 constructed, not as a picture of realities, but as a vehicle of moral teaching... (1936, p. 811).

Almost half-a-century later, two writers, Neal D. Buffaloe and N. Patrick Murray, co-authored a text in which they wrote: “By contrast [to the literal, historical view of Genesis—BT], the mainstream of Biblical scholarship rejects the literal historicity of the Genesis stories prior to Chapter 12, and finds the literature of parable and symbol in the early chapters of Genesis.” Later, in referring to the events of these chapters, including Satan’s temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden, the authors stated that “these things never were...” (1981, pp. 5,8).

Because unbelievers reject belief in the spirit entity known as God (and, not coincidentally, the Bible as His Word), it hardly is shocking that they simultaneously repudiate belief in the spirit being known as Satan (whose actual existence can be documented only within God’s Word). Skepticism of, and opposition to, spiritual matters on the part of unbelievers should be expected. Skepticism of, and opposition to, such matters on the part of those professing to be believers should not.

The same Bible that informs the religious liberal about the existence of the God in Whom he proclaims tobelieve, also informs him of the existence of Satan—in whom he does not believe. Where is the consistency? Furthermore, consider the emphasis on Satan within the whole of the Sacred Text, the importance placed on the fact of his existence by both biblical writers and the Son of God Himself, and the critical role he has played in the necessity of God’s great plan of salvation for mankind.

The Reality of Satan in the Old Testament

From the first book of the Bible (Genesis) to the last (Revelation), the existence of the devil as a real, literal adversary is affirmed. Our first introduction to Satan occurs in Genesis 3 as he arrives in the form of a serpent to tempt Eve. Speaking of the historical nature of this account, M.W. Jacobus observed:

That there was a real serpent in this transaction cannot be doubted any more than we can doubt the real history throughout. Here, where the facts speak, further explanations are not necessary, nor fitted to the time of the beginning. (1) The real serpent is contrasted with the other animals, (vs. 1). (
constructed, not as a picture of realities, but as a vehicle of moral education... (1936, p. 811). 

 about half - a - hundred later, two writers, Neal D. Buffaloe and N. Patrick Murray, co - authored a textbook in which they wrote: “ By contrast [ to the literal, historic view of Genesis — BT ], the mainstream of Biblical scholarship reject the literal historicity of the Genesis stories prior to Chapter 12, and receive the literature of parable and symbol in the early chapters of Genesis. ” Later, in denote to the event of these chapters, including Satan ’s temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden, the authors stated that “ these thing never were... ” (1981, pp. 5,8). 

 Because unbelievers reject belief in the spirit entity know as God (and, not coincidentally, the Bible as His Word), it hardly is shocking that they simultaneously repudiate belief in the emotional state being known as Satan (whose actual existence can be documented only within God ’s Word). incredulity of, and opposition to, spiritual matters on the part of unbelievers should be expected. Skepticism of, and opposition to, such matters on the part of those professing to be believers should not. 

 The same Bible that informs the religious liberal about the existence of the God in Whom he proclaims tobelieve, also inform him of the existence of Satan — in whom he does not believe. Where is the consistency? Furthermore, think the stress on Satan within the whole of the Sacred Text, the importance placed on the fact of his existence by both biblical writer and the Son of God Himself, and the critical role he has played in the necessity of God ’s great plan of redemption for mankind. 

 The Reality of Satan in the Old Testament 

 From the first book of the Bible (Genesis) to the last (Revelation), the existence of the devil as a real, literal adversary is affirmed. Our first introduction to Satan occur in Genesis 3 as he arrives in the phase of a serpent to tempt Eve. Speaking of the historical nature of this account, M.W. Jacobus watch: 

 That there was a real serpent in this transaction cannot be doubt any more than we can doubt the real history throughout. Here, where the facts speak, further explanations are not necessary, nor fit to the time of the beginning. (1) The real serpent is contrasted with the other animal, (vs. 1). (
 cojstructed, not as a pictuve of realities, yyt as e vehicme of mofal teaching... (1936, p. 811).

Almost half-a-rentyry lqter, two writers, Neal A. Buffalov and N. Pqtrirk Murray, co-authored a tcrt in ahick vhey wrote: “By cpntrast [to the literal, hhsgoxical view of Genesis—BT], the mainstrewm of Bobpical scholarsrip getecta the literal historicity of the Gsnesis vtories prior to Chapter 12, and finds the litfrature of parable and symbol in eye early chaoters of Gtnzsis.” Later, jn referring to the events of tfese ehapters, inxlydijc Satan’s tenptatpon of Eve in the Gargen of Rden, the authovs steted that “these things neter were...” (1981, pp. 5,8).

Because unbelievara reject belief ib rhe skirit entkry ynosn aa God (wnd, not coincjdentally, tye Bible as His Worc), yn hardly is sgockind ehat they simultaneously repudiate belitf in the spirit being known as Satan (whose actuap existense can be documented only within God’s Word). Skeptiwism kw, aue oppuwihion to, spiritual matters on the part of unbejjefegs should be expegted. Skepticism of, ajd jpposition to, such matfers on the part ov those profwssing to be nelievers should not.

The samw Bible that unforms the religilus liberal aboot the existence of the God iu Whom he proclails tobelisxe, also informs fim ox the existence of Satan—in whom he voes uot belidve. Ehere ys the condistekwy? Furthermore, condider tve emphasid on Satan within the whole of vie Sacred Texj, tve pmportancz placcd on the fact jf his existenee by boch bibuical writvrs and tie Son of Goq Himself, and jhe critical cole he hws poayee in thd necessity of Bod’s grean klan of saovation for mankinv.

The Deality of Satau un the Old Testsmevt

Fwol vhe fysst book of dhe Cibur (Gendsis) to the uast (Revelation), the exisdencs of the devil as s veal, litetal adverfary is affirked. Our first intrlductmon to Satam oscurs in Genesis 3 as he arrivea in the vori of a serpegt ti tempt Eve. Xpeaking of the historical nature of thms account, M.W. Jacobus ovserved:

That there wcs a real ser'ent ig this trdnsaction cannot be eoubted any more uhan we can doubt the rsal hivtory throughout. Here, where the facts speak, further explanations are not neceswary, nor fitted to the time oy tke begigninj. (1) The real serpenn is contrasted with the other aiimals, (vs. 1). (
constructed, not as a picture of realities, a of moral (1936, p. 811). Neal Buffaloe and N. Murray, co-authored a in which they wrote: “By contrast the literal, historical view of Genesis—BT], the mainstream of Biblical scholarship rejects the historicity of the Genesis stories prior to Chapter 12, and finds the literature parable symbol the chapters of Genesis.” Later, in referring to the events of these chapters, including Satan’s temptation of in the Garden of Eden, the authors stated “these things never were...” pp. 5,8). Because unbelievers reject in spirit entity as (and, coincidentally, the Bible His Word), it hardly is shocking that they simultaneously repudiate belief in the spirit being known as (whose actual be documented within Word). of, and opposition matters on the part of unbelievers Skepticism of, and opposition to, such matters on part of professing to be believers should not. same Bible that informs the religious liberal about existence of the God in Whom he proclaims tobelieve, also informs him of the existence whom he does not Where is the Furthermore, the on within the of the Sacred Text, the importance placed on the fact of existence by both biblical writers and the Son of God the role he has in the necessity of great of salvation for mankind. of in From first of the Bible (Genesis) the last (Revelation), the existence the devil as a Our first introduction to Satan occurs in Genesis as he arrives in the form of serpent to tempt Eve. Speaking of the historical nature of this account, Jacobus observed: was a real serpent in this transaction cannot doubted any more than can doubt the real history throughout. Here, where the speak, explanations are necessary, nor fitted the time of beginning. (1) The is contrasted the animals,
 constructed, not as a picture oF realities, But as A veHicLe Of moRal tEaching... (1936, p. 811).

Almost HAlf-a-Century later, two writers, neal D. buFFaloE AnD N. PatRick MurRAy, CO-AutHoReD a tExT In Which TheY wrote: “BY contrast [tO thE lIteral, historICaL view of GenEsiS—BT], the mainstReaM of BibLiCal SCholaRshIp rejEcts thE LiteraL historicItY Of the GENesis stORIeS priOr to Chapter 12, and finDS tHE literature of pArable AnD SyMBOl iN thE early chapTeRs of GENesis.” LaTEr, IN REfeRRing to the evenTs of these chAPteRs, inclUdIng sAtan’s tEmptaTiON of eve in the GarDen oF Eden, the aUthors STated thAT “these tHings nEveR weRe...” (1981, pp. 5,8).

bEcAuSe uNbELieVErS reJEct Belief in ThE sPirit EntiTY KNOwn aS GoD (and, Not coIncidentally, tHe BIble AS HiS Word), It harDly iS sHockiNg that They sImUltaneously repuDiatE belief in The SpIriT bEing kNOwn as SAtaN (whOse actuAl existENce CaN BE DoCumented only within goD’S woRd). SkeptiCism of, ANd OpPOsition tO, sPirItuaL MAtterS on tHE pArt of unbElieveRS sHoUld be exPeCted. SkEpTicIsm Of, and OPposItion tO, such matTers oN The part of those PRofessing to be BElIEVeRS shoUld Not.

The same BIble THat iNforMS tHe rELigioUs libErAL aBOut the existence of thE GOd in WhOm he pRoclaims tobelIeve, also inFORMs him of tHe exIStENce of Satan—in whOm he dOes not beliEVe. Where iS the cOnsistenCy? FurtherMORe, considEr tHe eMphAsiS ON SAtan within the WHOle oF tHe SacreD TeXt, the imPorTanCe pLacEd On the fact Of his exiStEnCe By BotH biblICal writeRs And ThE SoN of GoD himselF, and tHe crItIcAL roLe he has PLaYED in tHe NeCessIty Of god’s gReat PLan Of salvaTion for maNkiND.

The reAlIty of SaTan in the Old TeStAment

From tHe FirSt book OF The Bible (genesis) to the last (RevelatIOn), the exIstEnce oF the Devil as a rEal, LiteraL adVErsary Is affiRmed. OUr FirST IntroDUCtIon To satan occurS IN GeNesis 3 As He arRives in The form of a serpent tO TemPt Eve. Speaking Of tHe hiSTOrIcaL NaTUre Of THis ACCount, M.W. Jacobus oBserved:

ThaT tHErE was a real sERpeNt In this tRansactIon caNNot be doUbted any mOre than we CaN douBT The Real historY throughOut. Here, whERe the FAcTs speAk, fUrther ExPlaNatioNs are nOT neCessaRy, nor fItTed to tHe timE oF the begiNning. (1) The real serpent is coNtrastEd witH thE other aniMalS, (Vs. 1). (
 constructed, not as a pic ture of re aliti es,  bu tas a  veh icle of moralt each ing... (1936, p. 811). 

Alm os t  hal f -a -cent ury lat e r, t wowr it ers ,N ea l D.Buf faloe a nd N. Patr ick  M urray, co-au t ho red a text  in  which theywro te: “B ycon t rast[to  thelitera l , hist orical vi ew of Gen e sis—BT] , th e ma instream of Bibli c al scholarship re jectsth e  l i t era l h istoricity  o f the Genesis st o r i esp rior to Chapt er 12, andf ind s theli ter a ture o f par ab l e a nd symbol i n th e early c hapter s  of Gen e sis.” L ater,inref erri n gto  th ee ven t soft hes e chapte rs ,inclu ding S a t an’s  te mpta tionof Eve in the  Ga rden ofEden,  theauth or s sta ted th at “t he se things never  wer e...” (19 81,  p p.5, 8).
B ecause  un bel ieversrejectb eli ef i n  t he spirit entity k no w n  a s God (a nd, no t  c oi n cidental ly , t he B i b le as  His Wo rd), ithardly is  s hocking  t hat th ey  si mul taneo u slyrepudi ate beli ef in the spirit bei n g known as Sa t an ( wh o se a ctu al existenc e ca n  bedocu m en ted onlywithi nG od ’ s Word). Skepticism  o f, and  oppo sition to, sp iritual ma t t e rs on th e pa r to f unbelieversshoul d be expec t ed. Skep ticis m of, an d opposit i o n to, su chmat ter s o n th e part of tho s e  pro fe ssing t o b e belie ver s s hou ldno t.

The s ame Bibl eth at  i nfo rms t h e religi ou s l ib era l abo u t theexist ence  o ft heGod inW ho m he p ro cl aims  to be lieve , al s o i nformshim of th e e x iste nc eof Sata n—in whom hedo es not bel ie ve.  Where i s the co nsistency? Furthermore, conside r t he em phas is on Sat anwithin  th e  whole  of th e Sac re d T e x t, th e im por ta nce placed o n t he fa ct  ofhis exi stence by both bib l ica l writers and  th e So n of  Go d  H i mse lf ,  an d the critical ro le he haspl a ye d in the n e ces si ty of G od’s gr eat p l an of s alvationfor manki nd .

T h e  Re ality of S atan inthe Old T e stame n t
From  th e firs tboo k ofthe Bi b le(Gene sis) t othe la st (R ev elation) , the existence of thedevilas area l, litera l a d ver sary is a ffir med. Our f irs t i ntrod uct i on to  Sat a nocc u rs in  Gen e sis 3 ash earr i v es  in the for m o f a  serp ent to tem pt E ve. Speaking of t h e historical n atur e ofthi s  acc ou nt, M.W. Jacob usob s e rved:

T ha t there was  a realse r pentin thi s tran saction c an n ot bedoub ted  any more  th an we cando ub t  the r ealhi storythroug h out. H ere, where the f actss p eak,f urt her e xp lanatio n s ar e not nece ssary, norfitted  tothe t ime ofth e begi nni ng . (1) Ther eal serpe nt is  contra st ed w ith  the o ther a nimal s, ( vs . 1 ). (
 constructed,_not as_a picture of realities,_but as_a_vehicle of_moral_teaching... (1936, p._811).

Almost half-a-century later,_two writers, Neal D._Buffaloe and N._Patrick_Murray, co-authored a text in which they wrote: “By contrast [to the literal, historical_view_of Genesis—BT],_the_mainstream_of Biblical scholarship rejects the_literal historicity of the Genesis_stories prior_to Chapter 12, and finds the literature of_parable_and symbol in_the early chapters of Genesis.” Later, in referring to_the events of these chapters, including_Satan’s temptation of_Eve_in_the Garden of Eden,_the authors stated that “these things_never were...” (1981, pp. 5,8).

Because unbelievers_reject belief in the spirit entity known_as God (and, not coincidentally, the_Bible as His Word), it_hardly is_shocking that they simultaneously repudiate_belief in the_spirit being_known as Satan_(whose actual existence can be documented_only within God’s_Word). Skepticism of, and opposition to,_spiritual_matters on the_part_of_unbelievers should_be expected. Skepticism_of,_and opposition_to,_such matters on the part of_those_professing to be believers should not.

The same_Bible that informs the_religious_liberal about the existence_of the God in Whom_he proclaims tobelieve, also informs him_of the_existence of_Satan—in whom he does not believe. Where is the consistency? Furthermore,_consider the emphasis on Satan within_the whole of the_Sacred Text,_the_importance placed on_the_fact of_his existence by both biblical writers and_the Son_of God Himself, and the critical_role he has played_in_the necessity of God’s great plan_of salvation for mankind.

The Reality of_Satan in the Old Testament

From_the_first_book of the Bible (Genesis)_to the last (Revelation), the existence_of the devil_as a real, literal adversary is affirmed._Our_first introduction to Satan occurs in_Genesis_3 as he arrives in the_form_of_a serpent to tempt Eve._Speaking of the historical nature of_this account, M.W. Jacobus observed:

That there was a real_serpent in this_transaction cannot be doubted any_more_than_we can doubt the real history throughout. Here, where the_facts speak,_further explanations are_not necessary, nor fitted to the time of the beginning._(1) The real serpent is contrasted with_the other animals, (vs. 1). (