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