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 16 by JehovahsWitness]

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

Well I can't do that, but that doesn't prove it cannot be done. How will you prove that such a thing is impossible?

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[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.

Lol... the conclusion was arrived at was it? And was it proven?

200 years ago the conclusion no doubt would have been arrived at that was impossible to fly, talk instantly across continents, and yet, low and behold, the "impossible" is in fact possible. So, evidently, people can arrive at onclusions that are entirely wrong. So, again, how can you prove that a resurrection is impossible?

JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by JehovahsWitness]

You're the one with the impossible claim, resurrection. One should first need to prove it is possible, but alas, somehow that is already accepted.
The topic is there, put your money where your LOL is.
I give you free reign outside of definitions, to make any (non-definitional/literary/recursive) assumption.

You seem to have the cart before the horse, as usual, the idea of resurrection is preposterous. One SHOULD have to prove it is possible, which is ridiculous. But in the OP it allows you any leeway to make a case for the possibility.

Good luck with it.

[Rufus21]

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

Rufus

How can you prove your statement to be true?

JW

Because vocal cords are not invisible.

[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

Because vocal cords are not invisible.

And how do you know that angels do not have invisible vocal cords?

[Rufus21]

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

Rufus

How can you prove your statement to be true?

JW

Because vocal cords are not invisible.

And how do you know that angels do not have invisible vocal cords?

Because vocal cords are not invisible.

[JehovahsWitness]

Because vocal cords are not invisible.

Well yes, physical vocal cords are not, but what is your scientifically affirmed data on vocal cords of the non-physical variety? Can you prove that such non-visible vocal cords do not exist?

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]
That makes no sense, why would they (have invisible vocal chords)?
There is no reason that they would.

It is impractical, illogical and requires far too many assumptions for that claim to be made, and for no reason to do so. Would they be created that way? Why, because a creator is stupid and wants invisible vocal chords?

(And non-physical vocal chords wouldn't BE vocal chords, they'd need to be physical to make sound, if not see above.)

Kind of scoring on your own goal-post.

[JehovahsWitness]

That makes no sense, why would they (have invisible vocal chords)?

I don't know, possibly to speak. Logically if there is an intelligent creator, one that invented human speech, he would himself be capable of speech and if he did create other spirit creatures like himself, then they too would be capable of speech so they would have the "cords" ie the instruments necessary to create sounds in their realm that constitute "speech". In any case, how would you go about proving that none of that is possible?

JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by JehovahsWitness]

In which case, non-invisible vocal chords are sooo much more practical. Even in the miracle arena.