Serpent in the ark?

Originally posted by ltcoljt
I am wondering how we are going to kick God's arse.

With nukes of course.
 
I find it quite hilarious people actually believe the Ark farry tale. But that is just me.
 
Originally posted by Loaf Warden
Exactly. It's no curse for a snake to have no legs. They are in every way fully adapted to life without legs. Give legs to a snake, and they'll only get in its way. It would be like giving wings to a groundhog, or tusks to a human. At that point, it's just a burden that would completely interfere with its way of life.

And I thought they were curse!:lol: Here is a true story that may go well with that:

A preacher (of Baptist denomination) once told me that the reason that the mechanics wear dirty cloths all day is because they have sins*. I was about 8 or 9 year old at the time.

*the sins of the mechanic: When he [the preacher] took his car to the repair shop to fix one thing, he later found out that many other things also needed to be fixed too. Since his car was working fine a couple hours ago and now there were zillion things wrong with it, it meant one thing: the mechanic broke it on purpose so that he could fix them.
 
The serpent in itself is not evil, but can and has been used for evil purposes and representations. Anyway, the Lord moves in mysterious ways; he who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
 
Originally posted by archer_007
On a construction and capatity level, it was defentaly possible.

I concur!:) With a little help from alien technology, anything is possible!;) StarTrek anyone? I'm sure God would have much better technology than what we can possibly dream of in StarTrek. Since God was the designer of the Ark, anything was possible.;)
 
Snakes are wonderful, yet enigmatic animals. They are part of gods creation, and there is nothing particular evil about them. Dissing snakes is the same as dissing god. While it does not matter if someone likes or dislikes snakes. The snake in the story about Adam and Eve is a symbol, as already stated. If the stroy wouldn't be symbolic, how many legs would the snake have had before ? And how would that have looked like ?
 
well, there is a differnt reason why snakes are "cursed"...

first off, as we know, the Hebrew religion, upon which the story (or rather this version of the story, that being the flood), and the story of eden are taken from, or at least based on, was at the time of the writing down of their myths, a bronze age culture in the levant- that is to say the coast of the middle east on the Med. Sea. one should also note, before reading further, that the Hebrews are of the "semitic' branch of sub-culture (I say sub-culture, as it is only to that extent that I am convinced of the differnces between people to group them apart, as looks are not important in the regard of subgroups, but culture is)

now then, when one looks at the opther cultures in the same, and surrounding areas of that land, one notices an interesting thing in relations to snakes- in opposite to the hebraic writing, the snakes are not evil incarnates on an evil power (though they are not some divine symbols of good either) but they are symbols of healing, of death, of the after life, and of magic.

of those, one shoudl take careful notice of the last in that list, the "magical" aspect associated with sbakes with, as it is, going by the deeds, laws, and proclimations recorded, and known to us today, that the semitic cultures, at least a great deal of them, have a long standing hostility to the subject, at least when practiced in the open, for the Assyrians, who were also of the semitic background, had death penalties for the practition of it, and the isralites expelled, or at least attempted to to expell all the practinoners of magic at least once, under king Saul of them IIRC, that said it is only natural then for the symboll of magic to be a "bad" symbol for those of the hebrew religion.

combine this with the fact that the others things the snake stood as a symbol for, things such as healing, and the after life were great sources of pride for the preisthoods of specific dieties in the lands surround, and even the temples of those gods inside of the Hebraeic controlled territory, is it not the natural extension of a monothesitic religion to, in its attempts to dis-infrachsise, and dis-credit the other religions around it, to associate the symbols those relgions bear openlly and proudlly, to associate those symbols with evil?

as such, perhaps it is the reasons that the snake is punished by the monotheistic god not because it did evil, but was gradually lopped onto the story to aid them in degradeind the religions around them who used the snake as their symbol
 
Originally posted by stratego
The fact that there are serpents today means (according to the bible) they must have been in the ark, or they evolve from fish (which the bible does not teach). But serpents were evil, so why were they allowed on the ark?

Now, if you want to take into consideration the Bible's version of the flood, we would have to state all the World's mountain tops below 4000 m (1200 ft?) would have been submerged. This would mean a rise in sea level by more than 4 km. But later on, the waters receded. Where did they do, God's swimming pool?

We know the Biblical flood was inspired by the older, tale of Utnapishtin, from the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's very likely there was a flood in the Messopotamia some 5000(?) years ago. And since the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates was indeed the world of those peoples, it seemes that the whole World was underwater.
 
For the flood to be real, rain would have had to fall at the rate of 712 ft per day. The greatest recorded rate is about 10 ft iirc.
 
Originally posted by stratego
The fact that there are serpents today means (according to the bible) they must have been in the ark, or they evolve from fish (which the bible does not teach). But serpents were evil, so why were they allowed on the ark?

becasue there never was a worldwide flood. it would not suprise me if there was a flood in the Middle East 6000 years ago, and some guy named Noah built a big boat and put a bunch of animals on it. but all modern-day animals are not descendants of the flood. if they were, then there'd be massive deformities. plus, snakes probably did evolve from some animal, though i'm not sure what, as i know very little about snakes.
 
if any thing, that story of Utnapishtin, and subsequentlyl Noah, and all the other flood epics in the region, ar emore then likelly based on some flood where a farmer loaded his live stock into a boat
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
For the flood to be real, rain would have had to fall at the rate of 712 ft per day. The greatest recorded rate is about 10 ft iirc.

May be an average size asteroid hit the Atlantic ocean to cause massive tidal waves to flood even the tallest mountain in that region (like the one in Deep Impact). Of course, that big rock is probably stil laying somewhere at the deep of the Atlantic ocean awaiting to be discovered one of these days.

PS: Any alien from an advance civilization would have no problem to predict the date and time to impact; therefore, they could have easily helped Noah to prepare the Ark.;)
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Anyway, the Lord moves in mysterious ways; he who made kittens put snakes in the grass.

Indeed, and:
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns ---
yes, the King on His sunset lies waiting for dawn
to light up His Jungle
as play is resumed.
The monkeys seem willing to strike up the tune.

;)
 
Originally posted by cgannon64
I have an idea! Let's read parables literally! And then argue the finer points of them, even though we don't really beleive them!

:rolleyes: Let the radical creationists argue this one...
Full acknowledgment. :cooool:

Oh, and just to be a smart-ass: no where in the Bible the snake is indentified to be Satan or is confused with Satan.

Evolution has seen many catastrophies. Repeatedly in the course of evolution, 80-90% or all species on earth were eradicated. In fact, a regular but not too often cosmic catastrophy might actually help the develpment of adaptable and intelligent beings.
 
Originally posted by archer_007


Thats because your an athiest. ;)

On a construction and capatity level, it was defentaly possible.

We all know there comes more to it than just construction and capacity.

How to feed lions; where to store woodwurms...

Well, whatever one wants to believe! Fine to me!
 
Originally posted by Stapel
I find it quite hilarious people actually believe the Ark farry tale. But that is just me.

I beleive there was actually a catastrophic flood somewhere near Turkey I think that wiped out most human settlments there. I'm not sure about it; it was in a National Geographic article some time ago.

Most Bible stories are proably based in truth...
 
It wasn't even possible on a capacity level, if you want to take the story literally. The exact dimensions of the ark are given, and it says that two of every kind of land animal were on the ark, and even more of the so-called "clean" animals. ("Clean" animals basically means ruminants, of which there are about 192 species in the world today.) Add to that the space you need for food storage, drinking water, and waste facilities, and we can see that it simply cannot be done with a single 450-foot-long ship.
 
Originally posted by Stapel
How to feed lions; where to store woodwurms...

I already told you!;) Alien technology! Most of the animals could have been in some kind of hibernation chamber of some sort; therefore, no feeding was required.;)
 
Back
Top Bottom