Do Snakes Know ? Graphic Video.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

What I'm questioning is what appears to be a statement that ALL snakes

1. Where able to speak

2. Where able to walk

3. Hung out with Adam and Eve. Conversed with both of them.  

I said I don't argue with those that believe one snake talked to Eve. But that's not the claim Hazard is making. 

I also will not argue against the literalist interpretation of Gen 1-3. I use to be a young earth creationist. I use to be a big Kent Hovind fan. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Judas Machabeus
Clarified my point

[Omegaman 3.0]

I don't know that we have any reason to assume that the creature in the garden was actually a snake, I suspect someone decided to assume it might have been a snake, because it crawls on the belly now. Maybe it was a earthworm, since they literally eat dirt.

How is it, that snakes are cursed (assuming it was a snake)? They seem to get along fine, and I never saw a snake with a broken leg!

I do not think there is any instinctual fear of snakes, we learn that as children from our parents and society. I have a phobia of spiders. From what my mom tells me, I was playing with one as a baby, and she saw that, and screamed! Might be why I am afraid of them now. Meanwhile, more people died of mosquito bites, yet I find mosquitoes, only annoying, not terrifying.

I have never had an irrational fear of snakes, and still do not, even after being bitten by a rattlesnake. In fact, I later, had as many as 14 rattlesnakes as pets, after that first encounter with one. Spiders? I no longer fear them, I am a grown man, and decided it was time to get over such silliness. Phobias are phobias, I do not think we should let them control our emotions, personally.

As fars a snaked being intelligent? Having kept hundreds of them over the years, I cannot say I detect much in the way of smarts.

[simplejeff]

It might have been "tradition" (that old enemy of truth)  why people think the fruit was an apple (it couldn't have been) and why they think a snake actually talked.

By YHWH'S WORD,  the enemy has been said to appear as an "angel of light" in order to deceive people even today.

There was once a simple webpage(about ten years ago, url unknown; and can't find it now)

describing from the language used more directly (without tradition) how an apparent "angel of light" (obviously able to talk, deceptively) is what tricked eve,  and the rest of the adjectives and descriptions fit perfectly with ancient Hebrew language and beliefs if it was an "angel of light" deceiver.

Tradition is impossible to overcome though.... (for men)

[Retrobyter]

On 3/31/2017 at 6:25 PM, BacKaran said:

I read that, so sad. But sharks.... Do they think it they just attack cuz  it's their nature? I like garter snakes, small, non lethal and again, small! ?

Shalom, BacKaran.

Living in Florida, you learn alot about sharks. Sharks are foragers and scavengers, custodians of the sea, eating the dead and the dying. The reason why most shark bites occur in humans is that we are poor swimmers compared to the creatures that live in the oceans, and it is often a case of mistaken identity! They mistake us for floundering fish that are in the throes of dying, and think they should "help us along." Of course, once the initial damage is done, they will, if given the chance, finish the job.

Many of our snakes are harmless here in Florida. There's only a handful of exceptions: We have rattlesnakes (timber and eastern diamondback), pigmy rattlesnakes, copperheads, water moccasins or cottonmouths, and coral snakes. Most are deathly afraid of humans and will scoot when spotted. The only exception is the water moccasin that is highly territorial and will relentlessly attack if threatened. 

However, we also have garter snakes, hognose snakes, black rat snakes, kingsnakes, black racers, indigo snakes, red rat snakes, scarlet snakes, and corn snakes. Those are all GOOD snakes, keeping the vermin populations low. We've even got boas and pythons that people have tried to keep as pets, released into the wild, and are now being hunted and gathered out of the glades and swamps because they compete with the native preditors.

Of course, we also have the other reptiles: turtles, caimans, crocodiles, and alligators. They, too, will scoot to the water when one gets too close. We also have green sea turtles, hawkshead sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, Kemp's Ridley sea turtles, and leatherbacks, all whose nests are protected, and gopher tortoises. More numerous than all are the lizards: anoles (green, brown, bark, knight, crested, large-headed, Cuban green, Hispaniolan green, Jamaican giant, and Liz Lanchet), iguanas, racerunners, whiptails, geckos, skinks, and glass snakes (legless lizards).

I believe in Intelligent Design and am a Creationist. Thus, I believe that mankind and dinosaurs lived at the same time and primarily before the Flood, when all were herbivores. However, many of the various species, in their younger and smaller forms, were aboard the ark, and thus survived the Flood, became preditors and carnivores, only to be hunted to extinction (or nearly so) in the centuries after the Flood, giving rise to the legends and myths of dragons.

So, the serpent that deceived Chavah ("Eve," spelled in the Greek NT "epsilon-upsilon-alpha" and therefore pronounced "YOO-wah," "Eva"), if he had legs upon which to walk (whether 2 or 4, who knows?) and had a brain capacity large enough to converse with Chavah, would have passed for what we call today a "dinosaur," whether a theropod or a sauropod. It wouldn't have been very big, yet, being an adult only large enough to produce offspring. Reptiles will continue to grow as long as they live. If a dinosaur was allowed to live 12 to 14 times longer, as humans did before the Flood, they would reach the incredible sizes that are often seen in the geological records.

For instance, if the Johnston's Chameleon (a "cousin" of the Jackson's Chameleon, that exists today found in forests at altitudes between 1,000 and 2,500 m [3,300 and 8,200 ft] in the Albertine Rift of DR Congo, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, also has three facial horns, but also sports a collar), which will grow up to two feet for the five years it lives today, were allowed to live 13x as long (65 years), it would grow to approximately 26 feet and one would have what is today known as a Triceratops! In fact, its Latin scientific name is "trioceros johnstoni."

[HAZARD]

On ‎1‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 5:15 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I don't know that we have any reason to assume that the creature in the garden was actually a snake, I suspect someone decided to assume it might have been a snake, because it crawls on the belly now. Maybe it was a earthworm, since they literally eat dirt.

How is it, that snakes are cursed (assuming it was a snake)? They seem to get along fine, and I never saw a snake with a broken leg!

I do not think there is any instinctual fear of snakes, we learn that as children from our parents and society. I have a phobia of spiders. From what my mom tells me, I was playing with one as a baby, and she saw that, and screamed! Might be why I am afraid of them now. Meanwhile, more people died of mosquito bites, yet I find mosquitoes, only annoying, not terrifying.

I have never had an irrational fear of snakes, and still do not, even after being bitten by a rattlesnake. In fact, I later, had as many as 14 rattlesnakes as pets, after that first encounter with one. Spiders? I no longer fear them, I am a grown man, and decided it was time to get over such silliness. Phobias are phobias, I do not think we should let them control our emotions, personally.

As fars a snaked being intelligent? Having kept hundreds of them over the years, I cannot say I detect much in the way of smarts.

Scripture says it was the serpent;

Gen 3:1, Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea,1 hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

The serpent was cursed because he was the first to yield to Satan to cause the fall of man. The devil was too wise to begin with the very head of creation. He began instead with the highest of animal creation, who lived with Adam and Eve before the fall. He made a league with Lucifer and started opposition to God's Word, which has been Satan's sphere of activity ever since.

It is written, the serpent was cursed above all creatures and was to go upon his belly and eat dust all his days (Isa. 65:25).

He was deprived of walking upright and of his speech and became a poisonous, loathsome creature, despised by man whom he had betrayed and deceived (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14).

2 Cor. 11: 3, But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1 Tim. 2:14, And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The curse upon the serpent continues upon all literal snakes even in the Millennium when it is removed from all other animals (Isa. 65:25). If a literal serpent was not involved in the fall of man, why should it be cursed above all creatures, and the curse not removed during the Millennium?

Eve was acquainted with the serpent in the garden, but she knew nothing of the devil; so if a strange person had appeared to her she would have been afraid to converse with him.

[Retrobyter]

On 3/31/2017 at 9:29 PM, Judas Machabeus said:

Well it also says he will eat dust. So how does one go about picking and choosing which part of the sentence is literal and which isn't.

plus hazards statement was a very broad one. He claimed all snakes walked and talked. 

I don't believe the beginning of Genesis is a historical book. I don't really argue with those that believe a talking snake came to eve and had a extensive conversation with her. 

But again Hazard seems to imply that all snakes talked AND that this particular snake seemed to be hanging out with Adam and Eve and that it wasn't the devil but made a pact with the devil. 

I'm not an expert on Genesis but I don't recall that part either. 

Shalom, Judas Machabeus.

Snakes DO "eat dust (dirt)!" Being reptiles, they have no lips, and they dig in the ground for their burrows and to chase rats, mice, rabbits, and other animals into their underground homes. It's not a description of their diets; it's a description of their method of hunting! When a person lands hard on the ground, we say they "bit the dust!" Same concept. You can keep all parts of the sentence literal.

By not believing that Genesis is a historical book, you've called Yeshua` (Jesus) a LIAR, for HE certainly did!

Matthew 19:3-6
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain (two) shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain (two), but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
KJV

Mark 10:4-9
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain (two) shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain (two), but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
KJV

He has quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24:

Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
KJV

Genesis 2:21-24
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (Ishaah), because she was taken out of Man (Iysh).
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
KJV

It's a dangerous practice to begin to think you're a greater judge of the Bible than the Bible is of you! It's called "hypercriticism," and it'll get you into trouble EVERY TIME! However, please don't think I'm laying any blame on you. It's the natural outcome from our humanistic, naturalistic theory of Evolution to question God, His Word, and everything about Him.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Retrobyter
to capitalize LORD and fix "Ishaah"

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

By not believing that Genesis is a historical book, you've called Yeshua` (Jesus) a LIAR, for HE certainly did!

You showed me that Jesus said God ceated man and woman. But no where does Jesus say that the first 3 chapters of Genesis or historical books. 

And don't put words into my mouth. I am not calling Jesus a Liar. 

[simplejeff]

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

However, please don't think I'm laying any blame on you. It's the natural outcome from our humanistic, naturalistic theory of Evolution to question God, His Word, and everything about Him.

Well,  maybe not "natural"....  I never thought it natural,  and know of many others likewise.... However,  >>

Surely, it is a shock to sincere, believing people to realize religious leaders have (often deliberately) deceived them!

The ONLY protection against that kind of deception is YHWH'S GRACE - VERIFY EVERYTHING - TEST TEST TEST...

[Omegaman 3.0]

3 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Scripture says it was the serpent;

Gen 3:1, Now the serpent was . . .

Hi Hazard. Of course I know that the KJV says, but that is English, and late to the scene. The word of God predates 1611 by just a little bit. What the creature was, was a nachash, that is not necesarily a snake. In fact we do not know what it was/is. If it was not on it's belly, before being cursed, maybe it was something different entirely, maybe it was made a snake, AFTER it was cursed. Hebrew scholars believe that that possible, the word comes for a sound, like perhaps a hiss. That is one reason why translators  and inected the word serpent, or snake into the text. The also have suggested that since snakes slide on their bellys, that that might indicate a snake. Not bad guesses perhaps, but they are only gueses, no one knows what a nachash is, do not know what it even means.

Maybe, it is not a creature, with  which we are familiar, maybe they do not exist today. Now, even if that is true, or if it is not, that does not mean that the word nachash, did not come to evolve to mean serpent or snake in later usage. This is one of those words, like concubine, than no one knows what it means, but certain uses of the word let us know some things about them.

In later uses of nachash, it appears that at least some of them, have venom. That also adds credence to the snake theory, at least in later useage. If you, however, want to go with how the Bible uses the term, you will also find that English Bibles call it a dragon, and it fact the book of Revelation, make that equivalence directly:

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, Rev 20:2

If one wanted to go there then, one could just as easily say, that the Bible suggested that the creature in the garden, was a dragone, but then I would ask such a person: "What then is a dragon?"

I did not want to go into a lot of speculation about the nature of the creature in the garden, mostly because that is all one can do, is speculate. I am not fond of speculating, I think that is asking for errors in understanding. I would rather say "I do not know" instead of "the Bible says . . . " and then spout off with my opinion about what I think the Bible might mean, when in fact the word of God did not give us such detailed explanation.

So, to me, to ponder what the OP ponders, about, the idea that maybe snakes are smarter than we think, I think is going beyond Bible evidence, and beyond observational evidence of modern snakes. So, I do not want to make such wild leaps or conclusions without evidence, and my previous comments were intended to suggest, that perhaps, others might also what to exercise caution, before informing us of their opinions, which may or may not be well thought out.

People will think, and do think all sorts of things about what they read in scripture. I do not have to tell you, that they see a flat earth in the Bible, they see Angels procreating with human women to produce a race of giants. They see all manners of things, that are controversial, and my hope is that people test these theories out with a careful examination of scripture, using sound exegetical principals, comparing scripture with scripture, English to original languages etc., and come the the best conclusions possible. Hopefully they can avoid being distracted and led to chasing theories that cannot be proven, about things that in the end, probably do not really matter that much. It is a distraction, so I encourage people to start with milk, move up to meat, and avoid the junk food.

[HAZARD]

36 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Hi Hazard. Of course I know that the KJV says, but that is English, and late to the scene. The word of God predates 1611 by just a little bit. What the creature was, was a nachash, that is not necesarily a snake. In fact we do not know what it was/is. If it was not on it's belly, before being cursed, maybe it was something different entirely, maybe it was made a snake, AFTER it was cursed. Hebrew scholars believe that that possible, the word comes for a sound, like perhaps a hiss. That is one reason why translators  and inected the word serpent, or snake into the text. The also have suggested that since snakes slide on their bellys, that that might indicate a snake. Not bad guesses perhaps, but they are only gueses, no one knows what a nachash is, do not know what it even means.

Maybe, it is not a creature, with  which we are familiar, maybe they do not exist today. Now, even if that is true, or if it is not, that does not mean that the word nachash, did not come to evolve to mean serpent or snake in later usage. This is one of those words, like concubine, than no one knows what it means, but certain uses of the word let us know some things about them.

In later uses of nachash, it appears that at least some of them, have venom. That also adds credence to the snake theory, at least in later useage. If you, however, want to go with how the Bible uses the term, you will also find that English Bibles call it a dragon, and it fact the book of Revelation, make that equivalence directly:

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, Rev 20:2

If one wanted to go there then, one could just as easily say, that the Bible suggested that the creature in the garden, was a dragone, but then I would ask such a person: "What then is a dragon?"

I did not want to go into a lot of speculation about the nature of the creature in the garden, mostly because that is all one can do, is speculate. I am not fond of speculating, I think that is asking for errors in understanding. I would rather say "I do not know" instead of "the Bible says . . . " and then spout off with my opinion about what I think the Bible might mean, when in fact the word of God did not give us such detailed explanation.

So, to me, to ponder what the OP ponders, about, the idea that maybe snakes are smarter than we think, I think is going beyond Bible evidence, and beyond observational evidence of modern snakes. So, I do not want to make such wild leaps or conclusions without evidence, and my previous comments were intended to suggest, that perhaps, others might also what to exercise caution, before informing us of their opinions, which may or may not be well thought out.

People will think, and do think all sorts of things about what they read in scripture. I do not have to tell you, that they see a flat earth in the Bible, they see Angels procreating with human women to produce a race of giants. They see all manners of things, that are controversial, and my hope is that people test these theories out with a careful examination of scripture, using sound exegetical principals, comparing scripture with scripture, English to original languages etc., and come the the best conclusions possible. Hopefully they can avoid being distracted and led to chasing theories that cannot be proven, about things that in the end, probably do not really matter that much. It is a distraction, so I encourage people to start with milk, move up to meat, and avoid the junk food.

Hi Omegaman, thanks for your reply, sorry I had to leave for a while.

I always believe the word machash meant serpent.

Strong's Concordance

nachash: a serpent

Original Word: נָחָשׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: nachash
Phonetic Spelling: (naw-khawsh')
Short Definition: serpent.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
a serpent
NASB Translation
serpent (24), serpent's (2), serpents (2), snake (1).

Link;

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5175.htm

There are some passages of Scripture where we must recognise the law of possible reference. That is, two things or persons are addressed in the same passage - a visible one and an invisible one. I Gen. 3:15 we have the first occurrence of the law of double reference. The serpent is the visible one addressed,  but also Satan, the invisible plotter of mans fall, is addressed. The seed of the serpent refers to natural snakes, the decendants of the original serpent, and to the ungodly men who are children of the devil (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8-10).

There is a natural enmity between man and natural serpents as well as there is between the Godly and the ungodly (John 15:18; Gal. 4:29; 1 John 3;12). The seed of the woman refers to the natural decendants of Eve  and to one seed particular - Christ. There is a natural enmity between the natural seed of the snake and the natural seed of the woman, and between Satan and man, but the meaning goes further than this. The is the first prophecy of the coming of Christ as the redeemer who would actually defeat Satan, the invisible person addressed. Paul spoke of the particular seed of the woman referred to , which is Christ (Gal. 3:16; 4:4).  The Scripture was fulfilled fully when Christ defeated Satan on the cross (Col. 2:14-17).  Thus the curse upon Satan was that he would be defeated by Christ, the seed of the woman, and that his dominion of Adams creation would be destroyed. Christ bruised the serpents head on Calvary (Gal. 3:13; Col. 2:14-17), but the final action of Christ  is putting down Satan and ridding the Earth of all rebellion is yet future. At Christ's second advent Satan will be defeated and cast into the abyss for 1, 000 years and he will be liberated to deceive the nations for a short season, and then he will be put into the lake of fire forever, and all rebels will be destroyed on the Earth (Rev. 19:11-20: 15; 1 Cor. 15:24-28).

I ask why does the curse on the serpent continue upon literal snakes even in the Millennium when it is removed from all other animals (Isa. 65: 25, The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.) If a literal serpent was not involved in the fall of man, why should it be cursed above all creatures?