…the doctrine of the Serpent Seed
(or the doctrine of the Original Sin)
is neither an allegory, a myth, a legend,
nor a fable, but is based on literal historical facts…
—Richard Gan
Herein we continue considering Rev. Richard Gan’s article The Doctrine of the Serpent Seed and The Doctrine of the Original Sin... which derives from his 1998 AD book, “The Serpent Seed THE ORIGINAL SIN.” You can find the whole series here.
Regarding the curse upon Eve Gan writes:
"Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
— Genesis 3:16
The first part of this verse should also cause us to understand that the sexual organ was the guilty member of the body in the act of sin. It was that part of the woman which God had cursed. He also increased the number of her conceptions.
Furthermore, he notes “"And Adam called his wife's name Eve;..." The name was given only after the curse…"because she was the mother of all living" (Gen.3:20b)…the seed comes from the male.”
Well, Gan needs to tie these two points together as Eve’s curse relates directly to the little we are told about her. She was to be mother of all living which is why her curse pertains to childbearing. In the selfsame way, Adam’s curse relates directly to what which we are told about him: in a manner of speaking, he had the hobby of gardening but was cursed with having to work the land in the manner of hard labor.
The phrase: "thy desire shall be to thy husband", certainly alludes to the fact that Eve must have earlier subjected her desire to someone else. It could not be plainer that Eve had first subjected her desire to the Serpent when she "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,..." (Gen.3:6).
Well, the phrase does not allude to the fact that she had desired someone else but rather, something else just as the verse he quoted states: she desired the fruit.
Gan references 2 Corinthians 11:2-3 which states, as he emphasized it, “For I am jealous over you with godly jealously: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled.” He then writes, “(Greek: exapatao [not apatao]; that is, thoroughly seduced) Eve [was] thoroughly deceived and seduced by the Serpent!.”
I already dealt with this unfounded claim in Zen Garcia on symbolic Serpent Seed of Satan language in Genesis 3 which you can consult for details. In short, in order to claim that which Richard Gan, Zen Garcia, et al., claim of 2 Corinthians 11:2-3 one can only do that which they do which is to merely assert it. When every instance of that term is considered there is simply no way that it can possibly mean that which they claim it means.
Image from Richard Gan’s article/book
Specifically considering Cain’s conception, Gan writes:
One verse which confounds many Christians is Genesis 4:1. "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord." It appears to them that Cain was the son of Adam. But a deeper study…Adam "knew" Eve twice only (verses 1 and 25) but brought forth three sons…the very characters of Cain and Abel were extremely different. Therefore, one of them could not be a son of Adam…The murderous or lying nature does not come from God; it comes from Satan (Jhn.10:10; 11:25; Num.23:19)…These traits alone are enough proofs that Cain was not a son of Adam who was a son of God.
I bet you did not find it confounding until he informed you that you did so—actually not even thereafter. And, by the way, the reason why it appears to state that Cain was the son of Adam is because it states that Cain was the son of Adam.
Can you discern the Gnosticism as “a deeper study” such as his, reveals that, get this, Adam knew Eve twice only but brought forth three sons at which point we need to pause.
We are not told how many times Adam knew Eve since, in fact, they had many sons and daughters. But that to which he is referring means what exactly? Well, if he knew her twice and had three sons this means that, you guessed it, Can, Abel and Seth were all sons of Adam (once could argue that Cain and Abel were twins). Gan just discredited his own claims without realizing it.
Now, I have four children with my wife and their characters are extremely different which states utterly nothing about whether I really am their dad and my wife is their mom.
Having already dealt with this issue with serpent seed of Satan theorists I recognize his point: he is asserting that Cain could not be a son of Adam because his actions were not godly. However, of course, Adam and Eve sinned and they were direct creations of God. Thus, this is another unfounded claim of the theorists.
Referring to the offerings made by Abel (which was accepted) and Cain (which was rejected), Gan claims:
Abel possessed the revelation (from God) of the events which transpired in the Garden of Eden…Cain, being the son of the Serpent, did not possess such a revelation. Though he was raised up together with Abel and taught the same Truth and Knowledge of God by Adam and Eve, he never really possessed the full revelation of it….Like his daddy, Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Indeed, he did it again: Gan just discredited his very own supposed revelation from alleged God. He, himself, writes that “Like his daddy, Cain was a tiller of the ground.” Well, pray tell, was Satan a tiller of the ground? No. Was the serpent a tiller of the ground? No. Was Adam a tiller of the ground? Yes indeed, “there was not a man to till the ground” until “the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (Genesis 2:5, 15). Thus, “Like his daddy” Adam “Cain was a tiller of the ground.”
Since “Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD” which was rejected, Richard Gan writes, “The present day's pagan religions, or worships, which practise the offering of the fruits of the ground, such as fruits, flowers or vegetables, are traced to Cain as the founder.” Yet, the present day’s pagan religions also practice the offering of animals so they can be traced to Abel as the founder. Some even offer human sacrifices. The point is that Gan makes a conveniently partially accurate claim so as to puff up his weighed and found wanting points but it fails.
Richard Gan next references the Nephilim:
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
— Genesis 6:4
…the sons of God (Sethic men) were tempted by the seductive beauty of the daughters of men (Cainic women)…
I have dealt with the Genesis 6 affair in great detail in my Nephilim - Giants section. Perhaps I will pose a gotcha question of my own: why only Sethic men attracted to Cainic women? Why no Canic men attracted to Sethic women? Also, Gan claimed that intermingling with the descendants of Cain resulted in mankind becoming part and parcel of the animal kingdom. However, now such intermingling results in Nephilim aka “giants” aka mighty men (Gibbor).
Richard Gan provides us some good news, “All pure Serpent-people (pure Cainites) were destroyed in the Flood” but, oops, only the “pure” were destroyed but some of the watered down Serpent-people remain as “Shortly after the Flood the serpentine nature began to manifest itself.”
What a shame: God perpetrated the flood so as to do away with the Nephilim’s genetic corruptions—or, on Gan’s view Serpentine/Canic genetic corruption—and they just came right back.
Gan specifies, “every person born into the world since then is traced back to these three sons for the inheritance of the Serpent nature…Everyone possesses part of the Adamic nature which is godly and part of the serpentine nature which is beastly and evil. Everyone is a hybrid.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #Serpentseed, #RichardGan, #Seedlines
Facebook: #Serpentseed, #RichardGan, #Seedlines