Do Creationists Believe in Talking Snakes?

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

First, Revelation 20:2 refers to the Devil or Satan as that old serpent. For it is written:

“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,” (Revelation 20:2).​

Second, both Isaiah 14:12-19 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 goes beyond talking about kings but it refers to the Devil.

We learn in the Ezekiel 28 passage that the devil was in the garden of Eden.

12 “Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.” (Ezekiel 28:12-19).​

Besides, possesion of animals is not a foreign concept to Scripture. Jesus cast legion (a group of demons) into a bunch of swine (pigs) because they requested it.

Anyways, it is a dangerous thing to allegorize Scripture when there is no clear indication that such is the case. Next thing you know, folks will start to allegorize Jesus because He had risen from the grave. The Bible is full of the miraculous. You either accept it at face value or you don't. The choice is yours.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It is very likely that legends of dragons came from dinosaur bones. It is not unusual for erosion to expose dinosaur bones, for instance. Primitive peoples saw them and weren’t sure if such creatures were still around or not.

This is false. There are many dragon sightings throughout history.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do Creationists Believe in Talking Snakes?

Yes, if they believe their Bible.

BTW ~ Are you not a creationist? (i.e. that God created everything)?

 

[PaulCyp1]

It obviously was not a snake, but Satan disguised in that form. Sorry to shoot down your fantasies, but snakes don't talk, and never did.

 

[friend of]

Maybe the snake spoke telepathically. Why not?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It obviously was not a snake, but Satan disguised in that form. Sorry to shoot down your fantasies, but snakes don't talk, and never did.

It may also be that the spirit of the devil that talked with Eve, and not the actual serpent itself. The serpent was just a vessel. But it may also be that the serpent did actually talk by a miracle of the enemy. 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). So there is that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It obviously was not a snake, but Satan disguised in that form. Sorry to shoot down your fantasies, but snakes don't talk, and never did.

Then why did God tell the serpent to crawl on it's belly?

 

[Dale]

This is an immediate error in logic, for it does not follow from observable reality; for we can see, through the fossil record, that many astonishing creatures existed that are no longer around today; thus, your conclusion is false, fundamentally.

This conclusion is more faulty than it's premise, for it is purely an assumption derived from the previous conjecture, yet it does not follow from it, at all.

The question is malformed, because it is based on the aforementioned faulty premises. --it remains reality, that what existed in the past is not required to exist now. (This ought not seem dubious to anyone.)

This failure to understand the meaning of the first book is caused by ignorance of the last book, for in it, the identity of Satan is spelled out, viz:

"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." --Revelation 12:9

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," --Revelation 20:2

The old serpent is called the Devil and Satan: those are the names of the red dragon that deceives the whole world. (This is common knowledge to most believers.)

That malformed question is derived from the aforementioned faulty premises.

You failed to realize that the first mention of Satan was, indeed, in Genesis.

Yes, the old serpent, the Devil, up to what he's always been up to, since the beginning, deception.

Yes, that old serpent, Satan, deceiving people into worshiping him--it's his modus operandi.

Yup.

You are wrong, unequivocally: anywhere the serpent is mentioned is referring to the red dragon, Satan, for that is but one of his names, yet his mo remains the same, deception, period.

It will take more than one post to explain why I don’t see Revelation 12 the way you do or see it as relevant. Genesis is about the past and Revelation is about the future. Why do we have to consult a scriptural book about the future to understand a book about the distant past?

Here is an explanation of what the Devil being cast down in Revelation 12:9 could mean, one different from what you are used to hearing. The Devil being in the heavens could mean that he and the ideas he puts forward are on the world stage, they are influential. When the Devil is cast down, this would mean that the Devil’s influence over the hearts and souls of humans is being curtailed. After being cast down, the Devil is not as dominant, although he has influence in many places on earth.

If this sounds a bit vague, one possibility is that the Devil being in the heavens refers to the dominance of paganism, polytheistic religion and idolatry. At the time John wrote Revelation, the Roman Empire was worshiping multiple gods, and using idols. In the next few centuries, polytheism was set back quite a ways. Today, for large parts of the earth, monotheism is dominant. That could be the meaning of Satan being cast down.

Scholars say that Genesis was written, or composed, around 1000 BC. Revelation was written around 100 AD. So Revelation is about 1100 years after Genesis. When trying to understand Genesis, why do we have to go to a book written 1100 years later? Are you telling me that no one knew what the story of Adam and Eve was about until Revelation was written, 1100 years later? I don’t think so.

Revelation wasn’t accepted into the canon of scripture for another couple of hundred years, so instead of 1100 years, we could say 1300. Most Christians weren’t reading Revelation until after it was accepted as scripture.

 

[Dale]

This is an immediate error in logic, for it does not follow from observable reality; for we can see, through the fossil record, that many astonishing creatures existed that are no longer around today; thus, your conclusion is false, fundamentally.

This conclusion is more faulty than it's premise, for it is purely an assumption derived from the previous conjecture, yet it does not follow from it, at all.

The question is malformed, because it is based on the aforementioned faulty premises. --it remains reality, that what existed in the past is not required to exist now. (This ought not seem dubious to anyone.)

This failure to understand the meaning of the first book is caused by ignorance of the last book, for in it, the identity of Satan is spelled out, viz:

"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." --Revelation 12:9

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," --Revelation 20:2

The old serpent is called the Devil and Satan: those are the names of the red dragon that deceives the whole world. (This is common knowledge to most believers.)

That malformed question is derived from the aforementioned faulty premises.

You failed to realize that the first mention of Satan was, indeed, in Genesis.

Yes, the old serpent, the Devil, up to what he's always been up to, since the beginning, deception.

Yes, that old serpent, Satan, deceiving people into worshiping him--it's his modus operandi.

Yup.

You are wrong, unequivocally: anywhere the serpent is mentioned is referring to the red dragon, Satan, for that is but one of his names, yet his mo remains the same, deception, period.

Your assumption that the serpent in Genesis and the red dragon in Revelation are the same is mistaken. In Genesis 3:14, God says that the serpent will “crawl” on its belly, or, in other words, lose its legs. In the following verses in Revelation, the dragon “stood,” or stands, which implies that it has legs.

His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. --Revelation 12:4 NIV

And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He
had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. --Revelation 13:1 NIV

“Stood” is the past tense of “stand,” which normally implies having legs and feet.


Stand verb (used without object), stood [stood], stand·ing [stan-ding].
(of a person) to be in an upright position on the feet.
to rise to one's feet (often followed by up).
--Dictionary.com

Since the red dragon in Revelation can stand, he has legs and feet. Artists have often portrayed the dragon of Revelation with legs. Since the dragon has legs, it cannot be the serpent of Genesis, which lost its legs on God’s command.

 

[TedT]

Sin in the Garden prior to the eating of the fruit:

The root word for Adam and Eve being naked and the serpent being crafty in an evil way is the same word, `rm.* If so desired they can be read the opposite, ie, Adam and Eve were crafty and the serpent was naked...the word is a homograph. The vowels that make them to be naked or crafty were not put into the writing system until ç600AD. The reason the Rabbis and the Church Father's chose naked for Adam and Eve was their decision that all mankind was created at conception (traducianism) or at birth (creationism of the soul) So, as newly created in the garden they had to be innocent since GOD does not create evil...[at least until HE wants evil people so HE supposed created the rest of us in Adam's sin but that is a different blasphemy].

*There is also a perfectly good word about Noah that describes the nakedness of being unclothed with absolutely no chance of thinking it meant evil.

Naked is a metaphor for evil in other parts of scripture. Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. It seems that maybe Adam and Eve were sinful but not ashamed, like the Laodiceans. If `rm refers to being unclothed when referring to Adam and Eve, where is the sin in being unclothed in your own garden as GOD made you? Even if naked refers to sex, how could it be sinful if they were commanded to procreate? So, if being unclothed is no sin, why did they suddenly become ashamed of their nakedness when they sinned?

No, the telling part of this verse is "They were not ashamed!". If there was no sin in being naked then why bring up shame? They were not over 12 feet tall either but there is no hint that they should be ashamed of that.

The reference to their shame is echoed in Rev 3:17-18, being a sinner is shameful but those blinded by sin need their eyes opened by the Lord's salve and their shame covered by white garments, the righteous acts of the saints, Rev 19:18.

It is also curious how, when their eyes were finally opened to their sin, they saw their being naked, a nakedness they had before they ate, not their eating. The only thing that happened when they ate was that they now saw their sinfulness / nakedness and were ashamed but their nakedness did not change in the least.

Maybe they weren't so different from the serpent after all....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It will take more than one post to explain why I don’t see Revelation 12 the way you do or see it as relevant. Genesis is about the past and Revelation is about the future. Why do we have to consult a scriptural book about the future to understand a book about the distant past?

Here is an explanation of what the Devil being cast down in Revelation 12:9 could mean, one different from what you are used to hearing. The Devil being in the heavens could mean that he and the ideas he puts forward are on the world stage, they are influential. When the Devil is cast down, this would mean that the Devil’s influence over the hearts and souls of humans is being curtailed. After being cast down, the Devil is not as dominant, although he has influence in many places on earth.

If this sounds a bit vague, one possibility is that the Devil being in the heavens refers to the dominance of paganism, polytheistic religion and idolatry. At the time John wrote Revelation, the Roman Empire was worshiping multiple gods, and using idols. In the next few centuries, polytheism was set back quite a ways. Today, for large parts of the earth, monotheism is dominant. That could be the meaning of Satan being cast down.

Scholars say that Genesis was written, or composed, around 1000 BC. Revelation was written around 100 AD. So Revelation is about 1100 years after Genesis. When trying to understand Genesis, why do we have to go to a book written 1100 years later? Are you telling me that no one knew what the story of Adam and Eve was about until Revelation was written, 1100 years later? I don’t think so.

Revelation wasn’t accepted into the canon of scripture for another couple of hundred years, so instead of 1100 years, we could say 1300. Most Christians weren’t reading Revelation until after it was accepted as scripture.

I think you just do not believe in the possiblity of talking animals (Regardless of what verses are presented to you). It is too far out there for you. But the Bible is a book that is full of the miraculous. It takes faith to believe in God's Word. Men also lived for 900 some years back then, too. Is that also outside your realm of possibility, too? See the issue is your acceptance of the text. The Bible does not say that the serpent appeared to talk like a man. We don't know how the serpent was able to communicate or speak with Eve. We just know that the Scriptures say that the serpent spoke with Eve. You either accept the Scriptures and it's many miraculous things or you don't. The choice is yours. Some people do not accept the miracle that Jesus rose from the dead because they don't think it is possible. Is the resurrection a metaphor, too? The Bible warns against turning His word into fables or myths (2 Timothy 4:4). Your not believing Genesis 3 sounds dangerously close to doing that.

 

[TedT]

In Genesis 3, a serpent, or snake, talks with Eve. In Genesis 3:14-15, God says that the serpent will lose its legs.

Going on the belly and eating dust (no snake eats dust) need not mean to lose his legs but to live a life of abasement, trodden down.

Therefore I tend to think that Serpent is a title for Satan, the dragon and destroyer and is labelled more cunning than the other demons flung to earth with him, Rev 12:9, because he started the whole rebellion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Going on the belly and eating dust (no snake eats dust) need not mean to lose his legs but to live a life of abasement, trodden down.

Therefore I tend to think that Serpent is a title for Satan, the dragon and destroyer and is labelled more cunning than the other demons flung to earth with him, Rev 12:9, because he started the whole rebellion.

Or... the devil either possessed a snake, or took the form of a snake, etc.
The text does not imply that this serpent was a metaphor in any way.
Metaphors are usually easy to spot and the Bible usually tells us what that metaphor is. Seeing we know that demons can possess animals, we know that the most likely possibility is that the devil simply possessed a serpent and spoke through the serpent or made the serpent to miraculously speak. To say so otherwise is to disbelieve the text.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Dale

Do you also believe in Theistic Evolution, too?

 

[Dkh587]

I’m a creationist and understand the serpent to be a divine being, and not a talking snake.

not understanding Israelite/Hebrew culture, idioms & figures of speech will have you arrive at the conclusion that the serpent was a talking snake.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I’m a creationist and understand the serpent to be a divine being, and not a talking snake.

not understanding Israelite/Hebrew culture, idioms & figures of speech will have you arrive at the conclusion that the serpent was a talking snake.

Then what possible reason did God have for telling the serpent to crawl on it's belly? This to me sounds like the serpent cooperated with the devil and allowed itself to be possessed by him because the serpent was being punished. We also see a talking donkey in Scripture, too. Is this another divine being?

 

[Religiot]

It will take more than one post to explain why I don’t see Revelation 12 the way you do or see it as relevant. Genesis is about the past and Revelation is about the future. Why do we have to consult a scriptural book about the future to understand a book about the distant past?

You're grossly mistaken in this also, for Revelation is a summation of the past and future, aggregated in allegory. --this again is a basic knowledge to most bible students--and I don't mention that to offend you, but to warn you, that the carelessness in your comments is quite concerning.

Here is an explanation of what the Devil being cast down in Revelation 12:9 could mean, one different from what you are used to hearing. The Devil being in the heavens could mean that he and the ideas he puts forward are on the world stage, they are influential. When the Devil is cast down, this would mean that the Devil’s influence over the hearts and souls of humans is being curtailed. After being cast down, the Devil is not as dominant, although he has influence in many places on earth.

The Lord Himself describes Satan's fall as literal, in that He says He saw him fall as lightning.

If this sounds a bit vague, one possibility is that the Devil being in the heavens refers to the dominance of paganism, polytheistic religion and idolatry. At the time John wrote Revelation, the Roman Empire was worshiping multiple gods, and using idols. In the next few centuries, polytheism was set back quite a ways. Today, for large parts of the earth, monotheism is dominant. That could be the meaning of Satan being cast down.

No, it cannot, for that conjecture not only contradicts the Lord directly, it also undermines much meaning in many passages.

Scholars say that Genesis was written, or composed, around 1000 BC. Revelation was written around 100 AD. So Revelation is about 1100 years after Genesis. When trying to understand Genesis, why do we have to go to a book written 1100 years later? Are you telling me that no one knew what the story of Adam and Eve was about until Revelation was written, 1100 years later? I don’t think so.

You're wrong again, assuming that revelation is the only place in scripture where the identity of the red dragon is made known: it is not, but the most clear description--hence the name of the book, for it does reveal many things by summary and allegory, the book of modern-day memes, if you will; conveying so much, with so little, as Christ did when He spoke.

Revelation wasn’t accepted into the canon of scripture for another couple of hundred years, so instead of 1100 years, we could say 1300. Most Christians weren’t reading Revelation until after it was accepted as scripture.

As demonstrated by others here, you failed to look to the scriptures, the law and the prophets, before arriving at conclusions.

Revelation only expands on what has already been said.

 

[FaithT]

I think you just do not believe in the possiblity of talking animals (Regardless of what verses are presented to you). It is too far out there for you. But the Bible is a book that is full of the miraculous. It takes faith to believe in God's Word. Men also lived for 900 some years back then, too. Is that also outside your realm of possibility, too? See the issue is your acceptance of the text. The Bible does not say that the serpent appeared to talk like a man. We don't know how the serpent was able to communicate or speak with Eve. We just know that the Scriptures say that the serpent spoke with Eve. You either accept the Scriptures and it's many miraculous things or you don't. The choice is yours. Some people do not accept the miracle that Jesus rose from the dead because they don't think it is possible. Is the resurrection a metaphor, too? The Bible warns against turning His word into fables or myths (2 Timothy 4:4). Your not believing Genesis 3 sounds dangerously close to doing that.

You said the Bible is “full of the miraculous”. Is it the miraculous or supernatural that we’re talking about when when we read about a talking snake, Noah and the flood, and other things that some people find so hard to believe in the Bible?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You said the Bible is “full of the miraculous”. Is it the miraculous or supernatural that we’re talking about when when we read about a talking snake, Noah and the flood, and other things that some people find so hard to believe in the Bible?

A global flood would be considered miraculous by some people. I believe the global flood is more of a natural event, but I could be wrong of course. I am referring to the miraculous as things that break the normal operation of our universe as we know it. This could be things like walking on water, talking animals, an axe head floating to the top of the surface of the water, etc.

 

[DragonFox91]

If you don't believe that, why would you believe Jesus performed miracles, died, & resurrected?
I don't have a problem w/ one instance of a snake talking.