Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
2007-11-10 15:57:47 · 28 answers · asked by Gawdless Heathen 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
cpack11911-You're obviously new here if you think I am a bible thumper.
2007-11-10 16:04:24 · update #1
well if its in the bible it has to be true
2007-11-10 15:59:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
If Book of Revelation is inspired, then we have... Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, SATAN is that snake in the garden. And, he must had also eaten the fruits from the Tree of Life to live forever and ever... Gen 3:22 ... and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: God must have realised He goofed - He forget to guard the tree. Satan defied God's curse!!! God was not going to let it happen again, so, Adam and Eve were thus prevented from eating it...They died.... And the Serpent live happily forever after....And he can fly, walk, swim, crawl, transform...etc.
2016-04-03 06:52:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing in the Bible that says snakes ever had legs. You are trying to read something into the bible that isn't there. God doesn't say he will take the snakes legs. He says on the belly shell thou go. there is nothing about him ever having legs. Of course he could have had wheels and God took away his wheels. Snakes do not eat dust by the way.
Betty B.
2007-11-10 16:06:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The "serpent" is but one of many metaphorical names applied to Satan, that you might understand his nature.
Others include:
The Lying spirit (1 Kings 22:22)
The Adversary (1 Peter 5:8)
The evil spirit (1 Samuel 16:14)
Belial (2 Corinthians 6:15)
The father of all lies ( John 8:44)
The liar ( John 8:44)
The murderer ( John 8:44)
Beelzebul (Matthew 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15)
Our common enemy (Matthew 13:39)
The prince of this world ( John 12:31;14:30;16:11)
The prince of demons (Matthew 12:24)
The prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2)
The ruler of the darkness of this world (Ephesians 6:12)
The spirit that works in all disobedient people (Ephesians 2:2)
The tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5)
The god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)
The unclean spirit (Matthew 12:43)
The wicked one (Matthew 13:19,38)
...and finally, The person behind the Y!A avatar, "Jesus, My†h-Supers†ar"
(sorry... I know that was so un-Christian-like of me, but I couldn't help it...)
2007-11-10 16:09:39 · answer #4 · answered by he_returns_soon 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
A serpent is not necessarily a snake. The Hebrew word used was "nachash". A serpent was obviously some sort of reptile. Maybe a snake, maybe not.
At any rate, your proposition is unfounded based solely upon the Scriptures.
2007-11-10 16:06:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It never says that snakes had legs.
In fact, the evidence suggests that the "serpent" in this case is one of the Seraphim, and actually lost its wings, not its legs. While that would have made perfect sense as a metaphysical allegory in the 9th century BC, modern literalists (since about the 16th century) have interpreted it as a "just so" story on how snakes lost their legs.
2007-11-10 16:01:32 · answer #6 · answered by NONAME 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope, not legs -- but wings. The serpent had wings and used them to fly into the tree of KGE in order to tempt Eve. That is why it would be forced to crawl on its belly from that time forward because it would no longer be able to fly from place to place.
2007-11-10 17:01:44 · answer #7 · answered by ♫DaveC♪♫ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mythical,
Evidently according to Genesis 3:14 that is the case. It does not say that they had legs or that they walked but they would forever be forced to crawl on their belly from that time on. Have a great week.
Thanks,
Eds
.
2007-11-10 16:04:41 · answer #8 · answered by Eds 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your first mistake is obvious. Why did you assume it was a "snake"? The text clearly says "serpent". Go and research the etymology of that word and then ask yourself "Why did I ask such a goofy question in the first place?"
2007-11-11 01:28:52 · answer #9 · answered by Wired 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Was this before or after the Adam's apple tree... I think a little confused, you better thump me again with that bible o' yours.
2007-11-10 17:03:08 · answer #10 · answered by Icy Gazpacho 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i'm pretty sure they have the remnants of legs - that is, little stubs where legs existed in their ancestors. You can see the little stumps if you look closely. I remember this from H.S. biology class.
2007-11-10 16:03:30 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋