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 29 by JehovahsWitness]

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

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, what is your point?

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

He drowns the Earth in water, very simple and ineffective.
Yet you are proposing invisible vocal chords, impractical if not impossible and ineffective.

God only does impractical things when it suits faith?

Surely even a devout believer realizes that if you have to dodge and weave between practical and miraculous inconsistently in order for the Bible to make sense, there is a problem with faith.

I eagerly await your proposal on how even an all-knowing, all-powerful creature could perform a resurrection. Like I say, I don't think, even allowing anything goes, it is possible.

[ttruscott]

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.

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

The serpent was nothing more than a serpent.

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

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

- 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.

Yes indeed and these beasts were sinful too because the implication is to a difference of degree of deceitfulness between the serpent and the animals. Thus we can extrapolate that beast refers to sinners in bodily form. All humans are sinners in bodily form and as such are considered to be animals in the natural nomenclature yet we are also spirits in the Christian mythos. Only a person with free will can sin.

- 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.

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.

- 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

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...?

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.

- 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.

Then too, the people in the parable of the good seed are seeds. The good seed are people sown into the world by the Son of Man and the tares are the people of the evil one sown into the world by the devil. This sets the metaphor of people as seeds and while he had no children, some people are his spiritual children doing his wishes and he is their spiritual father.

- 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?

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

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

[Rufus21]

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?

Non physical vocal cords? Let's think about that for a minute...

From a rational standpoint, we must assume that they don't exist based on the lack of evidence. That is the default hypothesis. Unless there is some proof of invisible vocal cords that you can share with us.

From a logical standpoint, we must assume that they don't exist. Vocal cords are physical and visible. If something is invisible and not physical then it is not a vocal cord. Vocal cords are used to physically vibrate air to make sounds. If an entity is not physical then it would not physically move air and would not need physical vocal cords. Also, having physical vocal cords would make that entity physical by definition. If a vocal cord is invisible, and therefore not physical, then it does not exist.

From a common sense standpoint...are you kidding me?

So no matter how you look at it, things like invisible spirit creatures and non-physical vocal cords are only myths.

[Rufus21]

The serpent was nothing more than a serpent.

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

Not at all. Disbelief is the default position. Unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, every serpent is just a serpent. This is based on the evidence that every other serpent is just a serpent and always has been since the beginning of time. We cannot simply reject the Null Hypothesis without evidence to the contrary.

[ttruscott]

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?

Non physical vocal cords? Let's think about that for a minute...
From a rational standpoint, we must assume that they don't exist based on the lack of evidence.

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

That is the default hypothesis. Unless there is some proof of invisible vocal cords that you can share with us.

I wonder How GOD communicates with all the angels across the universe and how to they talk to HIM? IF we were all created waaaay before the creation of the physical universe and the garden on earth then everyone would be very used to telepathic communication.

So no matter how you look at it, things like invisible spirit creatures and non-physical vocal cords are only myths.

You miss the mark of the different ways things can be looked at or interpreted as the Christian interpretation of reality includes things the secular materialist cannot accept. Non-acceptance doesn't prove nonexistence nor existing only in myth.

[Willum]

[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.

So, while with a black swan, a bird with that coloring could have circumstances leading to its filling a need, could easily exist.

Invisible vocal chords, not so much.
But unicorns are more likely, if that helps.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

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

that God MUST have spoken from the clouds, that Jesus MUST have resurrected...

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[rikuoamero]

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?

So how do you know snakes don't have invisible vocal cords? In an earlier comment you said

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

.
You made no distinction between visible and invisible.
However, now, all of a sudden, there are 'invisible' body parts? It is possible for certain entities to have 'invisible' body parts?
Do you know what you've just done? You've rendered your earlier comment about snakes and vocal cords moot. According to your belief about invisible vocal cords, it is 'possible' for snakes to have invisible vocal cords, and thus, you would be wrong in stating that serpents cannot talk.

Why is it that you don't think several moves ahead when discussing your beliefs here, and realizing the logical contradictions. Such as when you said

How can you prove your statement to be true?

to Rufus, there is also a burden of evidence (notice I said also) on you to prove that there are such things as spirits with invisible vocal cords that enable them to speak.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 29 by JehovahsWitness]

In any case, how would you go about proving that none of that is possible?

More to the point, how would you, JW, go about proving ANY of what you said in 29 to be possible?
Instead of asking others to prove you wrong, how about you prove yourself right first?