Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[Scotishfury09]

http://newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/001-099/nb036.htm

I can see that a snake has to eat dust for all its life.
Wonderful. I am not a biologist. Otherwise, it would be my another Science in Bible entry.

What?

 

[theFijian]

I can see that a snake has to eat dust for all its life.
Wonderful. I am not a biologist. Otherwise, it would be my another Science in Bible entry.

Umm...no. I deduced from that article that snakes eat mice, rats, gophers and insects, not dust.

 

[theFijian]

Counting six days is much more true than saying "six days" means some uncertain amount of time.

...unless six days is a metaphor. hmmm....

This kind of reasoning confirms that Creationism is really a product of the rationalist enlightenment, that the highest form of truth is something that can be counted and put in a ledger. It's such a shame so much of the richness of scripture is dismissed or overlooked purely because of the cultural bindings people cannot or will not acknowledge or deal with.

The attempts to rubbish a non-literal interpretation with 'all-or-nothing' type criticisms is laughable since no literalist takes scripture 100% literally.

"But how do you know what is metaphor and what is not?" I guess we have a lot to thank textual criticism for.

 

[Assyrian]

Now you are being ridiculous.

Who is being ridiculous here? You presented the idea of shepherds sleeping in doorways as if it were evidence that Jesus claim 'I am the door' might be literal. The statement is no more meant to be taken literally than 'I am the bread of life, 'I am the good shepherd' or 'I am the vine'.

Don't pretend I am denying the use of metaphor. I am emphasizing that you are washing the literalness out of many an expression that contains metaphor. I demonstrated your ability to miss content in what Jesus had to say because you got hung up in an attempt to reduce the expression to an absurdity.

Of course metaphors are usually images drawn from things that are real. There are real vines. There is real bread. There are real sheep pens with doors. But that has nothing to do with suggesting the metaphor is literal. There are real snakes, they bite people's ankles. But that does not mean the metaphor of a snake in Gen 3 was literal or that it is in anyway washing any literalness out of the expression to think, as Revelation tells us, that the description of Satan in the Genesis account was given in the metaphor of a snake.

Funny. I see literal truth and parables.

you know it in theory, yet when you see a metaphor you run to find something literal in it as we saw with your shepherd sleeping in the doorway illustration. Enjoy the rich language o the metaphor, follow Jesus where he is leading your understanding.

The thing about parables is that he tells you when it is a parable. WHen he says "This is my blood" that is an entirely different use of language.

Yeah that is the one half the Christians in the world take literally. But read the accounts. Jesus often simply began speaking in parables without any warning.

It is indeed difficult to take it literally enough, but I try.

Think how the Catholics feel.

Thank you know. I already know how to properly apply metaphor and distinguish it from narrative.

That could be difficult, parables usually are narratives.

Find me one YEC who will deny any of this.

Most YECs completely ignore the possibility God may be speaking in parable, the fact God loves to communicate in metaphor, and unless the passage is labelled parable, or it contradicts some bit of science they agree with, like a round earth or heliocentrism.

Evolution makes God a deceiver and ultimately a liar. I could care less if He wanted to take 13 billion years, the fact of the matter is though He told us it took 6 days and you are asking me to discount what He clearly and without question said in order to believe something man says.

The ten commandments in Exodus (called out as being absolutely directly from God) specifically calls out the 6 day creation as God setting an example for men, that they should obey the Sabbath. Jesus helps us understand that God made the Sabbath for men, not the other way around -- its a good thing, not a yoke. If the creation is not 6 days, there's a big problem. Was God a liar? Did they write His commandment down wrong? Was Moses a liar?

Originally Posted by archaeologist
BUT God would not say one thing then do another--that would be sin nor would He allow His writers to misrepresent what He did, thatwould be sin. God is sinless.

remember it is not me that you have to give an account but God. you are not insulting me or calling me a liar but God. i just stand with Him.

There is no inkling that God may have been using metaphor in Genesis. Either the world was made in six days or God is a liar. Either describing creation in six days is either literal or the writers misrepresented what God did and wrote the commandments down wrong.

 

[busterdog]

Who is being ridiculous here? You presented the idea of shepherds sleeping in doorways as if it were evidence that Jesus claim 'I am the door' might be literal. The statement is no more meant to be taken literally than 'I am the bread of life, 'I am the good shepherd' or 'I am the vine'.

Because there is far more literalism evident that you think and you find it in unanticipated places. A good point that you repel. The very modest concession is no big deal.

No one is denying that there is metaphor in the Bible. This issue about is about the rules for when you interpret literally and when not.

As for "bread of life", admittedly, the literal interpretations are not entirely clear. Maybe it is closer to literal than we all think. I don't have the ability to make a good case for that. However, my point is that you often cannot separate out a literal truth a make a phrase metaphor only as often as you would like. Caution is to be recommended.


Remember Isa 40:22? The evolutionists want to use this to prove errancy in a flat earth. In one phrase, you took "circle" to be intended literally when it suited your purpose when it was beyond question that "grasshopper" in the same verse was metaphorical. You are trying to prove too much in an attack on creationism and inconsistency is the result. Thus my counsel: caution.


sa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[gluadys]

Remember Isa 40:22? The evolutionists want to use this to prove errancy in a flat earth. In one phrase, you took "circle" to be intended literally when it suited your purpose when it was beyond question that "grasshopper" in the same verse was metaphorical. You are trying to prove too much in an attack on creationism and inconsistency is the result. Thus my counsel: caution.


sa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

There is no interpretive inconsistency in taking "circle" literally here. Further on the verse says "as grasshoppers" "as a curtain" "as a tent".

"As" marks the simile indicating that this is intended figuratively. It does not say "as a circle".

 

[crawfish]

Remember Isa 40:22? The evolutionists want to use this to prove errancy in a flat earth. In one phrase, you took "circle" to be intended literally when it suited your purpose when it was beyond question that "grasshopper" in the same verse was metaphorical. You are trying to prove too much in an attack on creationism and inconsistency is the result. Thus my counsel: caution.


Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

It's also interesting that some Creationists take the second part - "spreadeth them out as a tent" - as proof of the expanding universe. If "grasshopper" is metaphorical, then do you approve of this second use of the passage?

 

[shernren]

Except that:

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers;
that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain,
and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in ...

(emphases added)

The presence of "as" signals a metaphor in the last three clauses. Indeed, there is explicit parallelism:

inhabitants as grasshoppers
stretcheth out the heavens as [one stretches out] a curtain
spreadeth them out as [one spreads out] a tent to dwell in

But the first clause isn't even "the earth, as a circle", which would have given some support to your forced insertion of a metaphor (which is, quite naturally, dictated more by your knowledge of the world external to and independent from the Bible than by anything actually in the text). It is simply "the circle of the Earth", and the world circle where the 3-D ball was available. I can quite irreverently imagine the conversation that day ...

God: "It is He that sits on the circle of the Earth ... "
Isaiah: Don't you mean "ball"?
God: You mean - you know the Earth is round?
Isaiah: Of course. You told me that before, didn't You?
God: I did?
Isaiah: Of course You did. And You told me that unless I know that the Earth is round, it goes around the Sun, and that those little twinkly dots in the sky are really huge flaming balls of gas just like our Sun, and that nobody would ever take me seriously unless I knew everything there is to know about the science of the world.
God: But I never told you that.
Isaiah: I heard a voice in my head one day ...
God: By any chance, did it title itself as "busterdog"?

 

[juvenissun]

Umm...no. I deduced from that article that snakes eat mice, rats, gophers and insects, not dust.

Snake continuously (once every few seconds) put dust sample into its mouth. Doesn't it?

What do call that action?

 

[shernren]

Snake continuously (once every few seconds) put dust sample into its mouth. Doesn't it?

What do call that action?

It's called "smelling". One might as well say that dogs and humans will breathe dust all the days of their lives, too.

 

[busterdog]

Snake continuously (once every few seconds) put dust sample into its mouth. Doesn't it?

What do call that action?

Snakes find their prey in a most fascinating way. Most people are aware that snakes constantly flick their tongues in and out. A common misconception is that the tongue can sting or inject venom - but a snake's tongue is no more dangerous than a humanÕs tongue. The fork at the end of a snakeÕs tongue fits into a special pit on the roof of its mouth called the Jacobson's Organ. This organ is like a supercomputer. As the tongue flicks in and out, it picks up dust particles from the air and ground. Via the Jacobson's Organ, the snake's brain can "read" the smells and tastes from the tongue and learn a great deal about its surroundings. A human could never smell the footprints of a tiny lizard or mouse, but the snake's sense of smell will pick it up immediately. The snake can then follow the scent trail to the lizard or mouse.

http://www.timespub.tc/index.php?id=406

I think we need to think now about what our argument is. Certainly not all questions about the difficult figures of Gen. 2,3 have been resolved. It is evident that the scripture is at least a little more literal here than the evolutionists thought. No one claims that this resolves all the issues for the literalists. Before the thread gets completely out of hand ....

 

[juvenissun]

It's called "smelling". One might as well say that dogs and humans will breathe dust all the days of their lives, too.

However, if we do not smell, we still live.

If snake does not "smell", it dies. Big difference.

So, smell is not the right word.

Provided, if there is not solid particle in the air, we still smell. But snake could not "smell" in that case.

 

[shernren]

However, if we do not smell, we still live.

If snake does not "smell", it dies. Big difference.

So, smell is not the right word.

Provided, if there is not solid particle in the air, we still smell. But snake could not "smell" in that case.

Nopes, the phrase "solid particles" is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of the Jacobson's organ, also known as the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Those "solid particles" are in reality just larger molecules. Any olfactory system has to work by allowing molecules to hit neurons; the VNO is no different. The only difference between the VNO and our nasal system is that VNOs can detect larger molecules, particularly pheromones, which we can't. (Indeed, some humans have VNO structures in the appropriate places, although most of the time there are no active neurons. Can you say "vestigial structure"?)

And the VNO is certainly not unique to snakes. A wide range of mammals possess it. For example, ever seen a cat lift its upper lip and wrinkle its nose in a grimace? More often than not that's a flehmen response, which the cat uses to direct ... molecules to its VNO. Do cats eat dust? Here:

is a mare exhibiting the flehmen response. Do horses eat dust? The list goes on and on.

Every time you try to find science in the Bible, the real world just doesn't seem to cooperate with you. When will you get the hint and move on?

 

[Assyrian]

Because there is far more literalism evident that you think and you find it in unanticipated places. A good point that you repel. The very modest concession is no big deal.

I find it very odd the things you describe as literalism. The claim shepherd sleep in the doors of a sheep pen is evidence of 'literalism' in Jesus' statement 'I am the door'. No it is not. That is a metaphor. Even if he worked as a shepherd which he didn't it would be missing the point. There is the ridiculous attempt to redefine the snake's sense of smell as eating dust and then you claim scripture is 'a little more literal here than the evolutionists thought'? The 'snake' is really a fallen angel. It would not matter if real snakes ate dust or not.* It isn't a real snake. The description is a metaphor.

Buy this strange definition of literalism, a literal interpretation of the Prodigal Son is one that admits there are such a thing as pigs and that they do eat husks. It is all a parable and the family are just made up, but pigs exist so I am being a literalist.

I can have a literal interpretation of Genesis simply by say there really are real snakes that slither on their belly, even if the one in Genesis was Satan, and although the universe is billion of years old and Gen 1 is figurative, there is such a thing as real days with evening and mornings every 24 hours. Is that literal?

No one is denying that there is metaphor in the Bible. This issue about is about the rules for when you interpret literally and when not.

You can find reasons to take the Genesis account figuratively, the central characters talking to a metaphorical snake is a biggie in my book. There is also the wide range of uses of day in the Genesis account, and the fact that biblical writers took God days figuratively. There are way of interpreting the geocentric passages that avoid the literal meaning too. The question is the basis YECs use to chose the rules that allow figurative meaning for the geocentric passages, and insist that this has to be the interpretation because the literal interpretation would contradict science, but reject any possibility of Genesis being figurative and claim the science is wrong instead. The choice of rules seems arbitrary. If anything, the figurative interpretation of Genesis were around throughout the history of the church and among Jewish writers too. While the non literal interpretation of the geocentric passage never occurred to anyone before Copernicus. So which are the most obvious criteria for figurative interpretation? The ones that occurred to people simply by reading the text or the ones that only came about when science show the literal interpretation was wrong?

As for "bread of life", admittedly, the literal interpretations are not entirely clear. Maybe it is closer to literal than we all think. I don't have the ability to make a good case for that. However, my point is that you often cannot separate out a literal truth a make a phrase metaphor only as often as you would like. Caution is to be recommended.

It shows the bible uses metaphor in ways no literalist's 'rules for literal interpretation' cover.

Remember Isa 40:22? The evolutionists want to use this to prove errancy in a flat earth. In one phrase, you took "circle" to be intended literally when it suited your purpose when it was beyond question that "grasshopper" in the same verse was metaphorical. You are trying to prove too much in an attack on creationism and inconsistency is the result. Thus my counsel: caution.

sa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

How is circle a good metaphor for a globe? It is metaphor that describes flatness. So is the metaphor of the heavens as a curtain stretched out as a tent for the inhabitants of the earth to sleep in. Tents are erected over a flat surface.

*Where the issue of the snake eating dust does come up is that it shows how the literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't work. It doesn't effect the metaphorical interpretation at all.

 

[juvenissun]

Nopes, the phrase "solid particles" is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of the Jacobson's organ, also known as the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Those "solid particles" are in reality just larger molecules. Any olfactory system has to work by allowing molecules to hit neurons; the VNO is no different. The only difference between the VNO and our nasal system is that VNOs can detect larger molecules, particularly pheromones, which we can't. (Indeed, some humans have VNO structures in the appropriate places, although most of the time there are no active neurons. Can you say "vestigial structure"?)

And the VNO is certainly not unique to snakes. A wide range of mammals possess it. For example, ever seen a cat lift its upper lip and wrinkle its nose in a grimace? More often than not that's a flehmen response, which the cat uses to direct ... molecules to its VNO. Do cats eat dust? Here:

is a mare exhibiting the flehmen response. Do horses eat dust? The list goes on and on.

Every time you try to find science in the Bible, the real world just doesn't seem to cooperate with you. When will you get the hint and move on?

Until I am scientifically convinced. You may keep trying.

So, larger molecule. How large? As long as it reaches to the order of micron size, it is called "dust". Snake can taste particle of 0.001 micron size, this does not exclude that it can also taste particle of 100 micron size. So, do you know what is the average size of particle which snake is tasting constantly? Or, think it this way, what is the average size of particle available for snake to taste on? I bet the term "larger molecule" does not give a correct picture.

Also, other animals do not smell by sticking their tongue out. Snake does have nose. Why would snake want to use tongue to smell? Normally, tongue is for tasting, not for smelling.

Also, even there are other creatures use tongue to smell, that would have nothing to do with snake. God did not say that other animals can not do what snake is doing.

You are not arguing science with me. I know little. You are arguing it with God. I don't think it would be a good match.

 

[Mallon]

So, larger molecule. How large? As long as it reaches to the order of micron size, it is called "dust". Snake can taste particle of 0.001 micron size, this does not exclude that it can also taste particle of 100 micron size. So, do you know what is the average size of particle which snake is tasting constantly? Or, think it this way, what is the average size of particle available for snake to taste on? I bet the term "larger molecule" does not give a correct picture.

Also, other animals do not smell by sticking their tongue out. Snake does have nose. Why would snake want to use tongue to smell? Normally, tongue is for tasting, not for smelling.

Also, even there are other creatures use tongue to smell, that would have nothing to do with snake. God did not say that other animals can not do what snake is doing.

You are not arguing science with me. I know little. You are arguing it with God. I don't think it would be a good match.

Ummmm... I think God would probably side with shernren on this one.

 

[Scotishfury09]

You are not arguing science with me. I know little. You are arguing it with God. I don't think it would be a good match.

Yeah, God, Schrodinger's cat is dead!

 

[shernren]

Until I am scientifically convinced. You may keep trying.

So, larger molecule. How large? As long as it reaches to the order of micron size, it is called "dust". Snake can taste particle of 0.001 micron size, this does not exclude that it can also taste particle of 100 micron size. So, do you know what is the average size of particle which snake is tasting constantly? Or, think it this way, what is the average size of particle available for snake to taste on? I bet the term "larger molecule" does not give a correct picture.

In fact, they aren't even larger molecules; they're just different sorts of molecules. Any odorant molecule has got to be small or volatile. The miscellaneous list here has many organic compounds, none of which have more than 60 carbon atoms; a typical C-60 buckyball has a Van der Waals radius of about 1 nanometer. That's one thousandth of a micrometer.

We are clearly not talking about dust here.

Also, other animals do not smell by sticking their tongue out. Snake does have nose. Why would snake want to use tongue to smell? Normally, tongue is for tasting, not for smelling.

Also, even there are other creatures use tongue to smell, that would have nothing to do with snake. God did not say that other animals can not do what snake is doing.

Glad you asked! Elephants use the prehensile structure that tips their trunks, normally called a "finger", to direct odors to their VNO which is at the roof of their mouths. Dogs also use their VNO when licking urine markers left by other dogs.

And God did not just say that snakes will "smell" dust, but that they will "eat" dust. Those are two very different things, an important fact to remember in the vicinity of, say, a garbage truck.

You are not arguing science with me. I know little. You are arguing it with God. I don't think it would be a good match.

Except that, really, I'm not arguing with God.

The simple matter of the fact is that God created the world, and God created the world the way it is today. Therefore, every time I cite a scientific fact against you, I am giving against you a piece of evidence which God Himself has created. God didn't have to make the world scientifically investigable; but He did, and in gratitude for that I will use science to its fullest to learn about nature as much as I physically can.

So really, I'm not opposing God in any way. Now, if my divinely-allowed studies of God's creation happen to contradict your own assumptions and interpretations of Scripture - why, that's your problem with God, not mine ...

 

[busterdog]

Let's agree that there is not a black and white separation between snakes and horses.

The snake, however, is directed by licking the dust, not just smelling it, and apparently relies on that faculty in the place of sight in following a trail, to some extent.

Isn't that a plausible basis for singling out the snake a one that licks dust?

(Nice picture by the way. There is fancy new bistro in a nearby town that features these segmented pictures of horses. Now, a good scotch is 8 bucks. So, the place is already a little off. From what I can tell the pictures are not intentionally humorous, but more artistic. One segment is, you guessed it, a very large framed picture of a horses derriere. Just the tush. So, I am like, I am paying 8 bucks for a scotch and ten bucks for a very fancy grilled cheese and I am looking at a H's A? Let me tell you about natural selection!)

 

[juvenissun]

In fact, they aren't even larger molecules; they're just different sorts of molecules. Any odorant molecule has got to be small or volatile. The miscellaneous list here has many organic compounds, none of which have more than 60 carbon atoms; a typical C-60 buckyball has a Van der Waals radius of about 1 nanometer. That's one thousandth of a micrometer.

We are clearly not talking about dust here.

So, where do these odorant molecules reside? in the air or sticked to dust particles? How would a snake get to them? By nose or by mouth? Does the tongue of snake have a filter so only the odorant molecules got in and the rest of particles spitted out?

And God did not just say that snakes will "smell" dust, but that they will "eat" dust. Those are two very different things,

I agree with you.