Jeffro likely hit the nail on the head:
This conclusion is based on conflating the meanings of saraph (burning) and nachash (snake), on the basis that some snakes are described as 'saraph (burning) nachash (snake)'.
You can see how the two concepts COULD get intermingled with time (as snakes are known to possess a burning bite), but there's no rhyming connection and doesn't seem to be based on pun or rhyming word-play.
mP is right in that the Yahwist (one of the authors/redactors) had a known weakness for word-play and puns which he frequently displayed in Genesis. In fact, my user name (Adamah) is based on the word-play used on rhyming or similarity in words seen in the 'Cain and Abel' account of Genesis: Adam, Adamah (the ground), and Dam (blood) are all related words in Hebrew, and the author connects them (where Abel's spilled blood cries out from the ground) as if it's a sign of his cleverness. That's a hint that we're being in mythology and story-telling, NOT a historical account.
Of course, word-play is an extremely weak method of supporting one's argument (and best limited to poetry and fables), since it relies on the potential fallacy of placing "style over substance". I wrote an article about this potential logical fallacy on my blog, where word-play played a valuable role in OJ's criminal defense, since it remains a persuasive pseudo-argument for so many people:
http://awgue.weebly.com/what-did-ojs-legal-defense-team-and-genesis-yahwist-have-in-common.html
BTW, we see evidence of ironic word-play in the use of the word 'dust': notice how the serpent is cursed to eat 'dust' and Adam is cursed to work the unproductive ground until Adam returns to 'dust', having been made from 'dust'. That MIGHT be seen as supporting evidence for mP's idea of a serpent being forced to eat the same 'stuff' that man was made from, as if he was being taken down a notch and placed below man as his punishment (of course, that but doesn't support the later Xian interpretation of a grounded serpent BEING Satan: he was punished by being placed BELOW mankind, and even beneath the other animals, and feared by women).
Similarly, Eve's "desire" was for wisdom: her curse was that her "desire" would be that of Adam's, i.e. subsuming HER desires to those of her husband.
Some Biblical commentaries argue that Eve was cursed to lust FOR her husband: I don't think they support that very well, since the "LUST FOR" interpretation sounds more like a male's fantastic and wishful thinking, as if God was able to avoid their wives' eyes from wandering to the hunky virulent male, as if telling women that the Bible says they MUST lust for THEIR hubby. Sounds a bit improbable to me.
To support the "subsuming Eve's will" interpretation of the curse, Paul later cites the Genesis account to explain WHY women should remain in submission to their husbands, so Paul clearly supports that interpretation: it was HIS (or whoever wrote in his name) interpretation. It also fits with the Greek misogyny bias that was recorded for the period, blaming women for all evil and bad that entered the World (eg myth of Pandora's box). The Greeks and Hebrews sent representatives to the Imperial Persian Court after 550BC, and it's likely that they'd talk on "show and tell" day, being familiar with the myths of the other cultures who also sent representatives (including India, btw, part of the Persian Empire). They'd share stories and plagarize, knowing the uneducated minions they ruled wouldn't know it was borrowed.)
We sometimes see people using it when they rely on what they think are clever slogans (Lie-ble, etc) in order to prove a point that the Bible can't be trusted. It's really grasping at straws, and if its intent is simple to be needlessly inflammatory and insulting and not present EVIDENCE of why the BIble is lying, then it's effective at doing that (and yes, I know people feel angry after having been deceived, but it remains a weak argument, nonetheless, a form of ad hominem, not attacking the evidence directly).
mP, it seems you think Maimonedes, Acquinas, etc. can be considered trusted sources on the beliefs of those who lived 2,000 before THEY lived (an 'appeal to authority' argument). You'd need to demonstrate WHY they are to be considered as trusted sources on beliefs that existed 2,000 yrs before they lived. Again, I suspect you're trying to claim a level of certainty of knowing which just doesn't exist, likely as a vestige of believing that absolute certainty exists.
A rationalist is going to demand independent confirmation from many sources, as eg Maimonedes was likely inheriting the then-current beliefs of what ancients believed. In essence, you're taking his belief as FACT, when Maimonedes had no Divine insight and didn't have access to information or archaeological findings, etc. (and also is someone who spent much time studying the Torah and Talmudic texts seeing connections which others didn't, advancing Kabbalist mystical thinking, which is MORE evidence of his bias for fantasy over facts).
Instead, if we have many INDEPENDENT sources confirming a certain event happened (eg destruction of Temple in 70 CE, from Roman, Hebrew sources; 9/11 terrorist attack on WTC, etc), then we're going to place greater weight on the claim, since the odds of collusion (eg citing some vast mysterious conspiracy hypotheses, etc) goes down significantly.
Adamah
