Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and languge or "how can a snake tell you to eat a fruit."
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and languge or... - 10/23/2009 8:47:32 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
So as anyone who's been reading the board recently knows I'm having more and more trouble with the hyper-literal interpretation of the creation story suppourted by Young Earth Creationist. Recently I began thinking about language.
In Genesis 3 the Bible describes a serpent in the garden of Eden who conversed with Eve and told her to eat a forbiden fruit.
There is a distinct throat mechanism that fascilitates speech in modern humans (apparently Neanderthals too) that only exists in our species. That mechanism involves the placement of the hyoid bone (the only bone not connected to the skeleton) within the throat.The complex vocalizations that form the basis of our languges are a direct result of how low our hyoid bones are placed. Other animals have something like hyoid bones but placed much higher up, and sometimes fused to another part of the throat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoid
Snakes are among the animals that have their "noise makers" fused I believe. They're only capable of simple vocalization...far removed from complex vocalization, much less speaking. And unlike the snakes "vestigial" legs which both Y.E.C and Darwanist love to point to as evidence for their beliefs, there is no evidence that snakes ever had that kind of mechanism.
For a long time I thought "oh it must have been the devil in the snake" (totally unscientific I know) but then I realized that this was absurd. The punishments dished out to Adam, Eve, and the snake were based on the choices they made. If the snake was possesed it was just the puppet, it wasn't a free moral agent capable of doing something "wrong." How would it be fair to punish the snake.
Food for thought.
< Message edited by StephenJ -- 10/24/2009 6:26:39 PM >
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 12:04:34 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So as anyone who's been reading the board recently knows I'm having more and more trouble with the hyper-literal interpretation of the creation story suppourted by Young Earth Creationist. Recently I began thinking about language. There is nothing "hyper-literal" about reading the plain sense meaning of the Genesis text written as historical narrative prose.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 12:36:45 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2538
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
Stephen: Donkey's can't talk either, but Balaam's certainly gave quite a speech. 
Do you see the fallacy of your naturalist reductionism? Not to mention your classic dualism. You can't just dismiss the spirit and supernatural as if they have no interaction or effects on the physical.
Satan inhabited a snake and made it talk. Either reject it, and thus Scripture, or accept it for what it is. If you believe Jesus turned water into wine, raised buried corpses from the dead, walked on water, commanded the weather to change, healed blindness and sickness with a command, made food materialize from thin air, raised HIMSELF from the dead, and flew up into the air and through the clouds by His own power.... does it really violate your precious reasoning that a snake talked?
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 12:57:41 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 897
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephenJ
For a long time I thought "oh it must have been the devil in the snake" (totally unscientific I know) but then I realized that this was absurd. The punishments dished out to Adam, Eve, and the snake were based on the choices they made. If the snake was possesed it was just the puppet, it wasn't a free moral agent capable of doing something "wrong." How would it be fair to punish the snake.
Food for thought.
While years of Christian tradition have reinforced the idea that the snake was Satan, there's absolutely nothing in Genesis itself that supports such a reading (in fact, I don't even think satan is mentioned in all of Genesis). Judging merely from the evidence in the first few books of genesis, the snake was just a snake who could talk. Why it could talk, whether all snakes could talk (or just this one), and whether all animals could talk, are questions that aren't answered. It could have been Satan, I guess, but if it was the authors of Genesis either did not know this, or saw no reason to indicate it.
Judging from the story itself, though, it does seem as if God is punishing the serpent for something that it did on its own volition. There's nothing in Genesis to indicate that it's a mere puppet.
_____________________________
Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 12:58:13 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2538
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
Oh, and, regarding "fairness" of God's judgment, you may want to rethink that as well. God caused other nations to attack and chastise a wayward Israel, and then He brought His wrath against the nations that He had caused to act because they attacked Israel. Was that "fair"? God hardened Pharaoh's heart and then brought judgment on him and all Egyptians because Pharaoh had a hard heart. Was that "fair"? God let His perfect Son take the punishment of utterly corrupted humanity. Was that "fair"?
God punished the snake for being the vessel of Satan. Hardly a big deal.
Stephen, we are the clay. He is the Potter. He can do whatever He wants with us.
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? - Rom 9:21
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 1:05:10 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2538
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: henny
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephenJ
For a long time I thought "oh it must have been the devil in the snake" (totally unscientific I know) but then I realized that this was absurd. The punishments dished out to Adam, Eve, and the snake were based on the choices they made. If the snake was possesed it was just the puppet, it wasn't a free moral agent capable of doing something "wrong." How would it be fair to punish the snake.
Food for thought.
While years of Christian tradition have reinforced the idea that the snake was Satan, there's absolutely nothing in Genesis itself that supports such a reading (in fact, I don't even think satan is mentioned in all of Genesis). Judging merely from the evidence in the first few books of genesis, the snake was just a snake who could talk. Why it could talk, whether all snakes could talk (or just this one), and whether all animals could talk, are questions that aren't answered. It could have been Satan, I guess, but if it was the authors of Genesis either did not know this, or saw no reason to indicate it.
Judging from the story itself, though, it does seem as if God is punishing the serpent for something that it did on its own volition. There's nothing in Genesis to indicate that it's a mere puppet.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-serpent.html
quote:
Question: "Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3?"
Answer: Yes, the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was Satan. Satan was either appearing as a serpent, possessing the serpent, or deceiving Adam and Eve into believing that it was the serpent who was talking to them. Serpents / snakes do not possess the ability to speak. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both describe Satan as a serpent. “He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years” (Revelation 20:2). “The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him” (Revelation 12:9).
While the Bible is not clear as to whether or not the serpent stood up or walked before the curse, it appears likely that like other reptiles it probably did walk on four legs. That would seem to be the best explanation of Genesis 3:14, "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.’” The fact that the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly and eat the dust of the earth forever is also a way if indicating that the serpent would be forever despised and looked upon as a vile and despicable creature and an object of scorn and contempt. Why did God curse the serpent when He knew that it was actually Satan who had led Adam and Eve into sin? The fate of the serpent is an illustration. The curse of the serpent will one day be the fate of Satan himself (Revelation 20:10; Ezekiel 28:18-19).
Recommended Resource: The Serpent of Paradise by Erwin Lutzer.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 1:17:25 AM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Well yes my reason is having problems. This is a science forum suppousedly, reasoning and rationality should be embraced here right?
One thing I really don't like about some YEC people who read the creation story literally is the willingness to only embrace science when they feel like it suppourts their argument.
For example people are willing to point to the vestigial legs of snakes as evidence that the Genesis account has validity. They'd say that this lines up with God's curse on the snake after it convinced the first people to eat the forbiden fruit. I even felt that way for a long time.
However, when a perfectly legitimate question about how a snake can talk when it lacks the throat mechanisms to do so is raised, science is thrown out the window and is no longer considered valid. That seem to me to suppourt all of the sterotypes and anti-intellectualism that people have about Christian fundamentalism. How can it be argued (as some people do) that Y.E Creationism belongs in science classes and colleges, and academic journals when it's unwilling to address legitimate scientific inquiry and falls back to "the supernatural is beyond questioning" idea? Asking tough questions is suppouse to be the basis of science. You know what they say about extraordinary claims in science. Heck, I'll go a step further and say that logical arguments are suppousedly the point of Christian apologetics too.
So do we only endorse rational scientific thought when it suppourts the views we have already decided to hold to? That seems intellectually dishonest to me.
And again if we acknowledge that the snake was only the "puppet" why punish it with a curse? It didn't do anything wrong technically. Adam and Eve's punishments are based on the idea that they did something that God told them not to. The snake was not a free moral agent.
I feel like I'm arguing from a place of science and reason, on a science board and being critisized for it.
< Message edited by StephenJ -- 10/24/2009 1:37:53 AM >
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 2:04:35 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 897
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
Question: "Was Satan the serpent in Genesis chapter 3?"
Answer: Yes, the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 was Satan. Satan was either appearing as a serpent, possessing the serpent, or deceiving Adam and Eve into believing that it was the serpent who was talking to them. Serpents / snakes do not possess the ability to speak. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both describe Satan as a serpent. “He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years” (Revelation 20:2). “The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him” (Revelation 12:9).
While the Bible is not clear as to whether or not the serpent stood up or walked before the curse, it appears likely that like other reptiles it probably did walk on four legs. That would seem to be the best explanation of Genesis 3:14, "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.’” The fact that the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly and eat the dust of the earth forever is also a way if indicating that the serpent would be forever despised and looked upon as a vile and despicable creature and an object of scorn and contempt. Why did God curse the serpent when He knew that it was actually Satan who had led Adam and Eve into sin? The fate of the serpent is an illustration. The curse of the serpent will one day be the fate of Satan himself (Revelation 20:10; Ezekiel 28:18-19).
Recommended Resource: The Serpent of Paradise by Erwin Lutzer.
Notice, though, that they have to go all the way to the book of revelations to arrive at this interpretation.
As I said, there is absolutely nothing in Genesis that indicates that the snake was Satan. Its authors were either unaware of this, or did not indicate it if they were. Indeed, in their writing of it, they seem to indicate the opposite. The only reason they give for why a serpent (and not a toad, or horse, or any other animal) is that the serpent was the most intelligent of all animals:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" -Genesis 3:1
If the serpent was a mere puppet of Satan, or was Satan himself, it seems odd that they would describe him in this way. As the verse suggests, he's not a fallen angel, or a demon, just one of the many animals that God had made. And the only reason they indicate for his tempting of Eve is his "craftiness."
The whole Christian reading of the serpent as a discreet identity (represented by our modern notion of "Satan") came along much later (and it certainly isn't present in most Jewish traditions).
But, maybe this is off topic. I think I might start a separate discussion on "Satan" in the old testament in the Bible section.
< Message edited by henny -- 10/24/2009 2:10:49 AM >
_____________________________
Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 6:15:10 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2538
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephenJ
However, when a perfectly legitimate question about how a snake can talk when it lacks the throat mechanisms to do so is raised, science is thrown out the window and is no longer considered valid.
"Science" isn't thrown out the window at all! "Science" is interested in why something happened and following the evidence where it leads. Snakes can't talk, therefore, it is an easy conclusion that there was a supernatural aspect to the account! The problem is, to YOU science = completely physical. When you leave no room for spiritual and supernatural, you will never have a complete conclusion. The scientific conclusion is, "it is physically impossible for snakes to talk, therefore something else had to giving it the ability to do so".
quote:
"the supernatural is beyond questioning"
Nonsense. I never said, "Don't question this", I merely gave you an answer you didn't like. You questioned and the correct answer was provided to you. The question was opened and closed, but you can't completely accept it because you are hung up on reducing everything to a naturalistic explanation.
quote:
And again if we acknowledge that the snake was only the "puppet" why punish it with a curse? It didn't do anything wrong technically. Adam and Eve's punishments are based on the idea that they did something that God told them not to. The snake was not a free moral agent.
quote:
I feel like I'm arguing from a place of science and reason, on a science board and being critisized for it.
Be reasonable, be logical! Jesus commands us to love God with all of our minds! He made His creation so we could enjoy it, discover it, and understand the ways in which He made things to work! I am convinced that He is thrilled every time someone discovers this new mechanism or that new theory.
I am criticizing the fact that you are elevating naturalism over biblical truth, shutting out any possibility of the spiritual and supernatural, and then getting upset because someone points out that the Bible doesn't fit that kind of approach.
BTW, you didn't address my point about Balaam's donkey. Please explain the talking donkey to this kooky, unreasonable, anti-scientific, ignorant YEC. Is that just "allegory and myth" as well? See what happens when you try to start spiritualizing and allegorizing to fit a naturalistic agenda? You have to start doing it all over the place and pretty soon the Bible is just another nice little impotent book of old stories and myths instead of the very Words of God that are effectual unto salvation.
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 6:19:24 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2538
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: henny
Notice, though, that they have to go all the way to the book of revelations to arrive at this interpretation.
As I said, there is absolutely nothing in Genesis that indicates that the snake was Satan. Its authors were either unaware of this, or did not indicate it if they were. Indeed, in their writing of it, they seem to indicate the opposite. The only reason they give for why a serpent (and not a toad, or horse, or any other animal) is that the serpent was the most intelligent of all animals:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" -Genesis 3:1
If the serpent was a mere puppet of Satan, or was Satan himself, it seems odd that they would describe him in this way. As the verse suggests, he's not a fallen angel, or a demon, just one of the many animals that God had made. And the only reason they indicate for his tempting of Eve is his "craftiness."
The whole Christian reading of the serpent as a discreet identity (represented by our modern notion of "Satan") came along much later (and it certainly isn't present in most Jewish traditions).
But, maybe this is off topic. I think I might start a separate discussion on "Satan" in the old testament in the Bible section.
Good points. I don't want to hijack the thread either, but if you start a new one I would have a few questions:
1) Is it illegitimate to consider the whole of Scripture when considering one part of it? After all, most of Revelation's symbols and images cannot be understood without a good knowledge of the Old Testament.
2) What did the ancient Jews believe of the serpent in the garden?
3) What did the early Christian church and the early church fathers believe of the serpent in the garden?
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 3:05:54 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Well I'd like to argue that it wasn't something supernatural or out of the ordinary based on Eve's reaction. Unlike the "Balam's donkey" story there was no shocked reaction to the animal talking. Which leads to the conclusion that it was not something out of the ordinary.
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 3:51:30 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 934
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
Satan inhabited a snake and made it talk. Either reject it, and thus Scripture, or accept it for what it is. If you believe Jesus turned water into wine, raised buried corpses from the dead, walked on water, commanded the weather to change, healed blindness and sickness with a command, made food materialize from thin air, raised HIMSELF from the dead, and flew up into the air and through the clouds by His own power.... does it really violate your precious reasoning that a snake talked?
is satan as capable of miracles as God is? i think you run into all kinds of theological problems when you give God and the devil equal billing miracle-wise.
it would be help to have benelchi pop in here on this one. as i read it, "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made" could mean that all serpents were craftier, and that might mean that they ALL could talk. If that's the case, then we're not dealing with a miracle any more than people talking is a miracle.
Eve is never surprised that the serpent talks. Balaam, on the other hand, is very surprised that the donkey talks. so if we take Genesis literally, talking serpents must have been normal. that would probably mean that the serpent wasn't Satan, since Satan can't be all snakes. it doesn't make sense for God to punish all snakes unless all snakes had been busy messing with Adam and Eve. which leads up back to Stephen's question. if more than one serpent could talk, then we are out of the realm of miracles, and the question about the hyoid bone matters.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 4:22:05 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well I'd like to argue that it wasn't something supernatural or out of the ordinary based on Eve's reaction. Just how many snakes do you think Eve had seen up to this point? Why would she be surprised that one might speak? Are we certain communication was with an audible voice? I think you're reading a lot into the simple account as written in the text, SJ.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 5:53:22 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Thank you Shakezula.
Again from Eve's reaction we can see that this wasn't a particularly strange concept to her. The idea of anyone other than her mate (Adam) or God talking with her wasn't something to be shocked by (at least as I understand it.)
So if it's not a particularly supernatural act then the question becomes why we don't see animals, specifically snakes, talking to us today?
On the other point, it is kind of problematic to put God and the Devil on equal playing fields as far as power. If satan can influence the natural world to that extent, what does that mean? For me that lines up with the thinking of a dualist worldview (like Zoraosterism) where good and evil are equal forces.
< Message edited by StephenJ -- 10/24/2009 6:13:53 PM >
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 6:53:04 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephenJ
However, when a perfectly legitimate question about how a snake can talk when it lacks the throat mechanisms to do so is raised, science is thrown out the window and is no longer considered valid.
"Science" isn't thrown out the window at all! "Science" is interested in why something happened and following the evidence where it leads. Snakes can't talk, therefore, it is an easy conclusion that there was a supernatural aspect to the account! The problem is, to YOU science = completely physical. When you leave no room for spiritual and supernatural, you will never have a complete conclusion. The scientific conclusion is, "it is physically impossible for snakes to talk, therefore something else had to giving it the ability to do so".
quote:
"the supernatural is beyond questioning"
Nonsense. I never said, "Don't question this", I merely gave you an answer you didn't like. You questioned and the correct answer was provided to you. The question was opened and closed, but you can't completely accept it because you are hung up on reducing everything to a naturalistic explanation.
quote:
And again if we acknowledge that the snake was only the "puppet" why punish it with a curse? It didn't do anything wrong technically. Adam and Eve's punishments are based on the idea that they did something that God told them not to. The snake was not a free moral agent.
quote:
I feel like I'm arguing from a place of science and reason, on a science board and being critisized for it.
Be reasonable, be logical! Jesus commands us to love God with all of our minds! He made His creation so we could enjoy it, discover it, and understand the ways in which He made things to work! I am convinced that He is thrilled every time someone discovers this new mechanism or that new theory.
I am criticizing the fact that you are elevating naturalism over biblical truth, shutting out any possibility of the spiritual and supernatural, and then getting upset because someone points out that the Bible doesn't fit that kind of approach.
BTW, you didn't address my point about Balaam's donkey. Please explain the talking donkey to this kooky, unreasonable, anti-scientific, ignorant YEC. Is that just "allegory and myth" as well? See what happens when you try to start spiritualizing and allegorizing to fit a naturalistic agenda? You have to start doing it all over the place and pretty soon the Bible is just another nice little impotent book of old stories and myths instead of the very Words of God that are effectual unto salvation.
Well I would say that the evidence points to the idea that snakes can't, nor were they ever capable of, talking. Just like I'd say that the evidence points to the fact that snakes at one time had legs. There is no evidence for them having the kind of complicated brains capable of forming words, nor the kind of vocal mechanisms capable of articulating them. You say that you think science is about folllowing the evidence. That's what I'm doing without trying to fit the evidence to a preconceived belief. I think it's unfair for Y.E.C apologetics to fully embrace a form of naturalism when it suites an argument then downplay it when it opposes their claims.
< Message edited by StephenJ -- 10/24/2009 6:59:49 PM >
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 11:30:09 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Honestly the story only works if it's understood to be a literal snake. The curse of having to crawl on your belly, doesn't make sense as an abstract concept for temptation, or for the devil.
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/24/2009 11:55:00 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 897
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
1) Is it illegitimate to consider the whole of Scripture when considering one part of it? After all, most of Revelation's symbols and images cannot be understood without a good knowledge of the Old Testament.
2) What did the ancient Jews believe of the serpent in the garden?
3) What did the early Christian church and the early church fathers believe of the serpent in the garden?
1) Theologically it isn't, but I think it is historically inaccurate to read Genesis based on Revelations. Genesis was written in a completely different era than Revelations, and it even represents an entirely different religion, if you think about it. The creation account was not written in a Christian context. Most people are familiar with the popular Christian reading of it, but if you put aside all past interpretations and read it with completely fresh eyes (as if for the first time), it's actually quite strange and unChristian in many ways (not anti-Christian, just not reflecting the usual Christian reading of it). So while I don't think it is possible to read Revelations without Genesis (given that Revelations is in many aspects a comment on Genesis itself), I do think it is possible (and indeed, historically preferable) to read Genesis without Revelations. But I think the aims of theological analysis are very different from the aims of historical analysis, so I personally have no problem with Christians interpreting Genesis by way of Revelations.
2) It differs. Most thought it was just a serpent. None of them saw it the Christian understanding of Satan, though (The Christian Satan really isn't present in the old testament, anyway. Satan, as it's used in the OT, usually doesn't refer to one individual, rather just a role/function. It literally means "The Adversary" -and sometimes obstructer. Most of the time "the adversary" isn't so much evil or demonic, just an angel filling a specific role for God.Indeed, in certain parts of the OT, God sends the satan to help people by impeeding them from some greater harm. Thus, for example, in the story of Balaam and the donkey, God sends an angel to act as Balaam's "Satan" by impeding his path. While the Bible actually uses the word "satan" to describe the function of this angel, most translations do not reflect this as they will usually translate the word as opposed to leaving it untranslated. Moreover, the adversary was an actual function in Israelite courts, so it's arguable that the Satan in Job is not the Satan of Christianity. Rather, the book itself just presents him as an angel acting as the adversary -filling the function of adversary in God's court. The story itself makes a good deal more sense when read in that way. As the OT progresses, the word satan becomes increasingly personified as authors begin using it to describe adversaries to the nation of Israel- both from within and from without. Likewise, in Isaiah the idea of Lucifer as a fallen angel is introduced for the first time-something which is further elaborated on apocryphal Jewish writings. At some point in the history of Christianity, these concepts merged to form "Satan" as we think of him today).
3) Hard to say. Paul mentions the serpent tempting Eve in Corinthians, and he never mentions Satan (he just refers to it as the serpent). So it's possible that Paul never saw it as Satan. I don't know all of the places in the NT where they mention the fall, though. So it's possible that other early Christians were already reading the serpent as being Satan. But even the author of Revelations doesn't necessarily present a definitive answer on the question. While he states, for example, that Satan is an "ancient serpent" who tempts mankind in a similar fashion as the serpent from Genesis, he never absolutely states that the serpent in Genesis WAS satan. So while he may have seen it in this way, it's also possible that he was using the serpent in Genesis as a metaphor for Satan's action as tempter to mankind. Based on the text, it's hard to say for sure, I think. But at some point the belief that Satan was the serpent became pretty much universal -so much so, that people just sort of seem to accept it without actually looking for evidence of it in the text itself. Indeed, if you would ask a random person to recount the events of Genesis, I imagine the narrative they'd create would owe as much to Milton (and other extra-Biblicial readings of the fall) as it would to Genesis.
< Message edited by henny -- 10/25/2009 12:44:15 AM >
_____________________________
Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/25/2009 8:14:04 AM
|
|
|
jfcbrian
Posts: 29
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline
|
StephenJ,
We have know idea what the pre-fall world would have been like. It could be that Adam and Eve were able to talk to the serpent and other animals in a different way than with audible speech.
Proverbs 3:5,6
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.
Ephesians 4:17-18
17This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;
I don't think that too many would want Creation taught in our schools, I mean do we really want an atheist to teach our kids anything of God. I do wish that real science was taught though.
It's funny when someone starts to question Genesis they will automatically believe everything that the atheist believe because they are scientist.
I wonder StephenJ why you have never questioned evolution as hard as you question God's word. Why you think that it is better to believe that all life came from one cell that despite great odds came out of non-life. This cell would have had to have had enough DNA or RNA figure out how to feed on the other non-life around it. It would then have to develop more DNA to learn how to harness the sun's energy. All of this we are expected to believe without supernatural intervention since this would be just lazy, right.
Evolution leaves more questions than answers and yet you ignore all the science that comes against it and instead attack the Bible as it is written.
_____________________________
Brian
God Bless
1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/25/2009 8:15:25 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Genesis was written in a completely different era than Revelations, and it even represents an entirely different religion, if you think about it. Oops! I need read no further after a patently false comment like this! If you don't think all things were created by Christ, take it up with God (Col 1:16).
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/25/2009 1:26:09 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jfcbrian
StephenJ,
We have know idea what the pre-fall world would have been like. It could be that Adam and Eve were able to talk to the serpent and other animals in a different way than with audible speech.
Proverbs 3:5,6
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.
Ephesians 4:17-18
17This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;
I don't think that too many would want Creation taught in our schools, I mean do we really want an atheist to teach our kids anything of God. I do wish that real science was taught though.
It's funny when someone starts to question Genesis they will automatically believe everything that the atheist believe because they are scientist.
I wonder StephenJ why you have never questioned evolution as hard as you question God's word. Why you think that it is better to believe that all life came from one cell that despite great odds came out of non-life. This cell would have had to have had enough DNA or RNA figure out how to feed on the other non-life around it. It would then have to develop more DNA to learn how to harness the sun's energy. All of this we are expected to believe without supernatural intervention since this would be just lazy, right.
Evolution leaves more questions than answers and yet you ignore all the science that comes against it and instead attack the Bible as it is written.
Well one evolution doesn't really address the existance or non-existance of a god. It's just a concept that deals with how animals change over time. Some evolutionist are atheist some are theist.
Two I have questioned evolution hard, I've mentioned before that I use to be inclined to Y.E.C thinking, until I really started studying some of the science and biology.
Why is it that I still feel like whenever I raise a legitimate scientific question I get responses along the lines of "trust God" or "we don't know what life was like before the fall, so don't bother asking."
Are we talking about telepathic animal communication before the fall? Because where is the evidence of that? It's not just the hyoid bone that's being dealt with, it's also the fact that snakes lack the kind of brains that would fascilitate that kind of communication.
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/25/2009 3:28:01 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2538
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jfcbrian
I wonder StephenJ why you have never questioned evolution as hard as you question God's word.
That is an excellent question which I wish more of Christian brothers and sisters who buy into NDE would consider.
StephenJ: Your question has already been answered, several times. Nobody is telling you not to ask the question, we are just saying that the ultimate answer is not a physical one. Snakes can't talk. They are physically incapable, as are donkeys. People cant walk on water, command the weather, raise the dead, r fly either. It is physically impossible for us to do so, but "with God all things are possible".
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/25/2009 4:37:06 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
No it hasn't been answered because like Shakezula said according to Christian theology God may be all powerful but satan isn't.
And if that literal interpretation is true, and it is just a normal snake, then there should be evidence that snakes and other animals were once physically capable of communicating like humans do.
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/25/2009 4:41:30 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
No it hasn't been answered because like Shakezula said according to Christian theology God may be all powerful but satan isn't. I really don't get your point, SJ. If God is all powerful then why could He not allow Satan to appear as a speaking snake to Eve?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/25/2009 7:38:49 PM
|
|
|
StephenJ
Posts: 259
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
So you're saying God enabled Satan to appear as a snake through a special supernatural intervention, and then punished him for doing what he wanted him to? Not only that, but he punished the snakes that had nothing to do with it at all?
And again why isn't Eve suprised by a talking snake?
_____________________________
Rock on!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Snakes, the placement of the hyoid bone, and langug... - 10/25/2009 8:59:38 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
and then punished him for doing what he wanted him to? If you spent some time on the Christian Doctrine thread you would know that I do NOT believe that God wants everything He allows to happen!
quote:
And again why isn't Eve suprised by a talking snake? Did you miss my responses in post #13 or just not like them?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
