Scientists Discover Where Snakes Lived When They Evolved into Limbless Creatures

Penn State ^ | 30 January 2004 | press release

[ZULU]

Yeah, they do contradict a literal interpretation. Snakes evolved long before modern man appeared in the fossil record. That's a fact.

Therefore, ther reference was symbolical, allegorical and teleological, not scientific.

The "serpent" in the Garden of Eden was Satan, not a reptile. The same passage in Genesis states that Satan assumed the shape of the serpent.

[VRWC_minion]

The real reference in the Bible is to Satan,

This article seems to indicate that the change to a crawling creature happened to creatures that were formerly ground based animals and the scripture is consistant with that. That to me is interesting.

However, how do you know both things cannot be true. Couldn't God have changed snakes from having legs to crawling on their bellys at the same time he cursed Satan ?

As an aside, later in the scripture, God curses the ground which means the snake/Satan is fully exposed to the cursed ground from head to tail.

[ZULU]

Its NOT a fairy tale, there are siginificant fossil indications, as well as modern analogies with lizards. Both groups of reptiles are closely related. One preceded the other in the fossil record and the other (snakes) are an obvioous modification which appeared later.

[ZULU]

Good for you.

I can't really believe some of the idiotic statements appearing on this board in reference to this article.

[ZULU]

They don't rinse their food, but they sure as heck don't eat dust, anyone than people eat bread flavored with sweat.

Its SYMBOLIC - ALLEGORICAL. Like the Parables.

[VRWC_minion]

Like the Parables.

The parables use real events in everday life.

[ZULU]

The production of any individual fossil is a unique and unusual event - hence the gaps.

Take a walk in the woods - any woods. How many deer, squirrel, or bear skeletons have you ever found? Does that prove that they don't exist?

[ZULU]

These are all symbolical and allegorical statements.

[ZULU]

Thank you Ayatollah. Thinking like that is rampant in Islamic society. You would feel very at home there.

[ZULU]

You are correct. Why these literalists think reading everythiong in the Bible so literally makes sense or amkes them better Christians is totally beyond me.

Rabbis have told me that the Torah must be studied in order to understand what the passages actually mean. You can't literally interpret EVERYTHING in it. They should know. The Old Testament is essentially a Jewish product.

[ZULU]

Good Lord!!!

Snakes tongues pick up particles of scent suspended in the air and press them against Jacobson's organ to locate prey. It has NOTHING to do with eating dust.

A little informaion is dnagerous in the hands of a Biblical Literalist.

[ZULU]

The Greek was translated from the Hebrew. What's the Hebrew word and what does THAT mean??

[ZULU]

I have kept HUNDREDS of snakes, and BELIEVE ME, they would DIE on a diet of dust!!

They eat animals - live ones or freshly killed ones!!

[Donna Lee Nardo]

LOL!

[general_re]

Primates have no INHERENT fear of snakes.

Just to expand on that a bit, it turns out that classing it as either an inherent fear or not is somewhat oversimplified. Rhesus monkeys do not start out life afraid of snakes - a monkey that has never been exposed to a snake will not show any fear when encountering one. However, if you show rhesus monkeys another monkey reacting in fear to a snake, then those monkeys will also react in fear to snakes from that point onward, even if they've never encountered a snake before for themselves.

But it's not a completely learned behavior either - if you show those same monkeys another monkey reacting fearfully to, say, a flower, the monkeys do not develop a fear of flowers thereafter. So rather than fear of snakes being a totally learned behavior, or a totally hardwired behavior, it seems to be a matter of predisposition - primates are predisposed to fear snakes, but without the cues that trigger such fear, the behavior is not evoked.

[Woodman]

Maybe she should consider purchasing a good set of Dr Bukks

[VRWC_minion]

Number 5175

TDNT:
nachash {naw-khawsh'} Word Origin:
from 5172 TDNT:
1347a Part of Speech:
Noun Masculine Usage in the KJV:
serpent 31

Total: 31Definition:

1. serpent, snake
   1. serpent
   2. image (of serpent)
   3. fleeing serpent (mythological)

TDNT - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; TWOT - Theological Word Book of the Old Testament

[southland]

You are quoting the designer and maker.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

My, my, my........Aren't we angry.

[ZULU]

"Couldn't God have changed snakes from having legs to crawling on their bellys at the same time he cursed Satan ?"

NO!!

Snakes appeared in the fossil record LONG before modern man did. As a matter of fact, they may have appeared before even our predecessors like the Australopithecines did. The time frames are all wrong!!

The passage has allegorical and symbolic significance wnad relate to the Hebrew perspecitve of serpents, and their worship by neighboring pagan tribes. The ancient Minoans worshipped snakes, so did the Greeks and Romans. Ever see the symbol for medicine? It has two snakes intertwined on a staff as a symbol of Aescupalius, the Ancient Roman God of medicine. Its OBVIOUSLY symbolic. We DON'T worship snakes.