Talking Snake?

 

The notion of a “talking snake” is one item in the Bible that thoughtful atheists use to discredit the whole book as a fairy tale. While I am biased to disagree, I feel it would be beneficial to point out an explanation, which may instruct the thoughtful atheist why I am biased thus, and am not swayed negatively by the idea of a “talking snake”. 

 First of all, the Bible gives few details about the creature in the Garden of Eden which supposedly spoke. Here is all there is: “…the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made.” “So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.” From the above we can logically deduce that this so-called “serpent” was very smart, and apparently, at first, moved in such a way that its belly did not contact the ground. God’s curse caused it to contact the ground. Whether that means it was a snake and it had legs originally and God removed them is pure conjecture. It is entirely possible that the creature mentioned in the Bible passages, translated “serpent”, was not your common everyday “snake”. No specific details are given as to the appearance, but it is known from the above passage that whatever it was, its method of locomotion was elevated from the ground. Then as a curse from God he caused whatever it was to come in contact, during locomotion, with the ground. Since, unlike many scientists, I believe that what are currently referred to as “dinosaurs” actually lived up into the contemporary era, I have no problem with the notion that the creature mentioned in the Bible, who tempted Eve, may have been one of a myriad extinct so-called dinosaurs. Perhaps the text would be better served if it said “reptile” instead of “serpent”. 

Now, to this business of the serpent talking. The idea of a “talking snake” is, on the surface (scientifically speaking), so far-fetched as to be laughable. It seems cartoonish. In fact it appears to be logically inane. However… when one objectively considers it from all points of view, it actually seems believable. Here are the passages with the so-called talking snake: (Genesis 3:2) The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat… (Genesis 3:3) …but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (Genesis 3:4) The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! (Genesis 3:5) For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:6) When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Notice that the command to not eat the fruit of the forbidden tree extended, or at least it was Eve’s understanding that it extended, not just to her and Adam but also to ALL the other creatures in the Garden of Eden. So here was the “serpent” eating it and not getting zapped, poisoned, or otherwise killed. Looking at verse 6 makes me think that perhaps all the talking serpent stuff was in Eve’s mind. Her eyes communicated to her what she wanted to hear. If the serpent had dropped stone dead after touching the fruit, Eve probably wouldn’t have touched it. But here it was, having consumed the prohibited fruit, and not only was it not dead, it was perfectly healthy and happy. That told her (see what I mean?) all she needed to know. Or so she thought. Soon it was obvious a huge transgression had been committed. There is an old saying that “actions speak louder than words”. Could it be that the actions of the snake are what “spoke” to Eve? It’s entirely possible. It is also within the realm of credulity to consider that Eve was using an inner dialogue during the temptation event and essentially imagined the “serpent” to be talking. Consider this. People of all walks of life, in all levels of intellect, and in all cultures will, from time to time, refer to some incident where an inanimate object spoke to them. For instance, in a criminal case evidence is said to have “spoken”. Scientists are frequently opining that their particular scientific findings “told them” something or other. For instance, Paul Sandberg reports in the April/May issue of National Geographic Adventure that “The degree of developmental maturity of the bones told us that he was between the ages of 19 and 22". Yet no one would conjecture that Mr. Sandberg heard the bones talking, would they? Besides, the idea here is that the creature “communicated” with Eve. Whether Eve actually saw the snake talking like that snake named Kaa in Walt Disney’s The Jungle Book, is highly unlikely unless one considers a supernatural explanation.

On a more paranormal level, we must consider that the malevolent entity known as “Satan” or “The Devil”, who is himself a spirit, could have inhabited for a time this cunning creature referred to as “the serpent”. He could have, therefore, spoken through the animal at that point. For those who are predisposed to believe such supernatural matters, this, in itself, would suffice as an explanation. 

 Another possibility is the unavoidable distortion of oral history. Meaning that when Eve, and Adam told their story (no doubt many times), they would have obviously told the story as they perceived it. Later, when the story was retold as oral narration, down through successive generations, the small details of the original account were replaced by slightly more poetic, and/or fantastic elements. It is merely conjecture to guess how far removed from the specific and actual particulars the real occurrence was by the time it was recorded by Moses. Clearly the story had been told as family lore for centuries prior to its eventual appearance as recorded history. Nevertheless, this doesn’t imply inaccuracy as to the essential elements of the tale. They are clearly this: The first human couple, who lived in a place of soothing beauty, perhaps even innocence, through temptation and disobedience ate something which was forbidden by God, due to an outside agency, resulting in negative consequences, specifically: expulsion from their homeland. The rest is (theological) history. 

Also it is instructive to notice that whales have long been known to “speak”. While it is not permitted by logic to assume that a “serpent” was as developed as a whale, since we are not entirely sure of what kind of animal the Biblical “serpent” was, it may have been a sort of animal that was able to communicate its intentions in some communicative fashion. Therefore referring to it as a “talking snake” is to oversimplify it, lift it from its historical context, and intentionally discredit the story on the surface, by spinning it away from logical possibilities into the realm of fantasy.

Furthermore, since the Bible plainly deals with supernatural events it contains several incidents which strain credulity. The anti-theist might be surprised to know that a “talking snake” is only part of his problem. Wait until they read about the talking donkey (see Numbers 22:28).