Talking Snakes, Donkeys and Bushes

[Earthling]

Now, everyone who has read the Genesis account knows that the text, if taken literally at face value, would read that the serpent in the garden of Eden who deceived Eve was talking. But, at the same time we all know that not to be the case. Atheists seem to have a difficult time with distinguishing the difference between the literal and the figurative. I personally think this is a mock stupidity in order to make a point, for example, saying that the Bible has talking snakes when it is abundantly clear, even to a simple child, that it was Satan, not the literal serpent, that was speaking to Eve. The account is given in her perspective so the snake seems to be talking.

The same principle applies to Balaam's a s s and the burning bush. Numbers 22:28 / 2 Peter 2:16 / Exodus 3:2-5

In all of these cases it is't the snake, or the a s s or the bush that are speaking.

 

[Audie]

you are the only one who "knows" these things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet the Bible clearly says that Balaam's Donkey spoke. It may have had assistance, but if you read the story it does say that the donkey spoke, not that Balaam thought that he heard the donkey talk.

I guess that one does not take the Bible literally when it is obviously stupidly wrong. Amazing that they do not realize the Bible is stupidly wrong in regards to the flood myth.

 

[columbus]

Now, everyone who has read the Genesis account knows that the text, if taken literally at face value, would read that the serpent in the garden of Eden who deceived Eve was talking. But, at the same time we all know that not to be the case.

You might be surprised by how many people don't recognize Genesis for the primitive fiction that it is.

I thought you were one of them. How did I mistake you for a person who believes that Genesis is true and evolution is false?
Tom

 

[Jumi]

You can find literalists among atheists and theists. In my opinion literalist readings lead to rather poor results in general.

 

[Nakosis]

Now, everyone who has read the Genesis account knows that the text, if taken literally at face value, would read that the serpent in the garden of Eden who deceived Eve was talking. But, at the same time we all know that not to be the case. Atheists seem to have a difficult time with distinguishing the difference between the literal and the figurative. I personally think this is a mock stupidity in order to make a point, for example, saying that the Bible has talking snakes when it is abundantly clear, even to a simple child, that it was Satan, not the literal serpent, that was speaking to Eve. The account is given in her perspective so the snake seems to be talking.

The same principle applies to Balaam's a s s and the burning bush. Numbers 22:28 / 2 Peter 2:16 / Exodus 3:2-5

In all of these cases it is't the snake, or the a s s or the bush that are speaking.

Kind of reminds me of Aesop's Fables, except for the burning bush. I've seen a burning bush myself but can't really say it was doing any talking.

 

[Skwim]

Now, everyone who has read the Genesis account knows that the text, if taken literally at face value, would read that the serpent in the garden of Eden who deceived Eve was talking. But, at the same time we all know that not to be the case.

Why? Is the Bible lying to us?

Atheists seem to have a difficult time with distinguishing the difference between the literal and the figurative.

Yeah, like only those absurd events that bear on one's faith are to be taken literally, such as the resurrection, while all others, such as a talking snake or donkey are figurative,

Need determines truth. How crafty.

I personally think this is a mock stupidity in order to make a point, for example, saying that the Bible has talking snakes when it is abundantly clear, even to a simple child, that it was Satan, not the literal serpent, that was speaking to Eve.

I personally think this is a mock stupidity in order to save the veracity of the Bible, and is simply another form of cherry picking.

But hey, whatever lets one sleep at night, I guess.

.
.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Now, everyone who has read the Genesis account knows that the text, if taken literally at face value, would read that the serpent in the garden of Eden who deceived Eve was talking. But, at the same time we all know that not to be the case. Atheists seem to have a difficult time with distinguishing the difference between the literal and the figurative. I personally think this is a mock stupidity in order to make a point, for example, saying that the Bible has talking snakes when it is abundantly clear, even to a simple child, that it was Satan, not the literal serpent, that was speaking to Eve. The account is given in her perspective so the snake seems to be talking.

The same principle applies to Balaam's a s s and the burning bush. Numbers 22:28 / 2 Peter 2:16 / Exodus 3:2-5

In all of these cases it is't the snake, or the a s s or the bush that are speaking.

So the implication is that they got possessed or something and then started talking? Even without adequate vocal cords to make a coherent sentence?

 

[Flame]

If you are talking to a donkey, a snake or a bush then I'd say you have some really good hallucinogens.

 

[BSM1]

If you are talking to a donkey, a snake or a bush then I'd say you have some really good hallucinogens.

I remember back in my younger days waking up on the floor with two cats staring at me. I also distinctly
remember one cat looking over at the other one and saying, "Man, he's weird". Sorta set me on the right track.

 

[Willamena]

...saying that the Bible has talking snakes when it is abundantly clear, even to a simple child, that it was Satan, not the literal serpent, that was speaking to Eve..

Yes. That's so much more believable.

 

[ChristineM]

Now, everyone who has read the Genesis account knows that the text, if taken literally at face value, would read that the serpent in the garden of Eden who deceived Eve was talking. But, at the same time we all know that not to be the case. Atheists seem to have a difficult time with distinguishing the difference between the literal and the figurative. I personally think this is a mock stupidity in order to make a point, for example, saying that the Bible has talking snakes when it is abundantly clear, even to a simple child, that it was Satan, not the literal serpent, that was speaking to Eve. The account is given in her perspective so the snake seems to be talking.

The same principle applies to Balaam's a s s and the burning bush. Numbers 22:28 / 2 Peter 2:16 / Exodus 3:2-5

In all of these cases it is't the snake, or the a s s or the bush that are speaking.

Apologetics of the most insulting kind,. But what more could one expect?

 

[ChristineM]

You can find literalists among atheists and theists. In my opinion literalist readings lead to rather poor results in general.

So what you are saying is don't read a book (eg the bible) as written, make it up as you go along as you want otherwise it's not as good?

 

[Earthling]

Yes. That's so much more believable.

Well, from your perspective at least it is correct.

 

[Earthling]

So the implication is that they got possessed or something and then started talking? Even without adequate vocal cords to make a coherent sentence?

No. The vocalization was provided by beings of an almost infinitely higher intelligence.

 

[Earthling]

Why? Is the Bible lying to us?

No.

Yeah, like only those absurd events that bear on one's faith are to be taken literally, such as the resurrection, while all others, such as a talking snake or donkey, are figurative,

Need determines truth. How crafty.

No, unlike evolution those with faith don't need to deceive themselves.

I personally think this is a mock stupidity in order to save the veracity of the Bible, and is simply another form of cherry picking.

But hey, whatever lets one sleep at night, I guess. .
.

Let/s say I was writing a screenplay for an episode of sitcom that involved a ventriloquist. When writing a scene in which the puppet is speaking to another character do I use the puppet's name or the ventriloquist's name?

You see how simple these things are when you're not trying to be a smart ***?

 

[ChristineM]

unlike evolution those with faith don't need to deceive themselves.

Unlike religion those with evicence don't need to deceive themselves

 

[ChristineM]

You see how simple these things are when you're not trying to be a smart ***?

 

[Earthling]

Kind of reminds me of Aesop's Fables, except for the burning bush. I've seen a burning bush myself but can't really say it was doing any talking.

Am I too assume that you find my interpretation untrustworthy due to it's difficulty? Because it isn't difficult at all, it's obvious. If I ask any idiot on the street who tempted eve I don't think I will get one who foolishly would answer "the snake."

 

[Earthling]

You can find literalists among atheists and theists. In my opinion literalist readings lead to rather poor results in general.

Is the implication being that anything supernatural or that disagrees with modern science is a poor result?