Talking Snakes, Donkeys and Bushes

[Earthling]

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

Not really. The masses always get it wrong.

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

Uh, you were wrong? How? I don't know. How did you come to the erroneous conclusion that Genesis was a work of fiction?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

I'm glad that most people don't take the bible literally, because it is quite dangerous to take it literally. Jesus told his disciples that they could drink snake poison without dying or even getting hurt (Mark 16: 18). But Christians either forget about this verse or (thankfully) choose not to take it literally.

 

[Nakosis]

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."

I know from my my own inquiries that some don't see the serpent and Satan as the same being. As far as I know there is no direct biblical connection between the two.

To claim the serpent is Satan then would be a matter of personal interpretation.

 

[Skwim]

No.

Then talking snakes and donkeys must be true because a whole lot of Christians (28%)* believe they did.

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

C'mon, we both know those with faith do indeed need to deceive themselves. ALL allegiance to a belief is driven by need, and considering the vast difference in the various faiths in the world this need to deceive oneself is abundantly obvious. All the people of the world aren't that gullible that they'll buy into craziness of their religion without suspending their critical thinking skills and accept the craziness as a given truth. Consciously or unconsciously they actively deceive themselves in order to hold onto the truth of their faith.

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?

I assume then this also holds true for accounts such as the world wide flood, the virgin birth, changing water into wine, on-the-spot curing people, calming stormy seas, walking on water, and the resurrection. All of which can be considered to be puppet stories.

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

"Smart ***"? I must have hit a nerve. Sorry.


* source

.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

If that was the case then why do they need animals and plants to talk with?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm glad that most people don't take the bible literally, because it is quite dangerous to take it literally. Jesus told his disciples that they could drink snake poison without dying or even getting hurt (Mark 16: 18). But Christians either forget about this verse or (thankfully) choose not to take it literally.

Technically that's true. You can drink snake venom without getting hurt provided you don't have any open mouth, esophageal or stomach wounds that would allow the venom to get into your blood stream. The molecules in the venom compound are too big to pass through tissue linings, and the stomach acid would destroy it.
Really though, why would you take the chance?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is something I've also seen Christians do to non-Christians. Mock the animal visage symbology of Hinduism as if it were literal, or mock pagans by likening it to fantasy fiction like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Or simply use 'fairy tales' in a deprecating way despite that there are still swaths of people who believe in fairy folk (just not the Disney-fied version). Or with highly inaccurate and mocking depictions of evolution to discredit those who accept evolutionary biology.

It's something everyone could do without. If you want to debate people's views, at least do them the courtesy of actually debating their views, not straw versions of them.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Technically that's true. You can drink snake venom without getting hurt provided you don't have any open mouth, esophageal or stomach wounds that would allow the venom to get into your blood stream. The molecules in the venom compound are too big to pass through tissue linings, and the stomach acid would destroy it.
Really though, why would you take the chance?

I didn't know that. But, yeah, of course there's no way to know if you have slight internal wounds, so, I think I'll still have to avoid drinking snake venom just to be on the safe side.

 

[Earthling]

If that was the case then why do they need animals and plants to talk with?

In the case of the serpent, who else was Satan going to appear as? There were only two humans so it wouldn't have been wise to appear as human. It wouldn't have been wise for him to appear as a spirit being, or so called angel since Adam and Eve had been in contact with Michael already. The wise move would have been to use the serpent who had access to the tree.

 

[Earthling]

I didn't know that. But, yeah, of course there's no way to know if you have slight internal wounds, so, I think I'll still have to avoid drinking snake venom just to be on the safe side.

I would point out that the verses describing the drinking of poisons and handling snakes Mark 16:9-20 are spurious. They don't appear in earlier manuscripts meaning they were added on some time later.

 

[sojourner]

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.

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.

 

[sojourner]

In the case of the serpent, who else was Satan going to appear as? There were only two humans so it wouldn't have been wise to appear as human. It wouldn't have been wise for him to appear as a spirit being, or so called angel since Adam and Eve had been in contact with Michael already. The wise move would have been to use the serpent who had access to the tree.

Michael? Wait... what? There is no “Michael” in the second creation myth. This is interpretive flim-flammery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would point out that the verses describing the drinking of poisons and handling snakes Mark 16:9-20 are spurious. They don't appear in earlier manuscripts meaning they were added on some time later.

Wow! It is a rarity, but I agree.

 

[sojourner]

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

I dunno... my ex-wife was an a$$, a snake in the grass, and she had a real hot... never mind...

 

[sojourner]

To claim the serpent is Satan then would be a matter of personal interpretation

No, it would be a matter of being wrong through negligible exegesis.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In the case of the serpent, who else was Satan going to appear as? There were only two humans so it wouldn't have been wise to appear as human. It wouldn't have been wise for him to appear as a spirit being, or so called angel since Adam and Eve had been in contact with Michael already. The wise move would have been to use the serpent who had access to the tree.

Then what was punished that was cursed to crawl on it's stomach for the rest of its life, and people will seek out and try to crush its head?

 

[Earthling]

Then what was punished that was cursed to crawl on it's stomach for the rest of its life, and people will seek out and try to crush its head?

Hmmm . . . indeed! What? Are you implying that the serpent didn't crawl on it's stomach prior to the punishment? Is that . . . evolution by God?!

 

[Earthling]

Michael? Wait... what? There is no “Michael” in the second creation myth. This is interpretive flim-flammery.

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

 

[Earthling]

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.

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.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hmmm . . . indeed! What? Are you implying that the serpent didn't crawl on it's stomach prior to the punishment? Is that . . . evolution by God?!

You could say de-evolved since serpents can't actually speak. ;0)

Anyways, I thought God was more of a surgeon then an orchestrator of evolution being he operated using Adams rib and such.

I mean what's to stop God from just chopping off all the legs in one swift go? Seems a bit superfluous to go through an entire process of evolution that would require millions of years resulting in legless reptiles. ;0)