By Bob Schlenker
The Open Scroll
The Open Scroll Blog
Who is Cain's Father?
© 2012 by Bob Schlenker.
Permission of the author is hereby granted for copying, printing and distributing this book to others, in its entirety.
No charges or fees may be associated with such reproduction or distribution.
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden
Michelangelo – Sistine Chapel ceiling
edited by Bob Schlenker
Images appear here as instances of
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
Table of Contents:
Foreward by Aaron Hermann
Part 1: First Things
Chapter 1: The Cryptic Genesis 4:1
Chapter 2: Alternate Conception and Birth Models
Chapter 3: The Genealogy of Cain as Separate From the Genealogy of Adam
Part 2: Figurative Language
Chapter 4: "Eating" - A Metaphor
Chapter 5: "Tree" - A Metaphor
Chapter 6: The Nachash, and Genesis 3:6 according to Biblical Figures
Part 3: Judicial Logic and Reasonable Consequence
Chapter 7: The Lord God Addresses the Serpent
Chapter 8: The Lord God Addresses the Woman
Chapter 9: The Lord God Addresses the Man
Part 4: Beyond the Garden Scene
Chapter 10: The Flood of Noah's Day - An Echo of Eden
Chapter 11: Two Trees; Thorns, Thistles and Tares
Chapter 12: Ham, The Curse of Canaan and Giants After the Flood
Chapter 13: Sodom: Another Echo of Eden
Chapter 14: Lot and His Daughters: It Really is About the Fruit-bearing Trees
Part 5: Cannibals, Vampires and Fellatio
Chapter 15: Serpent: "Dust you will eat" - Adam: "You are dust"
Chapter 16: Adam is Condemned to Eat
Chapter 17: Validation - Ingredients for Life
Appendix I: A Small Collection of References of Related Interest
Appendix II: The Other Sin in the Garden
Appendix III: Of Every Tree of the Garden Thou Mayest Freely Eat
Here's what Aaron Hermann has to say about the book.
Is Adam really Cain's Father? You may understand the Bible to say Adam and Eve had sex and Cain was born of that union. That's an assumption this book will challenge. This is important because, as I think you'll shortly see, unless you really grasp the importance of seed and what happened in the Garden between the serpent, Eve and Adam, you're missing a major "piece of the puzzle." Without it, you won't be able to interpret some really important elements of the counterfeit and the genuine agendas playing out in these last days. Adam did not father Cain, the serpent did.
You're probably familiar with the classic way parents explain sexual reproduction to their children as "the birds and the bees." Another classic is the "brought by a stork" explanation for where babies come from. What is that but the colorful use of figurative language to explain a mature subject to the immature? The story told about Adam and Eve being tricked by a snake into eating an apple from a tree is like that. The story resembles the truth. For the mature, though, there's more to be known and understood about the Garden scenario and its consequences, much more!
Some will want to argue that the sin in the Garden was disobedience and that this is really the only thing that matters. Adam was told, don't do that, but he did it anyway. My response to that is, let's not be ignorant. If a disobedient child sneaks a cookie before dinner or burns the house to the ground, is the parent's response the same in either case? You see, the nature of the act of disobedience, of the command that's disobeyed, has a bearing on the response. If we're only interested in stories that entertain small children, then, fine, we can limit the point made to the matter of disobedience. If we want to gain some wisdom and understanding about sin and its consequences we're going to have to account for the nature of the command that was disobeyed and the acts of disobedience.
How can I write with such confidence on this subject? Because the Lord showed me, and I know it. That was during the winter of 1991/1992. I was really stunned when it happened. I had no particular insight or even special interest in this topic before the revelation came to me, but it came in a season where I was being prompted to ask lots of specific questions and was being immediately led to the answers. Each answer had multiple confirmations following. After all the years since that memorable season I'm still learning what some of those answers mean and how important they really are.
This study is not intended for children, the immature adult or casual seeker. I highly recommend before continuing here that you pause to read Genesis chapters 2-4, so the scriptural account is fresh in your mind, and, that you pray for the Lord to grant you insight according to His good pleasure. I also recommend that you read this entire study and consider the sum of the evidence before rejecting it on some point of initial disagreement. What happened in the Garden that caused man to be expelled is popularly referred to as "the original sin" but I'm not going to use that reference here.
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
16) Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.
17) But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues;
The first thing that may have come to mind when you read in the introduction that Adam did not father Cain, was probably the verse you recall that declares how Adam DID father Cain. Certainly, if the Bible says so, that settles it. What is the declaration of the scripture?
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Well, that seems plain enough. When we read such a verse, if we subsequently encounter no apparent contradiction we have no reason to investigate further. However, on the subject of Cain's paternity we find ourselves having to contrive a variety of explanations when Cain's father is assumed to be Adam. Did Adam and Eve have daughters? Yes. Does the narrative give a full birth history of all their children? No. The account is really pretty sparse. I submit to you that it's just what it needs to be, and the Author freely employs means of concealing and revealing as He wills and according to His purposes.
1) And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2) And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
When reading verses 1 and 2 we naturally think about bringing forth children one at a time. We think, first a conception, then a birth, followed by another conception and another birth. This is our most familiar model. Is there any evidence that this was the case with Cain and Abel? Produce it if you can. I can't find any. Does verse 2 say "And Adam again knew Eve his wife, and she conceived again and bare Abel." No, it doesn't, but yet, this is how most read it due to assumptions. Verse two simply reads, "And she again bare his brother Abel."
Does the Bible indicate how much time passed between the birth of Cain and the birth of Abel? No, their relative ages are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Abel's birth could have followed Cain's by minutes, which is common with twins and multiple births. You might now assume that, if they were twins, they would still both be Adam's sons, but Adam wasn't the only one in the Garden capable of fathering children with Eve, and there are conception and birth models beyond what first comes to mind that must be considered.
You might be thinking at this point how the Author could have clarified the matter by giving a little more explanation, making it a bit less cryptic. He's either a poor author who can't communicate effectively, or a brilliant author who allows for concealing and revealing. I'm betting the latter.
There are alternate conception models that aren't well known. If you're not familiar with heteropaternal superfecundation and superfetatation, the account of Genesis 4:1-2 will make little sense.
"Dizygotic (fraternal) twins arise from different eggs and sperm, look as different as siblings born at different times would look, and can be either the same or different sex. A dizygotic pregnancy does not always result from the same act of sexual intercourse, which means it is theoretically possible for dizygotic twins (as well as triplets and other higher-order pregnancies) to have different fathers."
Multiple Pregnancies - Twins, Other Multiple Births (Woman's Health Channel )
"Trizygotic triplets occur when three separate eggs are fertilized by three separate sperm."
"Superfecundation refers to fertilization of two or more ova (eggs) during the SAME menstrual cycle by sperm from separate acts of sexual intercourse. Twins with different fathers are thought to arise by this mechanism."
"As technology has improved the accuracy and accessibility of genetic testing, it has become more evident that twins can have two different fathers. The situation only applies to fraternal (dizygotic) twins, not identical (monozygotic) twins, which form from a single egg/sperm combination.
However, fraternal twins are the result of hyperovulation, the release of multiple eggs in a single cycle. Superfecundation describes a situation where the eggs are fertilized by sperm from separate incidences of sexual intercourse. In a case where a woman has sex with different partners, the twins could have different fathers. The appropriate term to describe this situation is heteropaternal superfecundation. "
Heteropaternal Superfecundation - Twins with Different Fathers (About.com)
Definition: Term used to describe the formation of a fetus while another fetus is already present in the uterus. It occurs when eggs from two separate menstrual cycles are released, as opposed to normal dizygotic twins where multiple ova are expelled in a single cycle. Although common in animals, it is rare in humans, but can result in a twin or multiple pregnancy where the fetuses display a marked difference in gestational development. Examples: In 2009, an Arkansas woman became pregnant with two babies due to superfetation. Ultrasound revealed that Julia Grovenburg was pregnant with two babies conceived about two and a half weeks apart.
Superfetation - glossary (About.com)
"Among dizygotic twins, in rare cases, the eggs are fertilized at different times with two or more acts of sexual intercourse, either within one menstrual cycle (superfecundation) or, even more rarely, later on in the pregnancy (superfetation). This can lead to the possibility of a woman carrying fraternal twins with different fathers (that is, half-siblings). This phenomenon is known as heteropaternal superfecundation. One 1992 study estimates that the frequency of heteropaternal superfecundation among dizygotic twins whose parents were involved in paternity suits was approximately 2.4%; see the references section, below, for more details."
Twin - Unusual twinnings (Wikipedia)
With an awareness of the reality of heteropaternal superfecundation and superfetatation, what can we reasonably conclude from Genesis 4:1-2 with regard to Cain's or Abel's paternity?
1) And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2) And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Honestly, we can only say that one or more of them was Adam's, based strictly on this passage. Was this an instance of either heteropaternal superfecundation (same cycle) or superfetation (different cycles)? If the matter can be known the evidence must be sought elsewhere.
While it doesn't settle the matter, there's a clue we should note before we move on. Upon delivering Cain, Eve declared that she had gotten a man with (Hebrew - 'eth) the Lord (Hebrew - Yehovah). If you research the name reference that is the Hebrew word Yehovah in all the surrounding context you find an interesting feature. Prior to Eve's declaration in Genesis 4:1 the word Yehovah is always followed by the word 'elohiym, forming "Lord God" - without exception. Eve's declaration marks a change. Why? Did she profane the name with reference to a lesser god? Well, that's something to think about.
So, where else should we look as we search out these family relationships? There's a genealogy given for Adam in Genesis chapter 5, so let's consider what we find there.
1) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
2) He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.
3) When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
4) Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
What? Seth? What about Cain and Abel? This is obviously a pretty sparse genealogy. The phrase, "and he had other sons and daughters," doesn't offer anything in the way of help in our quest to discover Cain's paternity.
Given the usual status assigned to firstborn sons, by all rights we should expect that Cain would be first listed instead of Seth in Adam's genealogy. His omission must be noted. Cain's genealogy is given separately, before Adam's, in chapter 4. This genealogy begins with Cain, naming neither Adam nor another before him. While this is not conclusive evidence that Adam is not Cain's father, it must, at the very least, invite suspicion. If the Author intends to leave the truth of the matter for those who search it out more diligently, He is succeeding.
As for Abel's omission in the genealogy of Adam, we can understand how that when he was murdered, he was perhaps childless. He was formally substituted for Seth. According to Eve's declaration, this was by appointment from God.
Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."
No such explanation is offered about why Cain might have been omitted.
We might simply let the declaration of 1 John 3:12 settle the matter. It does just that for some students and scholars.
not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous.
1 John 3:12
The Greek expression translated "of the evil one" is ek poneros. The preposition ek denotes origin. It governs the genitive. The word poneros is clearly not referring to Adam or Adam's Creator. So, does this verse represent the kind of conclusive evidence we're seeking? If it does, it's not readily apparent. Due to the context, verse 8, even by itself seems to discount verse 12, declaring that "the one who practices sin is of the devil." (ek diabolos) Let's keep searching, because the solution really isn't that difficult.
Where else can we turn in our quest? Let's return to the account of the activity in the Garden of Eden and consider the potential for figurative language.
Of course, it's wise to take everything the Bible says literally and in a straightforward way wherever possible, but the truth isn't always revealed in such a way. Much is concealed by way of figurative language. If you're not familiar with what I wrote about the Keys to Developing a Hearing Ear let me encourage you to become familiar.
When the account of the Garden activity refers to trees and eating their fruit, what else could be meant beyond the obvious? I'm going to get right to the point with this first example.
53) So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54) He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
At this statement, many who heard it but couldn't get their minds wrapped around it took offense - and took off. The Lord had been teaching using metaphorical references to his body as bread, before and after using the reference to his flesh and blood.
48) I am the bread of life.
49) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50) This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51) I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
Compare this to the language of Genesis 3.
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"
If you equate the tree of life with the bread of life you have another viable way of considering the activity in the Garden.
Let's consider why the metaphor of eating is used. When you eat something, it's subsequently digested and something of that is assimilated. It becomes part of your body, of you, it abides in you.
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
Now, beyond the food metaphor, I want you to make note of the family relationship theme in the context. When you read the whole context while looking for it you become aware of the frequent and rather conspicuous reference to family relationship. There's a weaving back and forth through the bread of life eating and the father and son themes. This is what we call a clue. :) To illustrate this I've color-coded a passage to highlight the interwoven themes of eating food, the family relationship and a third element; life.
John 6 - Three Themes: eat food ~ family ~ life
The very profound truth hidden here is that food is to the eater like a father is to a son. Something of food is imparted to the eater, which becomes part of them. Something of a father is imparted to the son, which becomes part of them. Get it? Genetic material is transferred from father to son as nutrients are transferred from food to eater. Read the context again with this understanding. Natural food relates to physical life. The genetic material "food" relates here to eternal life! The natural eating involves putting things in your mouth and chewing them up. The other kind of eating is procreative.
The Jews who were grumbling in verses 41 and 42 were at least in the right ballpark with their reasonings, which again, appears for our benefit as a clue.
41) Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven."
42) They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?"
In the Garden, Eve saw that the tree was good for food.
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Any tree that might be seen as desirable to make one wise is no ordinary kind like we might encounter in a walk through a natural orchard. A tree that might be seen as "good for food" does not necessarily mean it's expected to provide a meal. Remember, in the language of John 6 the eating of food equates to procreation, to sexual reproduction. I submit to you that this action of taking the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and eating it is no different. Folks misunderstood John 6. Could it be that Genesis 3 is misunderstood for the same reason? The truth is cloaked in figurative language, yet, it's not beyond discovery!
The seed of a tree is in the fruit. When you eat the fruit, you eat the seed. Trees are reproduced by way of their fruit. Let this sink in. The activity in the Garden was procreative. The notable feature of a tree is that it has seed in itself, reproducing after its kind!
11) And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12) And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;
Genesis 1:11-12 (YLT)
If you do word studies on the words "grass" and "tree" you find both are frequently used figuratively. Grass sometimes represents men, emphasizing his frailty and the relative brevity of this life of the flesh. The grass is "tender," you see. A primary feature of the tree metaphor is the reproductive capability, as also indicated in the account of creation. Trees reference either men or heavenly beings or an entire family in figurative usage in the Bible and in apocryphal and extra-biblical literature.
There's a saying you may find familiar: "The acorn (or, apple) doesn't fall far from the tree." It's an observation that a person is like their parents, usually their Dad. It compares to the expression: "Like father, like son." Have you ever heard of a "Family Tree"? You'll be thinking along these lines as you review some examples of figurative usage from the Bible.
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from His people " Nor let the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree."
If you don't understand about a eunuch, look it up.
9) and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 10) The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me, saying, "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no more."
He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its season and its leaf does not wither; and in whatever he does, he prospers.
3) Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. 4) He has brought me to his banquet hall, and his banner over me is love.
Song of Solomon 2:3-4
I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your forefathers as the earliest fruit on the fig tree in its first season. But they came to Baal-peor and devoted themselves to shame, and they became as detestable as that which they loved.
24) For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? 25) For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
And all the host of heaven will wear away, and the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; All their hosts will also wither away as a leaf withers from the vine, or as one withers from the fig tree.
and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind.
From these examples you should understand that when you read in the Bible about trees and their fruit or leaves the reference may actually be to men or heavenly beings and their offspring, or, their procreative ability. I'll present one last example of this class of figures, one that relates directly to the trees in the Garden of Eden.
14) so that all the trees by the waters may not be exalted in their stature, nor set their top among the clouds, nor their well-watered mighty ones stand erect in their height. For they have all been given over to death, to the earth beneath, among the sons of men, with those who go down to the pit." 15) Thus says the Lord GOD, "On the day when it went down to Sheol I caused lamentations; I closed the deep over it and held back its rivers. And its many waters were stopped up, and I made Lebanon mourn for it, and all the trees of the field wilted away on account of it. 16) I made the nations quake at the sound of its fall when I made it go down to Sheol with those who go down to the pit; and all the well-watered trees of Eden, the choicest and best of Lebanon, were comforted in the earth beneath. 17) They also went down with it to Sheol to those who were slain by the sword; and those who were its strength lived under its shade among the nations. 18) To which among the trees of Eden are you thus equal in glory and greatness? Yet you will be brought down with the trees of Eden to the earth beneath; you will lie in the midst of the uncircumcised, with those who were slain by the sword So is Pharaoh and all his hordes!"' declares the Lord GOD."
Now, we've got a foundation on which to build towards discovering who fathered Cain.
If we interpret the description of the activity in the Garden according to those same figures we have an intriguing alternative to consider!
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Are you grasping how there's a legitimate interpretation that doesn't involve people picking an apple-like object from a tree, putting it in their mouths, chewing and swallowing? Keep what Y'shua taught in John 6 in mind. The food that is the fruit of the tree is a father's genetic material. To eat the fruit of a tree is to receive the father's seed.
The Tree of Life is the Bread of Life, Y'shua, whose name will be called "Eternal Father" or "Father of Eternity" according to Isaiah 9:6. What, or, who, is the other tree of note in the midst of the Garden? Could it be that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the reproductive aspect of the serpent being?
The Fall of Man and the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden
Michelangelo - Sistine Chapel - Vatican City
In many artistic renderings of the scene in the Garden, the serpent is pictured winding around the tree of knowledge of good and evil like a helical strand of DNA. These images are inspired from somewhere, are they not? An artistic rendering may present lies yet may also conceal and reveal truths.
If you haven't the nature of the serpent consideration yet, despite colorful pictures and stories picturing a snake in the garden, there's no reason why we must insist what's called a serpent resembled what we know today as a snake. It wasn't until after that serpent was cursed that he was appointed to go on his belly. (Which, by the way, doesn't mean he then became a snake.) So, if the serpent wasn't a "garden snake," what was he? The Hebrew word for “serpent” is nachash (Strong’s H5175). According to Genesis 3:1, the character of this creature was more aruwm than any beast of the field, more crafty and sly, so this nachash wasn't accounted among the beasts of the field. So, delete snake imagery from scene. He was able to speak intelligibly and possessed the faculty to deceive the woman. Gesenius's Lexicon informs us that nachash is “a serpent, so called from its hissing.” The root of nachash is Strong's H5172, which is also transliterated nachash. Gesenius's Lexicon informs us that this is “to hiss, to whisper.” This is related to sorcery, the practice of divination and enchantment through the whispering of soothsayers. The nachash is linked to seraph (Strong's H8314) in Numbers 21's account of Moses, where protection was provided from the saraph nachash, sent by Yahweh. The seraphim were 6 winged beings seen by Isaiah above Yahweh's throne (Isaiah 6).The record of Ezekiel 28 describes the anointed cherub that covers. He is referred to as the king of Tyre. Is this not also the nachash from Eden, the garden of God?
11) Again the word of the LORD came to me saying, 12) “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “You had the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13) You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: the ruby, the topaz and the diamond; the beryl, the onyx and the jasper; the lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; and the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, was in you. On the day that you were created they were prepared. 14) You were the anointed cherub who covers, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; you walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15) You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created until unrighteousness was found in you. 16) By the abundance of your trade you were internally filled with violence, and you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17) Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor. I cast you to the ground;
Now, mindful of the relevant figurative language and the nature of nachash, let's consider the activity in the Garden as more of a sex orgy version than that of a light snack, the oft heard bite out of some apple or fig. Sex orgy? Absolutely. It's time to put aside our naiveté. Satan is bad. We need to see things for what they are, with no whitewashing, no cover-up. I'm assuming here that we're mature adults. I'm not going to buffer you from the truth, even though the truth is hard to accept. I'll present the scenario as revealed to me.
Eve was seduced by the serpent. Their interaction was sexual and it resulted in conception. When Adam later "knew," or, had sexual intercourse with Eve, she conceived again. The woman was already impregnated by the serpent when she was impregnated by Adam. Her condition is described today as heteropaternal, where a woman is pregnant with children of different fathers at the same time. Adam wasn't deceived, yet he was persuaded to join in. He was stimulated during anal intercourse to the point of ejaculation, with the result of his seed being spilled on the ground. There you have it.
If you sift through extra-biblical writings (Appendix I) you'll discover the testimony of daughters born at the same time as Cain and Abel. Is it too hard to believe that folks who could live for nearly a millennium could bear what we might consider as litters of offspring? Twins and multiple births were the norm in the beginning, if we accept the testimony of the ancients. Eve might well have delivered 4 or more children in the first birthing experience.
Have I proven anything, yet? No. And, really, I won't be proving anything. You may believe what you want about what happened in the Garden. If Cain was conceived in the Garden with the serpent we have valuable answers to important questions about biblical history and logical explanations for the present, and what's appointed for the near future, matters that remain unsolved mysteries if we reject the probability of Cain being the serpent's offspring.
What is most convincing for some about Cain's paternity and what really happened in the Garden is how the consequences match the nature of the sin. The Author of the Bible has a very refined sense of justice and legality. Where punishment is mandated it fits the crime. The consequences are always a suitable response, as in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." (Exodus 21:23-27, Deuteronomy 19:17-21) Let's consider the sin and what happened afterward.
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
So, is the next verse consistent with either the traditional bite from an apple (or "light snack") version, or the adult "sex orgy" version I proposed?
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
Loin coverings. Light snack or sex orgy? If this one is difficult, you're not really engaged, here. Take a little break. Splash some cold water in your face. Get some coffee or tea and come on back with your thinking cap on. If what happened in the Garden was the "light snack" version, covering the loins makes no sense at all. If the activity was procreative, the part of the body you'd want to hide is where the genitals are located, the loins.
As I mentioned earlier, when judgment is considered, the "eye for an eye" sensibility has to be in view because this is the Creator's way. You have read the Torah, the books of the law, right? If the sin was such that a tooth was knocked out we must expect a consequence that's toothy-like. The nature and severity of the punishment must somehow fit the nature and severity of the offense.
Let's consider the consequences of the sin as pronounced by the Lord God and whether they're consistent with either the "light snack" or "sex orgy" version.
The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life;
How does this judgment reflect the nature of the offense? How is it with cattle and the beasts of the field? A bull sees a cow and says, "Hubba, hubba, baby. Here's a really fine apple for you." No, that's not how it works. Cattle and beasts of the field follow their base instinct to mate, fulfilling their lust without much consideration for anything else. The charming nachash acted like a beast with Eve and Adam.
As for the serpent going on his belly, think about a reversal of roles, of the positions assumed during the sinful activity in the Garden. I know, disgusting. It's absolutely shocking, revolting. What used to be called common decency dictates that we don't even allow our thoughts to go there. I was appalled when the Lord began opening my eyes to the reality of what happened. The devil is bad.
The next verse is one many of us have heard lots of teaching about, what some refer to as the protoevangelium.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.
Let's consider the first element of the Lord God's response, the enmity between the serpent and woman. If we reason with a "tooth for tooth" rationale, the causative offense and resultant consequence are going to be comparable in their nature and severity. The relationship the serpent would henceforth have with the woman compares to and therefore suggests something of the relationship the serpent previously had with her. Are you following me? The word "enmity" means "hatred" or "hostility." What kind of offense is suggested in contrast? Here's a list of antonyms for "enmity": "love, friendship, affection, harmony, warmth, goodwill, friendliness, amity, cordiality, geniality" Is there a hint of association with either "light snack" or "sex orgy" versions? Hey, perhaps the serpent was just being the friendly guy, a cordial ambassador of goodwill like the official Garden of Eden "Welcome Wagon" rep when he beguiled Eve, offering her a shiny red magical apple? No, that just doesn't fit. He was lying, deceiving, laying a snare for her. Friends don't do that. What if his relationship toward Eve (because this is his consequence, not Eve's) was more extreme, more passionate. Certainly, hostility and hatred can be intensely passionate, right? If we add to that list of antonyms for "enmity" the more extreme "lust" and "passionate desire" we can begin to perceive some judicial logic in the consequence. According to certain legends of the Jews, Lucifer lusted after Eve. He coveted her for his own. The judgment that is the enmity between the serpent and the woman speaks to this probability. With such an understanding as this, we have a validating thread of continuity when later we find testimony about the sons of god lusting after and taking the daughters of men to wife. The "apple" does not fall far from the Tree. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Many see in this a messianic prophecy that will play out until what is written in Revelation 20:10 is fulfilled and the devil is thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone. We see in the context how this seed of hers (which may also be considered as mtDNA) is immediately linked to the "he" of the bruisings. We perceive in it a prophecy about a conception that occurred when a young virgin of the lineage of Judah was accepting of being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and who subsequently brought forth the Messiah. We perceive the bruising of His heel as a betrayal, beating and then a crucifixion on a hillside just east of Jerusalem's Temple. We understand the enmity as existing between the antichrist and Christ. This is very profound, yet, more is implied!
While the brains of those of us schooled in Babylon might habitually snap into auto-pilot and fly something resembling the pattern I just described, let's focus our attention on the matter of "your seed." This address to the serpent in response to what had just happened in the Garden pertains to his seed. If we restrain ourselves from making the instantaneous theological leap into the future and give heed to the context we leave when we make that jump, we may find ourselves seeing the matter in a light we may never have seen before. Serpent seed? Why bring the matter of seed up to the serpent if all he had done is trick the woman and man into disobedience with a light snack from a forbidden tree? How does that make sense? Should this make sense? I think so! It does if the activity in the Garden was procreative because seed is about progeny, and progeny is brought forth by acts of procreation! The serpent's seed is mentioned because he had just sired offspring with the woman and this horrific situation is what's being addressed. This makes sense!
The obvious implication is that the woman was pregnant. While carrying the serpent's seed, she later conceived again, with Adam. In due season these children were delivered, Cain first then Abel, and daughters too. There was enmity between the serpent's seed, Cain, and the woman's seed, Abel, as promised. The enmity or hatred was so passionate that Cain murdered Abel.
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Cain was a murderer like his father. Adam was not a murderer. Like Father like son. The "apple" doesn't fall far from the tree. The serpent/tree lied in the Garden. "You shall not surely die," he said. The father of lies lied in the Garden to the woman and he fathered in the Garden with the woman. I can't prove it. You can't disprove it. I'm convinced of it.
Now, let's consider the address to the woman in light of judicial logic and reasonable consequence.
To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Genesis 3:16 (NASB)
Does this suggest either one of the "light snack" or "sex orgy" versions? Right. Are you keeping a tally on this?
Eve had not yet borne children so this consequence can't relate to a prior birthing experience. Yet, in keeping with the "tooth for a tooth" judicial model, it could, and, really, MUST relate to a conception. In fact, the NASB version I offered really fails us here, as does the popular NIV. The KJV rendering is much, much better, but let me offer the Young's Literal Translation, which is even better yet.
Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'
Genesis 3:16 (YLT)
If there's one verse that should speak to you about the nature of the sin in the Garden, this might be it. "Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception." Conception. Multiplying thy conception. Does more need to be said here? The paucity of checkmarks in the "light snack" column is beginning to look rather conspicuous.
With some further consideration, relative to the sentence of pain in childbirth we may infer that she had experienced pleasure in conceiving. Relative to the desire for her husband we may consider this as correction for an offence relating to the woman's desire for one who was not her husband. Finally, pertaining to her husband ruling over her we may consider this as correction for an offence relating to the woman ruling over her husband.
Yes. I hear you. There's a lot to think about. Once you understand the usage of figurative language and the potential pregnancy models you can put two and two together to come up with a likely scenario for what happened in the Garden. When you then begin to reconsider the consequences of the sin, many things come to light that were formerly hidden in the shadows.
While it's true that the serpent would like to keep the truth hidden, you have to attribute the fact of its concealment to the Lord God Himself, who could have presented the matter clearly in plain language, and surely would have, if such a thing had served His purposes. This treasure you're seeing uncovered is hidden behind figurative language, and yet, beyond even that, veiled from the eyes of individuals who come to look but fail to see because the Lord who holds the keys has denied them access. If you now see, if your eyes are opened, thank the Lord and give Him the praise that's due Him, my dear friend! The truth being revealed here is a treasure that's so valuable it requires special measures of protection!
With our "judicial logic and reasonable consequence" thinking caps still on, let's consider the address to the man.
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
Notice how there are two issues taken up with Adam. One involves the eating from the tree but the first pertains to his relationship with his wife. Let's pause right here for a moment.
Here's where a study of what happened in the Garden necessarily becomes sexist. It's already racist, dealing with the paternity of Cain as different from Abel and Seth, which is the most fundamental branching of the races of men. There are two family Trees, remember? The matter of you or I being racist and sexist is really not in question. We are racist and sexist. Denial of this basic fact of life is utter foolishness. The real question is whether or not we are rightly racist and rightly sexist.
Our Creator is racist. He created man and the divisions of race are according to His design. He has divided mankind as it exists right now into two primary racial categories; those who are descended from Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, and those who are not. When the Sovereign God sent his only begotten son, He sent him to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Is that racist? Of course! Is it wrong for Him to be racist and to do as He does? While most would answer in the affirmative, let's not presume to be morally superior to our Sovereign Creator as the foolish and wicked do so readily. As He is racist, so are those who are in Him, who are as He is, rightly racist. You can follow a similar argument about being rightly sexist.
I'm going to move on to expand upon the eating from the tree, but Appendix II needs to be given mention here because it features some rather startling insight into what was brought up first to the man. I put that content in an Appendix, not because it's less important, but just so not to take away from the momentum of this main thread.
Why would the Lord curse the ground because of Adam? As I stated earlier, I'm going to be frank about what the Lord revealed to me. While engaging with the serpent tree in the Garden, Adam was stimulated to orgasm while being sodomized and his semen was subsequently spilled on the ground. If the woman's eating of the tree resulted in pregnancy, the man's eating of the tree must be of a like kind. The curse upon the ground was because of Adam. Could this judgment be for any reason other than that it was on the ground that the man spilled his seed? If cursing the ground because of Adam fits some non-sex orgy version of what happened in the garden, I'm just not seeing it.
Let's keep reading.
Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field;
Oh. Now we finally see something in the context that looks like the "chewing and swallowing" kind of eating, but does this support the "light snack" version to the exclusion of the "sex orgy" version? I think not. I'll explain the eating in more detail shortly, but consider how the curse effects the ground's productivity, its fruitfulness. "It shall grow for you" must reflect whatever it was Adam did for or to the ground. That the earth would grow thorns and thistles for Adam reveals how his "fertilizer" was not good for the ground. In contrast, it would have been very good when "used as directed," to raise up children with his wife to make the Lord God a happy grandpa!
Most of us have accepted, or perhaps merely tried to accept, the traditions of men, which are in truth the doctrines of demons. The serpent does not want anyone to know the great secrets that expose his evil agenda. His agents both within and without the church have done just what they have been appointed to do. I had long been deceived. Now, not so much. Praise the Lord for his mercy and abundant grace!
Let's keep reading. Here's the final verse where the consequences of the sin in the Garden are pronounced.
By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; For you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
We see the sentence of death appointed for this flesh body of man. Adam lived 930 years, dying within the span of a single “day” of a thousand year duration (Psalm 90). This consequence was in accordance with the warning given in Genesis 2:17 that "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." I believe that even though the eating of bread of mentioned here, the "sweat of your face" suggests something about the activity in the Garden where, once again, the "sex orgy" has to be favored over the "light snack" version. Hmmmm. Eating of bread. That reminds me of John 6.
The next verse is another one of those that, all by itself, is rather convincing of the "adult" version.
Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.
Why would Adam do this while still in the Garden? She is recognized as the mother of all living before they are expelled from the Garden and before Adam "knows" her, which we don't read about until the next chapter. If you want to think Adam was speaking "prophetically" about something that had not yet happened, or perhaps offer an explanation about the text being out of sequence, I suppose you are free to do so. However, no theological dance steps are necessary if you simply accept what the weight of evidence suggests. The "mother of all living" had already conceived Cain and very likely one or more “twin” sisters. Call it another clue. Unless the man ate some fruit that had hallucinogenic properties and everybody else was kind of going along with the same funky “ayahuasca tea” trip, the conclusion that seems rather unavoidable is that the kind of eating done in the Garden led to Eve becoming a mother.
Lucifer's motivation (the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14) is to be like the most High God. He wants to receive the worship of all creation for himself. What has been made in the Lord God's image he wants to remake in his own. His agenda is a complete substitution agenda - himself for the most High God; his antichrist, only begotten son of god, for the genuine Messiah, only begotten son of God. He works to substitute his antiBride of antiMashiach for the Bride of HaMashiach, and his body of worshipers for the body of true worshipers. His primary "sex orgy" agenda is to hijack the lineage of the Lord God by reforming Adamic man in his own image. This plan found early success in the conception and bringing forth of the first natural born man in the earth, Cain. That set the precedent for what followed in the days of Noah, and thereafter.
Yet, I'm sure it was not quite the level of success the serpent had in mind to achieve. While the serpent's seed was permitted to live, the Lord God intervened by atoning for man's sin and barring him from the tree of life, and by limiting the serpent's activity and influence. Adam and Eve were not permanently bent to worship the serpent and reject the Lord God. They were permitted to and even commanded to be fruitful and multiply, repopulating the earth with progeny having the pedigree of those created in the Lord God's image.
If consuming some kind of edible fruit was the primary act that led to such great consequence, we should expect to see more than a hint of it woven into the biblical record. When I consider biblical history up to the present, I see the "sex orgy" theme repeating in significant contexts and a "light snack" theme, however magical the fruit, nowhere. Let's step through some key accounts, beyond the Garden scene.
With the flood of Noah's day, the Lord God dramatically intervened with a population control solution to a very serious problem. The problem was that the "sex orgy" Garden scene was playing out again but on a larger scale. In the Garden, the angelic serpent being saw Adam's woman and lusted after her. He had his way with her, conceiving offspring, and things went badly. The Lord God intervened, protecting His own seed to ensure that they would repopulate the earth for another season. In Noah's day, angelic beings chose to become like the serpent tree, who saw Adam's women and lusted after them. These sons of god had their way with them, conceiving offspring, and things went badly. The Lord God intervened, protecting His own seed to ensure that they would repopulate the earth for another season. Read Genesis 6 again and see if it isn't so.
Let's take a close look at verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 6.
1) Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2) that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Wait - what? Daughters were born to men? Oh, I get it. It's a figure of speech. :) Am I being silly? Well, yeah, but I'm making the point that it's a good practice to acknowledge when figures are being used because they are used purposefully in the scriptures. They should give us pause to consider what's being called to our attention, and why. When we follow through in this context we discover the Hebrew text making the point that the daughters taken for wives are of the stock of Adam and Eve, pedigreed, if you will. This made them fair, “fit extensions,” particularly attractive to the sons of god who, according to Jude, had left their former estate to dwell in bodies of flesh upon the earth.
You see, the word for "men" in the Hebrew of verse 1 is singular and appears with the article, so "men" is more accurately, "the Adam." (See Bullinger's Companion Bible notes or his Appendix 14.) So, when men began to multiply, the offspring in view are specifically "the Adam" kind. Yes, in contrast to the serpent kind, of the Cain branch. Here's a good question: Why would the "the Adam" be explicitly identified if there was no alternate kind? There's another clue for us. When verse 1 declares that daughters were born to "them," it points to Adam and Eve. In verse 2, the word "men" is as in verse 1, so the daughters of men are the daughters of "the Adam."
Consider what qualified Noah and his family for salvation. Verse 9 declares that "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations," meaning, genetically pure. He had the right pedigree, being of the Lord God through Adam and Eve without mixture. Anyone who reads Genesis 6 can see that judgment was related to the sons of god taking the daughters of men to wife, who populated the earth with their wicked offspring. These angelic beings who left their former estate had procreative ability, and procreate they did, mating specifically with the pedigreed daughters of Adam. The time came when the limit of this mixture with the Serpent's seed was reached and drastic measures were called for. Intervention came at the appointed time. The last of the Adamic race was preserved as seed to repopulate the earth while the wicked flesh progeny of the serpent through Cain and the fallen Watchers were purged from the face of the ground.These sons of god were of a class called "Watchers," according to Enoch, who had much to write about their activities. They preferred the daughters of Adam and Eve over the daughters of Cain, who were already of the corrupt seed of the serpent. When you understand about the two family trees of Adam and Cain, of Yahweh and the serpent, you see how this procreative activity fits into the serpent's grandiose scheme. The serpent kind are smarter than to direct their efforts toward corrupting what's already corrupt. There's no need to take what's already yours.
Cain was the son of the serpent. If not, the activity that led to the judgment of the flood has no precedent and we see no logical continuity in the development of the biblical narrative of history. The Watchers were doing what their leader had done before them.
There's an account in the gospel of Matthew where the destruction of ungodly men by fire is in view.
After the flood (Genesis 9), the Lord God promised He would never again destroy the earth by water, and he set the rainbow in the cloud as a sign of that covenant. Yet, He never promised the earth wouldn't be destroyed by other means.
6) through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7) But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:6-7
The fire and the water are similar agents appointed for the judgment and the destruction of ungodly men. You see, population control isn't a bad thing of itself, like racism and sexism. I have to say, I'm for it, as done rightly, in due season by the Lord's own action. He says vengeance is His and that He will repay in Romans 12:19. It's part of the hope of the righteous!
The points I want to make from this next passage open the way for us into the subject of the destruction of Sodom.
15) Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16) You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17) So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18) A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20) So then, you will know them by their fruits.
I used to be confused about this passage and others that resemble it. This really isn't about a tree that might have some mix of good and bad fruit. This is about something other than our judging a person's deeds or the Lord's ultimate judgment of a person's deeds. This is Genesis language, where a tree reproduces after its kind.
Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.
Think - two kinds of fruit bearing trees, good and bad. Think - Garden of Eden. Think - Lord God tree and serpent tree. Think - Adam and Cain as the patriarchal fruit.
The reference made from Matthew 7's allegorical lesson to the account of the Garden is doubled, establishing the connection for us. The thorn bushes and thistles associated with the bad tree in Matthew 7:16 should seem familiar because these same two elements were part the judgment pronounced to Adam! "Cursed is the ground because of you ... Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you." Should these only be understood as literal thorns and thistles, or, rather, according to the metaphorical language of Matthew 7 and Genesis 2 and 3 as men related to the bad tree? Consistent with the use of figurative language in these contexts, the thorns and thistles must represent the ungodly men of the bad tree, the serpent tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The deeper meaning of the thorns and thistles becomes even more apparent when you consider how the Lord God told Adam that the cursed ground would bring forth the thorn and thistle to him and that Adam himself was taken from the ground.
17) Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18) Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; 19) By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
From the obscure language of this familiar passage of scripture comes a prophetic truth that “thorn and thistle men” from the cursed ground are promised until the end of Adam's, and even Adam-kind's age of abiding in this “dust body.” Today, as before the flood, two trees and their fruit are in the earth, and one of them is appointed for destruction.
If you're becoming convinced of this matter of the two trees and their fruit, this mysterious parable from Matthew 13 should make better sense to you now.
24) Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25) But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26) But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27) The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' 28) And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' 29) But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30) 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
There are tares sown by the enemy in the field of wheat! These will be separated out and burned up. There is a bad tree that bears only bad fruit, after its kind, and it will be cast into the fire. The enemy's tares, the bad fruit of the bad tree, the thorn bushes and thistles that the cursed ground brings forth for Adam; these are the ungodly men who are appointed for fire. The serpent's seed, even the firstborn, Cain, whose deeds were evil; was he not the first murderer among men, born of his father who was a murderer from the beginning? Cain's progeny were destroyed in the flood, yet, the fruit of this prolific bad fruit bearing Tree are among us, who are only ever appointed for a day of judgment by fire.
This is not to say that your words and deeds will not be judged because they will, but your kind of judgment will pertain first and foremost to the kind of tree whose fruit you are.
The flood of Noah's day purged the earth, but after the flood, as promised, thorn and thistle men returned quickly on the scene. Were they tempting Noah's family with figs, apples or some edible food marketed with promises of becoming as gods? No. What manifested in the earth was more of the same, the corrupting procreative activity with associated sodomy. After the flood, we see a continuation of the sex orgy theme that began in the Garden, then almost eradicated Yahweh's Adamic branch (and other life of the kind in which it had been created).
If you read the account of Genesis 9:18-25 you will find a curse being pronounced on Canaan by Noah. Who Canaan really is and why he is cursed is a matter that's typically whitewashed in the same manner as the sin in the Garden. The truth about the important adult themes in the Bible is concealed and revealed using figures of speech.
Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside
What it means when it says Ham "saw the nakedness of his father" is that he had sexual relations with his mother, the wife of his father Noah. It's an idiom. (See Noah's Nakedness by Peter J. Leithart, referencing the work of Bergsma and Hahn. )
6) None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD. 7) You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. 8) You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.
Ham's act resulted in the conception of Canaan, who was cursed according to Noah's prophetic utterance.
24) When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25) So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers."
How could Ham have done such an evil deed so early in the season following the flood? The influence that inspired and motivated Ham to procreate with his mother had to come from somewhere. The ability to raise up fruit that would be grafted into the bad tree had to come from somewhere. This is germane to the subject of Cain's paternity and what that means today. Genesis 3:18 declares prophetically that thorn and thistle men would be brought forth for Adam. Ham is a prime example giving evidence of Yahweh's faithfulness, acting very shortly after the flood in that characteristic manner of the serpent Tree. Note, his sin was not in tempting his mother with figs and lies.
Ham was influenced in a bid to hijack the lineage as high up the chain as possible, branching a competing line of fruit-bearing trees off the earliest generation Adamic female in extant, just as the serpent had done with Eve in the Garden. There's the trend. Canaan, the son of Ham and his mother, was cursed after he was conceived but before he was born; like Cain, the serpent's seed or offspring, had been before him. Canaan was effectively cut off from the good tree and grafted into the bad tree.
In the post-flood age, the serpent's seed may be brought forth in the same manner as before the flood, through procreative activity with the daughters of men, bit it appears there's a little more to it than that. In the garden it involved the serpent Tree's interaction with Eve. Afterward, it involved cross-breeding the lines of Cain and Adam. Accelerating the corruption, 200 of the fallen angel sons of god mated with the population, targeting the daughters of the Adam. After the earth was purged of the serpent seed "Y chromosome donor" pool, it didn't take long before the hybridization scheme began anew. Thorns and thistles must be brought forth. Yet, how did Ham, Noah's own son, come to be positioned as a main branch of the serpent's tree? It seems likely to me that there was a combination of genetic, environmental and behavioral choice factors in this change.
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Ham may have been made from the same lump of clay as his brothers but he was somehow made unto dishonour. The lump of clay from which that vessel was made was not homogeneous, which is to say that Ham and his brothers weren't clones. Ham was distinctly different from Shem and Japheth. Noah was perfect (without blemish) in his generations, or, with respect to race, genetics, a purebred; which we know because the Bible declares it in Genesis 6:9. No such testimony is given about Noah's wife, his sons or their wives, and should not be assumed. If Noah's wife was "a mongrel," Ham would also have been blemished, and certainly Canaan, their son, would have been.
It's easy to understand that people are who and what they are by birth, inheriting from their parents, genetically. It's harder to grasp how we're not always as we were when we came into the world. What we now learning from much evidence is that our DNA changes over time due to viral and other factors. Could Ham have mutated due to environmental or other influence? This son of Noah produced Canaan, who was specifically cursed, but Ham also begat Cush, who brought forth Nimrod. It's in the biblical account of Nimrod where we find more clues about what may have happened to Ham.
Cush hath begotten Nimrod; he hath begun to be a hero in the land; he hath been a hero in hunting before Jehovah; therefore it is said, `As Nimrod the hero [in] hunting before Jehovah.'
Genesis 10:8-9 (Young's Literal Translation)
As author Tom Horn rightly points out, Nimrod didn't start out life as a hero, a giant, or, "gibborim." He "began to be," genetically changing, mutating. It seems likely to me that it was by a similar mechanism that Ham came to be inspired, motivated and enabled to function as an agent in bringing forth fruit of the bad tree. Ham became the chosen vessel through whom the prophetic words of Genesis 3:8 would begin to be fulfilled in the new age.In the biblical narrative, immediately before we're told about Ham's sin, we're given some insight into the situation.
Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent.
Some years must pass before a vineyard matures and yields grapes. More time must pass before the grapes can produce alcoholic wine. During this season, the food brought with Noah and his family on the ark ran out and they began to eat what grew from the ground. The ground had recently been purged by the flood but yet was, in fact, no less cursed than it had been before the flood. The flood did nothing to change the status of the cursed ground, or the promise that it would produce for Adam a "thorns and thistles" people! So, Ham ate of the cursed ground, drank of the water, breathed the air. The sum of environmental factors may have had a role in changing Ham. He may also have imbibed with his father, his mother, too, facilitating subsequent sinful activity through pharmakeia.
Whether or not genetic, environmental or drug factors had a role to play, I strongly suspect that habitual behavior factored in to Ham's fathering a child with his mother, extending the family tree of the fallen. Do you suppose it's likely that Ham just woke up one day with the idea of procreating with his mother, then just followed through. It seems far more likely that Ham had developed habits of thought and practice. Have you ever noticed the way people look, who practice sinful deeds or good deeds over a long period of time? They look different, because they are different. Their behavior transforms their appearance, even their bodies. This is physical, and yet there is a spiritual element to such transformations that must be brought into any serious consideration of Ham's role and the return of giants after the flood.
Sin has consequences, now and in Ham's time. We know from Ephesians 6:12 that we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual entities. It's true now, just as it also was in Ham's day. If you give yourself over to do evil, the rebellion brings a curse just as surely as obedience brings blessing. Blessing and cursing is language of supernaturalism. The physical is only ever in the context of abiding in the presence of the spiritual.
Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
I have, in recent years, come to an awareness that what is referred to as sex magick is quite real, and that it's been going on for a very long time. Crazy? Check out my blog, The Open Scroll Blog, and see for yourself what convinces me! Angels and demons can and do manipulate matter. They understand DNA. I heard author L.A. Marzulli on a Blog Talk Radio show talking about his conviction that Nimrod began to be and then became a gibborim by practicing sex magick. I believe he's right. Ham or others of the family may have retained some of the forbidden knowledge that had been brought by the Watchers prior to the flood. They taught men the secrets of heaven, as Enoch testified. Whether Ham might have acquired this knowledge directly from other angels, falling after the flood, I can't say I know.
I think a combination of factors explains the grafting in of Ham to the serpent Tree. His sexual engagement with his mother and the curse on Canaan are part of the story behind the reappearance of Nephilim after the flood (Genesis 6:4). I feel very strongly that this is of huge import, because we have arrived in a day when the realities of the past I'm writing about in this book no longer seem implausible. The hybrid Nephilim are becoming manifest in the earth, and the Beast and mark of the Beast are going to be found to be part of this very same family Tree scheme.
Consider the following verses from Luke 17.
26) And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27) they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Those who were destroyed had been marrying and giving in marriage; they were the serpent family Tree. While it is a record of account that Noah's sons also took wives in that season, the activity is specified as what those of serpent Tree were doing, identifying their distinct focus. The activities listed provide for increase, in size and number. What we're being directed to do in that context is use it for comparison, to see it in the context of the days of the Son of man. This is our day, today. Let me spell it out. The serpent family tree thorns, thistles and tares, even hybrids are increasing and focused on increasing. Look around. That's what you're looking at. Yes, really.
Anal intercourse is called sodomy, relative to the infamous practice of the inhabitants of Sodom. Earlier, I had written: "While engaging with the serpent tree in the Garden, Adam was stimulated to orgasm while being sodomized and his semen was subsequently spilled on the ground. If the woman's eating of the tree resulted in pregnancy, the man's eating of the tree must be of a like kind." The "sex orgy" theme evidenced as an echo of Eden in the account of Noah's day is no less evident in the account of the destruction of Sodom. Our perception of this continuity is, I believe, essential to foster our understanding of the peculiar realities of our present time and circumstances. While this account bears the undeniable testimony of sinful behavior, beyond that is the reality of two kinds of trees, the hidden matter, largely concealed in our day as a great treasure. If we compare this account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, one which absolutely must be acknowledged as a primary record of the execution of judgment in the Bible, to the other primary record, the cursing and ejection from the Garden of Eden, there is nothing to be found resembling the "light snack" version. Allowing for an adult reading of the biblical record simply does not support it.
If the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah isn't fresh in your mind you might want to pause to read Genesis 18-19 now.
The population of Sodom and Gomorrah descended from the accursed Canaan, son of Ham and his mother, Noah's wife. We should by now be cognizant of the fact that those who occupied the land or Canaan were not Adamic. This land is where, many years later, following the exodus from Egypt, Joshua and Caleb go with certain others as spys. They find giants in the land and bring back as evidence what we recognize today as GM produce (genetically modified). Later still, Goliath, the Philistine of Gath in Canaan would be slain by David. Do you understand how that the occupants of Sodom were fruit of the bad tree? Their trademark sodomite behavior stems from who they are, what they are.
The lust the men of Sodom had for the visitors who had come from meeting with Abraham and Sarah was far beyond any desire a natural male could have for another natural male. The visitors were not males of Lot's kind, who was of like pedigree to his uncle Abraham. Neither were the men of Sodom Lot's kind. The visitors were angels with bodies of angelic flesh that were actual first generation beings created by the Lord God. The Sodomites' irresistible attraction to the visitors was less male to male in character than bad tree fruit to good tree fruit. In Noah's day, this was the essential nature of the attraction of the sons of god to the daughters of men, and, in the Garden, of the serpent's attraction to Eve and to Adam. The degree of attraction the Sodomites had to the visitors was beyond that of bad tree male to good tree female, a fact that's revealed through their rejection of Lot's offer to substitute his two virgin daughters. Even though Lot's daughters were females of the Adamic kind and of marriageable age who could have been used to raise up more of their cursed hybrid offspring, the men of Sodom could by no means be dissuaded from their desire to copulate with the angelic flesh of the first generation of the good Tree. The Sodomites wanted to treat these angelic visitors like their serpent progenitor had treated Adam, first generation fruit of the good Tree in the Garden! They craved "strange" flesh!
6) And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
The fruit of the bad tree had been purged from the face of the ground in the flood of Noah's day, yet, the destruction by water brought no end to this season appointed for thorns and thistles. That end must come by fire.
6) through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7) But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:6-7
What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah was a prophetic model for that day.
24) Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, 25) and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
Even what grew on the ground was consumed by fire, their GM produce. When the fire and brimstone rained down, it wasn't a matter of simply dealing with people who liked to party too much and tended to get carried away, who could maybe have gone through some rehab to be reintegrated back into society. While judgment for sinful behavior is a legitimate lesson that can be taken away from the account, what is the more hidden is the more valuable here, that it's about trees that bear fruit and reproducing after their kinds. Fire was set to this particular branch of the bad tree kind.
18) A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
The Sodomites were as gathered, bound into a bundle and burned. While no end to the season of bad fruit came when Sodom burned, that branch with its fruit was cut off. When Goliath and his brothers were later slain, that branch too was cut off with its fruit. Yet, the cursed ground, by whatever mechanism, continues to bring forth cursed fruit of the bad tree.
With confidence in our knowledge of the secret of the fruit bearing trees we can begin to recognize the more subtle clues scattered throughout the biblical text.
And just as Isaiah foretold, "UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT TO US A POSTERITY, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WOULD HAVE RESEMBLED GOMORRAH."
Today, as bizarre as it seems, the only sober and reasonable conclusion that can be reached by those of us with our eyes open is that the wheat is not alone in the field. As surely as you can still find thorns and thistles in the planet's vegetation there are such a people as that among us. As to what physical characteristics might betray their identity, or what genetic markers might distinguish them, I can't say. When some suggest evidence of reptilians or shape-shifters or point out their observations of "alien race" attributes, instead of scoffing or mocking it may wise to consider the possibilities, and even probabilities. If you now know the shocking truth of Cain's paternity and the reality of the two fruit bearing trees that compete for turf in this season, there are some things in your "world view" that will surely require some radical rethinking.
The biblical account of the destruction of Sodom is sandwiched in a context that supports and strengthens the theme of the fruit bearing trees. If what I already presented wasn't persuasive, reading this chapter probably won't help you, but if you really are starting to get what the story is about on a deeper level then what's found here should establish it with yet another substantial witness. At some point in coming to an awareness of what's really going on in the world, the lies we've been so craftily sold about the nature of what happened in the Garden have to fade into oblivion.
It was just prior to the angelic visitors' arrival in Sodom that they had some interaction with Abraham and Sarah. This involved the Lord Himself (also appearing as a man), who made the promise to Abraham and Sarah that He would return to them at that time the next year, and Sarah would have a son. This event is, by any reckoning, pivotal in the story of good Tree fruit! Then, just after the destruction of Sodom we find the curious account of Lot's daughters, who had just been spared having to raise up offspring with men of Sodom, taking it upon themselves to assure that Lot's own seed would be preserved in the earth.
Odds are, you're already pretty familiar with the story of Abraham and Sarah so I'm not going to expand on it here. I do think it will be helpful to share some insight about Lot's offspring. After that, I'll show you how a curious element you may have noted that's common to all three of these storylines suggests looking beyond the moral character of the people for key insight.
The timing of the Lord's intervention at Sodom was perfect, of course. The reasons why He does things when He does are seldom stated directly in the biblical narrative, yet I've found time and again that He's pleased to grant insight into His purposes once we're able to read the clues that are so wondrously left for our discovery. Intervention was made when it was time to rescue Lot's seed, to keep the precious fruit of this tree from being cut off!
Here's the account of what happened after Lot and his daughters had fled to the mountain cave.
30) Lot went up from Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31) Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. 32) "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father." 33) So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 34) On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father." 35) So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 36) Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37) The firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38) As for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.
Lot was not going to be having any sons with his wife, who had become a pillar of salt after looking back during Sodom's destruction. His daughters apparently had a good grasp of their situation, whose stated objective was to "preserve our family through our father." For the firstborn to reason that, "there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth," she had to have known that the genetic credential was crucial. There must certainly have been males in the general neighborhood who could sire children. The record of history reveals a wonderfully significant blessing coming as a result of their deeds. The genealogy given in Matthew lists Ruth the Moabitess (Matthew 1:5, ) as the great-grandmother of King David. So, the firstborn daughter of Lot, who conceived by her father in order to preserve the family, received the honor accorded a messianic matriarch!
I doubt this passage of scripture is taught or read very frequently without reference being made to moral issues. When we consider the accounts from Genesis 18-19 of Abraham and Sarah, the end of Sodom, and Lot with his daughters, what most of us tend to see is sin and the moral failure of people with flawed character. Sarah laughed when she heard the promise that she would bear a child. When questioned about it, she denied it, lying. The common judgment would be for us to disqualify her and keep looking for someone more worthy of a blessing. If we consider the story of Lot's daughters, and how incest is condemned when the law is later given to Moses, and also how they had conspired to take advantage of their father by plying him with wine, our inclination is to disqualify them and any of their bastard children, too. Very few of Lot's choices suggest he had either wisdom or courage in any significant amount so, in our thinking, we would naturally want to disqualify him from any honor due a Patriarch. Yet, the Lord's wisdom in judgement is far beyond ours. The way I see it, the mercy and grace we see exhibited, as though the heavenly Father just winks at any moral or character deficiencies, draws the curious among us beyond that superficial level. Ultimately, when we come to see the enigmatic trees bearing fruit after their kinds, what is found is much more satisfying, as strong meat instead of merely the milk of the Word.
While you have been reading here, other biblical accounts may have come to mind, perhaps one involving Judah, Onan and Tamar. It has the familiar elements of; spilling seed on the ground, the destruction of ungodly men, and a woman who has to trick a patriarch into siring offspring and who ends up as a messianic matriarch. I leave these for you to pursue according to your own interests.
The kind of behavior that led to Eve conceiving and Adam spilling his seed on the ground is obvious. It was addressed very appropriately when the man and woman were about to be expelled from the Garden. There were other issues addressed too, (See also Appendix II), specifically the implied pleasure Eve experienced while conceiving with the serpent, her desire for one who was not her husband, her ruling over her husband, and Adam's hearkening to the voice of his wife. Beyond even that, there's still more the Lord would have us to know about what happened in the Garden and the consequences thereof.
I must tell you something about the writing of this study, that I would have been content to tie it off already. I had tried to do. that, but it was not to be. What follows must be seen as a very important adjunct. None of what you're about to read was optional in the writing, and I am fully assured when I make this statement. What you will read you will not like. You may think it's merely speculative, yet, it's my testimony that this is what the Lord gave me to write. We are to put on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6), so, when a point is made, like it has been with the scope of content in this section, we do well to take heed. While you are reading through to the end you will discover that it is not always easy to read, and you should know it was not easy to write. You'll probably say, "TMI - Too Much Information!" The Lord says, "No, it's not too much. It is enough." Thank you Lord, for your mercy and for your exceeding great grace to us who have the evident blessing of your love!
There is little if any support in the scriptures for the "light snack" version of what happened in the Garden, yet eating was involved. You can read this between the lines of the biblical text and further see it manifesting in the testimony of history and in the reality of our present time. Eating is an element of the Lord God's address in the Garden to both the serpent and to Adam.
14) The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life; 17) Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18) Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; 19) By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
Genesis 3:14, 17-19
Adam was told, "You are dust." The serpent was told, "dust you will eat." Could this mean that the serpent would henceforth feast upon Adam, literally consuming the flesh bodies of Adam-kind? Is there evidence of such a thing in the biblical or historical record? Indeed, there is!
You might be thinking, "Whoa! Are you going to tell me cannibalism was one of the sins in the Garden?" Uh, well, for now, just try not to run on ahead. We'll get there soon enough.
The practice of cannibalism has been documented from very early history. It has been the behavior of those who claim it as the practice of their gods, gods who fell to earth from heaven. Cannibalism continues up to the present time. It's practiced by some who openly profess to worship Satan by it. The news media has reported in just the last few years some very grisly accounts of jilted "gay" lovers who have slain and eaten their former lovers, among both men and women. If you can acknowledge that there are thorns and thistles among us, you must understand how this sordid behavior is inherited from that bad tree that continues to bear fruit after its kind.
Here's a biblical account of the practice that is attributed to Canaanites.
32) So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. 33) There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.
This report was given to Moses and Israel by the spies on their return from the promised land, the land of Canaan, son of Ham and his mother. While spying out the land they had witnessed cannibalism. A figure of speech is used in verse 32 (known as metonymy of the subject) where the land is put for the people of the land. A land that devours its inhabitants is where cannibalism is practiced. These "bad tree" Canaanites ate human flesh, a fact that is well documented, historically. No, this isn't the whitewashed version most of us have been taught. This is the adult version, for the mature.
While most versions of etymology point to Christopher Columbus' reference to the Carib people as the source of the word, "cannibal," it seems to me far more plausible that Eustace Mullins is correct. He wrote in The Curse of Canaan (p. 12) that the word "cannibal" is a combination of "Canaan" and "Baal."
Are we to think such bestial behavior as this comes without some legitimate basis, something to which we can point as its origin? Just as I had presented the Sodom and flood of Noah scenarios as echoes of Eden with realities that reverberate forward even unto the present time, this matter of cannibalism has a root in the Garden. Adam is dust and the serpent eats dust. If we can perceive such a theme as a long thread, woven into the fabric of history, our perception of this and the continuity of similar essential themes really does foster our understanding of the peculiar realities of our present time and provide a reliable framework for the unfolding of Bible prophecy. The lust for the flesh and blood of Adam-kind didn't spring randomly out of the imagination of the Adamic. This lust compares to the lustful sexual appetite the Sodomites had for the angel men, that the sons of god had for the daughters of "the Adam" and that the serpent had for Eve and Adam in the Garden. In these lusts, in this lust, there is continuity! We just have to "connect the dots" to draw the picture and make it plain.
While you're connecting the dots you should give some consideration to our culture's increasing fascination and even obsession with the vampire. Vampires feast upon the blood of men and women, which is their very life. Is this merely a the fictional invention of people like Irish novelist Bram Stoker? The vampire legend is like many others that involve superhuman creatures. When an honest consideration is given to the facts of history there appears to be some common substance, a core of truth. If we let what our depraved culture craves speak to us we can hear the testimony of some underlying supernaturalism. The masses crave books and movies about vampires. Stories like Dracula ("In the Romanian language, the word dracul can mean either "the dragon" or, especially in the present day, "the devil"" - Wikipedia) and the decades old TV series "Dark Shadows" now seem far overshadowed in popularity by the present phenomenon of "Twilight" and "Underworld." There should be no doubt that the obsession with the fanged vampire hearkens back to the serpent and his kind. Connect the dots well and the vampire phenomenon can be linked to what happened in the Garden of Eden.
When we search beyond the consequence of eating dust with a view to discover the nature of the causative offense in the Garden we have to consider the "sex orgy" activity we already know took place. The consistent application of a "tooth for a tooth" judicial model suggests that the consequence of eating dust, when Adam is dust, is in response to the serpent “eating Adam” in the Garden. This is, in a figure, eating the fruit from his tree, his seed. It's no great secret what unseemly acts men do with men and sodomy is not the only practice.
Take a close look at what Michelangelo painted of this scene of the Garden.
The Fall of Man and the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden
Michelangelo - Sistine Chapel - Vatican City
Earlier in this study we observed how Michelangelo had painted a very astute representation of the deep primal imagery of the serpent/tree/DNA identity. Take a long and considerate look at it again. Did he or his patron (Pope Julius II) believe fellatio was practiced in the Garden? Knowing what we now know, can this really be interpreted any other way? This painting must have been to them and a few others as an inside joke, who understood what it really shows.
Let's consider how cannibalism as a consequence relates to oral sex as a cause. If the seed of one is consumed by another, it's as though the progeny represented in that seed is consumed. The principle is found in the seventh chapter of the book of Hebrews.
9) And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10) for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
There is, in this principle, a connection between the consumption of a man's seed and cannibalism because the progeny can be considered to be in the loins of the father. You see, Abraham fathered Isaac, who fathered Jacob, who fathered Levi. It is considered that Levi was in the loins of his great grandfather, which is to say that progeny is represented in the seed of a man. If the seed that was passed from Abraham to Isaac had instead been consumed, it would be as though Levi himself had been consumed.
Did the serpent eat Adam's seed in the Garden? If not, for what reason did the Lord God condemn the serpent to go on his belly, eating dust? You're welcome to believe what you want about the activity in the Garden. If you deny the presence of the "dots" or refuse to "connect them," I'm convinced you'll have no legitimate answers to the hard questions that beg to be asked.
The serpent was not alone in being condemned to eat something. Adam was condemned to eat of the ground, in toil. He was also condemned to eat the plants or herbs of the field, and, by the sweat of his face, to eat bread.
14) The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life; 17) Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18) Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; 19) By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
Genesis 3:14, 17-19
Considering the consequences, the judicial principle of requiring a "tooth for a tooth" suggests that Adam had eaten, but according to a reproductive fruit that's certainly no light snack. This eating was literal while the fruit of the tree is of a kind we've already established. The kind of engagement Adam had with the serpent that had resulted in the curse of cannibalism was reciprocal. I did warn you that you wouldn't like where we would be going in this study.
Among the consequences for Adam's sin, I don't perceive an element that suggests cannibalism for Adam-kind, nothing that compares to the serpent eating the dust Adam. The thorns and thistles have been presented as represent the serpent's kind but Adam wasn't condemned to eat them.
While neither oral sex nor sodomy contributes to the propagation of a Tree, it happened in the Garden and the witnesses to that activity are nonetheless evident in the earth. Like I already addressed, cannibalism has been and continues to be a reality. The related vampire component that represents the thirst for human blood, or at the least the idea of it, has reached a point of phenomenal popularity. Because the serpent loves to exalt himself, boasting of his conquests and taunting those over whom he has dominion, the witness to oral sex is manifest and may be recognized if you have eyes to see it. The serpent and his family are gloating and bragging through signs and symbols. They flaunt the expressions of their dominion, of their subsequent status as rulers over the vast domains presently assigned. While I can and will present some evidence of the bragging about oral sex, you won't recognize it unless the Lord Himself brings you to it. If and when He does bring it, you will know it. You will absolutely not like it, but you will know it. As I share this with you, I think you'll agree that what we see makes little sense unless there's something important being signified beyond merely oral sex for its own sake.
Since late 2009, when I began blogging about the meaning of occult symbols, I became increasingly aware of instances of the number 69 and the imagery of 69 and the context in which this number appears. This number is widely recognized as a symbol of oral sex through the pictorial of the digits as heads and bodies. This number is further signaling the reproductive feature of the mark of the Beast as the product of 23*3, a triple helix DNA sign. I call it the double digit signal that compares to the single digit signal, 9.
The image of 69 is evident in the very popular Yin Yang symbol. The image of 69 also appears on the Masonic Royal Arch as engraved upon the keystone. While these can certainly be interpreted otherwise, it should be acknowledged that occult symbols have more than one level of meaning.
What I'm about to share here will mean more to those of you who have some education and experience in these matters. I have never been directly involved with occult organizations (aside from a few "organized Christian church" Babylonian religious institutions) but I've become somewhat knowledgeable because the Lord has led me over the past few years to invest many hundreds of hours as a student of the messaging systems of the occult. If you're already pretty familiar with the series of studies posted on TheOpenScroll.com titled, Olympic Ceremony Symbolism, or The Open Scroll Blog, you should catch on right away.
The Olympics are a pagan religious celebration. The gods of Olympism are the Watchers and their Nephilim offspring. The Olympics are avenues of promotion for the worship of Zeus (aka Satan - Rev. 2:13), advancing the serpent's occult agenda through symbolic imagery that includes logos, venue architecture, ceremonies, etc.
You may have noticed how the official logo created for the 2012 Summer Games to be held in London (now 4 months away, as of this edit for Kindle distribution) has been almost universally criticized. Likewise, so was the London Presentation, performed at the closing ceremonies in Beijing, 2008. Critics misunderstand their purpose. They were not intended for popular appeal. Relatively little consideration was given to whether they would be liked. They were made to be complex occult messaging systems, with layers of well crafted symbols.
So far, four or more layers of the meaning of the 2012 logo have been discerned beyond the obvious stacking of the digits "20" over the "12." One of the more widely recognized is the oral sex imagery. If you search the web for, Olympic logo Lisa Simpson, you'll see what the fuss is about. A slightly modified image that helps us see better how it is being perceived appears here, showing Bart Simpson wearing blue shorts and Lisa wearing a pearl necklace.
Could this cartoon imagery be unintentional? Anyone who has sought to understand the Olympic Committee's agenda knows this is no accident. Until I received insight into the larger scope of activity of the orgy in the Garden, I puzzled over why oral sex was a featured symbol of their London logo. Now I know! Bart and Lisa represent Adam and Eve, following the serpent's lead in the garden. The serpent is bragging about his conquest in the Garden. Frankly, the statement I believe is being made is most offensive: "Hey, daughters of men - Suck My..."
The Olympic ceremonies in Beijing were all about procreation between the gods and men and the bringing forth of offspring. Symbols conveyed the message very powerfully and effectively but few perceived it. The subversive plan worked to perfection. The London Presentation that looked forward to 2012 was richly laden with cryptic messaging, almost incredibly so. Michelangelo and his Papal patron would surely have been proud of the effort, apparently being privy to the same inside jokes.
For me, the validation of my having finally discerned the full scope of what the Lord was opening to me for publication of this work about Cain's paternity came as I wrote out what I had learned, then visited Safeway.com, where I had been led to get an image of their current logo and branding. When I saw it, even though I had seen their logo many times before, this time something very dramatic happened.
Heavy grief came over me. It was immediate, very heavy and I understood it. The message presented was received in a personal and very emotional way. I had to pull away from the work for an hour or so to work through and process this grief, then go for a long walk. This was the impartation that sealed the deal. I needed to know in the most genuine sense without any reservation that the Lord had indeed led me here and that I had been faithful to see it through, that I had learned the intended lesson. This is no mere academic exercise. My friend, this is life. I told you this was not optional or superfluous knowledge. The conclusions drawn here do not represent my suppositions or hunches or my personal interpretation. You will see it as you see it, but this is my testimony and I'm making this statement so you can seek what fuller benefit the Lord might intend for you, precious saint.
When you first look at this Safeway logo you might see a stylized letter S in white on a red background. The S is presumed to stand for Safeway. When you consider the negative space (the part of the logo that is not the letter S) you see two red elements that resemble the Yin Yang symbol, or, the number 69. These red elements also resemble sperm with pointy tails. The letter S represents the serpent of the Garden scene, just like the serpentine S in Superman's shield.
What is Safeway and why would they have such a logo? It's a large grocery store chain, where Adam-kind goes with what he toiled for with the sweat of his face to get the plants of the field and bread that he will eat. This will sustain him until he returns to dust because these are, as declared by the marketing slogan, "Ingredients for life." The red sperm 69 message is being broadcast. Do you perceive the message?
Sure, there's room for "plausible deniability" with this and every logo, but let's not be naive. Let's be wise as serpents but harmless as doves. This is no call for a corporate boycott, just a call to alertness. See what you're looking at. Really see it for what it means. The devil is bad. God is good to reveal this to us, who need to know what goes on in the enemy's camp and what is plotted against us. Consider the kind of weaponry fashioned against us in this mighty warfare that's being waged for our souls. Grow up, become mature and put on the whole armor of God.
When next you read Romans 1 and the book of Jude, read with a mature and sober perspective that acknowledges the two fruit-bearing trees and the way of Cain.
Eve (Chava) - 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
“Cain's real father was not Adam, but one of the demons (Pirke R. El. xxi., xxii.).”
What Did Abel Have That Cain Didn't?
"Abel, pronounced in the original Hebrew of the Scriptures as heh-bel, was the second-born son of Adam and Eve - but perhaps not by much. After the birth of Cain, Genesis 4:2 literally translates as "and she continued to give birth, his brother Abel.""
A Twist of Cain
"The passage "and again she bare his brother Abel," has led some Biblical scholars to speculate that Cain and Abel were twins, also suggested by the constant use of my brother, your brother, further on in the tale - reference: The Interpreter's Bible, vol I, 517."
Cain and Abel (Wikipedia)
"In the Greek New Testament, Cain is referred to as (Greek spelling - ek tou poneros. (1 John 3:12) In at least one translation this is rendered "from the evil one" (International Standard Version), while others have "of the evil one." (New American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation, etc.) Some interpreters take this to mean that Cain was literally the son of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. A parallel idea can be found in Jewish legend, (Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Vol.1, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8018-5890-9, p.105-9) that the serpent (Hebrew - nahash) from the Garden of Eden was father to firstborn Cain."
Abel (NETBible Study Dictionary)
"ABEL (1) - a'-bel (hebhel; Abel; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Habel; etymology uncertain. Some translation "a breath," "vapor," "transitoriness," which are suggestive of his brief existence and tragic end; others take it to be a variant of Jabal, yabhal, "shepherd" or "herdman," Gen 4:20. Compare Assyrian ablu and Babylonian abil, "son"): The second son of Adam and Eve. The absence of the verb harah (Gen 4:2; compare verse 1) has been taken to imply, perhaps truly, that Cain and Abel were twins."
Cain and Abel (Answers.com)
"According to Midrashic tradition, Cain and Abel each had twin sisters, whom they were to marry."
Behold a White Horse by Cicso Wheeler (p. 107)
“The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 1473: "He (Cain) is said to have belonged to the family of the wicked one."
Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, volume 3, page 936. "Which showed him (Cain) to be of that wicked one, of the serpent's seed: so early was such seed sown, and so ancient the enmity between seed and seed."
Matthew Henry's Commentary, volume 6 page, 1077: "It showed that he (Cain) was as the firstborn of the serpent's seed."
In John 8:44 Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and proclaimed, "Ye are of your father the devil." The term "of" meaning generation, offspring. They were of the physical seed of their father the devil.
Trees are often used as metaphors in regards to people. Jesus was the "tree of life."
Before Adam even had a chance to consummate his relationship with Eve, she was already pregnant with Lucifer's child Cain. And that is what the Illuminate bloodlines of the new World order don't want you to know. They are Cain's seed, of the wicked one. And it is this bloodline of Cain that is working together through the control of vast wealth around the world that is bringing the Antichrist to power.”
“The good seed, Adamites, are the genetic sons of YHVH God. The Tares, Cain's seed, are the Genetic children of Satan. ”
The Mystery of the Serpent Seed - by William Branham
"Before Adam ever had a carnal knowledge of Eve, the serpent had that knowledge ahead of him. And that one born of it was CAIN."
The Celtic Church in Britain by Leslie Hardinge
In the chapter entitled "The Role of the Scriptures," the author demonstrates the various methods of teachings used by the Celtic clergy. One of those methods was a question and answer liturgy of which the following is an authentic specimen (answers in parentheses): ...“Who was the first woman to commit adultery? (Eve with the serpent)”
THE BOOK OF ADAM Translated from the Georgian original. Translator: J.-P. Mahe
“ 21.1 And behold, twelve angels and two powers came from heaven. And they came to the place (where) Eve (was).
21.2 One of the powers came, touched Eve's face and her breast, and told Eve, "Blessed are you, Eve, because of Adam, elect one and servant of God, for his prayers are great before God and, because of him, God will deliver you. If you had not been brought help because of him, you would have conceived such a thorn that you could not have rescued yourself from your sufferings. Rise up now and prepare yourself to give birth to a child."
21.3a Eve arose as the angel had instructed her: she gave birth to an child and his color was like that of the stars. He fell into the hands of the midwife and (at once) he began to pluck up the grass, for in his mother's hut grass was planted.
21.3b The midwife replied to him and told him, "God is just that he did not at all leave you in my hands. For, you are Cain, the perverse one, killer of the good, for you are the one who plucks up the fruit-bearing tree, and not him who plants it. You are the bearer of bitterness and not of sweetness."
21.3c And the power told Adam, "Remain by Eve until she has done with the infant what I have taught her. [so QAC, ag. K]”
Protevangelium of James "The Apocryphal New Testament" - M.R. James-Translation and Notes - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
The following is a pseudepigraphical text about Mary and Joseph (as in Matthew 1:18-19).
“Chapter 13 -- Now it was the sixth month with her, and behold Joseph came from his building, and he entered into his house and found her great with child. And he smote his face, and cast himself down upon the ground on sackcloth and wept bitterly, saying: With what countenance shall I look unto the Lord my God ? and what prayer shall I make concerning this maiden? for I received her out of the temple of the Lord my God a virgin, and have not kept her safe. Who is he that hath ensnared me? Who hath done this evil in mine house and hath defiled the virgin? Is not the story of Adam repeated in me? for as at the hour of his giving thanks the serpent came and found Eve alone and deceived her, so hath it befallen me also. ”
1st Book of Adam and Eve
“3. Adam then took Eve to that cave. When the time came for her to give birth, she strained a lot. Adam felt sorry, and he was very worried about her because she was close to death and the words of God to her were being fulfilled: "In suffering shall you bear a child, and in sorrow shall you bring forth a child." 4. But when Adam saw the distress in which Eve was, he got up and prayed to God, and said, "O Lord, look at me with the eye of Your mercy, and bring her out of her distress." 5. And God looked at His maid-servant Eve, and delivered her, and she gave birth to her first-born son, and with him a daughter. 6. The Adam rejoiced at Eve's deliverance, and also over the children she had borne him. And Adam ministered to Eve in the cave, until the end of eight days; when they named the son Cain, and the daughter Luluwa. 7. The meaning of Cain is "hater," because he hated his sister in their mother's womb; before they came out of it. Therefore Adam named him Cain. 8. But Luluwa means "beautiful," because she was more beautiful than her mother.” (74:3-8)
“When the children were weaned, Eve again conceived, and when her pregnancy came to term, she gave birth to another son and daughter. They named the son Abel and the daughter Aklia.” (75:11)
Aramaic Targum pseudo-Jonathan, on Genesis 4:1
“And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the LORD."”
The Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1:
“And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord ...”
Samael -- 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
“Samael is the "chief of Satans" ... ”
“In so far as he is identified with the serpent ("J. Q. R." vi. 12), with carnal desire (Ye?er ha-Ra'), and with the angel of death, all legends associated with Satan refer equally to him, ...”
“The evil nature of Samael may be illustrated by a number of examples. He and his demonic host descended from heaven to seduce the first human pair (Pir?e R. El. xiii., beginning; Yal?. Gen. i. 25), and for this purpose he planted the vine, the forbidden tree of paradise (Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, iv.). He was himself the serpent, whose form he merely assumed (ib. ix.; "J. Q. R." vi. 328), and was one of the leaders of the angels who married the daughters of men (Gen. vi. 1-4), thus being partially responsible for the fall of the angels (Enoch vi., in Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," ii. 238 et seq.; Lucken, l.c. p. 29)...”
“In Hebrew amulets Samael is represented as the angel of death ("Revue de Numismatique," 1892, pp. 246, 251). Eve is supposed to have become pregnant by him (Targ. Yer. to Gen. iv. 1); and the cabalists add many details to this legend (Eisenmenger, l.c. i. 832 et seq.).”
While what happened in the Garden with the serpent is the main topic of interest, the other sinful behavior in the Garden is worthy of our attention here. It is perhaps just as critical (and controversial) in this late hour. The sinful behaviors all relate to disobedience that should be recognized as rebellion against the Lord God's authority and order as established in creation.
What I will present here will be handily rejected by most, struggled with by some and, perhaps, accepted by a few. Quite likely, some of you men and women will be entertaining murderous thoughts towards me. Such is the supernatural dynamic that swirls around the truth of this subject. There's nothing causal here. We're dealing with big truth, high value, heavily protected. No joke. This is not the "battle of the sexes," which by the way, both parties lost miserably.
16) To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." 17) Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it';
If it seems like two separate elements are suggested in verse 17, that would be because there are two. What the Lord God took up with the man by saying, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife," He had just previously taken up with the woman by telling her, "he will rule over you." The better YLT version reads as a correction and reminder: "and he doth rule over thee." The obvious implication is that, earlier in the Garden, the woman had ruled over her husband. It takes two to tango. No woman can effectively rule over a man without his consent, his yielding. Adam's consent to being ruled over by the woman is implied in the Lord God's response, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife." Are you following me? The word for "listened" can also be translated "hearkened" or "obeyed." What we can infer from this is that, while in the Garden and probably relative to the engagement scenario with the serpent tree, Eve sinned in her relationship with her husband. She disregarded the order of authority that had been established by the Lord God.
We don't find explicit commands about this relationship in the immediate context of Genesis 2 as given either to the man or to the woman, yet, somehow we know that whatever the Lord God used as the standard for judgment was adequately justified. Our lack of information here isn't unlike how narrative reveals that the woman knew commands had been given about the tree of knowledge of good and evil yet we're not informed how she came by this knowledge.
We can understand from Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11 that knowledge about God was imparted to or imprinted into mankind in the process of creation. Because of this, creation may be held accountable for understanding it.
18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
I don't know whether Adam and Eve were told "in so many words" about what was expected from them in their relationship with each other but we should be confident they were without excuse when the Lord addressed their disregard for His authority and for His appointment of authority in the Garden.
We learn from the very explicit language of 1 Corinthians 11 that the appointment of authority regarding man and woman was established in the order of creation.
3) But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
7) For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8) For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9) for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. 10) Therefore the woman ought to have symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-10
The passage continues, offering further insight.
11) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God
1 Corinthians 11:11-12
Man and woman depend upon other, and both surely depend upon the ultimate origin, God. While this puts it all in perspective, it should be obvious that it does nothing to alter the authority structure that had been established very succinctly in verse 3. The hierarchy of headship authority established in creation is such that man is the head of a woman.
The Lord God needs no one's permission to do what He wills because He is sovereign. He needs make no excuses about it either because He is just, righteous and holy.
When a woman rules over a man, what happens is against the order established in creation. When Eve ruled over her husband, that was a sinful act and justice was meted out accordingly. We can see from the commands given to women in this present age that the order established in creation has not been overturned.
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands
I Peter 3:1
Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord
Is that sexist? Of course it is! But, consider the source. He defines what is right. This is rightly sexist. It must be seen that this order can not be considered as some curse that being “in Christ” somehow nullifies. It's plain from 1 Corinthians 11 that the order of headship was established by the Creator according to His purposes in creation and not as a consequence of sin. If you find yourself feeling offended at this you might consider whether you are even now under the same influence as the woman in the Garden of Eden. I write this with love for you, knowing the Creator's love for you, dear brothers and sisters.
The woman sinned by ruling over her husband, and the man sinned by hearkening to the voice of his wife. Should he have pretended he couldn't hear her? Should he have refused to listen to anything she said? That wouldn't allow for the woman to be much of a helper, would it? He should not have allowed her will to dominate his. Her sin in this was active and his sin was apparently passive. She ruled over him and he let her. This is the same way the subject is presented in 1 Timothy 2, which is a command that relates to you and I.
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
I Timothy 2:12
A woman teaching or exercising authority over a man rules over him. Let me state that another way. A woman rules over a man when she teaches him, which is exercising authority over him. The writer, Paul, wrote here with full authority. If he does not allow it, it's because the Lord does not allow it. Following his example, what Paul does not allow, other men should not allow. What this means to me as a man is what applied to Adam in the Garden, which he paid and we pay a penalty for. Men, do not allow a woman to rule over a man. There's a lot of consideration that should be given this clear directive. This does not suggest men should rule with heavy-handed oppression. This matter of what it does and doesn't mean, given the treatment of the subject in the Garden, is worthy of our best effort to "get it right" in the brief season that remains for us.
I'll close here with a wonderfully instructive passage from 1 Peter 3.
5) For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6) just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. 7) You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.
1 Peter 3:5-7
Men, women, have courage, trusting in the Lord to bring His Life to those who honor His way! May this be a blessing to you as you seek to please the Bridegroom who will shortly come for His holy Bride.
The Obedient Family
Series Links: Jezebel vs Sarah
15) And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 3:14, 17-19
A question arises when verse 16 is considered in light of the procreative metaphor. Can what this verse seems to imply be simply dismissed by insisting it must only have the more literal interpretation, of eating regular food for sustenance? Certainly, it could be interpreted that way, but what might be implied with a consideration of the procreative metaphor?
Permission to freely eat of every tree of the garden (barring one, of course) was granted to the man. There is no justification for inferring this permission was extended to the woman, because it's in verse 18 that the Lord God declared that He would make a helpmate for him. It was not good that the man should be alone. It seems that whatever the man would have enjoyed in freely eating of every tree in the garden (barring one) would still have left him alone (Strong’s H909). The man was put to sleep and the solution to his being alone was taken out of him. She was of his flesh and bone.
Whatever the other trees of the garden were, they were not of his flesh and blood (produced by bone marrow). Any relationship permitted with “every tree of the garden” would not have effected his state of being alone. The trees of the garden were not his helpmates. They were not of his kind of life. This leads to some very intriguing questions. Since trees appear to be seed bearing, having fruit with seed in themselves, could it be that the distinction of gender wasn't a factor in man's reproductive nature? When the woman was later taken out of him, something was removed, from his side. Did that contain some reproductive element that became distinct in the woman? Was the man created an androgyne, capable of reproducing without a counterpart? Was reproduction even part of his purpose at the time he was permitted to freely eat of every tree of the garden, barring one?