You may be too prideful to admit error. The synonyms you offer are for the second definition of contingent. Some other synonyms, offered for the first definition of contingent: dependent on, conditional on, subject to, determined by, hinging on, resting on.
Never mind that you left out the "uncertain" element form (from?) the definition of contingent
Never mind that you left out the determined by element from your rebut. I provided a definition for the context in which I was using the term. You insist that sin would not exist without the talking snake (you refuse to acknowledge the fact that without the talking snake sin would not have entered the world). That makes sin directly contingent on the talking snake (by the gospel according to kosta, at least). Give it up. Youre only making yourself look foolish. Its what happens when You indulge in the oldest of all fallacies: the blatant denial of the patently obvious.
So much for your linguistic skills. You get an F.
On the contrary our discussions have highlighted the deficiencies of your research skills. Youve dramatically demonstrated you havent the expertise to be issuing grades on anyone (unless youre doing it for comedic effect).
You carefully avoided to answer why did God punish the talking snake if it was all the fault of Adam and Eve?
Way back at the beginning of this sidebar (at least insofar as my participation is concerned) I observed that that none of the fantastic tales upon which you have been harping, or anything like them, embodies the essence of Biblical instruction. They merely give scripture scoffers an opportunity to sneer.
I suggested, rather, that the most important biblical instruction would be to heed the two great commandments, to honor ones mother and father, to murmur not at the ways of Providence, and to attend to all the other issues central to Biblical lessons. Weve gone round and round ever since.
Burden of proof (be it scientific, philosophic, or otherwise) does not come into play until common assumptions are established. Im not buying into your insistence that fairy tales are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption. Earlier I observed that you give the impression that your materialism entitles you to claim objectiveness for anything you opine, and that opposition to your view can not be objective. You demurred. I further observed that we share no common assumptions so, while speaking to one another is possible, discussion is not. With that you seemed to agree.
Nonetheless you seem to want to continue the discussion absent common assumptions. Not likely, pilgrim.
Reading The Bible for instruction is not as simple a matter as reading a biological lab report or a paper on bones. I do accept scripture literally (as in Thou shalt not steal). I also accept scripture metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily. On this I would note that the dual commission issued to the KJV translators was to combine elegance of translation with faithfulness to the text (see In The Beginning, by Alister McGrath). I think the translators were eminently successful in their task. All of which leads me to conclude that scripture amounts to something more than a volume of lab reports issued on disparate scientific experiments. If ones object in surveying scripture is for a purpose greater than merely promoting an argument, this understanding is indispensable. The cultural tradition and the literary tradition of the English-speaking people, the ancient Greeks, and of the Hebrew people, demand it.
No snake, no sin, no sin, no death, no death no need for the Savior. The talking snake was not a chance. The crafty one had a role to fulfill. That much is obvious from the reading, and it was incumbent (not contingent) on him to do so. There was no one else to beguile Eve. If the snake wasn't responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve, then he would not have been punished.
But, hey, it's mind over matter. I don't mind and your invectives surely don't matter to me. Hasta la vista, baby.