Bible stories literal or symbolic?

[Jac3510]

It never ceases to amaze me, for instance, how many times I've seen Job's comforters referenced and quoted as proof of God's word on a particular issue ..........

That actually made me laugh out loud

Is it appropriate to say that's ironic? Technically, I don't think so . . . just good old fashioned ignorance on display. It's somewhere between sad and painful.

[Gman]

professional

Which is at the root of my question. Professionals seek to come up with and follow an objective hermeneutic, wherever it may lead them. So your objective is that people and places are literal, but you've not answered the basic question: what do you take to be symbolic? You seem to think the snake is symbolic (to which I'm forced to ask, symbolic of what?).

Let's see... Are snakes easy to find? Do they run or craw in the grass? And what about that hissing sound and those sharp teeth? I wonder if.. No, couldn't be.

I'm forced to wonder if Adam and Eve would not be symbolic in your view if the geneologies in Matthew and Luke did not link them to Jesus.

Did I ever say that Adam and Eve were symbolic?

What about Balaam's talking donkey? Or the angel that the donkey mentioned?

Symbolic in my book... By if you need to take that as literal then that is your prerogative I guess.

Or we come to your other idea, that phrases could be symbolic, or better, you are referring to them as idioms. Very well, by what professional (that is, objective) means do you suppose that Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt means she went back to the city? That would be difficult, I would think, if the city had been destroyed. Or perhaps the city's destruction is idiomatic, too? And on what basis do you determine that one, and not another, is in fact an idiom?

Or she went back to the city and then it was destroyed. Where else in the Bible do you see people turning into pillars of salt? I don't think we are talking about Narnia here. I believe the destruction of the city to be a true event just like Noah's local flood.

Perhaps I could argue that the word "Jesus" is simply idiomatic for the perfect self that undergoes testing so that it may be brought to reality, a picture most forcefully presented in the idom of the death, burial, and resurrection, using such symbols as the cross and (empty) tomb.

I don't find that to be very funny Jac.....

Like I said, I'm interested in what makes your hermeneutic your hermeneutic. What objective means should I follow if I am to know what words and phrases are literal and which ones are symbolic?

We should probably ask and learn from scholars or professionals that research this stuff would be a good start. Also, since this is a Jewish book, I don't think we should be scared to ask a Rabbi what they might think too. Why should we as protestants hold back on asking what a Catholic priest or a Jewish Rabbi might have to say about it?

[Gman]

With that said, I agree with the hermeneutic you suggested. We should consider the genre, purpose, occasion, audience, date, etc. of the composition if we want to come to an objective understanding of a book, and moreso an individual passage or verse. My objection to G was the idea that one word or phrase or object could be symbolic while another word or phrase or object could be symbolic within the same genre, form, and context.

And why not? How does that distort the message from getting across? Is taking the text literal or figuratively going to negate the message or theology?

[Jac3510]

Let's see... Are snakes easy to find? Do they run or craw in the grass? And what about that hissing sound and those sharp teeth? I wonder if.. No, couldn't be.

So the snake is symbolic of a snake? Isn't that the same as saying that the snake is a literal snake?

Did I ever say that Adam and Eve where symbolic?

Just trying to be consistent with your hermeneutic. There is nothing in the narrative of Gen. 2-3 that suggests that the snake is any different from Adam or Eve. After all, Eve talks to the snake, and all three cursed. So it would follow that if one was symbolic, then they all should be symbolic, else God couldn't not have cursed all three.

Unless, of course, the snake was a real snake. Or, another way you could look at it is by saying Adam and Eve were real people but the entire event is ficticious. A noble myth, we could say . . . a historical fiction, thus using real people to tell a story that never happened to teach a moral truth. Or, in other words, a good old fashioned allegory. Of course, if you take THAT view, I'm forced to wonder why you take Adam and Eve to be historical in the first place, but I suppose you'll then appeal to the geneologies. More on that below.

Symbolic in my book... By if you need to take that as literal then that is your prerogative I guess.

Ok, so what were they symbolic of?

What about the parting of the Red Sea? Was that symbolic or a real event?

Or she went back to the city and then it was destroyed. Where else in the Bible do you see people turning into pillars of salt? I don't think we are talking about Narnia here. I believe the destruction of the city to be a true event just like Noah's local flood.

Where else in the Bible to we see a man push over the pillars of a temple with his bare hands other than in the story of Sampson? Is that symbolic, that is, non-historical? Where else other than Jonah do we see a man swallowed by a great fish? Is that symbolic? Where else, other than in the life of Jesus, do we see water turned into wine? Is that symbolic? Where else, other than Jesus, do we see a man resurrected (not rescusitated)? Is that symbolic? Where else, other than in the life of Paul, do we see a man who had been killing believers become a great witness for God? Is that symbolic?

Or let's take one of your own examples here. Where else, other than in S&G, do we see cities destroyed by fire and brimstone? Yet you take that as literal. So if that destruction, which occurs nowhere else in Scripture, is literal, then why cannot Lot's wife's judgment, which likewise occurs nowhere else in Scripture, also be literal?

On what basis have you decided it is symbolic?

I don't find that to be very funny Jac.....

It wasn't a joke. I was asking a real question. How do you know that Jesus wasn't symbolic? I am dead serious. On what basis have you decided that He is a historical character?

We should probably ask and learn from scholars or professionals that research this stuff would be a good start. Also, since this is a Jewish book, I don't think we should be scared to ask a Rabbi what they might think too. Why should we as protestants hold back on asking what a Catholic priest or a Jewish Rabbi might have to say about it?

I'm all up for finding out what their interpretations are, just as I am interested in finding out what their hermeneutic is. The only way to validate an interpretation--be it Catholic, Jewish, Egalitarian, Liberal, Conservative, Protestant, Evangelical, or whatever perspective you want--is to examine the means by which the interpretation was come to. That is, we ask them about their hermeneutic. So I am asking you about yours.

On what basis do you decide what is literal and what is symbolic?

And why not? How does that distort the message from getting across? Is taking the text literal or figuratively going to negate the message?

Yes. Absolutely. If the message is that these things happened historically, and you deny that by saying they are just mythical symbols, then you have negated the message. But even beyond that, if you don't have a consistent basis on which to decide what is symbolic and what is historical, then someone could come along and say that things that YOU think are historical (i.e., the existence of Jesus) is actually symbolic, and how could you tell them that they were wrong? They are using YOUR method, i.e., deciding rather arbitrarily what is historical and symbolic.

Very well, so then I'll take the Cross to be symbolic. It is symbolic of suffering in general. Therefore, the main point of the story is that, through suffering, we transcend unto salvation. Jesus, then, becomes an example that we are to follow in obedience, as He said, "take up your cross and follow Me." Paul repeated this challenge by saying that through our faith (which I will take to be a symbol of commitment to the same God that Jesus was committed to) we can suffer with Christ so that we will be made mature. I, therefore, will proclaim that salvation comes when I suffer successfully. I then enter into "heaven," which I will also take to be symbolic of the right state of mind. It is that state that Paul talked about when he said that he had learned to be content in all things.

Thus, the Cross, faith, and heaven are not historical. They are symbolic of greater truths. So on what basis, using YOUR hermeneutic (we all know that anyone who holds to a normal reading of the text would rightly disagree) when you find fault with my view?

I'm not making fun. I'm honesty trying to find out the basis for how you interpret Scripture, because it all sounds rather arbitrary to me.

[Gman]

So the snake is symbolic of a snake? Isn't that the same as saying that the snake is a literal snake?

No... The snake is most likely symbolic for the devil..

Just trying to be consistent with your hermeneutic. There is nothing in the narrative of Gen. 2-3 that suggests that the snake is any different from Adam or Eve. After all, Eve talks to the snake, and all three cursed. So it would follow that if one was symbolic, then they all should be symbolic, else God couldn't not have cursed all three.

And how do you know this to be true? Are snakes the devil? Also cannot God curse the devil as a spirit?

If snakes are the devil then let's wipe them out...

Unless, of course, the snake was a real snake. Or, another way you could look at it is by saying Adam and Eve were real people but the entire event is ficticious. A noble myth, we could say . . . a historical fiction, thus using real people to tell a story that never happened to teach a moral truth. Or, in other words, a good old fashioned allegory. Of course, if you take THAT view, I'm forced to wonder why you take Adam and Eve to be historical in the first place, but I suppose you'll then appeal to the geneologies. More on that below.

What about the parting of the Red Sea? Was that symbolic or a real event?

I really don't know... It could be either or. Does that response frighten you to say that we may not know?

Perhaps this would be a better question... What is the MEANING for the parting of the Red Sea?

Where else in the Bible to we see a man push over the pillars of a temple with his bare hands other than in the story of Sampson? Is that symbolic, that is, non-historical? Where else other than Jonah do we see a man swallowed by a great fish? Is that symbolic?

I guess it would depend on the size of the pillars wouldn't it? And the size of the fish.. Again I would stress what is their meaning.

Where else, other than in the life of Jesus, do we see water turned into wine? Is that symbolic? Where else, other than Jesus, do we see a man resurrected (not rescusitated)? Is that symbolic? Where else, other than in the life of Paul, do we see a man who had been killing believers become a great witness for God? Is that symbolic?

Oh, so now we are going to the extremes.... Let's just say that Christ's and Paul's life was entirely a myth then. That will get the point across. After all the whole thing is symbolic.

Or let's take one of your own examples here. Where else, other than in S&G, do we see cities destroyed by fire and brimstone? Yet you take that as literal. So if that destruction, which occurs nowhere else in Scripture, is literal, then why cannot Lot's wife's judgment, which likewise occurs nowhere else in Scripture, also be literal?

How? The same way we do in our modern English language. If I was to say that Dallas Texas was going to get fried today what do you think that may imply? Could it also mean that it too could get blown up or get fried up like some chicken?

Or what if I was to tell you that a guy named Bob got "dusted" last night? Should we imply that he literally turned to dust???

Maybe a thousand years later the term "he got dusted" could be "he got crystallized". How are we going to understand the slang of that day?

It wasn't a joke. I was asking a real question. How do you know that Jesus wasn't symbolic? I am dead serious. On what basis have you decided that He is a historical character?

More fireworks.... More extremes.

I'm all up for finding out what their interpretations are, just as I am interested in finding out what their hermeneutic is. The only way to validate an interpretation--be it Catholic, Jewish, Egalitarian, Liberal, Conservative, Protestant, Evangelical, or whatever perspective you want--is to examine the means by which the interpretation was come to. That is, we ask them about their hermeneutic. So I am asking you about yours.

You've asked and I've explained it to you. What more do you want? The snake was probably figurative of the devil, the pillar of salt is figurative of staying back.

Yes. Absolutely. If the message is that these things happened historically, and you deny that by saying they are just mythical symbols, then you have negated the message.

That is false... Again we have to be careful with words that could be idioms of another language too. The question should be what is the message saying.

But even beyond that, if you don't have a consistent basis on which to decide what is symbolic and what is historical, then someone could come along and say that things that YOU think are historical (i.e., the existence of Jesus) is actually symbolic, and how could you tell them that they were wrong? They are using YOUR method, i.e., deciding rather arbitrarily what is historical and symbolic.

You can't paint the Bible with a wide brush using YOUR method either. Things don't have to be entirely black or white or totally literal or totally symbolic. Certain words could be taken as figuratively too... Like we do today.....

Very well, so then I'll take the Cross to be symbolic. It is symbolic of suffering in general.

Go ahead put words into my mouth... I don't care.

Therefore, the main point of the story is that, through suffering, we transcend unto salvation.Jesus, then, becomes an example that we are to follow in obedience, as He said, "take up your cross and follow Me." Paul repeated this challenge by saying that through our faith (which I will take to be a symbol of commitment to the same God that Jesus was committed to) we can suffer with Christ so that we will be made mature. I, therefore, will proclaim that salvation comes when I suffer successfully. I then enter into "heaven," which I will also take to be symbolic of the right state of mind. It is that state that Paul talked about when he said that he had learned to be content in all things.

Thus, the Cross, faith, and heaven are not historical. They are symbolic of greater truths. So on what basis, using YOUR hermeneutic (we all know that anyone who holds to a normal reading of the text would rightly disagree) when you find fault with my view?

I'm not making fun. I'm honesty trying to find out the basis for how you interpret Scripture, because it all sounds rather arbitrary to me.

I think your getting tired again.

[Canuckster1127]

I think G-man's point isn't that there wasn't a literal event in terms of the temptation of Eve by Satan but rather that the use of the snake may be more mataphorical or symbolic language of the appearance Satan took than a serpent in and of itself. There's some basis for that from the text. There's an indication that the creature Satan appeared as had legs, hence the curse following that put a snake as crawling on its belly. Satan in following portions of Scripture is referenced as a serpent and in that sense it's obvious that there's an allusion back to the garden and the snake as a symbol. Obviously Lucifer was/is more than a literal snake. Even in the presentation of a literal historical event in this case, there can still be a use of metaphore or symbolic language.

However, the use of the word snake in a metaphorical sense in this passage, doesn't mean that that is a consistent use of the word in all other passages of Scripture. You have to evaluate each use of the word in the context of the individual passage in which it is used.

That's why the appeal to use of the word, "yom" as a 24 hour day, for example, in other passages of Scripture where it commonly does mean that, is not a particularly convincing argument for it to be applied in that sense in Gen 1 -2. There are internal issues to that passage that make it clear, to me anyway, that these are not literal 24 hour days but are in fact longer periods of time. The fact that 'yom' can be interpreted as longer periods of time makes that interpretation plausible. It is the internal evidence of the passage in question itself that makes that determination for me.

Those who call themselves literalists, in my opinion, by arguing for the simpler more common use of the word, create an argument that if they were consistent, would eliminate any other use of the word in any other passage, not just Gen 1 and 2. Arguing for simplicity for its own sake, not tied to the elements of the passage itself, is evidence again in my opinion, of elevating a hermeneutic above the scripture itself. It is eisogesis, not exegesis. It is making the Scriptures subject to a method of interpretation first and foremost. In most cases too, I think it is laziness on the part of those who wish to simplify things rather than wrestle with the passage itself and do the work necessary to draw out what is in the passage.

[Kurieuo]

Let's see... Are snakes easy to find? Do they run or craw in the grass? And what about that hissing sound and those sharp teeth? I wonder if.. No, couldn't be.

So the snake is symbolic of a snake? Isn't that the same as saying that the snake is a literal snake?

Revelation 12:9
"The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

[Jac3510]

Gman - I think you are confused on the definition of an "idiom." An idiom is a collection of words whose meanings cannot be derived from an analysis of their individual uses. So, let's take an English idiom: "kick the bucket." It means "to die," but we can't get that from "kick" or "bucket." All idioms, in any language, work this way. They are expressions.

You also seem to be confusing metaphors with metonymies. A metaphor is one thing that is said to be another, so as to attribute to it a certain quality. "God is a rock!" is a metaphore. God is not obviously a rock, but the association of strength and immovability certainly applies to God. They, then, are declarative statements of equation.

Metonymies are words that use a part of a related idea. Thus, I can refer to a king's sovereignty by saying he has the "sceptor." I can say the "White House" made a decision to refer to the President's decision. It also works with expressions. Earning something "by the sweat of my brow" is a metonymy; "sweat" -> perspiration -> hardwork.

Now all of these--idioms, metaphores, and metonymies--are basic figures of speech common to all languages. They are words and phrases used in one way to mean something else. Further, they all have certain trademarks that distinguish them from one another as well as from normal speech patterns.

The snake in Genesis 2, the talking donkey or angel, and Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt have none of these characteristics whatsoever. This isn't an opinion, Gman. It's just a fact in the same way as to say that "All cows eat grass" is a fact. If you are looking at an animal that doesn't eat grass, but instead eats plankton, well you aren't looking at a cow--maybe a whale. In fact, it's these very facts that distinguish these things as being what they are. A better example:

What is a spoon? It is an object that scoops up liquid, usually for eating. In this sense, anything can function as a spoon, so long as it serves this purpose. If something does NOT scoop up liquid, then it cannot be properly said to be a spoon, no matter how much we may like to say so. Likewise, metaphors are declarative statements--usually, if not always, in a standard subject-predicate form. You can't say the "snake" is a metaphor for the same reason I can't say a fork is a spoon, even though both are used for eating. It just isn't part of the definition. If, now, the text said, "Now the devil was a serpent!" we could argue whether or not that is metaphor.

In other words:

If you are going to argue that any of these objects are figures of speech, then you have to appeal to the normal rules of grammar. And that is what I have been asking you for all along--what is your basis for saying that something in one case is a figure of speech (and which figure is it?) whereas another is not? Because there is NOTHING in the context of the stories you are talking about that indicate that these are figures of speech. They are, so far as basic linguistics goes, simply historical narrative. It seems to me that what you are doing is turning that which you see as miraculous and writing it off as symbolic.

As far as why this is dangerous, let's take your own example. Very well, the snake is symbolic for Satan. So it wasn't really a snake that talked to Eve; it was Satan, who the author, Moses, describes using the word "snake." But then we have God cursing literal snakes. The snake itself is condemned to crawl on the earth by its belly and "eat dust" (a reference to his proximity to the earth); in fact, the literal snake is cursed above all other animals in the field. So the LITERAL snake--snakes in general--are cursed. Now, if you take the curse to be literal--which I assume you do, because the curses on Adam and Eve were literal--then you have a serious problem. If Satan, and not a snake--that is, if there was no literal snake in the story--then why did God curse literal snakes?

[Canuckster1127]

As far as why this is dangerous, let's take your own example. Very well, the snake is symbolic for Satan. So it wasn't really a snake that talked to Eve; it was Satan, who the author, Moses, describes using the word "snake." But then we have God cursing literal snakes. The snake itself is condemned to crawl on the earth by its belly and "eat dust" (a reference to his proximity to the earth); in fact, the literal snake is cursed above all other animals in the field. So the LITERAL snake--snakes in general--are cursed. Now, if you take the curse to be literal--which I assume you do, because the curses on Adam and Eve were literal--then you have a serious problem. If Satan, and not a snake--that is, if there was no literal snake in the story--then why did God curse literal snakes?

Jac, I'm with you on a lot of what you're saying, but this is pushing it a little too far in my opinion. If you extend the logic then you could equally ask, why did God curse the creation in general in reference to the fall when it was Man who fell? Justice as a concept as you're applying it would not apply to soul-less animals and the answer is God chose to exercise this particular curse for His own good purposes and reasons and there is no contradiction to any of His attributes in doing so. It's simply an expression of His sovereignty and while we may be able to infer or deduce His reasoning for doing so, it's not necessary for us to do so and it may in fact be beyond our ability to fully understand.

God chose to use a rainbow later in the chapter as a sign and reminder to man of a covenant God made to never destroy the earth again. It's speculation on my part, but it may be that the curse of the snake in this regard collectively upon a species was done by God to serve as a sign or reminder of the fall as personified symbolically in the form of the creature Satan possessed or assumed in his interaction with Eve originally. The bottom line is that I don't know and I don't believe you do either.

[Jac3510]

I think you misunderstood me, Canunkster. I am not saying that Satan wasn't involved in the process; I think a good inference is that either Satan took the form of a snake or, more likely, used the snake for his bidding. I, however, am taking it that Gman doesn't think that there was a literal snake in the garden at all; the word "snake" is just symbolic for Satan.

In my view, God cursed the snake, literally, because it was the literal means that Satan used. In extension, He pronounced Satan's ultimate defeat in 3:15. My point to Gman is that, if there is no literal snake at all, but the word "snake" is used only with reference to Satan, then you can't explain how it is that God cursed literal snakes.

If, though, Gman wants to reverse his position and say that it WAS a literal snake in the garden, but it was only that the snake was used by Satan, then he's come to a traditional understanding of Genesis 3. No big deal. But then the example of the snake isn't at all an example of what the question in the OP was directed towards.

[Gman]

God chose to use a rainbow later in the chapter as a sign and reminder to man of a covenant God made to never destroy the earth again. It's speculation on my part, but it may be that the curse of the snake in this regard collectively upon a species was done by God to serve as a sign or reminder of the fall as personified symbolically in the form of the creature Satan possessed or assumed in his interaction with Eve originally. The bottom line is that I don't know and I don't believe you do either.

Thanks Bart... For the record I don't know either. This is for the most part speculation. Again what I would reiterate is what is the underlying message.

[Gman]

Gman - I think you are confused on the definition of an "idiom." An idiom is a collection of words whose meanings cannot be derived from an analysis of their individual uses. So, let's take an English idiom: "kick the bucket." It means "to die," but we can't get that from "kick" or "bucket." All idioms, in any language, work this way. They are expressions.

Oh really? Well if I'm off then why are you using my examples? You don't like the word “dusted?” I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that the snake was a figure of speech or "simile" of the devil. The devil is “like” a snake as he is “like” a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8) or dragon.

You also seem to be confusing metaphors with metonymies. A metaphor is one thing that is said to be another, so as to attribute to it a certain quality. "God is a rock!" is a metaphore. God is not obviously a rock, but the association of strength and immovability certainly applies to God. They, then, are declarative statements of equation.

A metaphor compares two dissimilar objects without using a word “like.” But according to your view the devil was literally a snake. So the Bible is entirely literal with absolutely no metaphors or metonymies or simile. Every single word means what it says and says what it means with no room for private interpretation. To do that would degrade the meaning of the Bible (in your book). Christ was also called a rock (1 cor. 10:4), therefore according to your interpretation Christ was literally a rock. I don't believe that… Ok?

Metonymies are words that use a part of a related idea. Thus, I can refer to a king's sovereignty by saying he has the "sceptor." I can say the "White House" made a decision to refer to the President's decision. It also works with expressions. Earning something "by the sweat of my brow" is a metonymy; "sweat" -> perspiration -> hardwork.

Let's be clear… The figure of speech Metonymy involves the exchange of nouns or verbs, where one noun or verb is put for another related noun or verb. The word "Metonymy" comes from meta, indicating change, and onoma, a name (or in grammar, a noun). Metonymy is a common figure of speech with a wide variety of usages. When we say, "Give me a hand," it is by the figure Metonymy that "hand" is put for the many useful ways the hand can help. As another example, Isaiah 11:12 speaks of gathering people from "the the four corners of the earth." This statement obviously cannot be taken literally, yet its meaning is clear.

Also you forgot about Synecdochic figures of speech. As an example, Bob has to go to the john [bathroom].

Now all of these--idioms, metaphores, and metonymies--are basic figures of speech common to all languages. They are words and phrases used in one way to mean something else. Further, they all have certain trademarks that distinguish them from one another as well as from normal speech patterns.

Don't forget about similes, hyperboles, or anthropomorphisms.

The snake in Genesis 2, the talking donkey or angel, and Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt have none of these characteristics whatsoever. This isn't an opinion, Gman. It's just a fact in the same way as to say that "All cows eat grass" is a fact. If you are looking at an animal that doesn't eat grass, but instead eats plankton, well you aren't looking at a cow--maybe a whale. In fact, it's these very facts that distinguish these things as being what they are. A better example
What is a spoon? It is an object that scoops up liquid, usually for eating. In this sense, anything can function as a spoon, so long as it serves this purpose. If something does NOT scoop up liquid, then it cannot be properly said to be a spoon, no matter how much we may like to say so. Likewise, metaphors are declarative statements--usually, if not always, in a standard subject-predicate form. You can't say the "snake" is a metaphor for the same reason I can't say a fork is a spoon, even though both are used for eating. It just isn't part of the definition. If, now, the text said, "Now the devil was a serpent!" we could argue whether or not that is metaphor.

Where did I ever say that the snake was a metaphor?

As far as why this is dangerous, let's take your own example. Very well, the snake is symbolic for Satan. So it wasn't really a snake that talked to Eve; it was Satan, who the author, Moses, describes using the word "snake." But then we have God cursing literal snakes. The snake itself is condemned to crawl on the earth by its belly and "eat dust" (a reference to his proximity to the earth); in fact, the literal snake is cursed above all other animals in the field. So the LITERAL snake--snakes in general--are cursed. Now, if you take the curse to be literal--which I assume you do, because the curses on Adam and Eve were literal--then you have a serious problem. If Satan, and not a snake--that is, if there was no literal snake in the story--then why did God curse literal snakes?

Why can't crawling on the belly be a figure of speech for the devil? I think it fits his description perfectly… Can animals sin? Why would God curse a snake if it was the devil?

If you want to go that route then you would have to prove to me that snakes literally had legs before the fall and that the structures of their throat can produce human like sounds or words. Are you aware of the human vocal chords and their complexity to produce sounds?

[Gman]

I think you misunderstood me, Canunkster. I am not saying that Satan wasn't involved in the process; I think a good inference is that either Satan took the form of a snake or, more likely, used the snake for his bidding. I, however, am taking it that Gman doesn't think that there was a literal snake in the garden at all; the word "snake" is just symbolic for Satan.

Yes, the word "snake" is just symbolic for Satan. You got it...

In my view, God cursed the snake, literally, because it was the literal means that Satan used. In extension, He pronounced Satan's ultimate defeat in 3:15. My point to Gman is that, if there is no literal snake at all, but the word "snake" is used only with reference to Satan, then you can't explain how it is that God cursed literal snakes.

Thats right. Now it is your job to prove to us how snakes had "human like" vocal chords.

If, though, Gman wants to reverse his position and say that it WAS a literal snake in the garden, but it was only that the snake was used by Satan, then he's come to a traditional understanding of Genesis 3. No big deal. But then the example of the snake isn't at all an example of what the question in the OP was directed towards.

I'm not reversing my stance Jac. The onus is on you...

[jenna]

Just wanted to make a small comment. Snakes actually did have legs before the fall. Many today still have tiny appendages that evolutionists use to back up their claim. Snakes actually do eat dust, since they are so close to the ground. Their tongue actually is coated with dust every time they use it. Just a few thoughts...(don't know about the talking bit)

[Gman]

Just wanted to make a small comment. Snakes actually did have legs before the fall. Many today still have tiny appendages that evolutionists use to back up their claim. Snakes actually do eat dust, since they are so close to the ground. Their tongue actually is coated with dust every time they use it. Just a few thoughts...(don't know about the talking bit)

Actually the nub-like legs beneath snake skins are half-inch claws that protrude out above the nubs and nestle close to their bellies. The males use them for spurs during courtship and fighting, not to walk.