracle there was that it did not kill him, why? that's why verse 5 gave us two references.



ok, thanks for your opinion,

If the bible didn't expressly tell you that Daniel slept overnight in a den with lions yet wasn't bitten, would you have believed it? Wouldnt you have said they probably bit him but his flesh was restored? Why do you think the God that shut the lions mouth couldn't have also shut the mouth of the viper? Do you think it has to be thoroughly dramatic for us to acknowledge the finger of God even when the bible is silent on it?

vooks:
The highlighted.
Nobody aksd you to fall sick BECAUSE Paul was sick.
You can't flash INSTANT healing by apostles as evidence of your theory and when I point to their persistent sicknesses or delayed healings you dismiss that as not for you.

If you stick to Jesus example, I will have to ask you to walk on water,multiply loaves and fish to feed 5,000. Go the whole yard. You can't grab INSTANT aspect of His miracles and ignore the rest

How have you added to the scriptures, am not here to babysit you kid, go back to the first time you attempted a dumb Christ Embassy commentary on Peter's healing the lame and my FIRST reply to your shenanigans

Rubbish. Your incorrigibility is on record here. Even your confused cheerleader absconds every now and then. I made no theory of anything. A confused person claimed there was nothing like an instant harvest or getting results instantly and I put her in her place. That's why I was puzzled that you were referring me to your so-called delayed healings. And when you couldn't stand up to your hollow claims you began throwing sovereignty everywhere as if the meaning of that word was initiated by you.

Your last paragraph was lame especially as I quoted scriptures verbatim including correcting your extrabiblical talks of the lame man laying down at the beautiful gate and now that Paul wasn't bitten. If I am to be generous to you, I would say straightfaced that you are more confused than winx and if you know what that means, you would get a life.

mbaemeka:
The bible explains why the snake had to have bitten Paul. It was reacting to the heat from the fire that Paul was stoking with the wood he was fetching. The Maltan's watching saw what transpired: If Paul wasn't bitten then there would have been no reason to expect him to swell and die. There would have been no reason to conclude he was an extraordinary man. Any ordinary man will knee-jerkly shake a rope off let alone snake, if it accidentally drops on him. So the reaction of the Maltan's is the answer to it all.

No mind these guys

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2510:

aorist
1. to fit or fasten to, bind on.

2. to lay hold of, fasten on (hostilely):

na them sabi, the snake reacted hostilely to what Paul was doing, then it fastened himself to Paul's hand for a hug, and Paul shook a beast who came for a hug into the fire (Paul wicked sha), then the foolish Maltan's there just assumed Paul was bitten, then they sat there waiting for Paul to drop down , he didn't, so they also assumed he was a god.


case closed! bros, i wan go chop food abeg. If you wan continuee with them fine, me, i must chop first. Later jare

Excellent admission.
So it is down to Christ Embassy hallucinations once again.
Let's study WHY THE SNAKE HAD TO HAVE BITTEN. We have jumped from fastening being equivalent to biting to even more dumb theories.

1. Why the snake reacted tells you NOTHING

2. If the islanders THOUGHT Paul was bitten, they would have reacted with the same shock just as if they had seen him bitten. So their reaction tells you nothing. Think disciples seeing Jesus and freaking thinking it was a ghost, would they not have been EQUALLY scared if it was a ghost?

3. There is nothing like 'ordinary man' people especially women panic at the very sight of a rat while some Chinese would grab it.

4. The Maltans are not CE mumu, they know snake bites are lethal and that snakes bite at close range. They can see a snake they know to be highly venomous coiled on a man's hand and they naturally EXPECT a bite and reaction namely swelling,paralysis and death.

5.The point is there is NO recorded biting. And let's argue from silence. Luke given to all the details can capture all this and leave the miraculous climax of a bite out? For what reasons? So that this kid can hallucinate it?

mbaemeka:
The bible explains why the snake had to have bitten Paul. It was reacting to the heat from the fire that Paul was stoking with the wood he was fetching. The Maltan's watching saw what transpired:[b] If Paul wasn't bitten then there would have been no reason to expect him to swell and die. [/b]There would have been no reason to conclude he was an extraordinary man. Any ordinary man will knee-jerkly shake a rope off let alone snake, if it accidentally drops on him. So the reaction of the Maltan's is the answer to it all.

Do they teach Christ Embassy hooligans to lie?
Paste my extra biblical claim of laying down....wait, I have edited it

mbaemeka:
Your last paragraph was lame especially as I quoted scriptures verbatim including correcting your extrabiblical talks of the lame man laying down at the beautiful gate and now that Paul wasn't bitten. If I am to be generous to you, I would say straightfaced that you are more confused than winx and if you know what that means, you would get a life.

Kid,
There are easier words for BITE in Greek and besides,presence of the preposition ON means fasten can't possibly refer to a BITE because BITE ON A HAND is re.tarded grammar. BTW, how ELSE would you DESCRIBE a snake coiled on Paul's hand other than fastened? Must a snake bite a hand to bind on it?

Can't you see that your godess is not even supporting your moronic theology?

Gombs:
No mind these guys

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2510:

aorist
1. to fit or fasten to, bind on.

2. to lay hold of, fasten on (hostilely):

na them sabi, the snake reacted hostilely to what Paul was doing, then it fastened himself to Paul's hand for a hug, and Paul shook a beast who came for a hug into the fire (Paul wicked sha), then the foolish Maltan's there just assumed Paul was bitten, then they sat there waiting for Paul to drop down , he didn't, so they also assumed he was a god.


case closed! bros, i wan go chop food abeg. If you wan continuee with them fine, me, i must chop first. Later jare

Guys be reading the bible with polarized lenses since 1900

Gombs:

You are way different! It takes humility to admit wrong, that my friend is commendable! Much respect sir!

The very humility you lack and make debates drag on endlessly. Have it your way then: "fastened" on his hands is the snake "biting" him. Don't forget Candour admonition though.

Candour:
go sidon naughty Gombs if only you could have done same with our firstfruits discussion (and now "fastened" debate) ...

vooks:
Excellent admission.
So it is down to Christ Embassy hallucinations once again.
Let's study WHY THE SNAKE HAD TO HAVE BITTEN. We have jumped from fastening being equivalent to biting to even more dumb theories.
1. Why the snake reacted tells you NOTHING
2. If the islanders THOUGHT Paul was bitten, they would have reacted with the same shock just as if they had seen him bitten. So their reaction tells you nothing. Think disciples seeing Jesus and freaking thinking it was a ghost, would they not have been EQUALLY scared if it was a ghost?
3. There is nothing like 'ordinary man' people especially women panic at the very sight of a rat while some Chinese would grab it.
4. The Maltans are not CE mumu, they know snake bites are lethal and that snakes bite at close range. They can see a snake they know to be highly venomous coiled on a man's hand and they naturally EXPECT a bite and reaction namely swelling,paralysis and death.
5.The point is there is NO recorded biting. And let's argue from silence. Luke given to all the details can capture all this and leave the miraculous climax of a bite out? For what reasons? So that this kid can hallucinate it?

1. Don't be a dolt. How would the threatened snake react? By wrapping itself around Paul's hands? That's a dumber theory.

2. The Maltans that have seen such snakes bites couldn't have been misled to see otherwise. They know what they saw. The bible did not say they thought he was bitten.

3. Lame point.

4. The Maltans knew what to expect because they had seen something similar happen to others before. They could never have been misled into thinking things. It would take more illogic to suggest so.

5. Another hopelessly daft point. What did Luke mean by hostile fitting? When joints are fastened does it not even allude to a fixing by a nail or screw?

Puny brains,
This means a snake can fasten or bind on your hand WITHOUT biting. The ease with which he removed the snake from his hand suggests against a bite. Ever seen a snake bite? How could you and you can't afford NatGeo/DSTV?

Acts 28:5 (ESV)
5 He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm
You don't shake off a snake that's BITING YOU
https://desicolours.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/snakesbite01.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/21UBSL_nV_Y/hqdefault.jpg

mbaemeka:
Jesus is lord!!!!!! This is what he means by fastening? This is what binding, laying hold of, fitting means?

Wooooooaw. You are to be quarantined for possessing a depressingly low IQ.

nlMediator:
Au contraire, WOF has more miracles than all of you.
Post some of your own experiences casting out demons, healing the sick and getting God to work.
Critics hardly ever do. All they do is attack and attack some more.
You certainly misunderstand or misrepresent WOF. WOF loves the mercy of God. What we reject is hiding under it to explain your lack of faith or power or knowledge that would help obtain results.

vooks:
Sure most miracles and LEAST verifiable.
I don't get the Creator to work, I work for the Creator

nlMediator:
Don't mind these people.
There's no video of Hagin that I'm ashamed to watch.
Or afraid of or concerned about watching.
The Holy Ghost moves mightily in his meetings and things happen. Those that do not understand it can bother themselves all they want.
I recommend his video El Shaddai. One of his best. Yet, there, he's running around the room like a kid. These guys would ridicule it.
But those who understand the move of the Spirit absolutely love it. And are mightily blessed by it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdEuD0Gfhg
^{Kenneth Hagin | Mighty Anointing (Part33)}

There's no video of Hagin that you're ashamed to watch?
Yeah right. Try the other leg
One just laughs when you guys wear the phrase "reading and/or comprehension abilities" thin,
- the recent one, everyone knew it was a sarky by nannymcphee and not an apology except for our mutual friend

OK, watch the video above which our mutual friend conveniently left out, but got busy inconsiderately putting up 1- and 2-hours plus long videos which are bandwidth guzzling and were old videos when "Baba" was years warming up to the above video.
- by the way, notice the WoF emblem, so should be suitable for general viewing and meet your approval to watch.
- It was uploaded by "Baba's" crew, and is the "finale" video where "Baba" said it is the first time they experienced the full manisfestation of the laughing anointing. Wow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2V7KbbfRHA
If your liver's strong, watch the above 5 minutes jara video and try explain it
or throw up a few more of the famous long-practiced barrage of excuses


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPMOjI_KVmk
and this with Rodney Howard-Browne with Benny Hinn teaching how to Holy Laughter

HOLY GHOST LAUGHTER along with slain in the spirit:
https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/7#24937905

[size=14pt]Be not ignorant of this ONE thing,
we don't brag or post miracles, nor bleat on about it, we just do.[/size]

I am just looking and laughing... but somebody's gotta say it.

I could remember shdemidemi, trustman and I had tried to mince up this strong tough Luke 10:19, Mark 16:18 and Acts 28:3 meat.

shdemidemi, trustman and I, understand that:

"The Christian cannot equate himself with Jesus. He had inherent authority.
We can only at best have delegated authority. The Apostles too were unique in their own way.
They were pioneers. They were foundation layers..."
- © trustman

shdemidemi and I, particularly, I recall cut up the meat but then let the small pieces lie on the plate, as some will rather have bottled skimmed milk instead of meat
It ruffles a few feathers, such that, it evokes threats to DISH out dirty slaps, as desserts, when it is served. (sorry about the pun, dish) .

Here's the shocker, about taking authority, stepping or trampling on snakes and scorpions etc, literally, as in Luke 10:19 or Mark 16:18
well, those verses were/are not meant for or addressed to the 21st Christians or WoFtards for that matter.

Contrary to what WoFtards or church tradition, will want many to believe, those verses weren't to the church but the reality is that it was said in relation to the Apostles and meant for the Apostles.
- No, don't run with it, don't get it twisted, didn't imply WoFtards Apostles or similar

All that needs to be done is read these verses (i.e. Luke 10:19 or Mark 16:18) SLOWLY but LOUDLY
It is recommended to read up on what Greek aorist tenses are all about first before reading Luke 10:19 or Mark 16:18 SLOWLY but LOUDLY
as this will help with better understanding the read Luke 10:19 or Mark 16:18 verses

Now after reading Luke 10:19 or Mark 16:18, for good measure, we can catch up with Acts 28:3 to have the penny drop

This was a prophetic statement made by Jesus in Luke 10:19 or Mark 16:18 about the Apostles which got fulfilled in Acts 28:3 by an Apostle

If we have honestly and really got familiarised with Greek Aorist Tenses, like true BEREANS do, then we will realise the TRUE import of the grammar and tenses in Luke 10:19 or Mark 16:18

Luke 10:19 or Mark 16:18 was literal for the pioneers, literal at the foundation layers and that prophecy got fulfilled by one of the pioneers at Acts 28:3
- hate bursting bubbles this way. It was literal then man, not anymore, not now. Sorry.

We, shdemidemi and I, had a thread on this, but we know the gist about that anyway, gone with the wind (i.e. tsunami)

M.oron,
1. Paul is holding firewood and the snake is spooked and its first reaction is flee from heat towards Paul who is AWAY from the fire

2. Neither does the Bible say they saw him bitten. If they saw him bitten or thought he was bitten, their reaction would have been the same. They saw a venomous snake coiled on his hand and waited for him to drop dead

3. Puny brains overheating

4. Distilled idiocy. What spooked the disciples in the boat?

5. Who said hostile fitting? What's the big deal with saying Paul was bitten? How do you shake off a snake with its fangs deep inside your skin dumbo?

mbaemeka:
1. Don't be a dolt. How would the threatened snake react? By wrapping itself around Paul's hands? That's a dumber theory.

2. The Maltans that have seen such snakes bites couldn't have been misled to see otherwise. They know what they saw. The bible did not say they thought he was bitten.

3. Lame point.

4. The Maltans knew what to expect because they had seen something similar happen to others before. They could never have been misled into thinking things. It would take more illogic to suggest so.

5. Another hopelessly daft point. What did Luke mean by hostile fitting? When joints are fastened does it not even allude to a fixing by a nail or screw?

^^^^

How do you shake or brush off something that is firmly fastened around you? Keep deriding yourself. Luke said after the snake fastened itself on Paul he FELT no harm and not that the snake DID no harm. Why would he feel any harm if the snake didn't do something that would elicit the harm?

Your problem is reasoning.

Dumbo,

Refer to the first image I shared.

Acts 28:4 (Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible - YL)
4 And when the foreigners saw the beast hanging from his hand, they said unto one another,

The snake was hanging. 'Firmly fastened' is your rear hallucinating pending your brain cooling

mbaemeka:
^^^^

How do you shake or brush off something that is [b]firmly fastened [/b]around you? Keep deriding yourself. Luke said after the snake fastened itself on Paul he FELT no harm and not that the snake DID no harm. Why would he feel any harm if the snake didn't do something that would elicit the harm?

Your problem is reasoning.

Acts 28:4 KJV

And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

They saw the venomous beast HANG on Paul's hand. I am sure you would soon claim the beast wasn't venomous.

vooks:
Dumbo,

Refer to the first image I shared.

Acts 28:4 (Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible - YL)
4 And when the foreigners saw the beast hanging from his hand, they said unto one another,

The snake was hanging

Daft and ignorant. I should be showing you the verse. How did the snake hang? By wrapping itself? BTW the words shake off in greek also mean to brush off.

The Maltans saw the snake HANG on Paul's hand and then he brushed it off and FELT no harm.

And am sure you would soon claim that Paul shut the snake mouth by reciting Rhapsodies

mbaemeka:
Acts 28:4 KJV

And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

They saw the venomous beast HANG on Paul's hand. I am sure you would soon claim the beast wasn't venomous.

Rexyl:
So when you have nothing to contribute you just concluded like a lazy man.

So to you and your likes Bible characters and their documented works which spanned through hundreds of years are a fiction. You and your authors made me laugh.

It's very easy to call someone names when you, absolutely, have nothing intelligent to offer.

vooks:
And am sure you would soon claim that Paul shut the snake mouth by reciting Rhapsodies

Clutching. At least now you know the Maltans didn't think they saw the snake hanging on his hand. They actually did see it.