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

Prophetic Revelation’s Richard Gan on talking serpent as missing link

rev-20richard20gan20serpent20seed20of20satan-3942975
…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 states that OF ALL THE ANIMALS HE WAS THE ONLY SPECIES THAT COULD TALK!…he looked like a man and could talk…Some may argue that he was able to talk because he was possessed by Satan” and that “the Serpent who beguiled Eve, and not Satan. So, it was not Satan speaking through the Serpent.” Thus, according to Gan there is a difference between the serpent and Satan at which point I will reference Revelation chaps 12 and 20 both of which refer to “the great dragon…that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan.”
But no, this is not lost upon Gan as he wrote, “must have possessed a certain prophetic revelation to name the Serpent as such, for that name has been associated with the evil one (Satan) throughout the Bible…The name Serpent has become synonymous with the name Satan.”

Gan asks “And who did God judge — Satan or the Serpent? The Serpent no longer exists today because he had been cursed and transformed into a snake…He was originally not related to snakes whatsoever, but now when we say ‘serpent’, we would generally picture a long slimy wriggly snake…”
I must admit being flummoxed as the Hebrew term for serpent is thereafter employed another 31 times in for serpents throughout the Bible—for detials on this fascinating and telling word, see On satan, divination and metal. Thus, Gan can seek to claim that all serpents are snakes or that serpents no longer exist but only snakes do, etc. but this is merely a semantic word game.

Moreover, and in addition Gan writes, “The Serpent was cursed and transformed from an upright animal to a belly crawling reptile — a snake!…he went on his belly after the curse, and not before!” The fact is that the Bible’s greater context is that going upon one’s belly and consuming dust is a metaphor for being humbled, see Deuteronomy 32:24, Psalm 72:9, Micah 7:17 and Lamentations 3:27-28.

Image from Richard Gan’s article/book

But why even claim that there are no more serpents? Because of his particular and peculiar definition which is his claim that “it is clearly stated in the Bible that the Serpent was originally an upright creature!…Being the last of the animals created before Adam, the Serpent was ranked next to man and looked very much like a man. We can actually say that he is the ‘missing link’ between the animals and the human race.”
Just when Darwinists are done telling us that humans evolved from apes along come serpent seedline of Satan theorists to tell us that we evolved from serpents or one serpent but then again humans were already around since Adam and Eve interacted with this serpent so there goes that.

In fact, within an appendix, Gan notes as much, “This ‘missing link’ certainly does not fit into Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Animals did not evolve from a lower form of life, neither did Man evolve from the monkey. The Bible says that each species of creatures was created separately and distinctively from the others. Except for the Serpent, all the other animals exist today in the same form in which they have been created since the beginning of time.” So then, why claim that the serpent is the missing link?
As far as I can tell, on this point Richard Gan is merely repeating the unfounded claims of William Branham who taught, “Here’s the missing link…The serpent is that missing person between the chimpanzee and the man” (see On William Branham’s sermon “The Serpent’s Seed” and since Branham is considered to be a prophet by Gan and also Trinidad’s Bethel-The House of God, they too have written that the serpent “was a special class of a beast and that is the ‘missing link’ between man and chimpanzee” (see Bethel-The House of God on “The Original Sin (The Serpent Seed)”).

Richard Gan also writes, “the one that was created to be the servant of Adam was named Serpent” which is a 100% invention which is likely why there are no quotations or citation to this assertion.

Richard Gan wrote that “Eve succumbed to his seduction…the Devil-possessed Serpent committed fornication with the woman…the Devil had caused her to fornicate with the Serpent.”
This relates to his noting that via interbreeding “man has caused the seeds of some of the animals to mix resulting in the death of the seed, that is, the hybrid is sterile; it cannot bring forth life. The penalty for tampering with the law of God is Death.”
Keeping that in mind, note that he writes, “a hybrid — Cain — a perverted seed!…Cain, being a hybrid, did not bear the image and likeness of Adam.” So, Cain did not bear Adam’s image/likeness which is something he gets from Genesis 5, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” I would hate to think that just because one of my kids looks more like me than the others, someone will someday build a theory upon it. In any case, Gan claims due as a follow upon on his claim that Cain is a hybrid. However, he notes that hybrids are sterile which results in death: as the bloodline/seedline ends with the hybrid who cannot reproduce. Yet, Genesis 5 begins to detail Cain’s children thus, he was not a hybrid, was not sterile, etc.

Also, the point of the theorists when they reference Seth being as such is that this is being emphasized of Seth in counter distinction to Cain who was only half human, etc. However, This cannot be the case since Abel was of Adam and Eve.

This also is not lost upon Gan as he later wrote, “when Adam’s descendants intermingled with the descendants of Cain…mankind became part and parcel of the animal kingdom” (whatever that means).
In fact, Gan refers to “Cain’s own genealogy.” He claims that Lamech is “the first person to go against God’s will of one man, one wife (Gen.2:23-24). He married two wives. (Polygamy was permitted of God only after the Flood when the seeds of Adam (through Seth) and Cain were already mixed.” The biblical fact is that people practiced polygamy pre and post flood and a further biblical fact is that it states nowhere at all that it was permitted by God.

Note that as is very common to serpent seed of Satan theorist, gan writes, “was the seed of the Serpent (Gen.3:15) and the “son” of the Wicked One — Satan (1Jhn.3:12).” This seems plain enough however, 1 John.3:12 does not, I repeat not, state that Cain was of the wicked one. Rather, it states (beginning at v. 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.” You see, this was not about genetics and Cain was not of that wicked one because that wicked one was his physical dad. Rather, he was of that wicked one due to his actions in that he slew his brother and we are even told why he did so because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Thus, it is all about actions: sinful actions.
I will note that later on in his book Gan does get around to writing, “His works were evil in that they were self-righteous (1Jhn.3:12; Isa.64:6).” So he is at least aware of the point of the text at least in passing: even if he disregard the point that it is about actions. But what of Isaiah 64:6? It states, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” so I am unsure what that has to do with the issue of Cain directly.

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

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


Posted

in

by

Tags: