[js1138]

Then you agree that the passage could simply mean that the serpent would be on the ground and by consequence would ingest dust.

I find that interpretation perverse beyond imagination. It conveys no useful message, moral or otherwise. I assume that forcing another creature to eat dirt is a rather old form of punishment and humiliation -- literally and figuratively. But think about this: the serpent in the garden might be interpreted as a literal snake, implying that snakes have or had mystical powers. Or it might be interpreted as Satan disguised as a snake, in which case, real snakes have been unjustly punished for all these millennia.

[CyberCowboy777]

Reparations for snakes.

Your understanding of the passage is fairly weak.

You seem like an intelligent fellow - you could investigate the passage and get back to us OR you could accept that you have a limited understanding and hold a opinion base upon that fact.

We are discussing a time and a place that held loose to our understanding of reality. You can choose to believe that the time and place did not exist, but you cannot then apply your arbitrary rules to it.

[VRWC_minion]

It conveys no useful message, moral or otherwise. I assume that forcing another creature to eat dirt is a rather old form of punishment and humiliation

Jesus let evil spirits enter into pigs without giving the pigs any consideration. God flooded the world killing all the life on earth for the sins of humans. God doesn't claim to be fair.