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 4QGenb 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 . . . were purpose-bred for kingship by Enki and his sister-wife Ninkhursag. This took place at a ‘creation chamber’ which the Sumerian annals refer to as the House of Shimta (Shi-im-tA 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. Nin-khursag was called the Lady of the Embryo or the Lady of Life, and she was the surrogate mother for Adam and Eve, 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.
@ MHS
I don’t mind the debate itself on the fatherhood of Cain but when I see this debate taken and used over by white-supremacists and neo-nazis; it annoys me..
i did not recognize neither the scholarship and historical references in the previous posts, no one will mislead me like this…
[Reply]
I am amazed how many first read sex into the sin for which Adam and Eve were deprived of paradise, only then to complain about this.
Oscar has “All these suggests the sin was related to sex, uncommon sex. I guess the writers in the New Testament DID know something when they wrote about Cain’s SEED. There’s no sense of thinking God is blaming them for normal sex.”
Lost Angel has “To me even God’s condemnation to Adam and Eve look s against nature: they had sex.. big deal.”
Indeed, this is not about sex of any kind at all. Go and read the text.
The text also repeatedly links Adam and Cain as father and son, whereas there is no biblical indication whatsoever that makes Cain the son of the serpent.
Even Eve’s exclamation that she “got a man from/with the LORD” can at best only refer to God and not the serpent, Satan or whomsoever. But given that the very same verse clearly states that Adam fathered Cain, it is quite meaningless in that regard what Eve said otherwise. Maybe to her childbirth was still something miraculous!?
As for the offspring of the serpent – now who could this be? How about other serpents?
Finally, Lost Angel, why should anyone be bothered by racists taking up a debate if it is a legitimate one? (Well, I know, PC crap!) Only, it isn’t a legitimate one and that’s the problem! That racists take up silly debates is not something that should surprise us. Nonsense to nonsense, dust to dust!
[Reply]
It is true that the TEXT does not say that the serpent and Eve had relations..and then produced Cain.
If we are going to take this story literally..then snakes should still speak. If not, please SHOW me the Scripture that tells us that “Snakes will no longer speak”.
If the Scripture does NOT tell us this, then let’s assume 1) snakes still speak 2) this wasn’t a snake 3) that everything that we should know is not written in the text.
I will go with number 3.
Maybe we need to just “put the puzzle together”….
So, for me to know if there are two seed lines on this Planet that are different (Whether written in the text..or explained through actions) …I only need to turn on the News. I find one person feeding the homeless..and I see another person murdering the homeless for pleasure. …Although environment is the soil….heredity is the seed. As an adopted person myself..I have lived to understand this in a most profound way.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 1:07 AM
I don’t believe the serpent was a member of the animal kingdom anyway, but that doesn’t support your #3 anyway. This response doesn’t move me, but it also doesn’t further the discussion due to my own thinking on this.
[Reply]
Of course not. I wasn’t expecting it to move you. It is quite clear that you are not going to change your “opinion”….and that is what many of us can gleam from your responses.
For other readers on here, please know that I have traveled on lecture tours with (in my opinion and many other packed lecture halls) one of the most brilliant Torah Scholars in the World (Teacher in Jerusalem) and his rendering is not the same as MSH, although I certainly respect his(MSH) background without hesitation.
As for me, I just smile as many of us know that those who find it more acceptable that a Nachash was walking and talking….than to understand that the story is replete with hidden nuances. For those searching I would suggest a look at such things as the Mishnah in the section of kilayim “Forbidden mixture” where the warning that bodies of the “field beast have the same look as a human”…and it gets rather deep into explanation.
I am not moved either by your interpretation or questions as to “Show it to me in the text”..as if I were to only look at the text, I would miss all the “apples of gold in dishes of silver”.
Thank you allowing my previous post..and all the best to you and yours.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 16th, 2012 at 1:18 PM
My reply wasn’t meant to be antagonistic; it was only to point out that your objections don’t matter to me since I start at a different beginning point anyway. I would only add that any interpretation not grounded in the text is by definition only grounded in one’s imagination, which is inherently subjective. While focusing on the text cannot be completely objective, it is far more objective than one’s own imagination, or imbibing in the esoteric imaginations of others for interpreting the thing you STILL come back to with those ruminations — the text.
[Reply]
I will always respect your intellect.
Differences will always arise when symbolism, allegory and literal stories are streamed together in a text that no one has any idea of what the original author was “thinking”. (ALL of us use our imagination..if we think otherwise then we are kidding ourselves)
I certainly USE the text as a guide to understanding the story. No better objective to word study than to use the very book you’re studying from as your main tool. My interpretation will always be rooted in the text but the text has many layers, as you and I both know. The Mishnah was a point of reference that I gave as I have used that also as a tool as well.
I was also wondering Michael, if you could tell me (us) what you believe the Nachash was. You mentioned that you did not believe that this was from the animal kingdom.
Just for the record…I DO appreciate your Scholarship. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be typing on your page because I don’t waste my time reading and perusing the web for “armchair” Scholars who think that they have ALL the answers. (That usually means that they “graduated from a Lazy boy recliner”..not to say that some people are not gifted with Wisdom without Degree knowledge because I have come across that in my travels as well)
I give respect where due and I extend that to you, as I have in this forum as well as in conversations about you with others.
[Reply]
@ Rachael I think that the whole Idea of cain being fathered by the serpent or cain being likened by the serpent relates to the soul of cain. The gnostic believe that the only supernatural power God left human is to create other souls thru procreation. the gnostic believed that both angel and
god created human in flesh and soul; giving a part of themselves.
Recently reading Ernest L Martin (linked to this site via comments); he claimed based on scriptures
that although humans cannot see supernatural beings (angels), God use them and force human decisions, wars, punisment etc ( it think its in Daniel).. some of these angels work their own ways and corrupt the soul into sin.
Now this according to the same gnostics ; not only human bodies have a womb but also divine soul. If this divine soul become inverted because of sin , God no longer see sinner souls ie and no longer these souls can see God or their prayer answered.. which by tradition is a curse, i think.. not as a bloodline line that would include race but rather as a soul line rooted in evil.
I am not sure in so far in my research of God and religion with this obsession about sin; but given my own perception of the world, i would say it cannot be about race, as evil can manifest in any race.. as any person can be likened to Cain.
As per my own soul, personnally i would like to keep it for myself, i dont think it belongs to someone else be it GOD or any Devil..
[Reply]
source for the above was not martin but sielaff : http://www.askelm.com/news/n111121.pdf.
I dont know if i made sens but for sake of clarification ” God create supernatural beings, angels (MSH divine council ) ; the elohim, elohims created Adam, so they have the dominion over
human souls.. a soul can be corrupted to the point that god no longer see the soul.. salvation
could possibly occur if a person repent..and accept Christ as the savior..
Do i understand this right?
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 6:07 PM
I’m not sure who you are quoting (or if you are quoting anything). I do not believe plural “elohims” created anything or anyone (that is not the point of Gen 1:26); hence they have no dominion over human souls; I’m not sure what is meant by “not see the soul” (which I would not affirm in any event); the last part reflects part of the gospel, though it is unclear (repentance involves acknowledging one’s guilt before God because of sin, and inability to rectify that situation on one’s own, and so one turns from sin [the definition of repentance] to instead rely on God’s kindness [grace - unmerited favor] shown to all people in the form of accepting Christ’s death on the cross in lieu of the penalty for one’s own sin [theologians like to call that "the divine transaction"]).
Sort of far afield for this blog!
[Reply]
@ MSH I kinda mixed OT and text from the OT, the NT and Gonstics texts together to have a general understanding of theology,,
see the exegis of the soul : where a corrupted soul does not see GOD and vice a versa..
see also sielaff on the angesl or demons taking over a human.. Could this be true?
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 18th, 2012 at 6:55 PM
understood; in terms of biblical theology, the NT material on possession rules out that a true believer / follower of Christ can be possessed (defined as that person’s soul once again lost to demonic forces). However, humans (including believers) can be manipulated, oppressed, and controlled (just not owned).
[Reply]
This could could explain why i dont see God, but this subject is too personal for me to discuss here..
thanks..
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 10:14 PM
understood; this is common with atheists I have known (some personal pain issue, or personal offense). Those are the atheists that I have time for, since I’ve seen Christians do very stupid and thoughtless things in my own experience. But I’ve never had difficulty separating the intellectual issues from the people, but I could imagine circumstances where that would have been very difficult. The atheists that are a waste of time (for me anyway) are the ones that encounter some problem or issue, then just dump everything since the one person they asked didn’t have an answer. I have yet to find one of those that did any serious research, really trying to get to the bottom of something. That laziness is especially unconscionable in today’s world of information access. These types aren’t interested in solving the problem; they have found an excuse to not accept XYZ idea (namely, God). But perhaps my feeling is colored by the fact I have been exposed to so many Christians who are academics (PhDs in a whole range of fields, mostly the hard sciences). I can’t help thinking the lazy atheist really can’t have made much of an effort — Christians in the sciences and other fields aren’t hiding. It isn’t hard to find material, and there’s nothing that hasn’t been addressed at a very high level.
[Reply]
MSH,
I responded to your email and I was not sure if you received it..or worse yet, you did and I hit a nerve. (Unintentional, I assure you)
Nevertheless, would you please give my email to Lost Angel? (Or at least let he/she know that I did respond to his question/comment)Thank You!
Rachael
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 21st, 2012 at 2:10 PM
I didn’t know what to do with it (didn’t know you wanted it sent on). Lost Angel’s email address is displayed on these comments, so why don’t you just email him/her? If you want me to forward it, let me know. I only have about 15-20 minutes a day for email, and don’t maintain correspondences.
[Reply]
Well it seems about 2.000 years ago the ones who wrote and read Cain was from the evil one didn’t agree with Michael Heiser’s point of view. Not only 1 John 3:12 is a pretty good indication that the belief that Cain was “from the evil one” but also the late 2nd century Greek Protevangelium of James, 13:1 can talk of the serpent not only deceiving but also defiling Eve. And Tertullian (2nd-3rd century), in Against Heresies 2, can talk of a belief circulating that Cain and Abel were both conceived by angels. Regarding 1 John Greek # 1537 Strong’s Concordance understands Cain was son or offspring of Satan, so Wycliffe Bible Commentary volume 3, pag 936 and Mathew Henry’s Commentary volume 6, page 1077.
Eve’s pregancy with increased pain is obviously related with SEX. Adam and Eve realized they were NAKED and they found the nudity in the euphemistic hips which they covered with fig leaves. If sex was common thing for them WHY WERE THEY ASHAMED of their nudity? Nudity was not found in the hands taking the fruit nor in the mouth eating the fruit but DOWN THERE in the parts they hid and God asked them to cover with animal skin. Tarzan clothes were not proper in His view. It seems obvious the “fruit” was related to that thing Eve did unless Mr Heiser is blinded by the faith in his church in spite of all his expertise. And even more the walking-god admits the very same thing hanashah (seraphim 6 winged-snake dragon) said. Genesis 3:22 mentions God admits man became like one of them (whether it’s majestic plural or not it seems obvious He was worried) acknowledging good and evil which was the same thing dragon-snake said in 3:4,5.
I have not seen a deeper study of that “genealogy”. Hebrew language with false translations are all over the place. In the same books we read the feast Hanuka is called Chanukah and obviously most readers WOULDN’T EVER SUSPECT that twisting of CH with H is due to the fact that ‘Hebrew” was inspired in yidish German from Medieval times just like in English the word ‘night’ had Germanic sound “nicht”. Readers wouldn’t suspect that ‘Hebrew’ CH was German CH with the sound of Spanish J, Russian and Greek X and English H and Portuguese RR. But I guess Mr. Heiser is not someone who actually speaks fluent German, Spanish and so on. Thus, when we read genealogy with names “translated” we found Jared from one side of the list is maybe the OTHER one called Iared or Irad. After all Heiser hasn’t told us letter ‘J’ was invented by a French humanist Pierre de la Rameé about 1500 years after so-called “Jesus’ . We can find a couple of Lamech, one avanged 77 times or generations while the other one lived 777 years. Hmmm, suspicious! A couple of Enoch (with CH or H shall I ask Mr. Expert?) and one called Enos (or Enosh)…., another called Cainan or little Cain, and names Matusaleh and similar that change slightly from one list to the other , as if parents in one lineage become sons in the other. I SUSPECT THIS IS A NUMERAL CODE and Jewish intention to HIDE the mother side of the lineage. And of course the CURSE of both Eve and Snake’s seed. Curse why if Satan didn’t lie? God admits Adam and Eve WOULD CERTAINLY LIVE FOREVER having access to the tree of everlasting life so His act was using his Mighty Power and cast them out. Was the snake really a liar?
I guess Mr. Heiser will have to justify til the kingdom come God’s attitude and his academical knowledge could be a heavy burden using that to blind the people saying half-truth in the same way Sitchin wrote HIS half-truths.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:06 PM
all of these non-arguments were noted by me in earlier responses. Nothing new here.
[Reply]
STR wrote “Eve’s exclamation that she “got a man from/with the LORD” can at best only refer to God and not the serpent…” What Lord? Lord is a mere title used to replace names. There’s no name related to false Greek letters YHVH in the text.
[Reply]
str Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:35 AM
Carlos,
this is getting stupid, so let’s be clear:
Gen 4,1: And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.’ (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0104.htm)
Sure, Lord is a title but it is used in translations to stand in for the Tetragrammaton, the name of God later revealed to Moses. (I used the word Lord because I avoid using the Tetragrammaton if I can!)
The same Lord in translations and the same name in the previous chapters (first in 2,4) denote the entity that created the world, made the Garden, drove Adam and Eve from the garden.
So it is just plain silly to dispute that Eve in her exclamation refered to anyone else but God. She certainly did not refer to the snake.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 9:58 PM
You’re using reason, so don’t expect to get anywhere.
[Reply]
Regarding to Adam and Eve’s opened EYES mentioned above, well it seems obvious why Mr. Heiser in his response to Oscar never mentioned when Christ’s utterance is about the single EYE illuminating the whole body. Obviously if Adam and Eve are a couple of creatures, Genesis text has to say THEIR EYES were opened. Yet, if we think it was Eve’s EYE plus Adam’s EYE the text will also say eyes in plural! Mr. Heiser is a linguist but he acts as if he knew EVERYTHING ELSE! Third eye is not something esoteric but very real. As a linguist he should know both names melatonin and melanin come from ancient word dealing with DARKNESS triggering its function. And apostle Paul literally said Eve’s mind was affected by Satan’s trick (2 Corintians 11:3 says about HER THOUGHTS, obviously a reference to her MIND so it’s not too far from dealing with the 3rd eye producing melatonin) in the same context where he says Satan disguises into light. In Greek the word metaschematizo is the root of metamorphosis which is something that could happen if Eve saw something projected to her mind by Seraphim dragon-snake. Light-bearer or phosphorus. In 2 Kings 6:17 says God OPENED THE EYES of someone to see chariots and horses of fire. The guy who saw an angel and thought his mule was talking had his eyes opened. Obviously reality is beyond the limits of what our literal eyes can see and to explain this to Mr. all-knowing Heiser would take me an eternity. Where does Michael Heiser think the literal eyes could’ve been activated by God first? It has to be in the brain of the person. The so-called 3rd eye , the brain and the literal eyes are all conected whether he acknowledges or ignores this is irrelevant. Even if it sounds too “esoteric” for his taste. I don’t care, even Christ talked about the Father who is “hiding” in the same context where he quoted the single opened eye which enlights all the body. Obviously that eye is somewhere else Mr. Heiser wouldn’t know in what part of the body locates!!!! Mathew 6:6, 22.
Heiser asked Oscar if Adam had sex with Satan as well. Aha! That’s the trick. When Oscar mentioned Lillith and satyr goat-men creatures dwell in the desert as mentioned by Isaiah (of course we can talk about Azazel and the scapegoat from Leviticus 16) Heiser replied “yes” …but Isaiah doesn’t link them with Adam and Eve. That was his short reply. But he knows PRETTY WELL the oral traditions DID connect Lillith with Adam as being one of his wives!!!!! He knows Samael is also related with this Lillith but Heiser doesn’t say a word and because he SHUTS UP is a way to say a lie or half-truth (like Satan). How would you know if sucubus Lillith really didn’t have intercourse with Adam? Obviusly Lillith wouldn’t have a lineage is she’s from interdimensional realms but since Eve was human, she was the one cursed by that walking-god who also condemned the snake. “Because you have done that…”
Snake didn’t lie as I mentioned above , so she was condemned with the woman because there was a union intercourse between Eve and Satan. When New Testament mentions Satan’s head had to be crushed is also dealing with GENEALOGY, something Heiser is not explaining. As a scholar he should answer all the questions asked rather than in cockiness replying “you show me the text”.
Are you aware or not that hallucinogenic natural substances do have a molecular symbiosis with certain areas of the brain fitting like a key to a lock? Why wouldn’t Paul be talking about Eve’s EYES’ MIND being drugged by Satan himself disguising into light? Why would that be impposible considering the context of Genesis and what he obviusly says in Corinthians.
1) Why were they ashamed of nudity if sex was common thing?
2)Why God considered their fig leaves not proper and provided animal fur?
3) Pregnancy and pain are related to sex, yes or no?
4) Don’t you think the slight differences in switching letters awefully translated is very suspicious considering the names of the parents in one list are equivalent to the names of the children in the other genealogy?
5)Why does God mention the eternal battle between the seraphim reptile ad the woman as described in Genesis 3:15 considering that unfriendly attitude does not include Adam in that verse? After all it was HIS responsability if we believe apostle Paul. He was the head, the husband, wasn’t he?
6) How come the literal eyes discern good and evil unless this is NOT a reference to the literal eyes but awareness in more than one sense?
7) What kind of tree of knowledge was that?
9) Is it true or not Genesis 3:15 is talking about SATAN’S LINEAGE and Eve’s descents?
Provide the answers, Mr Academic, otherwise you could be judged as doing paleobabble yourself and not the ones asking you questions and providing specific data.
[Reply]
str Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 7:39 AM
Having read this, Carlos, I am well aware what “hallucinogenic natural substances” can do!
Since most of what you wrote have no footing in the text, it seems you are the paleobabbler!
[Reply]
@ MHS
Well we all know Nietzche;s dementia. You may be true; generally speaking am a lazy person
regardless my issue does not relate to lazyness but rather an issue with my soul and its content..
when i use to close my eyes and prey (as far as i can remember), i could only see demons looking at me and see weird visions and my sleep was disrupted with nighmares (if you could label this nighmares). To the point that i ceased praying and to the point where I married
a woman with no religious background and I never baptised my daugther..
Its way easier for me to say God does not exist..
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:13 PM
understood, but that still doesn’t sound like a lot of effort, but more like surrender (I hear lots of such accounts, and others who really battled, intellectually and spiritually, so I can’t help comparing). It may be easier to say God doesn’t exist (it no doubt is) but that hardly settles anything (just as it wouldn’t settle anything to just simply say he does).
[Reply]
@ rachael.. hi, my e-mail is techmonster@bell.net
[Reply]
Thank you Lost Angel for your input..and MSH for hosting it.
Here is my understanding.
God first CREATED a type of man.
However, “The Adam” was the first being to receive the “Soul”..or the breath of life. The Neshama.
I realize that there will be those that say that this is not in the text. To me, it is.
I find keys throughout the text that I use to unlock a portion of this understanding.
One key (for myself) is to consider these words in Isaiah 45:7 “I FORM the light and CREATE the darkness”. ‘ I MAKE peace and CREATE evil. I, the LORD, do these things”. (Punctuation is all mine for intent)
Notice here that when the LORD is “Forming and making” (The two words used in regards to THE Adam), it is the same action that Isaiah references when GOD “forms and “Makes” light and peace. However, the word used for “creating” in the early Genesis account (of man) is the verb that GOD uses in Isaiah for creating “darkness” and “evil” Coincidence, not to me. This is elementary to Hebraic understanding. Rabbis called this tzimtzum meaning “Contraction or withdraw”…Allowing for a “slack in the system” ..so to speak. I am by no means saying that GOD was not involved in the “creation” of the first beings.(Certainly He was) What I gather from the text is that the first beings were a canvas…and when He made and formed “The Adam” this was the art work. (My expressions only)
(I hope that I do not get an ear beating from MSH (although I would accept it respectfully) about this…….but I am happy to have input. One of the highest forms of worship in Judaism was study. So, here we are)
[Reply]
@ Rachael
Its nice, it seem we both like to simplify things that are easy to understand.. that whole issue
of about Cain being fathered by the devil is taken too literaly..
We do not even know how we were created ( so to speak ) other than by mythology.
If I understand the supernatural beings or satan involved in 3:15 are sprits; they do not have a body and do not need to reproduce with Eve..If i get it, God gave humans the power to reproduce other human beings and souls not these spirits; they do not have flesh to be able to reproduce bodies and souls.. I firmly believe that the analogies to Cain relates to the soul corrupted by these spirits.. in Cain’s case having committed the first murder.
Thus I do not agree the white supremacist view that actual Jews in Israel are descendents
of Satan by lineage..
[Reply]
@ MSH,
I think that lots of people use the serpent analogy to say that Eve had some sort of threesome
and infanted from two different father..
on a personal level, It is odd but every time someone mention a lion headed with a serpentine body , I have the graphical picture of a spermatozoid..
In Genesis, the serpent is nothing more than a sex or the first procreations between humans.
In these scripture, the serpent appears to be nothing more than sex
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 9:57 PM
what Scriptures? The OT never associates the serpent with a sex act.
[Reply]
@ MHS (may seem off topic)
I found an essay by E.L. Martin regarding the word Elohim(s). He argues Elohims in the bible
should always be plural even if the following verb is singular.. He also says most mistake scholars do is trying to identify God is by asking who he is instead of what he is..
a bit like the Queen using the royal we..
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d940201.htm
It is an interesting concept..
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 9:59 PM
understood, but he’s quite wrong. You can’t just dispose of grammar.
[Reply]
@ MSH I am saying the serpent in Genesis is an analogy to sex not just an animal.. ref Genesis 3:4 to 3:17..
I do agree martin cannot correct the spelling, however the way it is writing bring lots of controversy and the new testament with the Trinity add to this confusion..
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 4:29 PM
it’s not the spelling; it’s the grammar. The idea of a godhead does not come from the NT, either. It’s Jewish. I did my dissertation on this subject at the UW-Madison, and have put a few items about it online (www.twopowersinheaven.com). I focus on the binitarian idea, but there are hints of trinitarian conceptions in the OT as well. I will be speaking about this subject in February, so then I will have a video lecture on it that I can direct you (and others) to.
[Reply]
Lost Angel Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 7:31 PM
@ MSH Martin also realized the grammar..
He address with similarity to you, as a Godhead , a divine council..different powers..
it resort about what is the identity of god..
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 6:52 PM
a council and a godhead are two different things; Martin would not be in agreement with several of my positions (I know, because the trustee of his estate is a good friend of mine).
[Reply]
Is regards to STR and MSH (Both respectfully). I don’t know how to phrase this other than the way that I was taught by my Father. (Blessed memory). You can read ALL the books that you want, sit in every class that you can and be tutored by every professor on this Planet, but until you live on the soil for a good length of time you are educated but not fully wise of the truth. You must go and sit with someone who was born there, and studied there with a Professor who’s Father was born there and studied there or was raised in the language. Until then you will just be someone who learned something from someone who is guessing as well as adding their spin to the lesson. Thank you Dad, for letting me take that plane ride to Israel in 1976 and live there! WOW, did I learn what is being left out in the text books. Sit down, travel with and study the text with someone who has five generations of Hebrew in their veins. (Not someone who is a first generation learner….I am not criticizing that ..as I would have to start in the mirror to do so) Perhaps STR was raised there, and if so, I would like to know where his studies led him and why he discards the Mishnah. I find it odd that so many “Non Jew” want to tell the Jews what their sages where writing about. It is true that the Hebrew Scriptures do not state “The serpent (being) had sex with the woman”. (Although directly after that, before the Adam KNEW her …tree of KNOWledge…..she was named the mother of all the living) As well it does not state that Israel will be replaced by the Church, although many people “Jump” to that as they want that to “fit”. Is THAT in scripture? Many things that are written in the text are nuances. Perhaps that is why that this first century Jewish Rabbi said “I speak ONLY in parables”….maybe He knew that so many people would be ..let me just say ..”slow” to understand that the text has layers of hidden meanings..and it is obvious that it was written to be uncovered…but not without putting the puzzle together….
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 4:30 PM
How would you explain others who are as committed to God / Christ who disagree with your conclusions? Are you more led by God than they are?
[Reply]
str Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 1:47 AM
Rachael,
I don’t buy into expertise by birth or upbringing in this. At best, it is an advantage to know the language (which however is not an actively spoken one) but I can refer you to MSH and his colleagues for that.
It’s not just that the text does not state that Eve had sex with the snake – it is that text says the direct opposite: Eve slept with Adam and conceived.
I don’t claim to know better than Jews what their sages teach – only I do not think that one has to ascribe to what they teach if created out of thin air.
I don’t subscribe to a strict replacement theology, but if you want to see the gist of the matter you might go and read Paul’s letter to the Romans or the history of the word “ekklesia”. In comparison with your pet theory, the Bible is actually dripping with evidence for the Church being (in some way representative of) Israel.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 29th, 2012 at 6:52 PM
some good points!
[Reply]
Rachael Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 6:38 AM
As I sit here in Hollywood Florida, with 7 pairs of eyes watching this being typed ..in a Kosher deli….most of us are smirking..but not laughing. How odd (but not surprising) that when it fits that “Israel” is replaced by the Church..although NOT found in Scripture…it seems to be “accepted”. How apropos and selective some become as to WHAT is and isn’t allowed to be considered “there, although “not there”. The truth is either you accept ONLY what is specific..or not. If we were to say that because the text read “and Adam knew his wife and she bore Cain”…and we do not add or delete text….then where is the text that states that the woman was thrown out of the garden? It does say that the Adam was…and we all know that they met up again (Again…being the hebraic key word here) some 130 years later to have Seth. Either you ASSUME through the text…or it IS there, (is it there, or isn’t it?) in this case..which shall it be? (Also, prior to the Adam knowing his wife…how was she named the “mother of all the living”…if the order was not until AFTER the exit of the garden? Is that in the text, or not?
One last thing…if we ARE to take the Bible literally , when the story is without doubt literal without inuindo…then I suppose my most cherished line is this: “I came ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel”…
Now those sitting with me that did crack a smile! OY, to explain the Jewish mind is very difficult to those who do not have it. It is like having someone with no children trying to teach someone with children the proper way to raise them. (I have none..therefore I listen and not speak…….I enjoy listening to someone who knows..I think of it like a word well spoken…as apples of gold)
By the way, Paul does not usurp what “Jesus” said, does He? Why don’t I do what “Jesus” SAID to do…take the “Gospel”…….I doubt that He forgot to teach all the things that He needed to. I don’t find it necessary to believe that He needed someone to “fill in the blanks”.
Also, just for the record, I would suggest that people think about this in regards to the Chosen. (I am SO proud of being one, by the way) Maybe instead of trying to replace them, you could consider trying to be more like them. Start eating kosher. You know with us making up less than .02 percent of the Worlds population and holding Nobels in the sciences to the tune of upward of 28%…you know, you might want to consider that maybe that Heavenly Father was on to something with this food thing! (no other group of people can say this in regards to population and Nobels.)
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 5:16 PM
while it isn’t clear that the Church replaces national Israel (that’s actually the academic debate), it is clear that the church inherits the covenants of believing Israel. Paul )a Jew and a Pharisee) is quite explicit in that regard in Galatians 3. The issue is whether that means God is therefore “finished” with national Israel (even more particular, does Paul’s hope in Rom 9-11 that “all Israel will be saved” include or exclude national Israel); that is unclear.
[Reply]
Rachael Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 7:34 PM
With all due respect, I already know what PAUL said…I am MORE interested in what that “Other Jewish Guy” said….I am not too sure if “Jesus” needed Paul’s Gospel. Can ANYONE point me to the Scripture where “Jesus” said that “Someone else ..namely The Church to come…would inherit the covenants” ? I would think that being “finished” with Israel would somehow change the Father’s “everlasting” covenant to “when-ever” instead…We could split hairs here…but it is about learning not arguing.
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 10:15 PM
I don’t believe in pitting Paul against Jesus, since they do not disagree. This is actually easy, if you know what to look for. In broad strokes, though, since the gospels have the kingdom of God being *inaugurated* at the first coming of Christ, that means the covenants given to Israel were fulfilled, at least initially (a la Paul in Galatians 3). The kingdom launch coincides with the campaign to reclaim the nations of the earth that were disinherited by Yahweh at Babel, when the nations were dispersed (see Deut 32:8-9, reading with the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, “sons of God” — see my article on that passage at http://www.thedivinecouncil.com). When the nations were dismissed from relationship to Yahweh, then Yahweh called Abram/Abraham and announced the covenant (in which – Gen 12:3) his descendants, Israel, would be the conduit through whom the nations would be “blessed” (brought back to Yahweh, per Isaiah 66 and many other passages). Since this is getting into the sort of material I blog about elsewhere (The Naked Bible), I don’t plan to pursue it here. You could go to the eschatology archive at the Naked Bible for over a dozen posts relating to this sort of thing.
Lost Angel Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 5:30 AM
@ MHS an Rachel
Sorry if I butt in :
Jesus actually annouced a new covenant..
Last Supper where Jesus institutes the rite of Communion saying this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood
His blood on the cross sealing the new convenant and considered a bond in blood sovereignly administered by God ie everyone must pass thru Christ to go heaven. They appear to belive Christ second advent would be to sit on the physical Throne of David. If am correct Christ kinda condemned the 3 main sects offerings..
see also OT Jeremiah 31:31–34
:NT Hebrews 8:8–12
This i say out of curiosity but why would you keep the old convenant alive ? to me it seem like old torture..
MSH Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 7:19 PM
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I know all about the new covenant. My best advice (if you are interested) is to go through my eschatology / prophecy archive.
Many of us are actually led..not more than..but more actively than others. Many of us spend our entire lives, forsaking many opportunities of the High life..to get down and dirty and live on the “not so upper class..or upper crust” arenas of life but instead to go and to learn from people that have Wisdom. Although, there are instances (less common) that do give some a clearer understanding. It is like a savant being able to play a concerto without being able to read music or even hear. It is not explainable, yet it happens. There are most likely many people that stumble on to this particular site that have a higher “leading” than the average Christian/Believer that is just willing to be “pulpit programmed” (For lack of a better phrase). Searching because they know that YOU (MSH) had something inside of yourself that pushed you to search as well. No, we are not “more led”….we are just “Led to do” instead of led to see what others did. I always say “Keep searching”….there is an OLD Jewish saying “I have learned much from my teachers, more from my peers and the MOST from my students”….questions are the only things that matter. The answers are all subject to opinion.
[Reply]
@ Rachael
Adam and Eve had sex; not the serpent who is just an analogy..
In the beginning, The dog was naked ; his skin was like humans
God told him to guard the garden of eden from illicit entry.
The Serpent came to the Garden and the Dog refused his entry.
The serpent gave the dog a meal; and while the dog was eating; the serpent
gain entry, and the serpent was able to suggest eve into eating from the tree of knowledge.
- When God realized this infringement, he condemned the serpent and his offspring into crawling..
- Condemned Eve to to give birth in pain
and also condem the dog for his bribery to be always hungry and to eat the rest given to him by his masters
( this is why dogs are always hungry).
The dog was weeping because of his condemnation. the Serpent hearing the dog crying; spat in his hands and with his saliva :gave the dog his fur to keep him warm.
this is the reason why the dog is being seen as an unclean animal his fur being from the saliva of the serpent..
(this from an old asia minor legend on creation, i cannot find the source- it is also shared by a inuit legend about adam and eve..looking to find the proper sources)
[Reply]
@ MHS any suggestion about an accepted translation on the Bokk of Jubilees?
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 10:18 PM
The best and most recent is that found in Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol. 2). It is based on an up-to-date critical edition of the text.
[Reply]
lol i found one, according to these texts, Cain died under the stones of his house and none survived
except Noah’s line
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 7:20 PM
funny!
[Reply]
@ MSH Yep from what i understand god casted out these pre-noah superrnatural beings beings from procreating with humans ( i think you said something like this before: somehwere ).. however he left about 10 % evil spirits in the world that could corrupt the descendants of Noah’s souls..
@ Rachael, and to continue the above topic regarding the covenants made by god with israel, it could be considered that only a few were able to obey these convenants and each time it was disobeyed,
punishments will ensue. In this fashion God new convenant with the blood of christ is an attempt
to save all..
@ MSH will take a look @ eschatology / prophecy archive
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 11:57 AM
the “percent remainder” comes from Enoch.
[Reply]
I found 3 youtube videos with references matt 24, cor 15, 2 thess, 1 thess Rev 4-17 , dan 9
I talks about rapture, 7 years of tribulations..a return..
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 11:58 AM
not sure what the point is.
[Reply]
Lost Angel Reply:
February 2nd, 2012 at 8:45 PM
@ MHS you suggested i digged into yours ( or someone else) eschatology / prophecy archive..
I found 3 of your videos on the subject on youtube , you make references matt 24, cor 15, 2 thess, 1 thess Rev 4-17 , dan 9 (and yes its interesting..).
I understand for well you know the NT very good, but Rachel wanted to have the
reference from Christ as to where the old covenants be replaced with new ones.
On a complementary note, this after reading Josephus wars of the jews chapters 5-8 concerning the complete destruction of jerusalem and the temple; it is very hard not to believe that the old covenants was meant to survive.. the temple didn’t and vanished as if it nevr existed and will probably nevr be rebuilt…
I found it interesting however that the old City of David can withold so many secrets
of a distant past along with the Mount of Olives, the Gihon Springs and the pool of Siloam; it seem that religious history evolves around and around time to this site; where the temple probably stood (City of David)
Josephus when speaking to the zealots gave them a sign about punishment from God with references the springs of siloam; he asked them how come when Jews needed water the springs were dry but when enemies were at the gates; enemies had all the water they needed..
In today’s times, not much water is flowing from these springs..
[Reply]
MSH Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 1:11 PM
already answered these, and you still haven’t given me the context for the NT references (I mention lots of passages in videos — ??).
[Reply]
Lost Angel Reply:
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Yes and in the presentations ..
[Reply]
actually am wrong , there is water, so there is hope..( id like to drink from it )
[Reply]
Titus 3:9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Thats what the Bible says about genealogies. Because we are all sinners we are saved by the grace of God through Christ Jesus not by our works so no man may boast but through the blood of the Lamb. Everyone looking into prophecy attempting to see into the future are missing the entire point. No man knows the hour. So we neednt worry. The anti Christ is anyone who is against Christ. Wether satan sired cain is irrelevant. Its good to read the Bible and all of it for good measure. But listen to the entire message. Its not an argurment about how this came to be but how we have been redeemed. Im sure whatever happened it was sin. And if you break one law youve broken them all. Theres still work to be done spreading the message of the Kingdom of God. Jesus saved you because He loves you and He knows who loves Him.
[Reply]
str Reply:
March 1st, 2012 at 6:52 AM
Matthrw,
if you want to be taken seriously, you might better start indicating where your Bible quotes end.
And BTW, “No man knows the hour. So we neednt worry.” is not logical sequence but a non sequitur. Christ rather said nobody knows the hour so that we might keep prepared.
[Reply]
Genealogy was extremely important to the Heavenly Father. I will continue on to what He was interested in…..
Someone brought out an outstanding point of one of my favorite verses. “Apples of gold in dishes of silver”………the Bible is the silver….but the Apples are the nuances between the words. Silver is what it is…but apples have seeds….and when planted and propagated …they bring forth new life.
[Reply]
@str Your implying that you dont take me seriously because I only specified the Bible quote which was relevant to the topic and instead of writing the sentences as one sentence “No man knows the hour” so we neednt worry. You value the letter and its composition more than the message.
@Rachael I didnt write the Bible. I just quoted it. If you dont believe Titus is inspired by God what can I tell you.
[Reply]
str Reply:
March 3rd, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Matthew, I decry that you did not indicate where the bible stopped and you began. But that’s no surprise since you think you only quote the bible – well you did more than that. Apparently, the bible and your opinion fuse in your mind.
[Reply]
PS. I will unsubscribe now from the “cabinet of curiosities” that is this thread. So no need to reply, as I probably, hopefully will not read it.
[Reply]
Matthew, quoting “A” singular scripture from someone that had a “vision”…rather than following the ENTIRE text of the Scriptures is really not “quoting the Bible”…it is quoting someone that you find “inspired” to have said something. I can accept that, but I can not accept the fact that if you removed all the genealogy out of the text itself…well, you would be removing the reason to keep the “chosen”..chosen.
[Reply]