yet you then go ahead and say it is only a metaphor for Satan.
It's really not that difficult. You need to learn to understand how parables and metaphors work by listening to Jesus, like the disciples did.
Matt 13:3
And he told them many things in parables, saying: "A sower went out to sow.
4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them.
5 Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil,
6 but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away.
7 Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them.
8 Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
9 He who has ears, let him hear."
In the story what are the birds?
Where they some strange hybrid of demon and bird like harpies sent to torment the farmer?
Was it the devil the disguising himself as a flock of birds?
Did Jesus mean the devil possessed a flock of birds and they attacked the seeds the way legion possessed the pigs?
Was Jesus telling us about the dawn of agriculture when some ancient demon used to steal farmer's seed, and that birds were named after this demon?
Or are they plain ordinary birds who steal seeds from farmers and gardeners the world over?
Is it a simple story of agricultural life, a farmer sowing his crop inspite of bad soil, weeds and animals stealing the seeds?
Of course it is more than just a story of farming life. It was a deeper meaning, Jesus told it to illustrate a message. In the meaning of the parable, Matt 13:19
the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. But in the story, it was
birds that took the seeds, plain ordinary common or garden birds. We do not need to reinterpret the parable and say the farmer was scattering Gospel tracts or that there were bible verses inscribed on the seeds. We do not need to suggest the thorns had psychic abilities to fill people with the worries and cares of the world. Nor are the birds hybrid demon birds who search out seeds with verses inscribed on them. No it is an ordinary story of an ordinary farmer ordinary seeds and ordinary birds. But the story illustrates something deeper.
The snake is just a snake in the Genesis story, but there is a deeper meaning of the story too.
Why cant you accept there is a possibility of the alternative? That Snakes were named after the serpent in the garden of eden.
As Spock says, "There are always alternatives." But you are asking me to abandon the plain meaning of a very simple story for a version never suggested anywhere in the text. The snake doesn't give his name to animals, he is an animal, and the creatures we call snakes today are not named after the snake, they are described in the curse as the serpent's seed, his descendants. In the story the creature is an animal called a snake, whose descendants bear the same curse as the snake, slithering on their bellies and apparently eating dust, and having a dislike for humans.
There is no way that you can be absolute about this one way or the other.
Can we be absolute about the account of the resurrection? There is certainly a lot I don't understand about the transformation of a dead corpse to the body Christ had after the Resurrection. Does the uncertainty mean we entertain any wild suggestion, like Jesus dead body is in a trophy cabinet in heaven and he was walking around in a 'spirit body' instead? That is where you get when you take the plain meaning of scripture and make the words can mean anything you like. It seems to me TEs have much more respect for the plain meaning of scripture than YECs who regularly have to twist the meaning of passages out of all recognition to make them fit their interpretation. It is much better to try to understand the plain meaning of what is being said, and then try look at the way it is meant, recognising the way scripture uses metaphor, parable any hyperbole, and how God communicated his message in simple terms people could understand.
Evidence the story is a parable, because Jesus never stepped on a snake.
That is not evidence of a parable at all. Its perfectly normal to use figures of speech, metaphors, idioms and the like when describing actual events.
Of course it's a metaphor, but it is a very long one. A metaphor that began back in verse 1 when we are first introduced to the snake. That is an extended metaphor 15 verses long, more than twice as long as that other extended metaphor we looked at, the parable of the sower.
So you agree now that snakes dont talk and there was no snake.
Of course snakes don't talk, and the snake in Gen 3 wasn't a real snake. But it is was a snake in the story, a talking snake. Olive trees don't talk and the olive trees in Judges 9 were not actually real trees. But they were trees in the story.
Does that mean you know better than all of the scholars who have translated plenty of the other major well known bibles?
Not me, we are talking about the translator of the CEV, LXX, ESV, Good News, HolmanCSB, NLT, NCV, NRSV, and RSV. Bear in mind the other translations don't say it is
not an animal. They simply don't say either way. A boy is smarter than all his class, but he is still one of the pupils. A teacher being smarter than his class is a job requirement. These other translations simply leave it open. The comparison itself suggests the serpent is an animal, otherwise it is a meaningless even a demeaning comparison to describe an angel as smarter than any animal. Especially when the purpose of the passage seems to be to introduce the serpent who was able to outsmart Eve. Angels are clever, more clever than humans, but you don't introduce an angelic master villain who is about to deceive humanity by saying he was smarter than a hamster.
So why would these other translation soft peddle the translation? One very common reason is tradition. This translation dates back to Wycliffe
Gen 3:1
But and the serpent was feller than alle lyuynge (living)
beestis of erthe, whiche the Lord God hadde maad.
And has come down to us through Tyndale
But the serpent was sotyller than all the beastes of the felde which ye LORde God had made
and the AV
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
These traditions run deep, but Wycliffe himself was not a Hebrew expert and actually translated his bible from the Latin.
The soft pedalled translation also sidesteps the whole can of worms of who the snake is.
Look at the NET bible and its translation notes
NET Bible Gen 3:1 said:
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=3&verse=1
Now
1 the serpent
2 was more shrewd
3 than any of the wild animals
4 that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, Is it really true that
5 God
6 said, You must not eat from any tree of the orchard?
7
2 sn Many theologians identify or associate
the serpent with Satan. In this view Satan comes in the disguise of a serpent or speaks through a serpent. This explains the serpents capacity to speak. While later passages in the Bible may indicate there was a satanic presence behind the serpent (see, for example,
Rev 12:9), the immediate context pictures the serpent as simply one of the animals of the field created by God (see
vv. 1, 14). An ancient Jewish interpretation explains the reference to the serpent in a literal manner, attributing the capacity to speak to all the animals in the orchard. This text (
Jub. 3:28) states, On that day [the day the man and woman were expelled from the orchard] the mouth of all the beasts and cattle and birds and whatever walked or moved was stopped from speaking because all of them used to speak to one another with one speech and one language [presumed to be Hebrew, see
12:26]. Josephus,
Ant. 1.1.4 (1.41) attributes the serpents actions to jealousy. He writes that the serpent, living in the company of Adam and his wife, grew jealous of the blessings which he supposed were destined for them if they obeyed Gods behests, and, believing that disobedience would bring trouble on them, he maliciously persuaded the woman to taste of the tree of wisdom.
They admit
"the immediate context pictures the serpent as simply one of the animals" and yet they translate the verse as:
"the serpent was more shrewd than any of the wild animals". It is not wrong, it is just not complete, they simply don't give the full impact of the Hebrew.
However if the snake
wasn't a beast of the field, then the translation committees of the CEV, LXX, ESV, Good News, HolmanCSB, NLT, NCV, NRSV, and RSV are wrong.
Who says it was a slithering snake before the curse? This is a how-the-snake-lost-its-legs story
Thats hilarious, and has no support at all.
You suggested it yourself, "God cursing a slithering snake to become a snake is a fairly shallow curse." Yet Genesis call's it a snake before the curse. The obvious conclusion is that the snake didn't slither on its belly or eat dust before it was cursed, that before it was cursed it walked around like any other animal and it was the curse that took its legs away. A quick google search will show this is how the passage is understood by interpreters from a wide range of backgrounds, from Evangelicals and the Talmud to JWs and the kabbalah.
Look up the old commentaries and see how they read it.
Gill: upon thy belly shalt thou go, or "breast", as Aben Ezra, and others;
Jarchi thinks it had feet before, but were cut off on this account, and so became a reptile, as some serpents now have feet like geese, as Pliny (x) relates; or it might go in
a more erect posture on its hinder feet, as the basilisk, which is one kind of serpent, now does; and if
it was a flying one, bright and shining in the air, now it should lose all its glory, and grovel in the dust, and with pain, or at least with difficulty, creep along on its breast and belly; and this, as it respects the punishment of the devil, may signify, that he being cast down from the realms of bliss and glory, shall never be able to rise more, and regain his former place and dignity:
Welsey: Gen 3:14 To testify a displeasure against sin, God fastens a curse upon the serpent, Thou art cursed above all cattle - Even the creeping things, when God made them, were blessed of him, Gen_1:22, but sin turned the blessing into a curse. Upon thy belly shalt thou go -
No longer upon feet, or half erect, but thou shalt crawl along, thy belly cleaving to the earth. Dust thou shalt eat - Which signifies a base and despicable condition.
Matthew Henry: He is to be for ever looked upon as a vile and despicable creature, and a proper object of scorn and contempt: Upon thy belly thou shalt go,
no longer upon feet, or half erect, but thou shalt crawl along, thy belly cleaving to the earth, an expression of a very abject miserable condition
K&D: If these words are not to be robbed of their entire meaning, they cannot be understood in any other way than as
denoting that the form and movements of the serpent were altered, and that its present repulsive shape is the effect of the curse pronounced upon it, though we cannot form any accurate idea of its original appearance.
The whole argument that Genesis 3 is a Parable because snakes don't talk is ridiculous.
Except it is not the whole argument. It is a good piece of evidence, and enough to convince most people the talking trees in Judges 9 were a parable. But we have more evidence than the fact the snake is said to talk. There is also the fact that it is called a snake, a beast of the field, and is described as a physical snake throughout the story, while we are told in Revelation that the ancient serpent who deceived the world was a fallen angel called Satan, not a literal reptile. How was Satan the snake, Satan does not slither or eat dust he is not an animal either. It works if the snake was part of a parable, that it was Satan the way the birds of the air were Satan. Again there is that fact that if Genesis is literal, the promise of a redeemer has not been fulfilled. Genesis says he would bruise the snake's head, but Jesus did not step on a 4000 year old snake at Calvary. He defeated Satan.
