OH, I BET!! Why am I reminded of the 'intense debates' said to have occurred in the Middle Ages amongst priests over the burning issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
If you think the debate is frivolous, then why do you engage in it, and with such passion?
As I pointed out in my response to Caliber, the HALLMARK of a great leader is the ability to communicate in terms that make their goals easy for others to understand and follow, not to speak in riddles.
Spiritual things and places are best described in parables, allegories, metaphors, symbology and yes, sometimes even riddles. There is no better way, as you seem to be implying.
BTW, talking animals were a commonly-used literary device in the ancient World to indicate that whatever follows is a FANTASY, a fable (eg Aesop's Fables, from Greece), much like the modern fairy-tale opens with those magical words, "Once upon a time".
Fable is a synonym of allegory. There are specific reasons WHY the serpent is a serpent and not another animal. You seem to gloss over this major factor.
But I'll play along with your allegory defense, but you now have the burden to explain what the allegory represents (and yes, that's basically an invitation to engage in MORE wild speculation, AKA eisegesis). What you're suggesting is a commonly-used defense tactic of Bible defenders, with more and more of the Bible claimed as allegorical, as science proves more and more of the Bible as ludicrious, if read as literal.
The burden is on me to prove whether or not it's a fable (or ALLEGORY) which is easily done by pointing out the talking animals and other logical impossibilities. Once that fact is established I am not required to interpret all peices of imagery for the work to be considered a fable. Your logic is off, way off.
You DO realize that the term "free will" doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the Bible, OT or NT, so it's anachronistic to insert it into the story of A&E, right? The term is a LATE development of philosophers, although the underpinnings do extend back to early Greek philsophers.
The reason why I use the term is because God gave Adam and his wife a choice. The choice they made determined their fate which means a heavy theme of the document is free will and cause and effect. Genesis means "origins" so it's not surprising to see a story in it about the origin of free will.
But anyway, you seem to mistakenly believe the phrase "created in the image of God" has something to do with the Divine Authority issue presented in the Garden of Eden account, and it doesn't. The central issue is not whether A&E had the CAPABILITY to eat of the fruit (using their own free will), but whether they had God's PERMISSION to do so (and they clearly DIDN'T: God had expressly forbid them from doing so, and hence why eating the fruit was defined as a 'sin', a violation of the Divine Will).
God created Adam and his wife with the ability to break commandments which further delves into the subject of their free will. The story shows us that ultimately, humanity is free to do whatever it wants, but not without the logical consequences of cause and effect. It also shows that God uses his own free will to save us from ourselves. He is our salvation.
Noah "walked with God" too: does Jehovah consort with the wicked evil-doers? Hebrews 11 specifically mentions the righteousness of faithful Noah who was hand-picked by God for the job. Odd that I don't remember reading the account of Latin Thunder's famous deeds of faith arguing with atheists on JWN mentioned anywhere in the Bible? I'd be careful who I go around declaring as "wicked", if I were you, LOL!
The Torah calls him wicked, not me. It calls ALL humans in the story of Genesis 6 wicked which would include Noah because he had a human heart. The Torah ALSO says that Noah was righteous among his people (simultaneously wicked AND righteous). A more modern example of the concept being addressed would be that of Thomas Jefferson. His world was wicked and he was a product of that world. He was a racist slave owner and by modern standards that's not considered righteous. But AMONG HIS GENERATION, he was a righteous man who walked with God. Genesis 6 shows that humanity's morality is subjective, while God's is objective.
So, it seems God finally decided to throw in the towel after figuring out there's nothing more He could do about the "evil in the hearts of men" defect, despite having just drowned the ENTIRE population of the World (and animals/plants). God seemingly says, "Oh, well, it's just the way it is...." and accepts the defect as it is, where humans just seem to have an intrinsic inclination for evil and there's not a dol-gurn thing omnipotent God can do to fix it!
God didn't throw in the towel, he chose to save Noah and rebuild the human race.
