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

Willie Martin – serpent seed of Satan etymology

seedline20ar-9825189

“…Jesus (who was not a Jew but rather of the white Adamic race)… Satan probably appeared to Eve as a handsome white god…

the white race is a race of gods

…”
—Willie Martin

Herein I continue considering Willie Martin’s Scriptures The One Seedliners Deny which at one point interacts with Wesley A. Swift’s What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? (you can find my articles on Martin here and on Swift here).

Martin/Swift rhetorically ask “Are we to believe that Eve had sex with a literal snake?” No, and so as we have seen they conclude that the serpent was not a literal snake. However, when they want to condemn Jews they claim that “In Matthew 23:33, Jesus calls the Jews “serpents.” This is an obvious reference to their literal, biological father as spoken of in Gen. chapter three….Jesus proclaims Satan as being the Jews literal, biological father.”

They also assert “the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” was not a literal tree! The “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,” first spoken of in Genesis 2:9, was representative in a figurative sense of the Pre Adamic (black & yellow) races and nations which surrounded the Garden in which Adam and Eve lived.” As proof, they offer “examples of how trees are used in a figurative sense to describe people, races and nations.” Yet, just because trees are used in a figurative sense to describe people, races and nations it does not mean that in Genesis 3 trees are used in a figurative sense to describe people, races and nations. Context determines meaning and the context of Genesis chaps 2 and 3 make it clear that tree means tree.

Another supposed proof for the Genesis trees not being trees is that “We know that literal trees possess no knowledge of good and evil.” Well, we are not told much about the tree other than it is “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” This does not seem to imply that the tree possessed knowledge of good and evil as in that it had a mind. Rather, the knowledge of good and evil could, somehow, be acquired by partaking of it much like life could, somehow, be acquired by partaking of the tree of life.

As is common to serpent seedline of Satan theorists, Martin/Swift play gotcha! by asking question which supposedly can only be answered via their theory. Thus, they note that it states “in Genesis 2:25 that ADAM AND EVE WERE NOT ASHAMED OF THEIR NAKEDNESS” and that they had “perfect bodies” but that after the fall they “were suddenly ashamed of their bodies. Why would you be ashamed of your body if all you had done was eat a piece of fruit?” Well, their answer is that they were ashamed of their bodies due to that which they had done with them: Eve had sex with Satan and Adam had sex with non-White pre-Adamites.

Indeed, Adam and Eve had “perfect bodies” and yet, the Bible does not seem to focus on their bodies with regards to nakedness, even though their bodies were naked, but upon the fact that being naked they were not ashamed. Yet, the fall brought about their knowledge of both good and also evil so they came to know that, as Jerry Seinfeld put it in an episode of his comedy show: there is good naked and bad naked. In other words, they lost their shamelessness and recognized that there is more to nakedness than simply not wearing clothes.
Yet, there appears to be deeper symbolism as they seem to attempt to cover their sin via a works based manner: making coverings for themselves. However, God provides a sacrifice and make clothes for them.

Of course, they miss the fact that “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” Thus, they partook of the same fruit of the same tree and therefore, Adam also had sex with Satan. In fact, many serpent seedline of Satan theorists come to this conclusion—perhaps most explicitly Bob Schlenker with his, and I quote, “sex orgy” (mis)interpretation of Genesis 3.

They then get into are area I have dealt with quite a bit which is to claim, for example, that “Touch: Strong’s: #5060” means “a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., TO LIE WITH A WOMAN); by implication, to reach (figuratively, to arrive, acquire).” This is interesting for at least two reasons: 1) Eve said, “God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die” even though to not touch it is not reflected in God’s initial commandment to Adam in Genesis 2. Yet, she did touch it which Martin/Swift take to mean have sex with Satan even though they note that for her to touch the tree means to lie with a woman so maybe Eve engaged in a lesbian act with pre-Adamites.

2) You will note that in any language there are many definitions to any one word. Out of all of the various meanings they key upon one: the one which suits their purpose. Yet, selectively choosing one of various definitions and etymology does not determine meaning but context does. In this image you can see that of the various manners whereby to define and use the word Martin/Swift, et al., claim that the one single usage is the usage within the text.

genesis2b32btouch2bserpent2bseedline2bof2bsatan2bcain-7010788

They also claim that “The word ‘beguiled’ here means to ‘morally seduce’” which is a simply unfounded assertion and that “IT’S NOT A MORAL SEDUCTION TO EAT A LITERAL PIECE OF FRUIT!. Beguiled: Strong’s #5377…a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) TO SEDUCE: KJV beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.”
Thus, due to their (mis)interpretation beguiled specifically means a morally seduction because one of the definitions references a generic seduction.

They also conclude that “The “fruit” spoken of here is offspring, descendants…We know that a literal piece of fruit isn’t the product of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman.” Well, the Bible never states that fruit is product of a sexual relationship rather, it references “seed” and yet, of course, that fruit can be offspring as we may term it, “the fruit of my loom.” But again, just because it can does not mean that it does.
For details on the usage and meanings of fruit, tree, touch, seed, etc. see Disambiguating the serpent seedline of Satan theory in Genesis 3 part 1 and part 2.

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

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, #Racism
Facebook: #Seedlines, #ChristianIdentity, #Racism


Posted

in

by

Tags: