The Serpent in the Garden?

[Milarkey]

Now then, I'm going to go over a rather trifling detail in the Garden of Eden story, but I find it interesting.

Most contemporary Christians (correct me if I'm wrong), believe that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden was, in fact, Satan. I suppose that this might make sense, considering that Satan was supposedly so evil, and so it would work for Satan to make all this suffering and death come into the world. However, there are a couple problems here. Let's look at Genesis 3:1 in the New King James Version.
"Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."

Let's first focus on the fact that Satan is not called Satan here. He is called "the serpent". In the passage itself, there appears to be no indication that the serpent is being possessed by anything, and so unless it is stated later that it is, then I will assume that the serpent is acting of it's own free will. However, this could just be symbolic language, so let's continue on.

"Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."

I want to focus on the "any beast of the field" part now. What exactly does "beast of the field" mean? Well, let's look at Genesis 2:19 "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air"

So I assume that this means land animals, or animals of the land. This makes sense if the serpent is an actual snake, because snakes live on land. Yet... Satan is certainly not a beast of the field. According to the Bible, Satan is a fallen angel that lives in Hell. Hell certainly is not "of the field"! So, what does this mean? This means that it's even more unlikely that Satan is the Snake.

Throughout the story of the fall, Satan is referred to as "the serpent." This is quite interesting, but it doesn't really prove that the serpent isn't Satan, due to the fact that it might very well be symbolic language. In addition, it appears that the snake does know the difference between good and evil, since it is trying to persuade Eve that it would be a GOOD idea to eat of the fruit. If it didn't, then I would think that it would be a little more neutral on the matter. This could provide evidence that the snake is Satan after all, if we know that the animals don't know the difference between good and evil. However the Bible is silent on this matter, so we can't tell whether the animals knew the difference or not while in the Garden.


Now then, I'm going to skip straight to Genesis 3:14, where Yahweh punishes all snakes. Now this is quite interesting. If the snake is Satan, then quite obviously Yahweh would at least reference this in his punishment, and would most likely punish Satan himself. Why punish the snake? It's not as if the snake could suddenly decide not to the possessed! The Snake had no free will when it came to this. If Satan just took the form of a snake and no possession was involved, then God still played right into Satan's hands. He is punishing an animal when they had nothing to do with it! Wouldn't God be able to see through Satan's disguise.


Now then, this isn't really an argument against Christianity, It's just something interesting that I thought I'd bring up. If anybody who reads this has any counter-arguments, then please reply.

 

[Rafael]

Perhaps the serpent was the only animal of the field that allowed the devil use of its body to speak from?? The body is the vessel of the soul and spirit for man; with animals?? I do think that God wanted this contrast to His light to be presented to man as a choice..

 

[HypnoToad]

The book of Revelation twice refers to Satan as "that old serpent" (12:9, 20:2). So, it's pretty clear that the serpent was Satan.

As to "beasts of the field" - this is not simply "land animals". Genesis 1 refers to land animals as "beasts of the EARTH", not "field". So, "beasts of the field" is likely some smaller grouping. It's impossible to be specific, as the term is not defined clearly in Scripture. It may mean something like animals of the local area only.

As to God punishing all snakes - did He really do that? Suppose snakes already crawled on their bellies. Now, Satan picks the form of a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve.

The punishment could have been to Satan only. It could be read something like, "you want to be a serpent, fine, from now on, you're going to crawl on your belly and eat dust just like they do." The crawling and eating dust in Satan's case would then be metaphorical - "crawling" and "eating dust" are symbolic of "low-lives", people who don't have any respect. God is saying, "you are the lowest of the low, you are scum". And for those who believe, that's exactly how we view Satan - he's scum, deserving of no respect whatsoever.

It is further evident that this is only about Satan, and not all snakes because the "you'll bruise his heel, he'll crush your head" portion doesn't really apply to all snakes - Adam and Eve and their kids didn't go stomping around on snakes at this point.

 

[Macca]

Now then, I'm going to go over a rather trifling detail in the Garden of Eden story, but I find it interesting.

Most contemporary Christians (correct me if I'm wrong), believe that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden was, in fact, Satan. I suppose that this might make sense, considering that Satan was supposedly so evil, and so it would work for Satan to make all this suffering and death come into the world. However, there are a couple problems here. Let's look at Genesis 3:1 in the New King James Version.
"Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."

Let's first focus on the fact that Satan is not called Satan here. He is called "the serpent". In the passage itself, there appears to be no indication that the serpent is being possessed by anything, and so unless it is stated later that it is, then I will assume that the serpent is acting of it's own free will. However, this could just be symbolic language, so let's continue on.

"Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."

I want to focus on the "any beast of the field" part now. What exactly does "beast of the field" mean? Well, let's look at Genesis 2:19 "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air"

So I assume that this means land animals, or animals of the land. This makes sense if the serpent is an actual snake, because snakes live on land. Yet... Satan is certainly not a beast of the field. According to the Bible, Satan is a fallen angel that lives in Hell. Hell certainly is not "of the field"! So, what does this mean? This means that it's even more unlikely that Satan is the Snake.

Throughout the story of the fall, Satan is referred to as "the serpent." This is quite interesting, but it doesn't really prove that the serpent isn't Satan, due to the fact that it might very well be symbolic language. In addition, it appears that the snake does know the difference between good and evil, since it is trying to persuade Eve that it would be a GOOD idea to eat of the fruit. If it didn't, then I would think that it would be a little more neutral on the matter. This could provide evidence that the snake is Satan after all, if we know that the animals don't know the difference between good and evil. However the Bible is silent on this matter, so we can't tell whether the animals knew the difference or not while in the Garden.


Now then, I'm going to skip straight to Genesis 3:14, where Yahweh punishes all snakes. Now this is quite interesting. If the snake is Satan, then quite obviously Yahweh would at least reference this in his punishment, and would most likely punish Satan himself. Why punish the snake? It's not as if the snake could suddenly decide not to the possessed! The Snake had no free will when it came to this. If Satan just took the form of a snake and no possession was involved, then God still played right into Satan's hands. He is punishing an animal when they had nothing to do with it! Wouldn't God be able to see through Satan's disguise.


Now then, this isn't really an argument against Christianity, It's just something interesting that I thought I'd bring up. If anybody who reads this has any counter-arguments, then please reply.

Have you considered the thought; why Eve was not troubled that the serpent actually spoke to her? Is it possible that, at that time, Adam and Eve were able to communicate with all the animals?
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and 5Satan also came among them. 7 And the Lord said to 6Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Job 1:6-7
This passage shows that Satan did not reside in Hell.
Rev 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world
Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nelson's Concordance of Bible Phrases. Nashville : T. Nelson Publishers, 1992, S. 613
Here is a description of Satan

 

[tapero]

Now then, I'm going to go over a rather trifling detail in the Garden of Eden story, but I find it interesting.

Most contemporary Christians (correct me if I'm wrong), believe that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden was, in fact, Satan. I suppose that this might make sense, considering that Satan was supposedly so evil, and so it would work for Satan to make all this suffering and death come into the world. However, there are a couple problems here. Let's look at Genesis 3:1 in the New King James Version.
"Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."

Let's first focus on the fact that Satan is not called Satan here. He is called "the serpent". In the passage itself, there appears to be no indication that the serpent is being possessed by anything, and so unless it is stated later that it is, then I will assume that the serpent is acting of it's own free will. However, this could just be symbolic language, so let's continue on.

"Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."

I want to focus on the "any beast of the field" part now. What exactly does "beast of the field" mean? Well, let's look at Genesis 2:19 "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air"

So I assume that this means land animals, or animals of the land. This makes sense if the serpent is an actual snake, because snakes live on land. Yet... Satan is certainly not a beast of the field. According to the Bible, Satan is a fallen angel that lives in Hell. Hell certainly is not "of the field"! So, what does this mean? This means that it's even more unlikely that Satan is the Snake.

Hi, Satan does not live in hell at this time. He was cast out of heaven to earth after the fall.

Throughout the story of the fall, Satan is referred to as "the serpent." This is quite interesting, but it doesn't really prove that the serpent isn't Satan, due to the fact that it might very well be symbolic language. In addition, it appears that the snake does know the difference between good and evil, since it is trying to persuade Eve that it would be a GOOD idea to eat of the fruit. If it didn't, then I would think that it would be a little more neutral on the matter. This could provide evidence that the snake is Satan after all, if we know that the animals don't know the difference between good and evil. However the Bible is silent on this matter, so we can't tell whether the animals knew the difference or not while in the Garden.

The serpent is satan, hence the temptation to Adam and Eve.


Now then, I'm going to skip straight to Genesis 3:14, where Yahweh punishes all snakes. Now this is quite interesting. If the snake is Satan, then quite obviously Yahweh would at least reference this in his punishment, and would most likely punish Satan himself. Why punish the snake? It's not as if the snake could suddenly decide not to the possessed! The Snake had no free will when it came to this. If Satan just took the form of a snake and no possession was involved, then God still played right into Satan's hands. He is punishing an animal when they had nothing to do with it! Wouldn't God be able to see through Satan's disguise.

God doesn't play into any ones hand.


Now then, this isn't really an argument against Christianity, It's just something interesting that I thought I'd bring up. If anybody who reads this has any counter-arguments, then please reply.

It is a good question, and I liked some of the answers I've seen. I could only answer a few which I did above.

God bless
tapero