Did The Serpent Originally Have Legs?

Did The Serpent Originally Have Legs?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, January 7, 2026 (Donate)

Perhaps one of the most-asked and most debated topics is the serpent’s original appearance.  The model of the serpent at the Creation Museum exhibit just outside of Cincinnati, OH is pictured below to get people to consider and think about the serpent more deeply.

 

Serpent in the Garden of Eden exhibit at the Creation Museum; Photo by Bodie Hodge

Determining features of the serpent from the precious little information given in the Bible is a difficult task and there is considerable speculation in this area.  For example, what color and patterns were on the serpent’s exterior, what shape of eyes did the serpent have and so on…?

What Does The Bible Say?

Even the question of legs on the serpent is one with varying speculation. Consider the biblical text to see what it says of the serpent to share some of the rigors researchers go through (Genesis 3:1-5, NKJV formatted):

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman,

 “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

And the woman said to the serpent,

“We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; “but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Then the serpent said to the woman,

“You will not surely die. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

If we jump down we read more (Genesis 3:13-15, NKJV formatted):

And the LORD God said to the woman,

“What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

So the LORD God said to the serpent:   

“Because you have done this,

You are cursed more than all cattle,

And more than every beast of the field;   

On your belly you shall go,   

And you shall eat dust   

All the days of your life.

And I will put enmity   

Between you and the woman,  

And between your seed and her Seed;   

He shall bruise your head,   

And you shall bruise His heel.”         

When looking at Genesis 3:13-15, there is no direct indication that the serpent had legs, only that its curse would be “on your belly you shall go”. But in Genesis 3:1, we get a clue that the serpent was likely classified as a beast of the field, which is probably why beasts of the field were also mentioned in 3:14?[1] 

What makes this an issue is that it was a land animal and/or flying reptile in general, hence it moved one way or another—slithering or with appendages. If it slithered already, what was the point of the curse and why compare it to creatures which had legs in Genesis 3:14. 

Regardless if it was a beast of the field, the serpent was indeed a land animal of sorts and capable of locomotion in the Garden of Eden and in the field. Let’s evaluate forms of locomotion to see the possibilities.

Locomotion

Land animals are currently known to have three classes of locomotion[2]. They are:

1.  Legged (or some form of appendage)

2.  Slithering

3.  Rolling

Beasts of the field, and virtually all land animals, use some form of leg(s), from cattle as a quadruped to inch worms, which use two grabbing spots on their body to inch along.  Of course, snakes and legless lizards slither. 

The other means of locomotion is rolling. Few creatures today roll and of these creatures, all roll temporarily. The primary means is using gravity and balling up to roll down a hill like a web-toed salamander or a Namid wheeling spider. 

Precious few land animals have a self-powered rolling mechanism.  There are two that come to mind, Mother-Of-Pearl moth caterpillar stage and the Pangolins both use a leg(s) and/or tail with which to push.  Even these rolling creatures use some form of appendage or leg, so really there are only two types of locomotion found among animals today: slithering or legged.

Was there some other form of locomotion among creatures that are now extinct? This is a good question and without further research, there is no certain answer and even so there may not be much to go on. But lack of evidence is not evidence against. 

As for the possibility of wings, this can’t be entirely ruled out either. But if so, then the serpent was still with some form of locomotion other than slithering. The issue of whether or not the serpent had wings would come down to whether or not it was a beast of the field or a flying creature that was created on Day 5. Regardless, if it had wings, it had some form of appendage and physically changed forms. 

Hebrew and Greek

The Hebrew word for serpent is nachash and the Greek equivalent is ophis. It means snake, serpent, sly, cunning and image of a serpent. The late Dr. Henry Morris says of the Hebrew word:

There has been much speculation as to whether the serpent originally was able to stand upright (the Hebrew word nachash, some maintain, originally meant “shining, upright creature”).^[3]

Although, this may have been deduced from Genesis 3:14 regarding the serpent and it being forced to crawl on its belly. This doesn’t really help us ascertain if the serpent had legs or not.          

Commentaries

Several commentaries were checked to see what other scholars said about the serpent.  They are accumulated below. Of course, commentaries are not inspired like the Bible is but they can give us some insight. 

Commentaries: did the serpent have legs?

	Commentator(s)	Legs/ appendages?	Comment(s):
1	Henry Morris[4]	Yes	The body of the serpent, in addition, was altered even further by eliminating his ability to stand erect, eye-to-eye with man as it were. It is further possible that all these animals (other than the birds) were quadrupeds, except the serpent, who had the remarkable ability, with a strong vertebral skeleton supported by limbs, to rear and hold himself erect when talking with Adam and Eve.
2	John Gill[5]	Yes (whether feet or flying)	Jarchi thinks it had feet before, but were cut off on this account, and so became a reptile, as some serpents now have feet like geese, as Pliny {x} relates; or it might go in a more erect posture on its hinder feet, as the basilisk, which is one kind of serpent, now does; and if it was a flying one, bright and shining in the air, now it should lose all its glory, and grovel in the dust, and with pain, or at least with difficulty, creep along on its breast and belly; and this, as it respects the punishment of the devil, may signify, that he being cast down from the realms of bliss and glory, shall never be able to rise more, and regain his former place and dignity:
3	Matthew Henry[6]	Yes (perhaps feet and wings)	He is to be for ever looked upon as a vile and despicable creature, and a proper object of scorn and contempt: "Upon thy belly thou shalt go, no longer upon feet, or half erect, but thou shalt crawl along, thy belly cleaving to the earth," an expression of a very abject miserable condition
4	John Calvin[7]	No	This objection has induced certain men of learning and ability to say, that the serpent had been accustomed to walk with an erect body before it had been abused by Satan. There will, however, be no absurdity in supposing, that the serpent was again consigned to that former condition, to which he was already naturally subject. For thus he, who had exalted himself against the image of God, was to be thrust back into his proper rank; as if it had been said, ‘Thou, a wretched and filthy animal, hast dared to rise up against man, whom I appointed to the dominion of the whole world; as if, truly, thou, who art fixed to the earth, hadst any right to penetrate into heaven. Therefore, I now throw thee back again to the place whence thou hast attempted to emerge, that thou mayest learn to be contented with thy lot, and no more exalt thyself, to man’s reproach and injury.’
5	Adam Clarke[8]	Yes	upon thy belly shalt thou go—thou shalt no longer walk erect, but mark the ground equally with thy hands and feet;
6	Leupold[9]	Yes/No – open to both-not necessarily a complete transformation but leans toward few, if any changes	The first element is, "upon thy belly thou shalt go." This does not necessarily mean that a complete transformation of the serpent took place, so that "form and movements of the serpent were altered" (Keil). Some speak quite boldly at this point about a former erect posture, as though, for example, the serpent had strutted about proudly as a cock. It has been rightly, pointed out that several parallels are available. Man worked before the Fall and still works since. Now work is in a measure a punishment. It seems likely that the rainbow existed before the Flood; but since that time it is a pledge of God’s covenant.
7	Matthew Poole[10]	Yes	If the serpent did so before the fall, what then was natural, is now become painful and shameful to it, as nakedness and some other things were to man. But it seems more probable that this serpent before the fall either had feet, or rather did go with its breast erect, as the basilisk at this day doth; God peradventure so ordering it as a testimony that some other serpents did once go so. And so the sense of the curse being applied to this particular serpent, and to its kind, may be this: Whereas thou hadst a privilege above other kinds of serpents, whereby thou didst go with erected breast, and didst feed upon the fruits of trees and other plants; now thou shalt be brought down to the same mean and vile estate with them,
8	John Trapp[11]	Yes	The serpent here is first cut shorter by the feet, and made to wriggle upon his belly;
9	Martin Luther[12]	Yes	From this some obvious conclusions follow: that before sin the serpent was a most beautiful little animal and most pleasing to man, as little mules, sheep and puppies today; moreover, that it walked upright.
10	Allen P. Ross[13]	Yes	He says nothing about how the curse affected the serpent physically, though Ross indicates that the curse did change him physically in some way.
11	C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch[14]	Yes	“the form and movements of the serpent were altered … though we cannot form any accurate idea of its original appearance.”
12	Flavius Josephus[15]	Yes	“had deprived him of the use of his feet.”
13	Gordon Wenham[16]	No	“It is doubtful whether this implies that snakes once had legs to walk with like other animals.”  But he doesn’t explain why he thinks it is doubtful.
14	John Sailhamer[17]	No	This curse does not necessarily suggest that the snake had previously walked with feet and legs as the other land animals.”  But he doesn’t explain why he calls the serpent a “snake” or why he concludes this about the curse.

Most commentaries seem certain that it was referring to some form of erect creature and changes took place with the curse. John Calvin was the only one certain that the serpent remained with the same form. He said that the curse was more of a statement to “put the serpent back in its place”.

Leupold leaves open either position but leans against a full transformation leaving the serpent more in its original form. Wenham and Sailhamer more recently (1987 and 1990 respectively) both lean against the serpent changing forms but give no reasons why they believe this.  

The problem with leaving the serpent “as is” is that it reduces the curse to almost a meaningless status. If such a philosophy is to be held, then the parallel comments by the Lord to the woman and the man should also be statements to “put them back in their place”. This raises theological issues.

It would mean that the other effects of sin listed in Genesis 3, such as thorns and thistles, increased pain and sorrow for the woman, and mankind returning to dust, were merely statements to put mankind back in their place, not real changes. This seems highly illogical as it would have death before sin in humans, with man already returning to dust (recall Romans 5:12). 

Conclusion

The more logical answer coincides with the serpent originally having some form of legs or appendages and these were either lost or reduced (consider how many serpents crawl on their bellies and yet have legs e.g. crocodile). This seems to correlate with the plainest reading of the passage and the comparison of a curse (“on your belly you shall go”) as compared with cattle and other beasts of the field, which do have legs. 

 

Serpent model with appendages, but still crawls on its belly if you notice carefully; Photo by Bodie Hodge

Thorns and thistles were brought forth due to the curse (physical changes to vegetation); there were physical changes to the man and woman (increased sorrow in childbearing that has been passed along to subsequent generations, increased pain in work that has been passed along too).  

There is no reason to assume the serpent didn’t undergo physical changes as well – he was a prime culprit. These physical changes due to the curse helps explain certain Defense and Attack Structures (DAS) in animals and plants that currently dominate the world. 

□ 

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.   

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.  

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission. 

---

[1] I personally lean toward the serpent being a beast of the field (not dogmatically) as I understand that it could simply be compared to them in the same way we can compare a bird to the beasts of the field. 

[2] This excludes motion by flying such as flying squirrels. Such locomotion is only temporary for land animals and they have other means of movement while on the land.

[3] The Genesis Record, Henry Morris, Baker Book House, 1976, Thirty-sixth Printing, Page 108

[4] The Genesis Record, Henry Morris, Baker Book House, 1976, Thirty-sixth Printing, Page 107-109

[5]  John Gill’s Exposition, John Gill, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on Genesis 3:14

[6] Revised Matthew Henry Commentary, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on Genesis 3:1 and 3:14

[7] Calvin’s Commentaries, John Calvin, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on Genesis 3:14

[8] Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Adam Clarke, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on Genesis 3:14

[9] Leupold’s notes, Leupold, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on Genesis 3:14

[10] Matthew Poole’s Commentary, Matthew Poole, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on Genesis 3:14

[11] John Trapp Commentary, John Trapp, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on Genesis 3:14

[12] Luther’s Works Volume 1, Martin Luther, lectures on Genesis 3:14, Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Concordia Publishing House, 1958 in English, St Louis, MO, Page 186

[13] Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), p. 145.  

[14] C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1: The Pentateuch (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989, original in 1875), translated by James Martin, p. 99.  

[15] Josephus, Antiquities, I:1,50 in The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), p. 30.  

[16] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1987), pp. 78-79

[17] John Sailhamer, Genesis, in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), p. 55

Top 15 Illustration Problems in Genesis 1–11

Top 15 Illustration Problems in Genesis 1–11

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, July 23, 2025 (Donate)

I want people to realize the Bible is true right from the start, so it is good to avoid mistakes in some of the artwork depicting the events of Genesis 1–11. From time-to-time, people write books or articles with illustrations on the early pages of Genesis. Oftentimes, I see illustrated Bibles, particularly children’s Bibles or books on Genesis, that make the same classic mistakes.

In fact, I’ve seen so many of these books that I decided to list the classic mistakes in the illustrations (and a few extra ones dealing with the text) in hopes that artists and authors can use this in the future to make their books more accurate and effective.

When I see some brilliant artwork with inaccuracies in the illustrations or text, I usually stop and sigh because I really wish the message was accurate so that as a ministry we can say, “Here is a good product you can use to train the next generation.”

But these errors creep in, often due to simply looking at someone else’s artwork with the same mistakes, and it subtly undermines the Bible right from the start. We want people to realize the Bible is true right from the start, so it is good to avoid common mistakes and correct some of the artwork depicting the events of Genesis 1–11—the foundational chapters of Scripture.

Here are some of the common problems I have found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis: 

1. The Globe Looks Like It Does Today: This Would Specifically Be Before The Flood In Genesis 6–8. The earth was destroyed and rearrangements on a continental scale resulted from the Flood. In light of Genesis 1:9, many believe there was only one continent originally. Though we should not be dogmatic on this position, we know the Flood caused vast changes, leaving us with the seven broken continents we have today (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 104:8–9).

This is the earth after the global Flood of Noah's Day. Before that it was different, thus one has some liberty on pre-Flood arrangements. Image from Presentation Library.

2. Leaving Open Evolutionary Ideas: There is no need to impose evolutionary ideas on the Bible. These ideas come from the religion of humanism, and it contradicts the Bible. Sadly, some artists do mix humanistic thinking [like astronomical evolution (big bang as in progressive creation), geological evolution (millions of years as in the gap theory or progressive creation), chemical evolution (chemical origin of life without God) or biological evolution (like theistic evolution)]. These things are usually placed prior to the first day of creation. But God created everything in six days (Exodus 20:11; 31:17), and the context shows these were normal-length days. There is no need to take secular ideas and force them into the Bible. This removes the Bible as the authority when it comes to the age of the earth. One common example is showing stars in the background in pictures showing the creation of earth—the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day Four, after the earth.

 
3. Not Including Extinct Creatures Like Dinosaurs On Day Six: Dinosaurs were land animals after all, so they were made on Day Six just before mankind (who were made later that same day). The same is true with land-based insects.

Dinosaurs were made on day 6 (being land animals); Image from Presentation Library.

Also, there should be pterosaurs, bats, and flying insects with all of the birds and sea creatures like the plesiosaurs on Day Five with the fish and whales.

 
4. Putting Modern Variations Of Animals In The Creation Scene: Zebras, Clydesdales, and donkeys are all part of the horse kind and came to look like they do today since the Flood and are all part of the one horse kind. Species and the biblical kind are not necessarily the same things. The original horse kind likely had features resembling each of these. They diversified into what we have today through natural selection in the wild and artificial selection by man and for man’s benefit. The same is true with the cat kind. 

Domestic cats, lions, bobcats, tigers, and so on, are all part of the one cat kind that has developed through variations since the Flood. It is better to draw generic representatives of each kind, such as the cats, horses, parrots, deer, and elephants (which includes mammoths and mastodons, Asian, African, and so on). The various animals and plants within a created kind could have been created with some variety, but the odds of that variety being identical with post-Flood variations are astronomical, nor does the Bible allude to this being the case. 

The fossils from the Flood do not attest to identical selection features within the kinds compared to what we have today. Though there may be some examples where little change has occurred in that particular kind, animals that have great variation, like mammals and reptiles, should not be drawn exactly like animals today. Likewise, a Triceratops doesn’t necessarily represent the Ceratopsian kind that God originally created. It is only one of many forms we find in the fossil record.

 
5. Drawing Adam And Eve With Very Light Skin And Blond Hair And Blue Eyes: Adam and Eve were likely middle brown, having the information for both darker skin (which is largely based on more melanin production in skin) and lighter skin (likewise, less melanin production in the skin). Thus, even in one generation they could have had children that were darker or lighter in skin shade.

Adam and Eve likely had middle brown skin tone (not blond hair and blue eyes) so that it was possible for all the various skin shades today. Image from Presentation Library.

The same sort of thing is likely true with Noah.

 
6. Making An Apple The Fruit: The fruit was real and came from a fruit tree named the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We don’t know what it looked like, but since it was “pleasant to the eyes,” it probably wasn’t too repulsive (Genesis 3:6.) But there is no reason to assume the fruit was an apple. As I’ve mentioned before, “The confusion of this fruit with the apple may be due to the similarity of the two words in the Latin translation of the Bible, known as the Vulgate. 

The word evil in the tree’s name in Latin is mali (Genesis 2:17). The word apple in other places is mala (Proverbs 25:11) or malum (Song of Solomon 2:3). It seems like this similarity may have led to the confusion. In the original Hebrew, the words are not even close. The word in Genesis 2:17 for evil is rah, while the word for apples in Proverbs 25:11 and Song of Solomon 2:3 is tappuwach. We do know that it was a real fruit, growing on a real tree, in real history—and the impact of the rebellious eating of that fruit is still felt acutely today by every single person (in fact, the whole creation).”[1]

7. Having A Serpent Without Some Form Of Upright Posture Or Appendages During The Deception: Genesis 3:1 Calls It A Serpent. Part of the Curse was that the serpent was to crawl on its belly. This may indicate that the Curse produced a snake or a serpent with shortened legs. So, it is better to have a serpent more upright prior to the Curse and lower (i.e., crawling on its belly) after the Curse.

8. Neglecting That God Sacrificed Animals To Cover Adam And Eve: This is the very basis for the gospel in Genesis 3. The punishment for sin was death (Genesis 2:17), so death was part of the solution. This sin-death relationship is why Jesus Christ stepped into history to die for our sins. God covered Adam and Eve with skins (Genesis 3:21) to replace the fig leaf coverings Adam and Eve tried to make for themselves. 

This is the basis for wearing clothing (to cover the shame of sin) and for the sacrificial systems that Abel, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Job, and the Israelites followed. The sacrifice of animals was not good enough to satisfy God’s wrath upon sin. The punishment from an infinite and holy God is an infinite punishment. We needed Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is infinite, to pay the infinite punishment we deserve, and only He could truly bear the punishment and satisfy the wrath of God so that the free gift of salvation could be offered. 

The very basis for the gospel is found in this first sacrifice. Many illustrators or even children’s Bibles (and so on) neglect the Fall and even have Adam and Eve remaining in fig-leaf clothing. This needs to be remedied to accurately reflect life after the Fall and our need for a Savior.

 
9. When Illustrating Cain And Abel, We Often Get The Impression They Were The Only Two Kids Adam And Eve Had At The Time: First, Cain had a wife per Genesis 4:17 (i.e., a sister or niece—either way, brothers and sisters had to marry originally, and this was okay until after the Exodus with Moses giving the Law in Leviticus 18). Remember, Abraham married his half-sister, and Moses’ father (Amram) married his aunt (Jochebed). Genesis 5:4 indicates that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters after Seth. Since the Bible mentions a girl and two boys before Seth, as well as all those whom Cain feared in Genesis 4:14, there were surely several other children by the time Cain killed Abel.

 
10. Ark Looks Like A Bathtub With Happy Animals Sticking Out Of It: The Ark was a huge vessel measuring an overall 300 by 50 by 30 cubits. Depending on the long or short cubit, it was either about 450 feet long or about 510 feet long (a long/older cubit was a hand-breadth longer than the normal cubit, which was the measurement from a person’s fingertips to their elbow). The longer cubit of about 20.4 inches is more likely since most ancient structures in the Bible were built using the longer/royal cubit, like the Temple mentioned by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40:5, 43:13). Animals were confined in rooms inside the Ark, and it wasn’t a happy time. God was judging sin and, except for the eight on the Ark, the whole world perished (2 Peter 3:6).

"Bathtub" arks would never float; Image from Presentation Library.

Noah probably had brothers and sisters die in the Flood (Genesis 5:30). The dimensions for the Ark give the total length, width, and height. Some picture it as a box shape, which is better than the bathtub look, but we need to keep in mind a Corvette’s dimensions can also be given as length, width, and height too, yet it is not a box. The Ark was a ship, so it should have features like a ship to help it survive the Flood, even though it did not have to navigate to any specific location. Removing square angles that can more easily be destroyed and having something to help direct it into the wind and waves for safety should be drawn to make it more realistic. The Bible doesn’t rule out this sort of design.

 
11. Not Including Dinosaurs And Pterodactyls (e.g., Dragons) On The Ark: According to Genesis 6:20, these animal kinds would have been on the Ark. It was after the Flood that these animals died off. It was for the same reasons all sorts of animals went extinct and continue to . . . sin! Specific reasons for the extinction of dinosaurs include being hunted, a changed environment, genetic problems, local catastrophic events, diseases, and so on (i.e., think of the reasons on the endangered species list). So, two of the sauropod kind, two of ceratopsian kind, and so on, should be included.

12. Putting Too Many Individuals Of A Kind On The Ark: We often see lions and tigers and other cats entering or exiting Noah’s Ark.[2] There is only one cat kind (cats can interbreed with each other), so Noah only took two cats on the Ark. Of course, they had the genetic information which can account for the cat variations we see today (as a result of various selection processes over time). The same with dogs—there is only one dog kind, so Noah only needed two dogs on the Ark, no dingoes, wolves, coyotes, and so on. The same goes for the bear kind, ceratopsian kind, sauropod kind, elephant kind, horse kind (p.s. Zebras are part of the horse kind—they are a variation of the horse that is post-Flood), and so on. Learn more about kinds here.

 
13. Tower Of Babel Being Rounded: It was likely a pyramid or a ziggurat (step pyramid) instead of rounded. The Hebrew word for tower here is migdal, which is most often translated as “tower,” figuratively means a “pyramidal” bed of flowers. 

Tower was likely ziggurat in shape; Image from Presentation Library.

A ziggurat-style shape makes sense since this is the same style building project people took with them to other places around the world after fleeing from Babel. Pyramids are a specified type of ziggurat. Even historical accounts like that of Herodotus (an old Greek historian in the 5th century BC who saw a later iteration of the Tower of Babel before it was torn down) described it as a ziggurat.[3] There is also an archaeological artifact, the Tower of Babel stele, which has Nebuchadnezzar and the old run-down Tower of Babel engraved on it, and the tower is a ziggurat shape.

 
14. Tower Of Babel Reaches So High Into The Atmosphere That Its Top Is Covered With High Cirrus Clouds: It was a tower whose “top was in the heavens” (Genesis 11:4), but this does not mean it reached to space or the high stratosphere. Some of the 30 or so ziggurats that still remain in the Mesopotamian area have names that reflect something similar: Temple of the Stairway to Pure Heaven (Sippar) and the Temple which Links Heaven and Earth (Larsa), yet these towers do not reach up into the stratosphere. It simply meant that it reached far higher than the rest of the structures around it.

15. The Tower Being Only Partially Built (i.e., A Foundation): The Tower was built, according to Genesis 11:5 by most translations; it was the city that they stopped building (Genesis 11:8.) This has often been a point of confusion for many. Some have thought that the Hebrew wording doesn’t mean it was built, but the word for built/building is banah/baanuw and is used in a perfect tense meaning complete, e.g., perhaps some finishing touches were necessary. This could be complete up to a certain point (at the time of judgment) to serve the purpose if its final intent by keeping people from scattering. 

It is the context that should determine this. Many point to verse 8, but this only helps with the meaning regarding the state of the city, not the Tower. We can be confident that for the most part it was complete (e.g., the Tower was not a merely a foundation). If one argued that the Tower was not built to any significant degree, then one would have to argue that hosts of structures in the Old Testament were also not built, such as the Temple (e.g., 1 Kings 10:4), many houses (e.g., 1 Kings 9:24), many cities (e.g., Numbers 32:37-38), and so on since they all use this same Hebrew word in a perfect tense.[4] 

Furthermore, banah is used not just in reference to the Tower but also to the city in verse 5. If we were to argue the tower was not built, then we would have to argue that the city was not built to any degree either.[5]

Here are a couple more helpful guidelines that can be useful when dealing with the text in an illustrated Bible.

 
Not Using Biblical Dates: Why use secular timeframes instead of biblical timeframes when publishing a Bible? For example, don’t use BCE and CE; use BC and AD to honor Jesus as the focal point of history. Also, use biblical dates from a respected chronology like Ussher or Jones, not questionable dates that come from faulty assumptions like secular mythology or radiometric dates that are repeatedly in error. Stick to the biblical age of the earth and dates given in the Bible.

Calling The Accounts “Stories”: Although “story” does not necessarily imply myth or fairy tale, it is becoming more popular for people to use it in reference to fairy tales in today’s culture (e.g., Cinderella, Shrek, and so on). Bible authors did not view the Bible’s recorded history as fairy tales but as actual history—accurate accounts of what took place. Hence, it is better to say “account”, “history”, “what occurred in the past”, etc.

 
Don’t Paraphrase The Bible—Use A Respectable Translation: What often happens is that people want to “dumb down” or truncate the text for children, but this often introduces errors from the author—it can happen to all of us. People can understand more than many might think, including children.

Placing The Garden Of Eden Based On Post-Flood Geography: Many try to put the Garden of Eden in the Middle East, in Iraq. However, the Flood destroyed the Garden of Eden, and the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers were later merely named for these pre-Flood rivers. The geography doesn’t match—direction of flow, etc. There was one river in Eden that broke into four headwaters, so these modern rivers cannot be the rivers mentioned in Genesis 2.

The Garden of Eden was not located here; It was destroyed in the Flood and this is now post-Flood features; The names Tigris and Euphrates Rivers were transferred forward to the new world. Image from Presentation Library.

Hopefully, these will help get you started as you evaluate teaching materials or seek to develop your own. But keep in mind there may be other mistakes, and all these must be checked against the text of Scripture—the authority when it comes to these matters. 

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Bodie Hodge, https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2025/07/was-forbidden-fruit-apple.html.

[2] When animals came off the Ark, they came off by their “families” (Genesis 8:19), so it is possible some animals had offspring while aboard the year-long trip on the Ark. But this doesn’t mean we should have full-grown bobcats, lions, tigers, and so on coming off in great quantities from the cat kind.

[3] Herodotus, The Histories, Book 1.181, ed. John Marincola, translated by Aubrey de Selincourt in 1954, Penguin Books, 1996, pp. 71-72.

[4] The LXX added the word tower to Genesis 11:8 in their translation without biblical warrant, and this has likely been the main reason some still think the Tower was partially built. The LXX is good in many places, but is not known as a good translation in Genesis, messing up the ages of the patriarchs [e.g., Noah’s grandfather Methuselah would be living over a decade after the Flood without being on the Ark; mistranslates “sons” as angels in Genesis 6:2 (6:3 by the LXX’s reckoning); mixing the Greek philosophy of the day by having a solid dome to translate expanse (raqiya) as something solid and firm, and so on]. So by sticking with the Masoretic text (standard Hebrew text), there is no reason to assume the Tower is in reference to what was “ceased to be built.” Also, can large structures be built quickly? About 800 years ago, Richard the Lionheart and his men, while in France, built a huge castle fortress in the course of about one year. Its impressive remains still stand today and is called the Chateau Gaillard above the River Seine in Normandy, France. A determined group of people can perform enormous feats quickly, and the people in Genesis 11:1–4 were indeed determined.

[5] One may argue that Genesis 11:6 (“and this is what they begin to do”) is in reference to the tower being built. But it makes more sense that the Lord is making this declaration to their sinful intention of defying His Word where he told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth after the Flood in Genesis 9:1 and 9:7. Also, the oldest recorded image thought to be of the Tower of Babel is an inscribed stele with Nebuchadnezzar II and the image shows a virtually complete Tower. See Rossella Lorenzi, “Ancient Texts Part of Earliest Known Documents,” Discovery News, December 27, 2011, http://news.discovery.com/history/tower-of-babel-111227.html.