Terry's got a good point.
Even if you are believer in the Bible, how often do animals talk in the narrative? Why is this account taken as historical when there’s not even similarity to the other “animal-talking” account of Balaam’s talking donkey?
Genesis Narrative: Snake talks without any surprise from others and without any mention in narrative how this was accomplished (we’re not even told that Satan is behind this by the author); the snake questions God’s directive and instructions and then immediately makes a claim in the opposite direction—in other words, the snake is not asking an honest question but is setting the woman up; the snake gets punished and cursed for what it does, losing the ability to “stand.”
The Talking Donkey Narrative: This narrative explains details regarding the donkey’s behavior, such as an angel with a sword standing in the road, and then that the Lord “opened the mouth of the donkey;” the donkey acts in reverential fear of God and his messenger and even attempts to save Balaam’s life; the donkey’s actions are praised by the angel who tells Balaam: “When the donkey saw me she turned away….you are the one I would have killed, though I would have spared her.”—Numbers 22:33.
If the Genesis account is supposed to be historical report, it doesn’t read like one. It doesn’t explain the source of the snake’s speech nor why it would pose a question it didn’t really want the answer to. It also doesn’t explain the harsh curse it receives from God.
The talking donkey narrative treats speech from an animal as a supernatural event, gives details as to what was going on in the spiritual realm beyond Balaam’s notice, and is presented as an example worthy of imitation.
Even if you’re going to attribute literal historicity to the snake of Eden, one has to admit that it is far, far different from other Biblical narrative.
To claim that a literal interpretation fits best also goes contrary to the way the early Christian community saw the Genesis account. Writing in the 300s A.D., Gregory Nazianzen explained that the narrative was symbolic, a lesson explaining humankind’s current predicament. He contrasts Adam with the vegetation of the garden, “immortal plants, by which is perhaps meant the divine conceptions,” with the “Tree of Knowledge” representing “contemplation, which only those who have reached maturity of habit may safely undertake.” Shame over their actions leads the human pair to cover up their bodies, which up to that point has been reflecting God’s image, and they receive animal skins to cover themselves instead, “the coarser flesh, both mortal and full of conflict.”—The New Jerusalem Bible: Saints Devotional Edition—“Understanding the Fall,” page 5, Doubleday.
The literalism of the Watchtower regarding this part of the Bible is a modern invention which is rejected by both traditional theology as well as that governed by the historical-critical method.
And it has already been established by others on this thread that both Eve in the narrative as well as Christ in the gospel account attribute deception in the actions of the “snake.” Add this to the fact that Satan is not referred to as a “devil” until New Testament theology, when Christ reveals this individual as responsible for most of the ills visited on humankind. Up until then the Bible has a somewhat obscure opinion of Satan, even portraying him in Job as a member of heavenly society, though already accusatory in nature.—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6.
