After the "serpent" of Eden smooth-talked humanity's mother, resulting in a whole chain of events leading up to Pat Robertson and popes explaining the story thousands of years later, he was supposedly punished:

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...

My observation is this: if the serpent was made to crawl on its belly after this event, what kind of "serpent" was it pre-punishment? A snake with legs? If so, that would be pretty close to a lizard, right? Why didn't the bible writers notice this distinction and call it a lizard (or equivalent) and note its transformation to a new life form post-punishment? Bad editing? Lack of reason? Foreshadowing of the anti-evolution position that would be taken up by Kirk Cameron?

Also, if it was the talking that was the sin, why didn't the serpent's ability to talk get taken away instead, eliminating the ability to do it again? We don't have talking snakes/lizards (while sober, anyway), so using this story to explain their silence would have made more sense, I think. Maybe various animals still spoke to humans for a while afterwards but no one bothered to write down a conversation or two after "the incident."

Now, this is in all likelihood not an original thought. I just haven't really seen it anywhere.

Views: 118

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Have you seen Ricky Gervais. He actually uses this in his act,which ispretty hilarious.
You can check it out on youtube.
Thanks. I looked at some of his stuff. Very funny!
Very nice. I knew others had thought of this; it's just not a very popular topic, I guess. I liked the story. Very clever and entertaining!
I like the way your mind works!!!
Thanks. I do too...or more accurately, that it does work.
The culture that drummed up the story didn't find a lizard as evil as a snake.

I have heard a few Christians talk about snakes having legs before this incident. On the even fewer occasions myself or someone else asks, "wouldn't a snake with legs be a lizard" they seem dumbfounded, glaze over, and hurry on to the next part of their story without offering explanation.
The snake is the tragic hero, the way I read it. He risked the wrath of a selfish and possessive God to free the minds of Adam and Eve. What a selfless and wonderful act!
Could be, but the serpent never got a warning like the humans did. God never made a general announcement about this tree, he only made it specifically to the humans. It could be argued that the serpent spent lots of time in that tree eating all fruit he wanted and never was harmed. He was never told to avoid it. He never was ashamed of his nakeness and didn't die after spending time in the tree. Maybe, he even gained his powers of speech and thought after eating from the tree--becoming like a "god" in a sense. Therefore, he was actually telling the truth when he said that the warning the humans got was wrong. His personal experience could have been proof.
Could be as well. So many ways to interpret the Bible!
So many holes and too few answers! ;)
We'll just have to read the Bible more and pray for revelation.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service