The angel that seduced Eve

[Joe]

In pragmatic Genesis 7 Bill disdains the idea of an angel coming from the clouds and seducing Eve, however I always envisioned the fall as from a place we cannot see. This means, contrary to my view, that a bastard was the likely culprit, a member of the tree of the knowledge and evil (whose fathers I supposed to be fallen angels, not God).
I find it difficult to think that Eve was seduced by a bastard. I cannot see Eve desiring a chinaman, nigger or jew. I thought it was one of the fallen angels themselves, one of those who are the fathers of the bastard races, and in seducing Eve, I had thought that the angels were trying to lead Eve's seed into worshipping the fallen angels, into joining with their corrupted family and bastard religion. In Enoch God condemns their children, the children of these angels, and they no longer hear the voice of God.

I know in apocrypha and targums it describes sammael the angel of death, and women desiring angels (forgive my laziness but I am sure we are all familiar with the texts I am referring to), also angels having taught men certain things (Enoch), having knowledge (desired the fruit to enlighten the eyes). I had assumed these angels to be higher-order beings, and that that is why the women desired these angels ...as they appeared as such; that is why were able to teach certain things and seduce women. I thought their religion, the religion of the bastards, was to worship them in place of God because of their powers which they used to corrupt His creation. The angels that were with Lot had powers, the angel that challenged Jacob...

When Lamech fears that Noah is a son of the angels, he does not describe some sort of mixed-race bastard, he describes a child that is white but shinning ...like how we would expect an angel to appear, as white but angelic.
If everyone disdains the ideas of angels, as I see them, then how exactly did the bastards races begin?. Did white people (seemingly called angels) breed with animals or something ...this wouldn't work. At some point you have to have these fallen angels seeding the bastard races, mixing with every kind, as God did not create them.

Any comments, anyone else have a similar view. God does not always have a physical presence, so I don't know why it is so controversial. He transcends matter and death in my understanding.

...To be honest, I thought everyone except Mark and people from that vein believed something similar to this, so now I am not sure where everyone else is at and want to see where my ideas stand.

[bahr]

People who don't believe in a rebellion amongst heavenly creatures ("angels") and the ability of such creatures to procreate here on Earth must answer the question: "Who was the serpent of Genesis 3?". According to their version, the serpent could only be a pre-Adamic creature (a being created by Yahweh), an humanoid or another animal. I don't see another alternative, except of course the "metaphorical myth", where the serpent is "a mere symbol of evil", in other words an abstraction which, in reality, equates Yahweh with evil, being Himself the seducer.

I hope they at least reject the four(or zero, six, eight, etc)-legged animal version, but the humanoid version led us to a bad but super-intelligent nigger (but every creature is called "good" by Yahweh!?) and, worse than anything, to a Creator author of confusion, two hypotheses which, personally, I can't and won't accept.

[wmfinck]

Joe,

I may have missed it in places, but the purpose of Pragmatic Genesis was to explain what Christians should believe, because Scripture tells us, and then to discuss the possibilities in regard to what things there are that the Scriptures do not explicitly describe.

Christians should believe that the first sin of Adam and Eve was sexual in nature, because that is exactly what Genesis 3 describes in the idioms of the language of the time. But Christians should not be forced to hold one view or another on the precise nature of the "serpent", because the state of the fallen angels at the time of the corruption of Adam and Eve is nowhere described. Even the grossest niggers of today are made to appear as "angels of light" in the jewish media.

If you listened, you would of heard my explanation that the Targums are not canonical, but rather they represent one attempt, among others, to rectify the evidently corrupt text of Genesis 4:1. Therefore all they truly indicate is that early Hebrews (not necessarily jews) understood that Genesis 4:1 was wanting, and there is Christian literature from the same period which also demonstrates that same thing.

Rather than considering the several possibilities I offered, your interpretation contains presuppositions in regard to when and from where the fallen angels fell. Then you try to interpret what I said through the lens of your presupposition, something which is not possible.

I am not saying that what I say is canon. However in my presentations I tried to present what truly is canon, alongside rational possibilities of interpretation where there is no canon.

I also said somehwhere that the genetic corruption of the fallen angels was not necessarily always conducted through sexual acts, but look at what they are doing in their laboratories today. Today we are living the trials of Genesis all over again. There is miscegenation in the bed, and there is miscegenation in the name of science.

[Fenwick]

I also said somewhere that the genetic corruption of the fallen angels was not necessarily always conducted through sexual acts, but look at what they are doing in their laboratories today. Today we are living the trials of Genesis all over again. There is miscegenation in the bed, and there is miscegenation in the name of science.

I was listening to your Explaining Two-Seedline series yesterday, It had never occurred to me before that the "chains of darkness" might be DNA chains.

[Kentucky]

must answer the question: "Who was the serpent of Genesis 3?"

By what criteria do you insist that the question is "who," rather than 'what'?

Mark

[Joe]

Well I guess this comes down to what we can know, and then to accept that from there we have to reserve judgement. It is true, I do prefer a certain interpretation... but I do try and restrain myself, I do try and stick to what can be known, my mind leads me astray. It is late, I should have thought more about this before I posted ...I am impulsive and forgot everything but my own presumptions.

I didn't make it clear that I understood that Bill did suggests many possibilities and did say that we cannot know for sure, I understand that doing it this way builds a solid framework based on Scripture. Bill did say that he wouldn't beat anyone over the head for thinking one way or the other about things we cannot know for sure.
I also assumed that the targums were reliable because they reflect an understanding of the time. I will be more critical of them.

So yeah, I will tentatively suppose the fallen angels to be one way but will try to develop a more critical and objective approach, case closed.

Bill said

I also said somehwhere that the genetic corruption of the fallen angels was not necessarily always conducted through sexual acts, but look at what they are doing in their laboratories today. Today we are living the trials of Genesis all over again. There is miscegenation in the bed, and there is miscegenation in the name of science.

I had considered this too. That is an interesting idea.

Mark said

By what criteria do you insist that the question is "who," rather than 'what'?

Your paper on this really blows my mind (your representation of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), so I would not discount that at all, but I tend to incorporate some features of your explanation while trying to resolve it with my view. Especially how you relate the serpent to fertility cults/bastard religions ...presumably such cults involved race-mixing as other pagan cults, but it does mean you disagree with Bill about the race-mixing event (I am not trying to cause strife and no comment is necessary).

I appreciate the replies. I guess Bahr had a similar ideas, so that is good to know. I thought I was way off. lol

[bahr]

By what criteria do you insist that the question is "who," rather than 'what'?

By the criteria that I cannot imagine how an animal, an object, an institution or a symbol can be more subtle than any beast of the field, say certain things and sire a mongrel with a woman.

[Kentucky]

...I am impulsive and forgot everything but my own presumptions...


Your paper on this really blows my mind (your representation of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), so I would not discount that at all, but I tend to incorporate some features of your explanation while trying to resolve it with my view. Especially how you relate the serpent to fertility cults/bastard religions ...presumably such cults involved race-mixing as other pagan cults, but it does mean you disagree with Bill about the race-mixing event (I am not trying to cause strife and no comment is necessary).

I appreciate the replies. I guess Bahr had a similar ideas, so that is good to know. I thought I was way off. lol

We all have a tendancy to incorporate our assuptions into doctrines. I like the idea of entertaining as many potential answers to unresolved questions that we can. It creates a smorgasbord that puts things into perspective of what can be verified with the whole of Scripture and what can't (because they're only assumptions). It also separates reason from the absurd. Bill and I were talking about that this morning; how he's been accused of being unreasonably harsh on some posters. However, I can't think of anyone who has been treated unfairly except real life idiots pushing the absurd. The Christian Identity message can have reasonable differences over things we can only speculate about, but our unity is established on the foundational principles of the Word itself. And we should have the respect for each other that avoids getting personal, keeping in mind that we can learn from each other. Another tidbit of wisdom is the divine reciprocation for not loving the truth; in that believing a lie will bring "strong delusion" (I Thes. 2:10-11). I would suggest that rabbit trails usually lead to rabbits.

Mark

[MikeTheAdamite]

I would myself suggest using genesis 6:4 to tell us who seduced Eve
I always use this verse when anybody disputes that genesis 3 is talking about a seduction.
whether or not Genesis 3 is talking about a sexual seduction,genesis 6:4 tells us clearly that it happened elsewhere,so why bother disputing it?

[Staropramen]

Christians should believe that the first sin of Adam and Eve was sexual in nature, because that is exactly what Genesis 3 describes in the idioms of the language of the time.

I thought it was very interesting how you demonstrated from the Epic of Gilgamesh that the semetic Akkadian contains these very same idioms. The context of the Gilgamesh passages you quoted were very clear that a sexual seduction had transpired.