Month: August 2016

The following are samples and examples of Serpent seed of Satan theory in Sethians, Kabbalah, Islam and Moonies. This pertains to the theory about which I have been writing quite a bit, see Serpent Seed of Satan.

Sethian refers to a main Gnostic cult of the 2nd-3rd centuries AD. They claim to possess gnosis/knowledge preserved from Adam and Eve’s son Seth and from Noah’s wife whom they named Norea. Sethians are mentioned in the 2nd century AD works of Irenaeus and Pseudo-Tertullian.

They identified Seth with Christ; the Second Logos of the Great Seth. They reference an Unknown God who undergoes various emanations in the process of which its essence brings about male and female beings known as aeons, the first of which is Barbelo. Essentially, aeons represent God’s various attributes. This concept amounts to the Unknown God to be knowable by those with gnosis, this knowledge. Pleroma is a term denoting a spiritual realm/universe consisting of God and the aeons.

Within some Gnostic sects an aeon known as Sophia (wisdom, divine wisdom) sought to emulate God’s creative act and took it upon herself to create an emanation, a demiurge in her own image which resulted in Yaldabaoth; a “serpent with a lion’s head.” Sophia attempts to hide this being but it escaped and stole a portion of divine power.

Just as Sophia sought to emulate God so Yaldabaoth sought to emulate Sophia in creating the material realm/universe. Yaldabaoth also created the Archons; “petty rulers” that are typically envisaged with animal heads. Some texts correlate Archons with fallen angels and indeed, the term arche (Strong’s G746) appears in Ephesians 6:12 as follows:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities [arche], against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

What the Gnostics are doing is to turn the Bible upside down, inside out and backwards. Thus far, they have proposed the purely spiritual realm as being perfectly pure and the material realm as being corrupt.
Yaldabaoth proclaims himself to be the one and only god, creates Adam and accidentally instills into him some of Sophia’s power. He then removes Adam’s rib so as to create Eve and regain the power from Adam by rapping her. In some versions, he fails because the power infuses itself into the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Yaldabaoth then temps Adam and Eve so that he can regain the power.

Based on this radical re-writing of history, Sethians, et al., claim that by falling into that which the Bible calls sin, Adam and Eve were gaining freedom from the petty Archons which makes the Yaldabaoth serpent a liberator, a bringer of enlightenment.

One of the main texts of Jewish mysticism, Kabbalah, is the Zohar which states the following at Bereshith/Genesis 36b-37a:

For two beings had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species from which come evil spirits and demons and necromancers. From the side of Abel comes a more merciful [Adam-like] class — yet not wholly beneficial — good wine mixed with bad. The right kind was not produced until Seth came, who is the first ancestor of all the generations of the righteous.

Islamic tradition found within Sahih Bukhari’s hadith vol. 6, book 60, number 196:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Tonight two (visitors) came to me (in my dream) and took me to a town built with gold bricks and silver bricks. There we met men who, half of their bodies, look like the most-handsome human beings you have ever seen, and the other half, the ugliest human beings you have ever seen. Those two visitors said to those men, Go and dip yourselves in that river.
So they dipped themselves therein and then came to us, their ugliness having disappeared and they were in the most-handsome shape.” The visitors said, “The first is the Garden of Eden and that is your dwelling place.” Then they added, “As for those people who were half ugly and half handsome, they were those who mixed good deeds and bad deeds, but Allah forgave them.”

Rev. Sun Myung Moon (The Unification Church aka the Moonies) Divine Principle I.2.2.2:

Lucifer dared to seduce Eve at the risk of his life…and [they] had sexual intercourse with each other…Eve joined with Adam after she had the illicit relationship with the archangel [Satan]…and [Satan’s and Adam’s] elements were then transmitted to their descendants…and mankind has multiplied sin to the present day, thus perpetuating the lineage of Satan.

The text known as Book of the Apocalypse of Baruch aka 2 Baruch (late 1st or early 2nd century AD) states the following in chap 56:

[Adam] became a danger to his own soul: even to the angels. For, moreover, at that time when he was created, they enjoyed liberty. And became he a danger some of them descended, and mingled with the women. And then those who did so were tormented in chains. But the rest of the multitude of the angels, of which there is (no) number, restrained themselves.

And those who dwelt on the earth perished together (with them) through the waters of the deluge. These are the black first waters.

Just as an FYI: the reference to black water pertains to the text’s so called “Messiah Apocalypse” which contains “The Vision of the Cloud with black and white Waters” which begins with “…when I had said these things I fell asleep there, and I saw a vision, and lo! a cloud was ascending from a very great sea, and I kept gazing upon it) and lo! it was full of waters white and black, and there were many colors in those self-same waters, and as it were the likeness of great lightning was seen at its summit.”

This text is, of course, referencing the Genesis 6 affair and also 2 Peter 2:4 which states that “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”

This is a continuation from Zen Garcia on symbolic Serpent Seed of Satan language in Genesis 3 since I interacted with serpent seedline of Satan theorist Zen Garcia on the comment section to the video Lucifer Father Of Cain- The evil one’s seed? Zen Garcia on NYSTV (Now You See TV).

I noted:

Zen and I had some very detailed interaction on this topic. He fails to recognize that the Bible’s constant message on this issue is that it is about actions and not about genetics. He also tends to (consciously or not) pepper his claims with misinformation of various sorts. In our discussion he even made a case based on a semicolon in the KJV. If you want to see how our discussion went check the relevant articles by searching online for: TrueFreethinker “Serpent Seed of Satan”

Zen Garcia replied with a typical tactic of such theorists which is to play a game of gotcha questions—see, Zen Garcia on the resolution of the mysterious problems:

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.

Beyond the article I cited above, you can see how I have replied to these various and sundry claims with specific regards to Zen Garcia’s gotchas.

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

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: #ZenGarcia, #NYSTV, #Seedline
Facebook: #ZenGarcia, #NYSTV, #Seedline

Someone chimed in to write this to me:

Ken Ammi just a thought to add… when hava gives birth to Cain and says she has gotten a man from the lord.. the Hebrew here for Lord is the Tetragrammaton. I wonder if Zen sees that as an issue.. as it would mean making a case that the Tetragrammaton can be used to represent the most high or.. hasatan [the Satan] or various angels. [ellipses in original]

Zen Garcia replied thusly:

As posted above: Actually the original passage references that she got a man child from the angel of the Lord or that the child itself is an angel of the Lord. And then she added from her husband another child Abel.

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. – Targum

And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan], and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord.” – Eisenmenger, 1748, p. 198

Note that he cannot even keep his own story straight. He wrote that “As posted above:…she got a man child from the angel of the Lord or that the child itself is an angel of the Lord” yet, the text he quoted specifically stated the nonsensical paraphrase that Eve “had desired the Angel…I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.”

Note that the citations “Targum” and Eisenmenger” are genetic enough to be useless. Simply referring to Targum as a citation to a specific quotation would be like citing “Bible” to a quote which would lead to the question, “Bible? In which of the 66 books thereof?” Likewise, there are many Targumim and generic citations to the “Targum” do not tell us which one. If asked, and I have dealt with this issue with Zen, he will offer generic descriptions of what Targumim are but this does not tell the unaware of un-skeptical reader that while the Targumim began to be produced just before the time of Jesus, Zen Garcia relies virtually exclusively on a very, very late dated one that is peppered with Rabbinic folklore. Zen tends to avoid ancient Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and other manuscripts because they do not contains the much, much later accretions upon which he relies for the serpent seed theory.

At the self-publishing Lulu site where Zen sells his edition (for an outrageous $45.00) he, for some reason, offers three different descriptions of the Targumim in the three different places where his book is listed.
One is cited as being from “Wikipedia” which notes that Pseudo-Jonathan “is more than a mere translation. It includes much Aggadic material [narrative, parables, maxims, anecdotes, etc.] collected from various sources as late as the Midrash Rabbah [circa 425 AD] as well as earlier material from the Talmud [of which there are two which were compiled 500-600 AD]. So it is a combination of a commentary and a translation” (I added the bracketed statement so that the information would actually be informative and helpful). Another description also notes that the Targumim contain “additional commentary and paraphrase.”

Below, we will consider that which he above referred to simply as “Targum.” Eisenmenger refers to Johann Andreas Eisenmenger (1654-1704 AD) who was a German Orientalist.

Interestingly, in his book Lucifer – Father of Cain Zen provided the very same quotations as above but therein he cited them as “Palestinian Targum” and “Aramaic Targum, Targum of Jonathan.” In that book Zen Garcia seems to provide us with a Freudian slip (or, a Fraud-ian slip actually) in noting “The Targum of Jonathan add even greater detail to this supposition…” indeed, the Targum of Jonathan adds (something that ought not be done to the Bible) folklore not found in any earlier manuscripts of any language and his theory is a mere supposition.

Next, I provided details about just what Zen is quoting here as he never seems to provide detailed citations to it:

Zen, you keep referring to “the original passage” but you are not telling these dear unsuspecting people to what you are referring as being “the original passage”: please tell then what text you are quoting. You and I both known that you are quoting the Aramaic from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis).

Then, to the other person’s comment, I replied:

[Name withheld], you are quite right that Hava refers to having gotten a man from the Tetragrammaton and NOT from the Angel of the Lord. I would say that Zen SHOULD see it as an issue as he is teaching things that are contradicting the Bible. But he does not see that as an issue because he is basing his views on not on the Greek Septuagint/LXX, nor on any Hebrew manuscripts whatsoever but on the Aramaic from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis). He keeps referring to “the original passage” but does not tell people that he is quoting this very, very, very late dated Targum which is not only a translation but a paraphrase which includes Rabbinic folkloric interpretations.

FYI: The repetitiveness of my info about the Targum is due to not knowing if a commentator is reading all comments or only those made them.

This person replied thusly to me:

Thank you bro. Finally some sense in these comments. These speculators are in it for fame and money and are ignoring the great danger of these theories. If genetics is the source of evil, then we just have to find and exterminate all tainted people. Another Final Solution ? !! Pure B.S. These topics are fascinating but we cannot throw out the essence of the Bible’s message or basic rational.

I will check out the articles.

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

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: #ZenGarcia, #NYSTV, #Seedline
Facebook: #ZenGarcia, #NYSTV, #Seedline

I ran across a version of the Geneva Bible’s 1587 AD ed. complied along with notes by Ernest C. Marsh who notes that it is “one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into the English language, preceding the King James translation by 51 years.”

I will quote the text as Marsh has it which is the biblical text into which has been inserted italicized statements which are notes. Now, he does not, in each case, tell us who wrote each note but does generally state that a significant edition of the Geneva Bible is “the 1587 Tomson New Testament” and “Also of note are the Geneva Bible editions of 1568-1570, which contain Calvin’s Catechism.” Moreover:

Lawrence Tomson brought out a New Testament in 1576, based on Beza’s Greek and Latin New Testaments, and using Beza’s Latin New Testament notes. Tomson’s New Testament, including the margin notes, replaced the Geneva 1560 New Testament in a 1587 quarto edition of the Geneva Bible. While there were some changes in the biblical text, the major difference in the Tomson New Testament was in the margin notes. Some readers continued to prefer the Geneva Bible 1560 New Testament version. This resulted in some Geneva Bibles having the 1560 New Testament and notes and others having Tomson’s New Testament and notes, from 1587 on.

Note what a difference the notes make below as the text actually reads, “So when men beganne to be multiplied vpon the earth, and there were daughters borne vnto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose,” etc.

Here is the relevant portion of Genesis 6 with notes:

1 So when men beganne to be multiplied vpon the earth, and there were daughters borne vnto them,
2 That the The children of the godly who began to degenerate. sons of God saw the daughters Those that had wicked parents, as if from Cain. of men that they [were] Having more respect for their beauty and worldly considerations than for their manners and godliness. fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always Because man could not by won by God’s leniency and patience by which he tried to win him, he would no longer withhold his vengeance. strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an Which time span God gave man to repent before he would destroy the earth, (1Pe_3:20). hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of Who usurped authority over others, and degenerated from that simplicity, in which their father’s lived. renown. 5 When the Lorde sawe that the wickednesse of man was great in the earth, and all the imaginations of the thoughtes of his heart were onely euill continually,

6 And it God never repents, but he speaks in human terms, because he destroyed him, and in a way denied him as his creature. repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and God declares how much he detests sin, seeing the punishment of it extends to the brute beasts. beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah God was merciful to him. found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a iust and vpright man in his time: and Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begate three sonnes, Shem, Ham and Iapheth.

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with Meaning, that all were given to the contempt of God, and oppression of their neighbours. violence.

Thus, the sons of God is interpreted as being “children of the godly” and daughters of men as being of “wicked parents, as if from Cain.”

Thus, for some unstated reason the “children of the godly” were only male and there were no female “children of the godly” and conversely only females and no males had “wicked parents, as if from Cain.”

Also for some unstated reason the offspring of “children of the godly” and “wicked parents, as if from Cain” resulted in that which the Geneva Bible leaves uncommented upon and has simply as “Giants.”

It is interesting that 1 Peter 3:20 is cited as if the note’s author read through to 2 Peter 2 they would have noted that which Peter had to say about the Genesis 6 affair:

…God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation [“manner of life, conduct, behaviour, deportment”] of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Moreover, Jude 6-8 states:

And the Angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Lastly, since John Calvin in mentioned, you may want to consult John Calvin on the Nephilim.

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

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 Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Nephilim, #Angels, #GenevaBible
Facebook: #Nephilim, #Angels, #GenevaBible

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 seeks to “consider the potential meaning of the figurative language” within Genesis 3 towards the end of elucidating how “the Author of the Bible has a very refined sense of justice and legality. Where punishment is mandated it fits the crime. The penalties and consequences are suitable according to the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

He asks us to “consider why the metaphor of eating is used” within the context of Genesis 3 via an example of John 6 wherein Jesus stated, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” which it metaphoric. Of course, Catholic take this literally (even though, that is, Jesus made his intention clear in pointing out the following in verse 63 “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”).
He goes on to example how “When you eat something, it’s subsequently digested and something of it’s assimilated. It becomes part of your body” and that in John 6 “There’s a weaving back and forth through the bread of life eating and the father and son themes. This is what we call a clue. :)…The very profound truth hidden here is that food is to the eater like a father is to a son…natural eating involves putting things in your mouth and chewing them up. The other kind of eating is procreative.”

He then notes that in Eden “A tree that might be seen as ‘good for food’ does not necessarily mean it’s expected to provide a meal” and then calls us to recall that (within an utterly different context, mind you) John 6 also referenced eating in a metaphorical manner. But is it accurate to conclude that “‘good for food’ does not necessarily mean it’s expected to provide a meal”? Well, perhaps not if we are having an un-contextual chat however, Genesis 3 follows from, as you may have guessed, from Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 states that God created the Adam and Eve and told them, “I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat” with Genesis 2 stating “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat” with the stated exception of the forbidden tree.” Thus, within context a tree that might be seen as “good for food” does in fact mean it’s expected to provide a meal.”

In fact, serpent seedline of Satan theorists tell us that the forbidden “tree” was the serpent Satan. However, as we can see from Genesis chaps 1 and 2 “tree” means “tree.” If, by the way, “tree” is metaphorical of beings such as a serpent, Satan or the serpent Satan then God commanded Adam and Eve to have sex with multiple partners (who or whatever they were) as they could partake of the various trees freely.

Bob Schlenker states that “The seed of a tree is in the fruit. When you eat the fruit, you eat the seed” which is only true if you accidentally swallow the seed as people actually eat the fruit and discard the seed (with the exception of strawberries which are berries and not fruits). Following his mistaken statement about eating seeds (which people might do on, say, a sesame seed bagel but not as Schlenker stated it—along with the fruit), he then states that “Trees are reproduced by way of their fruit. Let this sink in” well, let this sink in: that is not accurate as trees are not reproduced by way of their fruit but by way of their seed.

He then gets into the area of asserting that terms such as grass and tree (and I would as: as well as any word in any language) they are “used metaphorically.” Well, I have been down this serpent seedline road before and most succinctly dealt with the terms fruit, eat, tree, etc. in Disambiguating the serpent seedline of Satan theory in Genesis 3.
Bob Schlenker, et al., ignore context, look up the terms in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, and then pick and choose from the various definitions which ones they want to arbitrarily and subjectively string together into a supposed personal revelation. Thus, when he writes, “If we interpret the description of the activity in the Garden according to those same principles we have an intriguing alternative to consider!” he thinks he is really getting somewhere with the serpent seed of Satan theory and yet, I hear him stating that if we interpret the description of the activity in the Garden according to an un-contextual picking and choosing of terms from we can claim that anything means anything.

Next, Bob Schlenker really does himself in since you will recall that I noted that if in Genesis eating means sex then what do you make his statement, “The Tree of Life is the Bread of Life, Y’shua”? Genesis 2:9 notes that “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden” and since “The Tree of Life is the Bread of Life, Y’shua” then Adam and Eve could have sex with Y’shua / Jesus.

Bob Schlenker, et al., seem to miss this logical conclusion of their clailms. He even makes a case on “artistic renderings of the scene in the Garden” wherein “the serpent is pictured winding around the tree of knowledge of good and evil like a helical strand of DNA.”

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

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

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.

He then claims that the “Genealogy of Cain is Separate From the Genealogy of Adam” and of Genesis 5:1-4 he asks “What about Cain and Abel? This is obviously a pretty sparse genealogy. The phrase, ‘and he had other sons and daughters,’ doesn’t offer anything in the way of help in our quest to discover Cain’s paternity.”
This is because the text states:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

A few points to note based on his perspective regarding Cain’s paternity: the fact that this is a “pretty sparse genealogy” will end up working against Bob Schlenker beginning with the fact that Cain is not listed therein and yet, neither are Adam’s “other sons and daughters.” Thus, he cannot conclude that, by necessity, Cain is purposeful excluded due to being Satan’s son.

He asserts that “we should expect that Cain would be first listed…His omission must be noted. Cain’s genealogy is given separately.” Note that the genealogies are not kept for their own sake but, ultimately, in order to connect the dots to Jesus. Seth is in that line and Cain as well as “other sons and daughters” are not it is that simple and the fact is that Cain absconded from Adam and Eve and began his own family.

At this point Bob Schlenker quotes “Cain and Abel (Wikipedia) to the effect that “(1 John 3:12) In at least one translation this [ek tou poneros] is rendered ‘from the evil one’ (International Standard Version), while others have ‘of the evil one.’ (New American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version, World English Bible, Young’s Literal Translation, etc.) Some interpreters take this to mean that Cain was literally the son of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. A parallel idea can be found in Jewish legend” which you can find here Serpent seedline of Satan in Louis Ginzberg’s “The Legends of the Jews”.
Of course, indeed, the Cain as serpent seed of Satan is a (mere) Jewish legend as you can see in Disambiguating the serpent seedline of Satan theory in Genesis 3.

In any regard, Wikipedia did a masterfully accurate job in emulating the manner whereby the legend is promulgated. This is because 1 John 3:12 does not, I repeat not, state that Cain was “from the evil one” or “of the evil one.” What I mean is that this is a self-servingly convenient quotation of a fragment of a verse. The text actually tells us how and why Cain is as such.
To his credit, Bob Schlenker quotes the whole verse. Let us begin at verse 11:

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

He then declares, “We might simply let the declaration of 1 John 3:12 settle the matter. It does just that for some students and scholars.” He states that the Greek “denotes origin” and yet, he asks whether “this verse represent the kind of conclusive evidence we’re seeking?” and answers “If it does, it’s not readily apparent.” This is because he can see that the point is not origins in the generative (genetic) kind but origin in another sense. He notes that “the context of the verse, verse 8 even by itself seems to discount verse 12, declaring that ‘the one who practices sin is of the devil.’”
You see, Cain is said to be of or from that wicked one because his brother and not because he is Satan’s son. But now, why did he do it? Because he carried within him Satanic genetics? No rather “Because his own works” his actions “were evil, and his brother’s” actions “righteous.” God Himself confirms that Cain problems were actions and not genetics:

And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him (Genesis 4:6-7).

So Cain can rule over sin, his sinful actions, and is not told anything about how to rule over his Satanic genetics.

Bob Schlenker also quotes William Branham thusly, “Before Adam ever had a carnal knowledge of Eve, the serpent had that knowledge ahead of him. And that one born of it was CAIN.” That is a mere assertion and you follow up by reading, On William Branham’s sermon “The Serpent’s Seed”.
He also quotes Richard Gan’s fanciful take to the effect that “the Devil-possessed Serpent committed fornication with the woman, that animal’s seed was planted in her womb and became fused with her egg resulting in the birth of a hybrid — Cain — a perverted seed!”

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

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

“Only a Sith deals in absolutes”-Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi

Let us begin by answering why we refer to relativism as a faith. We refer to relativism as a faith because it is a faith based belief. Has relativism been proved to be the correct philosophy-world-view? No. However, relativists instantly fall into contradiction by claiming that relativism is an absolute.

Personally, I have never met anyone who is a relativist. That is to say that I have met some people who claimed to be relativist but all of them, without exception, will state that all things are relative and then they spend the rest of the day looking around the world saying that’s right, that’s wrong, that’s good, that’s evil, that’s true, that’s false and you are most certainly wrong if you do not believe in relativism.

Pseudo-relativists appear to claim relativism for the following reasons:1) When it is convenient.2) When they want to tell you that they think that you are wrong but don’t have the intestinal fortitude to come out and say it.3) When they don’t want to put too much though into something.4) When they don’t want to be confused by the facts.

5) When they don’t want their beliefs questioned by reason.

True relativism would keep a person from making any absolute statements. Therefore, they could not, and would not, compare their belief to another’s and then deem another’s beliefs to be in any way wrong simply because they disagree. Pseudo-relativists actually believe in watered-down relativism, which means that they tell themselves, and others, that all things are relative but that you are wrong if you disagree with them. I have not met one single person who actually lives according to relativism.

Upon meeting a self-proclaimed relativist they will state that all things are relative. The first thing I would ask then is that they define, “All,” define, “things,” define, “are,” and define, “relative,” since technically relativists would be the first to claim that they define something one way but another person would define it another way (of course, there is some truth to this). Then I would ask how they know that all things are relative. Then I would point out that they are claiming that it is absolute truth that all things are relative. But while they claim to reject absolutes they most certainly believe that relativism is absolute truth, thereby refuting their own philosophy-world-view.

In other words, orthodox-relativism is itself a relative philosophy-world-view. Yet, practically speaking, those who claim to follow relativism are, in reality, absolutists.
The above stated facts are not lost on pseudo-relativists, at least not when these things are pointed out to them. At this point they move to phase two of the relativistic faith, which is when we find out what relativist really mean. We find out that pseudo-relativists are actually very strong believers in an odd form of pseudo-absolutism. What they really believe in is subjective, or personal, absolutism. For example, I had a discussion with a pseudo-relativist and brought up the following example: if what is wrong for you may not be wrong for me then I will burn your car. You would obviously not notify the authorities since, though you might not like the fact that I burnt your car, and you thought that it was wrong for me to do that, I though that it was not a wrong thing to do and so you must accept this bit of relativisms. But, they responded, that would be an illegal thing for me to do. I would counter that morals-ethics are relative and the only reason that it is illegal for me to burn your car is because people who believe in absolutes have violated relativism and have imposed this particular law upon us.

Thus, pseudo-relativists have very strongly held absolute beliefs and they know that you have them also. They then compare theirs to yours and judge your to be wrong if you disagree with theirs. They then state that you have yours and they have theirs and what is wrong for one may not be wrong for another and what is right for one may not be right for another. But ultimately you are absolutely wrong if you disagree with them.

Think about it: if orthodox-relativism were really true then a true relativist would have to accept the statement all things are not relative. They would be unable to refute the very statement which, at once, their philosophy-world-view allows for and is defeated by. They may not like this but they cannot tell you that they are wrong for believing it (at least not according to the dictates of orthodox-relativism).

Now a word for those not indoctrinated into pop-culture. “Only a Sith deals in absolutes” is a statement that was made in the movie Star Wars: Episode III-Revenge of the Sith. The statement was made by the good guy Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi to the bad guy Anakin Skywalker as they fought each other on a planet named Mustafar. Anakin was thus becoming a Sith as he crossed over into the dark side and became Darth Vader. In Star Wars lore, the Sith are an ancient cult that uses the dark side of the force.

Much has been read into this comment including a comment on contemporary earthly politics, as related by The Village Voice:
“‘If you are not with me, then you’re my enemy,’ warns the newly minted Darth Vader to his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (the still respectable Ewan McGregor). ‘Only a Sith deals in absolutes,’ Kenobi counters. Attendees at the New York preview screening responded with cheers, taking the exchange as a blatant Bush bash.”1

The real issue, whether a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away or in our earthly here and now, is that Kenobi’s statement is self refuting. “Only a Sith deals in absolutes,” is an absolute statement. Kenobi is speaking as a Sith, a fact that appears to have been lost on the script writers and the uproarious New York audience.

It simply cannot be true that all things are relative for if in fact all things are relative then this would be an absolute truth. If it is an absolute truth then it would not be relative. Thus, if it is not relative but it is an absolute truth, absolute truth is established and relativism is defeated.

1. There is no God.
Islam’s dogmatic statement: There is no God but Allah…
Atheism’s dogmatic statement: There is no God.

2. There is no supernatural: no God, no miracles, no soul, no afterlife.

3. The overwhelming majority of the entire planet’s population, regardless of chronology, geography, or theology, have been absolutely wrong about that which mattered to them the most: their belief in God and their relationship with Him.

4. Anyone claiming to have an experience with God, regardless of chronology, geography, or theology, was hallucinating, insane or deceptive.

5. Anyone claiming to have experienced a miracle, regardless of chronology, geography, or theology, was hallucinating, insane, deceptive or ignorant.

6. All of the world’s “Holy Books” are the result of deceptions or delusions.

7. All religious rituals are man made and futile, except, perhaps, in however useful they may be in making a person good (whatever “good” may be, which we discuss here and here).

8. Since there is no supernatural, everything in the universe (including the origins of the universe) can be explained by naturalistic means and if the evidence does not fit the naturalistic theory then there is something wrong with the evidence and not with the naturalistic theory.

9. Since there is no supernatural revelation of future events all Biblical prophecies were written after the event occurred and made to seem as if it had been written beforehand (no evidence, manuscript or otherwise, needs be shown in order to prove such an assertion).

10. No one caused nothing to explode for no reason and made everything for no purpose. All life on Earth can be traced back to rain falling on rocks and mixing together in swampy pools that where struck by lightning. The universe and absolutely everything in it exists due to random chance, a mere accident, and we humans are nothing but glorified animals that are the result of an unintelligent, purposeless, un-designed mix of chemicals.

11. Whatever evidence there is to back up the reliability of the Bible or creation science/intelligent design is faulty. This is not so on its own merits but because it is to be rejected a priori since it would conflict with a materialistic worldview.

12. Regardless of what they believed and how they lived, every person who has ever lived will be annihilated at death.

13. There are no absolutes, except the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, no God, no supernatural, etc., etc.

14. Atheism is the only belief system that holds the truth, everyone else is wrong.

15. Morals are relative or situational, except that which the individual atheist has concocted as a moral standard (since atheism is amoral they must borrow moral concepts from theistic worldviews).

16. Since life has no ultimate God given meaning it consists of whatever temporary pleasure may be found therein.

17. There is no authority higher than the individual; the individual is qualified to judge all things by his own wit.

18. There is no ultimate justice; there are only the rulings of temporal courts.

19. Proof for the non-existence of God is not to be offered and yet we may believe that God does not exist.

This surely is a partial list but it does express many of atheism’s tenets.

There is a particular argument the effect of which is that it is arrogant to claim exclusivity, in this case, in claiming that only one worldview is true. We should first request an absolute standard for arrogance but will rather cut to the chase: if only one worldview is true then it is not arrogant to believe that only one worldview is true. In Exclusivism, Part II we discuss whether there is only one way of salvation.

It has, quite logically, been stated that either all of the worldviews are wrong, or one of them is true. Yet, it would appear that we aught to, quite logically, simplify matters (as we reasonably demonstrate) and proclaim that only one of the world’s worldviews is true.

Which one and how do I know?
Well, let us begin with the all wrong or one right aspect of the issue: the various worldviews are contradictory. Therefore, they are either all wrong or one is right.

Well then, perhaps they are all wrong. Impossible.

Why is this impossible, after all there are various propositions and indeed they may all be wrong? For example, the story of the blind men feeling different parts of an elephant-one feels the trunk and proclaims that it is a hose, another feel the leg and proclaims that it is a tree, another feels the tail and proclaims that it is a rope, another feels the ear and proclaims that it is a fan, etc. While this metaphor is generally used in attempting to prove relativism, since each has his own opinion and each thinks that he is right. However, it actually proves absolute truth since we can see that it is an elephant and thus, they are all wrong. If we were merely another blind man we may also have logically stated that either all of the blind proclaimers are wrong, or one of them is right. But we have 20/20 vision and we know for a fact that while they are all groping an elephant they are all proclaiming themselves to be correct when in fact, they are all wrong and we are right-it is an elephant. Only one view of what the object could be is true.

If it is possible to say that all of the blind men were wrong then why not say the same thing about the worldviews? Now, to the reason that we can know with certainty that only one of worldview is true. It is quite simple really-if I state that either all of the worldviews are wrong, or one of them is true and you state that you believe that all of the worldviews are wrong, then you are claiming to be right yourself. In this case what you have really done is to invent your own worldview, and you believe that you are right in your claim that all of the worldviews are wrong. According to you, yours is the one that is true, while all of the others are wrong. And if all of the others are wrong and you are right, then you believe that one of the worldviews is true, namely your own. Therefore, if you say that all of the worldviews are true then you have fallen into pure irrationality since you would be claiming that a plethora of contradictions are all true. But if you claim that none of them are true then you are claiming that your particular worldview is true and therefore you contradict yourself and you prove that one of the worldviews is true.

This contradictory denial of the truth of the various worldviews while maintaining that yours is right is a self-defeating argument that is actually a very common logical fallacy.For instance it is tantamount to the person who claims that all things are relative-except the absolute fact that all things are relative.It is tantamount to claiming that there is no absolute truth-except the truth that there is no absolute truth.It is tantamount to telling people that they are wrong for telling others that they are wrong-which would make a person wrong for telling other people that they are wrong for telling others that they are wrong.It is tantamount to telling people that they cannot push their beliefs on others-which would mean that a person is pushing their beliefs that you cannot push your beliefs on others upon you.

It is tantamount to being an agnostic by claming that we can never really know anything-but apparently we can know for sure that absolute ignorance is a fact.

Oh, you wanted to actually find out which of the worldviews is true. No, it is not the one that states that none of the worldviews is true. Well, what standards would you use in order to determine which is true? What tests would you put to the worldviews? Historic reliability? Archaeological confirmation? Scientific accuracy? Reliably transferred scriptural manuscripts? Fulfilled prophecy? The statistical probability of the prophecies coming to pass? Changed lives? If so, may we recommend accepting Jesus, the Messiah.