So the question is, given human propensity to tell tall tales – the products of human imaginations – those multi-millions and millions of fictional works and the multi-thousands upon thousands of mythologies, how can just one mythology, a religious mythology, represent a really real reality and not be a non-reality ‘reality’? Only one (of multi-thousands) of religious mythologies can be true at best, although that’s not of necessity a given. If multi-thousands are non-reality ‘realities’ then the odds are that all such religious mythologies represent non-reality ‘realities’.So, what are the odds that the Bible represents really real reality and not just another one of the multi-millions and millions of fictional works and the multi-thousands upon thousands of mythologies including religious mythologies? The odds favor the Bible as posing as a make-believe ‘reality’, the product, like so many others of just pure human imagination. Faced with a choice, is it more logical to believe the Bible is the product of the human imagination – especially given the multi-dozens of rather absurd happenings related therein that violate all kinds of rational and scientific realities as we know them – or a non-fictional but supernatural reality with bible preaching events that cannot be independently verified? Given the vast number of works of fiction generated by the human imagination, where would you place your bets?Now a fictional Bible doesn’t of necessity negate a deity (or deities), yet the related odds are that deities in general part and parcel of all those other religious mythologies, as well as God are also fictional and products of the human imagination. But you get such an event in the Bible. So, is it imagination at work or something else?It’s been frequently claimed that the talking snake / serpent in Genesis 3 was really Satan. You just won’t find any such association with you read the relevant verses.Genesis 3: 1 (King James Version):”Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”Do we note the phrase “beast of the field” here? Do we note the word beast here? Isn’t the word “beast” also used in Genesis 1: 24-25, 30 and Genesis 2: 19-20? It’s also frequently used in the Noah’s Ark mythology.Then there’s…Genesis 3: 14 (King James Version):”And the Lord God said unto the serpent, 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:”Again, comparisons to cattle and “beasts of the field” not to anything remotely humanoid. And we note the method of locomotion imposed on this serpent. There is not even a remote association to Satan here in Genesis 3.
Of the 49 references to “serpent” or “serpents” in the King James Version of the Bible, only Revelation 12: 9 and Revelation 20: 2 link a serpent with Satan / the Devil. Also there are 13 references to “serpents” and Satan of course is singular. Further, there are three other references to serpents and dust: Deuteronomy 32: 24; Isaiah 65: 
25 and Micah 7: 17.
expert73love 