The Watchmaker - story

[Dr. Shane]

I think that is academic. It doesn't really matter if it is poetry or not. If God says "I love you" in poetry, as He does in the Pslams, it carries the same message as when Jesus said it in a secret meeting in the middle of the night (John 3:16).

In first two chapters of Genesis God says He created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh. Many Hebrew scholars say the language used was poetic, but that doesn't take away from its clear meaning. Later we find God saying the same thing in a thundering voice from a mountain top (Exodus 20). Both passages carry the same message.

So whether or not something is poetic does not impact what it is saying.

[melvin mccarty]

So snakes do eat dirt after all?

mel

[Tom Wetmore]

Since snakes were winged animals...

Where did the idea that pre-sin snakes had wings come from?

Tom

[nuff sed]

Tom's question re" Serpents flying before sin entered this world".

"Patriarch & Prophets" p.53, Vol.3 "Spiritual Gifts" p. 39-40

"Story of Our Redemption" p. 32

[nuff sed]

So snakes do eat dirt after all?

mel

No, snakes eat only other live creatures..sometimes their eggs.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Since snakes were winged animals...

Where did the idea that pre-sin snakes had wings come from?

Tom

In ancient mythology, serpents had wings; and as don/aldridge pointed out, Ellen White writes of the original serpents of Adam's day having wings. When in Gen. 3: 14 God cursed the serpent and said from then on it would move about on its belly, it appears to lend credence to the concept that serpents originally had wings.

[melvin mccarty]

EGGzactly so Gen 3:14 is poetry as Shane said or symbolism or what? :-)

mel

[John317]

EGGzactly so Gen 3:14 is poetry as Shane said or symbolism or what? :-)

mel

Yes, it is written as poetry, but then so is the very next verse, which is the first promise of salvation through the coming Messiah. Both are highly symbolic yet they also point to literal truths. In the case of Gen. 3: 14, the essential truth is that man's rebellion against God had a tragic affect even on the animal kingdom. I believe the serpents once literally had wings, but it is not a point of any importance to our salvation.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Where did the idea that pre-sin snakes had wings come from?

Tom

In ancient mythology' date=' serpents had wings; and as don/aldridge pointed out, Ellen White writes of the original serpents of Adam's day having wings...[/quote']

For another interesting perspective - Did the Serpent Have Legs?

Tom

[melvin mccarty]

Interesting but what about the diet of dirt? Do you believe that to be factual? When did the first pair of snakes start eating mice and other interesting tidbits? And by the way where was mrs snake when all this biz was going on? Was she a party to the whole thing?

When they all went in the ark what did Noah feed those snakes?

Yes the Devil is in the details for sure.

mel

[David Koot]

Interesting but what about the diet of dirt? Do you believe that to be factual?

Taking a quick look at the Hebrew, it certainly appears to suggest more of an emphasis on dust or dirt. That is, the ol snake is going to have a mouthful of dust, but not as a dietary point. Just from crawling on the ground.

[bevin]

Amusing. We are prepared to completely disregard the testimony of billions of tons of rock, but we can prove something by quoting a book whose author acknowledges is not to be used to prove historical facts....

/Bevin

[Gerr]

Amusing. We are prepared to completely disregard the testimony of billions of tons of rock, but we can prove something by quoting a book whose author acknowledges is not to be used to prove historical facts....

/Bevin

And the rocks cry out that there is Someone who made them! Look at the atom, Bevin, atoms that constitute the rocks, they came to be by chance? Not a fat chance! Someone has calculated that the probability of life coming into existence by chance has more zeros than all the atoms in the universe combined.

Gerry

[bevin]

The "calculation" definitely meets Shane's constant issue of "assumptions, assumptions, assumptions".

EVEN IF IT IS CORRECT, it is not the issue here. All that would mean is that God stepped in and created something sometime.

There are literally dozens of independent lines of evidence showing that life of Earth is older than 100,000 years and has evolved.

There are only two possible explanations - almost completely independent of your philosophy or your assumptions

(a) It did exactly that

( God created the world looking like it did exactly that

© Some vast conspiracy of billions of people is under the delusion that it looks like that, but it doesn't really

Short-age creationists reject (a), so they are forced to go for ( or ©.

( or © are actually the same - God created a world that looks like life is very old.

Short-age creation requires that God have created a deception.

Everyone here is telling me that they don't like that conclusion, but no one is showing me how to reach a different one other than my current belief - that (a) is right.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

but we can prove something by quoting a book whose author acknowledges is not to be used to prove historical facts....

/Bevin

???? My reference was to the Hebrew OT, and to what appears to be an emphasis on dust rather than on dietary issues for the snake. No other book quoted here.

[bevin]

Ah, the joys of "quick reply" - I was actually referring to Don's EGW references.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Oh, ok lol

[Dr. Shane]

I certainly allow more room for Ellen white to be wrong than the creation account recorded in Genesis, but that said, no one should be chided for making reference to her. As John 317 made reference to, the winged serpent is part of mythology. It was also incorporated into the Dungeons and Dragons game, likely because of its place in mythology. Interestingly in the D&D game, the winged serpent lives on fruit. Quite a contrast to the dust-covered rodents that most serpents eat.

Quote:

There are literally dozens of independent lines of evidence showing that life of Earth is older than 100,000 years and has evolved.

All based on assumptions about the past which cannot be proven.

The world only looks old to a naturalist looking at it with his or her naturalist assumptions.

A creationist, looking at the world with his or her creationist assumptions, sees a young earth.

Those that claim there is no way any intelligent person can see a young earth simply do not grasp the creationist philosophy. Often because they are so locked into naturalist assumptions they cannot even look at the issue from a semi-objective position.

Intelligent people disagree. That is a fact and undeniable. There are scientists and philosophers with PhDs on both sides of the issue. We cannot logically conclude that one side simply doesn't understand the evidence. The only reasonable conclusion is that each side starts out with different assumptions and thus ends up with different conclusions.

[melvin mccarty]

Yes but many other animals eat dust in the sense of dusty grass and dusty mice etc. It does not seem to make sense to make that application to the snake where the plain statement says "dust you shall eat"

mel

[David Koot]

Oh, I don't know, I can see a difference. Mr. snake has got to crawl, with his nose and mouth in the dirt. At least the other critters have got legs to walk on, to keep them off the ground. I am reminded of a boast we used to make when street racing: "Son, you gonna eat my dust!"

[Dr. Shane]

Genesis 4:10 seems a little more hard to understand than a snake eating dust. If the snake was a winged animal (or had legs), the verse makes perfect sense.

[bevin]

Quote:

Intelligent people disagree. That is a fact and undeniable. There are scientists and philosophers with PhDs on both sides of the issue. We cannot logically conclude that one side simply doesn't understand the evidence. The only reasonable conclusion is that each side starts out with different assumptions and thus ends up with different conclusions.

Unfortunately the Short-Age Creationists do not have a coherent testable explanation of why almost any of the evidences for a long-age earth are wrong.

In the past I have used the White Cliffs of Dover as an instance of this. There is simply no credible detailed short-age explanation for these megatons of dead animals.

We can conclude the Short-Age creationists don't understand the evidence, for the simple reason that their theory is incompatible with it and they have no credible way of making it compatible.

If they want respect, they need to start actually doing science.

/Bevin

[John317]

Yes but many other animals eat dust in the sense of dusty grass and dusty mice etc. It does not seem to make sense to make that application to the snake where the plain statement says "dust you shall eat"

mel

It makes as much sense as the next verse that says "he will crush your head and you will strike his heel." Verse 14 doesn't mean the snake will literally eat a diet of dust any more than v. 15 means God will literally put hatred between the serpent's offspring and those of the woman or that the woman's seed will crush the head of the serpent and that the serpent will strike the seed's heel.

The first is saying that as a result of Adam's Fall, the serpent will crawl on its belly instead of flying through the air and thus will also experience a kind of Fall. The second is saying that in the battle between Christ and Satan, God will allow Satan to bring serious harm to Christ and to Christ's followers but that Christ will ultimately destroy him.

In both cases the metaphors make good sense if we use them right and don't try to push their meaning to extremes.

[Bravus]

But it's clear, bevin, that the philosophical system Shane is describing is hermetically sealed and impervious to empirical evidence. When your basic assumption is supernaturalism, *anything* can be explained away as miraculous. There is no way to challenge or change the model using empirical evidence of any kind, since the Bible (or, more precisely, a particular recieved interpretation of the Bible) by definition always trumps empirical evidence.

[bevin]

Right - but within this system the theological question

"Why did God create a world that APPEARS to have had large life-forms on it for millions of years?"

is very unsettling because it gets around the "how was it done" barrier - it was done by a miracle.

You will notice that they try the "God made the world look mature - Adam looked old, right!" argument immediately, and then, when I again reiterate that the issue is the appear of DEATH on Earth for millions of years, the issue is so uncomfortable that they simply avoid the issue - usually by changing the subject.

/Bevin