Talking Snakes, Donkeys and Bushes

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you have to keep in mind too, there's a difference between an allegorical interpretation and one that's just wrong. For example, the rigid dome interpretation comes from illustrations in Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias from the dark ages when they actually thought that there was a rigid dome in the sky with sluice holes to let the rain in. A rib was literally taken from Adam to make Eve, and there's nothing about a disc.

So most everything you say in every post is completely wrong. You are consistently wrong.

There goes another irony meter.

 

[sojourner]

The Hebrew word translated as “heavens” is “raqiya.” That word literally means “a hammered-out bowl.” If a bowl is “hammered” into shape, it’s rigid. A bowl shape will only fit over a disc. It ain’t just “the Middle Ages,” Skeezix. The word is actually right there in the text.

Since there’s no evidence to suggest that there ever literally was an Adam and Eve, and ample evidence to show that the story is allegorical, Eve was not “literally” created from a rib.

Now, aren’t you embarrassed?

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't read newspapers or watch television.

. . . or read any science books.

Well, I don't know what a literalist is, but I take the literal parts of the Bible to be literal, the figurative parts to be figurative and so on.

Literalists acknowledge some parts are figurative, and believing this does not making your beliefs clear. You need to clarify your beliefs concerning Creation and Adam and Eve in Genesis, and of course is the world flood described in the Bible is a literal event or not.

 

[Dell]

Your interpretation falls flat, because,in the world of Genesis, Satan didn’t exist. Satan was a much later invention. If you were able to ask one of the Genesis writers about Satan, you’d get a blank look. They had no concept.

The serpent hails from a much earlier Sumerian myth. The serpent represents Wisdom, which serves as the pariah, or “trickster” of the story. It’s Wisdom speaking.

Very Interesting.. I need to research that.. that is true about the idea of Satan coming after the creation story, Satans name isn't used then but referenced in the new testament as the deciever.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Actually, a very large contingent of Christians believe Genesis is meant to be literal. Perhaps you should concentrate on them first?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Umm, no. We do not know that. In fact you have not been able to show that was wrong. All you have given is your extremely biased opinion. You need a lot more than that.

And your position begs the question, if the serpent was not the one that was doing the actual talking why was he punished? It appears that you are claiming once again that your version of God is unjust.

And please,, if anyone has a hard time telling the difference between the literal and the figurative it is you. We know that there was no Adam and Eve. Too bad that you refuse to learn why. At best the entire story is figurative.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

I understand. But the bible uses figurative language more often than not.
For instance it says that one day God would destroy the Jewish nation and scatter the Jews over the world. As it turned out that wasn't "true" - it was the Romans who did it.
Says in Revelation "to the seven churches of Asia" but there were dozens of churches. You would think....
The one last issue I had with the seven days was that the "earth" created life before
the sea created life. In 2018 it was concluded that life most likely did spring from
Dawin's "warm pond" and not the salty oceans.

 

[nPeace]

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

Wow. Only scientists have evidence... Does that make sense to you?

 

[ChristineM]

Wow. Only scientists have evidence... Does that make sense to you?

What is your beef with science? You use many scientific developments to deride it, do you not see the hypocrisy in your stance?

I am not a scientist and i have lots of evidence for lots of different things.

However if you can provide evidence for god magic i am willing to valuate it

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. Only scientists have evidence... Does that make sense to you?

No, but they tend to understand the concept. Very few creationists understand what is and what is not evidence. They only react on prejudice. Scientific evidence is well defined and is an attempt to eliminate personal prejudice.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

I laughed when I got to that point when the donkey talked. Then, before I was confirmed, I asked the preist do you REALLY believe yuo are consuming jesus' actual blood and body? (I was about to split if he had said yes) Thank god he didnt. He said there are different forms of truth (and fact as his intent).

Not everything that is true can be taken literally (in the material sense of the word). I asked my RC friend and she says OF COURSE NOT!

Since then I brushed aside evangalistic language. If Catholics get it, I honestly dont feel its a christian thing but a personal interpretation of the truth and nature of scripture.

Thats with any sacred scripture. Anyone who takes it that literal is missing the point of the lesson and message behind the actions. I dont even know if Jews believe donkeys talk. (Would like to know?)

People.

 

[Jumi]

Wow. Only scientists have evidence... Does that make sense to you?

Lots of scientists are also theists.

 

[ChristineM]

Lots of scientists are also theists.

Interestingly, if the USA expelled all non believers in god or gods they would get rid of 0.1% of the prison population and 93% of the national academy of science.

Of course that still leaves lots.

 

[Earthling]

I understand. But the bible uses figurative language more often than not.
For instance it says that one day God would destroy the Jewish nation and scatter the Jews over the world. As it turned out that wasn't "true" - it was the Romans who did it.
Says in Revelation "to the seven churches of Asia" but there were dozens of churches. You would think....
The one last issue I had with the seven days was that the "earth" created life before
the sea created life. In 2018 it was concluded that life most likely did spring from
Dawin's "warm pond" and not the salty oceans.

And if science said it it must be true.

 

[nPeace]

What is your beef with science?

None.

You use many scientific developments to deride it, do you not see the hypocrisy in your stance?

No. I am not closing my eyes to reality, and I am trying to point out what I believe most of you keep missing.
Most of what is evidence in science are based on hypotheses - hypotheses that are often changed or thrown out.

Your comment seemed to indicate that you ignore that and feel that everything said by scientists, or called science is true.
Sure they can say it's true, but on what basis is it true?
Where are the observations and repeated experiments?

You should actually be thanking me that I am looking out for your interest, When the blind leads the blind, you know the outcome for both.
Matthew 15:14
If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.

I am not a scientist and i have lots of evidence for lots of different things.

Good. Thanks for that.

However if you can provide evidence for god magic i am willing to valuate it

Can scientists create DNA? Where did it come from?
I believe you are an educated person, so I don't expect you will tell me anything containing the words "random" or "chance"... but then, we live in a crazy world, so anything is possible.
...and if that's not magic, then I don't know what is.

On the other hand, if you were to say, 'more likely an intelligent entity', then I might think I am hallucinating - but at least I would be listening to what seems to make sense.

What I hear though, is, "I don't know." That's to be expected.
We can't prove it, but the evidence suggests there is an intelligent creator.
After all, when did you ever see a machinery factory build itself, with everything in the right place for it to work, and a set of precise instructions to go with it?

The fact that it takes a scientist with a mind to try to build a cell using the materials available to him, is enough evidence to tell us how life got started. Don't you think?

 

[nPeace]

Lots of scientists are also theists.

Yes.... and lots of non-scientist have evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes.... and lots of non-scientist have evidence.

Most don't. Most of them, like you, do not even properly understand the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None.

.

That does not appear to be the case.

No. I am not closing my eyes to reality, and I am trying to point out what I believe most of you keep missing.
Most of what is evidence in science are based on hypotheses - hypotheses that are often changed or thrown out.

Yes, they are. You are ignoring the pattern of hypotheses. They are often thrown out and replaced with a more accurate hypothesis. Our picture of how evolution has occurred keeps getting clearer and clearer. That is why evolution, as is gravity, are taken to be facts. There may be changes in the details, but the big picture is all but unshakeable. You are now clutching at straws.

Your comment seemed to indicate that you ignore that and feel that everything said by scientists, or called science is true.
Sure they can say it's true, but on what basis is it true?
Where are the observations and repeated experiments?

For what? For evolution? I could link countless articles from Google Scholar. The odds are that you do not understand the nature of a repeatable experiment. For example, every new fossil find is an experiment and those are repeatable in more than one way.

After one has millions of pieces of evidence for a concept and the detractors have none it is going to be taken as being correct.

You should actually be thanking me that I am looking out for your interest, When the blind leads the blind, you know the outcome for both.
Matthew 15:14
If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.

Those on the side of science are not the blind ones here.

Good. Thanks for that.


Can scientists create DNA? Where did it come from?
I believe you are an educated person, so I don't expect you will tell me anything containing the words "random" or "chance"... but then, we live in a crazy world, so anything is possible.
...and if that's not magic, then I don't know what is.

Now you have changed the topic. I take that as an admission that you are wrong. Do you now accept evo!union or only demonstrating that you do not know how to argue against it properly?

On the other hand, if you were to say, 'more likely an intelligent entity', then I might think I am hallucinating - but at least I would be listening to what seems to make sense.

That would be foolishly ignorant. Again, if you willingly admit you were wrong about evolution then we can discuss abiogenesis.

What I hear though, is, "I don't know." That's to be expected.
We can't prove it, but the evidence suggests there is an intelligent creator.
After all, when did you ever see a machinery factory build itself, with everything in the right place for it to work, and a set of precise instructions to go with it?

A failed analogy is not evidence. You do not have any evidence, it would be a good idea to learn what is and is not evidence.

The fact that it takes a scientist with a mind to try to build a cell using the materials available to him, is enough evidence to tell us how life got started. Don't you think?

Nope. But we are not discussing abiogenesis yet.

 

[Thief]

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.

I agree.....
the descriptive nouns are just that.....

 

[nPeace]

.

That does not appear to be the case.



Yes, they are. You are ignoring the pattern of hypotheses. They are often thrown out and replaced with a more accurate hypothesis. Our picture of how evolution has occurred keeps getting clearer and clearer. That is why evolution, as is gravity, are taken to be facts. There may be changes in the details, but the big picture is all but unshakeable. You are now clutching at straws.



For what? For evolution? I could link countless articles from Google Scholar. The odds are that you do not understand the nature of a repeatable experiment. For example, every new fossil find is an experiment and those are repeatable in more than one way.

After one has millions of pieces of evidence for a concept and the detractors have none it is going to be taken as being correct.



Those on the side of science are not the blind ones here.


Now you have changed the topic. I take that as an admission that you are wrong. Do you now accept evo!union or only demonstrating that you do not know how to argue against it properly?



That would be foolishly ignorant. Again, if you willingly admit you were wrong about evolution then we can discuss abiogenesis.



A failed analogy is not evidence. You do not have any evidence, it would be a good idea to learn what is and is not evidence.



Nope. But we are not discussing abiogenesis yet.

Okay.
What is one observation and repeatable experiment of evolution from one organism to another?
What is evidence?
How did DNA form on its own, or by random, or chance processes?