A List Of Biblical Contradictions
infidels.org/library/modern/jim.../bible-contradictions.html
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt. GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and ...
Snakes "DO NOT," says the atheist adamantly testifying to this indisputable scientific "fact". Snakes DO NOT and I REPEAT, DO NOT eat dirt, because the Bible says Snakes do.
However, let's just keep an open mind how about it and skip over to people who regularly handle snakes and see how they handle the matter.
Is it ok for snakes to swallow dirt?
I just fed my baby snake a frozen pinky that I unthawed by placing in warm water. The problem is that when i dropped the pinky it landed in the dirt some of the dirt got on it and the snake swallowed it. Is this ok?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Snakes in the wild will swallow whatever happens to get on their food. Lacking any way of cleaning the food before consumption, it is common for them to swallow things such as dirt, flakes of tree bark, pieces of grass and/or dried leaves etc. Some things can be harmful and even fatal for the snake like sand for instance. Sand is rough and somewhat "edgy", meaning it can damage the digestive tract of the snake resulting in internal bleeding and infection. Larger objects that can't be digested can become lodged and block the intestinal tract resulting in infection and certain death of the snake. A little dirt should be no problem for them as long as there was no introduction of any chemicals used in gardening or fertilizer products. Hope this helps.
Yahooooooo answers
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:36:02 -0400
You are missing what I wrote, probably didn't even read it. Many animals eat some dirt, you and I do too, while others live their whole lives covered in nothing but dirt, along with their food. Snakes ingest less dirt than some other types of animals. They are also sticking their tongues into the air to smell what's around them. The point is that the bible was composed by people based on made-up tales, anthropomorphisms, lack of knowledge of the natural world, lack of knowledge of evolution, and what knowledge they did have of the natural world, human biology, and the cosmos was most often based on superficial appearances.
* tsk tsk *
It is you sir who missed the whole entire point.
THE ATHEIST SAYS, "Snakes DO NOT eat dirt."
But Snakes DO eat dirt.
Snakes do eat dirt. It's quite a normal affair in fact. And yes, there are some people who eat dirt.
And if Atheists are wrong on such a simple point, one can safely assume they're wrong on a great many more things!!!
And one further question...
Are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth without even realizing it?
Cognitive Dissonance?
You say that the account in Genesis is "Babylonian Mythology," until it no longer reflects Babylonian Mythology. So which is it?
Wouldn't the Ancients such as the Babylonians had have enough knowledge to have known snakes eat mice, other snakes, insects, birds and practically anything they can unlock their jaws and wrap around?
The Babylonians and Egyptians, who *worshipped* snakes (ah, the very men you accuse of being the true authors of Genesis) knew the diets of such creatures quite well, did they not? Why would learned Babylonian scribes omit the diet of serpents, which they were well-acquainted with?
Pets in Ancient Rome
Collegium_VitaQuotidiana/pets.php
The Romans did indeed keep all sorts of animals as pets, and many of them would be ... Cats were really only kept extensively in Egypt and lands influenced by ... There is also a tale about a woman who raised snakes; she was often seen ...
POLL: Reptile Questions (Snakes and Lizards)?
Yahoo! Answers
answers.yahoo.com › Home › All Categories › Pets › Reptiles
3 answers - Apr 9
It depends what you mean by "pet", there is evidence that the egyptians had kept snakes. I would think it was mostly a religious thing for them.
Angel of God and the Mystery of Iniquity
ebooks/theangelofgod.htm
Serpent worship was a major factor in the apostasy of Nimrod, and the Serpent a “chief” god of the Babylonian Mystery. Harmless snakes were kept as pets and ...
King Tut (@KingTutTweets) on Twittertwitter.com/KingTutTweets
In Ancient Egypt we kept snakes as pets in the home to eat rodents. On the internet they eat your tweets. tweetaconda.com #tweetaconda 11:52 AM Mar 13th via ...
Animals of the Mythologies S-Z
magicrealms/animalssz.html
Pet snakes were kept in Greece, Rome and Crete as guardians and as ...
Let's start with a verse in Isaiah that you pointed out to me years ago:
Isaiah 65:25
NET © A wolf and a lamb will graze together; a lion, like an ox, will eat straw,
and a snake’s food will be dirt. * They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain,” says the Lord.
Or
NIV © The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.
Oh, that "failed prophecy" in Isaiah about snakes??
Take a look at how the word "dust" is used in the Bible:
Deuteronomy 32:24 They shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured with burning heat and bitter destruction. I will send the teeth of animals on them, With the poison of crawling things of the dust. (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)
You are still avoiding the question. You claim Babylonians and Egyptian mythology authored the Bible. Right?? Well then, since scribes and learned men who themselves worshiped and handled snakes, and knew well of snake diets wrote the books of the Bible you claim, why would they claim snakes "eat dirt," when they knew better? Do you still claim Babylonian and Egyptians authored Genesis?
Here's another verse, if the idol was reduced to "dust", why burn "dust"?
2 Chronicles 15:16 Also Maacah, the mother of Asa the king, he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and made dust of it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron. (WEB JPS ASV)
More uses of this Hebrew word "dust" :
Sounds as though "dust" is not always, fine grains of sand, or clay, or small particles, but can include large chunks, and "creeping things of dirt".
Matthew 21:44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whoever it will fall, it will scatter him as dust."
Bits and pieces...and chunks of flesh = Hebrew for "dust".
Luke 20:18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but it will crush whomever it falls on to dust." (WEB ASV BBE NAS)
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. (WEB DBY RSV NIV)
1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (WEB DBY RSV)
Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of goats and oxen, and the dust from the burning of a young cow, being put on the unclean, make the flesh clean: (BBE)
Exodus 8:17 They did so; and Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and struck the dust of the earth, and there were lice on man, and on animal; all the dust of the earth became lice throughout all the land of Egypt. (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)
Exodus 9:8 And the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, Take in your hand a little dust from the fire and let Moses send it in a shower up to heaven before the eyes of Pharaoh. (BBE)
Numbers 19:10 And he who takes up the dust of the burned cow is to have his clothing washed with water and be unclean till evening: this is to be a law for ever, for the children of Israel as well as for the man from another country who is living among them. (BBE)
Numbers 19:17 And for the unclean, they are to take the dust of the burning of the sin-offering, and put flowing water on it in a vessel: (BBE)
Numbers 23:10 Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous! Let my last end be like his!" (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV
And if you refer to the "discrepancy" of a "failed prophecy",
Isaiah implies the snake will remain unchanged, and continue to go on its belly and eat dust... catching its prey in the dust. I'm sorry the Hebrews didn't provide PERFECT ENGLISH GRAMMAR in their ancient Hebrew scrolls, but then again, few of the ancient cultures took modern English under consideration.
"On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life."
Which also doesn't imply they had legs 10,000 years ago and were cursed then to become legless. Such an example; you are already standing on your feet and I command you, "On your feet you shall go, and wander through the city, barefoot, and develop sores on your feet and find no relief! You shall find no place to sit and rest your weary legs, and you shall fry yourself in the noon time sun!"
Implying the act of perpetually, eternally, condemned to wander... though it were already on its belly and we know this from the fossil record. So Isaiah merely confirmed the curse would remain as it were.
----
Addendum: "Dust" can contain whole bone material, creeping things like lice, all of which are "dust". Not exclusively grains of sand or particles of clay. (To the Atheist which I've conversed with on this topic): You should know better, afterall, haven't you read the Bible numerous times and taken time to study the subtle Hebrew and Greek word meanings?
"Dust" of a Sacrifice:
GEMARA: R. Mari bar Abbahu in the name of R. Itz'hak said: The bones, still retaining marrow, of consecrated sacrifices, if left over as remainder, defile the hands touching them. Why so? Because they are a basis to a prohibited article (i.e., the marrow which was left over and should be burned).
An objection was raised: (We have learned:) The bones left over from consecrated sacrifices are not subject to being burned, excepting only the bones of the paschal offering; (because they must not be broken but left in their original condition and) it might happen that some of the flesh should cling to them. Now, let us see what kind of bones are meant! Shall we assume such as have not retained the marrow? Who would hold that such should be burned? Hence such as still retain the marrow must be meant. In that event, if the bones are considered a basis to a prohibited article, i.e., they serve the marrow as receptacles, why should they not be burnt?
Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "Bones which had been found broken and the marrow extracted are referred to; thus the bones of other sacrifices, which may be broken, may have been broken and the marrow extracted from them before they had had an opportunity of becoming a remainder of a sacrifice; hence they need not be burnt. The bones of a paschal offering, however, which must remain whole, could have been broken and had the marrow extracted from them only after becoming a remainder, and for that reason they must be burnt."
R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: "All sinews are considered of flesh except the sinews of the neck (i.e., if one ate only the nerves of the flesh of the paschal offering, it is the same as if he had eaten the flesh itself)."
An objection was made based upon our Mishna, which teaches "that bones, nerves, and other remaining parts must be burned on the 16th." Now, let us see what sinews are referred to? If the sinews of the body in general are meant, why not eat them; and if it is claimed that they were left over, why mention them separately-are they not the same as the other remaining parts? Therefore we must say, that the sinews of the neck are meant. If that be the case and, according to Rabh, they are not considered as flesh, why should they be burned? Said R. Hisda: "By the sinews which must be burned, is meant the sinew of the thigh (which is not eaten), and, according to R. Jehudah's opinion that only the sinew of one of the thighs is prohibited to be eaten, the sinew of the other is a legal remainder and should be burned." R. Ashi said: "The Boraitha means to state, that not the sinew proper, but only the fat thereof on account of which the sinew is burned with it, is referred to, as we have learned in another Boraitha, that the fat of the sinew of the thigh may be eaten but it is not customary to do so (as will be explained in Tract Cholin)," and Rabhina said: "The sinew which must be burned is the one on the outside, which, while it is permitted to eat it, is not generally eaten by Israelites (as will also be explained in Tract Cholin)."
Jewish Virtual Library, on Sacrifices.
I never said that snakes ingested no dirt or dust at all,The Atheist at infidels.org said it.
yes, it is.
>my point is that it's no "curse."It's pretty cursed. And like the guy said in Yahoo answers, if something gets down in the snake's belly that's sharp, like sand, it can injure the snake, and other debris -- it can kill the snake.
How can you call any animal cursed? The sense in which the Bible does
I didn't call it cursed. The Hebrews did, perhaps you'd like to look up "Cursed" in the Concordance to know for sure what the original Hebrew language implied when the equivalent for "Cursed" was used by their writers.
But I do know my neighbors don't like snakes and sure do aim to chop off their head, and don't want snakes in their yards. In fact, the city ordinance is to keep the lawns mowed, unless snakes start moving in and create a threat.
so is only justified based on what HUMANS hate. It's a fable. An anthropomorphic and appearance-based fable.
And it *appears* to be a cursed animal. Most of my neighbors would be cursing and swearing if a snake showed up, thus, cursed.
And that is your opinion, remember?
Was it the opinion of the Atheist at infidels.org that "Snakes DO NOT eat dirt," too?
Well, his opinion is wrong.
So much for his religion of Atheism and all its "Absolute Truths"®™
Reptilian and even amphibian species are known to have lost their legs (the former species becoming "snakes") long before the first humans
The fossil record shows they lost their legs, may have regrew them and lost them again!!! But, so what?
evolved, that was long before anything resembling an Adam or an Eve ever ate any forbidden fruit and "disobeyed God."
AND THEN THERE WAS THIS PHENOMENA THAT OCCURRED.. something about a Hox gene shifting forward, so scientists know snakes will never grow their front limbs again and ultimately that means snakes will never walk again.
lol, thanks for pointing that out.
say you're cursed to sometimes choke on sand if your prey's body is covered in it. The text says the serpent was cursed to go on it's belly.It says,
"On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life."
And you're right!!!
There's the curse. If its getting sand and other sharp particles in its belly, it can kill the snake. I hadn't really put it together meself. You're a God-send sometimes, even though you're an Atheist.
No comments:
Post a Comment