Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The bottom line is that axolotl isn't a fish. That's all. Can you accept this?
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think those are fish.
Well, to ME, it looks like it was a doctored photo. JMO.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.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?
For the record, I believe in micro evolution, and the jury is out on macroevolution but I lean against it.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?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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?