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
Under consideration is 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. On his web profile’s introduction section he wrote, “Hopeful candidate for the Bride of Christ, Y’shua HaMashiach.”
I will focus on his serpent seedline of Satan theorizing about which he states, in part:
You may understand the Bible to say Adam and Eve had sex and Cain was born of that union. That’s an assumption…Adam did not father Cain, the serpent did.
Well, you may understand the Bible to say Adam and Eve had sex and Cain was born of that union because that is precisely that which is stated by Genesis 4:1 whether you are reading the Greek Septuagint/LXX, the Aramaic Peshitta, the Hebrew Masoretic Text, etc., etc., etc.
He notes thinking that “the sin in the Garden was disobedience” is to be “ignorant” engaging in “naiveté” and tantamount to “stories that entertain small children.” This, or so he claims, is in counter distinction to those who “want to gain some wisdom and understanding.” He variously aggrandizes his own position such as by asserting that “For the mature, though, there’s more to be known and understood about the Garden scenario and its consequences, much more!”
He also asserts that in the serpent seedline of Satan theory, “we have valuable answers to important questions about biblical history and logical explanations for the present, and future; matters that remain unsolved mysteries.” Also, “those of us with our eyes open” are the only ones who can come to such “sober and reasonable conclusion[s].” Lastly, “it’s my testimony that this is what the Lord gave me.”
This is well in keeping with my article Serpent Seedline of Satan Neo-Gnosticism as serpent seedline of Satan theorists seem to think of themselves as a special class of Christians who have been personally given a special revelation regarding this issue.
As Schlenker claims on his site description, “The Open Scroll is a ministration to the saints according to the working of the holy spirit in Bob Schlenker” also “How can I write with confidence on this subject? Because the Lord showed me, and I know it” plus “I’ll present the scenario as revealed to me” and of God he states that “the Author freely employs means of concealing and revealing as He wills according to His purposes.”
Thus, he adds:
…unless you really grasp the importance of seed and what happened in the Garden between the serpent, Eve and Adam you’re missing a major “piece of the puzzle.” Without it, you won’t be able to interpret some really important elements of the counterfeit and the genuine agendas playing out in these last days.
Now, of course, it is not that serpent seed of Satan theorists are not aware of Genesis 4:1 rather, they are so well aware of it that they cannot accept it as is.
Thus, Bob Schlenker notes that the text “seems plain enough” yet, he considers that “on the subject of Cain’s paternity we find ourselves having to contrive a variety of explanations when Cain’s father is assumed to be Adam.”
Bob Schlenker states that he “can’t find any” evidence that Genesis 4:1 implies “first a conception, then a birth, followed by another conception and another birth” since he claims that Cain and Abel were twins and yet, “You might now assume that, if they were twins, they would still both be Adam’s sons, but Adam wasn’t the only one in the Garden capable of fathering children with Eve.” He references “Alternate conception and birth models” including “Dizygotic (fraternal) twins…Trizygotic triplets…Twinning,” etc. and something about which I wrote in Serpent seedine of Satan & superfecundation with Enterthe5t4rz. Superfecundation refers to twins who have two different fathers. Thus, his contention is that Cain was fathered by Satan and Abel by Adam—yes, even though Genesis 4:1 states, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.”
Now, verse 2 states, “And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground” thus, perhaps they were twins and yet, twins as a result of Adam knowing Eve.
This is so very clear that Schlenker has to jump contexts, as it were, in noting that “Honestly, we can only say that one or more of them was Adam’s, based strictly on this passage” and that if “this an instance of heteropaternal superfecundation or superfetation” then “If the matter can be known the evidence must be sought elsewhere.”
He notes that “Eve declared that she had gotten a man with (Hebrew – ‘eth) the Lord (Hebrew – Yehovah)” and that “Prior to Eve’s declaration in Genesis 4:1 the word Yehovah is always followed by the word ‘elohiym, forming ‘Lord God’ – without exception. Eve’s declaration marks a change. Why? Did she profane the name with reference to a lesser god? Well, that’s something to think about.”
Well, let us think about it: he may have a point (based on presuppositions and isogesis, of course) if Eve had stated “I have gotten a man from ‘elohiym” as that term is applied to various beings (for example, Psalm 82 has both God and other beings referred to as ‘elohiym). However, Yehovah is the name of the one and only true living God and it is never used with reference to anyone else so that it cannot be a reference to a lesser god. Bob Schlenker is making a standalone argument without citing for us whereabouts in the Bible Yehovah is used of or for a lesser god.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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