Month: August 2016

Angels in the apocryphal text Tobit & Wisdom of Solomon aka Book of Wisdom

Herein we continued, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, a series regarding paranormal entities in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The quotations are of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations.

Angels in the apocryphal text Tobit & Wisdom of Solomon aka Book of Wisdom

Tobit – late 3rd to 2nd century BC 5:1-8, 16, 21 Then Tobias answered him, “Father, I will do everything that you have commanded me; but how can I obtain the money when I do not know the man?” Then Tobit gave him the receipt, and said to him, “Find a man to go with you and I will pay him wages as long as I live; and go and get the money.” So he went to look for a man; and he found Raphael, who was an Angel, but Tobias did not know it. Tobias said to him, “Can you go with me to Rages in Media? Are you acquainted with that region?” The Angel replied, “I will go with you; I am familiar with the way, and I have stayed with our brother Gabael.” Then Tobias said to him, “Wait for me, and I shall tell my father.” And he said to him, “Go, and do not delay.” So he went in and said to his father, “I have found some one to go with me.” He said, “Call him to me, so that I may learn to what tribe he belongs, and whether he is a reliable man to go with you”… Then he said to Tobias, “Get ready for the journey, and good success to you both.” So his son made the preparations for the journey. And his father said to him, “Go with this man; God who dwells in heaven will prosper your way, and may his Angel attend you.” So they both went out and departed, and the young man’s dog was with them…

For a good Angel will go with him; his journey will be successful, and he will come back safe and sound.”

6:1-17 Now as they proceeded on their way they came at evening to the Tigris river and camped there. Then the young man went down to wash himself. A fish leaped up from the river and would have swallowed the young man; and the Angel said to him, “Catch the fish.” So the young man seized the fish and threw it up on the land. Then the Angel said to him, “Cut open the fish and take the heart and liver and gall and put them away safely.” So the young man did as the Angel told him; and they roasted and ate the fish. And they both continued on their way until they came near to Ecbatana. Then the young man said to the Angel, “Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?” He replied, “As for the heart and liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again. And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured.” When they approached Ecbatana, the Angel said to the young man, “Brother, today we shall stay with Raguel. He is your relative, and he has an only daughter named Sarah. I will suggest that she be given to you in marriage, because you are entitled to her and to her inheritance, for you are her only eligible kinsman. The girl is also beautiful and sensible. Now listen to my plan. I will speak to her father, and as soon as we return from Rages we will celebrate the marriage. For I know that Raguel, according to the law of Moses, cannot give her to another man without incurring the penalty of death, because you rather than any other man are entitled to the inheritance.” Then the young man said to the Angel, “Brother Azarias, I have heard that the girl has been given to seven husbands and that each died in the bridal chamber. Now I am the only son my father has, and I am afraid that if I go in I will die as those before me did, for a demon is in love with her, and he harms no one except those who approach her. So now I fear that I may die and bring the lives of my father and mother to the grave in sorrow on my account. And they have no other son to bury them.”

But the Angel said to him, “Do you not remember the words with which your father commanded you to take a wife from among your own people? Now listen to me, brother, for she will become your wife; and do not worry about the demon, for this very night she will be given to you in marriage. When you enter the bridal chamber, you shall take live ashes of incense and lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish so as to make a smoke. Then the demon will smell it and flee away, and will never again return. And when you approach her, rise up, both of you, and cry out to the merciful God, and he will save you and have mercy on you. Do not be afraid, for she was destined for you from eternity. You will save her, and she will go with you, and I suppose that you will have children by her.” When Tobias heard these things, he fell in love with her and yearned deeply for her.

8:1-3, 15 When they had finished eating, they escorted Tobias in to her. As he went he remembered the words of Raphael, and he took the live ashes of incense and put the heart and liver of the fish upon them and made a smoke. And when the demon smelled the odor he fled to the remotest parts of Egypt, and the Angel bound him…Then Raguel blessed God and said, “Blessed art thou, O God, with every pure and holy blessing. Let thy saints and all thy creatures bless thee; let all thy Angels and thy chosen people bless thee for ever.

11:14 Then he saw his son and embraced him, and he wept and said, “Blessed art thou, O God, and blessed is thy name for ever, and blessed are all thy holy Angels.

12:5-6, 15-17, 22 So he called the Angel and said to him, “Take half of all that you two have brought back.” Then the Angel called the two of them privately and said to them: “Praise God and give thanks to him; exalt him and give thanks to him in the presence of all the living for what he has done for you. It is good to praise God and to exalt his name, worthily declaring the works of God. Do not be slow to give him thanks… I am Raphael, one of the seven holy Angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.” They were both alarmed; and they fell upon their faces, for they were afraid. But he said to them, “Do not be afraid; you will be safe. But praise God for ever…”…

So they confessed the great and wonderful works of God, and acknowledged that the Angel of the Lord had appeared to them.

Wisdom of Solomon aka Book of Wisdom – late 1st century BC or from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD
10:10 When a righteous man fled from his brother’s wrath, she guided him on straight paths; she showed him the kingdom of God, and gave him knowledge of Angels; she prospered him in his labors, and increased the fruit of his toil.

16:20 Instead of these things thou didst give thy people food of Angels, and without their toil thou didst supply them from heaven with bread ready to eat, providing every pleasure and suited to every taste.

In the next segment, we will consider the Acts of John, Paul and Andrew.

VIDEO: Prince admits transgender multiple personalities on Oprah Winfrey show

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.)

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

Angels in the various bible addition apocrypha

Herein we continued, from part 1, part 2, part 3, a series regarding paranormal entities in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The quotations are of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations.

Angels in the various bible addition apocrypha.

Bel and the Dragon – 2nd century BC
1:34, 36, 39 But the Angel of the Lord said unto Habbacuc, Go, carry the dinner that thou hast into Babylon unto Daniel, who is in the lions’ den…Then the Angel of the Lord took him by the crown, and bare him by the hair of his head, and through the vehemency of his spirit set him in Babylon over the den…So Daniel arose, and did eat: and the Angel of the Lord set Habbacuc in his own place again immediately.

Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children – 2nd century BC
1:26, 37 But the Angel of the Lord came down into the oven together with Azarias and his fellows, and smote the flame of the fire out of the oven…O ye Angels of the Lord, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Susanna aka Shoshana – 2nd century BC
1:55, 59 And Daniel said, Very well; thou hast lied against thine own head; for even now the Angel of God hath received the sentence of God to cut thee in two…Then said Daniel unto him, Well; thou hast also lied against thine own head: for the Angel of God waiteth with the sword to cut thee in two, that he may destroy you.

Letter of Jeremiah aka Epistle of Jeremy – late 4th to early 1st century BC
1:6 For mine Angel is with you, and I myself caring for your souls.

Additions to the Book of Esther – 2nd or 1st century BC
15:13 And she said to him, “I saw you, my lord, like an Angel of God and my heart was shaken with fear at your glory.

Book of the All-Virtuous Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira aka Wisdom of Sirach aka Sirach aka Siracides aka Book of Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with the biblical book Ecclesiastes) – 200 to 175 BC
48:21 The Lord smote the camp of the Assyrians, and his Angel wiped them out.

In the next segment, we will consider the book of Tobit and Wisdom of Solomon aka Book of Wisdom.

On exuberant Atheists on college campus

We now conclude, from part 1 and part 2 and part 3, considering the article Atheism Groups Grow on College Campuses, from which we are gleaning certain issue of interest. Now we come to the segment wherein we consider whether the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society is as it is claimed below:

“This is not a group of angry atheists. It’s a group of very exuberant atheists,” said faculty sponsor Hector Avalos…”Their primary aim is not to destroy the faith of Christians on campus. It’s more live and let live.”

 Let us consider the content of their website as a clue to their true purpose. Home page, top, front and center is what? A photo of the Society with Mr. Belligerent Militant Atheist himself, Richard Dawkins.

They sell a t-shirt with the club’s name on the front and this on the back, “The deepest sin against the human mind is to beleive [sic] things without evidence.” As they explain it, “The quote is from Thomas H. Huxley, friend of Charles Darwin, and creator of the term agnostic.”

Indeed, he did and this is rather interesting coming from an Atheist and Agnostic Society. You see, the popular modern day definition of atheism, at least when it is proclaimed to those who would challenge atheism, is to claim that atheism is merely a lack of belief in god(s). Granted, even the celebrity New Atheist types positively affirm God’s non-existence but that is generally only to friendly audiences who applaud their every bit of malarkey—see Some celebrity New Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence

atheism2c20bus20ads2c20children2c20apologetics2c20american20atheists2c20internet20infidels2c20don27t20label20me2c202c20true20freethinker-6209850

However, when you consider the Definition of “Atheism” you will note that the very reason that Thomas H. Huxley coined the term agnostic (lack of knowledge) is that he saw that on the one hand, there were theists who positively affirmed God’s existence and on the other hand, there were atheists who positively affirmed God’s non-existence. Thus, he sought to coin a term for a middle position and one that considers both theists and atheists as lacking enough evidence either way.

Thus, it must be interesting when the atheists of the group claim that they simply lack a God believe due to what they consider to be a lack of enough evidence. The agnostics must be thinking, “And what are we, chopped liver?”

The only blog to which they link is John Loftus’ Debunking Christianity which is merely an anti-Christian support group if there ever was one (and one that Mr. Marcus has been taking apart).

Some of the podcasts to which they link are also anti-Christian support groups such as The Non-Prophets, Freethought Radio, The Atheist Experience, etc.

Their “Selected Individual Writings” include works by Dan Barker (who has but one out of tune note to play, I’m an ex preacher who stated, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” and who claims that rape is not absolutely immoral) and Keith Parsons (who, for some odd reason, thinks that a good debate tactic is to repeatedly yell out, “I will not believe!!!”).

Their book store lists the usual suspects, the very celebrity atheist who have done a great job of giving atheists a bad name: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. Seems that the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society have contracted the DHDH meme (also see “Inception” the movie and the meme – the New Atheist cover is blown).

One of the website’s articles is titled Faith the Bedrock of Bad Ideas that Religion Rests Upon. Sadly, the term faith has been mis-defined by atheists as belief without evidence when, in reality (at least from a Judeo-Christian perspective) faith is a logical conclusion.

The fact is that we are all metaphysicians because, form the most fundamentalist young earth creationists, to the most self-assured positive affirmation of God’s non-existence, all worldviews / philosophies are premised upon axioms that are not evidenced nor proven but are assumed, they are intuited and presupposed.

What greater faith (of the belief without evidence variety) is there but atheism itself?

Serpent seedline of Satan in Zen Garcia’s book “The Aramaic and Palestinian Targums”

This is a styled follow up to Serpent Seed of Satan theorist on the original text of Genesis 4:1 part 1 and part 2

Serpent seedline of Satan pop-researcher Zen Garcia has published The Aramaic and Palestinian Targums which he “edited.” With all due regard and discretion, his only qualifications for handling ancient Aramaic in editing such ancient texts is that he has an internet connection. The Aramaic Targum is Onkelos circa 200 AD and the Palestinian is the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel aka more accurately as Pseudo-Jonathan circa 600 AD.

Within his edition he notes “This information represents work that is found and part of the public domain [sic.]…This book is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered.” He also states that these texts are “what I consider to be priceless accounts of the original antiquated translations of the Hebraic Torah no longer available to us as world. [sic.]”
Lastly, “In producing this book I have attempted to minimize edits to his original work and mostly only formatted the transcript…” with the “his” referring to J.W. Etheridge. In other words, Zen simply copied and pasted Etheridge’s translation and now sells a hardcover for an astonishing $45.00, an equally high priced paperback for $31.99 or a PDF for $9.99—or just get Etheridge’s original version for free in about 1,001 different websites—for example, this site provides the texts of Onkelos (“ONK”), Pseudo-Jonathan (“PAL”) and the Masoretic (“JPS”) for each verse.

Zen Garcia did a styled combo job of Pseudo-Jonathan and Onkelos so that for any given text he provides Pseudo-Jonathan sometimes accompanied by Onkelos. He has various occasions of virtually entire chapters in both versions. Notably this is not the case with the one and only key text upon which, for some odd reason, serpent seedline of Satan theorists build their theory. Genesis 4:1 makes the very clear statement that Adam impregnated Eve and the resulting offspring was Cain.
However, here is how Zen Garcia’s / J.W. Etheridge’s version reads:

And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel.

Clearly, this is very, very different than any other rendering of these verses in any language at any point in history. Zen Garcia has claimed in many forums that this is the “original” text/reading/version which is something that is obviously not accurate. In fact, the reason that he has to appeal to a text from over half a millennia after the time of Jesus is that there is no prior text in any language which even hints at such a rendering.

In fact, Pseudo-Jonathan is well known to 1) be like various Targumim which means that they are not only translations but paraphrases but 2) is one that particularly includes much added material from Rabbinic folklore.
Now, consider the rendering that Zen Garcia did not include in his edition of both Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan: he did not include Onkelos at this point, but why not? I certainly do not know but here is the Onkelos rendering:

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. And she added to give birth to his brother, Habel…

That is correct, it reads just as any and every version in any language at any point in history including prior to 600 AD. I am merely guessing but it may be that Garcia did not include it as it would evidence 1) the unwarranted nature of Pseudo-Jonathan which 2) would do away with the main serpent seed of Satan theory text.

In his edition Garcia notes, “These translations provide insight into the original scriptural meaning which otherwise would be lost to tradition and current understanding.” Yet, the fact is that Pseudo-Jonathan provides insight into Rabbinic folklore and only provides insight into the original scriptural meaning by showing us just how far away from the original Pseudo-Jonathan went.

But how does, for example, the Masoretic text render it? This text, as published by the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), derives from the Masoretes who produced the translation between circa 800 AD:

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.”

Furthermore, consider that the Encyclopædia Britannica notes that the Aramaic Peshitta was the “Bible of Syrian Christian churches from the end of the 3rd century ad.” In his book The Bible in the Syriac Tradition Sebastian Brock notes that “The Peshitta Old Testament was translated directly from the original Hebrew text” circa the 2nd century AD (St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1988 AD, p. 17). How, pray tell, does this text which is centuries older than Pseudo-Jonathan render 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.”

Again, this is the common reading through all of history with the sole exception of Pseudo-Jonathan.

What of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Well, Genesis 4:1 was not preserved however, 4:2 was and since it reads just as is commonly known then it is safe to assume that 4:1 did as well—it is an argument from silence in either direction.
Scroll 4Q2 Genesisb has 4:1 as “Again she gave birth, to Cain’s brother Abel. Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”
Compare with the JKV’s “And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”

But what of the Septuagint aka LXX which dates to circa 300 BC? Here are some examples:
The Septuagint LXX: Greek and English trans. By Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton in 1851 AD:

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

A New English Translation of the Septuagint published by Oxford University Press in 2009 AD:

Now Adam knew his wife Heua, and after she had conceived she bore Kain and said, “I have acquired a man through God.”

Septuagint Bible w/ Apocrypha LXX

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

The 2001 Translation – An American English Bible: With Old Testament based on the Greek Septuagint:

Well thereafter, Adam had [sexual relations] with Eue, his woman, so she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. And she said, “I have gained a man through God.” [Brackets in translation]

Again, textual evidence is not even in question as to the original reading and again, Zen Garcia insists on the one, one and only, one single unreliable is the original because it states, or so he thinks, that which he presupposes he wants to hear—this is a classic case of isogesis.

He wants the text to read that Adam is not Cain’s dad but that Satan is thus, “And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain.” But note that even this reading does not help him since it merely notes that “Adam knew Hava his wife” even though she “had desired the Angel.”

Also, in various forums Zen Garcia has noted that a semicolon within the KJV is very important (yes, he actually argues from a grammatical mark with an English translation, see here). The KJV has:

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

Did you catch the momentous grammatical point? Well, Zen Garcia asserts that “This semicolon will be key to understanding…why it” merely “seems” mind you “to cite Adam as Cain’s father” since “Once understood the reasoning for its location…distinctly separate[s]…the children born of Adam and Eve.” He argues that the semicolon is having us read the text (the original Hebrew text) as “And Adam knew Eve his wife” sure, however “and she conceived, and bare Cain” who was conceived when Satan knew Eve. He really thinks that the semicolon is drawing our attention to the supposed fact that Satan is Cain’s dad and Adam is Abel’s dad.

But now, what happens when we apply his very own “logic” to his preferred rendering? Recall that it reads, as he himself edits it, “And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain.” Thus, we must conclude that “Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel” sure, however, “and she conceived, and bare Kain.” Thus, his entire reason for arguing from a semicolon discredits his own edition since it reads, as per his (mis)interpretation that Eve had sex with “the Angel” but that “she conceived, and bare Kain” is unrelated to “the Angel.”

But what Angels is that?
Well, Pseudo-Jonathan reads as follows at Genesis 3:6,

And the woman beheld Sammael, the angel of death, and was afraid; yet she knew that the tree was good to eat, and that it was medicine for the enlightenment of the eyes, and a desirable tree by means of which to understand. And she took of its fruit, and did eat; and she gave to her husband with her, and he did eat.

Does this not sounds familiar? Only partially? Indeed, that is because this is merely another unwarranted, otherwise unknown, late dated, insertion of Rabbinic folklore.

Here is Onkelos which the editor did not bother including in his edition:

And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and that it was salutary to the eyes, and a tree desirable to contemplate; and she took of its fruitage (aiba) and ate; and she gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Here is the Masoretic:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

Here is the Peshitta:

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was
desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Need I go on?

Thus, to paraphrase Zen Garcia’s view of Genesis 4:1, it is stating that Adam knew Hava his wife even though she had desired the Sammael the Angel of death; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man who, by the way, is the Angel of the Lord. Indeed, this is a mess and not to mention (okay, mentioning) that Satan is not the Angel of death and in fact, is not an Angel but is a Cherub (Isaiah 14:12).

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

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: #Targum, #SeedofSatan, #ZenGarcia
Facebook: #Targum, #SeedofSatan, #ZenGarcia

Bob Schlenker sex orgy interpretation of Genesis 3

bob2bschlenker-4175462
If there were another legitimate way to interpret the scene in the garden that wasn’t a sex orgy

version, I’d like that very much

—Bob Schlenker

Herein is the continuation of a review of Bob Schlenker’s article Who is Cain’s Father? Part One the subsequent portions of which we will get to as we continue this series which you can (eventually) find in toto here.

Bob Schlenker titled one section of his article “The Sex Orgy Version” wherein he writes, “let’s reconsider the activity in the Garden as more of a sex orgy than a light snack. Sex orgy? Yes. It’s time to put aside our naiveté.”
At least he is very consistent at this point which is that since Genesis 3:6 states that Eve “did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” then logically, “Adam wasn’t deceived yet he was persuaded to join in” thus, Adam had homosexual sex with Satan.

From he tells us not where, Schlenker claims to know details as specific as that Adam “was stimulated to the point of ejaculation with the result that he ‘spilled his seed’ on the ground” which is not only a mere assertion, of course, but he is quoting from well, he tells us not whence.
Recall that he believes that Cain and Abel were twins, which they may have been, but that they were heteropaternal twins Satan inseminating Cain and Adam inseminating Abel. He then asserts, again without a source, that “Adam later ‘knew,’ or, had sexual intercourse with Eve, she conceived again.”

He then refers to “extra-biblical writings” and notes that “if we accept the testimony of the ancient witnesses” we could conclude that they could have been twins (he also references that “According to certain legends of the Jews, Lucifer lusted after Eve”). Texts such as the very late dated Palestinian Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel aka more accurately Pseudo-Jonathan (circa 600s AD) specify that they were twins.
However, there is another legendary folkloric extra-biblical apocryphal text titled Pirke De (chapters of) Rabbi Eliezer (circa 833 AD), for example, which has Cain being a twin born along with his sister and later Abel being a twin who is also born along with his sister. According to this text Adam states “We will join Abel’s sister in marriage to Cain, and Cain’s sister to Abel.” However, Cain is in love with his own twin sister and thus ends up murdering Abel so that he will not have her.

Interestingly, Bob Schlenker wrote a three part article which when I pasted it into the Word program amounted to circa 25 pages and yet at this point he writes, “Have I proven anything, yet? No. And, really, I won’t be proving anything. You may believe what you want about what happened in the Garden.”

At long last, Bob Schlenker gets to his point about punishment fitting crime, eye for an eye, etc. He writes, “Let’s consider the sin and what happened afterward…the next verse consistent with either the traditional ‘light snack’ version or the more adult ‘sex orgy’ version I proposed?” He quotes Genesis 3:7, “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings” to the effect that, or so he reasons:

If what happened in the Garden was the “light snack” version, covering the loins makes no sense at all. If the activity was procreative, the part of the body you’d want to hide is where the reproductive organs are located, the loins.

Well, this need not be made mysterious or complex just because serpent seed of Satan theorists grasp desperately for anything that they twist towards their ends. Genesis 2 stated that Adam and Eve “were both naked…and were not ashamed.” However, after eating the fruit of the tree of both good and also evil, they seem to have recognized that there is good naked and evil naked and they found themselves nakedly exposed before God.

He then references the curse on the serpent and focuses on “Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go.” His vivid imagination runs wild as he states, only in part mind you, “think about a reversal of roles, of the positions assumed during the sinful activity in the Garden.” So, of course, he thinks that this has something to do with sex. However, when we allow the Bible to define its own meanings we note that this phrase refers to being humbled. The “serpent was more subtil than any beast” but was then “cursed above” as in more than, any beast and so “upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life…” Psalm 72:9 has a very similar reference to consuming dust, “They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.” Likewise with Micah 7:17, “They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.”

With reference to it being “good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD” Lamentations 3:27-28 states that “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. He sitteth alone and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him” and the key phrase, “He putteth his mouth in the dust; if so be there may be hope.” Deuteronomy 32:24 states, “They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.”

Genesis 3:15 is quoted, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” In essence, Bob Schlenker notes that while Eve had been attracted to the serpent (“‘lust’ and ‘passionate desire’” as Bob Schlenker puts it) enough to have sex with it/him the curse is that now they would be an enmity. Of course, on Schlenker’s view Adam had been attracted to the serpent enough to have sex with it/him and yet, his curse has no such correlation.
As the Bible as a whole makes clear time and time again: there are two “lines” in a manner of speaking, but they are based on actions (such as God told Cain in Genesis 4:7) and not genetics. Thus, the serpent seed and Eve’s seed make perfect biblical sense as is: the serpent seed refers to those who, like the serpent, would commit Satanic sinful actions and Eve’s seed would lead to Jesus and so represents those who would repent and perform Godly righteous actions. Thus, Cain’s actions were sinful and Abel’s righteous.

Thus, when we come to texts such as John 8:44, to which Bob Schlenker directs us, his alleged privately personal revelation from God peppered with Rabbinic folklore has him understanding “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning” as that “Cain was a murderer like his father. Adam was not a murderer.
However, when we understand texts with context (both immediate and greater) we understand that the text means what it says and says what it means, “You are of your father the devil” due to wanting to take actions commensurate with “the desires of your father.” For a detailed consideration of the entire John 8 statement, see Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in John 8?.

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

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. 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: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines
Facebook: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines

Serpent Seedline of Satan with Zen Garcia on Now You See TV, 4 of 6

Once again contrary to your opinion the Biblical narrative has everything to do with genetics and in particular blood lines. Why do you think that we as humanity are redeemed and saved by the blood of the lamb? “If the woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death. Because of this, Christ came to repair the separation, which was from the beginning, and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation, and unite them.” “Adam came into being from two virgins, from the Spirit and from the virgin earth. Christ, therefore, was born of a virgin to rectify the fall which occurred in the beginning.” – The Gospel Of Phillip

If the Biblical narrative has nothing to do with blood or genetics, why did Satan go to such lengths (Genesis 3 and 6) to corrupt the bloodline of the messiah? And why would Cain not be specifically mentioned in His lineages (Luke 3:23-38, if he was the firstborn son of Adam? Why do you think the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs spent so much time keeping strict record of whom was begotten of whom and what son was born of what father if there was not some deeper meaning to their having done so?
And as far as the semicolon in Genesis 4:1, it is absolutely a big deal especially when one considers that this verse has excluded from it this portion of the text ‘who had desired the Angel’ and also ‘And she added to bear from her husband Adam.’ IV. And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel. – Genesis 4:1, Targum (Aramaic translation of the original Hebrew Torah)

The semicolon which specifically means (;) is a punctuation mark that separates major sentence elements. A semicolon can be used between two closely related independent clauses, which in this case denotes the separation of these two clauses in the King James version of this passage, ‘And Adam knew Eve his wife;’, ‘and she conceived, and bare Cain.’ Adam knowing his wife, is not what led to her conceiving and bearing Cain. It was her desiring the angel which led to her conceiving Cain. This distinction has been removed from the King James version of this particular scripture, and so yes the semicolon in this case, is very important for confirming this differentiation. Which is also why this passage is found at the beginning of Genesis four, the chapter in which Cain’s lineages is listed separate from that of the sons of Adam listed in Genesis five. This is also why in the Targum version of Genesis five you have this specifically being mentioned, “And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat Sheth, who had the likeness of his image and of his similitude: for before had Hava born Kain, who was not like to him; and Habel was killed by his hand. And Kain was cast out; neither is his seed genealogized in the book of the genealogy of Adam. But afterwards there was born one like him, and he called his name Sheth.” This also is excluded from the King James version of Genesis chapter five.
Now in regard to the Hebrew words for fruit, tree, eat of, touch, and seed, that all of these words have specific association with children, descendants, progeny or are in some way associated to a sexual act? The phrase fruit of the tree is Hebrew word # 6529 periy- fruit, which in a wide sense means: a) fruit, produce (of the ground), or b) fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb), or figuratively c) fruit (of actions).

zen2bgarccia-2605882

The phrase eat of it is Hebrew word #398; ‘akal (aw-kal’); This word has many uses, but can mean to lay with a woman (a sexual act). Touch is Hebrew word # 5060; naga`(naw-gah’); Properly, to touch, ie: to lay the hand upon (for any purpose); euphemism for: to lie with a woman. Seed is the Hebrew word #2233 zera` which means seed, sowing, offspring, a sowing, seed, semen virile, offspring, descendants, posterity, children. If you really believe that the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was somehow related to apple, fig or fruit of some kind, how do you explain their being enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent? Why would Adam and Eve after the eating of this fruit cause them to cover their genitals and how in any way would it lead to Eve being pregnant? And why would Paul refer to Eve’s beguilement as corrupting her virginity in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, the word there being the Greek word exapataō which means to seduce wholly:—beguile, deceive just like the Hebrew word nasha’ in Genesis 3:13 which means to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly. Your belief like your previous rebuttal in my opinion, in no way makes any literal or metaphorical sense when regarded in connection to all these things. Which is why I suggest that people investigate this topic thoroughly before making decision as to whether there is something more to it or not.

You will find my reply in the next segment.

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.