"Snakes will eat dirt in the new order."

by Comatose 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Jeffro


    Both the WTBTS ... have produced artwork that shows a legged serpent

    The Watchtower, 15 June 2007, page 31:

    Questions From Readers - Did the serpent that spoke to Eve have legs?
    The Bible does not specifically state that the animal used in tempting Eve had previously had legs but lost them. While the wording of Genesis 3:14 might lead some to think so, we need not necessarily conclude that prior to this curse, serpents had legs.

    Gee, I wonder why "some" might have been 'led to think so'...

    The Watchtower, 1 June 1964, page 352:

    Questions From Readers - Did the serpent lose legs or feet as means of movement as a result of the divine curse recorded at Genesis 3:14?

    It, therefore, is reasonable to conclude that before God cursed it the serpent possessed legs that elevated it above the ground. As he had the power to create the serpent in the first place, God had the power to transform its body so that it ceased to have legs and was able to move about on its belly.

  • Comatose

    Hilarious Jeffro

  • snare&racket

    Don't they realise it would take redesigning from the DNA up..... Everything about those animals are perfected around the prey they consume.... That's it, apart from humping the opposite sex.

    Besides.... WHAT DO THEY THINK DIRT IS ???




    organic material, both live and dead

    ..... Erm what was that last bit?

  • Gypsy Sam
    Gypsy Sam

    Great quote comparison with the Watchtowers. I don't remember seeing that on jwfacts, but it would be a great addition. Nice to have the flip flop quotes handy for us newbies.

  • adamah

    LOL! Nice find, Jeffro.

    But if 1,000 yrs to humans is but a day to Jehovah, if I did the math correctly that means Jehovah's Holy Spirit caught the error in 43 yrs, which works out to just over an hour in 'Jehovah Standard Time'. The ink didn't even have time to dry, so that doesn't count as a flip-flop.... Now, regretting making mankind before the Flood, and then regretting carrying out the Flood: THAT counts as a double-gainer flip-flop that any politician would be proud of!

    Oh, where else did "some" get the odd idea the serpent had legs, you ask?

    Once you get over Eve's nubile perkiness (!) and her blonde Lauren Bacall-influenced hair-do (the artist must've slipped out of Bethel and seen Casablanca, only released the year before), notice the lil' quadriped twiddling his thumbs in excitement, patiently sitting on his haunches in the lower left corner (from 1943 WTBTS publication, "The Truth Shall Make You Free", photo posted on an old thread by BluesBrother):


  • Julia Orwell
    Julia Orwell

    Oh. My. Goodness. How could anyone be so stupid!!! I thought that sister who thought the snakes had legs just had bats in her belfry, but it was official...

  • mP

    well its better to say they had legs, than something compeltely stupid like they breathed fire and flew.

  • mP


    You're taking something much later from Thomas Aquinas (and other Christian writers) and retconning the story about the snake in Genesis.

    mP: Thomas was repeating what was already jewish tradition. You can follow the scroiptures from the seraphim article and you will notice there are flying snakes throughtout the bible.

    Theres a thought from Maimonedes the most famous jewish intellect on their culture and he confirms this tradition.
  • Jeffro
    Thomas was repeating what was already jewish tradition. You can follow the scroiptures from the seraphim article and you will notice there are flying snakes throughtout the bible.
    Theres a thought from Maimonedes the most famous jewish intellect on their culture and he confirms this tradition.

    This conclusion is based on conflating the meanings of saraph (burning) and nachash (snake), on the basis that some snakes are described as 'saraph (burning) nachash (snake)'. saraph is used of 'snakes' that cause 'burning' (i.e. painful venomous bites), and seraphim is used of 'angels' that are 'as if on fire'. However, this is not a valid basis for concluding that nachash and seraphim are synonymous. The thing that 'saraph nachash' and 'seraphim' have in common is the 'burning' part, not the 'snake' part.

    If I say the blue car, and elsewhere I talk about the blue ones, it doesn't mean that I'm still talking about cars just because something else is blue.

  • adamah

    Jeffro likely hit the nail on the head:

    This conclusion is based on conflating the meanings of saraph (burning) and nachash (snake), on the basis that some snakes are described as 'saraph (burning) nachash (snake)'.

    You can see how the two concepts COULD get intermingled with time (as snakes are known to possess a burning bite), but there's no rhyming connection and doesn't seem to be based on pun or rhyming word-play.

    mP is right in that the Yahwist (one of the authors/redactors) had a known weakness for word-play and puns which he frequently displayed in Genesis. In fact, my user name (Adamah) is based on the word-play used on rhyming or similarity in words seen in the 'Cain and Abel' account of Genesis: Adam, Adamah (the ground), and Dam (blood) are all related words in Hebrew, and the author connects them (where Abel's spilled blood cries out from the ground) as if it's a sign of his cleverness. That's a hint that we're being in mythology and story-telling, NOT a historical account.

    Of course, word-play is an extremely weak method of supporting one's argument (and best limited to poetry and fables), since it relies on the potential fallacy of placing "style over substance". I wrote an article about this potential logical fallacy on my blog, where word-play played a valuable role in OJ's criminal defense, since it remains a persuasive pseudo-argument for so many people:


    BTW, we see evidence of ironic word-play in the use of the word 'dust': notice how the serpent is cursed to eat 'dust' and Adam is cursed to work the unproductive ground until Adam returns to 'dust', having been made from 'dust'. That MIGHT be seen as supporting evidence for mP's idea of a serpent being forced to eat the same 'stuff' that man was made from, as if he was being taken down a notch and placed below man as his punishment (of course, that but doesn't support the later Xian interpretation of a grounded serpent BEING Satan: he was punished by being placed BELOW mankind, and even beneath the other animals, and feared by women).

    Similarly, Eve's "desire" was for wisdom: her curse was that her "desire" would be that of Adam's, i.e. subsuming HER desires to those of her husband.

    Some Biblical commentaries argue that Eve was cursed to lust FOR her husband: I don't think they support that very well, since the "LUST FOR" interpretation sounds more like a male's fantastic and wishful thinking, as if God was able to avoid their wives' eyes from wandering to the hunky virulent male, as if telling women that the Bible says they MUST lust for THEIR hubby. Sounds a bit improbable to me.

    To support the "subsuming Eve's will" interpretation of the curse, Paul later cites the Genesis account to explain WHY women should remain in submission to their husbands, so Paul clearly supports that interpretation: it was HIS (or whoever wrote in his name) interpretation. It also fits with the Greek misogyny bias that was recorded for the period, blaming women for all evil and bad that entered the World (eg myth of Pandora's box). The Greeks and Hebrews sent representatives to the Imperial Persian Court after 550BC, and it's likely that they'd talk on "show and tell" day, being familiar with the myths of the other cultures who also sent representatives (including India, btw, part of the Persian Empire). They'd share stories and plagarize, knowing the uneducated minions they ruled wouldn't know it was borrowed.)

    We sometimes see people using it when they rely on what they think are clever slogans (Lie-ble, etc) in order to prove a point that the Bible can't be trusted. It's really grasping at straws, and if its intent is simple to be needlessly inflammatory and insulting and not present EVIDENCE of why the BIble is lying, then it's effective at doing that (and yes, I know people feel angry after having been deceived, but it remains a weak argument, nonetheless, a form of ad hominem, not attacking the evidence directly).

    mP, it seems you think Maimonedes, Acquinas, etc. can be considered trusted sources on the beliefs of those who lived 2,000 before THEY lived (an 'appeal to authority' argument). You'd need to demonstrate WHY they are to be considered as trusted sources on beliefs that existed 2,000 yrs before they lived. Again, I suspect you're trying to claim a level of certainty of knowing which just doesn't exist, likely as a vestige of believing that absolute certainty exists.

    A rationalist is going to demand independent confirmation from many sources, as eg Maimonedes was likely inheriting the then-current beliefs of what ancients believed. In essence, you're taking his belief as FACT, when Maimonedes had no Divine insight and didn't have access to information or archaeological findings, etc. (and also is someone who spent much time studying the Torah and Talmudic texts seeing connections which others didn't, advancing Kabbalist mystical thinking, which is MORE evidence of his bias for fantasy over facts).

    Instead, if we have many INDEPENDENT sources confirming a certain event happened (eg destruction of Temple in 70 CE, from Roman, Hebrew sources; 9/11 terrorist attack on WTC, etc), then we're going to place greater weight on the claim, since the odds of collusion (eg citing some vast mysterious conspiracy hypotheses, etc) goes down significantly.


Share this