As Zen Garcia and I were having a discussion, other people chimed in with various comments as follows.
Someone wrote:
I believe that Cain’s lineage is of Adam because, as we know, Adam also partook of the literal fruit. So, I don’t think the serpent seed came as a result of Eve having relations with Lucifer as a serpent. Eve said that she had begotten a man from the Lord (not Lucifer) in Genesis 4:1. However, there were relations/consummation/sex between the fallen angels (there was more than one kind) and human women that not only were resulted in the Nephilim (Giant hybrid beings) in Genesis 6 but also snake-like people (hybrid reptilian people).
Zen replied thusly:
Actually the original passage references that she got a man child from the angel of the Lord. And then she added from her husband another child Abel. IV. And Adam knew Hava [Eve] his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she
conceived, and bare Kain [Cain]; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel [Abel].
As noted, I had to keep going over the issue of the Targum again and again as Zen merely referred to a Targum, of which there are many, without citing to which one he was referring and yet, referring to it as the original text or passage.
Here is my reply:
You are right [name withheld] and please take anything and everything that Zen says with a grain of (Dead Sea) salt. He tells you that “the original passage references that she got a man child from the angel of the Lord” but this is only not accurate, I have already responded to him in writing on this issue. He makes it sound as if the original Bible manuscripts reference “the angel of the Lord” but especially with today’s tech anyone can look up an interlinear Bible (such as you can find at Blue Letter Bible) and see that this is not the case.
What he is doing, without telling you, is quoting the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Targums are Aramaic translations mixed with paraphrases/interpretations of the Bible. This Targum dates to the sixth century AD (no, not BC) which is a full 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis).
This same person wrote the following:
As you can see I’ve said “amen” throughout Dr. Pugh’s interview with me a few months ago and she’s a godly woman and I believe Zen Garcia is a godly man. If we disagree regarding the serpent seed theory, they’re still our brothers and sisters in Christ, right?
If I’m wrong and the serpent seed started with Eve and Lucifer having sex (after much research), then I’ll concur. For now, I believe there was a fallen angel/human women conception that resulted in the half reptilian beings called Nephilim in Genesis 6. Gary Wayne says there were different types. I just don’t think it started with Eve and Lucifer.
I replied thusly:
I agree with a few things you stated: indeed, if Zen salvation is based on Jesus’ sacrifice by grace thought faith then we are brothers. I also believe that the Genesis 6 affair (as I call it) involved fallen angel/human women conception which resulted in beings called Nephilim (however, I do not see how anything reptilian came out of it [or as this person previously put it, “hybrid reptilian people”]). I also do not think it started with Eve and Lucifer (who is a Cherub and not an Angels so another point against Zen’s 600 AD misinterpretations, in fact, the “angel of the LORD” is loyal to God but Satan is not so they cannot be the same person even if we grant Zen’s erroneous use of the Targum).
Now, I wrote to Dr. Pugh about Zen some time ago telling her how he was teaching that we are here to bring “dharma,” how he plainly contradicts the Bible (such as his claims that Adam and Eve where non-physical beings of light that did not live on Earth pre-fall even while the Bible states time and again the exact opposite), etc., etc., etc., and she was very concerned and stated that she would pray for him and may need to contact him about it all.
I was aware of Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh as I reviewed her book “Eden: The Knowledge of Good and Evil 666” see here.
Also see Were Adam and Eve beings of light? and Zen Garcia on Adam & Eve as beings of light not from Earth.
Zen Garcia and Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh
Someone else wrote:
He says the Garden of Eden story is a metaphor, but it is actual history. He says the parable of the wheat and tares is history, but is actually a metaphor..
Zen Garcia replied:
Each of these stories actually have both metaphorical and historical implications.
I chimed in with:
From having heard a lot of statements by Zen, including that we are here to bring “dharma,” it is clear that the apocrypha (of all sorts) not only helps us understand the Bible better but corrects the Bible. Thus, he will claim that Adam and Eve where beings of light that lived on another planet pre-fall when the Bible very clearly tells us that they were physical beings who lived on Earth.
This is why he will make claims such as that “Each of these stories actually have both metaphorical and historical implications.” so that he can misapply and contradict them and when called on it, he can step back and claim “metaphorical and historical”–which means that he can twist and turn them so as to force them to state his preconceived conclusions.
Someone else still, commented thusly:
So what does this say of Adam? If eve eating of the fruit has sexual connotation which led to the birth of Cain, that is also saying Adam had sexual relations with Satan because he also ate of the fruit. Sorry I don’t buy this.
Zen replied:
You obviously did not even watch the video or listen to the interview because I specifically addressed this issue. And explained that Adam’s eating of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was him repeating the sexual act with Eve resulting in the birth of Abel. Which is why it says in this particular portion the text ‘And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel.’
Well, the person replied to Zen stating that they wrote the comment before completing hearing the whole interview and when he had done so, he saw that Zen had covered the issue.
However, I replied thusly:
[name withheld], please do not back down from what you can plainly see that the Bible is clearly stating. What Zen did it to re-interpret (or rather, misinterpret) it. First he wants to claim that the fruit is a sexual act and that the tree is the serpent even though the serpent is the serpent. Now, the text states that Eve saw “a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof” with thereof referring to the tree “and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her” fruit from the tree “and he did eat.” So they both ate fruit from the tree: they both had sex with Satan (as per Zen’s assertions). Moreover, Adam is cursed for eating the fruit but if fruit was sex with Eve then why is he cursed for having sex with his wife?
Also, note that he is not quoting to you from texts based on the Hebrew but from the Aramaic Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis). Zen prefers this very, very, very late dated text because it is a translation which incorporates interpretation and includes Jewish folklore.
Someone else seems to be asking a question with a bit of broken English so I sought to ensure that I understood them within my reply. Here is this question:
ok this may be a stupid question but would they had had no intimate knowledge of each other before this act? my understanding was that they were not even aware of skin until after they sinned.
Here is my reply:
Are you asking if Adam and Eve had intimate knowledge of each other before eating the fruit? We are not told yes or no. We are also not told that “they were not even aware of skin until after they sinned.” Rather, they were naked before they sinned and were not ashamed.
They replied this way:
ok yes that was my question that you answered. Thanks. I’m having a really hard time believing any of this teaching as being scriptural or truth.
Again, I had to ask just to make sure but here is my reply:
If by “any of this” refers to Zen’s claims then you are right. You can simply read the Bible and know, for a fact, that he is in error.
This person replied thusly:
Yes that’s what I was referring to Zen’s claims. I listened to another one of his interviews and he was talking about things like a pre Adam world and population and that we came from a collision from another planet. millions of years back a female demi god threw a planet and the result was so that earth is now spinning and just close enough from the sun to have life start. also there being other gods than the God of the bible, demigods that have there own races, the Garden of Eden was not on earth and so on. just very odd beliefs. I noticed he also becomes very defense aggressive and rude if some disagreed with him in the comments
Here is my reply:
Right you are. Having followed his work for some time now it seems to me that he got taken away by a wind of (false) doctrine. He started reading lots of apocrypha and rather than using the Bible to correct the apocrypha he gave himself over to the apocrypha and when it contradicts the Bible he sides with the apocrypha no matter how late dated it is, no matter how few manuscripts we have or from when they date, no matter how it was complied, etc., etc., etc. He lost his ability to discern truth via the Bible as his guide and now seeks to ready apocryphal (non-, un- and anti-biblical) views into the Bible no matter how many problems it causes him.
He seems more interested in protecting his books and the apocrypha than the Bible. And sadly, many “ministries” just take his word for everything and will not challenge him.
The reply was:
yes I noticed what you are saying, I was very happy to read your comments to valid my concerns with his teaching. nobody else seemed to want to say anything against it or are using any discernment. I also had a check in my spirit when he said how many books he had written and so quickly. and how he didn’t stick to the bible as the foundation. Older does not always mean its better also. I wonder if he is the first to teach this theory of Eve having conceived a child from Lucifer and that the fruit was not really fruit outside the original texts.
I noted:
Good points friend. I would love to be able to get lots of quotes such as the things you mention that he claims (sadly, most may be from audio and I hate transcribing). Also, it is true that older does not always mean better but Zen does not necessarily rely on older as is the case with the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan from the 600s AD. The Serpent Seed theory goes back a few decades so no, Zen is not the first.
The reply was:
And thank you for making the date clear on the text Zen used. I feel that is very important. The reason I said older does not always mean better is because In another interview Zen did. He stated that he often used the older version of text or books many predating the Bible. I noticed if the text he used was older then what is in the canonized bible he would tend to prefer the older especially when it helped his theories. Even if it contradicted the bible or other versions of the same text itself. And yes your correct in that those quotes where all from audio recordings. I don’t think most people realize how easily some of the things Zen states can potentially stumble someone’s walk or study of scripture. Its always best to research what you hear and not just trust another’s word in these matters.
I replied:
Thank you in turn. You will also notice that (as he did above) Zen provides generic info about Targumim in stating that they began to be produced in the time before Jesus. Sure, but the fact is still that the one upon which he relied dates to more than half a millennia AFTER the time of Jesus. Another issue he may have problems with is that there is a difference between the time that a text was supposedly written and the time of the earliest manuscript we have. For example, if Enoch wrote the “Book of Enoch” [about which I have written much, here] then it is thousands of years old but the earliest manuscript we have dates to just before the time of Jesus so as cannot verify that it is any older than that. In other words, someone could come along and claim that the “Book of Enoch” then it is thousands of years old but they would have no way whatsoever to prove that.
Here is another attempt at redirecting the Bible’s record towards Serpent Seed of Satan ends:
Remember, Eve was beguiled by the serpent. She THOUGHT she had “gotten a man for the Lord,” and that IS what she said, BUT she’d been tricked.
Here is my reply:
The beguilement of Eve is said to pertain to her partaken of the fruit when she knew the fruit had been forbidden, “the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” On your view this means something to the like of that she was tricked into having sex with Satan. Yet, on your view that is all that follows namely, that she was tricked into having sex with Satan—period. There is no indication whatsoever that her beguilement means that she did not know who her baby-daddy was. Hey, maybe she should have gone on the Maury Povich show—capiche? “Satan, you are not the father!” ;o)
Another comment touches upon an issue that I have had to deal with time and time again which is generic, uncited, references the original passage or Genesis 4:1 or as this person put it…
This is a mistranslation from the aramaic bible from an angel of the lord. And cain and abel were twins born under superfecundation.
As for superfecundation, I dealt with this issue in Zen Garcia on Eve’s desire for the Angel of the LORD
As for the Targum issue, here is the reply—again:
Friend, it is not a mistranslation from the Aramaic bible as the translation in the video is based on Hebrew manuscripts. One of the various Targumim has “the angel of the Lord” and that Targum, which is Pseudo-Jonathan, dates to the 600s AD so it is a very, very late dated text which is a paraphrase of the Hebrew and also included much Rabbinic folklore. Also, Satan is a Cherub not an Angel and the Angel of the LORD is loyal and would never have had sex with Eve.
For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider how Zen Garcia gives up the Serpent Seed of Satan polemical ghost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia