Do Creationists Believe in Talking Snakes?

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,501
7,861
...
✟1,192,682.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
BH: “But it may also be that the serpent did actually talk by a miracle of the enemy.”

I don’t believe that the Devil can work miracles.



BH: “For the devil essentially did a miracle before Pharaoh and Moses and he is said to do miracles in the end times (to deceive others).”

I don’t believe this is true. The apparent miracles done by Pharoah’s sorcerer’s were tricks, what we would call stage magic or legerdemain.

Revelation 13:12-14 says,
And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.”

Even good angels had power to blind men at Sodom.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,178
1,226
71
Sebring, FL
✟664,282.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes there are many unbelievable events found throughout the bible ranging from the talking snake, through burning bushes, floating axe heads, sun going backwards, the dead being raised to the unimaginable God becoming man and dieing to pay the penalty for sin.

Please say how one determine which events are true and which are parables , ( mad up stories )?


I assume that you are advocating what has been called newspaper exegesis. How do you know that God intended the Bible to be read as we read a modern newspaper? There were no newspapers when the books of the Bible were written.

I haven’t noticed that creationists are concerned about accuracy. For instance, many creationists believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, although no book of the Bible says any such thing. Creationists simply retain ideas they find interesting, or easy to understand, and dismiss or reject anything they find uninteresting.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,178
1,226
71
Sebring, FL
✟664,282.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There is no record of a talking snake. No species but humans can speak a language. The Bible does describe an occasion when Satan disguised himself as a snake, and talked to the first humans in that disguise.


The trouble with this scenario is that you are adding a new character to the Biblical narrative. The words “Satan” and “Devil” don’t appear in Genesis. There must be a reason for this. Yes, it is reasonable to assume that Satan was working behind the scenes in Sodom and Gomorrah and a few other places. We are not at liberty to add entirely new characters to this Biblical story.

If Satan disguised himself as a snake, why doesn’t Genesis tell us that?

Here’s another question. The Garden of Eden is often taken to be the same as paradise. Paradise is a Persian word for garden, I’ve been told. The Expulsion from Eden is taken to be the Expulsion of humans from paradise. If Eden is paradise, how did Satan get in? Wouldn’t demons be excluded? Wouldn’t demons be kept away from the Tree of Life? Think about it, it doesn’t add up.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,501
7,861
...
✟1,192,682.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The trouble with this scenario is that you are adding a new character to the Biblical narrative. The words “Satan” and “Devil” don’t appear in Genesis. There must be a reason for this. Yes, it is reasonable to assume that Satan was working behind the scenes in Sodom and Gomorrah and a few other places. We are not at liberty to add entirely new characters to this Biblical story.

If Satan disguised himself as a snake, why doesn’t Genesis tell us that?

Here’s another question. The Garden of Eden is often taken to be the same as paradise. Paradise is a Persian word for garden, I’ve been told. The Expulsion from Eden is taken to be the Expulsion of humans from paradise. If Eden is paradise, how did Satan get in? Wouldn’t demons be excluded? Wouldn’t demons be kept away from the Tree of Life? Think about it, it doesn’t add up.

The devil is alluded to in Ezekiel 28:12-19 (Which sounds similar to Isaiah 14:12-19). Ezekiel mentions how he was in the Garden of Eden.

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12).​

The Isaiah passage refers to him as Lucifer (i.e. light bearer). Ezekiel 28 it talks about how there were precious jem stones on him. Gem stones reflect light and they are like little mini light bearers. How fitting.

Side Note:

14 x 2 = 28 (Isaiah 14, and Ezekiel 28).
Verse 12 starts off in talking about Satan for both passages.
Verse 19 talks about Satan's end for both passages.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Religiot

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2020
1,046
384
Private
✟29,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Jacobson's organ
, also called vomeronasal organ, an organ of chemoreception that is part of the olfactory system of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, although it does not occur in all tetrapod groups. It is a patch of sensory cells within the main nasal chamber that detects heavy moisture-borne odour particles.

THE SNAKE DOES NOT TASTE THE GROUND nor eat dust, it SNIFFS the ground for moisture-borne odour particles!!!

Christ does not need us to make things up to make His word more palatable...puleese.
You zealots are sure quick to respond without first taking the time to know what it is you're talking about: without any effort at all, I simply went to youtube, and typed in, 'snake flicking tongue on ground', the first video that popped up, demonstrates, that snakes do taste the dust in the air and the ground and on anything around, in the pursuit of their prey, viz:

To pretend that the snake's tongue is not constantly licking up dust, is to deny what your eyes can plainly see, and what is scientifically observed; in other words, it is blindness, and wilful in this case.

Not only must the tongue be retracted to be cleansed, but it must deposit what it picked up onto the Jacobson's organ for analysis--it is smell by physical contact with particulate matter, otherwise, it would not require that special organ, designed for the purpose of smell-by-contact. --the Jacobson's organ in snakes is not comparable to other vertebrae--that would be like comparing the eyes of a bat to those of an eagle, yes, they're eyes, but seriously, they are not comparable, for one creature is known to be blind by those same eyes, while the other can see at distances yet to be fully understood.

Some simple questions to try and help the unscientific mind:

How many times would someone, or something, have to lick the ground before they'd get dust on their tongue?

Or, how many times would they have to lick everything in front of their face, including the ground, before they'd get dust on their tongue?

--Imagine that there was a creature, who's tongue was designed, to flicker at such a high rate of speed, as to allow it to lick anything in front of it's face dozens of times--including, and especially, the ground--before you could even blink: would that creature get dust on it's tongue? and if so, how much would it swallow, daily? What if that same creature actually spent all of it's time crawling around on it's stomach, licking the ground every few seconds: how much dust would it get on it's tongue, if any? and if any, how much of it would it swallow, daily?

I think the above questions, along with the link to the video (for those who haven't seen snakes), are plenty enough to get the wheels of shame turning.

Let me know tho, cause I often underestimate what it actually takes to produce shame in a naysayer.

Thanks in advance.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I assume that you are advocating what has been called newspaper exegesis. How do you know that God intended the Bible to be read as we read a modern newspaper? There were no newspapers when the books of the Bible were written.

I haven’t noticed that creationists are concerned about accuracy. For instance, many creationists believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, although no book of the Bible says any such thing. Creationists simply retain ideas they find interesting, or easy to understand, and dismiss or reject anything they find uninteresting.

Many follow James Ussher or don't realize that number comes from him.
As a creationist I don't follow Ussher and I have said on here before that I believe 6-15 thousand years but people have 6 stuck in their heads, not just creationists but people like yourself as well.
The point with creation is not an exact number like 6 thousand but rather that the earth is relatively young and it teaches us where sin came from and where it takes us, which is to Jesus the second Adam.
It really would not matter if it was 6-20 or 50 thousand now would it?
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,489
7,347
Dallas
✟885,152.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In Genesis 3, a serpent, or snake, talks with Eve. In Genesis 3:14-15, God says that the serpent will lose its legs. God doesn’t say that the serpent will no longer be able to talk or no longer have the intelligence to talk. We know there are no talking snakes today. Snakes do not have the vocal cords for speech, or any brain that could carry on a conversation.

All of this fits with the creation story in Genesis 2-3 being a parable for our instruction. It is not history. It doesn’t take place in the real world. The talking snake is a literary device.

For creationists, God did not take the serpent’s voice away, or say that it would lose intelligence to become a dumb animal. If there were talking snakes only six thousand years ago, when many creationists believe the world was created, there should be talking snakes today. How do creationists explain this?

Many creationists have been taught that Eve was tempted by Satan. They have been taught to substitute “Satan” for “snake” or serpent. Yet Genesis says nothing about Satan being in the Garden of Eden. This could be one reason creationists don’t ask when snakes lost their voices, they think of the snake as a manifestation of Satan. Yet Genesis says no such thing. God talks about the serpent as a real animal when it says it will “crawl on its belly,” or lose its legs.

If God didn’t take away the snake’s voice or its intelligence at the Expulsion from Eden, why don’t snakes talk today? It’s something for creationists to think about.



The King James Version does mention devils more often than most modern translation. Even so, the first mention of Satan in the KJV is in I Chronicles.


And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
I Chronicles 21:1 KJV

The first mention of devil or devils in the KJV is in Leviticus.

And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after
whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them
throughout their generations. Leviticus 17:7 KJV

There is no mention of Devil or Satan in Eden, or in any other part of Genesis.

This is why people associate the serpent with satan.

“And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭12:9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
 
Upvote 0

Freth

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 11, 2020
1,513
1,828
Midwest, USA
✟379,119.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Many follow James Ussher or don't realize that number comes from him.
As a creationist I don't follow Ussher and I have said on here before that I believe 6-15 thousand years but people have 6 stuck in their heads, not just creationists but people like yourself as well.
The point with creation is not an exact number like 6 thousand but rather that the earth is relatively young and it teaches us where sin came from and where it takes us, which is to Jesus the second Adam.
It really would not matter if it was 6-20 or 50 thousand now would it?

The time prophecies and alignments with historical events give us a good indicator where we are in earth's history. You can calculate from creation to present day and it's about six thousand years. The events that were prophesied for the last days are happening. I don't think you can look at the Biblical timeline and come to the conclusion that the earth is older than six thousand years, unless you're inserting time that isn't there in scripture.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,489
7,347
Dallas
✟885,152.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Mark Quayle: “Quite possibly even a physical manifestation of the Devil himself.”

Then why does God punish snakes by causing them to lose their legs? God goes on to say that people will crush the heads of snakes for all time to come.

As I pointed out in the OP, there is no mention of the Devil in Genesis, so you are adding to the Bible when you say that the snake is a manifestation of the Devil.


Mark Quayle: “What is interesting to me is the notion that if God indeed is real and created, how is any of this not literally possible for him to do --he who is the very 'inventor' of reality.”

This is one of the problems I have with creationists. Creationists think it is perfectly reasonable that the day before written history began, the world was operating on laws completely unlike anything that has ever been seen since then. Creationists don’t expect the world to make sense. That can’t be right.

If you can’t believe in supernatural occurrences how can you believe in Christ’s resurrection?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It just doesn't sound consistent to me. If one animal speaks literally in one case, then why is it that another animal in a different case was not literally speaking? To me: This seems like a cross reference in Scripture whereby I see two animals speaking in Scripture. I am not looking to make excuses for what is possible or not possible. I know the Bible is a book full of the miraculous. I just read it and believe it. It does not sound impossible to me that a serpent could talk if it was the devil who possessed the serpent. Again, the devil is able to do miracles, too. 2 Thessalonians 2:9 says there is “the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,” and Exodus 7:10-11 says, “Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.”

Side Note:

Granted, there are limitations to what the devil can do (of course). GOD is so much more powerful obviously. GOD's power is unlimited and He holds all things together by the word of His power.
I don’t think it is inconsistent - I think the serpent literally spoke, but I just don’t think it was a snake in the way you do.

The Hebrew word for serpent “nachash”, is not a single use word, and there are connections between the word nachash, and seraph in the OT - for reference, the Seraphim are in heaven around God’s throne. Seraphim = the plural form of seraph.

when God told Moses to build a serpent and put it on a pole, the word God used where we read serpent is “seraph”. Moses responds by building a “nachash”.

Check out the Strong’s definitions of what seraphim are:

H8314 - śārāp̄ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV)
saw-rawf'; from H8313; burning, i.e. (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically, a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color):—fiery (serpent), seraph.

  1. serpent, fiery serpent
    1. poisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)
  2. seraph, seraphim
    1. majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God
i do think a donkey spoke, but I believe it was a donkey.

Satan does have power, and as you referenced, the sorcerors of Egypt were able to replicate some of the signs Aaron performed, but not all - they were limited, but could still work signs and wonders.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Freth

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 11, 2020
1,513
1,828
Midwest, USA
✟379,119.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
In Genesis 3, a serpent, or snake, talks with Eve. In Genesis 3:14-15, God says that the serpent will lose its legs. God doesn’t say that the serpent will no longer be able to talk or no longer have the intelligence to talk. We know there are no talking snakes today. Snakes do not have the vocal cords for speech, or any brain that could carry on a conversation.

All of this fits with the creation story in Genesis 2-3 being a parable for our instruction. It is not history. It doesn’t take place in the real world. The talking snake is a literary device.

For creationists, God did not take the serpent’s voice away, or say that it would lose intelligence to become a dumb animal. If there were talking snakes only six thousand years ago, when many creationists believe the world was created, there should be talking snakes today. How do creationists explain this?

Many creationists have been taught that Eve was tempted by Satan. They have been taught to substitute “Satan” for “snake” or serpent. Yet Genesis says nothing about Satan being in the Garden of Eden. This could be one reason creationists don’t ask when snakes lost their voices, they think of the snake as a manifestation of Satan. Yet Genesis says no such thing. God talks about the serpent as a real animal when it says it will “crawl on its belly,” or lose its legs.

If God didn’t take away the snake’s voice or its intelligence at the Expulsion from Eden, why don’t snakes talk today? It’s something for creationists to think about.



The King James Version does mention devils more often than most modern translation. Even so, the first mention of Satan in the KJV is in I Chronicles.


And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
I Chronicles 21:1 KJV

The first mention of devil or devils in the KJV is in Leviticus.

And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after
whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them
throughout their generations. Leviticus 17:7 KJV

There is no mention of Devil or Satan in Eden, or in any other part of Genesis.

Visions, dreams and parables are always identified in scripture before they are presented. Neither the creation account, nor the account of the fall are prefaced with such an identification. Therefore, we can only come to one conclusion—the language surrounding the events of creation and the fall are literal.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,489
7,347
Dallas
✟885,152.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
BH: “But it may also be that the serpent did actually talk by a miracle of the enemy.”

I don’t believe that the Devil can work miracles.



BH: “For the devil essentially did a miracle before Pharaoh and Moses and he is said to do miracles in the end times (to deceive others).”

I don’t believe this is true. The apparent miracles done by Pharoah’s sorcerer’s were tricks, what we would call stage magic or legerdemain.

The Bible specifically forbids the use of magic, sorcery, oracles, and mediums. If these are not true then why are they forbidden?
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,501
7,861
...
✟1,192,682.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don’t think it is inconsistent - I think the serpent literally spoke, but I just don’t think it was a snake in the way you do.

The Hebrew word for serpent “nachash”, is not a single use word, and there are connections between the word nachash, and seraph in the OT - for reference, the Seraphim are in heaven around God’s throne. Seraphim = the plural form of seraph.

when God told Moses to build a serpent and put it on a pole, the word God used where we read serpent is “seraph”. Moses responds by building a “nachash”.

i do think a donkey spoke, but I believe it was a donkey.

Satan does have power, and as you referenced, the sorcerors of Egypt were able to replicate some of the signs Aaron performed, but not all - they were limited, but could still work signs and wonders.

I believe Satan possessed or influenced the serpent, but the serpent is not a code word for Satan (with no actual real serpent present).

In fact, the idea that serpent is a code word for Satan (with no real serpent present) does not add up with what we read in the Bible. It would be one thing for Scripture to describe the word serpent as a code word for Satan (with no real serpent present), but it would be another thing altogether to keep up the illusion of this kind of metaphor by God telling us the serpent (Satan) to crawl upon his belly and to eat dust. This is what a snake does today. In addition, Scripture usually has another testimony. If crawling upon his belly and eating dust have some other kinds of spiritual meanings, we should see that in the Bible clearly associated with the devil. But in reality: We learn that a serpent and dust eating is simply referring to a regular animal and not the devil in another place in Scripture.

For Micah 7:17 says,
“They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.”

Furthermore, Genesis 3:1 says,

“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.” (Genesis 3:1).​

This means that the serpent here is a created animal here. God says that the serpent was more subtil than any BEAST OF THE FIELD which the Lord God had made. Satan (a fallen angel) is NOT among the beasts of the field which the Lord God had made in the beginning.

Again, Scripture stresses again this is a literal animal in that it places it among the other animals in His creation.

For Genesis 3:14 says,
“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;”​

For God says that the serpent is cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field. So this surely cannot be a code word for Satan (with no real serpent present) because it lists the serpent in being among the cattle and every beast of the field. If we were to go back to Genesis 1, and look up the day God created the beasts of the field, there is no mention of how the angels were created.

Note: Psalms 104 implies that angels were created on Day 2.

So in conclusion:

What happened is that Satan possessed or influenced the serpent (a real animal) to speak (by some unknown means we are not aware of). The serpent was in part responsible for the fall of Adam and Eve because it cooperated with the devil. This is why the serpent (an actual real animal) was punished.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: BNR32FAN
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,489
7,347
Dallas
✟885,152.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I believe Satan possessed or influenced the serpent, but the serpent is not a code word for Satan (with no actual real serpent present).

In fact, the idea that serpent is a code word for Satan (with no real serpent present) does not add up with what we read in the Bible. It would be one thing for Scripture to describe the word serpent as a code word for Satan (with no real serpent present), but it would be another thing altogether to keep up the illusion of this kind of metaphor by God telling us the serpent (Satan) to crawl upon his belly and to eat dust. This is what a snake does today. In addition, Scripture usually has another testimony. If crawling upon his belly and eating dust have some other kinds of spiritual meanings, we should see that in the Bible clearly associated with the devil. But in reality: We learn that a serpent and dust eating is simply referring to a regular animal and not the devil in another place in Scripture.

For Micah 7:17 says,
“They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.”

Furthermore, Genesis 3:1 says,

“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.” (Genesis 3:1).​

This means that the serpent here is a created animal here. God says that the serpent was more subtil than any BEAST OF THE FIELD which the Lord God had made. Satan (a fallen angel) is NOT among the beasts of the field which the Lord God had made in the beginning.

Again, Scripture stresses again this is a literal animal in that it places it among the other animals in His creation.

For Genesis 3:14 says,
“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;”​

For God says that the serpent is cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field. So this surely cannot be a code word for Satan (with no real serpent present) because it lists the serpent in being among the cattle and every beast of the field. If we were to go back to Genesis 1, and look up the day God created the beasts of the field, there is no mention of how the angels were created.

Note: Psalms 104 implies that angels were created on Day 2.

So in conclusion:

What happened is that Satan possessed or influenced the serpent (a real animal) to speak (by some unknown means we are not aware of). The serpent was in part responsible for the fall of Adam and Eve because it cooperated with the devil. This is why the serpent (an actual real animal) was punished.

Yes I agree, because other beasts are mentioned in contrast to the serpent I believe this is evidence that satan approached Eve disguised as a serpent which would mean that he manifested himself as an actual serpent.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,092
5,667
68
Pennsylvania
✟788,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
BH: “But it may also be that the serpent did actually talk by a miracle of the enemy.”

I don’t believe that the Devil can work miracles.



BH: “For the devil essentially did a miracle before Pharaoh and Moses and he is said to do miracles in the end times (to deceive others).”

I don’t believe this is true. The apparent miracles done by Pharoah’s sorcerer’s were tricks, what we would call stage magic or legerdemain.

While I too balk at the term, 'miracle', when applied to the Devil, technically, I can't deny its applicability. 'Miracle' is generally meant to refer to a good, or at least neutral, sort of thing.

But you are basically saying the spirit world cannot interact with the material world, are you not? There are millions, maybe billions, in third world countries that would beg to disagree with you.

The devil has (had?) reason to believe he was the most powerful of all angels. I don't know his 'natural' limitations but it seems obvious his strongest limitations have to do with the restraints God imposes on him. There is, of course the natural fact that he cannot do "new". He can't create --only destroy. He is the father of sin, and sin can only negate, not create.

Here is something I consider intensely interesting: Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that he has the ability to move things around, or even to transform molecules into other molecules. If so, it would seem he rarely finds the need to do so, except for purposes that God allows. If that is so, then he finds perversion and destruction of good, and corruption by influence of minds and hearts, to be both more effective and more useful to him than fear through the senses, or than a human's merely intellectual choice of the more attractive. Like the Spirit of God, it would seem, he finds work internal to the human individual more useful than external.

Logically, the fact that he does not often do what we might call 'miracle', or what you might call 'stage tricks', doesn't mean he can't. Interestingly, though, I find the fact that God doesn't usually convince people of his existence by means of miracle equally compelling.

So, it does not seem, then, to be through empirical influence of the intellect, after all, that God, (nor the Devil, for that matter), suppose to accomplish his (their) goals. No doubt God is interested in the heart, the soul, and the Devil is, too. Perhaps, after all, the intellect and will are more readily tied to each other by access through another door than the senses!

Both God and the Devil are interested in the intellect, no doubt! But the mind and the intellect are not quite the same thing. The devil's work can be seen all around us, in leading people to think THEY are the masters of their intellect --in fact, masters even of their own fate-- though on further logical consideration they should be able to see this is not so. God, on the other hand, doesn't even so much work at convincing anyone of the facts for their consideration so that they can make good choices, as he does in changing their hearts, their desires and purposes, so that they become one with him. (Funny thing is, only God knows in whom he will do this --not even the Devil knows.)

But to return to the OP, and your comments on that line, my guess at this point is that you don't believe in the inspiration/ authority of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,501
7,861
...
✟1,192,682.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes I agree, because other beasts are mentioned in contrast to the serpent I believe this is evidence that satan approached Eve disguised as a serpent which would mean that he manifested himself as an actual serpent.

I would say that Satan did not merely change form, but he actually possessed an actual real serpent. For the serpent is punished by God with a curse like description that we can see in real serpents today. The serpent is listed among the other cattle and the beasts. If this was merely Satan appearing to be a serpent, then why is God punishing serpents?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
In Genesis 3, a serpent, or snake, talks with Eve. In Genesis 3:14-15, God says that the serpent will lose its legs. God doesn’t say that the serpent will no longer be able to talk or no longer have the intelligence to talk. We know there are no talking snakes today. Snakes do not have the vocal cords for speech, or any brain that could carry on a conversation.

All of this fits with the creation story in Genesis 2-3 being a parable for our instruction. It is not history. It doesn’t take place in the real world. The talking snake is a literary device.

And Balaam's donkey? Just a device, too? Or the Resurrection of Christ? No one else has risen from the dead since his resurrection. His resurrection is just a literary device, a mere parable for our instruction, then, too? How do you decide which supernatural event is legitimate and which isn't? Or is it all just parable, spiritual myth from which to draw helpful nuggets of "wisdom"?

If we grant that God created everything as the Bible says, why balk at the thought of a talking snake? This seems to me to be "straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel." Why accept the far bigger biblical claim of divine creation but fuss over the unusual details of the account of Adam and Eve's temptation in Eden?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums