The serpent in Genesis - retroactive continuity

[Justin108]

Contrary to what most Christians believe, the character of Satan in the Bible is a lot less clear than what you'd expect from such a prominent figure in Christian lore.

The character of Satan seems to have evolved from scattered mentions of a supposed enemy to a central character. These scattered mentions, though supposedly of the same character, seems to have a few inconsistencies.

The most curious example of a previously mentioned biblical character that later became Satan through retroactive continuity is the serpent in Genesis. Genesis does not in any way suggest that the serpent was anything other than a serpent. Nowhere in Genesis does it suggest the serpent to be a fallen angel, or that Satan disguised himself as a serpent or controlled the serpent. The serpent was nothing more than a serpent. It was only after John wrote Revelations almost 1500 years later that he turned the character of the serpent in Genesis into Satan. But these are entirely different accounts from entirely different authors 1500 years apart.

Now I understand that supposedly, since every book of the Bible was divinely inspired, God told John that the serpent was Satan all along, but looking at Genesis, it seems far more likely to be a case of retroactive continuity.

A few facts in Genesis that suggest the serpent was NOT Satan.

- There is absolutely no mention of Satan in Genesis, or any reference to the serpent as an angel or a demon or anything other than a serpent.

- Genesis 3:1 refers to the serpent as "more subtil than any of the beasts in the field", suggesting that the serpent was counted among them as "beasts of the field" and not as an angel or celestial being.

- The serpent having the ability to speak does not suggest it to be a supernatural serpent as Balaam's donkey was also shown to have the ability to speak. Furthermore, the Garden of Eden has been shown to have supernatural qualities as it had two trees with supernatural fruit granting either knowledge or immortality. Other supernatural norms in the garden would not be unlikely. Eve's lack of surprise at hearing a serpent talk suggest it to be somewhat of a norm.

- Genesis 3:13-15: So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.�- This is probably the most damning of all. Genesis 3:13-15 tells us that:
- the serpent is cursed more than all the cattle, and more than every beast of the field, again suggesting it to be part of the animals in Eden rather than a celestial being
- God cursed the serpent and its "seed'. Unless I'm mistaken, Satan never had any children. The word "seed" is used rather than "children", so this cannot refer to Satan's followers as they are not his "seed". God cursing the serpent's "seed" would only make sense if it was referring to the seed of an actual serpent as the serpent would have offspring, unlike Satan.
- The nature of the curse, "on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust" again only makes sense if we are dealing with an actual serpent and not an impostor. This seems to be an explanation for why serpents have no legs - God cursed the serpent and removed its legs and the legs of its seed. Why would God punish serpents if the serpent deceiving Eve was just an impostor?
- If God did punish Satan and curse him to "go on his belly and eat dust" then the curse didn't stick. In later appearances of Satan, we wasn't crawling on his belly. There is no mention of it in the book of Job, nor was Satan crawling on his belly when he was tempting Jesus.


Is this a sign of the fictional nature of the Bible? Should retroactive continuity be possible in supposed historical documents? Are these clear indications that the serpent becoming Satan was an ad hoc decision on the author of Revelation's behalf? Wouldn't there have been a mention of the serpent being Satan in Genesis if it were the intentions of the author of Genesis for the serpent to be Satan?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

I don't hold to the a literal reading of the Edenic curse, contrary to what most atherists I have spoken to believe, the words are not to be taken literally. Personally I find this "atheistic" interpretation (ie the interpretation in the OP) infantile and I certainly see nothing in the post that is scripturally or even intellectually sound.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

I would add a couple points to your argument:

(1) As a land creature, Genesis 1 clearly shows God calling the serpent "good," i.e., the biblical context to this point suggests there is no evil lurking in creation..

(2) the word used to describe the serpent ("subtil" in your translation) is typically rendered in its negative aspect to suggest trickery, deceit, cunning, etc, of the serpent.

But if you look at the full semantic range of the Hebrew, you'll see it can also be rendered in a positive aspect: sensible, prudent... In fact, if you look elsewhere in scripture, this is more commonly how the word is rendered...

In other words, the serpent is not the most conniving of wild creatures (which would have us think Satan!), but the wisest.. (Or rather, which of these it is is something that we are called to discern...)

Do note that my preferred rendering, of wisest, ties nicely to Jesus' statement that we be "wise as serpents"...

***

If I was to look at John's statement about Satan, "that ancient serpent," I think we are invited to see Satan not as the serpent, but as its progeny. As in, the serpent is, in ancient times, what Satan was. The serpent became Satan over generations of corruption... To your point, the serpent has "seed" that is cursed to be the enemy of humankind. This is Satan!

The fall creates an enmity between species that over generations twists and corrupts the serpent's progeny into something evil and in outright rebellion against God: Satan.

I think we see a clear development of the character from the good serpent in Genesis, to the accusing but still good "the satan" of Job to Satan of the New Testament, where "adversary" has become the proper name of the character, so twisted and against humankind / God it has become...

So I wouldn't call it "retroactive continuity" but rather a prophesy by God in Genesis 3 that Satan is precisely what the serpent's offspring would become.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

I don't hold to the a literal reading of the Edenic curse, contrary to what most atherists I have spoken to believe, the words are not to be taken literally. Personally I find this "atheistic" interpretation (ie the interpretation in the OP) infantile and certainly nothing to be taken seriously.

Please do explain why it's infantile. So you take a book best described as an acid trip for an Alzheimer's patient(revelation) as literal when referring to the serpent as satan. However, it is infantile to think that the serpent is not satan?

Tell me do the Jewish people refer to the serpent as Satan?

By the way this is less of an interpretation but more of a pointing out logical inconsistencies with Satan as the serpent.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

I don't hold to the a literal reading of the Edenic curse, contrary to what most atherists I have spoken to believe, the words are not to be taken literally. Personally I find this "atheistic" interpretation (ie the interpretation in the OP) infantile and certainly nothing to be taken seriously.

Please do explain why it's infantile.

An infant will always take words at their most basic meaning, not having the learning or the intllectual capacity to grasp that language is complex and often words and expressions have more than meaning. For example, if told a candle "went out" a child might ask "where did it go" no knowing that although "to go" can mean to physically move from one location inside to another outside, English has a number of phrasal verbs that defy their literal meaning (in this case meaning to be extinguished).

Thus the OP and many armchair biblical "experts" seem incapable (like children) of grasping the duality of litature, metaphor, poetic symbolism or any other linguistic tool so common in scripture. Like babies confronting words for the first time they graps at the most basic meanings no matter how illogical and conclude that the writer an equally infantile grasp of ideas.

Like babies, or the mentally retarded, they display no conception of the possibility that there may be other elements that come into play in a narrative, the snake cannot be manipulated by anything else, the condemnation must be to the animal, the donkey must have spoken, the ventriloquist's dummy MUST be speaking and that is that. And like infants, when confronted with additional information, such ones will in my experience stamp their feet and refuse to entertain that they might be wrong, they read what they read and there cannot possibly be more to the picture.

JW

[marco]

Like babies, or the mentally retarded, they display no conception ......

Moderator Comment


One would hope that this attribution of mental retardation is not a blanket insult directed at all who hold a view contrary to your own. All the same it would be wise not to describe people as mentally retarded, since some might find this offensive. Civility is of paramount importance here.



Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Hey, you may know what you are talking about, but the rest of us have no idea which miracles and stories should be taken literally, as if they happened, substantively, as if it is true, but wanting accuracy for want of translation, etc., or allegorically.

How is anyone supposed to know that talking serpents are not OK, when it is infinitely more possible for a snake to talk, than for a resurrection to occur?

If we hold a mirror up to your comment, we could easily apply it to any miraculous claim in the Bible, how is anyone supposed to be able to tell the difference?

In any event, it does indeed look like Satan and the serpent are not the same. Serpents are snakes, and snakes evidently spoke in Adam and Eve days. Why talking snakes are taboo, yet turning water into wine, is lost on me.

[JehovahsWitness]

By the way this is less of an interpretation but more of a pointing out logical inconsistencies with Satan as the serpent.

Would that not depend on ones interpretation and worldview. After all if one believes there are no spirits, then a reading of the text that implies there were invisible spirits becomes a logical inconsistency would it not?

[DanieltheDragon]

By the way this is less of an interpretation but more of a pointing out logical inconsistencies with Satan as the serpent.

Would that not depend on ones interpretation and worldview. After all if one believes there are no spirits, then a reading of the text that implies there were invisible spirits becomes a logical inconsistency would it not?

So is it logically inconsistent to read fiction? A logical inconsistency would be proclaiming there are spirits while professing the existence of spirits. Simply reading a religious text while not adhering to it is not logically inconsistent.


Pointing out inconsistencies is dependent on the person holding the inconsistent view. In this case those who interpret Satan as the serpent.

[JehovahsWitness]

Pointing out inconsistencies is dependent on the person holding the inconsistent view. In this case those who interpret Satan as the serpent.

Well I cannot comment on that since I don't believe satan is a serpant but a powerful invisible spirit creature. This is logical since serpants cannot talk because they have no vocal cords.

Logic,

JW