All snakes are carnivores. I don't think any of them actually eat dirt. Sea snakes certainly don't have much dirt in their diets.MQTA said:
the frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
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.
All snakes are carnivores. I don't think any of them actually eat dirt. Sea snakes certainly don't have much dirt in their diets.MQTA said:And why, of all the animals in the Garden of Eden was the Serpent gifted with the same language of Adam and Eve? Did he really speak their language, or was it ventriloquism?
And if he lost his legs and made to eat dirt, does that mean serpents can still Speak? NO mention of losing tongue.
so, i forgot the "and" between myth and lie. i never said they were one and the same. let's not nitpick to death, people. taht was just rediculous.Nathan David said:A myth is not the same thing as a lie.
That's the NT, but NOT the OT. The OT says it was a Serpent, no mention of Satan at all.JohnR7 said:Rev. 20:2
He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
The NT does tell us the serpent of old is satan.
JohnR7 said:Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
Did God create it all in one day or in 6 days?
Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Did Adam and Eve die the same day they ate the fruit. Or does day mean day, but die does not mean die?
Genesis 3:14c and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Why all of a sudden does "day" mean "days"? Is it because the word "all" is in front of the word "day"?
Genesis 5:4
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Why do we not see the word "all" used in front of the word "day" in this passage? The Bible does not say all the days of Adam, it refers to all of Adams life as a day.
Genesis 6:4a There were giants in the earth in those days;
In the Hebrew day again means more then one 24 hour day.
Genesis 14:1
And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;
Are we talking about just one day in the life of the king of Shinar. Or does day here refer to his whole life or the time he was king?
Shame. You missed some good responses.Tween said:this is amazing... i didnt even read the whole thread...
Why's it fuzzy?but i gather taht many of you take the "parable" stance. fuzy logic,
Except that you're about to tell us why we shouldn't.but hey, tahts how you think, thats how you think.
It amazes me how blatantly creationists twist what non-literalist believers actually say into caricatures of it like yours.it isnt being spoken about as a parable, people. with that logic, we can say Jesus wasnt even real, heck for that matter, all of the bible could be treated as a parable. it amazes me how Christians can take things and twist them into whatever perspective they choose to believe.
Hold it right there - this is exactly the sort of twisting and misrepresentation I'm talking about. Theistic evolutionists do not "disregard" the Genesis account - we regard it as what it is. We engage with the text as it is, contradictions and all.when you try and disregard the genesis account,
No, you can't. Well, you can do anything I suppose, but I suggest that you shouldn't because of what I said before - the NT and Genesis 1-11 are different types of literatureyou are saying that it is ok and appropriate to do this. on the merits of this argument, i can say that Jesus wasnt my Saviour for my sins, and that he was simply a parable himself and that all those things didnt REALLY happen, therefore i do not need to accept him as Lord and Saviour of my life.
And where has anyone said any of this? No, you've taken it upon yourself to invent it for us. Do you often play the game of "I know what you're thinking!" - You're not very good at it, anyway.with that said, i now do not need any ticket to heaven- because heaven itself does not exist and is instead a "higher conciousness" that i can achieve through proper understanding of myself, learning through these parables.
You can do what you like, but don't falsely accuse others of doing this.all of a sudden, i can turn this into anything i wish because ihave chosen to take things from the bible and believe them as they pertain to my personal set of beliefs.
No. What we're doing is called Christianity. What you're doing is called misrepresentation.you know what that is called? i dont know yet... its my own religion, derived from the bible and created brand new in the image i want it in.thats essentially what you guys are doing. this is just sad...
Shoot, you guys got another oneFormer YEC Glenn Morton has an interesting take on the meaning of Genesis.
so he changed his interpretation of evidence then?His story of why he left YEC shows that even though he had a very strong pro YEC bias he was unable to continue to deny the data that he collected showing that there never was a global flood.
So then, God put His sign in the sky promising to NEVER locally flood the earth again........yeah.....this guy REALLY doesnt deny GenesisSo Glenn rejects the young earth, global flood conclusions without rejecting Genesis itself.
No. He personally collected a lot of evidence that he was never shown while being taught bogus "flood geology".so he changed his interpretation of evidence then?
Frumious Bandersnatch said:No. He personally collected a lot of evidence that he was never shown while being taught bogus "flood geology".
Here is what he writes.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
So what he found was that there was no possible intrepretation of the data that would agree with a global flood and unlike other YECs he was not willing to ignore and/or distort the data. The same has happened with Davis Young and others.
the frumious Bandersnatch
But you implied that people were syaing Genesis was both a myth and a lie. I have never heard anyone say Genesis is a lie. You made a false assertion and I called you on it. Hardly nitpicking.Tween said:so, i forgot the "and" between myth and lie. i never said they were one and the same. let's not nitpick to death, people. taht was just rediculous.
Tween said:this is amazing... i didnt even read the whole thread...
but i gather taht many of you take the "parable" stance. fuzy logic, but hey, tahts how you think, thats how you think.
it isnt being spoken about as a parable, people. with that logic, we can say Jesus wasnt even real, heck for that matter, all of the bible could be treated as a parable. it amazes me how Christians can take things and twist them into whatever perspective they choose to believe.
when you try and disregard the genesis account, you are saying that it is ok and appropriate to do this. on the merits of this argument, i can say that Jesus wasnt my Saviour for my sins, and that he was simply a parable himself and that all those things didnt REALLY happen, therefore i do not need to accept him as Lord and Saviour of my life.
with that said, i now do not need any ticket to heaven- because heaven itself does not exist and is instead a "higher conciousness" that i can achieve through proper understanding of myself, learning through these parables.
all of a sudden, i can turn this into anything i wish because ihave chosen to take things from the bible and believe them as they pertain to my personal set of beliefs.
you know what that is called? i dont know yet... its my own religion, derived from the bible and created brand new in the image i want it in.thats essentially what you guys are doing. this is just sad...
Yes I did.... I'm saying that the serpent was a symbolic representation for Satan. But what does this have to do with JOB????You claimed: "Actually the 'serpent' was meant to be symbolic or a symbol for Satan... Satan has a couple of different names such as Dragon,Serpent,Devil."..
So, did you or did you not equate the serpent in Genesis 3 with Satan?
Stripping it's legs and making it 'eat the dust' for the rest of his days represents Satan being bound to Earth. Taking the 'serpents' legs shows that Satan cannot move throughout God's kingdom as he used and the dust represents Earth. And what are you going on about... what descendants of Satan?So, the rest of my post was offering consequences of the serpent being Satan. Remember, the serpent is stripped of its legs and there will be enmity between its descendents and Eve's forever. Well, if the serpent is Satan, stripping the legs makes it a snake, and if the serpent is Satan and the serpent has descendents, then it means Satan has descendents!
Do you know what a Symbol is? THE Serpent WAS SATAN>> NOT A FREAKIN' SNAKE... The serpent is used to represent the devil.... Just like the dragon is used to represent the devil.. Aswell as a 'roaring lion'..... Now IS satan a serpent/dragon/ and lion? NO, but these are symbols used so we can better understand who Satan is.You said "the 'serpent' is Satan". Well, what happened to the serpent in Genesis 3:14-15? The "serpent" lost its legs (became legless and so a "snake" as we know them) and will have offspring! So, if the serpent = Satan, then those offspring are Satan's offspring! All the way to today! Present day snakes are therefore the great, great, great .... grandsons and grandaughters of Satan! Now, since DNA is inherited, it must mean that modern snakes have Satan's DNA. Just follow the logic.
Oh, you do believe it was a 'real snake that could talk' Wow.....OR ... if you don't like where the logic goes, then you can stop the whole thing by recognizing that the serpent in Eden is not Satan, but just "the serpent".
you THINK its my problem.......youd like it to be.......Karl - Liberal Backslider said:Oh but it is your problem.
He could not reconcile observed factual data with a literal interpretation of Genesis. This is because they are contradictory.
Why yes it is......I didnt bother to look....i just assumed you were christian....Skillz151 said:Isn't this ironic... I'm defending the Bible, which I don't even believe in the first place.
Skillz151 said:Genesis 3: 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Genesis 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:
Genesis 3 : 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
God is talking to satan.... NOT A FREAKIN' SNAKE. So if the serpent was a literal snake than you can conclude that there is enmity between a literal snake's seed and the woman's seed.... Come on....
I don't think so....
jobob said:your THINK its my problem.......youd like it to be.......
I have complete faith that Genesis 1 is correct AS written regardless of what my eyes and intellect would show.........theyve decieved me before
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?