Do Creationists Believe in Talking Snakes?

Pavel Mosko · Mar 31, 2021

Dale said:
If God didn’t take away the snake’s voice or its intelligence at the Expulsion from Eden, why don’t snakes talk today? It’s something for creationists to think about.

Yes lots of creationists see things that way as the OP.

But as a Creationist this is how I see it (According to the ancient culture of the near east).

FaithT · Mar 31, 2021

Pavel Mosko said:
Yes lots of creationists see things that way as the OP.

But as a Creationist this is how I see it (According to the ancient culture of the near east).

Good post!

coffee4u · Mar 31, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
Look at it's skeleton. It has feet bones rather than walking on fins. It's a salamander. And not just feet bones but it has very explicit digits and rotating wrists.

Frogs look much like the above in their nymph stage. Do you think frogs are fish too?

And so what?

As we keep saying you look at this and see evolution.
We look at that and see a creator who made a great variety of creatures.

It has nothing to do with 'proof' and everything to do with world view.

Job 33:6 · Mar 31, 2021

coffee4u said:
And so what?

As we keep saying you look at this and see evolution.
We look at that and see a creator who made a great variety of creatures.

It has nothing to do with 'proof' and everything to do with world view.

The bottom line is that axolotl isn't a fish. That's all. Can you accept this?

Bible Highlighter · Mar 31, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
Look at it's skeleton. It has feet bones rather than walking on fins. It's a salamander. And not just feet bones but it has very explicit digits and rotating wrists.

Frogs look much like the above in their nymph stage. Do you think frogs are fish too?

You might be right. I will have to wait and ask God when I enter His kingdom someday.

Bible Highlighter · Mar 31, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
I was merely pointing out that the axolotl is not a fish by any modern terms. Sure, maybe 2,000 years ago someone saw a frog and called it a fish as well. And sure, maybe God has completely different words for things. Maybe God calls giraffes by the name of "zanzibars".

But by no modern classification is an axolotl a fish. Nor is a frog a fish, nor is a giraffe a fish. But rather, it is cladistically an amphibian. And this is an important distinction.

Dolphins look a lot like fish too, but they are not fish. They are warm blooded, air breathing mammals.

I understand the classifications in Science and I am not disagreeing with how they classify things. But will these classifications still exist in God's kingdom when Jesus' returns? There is some realm of logic to their thinking when classifying things, but I don't think they know as much as God does on the animal kingdom. My focus in life is not really the creation so much, but it is living for the Lord and doing His will.

coffee4u · Mar 31, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
The bottom line is that axolotl isn't a fish. That's all. Can you accept this?

Is it a fish is it an amphibian? I don't really care. That is a man made classification. Call it whatever you like. It is a creature made by God on day 5.
Genesis 1
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

It has the flesh of a sea creature. I assume that covers fish and amphibians.
1 Corinthians 15:39
Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

You don't understand where or how our focus works. Creation is to do with where sin came from that is why it is important not if something is a fish or an amphibian.

FaithT · Mar 31, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
I am no Evolutionist by any means, but there are fish with feet that exist in our real world today.

I don’t think those are fish.

Dale · Apr 1, 2021

BNR32FAN said:
This is why people associate the serpent with satan.

“And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭12:9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

I assume that you didn’t bother to read my comment in posts #48 and #49 or you wouldn’t be saying this. I explained in considerable detail why this identification of serpents is both strained and actually impossible.

BNR32FAN · Apr 1, 2021

Dale said:
I assume that you didn’t bother to read my comment in posts #48 and #49 or you wouldn’t be saying this. I explained in considerable detail why this identification of serpents is both strained and actually impossible.

No I was responding to the OP. There were multiple pages of comments. I didn’t think I was expected to read them all before responding to the OP.

BNR32FAN · Apr 1, 2021

Dale said:
It will take more than one post to explain why I don’t see Revelation 12 the way you do or see it as relevant. Genesis is about the past and Revelation is about the future. Why do we have to consult a scriptural book about the future to understand a book about the distant past?

Here is an explanation of what the Devil being cast down in Revelation 12:9 could mean, one different from what you are used to hearing. The Devil being in the heavens could mean that he and the ideas he puts forward are on the world stage, they are influential. When the Devil is cast down, this would mean that the Devil’s influence over the hearts and souls of humans is being curtailed. After being cast down, the Devil is not as dominant, although he has influence in many places on earth.

If this sounds a bit vague, one possibility is that the Devil being in the heavens refers to the dominance of paganism, polytheistic religion and idolatry. At the time John wrote Revelation, the Roman Empire was worshiping multiple gods, and using idols. In the next few centuries, polytheism was set back quite a ways. Today, for large parts of the earth, monotheism is dominant. That could be the meaning of Satan being cast down.

Scholars say that Genesis was written, or composed, around 1000 BC. Revelation was written around 100 AD. So Revelation is about 1100 years after Genesis. When trying to understand Genesis, why do we have to go to a book written 1100 years later? Are you telling me that no one knew what the story of Adam and Eve was about until Revelation was written, 1100 years later? I don’t think so.

Revelation wasn’t accepted into the canon of scripture for another couple of hundred years, so instead of 1100 years, we could say 1300. Most Christians weren’t reading Revelation until after it was accepted as scripture.

This doesn’t make any sense. Your not making any sort of case at all your simply rejecting what Revelation 12 says. It’s a weak argument. You said in the OP

Dale said:
Many creationists have been taught that Eve was tempted by Satan. They have been taught to substitute “Satan” for “snake” or serpent. Yet Genesis says nothing about Satan being in the Garden of Eden. This could be one reason creationists don’t ask when snakes lost their voices, they think of the snake as a manifestation of Satan. Yet Genesis says no such thing. God talks about the serpent as a real animal when it says it will “crawl on its belly,” or lose its legs.

Revelation 12 explains why people associate the snake with satan. The snake losing its legs, crawling on its belly, biting the heal of man, and man striking its head are all metaphors of satan’s fall and future events. It appears that you simply don’t want to accept the evidence that has been given to explain why people associate the snake with satan. The fact that it was revealed 1100 years later is irrelevant it still serves as evidence that the snake was satan regardless of when that information was revealed.

Bible Highlighter · Apr 1, 2021

Hope1960 said:
I don’t think those are fish.

Yeah, but if I never shown you it's feet, and you never knew about this kind of creature, you would think it is a fish by it's apperance. So your trying to tell me... it's a creature that looks like a fish, but it's not a fish. Think about that for a moment. Does that sound logical?

FaithT · Apr 1, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Yeah, but if I never shown you it's feet, and you never knew about this kind of creature, you would think it is a fish by it's apperance. So your trying to tell me... it's a creature that looks like a fish, but it's not a fish. Think about that for a moment. Does that sound logical?

Well, to ME, it looks like it was a doctored photo. JMO.
But I know it isn’t.

Derek1234 · Apr 1, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
Yeah, but if I never shown you it's feet, and you never knew about this kind of creature, you would think it is a fish by it's apperance. So your trying to tell me... it's a creature that looks like a fish, but it's not a fish. Think about that for a moment. Does that sound logical?

your post isn't logical. Another poster has already pointed out that a dolphin looks ike a fish, but isn't. A seahorse doesn't look like a fish, but is. It's a simple taxonomical point. I don't believe anyone is arguing more than this, save for the fact that someone - you? - tried to introduced the idea of fish with feet as an argument against evolution.

FaithT · Apr 1, 2021

Derek1234 said:
your post isn't logical. Another poster has already pointed out that a dolphin looks ike a fish, but isn't. A seahorse doesn't look like a fish, but is. It's a simple taxonomical point. I don't believe anyone is arguing more than this, save for the fact that someone - you? - tried to introduced the idea of fish with feet as an argument against evolution.

For the record, I believe in micro evolution, and the jury is out on macroevolution but I lean against it.

FaithT · Apr 1, 2021

Derek1234 said:
your post isn't logical. Another poster has already pointed out that a dolphin looks ike a fish, but isn't. A seahorse doesn't look like a fish, but is. It's a simple taxonomical point. I don't believe anyone is arguing more than this, save for the fact that someone - you? - tried to introduced the idea of fish with feet as an argument against evolution.

Now, I just read that some fish (few) are able to walk on land. So, from a Biblical perspective, how can this be? Many scientists say that some fish evolved but is that macro or micro evolution?

FaithT · Apr 1, 2021

https://helpusfish.com/1/23/do-fish-have-toes.html

This may be helpful, or make the topic more confusing.

Chi.C · Apr 1, 2021

Dale said:
Your assumption that the serpent in Genesis and the red dragon in Revelation are the same is mistaken. In Genesis 3:14, God says that the serpent will “crawl” on its belly, or, in other words, lose its legs. In the following verses in Revelation, the dragon “stood,” or stands, which implies that it has legs.

His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. --Revelation 12:4 NIV

And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He
had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. --Revelation 13:1 NIV

“Stood” is the past tense of “stand,” which normally implies having legs and feet.

Stand verb (used without object), stood [stood], stand·ing [stan-ding].
(of a person) to be in an upright position on the feet.
to rise to one's feet (often followed by up).
--Dictionary.com

Since the red dragon in Revelation can stand, he has legs and feet. Artists have often portrayed the dragon of Revelation with legs. Since the dragon has legs, it cannot be the serpent of Genesis, which lost its legs on God’s command.

Legs or no legs.
There is no mention of "crawl" or "slithering" in KJV nor in Hebrew
Gen 3:14 "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"

Definition of crawl - to move in a prone position with the body resting on or close to the ground, as a worm or caterpillar, or on the hands and knees, as a young child.

Verse about satan. Ezekiel 28:13
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Thus satan was at the Garden of Eden. 3 characters associated with Eden. Adam, Eve and the snake. My money is on the snake eyes.

Bible Highlighter · Apr 1, 2021

Derek1234 said:
your post isn't logical. Another poster has already pointed out that a dolphin looks ike a fish, but isn't. A seahorse doesn't look like a fish, but is. It's a simple taxonomical point. I don't believe anyone is arguing more than this, save for the fact that someone - you? - tried to introduced the idea of fish with feet as an argument against evolution.

Show me the passages where God classifies the different animals as Scientists do and you might be on to something. However, man can make conclusions about the animal kingdom based on observation and study, and I am not denying there is some truth to their claims in the reason why they classify the way they do, but are they interested in the things of God? Most Scientists are not interested in what God's Word says.

As for Macro-Evolution. I do not believe Genesis chapter 1 and Macro-Evolution from Charles Darwin teach the same thing. One is a naturalistic explanation to explain away God and the other is simply reading and believing God's Word. The choice is yours to choose. You cannot mix the two (even though many have attempted to do so). In Evolution, the stars and the moon come before day 4 of creation. Many have tried to be clever and insert imaginary theories like the Gap Theory or the Day Age Theory to cram in Evolution, but these theories are not found in Scripture.

But again, the creation is not as important as say preaching Jesus Christ and in living for Him. I believe the most important aspect of our faith is knowing God and in making Him known to others and having the love of God. To be fully surrendered to Jesus should be the goal of our lives and not trying to argue over how man classifies the animal kingdom.

FaithT · Apr 1, 2021

Whether fish or amphibian, God made them, right?

Do Creationists Believe in Talking Snakes?

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads