Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[busterdog]

because you've just pointed out that Genesis 3 has no necessary connection with man's condition, today or at any time in history.

I have acknowledged a number of weaknesses in my own position. But this is not one of them. Punishment is a response to an individual's culpability. Cursing is more general, if not generational. Eg, fetal alcohol syndrome.

Clearly, snakes do not universally have their heads crushed,

Future tense. When is unclear to me.

There is indeed a conflation of techniques and images. There is a metaphorical correspondence between snake and cherub. Eze 28:14



It is as if we are indeed dealing with fragments of parchment. I am not claiming to have the a completion of the puzzle. Thus, it becomes difficult to make a claim about fragment A and avoid the impression that there is clarity about fragment B or whatever missing content is interposed.

One has to read the text non-literally to try to say that today's snakes crawl and slither as a result of that curse - since God says nothing about today's snakes.

And again, that is applicable to Adam and Eve as well. For where did God promise them that their punishments would apply to their descendants? God doesn't promise Adam that his children will die; God doesn't promise Eve that her daughters will desire for their husbands. And so, when I today read Genesis 3, I should not be convinced because I read it that I am mortal or that my earthly work will be to some degree futile: after all, even if you can prove that I am Adam's descendant (that there actually was a literal, historical Adam from whom I must be descended by definition), that does not by itself tell me that I must share his condition.

The fact that we are also mortal gives some basis to "read in" regarding the text. Similarly, we "read in", as a working hypothesis, that the uncanny correspondence between snakes now and the curse of Gen. 3 is the result of the curse. But, being limited in my demonology, angeology and not speaking much with the unseen principalities, I am a a bit of a loss.

"Reading in" is of course different than using surface text.

I am more curious about what sense we are to take literally out of the passage and where we need to be deliberate and explicit about the limit of what we know about this passage.

1. There is metaphorical content in the unexalted position of the serpent-like adversary.

2. There is literal truth in the beginning of the difficult life of the farmer.

3. Physical death has now entered. Why death is not immediate and final is not clear.

4. Why modern reptiles must now resemble the cursed adversary is not clear, but they do.

Which, of course, makes literalism quite redundant in this passage. How much do I need to care whether Adam is real or not, if I can know regardless that Adam is really me?

Not necessarily redundant at all. I won't apologize for not being terribly familiar with devils and their origin. If the best I can do is say that none of knows much about such things, that all of us are aware butfamiliar with an unseen world that is perhaps bigger than what we do see and that therefore the "literal" truth may have to wait for another day, I am ok with that, even if it sounds weak.

Coming your way, by the way:

http://www.switchfoot.com/

Actually, the NZ show was last night.

 

[Mallon]

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

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

I've only just sat down to digest thing 'four-legged insect' thing, and for what it's worth, I think the website you linked to is a perfect example of YECs grasping at straws to defend an obviously simplistic, if not flawed, description of insects. I'm with Scotishfury09 on this one. I think the website fails to address the problem it claims to answer; Even if we grant that locusts and grasshoppers walk on four legs and use the other two strictly for jumping (which is obviously false: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xR46zfBkjtI&feature=related), Lev. 11:23 clearly refers to those other flying, "four-footed" insects (not locusts/grasshopper/beetles) as abominations. So what is this verse referring to? In Egypt, we're left with bees, flies, butterflies, scorpions, and centipedes -- all of which obviously have either six legs or many more than that. The emperor has no clothes; the Bible isn't an entomology text.

 

[busterdog]

I've only just sat down to digest thing 'four-legged insect' thing, and for what it's worth, I think the website you linked to is a perfect example of YECs grasping at straws to defend an obviously simplistic, if not flawed, description of insects.

I will have a look at the video.

But, just very quickly, this scripture is not describing insects as four legged beings. This verse is far more complex than anyone has been willing to address. Not sure if we are over that hump yet. But, it is pretty hard to proceed if the debate is whether any biblical writer thinks that insects have four legs. I think this is a waste of time if we have to argue that point.

As an entirely separate point, since even if we only speak of legs, the verse does not say what the doubters want it to say, but go back to Fury's picture. Now prove to me that the Hebrew isn't talking about four wings. You know, your very strong indictment depends upon an understanding of Hebrew, which no one here speaks. You aren't parsing the Hebrew. As a result, your case looks worse and worse. This is why I continue to harp on the fact that the benefit of the doubt benefits everyone. Give the text the benefit of the doubt before you convict.

Look that Hebrew for the following. Note the word that may be used elsewhere to mean "walk."


http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Eze&chapter=1&verse=9&version=KJV#9

Eze 1:9
Their wings [were] joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I will have a look at the video.

But, just very quickly, this scripture is not describing insects as four legged beings. This verse is far more complex than anyone has been willing to address.

Complex, eh?

But, what I was looking for then and am looking for now is a little common sense about this passage and your comments.

Complex common sense?

Not sure if we are over that hump yet. But, it is pretty hard to proceed if the debate is whether any biblical writer thinks that insects have four legs. I think this is a waste of time if we have to argue that point.

Busterdog, this is the problem with Creationists' mindset. Up until this point you were trying to argue that the biblical writer thought that insects had four legs. What else is that article you cited about?

As an entirely separate point, since even if we only speak of legs, the verse does not say what the doubters want it to say, but go back to Fury's picture. Now prove to me that the Hebrew isn't talking about four wings. You know, your very strong indictment depends upon an understanding of Hebrew, which no one here speaks.

Nor did the translators, I'm sure.

Why don't we see how the people who do know Hebrew translated it?

Leviticus 11:23

NIV: But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.
NASB: But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
NLT:All other winged insects that walk along the ground are detestable to you.
KJV:But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
ESV: But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.
HCSB:All [other] winged insects that have four feet are to be detestable to you.

You aren't parsing the Hebrew. As a result, your case looks worse and worse. This is why I continue to harp on the fact that the benefit of the doubt benefits everyone. Give the text the benefit of the doubt before you convict.

Actually, your case looks worse and worse because no where has anyone ever translated the "feet" or "legs" as wings in this verse. No where.

Benefit of the doubt? This seems to be your last resort. You continually harp on it because you have no other options. Arguing that the writer actually thought insects have four legs got you no where and now acting as if the Hebrew should be translated differently is getting you nowhere either.

Look that Hebrew for the following. Note the word that may be used elsewhere to mean "walk."


http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Eze&chapter=1&verse=9&version=KJV#9

Eze 1:9
Their wings [were] joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.

Busterdog, it doesn't matter that the same word can be translated as "went" in a different passage because Leviticus clearly says "feet". Unless you think insects can fly with their feet this argument is null and void.

 

[busterdog]

C
Busterdog, it doesn't matter that the same word can be translated as "went" in a different passage because Leviticus clearly says "feet". Unless you think insects can fly with their feet this argument is null and void.

Sorry brother, that ship to your port in the distance is me passing on to somewhere else. If you find nothing at all of merit in what I write, don't bother replying to it.

I did my homework.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Sorry brother, that ship to your port in the distance is me passing on to somewhere else. If you find nothing at all of merit in what I write, don't bother replying to it.

I did my homework.

If no one replies to it, you'll assume you're always correct.

Good luck somewhere else.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Lev. 11:23

If everyone would just go back and read the entire passage in its full context it would be readily seen that the current disagreement (four footed insects) is not even the subject of the passage of the referenced scripture nor are the scriptures attempting to imply there even are four footed insects.

In short, when the scriptures use the term "creeping things" it is specifically referring to certain animals, not insects.

iow, this entire off track discussion has absolutely nothing to do with scripture and is, imnsho, a demonic diversion to turn heads from God's Word and Purpose towards, instead, a most empty and useless straw side track yada yada.

 

[busterdog]

If no one replies to it, you'll assume you're always correct.

Good luck somewhere else.

It is my prerogative to be "always correct". Is that much worse than being "always correcting" (rarely hearing)?

Learn. Be humbled:

ttp://books.google.com/books?id=owkAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=leviticus+leap+four+legs+entomologist&source=web&ots=DWVuiAJ0GP&sig=JAZDXiGEIwsBAxmt4brfafAtRn4

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

 

[Jerrell]

Why wasn't Eve surprised, or even slightly taken aback, that she was spoken to by a snake?

The Book, Paradise Lost is a Great book that would answer some questions raised. It is a great hisotorical showing the opnion of one man's view of Genesis.

Essentially, the whole story is not told in Genesis, I'm sure Eve was awstruck that a Snake was talking to her...

 

[HypoTypoSis]

The Book, Paradise Lost is a Great book that would answer any question raised.

You would reference a work of Middle Ages FICTION as fact placing it above the Word of God?????

Please, by all means, look up, intensely study, deeply contemplate and fervently pray about all the cognate references for foolish in the book of Proverbs.

Also, &btw, you need to have a l-o-n-g talk with your pastor ASAP. Tell'im HypoTypoSis sent ya!

 

[Jerrell]

-deleted-

 

[HypoTypoSis]

The tablet also helps us to understand why Sarah offered Haggai to Abraham and why Abraham tried to adopt his servant.

In his case it was different for they were both brother/sister and husband/wife.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

The Book, Paradise Lost is a Great book that would answer any question raised.

I am not placing "Paradise Lost" above the bible

Seems there is a glaring contradiction so, which is true?

itmt, you still need t have a long talk with your pastor and, I might add, show him all of your posts here so he knows exactly what the reason for the visit is.

 

[Jerrell]

-deleted-

 

[HypoTypoSis]

1. You are taking this way out of context
2. I...[]...see Paradise lost...[]...opinion as to hat might had happened.
3. There's nothing wrong with examining the thoughts of historical forefathers and mothers.

1. I'm not taking it out of context, it is, rather, you that are consistantly backpeddaling from your original statement that Paradise Lost was a "GREAT book" and that it was capable of "answering ALL questions".
2. NOW you claim the FICTIONAL works contained in PL is just an "opinion" as to "what might have happened". This is still according it as a potential relevent source on par, if not above, with the bible.
3. Further, you are claiming a FICTIONAL author as having equal status with the writers and defenders of the biblical faith when referring to the fictional author and his likeminded ilk as being an "historical forefather (and, mother)".
4. And, yes, you, still, need to have a very long talk with your pastor. Are you going to do this?

 

[Dannager]

You would reference a work of Middle Ages FICTION as fact placing it above the Word of God?????

It looks like you accidentally capitalized "word" in the above sentence.

 

[juvenissun]

I've only just sat down to digest thing 'four-legged insect' thing, and for what it's worth, I think the website you linked to is a perfect example of YECs grasping at straws to defend an obviously simplistic, if not flawed, description of insects. I'm with Scotishfury09 on this one. I think the website fails to address the problem it claims to answer; Even if we grant that locusts and grasshoppers walk on four legs and use the other two strictly for jumping (which is obviously false: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xR46zfBkjtI&feature=related), Lev. 11:23 clearly refers to those other flying, "four-footed" insects (not locusts/grasshopper/beetles) as abominations. So what is this verse referring to? In Egypt, we're left with bees, flies, butterflies, scorpions, and centipedes -- all of which obviously have either six legs or many more than that. The emperor has no clothes; the Bible isn't an entomology text.

Here we go again:

This insect only walk with three legs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AQaae_zqEk

 

[Mallon]

If everyone would just go back and read the entire passage in its full context it would be readily seen that the current disagreement (four footed insects) is not even the subject of the passage of the referenced scripture nor are the scriptures attempting to imply there even are four footed insects.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Lev 11:20-23 is pretty clearly talking about insects.

Here we go again:

This insect only walk with three legs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AQaae_zqEk

We've discussed this before, juvie. That "insect" is not only a robot, but it clearly makes use of all six legs while walking. Walking does not only involve having feet in contact with the ground; it involves moving those feet not in contact with the ground to produce displacement. End of story. (Besides, even given your favoured definition of walking, the Bible would still need to reference three-footed insects in order to be entomologically[!] accurate.)

 

[gluadys]

1. I'm not taking it out of context, it is, rather, you that are consistantly backpeddaling from your original statement that Paradise Lost was a "GREAT book" and that it was capable of "answering ALL questions".
2. NOW you claim the FICTIONAL works contained in PL is just an "opinion" as to "what might have happened". This is still according it as a potential relevent source on par, if not above, with the bible.

1. 
   
   Seems to me you are getting rather hysterical over nothing. Milton was not a fictional author. He was a very real historical person and a profound Christian thinker. Paradise Lost IS a great work of fiction.
   
   Sure, the bible is authoritative for a Christian in the way that no other work, fictional or otherwise is, but that doesn't mean we have to limit our reading to the bible itself.
   
   There is much of interest to be learned from Christian thinkers of every age, whether they are writing systematic theology, like Calvin or fiction, like George McDonald or both like C.S. Lewis--who taught as much theology in the fictional Screwtape Letters and the Narnia tales as in the non-fictional Mere Christianity.
   
   Come to think of it, Jesus used fiction to teach too. So I don't know why it incenses you so much to refer to a fictional work as a worthwhile read on spiritual matters.
   
   Milton is definitely worth reading, both his fiction and his non-fiction. And he can rightly be called a defender of the biblical faith as well.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Creeping thing = Heb translated: To move with the belly on the ground, or the surface of any other body, as a worm or serpent without legs, or as many insects with feet and very short legs; to crawl.

And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.


4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.


9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.


13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

-----------------------------------
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

_______________________________________
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even.
25 And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.
26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.
27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.
33 And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it.

34 Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean: and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean.
35 And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you.
36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.
37 And if any part of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean.
38 But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you.
39 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even.
40 And he that eateth of the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

What CAN be eaten:

3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.