…the doctrine of the Serpent Seed
(or the doctrine of the Original Sin) is neither an allegory, a myth, a legend,
nor a fable, but is based on literal historical facts…
—Richard Gan
Herein we continue considering Rev. Richard Gan’s article The Doctrine of the Serpent Seed and The Doctrine of the Original Sin… which derives from his 1998 AD book, “The Serpent Seed THE ORIGINAL SIN.” You can find the whole series here.
Richard Gan then specifies:
Eve committed spiritual fornication: i) when she omitted a portion of God’s Word regarding the forbidden fruit of “the tree” — “of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”; ii) when she added to the Word of God — “neither shall ye touch it”; iii) when she changed a portion of what God had said — “Thou shalt surely die” to “lest ye die”, making the definite commandment of God a conditional one.
Points i and ii are good points yet, he seems to be reading into the text so as to make point iii.
Richard Gan then offers a technical note in terms of a qualifying term, “The Woman was deceived not into fornication per se but the partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which she then gave it to the Man…He partook of the same that Eve partook — perverted knowledge.” He seems to be seeking to abscond from the logical (or, theological) conclusion which is that since Adam and Eve ate the same fruit from the same tree and fruit/eating is sex and tree is serpent then Adam also had sex with the serpent. Thus far in my research, Bob Schlenker has been the most explicit on this point as he elucidated his, and I quote, “sex orgy” version of Genesis 3 which, of course, he claims to have received in a private person revelation from God—see here.
Richard Gan then writes extensively about Adam and Eve’s nakedness in the manner of a typical serpent seed of Satan theorist gotcha question:
…their eyes were opened to their guilt, and they realized that they were naked, so they tried to cover their sexual parts! They were ashamed of it! (If eating apples or pears or any particular fruit had caused the first couple to realize that they were naked, then these fruits ought to be passed among those half-naked females in the streets and beaches today.)…
Adam was covering up a guilty act committed by his sexual organ. (Read Matthew 5:29-30.)So apparently, if we read Matthew 5:29-30 we will see that it tells us that which Gan just elucidated. Well, that texts states:
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Well, the only thing I could think of is that he may be implying that Adam castrated himself (and Eve also mutilated herself). But then again, he later fathered many children so perhaps Gan will someday tell us what the Matthew text has to do with it.
Gan’s gotcha statements continue as he notes that “If it was the mouth, Adam would have covered it” yet, he covered his nether regions. Gan notes that “The word “naked” used in Genesis 2:25 is different from that found in Genesis 3:7-11. The latter is translated from the Hebrew word “eyrom”, which comes from the root word “aram”, used only in a derogatory sense.” When one does not double check such claims they can sound very impressive and convincing. Yet, I cannot discern Gan’s point as the fact is (and Gan does not point out this factoid) that both words for naked derive from the very same root. This seems like a case of the difference between that which we may term “nude” versus “naked” which are different words with the same essential meaning.
Image from Richard Gan’s article/book
Richard Gan gets close to that which appears to be the text’s actual point in writing, “It is true that Adam and Eve lost their righteousness and became spiritually naked in the sight of God. However, it was their physical nakedness that caused them to be ashamed of their sin and to cover their sexual reproductive organs with fig leaves, and to hide from God.”
Gan writes:
Genesis 3:15, God prophesied, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed“…conclusively proved that the Serpent would have his seed as the woman would have hers.
An issue that causes confusion betwixt promulgators of and opposers of the serpent seedline of Satan theory is that there indeed are two “seedlines” as per the Bible. However, these are not based on genetics as per the theorists but based on actions as per the Bible. I have detailed this assertion most succinctly here: Serpent Seed of Satan article in a Christian Apologetics journal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: #Serpentseed, #RichardGan, #Seedlines
Facebook: #Serpentseed, #RichardGan, #Seedlines