How Could the Snake in the Bible Speak?
Airfare Daily Deals eCigarettes Eyeglasses Hotels Jewelry Online Backup Online Dating Online Printing Online Tickets Skin Care Textbook Rentals Vitamins Web Hosting Weddings
Find thousands of shopping-related forums
SEARCH

How Could the Snake in the Bible Speak?

We all know the story of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden. According to the Bible, a snake told Eve that she could know things and become like God if she ate from the Tree Of Knowledge. She ate and had Adam eat too. And so, mankind "fell". God exploded with anger when he found out, and though he said they would die if they eat from it, they didn't die. Instead, we find that now they can procreate and Eve can bring babies into the world with pain. Also, while they used to live all naked like animals, they now wear clothes like civilized beings.

There are many things we don't understand. Many religious people like to chant the mantra "We can never understand everything because our human minds are too limited!". Usually they chant this as soon as they realize their religious tales do not provide them with the necessary answers, or what they see in reality does not correspond with their teachings.

Of course, we CAN understand ANYTHING if you have ALL THE NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE about it, and bring all of that into the equation. It is not our capabilities to understand that is too limited, it is our knowledge at that particular point in time that is still lacking.

We all know the story of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden. According to the Bible, a snake told Eve that she could know things and become like God if she ate from the Tree Of Knowledge. She ate and had Adam eat too. And so, mankind "fell".

God exploded with anger when he found out, and though he said they would die if they eat from it, they didn't die. Instead, we find that now they can procreate and Eve can bring babies into the world with pain. Also, while they used to live all naked like animals, they now wear clothes like civilized beings.

There is one flaw among many in this story: How could a snake speak?

The most common explanations generally flung about range from the Bible's tales being completely fake and imaginary; or the outrageous claims being a test of our "faith", "faith" meaning to deny that you're a thinking, reasoning being and just say "yes" to everything and not ask questions; to Satan, an utmostly evil being bent on making life miserable on earth for everybody, being in snake's clothing so to speak.

None of these explanations are provable in their accuracy, so we might as well not stop there: Are there any more interesting explanations that talk of other possibilities?

An interesting view is that of Zecharia Sitchin, author of "The 12th Planet", who was raised in Israel, and from a young age wasn't satisfied with the "don't talk back or ask questions" approach of Jewish teaching. Later while working in the U.S. he taught himself to read Sumerian Cuneiform, that is writing that was used in Sumer, mankind's oldest civilization, and he also undertook many journeys to ancient archaeological sites and museums the world over.

He went on to write a very successful series of books, very praised and very critisized alike, containing his own translations of ancient knowledge.

Zecharia Sitchin; July 11, 1920 - October 9, 2010

Getting back to our talking snake story, according to Zecharia Sitchin, the snake does not refer to a snake but to a god whose representing icon was that of a snake. Perhaps even two snakes intertwined.

That certainly would explain why a snake could talk. Of course, one has to understand what a god is first.

In our modern times, the word "God" is freely used to refer to whomever might be behind the creation of our universe. However, originally, and in most all ancient mythologies, "God" refers to a member of the gods, the gods of course being actual (later only mythical) ruling beings, created beings themselves, who each had a domain and a function in ruling earth.

According to Sitchin's Sumerian translation, claiming to be the original story from which an adapted version appeared much later in what we now call The Bible, the story in the Garden Of Eden refers not to two opposite non-physical beings, God and Satan, but instead refers to two brother gods in the Edin, a place in Mesopotamia where the gods had a base for themselves at the time.

The two brothers were called En-Lil and EnKi, En-Lil being the commander of Earth and EnKi being what we would call a scientist, skilled in knowledge of medicine among other things. EnKi's domain was Southern Africa, while En-Lil was more concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere.

In Sitchin's Sumerian version, EnKi the scientist had created man through his scientific knowledge and "upgrading" a homo-erectus, an ape-like man that was already on earth when these gods arrived from heaven (space).

Enki's experiments finally produced a successful human, that would be the black population in Africa. However, later on when Enki had intercourse with his own creations (sex among gods/angels and humans is also described in the Bible), the resulting children were even more fine-tuned, lighter skinned humans with finer features having more god-blood in them.

The Adam and Eve described in the Bible were of these later model fairer skinned humans, brought from Africa to the Edin where the gods had their Divine Garden of Edin.

The gods had created man to serve the gods and work for them. But EnKi went too far in En-Lil's eyes. In order for man to be a slave, man had to only be smart enough to talk and work with his hands, and no more.

But EnKi (the entwined Snake god) gave man of the, to quote the Bible, "fruits from the tree of knowledge". This according to Sitchin meant that among teaching his creation "secrets", he tweaked their DNA so man could have better capabilities and know things, and with knowing things is also implied that man could know a woman and procreate.

And so, man became like god (the gods), smart enough to know and understand things, and to have offspring.

When En-lil found out that man had become smart and could procreate and grow in population and overrun the gods, he was furious with the snake god. He was afraid that EnKi might teach them how to manipulate their DNA so that mankind could live the incredibly long lifespans of hundreds of thousands of years the gods live too (as the Bible puts it, God was afraid mankind might eat from the Tree Of Life and live forever)!.

Enlil chased mankind out of the Edin so they couldn't pick up any more secrets of knowledge of the gods. Though brothers, we find En-lil and En-Ki butting heads a lot from then on. True to the meaning of "Satan", Enki was the opponent of the harsh plans of En-Lil. EnKi was a teacher, a light bearer for mankind (Lucifer also means Light Bearer, which actually has a positive connotation instead of the "evil" connotation taught by the Church), which clashed with the plans of the harsh god EnLil. To En-Lil, mankind was just low life slaves and would have to work hard for everything they get.

We can of course see the parrallels of the events with the Bible version, aside from the Bible being manipulated and edited in order to fit in with the monotheistic God and Satan view that came very recently in history in comparison with the age of the Sumerian version.

Also of course, if we were to apply the "Good God" and "Evil Satan" view on them, it would appear that our "Satan" is actually the one who created mankind.

So, in conclusion, our snake is actually a medical scientist god represented by entwined serpents, the same image the medical profession still use today, either with one or two snakes.

(According to Sithin, the two snakes represent the double helix of DNA:)

Interesting side note; when the Israelites were being bitten by snakes God sent in among them, the way they were cured also involved a snake wrapped around a pole. Perhaps some symbol for medical treatment?

So, there you go, another more complex explanation for why a snake might be told of as a speaking, anthropological entity, instead of the rather silent reptile we know from reality, that says merely more than "Th-th-ss-ss-s-s-s-s!!".

Of course, I represent this only as a possibility and admit I was not present at the time this is claimed to have happened, so once again it comes down to faith and what you choose to believe as your version of the truth. I guess the past is whatever you want it to be since after a long time, nobody can prove you wrong.

Need an answer?
Get insightful answers from community-recommended
experts
in Religion & Spirituality on Knoji.
Would you recommend this author as an expert in Religion & Spirituality?
You have 0 recommendations remaining to grant today.
Comments (3)

Impressive and informative work. Thanks

Christians do use the answer "we can't understand this so we'll just accept it" a little too easily, although obviously there are some things we honestly can't know now, too many Christians have spent little time reading and studying the Bible so that we can answer questions like yours.

One thing that is easily cleared up is the name Lucifer. Yes  it does mean "light bearer". It was the name of a beautiful angel, who became jealous of God and led a rebellion against God. About 1/3 of the angels joined Lucifer. God swept them out of heaven. Lucifer's name was changed to Satan, which means "the opposer". Satan is still a spirit being, who is able to change his form, as when he appeared to Eve in the form of a snake.

When Satan was able to deceive Eve by telling her that the forbidden fruit would make her wise like God, she ate and got Adam to eat some as well, the whole world changed. Adam and Eve used to be innocent as children, not knowing good from evil. Now they realized that they were naked, and they were ashamed, so they covered up with leaves and tried to hide from God.

God meted out punishments to all involved. Satan was to crawl on his belly, and one day Eve's "seed" (Jesus Christ in human form) would come - Satan would bruise his heel, but Jesus would step on Satan's head. Adam's punishment was that the ground would not be easy to work, thistles would grow and he would have to work hard to provide for his family. Eve's punishment was that she would experience pain in bearing children.

God said that they would die the day that they ate the fruit, because as it says later in the Bible, the wages of sin is death. But God allowed for a sacrifice to be made to redeem their lives, temporarily. He killed an animal - the first death ever - and used the skin to make garments to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve. Animal sacrifices were a temporary solution until the time of Christ, when Jesus took on human flesh and blood and then gave up that flesh and blood as the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sin.

Thank you for the participation, Karen!  It is truly appreciated. 

I will try to respond with care so I don't step on your toes, since it is apparent from your narrative that you personally have taken all you said as fact.

What I would say to someone like you is, have you noticed how in churches and all Abrahamic religious institutions, they never discuss the origins of their scriptures and texts?  Contrary to popular belief, there isn't much of a mystery behind it, as there are tons of research on the subject of where Bible books and their subjects come from / were borrowed from and adapted, when they were written, by whom, what books go parallel with them from the time, and most importantly, what the political motivation was. 

The latter of course has always been the key motivator for inventing a religion.  It has just about 0 % to do with "spirituality", and is an enemy of the truth since the truth can expose religion for its inaccuracies, which accounts for the modern "science versus religion" debate.  Obviously, if religion was as true as science, reality wouldn't have contradicted one of them.  

It's always good to study facts first and then come forth with conclusions.  It can only work with theory first if that theory is then proven by reality. 

Another point we should be careful of is snowballing.  That is where you start with something and then tack on more things until you have a big ball of fluff.  More specifically, I'm talking about the explanation of Lucifer you gave.  Not only have you promoted Bible stories as fact, you have also added a story of Lucifer, which I would like you to quote the bible book and verse that you got that from.  

So it continued with the "Satan was to crawl on his belly" thing.  Have you ever seen this?  What are you basing this on?  

Nothing.  You've never seen any of what you are talking about.  Religion is popular so you went with it.  You wanted to be in.  You don't want to be the odd one out. 

Don't you think truth is more important than religion?

ARTICLE DETAILS
RELATED ARTICLES
ARTICLE KEYWORDS