…Adam's knowing Eve had nothing to do with the birth of Cain…
In most cases, the logical conclusion that Cain was the son of Adam
would be a proper one, but not with this verse [Genesis 4:1]…
—Willie Martin
Herein I consider Willie Martin’s The Two Seedlines (all emphasis in the following quotations are in the original). In this segment I will focus on his specific views about the Jews and race in general within his serpent seedline of Satan theory and his Christian Identity which identifies him as an anti-Semitic racist.
All emphasis in the following quotations are in the original. You can find my articles on Martin here.
In keeping with his serpent seedline of Satan theorizing, Willie Martin claim, “Satan seduced Eve and caused a 1st PREGNANCY.” Here is his attempted elucidation:
"...SHE CONCEIVED, and BARE CAIN, and said, I HAVE GOTTEN A MAN FROM THE LORD (She did not say she had gotten a man from Adam, but from what she thought was a lord, as he had deceived her). And SHE AGAIN BARE HIS BROTHER ABEL (Obviously Cain and Abel were twin brothers and were born a few minutes apart as twins do. But Abel was the son of Adam, which sometimes happens when a woman has sex with two different men, she gets pregnant by them both. This has been proven to be true; although it does not happen very often, it does happen).
Well, that is certainly a self-servingly convenient manner whereby to quote Genesis 4:1 which actually begins with “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and…” Thus, her statement about having gotten Cain “from the LORD” was an exclamation of thanks and praise.
Perhaps “She did not say she had gotten a man from Adam” but the Bible does tell us that.
Martin claims that “she thought was a lord, as he had deceived her” and explains is thusly, “she thought she had gotten a man child from the ‘Lord.’ She did not say that she got it from Adam, but she got it from the ‘Lord.’ Because she thought that Satan was a ‘lord’ when he was talking to her and beguiled her.” Yet, here lord is not “lord” as in just some higher up, Satan in this case, but the text refer to the one and only Most High LORD as the term is that tetragrammaton.
Cain and Abel being twins is certainly possible and twins having two different father is also possible (it is called superfecundation) yet, not in this case.
Willie Martin writes:
Once these events are placed in their proper order, all confusion with Genesis 4:1 disappears. Once we learn that Adam's knowing Eve had nothing to do with the birth of Cain, all become crystal clear. In most cases, the logical conclusion that Cain was the son of Adam would be a proper one, but not with this verse. The CONCEIVING in this verse had absolutely nothing to do with the BEARING. Now let's read this verse in a new light, but of an old truth:
"And Adam knew Eve his wife...and (she next) bare Cain, and said, I have gotten my first (male child), a man to present to Yahweh as first born. And she again bare his (½) brother Abel.
We have changed the words a little to make the meaning eminently more evident and truth worthy…
Note how tragic it is that the Bible states, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain” and the serpent seedline of Satan theorists’ conclusion is that, as Martin puts it, “Adam's knowing Eve had nothing to do with the birth of Cain.”
Yet, he claims to have a logical reason for his illogical (and un-theological) conclusion which is that the cause/conceiving was unrelated to the effect/bearing. Well, he simply invents parenthetical comments and thinks that his imagination is a valid form of interpretation.
Just as he holds to the gap theory with regards to a supposed span of un-reckoned time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, he invents a gap theory with regards to a supposed span of un-reckoned time between within Genesis 4:1. Upon his own authority, because the verse is devastating to his theory, he takes it upon himself to “changed the words” and do so a lot.
Willie Martin also quotes Scott Stinson for support:
So who benefits from this scriptural corruption, and where might you expect to find this Seedline doctrine taught? One Seedline teacher accurately pointed out that this hypothesis is not of modern origin: ‘The historicity of a sexual interpretation of original sin can be documented from the literature of antiquity and clearly proves beyond any doubt that this belief did not originate with modern man.
["The Serpent and Eve," The Vision (Schell City, MO: The Church of Israel, July 1998, Volume 2 Number 8) p. 28]
No, no, no, by “scriptural corruption” he is not referring to the utter folly of the likes of Martin changing the words. Rather, he is referring to actually simply reading the text as is. This is because Martin claims that “this verse is not properly understood” since his ultimate goal is to argue, as he does, that “the ‘Jews’ are devils” and are engaged in “the great world conspiracy and all the monstrous problems we are faced with today.”
Well, we can certainly argue about what is meant by “modern” and “ancient” and yet, it is irrelevant. When someone fell into unbiblical speculations about Eve having sex with Satan is not relevant to the fact that the Bible knows nothing of this within its sixty six books.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: #Seedlines, #ChristianIdentity, #antiSemitism
Facebook: #Seedlines, #ChristianIdentity, #antiSemitism