|
Author
|
Topic: vestigial snake pelvis and the serpent in Genesis?
|
fearless4yeshua
Junior Member (Idle past 5630 days) Posts: 9 Joined: 11-20-2008
|
|
Message 1 of 23 (488950)
11-20-2008 4:20 AM
|
|
|
I have long wondered if the vestigial pelvic bones found in snake skeletons could be proof that there was once a serpent in the Garden of Eden who could walk and subsequently had that ability taken away? It has long been understood that the serpent used to be a creature capable of being spiritually possessed and somehow capable of speaking. "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" - Genesis 3:14 KJV This verse implies that the serpent would have it's ability to walk taken away. So perhaps God took the legs but not the pelvis so that there would be proof in the fossil record for the Garden of Eden? And yes, I'm new. My name is Emily.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by Granny Magda, posted 11-20-2008 7:49 AM | | fearless4yeshua has not replied | | | Message 4 by Huntard, posted 11-20-2008 8:01 AM | | fearless4yeshua has not replied | | | Message 5 by Larni, posted 11-20-2008 8:36 AM | | fearless4yeshua has not replied | | | Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 11-20-2008 11:49 AM | | fearless4yeshua has replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 2 of 23 (488952)
11-20-2008 7:29 AM
|
|
|
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
Granny Magda
Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: 11-12-2007 Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi Emily,
I have long wondered if the vestigial pelvic bones found in snake skeletons could be proof that there was once a serpent in the Garden of Eden who could walk and subsequently had that ability taken away? Or, just possibly, evidence that snakes evolved from ancestral reptiles that had legs. It is also worth noting that not all snakes posses these bones, only pythons and boas as far as I'm aware. The majority of snakes do not have them. By the way, some whales also have a vestigial pelvis. Is this evidence that God took away their legs? What was he punishing them for? Does he have a grudge against whales?
It has long been understood that the serpent used to be a creature capable of being spiritually possessed and somehow capable of speaking. Understood by who? What I understand is that snakes are a group of reptiles, nothing more. They can't speak. Your claim that they used speak is rather odd (as you appear to acknowledge yourself) given that there is no evidence to suggest any such thing, apart from the Bible's "Just-So Story".
This verse implies that the serpent would have it's ability to walk taken away. It does yes. That does not, however mean that it is true.
So perhaps God took the legs but not the pelvis so that there would be proof in the fossil record for the Garden of Eden? That strikes me as being a rather odd way to go about things. For starters, the vestigial pelvic bones can be answered very simply by the Theory of Evolution. They are entirely consistent with the ToE, as are the many other vestigial features that exist in other organisms. If God is trying to send us a message, via snake bones, why did he send it in such a form that it could be so easily misconstrued? If God wanted to leave proof of his handiwork he could simply have left his signature on the snake's vertebrae or something. Why mess about with snake bones in such a way as to make his message indistinguishable from the products of evolution? Also, I see a theological problem with your theory. I was under the impression that Christianity was based on faith rather than proof. Why would God leave vague messages as proof? Wouldn't that make faith irrelevant? The problem here is that you have found one thing that seems to support Genesis, but this ignores the many other features of the natural world that squarely contradict Genesis. Plants, for instance, are made on the third day (Gen 1:11), yet the sun that they need to photosynthesise isn't created until the fourth day (Gen 1:14-19). Science suggests the exact opposite order of events. Producing one little piece of evidence that can be shoe-horned into supporting Genesis doesn't make these inconsistencies go away and it does nothing to make the fanciful Genesis account convincing. Mutate and Survive. Edited by Granny Magda, : Thought of something else to say.
"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
First of all welcome to EvC! 
fearless4yeshua writes: I have long wondered if the vestigial pelvic bones found in snake skeletons could be proof that there was once a serpent in the Garden of Eden who could walk and subsequently had that ability taken away?
It could be, or it could be completely explained by evolution, give that one a thought.
It has long been understood that the serpent used to be a creature capable of being spiritually possessed and somehow capable of speaking.
I've never heard of one outside of the bible, what are your sources?
This verse implies that the serpent would have it's ability to walk taken away.
So it seems. Now, how do we determine if this is true or not?
So perhaps God took the legs but not the pelvis so that there would be proof in the fossil record for the Garden of Eden?
Since god should be taken on faith and faith alone, why would he leave evidence?
I hunt for the truth
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Hi Emily, welcome to EvC.
I have long wondered if the vestigial pelvic bones found in snake skeletons could be proof that there was once a serpent in the Garden of Eden who could walk and subsequently had that ability taken away? I think a really good question to ask you is why you should think that this could be proof? Why would the vestigial structures be evidence that there is a supernatural agency at work? As has been pointed out by Granny; whales have similar strutues: is this evidence of supernatural intervention? You will need to flesh out exactly why you beleive the vestigial structures of thew snake prove what you suspect they prove. It is like saying that an elephants trunk is proof that the 'Just So' story of the crocodile stretching it is true. You need to provide evidence for you suggestion. Edited by Larni, : Dvd extras.
Jesus Saves! The rest of the party take full damage.
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
Real walking snake
fearless4yeshua writes: I have long wondered if the vestigial pelvic bones found in snake skeletons could be proof that there was once a serpent in the Garden of Eden who could walk and subsequently had that ability taken away? It has long been understood that the serpent used to be a creature capable of being spiritually possessed and somehow capable of speaking. I think I can help you with some evidence to support your hypothesis, fearless. It's not only the pelvic bones, we actually have a fossil of the infamous pre-fall walking serpent itself. It has two unmistakable hind legs with joints and all! http:// EvC Forum: CREATIONIST FOSSIL: Genesis Vindicated. --> EvC Forum: CREATIONIST FOSSIL: Genesis Vindicated. The original article here Note that the walking, talking snake was found in the Lebanon, just down the road from Eden.
|
fearless4yeshua
Junior Member (Idle past 5630 days) Posts: 9 Joined: 11-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 7 of 23 (488985)
11-20-2008 5:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
11-20-2008 11:49 AM
|
|
Re: Real walking snake
Thanks Blue, btw for those saying they have never heard of a serpent, snakes were referred to as serpents by the egyptians as well, not just jews and christians. Concerning the "proof" vs. "faith" factor, it wouldn't be the first time God left a sign of his intervention. The rainbow after the storms are also a reminder left by God that he would never again drown the entire world again. It's part of a promise. God left women with pain in childbirth to remind them throughout the ages of what the first woman had done. God cursed the ground so that it would take much plowing and sowing and watering in order to reap a harvest, as a reminder of what man had done. And God changed the serpent into a snake most likely by paralyzing the legs, but not necessarily removing them in that generation. Just as Adam & Eve died spiritually the same day they disobeyed but not physically. That's my theory anyways.
Consistently Rendering Education Attesting to the Theological Earth Proud to be a YEC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 11-20-2008 11:49 AM | | bluegenes has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Real walking snake
fearless4yeshua writes: Thanks Blue, btw for those saying they have never heard of a serpent, snakes were referred to as serpents by the egyptians as well, not just jews and christians.
I've heard of serpents, I haven't heard of other TALKING serpents that could be possessed by demons. So, again, what are your sources that snakes CAN be possessed by demons and that they in fact CAN speak?
Concerning the "proof" vs. "faith" factor, it wouldn't be the first time God left a sign of his intervention. The rainbow after the storms are also a reminder left by God that he would never again drown the entire world again. It's part of a promise.
Only if you think the bible is literally true, but since there is NO evidence of a flood, we should takes this as a metaphorical lesson in morality that the writers of the bible wanted us to have. Oh, and before you dive into this further, it is off topic here. If you want to discuss the flood, I suggest you seek a topic about it, or if there isn't any, start a new one yourself. There is one other thing to address here though. Even IF the story of the flood was true, it would still be an empty promise from god, since drowning the world is only one way of ending all life on it, and since god is all powerful he could do it in an infinite number of ways. So, to promise not to DROWN us again, doesn't mean he won't burn us all to death in a firestorm.
Off topic material hidden here.God left women with pain in childbirth to remind them throughout the ages of what the first woman had done.
So, he punishes innocents for the crime of others, nice fellow this god of yours.
God cursed the ground so that it would take much plowing and sowing and watering in order to reap a harvest, as a reminder of what man had done.
See above. And God changed the serpent into a snake most likely by paralyzing the legs, but not necessarily removing them in that generation.
That would make it very hard for the snakes to procreate, most likely leading to their extinction. ince they're still around toady.... I'd say that didn't happen.
Off topic material hidden here.[/hide]
Just as Adam & Eve died spiritually the same day they disobeyed but not physically.
After god clearly told them they would die, he let them live. Not a very consistent fellow, is he. That's my theory anyways.
I hope you're not referring to a scientific theory. If you aren't then ok, sure, go right ahead, but don't be surprised if people ask you for evidence of your theory. Which still leaves us with the problem that god should be taken on faith and faith alone. So, why would a being that requires pure faith leave evidence? Edited by AdminNosy, : hiding off topic material Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
I hunt for the truth
|
fearless4yeshua
Junior Member (Idle past 5630 days) Posts: 9 Joined: 11-20-2008
|
Re: Real walking snake
Also concerning evolution - here is my stance - which may differ some from my brothers and sisters, but here is my theory anyways:
Off topic material hidden here.
When the bible says "kind" in genesis, it is referring to an animal family. I.E, feline, canine, and such. I do not consider humans to be of the primate family since no direct link has ever been found from between animal primates and humans. So in essence, I believe in LIMITED animal and plant evolution within "kind" but not that canines turned into dolphins etc. In Genesis when God is creating plants and animals, He keeps saying "let the earth bring forth..." But when He creates Adam and Eve His words change. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." Genesis 1:20 Curiously, that last verse might also suggest that birds originally "evolved" from the water. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Genesis 1:24 So we see indirect action by God as He isn't directly creating the plants and animals, He is commanding the land and the waters to bring them forth. Which means He has already placed life-creating potential into the land and the water. But the tone and method of creation changes when He creates Adam. He forms Adam from the dirt and clays in the ground just like a potter. At no time during the creation of humans did He say "let the earth bring forth." Why should He? He created humans to be in His image, though non-diefied, capable of caring for the earth and its animals as God had done. And I don't believe that it took millions of years for all of this to happen, I believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and that it doesn't take that long for a lion heard to evolve into a house cat depending on its breeding practices. Natural selection only works against humans, when we allow it to. We were never supposed to let earth control everything; we were supposed to have dominion over it and to subdue it. There is natural selection among animals depending on environment; however, natural disasters and weather would not have been so violent and exterminating if not for the sin of humans. I believe neanderthals along with other "homo-type" fossils found are pre-flood. Satan and His demons were already living on Earth when God decided to transform it for his glory - that's how he got into the garden. Some of Cain's decendents mated with the demons and I'm positive there was beastiality there and those creatures that were conceived are the human-like fossils found. God got sick of his creation getting so perverted and mutated and so he sent a flood that wiped out most of humanity and the human-like abominations walking the earth as well as dinosaurs. So for all of you trying to peg me into a hole, THAT is what I believe. And the day is coming when it will be proven how ridiculously inaccurate radio-isotope dating is beyond a 6000 year time frame. Once things are dated past 6000 years, odd how they suddenly get HUGE variations between thousands and millions of years, isn't it? Edited by fearless4yeshua, : Typos, YIKES. Edited by fearless4yeshua, : homo-type creatures. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by Huntard, posted 11-20-2008 6:29 PM | | fearless4yeshua has replied |
|
fearless4yeshua
Junior Member (Idle past 5630 days) Posts: 9 Joined: 11-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 10 of 23 (488990)
11-20-2008 6:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Huntard
11-20-2008 5:45 PM
|
|
Re: Real walking snake
To Huntard: Parrots can speak as well as some parakeets, for someone who obviously believes in a wide-range of evolution, how is it impossible for you to believe that snakes might have been able to speak in the past? And nobody is innocent, so God isn't punishing innocents. Everytime we lie, cheat, steal, etc. we are no longer innocent, until we ask for forgiveness according to the sacrifice and ressurrection of Christ. What is your definition of innocent? Edited by fearless4yeshua, : Response
Consistently Rendering Education Attesting to the Theological Earth Proud to be a YEC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Huntard, posted 11-20-2008 5:45 PM | | Huntard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by Huntard, posted 11-20-2008 6:38 PM | | fearless4yeshua has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3127 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Real walking snake
btw for those saying they have never heard of a serpent, snakes were referred to as serpents by the egyptians as well, not just jews and christians. Actually the word "serpent" comes from the Latin "serpens" meaning "something that creeps" and originally from the the root word "serp" probably derived from a proto-indo-eurpoean language. The word snake is derived origally from Old English "snaca" and Proto-Germanic "snakon" meaning "to crawl" or "creeping thing". In Hebrew and several other Semitic languages, the word serpent or snake is translate to nahash However in the Aramaic version of Genesis, serpent is translated as "hiwyah", similar to the name of Eve, "hawah." [Wikipedia] This word is also closely associated with the Arabian word "Hiyah" derived from the root "havah" which means "to live". So the actual words "serpent" and "snake" did not even exist until much later in European history i.e. the era of James reign of England to the present.
|
fearless4yeshua
Junior Member (Idle past 5630 days) Posts: 9 Joined: 11-20-2008
|
Re: Real walking snake
I was referring to the word "serpent" and all of its various linguistic antecedents. I suspect cuneiform and/or sanskrit might have been the original language of earth before the linguistic diversity following the tower of babel incedent. Thanks for breaking it down for me though .
Consistently Rendering Education Attesting to the Theological Earth Proud to be a YEC
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Real walking snake
I'll tell you right away this is kinda off topic, if you want to pursue this subject further, seek a thread about it, or, if there isn't any, start your own. That said, can't resist replying. (yes, I'm a bad boy  )
Off topic material hidden here
fearless4yeshua writes: Also concerning evolution - here is my stance - which may differ some from my brothers and sisters, but here is my theory anyways: When the bible says "kind" in genesis, it is referring to an animal family. I.E, feline, canine, and such.
Ok, I'm sure there are other people here who can point to some flaws with this, but not me, I don't know enough about the subject.
I do not consider humans to be of the primate family since no direct link has ever been from between animal primates and humans.
Unfortunately for you, there is. It has to do with genetic evidence, the fusion of chimp chromosome 2A and 2B into human chromosome 2 to name but one thing.
So in essence, I believe in LIMITED animal and plant evolution within "kind" but not that canines turned into dolphins etc.
Even though there is evidence for this?
In Genesis when God is creating plants and animals, He keeps saying "let the earth bring forth..." But when He creates Adam and Eve His words change. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." Genesis 1:20 Curiously, that last verse might also suggest that birds originally "evolved" the water. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Genesis 1:24 So we see indirect action by God as He isn't directly creating the plants and animals, He is commanding the land and the waters to bring them forth. Which means He has already placed life-creating potential into the land and the water. But the tone and method of creation changes when He creates Adam. He forms Adam from the dirt and clays in the ground just like a potter. At no time during the creation of humans did He say "let the earth bring forth." Why should He? He created humans to be in His image, though non-diefied, capable of caring for the earth and its animals as God had done.
Ok, sure, now if you could only provide evidence for this.
And I don't believe that it took millions of years for all of this to happen,
Unfortunately for you, personal credulity does not determine the truth. Evidence however, does.
I believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and that it doesn't take that long for a lion heard to evolve into a house cat depending on its breeding practices.
And of course, lions did not evolve into cats. They did however share a common ancestor.
Natural selection only works against humans, when we allow it to.
I think you're sort of right there, I believe humans are no longer subject to natural selection. At least, not in the way other animals are.
We were never supposed to let earth control everything; we were supposed to have dominion over it and to subdue it.
Well, we have, kinda.
There is natural selection among animals depending on environment; however, natural disasters and weather would not have been so violent and exterminating if not for the sin of humans.
Assertion. Please provide evidence for this.
So for all of you trying to peg me into a hole, THAT is what I believe.
Ok cool, as long as it stays in belief, I have no problem with it. But don't try and bring it into science, cause it just isn't. Now, this not being science is NOT a bad thing, it's just a different thing. But to each his own.
And the day is coming when it will be proven how ridiculously inaccurate radio-isotope dating is beyond a 6000 year time frame.
Actually, the evidence points to radio isotope dating being acurate to at least 10.000 years I believe, since that is what we got from dating Really old tree rings for which we knew the age. (Yes, those trees were 10.000 years old)
Once things are dated past 6000 years, odd how they suddenly get HUGE variations between thousands and millions of years, isn't it?
Except that they don't. Try again.
Please remember, pursuing this would be off topic, let's return to your snake, shall we? Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
I hunt for the truth
|
fearless4yeshua
Junior Member (Idle past 5630 days) Posts: 9 Joined: 11-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 14 of 23 (488995)
11-20-2008 6:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by Huntard
11-20-2008 6:29 PM
|
|
Re: Real walking snake
Compartmentalization doesn't edify. All these things are connected, archealogy, geography, and theology. I thank the moderator who moved this thread, but I would have placed it in a different forum myself. But it is what it is and since this is the faith and belief forum, then nothing that's I've said is out of place. Concerning the earth bringing forth and water bringing forth etc, I was taught in a public school that humans and animals have many of the same properties as sea water and minerals from the dirt, which means molecules of both have a hand in human and animal physiology, am I wrong here?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by Huntard, posted 11-20-2008 6:29 PM | | Huntard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by Huntard, posted 11-20-2008 6:46 PM | | fearless4yeshua has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Real walking snake
fearless4yeshua writes: To Huntard: Parrots can speak as well as some parakeets, for someone who obviously believes in a wide-range of evolution, how is it impossible for you to believe that snakes might have been able to speak in the past?
Because there is absolutely NO evidence for this? Parakeets and Parrots have vocal chords, snakes don't. They don't even have remnants of what could once have been vocal chords.
Off topic material hidden here
And nobody is innocent, so God isn't punishing innocents. Everytime we lie, cheat, steal, etc. we are no longer innocent, until we ask for forgiveness according to the sacrifice and ressurrection of Christ. What is your definition of innocent?
Nobody's innocent eh? Not even new born babies? Again, this doesn't show much benevolence. Definition of innocent? That's a tough one for me, since I don't believe in a black and white world, there are no set rules one has to follow to be considered innocent by me, so I'm afraid I can't give you one. I don't presume I have a better moral compass then the next man, and thus do not lay down iron clad rules one should follow. But as I said above, new born babies haven't really done anything yet, so they certainly can't have done anything wrong.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
I hunt for the truth
|
™ Version 4.2