Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[champuru]

I have been so accused many times in this forum. I am never convinced it is true. Of course I do not worship science. I said, no scientific understanding will last before God. My attitude is exactly the reverse. Because I have strong faith to God, so I can be assure that any message in the Scripture MUST BE scientifically correct, even it does not make sense to us right now. I do not have such faith to ANY conclusions derived from science, even it is as concrete as the principle of gravity force.




I wish I could say it is not true. But I think it is almost true, unfortunately. I have no real respect to any other writings except the Scripture. However, that does not mean I do not appreciate them. I appreciate Koran. I also appreciate Confucius. And I also appreciate the quite long abstract you wrote.

God didn't come to give man science but salvation.

That is the thing to always remember. I think it is good to look at each occurance in different point of views. If something seems odd when taken literally look at it as allegory.

Lets look at Revelation for example. It talks about a Dragon with 10 horns and crowns (and heads i think as well). Obviously there are no dragons, so if you look at it as some sort of evil alliance of countries, then it makes more sense (that is the interpretation i've heard).

 

[Scotishfury09]

Fury shouldn't make that argument by confusing the intent for his own purposes.

Juvie AND Busterdog, do you think the donkey and horse are really laughing? If so, prove it.

Juvie, should I bring up the four-legged insects again?

Or how about the pillars of the earth?

BD, I was asking you to show me how a horse and donkey laugh if a snake actually eats dust. I was asking juvenissun about the four-legged insects because we had a thread about a month or so back and he refused to concede that insects neither had four legs nor walked on four legs, regardless of the evidence.

I have conceded that there are issues with clarity in Genesis -- whether you take it literally or metaphorically. This passage of Job is pretty clear.

Is the reason it's pretty clear because you know that horses and donkeys don't laugh? Is it because of your knowledge of biology? Yes, even though you may not think it is, it is. That's exactly the same reason why YECs disown any passages that involve a flat earth and geocentrism.

Take vv. 27-28 of the same chapter

Does the eagle soar at your command
and build his nest on high? He dwells on a cliff and stays there at night;
a rocky crag is his stronghold.

Is the eagle dwelling on a cliff a metaphor? What makes that any different from the horse laughing?

 

[Scotishfury09]

The insect thing is Lev. 11? Not sure I understand your issue. Please explain.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

The entire argument is mainly geared around the insects that are allowed to be eaten. They then claim that the ancient Hebrews would have been able to look at the other insects and realize the difference between the front set of legs and the hind legs, which, obviously, would have looked considerably different.

Those don't look very different to me...

 

[juvenissun]

And the converse* of that is that if it is not scientifically correct, scripture is not true. You are still holding up scientific truth as the arbiter of scriptural truth and making science the judge of whether or not scripture is true.

If what God says is true, then science in the Bible is true.

This is an ordered statement.

If you turn the statement around, then you are talking something else, which is not relevant to this statement.

 

[gluadys]

If what God says is true, then science in the Bible is true.

According to whose science?

But the basic problem lies outside of that. The basic problem is that you are trying to insert science into passages where the scripture is not speaking scientifically. We need not ask that scripture be scientific when there is no intention for it to be speaking scientifically.

Verifying that the "science" is somehow "accurate" by straining the meaning of both the biblical text and the meaning of scientific concepts does nothing to consolidate the meaning of the text as it stands.

Tell me, do you really think the biblical writer actually believed snakes ate dust and was unaware that they eat mice and eggs and all sorts of things like that?

He is not telling us the snake was condemned to eat dust because snakes really do eat dust. He puts that into the story for a different reason altogether that has nothing to do with what snakes actually eat.

If you turn the statement around, then you are talking something else, which is not relevant to this statement.

Perhaps the science in the bible is true to reality. I remain skeptical. But what you identify as science in the bible is often not science. Snakes eating dust, tasteless salt etc. is not science. So it doesn't matter whether they fit an accurate scientific paradigm or not.

 

[juvenissun]

According to whose science?


Tell me, do you really think the biblical writer actually believed snakes ate dust

Yes.

and was unaware that they eat mice and eggs and all sorts of things like that?

No.

not science. Snakes eating dust, tasteless salt etc. is not science.

OK.

 

[shernren]

Guess it will take a few more times for me.

By the way, where in the text does it say "punish?"

What is said of Adam, "cursed is the ground for your sake."

So God "punishes" dirt?

Hmmmm. Yes. Say it a few more times.

Since you have no idea how to to make the literal application, you assume it can be rejected? That is not logic.

The metaphor thing is not working for me. Sounds more like confusion to me.

You know what's confusing?

So the LORD God said to the serpent,
"Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
(Genesis 3:14 NIV)

(emphasis added)

What's confusing is how you can claim to be finding the meaning of a passage and miss something that blatantly obvious.

You want to find some kind of hidden, scientific application of the passage, when you're asking questions which are answered simply and efficiently by the naked words of the text. You want to make the snake's eating dust into a passage about vomeronasal organs when you can't even tell that the serpent is being punished? What else can "I'll curse you because you have done this" possibly mean?

You cannot even be trusted with coins, and you want cities?

 

[juvenissun]

What is said of Adam, "cursed is the ground for your sake."

So God "punishes" dirt?

BG, seriously, I do think this might be true.

Think: the soil on earth "could" have better quality. Mars' soil, moon's soil, they are all different from earth's soil. I think the soil in the Garden must be different and is better.

One could imagine if the soil is better, what would happen to agriculture. How about a soil never needs any fertilizer? I can see this could be true if the climate condition on earth is different.

 

[Assyrian]

Unless you have some view of sentient soil, I think the soil couldn't care less what it produced. Because soil can't care, feel, thing or be morally responsible for its actions.

The curse on the soil was a punishment, it was a punishment for Adam. Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

 

[juvenissun]

Unless you have some view of sentient soil, I think the soil couldn't care less what it produced. Because soil can't care, feel, thing or be morally responsible for its actions.

The curse on the soil was a punishment, it was a punishment for Adam. Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

Anyway you want to say it. The consequence is that the property of soil is changed and it gives Adam a harder time to live.

Hey, Mallon, put this one into your Creation Science list. I am sure nobody can easily say it is wrong. There is no source. It is from me. If anyone else said it before me, give him/her the credit. You may also add the snake eats dirt one to the list. The source is this forum and this thread.

 

[busterdog]

BG, seriously, I do think this might be true.

Think: the soil on earth "could" have better quality. Mars' soil, moon's soil, they are all different from earth's soil. I think the soil in the Garden must be different and is better.

One could imagine if the soil is better, what would happen to agriculture. How about a soil never needs any fertilizer? I can see this could be true if the climate condition on earth is different.

The implication I was responding to was that all snakes must be culpable to be "punished." Rather, like dirt, or as in fetal alcohol syndrome, they are merely cursed.

 

[busterdog]

BD, I was asking you to show me how a horse and donkey laugh if a snake actually eats dust. I was asking juvenissun about the four-legged insects because we had a thread about a month or so back and he refused to concede that insects neither had four legs nor walked on four legs, regardless of the evidence.

You are blowing off the clear language in the verse that distinguishes legs for jumping, or that at least muddies your argument greatly

flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap

.

It is not a matter of counting legs.

The snake is unique in constantly sticking out his tongue to lick the dust. You again try to force the English translation for your narrow purpose.

Horses laughing appears to be a metaphor. Whether it is or not does not mean anything significant for this verse. Its meaning is plain without it.

Now, before you tell me that one metaphor makes everything a possible metaphor, explain why one literal narrative doesn't make everything a literal narrative.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Unless you have some view of sentient soil, I think the soil couldn't care less what it produced. Because soil can't care, feel, thing or be morally responsible for its actions.

The New Age of Old Babylon Mother Earthers would argue the point with you.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

The implication I was responding to was that all snakes must be culpable to be "punished."

Except that God was neither talking to nor cursing any or all snakes in general but, rather, He was specifically talking to and cursing the devil. Big difference.

 

[Scotishfury09]

You are blowing off the clear language in the verse that distinguishes legs for jumping, or that at least muddies your argument greatly

Busterdog, read my posts more closely, please. I did mention the insects that use legs for jumping as the insects that are "allowed to be eaten". Those, however, are different from the insects mentioned in vv. 20 and 23. The link you gave tried to answer the insects of vv. 20 and 23 by suggesting the ancient Hebrews could have easily seen that the two back legs are different from the four front legs. I then proceeded by giving a wonderful pictorial demonstration of this being hogwash.

It is not a matter of counting legs.

The snake is unique in constantly sticking out his tongue to lick the dust. You again try to force the English translation for your narrow purpose.

Please cite where I've tried to "force the English translation for [my] narrow purpose."

Horses laughing appears to be a metaphor. Whether it is or not does not mean anything significant for this verse. Its meaning is plain without it.

And why, exactly, does it appear to be a metaphor? It's actually personification, but the point remains the same.

You neglected to tell me why an eagle dwelling on a cliff isn't personification or a metaphor in vv. 27-28 of the same chapter.

Now, before you tell me that one metaphor makes everything a possible metaphor, explain why one literal narrative doesn't make everything a literal narrative.

Every passage is read with its context in mind. It's read with the knowledge from our God-given ability to observe and rationally explain the world around us using all branches of science.

In chapter four of Song of Solomon, Solomon is describing who is his primary wife among his many wives. In vv. 9, 10, and 12 Solomon describes her as his sister. This verse is problematic to our culture today. We see it as incest; something that is strictly forbidden in the Bible. However, with the discovery of the Nuzi tablets in 1925 we were able to understand that in that culture the wife that was considered the prominent wife was often called one's sister and had nothing to do with a sibling relationship. The tablet also helps us to understand why Sarah offered Haggai to Abraham and why Abraham tried to adopt his servant.

I say all of this because, in this case, the use of anthropology and archeology, along with all other branches of science, help us understand the Bible more not less.

When you take the Bible as only able to be read by itself you provoke the rationale that if one passage is read one way another seemingly identical passage should be read the same way.

 

[shernren]

The snake is unique in constantly sticking out his tongue to lick the dust. You again try to force the English translation for your narrow purpose.

You missed what I said earlier:

Glad you asked! Elephants use the prehensile structure that tips their trunks, normally called a "finger", to direct odors to their VNO which is at the roof of their mouths. Dogs also use their VNO when licking urine markers left by other dogs.

And God did not just say that snakes will "smell" dust, but that they will "eat" dust. Those are two very different things, an important fact to remember in the vicinity of, say, a garbage truck.

And as for this:

The implication I was responding to was that all snakes must be culpable to be "punished." Rather, like dirt, or as in fetal alcohol syndrome, they are merely cursed.

Well, God is clearly punishing whoever He is talking to in Genesis 3:14-15. Therefore, if snakes aren't being punished, then God isn't talking to them there. And wow, you are punching holes in your own interpretive framework - because you've just pointed out that Genesis 3 has no necessary connection with man's condition, today or at any time in history.

Why? Well, let's take a cue from Genesis 3:14-15. God punishes the serpent. And yet there is nothing congenital or hereditary in that curse. Indeed, 3:15 can't possibly be a literal description of all snakes:

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.
(Genesis 3:15 NIV)

Clearly, snakes do not universally have their heads crushed, and they do not universally strike humans' heels! If one wishes to take a teleological perspective, not all snakes are humans' enemies; snakes do a valuable job of keeping tabs on pests like rodents. So again, this curse doesn't even make sense applied to all snakes - it only makes sense if God's target is singular, if He is talking to the serpent instead of to all snakes. One has to read the text non-literally to try to say that today's snakes crawl and slither as a result of that curse - since God says nothing about today's snakes.

And again, that is applicable to Adam and Eve as well. For where did God promise them that their punishments would apply to their descendants? God doesn't promise Adam that his children will die; God doesn't promise Eve that her daughters will desire for their husbands. And so, when I today read Genesis 3, I should not be convinced because I read it that I am mortal or that my earthly work will be to some degree futile: after all, even if you can prove that I am Adam's descendant (that there actually was a literal, historical Adam from whom I must be descended by definition), that does not by itself tell me that I must share his condition.

And yet I share his condition all the same; I observe that quite apart from what I read in Genesis 3, but this observation makes Genesis 3 resonate with me all the more. It almost seems as if God is speaking of me, when He curses Adam with mortality and mortal futility; my feet fit Adam's shoes with ease.

And yet - literalism would have it that this is an actual, historical situation, in which God spoke in a specific time and place to a specific individual Adam, who most assuredly is not me. And I cannot apply the text to myself based on a literal reading. So even the literal reading requires me to see Adam as a metaphor (gosh! the m-word!) for me; for Adam in the story to be all humanity, even if you choose to believe that he is also an actual ancestor of all humanity.

Which, of course, makes literalism quite redundant in this passage. How much do I need to care whether Adam is real or not, if I can know regardless that Adam is really me?

 

[HypoTypoSis]

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.
(Genesis 3:15 NIV)

God was not talking to a snake, He was talking to Satan. 3:15 is the all important first prophecy in the Bible promising the coming of man's salvation through Jesus Christ and the ultimate defeat of Satan.

 

[busterdog]

The entire argument is mainly geared around the insects that are allowed to be eaten. They then claim that the ancient Hebrews would have been able to look at the other insects and realize the difference between the front set of legs and the hind legs, which, obviously, would have looked considerably different.

Those don't look very different to me...

Going back to check a second time is really a bit of a chore. Now, maybe I should have put a lot of time in to cite rather than just link to the creationist position. But, what I was looking for then and am looking for now is a little common sense about this passage and your comments. Is it so hard to give the benefit of the doubt on this one? WHen I see doubt where it belongs, th3en I know a exchange is possible.

There is every indication in that passage that you need to slow down and be willing to realize that it is rather complicated, if not opaque.

I don't know why you refer to "four legged insects". That is not the issue. That just makes us not even want to deal with the issue.

The fact that the legs look the same to you raises the issue about really how much time to put into the discussion.

The passage in question is hard. If you really think about what is put forth in the KJV, you start to wonder whether the translation really is any good. The distinction between "going about" and "leaping" (Or there correspondence) just raises all sorts of issues with Hebrew vocabulary and nuances. I am not convinced any one understands it, but it sure as shooting is not referring to a four legged insect. However, there is enough there to make a case for the AIG position, below.

My recommendation is not to take a passage that is this abstruse and try to assign error on that basis.

Scientific Errors

Critics commonly attack the Bible by appealing to the ideas of secular scientists. They seek to show how a Bible passage departs from modern scientific thought. For instance, Moses says insects have four legs, whereas we know they have six. Leviticus 11:20–23 says, “All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.”
In fact, we use the phrase “on all fours” in a similar manner. It refers to the action of the creature—walking around—rather than the complete inventory of the creature’s feet. In reality, the Bible is very precise in describing locusts and similar insects. Such insects do indeed have four legs with which to “creep” and another two legs with which to “leap.”
In most cases like these, you can point out the absurdity of assuming that the author forgot what a bird looks like or miscounted the legs on a grasshopper. Moses, trained in pharaoh’s court, was one of the most educated men of his day.
For that reason alone, an unbiased reader of the Bible would assume that the author had good reasons for his chosen words. As Christians, though, we know without question that the Author spoke the truth and knew what He was talking about.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/isnt-the-bible-full-of-errors

 

[busterdog]

What makes that any different from the horse laughing?

As for how horses express themselves, perhaps this is the man to ask:

I will let you prove by accepted literary critical methods to prove to me that "laugh" is not just a metaphor for eagerness, and to prove the nuance of Hebrew language supports you.

If "metaphor here is metaphor everywhere" is your argument, then prove it. There are any number of examples of clear metaphorical use accentuating a literal use within the same verse or series. So, don't just cite eagles to me, construct your proof.

 

[gluadys]

I don't know why you refer to "four legged insects". That is not the issue. That just makes us not even want to deal with the issue.

However, there is enough there to make a case for the AIG position, below.

I am not sure the AIG explanation helps. It may clarify the matter in regards to those insects (locust, grasshoppers) which can be eaten--and which clearly do have large hind legs for leaping.

But the "creeps on four legs" description also applies to those which cannot be eaten. So we still have a description of flying insects which creep about on four legs. And that doesn't square with any observation I know of. When houseflies creep about they use six legs, not four.