The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

1. I've always contended that the deceiving serpent of Genesis was a beast of the field and not Satan the red heavenly dragon of Revelation 12. That's because I'm a strict Biblical fundie, inasmuch as I take scripture to be literal unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.2. In fact, in the Genesis account, the writer identifies the pre-cursed serpents as being more subtle/intelligent than all the other serpents of the field, indicating that they were beasts of the field.3. The pre-cursed serpents of Eden were not snakes. They were not belly crawling beasts as clearly implied in the account. They became belly crawling serpents after the curse. Thus my contention that they were the dinosaurs which were long legged serpents whose offspring became the belly crawling serpents via the curse.4. My argument has been that not only were they cursed to become belly crawlers, but that their whole physiology, including their intelligence, their size and even their blood physiology was adjusted to being belly crawling creatures.5. It is my contention that Satan inspired one of them to do the deceptive job on Eve.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

1. It was not a snake. Read the account. Snakes have no legs.2. All the descendents (seed) of this beast were cursed. Again read the account carefully and thoughtfully.

It is also clearly implying that before the curse serpents had legs. Put on your thinking cap and read the verse. That the seed of the serpent kind would be a belly crawler from then on was the major effect of the curse.. The Hebrew word here is NACHASH, meaning the "shining one," the meaning possibly implying that the serpent, before the fall was a spectacular and admirable creature. At any rate, this curse clearly transformed the "seed" of this "snake/serpent" creature into a significantly inferior creature. The dust thing obviously means that now he's low to the ground and when the dust flies, he's going to injest some of it until he finds a hole or evades it some way. If a herd of animals runs near a snake or if a cloud of dust blows near him he's got to continue breathing and until he finds shelter he 'eats' some. Savvy, pardner?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

1. Everyone seems to be ignoring that a legged creature exists and should show up in the fossil record which was the legged pre-cursed serpent. I'm saying that Eve was talking to a legged serpent much different than what it's cursed offspring came to be. I don't see my counterparts understanding this by what they are saying.
2. No, we need to find a legged larger and grander serpent that layed eggs and hatched into legless serpents/snakes. No. I suggest you go back and carefully reread message 48. I was responding to the Rev as to the pre-cursed serpent. My answer was that the precursed serpent was not a snake (i.e. legless as we know them to be today) That's exactly what my position has been all along which will bear out if you reread all my posts. But my argument is that if this was so, that the fossil record should show evidence of it. Since both dinos and modern reptiles are reptilian, my contention is that the pre-cursed serpent was a dino. I've contended for that for years since I first came here to EvC. I see no other creatures in the fossil record which fit the ticket better than the dinos.I make an issue of this because as per the topic I believe the garden serpent was not Satan or the dragon of Revelation 12, but a real creature fitting the account as literally put in the Genesis account.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

As I said, my friend, "put on your thinking cap." If the thing became a belly crawler eating dust post-curse doesn't that pretty clearly imply that pre-curse, it had legs enough to effect it's stance as being well above the earth compared to a slithering snake? 1. That the red dragon of Revelation 12 was reptilian in nature is significant in that the dragon/Satan evidently chose a like kind on earth to incarnate/inspire to do the job in Genesis.2. I conclude by the word used that the pre-cursed animal was, as I said, spectacular and significantly more awesome, as were the dinos.3. I don't see the color of brass being so significant, but the shinny bit is significant, implicating spectacular which the dinos were.Buz: "At any rate, this curse clearly transformed the "seed" of this "snake/serpent" creature into a significantly inferior creature." .......into a snake, from what? What do you think, and where/what would the obvious thing creationists should look for in the fossil record which comes closest to the thing described in Gen 3:1?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

1. Because the context implies kinds here. This is a species which was devinely cursed into something far different than the originals.2. Likely the parent dinos or whatever they were lived out their lives in tact as they were. It was likely the offspring which became belly crawling creatures. Then too, in those early days of life, humans lived up to nearly a millenium, indicating that it's likely the parent dinos could have lived right up to the time of the flood. It is possible that these creatures lived even longer than humans. If this is so, the fossil record should show it to have been possible. Imo, it indeed does. So if you were creationist IDist, wouldn't the dinos be the most likely explanation in the fossil record? Can you think of anything more fitting? I agree, but it was likely a creature similar in appearance to the dinos. Imo, there was a whole lot more than the legs that were affected by this curse. This thing got zapped big time for this diabolic and despicable thing it did to the whole creation which God had made. I dono. I'm wondering the same thing as you people seem to be missreading stuff I say. I'm simply answering the missunderstandings Arach and you seem to be experiencing. Well, of course, I don't see any living things as early like you. I see the voranidae as being also cursed offspring of someting larger and having longer legs, et al. Btw, as per my hypothesis, the modern reptiles and the dinos lived together simultaneously for many centuries, the parent dinos being still alive after their zapped offspring came on the scene. Aren't the modern gilla monsters similar to what would be considered voranidae or large lizzards?As an aside here, if you could take a shapable snake balloon with a snake head, blow it up, shape it up a bit and add legs to it you could come up with a thing resembling some of the dinos.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

It's you, my friend, who's implicating things not said in the context. What is said is that the creature received a significant overhaul. If you take a snake as we know them and simply add long legs to it, you have nonsense. In order to reverse our snakes into something with long legs you've got to envision a whole lot more than just spindly legs attached to a snake and it needs to be in the fossil record, imo in order to be a real living earth kind, unlike the Rev 12 envisioned thing.Well, then you have a non-event, a figment of the imagination, rather than a real event, imo. I go with literal, unless otherwise indicated in the context. That's how I handle the Biblical record, but each to his own.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

As per my hypothesis on this, the entire reptile group were dinos before the curse. There were no belly crawling reptiles until the offspring of the cursed parent leggy ones came on the scene.Note that the curse affected all of the human species. So, imo, with the reptiles. This curse also even affected the plant kingdom and the whole earth. This was a big and very significant event for planet earth! Not when you consider the whole context. If the curse effected it's power on all humans and the plant kingdom, why not all reptiles? Where do you get that? The originals were already too large and mighty to have their heads bruised by the heels of men. It is not feasable that they were suddenly zapped from monsters into snakes, etc. Most likely and logically, their offspring were the belly beings. The genes of the biggie originals were what would have been zapped. Note the heads and the tails. Nothing else fits the heads and tails like the similarity of dino reptiles and modern reptiles, for the most part. Dashhund, for example doesn't cut it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is a reply to:
Message 69 by buzsaw, posted 03-08-2006 09:30 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

I mean the dragon sounding dinosaurian reptilian like.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Like I said, the implication is that a whole lot more was changed than the legs. For example, a different type of blood and lung system was likely necessary to adapt from field monsters to dust eating hole dwellers, et al.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

1. I'm not asking for a lot of change. The context reveals a lot of change. Read it carefully and thoughtfully. You're obviously missing much of what is in it. Why should it need be evolutionary change? I, my Bible and the god of it, Jehovah are Idists. Your argument is another strawman, arguing idism on the basis of evolution. An Idist god does ad-hoc stuff, like suddenly zapping/cursing the genes of a species so as to effect a radical change in the offspring. Why should this be so unusual for a idist being to do after having created all the animals after their own king in the first place?2. It does fit the fossil record. It's the only hypothesis that explains the dino fossils and the mystery as to why dinos became extinct all the while other living things living with them survived all in one fell swoop!3. It makes biological sense in that the idist miracle curse effected a radical biological overhaul in the genes of the parent reptilians. So? So? What does a dust eating low down crawler need with feathers? Yah. I said lungs and you seem to agree, so we're making progress... So? Yah.......makes sense, being the new creature has new environs. So what else should one expect? I said there had to be a complete overhaul, didn't I? Think about the change from dino to snake or lizzard........big difference. Right? Not at all! See, you're totally disregarding all I've been saying, that all the reptilians were cursed. Lizzards have little short legs and they too are essentially cursed dust eating belly crawlers. Blow up this little guy and fit him with a couple of long legs, reinstall the biological changes and you have dino with the similar style head and tail.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Who, my friend, is being scientific here......the evo Arach or the Creo, buz? http://www.cbv.ns.ca/...old/history/dinosaurs/dinosaurs.htmlGo to google and google links will tell you over and over that dinos were reptilian.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Being reptilian, yes. I'm aware that he's suppose to be earlier, but we idists assume problems with dating methods due to chemical unknowns in the environment. Please reread me more thoroughly.
1. I said that numerous parents likely lived to be killed in the flood.
2. The Biblical record does not indicate how many there were. The fossil record suggests there were a great number of them. 1. I said the curse affected all reptillian dinos making them cursed/changed reptile kinds.
2. I also said the precursed parents lived out their lives in tact as they were, i.e. dinos. Their offspring were the ultimate surviving reptillians. Modulous, please read me more carefully. Didn't you read where I explained this? I said the genes of the parents were affected and that it would not be logical that the parent would be suddenly zapped into the short legged animal. Why do we need to keep wasting or time rehashing these things? As I said, it affected all dinos, imo. Look....there were all sorts of variations of reptilian dinos just as there's all sorts of variations of reptilians today. You're scraping the bottom here, my friend. The lizzard or snake head and tails of snake, lizzard or gater more resemble dino than does dashund.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW