1. Your first mistake is that you look dor sense when everything is insane. Of course, the mythological deity turning a sbake into a snake is not logical. Is the deity putting a tree of good and evil in Eden logical? How avout the talking Donkey of Billeam? How about turning water into wine? Are those logical? How about the deity having a "son". Is that logical? Hiw about the deity sending itself to earth to pay for the sins of mankind and then rise up from the dead? Is that logical? The deity is clained to be omnipotent, why not just smite Satan right there where he sits? Your second mistake, is thinking you can play word games and get away with it. I did it, in order to get you to admit to an animal being smited into a snake - an unnatural occurence. But the fact here, is that any Hebrew man who reads that word will describe the creature in context as a snake. He will identify at you out of a picture book, or at a local zoo. Furthermore, to play word games with ancient texts, is really, really, really stupid.<quoted text>
1. No wordgames, just trying to educate you a little. A serpent is not always a snake. In Genesis, God curses the serpent into becoming a snake. It makes no logical sense to curse a snake to be a snake, right? Therefore, the serpent that tempted Eve was not a snake.
2. I didn't say they were "correctly" classified, I said that was their classifiaction of bats at the time. Just because the current classification is different doesn't mean they were wrong or we are right.
3. It may be. My point with that discussion was that you shouldn't always resort to "magic" when you simply don't understand. A Zippo would be a "magic fire device" to a caveman.
2. No, they are wrong. We are right. They based their classification of birds and bats only on flying. Kind of like a young child would do. When I was small, I naturally assumed that bats and birds were close enough to be kissing cousins, because they both flew. But, we knkw a lot more about their anatomy, morphology, behaviour, wing structure and evolution than the ancients did. Whereas the ancients 'classified'(a better term would be 'reckoned') a bat as a bird merely because of flight, we classify it as a rodent because of a great deal more evidence. The fact that your "word of gawd" classify it as a bird, tells me that your "omniscient" deity has the anatomical kowledge of a four year old.
3. You aleays use this example, not knowing how stupid it is. Yes, had I taken a zippo, and mp3 player, a car or helicopter to the ancients, they would most likely calk it magic. But we know a great deal nore today. We have set theories on how the world works. Furthermore, we know that our theories have a high degree of accuracy. Had it not been the case, mass production, mining, medical science, IT (Well, every major industry on earth), would all fail. Why do I say that? If Ohm's Law was not accurate, NO ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE WOULD WORK. If geolgogists were wrong about the composition of the earth and the formation of minerals, THE MINING INDUSTRY WOULD FALL FLAT. I can give many examples. Thus, we know enough to claim the following. There are no natural forces that allow(s):
3.1) Reptiles to talk
3.2) Animals to be smited into snakes
3.3) Water to be turned into wine
3.4) Beams of fire to be shot from heaven
3.5) Chariots of fire picking up prophets
3.6) The dead coming alive
3.7) Donkeys talking
3.9) Plants surviving without the sun
3.10) Food falling from the heavens.
If you wish to continue to call the above 'natural phenomena ye to be discoveredby us', you are nist welcome, but you would be wrong (been there done that, eh, RR) and look stupid (once again, you have not made yourself look educated these past weeks).