Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Skeptical
Apprentice
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 5:55 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #1

Post by Skeptical »

Doing some research for The Logic of Satan's Temptation to Eve thread, I came across this article:

https://www.gotquestions.org/talking-snake.html

which says:
Still, why didn’t Adam and Eve find it strange that an animal was speaking to them? It is unlikely that Adam and Eve had the same perspective we do on animals. In our era, we know from experience that animals are incapable of speech on the same level as humans. Adam and Eve did not have a childhood, nor did they have other humans to learn from. Given that Adam and Eve had probably only been alive a matter of days, it is not unreasonable for them to believe that animals were capable of speech. It is also possible that this was not the first talking animal Adam and Eve had encountered. Perhaps Satan or even God Himself had used animals to communicate with Adam and Eve before. There are so few details given in the account that much is left to speculation and presumption.


Huh? 🤔

Therefore, I would like to know if there are any other Christians besides the one's from Got Questions who think that it's a possibility that animals used to talk a long time ago back in the Garden of Eden.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #31

Post by JehovahsWitness »

William wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 2:41 pm Image
The Hebrews saw such religions as Paganism and false worship of imagined beings...
The picture above is not an illustration based on Hebrew scripture but an illustration of a verse in the book of REVELATION which is in Christian Greek scripture.

The bible book of REVELATION (which is highly symbolic) in chapter 12 speaks not of a seraph (the word is not mentioned at all) but of a DRAGON. John identifies who this dragon represents in clear explicit terms, stating he is the one called DEVIL and SATAN. He also, points out that this one was {quote} "the'original serpent" (not seraph). So the dragon represented the real voice behind the serpent in the garden of Eden, namely the rebellious spirit SATAN.


To learn more please go to other posts related to

SNAKES , .DRAGONS and ... THE BOOK OF REVELATION
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #32

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Miles wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 1:17 am
tam wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 6:31 pm Peace to you,
Miles wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 5:34 pm
tam wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 12:31 pm
I cannot speak for anyone else, but it was not a talking snake.
Considering Genesis 3:1, out of the 54 Bibles I checked, 1 called the animal who spoke to Eve "the Shining One," 11 called it a "snake," and 42 called it a "serpent."

Now, if one looks at the definition of "serpent," "snake" is the first (implication: most common) definition given in every dictionary I looked at. Which means that, in effect, 53 of the 54 Bibles (98%) identify the talking animal as a snake. Now, why Rev 20:2 recast this snake as a dragon is anybody's guess or left to Christian apologists to figure out. But my question is: why should "dragon" take president over the earlier description in Genesis of "snake"? If one does choose to claim it was a dragon rather than a snake who spoke to Eve they will need far more evidence then just the etymology of the word "dragon."
To the bold and underlined: Why?
Because it takes more than to just laying down dots. You have to connect them to make sense. The use of a word is far more important than its derivation. In fact, its etymology usually mean bupkis when it comes to understanding its contemporary meaning.

Revelation was not written in modern times. It matters what the word meant when it was written. It matters what the word meant THEN.
No. What matters is what an ancient word means to the translators and how it's then translated into English, which for many Bibles is quite a problem.

Ever look to see how the Hebrew word ra`in Isaiah 45:7 has been translated?

Isaiah 45:7
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create [ ra`]: I the Lord do all these things.

I have.

Out of 66 Bibles I checked ra` has been translated as X, plus the number of times that word has appeared in the 66, along with their percentages:

..X
evil 26 40%
disaster 11: 17%
doom 1: <1%
woe 9: 14%
sorrow 1: <1%
trouble 3: 5%
calamity 8: 12%
trouble(s) 2: 3%
bad 1: <1%
discord 1: <1%
hard times 1: <1%
bad times 1: <1%
adversity 1: <1%



If a translator reads the Hebrew "גָדוֹל" and translates it as "big" you're okay; however, if he translates reads it as "pig" then you may be in a sea of who - shot - John. So, unless one is trained in an ancient language, translating a word or phrase into English can get you into a whole lot of trouble. So what does the ordinary person such as you and I do? We rely on the translator to have gotten it right. That when they translate a foreign word like trække på (Danish) as "dragon" we have to trust they got it right; that trække på does indeed mean "dragon" in English.---which, upon considering Isaiah 45:7 , can be a fool's undertaking.
Okay Miles, here you go. The meaning of the word translated as dragon (from drakon):
a dragon, a great serpent, a name for Satan
δράκων drákōn, drak'-own; probably from an alternate form of δέρκομαι dérkomai (to look); a fabulous kind of serpent (perhaps as supposed to fascinate):—dragon.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/


Dragon = great serpent.

It is even right there in the sentence:

He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Dragon/drakon = serpent

The word being used at Revelation 20:2 is 'drakon'. The modern westernized dragon evolved from that, but the modern westernized dragon is not what the author of Revelation would have been referring to. The word he used is 'drakon', and drakon was used to describe a serpent (see the links provided in my first post above).
Think more along the lines of an eastern type dragon (chinese dragon). Serpent-like.
Totally irrelevant.
How is it not relevant? You're looking only at western depictions of a dragon, but seem to be forgetting that there are eastern dragons (in the place where these things were written about in the bible) that are serpent-like.
It was the Adversary himself (a seraph, what most people refer to as simply an angel). That drakon, that ancient SERPENT (Rev 20:2).
I note that in quite a few Bibles it says "that old snake" instead of "that ancient serpent." But because "serpent" refers to a snake, it's a moot point. But are dragons actually snakes? Not in any book I've ever read.

........................................ Image
Google Chinese dragon images, Persian dragon images, Aztec dragon images (sometimes depicted with feathers instead of wings). They are serpent-like. They are also much older (some might say, ancient, even ;) ) than the western-type dragon.
Again, irrelevant.
Again, how is it not relevant? Dragon=serpent, and that is depicted in images. Not the western kind of dragon, but we're not talking about the western kind.

It was not a talking snake.
So you cherry pick your verses and simply ignore Genesis 3:1? Okay. So much for integrity.
Or maybe instead of questioning my integrity, you could see for yourself that the word 'drakon' is also used for serpent.
No. I question your integrity because you deliberately ignore what Genesis 3:1 says in favor of what is written in Revelation. As for "drakon," if it's used for serpent, then fine because then your drakon refers to a snake, "Snake" being the common definition of "serpent." (see my previous explanation).
Then the being speaking to Eve in the Garden of Eden is no mere snake, but rather the Adversary (the one called Satan).

It was a seraph: a flying fiery serpent.
Because why? Where in the Bible does it say it was a "seraph: a flying fiery serpent" who spoke to Eve, or words to that effect?
A seraph is an angel. The Adversary is an angel. Angels can fly (flying). Angels are fiery (in appearance, think about the angel that spoke to Moses from the bush that appeared to be burning, but was not). The Adversary is specifically referred to as a drakon, that ancient serpent.
BUT, Where in the Bible does it say it was a "seraph: a flying fiery serpent" who spoke to Eve, or words to that effect? You can't just put 2 + 2 together and get 100. Unless the Bible says "seraph: a flying fiery serpent" spoke to Eve, or words to that effect, you have no grounds to assert it.
I do have grounds to assert it, but you are correct that I do not have a direct quotation from the bible. You can question it of course, and/or reserve opinion, and/or reject it.



Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #33

Post by William »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 3:48 am

The picture above is not an illustration based on Hebrew scripture but an illustration of a verse in the book of REVELATION which is in Christian Greek scripture.

The bible book of REVELATION (which is highly symbolic) in chapter 12 speaks not of a seraph (the word is not mentioned at all) but of a DRAGON. John identifies who this dragon represents in clear explicit terms, stating he is the one called DEVIL and SATAN. He also, points out that this one was {quote} "the'original serpent" (not seraph). So the dragon represented the real voice behind the serpent in the garden of Eden, namely the rebellious spirit SATAN.
As I have been pointing out, arguing for belief in Greek and Roman mythological imagery doesn't help Christianity's case.

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #20]
What bible version has it that a ventriloquist was involved?
In English snake and serpent are synonymous. The Encyclopaedia Britanica notes
SNAKE, (suborder Serpentes), also called serpent, any of more than 3,400 species of reptiles distinguished by their limbless condition and greatly elongated body and tail.
I wasn't asking which version of encyclopedia. I asked which version of bible

CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
The one read with critical thinking skills. (Demonstarted in the above post #4)
There is no version of any bible given in post #4.
For that matter, there are no identifiable critical thinking skills re that post either.
Which version are you using which identifies a SNAKE as being the critter which tempted Eve?
The Hebrew word used in the Genesis account is "nachash" (נָחָשׁ); language experts understand this to be a generic, or general, term which applys to all snakes or serpentlike creatures, and it is often used along with other Hebrew words that denote a particular kind of snake (Ps 58:4; 140:3; Pr 23:32) .
From the information you provided, we can evaluate that the use of the word "Serpent" denotes the Familiar Gene, as biologists continue to do re sorting Species into specific Specie categories.
Serpent means "Classification Reptilia" "Of the Reptilian Family"

Thus, the Serpent was a member of the Reptilian Family - no doubt the dominant one at that, since he/she could also talk. Like humans are the dominants of the Ape Specie/Family because of our complex language systems.
OP: Did a snake really speak in the Garden of Eden?
No, snakes cannot talk, they have not been created with the intelligence to speak nor have they vocal cords or the ability to do so.

The snake in the Genesis accounts was a dumb beast being maniupulated in a similar way to how a VENTRILOQUIST makes a dummy "speak" by projecting his voice so that he listener is unaware of WHO really is speaking.
Claiming that the Reptile Eve was speaking with, was a snake AND didn't really have the power of speech and that Eve was actually hearing a supernatural being called "Satan" who was "being a ventriloquist", is Supernaturalizing. [re the Family of Supernaturalism.]

Claiming that the Reptile Eve was speaking with, was a snake would have this reader wondering what exactly the punishment was from YHVH for what the snake did... as the snake was already slithering around in the dust...when he/she wasn't dangling around in trees totally unaware he/she was being used as a puppet.
This Hebrew term corresponds to the Greek ophis (ὄφις) as confirmed by 2 Corinthians 11:3.
Whether Ophis is an equivalent or similarly used as the Hebrews nachash isn't overly apparent.

One thing is clear though. The emphasis is on resemblance re biology. It was Adams job to be the biologist and I am sure he knew a dumb snake from a talking lizard, if I am following the story correctly.
I am not prepared to assume Eve was stupid in that regard either.

The Greek Family mixed and matched and the consequence of that is Christianity and its mythologies moving well away from how the Hebrew Family first told their stories.

We know that by the images which arise from the Greek/Roman Family influence, such as the example below, depicting a "supernatural" being influencing a natural being - something prevalent in the Greco-Roman coupling re Family belief systems, which often resulted in religions being formed and cultivated.

The Hebrews saw such religions as Paganism and false worship of imagined beings which - unlike YHVH - didn't exist anywhere in Nature and certainly didn't have the great and mighty powers of ventriloquism.

Image

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #34

Post by onewithhim »

Miles wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 1:17 am
tam wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 6:31 pm Peace to you,
Miles wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 5:34 pm
tam wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 12:31 pm
I cannot speak for anyone else, but it was not a talking snake.
Considering Genesis 3:1, out of the 54 Bibles I checked, 1 called the animal who spoke to Eve "the Shining One," 11 called it a "snake," and 42 called it a "serpent."

Now, if one looks at the definition of "serpent," "snake" is the first (implication: most common) definition given in every dictionary I looked at. Which means that, in effect, 53 of the 54 Bibles (98%) identify the talking animal as a snake. Now, why Rev 20:2 recast this snake as a dragon is anybody's guess or left to Christian apologists to figure out. But my question is: why should "dragon" take president over the earlier description in Genesis of "snake"? If one does choose to claim it was a dragon rather than a snake who spoke to Eve they will need far more evidence then just the etymology of the word "dragon."
In Revelation "dragon" is used to give us an idea of how the "snake" would continue to act toward the chosen ones of God. "Dragon" suits this "snake" just aptly fine. He now seeks plainly to devour God's chosen ones who make up the New Jerusalem and the ruling section of the Kingdom.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #35

Post by JehovahsWitness »

onewithhim wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 2:11 pm
In Revelation "dragon" is used to give us an idea of how the "snake" would continue to act toward the chosen ones of God. "Dragon" suits this "snake" just aptly fine. He now seeks plainly to devour God's chosen ones who make up the New Jerusalem and the ruling section of the Kingdom.
I think that's a good point; it also shows how Satan has adapted his method from cautious /sly underhanded trickery to outright attack in the 20th century.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #36

Post by Miles »

tam wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 12:28 pm Peace to you,
Miles wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 1:17 am
tam wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 6:31 pm Peace to you,
Miles wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 5:34 pm
tam wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 12:31 pm
I cannot speak for anyone else, but it was not a talking snake.
Considering Genesis 3:1, out of the 54 Bibles I checked, 1 called the animal who spoke to Eve "the Shining One," 11 called it a "snake," and 42 called it a "serpent."

Now, if one looks at the definition of "serpent," "snake" is the first (implication: most common) definition given in every dictionary I looked at. Which means that, in effect, 53 of the 54 Bibles (98%) identify the talking animal as a snake. Now, why Rev 20:2 recast this snake as a dragon is anybody's guess or left to Christian apologists to figure out. But my question is: why should "dragon" take president over the earlier description in Genesis of "snake"? If one does choose to claim it was a dragon rather than a snake who spoke to Eve they will need far more evidence then just the etymology of the word "dragon."
To the bold and underlined: Why?
Because it takes more than to just laying down dots. You have to connect them to make sense. The use of a word is far more important than its derivation. In fact, its etymology usually mean bupkis when it comes to understanding its contemporary meaning.

Revelation was not written in modern times. It matters what the word meant when it was written. It matters what the word meant THEN.
No. What matters is what an ancient word means to the translators and how it's then translated into English, which for many Bibles is quite a problem.

Ever look to see how the Hebrew word ra`in Isaiah 45:7 has been translated?

Isaiah 45:7
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create [ ra`]: I the Lord do all these things.

I have.

Out of 66 Bibles I checked ra` has been translated as X, plus the number of times that word has appeared in the 66, along with their percentages:

..X
evil 26 40%
disaster 11: 17%
doom 1: <1%
woe 9: 14%
sorrow 1: <1%
trouble 3: 5%
calamity 8: 12%
trouble(s) 2: 3%
bad 1: <1%
discord 1: <1%
hard times 1: <1%
bad times 1: <1%
adversity 1: <1%



If a translator reads the Hebrew "גָדוֹל" and translates it as "big" you're okay; however, if he translates reads it as "pig" then you may be in a sea of who - shot - John. So, unless one is trained in an ancient language, translating a word or phrase into English can get you into a whole lot of trouble. So what does the ordinary person such as you and I do? We rely on the translator to have gotten it right. That when they translate a foreign word like trække på (Danish) as "dragon" we have to trust they got it right; that trække på does indeed mean "dragon" in English.---which, upon considering Isaiah 45:7 , can be a fool's undertaking.
Okay Miles, here you go. The meaning of the word translated as dragon (from drakon):
a dragon, a great serpent, a name for Satan
δράκων drákōn, drak'-own; probably from an alternate form of δέρκομαι dérkomai (to look); a fabulous kind of serpent (perhaps as supposed to fascinate):—dragon.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/


Dragon = great serpent.

It is even right there in the sentence:

He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.


Dragon/drakon = serpent
Ah yes:

Revelation 20:2
NCV
The angel grabbed the dragon, that old snake who is the devil and Satan, and tied him up for a thousand years.

CEB
He seized the dragon, the old snake, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

CEV
He chained the dragon for 1,000 years. It is that old snake, who is also known as the devil and Satan.

ICB
The angel grabbed the dragon, that old snake who is the devil. The angel tied him up for 1,000 years.

etc.


etc.


Dragon/drakon = snake



Have a good day O:)

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #37

Post by Purple Knight »

It's a consistent and fair reading to assume that something else made the snake talk, and it's also consistent (and requires less metaphor than some people routinely assume) to assume the snake wasn't a dumb beast until it had its legs struck from it.

Important to note: For every part we use to communicate, such as our hands and vocal cords, there is an instance of an animal with that part communicating with us. Parrots speaking English and gorillas and chimps using sign language, and elephants using the hand they have growing out of their nose to paint pictures. Given that, the legs being struck off of the snake being part of an act that made it a dumb beast. Eh... I'll take "things that are actually not that weird" for 1000, Alex.

Despite not being religious I'm among those who do believe animals communicate but... probably not snakes. Language-like communication is probably restricted to birds and mammals.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #38

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #37]

A snake with legs is not a snake as we know that snakes have no legs.

Revelations won
Sage
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:13 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #39

Post by Revelations won »

Dear Skeptical and other respondents,

I think the clear answer to the OP question is very obvious today. For example there are many Parrots that talk and the same is true of Parakeets. There are possibly other animals or birds that also talk as well but I have no personal experience with those other creatures.

Kind regards,
RW

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Do Christians Believe That Animals Used to Talk

Post #40

Post by William »

tam wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 4:16 pm [Replying to William in post #24]

I'm not sure what your point is, William (peace to you.)
Peace and Love Tam.

If I am reading you correctly, we agree that the Serpent in the Garden Story, was not an actual Snake re its appearance.
Its appearance can be deduced by the little that is told of it. It could walk and talk, which we know snakes cannot do.
The story tells it that Father YHVH took away those abilities the Serpent had, transforming it into what we and our dictionaries call "snakes" and the reason is clear why folk think the description of its transformed state, best fits with that of a snake.

Further to that, the Hebrew and Greek words appear to be fairly similar and point to the prefix "Reptile/Reptilian" as in - what Family of specie the Serpent belonged in.

The Dragon also belongs in the Reptilian Family, but fire-breathing ones come from Supernaturalism.

Now if we are to consider the story a work of fiction, then sure - why not consider the Serpent looked like a Dragon.

But if we consider the story a work of fact, then we have to eliminate supernaturalism and focus on fitting said story in what we know about the nature of nature.

There are no fossil records of any fire breathing dragons, although there are many records of giant Reptilians which once roamed the Earth, which adequately fit the description of being "Dragons", if not the type imagined from the Halls of Supernaturalism - then certainly - close cousins.
There are also actual Dragons which exist on the planet right now. They are what I would call "The Dragons of The Reptilian Family." and one in particular does snap at the heals of humans and if it catches a human it can do significant damage which results in the Dragon eating the human.
There are no known Dragons which talk, so the Garden Serpent may have been of the Dragon aspect of the Reptilian Family, but had the added aspect of being intelligent like a Human. able to use the complexity of language like a Human and - like a Human - was likely top of the order in relation the The Reptilian Family.

Therefore we can ascertain that the Serpent probably walked upright on two legs and used the other two appendages as arms and hands, like the Human.
We can come to such conclusions by observing the nature of Nature.

Whoever wrote Revelation certainly went on a trip. but we don't really know if what he experienced were real things or imagined things so cannot say for sure that the story isn't a work of fiction from our perspective, even that it may have been an actual real experience from the writer's perspective. Certainly we should be able to agree that the language used is very symbolic.

Yet the connection between the Garden Serpent and The Fire-Dragon of Revelation, distorts itself with a supernatural overlay of images of creatures which do not exist on this planet. Where they did exist, was in the Greco-Roman mythology from which Christianity emerged.

It is noted that a Dragon appears in Hebrew mythology, as far as my internet search goes...but we would be hard-pressed to accept that this creature was the same one as the Serpent. Of the Family, perhaps...but specifically a sea-dwelling Dragon.
a search result wrote:In the Hebrew Bible Leviathan, a serpentine sea creature. Yahweh created Leviathan to play in the sea (Psalms 104:26) and defeated the monster as a demonstration of his power (Psalms 74:14; Isa 27:1).
a search result wrote:Leviathan's fire-breathing ability, his impenetrable scales, and his overall indomitability in Job 41
Psalms 104:26 “There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.”

Psalms 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Job 41:19...Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

Clearly the nature of all those writings are mythological, presenting Father YHVH in a supernatural manner, dealing to supernatural critters while implying said creatures exist on the Earth.

The authors are clearly infatuated with the supernatural YHVH that they created in their imaginations, and expanded upon in their telling the story of it.

Therefore, it is easy enough for the seeker of Truth, to understand that the Greco-Roman mythology from which Christianity emerged, was easily superimposed upon the earlier Hebrew Mythology.

Back to the OP question, it is easy enough to understand that if the human animal form can talk using complex language systems to do so, there is no reason for us to think it would not have been possible that a creature from the Reptilian Family could also talk.

But it is highly unlikely that the Serpent was a Dragon/leviathan in appearance, and there is also no mention of the leviathan having the power of speech.

Thus, even that the connection is made by the Greco-Roman Christian mythology of Revelation, that the two are - of form - one and the same, they are not.

To summarize.
• The appearance of the serpent in the Garden of Eden story is not that of an actual snake but can be deduced from the limited information given.
• The serpent's abilities to walk and talk suggest a form different from that of a snake.
• The Hebrew and Greek words used for the serpent imply a connection to the reptilian family.
• While there are no fossil records of fire-breathing dragons, there are records of giant reptilian creatures that fit the description of dragons as close relatives.
• Actual dragons exist on the planet today, but they do not possess the ability to talk.
• The story of the serpent should be considered within a naturalistic framework rather than relying on supernatural interpretations.
• The connection between the serpent and the fire-dragon of Revelation is distorted by a supernatural overlay of creatures that do not exist on Earth.
• Hebrew mythology mentions Leviathan, a serpentine sea creature, but it is distinct from the serpent in the Garden of Eden story and does not possess the power of speech.
• Greco-Roman mythology influenced early Christianity and may have superimposed supernatural elements onto earlier Hebrew mythology.
• The appearance and characteristics of the serpent are not that of a dragon/leviathan, and there is no mention of the leviathan having the power of speech.

Peace in The Truth.

Post Reply