Talking Snakes, Donkeys and Bushes

[sojourner]

Flim-flammery and tom foolery? Second creation myth? There were two?

Yes; chapter one and chapter two present two different stories. The second one is older. Michael appears in neither.

 

[sojourner]

Satan is a Hebrew word which means adversary or resister. When it appears with the definite article ha it is in reference to the angel who was appointed a protector over the first human couple, Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The book of Genesis was written by Moses after he wrote the book of Job, in which Satan appears extensively.

There is no angel in the garden. Satan never appears in the garden. Again, it’s a later concept. Moses wrote neither Genesis or Job. In fact, there are several writers of Genesis. And Genesis predates Job.

 

[Earthling]

Yes; chapter one and chapter two present two different stories. The second one is older. Michael appears in neither.

There is only one creation account given from two different perspectives. Both were written by the same person at the same time. One is in chronological order and the second is in topical order.

If I say to you that I'm going to the mall to buy a sweater and I say to someone else that I bought a sweater at the mall those are not contradictory statements. They are the same accounts given in different order. Scholars . . . [shakes head]

 

[Earthling]

There is no angel in the garden. Satan never appears in the garden. Again, it’s a later concept. Moses wrote neither Genesis or Job. In fact, there are several writers of Genesis. And Genesis predates Job.

That is incorrect. A fairly new and nonsensical proposition with absolutely no evidence to support it.

 

[Earthling]

Yes; chapter one and chapter two present two different stories. The second one is older. Michael appears in neither.

Who is called the word of God? Jesus. Who is Michael. What does word mean? Representative, or spokesperson. Who appears in the garden and speaks with Adam and Eve? Michael. Who wrestled with Jacob, who visited Lot? Michael and other spirit creatures. Where does it say Satan appeared in the Garden of Eden? Genesis, and Ezekiel 28.

 

[Jumi]

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

Often it is. I understand you believe science is always wrong, but I don't. That's not the extent of my criticism of rigid literalist beliefs of course. Ethically those tend to mislead people into following rigid rules from something that could lead to moral development. Regarding God, they prevent people from experiencing it, which is of course the bigger sin, shall we say.

 

[sojourner]

There is only one creation account given from two different perspectives. Both were written by the same person at the same time. One is in chronological order and the second is in topical order.

If I say to you that I'm going to the mall to buy a sweater and I say to someone else that I bought a sweater at the mall those are not contradictory statements. They are the same accounts given in different order. Scholars . . . [shakes head]

Scholars are the ones who make it possible for you to read the Bible. The textual evidence disagrees with you. The writing style is quite different, and God is called by a different name in each account. This is much more complex than simply “reporting the facts a bit differently.”

 

[sojourner]

That is incorrect. A fairly new and nonsensical proposition with absolutely no evidence to support it.

I’ve read, studied, exegetes an written papers on the creation myths. There is no angel in the garden. It just simply Is. not. There.

 

[sojourner]

Who is called the word of God? Jesus. Who is Michael. What does word mean? Representative, or spokesperson. Who appears in the garden and speaks with Adam and Eve? Michael. Who wrestled with Jacob, who visited Lot? Michael and other spirit creatures. Where does it say Satan appeared in the Garden of Eden? Genesis, and Ezekiel 28.

We’re not talking about Jacob or Lot. We’re talking about the creation myths.
Jesus was not conceptualized by the writers of Genesis. You’re engaging in a fantastic bout of eisegesis. You’re reading stuff into the texts that Simply. Are. Not. There.

 

[Earthling]

Often it is. I understand you believe science is always wrong, but I don't.

That's not the extent of my criticism of rigid literalist beliefs of course. Ethically those tend to mislead people into following rigid rules from something that could lead to moral development. Regarding God, they prevent people from experiencing it, which is of course the bigger sin, shall we say.

When I say that science is always wrong I mean that science asks questions. When they have the answer they are no longer asking those questions. So to call the asking facts is wrong. There is nothing wrong with asking questions until you call it fact, then you are misleading.

Technology is advancement, of a current idea or product. It is, ideally, never ending. It asks questions of a different nature than science. Simply, how do we make this better? You can't make a fact better.

Everything is subject to corruption. Take the pharmaceutical, for example. To research or lobby? You produce a drug that you know will kill thousands of people so long as the lawsuits are minuscule compared to the profit. If necessary you change some inert ingredients and rename the product. You can't patent what is natural so you lobby to keep natural competition out of the reach of the potential customer.

In commerce and agriculture you create laws to over burden the small companies or farmers from selling a superior product to keep your own costs down and put them out of business. By lobbying.

History, religion and education are about propaganda. You promote legend and myth. You dumb down the population through education, producing obedient workers who are incapable of critical thinking. You promote your nationalistic ideology, much like you would, and in fact for the same reason, promote a sports team. You promote community and nationalism through the social, traditional culture of religion.

The military industrial complex, in tandem with the corporate sponsored media, create fear and uncertainty where there is none for greed and power. Their most dangerous potential enemy is their citizens or customers. Keep them distracted and uninformed.

Fractional reserve banking creates money from nothing. It's backed, if by anything, debt, which is slavery.

All of these things are corrupted by the simple abuse of science. Evolution is used as an abuse of science by atheists to deter religion. It's the militant atheist agenda. A class struggle. Political in nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I say that science is always wrong I mean that science asks questions. When they have the answer they are no longer asking those questions. So to call the asking facts is wrong. There is nothing wrong with asking questions until you call it fact, then you are misleading.

Technology is advancement, of a current idea or product. It is, ideally, never ending. It asks questions of a different nature than science. Simply, how do we make this better? You can't make a fact better.

Everything is subject to corruption. Take the pharmaceutical, for example. To research or lobby? You produce a drug that you know will kill thousands of people so long as the lawsuits are minuscule compared to the profit. If necessary you change some inert ingredients and rename the product. You can't patent what is natural so you lobby to keep natural competition out of the reach of the potential customer.

In commerce and agriculture you create laws to over burden the small companies or farmers from selling a superior product to keep your own costs down and put them out of business. By lobbying.

History, religion and education are about propaganda. You promote legend and myth. You dumb down the population through education, producing obedient workers who are incapable of critical thinking. You promote your nationalistic ideology, much like you would, and in fact for the same reason, promote a sports team. You promote community and nationalism through the social, traditional culture of religion.

The military industrial complex, in tandem with the corporate sponsored media, create fear and uncertainty where there is none for greed and power. Their most dangerous potential enemy is their citizens or customers. Keep them distracted and uninformed.

Fractional reserve banking creates money from nothing. It's backed, if by anything, debt, which is slavery.

All of these things are corrupted by the simple abuse of science. Evolution is used as an abuse of science by atheists to deter religion. It's the militant atheist agenda. A class struggle. Political in nature.

Scientists are never satisfied with the answers that they get because those answers always lead to new questions. Once again you are either very confused or very dishonest in your post.

And seriously, you are the last one that should ever accuse others of abusing science.

 

[Earthling]

We’re not talking about Jacob or Lot. We’re talking about the creation myths.
Jesus was not conceptualized by the writers of Genesis. You’re engaging in a fantastic bout of eisegesis. You’re reading stuff into the texts that Simply. Are. Not. There.

Who talked with Adam and Eve in the garden? Who walked with them in the breezy part of the day? Who asked them if they had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of what is good and what is bad? Who deceived Eve, the literal serpent or the angel who would later become known as Satan the Devil?

 

[Earthling]

I’ve read, studied, exegetes an written papers on the creation myths. There is no angel in the garden. It just simply Is. not. There.

Satan was the voice of the serpent just as the righteous angel was the voice of Balaam's a s s.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who talked with Adam and Eve in the garden? Who walked with them in the breezy part of the day? Who asked them if they had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of what is good and what is bad? Who deceived Eve, the literal serpent or the angel who would later become known as Satan the Devil?

In the timeline of the Bible Job was after Genesis. That is clear. God and Satan were not terribly at odds in that book and Satan was walking around the world. Yet in the Genesis myth the serpent was forced to crawl on its belly for the rest of its existence. How do you explain this contradiction if the serpent is Satan?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Satan was the voice of the serpent just as the righteous angel was the voice of Balaam's a s s.

Now that is more than a stretch.

The simple fact is that to believe the Bible literally one has to continually reinterpret it. Which ironically means that one does not accept the Bible literally.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

Why shouldn't we take the Creation at face value?
It's a hugely accurate account of the stages of creation
heaven - earth - oceans - light - continents - plants - animals - man.
It's done in theological language because it's a theological book.

ps to those who think I got the 'light' out of sequence, it is believed that
the darkened landscape of Titan is a 'precursor' to the early earth according
to NASA - a cloud planet.

 

[Earthling]

Why shouldn't we take the Creation at face value?
It's a hugely accurate account of the stages of creation
heaven - earth - oceans - light - continents - plants - animals - man.
It's done in theological language because it's a theological book.

In this specific instance we are discussing Eve being tempted by Satan. Although a part of the creation account, in this context, is a separate consideration. Taking the creation account itself at face value, meaning reading 6 days of creation to mean the universe was created in 6 literal days would be contrary to the actual account. The Bible doesn't indicate that the universe and everything in it was created in 6 literal days or that the being that deceived Eve was actually a snake.

 

[Jumi]

When I say that science is always wrong I mean that science asks questions. When they have the answer they are no longer asking those questions. So to call the asking facts is wrong. There is nothing wrong with asking questions until you call it fact, then you are misleading.

I think you have a very confused view of what science is. You may be satisfied with the Bible saying something, but you can't expect others not to ask questions and even find out how things really work. And there are many reasons for this. A mystic finds the experience of God and the scientist finds the rules of nature. The literalist subdues his desire for either and believes it's all handed down to him in a neat package to study without question.

Technology is advancement, of a current idea or product. It is, ideally, never ending. It asks questions of a different nature than science. Simply, how do we make this better? You can't make a fact better.

Your view of the interplay of science and technology is a bit naive in my view. Science gives the tools for the engineers to make products. Science only reveals sets of rules how things work in our universe. You find out about potential energy, gravity and mass and some ingenious engineer makes use of that by making water falls do work. Another improves on the turbines. They are applying science not making said rules "better". Of course sometimes discoveries come from applying science.

I've bumped into something myself that behaved not like it should have, since what we were doing was new, but those are then going to the scientists, the specialists who will work to find out the why of it. Sometimes it's already been researched by others and then you find out that both arrived at the same conclusions independently.

Everything is subject to corruption. Take the pharmaceutical, for example. To research or lobby? You produce a drug that you know will kill thousands of people so long as the lawsuits are minuscule compared to the profit. If necessary you change some inert ingredients and rename the product. You can't patent what is natural so you lobby to keep natural competition out of the reach of the potential customer.

That is a negative side-effect of capitalism. Everything is reduced to bags of money for people who already have too much of everything.

In commerce and agriculture you create laws to over burden the small companies or farmers from selling a superior product to keep your own costs down and put them out of business. By lobbying.

It has nothing to do with science though.

History, religion and education are about propaganda. You promote legend and myth. You dumb down the population through education, producing obedient workers who are incapable of critical thinking. You promote your nationalistic ideology, much like you would, and in fact for the same reason, promote a sports team. You promote community and nationalism through the social, traditional culture of religion.

I'd say people who want to dumb down education are also doing it for their own detriment, though they do it because they are scared that those at the bottom will rise up and take their place.

Evolution is used as an abuse of science by atheists to deter religion. It's the militant atheist agenda. A class struggle. Political in nature.

I'm sure you see it that way. Remember though that the real communists had a problem with evolutionary biology and suppressed it, just like the Nazis did.

 

[Earthling]

I think you have a very confused view of what science is. You may be satisfied with the Bible saying something, but you can't expect others not to ask questions and even find out how things really work. And there are many reasons for this. A mystic finds the experience of God and the scientist finds the rules of nature. The literalist subdues his desire for either and believes it's all handed down to him in a neat package to study without question.

My view of science shouldn't be taken too seriously most of the time. If the newest scientific fad is to avoid glutton I'm not going to squeal in shock and run to my pantry to rid myself of the nefarious concoction. If science comes out tomorrow and says that the universe is an illusion and it was created last weekend at a party in Shaftesbury, England, I'm not going to pay it much attention. But I don't care what scientists want to get up to. I'm not sure what you mean by literalist. Someone who takes the Bible seriously? There are portions of the Bible that are literal, other portions that are figurative, symbolic, poetic and allegorical. The Bible isn't meant to be taken strictly literal.

Your view of the interplay of science and technology is a bit naive in my view. Science gives the tools for the engineers to make products. Science only reveals sets of rules how things work in our universe. You find out about potential energy, gravity and mass and some ingenious engineer makes use of that by making water falls do work. Another improves on the turbines. They are applying science not making said rules "better". Of course sometimes discoveries come from applying science.

And it's also used as a crutch by atheists who want to sneer at believers for believing in God. I don't care that science disagrees with the Bible or that science minded atheists don't believe in God. Atheists don't believe in God anyway, but science is used, perhaps misused and abused, to the effect of saying "You're not very intelligent if you believe in God. You're not very intelligent if you don't believe in science." That kind of attitude is going to be made fun of. It needs to be made fun of. To science minded atheists, usually ignorant of the Bible, who think that way . . . **** off. You deserve to be mocked and scorned because science doesn't know everything, science isn't special, science is often wrong, science is subject to the same corruption as everything else, including theology and religion, and you are an idiot if you don't like to be told that. Even if you claim to accept it while pointing out ad nauseam the way science works.

I've bumped into something myself that behaved not like it should have, since what we were doing was new, but those are then going to the scientists, the specialists who will work to find out the why of it. Sometimes it's already been researched by others and then you find out that both arrived at the same conclusions independently.


That is a negative side-effect of capitalism. Everything is reduced to bags of money for people who already have too much of everything.


It has nothing to do with science though.


I'd say people who want to dumb down education are also doing it for their own detriment, though they do it because they are scared that those at the bottom will rise up and take their place.


I'm sure you see it that way. Remember though that the real communists had a problem with evolutionary biology and suppressed it, just like the Nazis did.

Well, they have the right to do that, if they did. I've never heard of it. I don't think science should be bothered and I actually think that science minded atheists put science in an awkward position that it shouldn't be put in. You know, they should leave people who don't believe or care that much about science alone. Or risk having the same done to them.

 

[sojourner]

Who talked with Adam and Eve in the garden? Who walked with them in the breezy part of the day? Who asked them if they had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of what is good and what is bad? Who deceived Eve, the literal serpent or the angel who would later become known as Satan the Devil?

The text says “God.” Not “Jesus” — God.

The serpent tempted Eve. Serpent. Because that’s what the text says. Again ( for the hard-of-reading): it’s an allegorical story. The serpent represents Wisdom. Because it’s lifted from an earlier, Sumerian myth, wherein the serpent represents ... Wisdom.