Serpent Seed

[Dan Bittleston]

Concerning the "mark of Cain", I believe that the mark had to be something that would be easily visible by other people. I can see your point in considering the book of Enoch and his discussion of the "fallen angels". Again, by Cain having "skin" of another color, it would make it all that much easier for the "fallen angels" to identify him and manipulate him and his way of thinking. It would also make him "stand out" from all those around him. If Cain was given all the knowledge that the book of Enoch speaks about, certainly the people around him would NOT want to kill him, but would rather raise him up as a "god" unto themselves.

From my research, Gen. 2:4-7 is basically a summary of the events that are chronicled in Gen. 1. The remainder of Gen. 2 primarily deals with other events that took place about the same time.

Concerning "first female", here is a quote from Dr. Adam Clarke:
In Ec 10:11, the creature called nachash, of whatever sort, is compared to the babbler: Surely the serpent (nachash) will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better.

In Isa 65:25, the same creature is meant as in Ge 3:1, for in the words, And dust shall be the serpent's meat, there is an evident allusion to the text of Moses.

Now the nachash was more subtle, arum, more wise, cunning, or prudent, than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. In this account we find,

1. That whatever this nachash was, it stood at the head of all inferior animals for wisdom and understanding.
2. That it walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in its punishment - on thy belly (i.e., on all fours) shalt thou go.
3. That it was endued with the gift of speech, for a conversation is here related between it and the woman.
4. That it was also endued with the gift of reason, for we find it reasoning and disputing with Eve.
5. That these things were common to this creature, the woman no doubt having often seen it walk erect, talk, and reason, and therefore she testifies no kind of surprise when it accosts her in the language related in the text; and indeed from the manner in which this is introduced it appears to be only a part of a conversation that had passed between them on the occasion: Yea, hath God said, etc.

Had this creature never been known to speak before his addressing the woman at this time and on this subject, it could not have failed to excite her surprise, and to have filled her with caution, though from the purity and innocence of her nature she might have been incapable of being affected with fear. Now I apprehend that none of these things can be spoken of a serpent of any species.

All these things considered, we are obliged to seek for some other word to designate the nachash in the text, than the word serpent, which on every view of the subject appears to me inefficient and inapplicable. We also know that khanas, akhnas, and khanoos, signify a creature of the ape or satyrus kind. We have seen that the meaning of the root is, he lay hid, seduced, slunk away, etc.; and that khanas means the devil, as the inspirer of evil, and seducer from God and truth. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or ouran outang kind is here intended; and that Satan made use of this creature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his murderous purposes against the life and soul of man.

Note: You can read the entire comment by Dr. Adam Clarke under Gen 3:1. It is interesting reading, but no difinitive conclusions can be made from it. It can be reasonably determined that the creature was able, possibly of its own power, to communicate with Eve. If this creature was other than the "first female", how can we possibly explain this communication, unless we lay claim that "the devil" gave it "utterance". I do not believe that the devil did, because then that would be laying something to the devil's credit, which he was not capable of accomplishing, since no sin had been committed yet!!

Like I said, just some more food for thought.
YBIC
Dan Bittleston

[Sissy]

bump

page 3 wasn't showing up. Hope this clears the problem.

[Sissy]

Thanks for the info Dan.
It’s good to know all the views out there.

That's one of the things that need to be determined; was the "serpent" Satan himself,
or was it an animal which Satan "possessed",
or was it Satan who manifested in the form of a serpent????

• Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
  
  
  
• Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Like I said, I keep my options open!!!!


This brings up another question that could throw a kink into the doctrine ……
Was Satan the “serpent”? Or was Satan the “tree”.


God planted all the trees, but there were two “special trees” besides all the other trees that were there.

• Genesis 2
  8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
  9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If Satan was the “tree” (cause it was the “tree” that Eve said she could not “touch”), then we also have the “tree” of life. This tree of life is thought by most to be Christ.
Could they “touch” the tree of life??????

Since the doctrine bases the sex with Satan as "touching" the tree, then if Satan was not the "tree" the whole doctrine about Eve "touching" the tree falls apart.

Keep in mind that a curse befell the wrongdoers (Eve, Adam, and the serpent).
But there was no curse put on the tree.

[Dan Bittleston]

That's one of the things that need to be determined; was the "serpent" Satan himself, or was it an animal which Satan "possessed", or was it Satan who manifested in the form of a serpent????

I believe that "the spirit of Satan" entered into one of the animals that God had created. Just as in Luke 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. Satan's spirit entered into Judas to cause him to do as he did.

This brings up another question that could throw a kink into the doctrine ……
Was Satan the “serpent”? Or was Satan the “tree”.

God planted all the trees, but there were two “special trees” besides all the other trees that were there.

In Gen 2:16-17 God commanded Adam not to EAT of the tree, but in Gen 3:2-3 it is said by Eve that they could neither EAT of it nor TOUCH it. I am wondering if this was an omission in Gen 2 or an addition in Gen 3, or was it something placed in the mind of Eve by the spirit of Satan. At this particular time, I do not believe that Satan WAS either the serpent or the tree. No sin had yet been committed, so Satan had no hold whatsoever on mankind.

If Satan was the “tree” (cause it was the “tree” that Eve said she could not “touch”), then we also have the “tree” of life. This tree of life is thought by most to be Christ.
Could they “touch” the tree of life??????

I believe that to partake of the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL was to come to the knowledge that "obedience and disobedience" existed. The TREE was simply the temptation. You will recall that after Eve and Adam partook of the tree, that they realized that they were naked and attempted to hide themselves from the PRESENCE of God. Now they knew the difference between obedience and disobedience, because they had DISOBEYED God. Now Satan had a foothold on mankind.

I do not believe that Adam and Eve had any desire to partake (touch) the TREE OF LIFE, because until they partook of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" they HAD eternal life. They knew no different.

I do believe that this was the reason that God placed them, Adam and Eve, out of the garden; so they would not partake of the TREE OF LIFE and live forever in their sinful ways. (Gen 3:22-24) This is a case of God again showing His mercy to mankind.

You will notice that I said "again" showing His mercy. That is because the first recorded time He showed His mercy was when He clothed Adam and Eve with "coats of skin" (Gen 3:21) before thrusting them out of the Garden.

I also believe that this was when God put into place His plan for the redemption of mankind. By that I mean that it only stands to reason that God had to kill one of His innocent creations to provide the clothes for Adam and Eve. That meant "spilling innocent blood" because of the sin of mankind. I also believe that the "blood was spilled" at the East entrance to the Garden, where the cherubim stood guard along with a "flaming sword". (Gen 3:24) This signified that the only way to get back to the "Garden of Eden" (heaven) was to pass through the "spilled innocent blood".

Until next time,
YBIC
Dan Bittleston