The story of the Fall of Man explains how serpents came to have no legs, and talking serpents naturally (post renaissance) indicate a fable. Still, it could be argued that, while we may well be supposed to take the story analogically, those from more primitive cultures were supposed to take it literally—even if the (transcendentally) literal truth can't fit into our languages, maybe something had to be said (cf. talking to our children before they've understood much), e.g. maybe the story served a vital purpose (in primitive societies) by being taken seriously by children—not only did Adam and Eve act like children, the message seems to be (to remember, when your parent isn't there, to avoid what s/he told you to avoid) an important one for children to heed. Now, I know little theology (whence comments are very welcome) but maybe Genesis 3 is (transcendentally) consistent with my own theodicy, as follows.
......Our birth into this world (rather than paradise) would be particularly justifiable (despite the evils of this world) if our being here served some higher purpose, such as a divine investigation (made possible by the logical limits of knowledge) for which we volunteered (completing the justification). Genesis 3 doesn't refer to volunteering but to disobedience, but it might've been unfair to ask us if we wanted to volunteer; who would not, when there was God asking? God might've mentioned the possibility whilst advising against it (in view of the dangers), and maybe the advice was taken at first (in Genesis 2) but advice is only advice—how bad could something growing in the middle of paradise be, and what could the serpent have been (taken to be) about before the Fall? Well, maybe the possibility was independently discovered by Angels who then (worried about the unknown, or excited by it) asked God if it could be investigated, by brave volunteers, within reason... There are, it seems to me, many stories that could be told, consistent with my theodicy and with the words of Genesis; or rather, with some of the words—the earliest account of Eve's creation was, it seems to me, a mistake, as follows.
......It seems that (long before the Great Transformation) women lost their natural socio-political superiority when Polytheistic patriarchies were imposed; and indeed, the story (Gen.2:22) of Woman being created out of Man (rather than vice versa) seems like the sort of thing that new systems do to secure themselves (cf. Christmas)—and that some mistakes have been made (by writers viewing the world through the glasses of their social classes, patriarchally) is indicated by how, even if that account (of Eve's creation) had been correct, Eve would not have sinned because Adam would have had the responsibility (for telling her not to heed the serpent—which in any case could hardly have been both Serpent, whose offspring are our serpents, and Satan, one of God's Angels). So, the account earlier in the chapter (Gen.1:26-7), which seems to have been written half a millenium later and which seems to give men and women a fundamental equality, may therefore be seen as an early correction of that mistake (a sign to take that aspect of Genesis 3 as literally fabulous); coherently with the Bible's progression towards Jesus, and beyond.