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.
http://newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/001-099/nb036.htm
I can see that a snake has to eat dust for all its life.
Wonderful. I am not a biologist. Otherwise, it would be my another Science in Bible entry.
Umm...no. I deduced from that article that snakes eat mice, rats, gophers and insects, not dust.juvennisun said:I can see that a snake has to eat dust for all its life.
Wonderful. I am not a biologist. Otherwise, it would be my another Science in Bible entry.
...unless six days is a metaphor. hmmm....busterdog said:Counting six days is much more true than saying "six days" means some uncertain amount of time.
Who is being ridiculous here? You presented the idea of shepherds sleeping in doorways as if it were evidence that Jesus claim 'I am the door' might be literal. The statement is no more meant to be taken literally than 'I am the bread of life, 'I am the good shepherd' or 'I am the vine'.Now you are being ridiculous.
Of course metaphors are usually images drawn from things that are real. There are real vines. There is real bread. There are real sheep pens with doors. But that has nothing to do with suggesting the metaphor is literal. There are real snakes, they bite people's ankles. But that does not mean the metaphor of a snake in Gen 3 was literal or that it is in anyway washing any literalness out of the expression to think, as Revelation tells us, that the description of Satan in the Genesis account was given in the metaphor of a snake.Don't pretend I am denying the use of metaphor. I am emphasizing that you are washing the literalness out of many an expression that contains metaphor. I demonstrated your ability to miss content in what Jesus had to say because you got hung up in an attempt to reduce the expression to an absurdity.
you know it in theory, yet when you see a metaphor you run to find something literal in it as we saw with your shepherd sleeping in the doorway illustration. Enjoy the rich language o the metaphor, follow Jesus where he is leading your understanding.Funny. I see literal truth and parables.
Yeah that is the one half the Christians in the world take literally. But read the accounts. Jesus often simply began speaking in parables without any warning.The thing about parables is that he tells you when it is a parable. WHen he says "This is my blood" that is an entirely different use of language.
Think how the Catholics feel.It is indeed difficult to take it literally enough, but I try.
That could be difficult, parables usually are narratives.Thank you know. I already know how to properly apply metaphor and distinguish it from narrative.
Most YECs completely ignore the possibility God may be speaking in parable, the fact God loves to communicate in metaphor, and unless the passage is labelled parable, or it contradicts some bit of science they agree with, like a round earth or heliocentrism.Find me one YEC who will deny any of this.
Evolution makes God a deceiver and ultimately a liar. I could care less if He wanted to take 13 billion years, the fact of the matter is though He told us it took 6 days and you are asking me to discount what He clearly and without question said in order to believe something man says.
The ten commandments in Exodus (called out as being absolutely directly from God) specifically calls out the 6 day creation as God setting an example for men, that they should obey the Sabbath. Jesus helps us understand that God made the Sabbath for men, not the other way around -- its a good thing, not a yoke. If the creation is not 6 days, there's a big problem. Was God a liar? Did they write His commandment down wrong? Was Moses a liar?
remember it is not me that you have to give an account but God. you are not insulting me or calling me a liar but God. i just stand with Him.
Who is being ridiculous here? You presented the idea of shepherds sleeping in doorways as if it were evidence that Jesus claim 'I am the door' might be literal. The statement is no more meant to be taken literally than 'I am the bread of life, 'I am the good shepherd' or 'I am the vine'.
Remember Isa 40:22? The evolutionists want to use this to prove errancy in a flat earth. In one phrase, you took "circle" to be intended literally when it suited your purpose when it was beyond question that "grasshopper" in the same verse was metaphorical. You are trying to prove too much in an attack on creationism and inconsistency is the result. Thus my counsel: caution.
sa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Remember Isa 40:22? The evolutionists want to use this to prove errancy in a flat earth. In one phrase, you took "circle" to be intended literally when it suited your purpose when it was beyond question that "grasshopper" in the same verse was metaphorical. You are trying to prove too much in an attack on creationism and inconsistency is the result. Thus my counsel: caution.
Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Snake continuously (once every few seconds) put dust sample into its mouth. Doesn't it?Umm...no. I deduced from that article that snakes eat mice, rats, gophers and insects, not dust.
It's called "smelling". One might as well say that dogs and humans will breathe dust all the days of their lives, too.Snake continuously (once every few seconds) put dust sample into its mouth. Doesn't it?
What do call that action?
Snake continuously (once every few seconds) put dust sample into its mouth. Doesn't it?
What do call that action?
http://www.timespub.tc/index.php?id=406Snakes find their prey in a most fascinating way. Most people are aware that snakes constantly flick their tongues in and out. A common misconception is that the tongue can sting or inject venom - but a snake's tongue is no more dangerous than a humanÕs tongue. The fork at the end of a snakeÕs tongue fits into a special pit on the roof of its mouth called the Jacobson's Organ. This organ is like a supercomputer. As the tongue flicks in and out, it picks up dust particles from the air and ground. Via the Jacobson's Organ, the snake's brain can "read" the smells and tastes from the tongue and learn a great deal about its surroundings. A human could never smell the footprints of a tiny lizard or mouse, but the snake's sense of smell will pick it up immediately. The snake can then follow the scent trail to the lizard or mouse.
However, if we do not smell, we still live.It's called "smelling". One might as well say that dogs and humans will breathe dust all the days of their lives, too.
However, if we do not smell, we still live.
If snake does not "smell", it dies. Big difference.
So, smell is not the right word.
Provided, if there is not solid particle in the air, we still smell. But snake could not "smell" in that case.
I find it very odd the things you describe as literalism. The claim shepherd sleep in the doors of a sheep pen is evidence of 'literalism' in Jesus' statement 'I am the door'. No it is not. That is a metaphor. Even if he worked as a shepherd which he didn't it would be missing the point. There is the ridiculous attempt to redefine the snake's sense of smell as eating dust and then you claim scripture is 'a little more literal here than the evolutionists thought'? The 'snake' is really a fallen angel. It would not matter if real snakes ate dust or not.* It isn't a real snake. The description is a metaphor.Because there is far more literalism evident that you think and you find it in unanticipated places. A good point that you repel. The very modest concession is no big deal.
You can find reasons to take the Genesis account figuratively, the central characters talking to a metaphorical snake is a biggie in my book. There is also the wide range of uses of day in the Genesis account, and the fact that biblical writers took God days figuratively. There are way of interpreting the geocentric passages that avoid the literal meaning too. The question is the basis YECs use to chose the rules that allow figurative meaning for the geocentric passages, and insist that this has to be the interpretation because the literal interpretation would contradict science, but reject any possibility of Genesis being figurative and claim the science is wrong instead. The choice of rules seems arbitrary. If anything, the figurative interpretation of Genesis were around throughout the history of the church and among Jewish writers too. While the non literal interpretation of the geocentric passage never occurred to anyone before Copernicus. So which are the most obvious criteria for figurative interpretation? The ones that occurred to people simply by reading the text or the ones that only came about when science show the literal interpretation was wrong?No one is denying that there is metaphor in the Bible. This issue about is about the rules for when you interpret literally and when not.
It shows the bible uses metaphor in ways no literalist's 'rules for literal interpretation' cover.As for "bread of life", admittedly, the literal interpretations are not entirely clear. Maybe it is closer to literal than we all think. I don't have the ability to make a good case for that. However, my point is that you often cannot separate out a literal truth a make a phrase metaphor only as often as you would like. Caution is to be recommended.
How is circle a good metaphor for a globe? It is metaphor that describes flatness. So is the metaphor of the heavens as a curtain stretched out as a tent for the inhabitants of the earth to sleep in. Tents are erected over a flat surface.Remember Isa 40:22? The evolutionists want to use this to prove errancy in a flat earth. In one phrase, you took "circle" to be intended literally when it suited your purpose when it was beyond question that "grasshopper" in the same verse was metaphorical. You are trying to prove too much in an attack on creationism and inconsistency is the result. Thus my counsel: caution.
sa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Until I am scientifically convinced. You may keep trying.Nopes, the phrase "solid particles" is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of the Jacobson's organ, also known as the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Those "solid particles" are in reality just larger molecules. Any olfactory system has to work by allowing molecules to hit neurons; the VNO is no different. The only difference between the VNO and our nasal system is that VNOs can detect larger molecules, particularly pheromones, which we can't. (Indeed, some humans have VNO structures in the appropriate places, although most of the time there are no active neurons. Can you say "vestigial structure"?)
And the VNO is certainly not unique to snakes. A wide range of mammals possess it. For example, ever seen a cat lift its upper lip and wrinkle its nose in a grimace? More often than not that's a flehmen response, which the cat uses to direct ... molecules to its VNO. Do cats eat dust? Here:
is a mare exhibiting the flehmen response. Do horses eat dust? The list goes on and on.
Every time you try to find science in the Bible, the real world just doesn't seem to cooperate with you. When will you get the hint and move on?
Ummmm... I think God would probably side with shernren on this one.So, larger molecule. How large? As long as it reaches to the order of micron size, it is called "dust". Snake can taste particle of 0.001 micron size, this does not exclude that it can also taste particle of 100 micron size. So, do you know what is the average size of particle which snake is tasting constantly? Or, think it this way, what is the average size of particle available for snake to taste on? I bet the term "larger molecule" does not give a correct picture.
Also, other animals do not smell by sticking their tongue out. Snake does have nose. Why would snake want to use tongue to smell? Normally, tongue is for tasting, not for smelling.
Also, even there are other creatures use tongue to smell, that would have nothing to do with snake. God did not say that other animals can not do what snake is doing.
You are not arguing science with me. I know little. You are arguing it with God. I don't think it would be a good match.
You are not arguing science with me. I know little. You are arguing it with God. I don't think it would be a good match.
Until I am scientifically convinced. You may keep trying.
So, larger molecule. How large? As long as it reaches to the order of micron size, it is called "dust". Snake can taste particle of 0.001 micron size, this does not exclude that it can also taste particle of 100 micron size. So, do you know what is the average size of particle which snake is tasting constantly? Or, think it this way, what is the average size of particle available for snake to taste on? I bet the term "larger molecule" does not give a correct picture.
Also, other animals do not smell by sticking their tongue out. Snake does have nose. Why would snake want to use tongue to smell? Normally, tongue is for tasting, not for smelling.
Also, even there are other creatures use tongue to smell, that would have nothing to do with snake. God did not say that other animals can not do what snake is doing.
You are not arguing science with me. I know little. You are arguing it with God. I don't think it would be a good match.
In fact, they aren't even larger molecules; they're just different sorts of molecules. Any odorant molecule has got to be small or volatile. The miscellaneous list here has many organic compounds, none of which have more than 60 carbon atoms; a typical C-60 buckyball has a Van der Waals radius of about 1 nanometer. That's one thousandth of a micrometer.
We are clearly not talking about dust here.
And God did not just say that snakes will "smell" dust, but that they will "eat" dust. Those are two very different things,
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?