In the beginning . . . Adam walked with dinosaurs [Creationist Park]

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 02 January 2005 | James Langton

[safisoft]

Exactly my point. Genesis says a "snake"; there is nothing there about Satan. The people who read Satan into the story are the same ones who insist that only a "literal" reading of Genesis is permissible. Reminds me off something I once read about motes and beams...

Better study up. The people who think the serpent is the "devil" etc., may have much more Scriptural knowledge then you. BTW, the word "snake" is not found in Genesis 3. The word is nachash which comes from the root verb nachash which literally means to enchant or practice divination. No snake - just the charmer was there. To believe in literal interpretation does not mean that there are not multiple layers. The literal is simply the first. And, literal always uses the original - not a poor English translation. "Snake" indeed.

Just in case you are commenting on the Bible and don't actually have one:

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan...

Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world

So that you know, Yochanan ben Zevadi, the writer of the book of the Reveleations of Y'shua the Messiah held to a literal reading of all Scripture.

[BMCDA]

And he claims not to know anything about the subject of that article. Or he forgot.

Wow! I'm quite used to amnesia among creationists but this guy beats them all.

[safisoft]

Oh,the truth hurts when your man St. Ken is shown to be a crook, eh? Thanks for posting all my confirmation that St. Ken is a false prophet.

Your self-incrimination only grows. Please provide for me the biblical definition of a false prophet. Quick run to the seminarian's bookshelf... something must be there...

For the record, Ken Ham is not "my man" - I simply find it ironic that the most virtriolic poster on this thread is so quick to claim innocence and a claim of ad hominem attack on him/her self.

[shubi]

5175 ðÈçÈùÑ [nachash /naw·khawsh/] n m. From 5172; TWOT 1347a; GK 5729; 31 occurrences; AV translates as “serpent” 31 times. 1 serpent, snake. 1a serpent. 1b image (of serpent).

"The word is nachash which comes from the root verb nachash which literally means to enchant or practice divination."

But many commentators suggest it is the hssss of the snake that resulted in this being the name.

Since Adam named all the animals, and they take everything literally, I don't see how we can go to the root meaning here. Adam called the snake nachash and that is all there is to it.

[shubi]

The Hebrew letters did not come out right in HTML.

[shubi]

WhatEVer LOL

Try to remain calm

[shubi]

Oh, the lurkers. Gotyu. ;-)

[Lurking Libertarian]

Just in case you are commenting on the Bible and don't actually have one: Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan... Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world

I do own a Bible (several, in fact), and I read Hebrew (not Greek, though).

Any literal reading of Genesis 3 shows that it is obviously talking about a snake-- it crawls on the ground, bites people on the heel, etc.

The people who say that Genesis 3:1 is talking about Satan, citing Revelation 20:2 as support, are the same people who get upset at those of us who cite Psalm 90:4 (or 2 Peter 3:8) to support an interpretation that the six days of creation weren't literal, 24-hour days.

My point is that no one interprets all scripture literally; the people who claim they do are self-deluded.

[Bellflower]

usually get angrily answered "It was a miracle"....

Are you sure the anger is not your own projections. Most Christians I know are not angry people (not that there are not exceptions). I know it is easy to see them that way as often the message is hated and the hatred for the message is transfered to the messenger. The message is the most beautiful, liberating message ever imaginable. It is because the carnal mind is at enmity with God that it is often perceived as appalling to those that are in rebellion. My hope is for you and others to look beyond the flesh and carnal mind and see the beautiful, logical gospel of Jesus Christ. This will only happen by the grace of God in response to our obedience, faith and prayers. Hope you make it.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Look, if you want to try to have a logical discussion about the ark, that is great, but, whenever practical questions are put up, it always devolves to "its a miracle"

Honestly, its a pretty convenient and lazy excuse to use for an argument.

[azhenfud]

It could be we just don't know afterall.

Maybe our God considers it less important to reveal where we've come from than how to walk the path to the destination which He wishes to lead us.

It's good to share thoughts on the subject. Like you, my opinions have developed and changed as I've grown older.

Wiser? that's yet to be seen - but my conceptions have changed...

Many regards,
Az

[bondserv]

No problem. It's just that I'm a bit disappointed that when I found a little snippet of Scripture in which a major prophet claims to see the complete destruction of a pre-Adamic race of "man," nobody is even interested enough to ask where it is.

I'm not trying to build a doctrine on it, I merely say that IF it is what it appears to be, it gives a tremendous argument against the theory of evolution.

I apologize. I assumed from the snippets of your comments that you referred to the Gap Theory. A. W. Pink, in his commentary on Genesis, has an extensive presentation of the Gap Theory. I am familiar with most of the various theories i.e. Gap Theory, Day Age Theory, Rabbinical Talmudic Theories...

I am always interested in any theory based on scripture. Please run it by us.

[bondserv]

I do own a Bible (several, in fact), and I read Hebrew (not Greek, though).

Any literal reading of Genesis 3 shows that it is obviously talking about a snake-- it crawls on the ground, bites people on the heel, etc.

The people who say that Genesis 3:1 is talking about Satan, citing Revelation 20:2 as support, are the same people who get upset at those of us who cite Psalm 90:4 (or 2 Peter 3:8) to support an interpretation that the six days of creation weren't literal, 24-hour days.

My point is that no one interprets all scripture literally; the people who claim they do are self-deluded.


Being that you read Hebrew, you are aware that the serpent was changed by God into a snake which crawls on it's belly. Prior to this curse it was a beautiful serpent as per Eze 28:13.

Gen 3:13-14
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

There is a lot in the Word of God. I pray that you hunger for the Word as David tells us in Psa 119.

[bondserv]

I forgot to mention; there are passages in scripture that are contextually poetic, and weren't written to be taken literally.

[longshadow]

when I mention my fwiend... Biggus...

Ahhhhh; "Life of Brian" strikes again!

[Torie]

let me know when your dalliance with Crevoism endorses the proposition I quoted above, John. :)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Few if any Creationists noted or cared that the unmissed one's postings were just lies. This misquoting, making up references, and generally prevarcating about what evolutionary theory actually says damages the conservative cause tremendously. Tactics belonging to Ivins and Goodwin should stay with them.

[jwalsh07]

This piece of wisdom: :-}

What a hoot.
584 posted on 01/04/2005 6:24:13 PM EST by Torie

[Torie]

Check out Sink's latest soaring rhetoric. It moved even this near Atheist hard core cynic, as opposed to my modestly diverting repartee.

[Just mythoughts]

"A bit late, but:

What about insects?"

Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Best answer I have, we know they survived.

"How do you explain the other races of man surviving if only Noah and his clan were spared?"

First the above scripture would include the other races.

The flood happened we are told for a specific reason, in Genesis 6:2 this "the daughters of men" should actually be the daughters of 'the' Adam - Heb. h'adamah, not the same word, Adam used in the first chapter of Genesis.

This among other logical reasons, such as the specific reason we are given for the flood was not about the other races. This idea that some people are more special in our Heavenly Father's eyes because of 'race' is man's and the devil's doing as the Heavenly Father said 'Let us make man (*Adam*) in our image', did so, and the Heavenly Father declared it was good.

(This *Adam* does not have the article and particle attached to it as "the Adam", in 'eth-'Ha'adham of Genesis 2:7). I am sure those who know the Hebrew will be along to correct the accents etc., that should accompany the Hebrew.

When one reads the rest of the story, these that are 'suppose' special people would not listen, obey and they were sent off into captivity, and planted to the four corners so that they would not know who they were and most do not to this day.

"What did the animals eat when the Flood was over?"

One of the many reasons why I do not necessarily believe that the flood covered the whole planet earth, only the known earth to the writer 'Moses'. "IF" in fact, the whole planet was flooded, it would have taken a lot longer than the 5 month period, we are told it took for the waters to recede and plant growth to yield fruit, the dove had to be sent out twice to bring back an olive leaf. The first time she came back because there was no "rest for the sole of her foot", so she could not fly very far.

"How exactly did they get two of every kind from all over the world? What about the Americas and Australia? "

I cannot prove it but logically speaking these areas were not involved and were not part of 'the' Adam's genealogy.

"I recall a National Geographic article about how the biblical Flood was actually the result of the creation of the Black Sea, so there may have been a historical basis for it."

I saw either the same or similar, can't remember exactly, found it interesting. If I remember correctly it is hard to explore the Black Sea because of the darkness of the water.

"As far as the whole dinosaurs and humans thing goes, that is just pure nonsense. H.L. Mencken would have laughed in this clown's face."

Well "if" man in the flesh walked with the dino's then we would have as many skeletons of man as have been found of the dino's.

"IF" it turns out the whole earth was flooded in Noah's flood then so be it, not what makes or breaks the validity of the flood for me.