Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[Scotishfury09]

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.

You should take it as he thinks there's no point to answering it.

How many times do we have to tell you? God did not physically punish the snake. It is a METAPHOR

 

[champuru]

I suspect it's actually make-believe. That seems a bit more parsimonious then concluding that it was actually a dragon which had human-like vocal cords.

Besides, who says dragons are smart?

the dragon that told them that dragons are smart

 

[Mallon]

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.

Admittedly, I don't know the answers to all your questions because I don't work on snake or lizard biology. Sometimes, I have to go look up the answer and spoon feed it to you.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Why wasn't Eve surprised...[]...she was spoken to by a snake?[/quote]



FIRST:

Because it didn't happen.​

Second:

1. Serpent: Hebrew = nachash = a shining one
2. Numbers 21:6-9: fiery serpents = burning. Hebrew: nacheshim saraphim. This is the figure of speech known as Metonymy of effect, because the effect of the bite was a burning sensation. Hebrew, saraph. The Seraphim are so called in Isaiah 6:2 because they were burning ones: hence the name for these serpents, because they are shining ones in appearance.
3. Genesis 3:1: The old serpent (2 Corinthians 11:3) was transformed as "an angel of light" = "a glorious angel (2 Corinthians 11:14).

• • Genesis 3:1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
  • Isaiah 6:2: Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
  • Numbers 21:6-9: And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
  • II Corinthians 11:3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
  • II Corinthians 11:14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

 

[busterdog]

You should take it as he thinks there's no point to answering it.

How many times do we have to tell you? God did not physically punish the snake. It is a METAPHOR

Guess it will take a few more times for me.

By the way, where in the text does it say "punish?"

What is said of Adam, "cursed is the ground for your sake."

So God "punishes" dirt?

Hmmmm. Yes. Say it a few more times.

Since you have no idea how to to make the literal application, you assume it can be rejected? That is not logic.

The metaphor thing is not working for me. Sounds more like confusion to me.

 

[juvenissun]

You should take it as he thinks there's no point to answering it.

How many times do we have to tell you? God did not physically punish the snake. It is a METAPHOR

I guess you are easily contented with a story.

I am not. As a scientist, I tend to analyze the story. Usually I found some mistakes in ANY good story, simply because it is only a story.

God's words are not stories.

 

[Mallon]

By the way, where in the text does it say "punish?"

You should be asking this of juvenissun. He's the one who brought it up. Scotishfury was only responding to what he said.

Since you have no idea how to to make the literal application, you assume it can be rejected? That is not logic.

Again, it was a direct response to juvenissun. Not to the YEC paradigm as a whole (unless you think juvenissun speaks for you, too).

The metaphor thing is not working for me. Sounds more like confusion to me.

What do you find confusing about not taking the Creation story literally?

 

[Mallon]

I guess you are easily contented with a story.

I am not. As a scientist, I tend to analyze the story.

The ancient near-Eastern Hebrew people weren't scientists. So you should try reading the story as they would have. Not as you, a self-professed scientist, think it should be read.

 

[gluadys]

I guess you are easily contented with a story.

If you think stories are just to be "content" with, you do not understand stories.

Usually I found some mistakes in ANY good story, simply because it is only a story.

And here is the bad theology coming out. Why do you insist that a story is "only" a story and not a well of wisdom and truth? Why do you insist that only science is a source of truth? That is worshipping science. That is making your faith dependent on science. You refuse to believe anything is truth unless science confirms it. You set science above God.

God's words are not stories.

They most certainly are: the most important of stories. All of God's stories are true. And sometimes they actually happened.

You speak of stories as if they were only for children. Or as if they were only for entertainment, like a cheap novel one reads for amusement and then throws into the trash.

So you pour contempt on God's stories and fail to understand that the reality in the stories is real even when it is not science.

The problem is not that God's stories are stories, but that you have no respect for stories.

 

[gluadys]

Since you have no idea how to to make the literal application, you assume it can be rejected? That is not logic.

No, it is not logic. But if you think this is the motivating question you are barking up the wrong tree. (Metaphorically speaking of course.)

The metaphor thing is not working for me. Sounds more like confusion to me.

This is getting to be a favorite line of yours. What would make a "metaphor thing" work for you? You are obviously intelligent enough to understand metaphor. So where is the confusion?

 

[juvenissun]

And here is the bad theology coming out. Why do you insist that a story is "only" a story and not a well of wisdom and truth? Why do you insist that only science is a source of truth? That is worshipping science. That is making your faith dependent on science. You refuse to believe anything is truth unless science confirms it. You set science above God.

I have been so accused many times in this forum. I am never convinced it is true. Of course I do not worship science. I said, no scientific understanding will last before God. My attitude is exactly the reverse. Because I have strong faith to God, so I can be assure that any message in the Scripture MUST BE scientifically correct, even it does not make sense to us right now. I do not have such faith to ANY conclusions derived from science, even it is as concrete as the principle of gravity force.

The problem is not that God's stories are stories, but that you have no respect for stories.

I wish I could say it is not true. But I think it is almost true, unfortunately. I have no real respect to any other writings except the Scripture. However, that does not mean I do not appreciate them. I appreciate Koran. I also appreciate Confucius. And I also appreciate the quite long abstract you wrote.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Because I have strong faith to God, so I can be assure that any message in the Scripture MUST BE scientifically correct, even it does not make sense to us right now.

I agree.

I appreciate Koran. I also appreciate Confucius.

I do not agree.

False pagan religions, cults, humanism, these all lead men astray from the truth of God and the saving grace of His Son, Jesus Christ. I can have no appreciation or respect for such. To be otherwise is to undermine that which by faith I hold paramount.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I have been so accused many times in this forum. I am never convinced it is true. Of course I do not worship science. I said, no scientific understanding will last before God. My attitude is exactly the reverse. Because I have strong faith to God, so I can be assure that any message in the Scripture MUST BE scientifically correct, even it does not make sense to us right now.

Who let the wild donkey go free?
Who untied his ropes?
I gave him the wasteland as his home,
the salt flats as his habitat.
He laughs at the commotion in the town;
he does not hear a driver's shout.
Job 39:5-7

Do you give the horse his strength
or clothe his neck with a flowing mane?
Do you make him leap like a locust,
striking terror with his proud snorting?
He paws fiercely, rejoicing in his strength,
and charges into the fray.
He laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
he does not shy away from the sword.
Job 39:19-22

Juvie AND Busterdog, do you think the donkey and horse are really laughing? If so, prove it.

Juvie, should I bring up the four-legged insects again?

Or how about the pillars of the earth?

He raises the poor from the dust,
He lifts the needy from the ash heap
To make them sit with nobles,
And inherit a seat of honor;
For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S,
And He set the world on them.
1 Samuel 2:8

any message in the Scripture MUST BE scientifically correct

Show me the laughing horses and donkeys. Show me the four-legged insects. Show me the pillars of the earth.

 

[juvenissun]

Show me the laughing horses and donkeys. Show me the four-legged insects. Show me the pillars of the earth.

I do not know much about horse and donkey. But I believe someone else does and what Job says are ultimately true.

Just wait for a week or two, I WILL show you the pillars of the earth.

I have something else to show you soon (later today or tomorrow). Wipe your eyeglass clean.

-------

And, yes, I stick to my understanding: six-legged insects only use four to walk at any single moment. No one has ever convinced me that I am wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

[/B] Job 39:5-7

....
He laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
he does not shy away from the sword.
Job 39:19-22

This is my reasoning, and it is likely not to be true. But it shows a possibility and, more importantly, the way of understanding:

When we laugh, our body may react by performing some special functions which will create some special biological effects. I know this is true.

So, when a horse faces fear, the body of horse may also trigger some special functions, and it might make a similar effects as that caused by laugh or happiness. May be "exciting" is a better word for it.

IF, if that is true, then we can say that a horse "laughs" at fear.

See, this is the way one should try to understand these strange verses. Just say "it is a metaphor" is simply saying: "I don't know, and I don't care."

 

[gluadys]

I Because I have strong faith to God, so I can be assure that any message in the Scripture MUST BE scientifically correct, even it does not make sense to us right now.

And the converse* of that is that if it is not scientifically correct, scripture is not true. You are still holding up scientific truth as the arbiter of scriptural truth and making science the judge of whether or not scripture is true.

What is the logic behind demanding that a message in scripture MUST BE scientifically correct? Other than an idolatry of science?

There is no logic to demanding that a message never intended to be scientific must conform to the criteria of science.

I wish I could say it is not true. But I think it is almost true, unfortunately. I have no real respect to any other writings except the Scripture. However, that does not mean I do not appreciate them. I appreciate Koran. I also appreciate Confucius. And I also appreciate the quite long abstract you wrote.

What are you going on about? Why drag in writings from other religions? I am talking about the stories in the Bible, not about the Qur'an or the Gita.

You simply have no respect for stories. And because you have no respect for them, you underestimate their power. You think you can ignore stories because you think they are not "real".

Yet the pen is still mightier than the sword and the Word of God does not fail to accomplish his purpose.

The stories of God are more real and more powerful than you suspect and they do not have to be scientifically or historically correct to fulfil their purpose. Indeed, they may be truer when they are "inaccurate" than when they are literally accurate.

Just say "it is a metaphor" is simply saying: "I don't know, and I don't care."

That's not the case at all. The metaphor reveals. That is the point of the metaphor. What does the metaphor reveal?

Not a pointless pseudo-scientific identification of laughter in the wild donkey or horse.

Rather it reveals the scorn of the wild donkey for urban restraints and the scorn of the horse for the terror of battle. Scorn which imitates God's scorn for those who try to capture God in their little intellectual box.

What you are describing does not show a way of understanding, because it does not deal with the meaning of "laugh" in the context of the text. It wouldn't even matter if you are scientifically right. The "science" you offer still tells us nothing about what God is saying to Job in these descriptions.


* technically I think it is a contrapositive, but let's not be distracted by the formal definitions of logic.

 

[Mallon]

Never before have I seen someone twist the Scriptures like you have, juvenissun. Best of luck with your faith.

 

[busterdog]

Juvie AND Busterdog, do you think the donkey and horse are really laughing? If so, prove it.

Juvie, should I bring up the four-legged insects again?

Or how about the pillars of the earth?

The insect thing is Lev. 11? Not sure I understand your issue. Please explain.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

As for horses laughing, this doesn't deserve much response. If you can't tell the difference in intent between Job and Leviticus, then there isn't much to discuss. The first thing I would like here is your concession that Job is clear about invoking metaphor and that Leviticus intends to define its subject more precisely. Your argument is no better than saying some literal narrative is intended, so it must all be taken literally. No one I know makes that argument.

 

[gluadys]

As for horses laughing, this doesn't deserve much response. If you can't tell the difference in intent between Job and Leviticus, then there isn't much to discuss.

I think the point is that juvenissun doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference in intent.

The first thing I would like here is your concession that Job is clear about invoking metaphor

What makes the passages in Job any more clear in invoking metaphor than the snake in Eden?

Why does metaphor work for you here and not in Genesis 3?

 

[busterdog]

I think the point is that juvenissun doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference in intent.

Fury shouldn't make that argument by confusing the intent for his own purposes.

What makes the passages in Job any more clear in invoking metaphor than the snake in Eden?

Why does metaphor work for you here and not in Genesis 3?

I have conceded that there are issues with clarity in Genesis -- whether you take it literally or metaphorically. This passage of Job is pretty clear.