If you say so."Serpent" was an insult used by Romans and people of Hebrew descent at the time that the New Testament was written.
Is it?This is why Jesus calls other people serpents.
He is called "the serpent of old" in Revelations.This is why we cannot accept that interpretation of the Bible without FURTHER evidence that when it says that Satan is an old serpent, it is meant to be taken literally and not as an insult. It makes no mention of the Garden of Eden in the passage.
We can ascertain who the serpent was from other passages of Scripture, and from the context of Genesis 3 itself.
Ezekiel 28:13 states that the being addressed was listed as being in Eden.
Since Satan was a created being, and since Eden was guarded by cherubim after the Fall, he must have been in Eden between his creation and the Fall of man
Satan is called a serpent three times in the book of Revelation 12:9, 12:15, 20:2. When combined with Paulís words in 2 Corinthians 11:3, the identification of the serpent in Genesis 3 with Satan is unmistakable.
Don't be fooled by a simple internet title, doofus. I do not have a different interpretation as mainstream Christian theologans, I have the same. And I'm sharing it with you.By the way - this isn't fringe. This is what the mainstream, Christian theologian belief is. So please - tell me why you, a "riverside redneck" have a better interpretation of the Bible than Christian theologians who have spent their life studying it? Surely, you have some evidence besides that which has been dismissed by experts in the subject?