For The First Time Ever A Snake With Legs Has Been Discovered, Proving The Bible To Be True That The Serpent Originally Had Legs

By Walid Shoebat

s3 copy

When Eve screwed up and spoke to the snake in the Garden of Eden, it had legs. This is what the Bible tells us. Now scientists have described what they say is the first known fossil of a four-legged snake (which was hidden for decades) that stunned scientists (of course)—and is definitely igniting controversy.  The world’s first 4 legged known snake discovered in Brazil, proves that snakes walked on foot, instead of crawling on their bellies. This is exactly what the Bible declared in Genesis 3:14, that snakes had legs. Here is the photo of the fossil showing obvious legs:

s2

This is a close up of Tetrapodophis amplectus (four legged snake)

“Looks like a snake to me,” says Jacques Gauthier of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University. “The long body and reduced limbs, along with the bony supports in the pelvis for lymph hearts to pump blood back to the heart, are consistent with being a snake,” he says.

The fossil had resided in a private collection for several decades before it gained the attention of team member David Martill of the University of Portsmouth. He stumbled across the specimen during a field trip with students to Museum Solnhofen in Germany. No notes about when or where it was collected are available, the researchers say. But certain characteristics of the limestone that entombed the fossil, as well as the distinct orange-brown color of the bones themselves, strongly suggest it came from a particular area of northeastern Brazil, Longrich says.

While the evolutionists claim that snakes came from marine lizards, the new discovery buries and debunks the old theory, and now they say that this suborder may have ‘evolved’ from burrowing, rather than marine, ancestors. In other words, the snake has always been a land creature that seem to have devolved to loosing its legs (while on land) and is in fact as scientists now conclude “an ancestor of modern-day ” which:

maintains many classic snake features, such as a short snout, long braincase, elongated body, scales, fanged teeth and a flexible jaw to swallow large prey. It also maintains the typical vertebrae structure seen in modern-day snakes that allows for the extreme flexibility required to constrict prey. The main, glaring difference is Tetrapodophis‘s four limbs

So the only difference between this ancient snake and the modern one is the legs.

While the scientific establishments are evolutionists they cannot deny that snakes ‘evolved’ from a four legged creature:

The snake (Tetrapodophis amplectus), described in the latest issue of the journal Science, is also the first known snake to have four limbs. This strongly suggests that snakes evolved from terrestrial lizards, and not from water-dwelling species, as had been thought before.

Wow, now evolutionists have to change their minds on this one, quickly.

With such discovery, now both evolutionists as well as the Bible believers agree that serpents originally had limbs. Pythons and boa constrictors have vestigial hind limbs so it is reasonable to conclude that they descended from a creature with some sort of hind limbs.  According to the Bible, God commanded that the serpent would have to crawl on its belly (Genesis 3:14) for having deceived mankind:

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: (Genesis 3:14)

For decades skeptics questioned the biblical account. But when it comes to the snake, the only evolution is the evolving view of the evolutionists. Now no one can deny the biblical account: snakes had legs.

So what will they do now? According to them, the legs ‘disappeared’ as a result of ‘natural selection’ while the Bible says these legs disappeared because God cursed this creature for being possessed by satan when  he deceived Eve.

s1

Eupodophis descouensi

In the past, the fossil evidence was vague and was met with much skepticism. One fossil, found in Lebanon, is from an era when snakes had not yet completely lost the hind limbs left by (as they believe) their lizard ancestors. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, but now with the new discovery of Tetrapodophis amplectus, there is no question that snakes had legs.

To say that snakes had legs is like saying that cows had wings. Had the Bible said that cows had wings, skeptics would have been laughing at believers for millenniums until of course, we find a fossilized cow with wings. The chances of this happening is nil. The question that begs an answer is how did Moses and Joshua (who are believed to have written Genesis) knew that snakes had legs? Remember, the ‘scientists’ tell us that the fossil is millions of years old.

There are only few answers: Moses was a fossil scientist or a perfect guesser or he had great connections  with the Almighty. Everyone must choose wisely. I choose C.

print
  • Curious to see how the scientific establishment reacts to this.

    • Trevor

      They are going to yell that it is climate change’s fault.

      • Jeff Benton

        And that we should all have our legs amputated since it is no doubt evident that the global climate change that killed off the Dinosaurs was brought about by the extra emissions created by the mass of snake feet…
        Hence why their legs “evolved” away 😛

        We should probably be taxed by the amount of mass in our legs till we can have em all removed though… right???

      • Give it a moment, as I’m sure they’ve started to!

  • Catbr

    I wonder if it’s a hoax.

      • Catbr

        Walid, I didn’t mean that you were putting out a story that was BS or for you to take it that way. I just sometimes question the things scientists think especially when it’s something that’s millions of years old. Sorry about that.

        • Willing to die for Jesus

          You have a healthy skepticism, which I share even if it “proves” the Bible or is against evolution.There is a lot of forgery and agenda-pushing in the “scientific” area. Scientists have a lot of “faith” in their “beliefs”… I don’t trust any of them. As good as this “finding” is.. if the atheists see it as in any way “confirming” or “proving” Biblical Truth, there will be a “rational crusade” by many of them to debunk it to “disprove” the Christianity they hate so much.. and the circular proving and disproving is boring and tiring.
          It certainly takes a lot of faith obviously to be an atheist, definitely more faith than it does to be a Christian since we “live by faith and not by sight”… or fossils, many of which have been proven forgeries and pushed by the atheists to prove their godless, anti-Christian agenda.

          • Catbr

            You make some sound points. I have always been skeptical of some scientific discoveries but can’t discredit all of them because I’m not a scientist. On the other hand I don’t have to believe everything they claim either. Like the theory of evolution, now they’re saying there is no proof to back it up. There is a lot of debate over the shroud of Turin as well. It is a nice piece of hopeful evidence but I don’t know.
            The attacks against the RC church are never ending. I don’t know if this will ever end. If people believe in Jesus, that should be enough for all to get along.

  • EBH54

    Proverbs 27:22 KJV
    22 Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.

    Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
    22 Though thou shouldst bray a fool in the mortar, as when a pestle striketh upon sodden barley, his folly would not be taken from him.

    For the evolutionists it is an issue of unbelief, not a lack of evidence.
    The book of Genesis is 100% true,including the literal 6 day creation.
    Molecules to man evolution has not been proven.

  • EBH54

    What is worse than being squeezed to death by a snake?
    being squeezed to death with his feet in your eyes.

    • ChiRho

      Being on Hillary Clinton’s Secret Service detail?

  • Sister E

    What an amazing discovery! The Bible is God’s word and forever true. Thanks Walid.

  • AnthonyM

    That’s amazing.

  • Trevor

    Clicked on an article provided and got curious and clicked on another article. Behold!

    The study, published in the journal BMC Evolutionary Biology, also
    concludes that the first snakes likely emerged 128 million years ago in a
    warm and forested part of the then supercontinent Laurasia. (Laurasia
    included what are now North America, Europe and Asia.)

    Don’t know if anyone paid attention in Sunday School (that’s Protestants, y’all) growing up, but there’s an obscure passage in Genesis 10:25, “Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.” What’s interesting is the word, Peleg, means division. Some have theorized it means the division of people into languages after the Tower of Babel cessation (Thank you, Lord), and others have suggested it means actual division of the landmass.

    I think it could be both. But to see that quote called Laurasia is very interesting. For me, it would explain how the Mayan’s temple, the Aztec’s temple, and heck, even the Tower of Babel were all constructed so similar. People took their knowledge and skills and split up, so I think both theories relating to the division makes a lot of sense.

    This article also should put to bed those who cling to evolution in the sense that all life emerged from a pool of goo. No, there is a Creator, and His name is I AM THAT I AM, and the Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      But we did come from the earth as I read – God picked up a handful of clay/dirt and breathed into it.

      • Willing to die for Jesus

        It does make me wonder why the RCC is always being targeted by the godless and Protestants as “persecuting” scientists.. raising Galileo, etc.. since Darwin was a Protestant (later an apostate atheist), and the Evolution movement started within Protestantism (unless I’m mistaken). I think one can reject evolution (like I do) purely on humanitarian principles, debasing us to the level of animals.. and it’s hard to argue that it ultimately leads to the extermination of the least among us, as Darwin’s own cousin Galton invented that sickening phrase “survival of the fittest” (which has been implemented as part of the Protestant work ethic, and the corporatist dog-eat-dog world). Hitler himself drew upon Darwin, and it is a very anti-human ideology. Personally, I haven’t drawn upon faith but mere humanitarian logic to reject evolution. I think Em P Benedict XVI hinted at accepting Intelligent Design, but this doesn’t really bother me either way.. as these aren’t issues relating to salvation (unless I’m mistaken).

        • Julie LaBrecque

          I always ask evolutionists – which I define as those who believe that humans evolved from animals or lower life forms – how do they account for why some evolved as male and some as female. Outside of them stating ‘out of necessity’, they can’t answer.

      • Trevor

        Yup. Amazing that folks get upset that we were created instead of being made by random accident.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          It is truly amazing – it seems they prefer to have come from lower life forms. As far as creation being an accident, the Law of Entropy, if true, proves the opposite.

          • Ignacio

            The law of entropy alone disproves evolution.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Yes it does.

          • Trevor

            I dare say it is because the idea of accepting there is a Creator means they are now accountable for their actions and it has serious weight to eternity.

            So they restore to denial and delusion.

          • ChiRho

            An inconvenient truth, as they say. If X equals Y, then Y equals . . . uh oh.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Very true, this stance makes them accountable to nothing.

    • ChiRho

      Not tryn to be a smarta**, but the Aztecs aren’t really from that long ago, and the Mayans a bit older but not super ancient. I would probably argue the pyramid is just a shape that works well structurally when trying to build high without materials like steel reinforced concrete. I think ancient peoples just had more intellectual capacity than many people today (not directing towards you) give them credit for. The smart societies found ways to make things happen. There are some really interesting things pulled off by old civilizations that aren’t commonly known (then again, what’s commonly known today is mostly useless idiocy like what a famous person said to another person last week, blah blah blah). If anything, people today are a lot less intelligent than they think. There was also a lot more travel and communication in ancient times than people today realize also.
      That all being said, you’re hypothesis is not negated by my input, I just thought I’d throw that out there.

      • Trevor

        People talk about how there is a startling consistency in shape and magnificent in the construction of ancient temples.

        The Aztec had temple that looked similar to the Mayans, and the Mayans had temple looking similar to maybe the Tower of Babel. I am not convinced that it was a cylindrical tower but a ziggurat.

        • ChiRho

          I don’t know what the Tower of Babel looked like so I can’t really say. The Mayans and Aztecs were close in region, and the Aztecs came after the Mayans, supposedly from the North I think, but too similar to the other groups of MezoAmerica before them. There were other groups less famous in the same area around the same time with similar cultures also. The Olmecs are one possibility for the cultural beginnings for these MezoAmerican groups. The Nubians had smaller, steeper pyramids.

  • Behnam

    I always thought that maybe dinosaurs were what snakes used to be but who knows.

    • LJW

      Read Genesis 1, everything was made after its own kind. Nothing evolved out of anything else.

      • Behnam

        But it also says that the life comes out of the waters.

        • LJW

          Are you speaking to Gen 1:20 -23? These are fish and creatures after their kind bringing forth more fish and creatures that live and reproduce in the waters.

      • Hound

        Your right. Nothing evolves, but everything adapts, or dies.

        • LJW

          Yes, I believe this also.

  • LJW

    Gen 1:24 Then
    God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind:
    cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”;
    and it was so. 25 God
    made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after
    their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and
    God saw that it was good. 26 Then
    God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and
    let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky
    and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping
    thing that creeps on the earth.”…
    Nothing evolved….GOD made everything after their kind…….even 4 legged snakes.

  • LJW

    The earth is only 6 thousand years old, hence a young earth. We are about to begin the 7 millennium and the reign of Yeshua with a rod of iron. Satan was the first angel to fall and possessed the serpent. Satan was possibly back and forth from Heaven to the Garden of Eden on a regular basis. How else would Eve think it perfectly normal to be talking to a serpent? She never questioned the serpent as to how he could speak to her or who she was speaking with. So either animals could talk or Satan was playing hide and seek with Eve and she knew it. Just speculation. And she believed the first lie ever utter…..by Satan. “Surely you will not die.”

    • Indian Christian Crusader

      yes, i think of it too

      • LJW

        They are finding more and more evidence to support a young earth/creation. In these lasts days the truth it seems is being discovered all over the world in record timing. Like Sheobat’s article about the scroll, many discoveries have even been sitting on shelves just waiting for technology/knowledge to increase. In the end the LORD will leave no stone unturned for mankind to find him. There is a huge, “see I told you so and you have no excuse,” moment coming!

    • Trevor

      The best deception by satan was “You will be like God.” Why else are there certain religions that teach man can become God through enlightment?

  • Andy Holland

    Von Neumann was the most logical man and brilliant mathematician lived. He pioneered computer science and first suggest a logical structure for genetic information that led to the discovery of the structure of DNA. Hans Bethe said the man could have been considered a higher species – his intelligence was incredible.

    He was born and raised a secular Jew but scoffed and laughed at Evolution realizing that nothing can come from randomness or seeming randomness without pre-existing Word (Logos). Eventually he realized Pascal’s wager was correct, and converted to Catholicism on his death bed, receiving the sacraments.

    “In the Beginning was the Word” surpasses all the philosophers and scientists. It is the small things, despised things that confound the wise and learned. As I grow older my skepticism of modern scientific views and sophists grows exponentially – to miss these basics indicates to me at least that Hawking, Einstein, all these hoighty toighty atheists were at their root dishonest or dumber than a 5th grader or some combination.

  • Indian Christian Crusader

    Just curious, I still wonder why God had to curse the snake, when the snake was not an intelligent creature and could not speak, and the devil had to possess it for no fault of its own. Secondly didn’t Eve suspect something wrong when she saw the snake talk ? Any inputs ? Am interested in knowing your thoughts. Also why did Jesus curse the fig tree when the fig tree by itself had no fault of its own ? I get asked this sometimes by non-Christians.

    • ChiRho

      As far as the fig tree, if I remember correctly, it was not producing fruit. There’s a metaphor there for all of us.
      Two of the four rivers decribing the location of the Garden exist in the same name today, so we have at least a general region. The question is where are/were the other two. I’ve seen intelligent speculation of two possibilities. One is that the other two are dry today and where they all met is currently under the Persian Gulf, so the suggestion is at the time of Genesis the seas were lower, which we know is true, but to the exact depth I’m not sure and whether that’s the spot I’m not sure. The other suggestion was similar, just farther north, Iran/ Iraq area.

  • ChiRho

    Idk anything about the author you mentioned, but I have seen some examples of what you speak.

  • Catbr

    Go on tell us how.

    • Hound

      It’s simple really. Everything we need to crush the idea of evolution has always been right there in Gen 1:11— 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.”

      Now, he didn’t plant seeds and wait for everything to mature to be able to bear fruit. The point is that, it takes a mature tree to bear fruit. He created a tree that was, in reality, only a day old and it bore fruit.

      It appeared older than it actually was. The same goes for the creation of man later in the week. The same goes for the earth earlier in the week.

      This was done by God himself for His creation to carry out the purpose He designed it to do.

      Pretty simple really.

      • Catbr

        Yes this is a good biblical reference to disprove the theory of evolution. Many people however do not believe in the bible so they would not believe in genesis. Maybe half or more of the world falls into this category of not believing in the bible so they are prey to just about anything scientists tell them.

      • DeusLoVult

        Also, the speed of light is slowing down, which causes things to appear much older than they actually are.

        • Grandmere

          Entropy. Good one D.

  • OrthodoxKGC2015

    Believing in the propaganda pushed on them by the lie of Evolution, that they are nothing more than evolved Beasts, it is no surprise that people have become Beasts in reality.

  • Julie

    I can see that…but cannot agree with the bible that the serpent was most beautiful…still personally ugly to me.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    So Adam had intercourse with Satan? Don’t be ridiculous.

    • Trevor

      Incredible. People read the Book of Enoch or that vomit of a website I emailed you about and believe it.

      If only they would look at the footnote and see the word Pseugraphic.

  • Catbr

    You are proving Willing’s point about protestant’s anti Catholicism.

  • Willing to die for Jesus

    Do you know what my avatar represents?

    It’s called “Jesus Christ as King” and that says it all. Our Crucified and Risen Savior, born of the Virgin Mary. We recite the Nicene creed and believe in the Trinity. I don’t know what type of Christian you are, but I cannot understand why you would claim that my Jesus Christ as King avatar is “a false image of Christ”. Would you care to elaborate?

    I was discussion this avatar with a Catholic friend of mine the other day, and about how some of the Protestant sects would be alarmed by it or, as you claim, to be “a false image of Christ”. I’ll paste his remarks here since they are on point and hopefully help to dispel your claim that my avatar is a “false image of Christ”. I would also be interested in your response.

    “I think the image of Christ as King may disturb some Protestants psychologically because it is an image of His Divine Authority. The sola scriptura crowd see Scripture as their only authority, but more so their personal interpretation of Scripture makes them the final authority. It is an image of Christ that conflicts with the image they have made of Him in their own minds. They always refer to their personal relationship, but Christ is a human person. He is body and soul. We cannot have the soul without the body. That is why being Catholic is so incredible. The Church gives us the true image of Christ through the external signs of visible communion with His Bride, His Body─the Church herself. And she gives us His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity every day in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We do not reveal Christ or any person to ourselves. Persons must reveal who they are to others. Only Christ can therefore reveal Himself to us.”

    Personally, I see those who deny the Trinity and claim to be Christians as pseudo-Christian, like the Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, etc… but I don’t like to judge but it has to be said. There needs to be a Church structure to pass on the true faith, and for wrong teachings (heresies and blasphemies) not to be perpetuated. This is the problem of the Bible-only crowd, all interpreting the Bible themselves invoking the “Holy Spirit” as their lead. The lead should be the leaders, the ministers of the Church Christ left behind, the Apostolic Churches of the Catholic and Orthodox who have an unbroken lineage of apostolic succession from St Peter onwards.

    I also want to make some points about the Sacred Heart of Jesus that is also shown on the Jesus Christ as King avatar since this is also related to the Sacred Heart of His Mother, the Virgin Mary. The Virgin’s Immaculate Heart is likewise tied up to Christ’s Sacred Heart, they are one and the same. Without the Virgin saying Yes to Archangel Gabriel during the Annunciation – there would have been no Jesus Christ in the Flesh, the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity. it does make me ponder how Trinitarian Protestants can hold that the Son was birthed by a Sinner, and yet maintain that the birth of Jesus heralded a sinless Son of God (the second Person of the Trinity, co-eternal with the Father). That’s why with the Catholics and especially the Orthodox we have the 7 sacraments which I won’t go into, but they are also sacred mysteries, the Trinity itself is a mystery and so is the Virgin Birth of Christ.

    Would you care to elaborate on your accusation; are you seem to be making me out to be a non-Christian, if I’m not mistaken. I would never do this with out separated Protestant brethren whom we pray for at Mass. Your thinking seems to stem from indoctrination by many of the leaders of the Protestant sects out there who are making their own interpretation of the Bible. Jesus didn’t leave us the Bible, but His Church. We read the Bible, but also along with the Traditions of the Church Fathers, since the wholeness of Christian truth is not just found in the Bible, it’s much richer than just a Biblical approach.

    Get yourself a Catechism and read through it to see how Catholics are Christians, and in fact the earliest along with our Orthodox Christian brethren. Look at where Christianity started in the Middle East, Protestants are nowhere to be found among the Middle Eastern Christians they are all Orthodox or Catholic Christians.

    God bless you in Christ our Savior and Redeemer.

    • Catbr

      Now you’ve done it. This should invoke the wrath of all the anti-catholics. lol. I don’t think they will understand most of what you have written.

    • Marcos Filipe Guerra

      Don’t worry Tony. Someone will always come and throw a smoke bomb to put us off balance. Stay on the track and keep walking. By the way, you told me your name in one of your replies to me, just in case you have forgotten. Don’t be alarmed. God bless you, brother.

    • Sabii

      Shouldn’t you be worshiping the lamb?

  • Marcos Filipe Guerra

    LOL! This didn’t surprised me. This will be going on until Kingdom come. Evidence upon evidence that the Bible is true and still the fool will deny. This time my country scored greatly. (yay :D) However, that the snake with legs was found here is very disturbing to me. How did they came up to here from Eden? The flood, maybe? Curious indeed.

  • Trevor

    He is a Christian apologist after interviewing experts in fields of science and philosophy who were all Christians. He began as an atheist and ended up changing his belief. All because of the radical change in his wife.

    The Case for Christ is his first work.

  • Trevor

    One minor correction – the first Bible put together by the early church council actually had 81 books. It was the post-Protestant Reform that whittled the Bible down to 66.

  • Trevor

    Giants still exist today. The NBA for example have a player that stands at 7 feet six inches. There have been records of men being tall than usual. One in the book of World Records have one who lived to only 30 or something and died because his body couldn’t support his giantic stature.

    Medical science pinpoint that the most likely cause of gigantism is an unbalanced growth hormone.

    By the way, be careful of what you read. Many of the claims you listed are straight from gnostic sources.

    • Indian Christian Crusader

      I am not talking about “tall people”, I am talking about Giants (13 foot+) figures that existed in history and are mentioned in the bible even pre-flood and post-flood times. Both Jewish historians and theologians as well as many Christian historians and theologians believe in the fallen angels mating with women to produce these giants. I am not citing “Book of Enoch” or any other lost sources.

      • Trevor

        Again, that stuff is straight out of Gnosticism sources.

        • Indian Christian Crusader

          I will explain your points one by one from what I understand as a protestant:

          (a) “Sons of God” was also a phrase used to denote people with a special relationship with God or a position in heaven, unlike THE SON OF GOD (GOD THE SON). The angels were classified as “sons of God” until they rebelled and left. It is highly possible that this specific group of angels that came and mated with women, were not originally part of Satan’s first group of deceived angels. You need to understand the phrases “sons of God” and SON OF GOD means. Two different meanings. Adam was called the “son of God” , because Adam had no parents and His first creator was God both bodily and spiritually, and he was considered as a child/son relationship, as God considers all of us believers as His children. Jesus restored that relationship back. It is not to be confused by GOD THE SON or who Jesus Christ IS.

          (b) Book of revelations talk about how Satan deceived many angels.

          (c) Goliath may most likely have been an over-grown individual, but even then I find that hard to believe a 9 foot 9 inch normal human being, not even any form of gigantism Genetic disorder so far can create a 10 foot man. The “race of giants” being referred after the flood, is that some evil spirits may have continued to engage in these acts but in a more “restrained” manner by God unlike pre-flood times, don’t forget if angels can assume human bodies to come and meet Abraham, evil angels can do the same. But perhaps now their ability to do so have been locked off completely.

          (d) Once they committed their evil deeds, SOME OF THE ANGELS were caught and chained by God and others perhaps given some other form of punishments.

          This has nothing to do with alien abduction or any other gnostic thing. I respect you are an Orthodox, and I am not. I cannot accept Orthodox definition, I will go by how the Protestant churches view this event. Let us not make this into a long rambling Protestant vs Orthodox debate and drag unneeded discussions on aliens or whatever or put words in mouth. Thanks.

        • Indian Christian Crusader

          The explanation that the nephilim were the sons of Seth that
          sinned because they rebelliously mingled with the daughters of Cain cannot stand. According to this view, why was Noah not punished for marrying Naamah a descendent of Cain? God wiping out an entire planet with flood just because of two human bloodlines, to me sounds illogical, but wiping out a hybrid demonic population of mixed Angelic-Human sounds more logical and a reasonable excuse. What about the world’s wickedness now? Isn’t it bad. So there is no logic in wiping out only human beings with a flood, unless something deeper and serious took place. Even Enoch is mentioned and quoted by Peter and Paul.

          • Trevor

            This is so ridiculous on so many levels I have to begin somewhere.

            Now, in Genesis we read, “To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord,” Genesis 4:26.

            So, how is it that men called upon the name of the lord if they were intermingling with angels? That makes absolutely no sense. The problem is some people read the genesis account too linear when it sometime jumps back and forth before becoming linear, and that’s what is happening here. we read in genesis 5, “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.” Genesis 5:1-2 is a repeat of creating man and female in garden before the banishment. Seth was born after the murder of Abel, so how can Seth be wicked and Cain not? That makes absolutely no sense.

            The most likely explaination is that there was an intimate knowledge of God and His name, so as each generation was born, for Adam had other sons and daughters according to Genesis 5:4, mankind began to drift further and further away from God, getting bad to worse with each generation.

            And no wonder, for we read in Deuteronomy, “but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations” Numbers 14:18b.

            The sins of the father is being passed on to the sons, and in turn to the next, and to the next, so forth.

            We read that Enoch was seen as a righteous man and walked closely with God and became no more because God took him to heaven.

            You asked about Noah, and the answer is simple, his father spoke word of blessing on Noah. And the Scriptures said that Noah found favor in God’s sight (Gen. 6:8). In the next verse we read, ”
            Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.” Is it so difficult to understand? Hardly.

            The Scriptures, giving reason for why the Flood was coming, said, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them,” Genesis 6:5-7.

            This pretty much debunks the whole thing about angel-human intermingling on a sexual relations. Only God can create. He even created angels in the first place. In Ezekiel 28 when God gives a lamentation to the King of Tyre, He was also revealing the rebellious angelic being we call satan, and twice in the passage, God made it clear that satan was an created being (see Eze. 28:13, 15).

            In Psalms, we find that man was created a little lower than angels (Psalms 8:5).

            The whole idea that God needed an excuse to flush the world of mankind because of angel-human sexual intermingling is farfetched. The Bible made plain what was going on and it doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see that.

      • Trevor

        Think about this.

        If they cite the passage from Genesis that “sons of God took daughters” to mean angels mated with human females, how do you explain the passage from Luke where he traced Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam saying “the son of Adam, the son of God”?

        Do you mean to tell me that God mated with a female when there was no human female in existence?!

        Do you see the absurdity in this?

        Jude said that angels left their Adobe from above and have been reserved in eternal darkness and chains. Does this passage support Angels and humans mating? How about Revelation where the dragon’s tail took 1/3 of stars and fling them to the earth?

        It’s simple so staggeringly simple it just blows my mind people believe the Gnostics mythology of angels mating with human to create a hybrid race.

        If those stuff are true, and it brought forth the Flood, how in the world do you explain away Goliath who was nine feet nine inches tall? There’s a reason why the phrase “freak of nature” exist. Goliath existed long, long after the race of giants have been wiped out of the Flood, if Gnostics are to be believed.

        This kind of stuff is seen in the so-called alien abduction stories where people have reported of being sexually assaulted by aliens. I agree with the Greek Orthodox who says they have been deceived by demons masquerading as other world beings.

        Before there were gnostic Christians that the early church fought against and condemned, there were gnostic Jews and that’s where those ideas came from.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Further, do angels have reproductive organs and/or DNA? Nope.

          • Indian Christian Crusader

            Angels can assume human forms, it has happened during time of Abraham when 3 angels came to visit him. So yes, they can assume bodily form or possess a body if needed and corrupt it. Things happened those days, that no longer is permitted to take place thanks to God’s intervention. If the God can make a child’s body form out of a virgin woman (Mary), then so can Satan do his own counterfeit trick.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Those angels were representative figures of the Trinity -evil spirits can possess bodies and things.

  • Andy Holland

    Thank you for the correction, I didn’t know that.

  • LJW

    If you are an atheist/evolutionist there is nothing I am able to say that will change your mind. My only worldly words are, Good Luck!

  • OrthodoxKGC2015

    I find the figures interesting. Those countries most accepting of evolution are countries below replacement level demographics, and have the least desire to defend themselves physically against threats personal or collective. When I said ‘Beasts’, that doesn’t always mean just human ‘tigers’, ‘Lions’, ‘wolves’, or ‘hyenas’, but also ‘cattle’ and ‘sheep’….

  • I’m well aware of that, but thank you for adding this for the benefit of those who might not be.

  • Creationism is a uniquely American phenomenon.

    As for the worth of the Bible, it has outlasted everything else, and will outlast the piss poor New Atheist trash which is already seen as a passing fad in the halls of Philosophy for being nothing more than a pathetic temper tantrum by some brat who didn’t get his toy for Christmas, and then having the gall to blame God about it.

  • This is why it’s important to read it in Greek, as well as having the Church as a guide to what one is reading. When people read the Bible on their own, chaos ensues.

  • Marcos Filipe Guerra

    “It is evidence that snakes evolved from a creature with 4 legs” that’s a proofless argument. You might want to try to circle arround the fact that the Bible is correct in its narrative, but you can’t.

    “It is evidence that snakes evolved from a creature with 4 legs, that’s it.” That’s a conclusion based on a very flawed Evolution theory. In other words, you are assuming it as a given fact. It’s still a theory! THEORY! As such it’s a target for QUESTIONING.

    “you have to be completely desperate to use this as “evidence” proving Bible correct.”

    Desperate is how YOU will feel before the Almighty when He comes, and come He will, and ask you why were you revolving about a stupid evolution theory while innocents were taken to slaughter houses in Syria. Is this what you care about? Ridicule other people for their beliefs? Hammer a proofless theory throat down the christians? Why don’t you try it on muslims in, let’s see, Iraq, Syria or Saudi Arabia? You must feel very brave coming in a rescue christians website to vomit evolution. You know we’ll just pray for you. You’re just a coward. I KNOW God exists. His profecies are all becoming reality, and only blind people will not see it. The Bible is very clear:

    “And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what {shall be} the end of these {things}?
    And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words {are} closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
    Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.”

    Daniel 12:8-10 (KJV)

    I’m really tired of discussing evolution theory while innocents are taken to their deaths, and the “civilized” world turn their noses on them. Hypocrite. Repent now and accept Christ.

    “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: {and} not that he should return from his ways, and live?Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn {yourselves}, and live ye. {yourselves: or, others}”

    Ezequiel 18: 23, 31, 32 (KJV)

    May Jesus Christ bless you and your family

    I REALLY mean it. Good night.

  • Actually, no. If you understand what the world was like in those days, and that the Jews outside of Jerusalem were completely Hellenized, they would have only spoken Greek. In Jerusalem, of course, Aramaic would have been the lingua franca. Only the high priests would have used Hebrew, as it was as dead of a language as Old Latin is today. 300 years of Hellenic and Roman conquest ensured that.

  • Also, consider that the text used in the time of Jesus would have been the Septuagint, not the Masoretic (Hebrew-based), which is a poor re-translation from Greek. This is why the Christian Churches used the Septuagint for 1,500 years.

  • That’s true. But you do realize that the Hebrew version, none of which really exist anymore, was written, perhaps, in the 6th Century B.C. The Septuagint was compiled in the 3rd Century, and that Hebrew was a dead language by this point.

  • For a supplement, consider reading further here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

  • There are parts, like the Creation, which are to be taken literally. The problem for most atheists is that they do not understand what ‘literally’ means in this context. If you read carefully, you find TWO accounts of Creation. One with the allegorical six-day history, and one of mankind in general.

    Really, that we do not know the particular names of those who put the Bible together is insignificant. It is a bit like reading Homer, who may well be a composite of several writers collectively known as ‘Homer’.

    It sounds like you might want to read Augustine, who was not at all a literalist. A good delve into the Church Fathers would cure both the atheist and the Fundamentalist of the fairy tales they’ve developed on how life blossomed. The point is not ‘how’. That is the realm of science, and it should stay there. Religion discusses ‘why’, which is far more important, if you think about it logically.

    Do keep in mind that so many scientists had a religious background, including those who proposed the Big Bang and genetics (Fr. Gregor Mendel).

    You sound learned and reasonable. We can discourse further here.

  • Ah, as for Ancient Greek, at least we still use it for theology! Much like Latin, which is still a state language in Vatican City, Koine Greek is kept alive in the halls of academia. Modern Hebrew, much like modern Greek, sadly, looks little like its forebears.

  • No one is angry, though you need your little straw man to make yourself feel better. Put down the Dawkins crap and try learning something.

    Your ‘convincing’ isn’t really an issue, as most of the greatest minds had no trouble with understanding religion. The best atheist thinkers carried the weight of their thoughts knowing that without it, the culture would fall into oblivion.

    Not that you would bother, but for those who are treading down the primitive New Atheist path, try educating yourself on what Christian thought and history actually consists of: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWEYuhiWzE

    • MIstwalker

      It’s not a straw man. It was an angry, bile-filled, frothing rant by someone who’s too childish to understand that the world doesn’t need to bend over backwards to kiss his backside.

      Grow up.

      • Quit projecting, son. It’s unbecoming.

        If you want dialogue, say so and spare everyone the tiresome tropes. So far, all you’ve done is set up a straw man and blow it down.

        Atheist kids aren’t worth getting angry over. Now, you can explain in detail how you fell out of religion, and then we discourse. This will make the comments section a bit more interesting.

        • MIstwalker

          I’m not projecting, sorry, but whatever fictions you care to invest in for your own comfort are your own business, I suppose. I mean, this is why you’re so very defensive and angry in the first place, trying to defend your chosen delusion from the ravages of observable reality by attacking people who weren’t quite weak-minded enough to believe in them.

          And, had you paid attention, you’d already know I never “fell out” of religion. I was never gullible enough to fall for it in the first place.

          • Again, still projecting, and now lying about it. Figures. Learn to debate, son.

  • This is not the first time atheist thought dominated the culture temporarily. It was done far better under Voltaire and Nietzsche.

  • racarrera

    To a point, I agree. However, the reason I came to Christianity (from atheism) is precisely because the philosophical evidence led to an acceptance of God. I see materialism as a dead end, and honest atheist rhetoricians admit as much. One of the problems I see from Western Culture in terms of Christianity is the idea of a broken witness. I’m Orthodox. We have a continual witness. The people whose writings we venerate (along with the Bible and the Church’s dogmatic writings) were actually there, and relayed what they saw. No one goes to martyrdom over a ‘maybe’. I invite you to take a look from our point of view.

  • scully

    I find it an interesting observation in Genesis that Birds and Fish were actually created Before the beasts… and now scientists are toying withe the idea that Dinosaurs may actually have had feathers – as their bones are more like birds

  • scully

    Re. Evolution. Why can’t we give God/El/Allah/Yahweh the credit for creating beings that Can adapt to their environment.. over time. Even in Genesis when God said “you will surely die THE MOMENT you eat of the tree …” But then God sent them off to live (long enough to reproduce more than one child – to adulthood). Is God a conjurer or a God of Law ?

  • scully

    I was thinking – at a deeper level – couldn’t we just assume everyone is just trying to understand Quantum Physics ?

  • scully

    Re.missing links- Snakes with legs… I’m assuming everyone knows about Archaeopteryxs? and my fav. the Velvet Worm ?

  • Mockery and laughter is always the way of losers.

    “Scientist have long known this kind of fossil should have existed. This is clearly a transitional species as the legs would have served little to no purpose.”

    You make statements without any scientific backup.

  • “In it’s worst case scenario that still confirms with your believe structure was passed down for centuries around the campfire”

    I don’t have much time to waste with a kindergartner. The article has arguments. For example. I stated:

    “To say that snakes had legs is like saying that cows had wings. Had the Bible said that cows had wings, skeptics would have been laughing at believers for millenniums until of course, we find a fossilized cow with wings. The chances of this happening is nil. The question that begs an answer is how did Moses and Joshua (who are believed to have written Genesis) knew that snakes had legs? Remember, the ‘scientists’ tell us that the fossil is millions of years old.”

    So how did Moses (while sitting in a campfire) know this?

    A) Guessed it?
    B) Observed it?
    C) Had connections from someone who did?

    Or D? Your explanation?

    So don’t waste my time and answer the challenge Mr. Brilliant.

  • No one deleted your comment and is why even your complaint about deleting comments shows up. Just don’t post stand alone links. You can talk about snakes all you want.

  • Had this moronic comment quotes what we said he would not have made his comment. “snake has always been a land creature that seem to have devolved to loosing its legs (while on land) ”

    Do you see “while on land”? Or did you ignore it you nitwit.

  • Instead of belaboring more questions why didn’t you answer the question in the article:

    “To say that snakes had legs is like saying that cows had wings. Had the Bible said that cows had wings, skeptics would have been laughing at believers for millenniums until of course, we find a fossilized cow with wings. The chances of this happening is nil. The question that begs an answer is how did Moses and Joshua (who are believed to have written Genesis) knew that snakes had legs? Remember, the ‘scientists’ tell us that the fossil is millions of years old.”

    Lets see your answer Mr. genius.