Is a newspaper 100% true? Even if every event and word recorded accurately reflected what happened, it can't be said to be true, because some of the people quoted might have lied.

Look at Genesis, the Serpent lied to Eve. While it's true that the Serpent said those things, what the Serpent actually said wasn't true.

Some very sloppy thinking going on here. You have to clear your heads of emotion and stop being so reflexive. Non-Christians have been trying to disprove Christianity for 2000 years, I can promise you it's not going to happen in these forums.

Let's talk about this serpent.

According to the Bible, he was said to have later been made to crawl on his belly, so at the time, this serpent seduced Eve, he was walking around. He was also talking, so he was obviously a serpent humanoid with the ability of speech.

This sound a lot like a reptilian creature to me.

Did he look anything like this?

You talk about sloppy thinking.

Actually the bible has already been disproved several times over by scientific knowledge.

We now know that disease, death, thorns on plants, and a dog-eat-dog world is, and was natural long before humans ever appeared in this planet. So these myths have already been every bit as disproved as Greek Mythology.

The very claim that mankind's fall from grace is responsible for anything is a falsehood in itself. And that very notion is the foundational principle of these ungodly fables.

So the Biblical fables have already been proven to be false.

Beside, the very notion that a supposedly all-wise all-benevolent God would get his rocks off by physically punishing people who disobey him was a psychologically sick notion to begin with and could have never been true in principle anyway.

Also comparing the Bible to newspapers is silly. Newspapers are written by humans who often have biased agendas. Do you believe everything you read in the National Inquirer?

Or even more "reputable" newspapers?

There is no claim that what is in newspapers is the "Gospel Truth".

Moreover, newspapers aren't claiming to be the "Word of God" and a detailed description of his behavior, actions, and character.

You're as bad as Cowboy. Always comparing God and the Bible with normal everyday human frailties and ignorance.

The Bible has already been disproved on many counts.

Mankind's fall from grace cannot possibly be blamed for the nature of nature. The universe we live in is naturally dog-eat-dog and always has been this way long before humans ever evolved.

No world-wide flood could have possibly taken place during the span of human recorded history.

The Human Genome projects proves beyond any reasonable doubt that no such catastrophic event could have possibly occurred as far back into time the age when Neanderthals were living, or even close to that time.

Yet, if we are to believe in the biblical stories this worldwide flood would have had to have taken place much later than even that, because it speaks of cities and social structures that simply did not exist back in the days of the Neanderthal, or prior to that.

Thus we can know with absolute certainty that the story of Noah and the flood is indeed a false fable.

So these stories have indeed been disproved already by scientists who weren't even trying to disprove them. They were just seeking the truth of reality and accidentally discovered evidence the proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the biblical fables are false.

And if those outrageous fables are false then there is really no reason to believe the rest of it.

A demigod born of a virgin? Claimed to be the "Son" of a "God" from fables that had already been proven to be false?

The "sacrificial lamb of God" sent to pay for our "sins". A concept that had already been shown to be false? There was never any 'fall from grace' in the first place. There was never any God who requires blood sacrifices to pay for disobedience in the first place?

Yes, you're right about one thing Spider. These fables won't be disproved on these forums because that's already been done by scientific observations and common sense.

There's no need to disprove them. All that's left to do is convince the masses of what science has already inadvertently shown us to be true.

These ancient fables have been nothing more than fables all along.

Oh for crying out loud.

The whole tale of a serpent being made to "crawl on it's belly" for having lied to Eve is about as absurd as things can get.

And besides clearly this is referring to snakes that crawl on their bellies.

Evidently these started out as stories that parents made up to tell their children just like we have nursery rhymes today. As they told these stories to their children they started to realize that other adults in the group were falling for these tales too.

So it became RELIGION.

A serpent was made to "craw on it's belly" for having lied to Eve and that's how snakes came to be?

I think people need to start taking courses on evolution. Seriously!


Gen.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:


Did God really do that to the serpent mommy?

Yes child, and if you lie to people he'll do it to you too! So you better always tell the truth.

Oh yes mommy, I will always tell the truth, I don't want to be made to crawl on my belly for the all the days of my life.



And people take this stuff seriously?

Come on. Give me a break.

It's obviously just silly fables not all that much different from the fables of Greek Mythology.

The "Serpent" was a metaphor for Satan. He wasn't a serpent.

So you are saying that Satan is a reptoid or some kind of reptilian?

I think you could be right.

If the Biblical stories are supposed to be true, there is NO REASON for "metaphors."

If the Bible is full of metaphors, there is NO REASON to take any of it as true.

If the story of Adam and Eve was talking about "Satan" or "Lucifer" it would have said so. But it did not say that. Someone just assumed that meant "Satan." I don't think it did.

If it called the it a walking talking "serpent" and I am to take it as true, then I say the creature represents the reptilian humanoids that inhabited the earth.

They probably looked like this:

No, clearly I wasn't.



The term "Serpent" was a metaphor.

What would be the point of using "serpent" as a metaphor?

A metaphor can't walk and talk and tempt Adam and eve. The Bible does not say the serpent was Satan. It was a walking talking reptilian humanoid.

If that did not happen, then the Bible is just a bunch of pointless made up stories. Either the story is true or it is false. There is no reason to use metaphors in writing a true account of something that happened in the Garden of Eden.

Its either true or its fiction. Decide.

Well, it's truly a losing argument when supporters of these myths need to claim that parts they don't like are mere "metaphors", but when it comes to parts they want to support they demand that it's "literal".

Was the serpent really a serpent?

No that's a metaphor.

Was Jesus really born of a virgin?

Yes, that's literal.

Yeah right.

Salad Bar religion. Just take what you like and leave the rest for the Metaphor Monster.

Also, then, what else is a "metaphor?"

Is the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" a metaphor for sex?

Or is it a metaphor for education?

Or is it just a tree that if you eat of it, you will know good from evil?

To convey more information than would otherwise be passed along. Serpents in mythology represent deviousness and vindictiveness.



Believe what you will.



People today still use metaphors frequently. A man who sleeps around is called a "dog". A person who tells authority figures about illegal or unethical activities of others is called a "rat" That doesn't make those statements untrue.



It's true, you are just obsessed with lizards, so you can't get over the hump of realizing it's a metaphor.

People today use metaphors. Back then, they were not that creative.
I do not believe that they used metaphors. They were not that intelligent or conscious to even write creatively. The people reading the scriptures were expected to believe the story literally as it was written. Humans were not all that intelligent.

They reported events and repeated fables and myths. They did not write creatively or use metaphors.

If the story of the Garden of Eden is true, then there was a reptilian humanoid involved. If it is not true, then it is fiction. Period.

I don't accept the idea that the term "serpent" came to represent deviousness and vindictiveness for no reason.

Perhaps it is because the race of humanoid reptilians made a bad name for themselves because they were devious and vindictive or evil.

Seriously, have you ever been deceived by a real snake? Its just a dumb animal.

A real snake (a dumb animal) could not have built a reputation of being devious or vindictive. Therefore the meaning of the "metaphor" of a snake being devious and vindictive would have never evolved.

You are allowed your own opinion, but not your own facts. It doesn't matter what you "believe" that matters.



You must never have encountered a snake in the wild. They look like their environment (deviousness) and they bite you if you touch them (vindictive).

Did you know that "Jesus" is a metaphor for "god made flesh" which represents all humankind?

Did you know that "Christ" is a metaphor for a state of consciousness?

Can you get past that metaphor?

Projecting human attributes on to a dumb animal does not make that dumb animal "vindictive." Coloring does not make them "devious."

If that were the case, leopards and jaguars would be a metaphor for "devious" and "vindictive."

It (your reasoning) does not make logical sense.

You contradict yourself more than anyone else I've ever met. In one post, the Israelites aren't smart enough to use metaphors and in the next their own religion is a metaphor.

What you don't get is that I am trying to get you to THINK.

I am not contradicting myself. I am giving you something to THINK ABOUT.

If I accept your premise that the Bible is full of metaphors, then anything is game for being a metaphor.

Which truth do you want? You can't have them both Spider!!

Make up your mind.

Is the Bible full of metaphors or not? I can go either way on this.
You just have to make up your mind.

Okay, I've been thinking. You insist that the Bible is literal and that it was a "lizard man" who visited Eve in the garden. So why does the Bible say "Serpent"? Shouldn't it say "Lizard man"? Serpent would mean that it was a reptile without limbs, right? The Bible is literal (according to you), so was it a paraplegic Lizard man?

An adult with an average intelligence should be able to read a passage to determine if it's a simile, metaphor, hyperbole or literal. Metaphors are used in day to day life, in our newspapers and magazines and in our literature. It's not something new that you haven't encountered. You are being willfully ignorant on this and I think you know that.