Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[busterdog]

Quote:
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.

Bet you are wrong.

Again, where is the tongue?

What is the word for "eat."

Not very different at all. Arguably it is exactly the same.

Micah seems to think so:

Mic 7:17
They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.

Different words, akal and lachak, admittedly.

Of interest, akal again:

Isa 65:25
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
I am certainly not worried about walking through this slowly. One may argue that surface text should immediately leap into full relief, if it is to be taken literally. Well, idiom doesn't do that either, so I am not worried about pausing in puzzlement. I know some feel that is an admission of being wrong. No one wants to be judged by that standard, since no one could so justify their hermeneutic in this particular passage.

 

[juvenissun]

Mic 7:17
They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.



Isa 65:25
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

This is great. Thanks for finding these verses.

So, Israelites DID think that the snake eats dust. Amazing. I don't know if they still do.

 

[shernren]

I think this excursus sufficiently demonstrates the nature of the literal, scientific hermeneutic that so easily befalls the fundamentalist. To shoehorn a biblical idea into a scientific fact they will strain both Bible and science alike, swallowing camels to strain at gnats. So when one hears that snakes flick their tongues in and out to bring odorant molecules to their vomeronasal organs - in the interest of making this a scientific explanation for a scriptural text one is willing to make "lick" and "eat" the same, even though they are quite different words; and furthermore to ignore the fact that the purpose of this action is olfactory (and does not, in any case, involve dust; dust causes runny noses, not improved smell!), and that again "smell" is quite different both in concept and word from "lick" and "eat".

And while such flexibility is perfectly acceptable, inspired even, when it suits their agenda, heaven forbid that the days of Genesis 1 be anything but literal, honest-to-goodness 24-hour-days - oh, one must have less faith or no faith at all to conceive such impieties!

And this flexibility when it suits them, and rigidity when it suits them, is all for the purpose of forcing the Bible in line with a scientific standard that was unknown to nineteen centuries of Christians that lived before today and will be obsolete within another half-century to any Christians then (assuming, of course, that there is another half-century to go in the first place).

(Just for a little more: Micah 7:17 is ascribing the action of licking dust not just to serpents, but to nations, who will "lick dust like serpents". Will God suddenly regrow vomeronasal organs in three billion unbelievers so that instead of smelling with their noses they will have to jab at the air with their tongues like snakes to smell the garbage dump? Is that really how God will humiliate people at the end times, by relocating their olfactory senses?)

 

[juvenissun]

I think this excursus sufficiently demonstrates the nature of the literal, scientific hermeneutic that so easily befalls the fundamentalist. To shoehorn a biblical idea into a scientific fact they will strain both Bible and science alike, swallowing camels to strain at gnats. So when one hears that snakes flick their tongues in and out to bring odorant molecules to their vomeronasal organs - in the interest of making this a scientific explanation for a scriptural text one is willing to make "lick" and "eat" the same, even though they are quite different words; and furthermore to ignore the fact that the purpose of this action is olfactory (and does not, in any case, involve dust; dust causes runny noses, not improved smell!), and that again "smell" is quite different both in concept and word from "lick" and "eat".

And while such flexibility is perfectly acceptable, inspired even, when it suits their agenda, heaven forbid that the days of Genesis 1 be anything but literal, honest-to-goodness 24-hour-days - oh, one must have less faith or no faith at all to conceive such impieties!

And this flexibility when it suits them, and rigidity when it suits them, is all for the purpose of forcing the Bible in line with a scientific standard that was unknown to nineteen centuries of Christians that lived before today and will be obsolete within another half-century to any Christians then (assuming, of course, that there is another half-century to go in the first place).

(Just for a little more: Micah 7:17 is ascribing the action of licking dust not just to serpents, but to nations, who will "lick dust like serpents". Will God suddenly regrow vomeronasal organs in three billion unbelievers so that instead of smelling with their noses they will have to jab at the air with their tongues like snakes to smell the garbage dump? Is that really how God will humiliate people at the end times, by relocating their olfactory senses?)

Meaningless argument to the issue. Lick or eat, it is done by mouth. That is enough.

I don't think this understanding will become obsolete anytime in the future. They may understand more on top of what we do. But the trend is: the literal understanding will become more and more valid through time. 100 years ago, none of these literal understandings made any sense to people. Bless be with those souls who had faith to it.

 

[shernren]

Licking stamps, lips, and frozen telephone poles are quite different from eating them.

And for a guy who keeps insisting that we know so little about the universe, I don't see why you should be particularly optimistic about this scientific fact. After all - and you have said something very like this before - the person who thinks he knows something is the person who actually knows the least, isn't he? So if you think you know something about snakes eating dust, you actually know nothing about it! (By golly, this is fun!)

And even if your interpretation is right, what value does it bring you? Just because the ancient Hebrews knew a lot of science will not guarantee, for example, that God is good or wise or holy or righteous, or that Jesus died for your sins on the cross. Plenty of scientists today know plenty of scientific facts, and yet know nothing of God; so why should you assume that if the ancient Hebrews knew scientific facts, it would have helped them know God?

As it is, the meaning of "snakes eating dust" is plain enough. To begin with, even the Israelites knew that many types of snakes had poison, as they personally experienced - but poison is hardly necessary to subdue dust. Rather, it is quite natural that in tandem with being cursed to crawl along the ground, snakes would be cursed to eat dust: it is natural to imagine that a creature that crawls along the ground will end up ingesting copious amounts of dirt along with whatever it eats.

But that alone can hardly be the lesson of Genesis 3. And if it is just an aetiological tale, a kind of "how the giraffe came to have its spots" analogue, why should it find room in such weighty dialogue? Here is the explanation for why man must toil all his days for food and ultimately die, and here is the explanation for why women will be torn in pain by childbirth (in so many ways, not just physically) and feel the strain of being governed by her husband - but oh, before all of that, here's a story about why the snake has no legs. Would that really work?

But remember that dust is a symbol of shame; to put ashes on one's head was a mark of humility before God. Furthermore, dust is material, fallible and temporal; it is the stuff of which man's body is made and it will become a reminder of his mortality. And while the animals were created by God for purposes of their own, dust was not created to be food for anything, at least until now. So the fact that the snake has to eat dust is a mark of humiliation, a reminder of its limited time, and a public display of how the creation order has rejected it, by denying it food from the proper food chain -

- and yet, for all that, snakes don't actually eat dust. (Any more than we eat stamps.) Even if they did, it would make no sense that snakes in general are humiliated or outcast from the created order; this is, after all, a punishment of the serpent. He is, of course, Satan: and in delivering the judgment God reminds us that Satan is humiliated before God, that his time is limited, and that he should have no place whatsoever in the divinely ordained orders of this world or our lives.

What did your physicalist interpretation bring you? Nothing. What did my metaphorical interpretation bring me? A meditation on evil and how it must ultimately bow to God and be destroyed. Which is why I wonder what anyone ever sees in those interpretations of the Bible that try to match obscure Jewish phrases to obscure scientific factoids. It is really the patter of magicians who have long gotten used to replacing "truth" with "science" by sleight-of-hand; for once a path of inquiry ends in this reaction or that equation how far more can you go? It is in the literary and the spiritual that the Bible truly cuts through muscle and marrow to the heart ...

 

[theFijian]

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

Or that I eat my toothbrush every night.

 

[busterdog]

I think this excursus sufficiently demonstrates the nature of the literal, scientific hermeneutic that so easily befalls the fundamentalist. To shoehorn a biblical idea into a scientific fact they will strain both Bible and science alike, swallowing camels to strain at gnats.

Well, we all agree that there are challenges. I understand that you equate challenge with fatal would. As I asked above, does anyone really want to be judged by that standard?

You already know that we assume that the revelation we need will come someday. Lots of perspectives (like science) include that inherent faith.

I guess if you want to say that's that, you may do so.

As MacArthur said, "[We] shall return."

 

[busterdog]

Or that I eat my toothbrush every night.

Now prove the word in Hebrew means "swallow."

Now, here's your tough question.

If the intent is "taste", not eat, do we have a metaphor or "taste"? If "consume" is intended, or an ironic use such as "sexual pleasure" or "dominate", is that a metaphor is or is that just what the word means?

 

[juvenissun]

Licking stamps, lips, and frozen telephone poles are quite different from eating them.

And for a guy who keeps insisting that we know so little about the universe, I don't see why you should be particularly optimistic about this scientific fact. After all - and you have said something very like this before - the person who thinks he knows something is the person who actually knows the least, isn't he? So if you think you know something about snakes eating dust, you actually know nothing about it! (By golly, this is fun!)

And even if your interpretation is right, what value does it bring you? Just because the ancient Hebrews knew a lot of science will not guarantee, for example, that God is good or wise or holy or righteous, or that Jesus died for your sins on the cross. Plenty of scientists today know plenty of scientific facts, and yet know nothing of God; so why should you assume that if the ancient Hebrews knew scientific facts, it would have helped them know God?

As it is, the meaning of "snakes eating dust" is plain enough. To begin with, even the Israelites knew that many types of snakes had poison, as they personally experienced - but poison is hardly necessary to subdue dust. Rather, it is quite natural that in tandem with being cursed to crawl along the ground, snakes would be cursed to eat dust: it is natural to imagine that a creature that crawls along the ground will end up ingesting copious amounts of dirt along with whatever it eats.

But that alone can hardly be the lesson of Genesis 3. And if it is just an aetiological tale, a kind of "how the giraffe came to have its spots" analogue, why should it find room in such weighty dialogue? Here is the explanation for why man must toil all his days for food and ultimately die, and here is the explanation for why women will be torn in pain by childbirth (in so many ways, not just physically) and feel the strain of being governed by her husband - but oh, before all of that, here's a story about why the snake has no legs. Would that really work?

But remember that dust is a symbol of shame; to put ashes on one's head was a mark of humility before God. Furthermore, dust is material, fallible and temporal; it is the stuff of which man's body is made and it will become a reminder of his mortality. And while the animals were created by God for purposes of their own, dust was not created to be food for anything, at least until now. So the fact that the snake has to eat dust is a mark of humiliation, a reminder of its limited time, and a public display of how the creation order has rejected it, by denying it food from the proper food chain -

- and yet, for all that, snakes don't actually eat dust. (Any more than we eat stamps.) Even if they did, it would make no sense that snakes in general are humiliated or outcast from the created order; this is, after all, a punishment of the serpent. He is, of course, Satan: and in delivering the judgment God reminds us that Satan is humiliated before God, that his time is limited, and that he should have no place whatsoever in the divinely ordained orders of this world or our lives.

What did your physicalist interpretation bring you? Nothing. What did my metaphorical interpretation bring me? A meditation on evil and how it must ultimately bow to God and be destroyed. Which is why I wonder what anyone ever sees in those interpretations of the Bible that try to match obscure Jewish phrases to obscure scientific factoids. It is really the patter of magicians who have long gotten used to replacing "truth" with "science" by sleight-of-hand; for once a path of inquiry ends in this reaction or that equation how far more can you go? It is in the literary and the spiritual that the Bible truly cuts through muscle and marrow to the heart ...

The more you mumble like this, the more confused you will be.

Act like a scientist. Or, drop out.

 

[gluadys]

Act like a scientist. Or, drop out.

Why? Does one need to be a scientist to interpret scripture?

The whole point is that there is more spiritual meat in the passage when it is not interpreted scientifically.

Acting like a scientist, in this case, takes one's attention away from the scriptural message and turns it toward irrelevant trivia.

So I have learned some interesting things about how snakes smell. What has that to do with the snake in Eden?

 

[juvenissun]

Why? Does one need to be a scientist to interpret scripture?

The whole point is that there is more spiritual meat in the passage when it is not interpreted scientifically.

Acting like a scientist, in this case, takes one's attention away from the scriptural message and turns it toward irrelevant trivia.

So I have learned some interesting things about how snakes smell. What has that to do with the snake in Eden?

There is a basic requirement for being a scientist, Christian or not: Make argument right to the point. If a hard question came back, either admit the error, or argue back to the new challenge.

I don't see Shernren has this attitude, at least not in this forum. He can not afford not to do that in his science study.

Of course, being a Christian, one could interpret the Scripture anyway s/he wants. That is not the point of argument.

 

[MrSnow]

My dad once said something to the effect of, "Did you ever notice how women seem to be so afraid of snakes?", alluding to Gen 3.

I thought to myself, "so that makes me a...?"

 

[juvenissun]

So I have learned some interesting things about how snakes smell. What has that to do with the snake in Eden?

Not so much to the snake. But we appreciate more on one of the punishment God gives to it.

-------

With that said, a follow-up question flashed through me:

Why would eat dust this way be a "punishment" to snake? Could you tell me what is the disadvantage by flashing tongue frequently like that? (don't look at me, I do not have a clue). If snake derived from lizard, why doesn't lizard do the same? At least not that frequent.

So, look at this fact from the evolution point of view, what made snake evolve into something which has this peculiar habit?

 

[Scotishfury09]

There is a basic requirement for being a scientist, Christian or not: Make argument right to the point. If a hard question came back, either admit the error, or argue back to the new challenge.

I don't see Shernren has this attitude, at least not in this forum. He can not afford not to do that in his science study.

Of course, being a Christian, one could interpret the Scripture anyway s/he wants. That is not the point of argument.

There is no hard question that came back. YECs have forced it as to make it seem like there is something there, but there really isn't. As Shernren has already said you're swallowing camels (geocentrism and a flat earth) but straining for gnats (snakes eating dust and supposedly four-legged insects).

 

[Scotishfury09]

Not so much to the snake. But we appreciate more on one of the punishment God gives to it.

-------

With that said, a follow-up question flashed through me:

Why would eat dust this way be a "punishment" to snake? Could you tell me what is the disadvantage by flashing tongue frequently like that? (don't look at me, I do not have a clue). If snake derived from lizard, why doesn't lizard do the same? At least not that frequent.

So, look at this fact from the evolution point of view, what made snake evolve into something which has this peculiar habit?

See, here's the problem, Juvie. You're so obsessed with your own science that you actually failed to read Shernren's mumbling.

But remember that dust is a symbol of shame; to put ashes on one's head was a mark of humility before God. Furthermore, dust is material, fallible and temporal; it is the stuff of which man's body is made and it will become a reminder of his mortality. And while the animals were created by God for purposes of their own, dust was not created to be food for anything, at least until now. So the fact that the snake has to eat dust is a mark of humiliation, a reminder of its limited time, and a public display of how the creation order has rejected it, by denying it food from the proper food chain -

 

[shernren]

The more you mumble like this, the more confused you will be.

Act like a scientist. Or, drop out.

What a splendid non-answer. Someone's done the dropping out, and it certainly isn't me.

Well, we all agree that there are challenges. I understand that you equate challenge with fatal wound. As I asked above, does anyone really want to be judged by that standard?

You already know that we assume that the revelation we need will come someday. Lots of perspectives (like science) include that inherent faith.

I guess if you want to say that's that, you may do so.

As MacArthur said, "[We] shall return."

A few confusions here.

1. Why call it "revelation"? You are referring to science, and science proceeds by reason and observation (which is why science can never achieve Absolute Truth, even if it uncovers much truth along the way). And you recognize this: you could easily have said "God told me last night that snakes continually ingest sub-micron particles" and we wouldn't have been able to contest that, yet you looked for the words of a scientist.

2. This is really an explicit example of what's been implicit in your thinking all along: every biblical passage must be explicable in terms of some kind of scientific principle. You talk about "needing" that revelation as if a world in which snakes don't, in some scientific sense, actually eat dust somehow does violence to the Bible, and that the Bible reader without such a scientific understanding must be somehow handicapped whenever s/he reads Genesis 3:14.

I am not saying that there will never be scientific principles behind Biblical passages. I am saying that the whole principle of justifying an interpretation by the amount to which science bolsters literalism will lead to abuse both of Scripture and of science. Many Bible passages are consistent with science, after all, such as

It is like precious oil poured on the head,
running down on the beard,
running down on Aaron's beard,
down upon the collar of his robes.
(Psalms 133:2 NIV)

- well, the Psalter knew that oil runs down when you pour it, not up! Of course, these aren't the kinds of passages that you all look to when trying to show that "the Bible is scientifically accurate", because there's nothing flashy or impressive about them. Everybody knows that oil runs down, not up - but that makes it no less science, does it?

You would have us be impressed by the Bible because it is some kind of secret knowledge impenetrable to both the ignorant who lived before our times and the infidels who mock it today. (And so coincidentally the people who tell us how vitally important these hidden scientific interpretations are, are the same people who deign to supply these hidden scientific interpretations. The prophets praise their uniqueness. Forgive me for being cynical.) Of course such claims seem impressive: who isn't tempted to worship knowledge?

And yet if it is claimed that the Bible contains secret knowledge about the world and its workings, and it should be right about God because of that, that would make it no different from the Akashic Archives, or the Delphic Oracles, or indeed the claims of any of the neo-Gnostic cults that are popping up today. (And those scientific interpretations are proclaimed after the scientific community has discovered them, never prophesied before. Again, forgive me for being cynical.) Lest we forget, there is nothing new under the sun: they are really little more than modern kabbalists who would try to prove the Bible under a microscope.

Now if the Bible was a secret knowledge archive about the world, it might be impressive. But what, then, if it is a secret knowledge archive about God? If God is more important than the world, then secret knowledge about God is far more praiseworthy than secret knowledge about the world. To go to absurd lengths to bring the Bible to bear scientifically on the world, when it most straightforwardly communicates about God, is to confirm that one believes that scientific knowledge is to be desired above all other knowledge.

Now prove the word in Hebrew means "swallow."

That's easy enough. The word "eat" is used 65 times in Genesis, and in each instance it means consumption in the sense we would normally understand it (save a few mentions in Genesis 31 which have the meaning of metaphorical, not actual, consumption). Now you do it for the other 700+ mentions in the Bible. Or do you not use concordances?

Now, here's your tough question.

If the intent is "taste", not eat, do we have a metaphor or "taste"? If "consume" is intended, or an ironic use such as "sexual pleasure" or "dominate", is that a metaphor is or is that just what the word means?

Well, it is both a metaphor and what the word means. This may sound fantastic to you but hold on tight:

People may actually mean what they are saying when they speak metaphorically!

:o

If I said Mother Teresa was a Good Samaritan, would you call me a liar because she had not a drop of Palestinian blood in her?

 

[Mallon]

I can't believe we're still having this conversation! Honestly, what does it matter to our faith if Genesis 14 is a reference to slithering along the ground rather than to literally eating dirt? Why go to such lengths to defend a literal interpretation of what seems obviously a figure of speech?
I think you can learn a lot about someone's priorities going by what they seek to extract from the Scriptures.

 

[juvenissun]

I can't believe we're still having this conversation! Honestly, what does it matter to our faith if Genesis 14 is a reference to slithering along the ground rather than to literally eating dirt? Why go to such lengths to defend a literal interpretation of what seems obviously a figure of speech?
I think you can learn a lot about someone's priorities going by what they seek to extract from the Scriptures.

Yes, if one is not able to read science in the verse, then there is not much to argue about. God punishes the snake. That is it.

But just like the argument about evolution, those Christians who argue about science because we want to know MORE. That is why. Otherwise, who care about YEC or OEC or TE? Why would this forum even exist? All the argument on this thread started with one comment: "everyone knows that snake does not eat dust". To me, this is a direct insult to God's word.
-------

You seems to know lizard and snake better (you gave a quiz about it, right?). Why don't you tell us a little bit about the evolution on the function of tongue in this kind of animal?

If I say: most lizards are active in day time, but most snakes are active in night. Is that statistically true?

Also, is the eyesight of lizard much better than that of snake?

 

[Mallon]

All the argument on this thread started with one comment: "everyone knows that snake does not eat dust". To me, this is a direct insult to God's word.

You're taking offense where none was meant. Here's what sherren said:

Plus, y'know, snakes don't even eat dust, literally speaking. And I bet even the ancient Jews knew that.

He said snakes don't literally eat dust. Metaphorically speaking, they do, of course. They crawl on their bellies. What's wrong with the Bible meaning just that?
Your penchant for sticking to a rediculously literal eisegesis of Genesis is forcing you to see things that aren't there and to take offense at things that were never said!

You seems to know lizard and snake better (you gave a quiz about it, right?).

Well... you were the one asking questions.

Why don't you tell us a little bit about the evolution on the function of tongue in this kind of animal?

Why not just read about it for yourself?
Here's a paper to start with:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(198103)35:2<359:EOVOIV>2.0.CO;2-9

If I say: most lizards are active in day time, but most snakes are active in night. Is that statistically true?

What in the world does this have to do with what we're talking about?

Also, is the eyesight of lizard much better than that of snake?

I guess that would depend on which species you're comparing. There are 2,600 species of snakes, and several thousand species of lizards. But again, what does this have to do with anything?

 

[juvenissun]

What in the world does this have to do with what we're talking about?

I guess that would depend on which species you're comparing. There are 2,600 species of snakes, and several thousand species of lizards. But again, what does this have to do with anything?

I take this question as that you do not know the answer of my question.

I am thinking about what is the actual punishment God gives to snake.