Yes, tragic....you won't accept information from any source
My quote was in reference to your statement telling me I could just take your word for it. I hate to say it, but I cannot do that. It requires slightly more than that.
However, in this instance I have given you my blessing to simply quote biblical text, which would certainly be a start. I apologise for seeming overly skeptic, but without having any starting point, I can't see how your claim can be justified in any way whatsoever. For now it doesn't require any 'real' evidence, just the passage where it says "and behold, the serpent had sex with eve," or whatever passage it was to give you reason to make the claim in the first place.
expect others to do all the research to "back up" their claims
Naturally. Here's an example:
- I believe evil leprechauns will take over the world in 2020, and kill off all of humanity.
Without being able to state a reason for having that belief, it ultimately becomes worthless. You can believe whatever you want to believe, that is not my quarrel.. But without anything to show a reason for that belief, there's just no point ever telling anyone - unless you're merely saying it to raise a few laughs.
and then take their efforts and proceed to pick it apart no mater how sound or solid it was like some sort of game for your amusement.
If something is perfectly sound and solid, there wouldn't be room to pick it apart. As much as I try, I cannot pick apart the belief in gravity. Of course, that's where the difference is.. One is openly testable by anyone, and as such has earned it's right to be classed as truth. Your beliefs have not earned that right, and never will unless you can show them to be worthy of such.
No I won't bother explaining the scriptural references - again.
It is explained in detail in my recent posts.
Maybe I'm going blind with old age, but can you please paste them once more, 'cause I'm having trouble finding them.
Boa- constrictors use the small reminents of the legs still atached to the vertebrae as hooks, to hold their prey while they suffocate them.
Note: 'some scientists' believe they are remnants of legs, in much the same manner that some scientists believe the bones in whales are remnants of legs. However, a lot of the argument, (especially on the creationist front), is that parts of the anatomy that
do have a use, are not signs of defunct bone structure. In the whale, the vestigal bones that are considered as remnants of legs, actually anchor the sexual organs, and because it obviously has modern day purpose, is not a sign of them having former use as leg bones. Of course, this is the creationist side of the argument generally. What you're implying here though, is that the original walking snakes/serpents (in between man and monkey), have evolved- which is something a creationist should not be doing.
In the case of the boa, they are not so much 'remnants of legs' as they are 'visible claws'. Males use these claws to seduce females, and while it's a possibility there were once legs there, it's also pertinent to state they could just be there to seduce females/hold prey.
You also put yourself in a corner by even bringing up this subject:
You started off telling me that the serpent was in between man and ape. I asked for evidence to suggest this, whereby you told me about the boa constrictor and his 'possible' leg bones. After this you tell me:
I did not say "snakes" were the second highest creation in between man and apes.
I said the "serpent race" was.
So I would wonder why you used the whole snakes with legs angle to begin with. According to your quote above, it would be of no relevance to the issue anyway, other than to maybe promote (d)evolution of species. From a highly intelligent walking serpent, to a ground crawling animal that is no way near being in between man and apes.
You didn't know that after all your "lifelong dealings" with snakes....?
They have claws, which have a purpose of their own. While some scientists would state they are signs of former 'legs', this is far from fact. Furthermore, if they did have legs, it would still merely support a claim that they evolved from lizard type animals.
And they call you SnakeLord because of what?........ it must be your charming personality I suppose.
Close but no cigar. When I was a young kid of about 4, I found a grass snake and took it into my house and hid it. Eventually my parents found my snake and after time I became known as Snakey, (and several other variants). I then started getting snakes as pets and that name morphed to 'Snakeman'. I became an avid player of Ultima Online, and while I wanted to use my lifelong nickname, it didn't sound right in a medieval era game. As such I changed it to SnakeLord, which fit better. I bet you didn't really want to know any of this, so I wonder why you even asked
I said the "serpent race" was. Surely you have heard of the reference too this hybreeding in Sumerian, and Indian san-scricts about ancient man's origins.
Well, I do know that serpents were regarded in pretty much every single culture as gods, or very powerful beings, even in the bible. Even god's highest angels, the seraph(im), are translated as "a fiery, flying serpent". I can't remember any serpents that were in between man and ape however, which is why I asked for any text that stated that.
This race of "Serpents" were the animals that were the second highest creation between man and apes.
Please supply any relevant text. If we were to believe that the serpent in the garden was actually Satan, then even you would have to decline from saying he was in between man and monkey.
It was not a snake at this point, it was humaniod. (And it was not reptilian either as your present day ufo buffs claim.) Every form of it's make-up was changed by a curse from God .... into a snake after it had been used to father Cain.
Do you have anything relevant with which to dispute the claims of 'present day ufo buffs'? Also you have still failed to show where it says the serpent had sexual relations with eve, so your comment is pretty groundless. But anyway, what did he look like then? A human, an ape?
The Sumerian says that the humans were the servants and the Serpent race of giants were the Masters.
Serpent race? lol? The Anunnaki were not serpents... Tiamat was, but she got chopped up by Marduk, who then made the earth/heavens and mankind.
It was not so from the beginning. Only after the fall of man in the garden did the hybrid off-spring of the serpent race achieve rulership or masterery of mankind.
Where are you getting this nonsense? Please, provide text that corroborates this..
That is because of their make-up which lends them to complete spiritual possession by demonic spirits and Satan...who is also a spirit.
This was how they terrorised the ancient world as the giants who were also devil posessed
And satan received dominion of the earth from Adam when He forfeited the rights to it.
Thats why Jesus with the pure blood of God and the undifiled Holy Spirit was the antidote.....
You have descended into the realms of verbal garbage once more.. It would make a great science fiction novel, but I can't see any of it having any substance or worth in reality.
This is not an attempt to verify these statements at this time, just to get the story straight....so we can agree on what it is you want verified. OK...?
Fair enough, just show some biblical texts for now that support the following two:
A) Serpents were the second highest of gods creation, in between man and ape
B) The serpent got his end away with eve.
Ciao.
