did snakes have legs

by tijkmo 77 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • tijkmo

    oh dear oh dear oh dear...what have i done

    ok time out....it is true that i posted the question because it is interesting and also funny so i would have posted it for that reason only

    but in my 2nd post right after , i explained that the real mystery here is not whether snakes had legs or what caused them to be removed if they did....but why has it been removed from the subject index of wts literature..thats the real mystery and its not the only example of it that i found...i posted another comment on time between adam and eves creation that has also been doctored..if i find it i will post it again...have you looked for something that you know is in the society literature only to find that all evidence of it has been removed

  • MerryMagdalene

    To attempt to address Tij's original intent w/ this thread...

    Although I haven't had the experience of looking for missing info in the lit that had once been there (I no longer have access to much of the literature), back when I was having these sorts of discussions w/ my JW mother, I can remember bringing up things that I had been taught for years and years and having her respond, "Oh no, they never said that, honey." Then I would start to feel all twilight zone-ish.

    It wasn't until coming here and visiting Quotes's site that my memories were confirmed (thank goodness!).


  • cyborgVision



    Plenty of other sites stating that snakes possibly at one stage did have legs for quite some time after exiting primordial waters

  • tijkmo

    found it

    Re: Re: 1975 Believers 101

    Post 248 of 432
    since 17-Mar-05

    44 y 4 m 15 d

    well this is interesting...i had come across a comment when looking for something else earlier this week and your question about 30 years jogged my memory...so i looked up adam in the wt cd and there is a section about naming the animals and all the references take you to articles that emphasize that it would have taken some time...but i knew that i had read a comment saying that it would only have taken days or weeks....so i had to troll through search until i found it in wt 1st may 1968....so index will only direct to thinking that supports present belief and not to everywhere subject is discussed implying that is what was always believed
    Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do. Further, it appears from the New World Bible Translation that, even while Adam was naming the animals, other family kinds of living creatures were being created for Adam to designate by name.

    The brevity of the Genesis account surely does not require our thinking that God simply gathered all the animals and birds into a big group and then had them file past Adam while he quickly called off names for them, one by one. True, he may have had to deal only with basic family kinds rather than all the varieties of creatures that have developed out of those family kinds. But even so, we cannot rule out the possibility that God?s "bringing" these creatures to Adam may have involved their moving in sufficiently close to allow Adam to study them for a time, observing their distinctive habits and makeup, and then select a name that would be especially fitting for each. This could mean the passing of a considerable amount of time. And we may note that, when Adam did finally see his newly created wife, his first words were: "This is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." (Gen. 2:23) This too could indicate that he had waited for some time to receive his delightful human counterpart.


    What, then, does this mean? Simply this: That these factors, and the possibilities for which they allow, prevent us from saying with any positiveness how much time elapsed between Adam?s creation and that of the first woman. We do not know whether it was a brief time such as a month or a few months, a year or even more
    According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation. Then God brought the animals to man to name. Yet, of Adam, Genesis states these words of Jehovah: "It is not good for the man to continue by himself." (Gen. 2:18) Adam would realize this lonely condition very quickly, perhaps in just a few days or a few weeks. He would realize he needed another earthling with whom he could communicate, share his experiences, and his life. Nor would his naming the animals take an unduly long time. The basic animal kinds could have been relatively quickly named, for when such basic kinds were taken into the ark in Noah?s day, it did not involve millions of beasts, but perhaps only a few hundred basic kinds. Thus, Adam?s naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation.
  • MerryMagdalene

    I love that no matter how contrary the position they now hold is from that which they once held, their wording is always so vaguely definite (or is it definitely vague?) -- "must have" "surely" "could have" "would have" etc. etc.


  • tijkmo

    merry why is your avatar different on my comp to the one on my sisters

  • AlanF

    cyborgVision said:

    : I was trying to be as polite with you as I possibly could but your comments are really insulting Alan.

    You can take them as insulting or as instructive. I would hope you'd do the latter.

    : First, I did make mistake with above photo, it was emailed to me a while ago. Now looking at the original address it seems so. In a moment I did think it was a mutant. A living specimen like in the case of Coelacanth.

    That's about what I thought. And that's why I turned your own words back on you about checking your facts.

    : It was an honest mistake, which I regret.

    An honest mistake that took two posts from me to get you to investigate the link I gave you in the first one.

    : Still that doesn?t discount other accumulated archeological evidence which points toward snakes with limbs.

    True, but once again, irrelevant. Irrelevant because not a single poster has disputed the fact that snakes once had legs. The only comments that directly said anything about this were, in fact, supportive of the idea that snakes once had legs, which is in line with modern evolutionary thought. Note these:

    AlanF: It's a pretty stupid concept, snakes having legs very recently.

    BrendaCloutier: That snakes had legs is not totally outta line with evolution.

    AlanF: This URL even makes clear that the discovery of a fossil snake with legs supports evolution, not creation.

    jeanniebeanz: I don't have a problem with snakes having legs if you are going to use evolution as an argument as to why it may have been possible in the distant past . . . However, for snakes to have had legs as recently as 6,000 years ago is pretty stupid

    AlanF: The original poster's point was not about whether snakes ever had legs. The point was about whether "the curse" of God removed snakes' legs.

    So, just which poster/s do you still think dispute the fact that snakes once had legs?

    : Instead of trying to attack my sanity why not have a constructive discussion for a change?

    That's what I've been trying to do. Unfortunately, you seem unable to carefully read what people say and comprehend it. It's extremely difficult to have a constructive discussion with someone who ignores what you say, and can't seem to understand the written word.

    For example, after both I and BrendaCloutier made remarks that show we agree that snakes once had legs (but obviously, not a mere 6000 years ago), and no one had disputed this, you said about the links you had posted:

    cyborgVision: Did any of you actually read this

    cyborgVision: Your eagerness to discount anything and everything you've read from the bible might prevent you to examine clear scientific evidence.

    But no one had discounted what those links said! How did you manage to come to such a wrong conclusion?

    And it's pretty obvious from this last remark that you're stating outright that a number of posters are so prejudiced against the Bible that they're willing to discount clear scientific evidence.

    And again, after you posted those links, the only comments made were supportive of the fact that, according to modern evolutionary thought, snakes once had legs:

    AlanF: This URL even makes clear that the discovery of a fossil snake with legs supports evolution, not creation.

    jeanniebeanz: I don't have a problem with snakes having legs if you are going to use evolution as an argument as to why it may have been possible in the distant past . . . However, for snakes to have had legs as recently as 6,000 years ago is pretty stupid

    AlanF: The original poster's point was not about whether snakes ever had legs. The point was about whether "the curse" of God removed snakes' legs.

    And even after all this, in your post after this one here, to which I'm replying, you posted two more links and said:

    : Plenty of other sites stating that snakes possibly at one stage did have legs for quite some time after exiting primordial waters

    Which proves that, even after this stuff has been explained to you at least twice, you still don't get it.

    So how do you expect to hold an intelligent written discussion when you demonstrably don't comprehend what you read?

    : After all many of my professional colleagues have even more outlandish theories than snake with limbs and no one compares their work with flat-earthism.

    See what I mean? You just don't get it. I didn't compare a theory about snakes once having limbs to flat-earthism; I compared the theory that God's curse removed snakes' limbs 6000 years ago with flat-earthism.

    : Referring back to my original argument, I'm not trying to prove or disprove Eden legend. What I am saying is that many of old legends have their roots in reality whether you like it or not. And bible is not unique in that regard, similar legends can be found all over the world.

    I'm glad that you finally made a clear statement about what your point was.

    : So why is it so difficult to accept by most people that such creatures might have existed?

    It isn't. Which poster/s do you think have difficulty accepting that?

    : JW of course interpret that part of Hebrew theology (Eden event) literally just as the bible says, but they are not the only religion to do so as you well know. (Not sure how it is viewed in Judaism where everything originated.)

    And? Did I not already state that "the point is about what Fundamentalists like the Jehovah's Witnesses believe to be literal -- that real, live snakes had literal legs until God literally removed them"?

    : BUT I didn't even try to go into discussion of any kind of divine curse as you can well discern in my other posting.

    No, but because of your above statement that obviously castigates doubters of Genesis, and because your postings of links to sites showing that snakes once had legs when no one had disputed that would be pointless, and I assumed that your posts were not pointless, the only conclusion left was that you were obliquely trying to give evidence that supports a Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis.

    So really, after your denial here, I can only conclude that your posts are almost completely pointless, because you're preaching to the choir. But not just gently reminding the choir of certain facts, but demanding that the choir change its mind.

    : Simply refered to and I say it again that it all might have had some basis in reality, thats all

    The notion that snakes once had legs has some basis in reality, that's true.

    : Still, and i maintain, there is quite a mountain of evidence that suggest that many of old legends did have their roots in reality. (In this case being that there were creatures with characteristics unlike anything we can see today) And that is my whole argument. Can you accept it as such please?

    Well why didn't you say so in the first place? Why the posting of links to websites that supported what various posters had said, as if they had said the opposite?

    Nevertheless, your argument, while I'm sure that it's sometimes valid, still doesn't apply to the Genesis/snakes thing. Evolutionary history proves that snakes once had a full complement of legs, but probably no later than perhaps 100-150 million years ago. The notion that snakes had legs a mere 6000 years ago isn't even in the ballpark.

    What's your point again?

    : I do not attack your personality

    Nor did I attack yours. I did draw attention to your difficulty with reading comprehension, just as I've done in this post. This difficulty is a demonstrable fact, not an ad hominem.

    : so I do not expect you would do that to me either, lets treat each other as professionals.

    Like I said, it's difficult to hold a professional conversation with someone who fails to comprehend 3/4 of what is said, or who fails to comprehend even after having it explained several times.


  • AlanF

    tijkmo, that's a good point about the Society's deleting references in the Indexes to certain material. They've done this for years.

    It might be argued that the reason they do this is that the Indexes are supposed to be pointers to the latest teachings. But that's a lousy argument, because a publications index, by definition, ought to be to everything in a set of publications, not just to the most recent comments on some topic. The latest teachings can be found in summaries like the Reasoning book.

    That's why I keep on hand a full set of printed Indexes, since the later, combined ones (such as the 1930-1985 Index) often have references to outdated material deleted. But even that's not consistent, since they often contain references to somewhat embarrassing old material. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that some very selective deleting is going on.


  • NeonMadman
    Is that Quotes' CD you have?

    Yes, I believe it's the one Quotes produced (memory is fuzzy as usual...).

    The files on the CD are in Acrobat format, and the first time I cut and pasted the pic into Paint, then saved it as a jpg file. That came out kind of muddy, as you saw, and I didn't have the capacity to enhance it as I did with the actual scan. Fortunately, my ex-wife didn't get all my JW books (just most of them).

  • ShadowX

    I don't give a shite about this topic but .. I know who cv is..
    Alen you've been real arse and you know that. You don't even know who this man is, woudn't be suprised a bit if you see him on telly in one of favorite shity scientific shows that you watch. Man offers ya a hand and you bite it, you didn't move much further in your personal evolution I'd imagine....
    used to love your posts man ...

Share this