I’ve gotten more emails on this topic than I can shake a stick at, so I’ve decided to blog it and then just direct people to this post in the future. I don’t know who started this on the internet-probably one of those “I found secret knowledge about the Bible” people who start followings in cyberspace. At any rate, he wasn’t anyone who knew anything about the Bible, the Dead Sea scrolls, or the other material I’ll touch on.
Cain Fathered by Satan or a Demon?
Though there are by no various expressions of it online, the nonsense goes something like this.
What really happened in Eden (Genesis 3) was that Eve was seduced by the serpent (whose name was Sammael), they had sex, and produced Cain (Genesis 4). This is why Cain was “marked” by God later on-God hated him since the serpent was his father. The Bible covers all this up since its editors removed it. Thankfully, the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve it. That’s just one reason the scrolls were kept from the public for so long.
Hogwash.
Here’s the truth about this particular web gem. I’ll unpack each point briefly.
1. Genesis 4:1 was NOT found among the textual remains of the Hebrew Bible among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is important to realize that much of the biblical material from Qumran is partial and fragmentary. Only the book of Isaiah can be said to be virtually complete (99% of it was found at Qumran). There are portions and scraps of every other OT book except Esther. Genesis 4:1, the account of Can’s birth, is not in the Dead Sea Scroll material. The closest you get is Genesis 4:2-11, which is 4QGenb or 4Q2 (read, Qumran, Cave 4, Genesis “b” – that was the name given to the fragment – also called Qumran, Cave 4, no. 2 by other researchers). This fragment was published in volume 12 (pp. 36-37) of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD) series (Oxford University Press – the official publisher of scrolls material). The fragment is IDENTICAL to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible used today. Therefore, the Dead Sea scrolls don’t preserve this weird view of Cain’s lineage. Readers can check on what I’m saying through two relatively inexpensive sources:
- David L. Washburn, A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Sbl – Text-Critical Studies, 2) (Sbl – Text-Critical Studies, 2)
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002) – this resource lists all biblical passages found among the scrolls, in the order of the Hebrew canon, so it’s easy to use.
- Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English
(Harper, 1999). You need only turn to Genesis 4 to see the first verse is missing. Marty and Peter, two of the editors, are friends of mine (we live near each other, and both have been down here to my office). They are Dead Sea scroll experts.
2. Since we already know the name doesn’t occur in the biblical scrolls (the point above), I thought I’d look for it among the other scrolls material – sometimes the other material has commentaries on the biblical material. A computer search for “Sammael” (or the alternate spelling Samael) yields ZERO occurrences in the non-biblical texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is more proof that this “account” is not only absent in the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls; it isn’t present in the scrolls that covered other subjects besides copying and commenting on the Hebrew Bible. You can watch a video of me doing this search so you know I’m not making it up. (Turn your speakers up and use high speed – it’s 29 MB).
3. I knew that I wouldn’t find the name Sammael or Samael in any of the scrolls. The name does occur among the Pseudepigrapha. The video I made above includes this search and its results. Sorry, no sex between the serpent / Sammael and Eve. Boring, I know. Outside the name Sammael/Samael, n some pseudepigraphic material (4 Maccabees 18:8) the serpent gets blamed for all sexual sin, but that’s a lot different than fathering Cain.
4. Some rabbinic material does have the devil fathering Cain. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has this idea. Here’s a brief video of me looking this up an explaining the reading [You can check my translation by consulting the English translation of Targum Pseudo-Joanathan at this link. This translation, though, does NOT have the variant that includes Samael]. The other Targums do not have this reading. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is dated by Aramaists at roughly the sixth century A.D., or between 1500-2000 years AFTER Genesis was written (the date range depends on when one thinks Genesis was written). The Talmud relates a story that Yonatan ben Uziel, a student of Hillel (roughly contemporary with Jesus), fashioned an Aramaic translation of the Prophets. That translation is considered by some to be Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. However, the story makes no mention of any translation by him of the Torah, and so it cannot be argued that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis 4:1 is as old as Jesus’ day. The sixth century A.D. is all the evidence allows. Targums can be very elastic translations, adding material quite freely with no Hebrew manuscript evidence at all. Everyone who does Aramaic knows this about the Targums-they can play pretty fast and loose with the text of the Bible; they INSERT all kinds of things into the translation, without regard to any prior textual manuscript history for support. IN plain language, the Targums often add made up material to the biblical text. Having Samael in Genesis 4:1 is a classic example – it was added at least 1500 years after the fact, and no other prior ancient Jewish material supports it.
Cain Fathered by Extraterrestrials?
Laurence Gardner, that pseudo-ancient text researcher of Jesus bloodline nonsense fame, wants Eve and Yahweh to be the ones having sex-or, “more realistically” in his mind, to have the extraterrestrial god known as Yahweh (who is really Sumerian Enki) genetically implant his DNA in her. In an online lecture on this topic Gardner (largely parroting Zecharia Sitchin) says:
Conventional teaching generally cites Cain as being the first son of Adam and Eve – but he was not; even the book of Genesis tells us that he was not. In fact, it confirms how Eve told Adam that Cain’s father was the Lord, who was of course Enki the Archetype. Even outside the Bible, the writings of the Hebrew Talmud and Midrash make it quite plain that Cain was not the son of Adam . . . Around 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve . . . were purpose-bred for kingship by Enki and his sister-wife Ninkhursag. This took place at a ‘creation chamber’ which the Sumerian annals refer to as the House of Shimta (Shi-im-tA meaning ‘breath – wind – life‘ ). Adam and Eve were certainly not the first people on Earth, but they were the first of the alchemically devised kingly succession. Nin-khursag was called the Lady of the Embryo or the Lady of Life, and she was the surrogate mother for Adam and Eve, who were created from human ova fertilized by the Lord Enki. 1
In regard to how the book of Genesis tells us Cain was not the son of Adam and Eve, Gardner has this quotation in his book about the birth of Cain. Let me go on record as saying this is one of my favorite Gardner quotations, only because it’s a crystal clear example of how Gardner DELIBERATELY misleads his readers, likely because he hates Christianity so much:
“In the opening verse of Genesis 4, it is written that Hawah [Eve] said, I have gotten a man from the Lord’. Other variations are I have got me a man with the Lord’ and I have acquired a man from the Lord’.”2
Gardner’s quotation creates the distinct impression for his readers that Genesis 4:1 contains ONLY this line about Eve saying she “got a man from/with the Lord.” It’s an incomplete citation, though-and you’ll see right away why Gardner wouldn’t give you the rest of the verse in his book. Here’s the whole verse in Hebrew and English (I have given the English and the Hebrew matching colors so you can follow the translation):
It’s easy to see here how Gardner only gave his readers the second half of the verse – omitting the part that explicitly says that ADAM “knew” Eve (a common sexual euphemism in the Bible) and so fathered Cain. How convenient. How self-serving. How dishonest.
Again, it’s just PaleoBabble.
There is a website devoted to the “prophet” William Branham, the main proponent of the “Serpent Seed” doctrine. The website is visually appealing (uh-oh) and addresses several OT and NT subject areas– incl. but not limited to: e-schatology. You might want to give it a look-see…just because. Googling the words ‘believe’ and ‘sign’ will surely lead you to the miasma it is. Trivia piece: Mr. Branham’s detractors could number near those of Mr. Sitchin?
Debra: “Thanks” – nice word, “miasma”! Just perfect.
While you are right that dating targumic material is tricky, isn’t 1 John 3:12 a pretty good indication that the belief that Cain was “from the evil one” could have dated to the 1st century A.D.? Certainly the late 2nd century Greek Protevangelium of James, 13:1 can talk of the serpent not only deceiving but also defiling Eve. And Tertullian (2nd-3rd century), in Against Heresies 2, can talk of a belief circulating that Cain and Abel were both conceived by angels, even if Tertullian himself didn’t believe this.
Could this sordid interpretation of the Fall colour Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2:14-15?
Chet: In order: (1) I would like to think readers of 1 John 3:12 would actually go back and look at Genesis 4. If they did, they’d note the ABSENCE of the evil one in the narrative of Cain’s conception and birth. But then again, how many people really go check at what the Bible actually says (or doesn’t say)? I guess it’s possible someone could look at 1 John 3:12 and come up with such a wacky over-reading, as long as they didn’t care what Genesis 4 said. (2) Yes, these sources can put the idea (or at least its ingredients) in these early centuries after Christ (and of course, a good 1200-1300 years after source critics would date the early Pentateuchal sources – even later for those who reject JEDP). I didn’t dispute that, though.
I’ve noticed you continually point the questioner to gen 4 insinuating that people don’t read it.I read in Gen 3 where the sin actually takes place,that Eve replies to God that”the serpent beguiled me and I did eat”she is speaking of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden.If you do not believe that she is speaking of being seduced by the “nachash”,please explain what fruit could have the effect as written in verse 7″the eye’s of them both were opened,they knew they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together and made aprons.”Aprons cover what part of the human anatomy?also in verse 15 of ch 3 God states clearly that he will place enmity between The seed of the “nachash” and the seed of the woman.If there is no serpent seed or Cain is not the seed of the “Nachash” then how could he possibly do this?No sex between eve and the serpent means no seed to place enmity between.AS far as I know nowhere else in the bible is the Nachash written of in relationship to a human female.How is this seed created?Maybe you should read the bible more as a story being told and less as something that needs microscopic translation.Too much time in the microscope can lead to the big picture being missed.
I would also like to reply to your rather dismissive answer to Chet”if they did they’ed note the ABSCENCE of the evil one in the narrative of Cains conception and birth”.Well to you sir I can only reply that if you would only read chapter 5 of Gen you would note the ABSCENCE of Cain in Adams Geneological record.The abscence of Abel is easily explained he was murdered by someone Adam didn’t father.!
@Dale Gervais: pretty simple – this isn’t how the NT sees the passage, and the text never claims fatherhood for Cain in terms of the nachash. My approach is simple: I stick to what’s in the text. Maybe you should, too.
@Dale Gervais: The genealogies are selective in who they include — I suppose, though, that you’ll argue anyone omitted at any time has the nachash as a father. Whatever. Eve says she had Cain with the help of YHWH, not the nachash. Cain isn’t in Gen 5 because he wasn’t the father of Enosh, Seth was. It’s simply tracing a specific lineage; it’s not tracing every child / parent in every line.
great article ! i love it .. Thank for this.
@Grey: thanks
First i’d like to apologise for my tone,it was immature and gets us nowhere in a healthy debate.I do agree that the text does not claim the serpent fathers Cain outright.It also doesn’t claim Adam is Cain’s father.We have a problem.God plainly states that there are two seedlines,there must be to place enmity between them.Please could you explain whose seedlines?I read the serpents seedline and the womans Gen 3v15.there are only two lines that come out of Genesis3-6 adam/seth ????/cain I beleive as do many others that the serpent is the father of Cain.Proving that he isn’t is harder than proving he is.
@Dale Gervais: First some preliminary observations. There is no indication that the two seedlines are literal in terms of “hybrids” (i.e., the text says that there would be a seed of the woman and a seed of the nachash — not a seed of the nachash+woman). There is also no indication that the seedlines must arise in the very next generation. The NT interprets the seed who would undo the curse as Christ, who was millennia removed from the original promise. His line of course is traced through Seth and Adam. Lastly, if the serpent was the father of Cain, it makes little sense that God would protect Cain from death (and so his lineage; Gen 4:14-15). That has God preserving the evil line that would oppose his son, Eve’s seed. It’s incoherent.
My view is that the seed of the nachash = any who would oppose the people and plan of God. This is the way the idea is used later in the OT (Isa 14.29) and in the NT (John 8:44; Matt. 3:7; 12:34; 23:33; Luke 3:7)
I just heard another interpretation of this verse which I thought was novel and I would pass on… it has to do with the use of the work “ish” instead of the word “adam” for man in the verse in Gen 4:2… “ish” is also used for husband, whereas I do not believe the generic word “adam” ever is… and this interpreter said that Eve was saying that she recognized Adam was a husband to her (i.e. give her children)… so the verse would read “I have gotten a husband from the Lord”… husband referring to Adam rather than the child she birthed… Dr. Heiser, your comments?
@Ed Roberts: It makes little sense. It really makes Eve sound clueless. Since she and Adam were the only two people in the story, did she really need to learn this? I’d also want to know what this view does with Gen 2:25; 3:8, 3:20 and others where ‘adam and iyshah are both in the same verse and woman is “possessed” by the 3rd person suffix pronoun (i.e., the man and HIS woman – which means ‘adam is a husband there). In fact, in the very same chapter – Genesis 4:1, we have this same set of conditions: ‘adam and HIS wife. I’d say this has no legs at all.
The “sin” was not found neither in Eve’s mouth nor her hands taking the fruit, was it? Genesis 3:15 says a curse and when dealing with Eve there’s an increase in the pain. The sin was placed in the euphemistic “hips” which had to be covered. God didn’t consider the leaves were proper so gave them animal skin. All these suggests the sin was related to sex, uncommon sex. I guess the writers in the New Testament DID know something when they wrote about Cain’s SEED. There’s no sense of thinking God is blaming them for normal sex.
I ignore if the opening of the eye was a singular eye or plural eyes but it was after Eve got in contact with the hanashah. The whole episode of the birth of Cain was after the sin, like a consequence.
God accuses the snake “because you have done that”…What it did exactly? Snake/dragon said half truth. He said they would be like gods knowing god and evil and they did. Hence verses later God ADMITS that “they became like us” (ok ok it’s mayestic plural but the issue is the same). Then God goes on like saying “well, now they are going to get the (OTHER) fruit of everlasting life” and kicks them out of greenhouse Eden. I say half truth because snake also said they would live forever as something “per se” and we know that depended on obedience. So the snake said a lie through the truth.
Now, please if I am wrong, try not to be so hepatic in your replies rising your ego to stratosphere and just write the proper answer, mainly WHY is incorrect according to your opinion. Too much obliged.
Eve’s sin wasn’t “placed” anywhere – where does the text say such a thing?
BTW, Isaiah mentioned Lillith and goatmen creatures and Judaism links Lillith with Sammael or am I mistaken?
no, but Isaiah wasn’t quoting Genesis, nor was he talking about Eden, Eve, Adam, or Cain. Simple to look that up.
I guess it’s tough NOT to spin our view trying to fit it based upo we’ve learned since youth. Even for a scholar must be hard to get out of the brain cage with objectivity. Not only we ought to understand “Hebrew” but also check the proper translation of it but you won’t unless you know something of ENGLISH and other languages as well. There’s a feast translated IN THE SAME BOOKS as Chanuka or Hanukah. The reader is led to guess if that CH sounds as K as in chemistry, cherubim or CH as in cheese, achieve or H as in hot, ahead: 2 translations and 3 different sounds (phonema). Unless of course the reader SUSPECTS the book just repeated from another which was based upon askenazi or Medieval German in which the CH sounds like English H, Spanish J, Portuguese RR and Russian & Greek X. Do you follow me?
There’s something very weird in Genesis genealogy. When you read a certain name is translated as if “Jared” while other is so similar but “Irad” you won’t suspect anything. Unless you know that “J” was invented about 1.600 years after so-called “Jesus” by a French humanist named Pierre de la Ramée. You couldn’t ever suspect that letter “j” (jota) still has a dot like “i” (iota) because in the Middle Ages the people turn the tail of the “i” like a “j” and therefore it was put after that letter in the alphabet (..f,g,h,I,J). Hence how would you know the real reason why Jews whenever they please use the letter ‘yod’ and others ‘iod’.
When you check Genesis genealogy I suspect there’s something a member of the Christian churches won’t ever know unless he goes beyond his sCHeme. The names of the fathers in Cain’s lineage is almost the same as Seth’s fathers but inverted. There are names that you wonder if it’s ENOCH, ENOK, ENOC OR ENOSH or is it the same? We have a couple of Lamech, Lamek? One lives 777 years while the other from the other list is avanged with a number 77 or 77 generations or whatever explanation. This is a code playing letter numbers that Jews won’t share it so easily.
Even Spielberg knows Yahweh is using Greek letter Ypsilon and Indiana Jones shouldn’t ever use Jehovah either. That H was Greek HETA the sound like ETA as in set, let, wet) but how would you suspect if that letter in your glorious English is not mute? Hmm? First a Hebrew scholar needs to explain the conundrun in English: why ISrael and ISaiah use the letters I and S with the same sound as in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and so on while the EGYPTIAN goddess ISis sounds like Aysees?
In a nutshell: the gebealogy is important here because it deals with the curse given to the specific seed of the WOMAN related with the other one cursed with her, THE SNAKE. It was the snake the one who did something with her related to pregnancy, pain and euphemistic hips. Trying to deny that is like putting a finger to cover the sun.
And I have to confess it was aweful for me to accept the evidence because the churches give you superficial explanations.
there is absolutely no textual proof for this idea. I could care less what some rabbis said when they were tripping out on who knows what, or what some French esotericist says. The text is the source, and it’s absolutely silent (actually, opposed) to this idea.
I don’t know if I made myself understood or you’re a bit beating around the bush. When I talked about SIN is implicit because to sin is miss the target, the account is about something the hanashash did with Eve (beguield) and the NAKEDNESS was somewhere in the body, right? She became AWARE of her nudity. Where in the body was that nudity? Indeed in the “hips”. C’mon, can’t you recognize the relationship between nudity, hips, preganancy, increased of pain and the covering of “their” parts? It was not “just” about “eating” the fruit. The ‘fruit’ itself is other thing.
You haven’t answered me if Eve’s opened eye is singular or plural in this text. That could be revealing.
Of course Isaiah was not talking about Cain nor Adam. Yet my question was about the link between Lillith and Samael. Lillith was not mentioned in Genesis either but you know there’s a link with her as a sucubus and Sammael. I mentioned this because your argument was that Samael is not mentioned in the Bible but Macabeus and somewhere else. Now, whenever it pleases you I have read your do comments about other appocrypha so I don’t think we can ignore this.
The French Pierre de la Rameé was not esoterist, he was humanist. When you say the text is “silent” I don’t understand what you mean. The text is translated into languages like English or French. And when dealing with NAMES they have to be translated accurate. Whe you talk about the snake it’s written “hanashash” but when you speak it, the sound is not silent. For some reasons you have accepted you pronounce that SH (like Enosh) with a K so the question remains the same:> why on earth they aren’t clear and translate hanakash? It’s the same with the names of the genealogist, switching names of Seth and Cain lineage just to obscure the meaning in the translation. Why? Was it the mother’s side? The cursed one who had sex with Samael related with that Lilith Isaiah talks about?
Why would Rabbies invent something like this? Perhaps you need to open a discussion not about Leviticus 16 regarding the scapegoat left in the desert but Lillith identity, after all Sitchin is wrong and says she was a “lulu” mixed hairy combo.
This is sophistry. Give me the verse that says Eve and the serpent had sex. It’s simple. Otherwise, you’re reading the text through a filter that has been placed on it. Adam also understood he was naked after the two of them had sinned. Did the serpent have sex with him, too? Again, you’re imposing something on the text; show me where the text says Eve and the serpent had sex. it ain’t there, and anyone who’s read the account will see that.
About the Rabbies, well maybe they triped under the same Mamre trees where Abraham saw 3 angels and they kept using the same trees for centuries. Or perhaps was with the same Moses’ burning bush that could be gas plant Fraxinella with purple trees or perhaps not and was hallucinogenic Acacia (he learned in Egypt, right? the same place where the priests used blue lily imported from Greece or perhaps that “qanah” used with the incense taught from “above”…
more revisionist (read: imposed imagination) trash. You simply approach the text, remakes it as you want, and then ask others to see the profundity.
I ignore what happened with my other comment. I am not rude in my comments, I try to be objective and I hope I am treated with respect with the knowledge of someone like you instead of short whatever answers. I said apostle Paul clearly said Eve’s mind was corrupted. My question remains: how come that mind was affected? What part of the brain? Is Eve’s mind singular or plural in Hebrew in Genesis? If this comment is deleted, well, that would be the best answer you can provide.
“eyes” are plural in the text. Are you going to say eyes were another part of her body (I can hardly wait) that she had in the plural? And Adam’s eyes were also opened (also plural). “eyes” do not refer to parts of the brain (I’ll ask you for a verse on that, but you haven’t shown much interest in citing the text as it is).
The idea of the snake fathering Cain might make people feel better but the bible is clear Genesis 4:1 “Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.” New American Standard Bible.
Now I know this isnt the original Hebrew but all the authoritative translations say the same thing. Cain is the son of Adam and Eve, as pointed out by MSH in the original article. Since the bible text predate all other text on the subject it would seem to make that the end of the question. I would question why anyone would attempt to interpret the text in anyother way.
A reading of the bible, Genesis 3 seems to make the snake like a used car saleman, trying to convince Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
MSH, thank you for your insight.
you’re welcome
I’m sorry you are mistaken on this. The expanded oral traditions make it clear as do the Talmud and Christ himself that Cain was Fathered by the serpent who is the devil/Satan what have you.
I’m sorry, but I’m not – “expanded oral traditions” — I’m guessing you’re appealing to stuff that wasn’t written down — and so how would we know what that is??? More bogus non-existent data (otherwise known as vapor).
Oral tradition in the form of Midrash was more important to the ancient Israelites than the written word. They confined it to memory, reciting it for decades over generation and generation. They did it, knowing the written word could be tampered with. You should know this. Midrash is now available in written form as well. The Torah has numerous passages that seem not to make sense without the Midrash to further elaborate. Genesis 4:23 is another example. Without the midrash you would not know that Lamech killed Cain and Tubal Cain. Doing so in Cain’s 7th generation he extended the curse on Cain’s seedline from 7 to 77 generations. The Torah was remedial reading in comparison. Certainly not the be all end all. Again, you should know this. Next, as I said, there are over a dozen references in the Talmud to Cain being Fathered by the serpent, the serpent injected his filth in Eve, Eve copulated with the serpent etc. And finally, again, John 8:44. Christ tells the priests that they are of their Father the Devil… He was a murderer from the beginning… He’s telling them they are decended from Cain, the first murderer, they are from the Devil and of no relation to Abraham. It’s meant quite literally. Plenty non-bogus data to analyze if you weren’t hung up on the 19th century American views of the matter.
what’s nice about oral data is that it can’t be verified. Sweet.
Let us also consider that Eve didn’t say she got a man from her Husband either. She said the Lord. Like any Mother the child was a blessing. But, as soon as she “ate/partook” of the “fruit/knowledge of sin” God immediately lambasts the Serpent for what he’s done and says there will be enmity between his seed and hers. Where does the serpent get a seed from? From what he has done with Eve. And yes, Adam too. We are talking about the Devil here. Then, the matter of Adam getting Seth in “his likeness” to replace Abel whom Cain slew. Cain is not in Adam’s likeness nor in his geneaology.
All of which is in the text.
so, were all people not in Adam’s genealogy spawned by satan? Logic check, please. Are *you* in Adam’s line (through Noah) or Cain’s? Hmmmm.
Glad you’re posting all this here, since this is the place for paleobabble.
Furthermore, when they “ate/partook” of the “fruit” they didn’t chop off their hands for stealing or put a bag over their heads for what their eyes were open to or any such thing. Instead they understood their nakedness was uncovered. The same way Noah’s nakedness was uncovered. See Leviticus for uncovered nakedness. It refers to all manner of sexual sin. Adam and Eve covered their genitals because they commited sexual sin after being beguiled/seduced by the serpent. The entire thing is wrought with sexual overtones and it results in two seedlines. Cain’s and Adam’s. You’re refusing to see it.
I remember speaking with you a long time ago. Back when Sitchin’s croney was attacking you for only being a Phd candidate. We spoke privately a couple times on the matter of Annunaki and Nephilim. You claimed you had your own theory on what they are. Although I never got to hear what that theory was. I think you referred me to something you had written. None the less, you seemed much more open minded then. I would urge you to reevaluate this position. There is much more that points to Cain being Fathered by the Serpent/Satan/Nachash/Lucifer etc. than not. And, certainly more that points to Cain not being Adam’s son than anything that suggests he was.
For anyone reading these comments, you gotta love the collective logic behind them:
“Hey, someone had this thought about Cain and told it to others [oral transmission]; it must be true.”
Right.
Ive already demonstrated plenty of written information that can be analyzed and deduced. My last two posts in fact. You have your blinders on and would rather resort to smart ass comments than yield to the possibility that you are wrong based on the information I’ve provided. That makes you as bad as Sitchin’s people and a hypocrite.
The idea you put forth is nowhere in the Hebrew text — how simple can it be? Show me where the Hebrew Bible puts forth the idea that Cain was fathered by Satan. I want the textual data. This is basically your last chance to do so. I’m not interested in continuing to waste time arguing about vapor-data.
MSH-so, were all people not in Adam’s genealogy spawned by satan? Logic check, please. Are *you* in Adam’s line (through Noah) or Cain’s? Hmmmm
Yea hmmm? I believe Christ answered that in the parable of the sower. It’s impossible to tell anymore. Let the wheat and the tares grow together and God will sort them out.
you miss the point. Whatever. So, the “tares” are literal spawn of Satan? Yeah, that’s apparent from the text.
Let us also consider that Eve didn’t say she got a man from her Husband either. She said the Lord. Like any Mother the child was a blessing. But, as soon as she “ate/partook” of the “fruit/knowledge of sin” God immediately lambasts the Serpent for what he’s done and says there will be enmity between his seed and hers. Where does the serpent get a seed from? From what he has done with Eve. And yes, Adam too. We are talking about the Devil here. Then, the matter of Adam getting Seth in “his likeness” to replace Abel whom Cain slew. Cain is not in Adam’s likeness nor in his geneaology.
All of which is in the text.
Furthermore, when they “ate/partook” of the “fruit” they didn’t chop off their hands for stealing or put a bag over their heads for what their eyes were open to or any such thing. Instead they understood their nakedness was uncovered. The same way Noah’s nakedness was uncovered. See Leviticus for uncovered nakedness. It refers to all manner of sexual sin. Adam and Eve covered their genitals because they commited sexual sin after being beguiled/seduced by the serpent. The entire thing is wrought with sexual overtones and it results in two seedlines. Cain’s and Adam’s. You’re refusing to see it.
I remember speaking with you a long time ago. Back when Sitchin’s croney was attacking you for only being a Phd candidate. We spoke privately a couple times on the matter of Annunaki and Nephilim. You claimed you had your own theory on what they are. Although I never got to hear what that theory was. I think you referred me to something you had written. None the less, you seemed much more open minded then. I would urge you to reevaluate this position. There is much more that points to Cain being Fathered by the Serpent/Satan/Nachash/Lucifer etc. than not. And, certainly more that points to Cain not being Adam’s son than anything that suggests he was.
I’ve taken the liberty of reposting what I already said to aid you with your comprehension problem. Everything in the above can be gathered and analyzed from the text.
you have one last opportunity to show me from the Hebrew Bible that it teaches Cain was fathered by Satan. What you offer here and elsewhere doesn’t say anything like that — you are allegorizing the text toward your point (i.e., bending it to your will). I’m not interested in esoteric allegorizing. The biblical text was given to clearly communicate theological ideas to the Israelite community, not encrypt some set of weird ideas for the religious elite — thereby creating a system that has no objective grounding (i.e., applying real rules of language interpretation, like grammar and syntax, to a text to elucidate — not de-encrypt — its meaning). With allegorizing approaches, there is no boundary to ANY interpretation. I could do what you’re doing in such a way to have the Israelites turn out to be a race leprechauns. I want to see the text.
You also seem to forget that the only reason people get to read your nonsense is because I approve it. My approval of it gives meaning to your otherwise useless content. Show me something exegetical, or your 15 minutes of fame on the blog are over — start your own. Your current stuff will of course live here forever for all to read and judge for coherence.
@ MSH and Cain,
MSH wrote: Hey, someone had this thought about Cain and told it to others [oral transmission]; it must be true.”
Right.
The same could be told about the entire Bible because it is written.. I am not sure neither the scripts or oral tradition can be taken too literally..
By example, the reason given as for why Cain kill Abel. To me even God’s condemnation to Adam and Eve look s against nature: they had sex.. big deal.
In the same token, I am aware ofthe theory that the elihim (MSH) could had been supernatural beings ( I truly don’t know) but i find it strange that in the same token, MHS does not believe Cain was fhatered by the devil (whatever devil or serpent are translated.
This said after reviewing the arguments displayed, I cannot take side, it relates to the question of faith in God and others supernatural being (devil, elihim), which i do not share.
As for sitchin, I do agree, too many arguments (MHS) against this theory and its good MSH put a stop to this nonsense. However regarless how much Sitchin theory is wrong, it does not maker the bible more true but rather more of a myth.
created with men by God
no, big difference. A huge difference between one random thought trajectory that didn’t stand the test of time, and that isn’t based on a textual tradition transmitted by the community to whom it belongs over millennia. The fact that thought A and thought B both exist does not give them the same merit.
explanatory note: I don’t mean any offense by displaying my lack of religiousity but it seem to me that religion (God) has been used as a form of propaganda weapons to valididate wars and also helped keep people obey rules to a god or supernatural beings that are/were just not there.
Looking back at the greek or even the romans, their wars were made in order to loot and obtain riches which did not belong to them and they attributed success or failures to the whims of the Gods. Slavery was usually the faith of people loosing these wars and of course most slave would condemn or curse the victors. It is true to this day.
I am very much sure someone could compare the US empire as a beast with many heads and each time you cut one head, another one to replaces it…Nixon , Reagan, Clinton, Bushes, Obama… a lot of people would disagree the US is a beast, but it is being demonized anyway by the countries that fell under this power.
What if one day some scribes would annnex the holocaust to to the religious texts? what version would be acceptable? How far could someone accept the new historical annexion as being dictated by God? how far would the political ramifications reaches?
The bibles can be a good source, reconstructing historical events but I very much agree like Finkelstein we cannot take it too literally…
As for Christ himself, his god appears to me a completely different God than the one in the old testament.. I do not agree people should accept their suffering , their sickness, their slavery and remit their pain where it does not belong. I am stunned as slavery as a crime or a sin appear to have been accepted as if this condition was an act of God..
Thus I sympatise more with the like of Spartacus and people who rebel agaist opression
Than Christ who tell you to accept it. If I had live in the time of Jesus, I would have chose rebellion..
@ MHS and al,, small correction I wrote eliphim where i should had wrote Nephilim: I would do a poor scribe..
🙂
This has been for me a very educational thread with some uncommon discernment expressed. Scripture is replete with language that requires “he that has ears, let him hear” or “it will be revealed in the fulness of time”, or such like. Wisdom often requires the meaning of controversial scripture be masked so that only the desired audience would understand. There are those who might be threatened by such truths who would bring powerful influence to bear to change or delete scriptures like the ones in question here. They have had troublesome books like the Book of Enoch that explains fallen angels, Nephilim, and their return (during the coming Great Tribulation) removed from canon and/or destroyed to protect their satanic interests. This will be important knowledge for the seven years of tribulation that’s coming up.
I don’t really think the issue is settled. There are so many things that have to be taken into account, and I don’t think any one person can do it. First of all, before we even get into the issue of whether the Bible is to be taken literally or whether God has concealed the truth to let the faithful elect fill in gaps themselves, we have to remember that there is no perfect Bible (no, God wasn’t lying when he said he’d preserve his Word, because the Word refers to Jesus Christ not some manuscripts). If we are to believe the apostles, the early church, and most importantly, Jesus Himself, we have to jettison the Masoretic text in favor of the Septuagint. Granted, the LXX does not shed any more light on this particular issue but I am hilighting the possibility that the truth may just not be completely revealed in whatever manuscript you’re consulting. Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, their validity has been called into question as they contain some gnostic writings at odds with orthodox doctrine. The fact that they have been kept away from the public only adds to the speculation. Yes the DSS agree with the Masoretic in places, but from what I understand, in certain core areas of doctrine they mirror the LXX over the Masoretic. Either way, it is possible that the LXX and Masoretic are based on different source Hebrew texts, I’m not sure where the DSS fit into that though. This is just one issue to point out that there’s so much more to consider than to essentially say, “I personally cannot find evidence of Satan being Cain’s father in the KJV bible.”
I would definitely regard William Branham a false prophet but I don’t think this particular two-seeds idea should be disregarded simply because a con man happened to espouse it. Most successful false prophets espouse mostly truth anyway, that’s what makes them so dangerous. Anyway, having said all that, I find the two-seed theory to be plausible, and there are hints at it throughout the NT (wheat vs. tares, Jesus calling the Pharisees of their father the devil, etc.). Is this absolute proof? Maybe not. Is the issue settled as the blogger has asserted? No.
I don’t see the complexity. There is no support for the idea that Eve and Satan cohabited in ANY text of the Hebrew Bible known to humankind.
Genesis is a series of times. There is no continuity. Somehow people think that a, b, c etc .is Genesis. We don’t know the intervening time, and times. Could be a month, five years or a hundred years. NO TIME,is allotted. So why get all het up,over whether Eve had sex with one or the other, or was AI’d and no man was involved. with Jesus mother? “all things are possible with the LORD?” Or so they say! Anyway, who said there was such a thing as time anyway? Time as we knowit is different from a few thousand years ago anyway. A year here was 360 days, 270 days or365 days thatwe know of. Get it? Get over it. Man sinned, Eve was respnsible, or Adam, or Yahweh or Satan, or?? we are here.
MSH, in your reply to Adrian you didn’t even address some of his important points. He is saying that it might not be correct to assume the word doesn’t have layers of concealed truth. You seem to know your Bible well so you probably know the portions of scripture that seem support this idea. Your reply that its not complex makes it seem like you didn’t even read his post.
where is the text that supports Eve had sex with the serpent? Show me.
I agree with the author. Nowhere does the text of Genesis or the accepted canon of the Judeo-Christian Bible indicate that Eve had sex with the serpent, and both Genesis and the accepted canon state explicitly that both Cain (Gen. 4:1) and Abel (Gen. 4:2) were the offspring of Adam and Eve. Now, if we bring other texts or oral traditions into it, then it becomes a whole ‘nother story, but then again I could write a story right now and claim the serpent was really a kangaroo, the Garden of Eden was in Australia, and Eve and the kangaroo parented a dingo, however, that wouldn’t make my story divinely inspired, or even correct, and it certainly would not be a valid argument against what the text of Genesis ACTUALLY SAYS.
Even if certain oral traditions might claim that sexual acts between Eve and the serpent are what Genesis means, these oral traditions or stories are unverifiable by the very text they claim to be interpreting, which ought to raise alarms for anyone with a head on their shoulders.
In order to argue the serpent seedline the Book of Genesis must be rejected as unreliable, which means one would have to find a different ancient text which pre-dates the Hebrew story of Adam and Eve by which to base the argument on, and probably in the process of rejecting the account of Genesis (a book of the Pentateuch on which the rest of the Bible is based and claims to be divinely inspired) reject all Judaism and Christianity, which would pretty much make the entire argument null and void in itself.
If those belief systems are rejected, then there is no need or point behind a “seedline” because the very concept of the serpent seed being the enemy of mankind and God is, I believe, unique to the Bible, is it not? I thought most other stories involving the serpent saw him as a good thing? So why would there even be emnity or a need for worry concerning two separate seedlines then?
Besides, I don’t understand why people are so hot on the serpent seedline when the story in Genesis 6:1 is far more exciting and its story of angels mating with women and creating an actual separate seedline ACTUALLY DOES have internal support from the Bible in direct quotes from the Book of Enoch found in both 2 Peter and Jude.
I agree with the last post, i think the seedline with the fallen angels are more interesting, any blog about that? Also, I think the obsession with the compiled or as most scholars would say canonized books, OT, NT, Jewish or whatever should not be referenced as the be it end all of what truly happened in the past. This written story is just one way the story was recorded, whether it is divine or not is up to someone’s belief, and belief is always personal, thus it varies. The idea that we should all think alike or have the same belief will never happen as we are all different, unless of course if you are fanatical in your belief in the canonized book.
agreed; I think a little too much concern is placed on the canon question.
Michael, would you please explain why Cain and his bloodline are listed separately from Seth and his bloodline? It might seem that once God cursed Cain, it changed his DNA somehow. Thanks.
They have separate families, like me and my brother do. Why not ask why the 12 sons of Jacob have their own separate genealogies? Their descendants aren’t the same.
The curse on Cain has nothing to do with DNA; no one knew what DNA was until the 20th century.
Michael, my question, stated differently, is why does the Bible show a genealogy of Adam to Seth on to Jesus, while Cain and his genealogy are listed separately? We all have undesirables in our families, but we can’t simply saw that limb out of the “tree!” Thanks.
because the genealogies are selective by nature. Comparing Jesus’ genealogies to the OT genealogies shows that many names and generations were omitted. Matthew is picking three groups of fourteen (depending on how one counts) for literary symmetry. He doesn’t care about being exhaustive.
Mike and all,
I’m not going to say “Yea”, or “Nay”, but here’s an interesting study by Bob Schlenker, whom I’ve had the pleasure of being a subscriber of his for several years…
“Who is Cain’s Father? Part One” at http://www.theopenscroll.com/cainsPaternity.htm
Don’t say I didn’t warn you!
Joe
This view of the serpent having fathered Cain is very gnostic so to speak, at leats when you are
looking the nag hammadi library.. where there are references about Cain
The possibilities that Cain was fathered by Yehovah, Yaweh or supernatural beings instead of Adam bring dimensions to the Christian faith..
I spent some time reading the Nag Hammadi Library and if the Jesus saying are truly a good report, i was shocked that he believe the earth being flat….
if i got it right the Gnostic belive Yaweh, jehova , the elohims being lesser god that the god who created all; him being an usurper and that jesus lineage is from Seth and his father
a different lineage that Yawe..perceived as the demiurge himself. the serpent
http://www.gnosis.org/genesis.html
Can you give me the citations (book, chapter, verse) for what you note in the Nag Hammadi texts?
Gnosticism has no one set of cosmological beliefs. There are some core ideas, but there is also disagreement on details. In a nutshell, Gnostics believe the God of the Bible is evil. They refer to him as the Demiurge. They don’t really have a consistent theology of this sort of “Cain fathered by the devil” nonsense.
The name “Cain” occurs fifteen times in the Nag Hammadi material (using the Nag Hammahi library in English as the basis for that search). Cain is not said to have been fathered by Satan or the Devil. There is a passage that has spiritual beings talking about having sex with Eve (but not a serpent and not the devil). The following paragraph from the Introduction to the Nag Hammadi library illustrates:
>>
In 367 C.E. Archbishop Athanasius wrote an Easter letter that condemns heretics and their “apocryphal books to which they attribute antiquity and give the name of saints.” Theodore, by then head of the Pachomian monasteries, had the letter translated into Coptic, and “deposited it in the monastery to serve them as a rule.” There must still have been heretics or heretical books influencing the Pachomian monastic movement which made this act necessary. Of course many of the Nag Hammadi texts are indeed pseudonymous, that is to say, ascribed in their titles to some “saint” of the past. In another of the Pachomian legends one of “these books that the heretics write” but “give out under the name of saints” is quoted: “After Eve was deceived and had eaten the fruit of the tree, it is of the devil that she bore Cain.” The Hypostasis of the Archons in the Nag Hammadi library has a narrative that points in this direction:
“Then the authorities came to their Adam. And when they saw his female counterpart speaking with him, they became agitated with great agitation; and they became enamored of her. They said to one another, “Come let us sow our seed in her,” and they pursued her. And she laughed at them for their witlessness and their blindness; and in their clutches, she became a tree, and left them her shadowy reflection resembling herself; and they defiled [it] foully. — And they defiled the stamp of her voice, so that by the form they had modelled, together with [their] (own) image, they made themselves liable to condemnation.”
James McConkey Robinson et al., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (4th rev. ed.; Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 19.
>>
The Nag Hammadi texts contain passages where Adam’s fatherhood of Cain is assumed. Here is one from **the same book as the above passage–The Hypostasis of the Archons**:
Moreover they threw mankind into great distraction and into a life of toil, so that their mankind might be 10 occupied by worldly affairs, and might not have the opportunity of being devoted to the holy spirit.
Now afterwards, she bore Cain, their son; and Cain cultivated the land. Thereupon he knew his wife; again becoming pregnant [note the *again* here], she bore Abel; and Abel 15 was a herdsman of sheep. Now Cain brought in from the crops of his field, but Abel brought in an offering (from) among his lambs. God looked upon the votive offerings of Abel; but he did not accept the votive offerings 20 of Cain. And carnal Cain pursued Abel his brother.
James McConkey Robinson et al., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (4th rev. ed.; Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 165.
This is another illustration of why you should not believe what you read on the internet when people don’t give you citations of the actual primary texts. The Gnostic material is vague and not consistent in this regard.
Hi MHS, i was generally speaking; also of not the apocalypse of adam where their is allusion god conceived with eve and noneless allusions that Yavweh other name is Yaboath (sepent head) contained in the Origin of the world and the origin of souls, this to the general recollection of what Ive read from the Nag Hammadi library you courteously linked to your blog..
its rather interesting…
I presume you mean “Yaldabaoth” (as you note, another name for the Gnostic Demiurge). The name does not mean “serpent head,” though. Not sure where you got that. Yaldabaoth is lion-headed (“leontocephalic” in scholarly parlance). See “On the Origin of the World” 100:19-25 (Nag Hammadi Corpus II:5:19-25). The text reads: “Since that day there appeared the principle 15 of verbal expression, which reached the gods and the angels and mankind. And what came into being as a result of verbal expression, the gods and the angels and mankind finished. Now as for the ruler Yaldabaoth, 20 he is ignorant of the force of Pistis: he did not see her face, rather he saw in the water the likeness that spoke with him. And because of that voice, he called himself Yaldabaoth. But 25 Ariael is what the perfect call him, for he was like a lion.”
James McConkey Robinson et al., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (4th rev. ed.; Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 173.
Some scholars think “Yaldabaoth” is derived from the Aramaic yald (begetter) and abaoth (shortened from sabaoth, or hosts). It’s a best guess. Here’s an excerpt from an article:
“The term Yaldabaoth may be a combination and persiflage of Yah(weh) sabaoth. Or as Gershom Scholem suggests, the name may be based on the Hebrew and Aramaic use of the verb yalad, to beget, and therefore mean “begetter of abaoth”, where abaoth stands for sabaoth.”
hi MSH, what the expert seem to agree is that there is no mention of Cain lineage (not that it did not exist) but one lineage on Seth; would the lineage of Jesus come from Seth as claimed by the gnostics a descendant of Abraham as claimed ?
Yadalboath aapears to be composed it first come with yah, Yao Saboath aboath its rather confusing..there is even a Yatalboath with many face, a Yao with a serpent face with many heads..
see the apocryphon of john
In insight, the Naga Hammadi libray can be as confusing as the septuagint genesis with the Elohim, Elohims and other super natural beings
I do not see why these religious thinker could not keep things simple..
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html
Give me the citation from the Apocryphon.
Yaldabaoth (you misspelled it in the reply) does not have “Yah” as a morpheme (name part). The prevailing opinion is that it is yld + (ts)baot. Beyond that, no one has hazarded a guess. The first part seems pretty clear (a common Semitic term, kept whole), but the second (I agree) seems a bit strained.
And when she saw (the consequences of) her desire, it changed into a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had created it in ignorance. And she surrounded it with a luminous cloud, and she placed a throne in the middle of the cloud that no one might see it except the holy Spirit who is called the mother of the living. And she called his name Yaltabaoth
i saw Yaldaboath spelling..
ah – I see; lion-headed with a serpentine body (apparently). thanks!
yaldaboath is the spelling encountered the most, the yaltaboath in the apocryphon of john must be a typo.. it’s weird.
I do like the gnostic library that the only power mankind have is to be able to creates new soul but I do not like this phobia about sin as they believes these sins could be transmitted across generation.. if i recall judaism does not believe (contary to christians) that new born are born in sin…
the gnostics appears to have their own interpretration of genesis and the supernatural.. how humans were created according to these writings is kinda occult..
“d” and “t” are sometimes interchanged in ancient texts (they are both “dentals”).
Fascinating, but not very enlightening. Why have none of you gone to the people who hold to this doctrine and point out where THEY found/find their corroboration? Just a simple google search turned up this URL, from Clif Emaheiser: http://israelelect.com/reference/CliftonAEmahiser/studies/Two%20Seedline%20Taught%20in%20Dead%20Sea%20Scrolls-1.pdf
I think that, instead of arguing about semantics, one should look at the verses in context. Clearly, protestant eisogesis of Scripture is today coupled with what others are calling a “Yankee Supremacist’ frame of mind, that WANTS to see all hominids as ‘brethren’ and therefore, can’t even BEGIN to think of the thought that the Hebrew writers (Moses included) may have seen the “Chosen People” as….. well, CHOSEN! Until and unless we leave off our own temperocentric, multiculti mindsets, we can NEVER figure out whether or not there are ‘two seeds’ – even though Scripture clearly notes them.
Or this extended article.
http://christogenea.org/Gen614
If you are going to fight battles, at least fight with people who are learned, and THEN let us know what you two have decided!
learned? really?
You know, instead of avoiding looking at the sites, and calling someone an intellectual pygmy, honest wrestling with the data would be more appreciated by all concerned…..
so give me the passages in the biblical text so I can wrestle with them. Give me arguments grounded in grammar and syntax (that thing we call the text).
I don’t need to do that. ANY argument out of or pertaining to Scripture, is MORE than just the ‘chapter and verse.’ Any theologian knows that. To limit yourself only to what the grammar says, is the first error in anyone trying to learn a new langauge. I ought to know- I speak five of them (Living ones, that is) I asked YOU to comment on the work of those two folks, whose URLS I gave you, in oder to do that which you say should be done- rebut this theory.
You’re not arguing with MY views, but with THEIRS. I want to be enlightened as to where they have gone wrong, as much as most of the other commenters on this post, and, since you say they are not correct, I wonder if you are purposefully avoiding doing ‘due diligence’… either here, or at your latest post, which then won’t let people come back here and see what you either did…. or didn’t do. Please. I am sure that Mr. Finck or Mr. Emaheiser should be easy to dissect…..
ANY such argument MUST start with chapter and verse. Otherwise, it is outside the realm of theological authority by ANY tradition and the theological interpreter sets him- or herself up as the authority in its place. Experience and speculation does not trump the text in any Jewish or Christian tradition I know of, east or west. Usually, theological traditions try to triangulate those things. The due diligence on this is owed by YOU, not me, since I have made it clear what I want to see and why. If you can’t do that, you’ll get no more of my time.
@ F. John the second link you posted was /is more representative of the issue being debated.
http://christogenea.org/Gen614
The first link you provided is historically ad nauseam unverifiable ; i dont see the purpose of this article other than some sort of propaganda..
by example references to the british mandate and king georges sayings..there is no quotations
from historical references..
Clif Emaheiser: http://israelelect.com/reference/CliftonAEmahiser/studies/Two%20Seedline%20Taught%20in%20Dead%20Sea%20Scrolls-1.pdf
I guess you don’t recognize scholarship (re. the article). The author is tracing an idea in something called WRITING – ancient texts left behind by people who thought these thoughts. My point is that these thoughts are not canonical (i.e., found in canonical texts), which matters since the subject matter is religious.
@ MHS
I don’t mind the debate itself on the fatherhood of Cain but when I see this debate taken and used over by white-supremacists and neo-nazis; it annoys me..
i did not recognize neither the scholarship and historical references in the previous posts, no one will mislead me like this…
I am amazed how many first read sex into the sin for which Adam and Eve were deprived of paradise, only then to complain about this.
Oscar has “All these suggests the sin was related to sex, uncommon sex. I guess the writers in the New Testament DID know something when they wrote about Cain’s SEED. There’s no sense of thinking God is blaming them for normal sex.”
Lost Angel has “To me even God’s condemnation to Adam and Eve look s against nature: they had sex.. big deal.”
Indeed, this is not about sex of any kind at all. Go and read the text.
The text also repeatedly links Adam and Cain as father and son, whereas there is no biblical indication whatsoever that makes Cain the son of the serpent.
Even Eve’s exclamation that she “got a man from/with the LORD” can at best only refer to God and not the serpent, Satan or whomsoever. But given that the very same verse clearly states that Adam fathered Cain, it is quite meaningless in that regard what Eve said otherwise. Maybe to her childbirth was still something miraculous!?
As for the offspring of the serpent – now who could this be? How about other serpents?
Finally, Lost Angel, why should anyone be bothered by racists taking up a debate if it is a legitimate one? (Well, I know, PC crap!) Only, it isn’t a legitimate one and that’s the problem! That racists take up silly debates is not something that should surprise us. Nonsense to nonsense, dust to dust!
It is true that the TEXT does not say that the serpent and Eve had relations..and then produced Cain.
If we are going to take this story literally..then snakes should still speak. If not, please SHOW me the Scripture that tells us that “Snakes will no longer speak”.
If the Scripture does NOT tell us this, then let’s assume 1) snakes still speak 2) this wasn’t a snake 3) that everything that we should know is not written in the text.
I will go with number 3.
Maybe we need to just “put the puzzle together”….
So, for me to know if there are two seed lines on this Planet that are different (Whether written in the text..or explained through actions) …I only need to turn on the News. I find one person feeding the homeless..and I see another person murdering the homeless for pleasure. …Although environment is the soil….heredity is the seed. As an adopted person myself..I have lived to understand this in a most profound way.
I don’t believe the serpent was a member of the animal kingdom anyway, but that doesn’t support your #3 anyway. This response doesn’t move me, but it also doesn’t further the discussion due to my own thinking on this.
Of course not. I wasn’t expecting it to move you. It is quite clear that you are not going to change your “opinion”….and that is what many of us can gleam from your responses.
For other readers on here, please know that I have traveled on lecture tours with (in my opinion and many other packed lecture halls) one of the most brilliant Torah Scholars in the World (Teacher in Jerusalem) and his rendering is not the same as MSH, although I certainly respect his(MSH) background without hesitation.
As for me, I just smile as many of us know that those who find it more acceptable that a Nachash was walking and talking….than to understand that the story is replete with hidden nuances. For those searching I would suggest a look at such things as the Mishnah in the section of kilayim “Forbidden mixture” where the warning that bodies of the “field beast have the same look as a human”…and it gets rather deep into explanation.
I am not moved either by your interpretation or questions as to “Show it to me in the text”..as if I were to only look at the text, I would miss all the “apples of gold in dishes of silver”.
Thank you allowing my previous post..and all the best to you and yours.
My reply wasn’t meant to be antagonistic; it was only to point out that your objections don’t matter to me since I start at a different beginning point anyway. I would only add that any interpretation not grounded in the text is by definition only grounded in one’s imagination, which is inherently subjective. While focusing on the text cannot be completely objective, it is far more objective than one’s own imagination, or imbibing in the esoteric imaginations of others for interpreting the thing you STILL come back to with those ruminations — the text.
I will always respect your intellect.
Differences will always arise when symbolism, allegory and literal stories are streamed together in a text that no one has any idea of what the original author was “thinking”. (ALL of us use our imagination..if we think otherwise then we are kidding ourselves)
I certainly USE the text as a guide to understanding the story. No better objective to word study than to use the very book you’re studying from as your main tool. My interpretation will always be rooted in the text but the text has many layers, as you and I both know. The Mishnah was a point of reference that I gave as I have used that also as a tool as well.
I was also wondering Michael, if you could tell me (us) what you believe the Nachash was. You mentioned that you did not believe that this was from the animal kingdom.
Just for the record…I DO appreciate your Scholarship. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be typing on your page because I don’t waste my time reading and perusing the web for “armchair” Scholars who think that they have ALL the answers. (That usually means that they “graduated from a Lazy boy recliner”..not to say that some people are not gifted with Wisdom without Degree knowledge because I have come across that in my travels as well)
I give respect where due and I extend that to you, as I have in this forum as well as in conversations about you with others.
@ Rachael I think that the whole Idea of cain being fathered by the serpent or cain being likened by the serpent relates to the soul of cain. The gnostic believe that the only supernatural power God left human is to create other souls thru procreation. the gnostic believed that both angel and
god created human in flesh and soul; giving a part of themselves.
Recently reading Ernest L Martin (linked to this site via comments); he claimed based on scriptures
that although humans cannot see supernatural beings (angels), God use them and force human decisions, wars, punisment etc ( it think its in Daniel).. some of these angels work their own ways and corrupt the soul into sin.
Now this according to the same gnostics ; not only human bodies have a womb but also divine soul. If this divine soul become inverted because of sin , God no longer see sinner souls ie and no longer these souls can see God or their prayer answered.. which by tradition is a curse, i think.. not as a bloodline line that would include race but rather as a soul line rooted in evil.
I am not sure in so far in my research of God and religion with this obsession about sin; but given my own perception of the world, i would say it cannot be about race, as evil can manifest in any race.. as any person can be likened to Cain.
As per my own soul, personnally i would like to keep it for myself, i dont think it belongs to someone else be it GOD or any Devil..
source for the above was not martin but sielaff : http://www.askelm.com/news/n111121.pdf.
I dont know if i made sens but for sake of clarification ” God create supernatural beings, angels (MSH divine council ) ; the elohim, elohims created Adam, so they have the dominion over
human souls.. a soul can be corrupted to the point that god no longer see the soul.. salvation
could possibly occur if a person repent..and accept Christ as the savior..
Do i understand this right?
I’m not sure who you are quoting (or if you are quoting anything). I do not believe plural “elohims” created anything or anyone (that is not the point of Gen 1:26); hence they have no dominion over human souls; I’m not sure what is meant by “not see the soul” (which I would not affirm in any event); the last part reflects part of the gospel, though it is unclear (repentance involves acknowledging one’s guilt before God because of sin, and inability to rectify that situation on one’s own, and so one turns from sin [the definition of repentance] to instead rely on God’s kindness [grace – unmerited favor] shown to all people in the form of accepting Christ’s death on the cross in lieu of the penalty for one’s own sin [theologians like to call that “the divine transaction”]).
Sort of far afield for this blog!
@ MSH I kinda mixed OT and text from the OT, the NT and Gonstics texts together to have a general understanding of theology,,
see the exegis of the soul : where a corrupted soul does not see GOD and vice a versa..
see also sielaff on the angesl or demons taking over a human.. Could this be true?
understood; in terms of biblical theology, the NT material on possession rules out that a true believer / follower of Christ can be possessed (defined as that person’s soul once again lost to demonic forces). However, humans (including believers) can be manipulated, oppressed, and controlled (just not owned).
This could could explain why i dont see God, but this subject is too personal for me to discuss here..
thanks..
understood; this is common with atheists I have known (some personal pain issue, or personal offense). Those are the atheists that I have time for, since I’ve seen Christians do very stupid and thoughtless things in my own experience. But I’ve never had difficulty separating the intellectual issues from the people, but I could imagine circumstances where that would have been very difficult. The atheists that are a waste of time (for me anyway) are the ones that encounter some problem or issue, then just dump everything since the one person they asked didn’t have an answer. I have yet to find one of those that did any serious research, really trying to get to the bottom of something. That laziness is especially unconscionable in today’s world of information access. These types aren’t interested in solving the problem; they have found an excuse to not accept XYZ idea (namely, God). But perhaps my feeling is colored by the fact I have been exposed to so many Christians who are academics (PhDs in a whole range of fields, mostly the hard sciences). I can’t help thinking the lazy atheist really can’t have made much of an effort — Christians in the sciences and other fields aren’t hiding. It isn’t hard to find material, and there’s nothing that hasn’t been addressed at a very high level.
MSH,
I responded to your email and I was not sure if you received it..or worse yet, you did and I hit a nerve. (Unintentional, I assure you)
Nevertheless, would you please give my email to Lost Angel? (Or at least let he/she know that I did respond to his question/comment)Thank You!
Rachael
I didn’t know what to do with it (didn’t know you wanted it sent on). Lost Angel’s email address is displayed on these comments, so why don’t you just email him/her? If you want me to forward it, let me know. I only have about 15-20 minutes a day for email, and don’t maintain correspondences.
Well it seems about 2.000 years ago the ones who wrote and read Cain was from the evil one didn’t agree with Michael Heiser’s point of view. Not only 1 John 3:12 is a pretty good indication that the belief that Cain was “from the evil one” but also the late 2nd century Greek Protevangelium of James, 13:1 can talk of the serpent not only deceiving but also defiling Eve. And Tertullian (2nd-3rd century), in Against Heresies 2, can talk of a belief circulating that Cain and Abel were both conceived by angels. Regarding 1 John Greek # 1537 Strong’s Concordance understands Cain was son or offspring of Satan, so Wycliffe Bible Commentary volume 3, pag 936 and Mathew Henry’s Commentary volume 6, page 1077.
Eve’s pregancy with increased pain is obviously related with SEX. Adam and Eve realized they were NAKED and they found the nudity in the euphemistic hips which they covered with fig leaves. If sex was common thing for them WHY WERE THEY ASHAMED of their nudity? Nudity was not found in the hands taking the fruit nor in the mouth eating the fruit but DOWN THERE in the parts they hid and God asked them to cover with animal skin. Tarzan clothes were not proper in His view. It seems obvious the “fruit” was related to that thing Eve did unless Mr Heiser is blinded by the faith in his church in spite of all his expertise. And even more the walking-god admits the very same thing hanashah (seraphim 6 winged-snake dragon) said. Genesis 3:22 mentions God admits man became like one of them (whether it’s majestic plural or not it seems obvious He was worried) acknowledging good and evil which was the same thing dragon-snake said in 3:4,5.
I have not seen a deeper study of that “genealogy”. Hebrew language with false translations are all over the place. In the same books we read the feast Hanuka is called Chanukah and obviously most readers WOULDN’T EVER SUSPECT that twisting of CH with H is due to the fact that ‘Hebrew” was inspired in yidish German from Medieval times just like in English the word ‘night’ had Germanic sound “nicht”. Readers wouldn’t suspect that ‘Hebrew’ CH was German CH with the sound of Spanish J, Russian and Greek X and English H and Portuguese RR. But I guess Mr. Heiser is not someone who actually speaks fluent German, Spanish and so on. Thus, when we read genealogy with names “translated” we found Jared from one side of the list is maybe the OTHER one called Iared or Irad. After all Heiser hasn’t told us letter ‘J’ was invented by a French humanist Pierre de la Rameé about 1500 years after so-called “Jesus’ . We can find a couple of Lamech, one avanged 77 times or generations while the other one lived 777 years. Hmmm, suspicious! A couple of Enoch (with CH or H shall I ask Mr. Expert?) and one called Enos (or Enosh)…., another called Cainan or little Cain, and names Matusaleh and similar that change slightly from one list to the other , as if parents in one lineage become sons in the other. I SUSPECT THIS IS A NUMERAL CODE and Jewish intention to HIDE the mother side of the lineage. And of course the CURSE of both Eve and Snake’s seed. Curse why if Satan didn’t lie? God admits Adam and Eve WOULD CERTAINLY LIVE FOREVER having access to the tree of everlasting life so His act was using his Mighty Power and cast them out. Was the snake really a liar?
I guess Mr. Heiser will have to justify til the kingdom come God’s attitude and his academical knowledge could be a heavy burden using that to blind the people saying half-truth in the same way Sitchin wrote HIS half-truths.
all of these non-arguments were noted by me in earlier responses. Nothing new here.
STR wrote “Eve’s exclamation that she “got a man from/with the LORD” can at best only refer to God and not the serpent…” What Lord? Lord is a mere title used to replace names. There’s no name related to false Greek letters YHVH in the text.
Carlos,
this is getting stupid, so let’s be clear:
Gen 4,1: And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.’ (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0104.htm)
Sure, Lord is a title but it is used in translations to stand in for the Tetragrammaton, the name of God later revealed to Moses. (I used the word Lord because I avoid using the Tetragrammaton if I can!)
The same Lord in translations and the same name in the previous chapters (first in 2,4) denote the entity that created the world, made the Garden, drove Adam and Eve from the garden.
So it is just plain silly to dispute that Eve in her exclamation refered to anyone else but God. She certainly did not refer to the snake.
You’re using reason, so don’t expect to get anywhere.
Regarding to Adam and Eve’s opened EYES mentioned above, well it seems obvious why Mr. Heiser in his response to Oscar never mentioned when Christ’s utterance is about the single EYE illuminating the whole body. Obviously if Adam and Eve are a couple of creatures, Genesis text has to say THEIR EYES were opened. Yet, if we think it was Eve’s EYE plus Adam’s EYE the text will also say eyes in plural! Mr. Heiser is a linguist but he acts as if he knew EVERYTHING ELSE! Third eye is not something esoteric but very real. As a linguist he should know both names melatonin and melanin come from ancient word dealing with DARKNESS triggering its function. And apostle Paul literally said Eve’s mind was affected by Satan’s trick (2 Corintians 11:3 says about HER THOUGHTS, obviously a reference to her MIND so it’s not too far from dealing with the 3rd eye producing melatonin) in the same context where he says Satan disguises into light. In Greek the word metaschematizo is the root of metamorphosis which is something that could happen if Eve saw something projected to her mind by Seraphim dragon-snake. Light-bearer or phosphorus. In 2 Kings 6:17 says God OPENED THE EYES of someone to see chariots and horses of fire. The guy who saw an angel and thought his mule was talking had his eyes opened. Obviously reality is beyond the limits of what our literal eyes can see and to explain this to Mr. all-knowing Heiser would take me an eternity. Where does Michael Heiser think the literal eyes could’ve been activated by God first? It has to be in the brain of the person. The so-called 3rd eye , the brain and the literal eyes are all conected whether he acknowledges or ignores this is irrelevant. Even if it sounds too “esoteric” for his taste. I don’t care, even Christ talked about the Father who is “hiding” in the same context where he quoted the single opened eye which enlights all the body. Obviously that eye is somewhere else Mr. Heiser wouldn’t know in what part of the body locates!!!! Mathew 6:6, 22.
Heiser asked Oscar if Adam had sex with Satan as well. Aha! That’s the trick. When Oscar mentioned Lillith and satyr goat-men creatures dwell in the desert as mentioned by Isaiah (of course we can talk about Azazel and the scapegoat from Leviticus 16) Heiser replied “yes” …but Isaiah doesn’t link them with Adam and Eve. That was his short reply. But he knows PRETTY WELL the oral traditions DID connect Lillith with Adam as being one of his wives!!!!! He knows Samael is also related with this Lillith but Heiser doesn’t say a word and because he SHUTS UP is a way to say a lie or half-truth (like Satan). How would you know if sucubus Lillith really didn’t have intercourse with Adam? Obviusly Lillith wouldn’t have a lineage is she’s from interdimensional realms but since Eve was human, she was the one cursed by that walking-god who also condemned the snake. “Because you have done that…”
Snake didn’t lie as I mentioned above , so she was condemned with the woman because there was a union intercourse between Eve and Satan. When New Testament mentions Satan’s head had to be crushed is also dealing with GENEALOGY, something Heiser is not explaining. As a scholar he should answer all the questions asked rather than in cockiness replying “you show me the text”.
1) Why were they ashamed of nudity if sex was common thing?
2)Why God considered their fig leaves not proper and provided animal fur?
3) Pregnancy and pain are related to sex, yes or no?
4) Don’t you think the slight differences in switching letters awefully translated is very suspicious considering the names of the parents in one list are equivalent to the names of the children in the other genealogy?
5)Why does God mention the eternal battle between the seraphim reptile ad the woman as described in Genesis 3:15 considering that unfriendly attitude does not include Adam in that verse? After all it was HIS responsability if we believe apostle Paul. He was the head, the husband, wasn’t he?
6) How come the literal eyes discern good and evil unless this is NOT a reference to the literal eyes but awareness in more than one sense?
7) What kind of tree of knowledge was that?
8) Are you aware or not that hallucinogenic natural substances do have a molecular symbiosis with certain areas of the brain fitting like a key to a lock? Why wouldn’t Paul be talking about Eve’s EYES’ MIND being drugged by Satan himself disguising into light? Why would that be impposible considering the context of Genesis and what he obviusly says in Corinthians.
9) Is it true or not Genesis 3:15 is talking about SATAN’S LINEAGE and Eve’s descents?
Provide the answers, Mr Academic, otherwise you could be judged as doing paleobabble yourself and not the ones asking you questions and providing specific data.
Having read this, Carlos, I am well aware what “hallucinogenic natural substances” can do!
Since most of what you wrote have no footing in the text, it seems you are the paleobabbler!
@ MHS
Well we all know Nietzche;s dementia. You may be true; generally speaking am a lazy person
regardless my issue does not relate to lazyness but rather an issue with my soul and its content..
when i use to close my eyes and prey (as far as i can remember), i could only see demons looking at me and see weird visions and my sleep was disrupted with nighmares (if you could label this nighmares). To the point that i ceased praying and to the point where I married
a woman with no religious background and I never baptised my daugther..
Its way easier for me to say God does not exist..
understood, but that still doesn’t sound like a lot of effort, but more like surrender (I hear lots of such accounts, and others who really battled, intellectually and spiritually, so I can’t help comparing). It may be easier to say God doesn’t exist (it no doubt is) but that hardly settles anything (just as it wouldn’t settle anything to just simply say he does).
@ rachael.. hi, my e-mail is techmonster@bell.net
Thank you Lost Angel for your input..and MSH for hosting it.
Here is my understanding.
God first CREATED a type of man.
However, “The Adam” was the first being to receive the “Soul”..or the breath of life. The Neshama.
I realize that there will be those that say that this is not in the text. To me, it is.
I find keys throughout the text that I use to unlock a portion of this understanding.
One key (for myself) is to consider these words in Isaiah 45:7 “I FORM the light and CREATE the darkness”. ‘ I MAKE peace and CREATE evil. I, the LORD, do these things”. (Punctuation is all mine for intent)
Notice here that when the LORD is “Forming and making” (The two words used in regards to THE Adam), it is the same action that Isaiah references when GOD “forms and “Makes” light and peace. However, the word used for “creating” in the early Genesis account (of man) is the verb that GOD uses in Isaiah for creating “darkness” and “evil” Coincidence, not to me. This is elementary to Hebraic understanding. Rabbis called this tzimtzum meaning “Contraction or withdraw”…Allowing for a “slack in the system” ..so to speak. I am by no means saying that GOD was not involved in the “creation” of the first beings.(Certainly He was) What I gather from the text is that the first beings were a canvas…and when He made and formed “The Adam” this was the art work. (My expressions only)
(I hope that I do not get an ear beating from MSH (although I would accept it respectfully) about this…….but I am happy to have input. One of the highest forms of worship in Judaism was study. So, here we are)
@ Rachael
Its nice, it seem we both like to simplify things that are easy to understand.. that whole issue
of about Cain being fathered by the devil is taken too literaly..
We do not even know how we were created ( so to speak ) other than by mythology.
If I understand the supernatural beings or satan involved in 3:15 are sprits; they do not have a body and do not need to reproduce with Eve..If i get it, God gave humans the power to reproduce other human beings and souls not these spirits; they do not have flesh to be able to reproduce bodies and souls.. I firmly believe that the analogies to Cain relates to the soul corrupted by these spirits.. in Cain’s case having committed the first murder.
Thus I do not agree the white supremacist view that actual Jews in Israel are descendents
of Satan by lineage..
@ MSH,
I think that lots of people use the serpent analogy to say that Eve had some sort of threesome
and infanted from two different father..
on a personal level, It is odd but every time someone mention a lion headed with a serpentine body , I have the graphical picture of a spermatozoid..
In Genesis, the serpent is nothing more than a sex or the first procreations between humans.
In these scripture, the serpent appears to be nothing more than sex
what Scriptures? The OT never associates the serpent with a sex act.
@ MHS (may seem off topic)
I found an essay by E.L. Martin regarding the word Elohim(s). He argues Elohims in the bible
should always be plural even if the following verb is singular.. He also says most mistake scholars do is trying to identify God is by asking who he is instead of what he is..
a bit like the Queen using the royal we..
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d940201.htm
It is an interesting concept..
understood, but he’s quite wrong. You can’t just dispose of grammar.
@ MSH I am saying the serpent in Genesis is an analogy to sex not just an animal.. ref Genesis 3:4 to 3:17..
I do agree martin cannot correct the spelling, however the way it is writing bring lots of controversy and the new testament with the Trinity add to this confusion..
it’s not the spelling; it’s the grammar. The idea of a godhead does not come from the NT, either. It’s Jewish. I did my dissertation on this subject at the UW-Madison, and have put a few items about it online (www.twopowersinheaven.com). I focus on the binitarian idea, but there are hints of trinitarian conceptions in the OT as well. I will be speaking about this subject in February, so then I will have a video lecture on it that I can direct you (and others) to.
@ MSH Martin also realized the grammar..
He address with similarity to you, as a Godhead , a divine council..different powers..
it resort about what is the identity of god..
a council and a godhead are two different things; Martin would not be in agreement with several of my positions (I know, because the trustee of his estate is a good friend of mine).
Is regards to STR and MSH (Both respectfully). I don’t know how to phrase this other than the way that I was taught by my Father. (Blessed memory). You can read ALL the books that you want, sit in every class that you can and be tutored by every professor on this Planet, but until you live on the soil for a good length of time you are educated but not fully wise of the truth. You must go and sit with someone who was born there, and studied there with a Professor who’s Father was born there and studied there or was raised in the language. Until then you will just be someone who learned something from someone who is guessing as well as adding their spin to the lesson. Thank you Dad, for letting me take that plane ride to Israel in 1976 and live there! WOW, did I learn what is being left out in the text books. Sit down, travel with and study the text with someone who has five generations of Hebrew in their veins. (Not someone who is a first generation learner….I am not criticizing that ..as I would have to start in the mirror to do so) Perhaps STR was raised there, and if so, I would like to know where his studies led him and why he discards the Mishnah. I find it odd that so many “Non Jew” want to tell the Jews what their sages where writing about. It is true that the Hebrew Scriptures do not state “The serpent (being) had sex with the woman”. (Although directly after that, before the Adam KNEW her …tree of KNOWledge…..she was named the mother of all the living) As well it does not state that Israel will be replaced by the Church, although many people “Jump” to that as they want that to “fit”. Is THAT in scripture? Many things that are written in the text are nuances. Perhaps that is why that this first century Jewish Rabbi said “I speak ONLY in parables”….maybe He knew that so many people would be ..let me just say ..”slow” to understand that the text has layers of hidden meanings..and it is obvious that it was written to be uncovered…but not without putting the puzzle together….
How would you explain others who are as committed to God / Christ who disagree with your conclusions? Are you more led by God than they are?
Rachael,
I don’t buy into expertise by birth or upbringing in this. At best, it is an advantage to know the language (which however is not an actively spoken one) but I can refer you to MSH and his colleagues for that.
It’s not just that the text does not state that Eve had sex with the snake – it is that text says the direct opposite: Eve slept with Adam and conceived.
I don’t claim to know better than Jews what their sages teach – only I do not think that one has to ascribe to what they teach if created out of thin air.
I don’t subscribe to a strict replacement theology, but if you want to see the gist of the matter you might go and read Paul’s letter to the Romans or the history of the word “ekklesia”. In comparison with your pet theory, the Bible is actually dripping with evidence for the Church being (in some way representative of) Israel.
some good points!
As I sit here in Hollywood Florida, with 7 pairs of eyes watching this being typed ..in a Kosher deli….most of us are smirking..but not laughing. How odd (but not surprising) that when it fits that “Israel” is replaced by the Church..although NOT found in Scripture…it seems to be “accepted”. How apropos and selective some become as to WHAT is and isn’t allowed to be considered “there, although “not there”. The truth is either you accept ONLY what is specific..or not. If we were to say that because the text read “and Adam knew his wife and she bore Cain”…and we do not add or delete text….then where is the text that states that the woman was thrown out of the garden? It does say that the Adam was…and we all know that they met up again (Again…being the hebraic key word here) some 130 years later to have Seth. Either you ASSUME through the text…or it IS there, (is it there, or isn’t it?) in this case..which shall it be? (Also, prior to the Adam knowing his wife…how was she named the “mother of all the living”…if the order was not until AFTER the exit of the garden? Is that in the text, or not?
One last thing…if we ARE to take the Bible literally , when the story is without doubt literal without inuindo…then I suppose my most cherished line is this: “I came ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel”…
Now those sitting with me that did crack a smile! OY, to explain the Jewish mind is very difficult to those who do not have it. It is like having someone with no children trying to teach someone with children the proper way to raise them. (I have none..therefore I listen and not speak…….I enjoy listening to someone who knows..I think of it like a word well spoken…as apples of gold)
By the way, Paul does not usurp what “Jesus” said, does He? Why don’t I do what “Jesus” SAID to do…take the “Gospel”…….I doubt that He forgot to teach all the things that He needed to. I don’t find it necessary to believe that He needed someone to “fill in the blanks”.
Also, just for the record, I would suggest that people think about this in regards to the Chosen. (I am SO proud of being one, by the way) Maybe instead of trying to replace them, you could consider trying to be more like them. Start eating kosher. You know with us making up less than .02 percent of the Worlds population and holding Nobels in the sciences to the tune of upward of 28%…you know, you might want to consider that maybe that Heavenly Father was on to something with this food thing! (no other group of people can say this in regards to population and Nobels.)
while it isn’t clear that the Church replaces national Israel (that’s actually the academic debate), it is clear that the church inherits the covenants of believing Israel. Paul )a Jew and a Pharisee) is quite explicit in that regard in Galatians 3. The issue is whether that means God is therefore “finished” with national Israel (even more particular, does Paul’s hope in Rom 9-11 that “all Israel will be saved” include or exclude national Israel); that is unclear.
With all due respect, I already know what PAUL said…I am MORE interested in what that “Other Jewish Guy” said….I am not too sure if “Jesus” needed Paul’s Gospel. Can ANYONE point me to the Scripture where “Jesus” said that “Someone else ..namely The Church to come…would inherit the covenants” ? I would think that being “finished” with Israel would somehow change the Father’s “everlasting” covenant to “when-ever” instead…We could split hairs here…but it is about learning not arguing.
I don’t believe in pitting Paul against Jesus, since they do not disagree. This is actually easy, if you know what to look for. In broad strokes, though, since the gospels have the kingdom of God being *inaugurated* at the first coming of Christ, that means the covenants given to Israel were fulfilled, at least initially (a la Paul in Galatians 3). The kingdom launch coincides with the campaign to reclaim the nations of the earth that were disinherited by Yahweh at Babel, when the nations were dispersed (see Deut 32:8-9, reading with the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, “sons of God” — see my article on that passage at http://www.thedivinecouncil.com). When the nations were dismissed from relationship to Yahweh, then Yahweh called Abram/Abraham and announced the covenant (in which – Gen 12:3) his descendants, Israel, would be the conduit through whom the nations would be “blessed” (brought back to Yahweh, per Isaiah 66 and many other passages). Since this is getting into the sort of material I blog about elsewhere (The Naked Bible), I don’t plan to pursue it here. You could go to the eschatology archive at the Naked Bible for over a dozen posts relating to this sort of thing.
@ MHS an Rachel
Sorry if I butt in :
Jesus actually annouced a new covenant..
Last Supper where Jesus institutes the rite of Communion saying this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood
His blood on the cross sealing the new convenant and considered a bond in blood sovereignly administered by God ie everyone must pass thru Christ to go heaven. They appear to belive Christ second advent would be to sit on the physical Throne of David. If am correct Christ kinda condemned the 3 main sects offerings..
see also OT Jeremiah 31:31–34
:NT Hebrews 8:8–12
This i say out of curiosity but why would you keep the old convenant alive ? to me it seem like old torture..
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I know all about the new covenant. My best advice (if you are interested) is to go through my eschatology / prophecy archive.
Many of us are actually led..not more than..but more actively than others. Many of us spend our entire lives, forsaking many opportunities of the High life..to get down and dirty and live on the “not so upper class..or upper crust” arenas of life but instead to go and to learn from people that have Wisdom. Although, there are instances (less common) that do give some a clearer understanding. It is like a savant being able to play a concerto without being able to read music or even hear. It is not explainable, yet it happens. There are most likely many people that stumble on to this particular site that have a higher “leading” than the average Christian/Believer that is just willing to be “pulpit programmed” (For lack of a better phrase). Searching because they know that YOU (MSH) had something inside of yourself that pushed you to search as well. No, we are not “more led”….we are just “Led to do” instead of led to see what others did. I always say “Keep searching”….there is an OLD Jewish saying “I have learned much from my teachers, more from my peers and the MOST from my students”….questions are the only things that matter. The answers are all subject to opinion.
@ Rachael
Adam and Eve had sex; not the serpent who is just an analogy..
In the beginning, The dog was naked ; his skin was like humans
God told him to guard the garden of eden from illicit entry.
The Serpent came to the Garden and the Dog refused his entry.
The serpent gave the dog a meal; and while the dog was eating; the serpent
gain entry, and the serpent was able to suggest eve into eating from the tree of knowledge.
– When God realized this infringement, he condemned the serpent and his offspring into crawling..
– Condemned Eve to to give birth in pain
and also condem the dog for his bribery to be always hungry and to eat the rest given to him by his masters
( this is why dogs are always hungry).
The dog was weeping because of his condemnation. the Serpent hearing the dog crying; spat in his hands and with his saliva :gave the dog his fur to keep him warm.
this is the reason why the dog is being seen as an unclean animal his fur being from the saliva of the serpent..
(this from an old asia minor legend on creation, i cannot find the source- it is also shared by a inuit legend about adam and eve..looking to find the proper sources)
@ MHS any suggestion about an accepted translation on the Bokk of Jubilees?
The best and most recent is that found in Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol. 2). It is based on an up-to-date critical edition of the text.
lol i found one, according to these texts, Cain died under the stones of his house and none survived
except Noah’s line
funny!
@ MSH Yep from what i understand god casted out these pre-noah superrnatural beings beings from procreating with humans ( i think you said something like this before: somehwere ).. however he left about 10 % evil spirits in the world that could corrupt the descendants of Noah’s souls..
@ Rachael, and to continue the above topic regarding the covenants made by god with israel, it could be considered that only a few were able to obey these convenants and each time it was disobeyed,
punishments will ensue. In this fashion God new convenant with the blood of christ is an attempt
to save all..
@ MSH will take a look @ eschatology / prophecy archive
the “percent remainder” comes from Enoch.
I found 3 youtube videos with references matt 24, cor 15, 2 thess, 1 thess Rev 4-17 , dan 9
I talks about rapture, 7 years of tribulations..a return..
not sure what the point is.
@ MHS you suggested i digged into yours ( or someone else) eschatology / prophecy archive..
I found 3 of your videos on the subject on youtube , you make references matt 24, cor 15, 2 thess, 1 thess Rev 4-17 , dan 9 (and yes its interesting..).
I understand for well you know the NT very good, but Rachel wanted to have the
reference from Christ as to where the old covenants be replaced with new ones.
On a complementary note, this after reading Josephus wars of the jews chapters 5-8 concerning the complete destruction of jerusalem and the temple; it is very hard not to believe that the old covenants was meant to survive.. the temple didn’t and vanished as if it nevr existed and will probably nevr be rebuilt…
I found it interesting however that the old City of David can withold so many secrets
of a distant past along with the Mount of Olives, the Gihon Springs and the pool of Siloam; it seem that religious history evolves around and around time to this site; where the temple probably stood (City of David)
Josephus when speaking to the zealots gave them a sign about punishment from God with references the springs of siloam; he asked them how come when Jews needed water the springs were dry but when enemies were at the gates; enemies had all the water they needed..
In today’s times, not much water is flowing from these springs..
already answered these, and you still haven’t given me the context for the NT references (I mention lots of passages in videos — ??).
Yes and in the presentations ..
actually am wrong , there is water, so there is hope..( id like to drink from it )
Titus 3:9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Thats what the Bible says about genealogies. Because we are all sinners we are saved by the grace of God through Christ Jesus not by our works so no man may boast but through the blood of the Lamb. Everyone looking into prophecy attempting to see into the future are missing the entire point. No man knows the hour. So we neednt worry. The anti Christ is anyone who is against Christ. Wether satan sired cain is irrelevant. Its good to read the Bible and all of it for good measure. But listen to the entire message. Its not an argurment about how this came to be but how we have been redeemed. Im sure whatever happened it was sin. And if you break one law youve broken them all. Theres still work to be done spreading the message of the Kingdom of God. Jesus saved you because He loves you and He knows who loves Him.
Matthrw,
if you want to be taken seriously, you might better start indicating where your Bible quotes end.
And BTW, “No man knows the hour. So we neednt worry.” is not logical sequence but a non sequitur. Christ rather said nobody knows the hour so that we might keep prepared.
Genealogy was extremely important to the Heavenly Father. I will continue on to what He was interested in…..
Someone brought out an outstanding point of one of my favorite verses. “Apples of gold in dishes of silver”………the Bible is the silver….but the Apples are the nuances between the words. Silver is what it is…but apples have seeds….and when planted and propagated …they bring forth new life.
@str Your implying that you dont take me seriously because I only specified the Bible quote which was relevant to the topic and instead of writing the sentences as one sentence “No man knows the hour” so we neednt worry. You value the letter and its composition more than the message.
@Rachael I didnt write the Bible. I just quoted it. If you dont believe Titus is inspired by God what can I tell you.
Matthew, I decry that you did not indicate where the bible stopped and you began. But that’s no surprise since you think you only quote the bible – well you did more than that. Apparently, the bible and your opinion fuse in your mind.
PS. I will unsubscribe now from the “cabinet of curiosities” that is this thread. So no need to reply, as I probably, hopefully will not read it.
Matthew, quoting “A” singular scripture from someone that had a “vision”…rather than following the ENTIRE text of the Scriptures is really not “quoting the Bible”…it is quoting someone that you find “inspired” to have said something. I can accept that, but I can not accept the fact that if you removed all the genealogy out of the text itself…well, you would be removing the reason to keep the “chosen”..chosen.
Speaking of Samael, you may enjoy this: http://samaelaunweor.info/
I actually attended a “Gnostic” study center started by this guy’s followers for a while. But that’s another story. Ya never saw such pseudo-whatever and vicious back biting in your life.
that’s what happens in cults; this site has all the marks.
Fantastic – thanks for explaining this so well.
there is this.. not the dead sea scrolls, but some sethan gnostic texts from nag hammadi
YALDABAOTH DEFILES EVE
When Yaldabaoth realized that the humans had withdrawn from him, he cursed his earth. He found the woman as she was preparing herself for her husband. He was master over her. And he did not know the mystery that had come into being through the sacred plan. The two of them were afraid to denounce Yaldabaoth. He displayed to his angels the ignorance within him. He threw the humans out of paradise and cloaked them in thick darkness.
The first ruler saw the young woman standing next to Adam and noticed that the enlightened afterthought of life had appeared in her. Yet Yaldabaoth was full of ignorance. So when the forethought of all realized this, she dispatched emissaries, and they stole life out of Eve.
The first ruler defiled Eve and produced in her two sons, a first and a second: Elohim and Yahweh.
Elohim has the face of a bear,
Yahweh has the face of a cat.
One is just, the other is unjust.
He placed Yahweh over fire and wind,
he placed Elohim over water and earth.
He called them by the names Cain and Abel, with a view to deceive.
To this day sexual intercourse has persisted because of the first ruler. He planted sexual desire in the woman who belongs to Adam. Through intercourse the first ruler produced duplicate bodies, and he blew some of his false spirit into them.
He placed these two rulers over the elements so that they might rule over the cave.
When Adam came to know the counterpart of his own foreknowledge, he produced a son like the human child. He called him Seth, after the manner of the heavenly race in the eternal realms. Similarly, the mother sent down her spirit, which is like her and is a copy of what is in the realm of fullness, for she was going to prepare a dwelling place for the eternal realms that would come down.
The human beings were made to drink water of forgetfulness by the first ruler, so that they might not know where they had come from. For a time the seed remained and helped so that when the spirit descends from the holy realms, it may raise up the seed and heal what it lacks, that the entire realm of fullness may be holy and lack nothing
all familiar – and all VERY late (many centuries) and idiosyncratic, having no exegetical attachment to the Hebrew text.
I see that this is an old discussion, but I would like to submit a couple of observations. One is that the enmity God placed was between the seed of satan and the seed of Eve. Nothing in the biblical account indicates that the seed of Adam was intended. Therefore, if Cain was the biological son of satan, then his biology would be at enmity with itself. Doesn’t make sense. Secondly, in response to Rachael’s request for something Jesus said that indicates the jewish people being replaced in regard to the covenants, see, Mat. 21:43, “Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
Yes, I too have added to an old conversation, but was online researching the question “did Eve have sex with the serpent” because I was on a chat a few days ago and an individual called Eve a slut and said she was an adulterous woman who slept with Satan. Then went on to say it’s all her fault that we’re all in bizarre, messed-up creation and have to go through tribulation and so on and so on. Mind you I questioned the maturity of this person, but this person was agreeing in prayer and claims to be fine with “judgement” and praised God. I’ve heard it before = Eve had sex with Satan, but had not seen scripture that clearly indicates that is the case (or any other “hidden” text found in more recent history). Frankly, whether she did or she did not – my question is: would Jesus have thrown a stone at her if she had. Forgiveness is a powerful healer. Thanks for all the information in the post and the comments. Much love.
The craziest thing I’ve heard about the “serpent seed” *cough* teaching *cough* is based on the King James Version, giving significance to the placing of a semicolon:
“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”
Supposedly, the fact that Adam knew his wife Eve and the fact that she conceived and bare Cain being separated by a semicolon means that fact 1 is separate from fact 2, and therefore Cain and Abel were twins, with Cain being conceived by the serpent and Abel by Adam!!
Craziness.
I think semicolons should be abolished, pronto! 😀
The truth is that the Lord Jesus Christ is the One and Only God and He is One, indivisibly One. He has always been one and he did NOT communicate with the Logos /the Son in Gnesis 1:26, like William Branham unfortunately and obviosuly ended up teaching.
The doctrine of the serpent’s seed is erroneous and non-Scriptural.