tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Mystery Babylon site on gap theory & serpent seedline

mystery20babylon-4435047 “…nowhere in the Bible does it say that

either Cain nor Abel were Adam’s son…

Those who have blood of this Serpent (and, possibly, other fallen angels) would go on to form ‘mixed’ multitudes of people…”

—Brett T. Mystery Babylon site

Herein I am considering the claims of Brett T. who runs “Mystery Babylon the Great, the Definitive Website.” At issue are some of his claims about the serpent seedline of Satan theory which holds that Cain is the son of Eve and Satan and thus he and his descendants carry on Satanic genetics. You can find this series here.

Herein I am considering the claims of Brett T. who runs “Mystery Babylon the Great, the Definitive Website.” At issue are some of his claims about the serpent seedline of Satan theory which holds that Cain is the son of Eve and Satan and thus he and his descendants carry on Satanic genetics. You can find this series here.
I will review the sections of the site titled What really happened in the garden? and Who begat the first murderer Cain?

I could not help but note that the Bible so clearly does not promulgate the serpent seedline of Satan theory that Brett has to rely very heavily on apocrypha. For example, within the two pages/chapters I am reviewing, he refers to “a great deal of ancient written evidence…According to ancient accounts…One ancient source…Other ancient written evidence…a variety of ancient sources…a good number of ancient sources…A good number of ancient written texts…one ancient source…according to many…ancient evidence…other sources…a variety of sources…many ancient written sources…According to some sources…A number of ancient texts.”

There is nothing wrong with consulting apocrypha but they cannot be allowed to contradict the Bible nor be used as an interpretive template into which we place the Bible. Now, three of these “ancient” (whatever that means) sources are cited by name (the footnotes contain citations to modern books which presumably reference other “ancient” texts). Rabbinic Judaism’s main mystical text The Zohar which dates to the 13th century AD (no, not BC).
The Apocalypse of Moses aka Revelation of Moses aka The Books Of Adam And Eve or Vita Adae et Evae which have a range of dating from circa the 1st to the 5th century AD (for details, see The Books, or Life, of Adam and Eve: why is it not in the Bible?
He also refers to the Book of Adam which, as far as I can tell, is a succinct aka of the text noted above.

One of Brett’s premises is the “Gap Theory of Creation” which is based on a wild guess that Satan must have fallen centuries or millennia or millions of years before the creation of Adam and Eve. This gap is said to fit between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, “1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The argument goes that the reason that “the earth was without form, and void” is because of the Revelation 12 war whereby the Earth was decimated.

Now, I may be too simple a thinker but it seems to me that the text is simply stating that God created the earth, as in solid matter, this earth was without form and void and then God molds this matter into the planet we call Earth.
Yet, there is more to correcting the gap theory than having both sides guess about what is meant by without form and void. The fact is that gap theorists have to guess at and invent a pre Adamic fall of Satan, etc. Yet, Genesis 3 is pinpointing exactly when Satan fell. That is the first instance we have of Satan controverting God and also of God curing Satan. Thus, Satan did not fall in some undetermined pre Adamic past but during an intra Adamic time.

Beginning with that which within some small circles is a most popular story assumed by gap theorists, Brett write the following with regards to Genesis 3, “In probably one of the most popular stories in our history, we are again led by what most of us have always assumed.” From this he asserts, “The people who translated this section of Genesis were probably taught the same story as we see above; and they probably used corresponding English words which would have best fit their assumptions.”

He then introduces, “the possibility of other elements to this story” which includes that “the serpent speaks. Many, over the years, might have wondered why Eve wasn’t more surprised that an animal decided to go and talk to her!…It might not even have been an animal; but a humanoid-looking being…this Serpent was actually a serpentine, or serpent-like, angel; one who previously fell from grace.”

I agree that it might not even have been an animal but, as per Revelation 12 and 20, Satan who is referred to as a serpent (a dragon, etc.). However, Brett does not believe it was Satan as we shall see.

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

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: #Seedline, #Babylon, #Cain
Facebook: #Seedline, #Babylon, #Cain


Posted

in

by

Tags: