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]

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 [...] or allegorically.

I'm sorry about that, it must detract somewhat from the enjoyment of the text, but I cannot help you with that. What I do is use common sense but that's just my personal approach and is not for everyone. Each individual must approach a piece of literature as they see fit and get as much as they can from it, if that is their aim.

JW

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Did you really just invoke common sense RE: The impossible.
?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Did you really just invoke common sense RE: The impossible.
?

I mentioned common sense, I don't think I mentioned the word "impossible" though. Why did you have a point to make?

[DanieltheDragon]

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

Then why call someone infantile for pointing out that the serpent is not Satan?

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Resurrection, talking snakes, invisible all powerful people who can't exist without you, kingdoms that exist only after you die, which bits do you find plausible?

See, all of these are more or less impossible. Resurrection topping the list.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Resurrection, talking snakes, invisible all powerful people who can't exist without you, kingdoms that exist only after you die, which bits do you find plausible?

Well from the list, the resurrection, snakes that appear to talk, invisible powerful people (that can exist without me), kingdoms (ie governments) that exist as of specific dates.

I think that covers the things that I personally find plausible.

See, all of these are more or less impossible.

Something cannot be "more or less" impossible. Impossible is an absolute, something is impossible or possible. Being "more or less impossible" is like being "more or less dead" or "more or less pregnant", its one or the other.

Resurrection topping the list.

And how would you go about proving that a ressurection is "more or less impossible"?


JW

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

200 years ago it was impossible to fly, talk instantly across continents, etc..
Resurrection is a topic that was discussed, and the conclusion arrived at is that even an all-powerful, all-knowing creature can not resurrect something three days dead. It is impossible.

There was a topic about it - resurrection is not possible, even for an all-powerful creature with nano-tweezers and perfect knowledge and patience. One would destroy with each manipulation far more than one re-assembled. The acts of holding them in place would destroy more.

There is no way to propose a being of any power could resurrect something, here's the topic, feel free to propose some way...
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=31263


Even if you were God.
Science sucks, don't it?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by JehovahsWitness]

Get a log burn it till its ashes and resserect it to its state before being burned.

[Rufus21]

...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

That is illogical because invisible spirit creatures do not have vocal cords either. You haven't solved the problem, you just made it more complicated and less believable.

Logic,

Rufus

[JehovahsWitness]

That is illogical because invisible spirit creatures do not have vocal cords either.

Rufus

How can you prove your statement to be true?

JW