It doesn't seem like the serpent technically deceived her. He just didn't give full disclosure of the consequences: "You know, what God said about that tree isn't entirely true but you'd better keep the rule just because God said so. He gets really cranky if you break his rules."
And where does the equation of the serpent with Satan come from? Yes, Revelation calls Satan the ancient serpent (Rev 12:9, Rev 20:2), but is that it? I suppose we could make the "animals are not really able to talk so it must have been a supernatural being" argument. But if animals couldn't talk, then was Eve really so naive as to chat away with a serpent who struck up a conversation about the only rule God had given them? She should've run away screaming: "What the . . .? Serpents don't talk. AAAADaaaammmmm!"
Curious. I think maybe the animals could talk. Otherwise, Gen 3:1 using a comparative construction doesn't make much sense: "The serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field" (my translation). This suggests that the other animals must have possessed some degree of cunning. It doesn't say - "now the serpent was the only clever, articulate and sentient one out of all the dumb beasts that God had made."
And so, my random thoughts on Genesis 3 are ended. Any random comments from those of you who have been thinking through issues related to Genesis interpretation lately? Chris? James? Anybody? (Anonymous comments may or may not be posted, however, depending on my whim and the relevance of their content.)