Could Adam and Eve talk to Animals like we can talk to each other?

[ewq1938]

God didn't create Satan, man did.

No, man didn't create Satan.

The Jews never connected Satan to the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

They also didn't connect the Messiah to Jesus. They are wrong on both counts.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The reason for this question. It kinda puzzled me that Adam and Eve that they didn't seem strange for a snake talking to them.

Well I have some unusual thoughts on this. A serpent can be defined as such "a sly or treacherous person, especially one who exploits a position of trust in order to betray it." Additionally, snakes, as we know them slither on the ground. So this entity was not a snake as we know it to begin with, it was something else. It was also the most "cunning", this is not so with snakes either. I believe the serpent was a unique creature, similar to the cherubim, that turned into an ordinary snake after the fall. It can also be symbolic. My take anyway.
Blessings

 

[JackRT]

As this thread testifies, the creation stories in Genesis give rise to much speculation some of which I regard as quite bizaar. Personally I regard the story itself as a speculation being used to carry a spiritual message. To treat the story as literal is to lose the message.

 

[DamianWarS]

Because, as you pointed out, it evidently was not a serpent as we know them, if it did not crawl it's belly before the incident, and it did not. It was something that was upright. So unless we are to think it bounced around on it's tail in an upright position, it had to be at least somewhat different than what we know today as a serpent/snake

New International Version
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

IOW, yes, the text says one thing but common sense tells us even more about how to deal with the text.

The text tells us information about a serpent that is different than how we understand serpents. But it does so mater of factly. Rev reveals the "ancient serpent" was in fact Satan but the text in a vacuum doesn't lead us to these conclusions. It was a serpent that apparently pre-fall didn't move on it's belly. The moment we start to insert things into the text to support our view then we are just trying to support a bias. Read the text and use the information it tells us to understand what the serpent was.

 

[DamianWarS]

You are thinking in an earthly way - the Nachash wasn’t a snake. God was punishing him and using terminology that is symbolic of his judgement.

just like when Abel’s blood was crying out to God - it wasn’t literally crying.

The serpent was a divine being - a Nachash, which are also called Seraph(the Seraphim)

Go to the Hebrew. When God told Moses to put a “fiery serpent”, God said put a SERAPH on a pole, and Moses put a NACHASH on a pole.

No doubt the serpent is Satan, as rev 20 reveals. But it's a serpent on purpose and not a mistake as the judgment keeps the theme

 

[Kenny'sID]

The text tells us information about a serpent that is different than how we understand serpents. But it does so mater of factly. Rev reveals the "ancient serpent" was in fact Satan but the text in a vacuum doesn't lead us to these conclusions. It was a serpent that apparently pre-fall didn't move on it's belly. The moment we start to insert things into the text to support our view then we are just trying to support a bias. Read the text and use the information it tells us to understand what the serpent was.

What do you think the serpent was?

 

[DamianWarS]

It would appear that was the interpretation of John of Patmos.

Are you saying you reject it?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

The reason for this question. It kinda puzzled me that Adam and Eve that they didn't seem strange for a snake talking to them.

Clearly it’s because they’re Slytherins.

 

[JackRT]

Are you saying you reject it?

I find it extremely problematic.

 

[coffee4u]

The reason for this question. It kinda puzzled me that Adam and Eve that they didn't seem strange for a snake talking to them.

I don't think Eve found it strange because she had only just been created. Even though God would have given them normal or even above normal intellect she didn't have any life experience to say what was possible/strange or not, so she accepted that the snake could talk because it talked.

 

[DavidPT]

I don't think it's out of the question that Satan used a snake to speak on his behalf. I'd like to stick to the Gensis story as closely as possible.

I think it is out of the question myself. In the book of Revelation it still connects satan to the serpent. Actually it indicates satan is the serpent in question. But if this was simply a snake satan used to communicate through at the time, why is the book of Revelation telling us, not that the serpent was simply used by satan in the past, but that the serpent was satan in the past?

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


All of this speaks of just one entity, not multiple entities. And it clearly says that satan is that old serpent, and not satan used a serpent in the garden to do his bidding.

 

[DavidPT]

They also didn't connect the Messiah to Jesus. They are wrong on both counts.

I agree.

Revelation makes it clear that the serpent in the garden was satan. This might not be made clear in the OT, therefore keeping in mind that unbelieving Jews reject the NT as holy writ. No wonder they were wrong, assuming the OT doesn't make it clear that the serpent in the garden was satan, but that the NT does make it clear.

 

[coffee4u]

I think it is out of the question myself. In the book of Revelation it still connects satan to the serpent. Actually it indicates satan is the serpent in question. But if this was simply a snake satan used to communicate through at the time, why is the book of Revelation telling us, not that the serpent was simply used by satan in the past, but that the serpent was satan in the past?

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


All of this speaks of just one entity, not multiple entities. And it clearly says that satan is that old serpent, and not satan used a serpent in the garden to do his bidding.

Because of Genesis 3:14
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

I believe the snake allowed Satan to use his body. If that verse wasn't there I would have said Satan merely changed to look like a snake, but why would God curse the snake to crawl on its belly if it wasn't complicit somehow?

 

[DavidPT]

Because of Genesis 3:14
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

I believe the snake allowed Satan to use his body. If that verse wasn't there I would have said Satan merely changed to look like a snake, but why would God curse the snake to crawl on its belly if it wasn't complicit somehow?

Why punish this particular snake, assuming it was a literal snake? Do you think this same snake is still alive yet today? Doesn't the account say?---Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


If this particular snake is dead by now, it should mean this part is no longer relevant----and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. One can't still be eating dust after one is dead.

And what about this part? And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Is the above meaning this? And I will put enmity between thee(a literal snake) and the woman, and between thy(a literal snake) seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

How can the 'thee' and the 'thy' in verse 15 not be meaning this serpent? Isn't that who God is addressing at the time, this serpent?

 

[coffee4u]

Why punish this particular snake, assuming it was a literal snake? Do you think this same snake is still alive yet today? Doesn't the account say?---Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Of course it isn't alive, but Adam and Eve aren't alive either yet that curse given to them is also given to us.

If this particular snake is dead by now, it should mean this part is no longer relevant----and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. One can't still be eating dust after one is dead.

Except the curse is relevant and we are living in it.

And what about this part? And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

We all know that is talking of Jesus.

Is the above meaning this? And I will put enmity between thee(a literal snake) and the woman, and between thy(a literal snake) seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

How can the 'thee' and the 'thy' in verse 15 not be meaning this serpent? Isn't that who God is addressing at the time, this serpent?

I think it's both talking of literal snakes and of Satan and Jesus.

So what do you make of the curse against the snake?

 

[friend of]

of this speaks of just one entity, not multiple entities. And it clearly says that satan is that old serpent, and not satan used a serpent in the garden to do his bidding.

I'm saying the serpent was an extension of Satan's being.

 

[SkyWriting]

God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) occurs by name in the Old Testament in the parable we call the Book of Job, and here it's clear that the angel Satan is not the Devil!

And also:

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Revelation 20:2
And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

Matthew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

[DavidPT]

God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) occurs by name in the Old Testament in the parable we call the Book of Job, and here it's clear that the angel Satan is not the Devil! The Devil is supposedly banished from the presence of God, yet in Job, Satan is allowed to talk with and to come and go from God's presence and on a mission for God yet! What's going on? Satan here is not "the Devil" but sort of God's prosecuting attorney, an unwelcome character but not an evil one.

The NT lied when it told us the following?

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


How many entities do you see in this verse, not including the angels of course? Who is it in this verse that is called the Devil, and Satan? Is that two names for the same being? Or is that two names for two different beings?

 

[DavidPT]

I'm saying the serpent was an extension of Satan's being.

What does it mean to be an extension of his being? Maybe I might even agree with you once I understand exactly what you are meaning.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm saying the serpent was an extension of Satan's being.

It's actually just a metaphor for his behavior. Snakes are dangerous and they hide well which translates to deception which Satan excels at.