Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Arms mentioned in your link were an exaggeration. Yes 4 limbs, but do reptiles like lizards or crocs have 4 legs or 2 legs and 2 arms? How about dogs or cats? You are anthropomorphizing.

But I will grant you surprisingly there are vestiges of 4 limbs in snakes today, but taking Genesis literally requires you to explain many other things. Yo can not

You mean the author of the article that I linked to is "anthrpomorphizing"? I didn't write the article.

Here's another link:

http://www.dnaindia.com/technology/r...d-arms-2267839

But whether you interpret the four vestiges as two arms and two legs or four legs is relatively unimportant at the moment. What is important is that in the context of the Genesis account, the Serpent was not the slithering, crawling snake[/b] we think of today. And there are two pieces of strong evidence in the account that supports this interpretation.

And in your spiritual blindness, you should be the last one around here to conjecture or comment on what you think would be impossible for me to explain, most especially when you would have no earthly, natural explanation, given the scientific evidence and strong biblical evidence, for how Moses could possibly have known that the Serpent, prior to the Fall, either walked on all fours or walked upright. (Right here, again, we have another instance where Natural Revelation (science in this case) strongly supports Special Revelation.)

So there, Humpty...put that in your hash pipe and puff on it.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You mean the author of the article that I linked to is "anthrpomorphizing"? I didn't write the article.

Yes the author exxagerated. Arm was not mentioned in the original study. Here is a diagram from your article. The only thing arm-liike belonged to the the mouse, not the python or cobra. Notice the arm like limbs on the mouse with "finger" appendages.
During normal development, mice form full arms and legs (top). But when mice embryos are given a stretch of DNA from a cobra (middle) and a python (bottom) that controls limb development, their arm and leg growth are severely limited.


From your article.....

During their investigation, the researchers focused on a gene called sonic hedgehog, which is key in embryonic development, including limb formation. Sonic hedgehog's regulators, located in the ZRS sequence of DNA, had mutated, they found.

... However, the researchers needed proof that the ZRS mutations were responsible for limb loss. To find out, they used a DNA-editing technique called CRISPR (short for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats") to cut out the ZRS stretch in mice embryos and replace it with the ZRS section from other animals, including snakes.

When the mice had ZRS DNA from other animals, including humans and fish, they developed limbs just like any regular mouse would. But when the researchers inserted the python and cobra ZRS into the mice, the mice's limbs barely developed, the researchers found.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Yes the author exxagerated. Arm was not mentioned in the original study. Here is a diagram from your article. The only thing arm-liike belonged to the the mouse, not the python or cobra. Notice the arm like limbs on the mouse with "finger" appendages.
During normal development, mice form full arms and legs (top). But when mice embryos are given a stretch of DNA from a cobra (middle) and a python (bottom) that controls limb development, their arm and leg growth are severely limited.


From your article.....

During their investigation, the researchers focused on a gene called sonic hedgehog, which is key in embryonic development, including limb formation. Sonic hedgehog's regulators, located in the ZRS sequence of DNA, had mutated, they found.

... However, the researchers needed proof that the ZRS mutations were responsible for limb loss. To find out, they used a DNA-editing technique called CRISPR (short for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats") to cut out the ZRS stretch in mice embryos and replace it with the ZRS section from other animals, including snakes.

When the mice had ZRS DNA from other animals, including humans and fish, they developed limbs just like any regular mouse would. But when the researchers inserted the python and cobra ZRS into the mice, the mice's limbs barely developed, the researchers found.

Yeah, so? What does this have to do with price of rice in China?

Don't forget: God created DNA.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah, so? What does this have to do with price of rice in China?

Don't forget: God created DNA.

This why I can't have an honest conversation with you. You claim something without careful examination, and when called on it deflect to something else.

God evidently also created bullshit. And provided you an abundant supply.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

This why I can't have an honest conversation with you. You claim something without careful examination, and when called on it deflect to something else.

God evidently also created bullshit. And provided you an abundant supply.

He did indeed supply me with "an abundant supply" of it. In his sovereign providence, he has put you in my path.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

He did indeed supply me with "an abundant supply" of it. In his sovereign providence, he has put you in my path.

I think he has put facts and logic in your path as well.

When I investigated your article I tried to do an honest examination. I admit I was surprised snakes had vestigial limbs. So I gave you partial credit. But after I found the flaws in your claim you veered back to "big deal god created everything", instead of furthering the conversation.

Diverting is the correct term.

Of course you still need to address fossilized vocal cords.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I think he has put facts and logic in your path as well.

When I investigated your article I tried to do an honest examination. I admit I was surprised snakes had vestigial limbs. So I gave you partial credit. But after I found the flaws in your claim you veered back to "big deal god created everything", instead of furthering the conversation.

Diverting is the correct term.

Of course you still need to address fossilized vocal cords.

There were no flaws in my claims. Also, we would normally expect scientists to explain their discovery in terms of evolution. What else is new? So...in essence, what you posted about their DNA discovery was a non sequitur. My only point all along has been that the Serpent, before the fall, was not what you and all other unbelievers think it is today, i.e. a belly crawling snake. That was my entire point. (And by the way, this very topic was broached several years when some woman briefly graced our presence in the old Religious thread. And while she at first doubted me, she came back weeks later to share the same info she discovered on the web.)

Secondly, the Serpent never spoke. So don't sweat the vocal cords. There were no talking serpents or snakes in the Garden. The one who did the actual talking, through the serpent whom he possessed, was Satan -- a moral, intelligent, angelic but fallen being who was cast down to this earth from heaven after he sinned. Eve was not ultimately tempted by any animal. She was tempted by mankind's adversary -- the devil -- just as the Last Adam was tempted by the Evil One.

So...the $64 Trillion Dollar question is: How did Moses know that the pre-Fall Serpent was not a belly-crawling snake? Did he get lucky? Or maybe Moses was a around when Adam was? Or maybe a little birdie told him?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Computer displays vary. I am also visually impairted, I am legally blind, so I expand my computer screen.

In any case I see no "yellow box" on this page.

Are you referring to:.
Are you saying the literal is a bit more open to an expanded sense of meaning? I read this and what follows and still find it vague.

Take "Christ as a door"
Tell me again the difference between iteralistic and literal interpretation as applied to this figure of speech.

As Boxcar noted below your entry...

Literalistically, Christ referred to as an actual physical door.

The literal sense is door as metaphor. It's the literal sense because the author intended to use metaphor. Just as, many would claim including myself, the literal sense of Genesis creation stories is the intended mythopoeic polemic against neighboring mythopoeic literature in the ancient Near East. The author is not offering science or history, since he couldn't have. He's arguing a different conception of deity using the myth of his neighbors to convey truths. In cultures without discursive thought, myth can address the transcendent. It is not necessarily false or polytheistic.

Literalistic= words as they stand apart from intention of author
Literal = words within any genre (metaphor, narrative dialogue, actual history, etc.) the author intentionally chose to convey his insight.

Arriving at the literal sense uses all the tools of historical criticism, many cases much more difficult than the easy discernment that Christ as "door" is clearly a metaphor .

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Literalistic = Christ IS a physical door.

Literal Interpreation = "door" is very likely a figure of speech.

But maybe you could Doc about the literalistic interpretation of "This is my body; take and eat".

If John intended the reality of those words, then that is the literal sense.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

As Boxcar noted below your entry...

Literalistically, Christ referred to as an actual physical door.

The literal sense is door as metaphor. It's the literal sense because the author intended to use metaphor. Just as, many would claim including myself, the literal sense of Genesis creation stories is the intended mythopoeic polemic against neighboring mythopoeic literature in the ancient Near East. The author is not offering science or history, since he couldn't have. He's arguing a different conception of deity using the myth of his neighbors to convey truths. In cultures without discursive thought, myth can address the transcendent. It is not necessarily false or polytheistic.

Literalistic= words as they stand apart from intention of author
Literal = words within any genre (metaphor, narrative dialogue, actual history, etc.) the author intentionally chose to convey his insight.

Arriving at the literal sense uses all the tools of historical criticism, many cases much more difficult than the easy discernment that Christ as "door" is clearly a metaphor .

How should Genesis be interpreted? Literalistic, literal or metaphorical/allegorical.

I understand now that Hermeneutics uses the English words differently, but using the literal to include metaphor is weird.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

If John intended the reality of those words, then that is the literal sense.

John's "intended...reality" was a God-sanctioned New Covenant religious ritual (or sacrament) designed to be a perpetual memorial until Christ returns. "As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me."

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There were no flaws in my claims. Also, we would normally expect scientists to explain their discovery in terms of evolution. What else is new? So...in essence, what you posted about their DNA discovery was a non sequitur.

You are missing the point. I tried to show you the author of the first article you posted drew upon the original paper and study incorrectly. He anthrpomorphized "arms" from limbs in the original.

Your absurd claim snakes or serpents walked upright while drinking tea, or other such nonsense falls apart.

[hcap]

I said:

Originally Posted by hcap

How should Genesis be interpreted? Literalistic, literal or metaphorical/allegorical.

Dnlgfnk, let me ask a more specific question. You said

Genesis is a "mythopoeic polemic against neighboring mythopoeic literature in the ancient Near East".

Ok, but other than competing myths, how would you interpret the tree of the knowledge of good and evil versus the tree of life?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are missing the point. I tried to show you the author of the first article you posted drew upon the original paper and study incorrectly. He anthrpomorphized "arms" from limbs in the original.

Your absurd claim snakes or serpents walked upright while drinking tea, or other such nonsense falls apart.

And I conceded that whether the Serpent, prior to the fall walked upright, or was a quadruped is not the real issue. The real issue is that the Serpent was NOT a belly, crawling snake that he is today. He became what he is today after God cursed the Serpent.

Also, Genesis classifies the Serpent as a "beast" which puts him in the category of a strong, legged animal.

In fact, the Genesis creation account strongly implies that snakes were not part of God's original creation; for God created three classifications of land animals:

Gen 1:25
25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
NASB

The first problem is that snakes don't fit into any of these three classifications.

Moreover, after God created the land animals, the text says that God "saw that it was good". If snakes were part of God's original creation and they were also considered "good", then how would that square with the curse pronounced upon the Serpent in Gen 3:14? But if the serpent (and by extension all other serpents who were created on the sixth day) were cursed to crawl on their belly and "eat dust" all the days of their life subsequent to the Fall, then all snakes, as we know them today, descended from these post-creation serpents, and there would be no tension or contradiction. Otherwise, it would be absurd to say that one particular serpent was cursed to become a snake when, ostensibly, all other snakes that were created on the sixth day were already considered by God to be a "good" part of the creation. If God thought it was good for all other snakes to crawl on their belly and eat dust for all their days, then how bad could the curse have been on the Serpent?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The real issue is that the Serpent was NOT a belly, crawling snake that he is today. He became what he is today after God cursed the Serpent.

The real issue is accepting this blather literalisticaly.

See I learned a new Hermeneutics term for the ordinary English word, literally:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literally

adverb
in the literal or strict sense: She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally. What does the word mean literally?
in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally.
actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy: The city was literally destroyed