Month: June 2016

Serpent Seed of Satan theorist on the original text of Genesis 4:1, part 1 of 2

I have already outlined the use of Targumim, or rather one particular Targum, within the context of the serpent seed of Satan theory, for examples in the following articles: Zen Garcia on the Hebrew Torah, Aramaic Targum and English KJV and Zen Garcia on Eve’s desire for the Angel of the LORD.

Herein, I thought to make some succinct statements for the sake of simplification.

There are various Targumim: this refers Aramaic versions of the Tanakh, the Old Testament. Yet, they are not merely translations but include many paraphrases, interpretations, commentaries and editorial additions of all sorts—some are very loose in the editorializing and include much Rabbinic folklore. These began to be produced before the time of Jesus to as late as the 600s AD—and this will become key.

Serpent seed of Satan theorist Zen Garcia actually claims that “the Targum” is “the original” text of Genesis (something he merely asserts). In fact, he has published a book titled, “The Aramaic and Palestinian Targums” which is “edited” by Zen Garcia and his one and only qualification for editing historical texts of varied languages is that he has an internet connection—such is the nature of pop-research; have search engine will go! People need to keep in mind that IE refers to Internet Explorer and not to Instant Expert.

When challenged on his Targum of preference he will make a generic statement about Targumim’s BC commencement. That is even though I have pointed out to him very many times that the Targum to which he refers dates to over half a millennia after Jesus. Yet, he is very hesitant to admit, note and repeat to others that that this is a fact.

But since we have earlier Hebrew manuscripts, earlier Greek manuscripts, et al., why does he so heavily rely on such a very late dated Aramaic text? Simply, it is because it is the only version of Genesis in any language that states that which he presupposes he wants to hear.

His end game is to prove that Eve had sex with Satan, that Cain is Satan’s literal son and that Cain’s lineage carry within them Satanic genetics.

One of the key texts when considering the theory is Genesis 4:1 which reads as follows:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Since the text is so very clear, Serpent seed of Satan theorists cannot let is stand as is. Some of them have taken to asserting that the one and only text in the Bible that contradicts their theory is Genesis 4:1 and that text has been mistranslated. The fact is that Genesis 4:1 deals a death blow to their theory and the rest of the Bible knows nothing of it.

Here is an example of Genesis 4:1 that specifies Cain’s birth (note that Hava is Eve and Kain is Cain) from the Targum Onkelos which dates to the 2nd century AD:

And Adam knew Hava his wife, and she conceived, and gave birth to Kain; and she said, I have acquired the man from before the Lord.

If this sounds familiar it is because this is a standard text and even modern English Bibles vary but the slightest bit—and do so in terminology and not in meaning.

Consider the Syriac Bible, the Peshitta, which dates from between 100 BC and 100 AD:

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.”

This is as is common and you can discern the slight variation from the above quoted “from the Lord” to “with the help of the LORD.”

An Aramaic Bible translated by Victor Alexander (based on cuneiform manuscripts discovered by archeologists in Mesopotamia in the late 19th century AD) has the text as1:

And Adam had intercourse with Eve and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gained a man for the Lord.”

Again: same difference.

Sir Lancelot Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint aka LXX, the Greek Tanakh that was first translated in the 3rd century BC has the text as:

And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and brought forth Cain and said, I have gained a man through God.

Getting tired of the repetitiveness as of yet? Well, indeed, the Bible is consistent regardless of language or translation when handled property.

So with such consistency, what text claims that Eve had sex with Satan? No text does which is why someone who wants to asserts as much must go hunting for anything they can twist and turn into that claim un-, non- and anti-biblical claim.

In the next segment, we will consider the text of the Targum which is claimed to be the original and note that its reworked text not only does not help but further hinders serpent seed of Satan theorists.
You can find my entire serpent seed of Satan series here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #SerpentSeed, #SeedofSatan, #
Facebook: #ZenGarcia, #SeedofSatan, #ZenGarcia

Zen Garcia on the seedlines – bloodlines

Recall that Zen asked:

How does it make any sense in any way that the consequences of her actions would in the end, result in the birth of Cain and why would this result in enmity between the two seedlines?…Why would eating a fruit result in Satan being cursed and in enmity being forced upon his seed and between her seed?

He also asks:

Why also would the two bloodlines be separated, Cain’s being listed in Genesis chapter four and Adam’s in genesis chapter five? Why also would Cain not be listed in the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter 3 if Cain were the first born son of Adam?

The specific issue of just what is meant by “seed” will be dealt with but for now; we already replied to this and the answer is that Cain sinned, rebelled, was cursed and went away from the vicinity of Adam and Eve’s family and dwelling. He is not in the genealogy of Christ because he is not in the genealogy of Christ; plain and simple and that he was the firstborn is of no relevance.

In discussing this issue, someone asked me what the point of it all is; that is, what is the point of asserting that Eve and Satan had sex and that she birthed Satan’s literal son. Well, that is a good question as sometimes people develop doctrines in order to explain something, sometimes they do it to explain something away, sometimes to invent some new fanciful and attention getting tale, etc. In this case, Zen Garcia seems to state it quite succinctly in referring to “the devil having sired his own children into this world and that his children are still present upon the planet even now, and that they are the driving force of the New World Order ruling from behind the scenes and manipulating world affairs for the benefit of Satan.”

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider Jesus’ parabolic serpent seed statements

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

VIDEO: The Pedophile of Babylon: Chris Pinto on the (Homosexual) Secrets of the Vatican

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the Queen James Bible, part 1

The Queen James Bible has been edited to make Homophobic interpretations impossible

—the QJV editor

qjv-1783178

For the whole series, see The Queen James Bible.

A new version of the Bible is being published and in a way we Christians should take it as a compliment. The Bible is edited so as to conform to the authority of the homosexuality worldview-religion and is called the Queen James Bible.

If you just want to say, “The Queen James Bible is nonsense” or even “is a godsend” and leave it at that then; do not bother reading this series because we will actually detail the issues involved.

Let us go step by step as there is a lot to define already. How can a Christian possibly consider it a compliment to have YHVH’s very own Holy Word purposefully corrupted?

Only in the context of the collection of such stories which we have chronicled in the section Unbelievers Compliment Christianity. That context is that they are only after corrupting the real thing. They want to change the King James Bible into the Queen James Bible but, will they change the Qur’an into the Qur’wom’an or Qur’man? Will they change the Bhagavad Gita into the Bhagavad Gay’ta? No, they would not dare.

Homosexuality is, after all, just two like-gendered people who love each other (right?) so why refer to homosexuality as a worldview-religion? Why is such a question necessary? Just think about it: what does two like-gendered people who love each other have to do with rewriting the Bible? It is because there is a big difference between homosexuality as two like-gendered people who love each other and homosexuality as worldview-religion.

In fact, people who object to homosexuality generally do not object to two like-gendered people who love each other but to the militant activism which seek not only tolerance but affirmation, acceptance and approval (see links at the end of this article for detailed info).

As for the Queen James Bible, the editor was nice enough to actually lay it all out and so let us go directly to the their Editor’s Notes page and see what they have to say.

They claim to have chosen to edit the 1769 AD King James Bible for various reasons including that King James had “many gay lovers.” And yet they note that:
Most English Bible translations that actively condemn homosexuality have based themselves on the King James Version and have erroneously adapted its words to support their own agenda. We wanted to return to the clean source and start there.
But why not return to the original Hebrew and Greek (of which we have more manuscripts now than they did back in 1769 AD)? And what does a gay king have to do with an anti-gay Bible? Exactly, nothing.

Another similar claim is:
Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this – only interpretations have been made.
They appear to be playing the name game or rather, the word game. The claim seems to be that the word “homosexuality” was not in the Bible prior to 1946 AD but even if this is true it does not mean that the concept is not there.
For example, Leviticus 18:22 states, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Can this truly, honestly, logically, grammatically, not be said to refer to homosexuality? Of course, it is about homosexuality; even whilst not using one word to reference the act.

In the “What We Changed” section the editor notes:
The Bible says nothing about homosexuality… Now, as you are quoting verse after verse in your mind; consider the follow up:

The Bible is the word of God translated by man. This (saying nothing [of] countless translations and the evolution of language itself) means the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call “interpretive ambiguity.” In editing The Queen James Bible we were faced with the decision to modify existing interpretively ambiguous language, or simply to delete it.

There are formal and dynamic translations: formal translates word for word even if the meaning, the grammar, ends up difficult to read whilst dynamic translates thought for thought in order to make the sense clear even if it does not translate every word. But there is yet another manner whereby to go about translating and this is presuppositionally or to employ eisegesis. This refers to coming to the text and reading into that which you already want to see there, it is forcing the text to say what you want to hear rather than employing exegesis whereby you come to the text unbiased (as  unbiased as you can get) and allow the text to speak to you.

Since the translators of the Queen James Bible want the Bible to say what they want to hear they changed it accordingly. In fact, the QJV is not even a translation but a paraphrase at best, it is a propaganda and you now get a clear understanding of the Biblical prophecy, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears” (2nd Timothy 4:3).

But it goes deeper as they are not saying that they modify existing interpretively ambiguous language, or simply to delete it; they are bringing that up as an issue, a consideration, an option they claim to note have taken. In fact, they note that “There are problems with removal of verses” such as that:
It doesn’t address the problem of interpretive ambiguity, it only brushes it under the rug. It renders an incomplete Bible…We also refused to just say “that’s outdated” and omit something. Yes, things like Leviticus are horribly outdated, but that doesn’t stop people from citing them.

After some more attempts at covering up the crime scene via attempting to sound scholarly and academic they bottom line it and we should, at least, appreciate the honesty in this statement:
We edited the Bible to prevent homophobic interpretations. Thus, it is not about scholarship, academia, correctly translating Hebrew and Greek or anything of the sort: it is about having homosexuality as a worldview-religion and demanding that all thing conform to the homosexual view.

The point is that to personages such as the QJV editor (and what, exactly are their credentials?) good and evil, right and wrong, ethical and unethical, what theology is accurate, what political party to support, etc., etc., etc., are all issues that are defined and decided base on homosexuality. If the theology and political party support homosexuality then it is right, true, correct, ethical, etc. and if it does not, it is not. Thus, homosexuality has become a worldview-religion.

In the next segment we will begin considering the actual changes made to the Bible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more info see:

Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality (White is a pro-homosexuality activist who makes the same exact arguments as the QJV editor).

Much more relevant info at True Freethinker’s section on homosexuality.

Books of interest:
The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible

When Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says They’re Gay

Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle with Sexual Identity

The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality: A Biblical and Compassionate Response to Same-Sex Attraction

A Strong Delusion: Confronting the Gay Christian Movement (Explaining the Christian Attitude Towards Homosexuality)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

Twitter: #queenjamesbible, #LGBT, #homosexuality
Facebook: #queenjamesbible, LGBT, #homosexuality

Zen Garcia on the eating fruit and pain in childbirth correlation

Now we come to resolving an issue upon which serpent seed of Satan theorists place much emphasis; what does eating a fruit have to do with increasing childbearing pain? Is not the biblical model an eye for an eye? So, how does it make sense that this amounts to the act of eating for increased pain during childbirth? Note that Zen emphasizes, “How is it that Eve is the mother of all living but Adam is nowhere referenced as such?” and asks, “Could it be that she is referenced as such because she is the mother of both Cain and Abel whereas Adam is only the father of Abel.” No, it could not be for various reason such as that Genesis 5:4 specifies that “Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters” thus, not only Abel but Seth and sons and daughters. The final straw, as it were, is Zen asking the rhetorical question, “How is such possible if there is no sexual connotation associated to this act?”

Simply stated, Seth replaces Abel because Adam and Eve lost Abel to murder by Cain and the next male they had was Seth.

The issue is that Zen is emphasizing supposed problems or mysteries and overlaying them with his interpretive template. When we take texts out of context we can make pretexts of prooftexts.
The question is why serpent seed of Satan theorists place such emphasis on the curse upon Eve. They appear to do so due to the apparent oddity in the punishment not fitting the crime and then they take off from there. However, when we take the Bible within its own context we notice that the answer is before our eyes.

Recall that Zen Garcia stated, “eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil actually refers to a sexual tryst rather than an actual literal piece of fruit” yet, Adam also ate of he fruit so will Zen assert that Adam also had sex with Satan? I would imagine that he would appeal to Genesis 3:6 which states that “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” in order to claim that the fruit of the tree desired via Satan’s beguiling was Satan’s body but the fruit of the tree via Eve giving it to Adam was Eve’s body. But then, why would Adam be forbidden to engage in sexual union with his wife?
Now, ask yourself why, since Adam too did eat of the forbidden fruit, is the following cruse related to his sin? Genesis 3:17-19, “…cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” How does this punishment fit the crime of eating?

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider the resolution of the mysterious problems.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

Zen Garcia on the resolution of the mysterious problems

Adam and Eve’s punishments relate directly to that which is specified about them. At one point Adam was tasked with naming the animals (Genesis 2:19) but that task was completed at one point and thus, was over and done with. His full time hobby, as I will term it, was that “the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (Genesis 2:15). This is akin to gardening, gathering fruits and veggies, etc. Of Eve, it is specified that “she was the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20).

Note that the punishments, the curses, relate specifically to that which is specified about them pertaining to their long term activities.

Adam’s hobby to “dress it and to keep” the garden turned to the job, the hard labor, of “in sorrow shalt thou eat of it…In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat” because now “cursed is the ground…Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth.” The ground once simply produced for Adam but he would now have to work it. Eve was “the mother of all living” thus, in that capacity, YHVH would “greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children”—in general and not just in the one case of Cain’ birth.

The way that the punishment fits the crime is that the punishment correlates, directly, to that which was to be each one’s specified task; working land and childbearing respectably.

Another aspect to note, at this point, pertaining to the aforementioned claim that Satan was the “someone else to whom she had directed her affection” is what Adam and Eve are described as sharing in common. That is that when “a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife” then “they shall be one flesh.” This may be why part of the curse upon Eve is “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” since she got him to, as it were, eat the fruit as in taking the lead and “unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife…” thus, Adam was to take the lead as Eve had been beguiled (Genesis 3:16-17). In fact, “the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty” (2 Corinthians 11:3) and yet, Adam is fingered, in a manner of speaking, for the fall, “in Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22).

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider the seedlines – bloodlines.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

Nephilim in Targumim Onkelos, Neofiti & Pseudo-Jonathan ben Uzziel

Regarding Targum Onqelos aka Onkelos:

According to the Babylonian Talmud [Bab. Talm.] (Meg. 3a) it was composed early in the 2nd century A.D., but this seems to be a confusion with the Greek translation of Aquila…was probably completed before A.D. 400…reads…“sons of the great ones,” probably referring to rulers. For Nephilim it has [Hebrew spelling for gibborim]. [John Wesley] Etheridge’s translation “giants” for this is possible, but not necessary, as [Moses] Aberbach and [Bernard] Grossfeld prefer “mighty ones.”1

This Targum states the following in 6:1-2, 4:

And it was when the sons of men had begun to multiply upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of the mighty saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, and took to them wives of all whom they pleased…
Giants were in the earth in those days; and also when, after that the sons of the mighty had gone in unto the daughters of men, there were born from them giants who from of old were men of name.

scribe-6427877

Targum Neofiti aka Neophyti “is the only complete extant MS of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch” Torah, first five books of the Bible, “dated from the 1st to the 4th centuries A.D.”:

In place of the Hebrew [for sons of God] is the Aramaic…”sons of the judges”…in the MT [Masoretic Text] of Gen 6:3. Nephilim is rendered by…”warriors.”…the last sentence of 6:4—”these are the warriors that (were there) from the beginning of the world, warriors of wondrous renown”—so as to exclude human beings.
However, the MS has many marginal notes, which presumably represent one or more other MSS of the Palestinian Targum. One such note occurs at 6:4 and reads: “There were warriors dwelling on earth in those days, and also afterwards, after the sons of the angels had joined (in wedlock) the daughters of the sons.”2

Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel more accurately Pseudo-Jonathan 6:1-2, 4 (dates to the 600s AD):

And it was when the sons of men began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and fair daughters were born to them; and the sons of the great saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and painted, and curled, walking with revelation of the flesh, and with imaginations of wickedness; that they took them wives of all who pleased them…
Schamchazai and Uzziel, who fell from heaven, were on the earth in those days; and also, after the sons of the Great had gone in with the daughters of men, they bare to them: and these are they who are called men who are of the world, men of names.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Nephilim, #Targum, #Bible
Facebook: #Nephilim, #Targum, #Bible