Here we present the second and final part of Sheldon Emry’s sermon on what really happened in the Garden of Eden. If you haven’t already done so, you can read Part 1 here.
You can listen to the audio here:
Sheldon Emry continues:
Most of the confusion and the deception of Christendom — of Israel — is in the mis-translation or misapplying passages of scripture to say something which they do not say.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Here we have a good clue as to the type of beguiling with which the Serpent beguiled Eve. Let me paraphrase that verse without changing the meaning….
Paul, in effect, said, “I fear your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ by methods similar to those used by the Serpent when he beguiled Eve.”
If the Serpent is Satan — and if his method of beguiling women is to seduce them — then why do we have no warning from Paul — or any other — that women should be careful that they are not approached and physically seduced by Satan?
If Satan physically seduced Eve — and threw a monkey wrench in God’s plan — why does he not continue to do the same thing in the same manner?
Are we to understand that Eve was wanton — and that all other women since then are chaste? Eve was apparently seduced or deceived by Satan — does it mean that Satan was never able to seduce another women in scripture or all human history?
Apparently, there was no danger that he would since there is no warning in the New Testament — no warning in the Old — no warning by the prophets — that women should be aware of being physically seduced by Satan.
No, the warning is “Lest your minds be corrupted.” And this, of course, we read very plainly. Paul was referring to the beguiling of Eve when he warned, “Lest your mind be corrupted.” We see the seducing of minds, not the seducing of bodies.
Now some insist that the word “beguiled” in Genesis 3 — and also in the New Testament — also has a connotation of physical seduction — and perhaps some of that does come from the English translation of the Septuagint Bible — a Greek translation from the Hebrew, which was made from Hebrew texts in about 300 BC — so it is one of the oldest Bibles in existence.
Then it was translated from the Greek into English in [America] in 1808 by a Charles Thompson — and had wide distribution and acceptance in America. This, of course, is only the Old Testament because the origin was 300 years before Christ.
He [Thompson] translated Genesis 3:13 this way:
And the Lord God said to the woman, ‘Why hast thou done this? And the woman said, ‘The Serpent seduced me and I ate.’
Many of those who teach that the Serpent physically seduced Eve perhaps used the Septuigent as their source. But the English word “seduce” was commonly used to mean “tricked” or “deceived” then as it is today. When someone has been swindled or defrauded of something, they will say that person was “seduced”.
In the King James translation, the word is “beguiled” in Genesis 3, and also in 2 Corinthians 11. Here’s what Strong’s says about the meaning about the original Hebrew and the original Greek:
The Hebrew word in Genesis 3 for beguiled is “nasha” and Strong’s says it means, “to lead astray, mentally to delude, morally to seduce.” Other meanings are “beguile” or “deceive”. The Greek in 2 Corinthians 11:3, is “exapataō”. Strong’s says it means “to utterly cheat, delude or deceive”. The “ex” in the Greek means “utterly” or “totally”. “Exapataō” means to cheat or deceive. Strong’s concordance is approximately identical.
Now let’s read a few places used by the King James translators in the New Testament, and then we’ll go to Genesis 3. In Colossians 2, Paul is exhorting the believers in verses 2 to 4:
2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; 3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.
In other words, Paul says, “I preach true words to you to prevent any others from beguiling, fooling, seducing you with other false words.” Verse 18:
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.
Let no man trick you out of your reward. And how might that take place? Obviously, not sexually — no, but by deceitful words. Next, James 1, the word “deceiveth” here is from the same Greek root word as beguile in 2 Corinthians 11:3:
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
So, according to Paul, this man can deceive, trick, beguile or seduce himself — deceive his own heart. This is similar to verse 22:
22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
So a man can do to himself which Satan did — beguile — deceive, delude — seduce his mind. It’s similar to 2 Timothy:
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Here is a direct statement that in the end of the age, there will be “seducers” who, quote, “will deceive” — by words and deceiving men’s minds. In 2 Peter 2:
13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children.
In this case “beguiling” is from another Greek word, which shows that beguiling and deceiving are used inter-changeably by the English translators. In this passage, of course, they mention “adultery” and sin in such as way that you could make a sexual connotation of it, but nowhere else in the New Testament can it be used that way — the key verse must remain 2 Corinthians 11:3 where Paul’s fear is that Christian minds would be seduced — beguiled from the truth of the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus — in the same manner that Satan beguiled Eve.
Let’s turn now to Genesis 3 — and as I read, I will mention one or more ways in which these various passages are interpreted by those who say that Eve was sexually seduced by Satan — and then we will see if that would be a logical conclusion from the plain English or the Greek.
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
Now there are some who teach that the Serpent was a Negro or a negroid creature. Many teach from a book titled The Tempter Of Eve by professor Charles Carroll (1902). Professor Carroll says that this “tempter” — this thing called the Serpent — was a Negro — and that he was the most intelligent of the Negroes, and therefore he was able to trick Eve, probably because he was a servant — and was probably friendly with Eve as a servant — and therefore Eve had some reason for trusting this Negro servant. Again,
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
This verse does not say that the Serpent was a beast of the field. It says that the Serpent was more “subtle” than any beast of the field. If I were to say that Professor Carroll was more intelligent than any college student, that would not make Professor Carroll a college student, would it? It would just make him more intelligent than a college student. Yet Carroll somehow concluded that the Serpent was a Negro beast of the field.
I’m not adverse to him using that term to describe a Negro because there is a creature in the Bible called the “beast of the field” which which has hands, which can sin, and which can repent, and which does serve man — but that verse simply does not say that.
So what was the creature in Genesis 3 — in the passage in 2 Corinthians 2:11, the Serpent who beguiled Eve. The word Serpent there is from the Greek word “ophis” and the root of that word means “sharpness of vision,” and Strong’s says the use of that word in Greek was to mean “a snake, figuratively as a type of sly cunning.” We still use it that way today. Strong’s goes on, “An artful, malicious person, especially Satan.”
That same Greek word is used several times in the New Testament:
“Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?” (Matthew 7:10)
“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16)
“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33)
“Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” (Luke 10:19)
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:” (John 3:14)
Some say Moses paid homage to the “ophis” or the Serpent when he lifted up the brazen serpent and who looked on it were healed but he lifted up, in effect, a dead serpent — telling the Israelites, who lately came out of Egypt, where the serpent was worshiped as a god, that God had control over that serpent. Remember, God had sent firey serpents among them because of their sin — and when they saw the dead serpent, they were healed. And how was Jesus lifted up before men? He was lifted up bodily, dead, on a cross.
Revelation 12:
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
This must be the chief “ophis” — chief Serpent — and he is here called the Great Dragon, the Devil, and he is called Satan. And here the Greek word for “deceiveth” is “planaō” which according to Strong’s means “to cause to go astray, deceive, err, seduce, wander, be put out of the way.” In other words, this verse that identifies the “ophis” as Satan could read — without changing its meaning — “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the devil, and Satan which seduceth the whole world.”
Again, more evidence that the word “seduced” used in the Bible does not necessarily mean any physical seduction at all. It is primarily a deception of men’s minds.
Revelation 20:
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.
We cannot guarantee that this serpent was the same serpent in the Garden of Eden, but the Serpent, the Devil, the Dragon is called “ophis” in the Greek in the New Testament, and that is the word Paul used in 2 Corinthians 11:3 when he referred to that character in Eden who beguiled Eve.
Back to Genesis 3 — to see if there is any writing that allows for a sexual interpretation of Satan’s beguiling. I’ve pointed out already that I believe that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was God’s law, but I believe in fairness to those who accepted — perhaps unknowingly and without investigation — the doctrine that Satan actually physically seduced Eve, we should study what they say and what this — the scripture — says. I want you to believe what the scripture actually says, not what I — Pastor Emry — says it says.
Some say the trees in the Garden of Eden were actually people — and that the different types of trees were different races — and they refer to Isaiah 10, Ezekiel 28, Ezekiel 31. But let’s read Genesis 3:
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
So Eve could eat of the “fruit” of other trees — did that mean — or could that mean that Eve was allowed to cohabit with other people in the Garden but not certain people? But we read in Genesis 2, after Eve was created,
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
So Eve is called Adam’s wife, and they were to be considered “one flesh” — and cleave one to another. In that same chapter, before Eve, we read
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Then:
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
So God told Adam specifically of every tree in Eden he may eat except one — Eve repeated that. Those who say that trees in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2 and 3 are people are, in effect, saying that Adam and Eve were specifically allowed by God to have intercourse with some of the trees, but not with others. And therefore the only sin was committing this sexual act with the certain one which was forbidden.
Now strangely enough, this was literally the teaching of the Babylonian Talmud. For the Talmud says,
Where Rabbi Eliazar explains Genesis 2 in verse 2 and 23, Eve is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh — the rabbi says that means that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.
And you have to understand that the Babylonian Talmud teaches that all people other than Jews are “beasts”. So they are saying that Adam had intercourse with these other beasts here in Genesis called “trees” — and then later with Eve.
This teaching of the Jewish Talmud — that all non-Jews are beasts — is what allows them to take so-called “gentile” women and make prostitutes out of them — it is not against their religion.
An August 14, 1976 Associated Press article about Jewish women who desire change — the name of this new magazine is Lilith — called the “new feminist magazine for the Jews.” Another article comments on this magazine, saying it’s named after Lilith, Adam’s legendary first companion — the first woman equal with the first man. Lilith “pre-dated Eve who was originally the embodiment of independent womanhood. The character of Lilith has had bad press over the ages changing her in some accounts from an independent woman to a wild-haired demon.”
Believe it or not, the Mormons also teach that Adam had two wives. From page 227 of the book Mormonism: Shadow Or Reality?, under the headline, “Adam: A Polygamist”:
Brigham Young, the second president of the stated, ‘Now hear it, O inhabitants of the Earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner, when our father, Adam, came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body and brought Eve — one of his wives — with him.’ (Journal Of Discourses)
Some of the Mormon people that the teach that Adam was a polygamist actually originated with Joseph Smith delivered in a sermon in a tabernacle in 1885. H.W. Naismith (?) stated, “It is said that Joseph Smith, the prophet, taught that Adam had two wives.”
So there is another point of identity between what is called Judaism — or what was really the religion of Babylon — and Mormonism. And the more you read about Mormonism the more you see the similarity between them.
On page 178 from the Mormon book The Seer, under “Celestial Marriage” — they teach that Adam became God:
From the passage in the 45th Psalm, it will be seen that the great messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion was a polygamist, as well as the patriarch Jacob and his prophet David from whom he descended according to the flesh. Paul says, concerning Jesus, ‘Verily I he took not on him the nature of angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Abraham, the polygamist, being a friend of God, the messiah chose to take upon himself his seed and by marrying many honorable wives himself, showed all future generations that he approbated the plurality of wives under the Christian dispensation — as well as under the dispensation in which his polygamist ancestors lived. We have shown clearly that God, the father — [remember when they say “God the father” they mean Adam] — had a plurality of wives — one or more being in eternity by whom he begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus, his first born, and another being on the earth by whom he begat the tabernacle of Jesus as his only begotten in this world.
They teach that it was Adam who impregnated Mary with the child Jesus:
So Mary would also be the wife of Adam. We have also proved most clearly that the son followed the example of his father and became the great bridegroom to whom Cain’s daughters and many honorable wives were to be married. We have also proved that God, the father, and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives for eternity as well as in time. And that God, the father, has already begotten many thousand millions of sons and daughters, and sent into this world to take tabernacles. This is their teaching that those born to God in heaven are spirits come here then to take tabernacles of flesh. And that God, the son, has the promise that of the increase of his government there will be no end, it being expressly declared that the children of one of his queens should be made princes in all of the earth (quoting Psalm 45:16).
So they teach, in effect, that Adam while on earth had two wives — one was Eve and one was Mary. The Jews teach that Adam had two wives — one was Lilith, and one was Eve. And, of course, the Mormons add that God has many wives. A Mormon book says that God — or Adam — in heaven has a thousand wives and did begat one billion and several hundred million children — a figure given by Joseph Smith over 150 years ago at a time he figured would be enough take care of all of the earth. He didn’t think of the possibility that the earth now having four billion souls — all supposed to be the children of Adam who had only one billion. Who knows where the rest of these “spirits” came from?
When you investigate these false, anti-Christ religions, they preach nonsense — they actually contradict themselves — but all of their teachings go back to and are based on the origin of knowledge coming from Lucifer — Satan, the Serpent — sexually cohabiting with Eve. Then all of their religion becomes, in effect, a religion of sex.
All of this pornography in the world today — and all the movies made by the Jews where they portray every ungodly act known to man — is based on their religion — and its foundation is the story that sex begat wisdom and knowledge to mankind.
People are confused when their pastors tell them that this religion of Judaism is really the foundation of Christianity. Nonsense. It is the foundation of Satan’s religion. Mormonism is actually a new type of Satanism.
What about the other biblical passages that seem to say that trees are symbolic of people — and that the trees in Eden were people? One is Isaiah 10, the destruction of prophetic Assyria:
17 And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day; 18 And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth. 19 And the rest of the trees of his forest shall be few, that a child may write them.
This passage is often quoted by those who say that the trees in Eden were people. We also have Israel called a “green olive tree” in Jeremiah 11:16. Judah in Babylon was called by Jeremiah a “fig tree”. Paul used the phrase “wild olive” for cast off Israelites being grafted back into Israel. The olive tree in Romans 11. David said a follower of God would be like a tree planted by rivers of waters in Psalm 1:3. And in Psalm 92:12, the righteous shall flourish like the palm tree, he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. In Isaiah 61:3, God’s people might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord. Jude wrote of men who are wicked and called them in verse 12 “trees whose fruit withereth without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots.”
So we do have Bible verses where trees stand for individual human beings — or for a group of beings — but in the Bible people are also called sheep, wolves, asses, dogs, lions, leopards, cattle, and other animals. Does that mean that all the animals in Eden were actually people? No, it does not — no more does it mean that the trees in Eden were people.
In Ezekiel 31 is the main passage used by those who teach that the trees in Eden were people — and therefore when Eve partook of the fruit of a tree, she was partaking of sexual intercourse with some sort of a living being, such as in verse 9:
9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
No, envy seems to be a human trait — not a trait of trees. And verse 16:
16 I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.
And verse 18:
18 To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword. This is Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord GOD.
So far we have seen that the Serpent in the Garden was the fallen angel called Satan. We have also seen that all of the trees planted in Eden by God. We have seen Adam and Eve were allowed to eat the fruit of some of the trees. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil must have been, therefore, planted by God even though it was forbidden to them. It therefore was a separate entity from the Serpent — its fruit was not directly connected with Satan, but it was directly connected with God. Its only connection with Satan was that Satan and Eve talked about it — and then Satan apparently seduced Eve — seduced her mind — into partaking of the forbidden fruit.
3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.
So the Assyrian Empire is likened, while God speaks to Pharaoh, to a tree — he didn’t say it was a tree — he’s using symbolic language. Then:
8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty…
The implication being that the Assyrian was greater and more beautiful than the trees in the Garden of God.
9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
Some say that this proves that the trees there in Eden were other people like the people of the Assyrian empire.
16 I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth….
18 To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth…
Let me tell you what this chapter is about — the reason he used the trees of Eden for comparison was because Genesis 2:9 says
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food…
So the trees in Eden were good, so God uses them to compare to some great mission — just as Jesus in Matthew 13 said that the kingdom of heaven was like a grain of mustard seed which was the tiniest seed, but when it was grown it is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree. This is symbolic — not literal language.
[Paraphrasing]….So before you exalt yourself, remember Assyria overcast in the beauty of the trees in Eden, and yet Assyria has been brought low, brought down to the pit. And then he says to Pharaoh, in Ezekiel 31:18
…yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth…
Trees could not be people — because if they were, they still would have existed, but in Ezekiel 31 God speaks of the trees of Eden in the past tense — they are gone, they are destroyed. And he says, “Pharaoh, you too will come down to the pit, like the trees of the Garden of Eden.” So the trees in Eden could not have been people or races of people.
The literal area of the Garden of Eden was that great area of southern Arabia on the south to Persia on the east, to Turkey on the north, and to the Mediterranean on the west. Most of that area is a vast desert today — I believe — destroyed in the Flood of Noah’s time. The trees of Eden are no more — they are spoken of in the past tense in Ezekiel 31.
Ezekiel 28, where Eden is again referred to,
1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God…
This is the prophecied destruction of Tyre, verse 8:
8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. 9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.
Then the rest of that chapter goes on to speak to someone who was in Eden:
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering…14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
But who was this person who was in the Garden of God? Was it the Prince of Tyre — or Princes of Tyre — who are spoken of in the first verses? No, it was not, for if you read verses 11 and 12:
11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God…
Some say that means that these rulers in the city of Tyre were people in the Garden of Eden — no, it is not. That second half of chapter 28 in Ezekiel is speaking to the King of Tyre — the first half is to the Prince of Tyre. And who was the King of Tyre? The religion of Tyre was Baal worship. Satan was their god and their king. It was Satan who was in the Garden of Eden, not the people of Tyre. So again we are left without any certain verse of scripture that tells us that the trees in Eden were actual men and women.
There is not one clear verse of scripture in the Bible which can be interpreted to mean that Eve had sexual relations with anyone other than her husband, Adam. The trees of Ezekiel 31 are empires — not literal trees. The empires are compared to the trees in Eden for beauty. The being in Ezekiel 28 who was in Eden was the King of Tyre — the god, Satan who was, as we’ve already seen, in the Garden.
So these passages cannot be used to produce another human or another creature who might have had a sexual union with Eve when she “partook” of the Tree of Knowledge Of Good and Evil.
Back to Genesis 3 — both Adam and Eve knew they could eat of the trees but not a certain one — that stood for God’s law — the only source of the knowledge of good and evil:
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
The terms “eyes were opened,” “naked,” and then their act of covering themselves with aprons have all been interpreted to mean physical or sexual acts. But what are they? What opened their eyes? Psalm 19:8 says,
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Psalms 119:18,
Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
Psalms 146:8,
The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous.
And we’ve already read Deuteronomy 30:15 where Moses spoke of God’s law:
See I have set before thee this day life and good, death and evil.
Eve partook of the law of God — she saw it was good for food — and God’s law is called “bread”, and it’s called “meat” and it’s called “food” and it’s called even “honey” — in Ezekiel 3 where Ezekiel ate God’s word and it was like honey in his mouth. So Eve gave God’s word to Adam, and he did eat. Genesis 3
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat
So here is a direct statement, via a question, from God Almighty, that it was the eating of the tree which told Adam that he was naked:
And by that eating they knew they were naked — so they hid from God
Before this in verse 25 of Genesis 2:
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
So they were already naked before they ate — how did the eating make them ashamed? 2 Corinthians 5
1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
They partook of God’s law — their eyes were opened to the truth that they were sinners and that they were mortal. Satan said, ‘Ye shall not surely die but ye shall be as gods,’ but when they read God’s law, they found they were mortal — they were sinners — and they did not have the clothing of immortality.
Adam said, “I heard thy voice in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself.” In Revelation 16, verse 15, is a warning from Jesus Christ for the end of the age:
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Revelation 3, verse 5:
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Verse 18:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear…
Revelation 7:9,
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.
Verse 13,
13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
What clothing do we need — and that Adam and Eve understood they needed — that they would not be naked and ashamed? Revelation 19:
6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
What is that? The garment of salvation — the white robe of Jesus’ righteousness for the Bible says all our righteousness is as “filthy rags.” We are naked — and they see our shame until we have the salvation of Jesus Christ and his blood. And what makes us realize we are naked and unclothed before God? Reading God’s law.
In Adam and Eve’s state before they partook of God’s law, they were without the knowledge of either sin or salvation, but once they read the law, they understood sin — their eyes were open — and they understood they were without a robe of righteousness to cover their sin. They were ashamed and could not stand before God — and so they hid themselves.
Adam and Eve did not recognize their nakedness because of something Satan did — or because of any sexual intercourse that Eve had with Satan. They recognized their nakedness — their need of salvation clothes — by partaking in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil by reading God’s law.
That is why God told them in verse 21– just before He drove them from Eden — they were clothed in animal skins — animals whose blood was shed to provide them with atonement according to the ritual of the law. That shedding of those animals’ blood and clothing of Adam and Eve in those skins was a type of the perfect sacrifice that would come in the future through Jesus Christ — the sacrifice that would cover their sins and ours — and clothe us in righteousness to cover our nakedness so we — along with Adam and Eve — can stand before God.
The gospel here is very simple. It is only the lies of Satan that make it very complicated.
So someone is certain to ask, “Why God did not himself give the law to Adam and Eve?” Why did He allow Satan to perform this supposedly dastardly and deceitful deed? God purposed it that way — God purposed that Satan would be responsible for death. It is God’s law that decrees death — Satan brought death— he knew that he was doing it — and he thought he had won — that Adam and Eve would now be destroyed. He told them they would not die — to trick them into partaking of the law which he knew would condemn to death. But Satan did not know that he was a loser — that although the law condemns every man to death, that God had provided the way to life.
That work by Satan was the same thing that God allowed Satan to do when Satan was the instrument of the death of Jesus Christ. In Luke 22:
3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. 4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
John 13, Christ told his disciples that one would betray him:
25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? 26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
It did not say that Judas was a son of Satan — it said Satan entered into him. So Satan lost again. 1 Corinthians 2
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory
In other words, there was a hidden thing:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Satan and his minions did not know that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ brought victory over them and their deceit. In Hebrews 2
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood
In other words, the children of Abraham are mortal — flesh and blood…
…he [Jesus] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
What did Jesus do? He delivered them from the death that which Satan had tricked them in partaking of way back in the Garden of Eden. Satan thought he had won in the Garden when he tricked Man into placing himself under the death decree in God’s law. Satan thought he had won again when he led Judas and the Pharisee princes of this world to slay Jesus. But in both cases, the Devil’s own actions sealed his doom, not that of God’s creation.
The law of God — the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil planted in the Garden of God — the death from the law therefore came from Satan’s deception. Jesus was of God — Jesus is the Tree of Life, symbolically planted in the Garden of God — and the death of Jesus came from Satan — but Satan’s was a loss and the triumph of God for Man.
There was no physical seduction — no sexual act between Satan and Eve, which opened their eyes. In John 10, when the Jews accused Jesus of having a devil:
21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
The obvious answer is no — Satan could not open the eyes of Adam and Eve — only God’s word can open Man’s eyes.
Since there was no physical seduction, Cain’s father must have been Adam — and we read Genesis 4:1
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
That’s rather plain language — the same phraseology used in verse 25
25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
So in both cases, we are told that Eve understood that Adam was the father of these children. But before that, Cain’s offering was rejected, and Abel’s was accepted — and some say that’s because Cain was the son of Satan. But God said in verse 6 of Genesis 4,
6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
In other words, his offering apparently was rejected because of his own sin — not the sin of Satan — or the sin of the supposed satanic father. Cain’s offering — as we see from verse 3 and 4 — was without blood — it was from the things of the field — Abel’s was of animals. So Cain, in effect, rejected the idea of blood atonement — his sin was not his origin.
Why did Cain slay Abel? 1 John 3:
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
No blame on Satan — it says Cain’s works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Now as to what Cain’s works were — we already had a clue in that he did not give an offering to God which included the shedding of blood. And also Cain is mentioned in Jude — where Jude speaking of the wicked in verse 11:
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
In verse 7, it says that the wicked go after strange flesh. Cain took a wife from another land — a wife apparently not of his own kind — and although he was the eldest, he was replaced by Seth as the inheritor of Adam’s line.
Some still say the reason Cain was replaced was he was the seed of Satan — so God had to give another seed to Eve. But we have a parallel with Esau and Jacob — where Esau, the eldest, lost his birthright, and later took wives of the Canaanites. Some who say Cain was fathered by Satan and not Adam should read of Esau in Romans 9:
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Had Esau sinned in the womb? Had Esau another father other than Jacob that caused his rejection? No, neither need we ascribe another father to Cain in order to bring about his rejection. Esau was rejected in the womb and Romans 9 makes it plain he was born of Issac.
How about the phrase in 1 John 3:12:
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
Let’s read 1 Corinthians 3:
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
Were they saying they were born of Paul or born of Apollos? No, they were saying they were followers of Paul or followers of Apollos. In 1 Timothy 1, Paul will call Timothy “my son”, and I believe that “of the wicked one” means Cain was a follower of Satan, not necessarily a literal son. And that is possible — even probable — when we read in 1 Samuel 2:12,
12 Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD.
They were followers of Belial. If Satan was an angelic being, we also have it on Jesus’ authority that angels do not father children. In Matthew 22:30 Jesus answered a question by saying,
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Why wasn’t there any warning in the Old Testament or the New that women should beware of physical seduction by Satan or any angel? And yet every pagan religion from Egypt, to Babylon, to Greece, to Rome and to Asia teaches that the god’s have intercourse with females. Every pagan anti-Christ religion teaches that gods have intercourse with humans. The Bible teaches no such thing.
There is no warning — and there was no warning in the Bible of this because it never happened — nor could it. Satan has no power of creation. Satan therefore has no power of procreation. His “children” are his followers, not his sons. Satan’s followers must be those spoken of by God when He said, “I have created the waster to destroy.” (Isaiah 54:16), and “even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Proverbs 16:4).
God did not produce Adam through sexual union with any woman, yet Adam is called the son of God. Neither did Satan produce any man through sexual union with any woman, and yet he has people called his “sons” because they are what? They are his followers.
God has turned over to Satan beings which God created for the day of evil. They are called “the children of the devil” — they are followers Satan — but they are not his physical seed. Like all things, they must be creatures of the only creator, God Almighty.
But they will say, Satan is the father of something — turn to John 8:44, Jesus speaking to the Jewish Pharisees:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it
There is only one thing of which Satan is the father — and that is a lie. He is the father of lies.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Why? Because they believe Satan — they were followers of Satan; therefore, they had become Satan’s children — just as [Adamic] followers of God become God’s children.
God had said to Satan that “I will put enmity thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.”
Who was the “seed of the woman”? Was it Abel? Or was it Seth? Remember, Cain was born of Eve also — so Cain would have been a seed of the woman if any of the rest were children also. In Galatians 3, Paul is speaking of the promise:
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
There is a [Adamic] seedline in the Bible — Eve’s seed, Abraham’s seed, David’s seed — and that one seed is Christ. The enmity of Satan — his lies — which are his seed — are directed at Christ who is the seed of the woman. Satan’s lie is enmity to Jesus which is truth.
Why do the anti-Christ religions teach that Satan physically seduced Eve and fathered Cain? The answer is simple — to hide God’s word of truth — to corrupt minds that is the simplicity which is in Christ Jesus in Genesis 3.
For Genesis 3 truly teaches that Man is a creature of God — Man gets his knowledge and understanding from God’s law — and by that same law is the knowledge of sin — and the knowledge that he is naked and needs atonement for salvation and eternal life.
The gospel of Jesus is in Genesis 3, but it totally hidden by those who believe Satan’s lie. And millions in the world throughout history have believed Satan’s lie — that he seduced Eve and was the source of man’s wisdom. And they, therefore, have worshiped Satan as the source of all knowledge.
That story — that Satan seduced Eve — is so much a part of Babylonian religion that Herodotus tells us that in Babylon every woman — before she was married — was required to go to the Temple of Baal, and have sexual relations with either a priest or any other man. Then — and only then — could she marry her husband. It was what? It was a worship ritual of Satan’s lie that he seduced Eve.
Today, the promoters of pre-marital and extra-marital sex are promoting a ritual of Baal — have sex with someone other than your husband — just as Satan and Eve did — for that premarital sex is what? A source of liberation, a source of wisdom. There is the Devil’s lie.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, “By your traditions you have made the word of God to none effect.” (Mark 7:13). And I say to the teachers of this doctrine, by your repetition, perhaps unknowingly, of this tradition — this lie of Satan — you hide the truth of Genesis 3. You hide the truth that our first parents were mortals who died from sin — and can live forever only by partaking in the Tree of Life, which is Jesus Christ.
Thank God for the atoning blood, the atoning sacrifice, the laws of sin and death, and the power of Satan is now broken — just as the truth of Genesis 3 shows Satan’s power is only is in his ability to get people to believe his lie. He has no children — he never seduced Eve — his power is only in his lie. And Jesus Christ — and the word of God — and that truth that’s in the Bible destroys Satan’s power.
Jesus’ truth is the seed of the woman. Satan and his lies is the seed that has enmity against them. God’s law was first given to Man in Eden. Abraham knew the law — for God said of Abraham in Genesis 18:
19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment.
And we know it was before Abraham — for God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, broke down the Tower of Babel, and brought in Noah’s Flood because of transgressions of the law. But now we can really understand what Paul meant when he wrote in Romans 5,
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
It is quite simple — the law was given to Adam and Eve to divinely appointed events in Eden. Satan’s lie — that those events in Eden were something else — and that not the law but Satan was the source of Adam and Eve’s wisdom — and that not God but at least in part Satan was a co-creator of some of the people of the earth — those lies have deceived millions. But some day, it will deceive them no more — for God’s truth will cancel out all of Satan’s lies.
Revelation 22, speaking of the kingdom of the New Jerusalem:
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him
Verse 14:
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Praise God that he has destroyed Satan’s lies by his truth that mortal man will become immortal, not through Satan but through Jesus Christ and his blood.
1 Corinthians 11:7-10
Hello, I like your website, just found it today. in the above article the author states:
“If the Serpent is Satan — and if his method of beguiling women is to seduce them — then why do we have no warning from Paul — or any other — that women should be careful that they are not approached and physically seduced by Satan? . . . .
…Apparently, there was no danger that he would since there is no warning in the New Testament — no warning in the Old — no warning by the prophets — that women should be aware of being physically seduced by Satan.”
I wonder if that author would consider the below Scripture in that context (specifically verse 10):
1 Corinthians 11:7-10
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
KJV
Where is Satan mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:7-10? Did I miss something?
Hello; my point was that satan is an angelic being, and this Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:10) warns women of angels (fallen angels). I am aware that satan was not specifically called out by name in that Scripture, but he is not the only fallen angel to have seduced (and impregnated) human women. I refer to the “sons of God” (angels) and the “daughters of men” (human females) of Genesis chapter six.
Apparently, (evil) angels have a liking for human women. Those angels were not called out by name either:
Genesis 6:1-4
6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. KJV
Nick,
We would suggest you read our essay “Genesis 6: What Really Happened Between The ‘Sons Of God’ And The ‘Daughters Of Man’?” Perhaps some of your questions are addressed there — and in the comment section:
https://christiansfortruth.com/genesis-6-what-really-happened-between-the-sons-of-god-and-the-daughters-of-man/
Did you mean to quote 2 Corinthians 11:1-4?
“…Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me. For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the [a]simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! …..”
“You presume that Christ imparted exsential wisdom to the disciples that is not recorded in the Scriptures . . .
You have absolutely no proof of this.”
Matthew 13:11 et seq.
Mark 4:11 ” ”
Luke 8 18 ” ”
It’s a great book. You ought to read it some time when you’re not too busy pontificating.
If you’re on your front porch and the town drunk tells you that someone’s in your garage trying to steal your car, do you ignore him because he is not a “trusted source” ? Or do you get up and check ?
Only when the truth or falsity of a matter is of no real importance can people afford to indulge themselves emotionally by substituting tribal-allegience-based virtue signaling for independent investigation/thought.
If the question DID matter — as it would if money were involved — then would be different.
BW: You propose a false equivalency. You compare those who believe Eve copulated with a serpent in the Garden to “the town drunk.” That part I get, but not the other part: If I ignore the “town drunk,” sure, my truck might be stolen, but if I ignore people who believe Eve copulated with serpents, what have I lost materially or otherwise?
Then you suggest that people who obey the admonition of the apostle Paul and ignore the “Jewish fables” of the rabbis, then we are guilty of “tribal-allegience-based virtue signaling.” Christ tells us to not give the babylonian rabbis the time of day, but you tell us that when we obey Christ, we lack “independent investigation/thought.” If your “independent investigation” concludes to that we should believe the enemies of Christ, I would safely say that your investigation skills need sharpening.
My comment illustrated the fact — widely acknowledged in other contexts — that the truth or falsity of a statement is unrelated to the identity of the speaker. E.g., Gallileo was denounced fiercely by thousands of True Believers, but this did not refute the truth of his observations.
Belief is only one element in a complex picture. People who mistake it for the whole issue in a nutshell are ignoring that the devils also believe — and tremble. Does their belief save them from the wrath to come? If not, then why should yours?
Rabbi Saul’s nonsense notwithstanding, Christ said that it would be the Spirit of Holiness (Ruach haKodesh) who would lead us to all truth, and that Truth would set us free. Not substitutiary death on the cross or anything else.
Belief — which is a matter of emotion — is no substitute for knowledge. As you know when you stop to consider it.
Calling Paul “Rabbi Saul” tips your hand. And your last statement that “belief is no substitute for knowledge” is pure gnosticism, which is the attitude that motivates all rabbis to scribble their opinions ad nauseum. You cannot conflate “Truth” with knowledge, another rabbinical sleight of hand. Certainly believing that Eve copulated with a serpent will not set me, or any true Christian, “free”. Perhaps it is you, BW, who are the beguiling serpent.
BW clearly subscribes to Jewish thought — something obviously condemned by many articles and commenters here.
His self-awareness is so low, his logical counter-arguments are like a skunk’s spray… Vile to behold but utterly powerless, so long as we can manage the foul stench.
I seem to recall that if the sea were ink it would not suffice to record all of the wisdom Christ imparted to his disciples. Ironically, anyone in posession of any of this information today would be denounced as a gnostic.
IMO, the real problem here is what Orwell termed Doublethink. E.g., believing that democracy is impossible and, at the same time, that the party is the guardian of democracy. An equally obvious example is when people tout the Dead Sea Scrolls, because they prove that the Bible texts they preserve are essentially identical to today’s. They even go so far as to admit that they are the only surviving authentic records of first century Christianity when it was led by Jacob the haZaddok (James the Just in English). Yet DSS’s fiery denunciation of the interloper who can only be that self-proclaimed “apostle” as a deceiver and an enemy of the truth is carefully ignored.
BW wrote, “I seem to recall that if the sea were ink it would not suffice to record all of the wisdom Christ imparted to his disciples. Ironically, anyone in posession of any of this information today would be denounced as a gnostic.”
You are committing a logical fallacy here. You are “begging the question” yet again:
https://christiansfortruth.com/begging-the-question-and-distorting-scripture-in-biblical-exegesis/
You presume that Christ imparted essential wisdom to the disciples that is not recorded in the Scriptures without which we can never know the “true” message of Christ. You have absolutely no proof of this. You believe this because you are a gnostic, and gnostics believe in salvation through material knowledge that is hidden from the world and that only a few Kabbalistic adepts, like yourself, will ever be “illuminated” with.
In reality, because God is infallible, the Bible that we have today is not the result of pure chance. The Bible we have must be sufficient to convey the exact wisdom that Christ wanted us to know, and that we need to know to understand Him. To believe otherwise is to believe that God is not in control and that the Bible we have is completely the result of the roll of the dice, scribal error, political intrigue and bias. If the Bible we have today is not sufficient to understand God in the way He wants us to understand Him, then God is a failure.
” But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
2 Timothy 3: 13-17
2 Peter 1:20-21
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
And Colossians 2:8 applies to your gnostic “philosophies”:
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
And Jude 1:3 maded clear that these words we have through the apostles are indeed sufficient “once and for all”:
“Although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints”
“You presume that Christ imparted exsential wisdom to the disciples that is not recorded in the Scriptures . . .
You have absolutely no proof of this.”
Matthew 13:11 et seq.
Mark 4:11 ” ”
Luke 8 18 ” ”
It’s a great book. You ought to read it some time when you’re not too busy pontificating.
BW, your response proves even further that you simply do not understand the concept in logic of “begging the question” as you continue to do it obliviously.
While the verse citations that I provided offer clear evidence that the Scriptures as they are handed to us are sufficient to understand Jesus Christ and his ministry, the verses you provided do NOT support your contention that the Scriptures are insufficient to understand the “true” Jesus Christ.
For example, let’s look at your first verse, Matt 13:10-11, “10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.”
Of course, you conveniently cited Matt 13:11, but not verse 10, which gives verse 11 its essential context, that being why Jesus spoke in parables. He spoke in parables not to withhold essential knowledge of His message, but rather to separate the Wheat from the Tares, the Sheep from the goats. “My sheep hear my voice and know me and follow me.” (John 10:27). Christ says that within His parables is everything they need to know, which contradicts your position that essential knowledge is withheld from His true followers. Those who are NOT His sheep will not understand the parables — and perhaps you should seriously consider you may not be one of His sheep because you believe that this verse refers to some Kabbalistic hidden mysteries that only “adepts” like yourself are privy to. That’s not at all what is at issue here.
The same goes for the next verse you cited, Mark 4:11, “And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables…”
Again, Jesus explains why He speaks in parables, and it is not to withhold essential wisdom from those who are His sheep. If Jesus intentionally withheld essential knowledge that His followers, His sheep, must have to have a relationship with Him, then He’s be sadistic and patronizing.
For example, so-called gnostic Christians (a contradiction in terms) often assert that the “deep meaning” of the parable of the Wheat and Tares is about two bloodlines, and ultimately leads back to Eve copulating with the serpent in the garden to create a satanic race of “tares”. In reality, the parable of the Wheat and the Tares is a spiritual test that separates Israelite “children of the flesh” from Israelite “children of the promise”. And “children of the flesh” will often be seduced and beguiled by the gnostic interpretation of the parable, easily leading them astray.
And Colossians 1:26 completely refutes your position, as it makes clear that those essential “mysteries” would, in fact, be revealed to his disciples and His sheep:
“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 29Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.”
No wonder why BW derogatorily refers to Paul as “rabbi saul”. Paul completely refutes BW’s false claim to the existence of some secret hidden knowlege or wisdom about Jesus that we are not aware of. Paul makes it clear that those former mysteries are now brought into the light through faith in Christ:
Ephesians 3: 1-12
“For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles (nations), 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles (nations) should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles (nations) the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.”
You have already seen, in Proverbs 30:20, that eating is a euphemism for coitus in Scriptural convention. You have also seen, in the practical demonstration of the consequences cited, that they made aprons to cover their genitals — not bandanas to cover their mouths.
Eve “ate” with the serpent. After which she “ate” with Adam. I.e., seperate, sequential acts. As a consequence she bore Cain. “And she continued (bearing) and bore Abel.”
Now consider addressing the Pharisees saying “Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father will ye do.” This is a pure, simple case of “Judge (know/recognise) the tree by its fruit.” “The wicked go astray from the womb, telling lies,” just as thorn trees grow thorns and fig trees grow figs. They show what they ARE by what they DO. Without this link with Geneses, it might be alleged that Christ was speaking metaphorically when, in fact, he was calling a spade a spade.
So says the rabbi. This is the exact interpretation you will find in the Talmud and the Targums. Except some rabbis take it a step further and claim that Adam also had intercourse with the serpent because he “ate” too. This is the kind of secret “knowledge” that is the basis of gnosticism, of which the rabbis are masters….
Elsewhere, I saw BW was actually promoting following rabbis and Jewish literature: https://christiansfortruth.com/ruth-was-a-moabite-but-does-it-even-matter/#comment-45184
BW said: “You have already seen, in Proverbs 30:20, that eating is a euphemism for coitus in Scriptural convention.”
So when God says that man should take and EAT from the tree of life he means have intercou……
I won’t even finish the sentence, because the implication is blasphemous.
Whether Cain was the product of Adam and Eve or Eve and someone else (maybe a preadamite human possessed by Satan), he was murderer and lied to God’s face. Could these proclivities be passed on through his progeny? He went out, took a wife and started a city. Genesis 3:15 does reference two seeds. What were these two seeds?
Snakes and Man?
If the verse is taken at face value.
The seed of Eve and the seed of the serpent. All curses against the serpent are evident in snakes today. Isaiah 65:25 and Micah 7:17 confirm this plain interpretation.
Paul mentioned Eve being deceived twice (2 Cor 11:3, 1 Tim 2:14) and he tacitly confirms three things:
1. It was just a snake (in some pre-cursed form).
2. No sexual act involved.
3. It wasn’t Satan.
The Bible doesn’t say that Cain went out and then took a wife. It doesn’t say at all WHEN he took his wife.
Clock,
Actually, Revelation 20:2 does identify “that old serpent” as satan.
“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.”
And John regards the pharisees as vipers in Matthew 3.
I think Isaiah 65 is using allegory to describe wicked men. I mean, do actual serpents eat actual dust?
Kevin, the connection between “the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan” and the serpent of the garden is tenuous at best. On Revelation 20:2 itself, there is a definite article before “serpent” and “ancient”. Also many translations say “that”, which is a reading of the interpretation into the text. In the Greek it reads more like, “the serpent the ancient” (ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος), rather than “that ancient serpent”. Revelation 12:9 reads, “the dragon the great the serpent the ancient” (ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος). I don’t begrudge doing away with all the definite articles, but the English they came up with is far more specific and leading than the Greek intends. In Greek mythology, a “drakōn” is a kind of serpent. They are also ancient, and they are great. They also often happen to have multiple heads… Something no one in the “Satan in the garden” camp ever bothers to explain.
Point being, Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 are not referring to “that” serpent. This interpretation assumes its own truth rather than proves its own truth. There are places referring to the event specifically which don’t mention Satan at all (like the quotes from Paul I mentioned). Genesis 3:1 literally calls the serpent a “beast of the field”. No Satan mentioned. There is also literally not one verse in the entire Scripture which places the presence or existence of Satan anywhere during or before the Garden event. Literally all the case for “Satan in the garden” has is an adjective for a dragon in the Revelation. It’s “much ado about nothing” and begging the question.
Christ called Herod a fox in Luke 13:32. Are you proposing that Adamic men could literally be vipers or foxes? I mean, you don’t think they’re just calling them toxic and devious?
Given the proximity of serpents mouths to the ground, I would say they definitely eat dust… Yes.
Clock, why are you proposing that I would think Herod was a literal fox? My whole point was that such descriptions are NOT literal, but figurative, so I am confused as to how you came up with that question.
And even with the Greek saying “the serpent the ancient,” I still see it as referring to the serpent in the garden. I think it’s strange to see it connecting to Greek myths more than connecting to its use in scripture.
It reminds me of dual seedline doctrine that interprets “fruit” in Genesis through a Babylonian lens, rather than through the lens of scripture, which certainly never refers to sexual acts.
Ah-hah, I misunderstood your viper reference then, apologies. Yes, agreed that it is metaphorical.
I’m not connecting the dragon to Greek myths… John did. He used a word which is found only in Greek mythology and would have been understood as such by that audience. Now, I’m not proposing Satan is literally a Greek mythological dragon. Rather, whatever Satan is, he would be well understood by a Greek dragon. Much like Christ using “Hades” and Peter using “Tartarus”. Do they actually exist? Of course not. Are those concepts useful in understanding things which do actually exist? Apparently so.
In light of this information, I find it very reductive to connect the dragon to the serpent in the garden. The serpent was cursed to eat the dust and crawl on its belly. We literally see all curses against serpents from Genesis 3 today between the seed of the woman (us) and the seed of the serpent (snakes). The serpent comes from the earth being a beast of the field. The dragon comes from heaven, has multiple heads, fights other angels and spews water from its mouth (another thing Greek dragons do). It gets locked in prison where only angels go (Tartarus). The dragon appears close to the time of Christ’s birth around a woman representing Israel, the serpent was in the Garden of Eden around a literal women (Eve).
It’s like trying to fit a star shape into a circle hole… Just doesn’t work unless we take an intensely superficial interpretation i.e. Yes, a dragon is a kind of serpent… and the beast which deceived Eve is also a kind of serpent. In all of Scripture no-one connected the garden serpent with Satan and it is never, ever self-evident.
If Satan was around before the garden of Eden, where did he come from? Why did he rebel? Why doesn’t the Scripture say anything about it? Some say, “I guess we can’t know.” I don’t buy that… The “Satan in the garden” theory makes so many extra unproveable assumptions and when asking anyone to prove them… “I guess we can’t know”. Sin entered the world through Adam, not Satan (Rom 5:12). There is no record of sin before Adam. Satan’s sin (1 John 3:8) cannot predate Adam’s sin. Many respond saying, “Oh come on, Satan’s sin obviously predated Adam.” Well, where does it say that? Unproven assumption. But Satan sinned “from the beginning.” What beginning? Another assumption. If sin entered through Adam, and Satan “sinned from the beginning”, then that beginning cannot be before Adam’s sin. No assumptions needed.
Satan was a murderer (John 8:44), but who was he murdering? Was he murdering others up in heaven? As far as we know, the only time angels actually ever die is in the lake of fire. “Oooohhh but he murdered Abel by proxy through Cain”… Another unproven assumption. What is “the evil” (1 John 3:12)? Is it not simply sin (Genesis 4:7)? Yes, Genesis explicitly says Cain fell to sin, not Satan. What I’m getting at here is that if Satan was once an Adamic man (or Adamic men, because there are seven heads), who later became angels with the new heaven and earth after the flood (2 Peter 3:4-6), there are very few or almost no assumptions I would need to make. It’s easy to prove that we will become angels too after all.
Why is “every nation, tribe, language, and people” and “the nations” so limited to Genesis 10? What about the people before that? Were they resurrected already? How else could they have such glaring character flaws (like Satan) yet simultaneously be in heaven? Adds some interesting context to Romans 5:13… Then combine that with Ephesians 3:10. The angels still needed to learn, and if they can’t, the lake of fire awaits us all…
Clock, I don’t quite understand some of what you are saying, particularly the part about satan becoming an angel after the flood.
But I am also certain that, while interesting to discuss, it is not so important a topic. Ultimately through Christ’s sacrifice many shall receive grace, moreso than those that shall fall. His power and mercy overwhelmes sin.
Knowledge is meaningless without love, which comes through repentance and prayer. I have put CI away and become GI (gospel identity), because God has shown me that the meek supplication of the remorseful is the greatest of all attributes for man.
Praise Christ!
“And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.”
Ephesians 3:19
No worries Kevin, it’s not a critical issue. Like you say, it’s interesting to discuss. I am merely proposing that the interpretation about Satan which makes the least assumptions is that he was an Adamic man who became an angel along with many others sometime between exile from the Garden of Eden and the conclusion of the flood.
Appreciate the “gospel identity” designation, and your unashamed confession of repentance, prayer, meekness and remorse. True Spiritual unity is found in these things.
Kevin, that’s a good distinction you are making….rejecting the concept of “Christian Identity” for “Gospel Identity”. CI has been infiltrated, subverted and discredited, and it has so many different factions and so much infighting that it is unlikely ever to attract any sizeable number of people interested in an “alternative” to mainstream “judeo” Christianity. CI has many hallmarks of a cult, with its charismatic leaders and demonization of anyone who challenges their pet doctrines. They all thrive on creating a strong ingroup-outgroup dynamic to keep people toeing the party line. And any “spiritual” interpretations of the Bible are frowned upon. It truly is a toxic environment for any sincere Christian.
Heh, I should qualify my statement: replacing CI with GI is still vain. Labels are vain and allow people to marry a label instead of the word. Though i was using “GI” to make a point, it would still be vain to call myself anything.
Edward I, well said. I have heard other recent departees of CI say the same, that it is like a cult. I am greatful to have been shown grace from God, who pulled me out and showed me the truth.
Clock,
Perhaps you are right about the serpent. I am not likely much of a theologian, and you certainly seem to have studies this topic in depth. I look forward to more from you and others here.
Kevin — you wrote — “…Ultimately through Christ’s sacrifice many shall receive grace, moreso than those that shall fall. His power and mercy overwhelmes sin….”
Kevin, in light of Jesus’ “The Narrow Road” statement, would you ‘unpack’ what you wrote? Jesus says the road is narrow and only a few will walk it.
When I look back into history, quite frankly, I don’t see very many people knowing the Jesus of the Scriptures.
The Protestant Reformation hardly corrected anything. It was one heresy to another.
Most of us here on CFT understand that the teaching of Once Saved Always Saved — or also known as “Eternal Security” is not in accordance with Scripture.
If you look back into History, you will not find many “organized” Christian groups of people who rejected Eternal Security in favor of Jesus’ Conditional Security.
The Anabaptists are really the only organized group that I am aware of that taught Soteriology properly. Jacob Arminius as well.
Could you elaborate on what you said?
Also ………… what do you mean specifically when you say that God’s grace “overwhelms” sin. What do you mean? How does “grace” overwhelm sin?
Cheers.
@westwins
Sorry, it seems I can only reply to Clock’s original comment.
I certainly agree that Adamkind can lose their salvation. John wrote about that. A man who has received the holy spirit can lose it through blasphemy.
But as to my comment I was speaking to Romans 5:15 and 18.
I perhaps was too lose with my language when i said “grace overwhelmes sin,” but what i mean is His grace is a gift to the sinner – He can purge, wash and refine us, preparing us for the kingdom.
It doesnt seeem like many in the world today could ever walk the narrow path. It is hard and no man can. Only Christ can and we must lean on Him to do so ourselves.
Kevin …….
Well, a man can lose his Salvation in more ways than simply the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit”. Simply being a ‘friend of the world’ will thwart a man off the narrow path.
You wrote — “….It doesnt seeem like many in the world today could ever walk the narrow path. It is hard and no man can. …”
This is a frightening position/belief to take. Jesus said, “…he who has My commandments and keeps them, is he who loves me …..” John 14:21.
Paul said, “….walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh…”
Jesus said, “Strive to enter….”
If you want to speak in private, I have a protonmail email account. I would enjoy the fellowship — “Iron Sharpens Iron”.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
“… In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power…”
Notice — 2 Types of People — those who do not know God; and those who do not Obey.
Sobering.
@westwins
Yes agreed, which is why being chastised, cursed, hexed, vexed etc by God are GOOD things, because through fear we learn obedience, and even love.
The very thought of losing Father in my life and being cast away from him forever is horrifying, and also a catalyst for deeper repentance. I think the general CI stance of “we’re all saved just don’t race mix or eat pork” is more devious then some might think, because without that scariest aspects of spiritual growth (eternal damnation), man can not truly appreciate what he is being offered, nor truly get on board with Christ.
It is easier to accept martyrdom, for instance, in this light. I doubt Esau considered his fate when he sold his birthright.
And yeah I’d love to fellowship in private. Not sure I should post my email publically though, so how do we go about it?
God bless.
Kevin —
Great comment!
Just email me at westwins @ protonmail
Cheers.
John, if we look towards the gospel, man has two options: God and the devil. Follow Christ, or follow the devil.
If dual seedline were true, then would that make David a descendent of Cain, since he murdered Uriah?
And why did God hate Esau in the womb? He was Jacobs twin.
What makes sense of this is to consider that:
1) man can pass on seed physically and produce offspring. His seed is physical.
2) God created man, planted him in the earth, so God provided the initial seed.
3) God is a spirit, and He is the way and the Truth. Therefore all who enter the kingdom do so in following His spirit.
4) Number 3 is only possible if the seed of truth takes root and grows within a man, i.e. the parable of the sower of seeds or the parable of the mustard seed.
Therefore “seed” is shown to refer to spiritual as well as physical.
So we should look to the gospel for our answer. If the seed of spirit finds no home in a man, how can the spirit grow in him?
To me, that is the only way to reconcile this issue. We neither spiritualize physical seed or physicalize spiritual seed.
Dual seedline physicalizes the seed of spirit IMHO.
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” Genesis 3:22 KJV
So if I were to believe Finck, by sleeping with some hybrid angel/animal Adam became as one of the Elohim, knowing good and evil.
In other words, according to the dual seedline doctrine, God and his host gained knowledge through fornication?
And if any of you have ever read Fincks and Emahaisers explanation for Genesis 4:1, not only do they rely soley on targums, but Finck himself cites Nehemiah 8:8 as evidence that targums were valid:
“It is a shame that the Aramaic Targums ended up in the hands of the Cain/Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite-jew’s, as the Targum paraphrases can be a valuable tool to comprehend the context of the original Hebrew manuscripts! The Aramaic Targums are Biblical, as per Neh. 8:8!”
https://emahiser.christogenea.org/contrary-genesis-4-1-adam-was-definitely-not-cain%E2%80%99s-father
But what does Nehemiah 8:8 say?
“So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”
Bill offers no qualifying statement nor any evidence to support his claim that Nehemiah 8:8 is referring to aramaic targums. The bible says simply “book in the law of God.”
Kevin wrote, “according to the dual seedline doctrine, God and his host gained knowledge through fornication?”
Yes, this proves that two seedline doctrine is at its heart gnostic, and this doctrine of fallen angels copulating with humans can be found in virtually all occult circles, including Freemasonry and the Kabbalah. And yet we are to believe that this is the fundamental “truth” of Christianity, the mystery that was “hidden from the foundation of the world.”
The independent anthropologist Robert Sepehr has done exhaustive research on the history of the occult Aryan myths and gnostic traditions — and this motif, of divine beings copulating with animals, has persisted down through the ages:
https://www.youtube.com/user/818encino
What does light have to do with darkness? Nothing.
As far as the Targums are concerned, Babylonian Jews integrated them into their “oral tradition” that would eventually become the oral Talmud, the “traditions of the elders” which Christ rebuked in the New Testament. To suggest that they are praised or legitimated in Nehemiah is an example of straining at a gnat.
Targums often used “anthropomorphism” — giving non-human things or beings human traits — like the copulating angels. Targums are also known for their “midrashic” qualities — Midrash is the Talmudic mode of interpreting the Bible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
Well after a few days of examining Genesis, it seems clear to me that:
1) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents a group of fallen angels or men who had knowledge of the law. The serpent was one of those men.
2) Adam and Eve were innocent and without shame in the garden
3) they followed Yahweh through the spirit alone
4) the serpent defiled Eve’s mind by teaching her the letter of the law, and by extension, Adam.
5) Adam and Eve now understood ordinances by the letter that are Gods (and those angels He instructed) alone.
6) The angels were in rebellion to God
7) the pharisees and saducees at the time of Christ were later examples of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, hence John in Matthew 3 calls them a “generation of vipers (serpents)”
8) this is hinted at in gen 3:22 where the first prophecy of Christ is given – that they reach out and eat from the tree of life and live forever.
9) eternal life had already been granted to Adam and Eve
10) Christ said to worship God in spirit, and that the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life
11) ergo Adam and Eve were communing in spirit with God before the serpent taught them the letter of the law
12) the serpent was not a non white beast, because he was cursed as slower than all other beasts, because an angel who knew the truth and charged with upholding Yahwehs laws shucked it for his own lusts for power, which is far more diabolical than a beast merely acting in its own nature
13) the entire bible shows mans incapability of obeying the letter, which is “the law of sin and death,” hence it makes sense that it was the letter that brought the original sin into the garden that resulted in death.
I could keep going, i think. There is perfect symmetry with the rest of scripture when viewed in this way.
The dynamic at play when Christ appeared in Judea mirrors the dynamic in the garden, and as Jeremiah said He would “write the law into our hearts.”
I am re-learning everything. I would appreciate criticism, edification etc on these thoughts if any one should desire to do so. Serpent seed theology is ridiculous.
It makes sense that knowledge of the letter of the law divides man from God, causing man to be divided between spirit and knowledge. The letter can be acted upon by man. The letter tempts man to condemn, or to act as judge in God’s stead.
The word translated “know” also means, in context, “have sexual relations with.” Each is a facet of the other, and understanding the business in the garden hinges on this.
Note in passing, FWIW, that after they “ate” they covered their loins — not their mouths.
Note also Proverbs : “This is the way of an adulterous woman: she ‘eats,’ then she covers her ‘mouth’ and says, ‘I have done nothing amiss,’ “
If the context of “know” defines whether its sexual or not, then the context must be shown as such. Can’t be done in the garden narrative, unless you first assume the truth of your own argument.
When there is sex in Biblical contexts, there are symptoms like marriage or children. Neither are presented anywhere in the entire Bible to result from the act in Genesis 3. Therefore, you must beg the question to make the argument.
People who are prone to want to see what they want to see tend to thrive on thinking only as far as surface level in matters like this. It’s a world where a “note in passing”, pseudepigrapha and one’s own whims become iron-clad proof. That kind of thinking lead to the “celebrated” logic we know today as the Talmud…
Where does it say “and eve knew the serpent”?
“Knowledge” means “to know” in many places in the bible. Like Clock said you have to look at the context.
It’s the same preconception that causes some to think that “eating of the fruit” means intercourse, even though throughout the entire bible eating food is an allegory for receiving knowledge, good or bad.
We can’t cite a targum or pagan poem and level it against the entire bible.
BW wrote, “…understanding the business in the garden hinges on” believing that “eating” means “sexual relations.”
Really? You are saying no one can “truly” understand what “really” happened in the garden unless we believe Eve had sex with the serpent? Anyone who doesn’t buy that reading, doesn’t understand Genesis? Talmudic Jews certainly believe what you believe, but they are prone to sexualize anything and everything, like Sigmund Freud did. Christians, not so much.
Ok BW ……….
Please explain then what Adam did? Because whatever Eve did, Adam did also.
Hi, I’m new here, but for what it’s worth.
If the jews believe that they are literally descended from satan, then I’m going to believe them.
If that’s what they claim, then why are you arguing with them?
Are you apologists for evil? They themselves believe they were created from evil. You’re going to contradict them? Why? Are you trying to make them appear to be somehow….not evil?
Are they evil, or are they good? You have to pick one.
Where did the jews come from? Good or evil?
Are you going to make an argument for them being somehow neither?
What else is there?
By that logic, we should believe the Jews when they claim they are Israelites? Jews claim 6 million of them were killed in the “Holocaust”. Should we take their word for it just because they say it’s true? Everything about them and their “history” is a myth.
If it was simply the ‘Law’ then why would it be phrased as a “fruit” and not just been spelled out literally?
There was also a fruit which gave them everlasting life, is that allegorical too?
So God creates the laws of his domains, heavenly or material, he creates beings that can perform all manner of what we would see as miracles, forms a human from the atoms of the clay/ earth but people do not think he could create a fruit that prevented aging of cells, or a fruit that triggered an ‘unlocking’ of something within the mind?
I don’t see the reasoning in where people draw the line.
Scientists of today will say it’s all ridiculous fairy-tale, but then go on to say absolute madness in regards to what is and isn’t mental illness and anything regarding ideas about ‘equality.’
God placed the fruit into the Garden himself, not only that but it seems Eve trusted the ‘Serpent’ (I don’t think it was even manifested as a literal snake, it’s just what is used to label him) as if she was already accustomed to it’s presence. Clearly the fruit was placed there for a reason… did he just place it there to test their obedience & loyalty or did he place it there with the intent to one day let them eat of it? I doubt that the Serpent is able to hide from God, so God must have known what was going on, and seen what was in his heart before.
Nobody really talks about how Adam & Eve reacted to being confronted. Neither of them had enough remorse to even apologise, neither took responsibility for their actions, Eve made out that her being deceived was inevitable, and Adam blamed God.
2 witnesses to who the “SERPENT” is
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
John called a group of people vipers and serpents.
Proverbs 30:20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.
Eve “ATE” of the fruit which was the sin and then the Lord gave her PAIN in CHILDBIRTH, so does the punishment fit the crime?
The brood of vipers and adulterous woman cannot be used as witness, because I can provide a very sensible metaphorical explanation.
We already covered the dragon of Revelation in other comments, but I would request you have a look and add your own thoughts please.
Would you please be able to explain to us, from the Scripture, how the serpent seed persisted through the flood, and into which people it intermingled?
The flood was local. Study the Hebrew words eretz and adamah.
Many of us have already, but whatever you have in mind isn’t self-evident. Why don’t you present your findings briefly?
I cannot say for sure but I believe Caine’s origin is the physical product of Satan and his sin was one of action. I say this because we know the fallen ones took wives of pre-flood humans and created the Giants. The Giants were also were told to repent but they didn’t and were destroyed by the flood. If the fallen ones could not genetically alter anything as Emry suggests then how did we have Giants?
We know we can create humans without sexual intercourse and this is called artificial insemination and I suggest that something like this happened with the fallen ones and pre-flood humans as well as Mary and the Holy Spirit. It should also be remembered that the Giants were given time to repent but they did not and were destroyed by the flood as foretold I believe in the book of Enoch that was conveniently removed from the first “bibles”. Are we to say that genetics, a person’s bloodline has no bearing, no influence over people and their actions? To me that’s silly.
I do think the answer to this might be found in the books of Adam and Eve that were taken with our people out of Egypt and came one vote away from being included in the early compilation know as the Council of Nicene and were thus relegated to “Church history” books that were useful in figuring out our past as long as it was measured by the gospels. If we look to the books of Eden or Adam and Eve we find that the Snake was originally an upright creature and more beautiful than all the “beasts of the field”. Does this mean that the snake was a human? Does it mean that the beasts of the field were human? Not necessarily on both counts but we do know that Satan entered the Snake and beguiled (seduced), Eve. Could this not mean he seduced Eve both in speech and in action (intercourse)? Yes, I believe so. And remember, our pre-Adamic bodies were “Anglic like” according to these accounts. Adam and Eve for example could see to the ends of the Universe. These bodies knew no pain, no death, no want.
These books relay that when the “snake” beguiled Eve and Eve got Adam to go along with this sin as a punishment the Snake was relegated to a new body where it slithers on the ground eating dust all of its days whereas Adam and Eve lost their immortal “Angelic type bodies”. These books also say that the snake could still talk until the time that Adam had to physically defend Eve from the snake’s attack after their expulsion and that is when it’s speech was taken from it. Remember as well (and this is consistent with the entire narrative of this account) that when Adam and Eve left the garden it was then we were given animal type skin bodies as we see covering us today. From this point out we felt pain, we knew we were destined to die and we had wants and desires such as for food, shelter and sex. it was sex with Eve that Adam was scared of doing again and this is why I AM allowed them to do so within exclusivity (marriage) since Adam this time showed fear of the LORD seeking his council on this question least this time he and Eve be utterly destroyed.
So as we see it is not as cut and dry as either side seems to suggest. The very fact that Caine’s original sin was that he did not give the best from his crops in these books shows the likelihood that his fallen genetics motivated his hyper selfish desires later manifesting in the murder of his brother whereas Able’s and Seth’s sins were much less although clearly, they were not sinless which can at least be largely associated with their genetic lineage as we see with the widely varied typical sinful actions of the different races today. I hope this made sense.
Virtually everything you say here is not supported directly by the Bible, but rather relies heavily on extra-biblical sources. Lots of conjecture and speculation without any scriptural support. “I believe….” isn’t persuasive…..
Tyron,
How to you interpret Genesis 3:6 — “…….. she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.”
Whatever Eve did, Adam also did. Do you believe Adam had sexual intercourse with the serpent?
Next …… how do you interpret Genesis 4:1 — “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore [a]Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.”
I find your conjecture “interesting”. Something to talk over a campfire — just guys talking.
But I do wonder why those who hold to this position, hardly ever deal with verses such as the two I included above. They (verses) either receive the silent treatment; or get twisted and inverted to mean something completely out of the immediate context.
They will say that Adam didn’t have sex as Eve did; but that Adam approved or something like that. Or that Adam then had sex with Eve after she had sex with the serpent.
Curious your thoughts.
Thanks!
Going on 4 days now and not one bite. Typical.
The fruit would be “Sex” not specifically “Sex with ‘Serpent.'”
So Eve went and seduced Adam, who partook of the fruit (sex) with her.
The twin seed is then Cain of the Serpent and Abel of Adam, which she was somehow impregnated with (I guess that really would make a painful childbirth, twins, and one would be a Nephilim.)
I think they say Genesis 4:1 is a mistake and contradictory to the ‘twin seed’ verse.
But the “fruit” was placed in the garden by God, right in the centre.
There was also a fruit of everlasting life, so what did that mean?
How do you know that Satan entered a literal snake or primitive creature rather than it being God
simply insulting the rebellious figure by referring to the punishment of making him slither on the ground for the ‘rest of his days’?
If the ‘fruit of knowledge of good & bad’ was sex in general, and the Adversary seduced Eve, and then Eve seduced Adam, somehow creating twins, one born of the Serpent, one born of Adam… that would explain the whole ‘twin seed’ situation, but it opens a Pandora’s box of issues.
I don’t believe the Book of Enoch is legitimate- or it was at least re-written many times over.
The Book of Enoch promotes the idea of Magic Arts like Kabbalah.
Tyron, God took enormous care to tell us that Adam was from the dust of the earth. Adam said of his wife Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. When he sinned God said in that day you will die. For from dust though art and to dust shall you return. Nothing ethereal is proposed. I do understand you but politely I disagree as the text says Adam was an earthling. Satan always offers a false spiritual ideal and origin. See all Pagan religion it all says they were pre existent eternal souls.
In the article it is stated: The “ex” in the Greek means “utterly” or “totally”.
>>>What does the Greek root ex mean?
The prefix ex-, with its variants e- and ec-, mean “out.” Examples using this prefix include exceed, eject, and eccentric. An easy way to remember that the prefix ex- means “out” is through the word exit, for when you exit a room, you go “out” of it.<<<
Utterly or totally in Greek is entelos
Why would you tell a story about 2 human people, represent them as people… but also include in that story a bunch of other people who you arbitrarily decide to represent symbolically as trees? That’s stupid.
I want to clarify a statement I made in the comments on Part 1 of this. Firstly, I am thoroughly convinced that Eve had sex with a fallen angel, and Cain was the result. I think I can convince anyone who really wants to know. However, the comments are supposed to be limited to Emry’s words and his Babylonian comments. This is just a small part of the discussion.
I don’t believe that differing opinions on the two seedline is a reason to separate brethren or be hostile toward a brother. I know the guys that run this site, and I love them with honorable, Christian, brotherly love.
As with any topic, some people like to discuss and consider differing opinions while some people just like to argue. I will not argue with any of you, but I will love you instead.
This is a great site with great comments, and I look forward to other great articles and discussions.
+10
Good on you. Yes, more debate and thought provoking commentary and questions are what I like. I don’t like arguing. I like to examine the other side of the coin, as that is how I learn. God bless you.
My experience with this, which goes back many years, is that anyone who believes in the sexual seduction of Eve has no choice but to go outside the Bible and use either babylonian sources, or sources or translations influenced by babylonian ideas to prove their case. By doing so, adherents to this doctrine implicitly admit that their doctrine cannot be proven by the plain words of the Bible. And that alone should give you pause to think.
You must believe that God failed to preserve the plain meaning of his word and law in the existing Bible. God failed, so you must look elsewhere.
Babylon is a byword for confusion and sin.
Take, for example, the allegation that the “eating” of the fruit is sexual. Well, the Jewish sources that believe this follow it to its logical conclusion, that BOTH Adam and Eve “ate” the fruit, and therefore, they BOTH must have been sexually seduced by the serpent. CI adherents don’t like that part of the babylonian legend, so they cherry-pick the part they find more palatable and ignore the other. And that’s just one small point, as there are countless others. You’ve been beguiled, as I was at one time. Humble yourself to the truth and let it go.
This guilt-by-association stupidity, all hinging on belief (as opposed to fact) shows me that we learned absolutely nothing from the Reformation. Protestants condemned what they didn’t like as Roman Catholic belief, and the RCs did the same with the Protestants, even publishing the Index of Forbidden Books and a multi-step censorchip-in-advance system so they could never read them.
So fricking WHAT if information came from Babylon ? Dismiss everything that came from there and you don’t have a Bible at all.
Good essay and interesting read. Thanks again for the transcription. Just a few points…
The connection to Satan and the serpent still remains tenuous, as in this case the root word for serpent in Genesis 3 is irrelevant, because we have many examples of that word being referred to as snakes. Nothing more. The same applies across Greek and Hebrew uses of the word, as well as across New Testament, Septuagint and Masoretic texts. There’s just no reason to assume it’s not a snake, unless someone had an agenda prior to reading the text.
The dragon of Revelation is just that — A dragon. The Greek word used is a specific one, not referring to behemoths, leviathans or sea monsters from the Old Testament. It is a word straight out of Greek mythology, wherein they have a specific view of what a dragon is. A dragon often had serpentine features, and in many cases is considered to be a kind of serpent. In some cases dragons also had multiple heads, just like in the Revelation. When connecting the dragon of Revelation to the serpent of Genesis, no one bothers to explain its seven heads. In any case, there was a dragon by the name of Typhon, having many heads, spewing water from his heads, challenged the gods and was smitten to earth by Zeus’ lightning. Sounds a bit familiar, doesn’t it? Accomodation was common in those times, and the picture the prophecy wants to portray is a rebellious dragon, cast down from Heaven, not the snake in the Garden. Especially considering there is literally not one connection between Satan and the garden in the WHOLE OF THE BIBLE. Also in Revelation 12, Satan is cast down around Christ’s time. It’s very plain and obvious.
Regarding Ezekiel 28, I wish I could talk to Emry, as I think he might agree. Ezekiel 28:6 says, “Because you have made your heart like the heart of God”. What was Adam and Eve allured by? To be like God. The theme of Ezekiel 28 is a haughty king, aspiring to the place of God. 2 Thessalonians 2 speaks in the end times of this same thing, where man aspires to be God. Ezekiel 27 is the same event as Revelation 18. Read the two together and it’s very obvious. Ezekiel 28 is the judgement as a result of Ezekiel 27. In the judgement of Ezekiel 28, a kind of juxtaposition of wonderful poetry is made between a character in the garden of Eden, and the king of Tyre himself (verses 12-19). With all this in mind, the character in the garden in Ezekiel 28 is obviously Adam, who was cast out because of his knowledge. Looking to Revelation 18, the inhabitants of Mystery Babylon are about to be cast out from eternal life because of their knowledge/haughtiness when Christ returns, just as Adam was cast out from eternal life because of his knowledge, being separated from the tree of life. Point being that Ezekiel 28 is not referring to Satan.
Then why in Revelation 20:2 is the Dragon equated with the Serpent?
“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years”
And same with Revelation 12:17, the Dragon refers back to Genesis 3:15 (“enmity between the seed of the Serpent and the seed of the Woman/Eve”):
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
The dragon doesn’t refer back to Genesis 3. In order to interpret it that way, one must already have the view the serpent of Genesis 3 is Satan. There is no other witness to this view in Scripture, even when Genesis 3 is explicitly referred to. The logic is circular; the serpent is the dragon, because the dragon is the serpent, because the serpent is the dragon. Christ was the first Teacher of “Satan theology”, and He did not mention anything of “the serpent”. The view Satan was in the garden is a MASSIVE stretch.
To make this more clear, in the Greek in the Revelation, “serpent” is in nominative case, so it is not “that old serpent”, as referring to the garden, but rather “ancient serpent”, as a descriptor for the dragon. There should be no definite article in relation to “the serpent”, as your translation says, “THAT old serpent”. It is misleading and inaccurate, because the translators already believe the Genesis 3 serpent to be Satan. In other words, the dragon is an ancient serpent. This fits the description of a dragon in Greek mythology. A “dragon” in that mythology is a very specific thing, which does not exist in the natural world, but only in mythology.
Angels do not eat the dust of the ground. Angels do no guard their heads against our feet. We do not bruise Satan’s head. Christ does not guard His heel against Satan. Even so, we might accept a metaphorical interpretation if the following weren’t true:
1. We can see the curse against the serpent naturally play out in the world in natural snakes. They slither and when one is at your feet, you will likely jump ten yards into the air. There is enmity between our seed. If you see a snake in the garden, will you not do all you can to remove it, lest it bite your children who play there?
2. We know how Satan is defeated. He is overpowered by Christ, and by Michael and his angels. At the end, he is thrown into the lake of fire. This doesn’t fit with the curse of Genesis 3.
3. Revelation 12 and Daniel 8:10 (along with all Daniel 8-12) place Satan’s fall beginning some few hundred years before Christ’s birth, and at the time of His birth. How could Satan have fallen before the garden? Who would he deceive or accuse in Revelation 12, if no one existed? He is placed in God’s counsel in the book of Job, Zechariah 3 and even in Luke 22:31.
Again, the Genesis 3 serpent being Satan makes no sense. The Genesis 3 serpent being a snake makes complete sense. To see it any other way, you simply have to want to see it that way, as opposed to seeing what the Scripture is plainly saying.
Interesting, Johan. Concerning “Satan” in the OT, according to “An Encyclopedia Of Religion” (ed. V. Ferm, 1945), the ancient Hebrews (pre-exile) had no concept of Satan, stating, “In pre-exilic Hebrew thought, the concept of Satan was entirely unknown. The absolute monotheism of normative Hebrasim, affrimed that there was only one power, one God….He was the creator of both light and darkness, the source of evil as well as good….Contrary to conventional tenets of official Hebraism, evolved the figure of Satan, patterned after the Zoroastrian power of evil, Ahriman….[prior to this] Satan had never had any place in the theology of normative Hebraism.”
And thus there is no concept of a supernatural Devil in the OT, despite there being a few examples of “demons” and “spirits”. The concept of Satan was brought into the Bible via the return from Babylon, and the NT translations using that term “Satan” reflect that influence. A better term would be “adversary”…..
Certainly in the OT using “adversary” might be technically correct, however Christ transliterates the Hebrew word for “adversary” (Strong’s G4567, although the NAS concordance specifies the transliteration; Strong’s concordance entry doesn’t make a lot of sense IMO), giving it proper noun status. At least that is how the Greek is written. This means although the scribes and lawyers at the time had no idea of this entity, Christ is literally connecting Satan to the OT. In all the gospels Christ is the only one who ever uses the term “Satan”.
Knowing the proper timing of the fall of Satan perfectly explains why all of a sudden demons were of interest to them. It’s not that they brought the religion back with them, but rather that these phenomena suddenly became apparent at that same time. The terms they used shows even more the influence wasn’t Babylonian necessarily. The word for demon (Strongs G1140 or G1142) comes from a Greek pagan concept, even appearing in secular Greek writings. The prince of demons for them was Beelzebul (Matthew 12:24), which was an Ekronite/Canaanite god appearing in 2 Kings 1. We know that the gods of the nations were not gods at all (Psalm 96:5). So they all had incorrect beliefs about what was going on around them.
It’s understandable they rationalized this way because they simply had no way to explain anything which was going on. This may help to explain Christ’s grace and accommodation in dealing with their understanding of fallen angels and Satan, even while talking to Pharisees. Note His subtle correction when He is accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul. This is apparent in all synoptic gospels in Matthew 12:26, Mark 3:23 and Luke 11:18, unless He is paraphrasing them as in Matthew and Luke’s accounts. He simply calls him “Satan” instead of “Beelzebul”.
There are other witnesses connecting Satan to the Serpent. Satan, in the NT, is repeatedly called the “father of lies”. Who, but the serpent, is recorded as telling the first lie?
Maybe the physical snake was not Satan in the flesh, but Satan likely had entered into the serpent like he did with Judas.
Connecting the lie of the serpent to the “Father of Lies” may sound good on paper, but it’s a tenuous connection. The idea cannot progress past it simply being an idea. The idea can’t move into the realm of Scripture, because there is no Scripture to support it. One could only propose the idea as conjecture. This is how most of the traditional Satan theology works.
Not only is he the Father of Lies, but Satan is also a sinner from the beginning. Sin entered the world (kosmos/G2889) through Adam (Romans 5:12), so then how could Satan’s sin predate Adam? We have no Scriptural record of sin existing before the world/kosmos, so why should we assume that it did? If Paul says sin entered the world/kosmos when Adam sinned, why would we assume sin existed at any other time except when Paul says it did? We would assume it did if we already held the view that it did.
Satan then is the Father of Lies, but he was also a sinner from the beginning. Putting these together, how could he have lied through the serpent? Does the Scripture at any point ascribe sin to the serpent? It doesn’t, even when the event is explicitly referred to by Paul. On the contrary, it ascribes sin to Adam and Eve. The serpent did not sin, because animals cannot sin. He says to the serpent, “Because you have done this” (Gen 3:14), but He says to Adam, “Because you disobeyed My command” (paraphrased Gen 3:17). We even have Scriptural witness of animals suffering penalties for wrongdoing, although animals do not sin (Genesis 9:5, Exodus 21:28).
Satan was also a murderer from the beginning, but Cain was the first murderer. Who was there to murder before the earth existed? In 1 John 3:12, it says “Cain, who was of the evil one”. That “one” is added, and we even have witness in John 17:15 that the same words in Greek don’t mean “the evil one”, but rather it’s John’s own way of referring to evil generally. John even gives Cain motive in 1 John 3:12 when he says, “Because his own deeds were evil, but his brother’s were righteous.” Why should we assume the motive was anything other than his own evil, as John says, unless we already wanted to believe it was something other than what the Scripture is plainly saying?
This all is why I believe that trying to put Satan’s fall before the garden of Eden is an effort to make the Scripture say something other than what it is saying.
Great point, Johan. If sin entered the world first with Adam, then so-called “fallen angels” could not have created non-Adamites through sexual intercourse, as many two-seedliners contend. They claim God did not create other “peoples” because they are not “good”; therefore, they claim they must have been created by an entity other than God, i.e. “fallen angels”. But this sinful act of creation would have pre-dated Adam’s sin. Incredible lengths they go to to disprove what the early Hebrews knew–that only God has the power to create–good and “evil”.
Romans 5:12 says that sin entered through one man (which isn’t gender specific, this could be referring to Eve, or Adam, or someone else).
Regardless, Romans 5:12 has nothing to do with the lying serpent and whether the serpent was under the control of Satan (or a Satan) or not. The act of lying isn’t a sin unto itself. The Holy Spirit has driven men to lie for righteous reason multiple times in scripture (David’s lie to Ahimelech, Abraham’s lie to Abimelech, Joseph and Mary likely had to lie about their identity when living in Egypt).
Connecting Father of lies to sinner from the beginning and then saying this can’t pertain to the serpent in the garden because sin was not directly imputed to him is, in my opinion, an even bigger stretch then just simply connecting Father of lies to the first liar (because the act of lying isn’t inherently a sin).
The connection I was trying to make isn’t one that says “Satan is the first sinner,and the first sinner is the serpent” but rather than “Satan is the father of lies and the serpent told the first lie”.
I’m completely open to the idea that Satan at the time of Eden was acting as an adversary to Adam/Eve under the command of God. Just like Jobs afflictions and tests from Satan was official Godly business. If that’s the case,then Satan lying wouldn’t have been a sin under any stretch of the imagination. But, I can’t prove that. It’s just a thought experiment to decouple lying and sinner, because the two, while commonly correlated, are not inevitably linked always.
One other potential witness placing Satan’s influence in the garden is 2 Peter 2:4. I believe that Peter was structuring his argument in a chronological manner in 2 Peter 2:4-8 which would put the sinning angels in a pre flood time frame. Granted, this specifies neither what their sin was, nor precisely when it happened, but it predates the flood.
I’m also just trying to read what the Bible says and take it plainly. I’m open to Satan’s fallen influence not being in the garden (which I don’t think was physical, but spiritual). But, I want to be sure. I’m open to Satan’s influence being there, but in an un-fallen state. I’m open to Satan not being there at all (but, admittedly, this just seems to have the most questions of all. Why would a normal snake, and animal want to decieve Eve. A normal, good snake from God’s good creation. I’m open to the snake having it’s good purpose being the fall of Adam for the glory of Christ, but I haven’t seen any reference to this in scripture at all).
The snake was punished for lying to Eve. I believe the point that a sin is not necessarily a lie is a red-herring in this case. The fact is, God did not approve of what the snake did. If the snake was capable of sin, then it was a sin.
To reiterate a previous point, the discussion of Satan in the garden can only happen in the realm of conjecture. It can never enter the Scripture. The discussion of Satan not in the garden, but rather falling later, can completely happen within the realm of Scripture.
Also there’s no need to conjecture that 2 Peter 2:4 is chronological. We have solid examples of the fate of angels being cast into the pit in the gospels (Luke 8:31). Also we can see in Revelation 9:11 an angel which was already in the pit. Isaiah 24:21-22 speaks of a future time, that the host of heaven would be confined to prison. The time of Christ was exactly that future time. It was a future time from Isaiah, not a past time from Isaiah. Again, when seeing the actual time of their imprisonment, there’s no need for conjecture, because none of the Scripture is confusing.
Your first stance was:
“Satan then is the Father of Lies, but he was also a sinner from the beginning. Putting these together, how could he have lied through the serpent? Does the Scripture at any point ascribe sin to the serpent? It doesn’t”
vs this stance:
“The fact is, God did not approve of what the snake did. If the snake was capable of sin, then it was a sin.”
So, do you believe that the serpent sinned or did not sin? If its point one, then connecting only via father of lies is a valid case for the serpent being influenced by(or being) the Satan. If its point two, then the synergy between father of lies and sinner from the beginning (which doesnt imply pre-eden imo. It also doesnt have to imply fallen, is it possible angles can sin and not be cast out of heaven immediately?) becomes an even stronger witness for the serpent being either the Satan or being under his influence.
I also think that Paul’s words in Romans 5:12 cant and shouldnt be taken as “Adam’s first sin brought sin into the world”, therefore no one else sinned first except for Adam. This cant be true from a chronological perspective (Eve/Serpent (potentially)) sinned first, then Adam. BUT, because Adam was the head, he was in charge, God ascribed the blame of the sin to Adam (just like God blames ancient Israel’s sin on the wicked kings). I think Paul choosing to say “sin entered through” instead of “sinned first” is actually really important. Adam obviously didnt transgress first, but he was the first owner of the situation to allow it to happen and go un-rebuked.
I also see and understand your points relative to timelines in Isaiah’s prophecy, i currently dont have an opinion on them. But, i dont think angels started sinning AFTER the fall, i think they sinned before the fall too, or, at least, the Satan did.
In Rev 13:1-2, its made clear that the dragon preexists the rise of the beasts. He already had power, a throne, and great authority. And then, when Rev 20 reveals the mystery of who the dragon is, they say “the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan”. I understand your points for the words used for serpent in Rev vs Gen could be argued to be different. But, the only time indicator it gives relative to the dragon is “the serpent of old”. How is that not important? Otherwise, we have no timeline indicator for how old the dragon/devil is or how long he has been about his work. I understand your argument for how “that serpent of old” should be changed to “ancient serpent”. The issue i have with it is if you plop that into the sentence in Rev 20:2, it would read “and he laid hold of the dragon, ancient serpent, who is the devil and satan,…” It makes no sense. It doesnt fit. Its the same sort of thing other people do. They said “the translators had an agenda so im going to change the words around to read something else.”
Granted, there is certainly validity to that. With any translation youre at the mercy of the translators. But, when you want to change the translation because the translators are believed to be wrong, then we have to acknowledge that certain other people do the exact same thing, and we rebuke them for it.
I also understand your argument that the symbology used in Rev may have been an accommodation to the people of that time, and you used Typhon as an example. But, id like to point out that Typhon is more representative of the Beast that the dragon gives power to in Rev 13:1. Its the beast described as having 7 heads and 10 horns etc. The dragon is a separate entity that we dont get a physical description for. Using Typhon as accommodation for describing the characteristics of a non physical beast makes a lot of sense. It merely has to encompass and idea of what the beast is. But, there is no accommodation used to the describe the dragon, the devil and satan standing on the shore giving this terrible beast power.
I dont think we should be afraid of the idea of Satan existing in the garden. Im sure part of the fear is that if we agree that Satan existed in the garden, then we would provide fuel to the fire for those who believe in the serpent seed and that those who believe in the serpent seed somehow worship Satan (maybe im wrong, maybe there is no fear anywhere). Thats like someone saying “if you believe in the heliocenteric model, then youre worshiping the sun, and hence Satan”.
Finally, all the mysteries of the bible, the answer to them is Christ. Everything reveals Christ. Im 100% certain you agree with that. Believing that the Satan was in the garden doesnt detract from Christ in my opinion. It doesnt lessen His work. Id argue it strengthens His work and omnipotence.
But Adam didn’t know that Eve had sinned until after he ate the fruit for himself–only then were his eyes open, that is, only then did he understand God’s law and understand that both he and Eve had sinned, no?
— “So, do you believe that the serpent sinned or did not sin?” —
I believe the serpent did not sin, because it cannot sin. I’m purposefully contrasting those two positions in order to show that if the serpent/deceiver was capable of sin, then it would have been sin.
Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world [kosmos], and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned”…
— “I also think that Paul’s words in Romans 5:12 cant and shouldnt be taken as “Adam’s first sin brought sin into the world”, therefore no one else sinned first except for Adam.”–
I think that’s literally, exactly what it is saying. The chronology between Adam and Eve specifically isn’t important, because it is accredited to Adam by Paul. The act committed by Adam brought sin into the world [kosmos]. Therefore, if sin entered through Adam via the serpent drama, then sin prior to that was not possible, whether Eve was mislead first or not.
It’s probably worth noting — there is no reason to believe angels even existed prior to Adam, let alone sinned, as there is no record of either sin nor existence of angels prior to Adam.
— “In Rev 13:1-2, its made clear that the dragon preexists the rise of the beasts. He already had power, a throne”
The beasts came after the time of Christ as Revelation 12-13 and Daniel 7 makes clear.
— “The issue i have with it is if you plop that into the sentence in Rev 20:2, it would read “and he laid hold of the dragon, ancient serpent, who is the devil and satan,…” It makes no sense. It doesnt fit.” —
It makes perfect sense. In the Greek is says “the dragon” in accusative case, making the dragon the primary subject of the sentence. The presence of accusative specifically limits the scope of the sentence to the accusative, which is the dragon. In English, we could use “the” as definite article in relation to “dragon” i.e. “THE dragon”. It then says “the ancient the serpent” (“ho ophis ho archaios”). These are written in nominative case, meaning that they are describing the dragon i.e. It is the dragon which is the ancient serpent, not the serpent of the garden which is the ancient serpent. It makes perfect sense that the dragon is then ancient serpent, because dragons, even in Greek lore, are ancient and serpentine. It simply isn’t saying that it’s THAT same serpent in the garden. In any case, was the serpent in the garden ancient at that time? Did it somehow keep living so as to be ancient now? Or did the serpent act by Satan’s agency, meaning that Satan isn’t the serpent regardless? Especially considering lack of Scriptural witness, even where the event and serpent are explicitly mentioned, it just makes no sense that the dragon is the serpent from the garden.
— “But, when you want to change the translation because the translators are believed to be wrong, then we have to acknowledge that certain other people do the exact same thing, and we rebuke them for it.” —
I think the translation is fine, honestly. I’m only going there to further highlight the pre-existing logical problems with equating the dragon with THAT serpent in the garden.
— “I dont think we should be afraid of the idea of Satan existing in the garden.” —
I only fear basing my own ideas on extra-Biblical sources and conjecture. At the end of the day, the idea that Satan even existed before the garden is just conjecture. It is inherently cyclical, like making an accusation with one witness; the dragon is the serpent because the serpent is the dragon because the dragon is the serpent. The conjecture might be upheld, if not for the existence of Scripture which directly refutes it. So not only is it conjecture, but it goes against too many witnesses of the Scripture, all of which can only be overcome with more conjecture, because the entire idea is upheld only by itself.
— “But Adam didn’t know that Eve had sinned until after he ate the fruit for himself–only then were his eyes open, that is, only then did he understand God’s law and understand that both he and Eve had sinned, no?” —
Interesting way of looking at it. Although God specifically says, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’”. The event seems two-fold, in that their consciences are seared, knowing good and evil, but there was also a basic disobedience just prior.
Johan, I was wondering if you could explain why believing in two seedline is bad for Christians, and specifically why it’s bad for identity Christians? I think this would be really helpful to directly address this issue….
Thanks for the reply.
I definitely appreciate your input and passion on the topic.
Im open to Satan having no part in Eden, but the arguments presented just dont make it clear to me (great arguments regardless). It seems like we just both have a different criteria, or list of things we need(or needed) solved in our hearts and minds to determine if he was there or not there.
At the end of the day, only Christ saves.
— “I definitely appreciate your input and passion on the topic.” —
Appreciate your willingness to comment and engage as always.
— “Johan, I was wondering if you could explain why believing in two seedline is bad for Christians, and specifically why it’s bad for identity Christians?” —
At least when it comes to the Finck/Christogenea version, it creates a false, anti-Christ gospel, saying that all Israel is saved regardless of what they do. That’s the biggest and most critical problem. Salvation requires the believer to show their faith by works of the Spirit and to be sanctified of practicing sin in this life.
Dual-seedline must necessarily explain away all verses exhorting Christians to live pure lives, turning them into a teaching on Satan’s seed versus the woman’s seed.
Generally speaking, and less critically, I believe the view just doesn’t make much sense in terms of the Scripture. Christians may come to a knowledge of truth of salvation and Christ without a perfect view of the Scripture, so this is not such a big deal.
For all those who are willing to join, though, I appreciate hashing out the Scriptures so that they may make sense for all. I believe if one has a view of Scripture which makes sense and is consistent, it is that much easier to “always give answer for the faith in us”.
J Polk…..
My experience with Bill was that he justifies immoral marriage because Eve was not a virgin because she had sex with the devil.
That should show anyone the length he will go to justify sin.
‘Because Eve and Adam did (sexual immorality) so can we.’
I’m not suggesting all ‘serpent seedline’ adherents take this position; but specifically Bill did.
To add to Johan’s point about all Israel is saved and the Christogenea version of it:
My biggest issue is that Christogenea’s theology tries to claim that all pure whites are Israel. And that “nations” only refers to Israel in the NT and sort of discards the rest of the adamic peoples. The picture is painted that if youre born with white skin, youre saved because all modern day whites (and even mostly all whites in Christ’s time) are Israel. I dont think this is accurate, nor do i think it can be proved to be accurate.
I am still trying to nail down precisely what “all israel is saved, but not all Israel is Israel”. I dont think the Christogenea interpretation is correct, at least not in the sense of it exclusively meaning jewish usurpation.
Im stuck between these two
“all Israelites are saved, but the entire body of Christ’s bride Israel is not only Israelites but also repentant nations who fear God”
vs
“Christ’s bridge Israel is saved, but not all Israelites are a part of Christ’s bride Israel”
I lean more towards the first because Paul was talking to adamic non Israelites nations during that epistle, but, i bounce between the two.
John,
God sees the end from the beginning. He knows who will “endure to the end to be saved”.
It is these who are “all Israel”. The Remnant.
“many are called, few are chosen.”
Those who have been written into the Book of Life. Those who are “written in” are those who ‘endure to the end’.
God knows exactly who will endure and who will not. Those who do are “all Israel” as it relates to those specific peoples.
My two cents.
When Paul says, “and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written”, there is a rather simple prophetic context in which it is being said. There is a final cycle of Israel’s apostasy, punishment, revival and redemption which must occur, beginning with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
This is why the book of Daniel and even many authors refer to this time as the “end times”. In terms of what is required prophetically, all times after Christ’s ascension are “end times”, because it is the last cycle and will be the last redemption of Israel. This cycle is taking a lot longer than anyone, and probably even Christ Himself, expected. This much is obvious. It is fitting though, that it might be fulfilled in Daniel 12:1, “And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time…”
Since the end of WW2, the white nations are in an unprecedented 75 years of peace. This is incredible in the context of Europe’s history, all the while the nations scoff at the true Israel with intensifying fervor. But it says in Psalm 123:4, “Our soul has had much more than enough Of the scoffing of those who are at ease, And with the contempt of the proud.” And in Zechariah 1:15, “But I am very angry with the nations who are carefree; for while I was only a little angry, they furthered the disaster.” Then in Isaiah 59:18, the very same prophecy Paul quotes from in Romans 11, it says of the nations, “According to their deeds, so will He repay: Wrath to His adversaries, retribution to His enemies; To the coastlands He will deal retribution.”
Paul speaks of this exact same thing in Romans 11:25, “For I do not want you, brothers and sisters, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”. He continues in verse 31 and says of Israel, “…so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.”
When Paul says, “and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written”, he is referring to a prophetic moment in time, which is the final remnant of Israel, the 144,000. When he says, “just as it is written”, he is not only referring to Isaiah 59, but the same pattern presents itself repeatedly across the prophets, especially in Isaiah. In Romans 9:27, Paul is quoting Isaiah 10:22. Read all of Isaiah 10 and you will see exactly the same pattern playing out, where Assyria is the type for the nations who oppress Israel.
So then “all Israel will be saved” makes perfect sense in the prophetic context, even as we see in the Revelation. It is not a doctrinal statement.
There are many instances in scripture where the phrase “all Israel” is used, and it is almost never used literally. For example, “And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.” (Joshua 7:25); “Moreover, if he be gotten into a city, then shall all Israel bring ropes to that city” (2 Samuel 17:13); “And thou, my lord, O king, the eyes of all Israel are upon thee,” (1 Kings 1:20); “Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died.” (1 Kings 12:18).
There are innumerable examples of “all Israel” pronouncements, and it would be foolish to take this phrase literally. Those that take “all Israel shall be saved” literally do so to comfort themselves that they have nothing to fear from God simply because they are born White, but there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in that day for those that are foolish enough to take this phrase literally.
Johan and J Polk…….
Great insights and thanks for the contribution!
Johan, this is a fine study you have shared. Its so off my biblical view and yet I find it compelling in its observations and deductions. I repent. Please could you help me to understand why a serpent can talk. Also we know serpents do not eat the dust of the ground and certainly are not crafty beyond the rest of the animals. Do you have any thought you might share as I feel it was this difficulty which led to the confusing of the serpent with Satan by theologians. Much Obliged.
Well, I’m now pretty mystified: instead of being any wiser, I feel more confused than ever…
Who created the other bi-peds of the planet? God? If Satan didn’t have sex with Eve, and is not a creator, and did not create Cain, then that must, according to Emery, mean that God created all the other bi-peds… the blacks, browns, yellows, reds, and the jews… is that the long and the short of what Emery is saying? Coz if Satan did not create through sex with Eve, then God must’ve created them all. And… that means… If God created all the other “peoples” of the world… to my mind it must have been to deliberately pit Adamic Man against all of His other creations in some kind of giant battle for supremacy: White Man VS The World!
I am not too sure about being just a “follower” of God, rather than a “Son” of God. I thought that was what made Adamic Man special in God’s eyes… coz we white blokes and sheilas are actual sons and daughters of God. Being some kind of spiritual brother of J.C. sounds a bit black jive, yo.
I can see what Emery is saying, but him saying the trees aren’t people is a bit wide of the mark. And, unless I misunderstood, he said that Lucifer is Satan… but anyone can read that Lucifer and Satan don’t have anything to do with each other.
Any ideas anyone? God Bless!
They are simply beasts created by God. The law speaks against copulating with them, so who is man to accuse God, when God gave explicit warning? Why is homosexuality possible? Could God not create some other biology, making these things impossible? Is anything beyond Him, or does anything escape His notice? The vessels of destruction will corrupt themselves with all manner of sin, whereas the vessels of mercy will be pure and not sin.
“…….in some kind of giant battle for supremacy: White Man VS The World……..”
We are witnessing this very thing right now!
Christ Is King, Emry is not saying that if just anyone “believes in Jesus” that you become of “child of God”. He knows that God created the Adamic/Israelite bloodline as his children, but he does not believe, like some CI heretics believe, that you are born saved because you are born White. If you believe you will be saved just because you are White, then you have no need for Christ. And my personal experience has been that those who believe that “doctrine” are among the least Christian people, in their conduct, that you will ever meet, especially how they are quick to abuse their fellow White people who don’t agree with their heretical doctrines.
Johan, Westwins, and Hendrick Lamb, thanks for your replies.
I studied and thought, and studied some more last night, and I can see what Emery is saying now. I was always of the opinion that the serpent satanic seedline was what was going on… but now I see that satan can’t be a co-creator. I read half of Charles Weisman’s seedline book last night and I have to say it made a heap more sense to me than I could make out of Emery, even though they seem to be saying the same thing. I found Weisman’s here for freeeeeeeee…https://archive.org/details/WhatAboutTheSeedlineDoctrine
So with that being said, I think I finally get what Emery is saying, annnnndddddd it makes sense. I shall keep studying! Certainly, it has given me something to ponder: for me, it is a new way of looking at the Bible.
Well done, Christ Is King! I had to go through the same growing pains, moving into the unseen realm of faith. It took me awhile after buying into two seedline before I could see it for it was, that is, idolatry of my seedline instead of Christ. As Johan stated, there are those born of Adam and those who are not, and that’s all the “seedline” you need to know. That is “mankind”. It truly simplifies the Bible. No need to consult Jewish sources to understand that–the Bible needs no other witness.
Good to hear. I should say though, the worst part of dual seedline is not it’s view of creation, but rather it’s view of salvation.
Christ commands obedience and purity in each Adamite, which is the fruit of our faith in His work, the fruit of the Spirit and our love for Him. The Scripture and especially the New Testament speaks extensively and intensively on what is expected of us. The New Testament is even stricter than the Mosaic law in some ways. But we must read it as commands and exhortation to us, not as some convoluted narrative about dual seedline. The dual seedline doctrine tramples down lessons of life to justify itself.
All the Finckites or Finck-bots smear Charles Wiseman as a “Jew” because he soundly refuted their arguments with logic. The reality is that Wiseman was no Jew. He was a White man of German descent who lived in Minnesota and ran one of the longest running CI private publishing companies in America.
He worked tirelessly to get the word out, and by all accounts of those who knew him, he was an honest, quiet man who kept to himself and provided for his small family. Over years he worked, mostly prior to the internet, he did more to spread the truth of CI than Finck or any of his minions ever did. Don’t let them fool you with their slander–unlike Finck, Charles Wiseman was a good, moral man and a good Christian.
Hear, hear!
“…….And my personal experience has been that those who believe that “doctrine” are among the least Christian people, in their conduct, that you will ever meet……”
And mine as well. I have shared part of my story in other posts. I was a judeo-christian for most of my adult life. For the first half, I was an OSAS “christian” with absolutely ZERO power. Caught up in all kinds of sins; horrible attitude etc., etc. And pretty much all the “christians” around me the same.
Then towards the end, I came to the realization that OSAS was “another jesus” — 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.
Long story short…………………….I discovered the “Jewish Question” and ultimately that led me to Identity. However………….my first experience with Identity was following a bunch of people who believe in “All Israel Will Be Saved” which is basically the same thing as OSAS — once saved always saved.
There is literally ZERO “fear of the Lord” within these peoples.
“….In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ…….” 2 Thessalonians 1:8
Notice — Two types of people are here described.
Is this not what Jude was speaking to???!!! Changes the Grace of our Lord into Licentiousness.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Your implication — that people expert in Hebrew are the very people who should be ignored on questions concerning what something in Hebrew means — is absurd on its face.
They also know that God created the world. Does that mean that Christians should reject that idea too ?
Belief and fact are two different matters. That you apparently can not distinguish one from the other says everything about you that needs said.
BW, let’s unpack this. One, the Jews who originally translated the Masoretic text did not translate the Bible into its original Hebrew–just a “close” approximation of what they thought it was. Hebrew had been a dead language for at least 1,000 years by that point. The “Hebrew” spoken by so-called “Jews” today is not real Hebrew–it’s a patois, like Yiddish. If you have to hear what real Hebrew actually sounded like listen to a native Gaelic or Welsh speaker–that’s the closest thing we have to it today as a living language.
Judaism, as most honest rabbis will tell you, comes out of Babylon, and it has nothing to do with the real Torah. The Talmud is a refutation of the Torah or real Bible. Their interpretation of Genesis is like everything else in the Talmud — full of occult, babylonian mysticism, like the kabbalah. That’s why real Bible adherents, Christians, should not trust the Judaic interpretation of the Bible.
Read this essay, please, about the identity of the Jews:
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-jews/
People always hide behind the “in dispute” claim. Witness the election results controversy going on now.
[quote=”earlychristianwritings.com”]Origen mentions the Book of James . . . (this) shows us that the book is as old as the second century. To collect later references to it is unnecessary.[/quote]
The book is as old as any Christian writings are, and an irrefutable proof of what the EARLY faithful understood the text to imply (mean).
It would be surprising if this Satan-Eve-Cain doctrine was NOT in early Christian writings, since it was the dominant theology in the pagan Roman world. That it persisted with early Christians isn’t shocking. Paul struggled with the early churches to convince them to give up many of their false doctrines. No doubt, the “traditions of the elders” included this idea that Eve was sexually seduced by the serpent.
On the other hand, there was also an obvious racial understanding of the New Testament in the writings of the early church fathers–that it was only for Israelites and related peoples, but over time that truth was censored and hidden while the Eve-Satan doctrine persisted, and given who controlled the Catholic Church, this should surprise no one.
Serpent was satanic creature a fallen angels, his name was Nachash. There is a books of Adam and Eve, the whole story is there, how satan was always after Eve, same as jews-satan descendants go after our women. In the book of Adam and Eve, even after they leave the Eden satan didn’t stop going after Eve and once even after Adam, because Adam confronted him, but YHWH God helped Adam and showed satan true face, it was black. The word “Nachash” means enchanter, magician, he could change his look to a beautiful creature. Adam confrontation with Nachash – satan was very interesting what satan told Adam as follow; … “I will make your descendants to kill each other and to go to war after each other till they gone from the Earth’… I believe that the book of Adam of Eve is genuine and that one sentence is making more believable, pointing to the JEWS that they are the SATANIC seed as Jesus YAHSHUA Christ said in many words.
I’m amazed how people are seduced by extra-Biblical sources. Then they go back to the Bible and try to make it fit with those sources. Put the Bible first, and let it be the glasses through which you see all else.
The word used for serpent in Genesis 3 means snake. Why do people say it means magician, not even bothering to substantiate the claim? As if saying it makes it true? Do our people’s ears itch so badly they’ll believe anything they hear?
After this exercise conducted by CFT, transcribing Emry’s essays, I know more than ever that this is an entirely extra-Biblical view, which is witnessed to by the adherents of that same view.
To make things worse, the dual seedline view proceeds to corrupt the gospel of Christ, teaching that belonging to a certain seedline brings about salvation, instead of being sanctified from sin and keeping our Lord’s commandments.
The two seedline argument cannot be made without extra-biblical sources. What does that tell you about it? That the plain language of the Bible does not support it.
Note two things here. One is that Judaism has always understood Eve’s seduction by Satan literally. Consult any standard reference work they publish, such as the Artscroll Tanakh series volume on Gen. 1-9.
That the Christians ALSO understood it this way is proven by the Protoevangelion (sometimes Gospel) of James, a work widely cited by the earliest Christian writers. I.e.,
Chapter X
And when her (Mary’s) sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the virgin grown big.
2. Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the LORD my God? or, what shall I say concerning this young woman?
3. For I received her a virgin out of the temple of the LORD my God, and have not preserved her such!
4. Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the virgin from me, hath defiled her?
5. Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me?
6. For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her.
7. Just after the same manner it has happened to me.
From this the actual sense the term “seduced” was ORIGINALLY understood to connote is self-explanitory.
Sheldon Emry addressed the issue that some so-called “early Christians” believed that Eve was literally seduced by the Serpent in Part 1 of this sermon–and he quoted sources showing that there was already concern among early Christians that this Babylonian idea had already worked its way into early Christian groups. In other words, because it was believed by some early Christians is not proof that it is legitimate. Other early Christians didn’t believe it. And using a disputed apocrypha to prove your point shows why it’s disputed in the first place:
https://christiansfortruth.com/what-really-happened-between-eve-and-the-serpent-in-the-garden-of-eden/
I’m sorry to have to say, but I found an exceptionally good website, from a clear follower of Christ in Brother Charles. He has already done a 4 part post on what really happened in the Garden of Eden and the crime, committed by Adam & Eve was not as simple as what you are promoting. For them to have been removed, from the garden, took a lot more than simply disobeying the law.
Eve copulated with Satan (Sammael the leader of the angels). And through this copulation was born Cain, who murdered Abel. What is worse is that it is also believed that Sammael didn’t just have his way with Eve, but also with Adam. It was their degenerate behaviour, their depravity that got them booted out of the Garden of God.
More so, with you will find that Brother Charles, does a lot of research and found the following in the Aramaic Targum. Of the Targums, Brother Charles states:
“Those of you not familiar with these writings, the Aramaic Targums are ancient Jewish writings dating from around the time of the Jews captivity in Babylon, so this means they date from around 550 BC. In general these writings are blasphemous in their content and I would not recommend them to Christian brothers and sisters at all. Having said that, we cannot conclude that everything written therein is error, for Truth can be found in the most unlikely of places, for example, in the caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. OK, so here is writing number one:”
“And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And she said: “I have got a man from the angel of the LORD.””
And here is writing number two:
“Targum Onkelos THE TARGUM OF PALESTINE IV:
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Hava (Eve) his wife, who had desired (lusted after) the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, (from) the angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, (superfetation) even Habel (Abel). And Habel was a shepherd of the flock, but Kain was a man working in the earth.”
The more you read from what Brother Charles has written, in his excellent website, you will see just how much people have been deceived, none more so that Roman Catholics, a false religion that hides the truth about what is actually written in the bible. This is not down to bad translations, no, far from it. What we have here, is clearly the bible, translated from the original with an agenda to follow. As Brother Charles states in his post on Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden, Eve was the mother of ALL living, but Adam was the father of MAN. This is very, very, very important. You will also find out that in Ancient Hebrew ‘hu’ means serpent. Therefore Eve was the mother of man and ‘hu-mans’ (serpent-men) whereas Adam was the father of ‘man’. It is most likely those who translated the bible, those Romans, were freemasons and serpent seed hu-mans. Brother Charles will also tell us, in other articles, that the Romans are Canaanites.
The last place to look for the truth, about the bible, is the KJV.
The truth is out there, but you just have to look for it.
Brother Charles is quoting sources that come out of Babylon–that’s why they believe Eve was physically seduced. And the fact that they also believe that Adam was physically seduced shows how babylonian (Jewish) these sources are–and thus cannot be trusted or taken seriously.
The Hebrew translation of the OT and Aramaic targums were done by Jews who believed that Eve was seduced by the serpent so naturally they would use Hebrew words that would convey that idea–a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not trustworthy at all.
J Polk,
Brother Charles, as stated, has written a 4 part summation on Adam & Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. The quote of the Jewish Targum, is a minimal part of his reply and only used to back up, what is actually written in the Hebrew bible, not the KJV, which holds out much of what SHOULD be within the bible.
You can choose to read, what Brother Charles has concluded and thus come to your own conclusion or, from what I can see, sadly dismiss it, due to Brother Charles’ quoting of the Jewish Targum. All I will state is, it is a detailed investigation into what is actually written and translating words and hidden meanings, to what most people today would expect.
This Brother Charles is a fool if he believes the Romans were Canaanites. Paul would not have written an epistle to racial Canaanites–only Israelites or Adamites. If you believe that, you don’t understand the Bible at all. Sounds like “Brother Charles” is either a Jew or someone who trusts jewish sources. Either way, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
If Brother Charles believes that the Romans were Canaanites, he really needs to go back to the drawing board and start all over again–he’s completely lost.
ganymede,
The Romans, are the progeny of Canaan, the son of Ham’s incestuous relationship with his mother Naamah, daughter of Lemech. They are not, for example, of Shem or Japeth. It is many of the European peoples, who are of Shem, thus the real Shemites, who are the descendants of the House of Israel, also being of Shem.
And being Canaanites, does not make them Jews. Sure, the Canaanite Jews are such, because they are firstly the progeny of Judah and an Adullamite (Canaanite) woman named Hirah, as well as being from the Roman province of Judea, but the Romans are not of the House of Israel, thus none of them could ever be Judahites and/or Jews.
But then, it’s clear Ganymede, that what I’m dealing with, on this forum are the KJV adherents, theologians and people from their various ‘Christian’ religious denominations, most certainly including Catholics, most again swear by the nonsense within the KJV bible.
I suggest that if you’re going to understand Christianity, you go to its source, instead of the corrupted teachings of the KJV bible, nothing more than Chinese whispers, of Chinese whispers of the deliberately false translations of the Romans, most certainly to cover up who and where they came from. Nero, for example, was very much believed to have, in fact, been a Canaanite Jew, hence his hatred of Christians.
No, Mark, no one here is a King James only adherent. Nor are there any Catholics. If you bothered to read the articles under “Core Topics” or under “Faith” category, you would see just how wrong your impression is.
The gospel of Christ was meant only for Israelites and related people/kindred (Matt 15:24). The so-called “gentiles” is a mistranslation from the Greek “ethnos” which simply means “nations” which refers to the Genesis 10 nations and the kindred nations down through Jacob-Israel. Christ came to regather them. And Paul’s ministry was to the non-Judean Israelite/Adamite peoples/nations, and no others. His epistle to the Romans is prima facie proof of who they are racially, just as the Corinthians, Thessalonians, and the Colossians.
Nero’s wife was a Jewess, and that’s where his hatred of Christians came from.
You missed the entire point of Emry’s thesis–that all sources that claim Eve was physically seduced by Satan are traced back to babylon–and to prove Emry wrong you quote more babylonian sources. Reading comprehension issues here?
Adamsjohn,
What does it matter if it goes back to Babylon? I’ve already proposed that people should read what Brother Charles has written in his 4 post reply on what happened in the Garden.
Why does it say in 1 John 3:12 (Young’s Literal Translation) “not as Cain — of the evil one he was, and he did slay his brother, and wherefore did he slay him? because his works were evil, and those of his brother righteous.”?
also
(KJV) “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.”?
Again, if we look at Genesis 5:3 (KJV) “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.”
Now why did Moses write that and not “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a(NOTHER) son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” if Cain had actually been his own?
As stated above, nowhere in the bible does it call Adam the father of all living. It calls Adam the father of ‘man’. Eve is known as the mother of all living, because she gave birth to man and ‘hu’-man. She created the line of man and the line of the devil human (serpent man).
The Serpent seed was born, when Eve copulated with Satan in the Garden of Eden. The line of Cain was thus created and of this line came the Jews. As stated above, read Brother Charles’ 4 part post on this. I do not wish to continue down this road as the many questions you may have will be answered should you care to read from the link provided above.
As for the word Hu, Hu is also an ancient serpent god of the British and represented by the image of the snake. Albert Pike says that the Lost Word of Masonry is concealed in the name of the Druid god HU. The lost mystery of freemasonry is also in the story of Isis and Osiris in that when Osiris was murdered, he was cut up into many pieces. Isis searched far and wide and found all the pieces except his PENIS. And what does the penis look like? What is it referred to? In freemasonry, the obelisks represent Osiris’ penis – the snake. The snake/serpent/dragon all represent Satan, right back to the Garden of Eden.
Mark, there is a reason that the Bible calls Adam the living father of “Man”. It’s deliberate. Adam was a unique creation — we know there were other “people” on earth prior to Adam, after all, where did Cain’s wives come from? Pre-adamics. Those pre-Adamics are not to be considered “man”. As Emry pointed out, Genesis clearly refers to “beasts of the field” who can talk, walk, etc. These are not “Man”. Only Adam and his descendants are considered “Man” or “mankind” or “Adamkind”. The name Adam comes from the Hebrew “ah dam”, meaning “to blush” or “rosy” or “ruddy”, so you know what Adam looked like.
There is a good reason why Adam is not called the father of all living beings — because he’s NOT.
Read Leviticus 18:23, it clearly forbids sexual relations between an Israelite and a “beast” (non-Man), “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”
Clearly this is a reference to “race mixing” as we would consider it.
John,
Thank you and yes I agree with you. We are both on the same page with Adam. And yes, it is clear that the Mongoloid, the Negroid and the Australoid are most certainly NOT the same race as man, but a different one altogether. All one has to do is look at the skulls of black people and Australoids and they will see that they are vastly different to the skulls of man. It doesn’t matter, how long your family line goes back, it will NOT alter the skull shape, one bit.
The Darwinian theory is therefore nonsense, because we are all supposed to have come from black men in Africa, yet were that the case, why are there still black people on this earth, if we’ve all evolved? Why are there still monkeys, if we came from them?
The whole lie is, the white people ARE NOT of the African negro or the Mongol people, whatsoever.
Mark wrote, “What does it matter if it goes back to Babylon?”
In the context of the Bible and ancient history Babylon is virtually synonymous with sin and confusion, symbolized by the Tower of Babel.
Babylon is the anti-thesis of the ethos of the Christian Bible and God.
Babylon is where the anti-Christ occult religion of Judaism was first created.
That’s why it matters. That’s why Christians should reject any babylonian influences or sources, because God rejected it. And Christ rejected babylonian teachings, aka, “traditions of the elders”.
It sounds like Brother Charles is very selective in what sources he considers truth and not truth. He calls targums evil, then rationalizes that truth can come from it, so long as it agrees with his view? There cannot be any rational discourse with such logic.
Funny, Bill Finck does the same thing. Excoriates Jews as perpetual liars and then turns around and quotes the Talmud and the Masoretic text when it supports his arguments like two seedline. But the two seedliners have no choice but to do that because without jewish sources, they can’t make a “persuasive” argument for two seedline. Caught between a rock and a hard place.
Can you provide some examples of this? Go back to Bill’s criticism of Ted Pick, still up on his site, saying people should spend more time studying the bible and less time the Talmud and the Masoretic text. So clearly inaccurate, at best.
Chris, please go and reply to my comment showing clearly Kenites aren’t from Cain. I would truly appreciate it. Here’s a link for your convenience: https://christiansfortruth.com/israel-to-create-new-holiday-to-celebrate-hundreds-of-millions-of-hispanics-worldwide-with-jewish-ancestry/#comments
I will be witness to what ganymede has said. If you don’t notice it, it means you don’t want to notice it. That’s the problem with following a man (Finck) and taking what he says for granted. I say this for your own benefit.
“If you don’t notice it, it means you don’t want to notice it”. That is not an honest comment which can only mean one thing. I tend not to go back to old posts as I’ve have a fair few deleted and reading the comments on that page draws a clearer picture. Bearing false witness is your choice just ignore ganymede’s inaccurate claims above.
Chris, some of your comments weren’t posted for reasons that we specifically stated–they were either off topic, or they linked to general doctrines about two seedline without addressing any specific objections to Emry’s thesis. And we will continue to not post comments of anyone who do not follow these rules. We encourage commenters to stick to the subject at hand, otherwise these threads will go off the rails very quickly based on our experience with this material.
And if you cannot refute Emry without bringing in other “expert” opinions on the subject, we would suggest perhaps that you do not understand, nor can you defend, views that you hold for yourself.
https://christogenea.org/podcasts/addressing-charles-weisman%E2%80%99s-what-about-seedline-doctrine-part-8-fallen-angels-and-giants
Finck affirms Babylonian myth as truth, in the creation of Tiamat. Then he has affirmed even Babylonian myth as truth, because it suits him. He even adds Babylonian myth to the creation account, adding to the Bible. Not only does he take extra-Biblical sources, but he even adds them to Scriptural narrative. Does he accept all Babylonian myth as true then? No? Then he is cherry picking from paganism and extra-Biblical sources, just as ganymede said.
Therefore I have not given false witness, as you so accuse me. My witness is true, and so is ganymede’s. Now all may see who you are then, who condemns the innocent so casually.
— “I tend not to go back to old posts as I’ve have a fair few deleted and reading the comments on that page draws a clearer picture.” —
A bald-faced cop-out if I ever saw one.
In any case, are you saying CFT would censor our discussion? Indirectly you slander the CFT editors of wrongful censorship on their own website, and they even approve your comment, slander and all. CFT have placed their back before you to walk over. Do you then see them as taking their rightful place before you? Is this how you usually operate? Do you then take a persecution complex back to the Finck?
This poor behaviour displays your emotional connection to Finck. I suggest you sever it, and renew your connection with the Lord Jesus, who is waiting at the door, if only you will let Him in. Unfortunately that viper Finck has barred the way with his anti-Christ doctrine, “all Israel is saved”. Did you read how Paul said in Galatians 5 that even an outburst of anger may bar one from the Kingdom?
“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” (Hebrews 10:26-27)
For your own sake then, bear fruit worthy of repentance.
Chris, just a sincere, friendly word of warning from someone who knows….Almost all of Finck’s oldest adherents and supporters are gone from his forum/community. They’ve either left on their own free will or been banned by him. People who supported him financially for years have been thrown under the bus and slandered as “Jews” for crossing him.
And if you stay there long enough, I guarantee, the same fate awaits you if you dare challenge him and his minions on any of their pet doctrines.
Anyone who disagrees with Finck is “the enemy”, and he’s adept at creating the “us verses them” environment. But the second you question any of their ideas, you will be banned and slandered. He encourages sycophants not free independently thinking Christians. That he allows you to participate in his forum is proof you haven’t dared step out of line yet. Yet.
“…….That he allows you to participate in his forum is proof you haven’t dared step out of line yet. Yet………………”
Bingo. Great comment and observation.