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?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to ttruscott]

It is a logical fallacy called euphemistically the black swan fallacy, to suggest that a lack of evidence proves a lack of existence.

Well, not just that:

No need for it to exist.
No circumstances that would lead to existence.
No reason for it to exist except to explain a further less likely scenario.

You fill in the missing facts that are hidden by an ambiguous pronoun and I'd be glad to try to help...

[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.

Whenever a theist insists a text not be taken literally, I insist they give me the metaphorical understanding of said text. If you insist this is metaphorical, then what is it a metaphor for?

Personally I find this "atheistic" interpretation (ie the interpretation in the OP)

Implying no theist interprets Genesis the same way

and I certainly see nothing in the post that is scripturally or even intellectually sound.

I look at the Bible the same way I would look at mythology. If you remove your assumption that the Bible is factual, you would not assume that everything that goes against it is "infantile". Basically, all your post is doing is saying "no you're wrong" without giving a single reason for why you disagree with it.

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?

Except there is nothing in the text that implies the serpent was somehow possessed by an invisible spirit. If you disagree with me, please provide the text in Genesis that implies the serpent was in fact possessed by an invisible spirit

This is logical since serpants cannot talk because they have no vocal cords.

- Balaam's donkey could talk
- As explained in the post above, the fact that Eve did not find it strange that the serpent spoke suggests that talking animals were common in Eden.
- If you refuse to accept the possibility that snakes can talk, how is it you accept the possibility of walking on water, turning water into wine, talking donkeys...? Why are you so selective over which supernatural events did and did not happen in the Bible?
- The fact that a fruit had the magical power of granting humans knowledge of good and evil clearly tells us that Eden did not operate the way the real world does. Talking animals in a magical garden with a magical tree is not so far fetched once you believe in the magical garden. But no, you believe the tree is magical but refuse to believe that animals could talk

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

How would you go about proving that talking snakes are impossible?

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?

Earthly snakes do not have vocal cords, but what is your scientifically affirmed data on vocal cords of the Eden variety? Can you prove that such Edenian snakes had no vocal cords?

[Justin108]

True, but so what? Progressive revelation is a fact.

Is it now? From the atheist perspective, what you call progressive revelation, we call new volumes of religious fiction.

The serpent was nothing more than a serpent.

As an unproven unsupported claim it is up to you to present your evidence.

I am not stating it as a fact. Reading my statement in context, you will notice my regular use of the word "suggest". I have clearly given my reason for believing the author of Genesis did not intend for the serpent to be anything more than a serpent.

If your last defense is "prove it" then I must point out the irony in the fact that you refuse time and again to prove anything in your dogma.

Ahhh, the wondrous nature of the Bible. John's statement says to Christians all that needs to be said about the serpent's identity...ymmv.

And how would John know anything about what the author of Genesis intended the serpent to be? Why are you assuming John got it right at all? For all we know, the entire book of Revelation was nothing but the dreams of a mad man. At least Jesus had supposed witnesses to support his miracles. What did John have? He had a vision in a cave. Why do you believe a single word he said?

There is no mention by name of Jesus or Michael the archangel who threw Satan to earth in Genesis either but they are accepted as being a part of the Genesis story in the larger picture.

- This is not universally accepted as canon
- This just adds to examples of retroactive continuity as nothing in Genesis suggests God even had a son

Yes indeed and these beasts were sinful too

Ok this is new. Any support for this? Did they also reject God in a past life as per your PCEC?

Thus we can extrapolate that beast refers to sinners in bodily form.

I missed the part where you justify this reasoning.

Agreed, being able to speak is not definitive of a supernatural being but it does not restrict the person to being only an animal since the Holy Angels sang to the Shepherds at Christ's birth.

I never said that all speaking things are animals. I'm saying that there is no indication in Genesis that speaking things were not animals. To suppose that the serpent was a non-animal needs justification and, as I demonstrated, the fact that it spoke is not indicative of non-animal status in Eden. If you insist that the author intended the serpent to be anything but a serpent, you need to support that claim.

You have not defined celestial being yet, remember? Is it someone who lives in heaven or someone who used to live in heaven? Since it is not used in Genesis, maybe it should be dropped...?

I'm using the traditional understanding of the term, that is a spiritual entity residing in heaven such as an angel. So in layman's terms, my point is nothing suggests the serpent to be an angel, a fallen angel, a demon, a devil... he seems to be nothing but a serpent.

Cursed ABOVE the other animals implies they were cursed less for their sin and since only a person with free will can sin, they must have been very aware beings choosing sin by their free will.

The text says they were cursed, not that they sinned. It would not be the first time God curses people who are themselves innocent. Your unsupported PCEC aside, the typical understanding of Genesis is that all mankind was punished for the sins of Adam and Eve.

God have punished sons for the sins of their fathers countless times.

Exodus 34:7
who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

Numbers 14:18
'The LORD is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; 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.'

Deuteronomy 5:9
'You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Lamentations 5:7
Our fathers sinned, and are no more; It is we who have borne their iniquities.


As you can see, God often punishes the whole for the sins of the few. He did so several times in the Old Testament. He punished the entire Egypt for the Pharaohs poor decisions. So God punishing the beasts for the sins of Adam and Eve fits.

- 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.

John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. . would indicate that 'family' words do not necessarily prove a human family lineage.

That's why I specifically highlight the use of the word seed. "Seed" is not just a family word. If I adopted a child, I would not call him my "seed". "Seed" clearly indicates direct biological lineage. If Genesis used the word "sons" or "children", then you'd have a point. But the use of the word "seed" is pretty clear.

Then too, the people in the parable of the good seed are seeds.

The parable is a clear context for understanding "seed" in an obviously metaphorical sense. The context of Genesis, however, allows for the literal "seed" to be the cursed ones as can be seen with all snakes "going on their belly". If you read this without any intention of deliberately interpreting it to fit your narrative, the simple understanding is that all serpents were cursed.

The serpent is a metaphor, not the animal called a serpent.

It just so happens that this exact literal interpretation can also be used to explain why serpents go on their bellies? What a coincidence.

Going on the belly and eating dust is also a metaphor for being debased as a human in suffering and death strongly suggested by the fact that no serpent eats dust and Satan does not go upon his belly.

How is "going on your belly" and "eating dust" a metaphor for death? Humiliation, maybe, but death? I fail to see how eating dust can be compared to death in any way.

I also find it strange that this metaphor will never again be used in the entirety of the Bible as any other instance usually refers to death as "burning in the lake of fire" or some such variation. Doesn't it strike you as odd that this rather unorthodox metaphor for death is used in this single instance that just happens to coincide with the literal instance of serpents moving about on their bellies?

You choose an interpretation that fits your secular materialism but Christians choose the interpretation that fits their faith in GOD and the Scripture.

My interpretation is free from bias. Your interpretation has the clear schematic of fitting into your assumption that this serpent is Satan and that the punishment is death. No one would ever assume "go on your belly and eat dust" is a metaphor for death unless their preconceived schematic forces them to

[Willum]

[Replying to ttruscott]

Well, name it:
Talking snakes.
Invisible vocal chords.
A creator for the universe.

It all serves no purpose but to explain itself.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by JehovahsWitness]

Here's the problem:

Logically if there is an intelligent creator

There is no logical need for a intelligent creator.

You can see ToNs recent post here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=31559
That explains things.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to ttruscott]

Well, name it:
Talking snakes.
Invisible vocal chords.
A creator for the universe.

It all serves no purpose but to explain itself.

I thought you were aware the Bible claims to be written in a way so as to confuse those who rejected it and to force Christians to seek GOD first, not our understanding.

IF your it refers to the Christian religion, then the purpose is the sanctification of the sinful elect until they are righteously holy and the judgement day can begin.

[ttruscott]

There is no logical need for a intelligent creator.

No logical need for a creator does not prove there is no creator. Logic is not creative but only explanatory.

[Rufus21]

It is a logical fallacy called euphemistically the black swan fallacy, to suggest that a lack of evidence proves a lack of existence.

I agree, which is why I did not claim to have proof that talking serpents have never existed. I simply pointed out that, based on the lack of evidence as well as the evidence to the contrary, we should reject the idea that anything so remarkably unusual would have existed.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No logical need for a creator does not prove there is no creator.

So you're relying on the God of the gaps fallacy?

[Willum]

[Replying to ttruscott]

There is no physical need for a creator either, you are getting ahead of the topic.

[JehovahsWitness]

If you insist this is metaphorical, then what is it a metaphor for?

#Genesis 3:15 : The Edenic curse?



In Genesis chapter 3 God pronounces judgement on the participants of the Edenic rebellion. Addressing the "snake" or serpant, God states:

Because you have done this thing, you are the cursed one out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild beasts of the field. Upon your belly you will go and dust is what you will eat all the days of your life

While many insist that God was cursing literal snakes, the Edenic curse was actually addressing Satan the Devil. Revelation 12 clarifies this by calling Satan, "The original Serpant" and it was this powerful invisible creature, later identified as The Devil, that the words were addressing. So the "curse" was actually a curse on Satan, that he would be debased and condemned to a lowly existence in relation to his elevated former position as one of God's foremost angels. The snake in the curse being a metaphor.

Addressing the question of whether the serpent had legs, the watchtower June 15th 2007 p. 31 states:

As recorded at Genesis 3:14, Jehovah God addressed the serpent that had deceived Eve in the garden of Eden. God said: “Because you have done this thing, you are the cursed one out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild beasts of the field. Upon your belly you will go and dust is what you will eat all the days of your life.� The Bible does not specifically state that the animal used in tempting Eve had previously had legs but lost them. While the wording of Genesis 3:14 might lead some to think so, we need not necessarily conclude that prior to this curse, serpents had legs. Why not?

Principally because the real object of Jehovah’s judgment was Satan—the invisible spirit who had misused that lowly animal. The Bible describes Satan as “the father of the lie� and “the original serpent.� Both of these expressions apparently point back to Satan’s using a visible animal, a serpent, as his mouthpiece to induce Eve to disobey God’s command.—John 8:44; Revelation 20:2.

God created serpents, and Adam had apparently given serpents their name before Satan’s deceptive act. The unreasoning serpent that spoke to Eve was not to blame. It would have been unaware that Satan was manipulating it, and it could not understand the judgment that God rendered against the disobedient parties.

Why, then, did God speak of the serpent’s physical abasement? The behavior of a serpent in its natural environment, crawling on its belly and flicking its tongue as if to lick up dust, fittingly symbolized Satan’s debased condition. Having previously enjoyed a lofty position as one of God’s angels, he was consigned to the lowly condition referred to in the Bible as Tartarus.—2 Peter 2:4.

Further, as a literal serpent might wound a man’s heel, Satan in his debased state would ‘bruise the heel’ of God’s “seed.� (Genesis 3:15) The primary part of that seed proved to be Jesus Christ, who temporarily suffered at the hands of Satan’s agents. But the symbolic serpent’s head will, in time, be permanently crushed by Christ and his resurrected anointed Christian companions. (Romans 16:20) Thus, God’s directing his curse toward the visible serpent aptly pictured the debasement and ultimate destruction of the invisible “original serpent,� Satan the Devil.

source: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007448#h=2

# Emnity between the descendants

GENESIS 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will crush your head, and you will strike him in the heel.� - NWT

Seed is often used metaphorically in the bible to refer to descendants or offspring. Jesus referred to those that opposed him as "children" (offspring) of the Devil. So there is good reason to conclude that rather than refering to little baby snakes, Genesis 3:15 is actually a metaphor for those that side with Satan and display a similar rebellious attitude to that one.

While most humans actually do have a natural aversion to snakes, the following verse indicates, not an observation of how humans interact with snakes, but some kind of intellectual and moral ongoing and mutual emnity; leading do some kind of decisive conclusion, performed by a promised "seed" of God.

The woman in question would not be Eve, who rather than opposing Satan, sided with him, but a symbolic woman. Later scriptures refer to the faithful angelic forces as metaphorically being "woman". One of those faithful spirit creatures came to earth as Jesus Christ the Messiah, and the above verses refer to the final confrontation between that one ("the seed" of the woman) and Satan and his seed (all those that side with him - see John 8:44).

Jesus was metaphorically "bruised in the heel" (an injury that could cause pain but rarely results in permanent damage or death) when he was executed in 33 CE. Satan will be crushed fatally in the head when Jesus and his angelic forces finally destroy him (Satan), rectifying the damage done by that one.

CONCLUSION: Rather than taking a strictly literal view of the Edenic pronouncements, in the light of numerous bible texts, it seems that the writers were speaking symbolically, using the snake as a fitting metaphor for Satans fate and various other images to convey a prophetic message about mankinds final destiny

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, SATAN THE DEVIL and ...THE ORIGINAL SIN