PaleoBabble

8July2008

More on the “Gabriel Inscription” with some pictures

Posted by MSH under: Inscriptions; Jesus.

Here’s the link from the biblical studies blog, Codex.

Technorati Tags: gabriel, inscription, Jesus, Judaism

7July2008

New Inscription and the Jewish Roots of Christianity: The “Aaargghh! Award”

Posted by MSH under: Aaaarrrgghh! Award; Jesus.

My thanks to OJA, Debra, and TH (from elsewhere) for sending me the link to the NYT article entitled, “Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection.” This article is especially noteworthy in that I have decided to keep tabs on hyped media stories from now on and award the most hyped my annual “Aaarggghhh Factor” award.  This will be the first candidate.  You can read the article in its entirety, but I’ve pulled a number of quotations from it for comment.  I’d call it “much ado about nothing” but “much ado about what’s already in your Bible” is better.  Pardon me, but ….  Aaarrgghhh!!!!

I feel better now, so let’s get started.

Here’s the first choice quotation, from a scholar I really enjoy, Daniel Boyarin:

Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day.

MSH: Jesus . . . can be understood . . .  in light of Jewish history of his time . . . ?!  Uh . . . no kidding.  You don’t say?  I’ll give Boyarin a pass here, because this “revelation” is about as basic as it gets in biblical studies.

“Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional part of Judaism,” Mr. Boyarin said.

Boyarin is right if he’s talking about Christians who are more familiar with Joel Osteen’s “Your Best Life Now” board game than the Bible.  Christianity was part of Judaism?  You mean it arose from Jewish theology?  NO DUH — read the book of Acts!  That’s what the whole New Testament book is about!  Trouble is, many Christians really are this biblically ignorant, and so Boyarin’s quotation has merit.  Aaarrgghhh!

Next quotation:

Oddly, the stone is not really a new discovery. It was found about a decade ago and bought from a Jordanian antiquities dealer by an Israeli-Swiss collector who kept it in his Zurich home. When an Israeli scholar examined it closely a few years ago and wrote a paper on it last year, interest began to rise. There is now a spate of scholarly articles on the stone, with several due to be published in the coming months.

I actually read this article months ago (the “Israeli scholar” was Israel Knoll), but I didn’t do the math when OJA asked me about the new inscription.  When I read this, there was no stir about the inscription, so I thought OJA’s note was something new.  For those who’d like to read the article, you can download it HERE.

Here’s an extended quotation related to the inscription’s content:

In Mr. Knohl’s interpretation, the specific messianic figure embodied on the stone could be a man named Simon who was slain by a commander in the Herodian army, according to the first-century historian Josephus. The writers of the stone’s passages were probably Simon’s followers, Mr. Knohl contends.

The slaying of Simon, or any case of the suffering messiah, is seen as a necessary step toward national salvation, he says, pointing to lines 19 through 21 of the tablet — “In three days you will know that evil will be defeated by justice” — and other lines that speak of blood and slaughter as pathways to justice.

To make his case about the importance of the stone, Mr. Knohl focuses especially on line 80, which begins clearly with the words “L’shloshet yamin,” meaning “in three days.” The next word of the line was deemed partially illegible by Ms. Yardeni and Mr. Elitzur, but Mr. Knohl, who is an expert on the language of the Bible and Talmud, says the word is “hayeh,” or “live” in the imperative. It has an unusual spelling, but it is one in keeping with the era.

Two more hard-to-read words come later, and Mr. Knohl said he believed that he had deciphered them as well, so that the line reads, “In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you.”

To whom is the archangel speaking? The next line says “Sar hasarin,” or prince of princes. Since the Book of Daniel, one of the primary sources for the Gabriel text, speaks of Gabriel and of “a prince of princes,” Mr. Knohl contends that the stone’s writings are about the death of a leader of the Jews who will be resurrected in three days.

The last paragraph is simply erroneous. The book of Daniel does NOT identify the “prince of princes” as Gabriel. Most scholars believe it’s Michael. I don’t; I think it’s a deity-level figure (part of my dissertation), but I won’t digress, since this mistake isn’t important for the content of the scroll that’s making news.

Now we can move into the important stuff:  Knohl is Jewish, and so he has a different interpretation of certain prophecies (especially messianic) from the get-go. He also has a very Jewish view of the New Testament. In short, he has his own set of biases that play into what he says the rest of the way.  Here are some examples:

He says further that such a suffering messiah is very different from the traditional Jewish image of the messiah as a triumphal, powerful descendant of King David.

This presupposes that there is no hint of a suffering Messiah in the Old Testament.  This is silly.  What about Isaiah 53? you might ask.  Me, too.  Many (perhaps most) Jews (scholarly or otherwise) don’t believe that Isaiah 53 is speaking of a suffering PERSON / Messiah (they take it as referring to the nation of Israel), and so they a priori rule that out — hence Knohl acts like the suffering messiah of this inscription is put forth as big news.  It’s only big news if you follow Knohl’s presuppositions.  Otherwise, it’s a yawner. He continues:

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”

No, Mr. Knohl, this would FIT Christianity — it’s only a surprise given your assumption about Isaiah 53. The second part of this is correct — most critical scholars think the “resurrection after three days” was added later. It’s not clear if Knohl agrees.  At any rate, these scholars ASSUME that resurrection from the dead after three days isn’t found in the New Testament.  Pardon me again, but . . . Aaarggghhhh!

Did we forget about the Old Testament story on which Matthew draws for the three day resurrection?  Matthew’s gospel notes (Matt. 12:39-40; the speaker is Jesus):

³⁹ But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰ For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

You say, what the heck does Jonah in the belly of the fish have to do with resurrection and three days? What is Matthew thinking?  Well, first off, let’s observe that the Jonah story IS in the Jewish Scriptures (how this was missed by the scholar-skeptics I don’t know; I don’t expect anyone at the NYT to actually have read anything in the Bible, though). Second, let’s note that Matthew is a JEW, and one whose writing technique is widely regarded (by skeptic or otherwise) as the most akin to Jewish midrashic interpretation, ever so common in Jesus’ day.  For sake of simplicity (erring in precision here), midrash was like a system of allegorical or analogical interpretation, where the interpreter would see something in a text (of the OT here) and interpret it allegorically (not literally) or “symbolically.” Everyone in NT studies knows about Matthew and Midrash — even Jewish scholars (at least I thought so). Now for the resurrection and three days stuff.

What was it about the Jonah story that prompted Matthew to cite it as part of his record about Jesus–that he would spend three days dead and then rise again? He uses the three days of Jonah (Jonah 1:17) as an analogy, but why? The answer is in Jonah 2:2 (and I’m using the Jewish Publication Society translation here):

In my trouble I called to the Lord, And He answered me; From the belly of Sheol I cried out, And You heard my voice.

Did you catch the reference to “Sheol”? Sheol is a very common word for the grave in the OT. The writer of Jonah casts being in the belly of the fish three days as being in the grave three days.  Matthew picks up on this (better, he recalls it as something Jesus taught about himself). Here’s the point: The Jewish Scriptures cast Jonah as being “in the grave” three days and then getting out.  That much is right there in the text.  It IS a step forward (a midrashic step) for Jesus and Matthew to take this and make it messianic.  That part (the application) is new when it appears in Matthew — but the rising after three days IDEA is not.  Marrying it to the messiah was new.  And up until this new inscription surfaced, Matthew’s midrash on Jonah was the earliest connection of the two ideas.  The new inscription therefore doesn’t CHANGE anything Matthew taught (or that Jesus applied to himself).  Rather, we just have an earlier witness to the combination of ideas.

Now here’s a logic quiz for those who think this is shocking, or means we have to look at Christianity any differently because someone other than a New Testament writers applied an idea to the messiah prior to the New Testament:  Does this ever happen elsewhere?  That is, did Jews who lived and wrote earlier than the New Testament era and the gospel writers ever look at the OT and speculate about messiah?  Did they ever write about how this or that passage might relate to messiah?  Did later New Testament authors ever agree with some of those non-New Testament writers?  The answers are, in order, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes - dozens of times!  The point: there is nothing shocking about having “New Testament like exegesis” of something prior to the New Testament?  Do we really think that all other Jewish theologians were too stupid to ever be right about any of their speculations or interpretations of messianic material in their Scriptures? Anyone who thinks this just hasn’t read the apocrypha or pseudepigrapha (Jewish writings between the biblical OT and NT) — the New Testament writers draw on this earlier literature on a number of occasions and weave it into their own accounts and arguments.  They are part of a JEWISH tradition. This is nothing new.

Knohl also notes:

Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus.

no kidding — and so what?  Why MUST it be unique (especially when it wasn’t)?

Knohl adds:

“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said. “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

This is the worst part of the article. Uh . . . if we have a suffering messiah who needs to bring redemption to Israel, isn’t Israel composed of people?  Wasn’t the nation sent into exile because of the sins / idolatry of its PEOPLE?  Isn’t the servant of Isaiah both corporate and individual? Are redemption and forgiveness of sins incompatible concepts in the Old Testament (and other Jewish writings outside the OT)? The answers here would be (very obviously): Yes, Yes, Yes, and No.  For the record: Aaarrrggghhhhh!

Okay, I’m going to take a chill pill now.

Technorati Tags: archaeology, inscription, Jesus, Judaism

6July2008

Ancient Astronauts on Heckler Spray

Posted by MSH under: Ancient Astronauts.

Just a brief article on the ancient astronaut theory. The usual nuttiness summarized.

Technorati Tags: ancient astronauts

3July2008

It Isn’t Just Me That Thinks Indy 4 was Horrible

Posted by MSH under: Ancient Astronauts.

Here’s another recent review (even longer than mine) that points out the obvious - the newest Indiana Jones movie is a cheesefest.

Technorati Tags: ancient astronauts, movie review, movies

1July2008

back from vacation tonight - blogging to resume

Posted by MSH under: Uncategorized.

I’ll be back tonight from vacation. I was (literally) in one of the most unwired places in the US (only dial-up, and even that was rare).  Thought I was ready for that, but my pre-planning went awry. It was like a Dilbert cartoon!

I’ll be posting and answering comments starting tomorrow!

Mike

24June2008

On Vacation

Posted by MSH under: Uncategorized.

Just a note - I’m on vacation with limited online access.  I’m sure I’ll fall behind on posts and comments.  Back July 2.

22June2008

Giant Human Skeleton? Nope, Just Photoshop

Posted by MSH under: Giants.

I’ve had some recent email about this picture.  Apparently there are still some who don’t know this was a hoax. The link shows the photos and how the hoax was put together. There are many other such links, too. Cool, actually.

Go here for the information.

Technorati Tags: Giants, hoaxes

20June2008

Gnostic Archons = Aliens?

Posted by MSH under: Ancient Astronauts; Gnosticism; john lamb lash.

Ah, our first foray into the weird, wonderful world of John Lamb Lash.  For those of you unfamiliar with Lash, he is a modern Gnostic. No, I’m not going to pick on Gnosticism. I am going to pick on Lash’s Gnostic nonsense at a specific point.

In his quest to argue the superiority of Gnosticism as a worldview, Lash has written that the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi (alone, since they are so wonderful) correctly tell us the story of an ancient alien intrusion into earth’s history.  They do nothing of the sort. Now, don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t deny that there are striking similarities between Gnostic cosmology and teachings and the messages that you’d read about (ad nauseum) from people who believe they have been contacted by aliens.  That’s true–but not for the reason Lash argues.  Lash wants you to believe that the similarities are due to the faithful recording in the Gnostic texts of real aliens who came to earth and kickstarted human civilization (and helped create humanity to boot). I’d say the opposite:  that the similarities are what they are because the ideas and worldview spoonfed to contactees and abductees is nothing more than Gnosticism rehashed for a 20th-21st century technological audience (with a dash of theosophy and a few other occult spices).  That’s the kind of thing I’m discussing on another blog, so I won’t park on that here.  On PaleoBabble, I have another issue in view.

Lash makes the following claim in his online article, “Alien Instrusion”:

Physical descriptions of Archons occur in several Gnostic codices. Two types are clearly identified: a neonate or embryonic type, and a draconic or reptilian type. Obviously, these descriptions fit the Greys and Reptilians of contemporary reports to a T. Or I should say, to an ET.

Delving into the Gnostic materials, it is quite a shock to discover that ancient seers detected and investigated the problem of alien intrusion during the first century CE, and certainly well before. (The Mysteries date from many centuries before the Christian Era.) What is amazing about the Gnostic theory of the Archons is not only the cosmological background (explaining the origin of these entities and the reason for their enmeshment with humanity), but the specificity of information on the alien m.o., describing how they operate and what they want from us. For one thing, Gnostics taught that these entities envy us and feed on our fear. Above all, they attempt to keep us from claiming and evolving our “inner light,” the gift of divine intelligence within. While I would not claim that Gnostic teachings on the Archons, or what remains of such teachings, have all the answers to the ET/UFO enigma, one thing is clear: they present a coherent and comprehensive analysis of alien intrusion, as well as specific practices for resisting it. They are far more complete and sophisticated than any theory in discussion today.

How can we test this claim?  Easy–in future posts I’ll revisit my electronic corpus of the Nag Hammadi texts and search for such descriptions.  You don’t have to take Lash’s word for it (or mine)–I’ll show you.  Stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: aliens, archons, Gnosticism, gods, john lamb lash, Nag Hammadi

12June2008

Exposing the Work of Zecharia Sitchin, Part 2: Does the Bible Have the Gods Creating Humankind?

Posted by MSH under: Sitchin.

This is a Sitchin signature teaching. In an effort to marry his notion that the Anunnaki (a group of gods in the Sumero-Mesopotamian pantheon) created humankind to the biblical story, Sitchin teaches that the Bible itself has plural gods creating humankind in Genesis. This is just paleo-babble.

Genesis 1:26 is of course offered as proof of this idea, but this is not what the passage teaches. Let’s take a look at the passage in context (Gen 1:26-28), noting the underlining:

26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind as our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man as his own image, as the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

If you are familiar with my work on the divine council, you know that God is not speaking to the other members of the Trinity, but rather to the members of his council. Among Old Testament scholars, this isn’t anything new. In “academese” the wording of Genesis 1:26 is called the “plural of exhortation”-a fancy way of saying one person is announcing something to a group. God comes to the divine council with an exciting announcement: “let’s create humankind!” It would be like me going into a room of friends and saying, “Hey, let’s go get some pizza” (which I have been known to do with some regularity).

The point is that the speaker is ONE entity. But do the other guys in the audience (the heavenly host) participate in the creating? This is what Sitchin teaches. Sadly for him, the Hebrew text says the opposite. How do we know that? At the risk of dredging up painful memories of your high school English classes, the answer is “grammar says so.”

If you take a close look at verse 27, it’s obvious as to who is doing the creating: “So God created man as his own image, as the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” One grammatical clue is obvious, even in English. If more than one god was participating in the creation of humanity, the text would read “they created.” What isn’t so obvious to those who can’t read Hebrew is that the verbs of creation in this passage (and in ALL passages where the God of Israel creates anything) are SINGULAR. Don’t believe me? Get out your popcorn and turn up your speakers! Here’s a video of me doing a search for where elohim is the subject of a verb of creation. I go through all the results and each time the God of Israel is the elohim referred to, the verbs are SINGULAR. Video just doesn’t get more compelling than this. It’s just under 21 MB ; 14:46.

Technorati Tags: Bible, creation, elohim, Genesis, gods, humanity, Old Testament, Sitchin

7June2008

Was Cain Fathered by the Devil? No, Wait — Extraterrestrials

Posted by MSH under: Jesus Bloodline; Laurence Gardner; Sitchin; Wacky Bible Interpretation.

I’ve gotten more emails on this topic than I can shake a stick at, so I’ve decided to blog it and then just direct people to this post in the future. I don’t know who started this on the internet-probably one of those “I found secret knowledge about the Bible” people who start followings in cyberspace. At any rate, he wasn’t anyone who knew anything about the Bible, the Dead Sea scrolls, or the other material I’ll touch on.

Cain Fathered by Satan or a Demon?

Though there are by no various expressions of it online, the nonsense goes something like this.

What really happened in Eden (Genesis 3) was that Eve was seduced by the serpent (whose name was Sammael), they had sex, and produced Cain (Genesis 4). This is why Cain was “marked” by God later on-God hated him since the serpent was his father. The Bible covers all this up since its editors removed it. Thankfully, the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve it. That’s just one reason the scrolls were kept from the public for so long.

Hogwash.

Here’s the truth about this particular web gem. I’ll unpack each point briefly.

1. Genesis 4:1 was NOT found among the textual remains of the Hebrew Bible among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is important to realize that much of the biblical material from Qumran is partial and fragmentary. Only the book of Isaiah can be said to be virtually complete (99% of it was found at Qumran). There are portions and scraps of every other OT book except Esther. Genesis 4:1, the account of Can’s birth, is not in the Dead Sea Scroll material. The closest you get is Genesis 4:2-11, which is 4QGen^b or 4Q2 (read, Qumran, Cave 4, Genesis “b” - that was the name given to the fragment - also called Qumran, Cave 4, no. 2 by other researchers). This fragment was published in volume 12 (pp. 36-37) of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD) series (Oxford University Press - the official publisher of scrolls material). The fragment is IDENTICAL to the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible used today. Therefore, the Dead Sea scrolls don’t preserve this weird view of Cain’s lineage. Readers can check on what I’m saying through two relatively inexpensive sources:

• David L. Washburn, A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Sbl - Text-Critical Studies, 2) (Sbl - Text-Critical Studies, 2) (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002) - this resource lists all biblical passages found among the scrolls, in the order of the Hebrew canon, so it’s easy to use.
• Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (Harper, 1999). You need only turn to Genesis 4 to see the first verse is missing. Marty and Peter, two of the editors, are friends of mine (we live near each other, and both have been down here to my office). They are Dead Sea scroll experts.

2. Since we already know the name doesn’t occur in the biblical scrolls (the point above), I thought I’d look for it among the other scrolls material - sometimes the other material has commentaries on the biblical material. A computer search for “Sammael” (or the alternate spelling Samael) yields ZERO occurrences in the non-biblical texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is more proof that this “account” is not only absent in the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls; it isn’t present in the scrolls that covered other subjects besides copying and commenting on the Hebrew Bible. You can watch a video of me doing this search so you know I’m not making it up. (Turn your speakers up and use high speed - it’s 29 MB).

3. I knew that I wouldn’t find the name Sammael or Samael in any of the scrolls. The name does occur among the Pseudepigrapha. The video I made above includes this search and its results. Sorry, no sex between the serpent / Sammael and Eve. Boring, I know. Outside the name Sammael/Samael, n some pseudepigraphic material (4 Maccabees 18:8) the serpent gets blamed for all sexual sin, but that’s a lot different than fathering Cain.

4. Some rabbinic material does have the devil fathering Cain. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has this idea. Here’s a brief video of me looking this up an explaining the reading [You can check my translation by consulting the English translation of Targum Pseudo-Joanathan at this link. This translation, though, does NOT have the variant that includes Samael]. The other Targums do not have this reading. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is dated by Aramaists at roughly the sixth century A.D., or between 1500-2000 years AFTER Genesis was written (the date range depends on when one thinks Genesis was written). The Talmud relates a story that Yonatan ben Uziel, a student of Hillel (roughly contemporary with Jesus), fashioned an Aramaic translation of the Prophets. That translation is considered by some to be Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. However, the story makes no mention of any translation by him of the Torah, and so it cannot be argued that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis 4:1 is as old as Jesus’ day. The sixth century A.D. is all the evidence allows. Targums can be very elastic translations, adding material quite freely with no Hebrew manuscript evidence at all. Everyone who does Aramaic knows this about the Targums-they can play pretty fast and loose with the text of the Bible; they INSERT all kinds of things into the translation, without regard to any prior textual manuscript history for support. IN plain language, the Targums often add made up material to the biblical text. Having Samael in Genesis 4:1 is a classic example - it was added at least 1500 years after the fact, and no other prior ancient Jewish material supports it.

Cain Fathered by Extraterrestrials?

Laurence Gardner, that pseudo-ancient text researcher of Jesus bloodline nonsense fame, wants Eve and Yahweh to be the ones having sex-or, “more realistically” in his mind, to have the extraterrestrial god known as Yahweh (who is really Sumerian Enki) genetically implant his DNA in her. In an online lecture on this topic Gardner (largely parroting Zecharia Sitchin) says:

Conventional teaching generally cites Cain as being the first son of Adam and Eve - but he was not; even the book of Genesis tells us that he was not. In fact, it confirms how Eve told Adam that Cain’s father was the Lord, who was of course Enki the Archetype. Even outside the Bible, the writings of the Hebrew Talmud and Midrash make it quite plain that Cain was not the son of Adam . . . Around 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve (known then as Atâbba and Kâva - and jointly called the Adâma) were purpose-bred for kingship by Enki and his sister-wife Nîn-khursag. This took place at a ‘creation chamber’ which the Sumerian annals refer to as the House of Shimtî (Shi-im-tî meaning ‘breath - wind - life‘ ). Adam and Eve were certainly not the first people on Earth, but they were the first of the alchemically devised kingly succession. Nîn-khursag was called the Lady of the Embryo or the Lady of Life, and she was the surrogate mother for Atâbba and Kâva, who were created from human ova fertilized by the Lord Enki. ¹

In regard to how the book of Genesis tells us Cain was not the son of Adam and Eve, Gardner has this quotation in his book about the birth of Cain. Let me go on record as saying this is one of my favorite Gardner quotations, only because it’s a crystal clear example of how Gardner DELIBERATELY misleads his readers, likely because he hates Christianity so much:

“In the opening verse of Genesis 4, it is written that Hawah [Eve] said, ‘I have gotten a man from the Lord’. Other variations are ‘I have got me a man with the Lord’ and ‘I have acquired a man from the Lord’.”²

Gardner’s quotation creates the distinct impression for his readers that Genesis 4:1 contains ONLY this line about Eve saying she “got a man from/with the Lord.” It’s an incomplete citation, though-and you’ll see right away why Gardner wouldn’t give you the rest of the verse in his book. Here’s the whole verse in Hebrew and English (I have given the English and the Hebrew matching colors so you can follow the translation):



It’s easy to see here how Gardner only gave his readers the second half of the verse - omitting the part that explicitly says that ADAM “knew” Eve (a common sexual euphemism in the Bible) and so fathered Cain. How convenient. How self-serving. How dishonest.

Again, it’s just PaleoBabble.

Technorati Tags: cain, eve, gardner, Genesis, samael, sammael, serpent