This marks the conclusion of a discussion between Serpent seed of Satan (hereinafter SSS) theorist Brett T. and myself—at least on this issue—as we have agreed that we do not want to beat a dead horse, have it resurrect and then beat it again.
Below is his reply to me along with my reply in turn. You can find my initial critique of his claims as well as the entirety of this parsed discussion here.
Brett’s intro reads thusly (note: ellipses points in all statements from Brett which follow are in the original):
Yes, it’s good for Christians to sharpen their “iron swords,” as you say… on both sides of the argument, here. These conversations are good for me, as well. But, for the sake of not “beating a dead horse,” here, I’ll utter a few more comments on all of what Ken stated, in his last rebuttal. I believe it’s time we begin to close the door on this particular “back and forth,” here. It seems we may have to agree to disagree on a lot of it. But, that’s okay… at least I tried. With that said and done, I still need to provide a couple more comments on Ken’s rebuttal… things which really need to be said.
And so, it begins:
First, I need to address something that Ken seems to take offense on, at least to a little extreme. At the end of his last rebuttal, he stated (to me): “friend, please remain focused on the issue and do not argue against a generalized plurality of Serpent Seed naysayers within replies to me. I say this in part because, for example, this post is up to 10 pages and I do not want to keep wasting my time with arguments against views that I do not hold.”
It’s interesting to see how Ken appears to have no problem assigning (general) titles to those who have Serpent Seed views, but gets a little annoyed when the same thing happens to him. He seems entitled to fill his pages with general labels such as “Serpent Seed theorists,” “SSS,” or “Serpent Seed promulgators” - lumping most of the people who believe these views into a similar bucket. But, he seems to resist when I lump him into a generalized group of “Serpent Seed naysayers.” Why is it good for the goose and not the gander, here, Ken? One really shouldn’t have it both ways. If it’s fully justifiable to drop me into a general category, than you should be able to accept that other people might do the same to you.
Well, there was no offense taken but it was simply how I stated it (and part 1 and part 2) when I discerned statements made against a generalized audience beyond me.
Now, when I write in general about SSS theorists I speaking generally based on my extensive experience on this issue and how they handle it but when, for example, dealing with Brett I focus on Brett and may incidentally speak generally when it is called for (I take “fill his pages” as a reference to my website wherein, of course, I write generally and specifically as the context calls for it).
Also, when I write words such as I did in my Christian apologetics journal article, “But who are the SSS? Well, this depends upon the particular prejudice [literally meaning to pre-judge], as it were, of the SSS theorist who decides to interpret who is who” it is clear that I am not “lumping most…into a similar bucket” and yet, I can state that all SSS theorists believe that Cain is the son of Satan/the serpent and Eve and, by definition, I would be accurate.
The issue with Brett’s lumping is that he was focusing too much on replying to claims that I never made—the horse is dead and this goose is cooked ;o)
Now, let us get into the meat of the cooked goose:
Like you, there are a number of elements of Serpent Seed theory I do not hold; I even find near preposterous. I, for example, do not accept the theory that Satan fathered Cain and (somehow) Adam fathered Abel at the same time. Sure, it’s a once-in-a-million shot that both could have had sex with, and impregnated, Eve at almost the same time, but it only seems a way for certain Serpent Seed theorists to show that one’s bloodlines, ultimately, are what affects a person’s thoughts and/or decision making. I also don’t accept theories, such as the “trees” of the Garden of Eden being symbolic of living, breathing, humanoid beings. These are major “stretches” of the faith in my mind, in order to provoke a false conclusion – just as bad as someone wanting us to accept a snake (without vocal cords) was able to calmly converse with Eve, and Eve not thinking a thing about it.
Well now, this is interesting as Brett is now lumping, in a manner of speaking, since refers to “Serpent Seed theory” but this implies that there is one theory. There is not as there is no SSS Pope who has written an infallible theory but each SSS has their own spin on a basic theme and this shows the need for occasional generalizing as I refer to the basic theme as the “theory” (singular) and then reply to the individual take of various individuals.
Brett says, “it’s a once-in-a-million shot” so he’s saying there’s a chance! Sorry, a little Dumb and Dumber humor.
It is interesting that Brett denies that the “‘trees’ of the Garden of Eden being symbolic of living, breathing, humanoid beings” since the whole point of the theory’s theme is that Eve eating the fruit of the forbidden tree is symbolic of her having had sex with Satan—we will have to see if he does anything with this point.
Brett continues:
Ken, I never actually grew up with someone feeding me Serpent Seed influences, and I prefer not to be grouped together with a number of other theorists you seem to put in your “SSS” bucket (such as Wesley A. Swift, Willie Martin, Bertrand L. Comparet, etc.). I do not openly accept, nor push, a lot of what they say, quite honestly. They often take the Serpent Seed concept and point it towards end-results that I, simply, cannot support. It’s just that – through years of research – I have come to understanding that certain elements of this Serpent Seed concept does make sense. And, sorry, but: there does seem to be “Serpent Seed naysayers” out there - those who do almost anything not to look to these as possibilities (no matter what’s thrown at them). So, if you can lump people into these particular buckets without remorse, please understand that others may too. :)
Of course, I never claimed that Brett was fed SSS influences and the one and only grouping with other SSS theorists is just that, that they are all SSS theorists. Brett does not want to be lumped in with Swift, Martin, or Comparet (surely because they come to a White supremacist conclusion starting as they do with a White supremacist premise and Swift, Martin, and Comparet would not want to be lumped in with Brett because he does not do so. They within the SSS category each individual’s specific claims are considered separately and that is very clear.
And now, with Brett’s definition, we see that he cannot even lump me in as a “Serpent Seed naysayers” since he claims that these are “those who do almost anything not to look to these as possibilities” but I have looked at a lot of such possibilities from various theorists.
Brett continues:
As far as the rest of Ken’s comments, some people, in a discussion, will go to the “absolute” level of an argument, as means to deflect elements of the discussion, or to shut someone else up. For example, one person may go to the “absolute” extreme, and accuse the other person of believing, and promoting, ideals which can be classified as “all or nothing,” or only “black or white.” For example: you stated that: “I would never solely argue that majority rules.” That’s great, Ken, I never accused you of solely believing that “majority rules” in any of your arguments!
I never said this was the only basis for backing what you believe in. But, I was just saying that, quite often, you do seem to use it as a qualifier for what you believe. If years and years of educated elitists push something, over time, then, in your mind, it seems to add a lot of weight towards you pushing a conclusion. That’s just how it seems to me, and probably others. Even though you state that you make “a general observation,” and then back it up with your posted research, it seems you also validate something as being correct… because a majority of people now support the same cause. So, yes: I believe you, often, add the fact that a lot of people support what you say as the “trump card” to help prove you’re right. That’s just how it comes out in your writings.
Well, I am quite eager to get into that goose meat and here we are arguing about arguing. I will simply state that the metaphor of “years and years of educated elitists push something,” etc. does not apply to me as I never once heard a sermon contra the SSS theory until I ran across the theory myself, read much of what many theorists had to say about it, checked the Bible to see if such things were so and concluded that they are not: and elucidated various reasons why it fails.
And now, we actually get into that meat:
As far as your comments about Gen. 4:1, and the meaning of the word knew, you may remember how I concluded that you don’t really look at the various meanings of the Hebrew, here, for any evidence towards your cause; but, rather, look at the number of English translations out there, stating something like (paraphrasing): “I provided my conclusion that the word ‘knew’ must mean ‘to have sex’ because the majority of various English translations say that.” Isn’t that using the “majority rules” trump card here, as a push for acceptance? It seems that way to me.
Also, it’s interesting how you stated your opinion about the Pseudo-Jonathan text (which agrees with my take, somewhat - in regards to how the word “knew” meant something more like Adam “understood” what happened to Eve), and claimed that this text was something “saturated with Rabbinic folklore… inserted directly into the text.” Ha. Really, Ken? Come on. :) You inserted your opinion, here, and as a fact. Does anything saying something different than what you believe (as in the case of Pseudo-Jonathan) automatically deserve to be deemed “saturated with Rabbinic folklore?” And, the other versions - which are more to your liking – have absolutely no chance of containing any incorrect interpretations, or folklore within it?
It is sad that Brett opted for ridicule, even if light hearted, since this is a scholarly textual issue and not a case of my subjective opinion can beat up yours. I provided a list of Bible versions in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic ranging a time span of almost one millennium and I proved that the one and only one which agrees with Brett’s take, somewhat, date to the 600s AD (over half a millennia after the time of Jesus). That SSS theorists would appeal this one text proves their desperation. And as to it being “saturated with Rabbinic folklore…inserted directly into the text” there are two issue: 1) it is a category error to correlate inserting Rabbinic folklore directly into the text of the Bible and me inserting my conclusion about a text into a discussion about that text—in fact, it is virtually by definition that the Targumin contain folklore as they are not strict translations but paraphrased (it is just that Pseudo-Jonathan is more saturated than any other with thing that the text does not even come close to stating).
Here is a shortcut to proving that it is merely a simple fact that my observation of this Targum is accurate. The
Judeo-Christian Research web site provides a book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse comparison of the Jewish Publication Society 1917 version (based on the Masoretic text), the Targums Onkelos (circa 200 AD), the Jonathan Ben Uzziel/Palestinian (aka Pseudo-Jonathan), and Jerusalem Fragments (when the fragment contains the verse in question). You can look up any Old Testament text and see what each of these has for the same verse. You will inevitably find that Pseudo-Jonathan is generally vastly different and its accretions are not based on the Old Testament manuscripts but are Rabbinic folklore.
For the most contextually relevant example, see if you can figure out which of these things is not like the others:
JPS 4:1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.’
ONK 4:1 And Adam knew Hava his wife, and she conceived, and gave birth to Kain; and she said, I have acquired the man from before the Lord.
PAL 4:1 And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.
So, Eve/Hava “desired the Angel” wait, what “Angel”: the serpent? Satan (who is actually a Cherub)? The serpent who is actually Satan? No, this Targum has Samael approaching Eve and this being is the “Angel of death” so where is that in the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts? Also, the Targum has Eve identifying Cain/Kain as who/what? As “the Angel of the Lord” and with that, we have a new set of problems.
Now, as I have just shown, if it was not clear before, that I “don’t really look at the various meanings of the Hebrew” is fallacious via my appeals to a millennia worth of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The difference between Brett and I is that I allow the text to tell me which definition of any given word to employ while Brett pieces together meaning from this definition for this word and that definition for that one and the other definition for the other one as he goes about picking and choosing which definitions he can weave together into a tangled SSS web.
However, I do not want to ignore Brett’s main point one which is the issue of that the Pseudo-Jonathan Tragumists based their folklore on that “the word ‘knew’ meant something more like Adam ‘understood’ what happened to Eve.” He follows upon on this point as follows:
Seems that you are using the fact that a majority of English texts claim the word “knew” means “sex”… yet, again, as your qualifier; and, yet again, you still do not look to the original Hebrew, here, for any of your answers! You only use the number of English translations as a preponderance of the evidence. It also seems that you are dodging my whole argument, here – about how Hebrew words can have more than one meaning. What not address that? You do, however, attempt to make your case by using the example of another word… as we’ll soon see.
Well, beyond the one and only one very late dated Targum, there is not a single Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or English translation that agrees with Brett (even “somewhat”) so either Brett is the greatest biblical scholar and translator in millennia or he is mistaken.
Brett continues thusly:
But, first, we see that, again, you seem lump Serpent Seed believers together (as “SSS theorists”), here, and claim that we, as a general rule, employ a tactic such as the following: “Sure ______ (insert word) means _____ (insert common meaning) but it could also mean ______ (insert alternate meaning) therefore, it must mean _____ (alternate meaning).”
Well, a word that you used, above, actually blows away your entire argument - and that is the word “must.” You have to admit that I never utilized that last section of your claim (“therefore, it must mean _____ (alternate meaning)”). Show me where I said that something must mean something else, Ken. Sorry. You are wrong! :) That, again, is an assumption. My insertions always stop with “but it could also mean ______” So, let’s please admit this, correct it, and not try to lead the reader in any other direction, here.
In this case, I indeed was generalizing as my statement was:
Now, we will have to see if this goes anywhere but a tactic which is generally employed by SSS theorists is to claim words to the effect of “Sure ______ (insert word) means _____ (insert common meaning) but it could also mean ______ (insert alternate meaning) therefore, it must mean _____ (alternate meaning).”
Now, I am glad to learn that Brett is not making such an argument however, is not his whole argument that “knew” can mean to have sex with but can also mean “understood” and it is utterly imperative for his theory that it, dare I say it, must mean “understood” in this case? In other words, in this one particular case, Brett would seem to be arguing that “knew” must mean “understood.” Just in case, I was not denying that “knew” can mean more than one thing as all words can have multiple meanings but Brett must have it mean “understood” in this case or else one single verse, Genesis 4:1, discredits the SSS theory (which it does, of course).
But, Brett claims that he is not stating that “it must mean _____ (alternate meaning)” but is merely stating that “it could also mean ______.” Well, very well then: it could but it does not and we know it does not as per the immediate context as per the verses surrounding it, as per the whole chapter, as per the whole book and as per the whole Bible.
Brett continues by writing:
As we see, this, again, also represents another way for one to go “to the absolutes,” and attempt to influence an argument this way – claiming that the other person pushes an “all or nothing” way of thinking. I don’t conclude that something must mean something, just because I put the possibility out there. It’s a lot like accusing someone of hating all dogs, just because one particular dog might have snapped at them in the past (and they spoke out against it). A vast majority of people do not think in these “absolute” ways, Ken. They know that one exception doesn’t necessarily mean all; or that something could be doesn’t necessarily mean that it must. Sorry. That’s an old - and tired – technique of word manipulation, and attempt to stifle a discussion.
Well, this is more arguing about arguing so let us simply note that now Brett is appealing to the majority “A vast majority of people…” and I am just glad to hear that he is not actually promulgating the SSS theory but is merely wondering what if. Also, how it can be stated that I “attempt to stifle a discussion” after engaging him in discussion (for pages and pages and pages and posting criticisms of me on my own website: will Brett post my criticisms of him on his?) is certainly an oddity: Brett must have been lumping me in with others.
Brett continues:
You also stated that “context” is so important, in regards to establishing meaning in the Bible. I totally agree, also. But, we must admit that every English translation was translated by imperfect people, or people who might, somewhere down the line, have political agendas. The real issue, in regards to words of the Bible, is not really how many of the English translations say the same thing; the real issue is what the original Hebrew and Greek words could mean! Agree?
The number of times the Bible was translated into English a certain way shouldn’t be what “makes the case,” here. And, it is quite possible that the original Hebrew could state something, such as: “And Adam eventually acknowledged the distinguishing sign that had come upon Eve.” All the Hebrew words are there (and I already gave you the internet links, so check it yourself). All I’m saying, here, is that there, often, is more than one way to group words together, or utilize them. Why do you seem so intimidated by even looking at any other possibility of the Hebrew, here, Ken?
Agreed, “every English translation was translated by imperfect people, or people who might [an appreciated qualifier], somewhere down the line, have political agendas” and/or theological agendas. This is one good reason to not rely solely upon one translation (which I clearly have not done: not even one language). However, note that since translators might have political/theological agendas the fact that they all agree on the meaning of Genesis 4:1 (in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and English) speaks volumes on the reliability of the meaning.
Now, the real issue moves from what the original Hebrew and Greek words could mean to what they do mean in any given instance and it is context which primarily tells us what they mean.
Now, let us go with Brett’s re-translation (ex nihilo, I might add) of “And Adam eventually acknowledged the distinguishing sign that had come upon Eve.” Firstly, I would say “Indeed, he recognized that the sexual act upon which they engaged resulted in pregnancy.” However, Brett would say, “What he acknowledged is that Eve had sex with Satan” and in order to justify that biblically unknown claim, he would have to perform further and greater acts of definitional gymnastics. The last sentence within the quote above is simply embarrassing—particularly as I had already directed Brett to my thousand year research of various languages.
Brett then notes:
Now, this brings me to your counter argument: you seem sure that the word knew cannot mean something like “understand,” by citing another English word: to “suffer” (and how this word is used in the Bible). To save space, I will try to summarize what I think you were trying to say, here: you stated that, just because the word “suffer,” in ancient times, meant “to allow,” then that (most probably) must have been the meaning of how the word was to be used, in the Bible (I hope I got this right): it must have meant “to allow,” because it was often used as such in the past, and in so much of the ancient, Biblical context (even though, today, the word “suffer” could also equate to someone who has to put up with a sickness, put up with stress, etc.) According to you, this modern meaning really should not be too applicable, because that is the way it is used in modern times (and not in ancient, Biblical times).
I understand your conclusion, here, but it does seem to be a little narrow. It can lead you to conclude that: just because the word “knew” often meant “to have sex with” in the Biblical past, then that’s probably what it meant in Gen. 4:1. Not necessarily true, Ken! If that was the case, then, the word “knew,” in ancient Hebrew, would practically have only one meaning… Agree? That would narrow it. But, as we know, the original Hebrew doesn’t have just one meaning for the English “knew,” in the Bible! So, where do we go from here, Ken?
To re-reiterate, I conclude that the word “knew” cannot, in this case, mean something like “understand” because of the immediate context which is that “Adam knew Eve his wife” and as a direct result of this “she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD: there you have the who, what, how and who is thanked (did she really thank the LORD for a Satanic/serpentine hybrid child gotten from a sex sin?). I also know this due to the greater context which is that Genesis 4:25 states “And Adam knew his wife” and did so “again” and as a result of this sort of “knew” what happened is that “she bare a son, and called his name Seth…”
Now, it would be interesting for Brett to re-translate this as “And Adam eventually acknowledged the distinguishing sign that had come upon Eve and she bare a son, and called his name Seth.”
Next, Brett is the one playing that “must have meant” card, my statement was:
…you could read up on the etymology of the English words “suffer” all you want but does it refer to experiencing unpleasant mental and/or physical phenomena or does it mean to allow? The former is its current use and the latter is its older use. Thus, only context can tell you which meaning is being implied in any given case.
Brett continues on this line of argument thusly, and sadly since it is based on a faulty premise I have essentially already replied above but will quote him in any case for the sake of presenting his entire reply:
The same goes for the English word “suffer,” here. You stated that, since it once meant (for the most part) to allow, then “only context can tell you which meaning is being implied in any given case” – and one really would need to accept that the word translated into English as suffer only means to allow. But, again, this is just not the case in the Bible. There are verses in the Bible which alleviate to one suffering as feeling “hardship” (II Tim. 2:3) KJV, as having “hardness” (II Tim 2:9), as having “trouble” (II Tim. 4:5), as well as having “affliction” (James 5:13). Well, Ken, these meanings seem to be a lot more than just one “allowing” something, here (see https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=VT0001307). Also, there are Bible verses such as:
…an idle soul shall suffer hunger.- Prov. 19:15 (KJV)
…how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.- Mark 9:12 (KJV)
And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:- Luke 22:15 (KJV)Yes, the Bible also seems to assign meaning to the word suffer as (as you say) “experiencing unpleasant mental and/or physical phenomena!” You see, Ken? The English word “suffer” can have more than one meaning in the original texts, just as the word “knew” also could! Just because “suffer” doesn’t necessarily mean allow, today, doesn’t mean that is has only one ancient meaning in the Bible! No, finding meaning of the ancient context – by using only one ancient meaning – doesn’t necessarily “tell you which meaning is supposed to be implied in every given case.” Sorry Ken. That is simply not the case.
The first portion only proves my point, with which oddly Brett disagrees that, “only context can tell you which meaning is being implied in any given case”: if not context then what? A generic etymological or grammatical or lexicographical dictionary definition? How would you know which of the various definitions to employ in any given case by case basis?
The way that Brett knows that the “verses in the Bible which alleviate [he seems to have meant allude] to one suffering as feeling “hardship” (II Tim. 2:3) KJV, as having “hardness” (II Tim 2:9), as having “trouble” (II Tim. 4:5), as well as having “affliction” (James 5:13)” is because he concluded as much from the context—or, else he just looked up the word and randomly picked and chose definitions. In short, I was not given a tutorial in the history of the etymology and usage of the term “suffer” but was merely side-noting it as an example.Thus, I was not “finding meaning of the ancient context – by using only one ancient meaning” but concluding which of the meanings is accurate based on the context: Brett has the procedure backward, he seems to assume tath I was presupposing when my posted research shows the opposite.
Brett continues:
You also asked me about “what sign, distinguishing mark, or omen did Adam recognize, discern, or acknowledge” (in regards to Eve’s pregnancy)? Now, I’m not sure if I really needed to clarify what sign or distinguishing mark might be on a woman who is pregnant. But, as long as it’s not clear, I guess I will explain it, now: Adam, like most men, could have understood that her woman was pregnant, but seeing an ever-increasing lump on her belly, by seeing her have morning sickness, or by listening to her state that there someone (or something) inside of her, kicking her. These are some of the obvious, distinguishing signs of pregnancy.
As a side note for anyone who has not kept up with the discussion, I did not simply ask that question out of the blue but it was based on his re-translation (rather, re-paraphrasing) as “And Adam eventually acknowledged the distinguishing sign that had come upon Eve” and so I noted:
Brett’s retranslation is premised upon that “knew” could possibly, in this case, mean “recognize,” “discern,” or “acknowledge” a “sign,” “distinguishing mark,” or “omen”: but what sign, distinguishing mark, or omen did Adam recognize, discern, or acknowledge? We are not told.
My point was that since Brett want to push us beyond the plain reading of the text (in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and English) then perhaps he had something in mind in terms of a “distinguishing sign” which would make us conclude that she had sex with the serpent/Satan.
He continues:
You also seem dissatisfied with the reinterpretation of Gen. 4:1 I put forward, and that’s okay. You seem to think I “must insert these words (where no manuscript in any language has then)”, in order to make the verse make sense in a certain way. But, to help the English make sense, I created this reinterpretation as close as the original Hebrew words would allow, here, Ken. And, I tried the best I could not to insert any other English word (or words) into a verse that couldn’t be a part of the original Hebrew context already! Please tell me, Ken, that other translators, throughout history, were able to perfectly swap every Hebrew word for one corresponding English word… without doing much of the same, here!
Firstly, you will note that he keeps harping on Genesis 4:1 because without it SSS theorists know that they have nothing (since it does, in fact, instantly discredit their theory). So, Brett reinterpreted and did so with the specific presuppositional goal in mind to force it to say what he wants to hear: this is breaking one of the first rules of Hermeneutics which is to not engage in eisegesis. Now, can I guarantee that no one else has ever done likewise? Of course not. However, we can know from the immediate context to the greater context (from the verse to the chapter to book to the Bible as a whole) that Brett’s reinterpretation is faulty.
However, let us take one step back so as to reiterate that even if I grant that his reinterpretation is accurate it still does not state anything whatsoever about Eve having sex with the serpent/Satan and so Brett would then be forced to force other texts to read according to his presupposition. In other words, he would have to embark upon a massive reinterpreting for the specific purpose of making the Bible say something that it does not.Brett continues:
You also stated that: “If (and that may be a big IF) I grant even a portion of Brett’s retranslation I would conclude that it means that Adam, in this case, eventually had to understand - and acknowledge - that Eve was pregnant. Yeah, and? So what?” Well, now, it seems Ken’s turn to vent a little, here. Could the possibility of the situation be that Adam realized his woman just “screwed him over” at the time of the Fall, and also understood that he was not the father of what was growing in her womb? I’m not saying that he had sex with her at this time (at all), but, rather, he understood the magnitude of all that just happened to him… between the Serpent, his helpmate, as well as everything that had changed in his world.
I find it fascinating just how many times Brett self-servingly conveniently quotes me out of context (and does so to me). My statement was not, I repeat not, “…Yeah, and? So what?” and full stop. Rather, it was along the lines of what I just wrote here, it was:
…Yeah, and? So what? He sexually knew her and then, for the first time ever, witnessed a pregnancy—a historically new experience. The issue is that Brett is implying that Adam, in this case, eventually had to understand - and acknowledge - that Eve was pregnant by Satan and so was carrying the son of Satan, Cain (whom she know she got “from the LORD” by the way).
So now, not only did “Adam eventually acknowledged the distinguishing sign that had come upon Eve” but that she “screwed him over” (hopefully, he will not claim to derive that from the Hebrew). The answer is a definitive “No” based on, you guessed it, the immediate and greater context (and yes, 99.999% of every a translation, paraphrase or even commentary in any language through all of history by anyone—besides the one very late dated Targum with which not even Brett completely agrees).
More from Brett:
Also, when Eve states that “I got an angel from the LORD,” I could go into a long discussion about this phrase. But, to quickly summarize a few thoughts about it, I ask: why would she imply that her baby was from “the LORD,” in this case? The original Hebrew word, here - translated as from (as in, “I got a man from the LORD”) - could also mean to be “with, together with” or “with (of relationship)” (see www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H854&t=KJV). So, if this is the case, then Eve could have easily felt the need to ask the Lord for help, in regards to her pregnancy. She never had a child before, or never knew anyone who had. Maybe she was scared. Maybe it was about to go through a rough birth, and needed to reach out to God, or some angel of God, for assistance. Who knows for sure? She surely did not say: “I got a man from Adam,” here!
Well, this is fascinating and sadly, Brett does not tell us whence he invented that the verse reads, “I got an angel from the LORD” unless he was paraphrasing the Targum’s paraphrase and yet, that is “I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord” so either way, Brett seems to have invented another brand new reading.
Now, “why would she imply that her baby was from ‘the LORD,’ in this case?” because “Children are a heritage from the LORD” (Psalm 127:3) which is the greater context. The immediate context is that “Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew” (Genesis 4:25) so that Eve was of the mindset that the blessing of children was a blessing from the LORD God.
I know where Brett is going with this since I have already dealt with this claim due to replying to Zen Garcia and Clifton A. Emahiser, see here and here respectively.
To cut to the chase no, Eve did not say “I got a man from Adam” but was were told, “Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…”Brett further notes:
As far as your rebuttal of my statement about Gen. 5:1 (and how I claimed it might be a “recap” of times before), you seem to be missing something I already stated, and believed in: you really didn’t seem to understand that I do not support the idea that Abel was Adam’s child! I have mentioned this thought a couple of times already, however. I, also, assumed that you understood how I believed Seth was the first, actual son of Adam.
But, again, you seem to throw Abel back into the picture in your rebuttal, as if he was from Adam’s prodigy. You stated: “If one wants to claim that it is a person-by-person genealogy then Abel must be listed since Adam was his dad…” No, Ken, I’ve concluded that Adam was not Abel’s dad. That seems to shoot holes in your entire argument, here: no, it’s not necessary that “Abel must be listed” (as you say),” because he was not a son of Adam! He might have been a key player in the not-so-distant past, though, in regards to some things, but he was not “of the generations of Adam”… so why should the Bible have to list him? It shouldn’t, and it didn’t. Simple.
Note that to Brett “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel” does not mean what you just read.
Consider the timeline: Brett previously wrote “Abel, I theorize, was probably a son of the Serpent, as well; but he chose to obey God” the qualifying terms within which are “theorize” and “probably” which allow for Abel being Adam’s son as much as it allows for him to not be. Siding with him being Adam’s son, I wrote that which I wrote. Now Brett decides that there is no “theorize” and “probably” about it but has come to firmly affirm “I do not” and “Adam was not Abel’s dad” and “he was not a son of Adam!”
Thus, he was theorizing about probabilities, I replied within the context of his theoretical probabilities, he then made a decision but expected me to reply to his current view back when I wrote to him in the past according to what was his view then. In short, this is anachronistic of Brett.In any case, my conclusion was:
In short, Genesis 5 has a reason for listing those who are listed and that is to lead us to the record of the flood and beyond. Abel is not listed because he has no lineage which played a part in the future events that the Bible sought to outline. Cain is not listed for the same reason.
Brett further notes:
As far as your comment about why you believe in the fallen angel theory (of Genesis 6), you, again, seem to dodge my question. You claimed that you “read on that issue from very many authors throughout history and considered the rendering of relevant texts in various languages via various manuscripts and discerned that such was the biblical conclusion.” Great, Ken, but that’s also what I had done, with this whole Serpent Seed concept! So, what’s the difference between me and you?
Anyway, I asked you why you still held onto the fallen angel theory, when it hasn’t been the commonly-accepted theory since the 4th century A.D. You know that already. You also know that a majority of scholars, today, think that this refers to the “sons of Seth.” Why would you state that “the Angel view is the majority view”? You know that this hadn’t been the majority view since the “timespan from 250 BC to the 5th century.” And, you also know that opinion totally switched since this time… so, clearly, the angel view is not the majority view, anymore. I’m not sure why you said that, when you know…Set aside the difference between myself and Brett for a moment and consider the difference between the SSS theory and the Angle view of the Genesis 6 affair (the question of who are the “sons of God”?): the former is not biblical and the latter is—that is the difference. My argument was not that I “read on that…” and so it must be true but that there is a lot of grammatical and historical evidence of it. Conversely, there is no such thing for the SSS and I can state as much having “read on that…” This is why Brett has to rely on one single very late dated paraphrase, rely on reinterpreting based on a presupposition, etc.
But why claim that I dodge his question as to why I still hold onto the fallen angel theory when he just quoted my answer? Because I “read on that…”
Now, as to that I “know that this hadn’t been the majority view since the ‘timespan from 250 BC to the 5th century’” well, I happen to know the exact opposite. Brett has taken me out of context again since the statement from which he dissected a piece reads (emphasis added for emphasis):…in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?…I provide a survey of Jewish and Christian commentators ranging a timespan from 250 BC to the 5th century AD and, by the way, the Angel view is the majority view…
He is stuck arguing again a modus operandi to which I do not hold and which I have already stated I do not hold which is that if modern day P.C. churchianity affirms it then it must be true and if it opposes it then it must be false—full stop, it is as easy as that. Rather, I proved to him via the example of my view of Genesis 6 that I am perfectly willing to go against the neo-majority so there went one of his favorite talking points against me.
Brett continues:
Also, thanks for the “tip” Ken, in regards to how I “base my theology on what a majority of naysayers of the Bible are thinking.” Now, that’s absolutely not what I was doing, here, Ken. I was simply making an observation; noticing that: if I had such a hard time accepting what you believe in (that a snake with no vocal cords could have a casual conversation with Eve), then imagine how hard of a time a non-believer of the Bible might have with this concept! It would be laughable.
And, in regards to Balaam’s donkey, I agree that there was another animal, in the Bible, who decided to talk to a human being; but the whole context seems a little different. My take on that is something, more or less, like the following: Balaam’s donkey started complaining to him, and Balaam was already extremely angry. Immediately after the donkey spoke, it seems some angel of the Lord came to him, and scared him practically to death. This quick chain of events all seemed to be part of a divine miracle, or act of Providence, in order to send a message to Balaam - not just some normal, non-eventful communique of words (such as what had gone on between the Serpent and Eve)!The line about how I claim that Brett “base my theology on what a majority of naysayers of the Bible are thinking” is a fabrication of Brett’s. My statement was “Just a tip for Brett: you should not base your theology on that which does or does not set too well with a majority of Bible naysayers.” Thus, another tip is: do not un-contextually misquote people or invent fake quotes especially when addressing the very person who is supposed to have said them.
I am unsure as to why Brett claims that I believe that “a snake with no vocal cords could have a casual conversation with Eve” when I had written:
…I believe that the being with whom Adam and Eve interacted in the Garden was he who is variously known as Satan, the Devil, etc.—note that Revelation chaps. 12 and 20 refers to “the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan.”
Now, “if” Brett “had such a hard time accepting…that a snake with no vocal cords…” etc. but then he has an easy time accepting that a donkey with no vocal cords, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fun side note: Brett, you should listen to this cover song, “Donkey Talked With Him”:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, of course, Brett seems to be hyperbolic since “Balaam’s donkey” was not“another animal…who decided to talk” but rather, “the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said…” (Numbers 22:28). Thus, it is not the case that the “chain of events all seemed to be part of a divine miracle…” but it was a divine miracle. And considering we have been discussing the interaction between Eve and the serpent as a key feature it is astonishing that Brett now claims that “what had gone on between the Serpent and Eve” was “some normal, non-eventful communique of words.” I would assume that he means that they were not just words but much more that: was sex.
Brett further notes:
Also, Ken states that: “biblically there are, indeed, two seedlines but not two bloodlines because biblically this is not about genetics but it is about actions.” First, I’m not sure how you can assign the word “seed” to something related only to actions. It doesn’t. Anyhow, you, again, seem to believe that things are only about moral actions and behaviors, in regards to certain elements of the Serpent Seed concept – nothing physical.
Ken refuses to look to the possibility that an angelic, rational being (known as the Serpent, Satan, or whatever you may call him) could have impregnated Eve, but he holds to the possibility that other fallen, terrestrial angels of the day could come in, and impregnate other women around them! Why one, and not the other? It continues to amaze me that you will take the “stretch,” and believe fallen angels could have mated with human women in the Bible, but absolutely not believe in the possibility that another fallen angel (i.e. the Serpent) could have mated with Eve. Also, if you believe in the angel theory of Genesis 6, then you, really, shouldn’t be accepting that their unions were just “moral,” or only about their “actions.” These were reportedly flesh and blood sexual unions… genetic in nature; and not just unions of thought.How can I assign the word “seed” to something related only to actions? Quite simply, for example, “Brett changed his mind about the SSS theory because Ken planted the seeds of change in his mind”—how do you like that one ;o)
For some odd reason (perhaps as a means of comforting himself whilst protecting his preferred theory) Brett seems rather give over to stating just how much I am unwilling to do, to consider, to research, etc. when my writings on this issue prove the opposite 100%. It is simply false that “Ken refuses to look…” at that aspect. I wrote, “I am unsure as to how ‘It’s scientifically impossible’ that ‘terrestrial angels’ (whatever that means) ‘mated with human women’ and Brett only asserts it and does not buttress it with any argument or other evidence. I am afraid that dealing with that issue will draw us away from the issue at hand so we may be to sidetrack on that at some point.”
FYI: “we may be to sidetrack on that at some point” does not mean “refuses to look.”Thus, we are back to the issue covered above about “Why one, and not the other” because one is (grammatically and historically) biblical and the other is (grammatically and historically) not. I know that it would be a lot easier for Brett if I rejected both but what can I say, be thou amazed.
Now, when it comes to that when it comes to “the angel theory of Genesis 6…you, really, shouldn’t be accepting that their unions were just ‘moral,’ or only about their ‘actions.’ These were reportedly flesh and blood sexual unions… genetic in nature; and not just unions of thought.”
They were not “moral” but immoral (or, unethical) which is why they were a sin (but Brett may be trying to say that they were not merely morality stories but actual events: with which I agree, if that is the case). They were also about actions: the action of copulation. They were flesh and blood sexual unions, were genetic in nature; and not just unions of thought. Right: so? The “so” for Brett seems to be that if I hold these to be literal generic related actions then by logical or theological extension I must conclude the same about Genesis 3 but there is utterly no reason to think as much: not logically and not theologically.Brett further notes:
Also, you seemed to have questioned my use of the words “terrestrial angels.” The phrase seems fairly strait forward. And, I’m surprised you don’t know what that could stand for! Maybe there were angels on this earth, in human, terrestrial form - those who were able to live like human beings; contrary to those who were in the heavenly realm – living as celestial beings? There is a difference, here. Remember how we had angelic beings taking on terrestrial form; meeting with Abraham, Lot, etc? That’s what I meant.
Brett is referring to my having written “‘terrestrial angels’ (whatever that means)” and in fact, a discussion about Angelology would sidetrack us away from the SSS theory proper. I would not mind having that discussion but not within the SSS context as these back and forth replies are long enough as it is.
Suffice it, at least for now, to note that Brett asserted that “we had angelic beings” note the qualifier “taking on” what was a “terrestrial form” and that, specifically that they were “taking on,” is something he would have to back with biblical (quotes and citations) evidence.Brett notes:
As far as Lamech, and how I asked you to give me a Biblical explanation of Gen. 4:23 (…for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt); it was a little humorous to see, here, that you would bring up the Book of Jasher! Ha. I, too, know of that book, and how it gives an explanation for the man of whom Lamech slayed, as well as the young man he killed. However, as you clearly know, Ken, this book is not in the Bible. You seem to be doing the same thing I would – looking to other ancient sources, in order to help compliment the Bible! However, in much of your rebuttals, you continue to say things, such as (paraphrasing): “this isn’t biblical.” So, what does that really mean, Ken? What way do you want it, here… biblical or non-biblical? Are you saying that: if it’s not it the Bible, then it’s really nothing? But, you run to the Book of Jasher, here, in this case, and use it as an aid to help out your cause! Which is it? It seems we need to stick to one way of doing things, or the other. You clearly don’t accept the Serpent Seed concept because (as you claim) “it’s not biblical.” So, that leads one to ask: are you only going to look to the Bible as your protocol for answers, or are you going to look to other sources, as well (as I do), to help you find a solution? You did the latter in this case. Doing the latter, as well, opens up the possibility for elements of the Serpent Seed concept to make more sense, as well… if you want to try to understand. And, in conclusion, when you do the latter, you find out who Lamech was talking about, here.
What I wrote about this was:
[Quoting Brett’s question] “what does the Bible mean by this?” my first observation is that it means that Lamech said had “slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.”
I would then dig down one layer and view other translations, such as dynamic ones, to see if they make the text clearer such as the NKJV “I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me” or the NLT “I have killed a man who attacked me, a young man who wounded me.”
I would then ask about what it means and could consult various commentaries and see if there are other portions of the Bible which seem to touch upon this.Indeed, I look to other ancient sources (including commentaries, paraphrases, etc.) in order to help compliment the Bible—but, just in case it needs be reiterated, not in order to correct the Bible.
I am saying 1) if it is not in the Bible then it is not in the Bible, 2) if it is not in the Bible but only in nonbiblical texts then we should consider that apocryphal meaning that it could be true or not, could be useful or not and 3) if it is not in the Bible but contradicts the Bible then it is to be rejected.Yes, the books we know by the title of “Jasher” (which may or may not be the one mentioned in the Bible) is “an aid.” In this case, it may have aided me and it utterly debunked Brett.
This gets us back into how to deal with the Bible versus non-biblical texts so, am I “only going to look to the Bible” or also “other sources”? See above: I “look” at anything but will not accept as authoritative other sources which contradict the Bible or otherwise insert into the text alternative information which does not fit the Bible’s narrative (its contexts, concepts, and contents). So, this may theoretically open “up the possibility for elements of the Serpent Seed concept” but it does not as per my source of ultimate authority (it is not “Bible only” but “Bible first and authoritatively so”). Now, if Brett is affirming that the SSS theory is unbiblical then: agreed.
Brett continues:
Are you going to look only to the Bible, here, and claim that a concept (such as the Serpent Seed concept) only matters “if it’s biblical,” or are you going to look to complimentary sources, and utilize them to a degree to help with an answer? You did with Lamech.:) What I do in these situations, Ken, is to take the Bible as solid, perfect Scripture (the original Hebrew and Greek texts, that is), and not hold other books (such as the Book of Jasher) on the same level. It’s okay if the book of Jasher claims that Cain was the son of Adam – I’m not holding it as something perfect, every time. I’m sure it says a lot of things that I might agree with, and might not. Also, we must admit that, as with the Bible, the Book of Jasher was not originally written in English. So, could we have the same kind of misinterpretation into English, as we may have had in Scripture? Who knows for sure? But, this is a little beyond our scope of discussion, again. What is important is: I look to the original Hebrew and Greek words of the Bible, and only the Bible, as God’s perfect Word; the information in everything else (although some of it might be promising) is still under conjecture… and this includes Jasher. There is a lot more I can communicate with Ken about, in regards to this story of Lamech (if he wants to).
As for Lamech, I do not know who or what he was talking about but only know what an apocryphal text claims. Likewise, Brett knows that the Book of Jasher “claims that Cain was the son of Adam” which discredits him so he subjectively rejects it base on his SSS presupposition.
Brett goes on to state:
Going back to our conversation, here: Ken also seems to need to continue commenting on the Biblical fact that, after the Fall, Adam and Eve rushed in, and covered their nether regions. You asked me: “since Adam also covered his nether region then he also must have had sinful sex—Brett, please tell us about that.”
Was that supposed to be a type of “gotya” question of your own, Ken? :) I’ll be glad to talk to you about that! I believe I’ve already mentioned my research on the word “fornication.” I’ve found that it could mean so much more than just sexual intercourse; it also can mean to “screw someone over,” in one way or another! It doesn’t have to be just sex; fornication could happen in other ways. In the Garden of Eden, however, one of the primary ways fornication was utilized was through sex. The Serpent may have seduced Eve to fall from grace; also seducing her sexually. And, yes, this really “screwed her over.” Eve did not want to be alone, after her fall, so she may have done the same thing to Adam (using words and sexual action); “screwing him over” this same way, in the process. But, Adam did not use sex, here, as a means to seduce anyone after this, even though he was a willing participant of the act. He still had sex, yes. He still sinned, but was not in that transgression of fornication as the two others (the Serpent and Eve). He still looked to his genital area as a place of shame, because he went along with the sexual element of the fornication. Simple.
Ken, please read I Tim. 2:13-14, and look at it in these above terms. Eve did something, and used something, of which Adam did not… sexual seduction / fornication; but they all had sex! More about this in my upcoming book.Call it a “gotya” question if you wish yet, it is, nevertheless, a question of logical, theological, grammatical and contextual consistency.
I would be interested in being directed to the source of ancient Hebrew usage which shows that “the word ‘fornication’…can mean to ‘screw someone over.’” You see that in order to protect the SSS theory Brett now invents that Eve screwed Adam over and yet he was also a willing participant. You see the problem, for Brett, is that Genesis 3:6 tells us “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” She took of the fruit thereof, with “thereof” referring to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, she did eat and this very same fruit from this very same tree is that which she “gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
According to the Bible, they both ate the very same fruit of the very same tree. Brett’s theory is that tree and fruit refer to the serpent and sex. Thus, the consistent conclusion is that Adam also had sex with Satan (and there are SSS theorists who claim as much). For some reason, Brett has decided to not like this consistent conclusion and so he invents the screw over claim. Also, note that as per Brett Adam “looked to his genital area as a place of shame, because he went along with the sexual element of the fornication” even though he had only had sex with his wife about whom, incidentally, God had told him, “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:22).Do you see the deleterious effects of the SSS theory? Brett must, by necessity, read the entire Bible via the biased lenses of his theory: even if he has to retranslate, reinterpret and just make up stuff.
I Tim. 2:13-14, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” So Brett is saying that Adam was not deceived but only screwed over—and was screwed over willing. The Bible seems to be telling us that Eve ate due to having been deceived but Adam made a reasoned decision to do so. So, it is inaccurate to say “Eve did something, and used something, of which Adam did not” rather, Brett upcoming book should read “Eve did had something done to her which was not done to Adam: she was deceived and he was not.”
Brett continues:
In conclusion, Ken also states that: “Brett has to drop his generalizations about ‘majority rules,’ generalizing about ‘Bible-only scholar[s]’ or any other thing that does not apply to me,” mainly because he believes in the fallen angel theory of Genesis 6. That’s great that you believe in this concept, Ken (contrary to what a majority of Bible scholars believe, today); but that’s only one example of you “going against the grain” of common thought. You still seem to put a vast amount of effort into validating many of your arguments through the fact that a good number of other people think, or thought, the same way as you do… so, you must be right. A vast number of English versions had been translated the same way as you believe, so you must be right! You often seem to default to this element of your argument, in your rebuttals.
Brett has to drop his generalizations about “majority rules,” generalizing about “Bible-only scholar[s]” or any other thing that does not apply to me. As I stated in part 1 and had to reiterate in part 2 I find that I once again have to state, “I did not propose a ‘‘majority rules’ argument’ but had stated ‘I would never solely argue that majority rules yet I will point out the fact that…’” The fact is that there has never been anything even remotely close to an SSS theory majority amongst Jews or Christians. The fact is that for centuries there was a Genesis 6 Angel view majority amongst Jews or Christians. These are just facts and not presuppositions and we should not shy away from them just because someone finds these facts inconvenient.
Brett further notes:
And, in regards to your question about the descendants of Cain, and where they might have ended up: Cain’s (i.e. the Cainite) lineage, according to my research, ended us as the Kenites of the post-flood world. Members of this group also eventually ended up as scribes to Hebrew priests of the Old Testament; eventually inserting themselves into the priesthood of the Jewish faith, themselves… and this continued all the way up to the time of Jesus (you can see this assimilation, in part, in I Chr. 2:55). And, yes, their genetic infiltration into the priesthood became the exact fulfillment of the prophecy of Gen. 3:15 - these Kenite priests (possessing blood of the Serpent) pushing for Jesus’ death, “biting” Jesus in his heel. I could converse more with Ken about this later, if he wants to, as well. :)
In other words, some of Noah’s family were descendants of Cain which is the only way that Cainites could have survived the flood. Then these hybrids became scribes, priests and—in an “exact fulfillment of the prophecy of Gen. 3:15” which states nothing like this whatsoever—Brett knows that it was specifically “these Kenite priests (possessing blood of the Serpent)” who were “pushing for Jesus’ death. Perhaps Brett could title his next book “Brett’s Fables.” I jest (slightly) just to reiterate that Brett reads the SSS theory into each and every text—especially when the text states nothing of it (which, of course, no text does).
Brett ends with:
Finally, Ken also seems to get hung up on the fact that I called those with blood of the Serpent “human.” Well, after a while, and through many generations, they would look more and more human, just like everybody else. Ken, the times of Genesis were a few thousand years ago. Since the Garden of Eden, a vast number of generations came about, since; and those who originally were half human would have, probably, taken on a lot more human blood, since. Hence, that original 50% 50% constituency would have been diluted, over time – by more and more people in the bloodlines. It’s not to say that negative, Serpent qualities, inbred within many of these generations, would never have totally gone away; just diluted, somewhat… their elements still hidden, somewhere deep within the realm of the conscious mind, ready to come to the surface, when needed.
It is interesting that only “through many generations, they would look more and more human” so what did they look like initially? My point in bringing up that issue was twofold: 1) it would mean that DNA tests would identify the hybrids and 2) it means that Brett’s entire theory is much ado about nothing since he believes that the hybrids can be saved and so we are all in the same boat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.