…Adam’s knowing Eve had nothing to do with the birth of Cain… In most cases, the logical conclusion that Cain was the son of Adam
would be a proper one, but not with this verse [Genesis 4:1]
…
—Willie Martin
Herein I consider Willie Martin’s The Two Seedlines (all emphasis in the following quotations are in the original). In this segment I will focus on his specific views about the Jews and race in general within his serpent seedline of Satan theory and his Christian Identity which identifies him as an anti-Semitic racist.
All emphasis in the following quotations are in the original. You can find my articles on Martin here.
Martin then notes:
That there are others who interpret the seduction of Eve in a sexual manner, let’s refer to “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,” volume R-Z, page 696. While this publication does not take a stand on the subject one way or the other, at least it points out that this is one of the interpretations; “Sexual knowledge. The tree of knowledge is the means to sexual knowledge. The advocates of this interpretation have pointed out that the verb (Strong’s #3045), ‘know’ occurs frequently as a euphemism for sexual relations (Genesis 4:1; 19:5). When Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of good and evil, they recognized their nakedness and experienced feelings of shame. Finally, several parallel passages containing the phrase ‘knowing good and evil’ can be reasonably interpreted as referring to sexual knowledge. (Deuteronomy 1:39; 2 Samuel 19:35; “1QSa,” abbr. for “Rule of the congregations.”(?))
It is interesting to note the desperation in that he tells us that “That there are others who interpret the seduction of Eve in a sexual manner,” appeals to “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible” for support but notes that “this publication does not take a stand on the subject one way or the other.”
The problem with such key word manners whereby to attempt to determine meaning is, for example, that indeed it can mean sexual relation but can mean gaining information.
Thus, if we un-contextually demand that within Genesis know/knew must be sexual then 3:5 reads “For God doth have sexual knowledge that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, having sexual knowledge of good and evil” and 3:22 reads “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to have sexual knowledge of good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever…”
It is true that pre fall Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed (Genesis 2) but afterwards they covered themselves although we are not told in the Bible that they “experienced feelings of shame.” After the fall they seem to have realized that there is, as Jerry Seinfeld put it, good naked and bad naked.
Deuteronomy 1:39 reads, “Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.” How this is about sexual knowledge is beyond me—and beyond the Bible.
In fact, for some reason, Willie Martin provide the following info, “Matthew Poole states on Deuteronomy 1:39: ‘Had no knowledge between good and evil; a common description of the state of childhood, as Jonah 4:11’” with no, I will add, reference to sexual knowledge. True, a child should have no sexual knowledge, generally speaking, but the obvious point is that they lack the distinction between good and evil, generally speaking.
2 Samuel 19:35 reads, “I am this day fourscore years old: and can I discern between good and evil? can thy servant taste what I eat or what I drink? can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women? wherefore then should thy servant be yet a burden unto my lord the king?” again, I am uncertain as to how this is about sexual knowledge.
Martin the argues that “Yahweh always punishes in like-kind…metes out punishment to fit the crime” and thus:
Eve’s punishment in verse 16 is: (1) to bear children in sorrow, (2) her desire was to be reserved for her husband, and (3) she is to yield to her husband’s authority…there are three separate conclusions which can be Biblically drawn from Yahweh’s pronouncement to Eve: (1) That Eve would bear children in pain; that the pain would affect the very part of the body where the sin occurred. (2) That her [sexual] desire would return to her husband (Why did Yahweh even mention it if she were always true to Adam?). It is implied here that Eve’s desire had been to someone else. (3) That Eve would return and put herself under the authority of her husband rather than the influence of the serpent.
Had Eve been guilty only of a mental crime, as the anti-seedliners so loudly proclaim. It would have been highly unjust for Yahweh to have punished her by causing her to bear children with physical paint. [brackets in original]
This is a favorite argument of serpent seedline of Satan theorists and Martin has paired it up with a favorite tactic of their which his playing gotcha questions. Such questions, and they have a lot of them within their bag of tricks, are supposed to make you think that since you cannot answer them but the serpent seedline of Satan theory can then the theory must be true.
(1) Serpent seedline of Satan theorists love to make the argument about Eve’s curse but tend to ignore Adam’s. The fact is that we are told very little about Adam and Eve in the Bible and it just so happens that their curses relate directly to that which we are told about them. Adam basically had the hobby of gardening but afterwards he would have to work the land hard in order to get it to produce. Eve is said to be the mother of all living which is why her curse pertains to bringing forth life.
(2) Martin inserts the bracketed statement that in question is Eve’s “[sexual] desire” for her husband that this was a desire that “would return” to him: away from Satan and towards Adam. Martin even claims that “Yahweh” is the one who “mention[ed] it.” Well, what it actually implies is within the context of the statement which is, “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” The statement is not, “thy sexual desire shall be to thy husband, and with him only shall thou havest sex” or “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall engage you sexually; thou and he alone” or any such thing. Rather, her desire had something to do with ruling as in authority, etc. which is why “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” This implies exactly that which went before which is that Eve was not sexually beguiled but beguiled to not be under her husband’s rulership/authority as Adam was under God’s rulership/authority.
(3) Yes, ironically Martin gets what I just noted, “Eve would return and put herself under the authority of her husband rather than the influence of the serpent.”
Thus, overall we see how serpent seedline of Satan theorists would make a great case study for Sigmund Freud as they interpret the Bible as per that which Bob Schlenker, one of the most blatant theorists, terms the “sex orgy version” of Genesis 3.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: #Seedlines, #ChristianIdentity, #antiSemitism
Facebook: #Seedlines, #ChristianIdentity, #antiSemitism