Death Before the Fall

[Gxg (G²)]

The word 'other' is not in the Hebrew text. It's not included in translations such as Young's Literal or NET Bible. The nachash is being compared to the beasts of the field, but not as one of them.

I think Heiser's hit the nail on the head. He's not looking at it from a scientific/unscientific point of view, but from a cultural look at the Bible and related ANE literature.

He discusses the curses meted out on the nachash here, part of the rough draft of his upcoming book.
.

Loved what Heisner shared on the curses - and thanks for putting it out there

 

[Gxg (G²)]

While he's not a YEC, he believes Adam and Eve were real people, the garden a real place, and the nachash a real being of some type.

Thank goodness..

 

[Assyrian]

The word 'other' is not in the Hebrew text. It's not included in translations such as Young's Literal or NET Bible. The nachash is being compared to the beasts of the field, but not as one of them.

It is to do with the preposition min translated 'than' in the AV's Gen 3:1 the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field. It comes from the same root as miyn or 'kind'. From the idea of being part of, it takes the meaning 'from out of'. So what Gen 3:1 is saying that out of all of the beasts of the field the serpent was shrewd, or more idiomatically more shrewd than all the others.

Here is what Gesenius says in his Hebrew Grammar

[119v] (d) מִן‎, originally (according to §101a) separation,[1] represents both the idea of distance, separation or remoteness from something, and that of motion away from something, hence also descent, origin from a place, Am 11.
[119w] (1) From the idea of separation is naturally derived on the one hand the sense of (taken) from among..., e numero, e.g. Gn 3 1 subtil as none other of the beasts, &c.; cf. 3:14, Dt 3324, 1 S 1533, Ju 524 (so especially after the idea of choosing out of[sup][2][/sup] a larger class, 1 S 228; cf. Ex 195, &c.), and on the other hand, the sense of without (separated, free from...), e.g. Is 223 מִקֶּ֫שֶׁת אֻסָּ֫דוּ‎ without the bow (i.e. without one needing to bend a bow against them) they were made prisoners; cf. Jer 4845 מִכֹּחַ‎ without strength; Ho 66, as the first half-verse shows, not more than burnt offerings (as R.V.), but and not burnt offerings; Mi 36, ψ 525, Jb 1115, 1926, 219, also such examples as Nu 1524 far from the eyes, i.e. unobserved by the congregation; Pr 203.

[sup][2][/sup] All the partitive uses of מִן‎ also come most naturally under this idea of separation out of a larger class. Thus מִן‎ is used in the sense of some, something, and even one, in such expressions as and he slew... also מִשָּׂרֵי יִשְּׂרָאֵל‎ (divers) of the princes of Israel, 2 Ch 214; מִכָּל־‎ Lv 42; 1 K 185; מִדַּם הַפָּר‎ some of the blood of the bullock, Ex 2912, &c.; Jb 276 my heart doth not reproach me מִיָּמַי‎ for any, i.e. for one, of my days; 38:12 מִיָּמֶ֫יךָ‎ one of thy days, i.e. ever in thy life (this explanation is confirmed by 1 K 16; cf. also 1 S 1445, 2528). In this way also, the frequently misunderstood Hebrew (and Arabic) idiom is to be explained, by which מִן‎ before אֶחָד‎, אַחַת‎ is equivalent to ullus; e.g. Lv 42 and shall do מֵֽאַחַת מֵהֵ֫גָּה‎ any one of these things; 5:13, Dt 157, Ez 1810; so before a nomen unitatis (see §122t), 1 S 1445 (2 S 1411, 1 K 152) מִשַּֽׂעֲרַת רֹאשׁוֹ‎ not one hair of his head.—מִן־‎ is used in the sense of the Arabic min el-beyān or explicative min (often to be simply translated by namely), e.g. in Gn 722 of all that was, i.e. so far as it was, probably also Gn 62 (=whomsoever they chose).
​

I think Heiser's hit the nail on the head. He's not looking at it from a scientific/unscientific point of view, but from a cultural look at the Bible and related ANE literature.

He discusses the curses meted out on the nachash here, part of the rough draft of his upcoming book.

I think perhaps you and Dr. Heiser may reach different conclusions because you're approaching the story with different assumptions. While he's not a YEC, he believes Adam and Eve were real people, the garden a real place, and the nachash a real being of some type.

A being portrayed the story is a snake, left slithering on his belly eating dust. I agree with Heiser about the real significance of these curses, but he is missing the very straight forward picture presented in the story that describes a snake, even telling us the serpent was one of the beasts of the field. I agree we shouldn't try to read our scientific presuppositions into the story and that we need as best we can to understand it in terms of ANE culture. Heiser even recognises that the story is operating on two different levels, what is going on in the divine council on the mountain of God and what is happening on earth. But we need to look to how the story is told, just because we recognise a supernatural being in operation, the one Ezekiel describes as a guardian Cherub on the mountain of God, we should not read that understanding directly back into the story about the garden if it doesn't fit. We still need to take the plain meaning of the story in the garden at face value and see what it is saying, and how it is saying it. And in the story it is simply a talking snake.

I don't see it as an issue of a real Adam and Eve or not. You can still insist on real people with the story of their temptation and fall told in metaphor, as Heiser shows you can't escape metaphor in the story. But it work even more beautifully when you realise Adam and Eve are part of the metaphor too.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A being portrayed the story is a snake, left slithering on his belly eating dust. I agree with Heiser about the real significance of these curses, but he is missing the very straight forward picture presented in the story that describes a snake, even telling us the serpent was one of the beasts of the field. I agree we shouldn't try to read our scientific presuppositions into the story and that we need as best we can to understand it in terms of ANE culture. Heiser even recognises that the story is operating on two different levels, what is going on in the divine council on the mountain of God and what is happening on earth. But we need to look to how the story is told, just because we recognise a supernatural being in operation, the one Ezekiel describes as a guardian Cherub on the mountain of God, we should not read that understanding directly back into the story about the garden if it doesn't fit. We still need to take the plain meaning of the story in the garden at face value and see what it is saying, and how it is saying it. And in the story it is simply a talking snake.
.

So the snake was punished by being possessed by the devil and all snakes suffered the curse given to the serpent?

 

[ChetSinger]

It is to do with the preposition min translated 'than' in the AV's Gen 3:1 the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field. It comes from the same root as miyn or 'kind'. From the idea of being part of, it takes the meaning 'from out of'. So what Gen 3:1 is saying that out of all of the beasts of the field the serpent was shrewd, or more idiomatically more shrewd than all the others.

Here is what Gesenius says in his Hebrew Grammar

[119v] (d) מִן‎, originally (according to §101a) separation,[1] represents both the idea of distance, separation or remoteness from something, and that of motion away from something, hence also descent, origin from a place, Am 11.
[119w] (1) From the idea of separation is naturally derived on the one hand the sense of (taken) from among..., e numero, e.g. Gn 3 1 subtil as none other of the beasts, &c.; cf. 3:14, Dt 3324, 1 S 1533, Ju 524 (so especially after the idea of choosing out of[sup][2][/sup] a larger class, 1 S 228; cf. Ex 195, &c.), and on the other hand, the sense of without (separated, free from...), e.g. Is 223 מִקֶּ֫שֶׁת אֻסָּ֫דוּ‎ without the bow (i.e. without one needing to bend a bow against them) they were made prisoners; cf. Jer 4845 מִכֹּחַ‎ without strength; Ho 66, as the first half-verse shows, not more than burnt offerings (as R.V.), but and not burnt offerings; Mi 36, ψ 525, Jb 1115, 1926, 219, also such examples as Nu 1524 far from the eyes, i.e. unobserved by the congregation; Pr 203.

[sup][2][/sup] All the partitive uses of מִן‎ also come most naturally under this idea of separation out of a larger class. Thus מִן‎ is used in the sense of some, something, and even one, in such expressions as and he slew... also מִשָּׂרֵי יִשְּׂרָאֵל‎ (divers) of the princes of Israel, 2 Ch 214; מִכָּל־‎ Lv 42; 1 K 185; מִדַּם הַפָּר‎ some of the blood of the bullock, Ex 2912, &c.; Jb 276 my heart doth not reproach me מִיָּמַי‎ for any, i.e. for one, of my days; 38:12 מִיָּמֶ֫יךָ‎ one of thy days, i.e. ever in thy life (this explanation is confirmed by 1 K 16; cf. also 1 S 1445, 2528). In this way also, the frequently misunderstood Hebrew (and Arabic) idiom is to be explained, by which מִן‎ before אֶחָד‎, אַחַת‎ is equivalent to ullus; e.g. Lv 42 and shall do מֵֽאַחַת מֵהֵ֫גָּה‎ any one of these things; 5:13, Dt 157, Ez 1810; so before a nomen unitatis (see §122t), 1 S 1445 (2 S 1411, 1 K 152) מִשַּֽׂעֲרַת רֹאשׁוֹ‎ not one hair of his head.—מִן־‎ is used in the sense of the Arabic min el-beyān or explicative min (often to be simply translated by namely), e.g. in Gn 722 of all that was, i.e. so far as it was, probably also Gn 62 (=whomsoever they chose).
​

A being portrayed the story is a snake, left slithering on his belly eating dust. I agree with Heiser about the real significance of these curses, but he is missing the very straight forward picture presented in the story that describes a snake, even telling us the serpent was one of the beasts of the field. I agree we shouldn't try to read our scientific presuppositions into the story and that we need as best we can to understand it in terms of ANE culture. Heiser even recognises that the story is operating on two different levels, what is going on in the divine council on the mountain of God and what is happening on earth. But we need to look to how the story is told, just because we recognise a supernatural being in operation, the one Ezekiel describes as a guardian Cherub on the mountain of God, we should not read that understanding directly back into the story about the garden if it doesn't fit. We still need to take the plain meaning of the story in the garden at face value and see what it is saying, and how it is saying it. And in the story it is simply a talking snake.

I don't see it as an issue of a real Adam and Eve or not. You can still insist on real people with the story of their temptation and fall told in metaphor, as Heiser shows you can't escape metaphor in the story. But it work even more beautifully when you realise Adam and Eve are part of the metaphor too.

I think this is one instance where our different approaches to this passage are almost guaranteed to lead us to different conclusions. This is in no way a criticism of your approach, but just an observation of our differences.

Here's my approach:

• Adam and Eve were two real people.
• The garden was a real place.
• The nachash was an actual being of some type.
• Whatever it was, Eve really did converse with it. Without showing any surprise.
• Whatever it was, in Revelation it's called Satan.

Given that approach, some questions can be asked:

• Was the nachash an animal? Well, snakes can't talk.
• Do the curses fit an animal? Well, not all women fear snakes.

Dr. Heiser, armed with his knowledge of the language, thinks the word "nachash" is a Hebrew play on words, subtly combining multiple usages of 'nachash' together. He concludes it was one of the "shining ones", this particular one having a serpentine shape.

But do spirits even have shapes?

In Revelation, John describes shapes of various spiritual creatures. And, to no surprise, my approach to those passages are that they're real creatures, with real shapes that were visible to John.

So, given my approach to Genesis 3, Dr. Heiser's conclusion fits well: the nachash was a member of the divine council, a "shining one" of serpentine shape, who wanted Adam killed and figured he could maneuver God into doing it for him. But God didn't kill Adam on the spot. Instead, he took advantage of a loophole, and even revealed a plan for our redemption. He really does love us.

With a literal approach to Genesis 3, like mine is, Dr. Heiser's conclusion fits well. But if someone approaches Genesis 3 differently, I'm not surprised it doesn't. In fact, I'd be surprised if it did.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are so many biblical problems with "no death before the fall", I can hardly believe it's still core YEC theology. It's like they're giving us a gift or something.
For instance:
Why is there a "tree of life" if there is no death?

To provide for "no death." Then that was taken away.

Why does the threat of death mean anything to Adam if there is no death?

Death is separation from God, which is what man choose. No one likes an ugly divorce.

The ground is cursed, not Adam; why is his lifespan changed if he lived forever and didn't need the tree of life?

Adam came from the dust, rather than being a spirit. So Adam and the ground were both in trouble.

Any hard questions?

 

[ChetSinger]

There are so many biblical problems with "no death before the fall", I can hardly believe it's still core YEC theology. It's like they're giving us a gift or something.

For instance:

Why is there a "tree of life" if there is no death?

Why does the threat of death mean anything to Adam if there is no death?

The ground is cursed, not Adam; why is his lifespan changed if he lived forever and didn't need the tree of life?

Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, argued from logic that Adam's immortality was necessarily conditional and that he had to eat periodically from the tree of life to prevent decay and eventual death. Once denied access to the tree, his eventual demise was certain, fulfilling God's curse.

The tree of life appears again, in the New Jerusalem. If Aquinas is right, after being resurrected we will be eating from the tree and will not age or decay.

 

[Assyrian]

So the snake was punished by being possessed by the devil and all snakes suffered the curse given to the serpent?

No, snakes slithering on the ground is used as a picture of the downfall and defeat of this supernatural being. Slithering isn't really a punishment for snakes. They wouldn't have evolved that mode of travel if it wasn't a very useful way to get around.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, snakes slithering on the ground is used as a picture of the downfall and defeat of this supernatural being. Slithering isn't really a punishment for snakes. They wouldn't have evolved that mode of travel if it wasn't a very useful way to get around.

There are multitudes of real events that paint pictures of spiritual Truth.
Consider the case of Jesus dying for our Sins as one example.
That hardly was a useful step for evolution. God's only Son dying with no offspring?
That must have disturbed Darwin. 1000 steps backward for evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

I think this is one instance where our different approaches to this passage are almost guaranteed to lead us to different conclusions. This is in no way a criticism of your approach, but just an observation of our differences.

Here's my approach:

• Adam and Eve were two real people.
• The garden was a real place.

Shouldn't those points being something we conclude from the text rather than assume before we read the story?

• The nachash was an actual being of some type.

OK, but by saying 'some type' you seem to recognise that we need to work this out by the way the being is presented in the story.

• Whatever it was, Eve really did converse with it. Without showing any surprise.

I wouldn't read too much into that Eve's surprise or lack of surprise isn't the point of the story. Judges 9:8 The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, ''Reign over us.'' 9 But the olive tree said to them, ''Don't be silly tree can't talk.''
If you really want to be a literalist, then maybe Eve only looked grown up, we know animals can't talk through years of experience. Even her exposure to talking humans was limited to one other person.

• Whatever it was, in Revelation it's called Satan.

I agree. We need to reconcile what we are told in Genesis where it is clearly described as a snake, albeit a talking one, and the revelation throughout the rest of the bible that we are dealing with a being who is a supernatural enemy of God.

Given that approach, some questions can be asked:

• Was the nachash an animal? Well, snakes can't talk.

Neither can trees but the story in Judges describes real tree we know an recognise, olive trees, fig trees, grapevines and brambles

• Do the curses fit an animal? Well, not all women fear snakes.

Not all women desire their husbands or are ruled by them, they don't all have painful births either. Not all men till the ground and grow thistles and thorns, they don't all sweat when they work, they don't even all work for their daily bread. They don't even all return to the ground when they die Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it.

Dr. Heiser, armed with his knowledge of the language, thinks the word "nachash" is a Hebrew play on words, subtly combining multiple usages of 'nachash' together. He concludes it was one of the "shining ones", this particular one having a serpentine shape.

If Heiser is basing his understanding of the story on his knowledge of Ancient Near East culture he should realise the association of snakes and supernatural beings is much broader than Hebrew puns. While Hebrew, Ugaritic and Akkadian are all Semitic languages and might get the play on words, you find serpent cult in ANE cultures with very different languages too, like the Hittites, Sumer and Egypt. Canaan, where the Israelites were going to, was rife with snake cults, while in Egypt Apep (Apophis to the Greeks, Romans and Star Gate fans) was a giant snake from the underworld, he was the eater of souls, and the enemy of Ra because he tried to swallow the sun.

But do spirits even have shapes?

In Revelation, John describes shapes of various spiritual creatures. And, to no surprise, my approach to those passages are that they're real creatures, with real shapes that were visible to John.

Isn't Revelation a book of symbols? Mark 4:3 "Listen! A sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it... 14 The sower sows the word. 15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. Does Satan look like a flock of birds too?

So, given my approach to Genesis 3, Dr. Heiser's conclusion fits well: the nachash was a member of the divine council, a "shining one" of serpentine shape, who wanted Adam killed and figured he could maneuver God into doing it for him. But God didn't kill Adam on the spot. Instead, he took advantage of a loophole, and even revealed a plan for our redemption. He really does love us.

loophole?

With a literal approach to Genesis 3, like mine is, Dr. Heiser's conclusion fits well. But if someone approaches Genesis 3 differently, I'm not surprised it doesn't. In fact, I'd be surprised if it did.

If you approached it literally, the text is talking about a snake with it snakeyness woven through the whole story. Heiser is interpreting this metaphorically, which is fine, but he is reading the metaphorical meaning back into the plain meaning of the text

 

[Assyrian]

There are multitudes of real events
Consider the case of Jesus dying for our Sins as one example.
That hardly was a useful step for evolution. God's only Son dying with no offspring?
That must have disturbed Darwin. 1000 steps backward for evolution.

You are assuming the spirit gives reproduces the same way as flesh.
John 12:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Yes there are a multitude of real events that paint pictures of spiritual Truth. There are also many fictional stories that paint pictures of spiritual Truth too. Jesus never worked as a shepherd and he never died for a flock of sheep. He was never a sheep either, with or without seven horns. Nor did Jesus ever bruise the head of a snake.

 

[SkyWriting]

You are assuming the spirit gives reproduces the same way as flesh.
John 12:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Yes there are a multitude of real events that paint pictures of spiritual Truth. There are also many fictional stories that paint pictures of spiritual Truth too. Jesus never worked as a shepherd and he never died for a flock of sheep. He was never a sheep either, with or without seven horns. Nor did Jesus ever bruise the head of a snake.

None of those were fiction, though some were illustrated in dreams or visions.

 

[Assyrian]

None of those were fiction, though some were illustrated in dreams or visions.

Jesus really did work as a shepherd? I though he was a carpenter or builder?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

No, snakes slithering on the ground is used as a picture of the downfall and defeat of this supernatural being. Slithering isn't really a punishment for snakes. They wouldn't have evolved that mode of travel if it wasn't a very useful way to get around.

Indeed, not all creatures who slither on the ground are snakes - nor was it always a bad thing to do so.

But as said before, was it the case that ALL snakes were impacted by what the Lord said to the enemy? Specifically, was it the case that the enemy possessed a literal snake, took over his body and used him for his purposes? Or was it the case that he took the form of one instead?


According to Strong's Concordance, the usage of nachash for "snake" comes from its verb form, which means "to hiss." However, this hissing more specifically can refer to someone whispering a magic spell or telling a prophecy or predicting the future. In that sense, there is a sneakiness implied, which fits what Satan did perfectly. More than that, when used in phrases, nachash can indicate an enchantment or just a diligent observer and both descriptions seem appropriate here.


The word nachash describes Satan's actions in the garden quite well - but to conclude that he appeared as a real snake, IMHO, is to rob the Hebrew of its point, which is a description of Satan's intentions and character. Of course, if taking that stance, one must ask what of verse 1's description of Satan, as being the shrewdest of all animals and seeing whether or not that means he appeared as an animal. The NLT translation would certainly suggest that. However, the NLT, while pleasing to the ear, is often not as literal as the more traditional translations we are used to...

• 1a Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. - King James Version​
• 1a Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. - New King James Version
  ​
• 1a And the serpent hath been subtile above every beast of the field which Jehovah God hath made. - Young's Literal Translation​
• 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. - NIV​

I think it makes sense to see how a more accurate "modern" translation would have been...Satan was a "snake", being shrewder than any animal that God had made. Essentially, Satan was shrewder than the animals, but was not necessarily an animal himself.

For more info, as said best in Evolution - GeoCreationist Perspective on Evolution -Genesis 3:14-15 - When the Serpent Lost His Legs (for a brief excerpt I hope is 29%)

You will crawl on your belly"
What does it mean to crawl? Generally, it means to crouch on all fours and advance with your body low to the ground. As for crawling on your belly, alligators and crocodiles do this, and they have legs. However, the curse in Genesis 3:14 is to crawl on ones belly; people read Genesis 3:14 as a curse to crawl with ones belly, i.e., without legs, or at least without using them. This is not to say that snakes cannot be described as crawling on their bellies, but that other types of modality can be described with the same words. There is a type of lizard called the burrowing skink. They are like miniature snakes, except they have only the tinyiest of legs that are all but useless. Now, burrowing skinks predate the garden as well as snakes do, so the point to see is that the serpent in Genesis 3 may not refer to modern snakes, but something else. But, what could it be?

...Given Satan's actions as a nachash, i.e., a whispering enchanter, God is basically saying that if Satan is going act like a snake, he will be cursed like one. Think of it this way. Just as the snake lost its legs as it evolved to crawl on its belly, Satan was cast out of heaven to rule the earth. As he advances to bite Jesus at his heel, he will merely get a mouthful of dust from Jesus' sandles... until the day then when Jesus crushes him forever.....Genesis 3 was never about real snakes, or them losing their feet. As it turns out of course, snakes did lose their legs over millions of years. However, that discovery should just drive the point home all the more: This is not a passage about evolution, but about Jesus' victory over Satan.

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here's my approach:

• Adam and Eve were two real people.
• The garden was a real place.
• The nachash was an actual being of some type.
• Whatever it was, Eve really did converse with it. Without showing any surprise.
• Whatever it was, in Revelation it's called Satan.

Given that approach, some questions can be asked:

• Was the nachash an animal? Well, snakes can't talk.
• Do the curses fit an animal? Well, not all women fear snakes.

Dr. Heiser, armed with his knowledge of the language, thinks the word "nachash" is a Hebrew play on words, subtly combining multiple usages of 'nachash' together. He concludes it was one of the "shining ones", this particular one having a serpentine shape.

But do spirits even have shapes?

In Revelation, John describes shapes of various spiritual creatures. And, to no surprise, my approach to those passages are that they're real creatures, with real shapes that were visible to John.

So, given my approach to Genesis 3, Dr. Heiser's conclusion fits well: the nachash was a member of the divine council, a "shining one" of serpentine shape, who wanted Adam killed and figured he could maneuver God into doing it for him. But God didn't kill Adam on the spot. Instead, he took advantage of a loophole, and even revealed a plan for our redemption. He really does love us.

With a literal approach to Genesis 3, like mine is, Dr. Heiser's conclusion fits well. But if someone approaches Genesis 3 differently, I'm not surprised it doesn't. In fact, I'd be surprised if it did.

Good analysis, IMHO.

 

[SkyWriting]

Jesus really did work as a shepherd? I thought he was a carpenter or builder?

Have you considered that people had more than one skill and job to do by the age of 30?
At one point I personally had two jobs at the same time.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Dear mia, Genesis 1:30 is prophecy of a future event which will not happen until after Jesus returns to this planet. At no time in history have ALL creatures been vegetarians and at no time in history has mankind had dominion or rule over every other living creature. ie. Polar Bears, Sharks and Viruses.

Ted:>>Well, I guess since you say so and you have evidence, of course of the operation of God's creation before the fall, I must defer to your greater knowledge, which I don't have.

Dear Ted, It's because you don't believe me. The traditional understanding is that God has already rested, but that is not Scriptural. God will not rest until the end of the present 6th Day. It seems that the people on these boards would rather ignore this Biblical fact, and instead, believe the traditional view of ancient people, which cannot be supported by the Bible.

In Love,
Aman

 

[ChetSinger]

Shouldn't those points being something we conclude from the text rather than assume before we read the story?

I am concluding it from the text.

But not the text you might expect: I'm concluding it from the text of New Testament.

And my reason is this: in my judgment, the speakers in the New Testament (Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, etc.) show no differentiation when speaking of OT characters from any period in time, from the earliest to the latest.

A shining example is Hebrews 11. I'm sure you're familiar with it, yet I'm going to list the names mentioned there, in order:

Abel
Cain
Enoch
Noah
Abraham
Sarah
Isaac
Jacob
Esau
Joseph
Joseph's sons
Moses
Rahab
Gideon
Barak
Samson
Jephthah
David
Samuel
the prophets
​

If the antediluvian names of Abel, Cain, Enoch, and Noah were spoken of in a different manner than the recent names, I could perhaps accept that those first names were allegorical.

But I see no difference in how they're spoken of. Therefore I conclude that the author of Hebrews is presenting them all in the same manner. And that manner is historical, because the later names are agreed upon as historical (ex. David and the prophets). So I conclude they were all real, actual people and lived as the OT says they did.

Knowledgeable atheist researchers everywhere assure me that the earliest names cannot be historical. They resisted David until we found archaeological evidence of him, and they still resist Moses. But the writers of the New Testament write of all them as if they are historical, without distinction. One of those two camps has to come out on top, and I'll choose the writers of the New Testament. Because they're the ones pointing me to God, forgiveness, and eternal life.

So that's my approach. Thus, I consider Adam and Eve real people, getting kicked out of a real garden.

 

[Assyrian]

Indeed, not all creatures who slither on the ground are snakes - nor was it always a bad thing to do so.

But as said before, was it the case that ALL snakes were impacted by what the Lord said to the enemy?

I don't see why they should be. The story is using snakes' slithering to tell us about a spiritual being's defeat, it doesn't mean snake slithering is a punishment. It would be pretty unfair to punish snakes for being used as a metaphor.

Specifically, was it the case that the enemy possessed a literal snake, took over his body and used him for his purposes? Or was it the case that he took the form of one instead?

No all of these are wrong too. The best way to illustrate it is with the parable of the sower I mentioned in the post to ChetSinger. Jesus wasn't saying Satan transformed himself into a flock of birds to torment the farmer, he wasn't saying Satan possessed the birds. In the story it is an ordinary farmer, ordinary seeds, and ordinary hungry birds. The story is about Satan but we don't look for ways to read Satan back into the narrative. The birds are simply birds in the story, it is when we look for the deeper meaning of the story that we understand the birds are a metaphor for Satan.

According to Strong's Concordance, the usage of nachash for "snake" comes from its verb form, which means "to hiss." However, this hissing more specifically can refer to someone whispering a magic spell or telling a prophecy or predicting the future. In that sense, there is a sneakiness implied, which fits what Satan did perfectly. More than that, when used in phrases, nachash can indicate an enchantment or just a diligent observer and both descriptions seem appropriate here.

Nachash was also used for mediums and diviners to say their mutterings sounded like the hissing of a snake. Now while you can associate that generally with the enemy, I think you might be reading it into the text here. Where subtlety is used in a bad sense in the bible it is more associated with the clever use of words rather than enchantments. There is a play on words in the description, you could translate it Gen 3:1 Now the snake was the smoothest of all the animals God created.

The word nachash describes Satan's actions in the garden quite well - but to conclude that he appeared as a real snake, IMHO, is to rob the Hebrew of its point, which is a description of Satan's intentions and character. Of course, if taking that stance, one must ask what of verse 1's description of Satan, as being the shrewdest of all animals and seeing whether or not that means he appeared as an animal. The NLT translation would certainly suggest that. However, the NLT, while pleasing to the ear, is often not as literal as the more traditional translations we are used to...

• 1a Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. - King James Version​
• 1a Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. - New King James Version
  ​
• 1a And the serpent hath been subtile above every beast of the field which Jehovah God hath made. - Young's Literal Translation​
• 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. - NIV​

I think it makes sense to see how a more accurate "modern" translation would have been...Satan was a "snake", being shrewder than any animal that God had made. Essentially, Satan was shrewder than the animals, but was not necessarily an animal himself.

I explained the grammar to ChetSinger in post 46. Modern translations like the NLT aren't simply being lax in an attempt to be readable, there is a firm basis in the Hebrew to translate it that way. When the NLT is translating a phrase idiomatically, it tells you in the foot notes. There are no footnotes for Gen 3:1, this is not dynamically equivalence here, they are translating the Hebrew. The ESV, HSCB and LEB are some of the most literal of our modern translations, aiming for a word for word formal equivalence rather than the NIV and NLT's dynamic equivalence. Yet they think 'other animals' is the real meaning of the Hebrew.
ESV Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field.
HSCB Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals.
LEB (Lexham) Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal.

For more info, as said best in Evolution - GeoCreationist Perspective on Evolution -Genesis 3:14-15 - When the Serpent Lost His Legs (for a brief excerpt I hope is 29%)

You will crawl on your belly"
What does it mean to crawl? Generally, it means to crouch on all fours and advance with your body low to the ground. As for crawling on your belly, alligators and crocodiles do this, and they have legs. However, the curse in Genesis 3:14 is to crawl on ones belly; people read Genesis 3:14 as a curse to crawl with ones belly, i.e., without legs, or at least without using them. This is not to say that snakes cannot be described as crawling on their bellies, but that other types of modality can be described with the same words. There is a type of lizard called the burrowing skink. They are like miniature snakes, except they have only the tinyiest of legs that are all but useless. Now, burrowing skinks predate the garden as well as snakes do, so the point to see is that the serpent in Genesis 3 may not refer to modern snakes, but something else. But, what could it be?

...Given Satan's actions as a nachash, i.e., a whispering enchanter, God is basically saying that if Satan is going act like a snake, he will be cursed like one. Think of it this way. Just as the snake lost its legs as it evolved to crawl on its belly, Satan was cast out of heaven to rule the earth. As he advances to bite Jesus at his heel, he will merely get a mouthful of dust from Jesus' sandles... until the day then when Jesus crushes him forever.....Genesis 3 was never about real snakes, or them losing their feet. As it turns out of course, snakes did lose their legs over millions of years. However, that discovery should just drive the point home all the more: This is not a passage about evolution, but about Jesus' victory over Satan.
​

Actually the passage doesn't use the word 'crawl' what it says is "you shall go on you belly". There is a word for creep or crawl used to describe reptiles, insects (and probably snakes and slow worms) "every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" Gen 1:26. But instead of simply turning the serpent into another creepy crawly the emphasis is on locomotion on its belly. The text is talking about a nachash, Hebrew for snake and saying it is going to travel around on its belly, I really don't know why literalists have such problems with the plain literal meaning of the text

 

[Assyrian]

I am concluding it from the text.

But not the text you might expect: I'm concluding it from the text of New Testament.

And my reason is this: in my judgment, the speakers in the New Testament (Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, etc.) show no differentiation when speaking of OT characters from any period in time, from the earliest to the latest.

A shining example is Hebrews 11. I'm sure you're familiar with it, yet I'm going to list the names mentioned there, in order:

Abel
Cain
Enoch
Noah
Abraham
Sarah
Isaac
Jacob
Esau
Joseph
Joseph's sons
Moses
Rahab
Gideon
Barak
Samson
Jephthah
David
Samuel
the prophets
​

If the antediluvian names of Abel, Cain, Enoch, and Noah were spoken of in a different manner than the recent names, I could perhaps accept that those first names were allegorical.

But I see no difference in how they're spoken of. Therefore I conclude that the author of Hebrews is presenting them all in the same manner. And that manner is historical, because the later names are agreed upon as historical (ex. David and the prophets). So I conclude they were all real, actual people and lived as the OT says they did.

Knowledgeable atheist researchers everywhere assure me that the earliest names cannot be historical. They resisted David until we found archaeological evidence of him, and they still resist Moses. But the writers of the New Testament write of all them as if they are historical, without distinction. One of those two camps has to come out on top, and I'll choose the writers of the New Testament. Because they're the ones pointing me to God, forgiveness, and eternal life.

So that's my approach. Thus, I consider Adam and Eve real people, getting kicked out of a real garden.

Does the writer of Hebrews' interpretation of Cain and Abel tell you that Adam and Eve were historical or that the story of their fall, the garden and the snake is told literally literal? The other problem is the writer of Hebrew was heavily into the allegorical significance of the Torah, a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities Heb 10:1. It is good to look at how OT texts are interpreted and understood throughout the rest of the bible, but the foundation of our understanding of a text should be the text itself and what it meant to the writer and its original audience.