Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[TLK Valentine]

Or perhaps you are simply refusing to admit that calling Satan - the original serpent is an insult to Satan????? Show me anywhere were Jesus called anyone the original serpent except Lucifer??????

Show me where Jesus called Satan that...

You seem stuck on the idea that "original serpent" can only refer to the one from Genesis...

Except I don't think he was talking to snakes either - so why do you attempt to imply I was?

Because you seemed to think that only actual serpents can be serpents... now that you've admitted they don't have to be, there's no reason to assume that the unnamed serpent from Genesis was, in fact, Satan.

I am quite aware that when Jesus refered to the original serpent he was referring to Lucifer.

And when did Jesus make that reference?

Since there is only one ancient or original serpent mentioned anywhere in the Bible and it referes to Lucifer, you might want to rethink your stance.

Not in Genesis...

 

[AV1611VET]

And when did Jesus make that reference?

In AD 96.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Show me where Jesus called Satan that...

You seem stuck on the idea that "original serpent" can only refer to the one from Genesis...

John 8:44: ‘You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.’

Only the serpent in the garden is the father of lies. Only he was a murderer from the beginning because he caused the death of mankind. He told that very first lie "you shall not surely die."

Because you seemed to think that only actual serpents can be serpents... now that you've admitted they don't have to be, there's no reason to assume that the unnamed serpent from Genesis was, in fact, Satan.

Contrary my friend, it is you that seems to think only serpents can be actual serpents, or why else would you be insisting the serpent is not Satan, even if Satan is called the ancient serpent? Nor is there any reason to assume that the unnamed serpent in Genesis was an actual serpent.

Just as God spoke through an ass, so too Satan inhabited the serpent and spoke through it. This is why he is called that original serpent. Just as Jesus drove the demons into the pigs. They can take over other beings.

Just as Jesus called Satan the father of those not following God's word. We are not to take it literally that Satan actually fathered children. Just as when the Satan spoke thru the serpent, we are not to take it literally that it was a snake speaking, but Stan himself, the father of lies, because that was the first lie told - "you shall surely not die."

When God spoke to Balaam through the donkey, was it the donkey that actually spoke or God????

http://biblehub.com/numbers/22-28.htm

He is the father of lies because he spoke the first lie, he is a murderer from the beginning because he caused the death of mankind. Are we now to assume Cain is Satan, because after all Cain was the first to ever commit murder.

 

[TLK Valentine]

John 8:44: ‘You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.’

Oddly enough, there is no reference here to any serpent, let alone an original one.

Only the serpent in the garden is the father of lies. Only he was a murderer from the beginning because he caused the death of mankind. He told that very first lie "you shall not surely die."

Actually, God told the first lie... He said "on that day you will die."

They didn't. In fact, their eyes were opened, exactly as the serpent (truthfully) said.

Ironic, isn't it?

Contrary my friend, it is you that seems to think only serpents can be actual serpents, or why else would you be insisting the serpent is not Satan, even if Satan is called the ancient serpent? Nor is there any reason to assume that the unnamed serpent in Genesis was an actual serpent.

Just as there's no reason to assume the garden was a literal garden, or that the six days were literal six days?

I can get in board with that... but can you?

Just as God spoke through an ass,

(Insert snarky comment here)

so too Satan inhabited the serpent and spoke through it. This is why he is called that original serpent.

Did it stop being a serpent?

Just as Jesus drove the demons into the pigs. They can take over other beings.

But the pigs were still pigs, the ass was still an ass, and the serpent was still...

 

[4x4toy]

I think a "unicorn" was probably an everyday animal, such as a rhino. For example, nowhere in the scriptures is the animal given any special distinction, other than being named along with other everyday animals.

This unicorn=rhinoceros .. Some guy way back in England illustrated from a description having never seen a rhino come up with a horse with a horn .. And still today we have artist renditions of animals based on a few bones even whole families using only their imagination ..

 

[TLK Valentine]

This unicorn=rhinoceros .. Some guy way back in England illustrated from a description having never seen a rhino come up with a horse with a horn .. And still today we have artist renditions of animals based on a few bones even whole families using only their imagination ..

Besides, what's the Hebrew or Greek word for "rhinoceros," anyway?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Besides, what's the Hebrew or Greek word for "rhinoceros," anyway?

There is no one word except Reem, which is translated as rhinoceros, unicorn, wild ox, cattle, etc, etc, etc depending on the whim of the translator and his own personal beliefs.

http://biblehub.com/job/39-9.htm

Although we can see from translations, which are consistent and which are in fantasy land, and which throw in rhinoceros instead of wild ox because they still tried to hold to a one horned interpretation when such is not valid.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7214.htm

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/33-17.htm

Horns, plural........ It's how it is able to push them together......

The extinct Auroch because it could not be tamed to the plow.

http://biblehub.com/job/39-9.htm

 

[TLK Valentine]

There is no one word except Reem, which is translated as rhinoceros, unicorn, wild ox, cattle, etc, etc, etc depending on the whim of the translator and his own personal beliefs.

I suspected as much -- One of many translation errors enshrined into theology...

 

[4x4toy]

Rhinocerus unicornis

 

[TLK Valentine]

Rhinocerus unicornis

Expecto patronum!

 

[4x4toy]

Sanguinis Christi !!!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I suspected as much -- One of many translation errors enshrined into theology...

At least we admit to such errors, unlike evolutionists who refuse to admit that birds interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes are the same species. Ignoring their own scientific definitions in the process.

So what's your excuse for perpetuating a fraud?????

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sanguinis Christi !!!

Wingardium Leviosa!

 

[TLK Valentine]

At least we admit to such errors, unlike evolutionists who refuse to admit that birds interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes are the same species. Ignoring their own scientific definitions in the process.

So what's your excuse for perpetuating a fraud?????

When has that happened? Source, please?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When has that happened? Source, please?

Surely you are not feigning ignorance when it comes to Darwin's Fiches are you? Sitting there interbreeding right in front of their eyes and producing fertile offspring. And to top it all off the DNA tests showed they had been interbreeding since arriving on the islands, so were never reproductively isolated in the first place, so never even became speciated at all. But they are still lying to everyone, refusing to admit to their mistakes, and trying to convince everyone they are still separate species.

And these are the people you choose as your high priests to lead you in the showing of your faith. People not only lying to everyone, but to themselves as well. All to keep their faith alive from the falsification that has already occurred.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Surely you are not feigning ignorance when it comes to Darwin's Fiches are you? Sitting there interbreeding right in front of their eyes and producing fertile offspring. And to top it all off the DNA tests showed they had been interbreeding since arriving on the islands, so were never reproductively isolated in the first place, so never even became speciated at all. But they are still lying to everyone, refusing to admit to their mistakes, and trying to convince everyone they are still separate species.

They are?

And these are the people you choose as your high priests to lead you in the showing of your faith. People not only lying to everyone, but to themselves as well. All to keep their faith alive from the falsification that has already occurred.

And which people are these? I prefer to argue facts, not fantasies.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They are?

Look it up for yourself, you'll see they are still lying about birds interbreeding right in front of their eyes and still claiming they are separate species. As a matter of fact every evolutionist on this site will deny they are the same species to perpetuate the lie. As a matter of fact just wait a couple posts and you'll see.

Against the very DNA data.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31425720

"The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."

Since they interbred since first arriving on the islands, they were never reproductively isolated and hence never became separate species or underwent speciation.

Accept the facts or not. Lie to yourself or not. Just don't expect rational people to accept that birds interbreeding and producing fertile offspring and have been since the beginning are separate species.

And which people are these? I prefer to argue facts, not fantasies.

Any evolutionist you care to name...... But then each and every one will continue to ignore their own scientific definitions.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Were they not doing it right in front of their eyes, there might be reason to question. Since the DNA data shows they have always been doing so.......

So the question is are you going to accept the truth and admit to their mistakes, or continue to lie to yourself to perpetuate the myth?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Look it up for yourself, you'll see they are still lying about birds interbreeding right in front of their eyes and still claiming they are separate species. As a matter of fact every evolutionist on this site will deny they are the same species to perpetuate the lie. As a matter of fact just wait a couple posts and you'll see.

Already did -- didn't see the lies... not from them, anyway.

Any evolutionist you care to name......

Sorry, no high priests there. Any other fantasies you wish to share?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Already did -- didn't see the lies... not from them, anyway.



Sorry, no high priests there. Any other fantasies you wish to share?

So then you answered my question. You are going to lie to yourself so you don't have to admit to their error in classification.

And then you wonder why no evolutionist can be trusted with the truth, You wont even admit to your mistakes when they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes and have been since they arrived on the islands. If we can't trust you with admitting the truth when it's right in front of your eyes - and such a little thing too - you certainly can't be trusted with the larger truths. But thanks for letting me know where you stand on the veracity scale. I simply know you can't be trusted to tell the truth in anything.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So then you answered my question. You are going to lie to yourself so you don't have to admit to their error in classification.

And then you wonder why no evolutionist can be trusted with the truth, You wont even admit to your mistakes when they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes and have been since they arrived on the islands. If we can't trust you with admitting the truth when it's right in front of your eyes - and such a little thing too - you certainly can't be trusted with the larger truths. But thanks for letting me know where you stand on the veracity scale. I simply know you can't be trusted to tell the truth in anything.

Only lies I saw were yours. Pontificate all you wish...