The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations

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

nobody pays attention to it anyways.no, buz. you're asking for a lot of change. and not evolutionary change. creationists like to use "well, a dog never gives birth to a cat!" as counterexample to evolution, not understanding that what they're saying doesn't even make any sense. you're making the same argument in reverse. you're saying that dogs DID give birth cats.only your dogs are dinosaurs and your cats are snakes.making up ad-hoc fantasies just isn't going to work, and it fits neither the text, nor the fossil record, nor biology. now, i showed you some animals that are more closely related to snakes, but that have appendages. their skulls are similarly shaped, and their roughly the same kind of reptiles. dinosaurs are not even close. you'd have to change scale types. you'd have to lose the feathers. you'd have to change the innards, especially the lungs. you'd have the change the way the bones connect. you'd have to change the ability to regulat bod temperature. you'd have the change the skull-flattening direction. you'd have to change the rib structure. ...at a certain point, it becomes pointless, because you're just making a whole new animal. it's no longer a simple curse, but a complex and complete re-design from something completely different, for no other purpose than to support your fanciful idea.if the bible was talking about anything with legs, it was likely a lizard, not a dinosaur. snakes and lizards have a lot more in common than dinosaurs have to either lizards or snakes.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-10-2006 03:03 AM

---

you mean that "serpent" part? yeah, that does sound reptilian.however, you seem to be forgetting the relatively subtle point i made earlier: dinosaurs are not reptiles.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-10-2006 03:05 AM

---

yes buz it would be a lizard, as arach says it would be a snake with legs.
have you ever seen a leggless lizard? they look very much like snakes.
the thing is buz is says it lost its legs. it didn' suddenly become something else it was a snake still, they called it a snake after it lost its legs.
as for dinosaurs, have you seen a limbless dinosaur? which was levithen, the serpent of chaosThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-10-2006 03:44 AM

So Dimetrodon was post curse then? I agree. However, that doesn't mean that the parents will get fossilized. We have no Biblical evidence that there was more than a few Serpents, why would we expect them to be fossilized? That seems contrary to what you said. Which would indicate that the curse did not affect the Serpent itself, but its offspring. I'm fairly sure a plain reading would show that the Serpent was also cursed, just as his offspring were. Unless you are now pushing back the word parent to before the Serpent? Still, we need to know, did the curse affect all 'reptiles' or did it leave some parent 'dino' group unscathed? I don't that's right at all, several non dino examples have been provided in this very thread which have much closer tails, bodies AND heads to snakes than dinos had. A balloon snake with balloon legs kind of looks like a balloon daschund to me.

i keep hearing arguments about what it says. and it says nothing of the sort. it never once says that the creature was modified in any way. it never once said it had legs, and then lost them. please check the text -- ALL it says is that the snake will crawl on his belly from that day forward. that implies that it did not crawl on its belly before. which implies it went upright, or elevated from the ground. neither necessitates legs. and curse does not describe god modifying creation.it just doesn't say either of those things.now, as etiology, the logical conclusion is that the myth exists to explain why snake lack legs. but you can't accept that line of logic unless you agree that it's an etiology; a myth. if it's the word of god, you'd better read it for what's actually there. almost. it uses the imagery of lothan/tiamat, probably through leviathan. it does have seven heads, which matches the ugaritic lothan, but that description is not found in the bible before rev -- john patmos likely used another source for inspiration.curiously, btw, just to make my own life harder, are we all aware of how vague the hebrew description of "serpent" is? forget biblical and mythological knowledge. when i say leviathan, what do most people think of?

---

quote:

---

when i say leviathan, what do most people think of?

---

I don't know about most people, but I think of a sea monster.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Interesting line of thought. It could be that the Serpent was a tree snake, sometimes on the ground, often in trees...and that God cursed it to live in the desert. Other Serpents (sea snakes other tree snakes) carried on living in their preferred environments.

yes, this is another possibility. we do find the serpent associate with trees -- well, one tree in particular. consider that this is also adam's curse (and eve's as well, because she's with him) that wouldn't be suprising. i doubt the snake got to stay in the garden, but it doesn't actually say, iirc. right.the point being: you can't pick out one part of a particular interpretation, and treat it as if were obvious, while ignoring the other readings, and the bits of this one that disagree with your position. saying that it's an explanation of why snakes have no legs might be a good reading, but only if you accept the part about it being a story invented to explain something.otherwise, maybe we should just stick to the descriptions in the text. what reason do i have to believe that the snake had legs before the curse? where does the text say this, or strongly imply it in such a way as to make these other readings unacceptable?

---

i'm going somewhere with this, i promise. 1. associated with the sea. check.what else do you think of? i know there's another aspect it connotates for me.

---

The other thing I think of is the size. I think of something huge. Bigger than a sperm whale.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

i forgot rev describes a seven headed serpent, yes it would describe taimat better, i should have said tiamat was the serpent of chaos, rather than leviathan, must have been tired at the time being that i have a large mythos knowledge i picture the world serpent from norse mythology - a huge ass immortal snake that will eat thor in the end

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